Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

One shot across the bow as I sail away




Dew got his information by digging through old stacks of newspapers at the British Museum in 1938? Not one iota of it came from his documented time in H-Divison? Do I have this right?

No, you have it wrong.

Yet Dew didn't notice when reading those newspapers that Robert Paul came forward and eventually appeared at the inquest? And saw the name 'Charles Cross' but for some unfathomable reason only referred to him as Charles------ in his memoirs?

Again, you have it wrong.

The middle-aged man was long dead and Dew didn't say anything inaccurate or untoward about him. Why not use his full surname as he did with Mortimore and Richardson and others?

Because he had forgotten it, R J.

I think Dew is mainly going by memory. That much is obvious. His memoirs have the mistakes of memory, but also sometimes the accuracies of memory. There is no great conspiracy or mystery.

Then you should not try and invent one. The papers had the information about Lechmere´s long standing work at Pickfords in 1888, it was not something that only crept into the British Museum copies over the years.
Plus, and you may have missed this, I also said that Dew may have been at the inquest, just as he may have heard about the carmans age from somebody else who was.

Need I explain this again, or...?

[Greenway]

Fish, this will be my last reference to James Scobie, Q.C. Carry on without me.

Strange to say, judging by recent comments, I honestly think I have a higher opinion of Scobie's abilities and discernment than nearly everyone here, with the possible exception of you.

What you say is true. He is one of the top QC's in London and he is highly intelligent and he knows criminal law like the back of his hand. He is a better judge of what will 'work' in a court room and what constitutes evidence in a criminal trial than anyone here will ever know.

It's all true.

Alas, that is precisely why I am skeptical that it was simply a matter of Scobie being 'fooled' by the outline of the case against Lechmere that he was given by the makers of the documentary. That would be 'beyond the beyonds.'

Scobie must appreciate more than anyone that weak cases can be 'got up' by a prosecutor. It's his bread & butter. He lives and breathes this stuff. It's what pays his light bills.

It would be utterly naïve to think that it wouldn't have crossed his mind that a film maker was handing him an exaggerated case against a pet suspect. Has a criminal lawyer never seen a crime documentary in his life, and wouldn't be aware of how it generally 'works'? No way.

This will probably infuriate you, but there is such a thing as 'being a good sport.' And I think this explains Darryl's observation that experts brought in by Ripperologists always seem to agree with the views of their clients. Martin Fido noticed the same tendency during the Maybrick Diary fiasco, but there was one exception. Dr. Baxendale. He definitely told his clients something they didn't want to hear, and ultimately his opinion was placed in a bottom desk drawer and didn't see the light of day until someone else chased it down.

This is not really about 'integrity.' In my opinion, it's about an expert having the very human tendency to be a good sport and give his client something they can use. That, coupled with the tendency of the theorist to misinterpret what the expert really said and thought.

Scobie is far from stupid. He must have known the case against Lechmere was weak, and I have no doubt he would have just as eagerly defended him as prosecuted him. But he's being optimistic for the benefit of the cameras---people often are. Even people with great integrity can be lured into saying something a little over-the-top for the benefit of a television audience.

Any circumspect commentary would have been left on the cutting room floor by the filmmakers. Of that I'm certain.

You won't agree and others here will conclude that Scobie was merely fooled, but I don't see it that way. It's my opinion, and of course you don't need to share it.

Best wishes.

I suspect this is a pretty accurate summary.

[Fisherman]

This isn't really going anywhere, Fish, which is a pity, but not unexpected.

It´s gone a long way already, R J. The fact that you dislike where it is going is not the same aas it not going anywhere, though.

We will agree to disagree, but why are you so hesitant to name your sources? I'm merely curious. I asked with civility--twice--where you are came up with the concept that Mizen was asked to identify Cross at the inquest. I am not trying to be tricky; I assume you have one. It's just that I've read multiple inquest reports multiple times and I am not seeing where you came up with this notion. And, as I said, Mizen mentions Cross by name at least three time before Cross's deposition was even put into evidence. That tells us that he was aware of Cross's identity on some level, but leaves us with no clue as to where and when he learned it.

"Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman" (Echo, 3rd of September)

This is the article I referred to earlier, where it is established that Mizen knew the carmans name (not the correct one, though...) as he took the stand. It implies that Mizen had formerly not known the carmans name, but had learnt to know it in combination with the inquest.

Police-constable Mizen, of the H Division, said on Friday last, about a quarter to four, he was in Baker's-row, at the end of Campbell-street. A man who had the appearance of a carman passed him and said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row."

A man named Cross was here brought into the room and identified by witness as the man to whom he referred. (Evening News, 3rd of September)

My apologies for missing out on your question before.

Gimme a break, old man. Dew is writing in 1938 and he remembers how long one witness worked for a company in a case that featured eleven different murders and inquests, most of them with multiple sessions, and dozens and dozens of witnesses? All of this after 50 years, with the contemporary reports giving no hint that 'Cross' ever stated his age? I don't buy it.

You don´t have to. He would not have to remember the exact wording in the papers 50 years after - he would have formed a view back in 1888 that Lechmere was middle-aged, and that view would have stuck with him over the years. That is how memory works. I remember people I met 50 years ago as being of a certain age, but I don´t remember their names. I know which of my teachers were young, which were middle aged and which were old. It´s anything but rocket science. That´s the break I will give you.

I think it is highly probable that Dew was one of the young 'lowly' Detective Constables tasked with chasing down Paul--he certainly remembers the supposedly futile search-- and, as such, he had talked to Cross and had met him and remembered him. That is the 'organic,' and simplest explanation. Why this possibility alarms you, I cannot fathom, but clearly you shrink from it as if it is a dreaded enemy.

I keep saying that the carman cannot have been allowed into the inquest without the police interviewing him, and so if Dew was in place at the inquest, he may have done so at that stage - if Lechmere came directly to it, skipping over a visit to the cop shop.
If he instead sought out the police on Monday morning, before the inquest, he may have met Dew there - if the two ever met, that is to say.
I do not dread such a suggestion at all, it may well have gone down like that. What may NOT have gone down is that Lechmere visited the police before the evening of the 2nd.

Anyway, have fun with it. I'm off to greener pastures, but will make a contribution to Lechmere Studies early next week, at which time you and Gary are welcome to try and rip it to shreds. Cheers, RP

Maybe it does so by itself? Anyway, good luck with it. And tread carefully, you are dealing with a killer.

[Fisherman]

Fish, this will be my last reference to James Scobie, Q.C. Carry on without me.

Strange to say, judging by recent comments, I honestly think I have a higher opinion of Scobie's abilities and discernment than nearly everyone here, with the possible exception of you.

What you say is true. He is one of the top QC's in London and he is highly intelligent and he knows criminal law like the back of his hand. He is a better judge of what will 'work' in a court room and what constitutes evidence in a criminal trial than anyone here will ever know.

It's all true.

Alas, that is precisely why I am skeptical that it was simply a matter of Scobie being 'fooled' by the outline of the case against Lechmere that he was given by the makers of the documentary. That would be 'beyond the beyonds.'

Scobie must appreciate more than anyone that weak cases can be 'got up' by a prosecutor. It's his bread & butter. He lives and breathes this stuff. It's what pays his light bills.

It would be utterly naïve to think that it wouldn't have crossed his mind that a film maker was handing him an exaggerated case against a pet suspect. Has a criminal lawyer never seen a crime documentary in his life, and wouldn't be aware of how it generally 'works'? No way.

This will probably infuriate you, but there is such a thing as 'being a good sport.' And I think this explains Darryl's observation that experts brought in by Ripperologists always seem to agree with the views of their clients. Martin Fido noticed the same tendency during the Maybrick Diary fiasco, but there was one exception. Dr. Baxendale. He definitely told his clients something they didn't want to hear, and ultimately his opinion was placed in a bottom desk drawer and didn't see the light of day until someone else chased it down.

This is not really about 'integrity.' In my opinion, it's about an expert having the very human tendency to be a good sport and give his client something they can use. That, coupled with the tendency of the theorist to misinterpret what the expert really said and thought.

Scobie is far from stupid. He must have known the case against Lechmere was weak, and I have no doubt he would have just as eagerly defended him as prosecuted him. But he's being optimistic for the benefit of the cameras---people often are. Even people with great integrity can be lured into saying something a little over-the-top for the benefit of a television audience.

Any circumspect commentary would have been left on the cutting room floor by the filmmakers. Of that I'm certain.

You won't agree and others here will conclude that Scobie was merely fooled, but I don't see it that way. It's my opinion, and of course you don't need to share it.

Best wishes.

Scobie has a reputation to defend, and so he will not make preposterous claims. Not in his everyday work and not in docus. That is the long and the short of it: There IS a case against Charles Lechmere.

I fail to see that Scobie would have been doing Blink Films any "good sport" favors to a degree where he acknowledged a case when there was none. And a prima facie case always suggests that it is likelier to condemn the suspect than to free him.

I am not willing to discuss the degree to which criminal barristers are normally willing to "fit up" a judgement to make friends within the documentary business, and so I will leave that particular discipline to you - I would feel very much at unease to do so.

I consider your post a mild form of what has been going on here for some time now: character assasination. Scobie is a drug barrister, Scobie shakes the hands of all sorts of shady existences, Scobie deals with lorry drivers who transport immigrants - Scobie is a bad, bad man.

How about we give him the benefit of a doubt and accept that he found that there is a case against Lechmere suggesting guilt? How about you accept that he was always better suited to make that call than you are - although you are willing to dabble in it?

I am not naive in any sense of the word. I am fully aware that a documentary aimed at casting somebody in the rippers role will always favour material that is line with that notion. And I have no doubt whatsoever that the material chosen from Scobies interview was always going to be the most damning material there was to be had.

And - again - the long and the short of it is that the most damning material there was to be had, was James Scobie pointing out that there is a prima facie case against the carman, suggesting that he was the killer.

And that is pretty damning.

Welcome back, R J!

[MrTwibbs]

Forgive my ignorance but if Lechmere is said to have started work at 4am how did he manage to kill Chapman and Mary jane?

[Fiver]

Again, James Scobie will be the better judge of the quality of the evidence.

Only if he was given both the accusatory and exculpatory evidence. And you have admitted that Scobie was only given accusatory evidence.

GIGO.

[Fisherman]

Something I thought of when walking the dog, RJ:

You suggest that Dew was perhaps member of a task force, designed to smoke Robert Paul out, and that he met Lechmere during this phase, which was why he knew the latter to be middle-aged.

But if this was so, why would he conceal his part from the readers? And moreover, how could he be unaware that Paul was found, at long last…?

[Fisherman]

Forgive my ignorance but if Lechmere is said to have started work at 4am how did he manage to kill Chapman and Mary jane?

Begin by reading the dissertation ”Considerable doubt and the death of Annie Chapman” by Wolf Vanderlinden on this very site, Mr Twibbs!

[Fiver]

Are you suggesting that Scobie might have had reservations but didn’t voice them because he craved his 5 mins of fame?

Now you're putting words in Greenway's mouth.

He very clearly said "If either one had said anything negative about the case against Lechmere it wouldn't make the final cut". The makers for the "documentary" had no use for a balanced view of things, so if Scobie expressed any reservations, that would have been cut by the makers of the "documentary".

[MrBarnett]

Forgive my ignorance but if Lechmere is said to have started work at 4am how did he manage to kill Chapman and Mary jane?

Where did he work?

[Fiver]

The full accusatory evidence was provided, which was always the intention.

Presenting only accusatory evidence is a great method of getting people to agree with you. Giving them only information that supports the conclusion you want them to reach proves nothing other than the makers of the "documentary" were afraid to present the exculpatory evidence to Scobie

[MrBarnett]

Presenting only accusatory evidence is a great method of getting people to agree with you. Giving them only information that supports the conclusion you want them to reach proves nothing other than the makers of the "documentary" were afraid to present the exculpatory evidence to Scobie

Is there any exculpatory evidence? I thought that was what Fish asked for at the outset and as yet there’s been none put forward.

[Fiver]

The double standards are eye-watering. Trevor has provided nothing beyond his own account of his conversation with Scobie and the nay-sayers blindly accept it. If instead of having video evidence of Scobie’s opinion you had come on here and said, ‘I’ve just had a phone call with a QC and he’s convinced CAL was a wrong un’, the shrieks of derision would have been deafening.

Has Fisherman provided anything beyond his own account of his conversations with Payne-James or Thiblin?

[Fiver]

Forgive my ignorance but if Lechmere is said to have started work at 4am how did he manage to kill Chapman and Mary jane?

I brought that up in Post #4.

The responses were generally insults and attempts to redefine the word alibi.

The response you got was more civil. We'll see if that lasts.

For the Chapman case, multiple witnesses have her alive well after 4am. The doctor who examined her corpse gave a strongly qualified estimate of her time of death.

"[Coroner] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood."

From what I have seen, people usually dismiss the witnesses because it does not fit their suspect theory, not because there are any indications the witnesses were mistaken or lying.

[MrTwibbs]

Begin by reading the dissertation ”Considerable doubt and the death of Annie Chapman” by Wolf Vanderlinden on this very site, Mr Twibbs!

I will do this. It must be very tiresome for you to have to keep replying to questions and attempting to refute arguments. 22,000 posts. Crickey you must not have a social life if you spend so much time on here. That isn't meant as an insult.