Evidence of innocence

[rjpalmer]

ELO = East London Observer, Jeff Lynne's favorite paper.

[harry]

No Darryl,fisherman does not know more than you.your posts show that.What has been given as evidence of guilt has been shown to not be evidence of guilt that a magistrate would accept.Nor would it,as Trevor has pointed out,been evidence that the police would consider suitable to lodge a charge.
Scobie,the supposed arbitrator,whose views we are told are undeniable,has now been shown to have changed his mind. It has also been claimed that his(Scobie0 original statement regarding guilt,would only stand if insufficient evidence of innocence was presented.And there is the rub.Only evidence of innocence,is available.
So Cross innocent on all counts.

[Mark J D]

Really? Then why did you reply?

Stop playing games.

[MrBarnett]

ELO = East London Observer, Jeff Lynne's favorite paper.

Yes, that’s the report I mentioned in post 2800.

However, there was another I posted which said the very opposite.

[MrBarnett]

Technical point, but at some point Back Church Lane was renumbered.

The ad below (from July 1870) states that No. 3 had recently become No. 4.




This generally agrees with other noticeable changes from odd to even numbers; between the 1860s and 1881, No. 103 (the Coach and Horses P.H.) became No. 86.

The main relevance being that the quack's shop at No. 6 in the 1860s, which sounds at least inhabitable, may not have been the shed of the 1880s

Thanks for that RJ.

I’ll post a link or a reference to it over on the Forums. Useful research gets lost in amongst lengthy debates such as this one.

[Fisherman]

Tomorrow, my son who lives in Iceland is going to visit us for the first time post-covid. That means that I am not posting on this forum for the next week. However, I found one thing that I would dearly want to have explained whilst I’m away. It has to do with post 2840 on this thread, where the poster ”The Baron” posted this snippet, purportedly by Trevor Marriotts hand:

”Scobie did point out to me that in the grand scheme of things, there was not sufficient evidence to have ever secured a conviction, and that the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) would probably have never authorized a charge if it had been today. I wonder if these comments were also edited out. He also stated he raised concerns with the program makers in relation to some of what was presented to him, but could not be specific.”

I tried to scroll back, since I could not remember having seen the post, but could not find it on the thread. Eventually, I managed to track it down. It is from a post from April of 2019, and the full text is:
”From what I recall and it was a long time ago, Scobie pointed out that his contribution to the program was around forty minutes, of which less than three minutes finished up being shown. That important three minutes was exactly what our intrepid researchers wanted to hear and what the program makers wanted the viewing public to absorb. Scobie`s final opinion as highlighted in the program was that there was enough evidence against Lechmere to put before a jury. Scobie did point out to me that in the grand scheme of things, there was not sufficient evidence to have ever secured a conviction, and that the CPS would probably have never authorized a charge if it had been today. I wonder if these comments were also edited out. He also stated he raised concerns with the program makers in relation to some of what was presented to him, but could not be specific.”

Trevor here begins by pointing out that ”it was a long time ago”, apparently pointing out that he may be recalling things wrong. But what he goes on to state is remarkable. He claims that Scobie would have told him that ”in the grand scheme of things, there was not sufficient evidence to have ever secured a conviction”.

This means that Scobie must have lied, either when saying that there was not sufficient evidence to secure a conviction, or when he in the docu said that there is a prima facie case against Lechmere that suggests that he was the killer. The two claims are mutually exclusive, because when it is assessed that there is a prima facie case suggesting guilt, then the barrister is of the meaning that the evidence WILL likely secure a conviction.

It all becomes very confusing when somebody claims that a barrister has gainsaid himself, and in such a flagrant manner. Here we have the same barrister who very clearly and unhesitatingly claimed in a widely broadcast docu that there is a prima facie case suggesting that Charles Lechmere was the killer - and then we have him saying that there IS no prima facie case in next breath…? Plus he goes on to say that the CPS would ”probably” not have authorized a charge - something that would of course be odd in the extreme if a prima facie case was presented!

Luckily, it seems that what was claimed in 2019 by Trevor Marriott has since morphed into something entirely different, In an earlier post on this very thread, from mid September, Marriott explains what was really said between him and Scobie. Of course, we only have Trevors own word for how he would have spoken to Scobie, but if we accept that he did, here is version 2.0 of the conversation, point by point:

”going back to my conversation with Scobie for those who question it and suggest I had made it up !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1. He says he never met Christer during the making of the program

2. He was not provided with the witness testimony but simply given by C5 what he describes as bullet points relating to the evidence, which he thinks originated from Christer, It was this that he was asked to read and give his opinion on.

3. He states that the sum total of his input was between 30-45 mins of which most as was seen was edited out.

4. He states when he was asked about Cross giving a false name and its importance he replied that in his opinion that was insignificant to the other facts- edited out

5. He never saw the coroners summing up

6. He accepts that had he been shown the full facts then his opinion might have been different.”

Lo and behold. Not a single word about how Scobie would have said that there was not sufficient evidence to secure a conviction.

Not a word about how there is no prima facie case.

Not a word about a pessimistic CPS.

Instead, there is a point, number 6, where Trevor says that Scobie accepted that his verdict could perhaps have been another one if he had been shown the full facts. Which is hardly very remarkable - anyone who does not have the full facts cannot tell whether or not it is fair or unfair to convict a suspect. He can only say - as Scobie did - that going on the accusatory evidence only, it is probably enough for a conviction. After that, the question whether the exculpatory evidence (if such evidence exists…) would stop a conviction must be left open.

One must of course ponder which of the two very different posts from Trevor to believe in - if any. If Scobie had been totally negative about the case in his conversation with Trevor (but totally positive about it in the docu!), then why is it that Trevor does not say so in his post of mid September this year?

Because he had forgotten all about it?

Or maybe he had forgotten what was actually said even before his post from April of 2019? He hints at the possibility himself in the opening line of that post.

Anyway, if anybody should be interested in my advice in the matter, I would say that if you want to live an interesting life, then go with Trevors posts - all of them. The benefit is that you will never be bored, since there seems to be all sorts of contradictory claims to be had in the posts.

If you instead want a less dramatic but with all likelihood correct picture, the you should go with what Scobie actually says in the docu. I all likelihood, the barrister would have seen the material and approved of it before it was aired.

If that is not enough background information for you to help you when making your choice, I will hint at a very relevant factor:

One of these versions, a fully official one, is actually documented in detail, and filmed by Blink Films, leaving no room for any doubt about what Scobie thought about the quality of the evidence: Charles Lechmere has a prima facie case to answer, suggesting that he was the killer.

The other version, however - regardless of which garments it is clad in (and that differs from post to post) - is undocumented hearsay by a poster who already in 2019 had the good sense to point out that it would perhaps be wise not to take what he says literally, since so much time had passed.

Thanking The Baron for having shed useful light on the issue, I now withdraw from the thread for the upcoming week.

[The Baron]

Tomorrow, my son who lives in Iceland is going to visit us for the first time post-covid. That means that I am not posting on this forum for the next week. However, I found one thing that I would dearly want to have explained whilst I’m away. It has to do with post 2840 on this thread, where the poster ”The Baron” posted this snippet, purportedly by Trevor Marriotts hand:

”Scobie did point out to me that in the grand scheme of things, there was not sufficient evidence to have ever secured a conviction, and that the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) would probably have never authorized a charge if it had been today. I wonder if these comments were also edited out. He also stated he raised concerns with the program makers in relation to some of what was presented to him, but could not be specific.”

I tried to scroll back, since I could not remember having seen the post, but could not find it on the thread. Eventually, I managed to track it down. It is from a post from April of 2019, and the full text is:
”From what I recall and it was a long time ago, Scobie pointed out that his contribution to the program was around forty minutes, of which less than three minutes finished up being shown. That important three minutes was exactly what our intrepid researchers wanted to hear and what the program makers wanted the viewing public to absorb. Scobie`s final opinion as highlighted in the program was that there was enough evidence against Lechmere to put before a jury. Scobie did point out to me that in the grand scheme of things, there was not sufficient evidence to have ever secured a conviction, and that the CPS would probably have never authorized a charge if it had been today. I wonder if these comments were also edited out. He also stated he raised concerns with the program makers in relation to some of what was presented to him, but could not be specific.”

Trevor here begins by pointing out that ”it was a long time ago”, apparently pointing out that he may be recalling things wrong. But what he goes on to state is remarkable. He claims that Scobie would have told him that ”in the grand scheme of things, there was not sufficient evidence to have ever secured a conviction”.

This means that Scobie must have lied, either when saying that there was not sufficient evidence to secure a conviction, or when he in the docu said that there is a prima facie case against Lechmere that suggests that he was the killer. The two claims are mutually exclusive, because when it is assessed that there is a prima facie case suggesting guilt, then the barrister is of the meaning that the evidence WILL likely secure a conviction.

It all becomes very confusing when somebody claims that a barrister has gainsaid himself, and in such a flagrant manner. Here we have the same barrister who very clearly and unhesitatingly claimed in a widely broadcast docu that there is a prima facie case suggesting that Charles Lechmere was the killer - and then we have him saying that there IS no prima facie case in next breath…? Plus he goes on to say that the CPS would ”probably” not have authorized a charge - something that would of course be odd in the extreme if a prima facie case was presented!

Luckily, it seems that what was claimed in 2019 by Trevor Marriott has since morphed into something entirely different, In an earlier post on this very thread, from mid September, Marriott explains what was really said between him and Scobie. Of course, we only have Trevors own word for how he would have spoken to Scobie, but if we accept that he did, here is version 2.0 of the conversation, point by point:

”going back to my conversation with Scobie for those who question it and suggest I had made it up !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1. He says he never met Christer during the making of the program

2. He was not provided with the witness testimony but simply given by C5 what he describes as bullet points relating to the evidence, which he thinks originated from Christer, It was this that he was asked to read and give his opinion on.

3. He states that the sum total of his input was between 30-45 mins of which most as was seen was edited out.

4. He states when he was asked about Cross giving a false name and its importance he replied that in his opinion that was insignificant to the other facts- edited out

5. He never saw the coroners summing up

6. He accepts that had he been shown the full facts then his opinion might have been different.”

Lo and behold. Not a single word about how Scobie would have said that there was not sufficient evidence to secure a conviction.

Not a word about how there is no prima facie case.

Not a word about a pessimistic CPS.

Instead, there is a point, number 6, where Trevor says that Scobie accepted that his verdict could perhaps have been another one if he had been shown the full facts. Which is hardly very remarkable - anyone who does not have the full facts cannot tell whether or not it is fair or unfair to convict a suspect. He can only say - as Scobie did - that going on the accusatory evidence only, it is probably enough for a conviction. After that, the question whether the exculpatory evidence (if such evidence exists…) would stop a conviction must be left open.

One must of course ponder which of the two very different posts from Trevor to believe in - if any. If Scobie had been totally negative about the case in his conversation with Trevor (but totally positive about it in the docu!), then why is it that Trevor does not say so in his post of mid September this year?

Because he had forgotten all about it?

Or maybe he had forgotten what was actually said even before his post from April of 2019? He hints at the possibility himself in the opening line of that post.

Anyway, if anybody should be interested in my advice in the matter, I would say that if you want to live an interesting life, then go with Trevors posts - all of them. The benefit is that you will never be bored, since there seems to be all sorts of contradictory claims to be had in the posts.

If you instead want a less dramatic but with all likelihood correct picture, the you should go with what Scobie actually says in the docu. I all likelihood, the barrister would have seen the material and approved of it before it was aired.

If that is not enough background information for you to help you when making your choice, I will hint at a very relevant factor:

One of these versions, a fully official one, is actually documented in detail, and filmed by Blink Films, leaving no room for any doubt about what Scobie thought about the quality of the evidence: Charles Lechmere has a prima facie case to answer, suggesting that he was the killer.

The other version, however - regardless of which garments it is clad in (and that differs from post to post) - is undocumented hearsay by a poster who already in 2019 had the good sense to point out that it would perhaps be wise not to take what he says literally, since so much time had passed.

Thanking The Baron for having shed useful light on the issue, I now withdraw from the thread for the upcoming week.

Another desperate attempt to weave anomalies out of the blue

you are very expected Fish, don't you have any plan at all to update your oldschool tricks?!

Scobie's contribution was around 40 minuets, and they were cut to less than 3 Minutes in the documentary, we want Scobie's opinion in full length, not the edited and cut thing you presented.

Second and as Monty has asked before when the documentary first aired some years back and was told a file was presented by Ed and/or Christer and/or the producers:

The question is what exactly was in that file? The exact contents were never revealed!


If you didn't bring the whole thing here, then it is better for you to go and enjoy your week with your son than to pretend your case against the innocent man has any weight in a modern court.


Thanks to Trevor for clearing the whole Scobie saga, it is clear that the man was less informed, and even with the little he was given about the case, he didn't believe it will secure a conviction against the carman, and that is logical, it is not as if you've cought the man red handed or found him cutting the poor woman or found the murder's weapon on him, there is nothing of that, and the careman is innocent.



The Baron

[Fiver]

ELO = East London Observer, Jeff Lynne's favorite paper.

Thank you for sharing. Do you know when this article appeared in the East London Observer?

[Mrs. Fiddymont]

People do not have to entertain suspicions against killers. In fact, it is a very common thing that those living in the vicinity of a serial killer react with utter amazement when they are told the truth. So this is not anything like genuine evidence of innocence.

Agreed. I watched a TV program yesterday about Ted Bundy and the police and FBI profilers on the show remarked that a killer like Bundy (basically someone with no conscience) could act so "normal" that people just couldn't believe he was guilty of anything, much less the horrific murders he committed. He even beheaded a few of the girls, as he readily admitted.

I guess you have to feel guilty before you look guilty--which is a horrifying thought.

[rjpalmer]

Thank you for sharing. Do you know when this article appeared in the East London Observer?

Hi Fiver.

It's the date Gary already gave in Post #2800. 24 November 1883.

[Fiver]

What if his first delivery was just 15 mins away from Broad Street and he was delivering one commodity to one customer whom he delivered to every day?

When do you normally have breakfast? When I had an early start at work, I’d tend not to have it before I left but to get something at the earliest opportunity
after I’d arrived at work. How odd was that?

In your eyes that probably makes me a potential serial killer.

You have me confused with the Fisherman Fanclub, which interprets everything as a sign that CAL, and only CAL, was a serial killer, while not making the same assumptions about anyone else.

Pickford's carmen worked 14 to 18 hour shifts. For CAL to have killed Annie Chapman, he would have had to take a break starting at 4:30am to 5am. That's the equivalent of a person with an 8 hour shift taking a meal break 15 minutes or 1/2 hour into their shift. It would be unusual behavior for anyone. It would be even more unusual for someone with a more normal break pattern to take a meal break 15 minutes or 1/2 hour into their shift. And if this oddly timed break occurred at the same time latest in a string of grisly serial killings occurred, it would probably draw a lot of attention.

[Fiver]

Hi Fiver.

It's the date Gary already gave in Post #2800. 24 November 1883.

Thanks. So based on posted articles

In 1883, Pickfords was using vanboys for all of their vans.

By 1903, Pickfords wasn't using van boys any more.

And in 1897, Pickfords was using an untrained former van boy as a carman. It sounds like Pickfords may have been facing a labor shortage.

[rjpalmer]

I don't know if this one has ever been posted, but it's an interesting account of a demonstration by East End carmen, including specifically Pickford & Co. men, in October 1874.

Plenty of points of interest, including the reference to the "probationary stages of a London carman's life," which, from the context, sounds like it has to do with the caring of horses; from there, I suspect the greenhorn worked a vanguard before taking over the reigns, eventually becoming a "master carman."

But of more interest to me is the route of the protest, which goes straight through the middle of CAL's 1870s stomping grounds. "Friends" were picked up in Berners-street, and then the march went down Fairclough, where 14 years later Schwartz would do his brief foxtrot. Is conceivable that CAL didn't take part in this march?

Lechmere the agitator, the union man, the Red.

No wonder the conservatives don't like him and don't trust him.

[Fiver]

Yes, but cooked the way cats preferred their meat with a bit of red still in it. And of course, Pickfords also handled raw meat out of Broad Street. The Scotch Meat and Fish express arrived there every morning around 3/4.

The Scotch Meat and Fish Express appears to have arrived around 4am to 4:15am.

https://books.google.com/books?id=yoM4AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA423&lpg=PA423&dq=Scotch+Meat+and+Fish+express+London+rail&source=bl&ots=UamQKW-kc5&sig=ACfU3U0iNRFOK0pvVzSrHUQwcBYVTkQEvg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjs9f-by73zAhWNkmoFHaIBCb4Q6AF6BAgcEAM#v=onepage&q=Scotch%20Meat%20and%20Fish%20express%20London%20rail&f=false

[Fiver]

Sometimes I wonder whether some of these anti-lechers have ever lead normal lives. The sort of lives where helping your old mum, seeing your daughter or having a few bevvies with your mates once a week isn’t prevented by a long day at work.

You completely misrepresent the position of those who disagree with you. Again.

Perhaps you should start reading what people actually say instead of putting words in their mouth.

Nobody has said a long day at work would keep CAL from helping his mum.
Nobody has said a long day at work would keep CAL from seeing his daughter.
Nobody has said a long day at work would keep CAL from having a few bevvies with his his mates.

I did point out that the timing of the Stride and Eddowes murders fits very poorly with Charles Lechmere being the killer.

* CAL had to be to work at 4am. He likely woke up at 3am, perhaps earlier.
* Elizabeth Stride was killed between 12:45am and 1am.
* Catherine Eddowes was killed between 1:35am and 1:45am.

So for CAL to be the Ripper he would have to have get up three hours early (on his day off, no less) or he would have to stay up for 23 hours straight. Neither seems likely for a man pushing forty.