The Darkness of Bakers Row

[Michael W Richards]

There is no circumstantial evidence Lechmere was the Ripper.

There is evidence that can be loosely construed as potential for questioning that possibility...but not for concluding that is the answer. Thats the reason these particular threads get...less than cordial?

Fisherman believes what he believes, the problem for him is that few of us share those same beliefs.

[Fisherman]

There is evidence that can be loosely construed as potential for questioning that possibility...but not for concluding that is the answer. Thats the reason these particular threads get...less than cordial?

Fisherman believes what he believes, the problem for him is that few of us share those same beliefs.

I don’ t see that as my problem, I see it as yours.

[Michael W Richards]

I don’ t see that as my problem, I see it as yours.

Therein lies the problem Fish. It is your problem when its only you who believes what you do. Weve discussed many things here over the years and I know that the attention youve paid to this particular subject hasnt gained much traction with others. Personally, I think its partly because of the attitude in the post above. Anyway, not here to validate or denigrate, just my 2 cents on why this theory/idea hasnt been accepted by most. Because it lacks the essentials, some evidence.

One last bit, if your real intent was to discuss something related to your suspect, why then title the thread about a murder site?

[rjpalmer]

Plus, of course, in Lechmeres case, the evidence - and there are tons of it, albeit circumstantial - convinced KC James Scobie that there is a court case to be had against the carman, that suggests guilt.

Hi Christer.

These discussions become contentious, and I mean this in the most respectful way possible, but surely you don't mean to imply in the above statement that KC James Scobie endorsed the "tons of evidence" that you and Ed Stow have leveled against Charles Allen Lechmere over the years?

Isn't your comment a wee bit misleadingly? (No doubt inadvertently?)

I've seen the Missing Evidence video, as have many members of this forum, and we don't get a jot from Mr. Scobie endorsing your theory of the "Mizen scam" (which is what is currently under discussion) nor does he have anything at all to say about so-called blood oozing evidence, nor the fact that Lechmere's mother was in the cat's meat trade, nor that Lechmere wore a work apron to the inquest, etc. etc.

So, in truth, Scobie nowhere alludes to a "ton of evidence." Let's just be clear that that's your contention--not his.

We can only judge by the video itself, and in it Scobie limited the case against Lechmere to only two issues. Firstly, that Lechmere supposedly behaved suspiciously (presumably in Buck's Row) and that the "jury would not like this"; and secondly and more emphatically, that there was an alleged "pattern of offending to which Lechmere is (both) linked geographically" and by "the timings."

That's it. That, according to Scobie, was the case to which Lechmere had to answer. We have no idea if Scobie endorses any of your other "tons of evidence."

I thought that that might be worth pointing out, especially since this is a discussion about the so-called "Mizen Scam" and nowhere does Scobie give his views about it.

And let us also be reminded that a KC does not determine a defendant's guilt. A jury of his peers do---made up of people like those commentating on this forum.

It seems to me that if you are going to bring in KC Scobie, it should be limited to the two points that he actually addresses.

Cheers.

[Fisherman]

Therein lies the problem Fish. It is your problem when its only you who believes what you do.

Nope, it is not. If we have a group of a hundred men who are told to take a sip of the interesting new drink Cyanide Express, and one of them only avoids doing so, while the other ninety-nine drink and die, then it is not the survivor who is having a problem. Being in a majority is not necessarily being problem free.

Weve discussed many things here over the years and I know that the attention youve paid to this particular subject hasnt gained much traction with others. Personally, I think its partly because of the attitude in the post above. Anyway, not here to validate or denigrate, just my 2 cents on why this theory/idea hasnt been accepted by most. Because it lacks the essentials, some evidence.

Yes, maybe it is my attitude that makes people go "No, Lechmere is not a good suspect". Because it is certainly not the quality of the bid as such!
What we have out here is a community, where a substantial amount of the participators can or will not bring themselves to admit that a man who was found all alone and with no alibi, close to a murder victim who had had her throat cut to the bone, but who was nevertheless still warm, bleeding and seemingly faintly breathing, a man who kept his registered name from an inquest and who disagreed with and potentially lied to a serving policeman about what he had done and said, is a very good suspect! Nope, njet, nein, nothing to see here!

That, at least, is how I see it; it is not about the quality of the suspect, because I am reasoning that anybody can see and understand that the above is the very definition of a good suspect. And if I am correct about this, and everybody can see and understand it, then I am of course not the one having a problem.
Alternatively - but in my humble view not very likely - the ones who claim that Lechmere is at best a lukewarm suspect are actually calling it as they see it - but if that is the case, I would say that the problem they are having only deepens.

It is all good and well to say about any random suspect "Yes, he was found with a bloody knife in his hand, standing over the stabbed victim, but maybe he just came out of a slaughterhouse to see what was going on?"
Alternative explanations to WHY Lechmere stood all alone right by an extremely freshly killed victim who still bled and breathed, to why he had geographical links to the murder sites, to why the victim had her wounds covered, to why he did not help prop her up, to why the GSG was on his way home, to why Paul did not see or hear him and why he did not hear or see Paul, to why he said he left home at around 3.30 but was in Bucks Row at around 3.45, to why he did not come forward un til Paul had spilled the beans in Lloyds Weekly, to why the Pinchin Street victim was found in Pinchin Street, to why there was a bloodstained apron up at St Philips, and so on, CAN be provided - but it is not until they are proven to be the correct explanations to all of these things that the suspicions go away.
And each and every one of the suspicious matters MUST be proven wrong, otherwise we have effective evidence to say that he was the killer.

So again yes, Michel, maybe you are right, and maybe I DO have a problem - by way of being such an unagreeable and unsavoury character, arguing in such a despicable manner. Maybe that is where it all lies, and maybe, if it was not me pushing these points but instead a cheerful and nice man like yourself, then everybody WOULD have agreed about how the carman was always a damn good suspect.
That problem, I may have.
The one you suggest, however, I certainly don't have.


One last bit, if your real intent was to discuss something related to your suspect, why then title the thread about a murder site?

If you have never noticed before how any thread about Lechmere is always at risk to be hijacked for an alternative discussion to the one described in the heading, then the time has come now. I think the fewest understood what the thread was about from the outset, and those who knew what it was about were never willing to discuss the matter at all.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer.

These discussions become contentious, and I mean this in the most respectful way possible, but surely you don't mean to imply in the above statement that KC James Scobie endorsed the "tons of evidence" that you and Ed Stow have leveled against Charles Allen Lechmere over the years?

Isn't your comment a wee bit misleadingly? (No doubt inadvertently?)

I cannot say to which degree Scobie evaluated the various elements that were brought up in the documentary. As I have repeatedly said, I never met Scobie. I did, however, see material that was cut away from the finished product, and so I have some little more insight than most people. Generally speaking, since Scobie said that there is a case to be had that suggests guilt. my assumption was always that this was built on a large number of factors, and not only on, say, the timings. We can all hear Scobie saying in the docu "The things really has him", or something such, but we all can understand that the timings alone cannot be enough for a potential conviction. Luckily, I can add that having seen cut away material, I know that Scobie also spoke a lot about how there was a wealth of matters involved that were either pointers to guilt or mere coincidences, and I also know how he said that people under suspicion were always likely to blame it on coincidences. He said that in Lechmeres case, the coincidences mounted up, and it became one coincidence too many. I believe that part is there in the docu, but I may be mistaken, having seem more material than others have. Anyway, that is what Scobie built his cape on to a large degree: the many, many coincidences that needed to be swept under the carpet to claim innocence. And so, although he does not label them we can all see that what he speaks of are the matters brought up in the docu.

I've seen the Missing Evidence video, as have many members of this forum, and we don't get a jot from Mr. Scobie endorsing your theory of the "Mizen scam" (which is what is currently under discussion) nor does he have anything at all to say about so-called blood oozing evidence, nor the fact that Lechmere's mother was in the cat's meat trade, nor that Lechmere wore a work apron to the inquest, etc. etc.

As I said, he weighed in lots and lots of things, and came up with the conclusion that they were way too many to all be able to explain away with them being sheer coincidences.

So, in truth, Scobie nowhere alludes to a "ton of evidence." Let's just be clear that that's your contention--not his.

I disagree. Although he does not specify the various entities of the evidence, it is clear that he used many, many points to reach his verdict ("When the coincidences add up, when they mount up - and they mount up in his case - it becomes one coincidence too many") is a very clear indicator that Scobie weighed in points galore. "A ton of" is therefore an expression that is quite appropriate, in my view. Let's be clear on that too.

We can only judge by the video itself, and in it Scobie limited the case against Lechmere to only two issues. Firstly, that Lechmere supposedly behaved suspiciously (presumably in Buck's Row) and that the "jury would not like this"; and secondly and more emphatically, that there was an alleged "pattern of offending to which Lechmere is (both) linked geographically" and by "the timings."

Wrong, as per the above.

That's it. That, according to Scobie, was the case to which Lechmere had to answer. We have no idea if Scobie endorses any of your other "tons of evidence."

Wrong, as per the above.

I thought that that might be worth pointing out, especially since this is a discussion about the so-called "Mizen Scam" and nowhere does Scobie give his views about it.

And let us also be reminded that a KC does not determine a defendant's guilt. A jury of his peers do---made up of people like those commentating on this forum.

It seems to me that if you are going to bring in KC Scobie, it should be limited to the two points that he actually addresses.

Cheers.

That is not going to happen, and it would equal dismissing what Scobie actually said to do so. "The coincidences mount up in his case", is not Scobie describing two matters, it is him describing a ton of evidence, without listing it.
I suggest you get over it, R J. I wish I could say "nice try", but I really don't think so.

[Fisherman]

I think I may have the perfect solution, R J: What if I stop saying that Scobie used ”a ton of evidence” and instead - since we know that he said that the coincidences mount up in Lechmeres case - say that Scobie used ”a mountain of evidence” to reach his verdict?
Surely that would be something we can agree about?

[The Baron]

There is a world of difference between "Evidence" and "Coincidence"

"Coincidences mounting up" doesn't mean "Evidences mounting up"

Lechmerians may wish that, but it wont happen, there is ZERO evidence against Lechmere.


Nice Try ...



The Baron

[Fisherman]

There is a world of difference between "Evidence" and "Coincidence"

"Coincidences mounting up" doesn't mean "Evidences mounting up"

Lechmerians may wish that, but it wont happen, there is ZERO evidence against Lechmere.


Nice Try ...



The Baron

WHAT!!??? So you mean that evidence and coincidene are NOT THE SAME THING???

That´s some truly groundbreaking insights you shared there.

I may make you feel a bit sad by saying this - but I actually knew that beforehand. Everybody did. So there was no need pointing it out.

What Scobie said was that it became one coincidence too many in Lechmeres case. What he based that take on was the evidence.

And that is where your point takes a nosedive.

I would welcome a sounder debate. Not that I am going to get it, but nevertheless.

[FrankO]

I think the fewest understood what the thread was about from the outset, and those who knew what it was about were never willing to discuss the matter at all.

Ahum...you sure about that?

[Abby Normal]

There is a world of difference between "Evidence" and "Coincidence"

"Coincidences mounting up" doesn't mean "Evidences mounting up"

Lechmerians may wish that, but it wont happen, there is ZERO evidence against Lechmere.


Nice Try ...



The Baron

and this is where i have just as much issues with the hysterical anti lechers and ridiculous notions like this. there is circumstantial evidence against him, enough so that a prosecutor claims a case could made against him. we have a man seen alone with the freshly killed victim, a material discrepency with a police officer on the scene, and a route to work that brings him near the murder sites around the time of death. one could say this is more than most of the other suspects even koz with the possible id.

[Fisherman]

Ahum...you sure about that?

I think you were the one exception to the rule, Frank, to some degree in company with Wickerman. Which was a pity, because it is an extremely important matter, not least since an effort has been made to paint Jonas Mizen out as being derelict and a possible liar on account of the claims made about Neil seeing him in Bakers Row. And that effort was never accompanied by any pointing out that Neil would always be likely to think that he could only have seen Mizen in Bakers Row.

Anyways, you contributions are duly noted.

[Fisherman]

and this is where i have just as much issues with the hysterical anti lechers and ridiculous notions like this. there is circumstantial evidence against him, enough so that a prosecutor claims a case could made against him. we have a man seen alone with the freshly killed victim, a material discrepency with a police officer on the scene, and a route to work that brings him near the murder sites around the time of death. one could say this is more than most of the other suspects even koz with the possible id.

It is more than ANY other suspect, Abby. The rest are all either contemporary suspects with no evidence at all attaching to their names, or what I refer to as box tickers - "suspects" that supposedly have a lot in common with the Ripper. The problem being that we don't know what boxed the Ripper ticked.

It is all "he was mad, just like the Ripper", "he hated prostitutes, just like the Ripper", "he was a butcher, just like the Ripper" and so on, in eternity. And I can't help asking myself why being mad, hating prostitutes and being a butcher would be better evidence of guilt than being found all alone with a freshly killed Ripper victim, with having hidden your registered name from an inquest, with having disagreed with a serving PC about what was said and done on the murder morning.

We have one (1) suspect where there is an overwhelming array of circumstantial evidence and who is proven to have been present at one of the murder sites with no alibi, and then we have 300 others who "tick boxes". Chosen boxes. Imagined boxes. Fantasy stuff.

Time. It is all about time. When we first presented our theory in St Johns Church in Bethnal Green, Lechmere would not make the top fifty list of suspects. Today, he wins polls or comes second. That tells a story that is obviously extremely unpalatable to some, but that was always to be expected. The important thing is that it is moving in the right direction.

[rjpalmer]

who is proven to have been present at one of the murder sites with no alibi

This is ludicrous, Christer.

An "alibi" is evidence that a suspect wasn't at a crime scene --but was somewhere else--so it is utterly nonsensical to state that Lechmere was "at one of the murder sites with no alibi."

He was at the crime scene...because he was walking to work. No different than John Reeves had left for work when he found Martha Tabram on the landing.

Would you say that Reeves was "damningly found at one of the crime scenes with no alibi?"

As timed by Steve Blomer, David Barrat, and perhaps others, when Lechmere was spotted by Robert Paul in the middle of the street, shortly before Lechmere went out of his way to alert Paul to the body, he was precisely at where he should have been and the time he should have been there, had he been merely innocently walking to work.

[Abby Normal]

It is more than ANY other suspect, Abby. The rest are all either contemporary suspects with no evidence at all attaching to their names, or what I refer to as box tickers - "suspects" that supposedly have a lot in common with the Ripper. The problem being that we don't know what boxed the Ripper ticked.

It is all "he was mad, just like the Ripper", "he hated prostitutes, just like the Ripper", "he was a butcher, just like the Ripper" and so on, in eternity. And I can't help asking myself why being mad, hating prostitutes and being a butcher would be better evidence of guilt than being found all alone with a freshly killed Ripper victim, with having hidden your registered name from an inquest, with having disagreed with a serving PC about what was said and done on the murder morning.

We have one (1) suspect where there is an overwhelming array of circumstantial evidence and who is proven to have been present at one of the murder sites with no alibi, and then we have 300 others who "tick boxes". Chosen boxes. Imagined boxes. Fantasy stuff.

Time. It is all about time. When we first presented our theory in St Johns Church in Bethnal Green, Lechmere would not make the top fifty list of suspects. Today, he wins polls or comes second. That tells a story that is obviously extremely unpalatable to some, but that was always to be expected. The important thing is that it is moving in the right direction.

hi fish
one thing i definitely agree with you on is the above. we have a boat load of suspects that have been put forth who have zilch connection to the case and more everyday- he was violent, he was a known prostitute user, he was an insane jew, he went to jail for attacking a woman etc.etc ad nauseum. then we even have these suspects put forward that have some nebulous relationship with a peripheral witness lol. and meanwhile lech is denigrated as some kind of laughable suspect. and by many on here who have a favored suspect themselves. its insanity. if theres no evidence against lech, theres no evidence against any.

i mentioned koz in terms of evidence against because really he is the only suspect where there is any kind... eye witness testimony. but even that is tenous as the witness was probably unsure or even mistaken. one could argue lech is even better than that because we know for sure he was seen near a victim near tod. its proven fact.

lech is as good a suspect as any and better than most, or as i like to say he is as least weak as many any least weak than most.

keep up the good work.