Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Monty]

"A barrister and a murder squad detective both thought that Charles Lechmere was a very good and viable suspect, presenting a case good enoug to present before a court of law."

It must be stressed that we are unaware, exactly, what evidences were presented to this QC and detective.

Until that is revealed, their opinions must be placed in that context.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Where have you got this fixation for the bleeding being such a relevant factor in determining time of death? There are so many factors which determine the amount of blood a body will lose through these types of wounds, and none can be conclusive so this is where you fall down.

You have to accept that the doctors estimate may not be as accurate as you make out and therefore the time of death could have been much earlier as i said before even 10 minutes earlier which there is certainly time for, ruins your theory.

I spoke about the honesty of all witnesses re timings. Now I accept that these times maybe not accurate to the minute, and you must accpet this and that it must apply to all witnesses you cant cherry pick the ones which fit your theory.

Pc Neil
first pass in Bucks Row should have been 3.15am approx
second pass should have been 3.27approx (12 minute round beat)
third pass 3.39am approx which is when he finds body.

Now according to the evidence, by then Cross and Paul had already found the body and gone off to find a policeman, deduct 3-4 minutes for that so that brings the time down to 3.35am approx when Cross and Paul left the scene. Now take of the time allowed for Cross to be seen standing in the road as Paul approached, and time they spent with the body and that takes it down even more.

So there is no time for Cross to have killed Nicholls.

According to the evidenve, he then says he arrived at work at 4am

Pc Mizen says that he was told about the murder at 4.15am by Cross so if Cross arrived at work at that time then Mizen is wrong.

You see you case is built upon all the witnesses and your suspect being not only correct, but honest about where they were and what they did with regards to the timings. Clearly there are such fine lines involved that you cannot keep saying the evidence fits so Cross must be the killer, because the evidence you seek to rely on is unsafe.

I do not intend to keep trying to make you aware of these issues and it is clear that you are not going to relent, but be careful that your tenacity and enthusiasm for what you have done which is to be admired doesn't turn into an obsession.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

This is so full of errors that I wonīt even bother to answer much of it. Letīs just say that you are the one implying that I would have stated that we must accept that Llewellyn was spot on with his TOD. In actuality, I have not - and would not - say such a thing.
But I have said - and will stand by - that what we have is what we have. Llewellyn DID say that she had not been dead for more than half an hour, and to use that as a good indication that she could have been dead much longer is simply a bit odd, to put it mildly.
As for blood flowing from a totally severed neck, there is no clockwork built in telling us the exact time of death. But as such, when we see that a person with that kind of damage is still bleeding, we know that death has occurred close in time. It is anything but rocket science.
What I have repsonded to on this note is the suggestion that Harriet Lilley heard Nichols getting killed at 3.30, which would mean that she kept bleeding for perhaps as long as 25 minutes after having her head clipped off, more or less. I donīt think that is half viable.
Whether she could have been cut by somebody else than Lechmere is another question altogether. But it still applies that if she WAS, then she bled for perhaps seven to eight minutes afterwards, and I wonder whether that is a very viable opportunity.
We are also dealing with the fact that this went down on deserted streets, by the looks of things - nobody saw anyone (but the carmen) leaving the scene at the approximate time for the murder. Although there must be learoom for another person having seaked in and out unnoticed, it was an anomaly that was remarked on at the time, and wisely so - if Lechmere didnīt do it, the we are dealing with a phantom killer. Itīs of course way sexier than Lechmere - but it is as credible? Lechmere was never technically cleared, he was alone with the victim for an unestablished period of time, he was not searched for blood, he was not searched for any weapon, he was simply let go. And we have an extremely good reason to suspect that this happened because he gave Mizen the impression that another PC had already cleared him and Paul.
That was a blatant difference inbetween what he and Mizen said, and somebody should have pounced on Lechmere for it. But the fact that he is called Cross in the police reports goes a long way to prove that this never happened.

You cannot ask for a much better case, practically speaking. And thatīs before I start garbling about the geographical pattern of the killings!

The best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

This is so full of errors that I wonīt even bother to answer much of it. Letīs just say that you are the one implying that I would have stated that we must accept that Llewellyn was spot on with his TOD. In actuality, I have not - and would not - say such a thing.
But I have said - and will stand by - that what we have is what we have. Llewellyn DID say that she had not been dead for more than half an hour, and to use that as a good indication that she could have been dead much longer is simply a bit odd, to put it mildly.
As for blood flowing from a totally severed neck, there is no clockwork built in telling us the exact time of death. But as such, when we see that a person with that kind of damage is still bleeding, we know that death has occurred close in time. It is anything but rocket science.
What I have repsonded to on this note is the suggestion that Harriet Lilley heard Nichols getting killed at 3.30, which would mean that she kept bleeding for perhaps as long as 25 minutes after having her head clipped off, more or less. I donīt think that is half viable.
Whether she could have been cut by somebody else than Lechmere is another question altogether. But it still applies that if she WAS, then she bled for perhaps seven to eight minutes afterwards, and I wonder whether that is a very viable opportunity.
We are also dealing with the fact that this went down on deserted streets, by the looks of things - nobody saw anyone (but the carmen) leaving the scene at the approximate time for the murder. Although there must be learoom for another person having seaked in and out unnoticed, it was an anomaly that was remarked on at the time, and wisely so - if Lechmere didnīt do it, the we are dealing with a phantom killer. Itīs of course way sexier than Lechmere - but it is as credible? Lechmere was never technically cleared, he was alone with the victim for an unestablished period of time, he was not searched for blood, he was not searched for any weapon, he was simply let go. And we have an extremely good reason to suspect that this happened because he gave Mizen the impression that another PC had already cleared him and Paul.
That was a blatant difference inbetween what he and Mizen said, and somebody should have pounced on Lechmere for it. But the fact that he is called Cross in the police reports goes a long way to prove that this never happened.

You cannot ask for a much better case, practically speaking. And thatīs before I start garbling about the geographical pattern of the killings!

The best,
Fisherman

Yes coincidentally, the errors you refer to and refuse to comment on are the ones which hit home the most against your theory.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

"A barrister and a murder squad detective both thought that Charles Lechmere was a very good and viable suspect, presenting a case good enoug to present before a court of law."

It must be stressed that we are unaware, exactly, what evidences were presented to this QC and detective.

Until that is revealed, their opinions must be placed in that context.

Monty

Andy Griffiths had a file just like mine, same size, same thickness, in which there were all the relevant paper articles plus police reports. I did not read his file through, but whenever he opened it on different pages, it was the same kind of material that I had. If there were clippings from Donald Duck on the other pages, the ones I never saw, then it was odd that he never opened his file on those pages.

When I discussed the articles and reports with Andy, it was evident that he was well informed about their contents.

I have alreday pointed out that I never met Scobie, but one can see that his file was extensive too, and the sequences in the documentary shows examples of the material he had been given if we freeze the picture and look.

I very much resent the suggestion that these men were underinformed or misinformed - but I am much less suprised by it than I would have liked to be.

I would also like to point out that even if it was stated from Blink Films that Griffiths and Scobie were given all the relevant material they would need, I donīt think that would be accepted out here. It would in all certainty only result in people asking themselves why Blink Films should be trusted, and in implying that the crew were lying. Itīs a sad state of affairs, but there you are.

Therefore, I donīt see how the issue can be resolved to everybodys contention. The only thing that could reach that far would be if the documentary started out by showing, side for side, the files being gone through and the material in them listed while Scobie and Griffiths sat beside, swearing in front of the camera that they had been given this material and read it.

... and then people would say "Itīs strange how they stress this - there must be a dog buried in it somewhere".

So the only option avaliabale to us at this stage is to either work from a view where I, Edward and Blink Films lied our way through it all, dripfeeding the material to Griffiths and Scobie, leading them wrong, lying to them and then misrepresenting them totally by not allowing them to get the full picture.

Or we work from a view where we accept that they were given the relevant material, and that they concluded from that.

Basically, it is a question about who we are, how we treat our fellow men and how we want to be treated ourselves - and in the end, how our attitudes shape ripperology and our commitment to not allowing anything but the facts colour how we work with the case.

Normally, when I say something like this, you immediately start speaking of how I "preach". So Iīm quite prepared for it to happen again.

Point of interest:

You have more than once - and recently just a day ago - pointed out how important it is that Michael Connor is mentioned.

The overall impression I get is that you think that I and Edward are taking credit for Connors work, and you donīt like that.

I have pointed out on more than one occasion that Connor and Osbourne preceded us when it comes to naming Lechmere as a suspect. I have pointed out that Blink Films tried to get Osbourne to participate in the docu, but he turned the company down. I donīt know whether Connor was approached, but I know that it was discussed.

But the more interesting point to me is:

If Lechmere is such a non-starter, and if the Lechmere theory is such crap with no substance at all, if it is a "crackpot theory" as a certain lady has stated out here, if the theory is an intellectual disaster and a total shame - then why would you want to have Connors name dragged through the ****, Monty? Would he not be better served if he was never mentioned in combination with these old, crappy and misguided musings of his?

Putting it otherwise: How can I and Edward be taking credit from Connor if there is no credit to be taken?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Yes coincidentally, the errors you refer to and refuse to comment on are the ones which hit home the most against your theory.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Like how "Pc Mizen says that he was told about the murder at 4.15am by Cross", you mean?

Yes, that one really takes the theory apart!

The best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

Like how "Pc Mizen says that he was told about the murder at 4.15am by Cross", you mean?

Yes, that one really takes the theory apart!

The best,
Fisherman

Times newspaper Sept 4th Page 41/42 The Sourcebook !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sally]

Fisherman!

The term 'Crackpot Theory' caught my eye as I was skimming through yet another round of repetitive pro-Crossmere posts

If you are referring to me, I think what I actually said was that if I didn't see any evidence - as opposed to wholly conjectural fantasy theorising for example - I would be obliged to consign the Crossmere theory to the crackpot bin. See? There's a distinction to be drawn there.

I did look for my exact words, but sadly couldn't find the thread - well, it is Sunday morning after all...

But look! I did find this little thread from way back in 2008!


http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...light=lechmere

Now if you'd stuck to your original view, we would have been in agreement

[Monty]

You seem a little agitated Christer

Andy Griffiths had a file just like mine, same size, same thickness, in which there were all the relevant paper articles plus police reports. I did not read his file through, but whenever he opened it on different pages, it was the same kind of material that I had. If there were clippings from Donald Duck on the other pages, the ones I never saw, then it was odd that he never opened his file on those pages.

When I discussed the articles and reports with Andy, it was evident that he was well informed about their contents.

What articles? What reports? What precise information did these men see provided by a documentary team, and who provided them with their research?

I have alreday pointed out that I never met Scobie, but one can see that his file was extensive too, and the sequences in the documentary shows examples of the material he had been given if we freeze the picture and look.

You, therefore, must have seen Scobies file from the documentary footage, and I shall assume it is the same footage we all saw, which was brief. You have no idea what Scobie was presented with, so unless Blink, or Scobie himself, provides details of the contents of that file, Im afraid you are as much in the dark as the rest of us.....arent you? Your opinion is irrelevant

I very much resent the suggestion that these men were underinformed or misinformed - but I am much less suprised by it than I would have liked to be.

Do you? Oh dear. Thats a shame.

I very much resent the misleading use of experts to bolster a suspect who, when seriously studied in their proper context, is a suspect based on personal opinion and not evidence. It is clear the majority of the field, those who have access to the full accounts which so far have survived, see that and have voiced their concerns. Rather that provide evidence, we recieve yet more personal interpretation.

With regards what these reknowned Ripperologists Griffiths and Scobie actually saw, unless they, and/or Blink, are willing to reveal what actually was in that file, their opinion is no more valid than any others.

I would also like to point out that even if it was stated from Blink Films that Griffiths and Scobie were given all the relevant material they would need, I donīt think that would be accepted out here. It would in all certainty only result in people asking themselves why Blink Films should be trusted, and in implying that the crew were lying. Itīs a sad state of affairs, but there you are.

Therefore, I donīt see how the issue can be resolved to everybodys contention. The only thing that could reach that far would be if the documentary started out by showing, side for side, the files being gone through and the material in them listed while Scobie and Griffiths sat beside, swearing in front of the camera that they had been given this material and read it.

... and then people would say "Itīs strange how they stress this - there must be a dog buried in it somewhere".

So the only option avaliabale to us at this stage is to either work from a view where I, Edward and Blink Films lied our way through it all, dripfeeding the material to Griffiths and Scobie, leading them wrong, lying to them and then misrepresenting them totally by not allowing them to get the full picture.

Or we work from a view where we accept that they were given the relevant material, and that they concluded from that.

Basically, it is a question about who we are, how we treat our fellow men and how we want to be treated ourselves - and in the end, how our attitudes shape ripperology and our commitment to not allowing anything but the facts colour how we work with the case.

Normally, when I say something like this, you immediately start speaking of how I "preach". So Iīm quite prepared for it to happen again.

So you, Blink, whoever feel that we are not worthy of the truth? It has been decided that the children of Ripperology would react in kind?

I merely asked what these men based their curious conclusions on. Many legal men and women I know in the field have questioned these conclusions, and are interested in knowning what was assessed, and how long for? The fact that we do not know this, and most likely never shall, shall naturally draw a conclusion of loaded evidence.



Point of interest:

You have more than once - and recently just a day ago - pointed out how important it is that Michael Connor is mentioned.

The overall impression I get is that you think that I and Edward are taking credit for Connors work, and you donīt like that.

I have pointed out on more than one occasion that Connor and Osbourne preceded us when it comes to naming Lechmere as a suspect. I have pointed out that Blink Films tried to get Osbourne to participate in the docu, but he turned the company down. I donīt know whether Connor was approached, but I know that it was discussed.

But the more interesting point to me is:

If Lechmere is such a non-starter, and if the Lechmere theory is such crap with no substance at all, if it is a "crackpot theory" as a certain lady has stated out here, if the theory is an intellectual disaster and a total shame - then why would you want to have Connors name dragged through the ****, Monty? Would he not be better served if he was never mentioned in combination with these old, crappy and misguided musings of his?

Putting it otherwise: How can I and Edward be taking credit from Connor if there is no credit to be taken?

All the best,
Fisherman

Your overall impression is incorrect

Monty

[The Good Michael]

A barrister and a murder squad detective both thought that Charles Lechmere was a very good and viable suspect, presenting a case good enoug to present before a court of law.

Well, if they weren't paid by Blink or anyone else to do the documentary, then I'd say you have something there. If they were paid, and they said the case is a poor one, the documentary would have been a ten-minute one or would not have been made. Had they had access to Begg's and Sugden's books and to this website and gone through them carefully and still come up with Lechmere as a good suspect, I'd take my hat off and call myself an idiot for not seeing it.

Mike

[Monty]

Well, if they weren't paid by Blink or anyone else to do the documentary, then I'd say you have something there. If they were paid, and they said the case is a poor one, the documentary would have been a ten-minute one or would not have been made. Had they had access to Begg's and Sugden's books and to this website and gone through them carefully and still come up with Lechmere as a good suspect, I'd take my hat off and call myself an idiot for not seeing it.

Mike

Indeed, the constant reference to experts is like a lamp to a drunk man. More to support than to illuminate.

Experts are not required if the theory has strong enough legs.

Monty

[David Orsam]

Paul said he entered Bucks Row at exactly 3.45.

No, he didn't! That's the whole point. He did not say this in his evidence. All we have is a newspaper reporter saying this on his behalf. It's not evidence in the case. The report which you refer to is riddled with inaccuracy but you have simply cherry picked one fact in there which you like and ignored all the other wrong bits.

[David Orsam]

If Mizen mistook the time, why and how would that have forced Lechmeres departure time five minutes forward?

That's not what I was saying. Both Mizen and Lechmere said they did something at "about" a certain time. If you can accept that the word "about" has an acceptable range of plus/minus five minutes for Mizen then you surely must accept that the same is true for Lechmere and thus that Lechmere could have left his home at either 3:25 or 3:30. If the latter is a possibility then you do not have a major 9 minute gap in the timings. I don't think this is rocket science.

[David Orsam]

Then why is it that dovetails perfectly with what Paul said at the inquest?

It does not dovetail "perfectly" with what Paul said at the inquest at all. He didn't provide an actual time he left his house, therefore there is no perfection here. From Inspector Abberline's report which said that Paul and Cross found the body at 3.40, Abberline must have been perfectly satisfied that Paul did not leave his house after 3.40 that morning.

[David Orsam]

a suspect based on personal opinion and not evidence.

I don't think that's quite fair Monty. The case against Lechmere does have actual sworn evidence from a police officer that Lechmere lied to him as he was walking away from the murder scene in circumstances where Lechmere was the first to discover the body. That is proper evidence, the like of which we do not, I think, have against any other suspects. To counter this, in another thread you have had to fall back on the notion that the police officer was mistaken but, nevertheless, this is not proved and it remains the fact that the evidence of PC Mizen was that he was told by Lechmere that he was wanted by a policeman at the murder site when this was not true.

[Robert]

Hi Fish

First of all, I am not accusing you or Ed of lying.

Now, I have a question, and I guess this would apply to any documentary, JTR or otherwise, but I am asking you specifically about your one.

Documentaries cost a lot of money to make, and that money has to be recouped through sales. I'm therefore assuming that your experts' opinions, and their agreement to take part in the programme, were ascertained before the bulk of the doc was made (Blink wouldn't want to spend a lot of money only to find they were having trouble getting experts on board). Could you tell me whether Scobie et al were the first experts approached by Blink, or had other experts already been approached and either gave anti-Lechmere opinions or else gave pro-Lechmere views but refused to be filmed?