Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[David Orsam]

What's so difficult to understand? You know what "balance" means, don't you?

If there are two conflicting pieces of evidence, A and B, a balanced statement of the evidence includes them both. To say "The evidence is A" is patently unbalanced.

Think of a judge, summing up the evidence. Would he say to the jury "The evidence is A"?

I'm sorry but you're not making any sense to me. I'm obviously talking about the prosecution evidence in any case against Cross. When a judge sums up in a criminal trial he says "the evidence of the prosecution is A" and "the evidence of the defence is B". That's his job. It's then for the jury to come to a decision based on the all the evidence. When I say the evidence in the case is that Mizen said that Cross told him he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row I don't mean that this has been proven to have definitely been said. But it is the evidence in the case and whatever you say is not going to make this fact disappear.

[Dane_F]

This is slightly off topic from the current line of conversation but I just watched the documentary and it got me thinking.

We are presented with the logic that, "The wounds must be fresh because Paul and Lechmere didn't notice it but Mizen did." Would not a simpler explanation for Paul and Lechmere not seeing any blood be that they had no light to see it?

If the theory presented is she was strangled first and the blood flowed out without spraying then certainly in the darkness of night with no light it seems logical that one wouldn't notice it.

Obviously Paul and (for those who think Lechmere innocent) Lechmere didn't see the gaping neck wound because if they had there would have been no reason to get near her.

At best you can only argue Lechmere killed one person. I cannot see any hook or way to link him to any of the other murders. No history or tendency of violence. No showing of mania. No reason to believe he was even a law breaker of any kind. His path and time of work is not unique or alarming.

The night of the double event involves so many leaps of faith that I can't even begin to wrap my head around them. We have to assume he was even going to visit his mom and daughter. They could have just as easily went and visited him or been working or any number of thousands of other things. We have to assume he went and visited or at least stayed until late at night. Even though on any other night of the week odds are he would have been well asleep by that time due to having to wake up so early for work. We have to assume on the night of one of the bloodiest and grumsome of murders that he brought everything he would need with him while visiting family.

The single shred of evidence we really have against him is him being the first person to find this body. We are suppose to believe that this man who by all indications was stable and hardworking was actually a brutal killer who hears someone round the corner and is able to within the timeframe of less than a minute hide the wounds and was clear minded enough to fool another person without showing any signs of panic or worry? He sounds like a super villain and not human.

I propose another theory. What if JTR was scared off? What if he did hide the wounds? What if he did hear someone coming? What if the person he heard coming was Lechmere?

Jack the Ripper is the largest of fish and sadly the hook of Lechmere seems to be the smallest of kinds.

[Chris]

When I say the evidence in the case is that Mizen said that Cross told him he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row I don't mean that this has been proven to have definitely been said. But it is the evidence in the case and whatever you say is not going to make this fact disappear.

I should have known it was pointless to try to reason with you.

[David Orsam]

I should have known it was pointless to try to reason with you.

I would have welcomed reason but it was certainly pointless for you to attempt to argue with me over a matter of fact.

[Chris]

I would have welcomed reason but it was certainly pointless for you to attempt to argue with me over a matter of fact.

No. It really is pointless for anyone to try to reason with you.

[David Orsam]

No. It really is pointless for anyone to try to reason with you.

I don't think that is fair comment.

[Chris]

I don't think that is fair comment.

Well, in the circumstances you're hardly in a position to complain about that!

[David Orsam]

Well, in the circumstances you're hardly in a position to complain about that!

Are you one of those people who needs to have the last word in any debate, however meaningless? Well knock yourself out - if you want to make another rude post to me I won't bother responding.

[J6123]

Maybe Lechmere was whistling heigh-ho heigh-ho it's off to work we go very loudly as he turned into Buck's Row, hence he never heard Aaron Kosminski, or possibly David Cohen, escape.

Can you really put much emphasis on the time discrepancy? Were watches well synced in those days? Paul said he turned into Buck's Row at 03:45, yet in one account that's the same time PC Neil found the body?

[Fisherman]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

... and demonstrably wrong.

Fisherman

[Chris]

Are you one of those people who needs to have the last word in any debate, however meaningless?

This is a wind-up, surely?

[Fisherman]

Monty: You seem a little agitated Christer

More like sad, 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.

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

Hundreds of articles from heaps of papers - more or less the material you can reach from the press section here on Casebook, relating to the murder cases. And a number of police reports surrounding them. I wonīt be able to present a full listing though.

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 think my opinion is as relevant as any other persons. I donīt think your opinion is irrelevevant. I do have an idea what Scobie was presented with, but that does not mean that I know it.
I very much suspect that you will be presented with what material Scobie had at hand in the near future, and then it will be for you to decide whather the source is a reliable one.
If we had lived in a perfect world, the gentleman in you would already have made that decision in favour of the film team. But we donīt live in a perfect world, do we?

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.

No, Monty, the personal interepretation is on your behalf - and it lacks substantiation. You have been told that we believe that the correct material was used, but you have chosen not to believe it. That is where the interepretation comes in.

But as I said, I think you shall have it all revelealed to you in days to come.

Scobie and Griffiths are not Ripperologists - I specifically asked for a murder investigator with no previous interest at all in Ripperology. Unbiased, thus.

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.

Of course you are as worthy as anybody else of the truth. As far as I am concerned, I have given you nothing else than what I believe is the truth. I cannot answer for everybody involved, I did not make the documentary myself, and others will have to give you their answers - and as I have stated, I think they will.

The conclusions of Scobie and Griffiths were in no way curious. I had predicted for years that this would be the outcome once unbiased experts got to see the material.

The only curious thing surrounding the Lechmere theory is the outlandishly, freakishly and illogical naysaying that has been the result of itīs presentation.

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

In what manner?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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

I have seen that exact reaction from posters on the net. They have used the exact same wording, even. One of then said after having seen the documentary that he had studied the case for many years, and now he felt like a complete idiot for not having made Lechmere.

He said nothing about taking his hat off, though.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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

Monty

Present a theory.

Have it dissed by people who say "what do you know, you are not an expert!"

Engage experts.

Experts say "Yes, the theory is a good one!"

Tell the people.

Have it thrown back at you that "experts are not required if the theory has strong enough legs".

Catch 22.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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.

It does not work that way, David.

Paul or Mizen WAS wrong.

Paul was sure about the time, Mizen said "around 3.45".

Lechmere said 3.20 or 3.30.

We therefore have an exactly stated time to work from, an estimation that seems to have been wrong - and a time given by Lechmere that has nothing at all to do with this.

If we were to extend Mizens time trouble to Lechmere, we can just as well go the other way, taking us to 3.15 - 3.25, and then a 14-24 minute gap opens up.

Letīs try and stay on the logical side of things, shall we? Otherwise, before we know it, you may have to accept that Abberline was five minutes out - if Mizen could do it ...

The best,
Fisherman