Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Fisherman]

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.

He said it in the interview.

It tallies exactly with what he said at the inquest.

There is no way you can "cherrypick" anything Paul said at the inquest that will go to dissolve the 3.45 time. He did not say at the inquest that he left home just before 3.40, did he?

End of story.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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.

Yes, it does dovetail perfectly. He left just before 3.45 as per the inquest, he was in Bucks Row exactly 3.45 as per the interview - which is what would happen if he left just before that time - and whatever Abberline may have thought or felt, the fact remains that Swanson ultimately opted for the body being found at 3.45, as per his 19:th of October report.

It is a perfectly consistent line of events, and 3.40 never enters it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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?

No, I cant, other to a very small extent. I was asked before the show got on the road if I had any perosnal thoughts about what would be good to include, and I then said that I would very much like for a seasoned murder investigator to take part and give his view. I had earlier mentioned this to Edward, and I think Edward in his turn had mentioned it to the crew as he spoke to them, because when I mentioned it myself, I got the immediate answer that they had been informed about my suggestion and that they had the perfect man. I can only surmise that this was Andy Griffiths, who had the ideal background: a non-ripperologist with a tremendeous clearance rate, very large experience - and his main field of studies (he is a doctor) is miscarriages of justice. He would therefore be very apt to see if there was any true ground of suspicions against Lechmere, and he would be very wary to look at all the material before judging.

As for Scobie, I donīt know if he was the first barrister approached. I can easily see if a barrister would not want to go on tv speaking of the Ripper case, since it is a case where many nutters have presented very odd cases, and where frauds and forgeries have been rife.
I can only say that I have heard nothing about any other barrister being approached myself.

Pluys, of course, I can also say that the pair confirmed what I had said for many years on Casebook. My contention is that unbiased professionals would do so on behalf ot the very good case against Lechmere, whereas many people out on Casebook would go out of their way to try and make the case and those who speak of it as not being honest/knowledgeable enough to understand the full picture.

I did not exclude the possibility that the experts that were engaged would be called into question as to their honesty. That has happened before, for example when I engaged Frank Leander regarding the Hutchinson affair. It never occured to me that the film team would stand accused for having dripfed the experts faulty or inadequate material, but that only goes to show that I may be a bit naive at times.

Itīs all happening now, anyway, and it is not pretty to watch.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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?

Lechmere said himself that if anybody had stirred down by Browns Stable Yard as he entered Bucks Row, he would surely have heard that. So I donīt think he was whistling.

As an aside, if he WAS whistling, donīt you think it is kind of odd that Paul didnīt hear that?

The timings are crucial. And you are quite correct that Neil did not find the body as Paul turned into Bucks Row.

The best,
Fisherman

[David Orsam]

There is no way you can "cherrypick" anything Paul said at the inquest that will go to dissolve the 3.45 time. He did not say at the inquest that he left home just before 3.40, did he?

No, that is perfectly true, he did not say that but then again we don't have his actual words and 3:38 is not very long before 3:45. But ultimately the problem is that, even if he had expressly said he left his home at, say 3:43, how do we have any assurance that his belief in that time - which of course conflicts with the time of others - was correct?

[Trevor Marriott]

... and demonstrably wrong.

Fisherman

Why is it wrong?

[Trevor Marriott]

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

With regards to the use of experts in cases, there are always experts who will be called upon to challenge the experts. So your experts opinions are in no way written in stone.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Monty]

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.

News reports? Not the full police transcriptions. Again, who provided this file?

I think my opinion is as relevant as any other persons. I donīt think your opinion is irrelevant. 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?

You've no exact knowledge of what Scobie based his opinion on? So you have followed his opinion in blind faith?

So why do you promote his opinion?

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.

No, I have chosen to question what material was provided which enabled your experts to reach their curious conclusions.

I refer to your interpretation of so called evidence claiming timings, alternate name etc as personal. All of which can be, and has been, reasonably countered.

How wonderful.

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

Ah, ill informed and therefore reliant on information provided by?

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.

Their opinions are curious with regards the entire evidence so far known and the fact that you rely on selected news reports.

In what manner?

In that your overall impression is incorrect

Monty

[David Orsam]

the fact remains that Swanson ultimately opted for the body being found at 3.45, as per his 19:th of October report.

Well, as we've discussed before, the problem with relying on Swanson's report is that it means you then have to believe that, despite Mrs Long saying in her inquest testimony in the Chapman murder that she saw a man and woman talking at "about 5:30am" on 8 Sept 1888, Swanson had magically managed to establish that this happened at exactly 5:30am (because this is the time recorded in his report of 19 Oct into the Chapman Murder), that when Timothy Donovan last saw Annie Chapman alive it was not "shortly before 2 o'clock" as Donovan said in his evidence at the inquest but exactly 2:00am as Swanson has it in his report and that when John Richardson said that he went to 29 Hanbury Street at "between a quarter and twenty minutes to five" this was in fact at precisely 4:45am because this is the time in Swanson's report. I could go on but the absurdity of relying for precise times on Swanson - who signed off four separate reports on four different murders on 19 October 1888 (and was thus rather busy) - should be clear to you.

[The Good Michael]

Mike, I think you have misunderstood the point. The evidence in the case - by which I mean the police evidence - is that Cross lied to Mizen. That is the evidence. Now, you can personally interpret that evidence any way you like but that doesn't change what the evidence is. Let me try and make it a bit clearer for you. If PC Mizen had said in his sworn evidence that he saw Cross cut the throat of Polly Nichols (but Cross denied it) that would be the evidence in the case. Mizen might have been lying or mistaken in either his identification of Cross or his understanding of what he had seen but the police evidence in the case would be that Mizen saw Cross murder Nichols. That in itself would not necessarily prove that Cross was the killer. It's the same with Mizen's evidence about what Cross said to him. You can try and explain it away as much as you like but it is the evidence in the case.

Wait! There is no case. This is inquest stuff. If there were charges brought up against Cross and Mizen stuck to his statement, then there would be evidence against him. In an inquest, there is no evidence aganst anyone. There are only statements, and these went unpursued.

Mike

[Fisherman]

No, that is perfectly true, he did not say that but then again we don't have his actual words and 3:38 is not very long before 3:45. But ultimately the problem is that, even if he had expressly said he left his home at, say 3:43, how do we have any assurance that his belief in that time - which of course conflicts with the time of others - was correct?

3.38 is not very long before 3.45, thatīs correct. It is actually not extremely long before 4.00 either. But it is not "just before" either of these times. It is just before 3.39 and 3.40.
When somebody says "just before", to my ears that means in close proximity to. Thatīs why I would have believed in 3.40 if Paul had said "I left home just before 3.40". Why would he say that he left home just before 3.45 if he left home just before 3.40...?

How do we have any assurance that his belief was correct? We donīt have any assurance that any of the timings given by Paul or the PC:s involved are correct. But we DO have Paul saying in his interview that it was EXACTLY 3.45 as he passed down Bucks Row. And we DO know that none of the PC:s said that their timings were exact.
We also know that Paul would have taken a keen interest in the time, since he knew he was late, and had every reason to keep track of the time.
The PC:s would arguably not have had that awareness of the time, since they were not late - it was business as usual for them up til the time things started to happen.

I am not sure about how many clocks were around the site, and if they struck the quarter hours. But if there was such a clock nearby - or reasonably nearby; any clock would have carried itīs sound for long stretches on a silent, still and quiet morning) - then I think that Paul could be referring to hearing such a clock at the exact time he passed up Bucks Row.
Equally, this suggested quarter hour strike could have been what the PC:s heard and noted - and what they had in mind as they witnessed at the inquest.

We will never know for sure. But we DO know that Paul claimed that it was exactly 3.45, and that is not information that has a sensationalist value to it, so it would not have been the reporters invention. Nor would Paul have had any reason at all to invent it if it was not true. I therefore think it is the best bid we have, especially since it makes the Thain timings for the trek to Llewellyns place easier to fit into a logically working schedule.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Why is it wrong?

Mizen could not possibly have met Lechmere at 4.15. That HAS to be factually wrong.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

With regards to the use of experts in cases, there are always experts who will be called upon to challenge the experts. So your experts opinions are in no way written in stone.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Fine. Go ahead!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Monty:

News reports? Not the full police transcriptions. Again, who provided this file?

Somebody else than me. But as I said, Griffiths was very well read up, and you need to accept that.

You've no exact knowledge of what Scobie based his opinion on? So you have followed his opinion in blind faith?

No, I have not. I was told by the film crew that Scobie was presented with the relevant material he needed to make a decision, that it was a voluminous material, and that the members of the film crew were impressed about how quickly Scobie took in and processed the information.

I had no reason to assume that Scobie was given anything but a relevant material, and I am convinced that this was what happened.

So why do you promote his opinion?

An irrelevant question, given the above.

No, I have chosen to question what material was provided which enabled your experts to reach their curious conclusions.

If that was true, I would dislike it a lot less. But the truth of the matter is that you have from the outset implied that the experts were drip-fed material (your wording), and that cannot be interpreted as anything else than a conscious act aimed to scew.
You therefore interpret things with a sinister slant, and you do so with no evidence at all.

I am repeatedly told that we should not convict Lechmere on circumstantial evidence only. I would ask you not to try and convict the documentary on no evidence at all other than your personal suspicions that Blink Films may have lied, scewed and acted dishonestly. Before anybody suggests or hints at such a thing, the decent thing to do is to secure evidence to support it.

Do you have that evidence?

Ah, ill informed and therefore reliant on information provided by?

Ill informed? No, neither Scobie nor Griffiths are ill informed. They are instead extremely WELL informed about the matters they were asked about. What was wanted from their side was their unbiased opinions about the value of the clues involved in the Lechmere case from a police angle and a legal ditto.
To claim that they are for some reason less worthy commentators because they are not ripperologists is not intellectually tenable. The whole point of the exercise was to let them look at the material and draw their own conclusions from that, based on their private experiences.
Do you object against Arthur Ingrams input on Pickfords because he is not a ripperologist? Should he be rejected for not knowing who Mrs Fiddymont was? Or should we accept that his expertise contributes to our overall knowledge?
The exact same goes for Griffiths and Scobie - far from being "ill informed", they are top class experts on police work and legal matters, and they applied their knowledge to the case too.

Like I say, I was not involved with Scobie at all, but I WAS involved with Andy Griffiths, and the conversations we had put it beyond doubt that he was very well read up on the details of the case, and that he had spent considerable time gaining this knowledge. Regardless of what issues I brought up, he was aquainted with the particulars, and he often checked with me on different details. For example, when we re-enacted the meeting between Lechmere and Paul, he knew quite well how it all went down, what Lechmere had said, where Paul saw Lechmere, Pauls timings, the hand on the shoulder, what Lechmere said, who did what when examining the body, the position of the clothing etcetera. And thatīs just one example of many. I have no recollection of any detail where Andy did NOT seem read up.

In Scobies case, I canīt guarantee much at all, since we never met. But I would be amazed if they gave one man the relevant material only to then hold it back from the next man.

Their opinions are curious with regards the entire evidence so far known and the fact that you rely on selected news reports.

Their opinions are not curious at all, and thatīs what Iīve been saying for years. You have not agreed with me, nor have many others, but Griffiths and Scobie nevertheless confirmed my views.
After that, you have given birth to the idea that experts cannot save a bad theory, but that proposition of a Catch 22 falls on the fact that not all think that the theory IS bad. Itīs a matter of interpretation, and out on Casebook, I find that fair interpretations when it comes to suspects are as rare as henīs teeth. Which is the exact reason why Scobie and Griffiths are invaluable.

In that your overall impression is incorrect

Since your answer lacks the pertinent information: In what exact manner is my overall impression incorrect? I would be grateful if you answered in more detail.

The best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

Mizen could not possibly have met Lechmere at 4.15. That HAS to be factually wrong.

The best,
Fisherman

Another pointer to discredit Mizen then?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk