Lechmere Continuation Thread

[Simon Wood]

Hi Pierre,

A word to the wise.

Quit whilst you're behind.

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

Pierre:

Yes, it is actually only a condition that the individual is close to what you call "murder spots" to be relevant at all. I think you are using the word "close" since that is what you think, and what I think, Lechmere was.

But then the problems start to mount up. It is not enough for an individual to be at one murder site. You have to find evidence saying that he was at the other murder sites as well.

That will to a large degree be ruled by the rarity of the kiling method, and the Ripper was a very rare beast. So making the assumption that finding the killer of Nichols is equivalent to having found the Ripper and the VERY probable killer of the other "ripped" victims from 1888, is a very sound thing to do.
As such, I dont care much that it may be a wrongful assumption - 99 per cent of the ones with an interest in the murders will agree nevertheless. And rightly so.
We are not discussing legal applications - we are discussing likelihoods attaching to serial killers. Keep that in mind.

[Fisherman]

Hi Pierre,

A word to the wise.

Quit whilst you're behind.

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: If only murder investigations were as simple as that. You have been watching to many murder programs where they solve them in 50 mins.

Mmmm - and I have spent thirty years plus looking into the Ripper case. For the record, I am not saying that they solve cases in fifty minutes. In the Black case, it was painstaking and time consuming enough, that´s for certain. But once they felt they had their man, it WAS easy enough to check his petrol bills. Black saved them to get money back from the company where he worked.
So you are wrong once more, Trevor.

But if Cross didnt agree with the police evidence it was his right to say so was it not, and for someone else within the higher echelons of the police to question the officers to try to establish the truth. Those issues should not be held against Cross after all he may have been telling the truth!

This is so poorly worded I cannot make heads or tails of it. But I do know that it has notbing to do with the geography issue, so I am predisposing that you are changing the goalposts.

Any geographical profiling goes out the window if the killer didnt live in an around Whitechapel but simply came into the area from outside to kill and then exited thereafter.

And it stays well inside the window in Lechmere´s case, since he lived in Doveton Street. And it him and his routes that are scrutinized here.

But other men presumably would take that route to work within the time parameters. What about if Paul had come along first and found the body before Cross arrived would you still be saying he was the killer. You are doing nothing but clutching at straws. You have no perception of evidence or its interpretation or how to evaluate it.

You cannot prove an accurate time of death

So your odds are slashed by half. then out of the remaining half, you have the thousands of males all crammed into Whitechapel all perhaps likely to have been the killer.

Yawn. How many of them were in Bucks Row at 3.45? How many of them were found with the freshly slain body of Nichols? How many of them disagreed with the police?
To quote Griffiths: Before Lechmere can be cleared, there is no need to look any further. Noone else in the district is under suspicion on factual, caserelated grounds. End of. Lechmere IS. End of.

What about before he can be a suspect there has to be some evidence. The statement indicates that there is evidence again misleading is it not. Where is the factual evidence to make him a suspect? I still stand by my previous statements that Griffiths and Scobie were not provided with the full facts relating to both sides of the argument that we are now having

Remember someone has to find the body. Would you still be pursing the same line if the body had been found by Fanny Arbuckle on her way to the factory. or one of the many homeless street urchins ?|

[B]Yes, I would work with the exact same methodology. I would check the surrounding circumstances, I would check the geography, I would do all I could to look into the particulars. And I would try to stay unprejudiced.[B]

You couldnt stay unprejudiced if you life depended on it !

So you are wrong again.

Its always us that are wrong, never you is it? You think you have all the answers but you are so misguided in your belief, and your whole obsessive approach to this issue is there for all to see.

You keep comparing modern day serial killers with this killer, there really is no proper comparison because everything was so different 127 years ago. How many murder victims die in this day and age through having their throats cut? Very few. But it is a fact that more do die from being stabbed.

I do not wish to engage further with you and I would urge the others who you constantly argue the same issues over and over again to do the same, because you are not going to accept or even consider any argument or any major points, and there have been many posted here to negate this theory.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"The evidence never lies, but it doesn't always tell the truth"

[harry]

It is quite apparent that posters arguing against me do not know the difference between evidence and information.They do not know the law.Fisherman has admitted it.They are accusing Cross on se veral accounts,none of which is supported by evidence.That he was a vicious serial killer,that he lied under oath. That he is suspect,but suspect of what? The best rebuttal to their claims of course,is not myself ,but the investigating officers of that time,several who are recorded as reporting there were no suspects,and no evidence pointing to the ripper murderer.If arrogance will allow them that.
In a nswer to what I would do if I was the investigating officer of that time is simple.I would say what they said,which in fact,if they read my posts properly,is what I have been doing.But then Ivé never been a police officer.Have they?

[Damaso Marte]

If harry were to apply his standards for discussing Lechmere as a suspect to Ripperology generally, he would soon be forced to conclude that we cannot discuss any suspects at all.

As evidence-poor as the case against Lechmere is, the case against everyone else is just as poor or poorer. At least Lechmere can be placed at a murder scene, unlike say Kozminski (who most people would say is a stronger suspect than Lechmere, but for whom there is no known evidence).

If we're going by courtroom rules, we might as well shut down all of Casebook as an abomination against due process.

[Fisherman]

It is quite apparent that posters arguing against me do not know the difference between evidence and information.They do not know the law.Fisherman has admitted it.They are accusing Cross on se veral accounts,none of which is supported by evidence.That he was a vicious serial killer,that he lied under oath. That he is suspect,but suspect of what? The best rebuttal to their claims of course,is not myself ,but the investigating officers of that time,several who are recorded as reporting there were no suspects,and no evidence pointing to the ripper murderer.If arrogance will allow them that.
In a nswer to what I would do if I was the investigating officer of that time is simple.I would say what they said,which in fact,if they read my posts properly,is what I have been doing.But then Ivé never been a police officer.Have they?

So Fisherman "has admitted" that he does not know the law? I do not practice law, and I do not know as much about it as those who DO practice law, that is all I have said.

Then again, James Scobie DOES practice law, so let´s look at what HE says about Lechmere:

He is somebody who seems to be acting in a way, behaving in a way, that is suspicious.

You, Harry, seem to be the one who cannot tell the difference between evidence and proof, and who does not realize what suspicion is. Now that a REAL expert has established this, the discussion is over.

No need to thank me for helping you out...

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott:

Its always us that are wrong, never you is it?

Generally speaking, yes, comparing you and me. Or do you think you are correct half of the times you suggest that Lechmere is a "non-starter"?

You think you have all the answers but you are so misguided in your belief, and your whole obsessive approach to this issue is there for all to see.

You are not exactly invisible yourself.

You keep comparing modern day serial killers with this killer, there really is no proper comparison because everything was so different 127 years ago. How many murder victims die in this day and age through having their throats cut? Very few. But it is a fact that more do die from being stabbed.

128 years ago, Trevor.

I do not wish to engage further with you and I would urge the others who you constantly argue the same issues over and over again to do the same, because you are not going to accept or even consider any argument or any major points, and there have been many posted here to negate this theory.

Urge away.

[harry]

Damaso Marte,
What rules then would you choose we use,or should it be open slather?
It was a case of murder,surely we should use the laws that apply to murder.
In my last post it is clear I used the comments of officers of the period,not laws or rules.

Fisherman,
"he is someone who seems to be acting in a way,behaving in a way,that is suspicious". Where is the evidence or proof in that sentence ,that he cut a woman's throat and mutila ted her body.. "Seems to be".Not very convincing.What sort of behaviour,and w hy suspicious?Not very descriptive.
So we've looked at what he(Scobie)said.Does it amount to enough to convince a magistrate that a prima facia case of murder exists.
When I stop laughing,i'll tell you.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
"he is someone who seems to be acting in a way,behaving in a way,that is suspicious". Where is the evidence or proof in that sentence ,that he cut a woman's throat and mutila ted her body.. "Seems to be".Not very convincing.What sort of behaviour,and w hy suspicious?Not very descriptive.
So we've looked at what he(Scobie)said.Does it amount to enough to convince a magistrate that a prima facia case of murder exists.
When I stop laughing,i'll tell you.

Harry.

I do not know how many more times I have the patience to say this to you. I would be eternally grateful if you caught on this time, and we´d be done with it.

Scobie said that Lechmere seemed to be acting in a way that was suspicious. That is the whole idea of the term "suspicious" - it is all about what SEEMS to be. When you feel that somebody acts in a suspicious way, you hold the opinion that what this man or woam does SEEMS to be strange/odd/deviating in a manner that evokes suspicion.

You may for example find it suspicious if a man fumbles with a gun outside a bank, wearing a balaclava. In such a case, you may SUSPECT that he is about to rob the bank.

That is the whole meaning of a suspicion - it is a feeling we have that somebody is up to (or have been up to) no good.

Does that suspicion have to involve proof that the man outside the bank will rob it - or have robbed it? No, it does not. If we had proof that the man was about to rob the bank or had already done so, then we would no longer entertain suspicion against him. We would, instead of suspecting him to be a bankrobber, actually KNOW that he was.

It is not a very subtle difference we are talking about here, as you hopefully grasp by now. It is like comparing an elephant to a matchbox, a prayer to an oceanliner or an ignorant man to an enlightened one.

Laugh away, Harry, all you can. It will make you look very silly, but maybe you think silly is good. By now, I really cannot tell.

[Fisherman]

Here´s a little something for you to laugh about, Harry. It´s the definition of suspect taken from The Free Dictionary:

sus·pect (sə-spĕkt′)
v. sus·pect·ed, sus·pect·ing, sus·pects
v.tr.
1. To consider (something) to be true or probable on little or no evidence: I suspect they are very disappointed.
2. To have doubts about (something); distrust: I suspect his motives.
3. To consider (a person) guilty without proof: The police suspect her of murder.

The underlinings are mine. Laugh away, Harry; laugh away!

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi, Fisherman and harry.
The full quote as given by Scobie is, I believe:
'He is somebody who seems to be acting in a way that is suspicious, which a jury would not like. When the coincidences mount up against a defendant, it becomes one coincidence too many.'.

The context appears clear from his statement; he very much seems to be referring to the notion that a prosecutor could well construct a broader case against Lechmere/Cross, in a courtroom. Such a presentation would consider not just his closeness to the first murder but also his likely movements within the areas and at the times the other murders occurred.



Yours, Caligo

[John G]

Damaso Marte,
What rules then would you choose we use,or should it be open slather?
It was a case of murder,surely we should use the laws that apply to murder.
In my last post it is clear I used the comments of officers of the period,not laws or rules.

Fisherman,
"he is someone who seems to be acting in a way,behaving in a way,that is suspicious". Where is the evidence or proof in that sentence ,that he cut a woman's throat and mutila ted her body.. "Seems to be".Not very convincing.What sort of behaviour,and w hy suspicious?Not very descriptive.
So we've looked at what he(Scobie)said.Does it amount to enough to convince a magistrate that a prima facia case of murder exists.
When I stop laughing,i'll tell you.

But if your suggesting that we shouldn't even discuss a suspect unless there was evidence beyond all reasonable doubt that he committed an offence, then all suspect threads would have to be closed down.

In fact, in a criminal case the evidential burden on the prosecution isn't even that onerous and, if it were, there would be little point in proceeding to trial as guilt would already have been proven:

"The evidential burden of proof is the burden of proving that there is some evidence of a fact in issue. By 'some evidence of a fact in issue' we mean evidence on which the jury would be entitled to resolve that fact in issue in favour of the party adducing that evidence...at the end of the prosecution's case the accused may make a submission of no case to answer. Such a submission essentially entails arguing that, in respect of one or more facts in issue, the prosecution has failed to adduce some evidence, on which the jury would be entitled to resolve that fact in issue in favour of the prosecution." (Charleton J, in DPP v Kieran Smyth (Snr) and Kieran Smyth (Jnr). See: http://www.cram.com/flashcards/evide...-cases-2156610

[John G]

Hi, Fisherman and harry.
The full quote as given by Scobie is, I believe:
'He is somebody who seems to be acting in a way that is suspicious, which a jury would not like. When the coincidences mount up against a defendant, it becomes one coincidence too many.'.

The context appears clear from his statement; he very much seems to be referring to the notion that a prosecutor could well construct a broader case against Lechmere/Cross, in a courtroom. Such a presentation would consider not just his closeness to the first murder but also his likely movements within the areas and at the times the other murders occurred.



Yours, Caligo

Yes, I would tend to agree with this. It seems to mean, as I've argued that Mizen's evidence raises a suspicion against Cross. And I certainly don't accept that the default position should be to believe Cross, particularly as PC Mizen had an impeccable record. Nor do I accept the somewhat strange argument of one poster: that PC Mizen might not have had an impeccable record, i.e. on the basis of some, hitherto, undisclosed information. I mean, on that basis you could simply argue that Cross is probably guilty, on the grounds that there might be some other as yet undiscovered evidence against him.

Nonetheless, PC Mizen may have lied, or Cross could have had an innocent reason for lying. What is frustrating is that the normally robust coroner, Wynne Baxter, clearly no shrinking violet, doesn't appear to have challenged the evidence of either witness: he acted very differently in the Austin case, where a number of witnesses appeared to have lied, in what was probably a major cover up.

Moreover, as your post implies, I do think more evidence would be required to warrant committing Cross to trial, such as a connection to the subsequent "Whitechapel" murders, let alone to determine him to be guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

However, the reality could have been conceivable different. In the Wallace Murder case there were many reasonable grounds for suspicion against the defendant, William Wallace, and also against another suspect, Gordon Parry, who may well have given John Parkes what amounts to a confession.

Parry, however, had a number of seemingly unbreakable alibis. Wallace was committed to trial, and subsequently found guilty. Perhaps not surprisingly the conviction was quashed on appeal, on the grounds that no reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty based upon the available evidence- a surely correct decision when you consider that, based upon the testimony of witnesses, it would have been a physical impossibility for him to have committed the crime within the likely available time frame.

[Fisherman]

Hi, Fisherman and harry.
The full quote as given by Scobie is, I believe:
'He is somebody who seems to be acting in a way that is suspicious, which a jury would not like. When the coincidences mount up against a defendant, it becomes one coincidence too many.'.

The context appears clear from his statement; he very much seems to be referring to the notion that a prosecutor could well construct a broader case against Lechmere/Cross, in a courtroom. Such a presentation would consider not just his closeness to the first murder but also his likely movements within the areas and at the times the other murders occurred.

Yours, Caligo

I think Scobie weighed in a large number of matters, like the name change, the pulled down clothing, how Paul did not say he had heard or seen Lechmere on his route, like the time Lechmere said he left home, like how he reused to help prop Nichols up etcetera.
That, I beleive, is why Scobie said the coincidences mounted up - there were very many of them.
He also specifically spoke of how he disliked the talk about coincidences that was prevalent in many cases; they will not be around in large numbers, was a point he pressed, although it did not make it into the doocumentary. I have seen the snippet, though, and I thoroughly agree. The case against Lechmere is n ot one where any of the points made against him will on it´s own bring him down. It is and remains the combined weight, the mounting up of coincidences, that points a finger at the man who in all probability killed Poly Nichols and the rest of the ripped 1888 victims.
To my mind, there can be no trustworthy doubt that the Ripper was also the Torso killer, and therefore Lechmere must be the prime suspect for that series too, at least in my book.