What was Kosminski is now Lechmere: how relevant is Scobie?

[ohrocky]

Surely the entire Scobie issue could be firmly put to bed (one way or the other) if the complete, unredacted bundle that was presented to him, and upon which he reached his conclusions, was to be published in its entirety. I have suggested this here before but it hasn't happened.

I would have thought that Fisherman would do so without question if it would put an end to the constant challenges and doubt about Scobie's conclusions.

[Robert]

Heaven knows I am not a Lechmerian, but I would have thought that if Scobie, a top barrister with a reputation to maintain, felt that his views had been misrepresented in some way, then he'd have complained by now.

[rjpalmer]

It's not difficult to figure out the data that Scobie must have used to make his judgement. Simply watch the documentary.

Just prior to Scobie's appearance, the narrator states:

"Wearing blood-stained clothing, [Lechmere's] job placed him at 4 of the 5 killings at the time they occurred. Another happened by his mother's house. Yet another on his old route to work. But will the case against Lechmere stand up in a modern court?" (Emphasis added).

After the commercial break, the camera goes straight to Scobie, who, in reviewing this evidence states that these "timings really hurt him," and that it's these "geographical details" that have convinced him that the case could go before a jury. 'One coincidence too many," or something along those lines.

We aren't shown the booklet he is reviewing, but the information within must be something along the lines of Michael Connor's article in Ripperologist #72 (see link below) that argues that Lechmere's journeys to and from work would place him at the scenes of the murders, and at the appropriate times. The "blood-stained clothing" evidently comes from the suggestion that Lechmere's job at Pickford's had him hauling for the knackers.

This appears to be the brunt of the case, though, of course, there could have been other factors, particularly the events in Buck's Row, plus any refinements added by Fisherman, etc.

https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio...les-cross.html

Even after reading the article, I'm not quite sure how Mr. Connor has concluded that Lechmere would have passed all of the crime scenes at the appropriate times, considering that, based on one's interpretation, the murders could span everything from 8 a.m in the morning all the way up to 1.45 a.m, 3.30 a.m, etc.

Lechmere seems to have had a rather rigorous workload. Adding his times of walking to and from work, he has a 21-22 hour per day work schedule. He leaves Doveton at 3.30 a.m., but is walking home from Pickford's at 1.30 a.m.? Am I missing something, Fish, or is Connor suggesting that Lechmere is working 20 hour shifts with less than two hours sleep between, along with a longish commute on foot thrown in? No wonder he was experiencing psychosis and running over street urchins!

If I was Scobie, I would defend the client on the grounds of "diminished capacity." Also known as the "Blinky Defense." The man was a
somnambulist.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's not difficult to figure out the data that Scobie must have used to make his judgement. Simply watch the documentary.

Just prior to Scobie's appearance, the narrator states:

"Wearing blood-stained clothing, [Lechmere's] job placed him at 4 of the 5 killings at the time they occurred. Another happened by his mother's house. Yet another on his old route to work. But will the case against Lechmere stand up in a modern court?" (Emphasis added).

After the commercial break, the camera goes straight to Scobie, who, in reviewing this evidence states that these "timings really hurt him," and that it's these "geographical details" that have convinced him that the case could go before a jury. 'One coincidence too many," or something along those lines.

We aren't shown the booklet he is reviewing, but the information within must be something along the lines of Michael Connor's article in Ripperologist #72 (see link below) that argues that Lechmere's journeys to and from work would place him at the scenes of the murders, and at the appropriate times. The "blood-stained clothing" evidently comes from the suggestion that Lechmere's job at Pickford's had him hauling for the knackers.

This appears to be the brunt of the case, though, of course, there could have been other factors, particularly the events in Buck's Row, plus any refinements added by Fisherman, etc.

https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio...les-cross.html

Even after reading the article, I'm not quite sure how Mr. Connor has concluded that Lechmere would have passed all of the crime scenes at the appropriate times, considering that, based on one's interpretation, the murders could span everything from 8 a.m in the morning all the way up to 1.45 a.m, 3.30 a.m, etc.

Lechmere seems to have had a rather rigorous workload. Adding his times of walking to and from work, he has a 21-22 hour per day work schedule. He leaves Doveton at 3.30 a.m., but is walking home from Pickford's at 1.30 a.m.? Am I missing something, Fish, or is Connor suggesting that Lechmere is working 20 hour shifts with less than two hours sleep between, along with a longish commute on foot thrown in? No wonder he was experiencing psychosis and running over street urchins!

If I was Scobie, I would defend the client on the grounds of "diminished capacity." Also known as the "Blinky Defense." The man was a
somnambulist.

Hi Roger,

By killing in Buck’s Row it appears that Lechmere wasn’t at all bothered about potentially incriminating himself. If, for example, he’d have been questioned for whatever reason after the murder of Eddowes then the police might have looked at him more closely and discovered that Nichols was murdered at a spot that he passed six days a week at roughly the same time on the way to work.

[drstrange169]

Sadly Christer refuses to stop hi-jacking the Kosminski thread despite given the opportunity to continue his posts in a more relevant thread.

As normal, to justify his actions, he simply lies, to wit, his post #249 on the Kosminski thread,

"The thread set up by Dr Strange was an unnecessary one (although claiming that I have ignored it is not true, ..."


Yet here in post #9 of this thread, Christer wrote,

"... I see little reason to encourage this manure production line by answering them any further."

An explicit declaration of an intention to ignore!

Simple solution, don't say you will not reply then continue to reply. If you don't have the self control to follow your own claimed convictions, at least to it in the proper place.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wearing blood stained overalls his job placed him at four of the killings at the time they occurred.

Has anyone ever found evidence that he wore bloodstained overalls for work or is this just a convenient assumption? After all Lechmere turned up at the Inquest in his work clothes, a course sacking apron, which no one mentioned being marked or stained with blood.

[drstrange169]

I believe "overalls" were invented in the 1890's in America, so if Lechmere was wearing blood stained ones, he would have stood out like a hippopotamus in an igloo.

Amendment!

Whoops ... just did a bit more research and overalls date back further than I thought.

[Sam Flynn]

he would have stood out like a hippopotamus in an igloo.

Fabulous analogy!

[Herlock Sholmes]

https://www.google.com/search?q=hippopotamus+in+an+igloo&rlz=1C9BKJA_enGB704GB704&oq=hippopotamus+in+an+igloo&aqs=chrome..69i57.19239j1j7&hl=en-GB&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=Cvg-mVMEOCpeTM:

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

But James Scobie QC believes the case against Charles Lechmere could be strong enough to take to a modern murder trial:

(NARRATOR)

What we would say is he's got a Prima Facie case to answer, which means a case good enough to put before a jury, that suggests that he was the killer.

(SCOBIE)



The fact that there was a pattern of offending, almost an area of offending, of (sic) which he is linked - geographically and physically - ... the prosecution have the most powerful material the courts use against individual suspects.

(James Scobie, QC, criminal barrister)



There was no pattern of offending nor any area of offending.

Tabram was murdered about an hour before Lechmere left home; Chapman was killed between 2 a.m. and 5.30 a.m., and therefore probably before Lechmere would have reached Spitalfields or too late for him to have avoided arriving late for work or when he was already at work; Stride and Eddowes were killed in the early hours of his rest day, when he was almost certainly in bed at home after a week of 14-18 hour shifts; Kelly was butchered when he was in bed on a holiday, had not yet set out for work, or was already at work.

Neither Mitre Square nor Berner Street could have been on his route to work.

Scobie's statements are without foundation.

[Trevor Marriott]

But James Scobie QC believes the case against Charles Lechmere could be strong enough to take to a modern murder trial:

(NARRATOR)

What we would say is he's got a Prima Facie case to answer, which means a case good enough to put before a jury, that suggests that he was the killer.

(SCOBIE)



The fact that there was a pattern of offending, almost an area of offending, of (sic) which he is linked - geographically and physically - ... the prosecution have the most powerful material the courts use against individual suspects.

(James Scobie, QC, criminal barrister)



There was no pattern of offending nor any area of offending.

Tabram was murdered about an hour before Lechmere left home; Chapman was killed between 2 a.m. and 5.30 a.m., and therefore probably before Lechmere would have reached Spitalfields or too late for him to have avoided arriving late for work or when he was already at work; Stride and Eddowes were killed in the early hours of his rest day, when he was almost certainly in bed at home after a week of 14-18 hour shifts; Kelly was butchered when he was in bed on a holiday, had not yet set out for work, or was already at work.

Neither Mitre Square nor Berner Street could have been on his route to work.

Scobie's statements are without foundation.

Scobie was misled and not given the full facts to give a proper legal opinion, he told me that himself following the airing of the program

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Scobie was misled and not given the full facts to give a proper legal opinion, he told me that himself following the airing of the program

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thanks for that information, Trevor, which entirely makes sense, but then the whole documentary was one big character assassination of Lechmere.

[Trevor Marriott]

Has anyone ever found evidence that he wore bloodstained overalls for work or is this just a convenient assumption? After all Lechmere turned up at the Inquest in his work clothes, a course sacking apron, which no one mentioned being marked or stained with blood.

Even in today's world of meat deliveries if you look at the delivery drivers they invariably have blood-stained overalls

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks for that information, Trevor, which entirely makes sense, but then the whole documentary was one big character assassination of Lechmere.

I think it was several ripper researchers over exaggerating the strength of their research which led to Scobie not being provided with the full facts as they are now known for the production company.

With television documentaries on the ripper that are suspect-based, they will always end with a statement from one of the participants saying that the suspect in question was JTR or similar wording

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fleetwood Mac]

He's a better suspect than most simply by virtue of being there.

But, there's nowhere near enough to argue much other than he was there.

As for a court of law, the case wouldn't make it beyond the most junior legal establishment.