The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Rob Clack]

Rob

Didn't I see a quote in a newspaper over the weekend where this Supt says that Lechmere is simply a person of interest ?

Not that I have seen Trevor. Didn't know if he was still alive or not. If he thinks Lechmere is a person of interest he might be going a bit ga ga.

[Monty]

No I wouldn't. I encounter every day strange decisons CPS officers make based on what is put before them

I am surprised you didn't mention the fact that when most senior officers attain the rank of inspector or above they become more involved in the administration than the actual investigation side of policing

I felt my point had been made.

Yes, CPS do make some seemingly odd choices, however they are considering the return for the investment. If anyone knows what exactly it takes to convict, it is they.

Monty

[Rob Clack]

I am surprised you didn't mention the fact that when most senior officers attain the rank of inspector or above they become more involved in the administration than the actual investigation side of policing

If I can stick my nose in here.

Swanson put a lot of leg work in the Pinchin Street case tracking down an important witness and getting his hands dirty.

Macnaghten was pretty much hands on as well, visiting crime scenes. Three cases I have been working on lately and he was at all of them as soon as he heard a murder had been committed.

So I don't think they were stuck behind the desk all the time, they liked to put themselves about.

[Monty]

Grievous also had glamorous multi millionairess La Cornwell fluttering around in front of him. How can Christer compete with that? Even I'd find it difficult!

Rank isn't irrelevant if it is joined to relevant experience Monty.
And the CPS are hardly a reliable source to use - now are they.
Come come Monty.

See above.

Rank has no bearing, from constable to commissioner, all are trained on evidence, therefore a constables opinion can be equally as valid as a supers.

This rank dropping is flattering to deceive.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

I felt my point had been made.

Yes, CPS do make some seemingly odd choices, however they are considering the return for the investment. If anyone knows what exactly it takes to convict, it is they.

Monty

Well they have to be sure they have more than a reasonable chance of securing a conviction. I have experienced cases where they have had very little evidence and still authorized charges being preferred. Only to have them dropped at court.

A lot depends on which CPS official get the task of making a decision. Most decisions made in todays policing by CPS are done via fax and telephone calls

So no they are not always the bees knees as many recent high profile cases have shown

[Chris]

Maybe this has already been discussed, but I was surprised by this in the Metro article entitled "Man found standing over Jack the Ripper’s first victim ‘was never a suspect’":

Barrister James Scobie QC believes that this evidence would have been sufficient to warrant a court case.
He added: ‘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’.

http://metro.co.uk/2014/11/16/man-found-standing-over-jack-the-rippers-first-victim-was-never-a-suspect-4950218/

Can a QC really believe that suspicion and coincidence would be sufficient?

[Monty]

Maybe this has already been discussed, but I was surprised by this in the Metro article entitled "Man found standing over Jack the Ripper’s first victim ‘was never a suspect’":

Barrister James Scobie QC believes that this evidence would have been sufficient to warrant a court case.
He added: ‘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’.

http://metro.co.uk/2014/11/16/man-found-standing-over-jack-the-rippers-first-victim-was-never-a-suspect-4950218/

Can a QC really believe that suspicion and coincidence would be sufficient?

Never underestimate the lure of publicity Chris.

It shall be interesting what to know what precise evidence QC Scobie assessed to draw this conclusion. What police reports were viewed, and so on.

As Christer has absented himsel no doubt Ed shall inform us precisely what info was provided.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

Robert Paul was already on his guard and strikes me as a man who suffered no fools, yet he obviously concluded that Cross was not at all suspicious. Had Cross actually been seen leaning over the body, that might have been a different matter.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

It shall be interesting what to know what precise evidence QC Scobie assessed to draw this conclusion. What police reports were viewed, and so on.

Yes, but what struck me was just the peculiarity of the bit about juries not liking suspicious behaviour.

I'd have expected any barrister, faced with such a proposition, to respond almost reflexively that suspicion was not enough.

[Lechmere]

Pay attention that man at the back - PC Bell isn't it? And do your top button up you scruffy constable.
(I have already stated that the witnesses were given full access).

All these PCs second guessing a murder squad superintendent - yeah all policemen are equal.
And all these experts being throwing at me - wow!
One of the more interesting features here is observing these Ripperologists blandly rubbishing the reputations of the expert witnesses without even having seen the program!
In the army there is a mantra - watch and shoot, watch and shoot.
In Ripperology it's - shoot and watch.

[Monty]

Pay attention that man at the back - PC Bell isn't it? And do your top button up you scruffy constable.
(I have already stated that the witnesses were given full access).

All these PCs second guessing a murder squad superintendent - yeah all policemen are equal.
And all these experts being throwing at me - wow!
One of the more interesting features here is observing these Ripperologists blandly rubbishing the reputations of the expert witnesses without even having seen the program!
In the army there is a mantra - watch and shoot, watch and shoot.
In Ripperology it's - shoot and watch.

Thank you for your responses...Sir.

'Full access' is a most ambiguous term. Are you stating the all surviving Whitechapel murder files? If so, who supplied these? Stewart Evans. Keith Skinner or National Archives?

However, before you answer, I must caution you. You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence....do you understand?

All other expert opinions do not matter...apart from experts who support your opinion huh?

Tis no wonders you empathise with Russ.

Monty

[Chris]

One of the more interesting features here is observing these Ripperologists blandly rubbishing the reputations of the expert witnesses without even having seen the program!

Is the programme going to reveal that the standard of proof in criminal proceedings has been secretly changed?

[moonbegger]

Looking forward to it , but I am currently in the frozen white north .. Guess I will have to view it on youtube .. although I do feel I have seen it many times before , in fact I am shocked I wasn't asked to play Devils advocate

All the best

moonbegger .

[Lechmere]

Ah Moonbeggar
I should be played in Canada soon enough.

With respect to the 'evidnce .' ab=vailable to the expert witnesses, I said earlier...

I did not tell any of the expert witnesses anything. They were provided with original records the press reports of the inquest and the initial police reports and other press reports, they were told about the theory and they drew their own conclusions. I know they also did their own checking and were no push overs and provided their own insights, with a fresh set of eyes.
No evidence was excluded.
The alternative explanations for events are obvious and do not take any intelligence to bring forward and weigh up.
I had a chat with Andy Griffiths and brought up some of the counter arguments which he dismissed with more rapidity than I would have done.
When I had a long briefing session with Blink they double checked everything I said and cross questioned me on virtually every substantive point after trawling trough Casebook.
When I met Blink I put forward the alternative explanations at each point in the narrative.
It was a thorough process.
The producer (David McNab) knew the entire Ripper story off pat and was previously (I think I’m right in saying) a misguided Tumbletyite.
The counter arguments are well known.

The information about the Nichols murder is contained in a few police files (which you don't have to go to the National Archives to view, nor approach Stewart Evans or Keith Skinner) and various newspaper accounts of the inquest and other events around that time. Not a vast amount of literature.

Monty
If you wish for my comments about other expert witnesses you will have to list them individually and their area of expertise and what they provided an expert opinion on. Then I would pass judgment on their relevance to the matter at hand.
Just saying that so and so was consulted over such and such is of no real help is it?

I wonder of the program will reveal that Chris knows more about criminal defence than a leading criminal defence barrister.

[Chris]

I wonder of the program will reveal that Chris knows more about criminal defence than a leading criminal defence barrister.

If Mr Scobie thought that suspicion was sufficient for a criminal conviction, Chris certainly would know more than he did!

But perhaps the Metro report gave a misleading impression. We'll see.