The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Trevor Marriott]

Sally if you have time to comment before and after you also have time to view - it is on again tonight so you have another chance. Until then au revoir.

Chris you have not quoted correctly in your second post there - re read it in its entirety.
Again the absence of evidence in this instance is telling.
The blood seepage observation is of prime importance. I hope you can get that?

Pc Thain
"On the spot where the deceased had been lying there was a mass of congealed blood, he should say it was 6in in diameter and had run towards the gutter. It appeared to him to have been a large quantity of blood"

Coroner
"he helped to put the body on the ambulance and the back appeared to be covered with blood which he thought had run from the neck as far as the waist"

So seepage is wrong there was a large flow from the neck some of which went down her back, some went on the ground. So the seepage angle doesn't stand up

[Sally]

Sally if you have time to comment before and after you also have time to view - it is on again tonight so you have another chance. Until then au revoir.

Oh no, that doesn't follow at all, I'm afraid - posting takes but a minute over a cup of tea. But I'll think about it, just for you.

In the meantime, I shall watch with interest to see whether you continue to dodge the straightforward questions being put to you here.

Au Revoir!

[Abby Normal]

whats the point trying to be made with the seepage/ no blood on the shoes etc.?

[Whislet]

Hi. New to this so please forgive me if I am on the wrong thread etc.

I would just like to make a few observations that may or may not have been made before, but here goes.

1, Why did Lechmere not flee, why did he go to the police and attend the inquest?

After informing the police officer about the woman they had found he continued to walk with Paul.
They will not have walked in silence, he may well have given details to paul as to why he was walking the streets so early – that he was going to work.
When they separated paul would have had a very good idea as to where Lechmere worked due to the direction he was headed and Lechmere would also have been wearing his work clothes. Lechmere knew this.

Once Paul had come forward to the police then Lechmere knew he had to act and act fast
All the police would have had to do was ask Lechmeres employers for a list of who started work at 4am and Paul could have simply identified Lechmere to the police. Plus the police would have found out that he had given a false name.
Lechmere did not come forward because he was innocent but quite the opposite.


Why give the name of Cross and motive for killing:

He gave the name of cross because it was not a total lie but a lie he could explain away- he could say that he always prefers to refer to himself by his stepfathers name. The main thing is that he did not want to give his real name, he wanted to just slip away into anonymity, the name was given on the spur of the moment, any name, the 1st that came to his mind…cross.
The 2nd reason – because it was the name of his step father**

Motive.
I think the urge to kill was seeded in his youth.
I think that his mum showed more affection to her new husband and that Lechmere felt left out, or possibly that his stepfather was too strict or cruel with him and his mother did not step in to help, either way this left a huge mark on him emotionally.
Cross was a police officer and this manifested an hatred of the police in Lechmere’s mind.
His mother and her actions during his youth cemented a 2nd hatred of women.
Whatever the reason behind his recent move being the final straw that broke the camel’s back.

Lots of serial killers try to hide their murders so that they can continue to ride the thrills, Lechmere did not, he wanted the police to find them, he wanted to hurt women (his mother) and the police (his stepfather).

**He obviously knew that he himself was the murderer, he gave the police the name of the murderer, he gave them the name of a fellow police officer –
cross - The murderer of his mother affections.

[moonbegger]

" John Richardson, the son of a woman living in the house, states that, in accordance with his usual practice, he entered the place when on his way to work at Leadenhall Market, and at that time, 4.50, he was certain no one was in the yard. " (Evening Standard)
Richardson would have been literally 2 feet away from the body , it seems hardly likely that he could have missed it if it had been there. Worse , the smell of blood and viscera would have been in the air had the body been decapitated.
I feel that the police questioned Richardson's testimony because they felt he contradicted Dr Phillip's time of death ( the police would naturally support their own surgeon ) but Wynne Baxter accepted that Richardson was telling the truth. There would seem to be no point in Richardson lying to the court and it seems hardly likely he would have missed the body if it had been there , so I think we have to believe him.

Richardson was only there to check the lock ( Low to his right ) , Chapman would have been low to his immediate left .. the out swinging door along with recess shading would have made it tough to make out anything , especially as she was tucked in between the steps and the fence . Check out James Mason's Hanbury street youtube vid .. it would really not be difficult to miss her .. Along with Wolfs ( Eddows ) TOD comparisons , and the idea of the Killer risking a daylight kill , I think we have enough to strongly doubt a post Richardson kill .

moonbegger .

[Robert]

Hi Moonbegger

I think we need to know if Richardson had a cold (though I don't suppose we will ever know). I think Simon's point about the smell is quite a good one.

[moonbegger]

Hi Moonbegger

I think we need to know if Richardson had a cold (though I don't suppose we will ever know). I think Simon's point about the smell is quite a good one.

Hello Robert , I will hold my hands up and confess that I am fortunate enough to have never been in close proximity to a freshly mutilated body , so I can really not address that particular aspect , and will leave it to others , but there are clearly questions to be asked such as ... How sweet smelling was that particular yard on any given day of the week , especially as the out houses were in very close proximity ? Along with the wonderful aroma attached to the cats meat business that was operating out of that same house . Also CrossMere & Paul mentioned no smell of fresh Blood and opened stomach , and they was actually right over Polly . Also Kellys room must have reeked to high heaven , but still even with broken windows , not one person in the court made any mention of a foul smell coming from her room .. Along with all the slaughter houses in the area , I think foul smells and immunity to them , was all part and parcel of the every day life in Spitalfields ..

cheers , moonbegger .

[Hatchett]

Hi,

I think a point to remember is that the majority of people living in Whitechapel were decent people struggling and doing their best under a very difficult situation. People will always react the same. If there is filth they will put down some sort of disinfection. The disinfection in those days was very primative and would have had a very pungent smell. It could have been the smell of disinfectant that masked to a great extent the smell of blood and carnage or limited it to the normal smells of killed rabbits and chickens, and the smells of the slaughter houses, which too would have been mixed with the smell of disinfectants.

[Chris]

Going back to Mr Scobie, I see that Christer Holmgren has quoted him on jtrforums as saying:
"What we would say, is that he´s got a prima faciae case to answer, which means it´s a good enough case to put before a jury and that suggests he was the killer."

http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=252786&postcount=212

Unfortunately, as Trevor Marriott points out, Mr Scobie is indeed wrong about the requirement for putting the case before a jury. A prima facie case isn't enough. It requires a more than even chance of a conviction, which of course involves consideration of the likely defence arguments. That's made quite clear by the CPS guidance:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/codetest.html

The question of whether there really is a prima facie is a separate one, of course.

[Fisherman]

Going back to Mr Scobie, I see that Christer Holmgren has quoted him on jtrforums as saying:
"What we would say, is that he´s got a prima faciae case to answer, which means it´s a good enough case to put before a jury and that suggests he was the killer."

http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=252786&postcount=212

Unfortunately, as Trevor Marriott points out, Mr Scobie is indeed wrong about the requirement for putting the case before a jury. A prima facie case isn't enough. It requires a more than even chance of a conviction, which of course involves consideration of the likely defence arguments. That's made quite clear by the CPS guidance:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/codetest.html

The question of whether there really is a prima facie is a separate one, of course.

Chris, Chris...!

Here´s what I provided the good Mr Marriott with:

In common parlance the term prima facie is used to describe the apparent nature of something upon initial observation. In legal practice the term generally is used to describe two things: the presentation of sufficient evidence by a civil claimant to support the legal claim (a prima facie case), or a piece of evidence itself (prima facie evidence).
For most civil claims, a plaintiff must present a prima facie case to avoid dismissal of the case or an unfavorable directed verdict. The plaintiff must produce enough evidence on all elements of the claim to support the claim and shift the burden of evidence production to the respondent. If the plaintiff fails to make a prima facie case, the respondent may move for dismissal or a favorable directed verdict without presenting any evidence to rebut whatever evidence the plaintiff has presented. This is because the burden of persuading a judge or jury always rests with the plaintiff.

A case MUST be a prima faciae case to be able to reach a trial. It means that there is, and I quote: sufficient evidence by a civil claimant to support the legal claim

If you think that you are in a position to teach James Scobie about what he can take to trial, then you are being ridiculous. I don´t know if you noticed how Scobie desribed the evidence against Lechmere as such? He said that piecing things together in the Lechmere case, the prosecution would have "the most probative, powerful material a court can use".

What you are doing now is to try and dribble with things. But you are getting yor legs in a twist, I´m afraid.

I´m off now, because things are getting out of hand.

When I come back, I hope you have reconsidered Scobies qualifications and claims.

And your own, not least.

The best,
Fisherman

[Stewart P Evans]

Time

...
In fact Pc Neil doesnt mention any time in his testimony, and the only time Pc Mizen mentions is 4.15 am. What a fiasco with the times. Times which you heavily rely on

P.C. 97J Neil, reports at 3.45 on 31st inst. he found the body of a woman lying on her back... - Inspector Spratling, Friday 31 August, 1888, MEPO 3/140 f239.

[Chris]

Fisherman

All the stuff about civil cases is quite irrelevant to criminal cases.

As for "experts" not making mistakes, well obviously they do.

[Stewart P Evans]

And...

Fisherman
All the stuff about civil cases is quite irrelevant to criminal cases.
As for "experts" not making mistakes, well obviously they do.

And, of course, they very often disagree with each other, espousing opposing viewpoints.

[PaulB]

And, of course, they very often disagree with each other, espousing opposing viewpoints.

No they don't.

[GUT]

The real test is will you even get a committal where the test is, could a jury properly instructed on the law convict. At that stage the defence has the option of reserving or presenting some, or all of it's evidence.

And the issue of prima facie case is very much a part of a criminal trial.

And Scobie, or anyone else saying that there is a good enough case to put before a jury is totally irrelevant, I've seen some real dogs go before juries.

Lets pick 12 random Casebooksers and see if you get anywhere near a conviction.