The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Tom_Wescott]

Reporters will become woe to attach their names to the Ripper.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Trevor Marriott]

Ah - my former post was just the next last one!

Thanks for this, Tom - I much agree. And I have very clearly stated where I stand on Lechmere, so I want that respected.

Now, goodnight to you!

If you are still awake you might want to sit up.

Earlier today I sent an e mail to James Scobie in which I asked the following questions

1. Were you provided with "all" the witness testimony on the case?

2. If yes, did that include the coroners summing up at the inquest? (set out below)

3. If no then what exactly were you provided with?

Tonight James contacted me and we had a long in depth conversation regarding his involvement in the program. I was not able to make note or record it but some of what he did say is set out below

1. He says he never met Christer during the making of the program

2. He was not provided with the witness testimony but simply given by C5 what he describes as bullet points relating to the evidence, which he thinks originated from you, It was this that he was asked to read and give his opinion on.

3. He states that the sum total of his input was between 30-45 mins of which most as was seen was edited out.

4. He states when he was asked about Cross giving a false name and its importance he replied that in his opinion that was insiginficant to the other facts- edited out

5. He never saw the coroners summing up

6. He accepts that had he been shown the full facts then his opinion might have been different.

7. However he does state that given what he was shown Cross would no doubt been a person on interest to the police. However he also accepts that if Cross was ever interviewed and had given plausible explanations then he may well have been eliminated.

He states that his opinion regarding a prima faciae case is based solely on what was put before him, and accepts that it is not known what Cross might have said if the matter would have ever got to court.

8. As to him being regarded as a prime suspect he states he was not given the details of any other suspects and so is not in a position to answer that question.

As to how how his part of the program unfolded, I put to him the same scenario I put last night on JTR Forums that being

Leading questions asked off camera

Q.
"In your opinion is there enough evidence to prove a prima facie case against Cross" now he cant answer simply yes,because the viewing public would not know what he is talking about, so he is asked to rephrase his answer to incorporate the question "In my professional opinion I believe there is enough evidence to prove a prima faciea case against Cross" So this is what the viewer would see and hear

James Scobie confirmed that this is the format Channel 5 used

I have to thank him for taking the time to reply and to clarify these important issues. His final words to me were he thought all of this a bit of fun and not to be taken to seriously. I did explain that there are many worldwide who do treat it seriously, which I think may have surprised him.

As I said I couldn't record or relay verbatim all of what was said as we spoke for over 30 minutes. If anyone does have any questions feel free to ask me some may jog my memory

[GUT]

I'm down for that too. What I don't get is looking at the incomplete record of that very brief triage and concluding from it that any of those individuals was a serial killer. I don't say that to be judgemental. I'm legitimately bewildered by it and curious how such a thing happens.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I suspect, and this isn't aimed at anyone, some people find a suspect and then every piece of information is viewed as evidence against that suspect. And to be fair it is human nature. People do it in their daily lives once you have a suspicion you tend to look for support for that suspicion rather than keep an open mind.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

Somewhat unusually perhaps, we agree. Whatever the merit of either case, each will be seen, by Joe Public, as undermining the other.

I dont think I can handle this three different people on here agreeing me in a matter of days. All I want now is for Paul Begg to agree with me then my life would be complete

[Tom_Wescott]

Wow.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Bridewell]

I'm a bit late in posting because I recorded the programme and have only just watched it this evening.

I thought that Christer, who did so in his second language, came across well.

Notes I took whilst watching were:

of the claim that "the records show he was never considered a suspect". The records don't show that he was considered a suspect; that doesn't mean that he wasn't - an inference has to be drawn to make such a claim.

reference to MJK having been killed in "a lodging house". That is clearly wrong, but also, equally clearly, not Christer's mistake, but Channel 5's.

a claim that Lechmere had intimate knowledge of the streets of the killing area, in juxtaposition, later in the programme, with the claim that the murders commenced "just after he moved to the area". Either argument in isolation might be seen as of value but the two taken together work against each other to my mind.

I enjoyed the programme but wish that the alternative innocent explanation - which was acknowledged in the Rip article - had been included in the documentary.

Thanks, Christer, for an interesting programme.

[GUT]

G'day Trevor

Had he been told that Cross was his step father's name and that in at least one census, albeit as a nipper, he was recorded as cross.

Was he told of the differing accounts of the discussion between Cross and Mizen.

Was he told that Cross had provided his place of work and had worked there prior to Mr Cross' death which may [only may] point to hm being known by that name at Pickford's.

[Tom_Wescott]

I suspect, and this isn't aimed at anyone, some people find a suspect and then every piece of information is viewed as evidence against that suspect. And to be fair it is human nature. People do it in their daily lives once you have a suspicion you tend to look for support for that suspicion rather than keep an open mind.

I write on suspects and whatnot and I have to keep my head in check. Not always easy, but it can be done. Trick is to step away every now and again. I stepped away from Le Grand to write other stuff. Right now I'm writing up my investigation of the murders and investigation. After that I'll write up Le Grand. If I did it the other way around, the suspect bias would influence my other work, instead of vice verce. Know what I mean? And that's when you trip up. Next thing you know Trevor Marriott will be calling your next of kin.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Rob Clack]

Considering where the recreation placed Lechmere in regards to Nichols body when Paul came along. It's rather obvious Christer had a fir bit of influence in the proceedings.

Rob

[GUT]

Next thing you know Trevor Marriott will be calling your next of kin.

But the rest of what you say is the point I was trying to make, if you don't put a brake on yourself you will become blinkered focusing merely on your suspicions and not looking at alternate explanations.

[Trevor Marriott]

I write on suspects and whatnot and I have to keep my head in check. Not always easy, but it can be done. Trick is to step away every now and again. I stepped away from Le Grand to write other stuff. Right now I'm writing up my investigation of the murders and investigation. After that I'll write up Le Grand. If I did it the other way around, the suspect bias would influence my other work, instead of vice verce. Know what I mean? And that's when you trip up. Next thing you know Trevor Marriott will be calling your next of kin.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Now now Uncle Tom you stay in that cabin !

[Bridewell]

No. As quoted by you, he said:
"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."

What we are discussing is whether a prima facie case is sufficient for a criminal prosecution. The CPS says:
Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect on each charge. They must consider what the defence case may be, and how it is likely to affect the prospects of conviction.

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

That means a prima facie case is not enough.

Having said that, the idea that there's a prima facie case is itself ridiculous. The thought that any jury would convict on the kind of evidence that's been advanced against Lechmere/Cross is mind-boggling.

A 'prima facie case (hope GUT will confirm this) is one which would succeed if no defence was presented. In fact, as Christer demonstrated in his original, balanced, Rip article Lechmere's actions are capable of innocent explanation. The defence version would be exactly that which Christer originally outlined and the prosecution case would be fatally undermined. The prosecution has to prove its case; the defence has to prove nothing. An innocent explanation exists and cannot be disproved to the criminal standard; that would suffice.

[Lechmere]

Note to Christer
As I suspected Chris hasn’t watched the documentary but feels qualified to post on it. Why am I not surprised?

Regarding the supposed Scobie scoop…

about Cross giving a false name and its importance he replied that in his opinion that was insignificant to the other facts’ - edited out

Christer and myself have often said that the name swap is insignificant to the other facts – just that the name swap was what first brought Lechmere to attention.
You think it was significant that this was edited out? Scobie featured in the program for about one minute. Nearly everything he said must have been edited out.
Trevor obsesses over the coroner’s summing up – I can only presume he has just discovered it.

It isn’t very clever to point out that if Lechmere had been interviewed or interrogated and had good explanations for everything that he would have been released. That is like stating the bleeding obvious. It would go for any suspect seeing as how none were caught in the act.

The ‘prime suspect’ term is I believe Trevor’s obsession. I don’t think the term was used in the film. However Andy Griffiths stated that as he was found by the body, until he was cleared, no other suspect can go forward – and there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest he as cleared.

[Abby Normal]

If you are still awake you might want to sit up.

Earlier today I sent an e mail to James Scobie in which I asked the following questions

1. Were you provided with "all" the witness testimony on the case?

2. If yes, did that include the coroners summing up at the inquest? (set out below)

3. If no then what exactly were you provided with?

Tonight James contacted me and we had a long in depth conversation regarding his involvement in the program. I was not able to make note or record it but some of what he did say is set out below

1. He says he never met Christer during the making of the program

2. He was not provided with the witness testimony but simply given by C5 what he describes as bullet points relating to the evidence, which he thinks originated from you, It was this that he was asked to read and give his opinion on.

3. He states that the sum total of his input was between 30-45 mins of which most as was seen was edited out.

4. He states when he was asked about Cross giving a false name and its importance he replied that in his opinion that was insiginficant to the other facts- edited out

5. He never saw the coroners summing up

6. He accepts that had he been shown the full facts then his opinion might have been different.

7. However he does state that given what he was shown Cross would no doubt been a person on interest to the police. However he also accepts that if Cross was ever interviewed and had given plausible explanations then he may well have been eliminated.

He states that his opinion regarding a prima faciae case is based solely on what was put before him, and accepts that it is not known what Cross might have said if the matter would have ever got to court.

8. As to him being regarded as a prime suspect he states he was not given the details of any other suspects and so is not in a position to answer that question.

As to how how his part of the program unfolded, I put to him the same scenario I put last night on JTR Forums that being

Leading questions asked off camera

Q.
"In your opinion is there enough evidence to prove a prima facie case against Cross" now he cant answer simply yes,because the viewing public would not know what he is talking about, so he is asked to rephrase his answer to incorporate the question "In my professional opinion I believe there is enough evidence to prove a prima faciea case against Cross" So this is what the viewer would see and hear

James Scobie confirmed that this is the format Channel 5 used

I have to thank him for taking the time to reply and to clarify these important issues. His final words to me were he thought all of this a bit of fun and not to be taken to seriously. I did explain that there are many worldwide who do treat it seriously, which I think may have surprised him.

As I said I couldn't record or relay verbatim all of what was said as we spoke for over 30 minutes. If anyone does have any questions feel free to ask me some may jog my memory

unless you recorded the conversation and got his permission, this post is utterly useless and all you are doing is starting a he-said she-said bullshit war.

Its why they dont allow hearsay in court, but as a former detective you should know that. guess not.

[Lechmere]

Another intelligent message via David MacNab

I know I shouldn’t - but it’s quite seductive - anyhow - I should point out to Sally precisely what I mean by “glossed over”. It refers to the issue of time in the show. I can assure you that the issue wasn’t glossed over in the research. Of course everyone will have a different opinion about what it is important to spend time explaining and what is too complicated and tedious for a viewing audience - it is my call - and the call of the Executive Producers who work for the broadcasters - to decide. The decision was simple: the timings on the night are all obviously contradictory - as someone very astutely pointed out earlier - if they were all accurate then people would have had to have been in two places at once. My feeling is that the police timings do seem to support each other. But they are beside the point. To explore all the permutations of who was right or wrong would be incredibly tedious for an audience so we.. “glossed over it”. We did so because there are far more important things we can be sure of: Lechmere’s shift started at 4 am. Our Pickford’s expert confirmed that the shift start time would not have changed owing to the fact that driver/customer relations were important to Pickfords and a regular face was part of that - drivers did not do multiple shifts. The walk from Doveton Street to Broad Street took 40 minutes. On any given day, Lechmere would have left home at 3.20 am. That does not mean that he always left home at that time. If he were the killer - he may well have left early - but being a senior driver it is unlikely that he left home later. We do not know what time he actually left home that morning. We only know what he says - and if he were the killer there are several reasons to treat his testimony with some suspicion. Lechmere could have left at 3.00 O’clock for all we know - he could have stalked her for ages - or he could have found her propped up against the gates in Buck’s Row at 3.37 - nine minutes before Paul says he entered the street. No one knows - but in may ways it’s irrelevant to his guilt. What we do know for an absolute fact is that he was found with a woman who’s head had been all but severed from her neck and yet there was no noticeable blood on the floor. There were no bloody footprints and there was no blood on the hands of Robert Paul, on his shoes or on his trousers - a man who was right over the woman and touching her for at least a minute. Within two minutes of Paul leaving the scene policemen describe a pool of blood. It implies that the wounds to Nichols’ neck were incredibly fresh. If Lechmere hadn’t inflicted them - who did? If an innocent Lechmere didn’t see the killer then he must have struck at the very least two whole minutes before Lechmere discovers the body. Adding for the time that it takes Paul to reach the body we are looking at 4 minutes before Paul examines her and five and a half before Paul leaves. Somehow someone has to explain how a woman who has had her throat cut back to the spine for five and a half minutes hadn’t noticeably bled. It’s not possible. Even in the dark conditions on Buck’s Row. Payne-James considered very carefully the issue of how quickly blood would seep from a neck wound like Nichols’ given that she was already dead. He was very clear to say that it was impossible, without seeing exactly her position, to give a precise time for blood to pool. Under certain conditions it could take minutes. But he was very clear that the most likely scenario was that she would have bled out very quickly - certainly it should have been noticeable a couple of minutes. If Lechmere had just killed Nichols then Paul would have been at the scene within one and a half minutes - examined her for about thirty seconds, had a brief discussion and left. The reason he didn’t notice any blood was because Nichols had only just been killed. Whether this all happened at 3.40 - 41, 42, 43 is irrelevant.

David McNab