The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Fisherman]

It sure seems to make a difference to Fisherman and Lechmere and Scobie and indded to the producers otherwise why not just concede that he wasn't standing over the body

If that is a problem to you, I will readily say that my impression is that he was standing around two yards from it. That would put him "where the body was" as Paul put it, as well as in the middle of the road - approximately.

Thing is, he is STILL very close to the body. And as Bitsie points out, if our theory is correct, then we know that Lechmere was not caught, knife in hand, by Paul. He was standing where the body was and out in the road. This means that if he was the killer, he would have Heard Paul beforehand - just like we say - and he would have dragged down the clothing beforehand - just like we say - and he would have stashed the weapon beforehand - just like we say.

If this is a true picture, it would be very odd if he did not step away from the body too.

This is how I see things, and I bet that Edward is of the exact same meaning. Not leaning over, but instead some little distance away.

Those who tell our story second-hand will be more inclined to flash things up, like for example the Daily Telegraph did when we first went public.

The best,
Fisherman

[Stewart P Evans]

Trouble is...

If that is a problem to you, I will readily say that my impression is that he was standing around two yards from it. That would put him "where the body was" as Paul put it, as well as in the middle of the road - approximately.
Thing is, he is STILL very close to the body. And as Bitsie points out, if our theory is correct, then we know that Lechmere was not caught, knife in hand, by Paul. He was standing where the body was and out in the road. This means that if he was the killer, he would have Heard Paul beforehand - just like we say - and he would have dragged down the clothing beforehand - just like we say - and he would have stashed the weapon beforehand - just like we say.
If this is a true picture, it would be very odd if he did not step away from the body too.
This is how I see things, and I bet that Edward is of the exact same meaning. Not leaning over, but instead some little distance away.
Those who tell our story second-hand will be more inclined to flash things up, like for example the Daily Telegraph did when we first went public.
The best,
Fisherman

Trouble is, that is not the way the television documentary shows it. The graphic of Cross bending over the body as Paul approaches is repeatedly shown. The impression received by Joe Public viewing that documentary is a totally false one. And Joe Public doesn't, in the main, read these threads to gain the true picture, so a lasting, and false, impression has been created.

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott:

But you provided C5 with all the bulk of material did you not their own research was limited

I was in Sweden. Edward managed the contacts with the crew.

He said he never met you at any time !

Yes, and that is true. The ten minutes of Scobie I took part of, I took part of as recorded material.

What you refer to is material that is misleading and had a direct bearing on how he arrived at his prima faciae case opinion.

Then tell me what the material looked like and how it is misleading.

Standing alone and standing over are two different aspect are they not?
Yes, and I donīt know what Scobie was told, but if Edward did the telling, he will have told the story as it was.

Insignificant as is the giving of a false name

No, it is not insignificant, since it is a major deviation from the other murder sites, and since we theorize that Lechmere did it.

Take to court but perhaps not to trial !

Thatīs not what Scobie said. He said it was a good enough case to put before a jury. Andy Griffiths also said that if we put our case to a jury, Lechmere would be in all sorts of trouble. Or something to that effect.

In an ideal world I would have love to recorded our conversation but I wasnt expecting him to ring me. His firs words to me were "Your e mail is spot on"

Why, Trevor, would I give you the benfit of a doubt? Are you giving that to me?

No he doesn't now say that

Yes, he does. Listen again.

Keep that in mind before you open the champagne. "Bullet points", by the way - did that not use to mean the key points, the important points...? And are bullet points necessarily very few? Just curious.

Key points.

As to the producer David Mcnab he stated he has never heard of him and never met him. I should have asked where his part was filmed

Key points, yes. What Scobie was asked to do was to assess whether the points of accusation the Lechmere theory has put forward would be enough to make a case, and he said that yes, this was so.

I think there is every chance that the film crew said that Scobie was given the relevant material or something such, and once you realize that he was not to determine the light level in Dorset Street, the veracity of Mrs Fiddymore or whether Buckīs Row was 4.95 or 5.05 meters wide, but instead whether the points of accusation we make would be enough for a trial, you have no reasons to complaint, do you?

On a side note, woud you be as kind as to list exactly what it is you think Scobie may have been told that would be wrongful on our part and exactly what it is you think he needed to be told but was perhaps not? It would help immensely.

Thanking you in advance,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Fisherman

If you really have evidence that a witness failed to give his address in court, that would be worth seeing.

But if you just mean there's someone whose address wasn't reported by the newspapers, that's no good at all. In fact the more witnesses whose addresses weren't reported by the newspapers, the weaker your argument that the non-reporting of Cross's address (except by the Star) is significant.

Thatīs just wishful thinking, Iīm afraid.

You need to look at all the paper reports - like I have.

Then you need to see in how many cases some papers mention an adress, whereas other leave it out - like I have.

It is a rewarding practice, I can promise you that.

If you have the time, you can try and explain why the papers all scribbled down variously spelt addresses for witnesses like Walker, whereas they ALL completely left out the address of Fontain Smith.

Were none of the papers interested in his address for some reason? They hear all the rest he said. So why not write down the address like they did with the rest?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I really have no hard opinion on what should be done, as each case should be judged on its own merits.

I should think that it would be nigh on impossible to trace all known descendants of every named suspect. But, as I have stated, it is not I who have raised the issue in the past, several others have made comment though.

Obviously nothing stops anyone at all being investigated as a suspect whether named or not. So there can be no objection to anyone conducting whatever investigation they wish.

However, the objections that have been raised have usually come, in the past, when the theory naming a new suspect is publicly aired, appears in a new book or in a television documentary.

In the past this has been particularly mentioned in connection with the 'blackening' of the names of Sir William Withey Gull and Walter Sickert. A little research should locate past posts with this theme.

In the case of police named suspects, or even contemporaneously named press suspects - these are already in the public domain, or have been for many years so naming them again doesn't quite raise the same objection as a name that has never previously been tainted with suspicion.

I might also add that if a new suspect is aired along with some hard and valid reason for suspecting him, other than personal opinion, then the case for that being valid could also be made.

I was only raising this point since it was seemingly implied that we did not care about the grievance we could cause those Lechmeres who followed Charles.
Great care was taken before we went ahead.

The best,
Fisherman

[Observer]

A Casebook treasure

That's the whole point of what I'm saying! Scobie is wrong when he says that the existence of a prima facie case is sufficient for prosecution. How many more times will I have to say it before it penetrates?

Your expertise in all manner of subjects is awe inspiring. You're a genuine one off. DNA, The Law, you take everything in your stride. Awesome!

[Stewart P Evans]

I have no doubt...

...
On a side note, woud you be as kind as to list exactly what it is you think Scobie may have been told that would be wrongful on our part and exactly what it is you think he needed to be told but was perhaps not? It would help immensely.
...
Fisherman

I have no doubt that he was told in his brief that Cross had lied at the inquest, and not that the likelihood was that it was Mizen who was misleading in his evidence.

Appreciating that you will not, in any way, concede that Mizen told anything but the truth, the possibility that he did lie should have been made to him. That gives a balanced view of things. For instance was he aware that in the recorded evidence of Mizen shown in The Times is states that -

'he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, and a man passing said "You are wanted in Baker's-row." The man, named Cross, stated a woman had been found there. In going to the spot he saw Constable Neil...'

He was obviously questioned on this and added, 'Cross simply said he was wanted by a policeman, and did not say anything about a murder having been committed...'

As we know Cross refuted saying anything about another policeman being at the scene already. As far as Cross was concerned the point meant little either way. However, it was in Mizen's own interest to indicate that he thought that another policeman was already with the woman.

[Fisherman]

Trouble is, that is not the way the television documentary shows it. The graphic of Cross bending over the body as Paul approaches is repeatedly shown. The impression received by Joe Public viewing that documentary is a totally false one. And Joe Public doesn't, in the main, read these threads to gain the true picture, so a lasting, and false, impression has been created.

I donīt oppose that - it did not come out completely correct, and I suspect that this was due to - as Edward has already stated, that the road was cordoned off as we filmed.

However, we also put a lot of work into recreating Pauls arrival at the scene, and this was to a large extent cut away from the final product. When it comes to the grahics there, Paul arrives walking along the wrong side of the road. And that means that one point of accusation that "team Lechmere", if you will, makes actually went lost!

We are of the meaning that it was odd that Lechmere "ran down" Paul, who tried to use the Northern pavement but realized that he wa getting cut off by Lechmere, whereupon he stepped into the street. But at that stage, Lechmere stepped towards him and stopped him by putting his hand on Pauls shoulder.

In the documentary, we have Paul arriving on the wrong side and Walking into the scene, which is much less dramatic and which fails to recognize the point I mentioned.

So itīs one won and one lost for us! But I readily concede that you have a good point about the "standing over" thing, and I would have preferred if it was not there.
Legally, the implications are the exact same, but Joe Public may not be up to scratch in that department, just as you say.

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Posted by Tom :

"Something about the Lechmere theory really has your back up, Robert. I've never seen you so out for blood as you've been on these threads. I'm not judging, just observing."

That's a strange post, Tom. Maybe the reason you think that is because I don't often get involved in protracted JTR discussions these days, unless they're genealogical.

I was simply thanking Mr Scobie for bothering to answer Trevor's enquiry, and Trevor for making the enquiry.

And no, I am not out for blood - cup of tea is my drink, as it doesn't clot.

[Stewart P Evans]

As if...

I was only raising this point since it was seemingly implied that we did not care about the grievance we could cause those Lechmeres who followed Charles.
Great care was taken before we went ahead.
The best,
Fisherman

As if I should have thought that you could be such a cad. There was no such implication being made, it merely being implied that a man previously of assumed good character was now being painted as a serial killer on no solid grounds. As far as I'm aware your colleague has a friend who is in some way related to Lechmere.

[Rob Clack]

I donīt oppose that - it did not come out completely correct, and I suspect that this was due to - as Edward has already stated, that the road was cordoned off as we filmed.

However, we also put a lot of work into recreating Pauls arrival at the scene, and this was to a large extent cut away from the final product. When it comes to the grahics there, Paul arrives walking along the wrong side of the road. And that means that one point of accusation that "team Lechmere", if you will, makes actually went lost!

We are of the meaning that it was odd that Lechmere "ran down" Paul, who tried to use the Northern pavement but realized that he wa getting cut off by Lechmere, whereupon he stepped into the street. But at that stage, Lechmere stepped towards him and stopped him by putting his hand on Pauls shoulder.

In the documentary, we have Paul arriving on the wrong side and Walking into the scene, which is much less dramatic and which fails to recognize the point I mentioned.

So itīs one won and one lost for us! But I readily concede that you have a good point about the "standing over" thing, and I would have preferred if it was not there.
Legally, the implications are the exact same, but Joe Public may not be up to scratch in that department, just as you say.

The best,
Fisherman

So the production company had all the newspaper reports and official files and couldn't get the reconstruction right.

They had yours and Eds help in the reconstruction and again they couldn't get it right.

And who cares if the street was cordoned off today?

That just about sums it all up to me.

Rob

[Stewart P Evans]

Liking

So the production company had all the newspaper reports and official files and couldn't get the reconstruction right.
They had yours and Eds help in the reconstruction and again they couldn't get it right.
And who cares if the street was cordoned off today?
That just about sums it all up to me.
Rob

I thought that too Rob, but I didn't want to kick a man when he's down. I've always had a sneaking liking for 'Fisherman'.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott:

But you provided C5 with all the bulk of material did you not their own research was limited

I was in Sweden. Edward managed the contacts with the crew.

He said he never met you at any time !

Yes, and that is true. The ten minutes of Scobie I took part of, I took part of as recorded material.

What you refer to is material that is misleading and had a direct bearing on how he arrived at his prima faciae case opinion.

Then tell me what the material looked like and how it is misleading.

Standing alone and standing over are two different aspect are they not?
Yes, and I donīt know what Scobie was told, but if Edward did the telling, he will have told the story as it was.

Insignificant as is the giving of a false name

No, it is not insignificant, since it is a major deviation from the other murder sites, and since we theorize that Lechmere did it.

Take to court but perhaps not to trial !

Thatīs not what Scobie said. He said it was a good enough case to put before a jury. Andy Griffiths also said that if we put our case to a jury, Lechmere would be in all sorts of trouble. Or something to that effect.

In an ideal world I would have love to recorded our conversation but I wasnt expecting him to ring me. His firs words to me were "Your e mail is spot on"

Why, Trevor, would I give you the benfit of a doubt? Are you giving that to me?

No he doesn't now say that

Yes, he does. Listen again.

Keep that in mind before you open the champagne. "Bullet points", by the way - did that not use to mean the key points, the important points...? And are bullet points necessarily very few? Just curious.

Key points.

As to the producer David Mcnab he stated he has never heard of him and never met him. I should have asked where his part was filmed

Key points, yes. What Scobie was asked to do was to assess whether the points of accusation the Lechmere theory has put forward would be enough to make a case, and he said that yes, this was so.

I think there is every chance that the film crew said that Scobie was given the relevant material or something such, and once you realize that he was not to determine the light level in Dorset Street, the veracity of Mrs Fiddymore or whether Buckīs Row was 4.95 or 5.05 meters wide, but instead whether the points of accusation we make would be enough for a trial, you have no reasons to complaint, do you?

On a side note, woud you be as kind as to list exactly what it is you think Scobie may have been told that would be wrongful on our part and exactly what it is you think he needed to be told but was perhaps not? It would help immensely.

Thanking you in advance,
Fisherman

All the salient wrong points have been highlighted many times of here. If what you say is right about who provided the material to C5 then you must have know what Edward was going to provide so you are both culpable

[Rob Clack]

I thought that too Rob, but I didn't want to kick a man when he's down. I've always had a sneaking liking for 'Fisherman'.

I've no such qualms

[Fisherman]

Stewart P Evans:

I have no doubt that he was told in his brief that Cross had lied at the inquest, and not that the likelihood was that it was Mizen who was misleading in his evidence.

I have very grave doubts about that, however! Whatever information Edward may have provided will have been along the lines of pointing out that there was a major disagreement over the facts at the inquest. That is how he normally words it.

And as you may have seen, the likelihood that Mizen was misleading is not a large one. He was given a very good grade, he seemingly lived a very useful and productive life, he was a deeply religious man - and all of his actions after meeting Lechmere are in accordance with having been lied to.[/I]

Appreciating that you will not, in any way, concede that Mizen told anything but the truth, the possibility that he did lie should have been made to him.

....which they may well have been. I think neither of us knows - but you are seemingly willing to act on unsubstantiated suspicion? And as for Mizen, I have actively looked for anything substantiating that he could have been wrong, but so far, the odds are on his side very much.

That gives a balanced view of things. For instance was he aware that in the recorded evidence of Mizen shown in The Times is states that -

'he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, and a man passing said "You are wanted in Baker's-row." The man, named Cross, stated a woman had been found there. In going to the spot he saw Constable Neil...'

He was obviously questioned on this and added, 'Cross simply said he was wanted by a policeman, and did not say anything about a murder having been committed...'

As we know Cross refuted saying anything about another policeman being at the scene already. As far as Cross was concerned the point meant little either way. However, it was in Mizen's own interest to indicate that he thought that another policeman was already with the woman.

As I have already said, the actions of Mizen after the encounter tells the story. And if that does not suffice to sway you, hereīs another question:

Why does Mizen not acknowledge that TWO carmen spoke to him? Why is there that discrepancy inbetween what Mizen and Lechmere said? More specifically, can you identify a potential gain for either part by telling a differing story?

If Lechmere was the killer, did he stand to gain from claiming that both he and Paul spoke to Mizen?

Regardless if Lechmere was the killer or not, did Mizen in any way stand to gain from not telling the inquest that both men spoke to him?

Itīs all in the details, as far as Iīm concerned.

The best,
Fisherman