The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Lechmere]

Trevor
No doubt these issues will be discussed - you will have to tune in to see.
By the way, just to evaluate the relative weight that should be put on professional opinion, do you mind telling us what rank you reach in the Murder Squad (in Bedfordshire?)

[Trevor Marriott]

Strange that he didn't attend the inquest on the first day if he was known to be the person who had found the body.

Thats perhaps because he wasn't required on the first day !

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor
No doubt these issues will be discussed - you will have to tune in to see.
By the way, just to evaluate the relative weight that should be put on professional opinion, do you mind telling us what rank you reach in the Murder Squad (in Bedfordshire?)

Professional opinion is what it is, simply that, based on someones professional knowledge and expertise. I can see where you question is leading with regards to the documentary whereby a retired Detective Chief Superintendent was brought in to give an opinion and therefore because of his high rank, his opinion should be highly regarded.

Now I didn't aspire to those dizzy ranks of the higher echelons I was a mere Detective a foot soldier one who does all the real investigative work in cases. Unlike senior officers who take on administrative roles like Swanson did,

I haven't offered any opinions with regards to this. I have simply asked relevant and important questions and highlighted what appear to be flaws in some of what has been put forward to prop up this mans status as a suspect.

I note that you have declined to answer the questions I posed or make any comment on the other issue raised.

It doesn't matter the status of the person giving an opinion if the matters that they are giving an opinion on are not factually correct or misleading. The person can only opinonate on what is put before them.

So as you say we will have to wait and see

[Lechmere]

Last night I typed out a lengthy reply answering all your points but as I 'sent' it my Internet connection failed and I lost the will to live so didn't type it out again - but all the points you raise have been done to death before, although I appreciate that the replies are deeply buried in recrimination.

I would have thought that the opinions of an experienced and long serring Murder squad superintendent would hold considerable weight when evaluating evidence and process.

[Sally]

Reading all this, I'm slightly inclined to write a serious post later. Having said that, I am somewhat preoccupied with extended birthday shenanigans; so by the time I get round to it the C5 extravaganza will probably have aired already.

Probably just as well.

[Fisherman]

Thats perhaps because he wasn't required on the first day !

Are you seriously suggesting that the inquest knew that the carmen had found the body, and still allowed Neil to take the stand and tell another story altogether? And that the coroner would merrily let this happen?

The best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

Last night I typed out a lengthy reply answering all your points but as I 'sent' it my Internet connection failed and I lost the will to live so didn't type it out again - but all the points you raise have been done to death before, although I appreciate that the replies are deeply buried in recrimination.

I would have thought that the opinions of an experienced and long serring Murder squad superintendent would hold considerable weight when evaluating evidence and process.

As I said, if the information put before him is factually incorrect and not misleading. I am sure he can and probably has give a professional opinion. But of course as we have seen professional opinions form senior police officers have been called into question on here so many times.

Maybe these issues have been done to death, but they are important issues which collectively either corroborate your claims along with Susan's or they blow them out of the water.

[Lechmere]

I'm not sure but the program may be featuring the most senior murder squad officer to express an opinion on the case.

[Trevor Marriott]

Are you seriously suggesting that the inquest knew that the carmen had found the body, and still allowed Neil to take the stand and tell another story altogether? And that the coroner would merrily let this happen?

The best,
Fisherman

Well the inquest reports suggest that Cross followed Pc Mizen into the witness box. There are no ambiguities in the statements. Cross find the body, Paul appears. Pc Mizen is found and then arrives Pc Neil from another direction

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm not sure but the program may be featuring the most senior murder squad officer to express an opinion on the case.

Well i have covered the opinions issue previous

[Lechmere]

Trevor
I agree they are important issues and they have all been addressed in detail. I don't know what made it past the editor's scissors but they were also addressed by the Super who was very careful and meticulous and provided some previously unthought of insights. He would be careful as he would otherwise trash his reputation.

As an example of history repeating itself, I notice that in your book 21st Century Investigation (if I have the title right) you don't mention Lechmere by name and rapidly gloss over that part of the story. This oversight mirrored events in 1888, where this inconspicuous, humble nobody slipped in and out of the investigation, barely noticed

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor
I agree they are important issues and they have all been addressed in detail. I don't know what made it past the editor's scissors but they were also addressed by the Super who was very careful and meticulous and provided some previously unthought of insights. He would be careful as he would otherwise trash his reputation.

As an example of history repeating itself, I notice that in your book 21st Century Investigation (if I have the title right) you don't mention Lechmere by name and rapidly gloss over that part of the story. This oversight mirrored events in 1888, where this inconspicuous, humble nobody slipped in and out of the investigation, barely noticed

I glossed over it like so many before me, and many since because it has no substance to it. What you have is an un proveable wild speculative theory which has emanated from where, a relative of the person whom she believes to have been the killer of Nicholls which she is fully entitled to believe. But whether anyone else concurs with her belief is another story.

This falls down on the lack of corroboration and the dispelling of what little ambiguous corroboration has been put forward in support.

[Fisherman]

Well the inquest reports suggest that Cross followed Pc Mizen into the witness box. There are no ambiguities in the statements. Cross find the body, Paul appears. Pc Mizen is found and then arrives Pc Neil from another direction

This is utterly confusing. You are mixing things up beyond recognition, Iīm afraid.

Letīs back down a step or two, and clear this up!

When Mr Barnett said

"Strange that he didn't attend the inquest on the first day if he was known to be the person who had found the body."

... you replied:

Thats perhaps because he wasn't required on the first day !

Thatīs when I asked "Are you seriously suggesting that the inquest knew that the carmen had found the body, and still allowed Neil to take the stand and tell another story altogether? And that the coroner would merrily let this happen?"

You see, Trevor, when Neil took the stand on the first day of the inquest, he did not know that the carmen had been first to find the body. Neil stated at the inquest that he was the one who found it. He firmly believed that this was so.

Then, on the 2:nd of September, Neil said, at a kind of press conference, that it was not true that he hgad been shown to the body by two men.

These "two men" would have been our carmen; Paul had at this stage gone to the press, and on the 1:st as well as on the 2:dn of September, there were articles in the papers where Paul said that he had found a man standing where the body was (and that man was Lechmere), and that he and this other man had examined the body and left it, whereupon they found themselves a PC to send to the spot.

Naturally, this made the press presume that Neil was this PC, since he had said that he found the body. The press beleived that he had been guided to it by the carmen.

But you and me - and all the rest - know that it was not Neil the carmen had sent to Buckīs Row - it was Jonas Mizen.

Neil, however, had no idea about this, and he justifiedly rejected the claim that he had been shown to the body by the carmen.

This is why I say that if it had been common knowledge on the 1:st of September - the first day of the inquest - that it was NOT Neil who had first found the body, but instead two carmen, then Charles Lechmere WOULD have been very much required on that inquest day. The fact that he did not appear effectively proves that he had not yet turned up at the cop shop on the 1:st of September.

Do you follow my reasoning?

What you NOW say is redundant and utterly confusing: "Well the inquest reports suggest that Cross followed Pc Mizen into the witness box. There are no ambiguities in the statements. Cross find the body, Paul appears. Pc Mizen is found and then arrives Pc Neil from another direction."

This does not in any way touch on the question we were discussing. But since you say "there are no ambiguities", Iīd like to point out that whereas Mizen says that Lechmere claimed that another PC awaited him in Buckīs Row, Lechmere denies this. And whereas Mizen only says that ONE man spoke to him, Lechmere says that BOTH carmen did. And whereas Mizen says that he was only informed that there was a woman lying in the street, Lechmere claims that he AND Paul said that she was quite possibly dead.

Claiming that the exchange involved no ambiguities is therefore like claiming that Lechmere was probably not the killer: Totally and utterly wrong.

The best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

I have answered below

[QUOTE=Fisherman;318049]This is utterly confusing. You are mixing things up beyond recognition, Iīm afraid.

Letīs back down a step or two, and clear this up!

When Mr Barnett said

"Strange that he didn't attend the inquest on the first day if he was known to be the person who had found the body."

... you replied:

Thats perhaps because he wasn't required on the first day !

Thatīs when I asked "Are you seriously suggesting that the inquest knew that the carmen had found the body, and still allowed Neil to take the stand and tell another story altogether? And that the coroner would merrily let this happen?"

You see, Trevor, when Neil took the stand on the first day of the inquest, he did not know that the carmen had been first to find the body. Neil stated at the inquest that he was the one who found it. He firmly believed that this was so.

Of course he would have known who found he body dont be so naive

Then, on the 2:nd of September, Neil said, at a kind of press conference, that it was not true that he hgad been shown to the body by two men.

These "two men" would have been our carmen; Paul had at this stage gone to the press, and on the 1:st as well as on the 2:dn of September, there were articles in the papers where Paul said that he had found a man standing where the body was (and that man was Lechmere), and that he and this other man had examined the body and left it, whereupon they found themselves a PC to send to the spot.

Naturally, this made the press presume that Neil was this PC, since he had said that he found the body. The press beleived that he had been guided to it by the carmen.

You cant keep relying on press reports we know they are at times unsafe. The point is that the issues you raise were not looked upon by the coroner or anyone else for that matter as being contentious and therefore there was no need for clarification. The inquest testimony is quite clear and easily understandable to most.

You are looking for things that don't exist

But you and me - and all the rest - know that it was not Neil the carmen had sent to Buckīs Row - it was Jonas Mizen.

Neil, however, had no idea about this, and he justifiedly rejected the claim that he had been shown to the body by the carmen.

This is why I say that if it had been common knowledge on the 1:st of September - the first day of the inquest - that it was NOT Neil who had first found the body, but instead two carmen, then Charles Lechmere WOULD have been very much required on that inquest day. The fact that he did not appear effectively proves that he had not yet turned up at the cop shop on the 1:st of September.

Do you follow my reasoning?

Yes I follow, its a smokescreen you are putting up. Pc Neil was called on the first day because in chronological order part of his evidence should have been heard first he gives evidence of being in the location before Cross and Paul, so nothing sinister there


What you NOW say is redundant and utterly confusing: "Well the inquest reports suggest that Cross followed Pc Mizen into the witness box. There are no ambiguities in the statements. Cross find the body, Paul appears. Pc Mizen is found and then arrives Pc Neil from another direction."

This does not in any way touch on the question we were discussing. But since you say "there are no ambiguities", Iīd like to point out that whereas Mizen says that Lechmere claimed that another PC awaited him in Buckīs Row, Lechmere denies this. And whereas Mizen only says that ONE man spoke to him, Lechmere says that BOTH carmen did. And whereas Mizen says that he was only informed that there was a woman lying in the street, Lechmere claims that he AND Paul said that she was quite possibly dead.

So does all of that prove Cross was the killer, no it doesnt !

Claiming that the exchange involved no ambiguities is therefore like claiming that Lechmere was probably not the killer: Totally and utterly wrong.

Well if all made written statements to the police at the time, which were tendered at the inquest, it is clear that the police were not concerned, and neither was the coroner. Are we to believe they were all incompetent and couldn't spot what you have now spotted.

[Harry D]

Does anyone honestly think a documentary on mainstream television is going to objectively examine Crossmere's credentials (or lack thereof) as a Ripper suspect? Of course not. It's all going to be slanted towards proving this seemingly harmless carman was secretly the Whitechapel killer all along. Anything else wouldn't make 'good television'.