The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[GUT]

A 'prima facie case (hope GUT will confirm this) is one which would succeed if no defence was presented.

Exactly

It actually means "on the face". The relevance of a Prima Facie case is that WITHOUT one you don't have a hope in hell. In criminal matters the normal term is that after the prosecution has presented their case the defence has "No Case to Answer" it is an application made in Courts every day and it would be made quick smart on what we have against Cross, if anyone was ever stupid enough to charge him on what we have, in fact there would be a "No Bill" application that I believe would result in the case not getting off the ground n any way shape or form.

[Chris]

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

Again, it would help if you read discussions before jumping into them.

What I wrote was this:
And no, I haven't been able to see the programme, which is why I'm commenting only about what you have posted on the discussion boards.

Get it?

[Tom_Wescott]

Trevor,

I know that Scobie made the decision to talk with you on the phone, but I wonder if he knew you'd rush here and post it. It kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Bridewell]

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

Thank-you for this, Trevor. It is interesting that so much weight is placed on the opinion of Scobie formed from a bullet-point presentation by Channel 5, whilst the contrary opinion by another barrister, who actually has some knowledge of the subject (GUT) is completely disregarded. Two barristers have expressed an opinion. One, a QC but with limited knowledge of the case, says one thing; the other, better informed, seems to disagree. I would like to see Scobie presented with the complete picture and asked whether, if he was representing Lechmere, he would be confident of securing an acquittal.

[Rob Clack]

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

Oh dear. You call that intelligent?

If he did this, if he did that. Senior driver? where did that come from?
This post is typical of the Lechmere theorists. If one version of the events doesn't work, try something else.

[Chris]

There were no bloody footprints and there was no blood on the hands of Robert Paul, on his shoes or on his trousers ...

As this is being repeated, I'll ask the same question I asked before.

What is the evidence for that? Specifically, what is the evidence that there was no blood on the soles of Paul's shoes?

[Bridewell]

I just want to quickly address the whole "found over the body of a murder victim" malarkey by quoting what Leonard Matters (who saw Bucks Row much as it was in 1888) had to say about it:

"Bucks Row cannot have changed much in character since its name was altered. It is a narrow, cobbled, mean street, having on one side the same houses - possibly tenanted by the same people - which stood there in 1888. They are shabby, dirty little houses of two storeys, and only a three-feet pavement separates them from the road, which is no more than twenty feet from wall to wall.
On the opposite side are the high walls of warehouses which at night would shadow the dirty street in a far deeper gloom than its own character in broad daylight suggests. All Durward Street is not so drab and mean, for by some accident in the planning of the locality - if ever it was planned - quite two thirds of the thoroughfare is very wide and open." (my block type)

We know where the murder was committed, so can we now move away from the notion that a man who was standing in the middle of the road was simultaneously standing over the body of Polly Nichols - because he can't have been doing both.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Exactly thats what he says. He also stated that during his stint he tried to tell C5 that some of what was being put to him was not right and therefore his answers fell on the editing roon floor hence he only got one minute

Trevor obsesses over the coroner’s summing up – I can only presume he has just discovered it.

The coroners summing up is based on his assessment of the evidence put before him. He is a qualified man to judge that evidence as a coroner. His summing up show the events in true form and not as you two keep making out.

I have also highlighted that what Scobie was given to read and give his opinion on. It was misleading and loaded in favour of yours and Christers theory.

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.

When are you going to wake up to reality and stop this obsession you and Christer have. Its bad enough with Jonathan we don't need two more obsessives. You have now lost half of your ammunition with Scobie. Perhaps I should contact Griffiths and have a long chat with him about the good old days !

[Chris]

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.

I'm not quite clear how that can be reconciled with what Mr Stow told us previously:
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.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=318237&postcount=263

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm not quite clear how that can be reconciled with what Mr Stow told us previously:
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.
http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...&postcount=263

Someone has been telling porkies !

[GUT]

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

Yet another set of examples about find a suspect and then twist the facts, just look at the parts I've bolded.

But they are beside the point. - But here those timings are used to support Cross as the ripper.

If he were the killer - he may well have left early - but being a senior driver it is unlikely that he left home later. - But Cross says he left late that day and Paul also says that he was running late.

if he were the killer there are several reasons to treat his testimony with some suspicion. - And if we wasn't there is no reason to do other than accept what he said.

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. - so again I ask why is it rammed down our throats as more proof of his guilt.

know for an absolute fact is that he was found with a woman - no we know that if we accept his word he found the body.

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. - And was there any on Cross?

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. - Why? Paul didn't see Cross two whole minutes before he got to him.

it was impossible, without seeing exactly her position, to give a precise time for blood to pool. Under certain conditions it could take minutes - Why does this reasoning remind me of Russel Edwards [I can't say where the shawl came from "Oh it is Russian"]

[Robert]

I must say thank you to Mr Scobie for responding, and to Trevor.

[Lechmere]

Chris
This thread is about a documentary you haven't watched. You are a worthless participant so far as I am concerned.

[Lechmere]

Brisewell
I'm not sure why you emboldened that bit. The wide section of Durward Street is not anywhere near where the murder occurred.

[Tom_Wescott]

As this is being repeated, I'll ask the same question I asked before.

What is the evidence for that? Specifically, what is the evidence that there was no blood on the soles of Paul's shoes?

It was reported that no blood marks were found anywhere, except unrelated ones on Brady Street, if memory serves. So I'm satisfied neither Cross nor Paul stepped in blood.

Yours truly ,

Tom Wescott