The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Tom_Wescott]

Ah hah! But you see, that's where you're wrong.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Trevor Marriott]

Three (3) PC:s said that the blood was still running as they saw Nichols.

You claim that she was not bleeding as Mizen saw her.

That flies in the face of the recorded evidence.

We should not ask ourselves how three men could all have gotten it wrong when there is absolutely no reason to think so. Unless, of course, you predispose that Lilley MUST have heard the killing of Nichols.

Do you?

Nice little touch about me "picking and choosing" whilst discarding the one witness who may have heard the killing!

Of course, the picking and choosing that is going on here seems to be that of a poster choosing to disbelieve three PC:s who all testified that blood was oozing/running from the wound in Nichols neck at around 3.45-3.50. Incidentally, not a single one of them speaks of moving Nichols.

Once we admit that these three PC:s would be very good judges of what oozing/running blood looks like, we can safely dismiss Lilley as not having overheard the murder.

But you will have it the other way? A drowsy lady, half awake, half sleeping who heard whispering voices and gasps MUST have overheard the Nichols murder. Whereas three PC:s MUST have been mistaken about the blood.

Lilley is a better and more reliable witness than Neil, Thain and Mizen, thus.

Yeah, right!

Thanks for the input, Tom.

The best,
Fisherman

Your whole theory is reliant on all the facts you suggest support you theory as being correct

The movements of the police officers
The conversations between all parties at the scene
The timings of all the witnesses
The estimated time of death
The oozing of the blood from the wound

There is only a need for one of the above to be wrong and you are dead in the water. RIP

because your "experts" gave their opinion on all of this, which was put to them so their input you seek so heavily to support your theory is then questionable to say the least.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Harriet Lilley may not have heard a murder,what would there be to hear,but it cannot be ruled out that what she did hear was a conversation between a victim and killer.

[Fisherman]

Ah hah! But you see, that's where you're wrong.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I can always tell when you decide that you are taking a beating in a debate, Tom. One learns over the years!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: Your whole theory is reliant on all the facts you suggest support you theory as being correct.

There is some learoom in a number of issues, but basically, yes, all the pieces must fit.
But the beauty of the thing is that when you are correct, then the pieces will all come together. There will be the window of opportunity and the facts and actions will fit.

Some probably think that it must be very much harder to promote a suspect like Lechmere because everything needs to be in place. But actually, itīs the other way around - it is easy, since the fit is always there.

For the Mizen scam to work, I needed Paul to be out of the picture to some extent. And lo and behold - the evidence tells us that the coroner had to remind Mizen about him. And the Echo says "the other man, who went down Hanbury Street...". And not a single paper claims to put Paul by Lechmereīs side, they all just say that there was another man present.

All the papers have Mizen telling us that ONE man spoke to him, while Lechmere says it was two, and so on.

The pieces all fit. They all go to support Lechmereīs candidacy. And thatīs what happens if you have the right man, Trevor. Then it will all be hidden in the details.

The movements of the police officers

Pan out.

The conversations between all parties at the scene

Pan out.

The timings of all the witnesses

Pan out.

The estimated time of death

Tallies with Lechmere doing it.

The oozing of the blood from the wound

Tells us that she was VERY freshly cut. Mizen even says that the blood looked fresh as he saw her, and was still running.

There is only a need for one of the above to be wrong and you are dead in the water.

But they are not wrong, Trevor. They all line up, screaming "Lechmere fits!".

because your "experts" gave their opinion on all of this, which was put to them so their input you seek so heavily to support your theory is then questionable to say the least.

How do you know what was put to them - and how? Were you there? I never saw you, Trevor.
Why would you take it upon yourself to imply some sort of lacking moral on behalf of the ones behind the documentary?
You only just lamented that I am so very lucky as to have all the little bits and pieces adding up in Lechmereīs case. You just admitted that the indications are there (although it is clear that you involve a wish to the contrary in your evening prayers).

That is what Scobie and Griffiths also saw. And I KNOW that Griffiths had the relevant material, with the paper articles and the police reports. And as I discussed the case with him - over several hours - it was totally clear that he was very much up to scratch. We can also see that Scobie had a lot of material; it is evident from what shows in the documentary.

What you seem to be implying here is that the material was tampered unfairly with. Is that a correct impression?
If so, I would say that before anybody implies such a thing, he needs to have the evidence to prove his point. Otherwise, he is castigating and accusing people with no evidence at all to back it up.

So letīs see that evidence, Trevor, so that we know that you are not making yourself guilty of the above.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: Your whole theory is reliant on all the facts you suggest support you theory as being correct.

There is some learoom in a number of issues, but basically, yes, all the pieces must fit.
But the beauty of the thing is that when you are correct, then the pieces will all come together. There will be the window of opportunity and the facts and actions will fit.

Some probably think that it must be very much harder to promote a suspect like Lechmere because everything needs to be in place. But actually, itīs the other way around - it is easy, since the fit is always there.

For the Mizen scam to work, I needed Paul to be out of the picture to some extent. And lo and behold - the evidence tells us that the coroner had to remind Mizen about him. And the Echo says "the other man, who went down Hanbury Street...". And not a single paper claims to put Paul by Lechmereīs side, they all just say that there was another man present.

All the papers have Mizen telling us that ONE man spoke to him, while Lechmere says it was two, and so on.

The pieces all fit. They all go to support Lechmereīs candidacy. And thatīs what happens if you have the right man, Trevor. Then it will all be hidden in the details.

The movements of the police officers

Pan out.

The conversations between all parties at the scene

Pan out.

The timings of all the witnesses

Pan out.

The estimated time of death

Tallies with Lechmere doing it.

The oozing of the blood from the wound

Tells us that she was VERY freshly cut. Mizen even says that the blood looked fresh as he saw her, and was still running.

There is only a need for one of the above to be wrong and you are dead in the water.

But they are not wrong, Trevor. They all line up, screaming "Lechmere fits!".

because your "experts" gave their opinion on all of this, which was put to them so their input you seek so heavily to support your theory is then questionable to say the least.

How do you know what was put to them - and how? Were you there? I never saw you, Trevor.
Why would you take it upon yourself to imply some sort of lacking moral on behalf of the ones behind the documentary?
You only just lamented that I am so very lucky as to have all the little bits and pieces adding up in Lechmereīs case. You just admitted that the indications are there (although it is clear that you involve a wish to the contrary in your evening prayers).

That is what Scobie and Griffiths also saw. And I KNOW that Griffiths had the relevant material, with the paper articles and the police reports. And as I discussed the case with him - over several hours - it was totally clear that he was very much up to scratch. We can also see that Scobie had a lot of material; it is evident from what shows in the documentary.

What you seem to be implying here is that the material was tampered unfairly with. Is that a correct impression?
If so, I would say that before anybody implies such a thing, he needs to have the evidence to prove his point. Otherwise, he is castigating and accusing people with no evidence at all to back it up.

So letīs see that evidence, Trevor, so that we know that you are not making yourself guilty of the above.

All the best,
Fisherman

The weight of evidence to negate your theory has been put to you many times on here I am not going to repeat it yet again.

But conversely the evidence you seek to rely on is unsafe and unreliable and you have interpreted it in a way to fit you theory.

There is conflict within the newspaper articles

You cannot be precise about the time of death even the doctors cannot be precise. With your theory a difference of 5 minutes will sink it. The doctors rely on the heat of the body to determine time of death not how much blood was oozing from a wound

You make a big play on the oozing of the blood it is insignificant. Likewise Scobie says that the giving of the "false" name is also insignificant in the grand scheme of things yet you seek to rely on them heavily.

As to what the experts were provided with, well I can only go on what Scobie told me and that was it was nothing more than bullet points. With regards to experts they were brought in to prop up your theory yet the only contribution Scobie is allowed is a 30 second clip out of 45 minutes of him being filmed discussing the "evidence"

Why not ask the production company to provide you with the interview material that didn't get shown?

May I also remind you that Griffiths does not concur with you. He states that based on what he was provided with Cross was "A person of interest" that's a long way from being "A Prime Suspect"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott:

The weight of evidence to negate your theory has been put to you many times on here I am not going to repeat it yet again.

I never asked for it - I asked whether you have evidence or not to prove that any questionable course of action was tkaen when approaching James Scobie and Andy Griffiths.

But conversely the evidence you seek to rely on is unsafe and unreliable and you have interpreted it in a way to fit you theory.

Thatīs what people with suspects do, Trevor. Interestingly, the evidence fits the Lechmere theory. A such, I cannot change the evidence or affect it. It is what it is, and it fits.

There is conflict within the newspaper articles

Absolutely. But why would we exclude the ones that support the Lechmere theory? And which paper article would disenable him to have been the killer?

You cannot be precise about the time of death even the doctors cannot be precise. With your theory a difference of 5 minutes will sink it. The doctors rely on the heat of the body to determine time of death not how much blood was oozing from a wound

They rely on a number of things, Trevor; body temperature, lividity, bloodloss, blood condition, eyes, general appearance, surronding circumstances.
And all of them know that a liquid leaking from a vessel can only leak until the vessel has been emptied.

You make a big play on the oozing of the blood it is insignificant. Likewise Scobie says that the giving of the "false" name is also insignificant in the grand scheme of things yet you seek to rely on them heavily.

The running (as Mizen put it) blood can never be insignificant. It establishes a closeness in time. As for Scobie saying the name is insignificant, that is something you claim and for which I have seen no proof. And even if I had, I would still ascribe significance to it.
What was your own attitude as a professional copper? That people who lied about their names were probably honest and innocent? That it should not be followed up on?

As to what the experts were provided with, well I can only go on what Scobie told me and that was it was nothing more than bullet points.

And once you have the bullet points, you are able to decide from them. Scobie did.
Just as you have been told, there is nothing strange about providing a barrister with the points of accusation and asking him if it is enough for a trial. If the material is correctly presented, it is a very enlightening thing to do.

With regards to experts they were brought in to prop up your theory yet the only contribution Scobie is allowed is a 30 second clip out of 45 minutes of him being filmed discussing the "evidence"

ALL the experts gave a lot more input than what could be presented. There were hours and hours and hours of film, and there was 40 minutes to present it in. I made a full session in a pub, two, three hours, answering and discussing all sorts of important questions. Not a second of it made itīs way into the documentary. Is that suspicious?

What Scobie says is that the coincidences mount up in Lechmereīs case, that he acts in a suspicious manner, that a jury would not like that, and that there is enough in it for a case.

What do you think was cut away? When Scobie said that Lechmere is a non-starter? When he laughed at the suggestion that he could have been the killer? Not very likely, eh?

Of course the documentary made a strong case for Lechmere. But they did not make it by silencing Scobie - they did it by listening to him.

Why not ask the production company to provide you with the interview material that didn't get shown?

Because I am not the one who is making strange and unsavoury allegations about it. You are. And because I have seen a lot more of the material already, and I know that the overall impression among the crew and the experts was that we have a very good case.

David MacNab, the producer of the series, have worked with the case for twenty years, always with the feeling that it would never be solved. In conversations with me, he has admitted to having that view changed by Lechmere - he now thinks that we have the killer and that the case is solved. That did not go into the documentary either. Nor did the fact that the crew said that the people on Channel 5 were convinced by the material. It would be unprofessional to put these things in the documentary. But they nevertheless happened.

May I also remind you that Griffiths does not concur with you. He states that based on what he was provided with Cross was "A person of interest" that's a long way from being "A Prime Suspect"

A person of interest? He said that Lechmere was of TREMENDEOUS interest to the investigation and totally relevant. He also said that if the blood evidence was put to a jury, Lechmere would have some real questions to answer. And he reasoned that the blood evidence seemingly gave Lechmere away. And he said that Lechmere needed to be cleared before there was reason to look at any other suspect. And he said that the possibility that somebody else than Lechmere was the killer, given the circumstances, was remote. And THAT, Trevor, is another way of saying that Charles Lechmere should be regarded as the prime suspect for the Polly Nichols murder.

Donīt first tell me that Scobie was sifted to produce only a damning picture, only to then go on to claim that Andy Griffiths only said that Lechmere was a person of interest, Trevor - it reeks of double standards...

All the best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott:

The weight of evidence to negate your theory has been put to you many times on here I am not going to repeat it yet again.

I never asked for it - I asked whether you have evidence or not to prove that any questionable course of action was tkaen when approaching James Scobie and Andy Griffiths.

But conversely the evidence you seek to rely on is unsafe and unreliable and you have interpreted it in a way to fit you theory.

Thatīs what people with suspects do, Trevor. Interestingly, the evidence fits the Lechmere theory. A such, I cannot change the evidence or affect it. It is what it is, and it fits.

There is conflict within the newspaper articles

Absolutely. But why would we exclude the ones that support the Lechmere theory? And which paper article would disenable him to have been the killer?

You cannot be precise about the time of death even the doctors cannot be precise. With your theory a difference of 5 minutes will sink it. The doctors rely on the heat of the body to determine time of death not how much blood was oozing from a wound

They rely on a number of things, Trevor; body temperature, lividity, bloodloss, blood condition, eyes, general appearance, surronding circumstances.
And all of them know that a liquid leaking from a vessel can only leak until the vessel has been emptied.

You make a big play on the oozing of the blood it is insignificant. Likewise Scobie says that the giving of the "false" name is also insignificant in the grand scheme of things yet you seek to rely on them heavily.

The running (as Mizen put it) blood can never be insignificant. It establishes a closeness in time. As for Scobie saying the name is insignificant, that is something you claim and for which I have seen no proof. And even if I had, I would still ascribe significance to it.
What was your own attitude as a professional copper? That people who lied about their names were probably honest and innocent? That it should not be followed up on?

As to what the experts were provided with, well I can only go on what Scobie told me and that was it was nothing more than bullet points.

And once you have the bullet points, you are able to decide from them. Scobie did.
Just as you have been told, there is nothing strange about providing a barrister with the points of accusation and asking him if it is enough for a trial. If the material is correctly presented, it is a very enlightening thing to do.

With regards to experts they were brought in to prop up your theory yet the only contribution Scobie is allowed is a 30 second clip out of 45 minutes of him being filmed discussing the "evidence"

ALL the experts gave a lot more input than what could be presented. There were hours and hours and hours of film, and there was 40 minutes to present it in. I made a full session in a pub, two, three hours, answering and discussing all sorts of important questions. Not a second of it made itīs way into the documentary. Is that suspicious?

What Scobie says is that the coincidences mount up in Lechmereīs case, that he acts in a suspicious manner, that a jury would not like that, and that there is enough in it for a case.

What do you think was cut away? When Scobie said that Lechmere is a non-starter? When he laughed at the suggestion that he could have been the killer? Not very likely, eh?

Of course the documentary made a strong case for Lechmere. But they did not make it by silencing Scobie - they did it by listening to him.

Why not ask the production company to provide you with the interview material that didn't get shown?

Because I am not the one who is making strange and unsavoury allegations about it. You are. And because I have seen a lot more of the material already, and I know that the overall impression among the crew and the experts was that we have a very good case.

David MacNab, the producer of the series, have worked with the case for twenty years, always with the feeling that it would never be solved. In conversations with me, he has admitted to having that view changed by Lechmere - he now thinks that we have the killer and that the case is solved. That did not go into the documentary either. Nor did the fact that the crew said that the people on Channel 5 were convinced by the material. It would be unprofessional to put these things in the documentary. But they nevertheless happened.

May I also remind you that Griffiths does not concur with you. He states that based on what he was provided with Cross was "A person of interest" that's a long way from being "A Prime Suspect"

A person of interest? He said that Lechmere was of TREMENDEOUS interest to the investigation and totally relevant. He also said that if the blood evidence was put to a jury, Lechmere would have some real questions to answer. And he reasoned that the blood evidence seemingly gave Lechmere away. And he said that Lechmere needed to be cleared before there was reason to look at any other suspect. And he said that the possibility that somebody else than Lechmere was the killer, given the circumstances, was remote. And THAT, Trevor, is another way of saying that Charles Lechmere should be regarded as the prime suspect for the Polly Nichols murder.

Donīt first tell me that Scobie was sifted to produce only a damning picture, only to then go on to claim that Andy Griffiths only said that Lechmere was a person of interest, Trevor - it reeks of double standards...

All the best,
Fisherman

The real test would be when all the witnesses gave their evidence in court. Newspaper articles are not evidence

The evidence fits if everything is correct. But it is not conclusive enough to satisfy a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact is that your case would never have got before a jury in 1888. They then had committal proceedings it would never have got past that stage if it had even got to that stage.

In today's judicial system the Crown prosecution service will only bring a case to court if they have more than a reasonable chance of securing a conviction.

Scobie would have no doubt said this, and he probably did just that based on the evidence presented to him. He would have also said that had this case been brought today it would have got thrown out at the end of the prosecution case because there would have been no case to answer.

Giving a false name is not an offence. In this case the reasons are easily explained but you are averse to the common sense reasoning behind this, for to accept the reasoning would weaken your theory.

There is no way time of death can be determined by just looking at a wound so many factors which preclude this. Position of the body, angle of the wounds etc etc

As to what was cut from Scobies interview, well he told me that he openly discussed the negative side of the case from his perspective part of which I have touched on above.

As to David McNab and his team being experts on the case the world of ripperology is full of these experts who believe what they have seen and read, and believe that all police officers in the case were honest and not capable of being mistaken or of telling lies.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Robert]

Fish, re your blood argument : has it not occurred to you that if it were that simple, the police would have reached the same conclusion?

[Fisherman]

Fish, re your blood argument : has it not occurred to you that if it were that simple, the police would have reached the same conclusion?

Yes, it has, Robert. The police must have reasoned that Nichols would have been killed in close proximity to the time when Lechmere "found" her. But they would not necessarily have reasoned that Lechmere must have been the killer; there would have been time for an alternative explanation with somebody killing Nichols and leaving her behind, minutes or seconds only before Lechmere arrived.

But what got this debate started was that Tom Wescott said that he believes Nichols to have been killed already at 3.30, when Lilley supposedly heard sounds underneath her window.
But if THAT was true, then it would be very odd if Nichols kept bleeding for upwards of 20 minutes, having had her head all but cut off.

Apparently the police - directed to make fuller inquiries in Bucks Row by a very dissatisfied coroner - reached the same conclusion. Lilley was approached by the Echo, and her interview was in it on the 6:th, so there would have been ample time to get her on the stand on the 3:rd day of the Nichols inquest. This never happened, however, which is why we may conclude that her story was deemed unrelated to the murder.

Otherwise, I donīt always think that what is apparent to me, must have been apparent to the police too.

It is apparent to me that all the residents of the street should have been interviewed. It was not apparent to the police.

It is apparent to me that Lechmere gave the wrong name to the police. It was not apparent to them.

It is apprent to me that Lechmere should have heard Paul sooner. It was not apparent to them.

I donīt think that we should compare todays police forces with the Victorian ones. It would not be a fair comparison.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott:

The real test would be when all the witnesses gave their evidence in court. Newspaper articles are not evidence

Yes, they are - although less reliable evidence. And in the end, they are all we have, so there is no alternative.

The evidence fits if everything is correct. But it is not conclusive enough to satisfy a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Nor am I saying so. Not that we can know this, since there never was any trial and it is always guesswork to try and predict an outcome. My own stance is that Lechmere would have a good chance to go free at a trial. But the more important matter is that we cannot come anywhere even remotely close to a trial for any other suspect - but we CAN get there with Lechmere! So he is the best suspect, the prime suspect and the only credible suspect based on the evidence all baked into one.

The fact is that your case would never have got before a jury in 1888. They then had committal proceedings it would never have got past that stage if it had even got to that stage.

I am not qualified to make that call, Trevor, since I am not legally trained. But I do know that Scobie says that he would have warranted a modern trial. That tells the story - which suspect compares? Which suspect comes even close to comparing? Not one.

In today's judicial system the Crown prosecution service will only bring a case to court if they have more than a reasonable chance of securing a conviction.

Scobie would have no doubt said this, and he probably did just that based on the evidence presented to him. He would have also said that had this case been brought today it would have got thrown out at the end of the prosecution case because there would have been no case to answer.

Have you already forgotten that you have suggested that Scobie was only presented with material that spoke FOR guilt on Lechmereīs behalf? Then how and why would he have concluded that the case would have been thrown out of court?
You really struggle when trying to produce a coherent argument here. But I will help you out, since it is easy enough to quote what Scobie said ad verbatim. He said that that the Lechmere case would be a "case good enough to put before a jury, that suggests that he was the killer". And earlier, he has strenghtened this by saying "the timings really have him", "he is a man that acts in a way that is suspicious", the coincidences "mount up in his case" and so on.

To me, that does not sound half pessimistic. On the contrary.

But you think that Scobie said that the case is good enough to put before a jury, that it suggests that Lechmere was the killer - and that it would have been thrown out of the court...?

I have now grown very tired about your allegations, Trevor. I therefore urge you to do the proper thing: produce evidence or stop embarrasing yourself.

Giving a false name is not an offence. In this case the reasons are easily explained but you are averse to the common sense reasoning behind this, for to accept the reasoning would weaken your theory.

No, there is no easy explanation at all. There is a suggestion that lacks any form of corroboration and that still would not explain why Lechmere provided the police with a false name as the only authority. He did get it right on the 109 other occasions we have on record. Plus, as Andy Griffiths said, he would have been dutybound to give his real name. It is therefore a very odd anomaly.
Once again, how did you react to things like these in a professional capacity? To what layers of society are false names normally knit?

There is no way time of death can be determined by just looking at a wound so many factors which preclude this. Position of the body, angle of the wounds etc etc

It is a tool among many. And somebody else could have killed Nichols close in time to Lechmereīs arrival. But what I argued is that Nichols would not have bled for twenty minutes, the way Tom Wescott would have it. It defies logic.
You may have missed that this was what raised the point.

As to what was cut from Scobies interview, well he told me that he openly discussed the negative side of the case from his perspective part of which I have touched on above.

How could he? If he was handed no evidence of there even being a negative part?
Or are you now saying that he WAS served with BOTH sides of the case? That would make for a nice change!

Once again, you have nothing but rude guesswork to offer, you know nothing about what Scobie said and thought whereas I do, and I really think you need to shape up, Trevor.

As to David McNab and his team being experts on the case the world of ripperology is full of these experts who believe what they have seen and read, and believe that all police officers in the case were honest and not capable of being mistaken or of telling lies.

As I recall things, I had to tell you that the carman called himself Cross and not Lechmere when you argued that he would never have chosen such an odd name. So much for "expertise".

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Hi Fish

But you are picking and choosing : you dismiss Lilley because the police dismissed her, but when the police dismiss Crossmere you say they got it wrong (and I am not myself particularly interested in Lilley BTW).

We don't know that the police were ignorant of Crossmere's 'real' name. It is perfectly possible that he explained this to them when he gave his statement.

Paradoxically, it is more likely that Crossmere gave the police his real name if he were guilty. If Crossmere was only prompted to go to the police by Paul's article, as per your suggestion, then why, if his neck was at stake, and he was trying to dodge the accusation of lying to Mizen, would he lie about a simple and obvious thing like his surname, while giving his forenames, address and place of work? Was this man a habitual fibber who couldn't resist fibbing even when it wasn't needed? The only reason I can think of that a guilty Crossmere would lie about his name, is if he was worried that people would read his name in the papers and come forward and say, "This Lechmere fellow attacked me a few weeks ago. Don't believe a word he says." You can argue that, I suppose, but there's no reason to think he ever attacked anyone.

You insist that only Crossmere spoke to Mizen and that he lied to him. How come the police overrode the testimony of Mizen - Mizen who had been graded as 'good,' Fish! - and dismissed Crossmere from their theorising? According to you, it was Crossmere's word against Mizen's, with Paul round the corner out of earshot. And it's clear that Mizen tenaciously held to his own story. So why would the police just let this go?

As late as October the police were still looking at the slaughterers. Yet they had a blind spot about Crossmere?

It just doesn't add up, Fish.

[Fisherman]

Robert: Hi Fish

But you are picking and choosing : you dismiss Lilley because the police dismissed her, but when the police dismiss Crossmere you say they got it wrong (and I am not myself particularly interested in Lilley BTW).

Yes, I am picking and choosing. Isnīt that what we should do, looking for the killer? As long as I am using very sound grounds, what is your problem?

When the police arrest people, thay have picked and chosen. How unethical!

We don't know that the police were ignorant of Crossmere's 'real' name. It is perfectly possible that he explained this to them when he gave his statement.

No it is not. He was dutybound to give his real name, and they were equally dutybound to record it. It would be fine to mention an alias too, but NOT to ommitt the real name.

Paradoxically, it is more likely that Crossmere gave the police his real name if he were guilty. If Crossmere was only prompted to go to the police by Paul's article, as per your suggestion, then why, if his neck was at stake, and he was trying to dodge the accusation of lying to Mizen, would he lie about a simple and obvious thing like his surname, while giving his forenames, address and place of work? Was this man a habitual fibber who couldn't resist fibbing even when it wasn't needed? The only reason I can think of that a guilty Crossmere would lie about his name, is if he was worried that people would read his name in the papers and come forward and say, "This Lechmere fellow attacked me a few weeks ago. Don't believe a word he says." You can argue that, I suppose, but there's no reason to think he ever attacked anyone.

Already explained that. 1545 times. And he could well have been a habitual liar - psychopaths very often are.

You insist that only Crossmere spoke to Mizen and that he lied to him. How come the police overrode the testimony of Mizen - Mizen who had been graded as 'good,' Fish! - and dismissed Crossmere from their theorising? According to you, it was Crossmere's word against Mizen's, with Paul round the corner out of earshot. And it's clear that Mizen tenaciously held to his own story. So why would the police just let this go?

There could be no proof, of course. And they did not have Paul at hand who could corroborate or deny. But the fact that he is never asked about it tells the story: they missed out on itīs importance. Otherwise, they WOULD have asked.
Lechmer was the wrong type altogether. Plus he went to the police TWICE on his own accord. That would have cleared him in many menīs eyes.
And we should not predispose that the police are all about clever masterminds, impossible to con.

As late as October the police were still looking at the slaughterers. Yet they had a blind spot about Crossmere?

Yes, they did. Otherwise, they would have secured his name. It is kindergarten easy: they did not check him thoroughly, and there is evidence for it.

It just doesn't add up, Fish.

It adds up, alright. Ask Scobie and Griffiths who did not see the problems you do.

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

As long as I am using very sound grounds, what is your problem?

That you are not using very sound grounds.

No it is not. He was dutybound to give his real name, and they were equally dutybound to record it. It would be fine to mention an alias too, but NOT to ommitt the real name.

Do you have Crossmere's police statement, Fish?

Already explained that. 1545 times.

You'll have to refresh my memory, Fish. I am getting old, Ed - I mean, Fish.

There could be no proof, of course. And they did not have Paul at hand who could corroborate or deny. But the fact that he is never asked about it tells the story: they missed out on itīs importance. Otherwise, they WOULD have asked.

Do you have Paul's police statement, Fish?


It adds up, alright. Ask Scobie and Griffiths who did not see the problems you do.

I will ask Spratling and Swanson, who did not see the problems you do.
I'll probably be meeting them a good few years before you do.

[Fisherman]

Robert: As long as I am using very sound grounds, what is your problem?

That you are not using very sound grounds.

Or debating with people who canīt tell the difference.

No it is not. He was dutybound to give his real name, and they were equally dutybound to record it. It would be fine to mention an alias too, but NOT to ommitt the real name.

Do you have Crossmere's police statement, Fish?

No, I only have the police reports calling him Cross. If they had "Lechmere" in the carmans police statement, they missed out on the duty to present the real name.

Already explained that. 1545 times.

You'll have to refresh my memory, Fish. I am getting old, Ed - I mean, Fish.

No. Iīm sorry. You can refresh your memory by looking it up.

There could be no proof, of course. And they did not have Paul at hand who could corroborate or deny. But the fact that he is never asked about it tells the story: they missed out on itīs importance. Otherwise, they WOULD have asked.

Do you have Paul's police statement, Fish?

No. Do you?

It adds up, alright. Ask Scobie and Griffiths who did not see the problems you do.

I will ask Spratling and Swanson, who did not see the problems you do.
I'll probably be meeting them a good few years before you do.

I would not be too sure of that. You are detracting from my years at a steady pace, Robert. By the way, if Spratling and Swanson knew what we know of Lechmere, he would have hung. Theyīll surely tell you that when you meet them.

The best,
Fisherman