Proving that Charles Lechmere is a very good suspect

[Christer Holmgren]

Alas killers are seldom found by ticking boxes. In hindsight, certainly, there's a whole lot of box ticking going on (see the whole history of "profiling"), but no police official worthy of the name will tell you (not in good conscience anyway) that pointing to a suspect, and then simply subjecting him to some deductive box ticking process, is even remotely sufficient in building a case against him. Not even a circumstantial one.
He will tell you however that evidence is required. And not just any old evidence. Something in the way of solid proof is required, and that to such a degree we will never be able to utilize more than 130 years after the fact.

I´m afraid you are wrong. People who have a proven presence at a murder site and who tell a story that is not in line with what the other witnesses tell and who fit the geographical pattern are very likely to be guilty people. Very, very likely. As for evidence, I agree. It is required - and it is there in Lechmeres case, which was why James Scobie said that there was a case against him that suggested guilt. Maybe you remember that? It occurred just before a large number of disappointed ripperologists claimed that Scobie had been lied to, bribed, misled and all sorts of things. By a renowned film company, no less.

At the end of the day, you may have noted that I did not say that Lechmere ticking the boxes proves his guilt? I said that it very clearly SUGGESTS guilt, and that the police would be very aware of that today. And I also said that these matters prove that Lechmere is a very good suspect. Not that he must be the killer - but that he is a very good suspect.

In Cutting Point, I tell the story of Robert Black, who was convicted of abducting and murdering three girls on account of how he had been caught red-handed trying the same thing with another girl. It was established that he had been in the vicinity of all three abductions at the relevant times, and so he was sent down for the murders.
No conclusive technical proof was there, just the fact that it was shown that he had been close to all three abduction spots. Circumstantial evidence. Quite, quite enough.

[Michael Banks]

Is this the Scobie who was led to believe that Lechmere had left the house at 3.30, rather than ‘about 3.30,’ and who as a consequence of this was presented with some highly incriminating, and highly fictional, missing minutes? The question has to be asked because it’s hugely valid, would he have still said that Lechmere had a case to answer if this gap hadn’t been presented as a fact? Remove the imagined gap and we’re left with a man who found a body.

And as for telling stories that aren’t in line…. for every one of these we can give a completely reasonable, plausible explanation for and we cannot and should not assume that an errors must have been on the part of Lechmere.

Id say that more exaggeration exists over the candidacy of Lechmere than any other candidate.

[Gary Barnett]

Is this the Scobie who was led to believe that Lechmere had left the house at 3.30, rather than ‘about 3.30,’ and who as a consequence of this was presented with some highly incriminating, and highly fictional, missing minutes? The question has to be asked because it’s hugely valid, would he have still said that Lechmere had a case to answer if this gap hadn’t been presented as a fact? Remove the imagined gap and we’re left with a man who found a body.

And as for telling stories that aren’t in line…. for every one of these we can give a completely reasonable, plausible explanation for and we cannot and should not assume that an errors must have been on the part of Lechmere.

Id say that more exaggeration exists over the candidacy of Lechmere than any other candidate.

I’m assuming Scobie QC isn’t an idiot. So either he considered and questioned the evidence presented to him or just accepted it at face value and took his cheque.

[Christer Holmgren]

Is this the Scobie who was led to believe that Lechmere had left the house at 3.30, rather than ‘about 3.30,’ and who as a consequence of this was presented with some highly incriminating, and highly fictional, missing minutes? The question has to be asked because it’s hugely valid, would he have still said that Lechmere had a case to answer if this gap hadn’t been presented as a fact? Remove the imagined gap and we’re left with a man who found a body.

And as for telling stories that aren’t in line…. for every one of these we can give a completely reasonable, plausible explanation for and we cannot and should not assume that an errors must have been on the part of Lechmere.

Id say that more exaggeration exists over the candidacy of Lechmere than any other candidate.

That would be odd, since it is harder to exaggerate his candidacy than it is for any other suspect. There is less room left for exaggerations in Lechmeres case. Compare, if you will, to a man like Druitt, where there is absolutely nothing linking him practically to the murders - to make a suspect out of him, a colossal amount of exagerration (and inventiveness) is required.

On Scobie: how do you know how the time that Lechmere left home was presented to him? Is it not true that you just made your allegation up? Invented it? Without being familiar with the material Scobie was given? Plus, of course, the timings given by Lechmere ARE in line with guilt, regardless of how they should not be taken as exact. You want it to go away, but any prosecutor would use them to some significant effect. And rightly so; if he left home at ”around 3.30” he should have been in Bucks Row around 3.37, not around 3.45.

Charles Lechmere fits every bit of the threefold method the police will use trying to flush out their suspect and likely killer. It does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was the killer, but it DOES prove that he is a very good suspect. And that is what this thread is about. I know it provokes you, I said so in my first post. But there is nothing you can do about it, unless you refuse to accept the validity of genuine police work.

[Debra Arif]

The QUOTE function doesn't seem to be working properly on this thread?

[Edward Stow]

They were as choc-a around Waterloo as in the East, where his train would have arrived. I don't think the Temple was specified.
I am bemused as to why there is this obsession that Druitt would have preferred to sneak into his chambers for an illicit overnight stop over, rather than check into a hotel in the Waterloo area.

[Edward Stow]

Scobie is if course a highly successful and very well regarded defence barrister, familiar with all the ways in which potentially incriminating evidence can be minimised... I think he needs no lessons from amateur 'Ripperologists'.
Scabies also has a reputation to uphold...

[Chris Phillips]

The QUOTE function doesn't seem to be working properly on this thread?

Thanks for pointing that out. It seems that when you create a new section it is disabled by default for that section. Should be fixed now.

[Jurriaan Maessen]

Scobie is if course a highly successful and very well regarded defence barrister, familiar with all the ways in which potentially incriminating evidence can be minimised... I think he needs no lessons from amateur 'Ripperologists'.
Scabies also has a reputation to uphold...

Best barrister in da hood

Meet James Scobie arguably the best hood attorney out ere in London.More info about who he helped down below : ukdrill (reddit.com)

[Edward Stow]

Da best barrister in da hood clearly doesn't agree with your assertion on how not to build a case against someone.
But who knows?
Perhaps you know best.

[Caroline Brown]

Alas killers are seldom found by ticking boxes. In hindsight, certainly, there's a whole lot of box ticking going on (see the whole history of "profiling"), but no police official worthy of the name will tell you (not in good conscience anyway) that pointing to a suspect, and then simply subjecting him to some deductive box ticking process, is even remotely sufficient in building a case against him. Not even a circumstantial one.
He will tell you however that evidence is required. And not just any old evidence. Something in the way of solid proof is required, and that to such a degree we will never be able to utilize more than 130 years after the fact.

Morning Jurriaan,

Your post made me think of the awful hash the police and profilers made of the Rachel Nickell murder case from 1992. Granted, their prime suspect at the time, Colin Stagg, wasn't the one to 'discover' Rachel's body, but he did walk his dog on the common regularly and was identified as a local oddball, from which a very loose circumstantial case was built up, including the notorious 'honey trap', set up in the hope of getting a confession that would stand up in a court of law. He didn't confess and there was no forensic evidence against him.

Robert Napper was later identified as the real murderer, and there are parallels between his outdoor murder of Nickell and indoor murder and mutilation of Samantha Bisset, and the murders of Tabram and Kelly.

Before Christer and Ed go in for the kill [sorry!], my comments are not meant as an argument against Lechmere being considered at least a person of interest in this mother of all cold cases. And clearly, nobody could risk doing today what Lechmere is claimed to have done in 1888, at the scene of the Buck's Row murder, as the killer would know he had the victim's DNA all over him for starters, and the murder weapon concealed on his person. But I would prefer to have seen the emphasis on seeking to eliminate Lechmere as a suspect, as the police would be doing today with anyone in similar shoes.

Love,

Caz
X

[Edward Stow]

The Colin Stagg case is actually a useful point of comparison - where the police went for the local weirdo then fitted him up.
That is a common denominator - then and now. They never learn... from Pizer, Ischenschmidt, Druitt, Kosminski to Timothy Evans and countless others.
The bland everyman is always overlooked.

[Jurriaan Maessen]

Before Christer and Ed go in for the kill [sorry!], my comments are not meant as an argument against Lechmere being considered at least a person of interest in this mother of all cold cases. And clearly, nobody could risk doing today what Lechmere is claimed to have done in 1888, at the scene of the Buck's Row murder, as the killer would know he had the victim's DNA all over him for starters, and the murder weapon concealed on his person. But I would prefer to have seen the emphasis on seeking to eliminate Lechmere as a suspect, as the police would be doing today with anyone in similar shoes.

I agree completely.

[Caroline Brown]

The Colin Stagg case is actually a useful point of comparison - where the police went for the local weirdo then fitted him up.
That is a common denominator - then and now. They never learn... from Pizer, Ischenschmidt, Druitt, Kosminski to Timothy Evans and countless others.
The bland everyman is always overlooked.

It's a fair point, Ed.

That's why we should have learnt by now that the best way to test how good a case can be made against one's 'favourite' suspect in 2022 is by trying one's level best to eliminate him first, by any and every means - not by trying one's level best to put a noose round his neck.

Even Jack the Ripper had/has the right to a fair trial.

Love,

Caz
X

[Edward Stow]

Yes you are right and Lechmere can't be eliminated not nearly.