A/ It should be plentyfully obvious that this is my impression.
B/ Even if it was not, I would say that it is correct anyway. There is more factual evidence connected to Lechmere than to any other suspect. It is circumstantial, but people can be hanged on circumstantial evidence.
If you wish to challenge this, you need to produce a barrister and queens councellor who can point to another suspect who also has a prima faciae case that according to the barrister and queens councellor is good enough to take to court.
Circumstantial evidence can in deed cause a conviction, however that is for a jury to decide, not the person presenting the case for the prosecution.
It is not factual by definition as it cannot be directly tied to the accused, it is presumed.
The argument often presented is that you reach a point of so much circumstantial evidence that it weights against the accused, actually if the said evidence is continually weak that is not the case.
Again this reliance on Experts is so touching, and legal opinions when looking at the same evidence vary greatly depending on the angle the expert is coming from. its a very grey area in very many ways.
You may need to read Pauls answer again as you got that wrong.
And you may need to read what made me very displeased with Steve before you comment on it. When he apologizes for having misrepresented what I said, I will apologize to him for becoming pissed by it. I really need to learn to let people piss all over me without getting frustrated about it.
What do YOUR posts say about YOU, John? Clever? Knowledgeable? Level-headed? Uninflammatory? Given to repeatedly imply that fellow posters are in the habit of drinking when you disagree with what they say? A keen disciple of the Marriott/Biggs team?
You tell me.
John's misunderstanding of Paul's position as already been pointed out to him, but it appears you may need to read all of his posts again as well.
You were not misrepresented, those quotes provided were the words typed. the truth is clear for all to see.
The comments directed at me in post #1694 were a truly pathetic and outrageous threat and against the rules of this forum: major rules point 6.
Sunderland Echo and Shipping Gazette 1st Sept 1888: "All day long the streets which were the scene of the murder have been crowded."
Initially I just wasn't certain that the all day crowds were a fact. I am now so it's a likely explaination of how they found Paul. It shows that he wasn't exactly a 'shrinking violet,' though as no one would have known him. He put himself forward when he could have passed by.