Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Favorite suspect/s?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by harry View Post
    Fisherman,
    I haven't got anything wrong. A prima facia Case is presented at a pretrial hearing to determine whether a case merits going to trial.That is also from the internet.Under the British justice system,usually a Magistraes hearing.

    Before that of course is a police investigation to gather evidence,and in the case of Nicols such an investigation was conducted,and guess what?No evidence was discovered that merited any person facing a Prima Facia hearing.

    What does Scobie say to that?
    prima facie case
    Word Origin
    See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
    noun Law.
    a case in which the evidence produced is sufficient to enable a decision or verdict to be made unless the evidence is rebutted.


    Prima facie means, more or less "at first glance" "on the face of things". This is what Scobie said and meant, and what he reinforced that by adding that it was a prima facie case "that suggested he was guilty".

    Meaning that if we go only by what the prosecution says, Lechmere looks guilty and there is enough in it to make for a court case - SO FAR!

    He leaves the defence untouched upon, since he never saw it. But you and me both know that there IS no real defence, and absolutely nothing that can clear Lechmere. It would all come down to his answers in court and his ability to bolster them.

    Of course, if the defence could dig up evidence that Lechmere could not be the killer, the case would be dismissed. But could they?
    Last edited by Fisherman; 06-06-2018, 11:52 PM.

    Comment


    • What information was Scobie given, Fish?
      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

      Comment


      • Fish, you're supposed to be the fisherman, not the worm wriggling on the hook.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
          No, that's what's left when you omit an important piece of evidence. The full account states that Paul accompanied Cross when Mizen spoke to him.
          The full account in the Star, a paper that rewrote the evidence so as to look as if Mizen, not Baxter, offered this information.

          As long as the Morning Advertiser does not mention that part, there is no reason at all to accept that it must have been in place, Gareth.

          It is two versions pitted against each other, and only one offers the true context.

          And then it is you choosing the version that you like the best, without being able to substantiate that it is the true version.

          You really cannot expect that to work, can you?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Robert View Post
            Fish, you're supposed to be the fisherman, not the worm wriggling on the hook.
            I am not the one wriggling. You are, now that it has been established that you rely on a person who was not even in Bucks Row.

            Wriggle, wriggle, little worm.

            Comment


            • It´s not a shame to misinterpret things. To not admit it when proven wrong, however, THAT is a shame.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                The full account in the Star, a paper that rewrote the evidence so as to look as if Mizen, not Baxter, offered this information.
                I'm not referring to the Star specifically. More than one source includes the important clause that Paul accompanied Cross when, or as, the latter spoke with Mizen.
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  It´s not a shame to misinterpret things. To not admit it when proven wrong, however, THAT is a shame.
                  It's never too late to start, Fish.
                  Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                  "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    I am not the one wriggling. You are, now that it has been established that you rely on a person who was not even in Bucks Row.
                    Why on earth would Baxter have made up the fact that Paul accompanied Cross when Mizen spoke with him?
                    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                    Comment


                    • Morning Advertiser :


                      Police constable George Maizen (sic), 55 H, said - On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row).

                      What happened to the policeman in Buck's Row, Fish?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                        I'm not referring to the Star specifically. More than one source includes the important clause that Paul accompanied Cross when, or as, the latter spoke with Mizen.
                        ... and they may all represent the same media bureau.

                        The one thing that matters is that the ONLY newspaper that informed us that all Mizen did was to answer "yes" to a question he could not very likely answer "no" to. And that question - and therefore also the whole wording about the matter - was asked by somebody who was not in Bucks Row!

                        I am personally extremely happy that we know that this was so. If the Morning Advertiser had followed suit, you would all say that "Mizen said that...". If I had suggested "What if Mizen only replied ýes´to a question asked by the coroner?", I have this uneasy feeling that you would have pooped all over me. Laughed at the suggestion, sort of. I know it´s not nice to think so about truthful and discerning posters like you, but I cannot help it.

                        Now, you cannot do that. Now we KNOW full well that the one paper that reported this, also reported that Baxter asked "There was a man in company with Cross?", and therefore it remains as far as the evidence allows us to travel.

                        You asked me, rather spitefully, how I am doing with the large flaps. It is time to answer that question now.
                        The flaps were reported - by mumerous newspapers and in different wordings - to represent the "abdomen" or "the lower abdomen" of a woman. You would have nothing of it. You categorically dismissed it, and you did so because you said that journalists are notoriously unreliable.

                        That seemingly does not apply in this case? When you NEED the journalists to be on point? And when you need to dismiss the journalists from the Morning Advertiser as NOT being on point, having misconstrued what was said or left important matters out - although THEY, as the only paper, informs us about who you are using as the best and most reliable witness in Bucks Row.

                        Coroner Baxter.

                        Who was never even there.

                        Crash, bang, boom, and suddenly your whole argument smoulders to ashes.

                        That´s how my large flaps are doing.
                        Last edited by Fisherman; 06-07-2018, 01:06 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                          It's never too late to start, Fish.
                          Good to hear. I´m waiting. It´s perhaps painful, but you really need to do it.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                            Why on earth would Baxter have made up the fact that Paul accompanied Cross when Mizen spoke with him?
                            He didn´t. It´s you who claim he did.

                            The only direct quotation we have of him tells us that.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Robert View Post
                              Morning Advertiser :


                              Police constable George Maizen (sic), 55 H, said - On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row).

                              What happened to the policeman in Buck's Row, Fish?
                              He´s left out in this version. And in a few others.

                              But since we know that a juryman asked Lechmere whether he had really said there was such a man, it is established beyond doubt anyway as something Lechmere supposedly said. Unless, of course, the journalist who quoted the juryman did it to spice the article up - artistic license à la Gareth, you know.

                              Anything else? No?
                              Last edited by Fisherman; 06-07-2018, 01:08 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Once again, what would you have Mizen answer to Baxters question?

                                "No, there was not another man there"?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X