Could we prove any suspect guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt?"

[GUT]

Raven, this is from William Beadle’s dissertation here on Casebook:

“According to a Dundee lawyer who reviewed the case against him which I outlined in the Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper:

‘Based on the evidence presented here, a Crown Prosecution of William Bury for the Ripper murders would have had every chance of success.’”

So in the opinion of at least one lawyer, one of the suspects here could indeed be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the Ripper murders.

G'day Wyatt


And what does one lawyers opinion mean.

Nothing.

[John G]

Raven, this is from William Beadle’s dissertation here on Casebook:

“According to a Dundee lawyer who reviewed the case against him which I outlined in the Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper:

‘Based on the evidence presented here, a Crown Prosecution of William Bury for the Ripper murders would have had every chance of success.’”

So in the opinion of at least one lawyer, one of the suspects here could indeed be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the Ripper murders.

Hello Wyatt,

Do you agree that Bury could have been responsible for Rose Mylett's murder? According to William Beadle Clarke's Yard was just a few minutes walk from Spanby Road. And, of course, she had been strangled, just as Ellen Bury had.

[Wyatt Earp]

G'day Wyatt


And what does one lawyers opinion mean.

Nothing.

It looks like we have a second opinion, lol.

[Wyatt Earp]

Hello Wyatt,

Do you agree that Bury could have been responsible for Rose Mylett's murder? According to William Beadle Clarke's Yard was just a few minutes walk from Spanby Road. And, of course, she had been strangled, just as Ellen Bury had.

John, I haven't carefully studied the Mylett murder and don't have an opinion on it.

[GUT]

It looks like we have a second opinion, lol.

Wyatt

I don't think that I know a Barrister who hasn't at one stage or another got it wrong when they predicted the outcome of a case, that's why most don't try and call it with anything like certainty. I know that there have been plenty of times when cases I was running ended up with radically different results than I expected, sometimes better sometimes worse.

And when they aren't presented with all the facts it is less than worthless.

[Abby Normal]

Raven, this is from William Beadle’s dissertation here on Casebook:

“According to a Dundee lawyer who reviewed the case against him which I outlined in the Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper:

‘Based on the evidence presented here, a Crown Prosecution of William Bury for the Ripper murders would have had every chance of success.’”

So in the opinion of at least one lawyer, one of the suspects here could indeed be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the Ripper murders.

Hi wyatt
with all due respect-I know circumstantial evidence alone can convict someone, but even the circumstantial evidence againt bury is so weak that I don't think a prosecutor, even back then, would have even tried.

and this coming from someone who thinks Bury is one of the better candidates for the ripper.

[Wyatt Earp]

Wyatt

I don't think that I know a Barrister who hasn't at one stage or another got it wrong when they predicted the outcome of a case, that's why most don't try and call it with anything like certainty. I know that there have been plenty of times when cases I was running ended up with radically different results than I expected, sometimes better sometimes worse.

And when they aren't presented with all the facts it is less than worthless.

GUT, thank you for your view. Some good cautionary notes there.

[Wyatt Earp]

Hi wyatt
with all due respect-I know circumstantial evidence alone can convict someone, but even the circumstantial evidence againt bury is so weak that I don't think a prosecutor, even back then, would have even tried.

and this coming from someone who thinks Bury is one of the better candidates for the ripper.

Abby, I would reply by saying that the people best qualified to assess the strength of the criminal case against Bury are not you or I, but the people who have current or past experience within the legal system—like the lawyer who communicated with Beadle. In his view—which may be no more than a preliminary assessment—there is not only enough circumstantial evidence to convict Bury, but that a prosecution of him would have “every chance of success.” If Bury is convictable—and it would obviously take more than one legal opinion to establish that—then that is significant.

[GUT]

Abby, I would reply by saying that the people best qualified to assess the strength of the criminal case against Bury are not you or I, but the people who have current or past experience within the legal system—like the lawyer who communicated with Beadle. In his view—which may be no more than a preliminary assessment—there is not only enough circumstantial evidence to convict Bury, but that a prosecution of him would have “every chance of success.” If Bury is convictable—and it would obviously take more than one legal opinion to establish that—then that is significant.

But didn't someone else say the same about Crossmere and without looking to find names I've seen similar about other suspects over the years.

My other warning is that it may depend on how serious our expert is taking his task, what info he is actually given and [the skeptic in me says] who is paying him.

[GUT]

BTW I'm not saying that prosecution would have "no chance" just cautioning about relying on "a lawyer said a prosecution would have good prospects".

[Wyatt Earp]

and [the skeptic in me says] who is paying him.

Would also apply to lawyers who give a “no” on the convictability question—are they working for the Ostrog faction??

[GUT]

Would also apply to lawyers who give a “no” on the convictability question—are they working for the Ostrog faction??

Yep.

A true expert should be impartial, but many aren't.

[harry]

Perhaps the first thing that should be noted,is that most everyone comes to a flawed conclusiom.'A person is innocent until proven guilty'. The correct terminology is, A person should be considered innocent until proven guilty,and that state only alludes to the trial.The word ''considered ' means the guilt or innocence is open to argument and discussion.
There is nothing that pevents a police officer for instance considering a person guilty at any time,indeed one must have a consideration of guilt before a person is placed before a court.We can argue about whether there was enough evidence,or whether such evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,in the Ripper killings.

[GUT]

Perhaps the first thing that should be noted,is that most everyone comes to a flawed conclusiom.'A person is innocent until proven guilty'. The correct terminology is, A person should be considered innocent until proven guilty,and that state only alludes to the trial.The word ''considered ' means the guilt or innocence is open to argument and discussion.
There is nothing that pevents a police officer for instance considering a person guilty at any time,indeed one must have a consideration of guilt before a person is placed before a court.We can argue about whether there was enough evidence,or whether such evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,in the Ripper killings.

Might be nit-picking Harry but it is actually "presumed innocent", not "considered innocent" there is a subtle difference..

And I thought the issue was "Is there enough evidence to get a conviction on the criminal standard of proof."

Personally I don't think there is even enough on the Balance of Probabilities.

[harry]

Gut,
Indeed there is a difference.Unless it has been changed,the common law term,as set out later I believe, in the Judges Rules,was "'considered''.Now I know the Judges rules as such did not come into being until 1912,but case law prevailed.A person could be considered guilty.

It is relevant to the heading,in my opinion,as we today talk around it.We can consider what is evidence to us,that may not have appeared so in 1888.For instance did Hutchinson lie?,did Cross lie?.Was Kosminki identified?,and we can in our own minds set a value on that evidence.If we believe, would a jury believe.

You see,I do think,on the balance of probability, that Hutchinson lied.Others that Cross lied.Others that Kosminski was identified,and if all the facts claimed by various authors are true,then a jury might believe as those persons believe,that there is enough evidence.
Regards.