Coincidences, possibilities and probabilities

[Fisherman]

So didn't Scobie ask himself your basic question.

Since there could not be a trial on account of the fact that the killer is long dead, Scobie was dealing with a fictive trial. So it would be a waste of time to ponder the outcome.

What he was asked to do was to say whether there was enough in the case to take it to a modern day trial. He answered that question by a yes. And as I said, I believe he thought there was a chance that Lechmere could be convicted if we could put him on the stand today.

[Fisherman]

One other name...

How about Tumblety who was at least arrested, unlike your man, who if we believe your story wasn't even investigated.

How about Kozminski who was named as the suspect by cops of the day, how come you place so much credit in cops of today, butnotin cops who had access to all the material that is lost to us.

Yes, how about them - can you present evidence based on the case, enough to take them to a modern day trial? Letīs hear it!

[Fisherman]

Of which I am yet to see one piece that would be admissible and have any hope at all of leading to a conviction.

You may a bit slow on the uptake, then - Scobie had no doubts at all. Are you saying that you cannot see any admissible evidence where he saw a lot? Maybe you need to qualify that statement. Apparently, Scobie does not know his job...?

[GUT]

You QUOTED me as saying "oh there's not enough to convict sure, but he's the best suspect". I never said that. And I do not like being quoted with things I have never said. Do you? Because if you do, I would be only too happy to oblige.

As you surely must realize, given your legal insights, my saying that it cannot be established that he must be guilty is not equivalent to saying that he would not be convicted.

You need to get these matters correct, unless you want to be pointed out as being extremely careless.

So he can only be convicted, if it is wrongful conviction?

Strange really.

Anyway I'm out of here, you are so clearly fixated it's beyond funny anymore.

You say "my saying that it cannot be established that he must be guilty is not equivalent to saying that he would not be convicted."

And appear not to vaguely realize the implications.

You quite Scobie like he is God but don't see the flaws in what he says.

You admit there are innocent explanations for each of your circumstantial pieces of evidence, but totally ignore it when you are told that the law is well established that a case based on circumstantial evidence MUST at law fail if there is an innocent explanation to circumstantial evidence.

You quote Scobie as saying that the case could go to trial and then say, but then concede that Barrister will ask is there enough evidence in this to convict a suspect.

But hey enjoy your attempts o convince anyone.

[GUT]

Oh a few more suspects that MUST equal Cross

Everyone else who found a body, because when push comes to shove that's all you have on Cross.

[GUT]

You may a bit slow on the uptake, then - Scobie had no doubts at all. Are you saying that you cannot see any admissible evidence where he saw a lot? Maybe you need to qualify that statement. Apparently, Scobie does not know his job...?

Scobiehad no doubts at all, based on whatever he was fed, as far as we know, including that Cross was crouched over the body when Paul arrived, as depicted in the video.

RIRO.

[GUT]

You may a bit slow on the uptake, then - ?....

funny how the abuse starts when anyone disagrees with you Fish.

[Fisherman]

Scobiehad no doubts at all, based on whatever he was fed, as far as we know, including that Cross was crouched over the body when Paul arrived, as depicted in the video.

RIRO.

He had not seen the video. And standiong over the body is no more "admissible" in court than standing close by, legally speaking. Both matters are perfectly consistent with innocence, and cannot be used to convict somebody without supporting evidence.

This you know, but you avoid the real subject to try and showboat. How pathetic.

[Fisherman]

funny how the abuse starts when anyone disagrees with you Fish.

I thought it started with you deliberately misquoting me. Or am I wrong?

[GUT]

He had not seen the video. And standiong over the body is no more "admissible" in court than standing close by, legally speaking. ....

How pathetic.

I you now know all about admissibility.

And more name calling.

I know what's really pathetic.

[Fisherman]

GUT: So he can only be convicted, if it is wrongful conviction?

Strange really.

Anyway I'm out of here, you are so clearly fixated it's beyond funny anymore.

You say "my saying that it cannot be established that he must be guilty is not equivalent to saying that he would not be convicted."

And appear not to vaguely realize the implications.

I see the implications very clearly. What you seem to miss is that you can be correctly convicted although the evidence is not watertight.

You quite Scobie like he is God but don't see the flaws in what he says.

You speak of Scobie like Blink was the devil, but fail to see the flaws in what you say. Like hinting at intentional misinformation, something you cannot prove in any shape or form (and coming from somebody who deliberately misquoted me a few posts back...)
You are perfectly welcome to point out the flaws in what Scobie said, by the way. I am listening!

You admit there are innocent explanations for each of your circumstantial pieces of evidence, but totally ignore it when you are told that the law is well established that a case based on circumstantial evidence MUST at law fail if there is an innocent explanation to circumstantial evidence.

That depends on the quality of the innocent alternative and on the amount of accusation points. Many have been convicted because the court did not like their innocent alternative explanations. "Somebody must have put the poison in my room" is an example - although such a possibility exists, that kind of accusation point may well be used to convict on if the jury finds it less probable (but not impossible) that it was so.

Once again, you know this, but you are avoiding to mention it. For whatever reason!

You quote Scobie as saying that the case could go to trial and then say, but then concede that Barrister will ask is there enough evidence in this to convict a suspect.

If a REAL case is on itīs way, yes. This is a fictive case, and the question need not be taken into account. Thatīs the second time I explained that. Plus we have not exactly established that Scobie was of the meaning that there was NOT enough in it to convict. Clearly, he may have been.

But hey enjoy your attempts o convince anyone.

The same to you, GUT - especially when it comes to your superiority in legal matters. You will need it.

[Fisherman]

...you now know all about admissibility.

Tell me I am wrong then. Tell me that standing over the body is admissible whereas standing close by the body is not.

And while you are at it, could you tell me what namecalling you are speaking of?

Waiting... waiting ... waiting ...

[Fisherman]

This is a general description of what admissible evidence is about. It is from Wikipedia, but it is a useful short presentation nevertheless:

Admissible evidence, in a court of law, is any testimonial, documentary, or tangible evidence that may be introduced to a factfinder—usually a judge or jury—to establish or to bolster a point put forth by a party to the proceeding. For evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant, without being unfairly prejudicial, and it must have some indicia of reliability. The general rule in evidence is that all relevant evidence is admissible and all irrelevant evidence is inadmissible.

I would like for you, Gut, with your experience of legal matters to list all the evidence you find inadmissible visavi Lechmere, and explain why is would be inadmissible. Thatīs to say every single point of evidence that has been presented against Lechmere, since you said before that you doubt that any of it would be admissible.

Why would it be inadmissible to point to how Lechmere was found alone with the body?

Why would it be inadmissible to point to the namechange?

Why would it be inadmissible to point to Lechmere saying that he left home at 3.30, meaning that he should have been way past Bucks Row at 3.45?

Why would the disagreement between Lechmere and a serving PC about what was said be inadmissible?

Why would the views of Jason Payne-James about the blood evidence be inadmissible?

Why would the geographical correlation between Lechmeres routes and the murder sites be inadmissible?

You seem to think me unfit to speak of these matters. Hereīs your opportunity to shine!

[Fisherman]

... and whereīs the evidence on Kosminski and Tumblety that would allow for a modern day trial - speaking about admissibility!

[caz]

Oh good grief.

I was originally responding to the (in my opinion baseless) *statement* made by a poster (and not his name, for the record, which I couldn't care less about) that mere proximity means the killers must "know" each other.

That wasn't what the poster was actually saying, though. I suggest you reread the relevant posts to see the clarifications. The incredible proximity and tiny time frame, not to mention victim, MO and signature similarities, for the C5 murders make it highly unlikely that several unconnected killers - let alone serial killers - were responsible. I cannot for the life of me think why that is such a hard concept to grasp or agree with, unless it has to do with the name above the posts.

Serial killing was not a particularly common phenomenon in late Victorian England, let alone in that tiny part of East London, so any comparison with 20th and 21st century serial killers in American states seems ever so slightly out of place here, if you'll forgive me my opinion.

Love,

Caz
X