Coincidences, possibilities and probabilities

[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.

[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]

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

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

[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.

[GUT]

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

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

[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]

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 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.

[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...?

[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]

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]

Sorry Fish, but here are your words "not that he must be guilty".

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.

[GUT]

In summary: Do not put words in my mouth. I am perfectly capable to speak for myself. Do not quote things as if I had said them. You should know better. And finally - we (including a barrister and QC) are discussing a trial of Charles Lechmere, based on the case evidence.

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

[GUT]

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.

[GUT]

I would like to have it my way, not yours, Gut. I never said that Scobie claimed that there was enough to convict - he said that there was enough to take the case to a modern day trial. Whether he believed that Lechmere would be convicted or not is another question.

A barrister will primarily ask him- or herself "Is there enough evidence in this to convict the suspect?"

So didn't Scobie ask himself your basic question.