Coincidences, possibilities and probabilities

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Ausgirl;375096]

Pierre asked me for a list.

No. I did not. I wrote:

Do you have some example(s)?

I don't want to give him one, Google is full of that info, it isn't hard to find.

So that makes me a big ol' side trackin meanie, apparently.

Regards, Pierre

[GUT]

I have read that,Fisherman , a lot of theory and presumption, not evidence. I will never agree with your theory. I am not going to waste time discussing it. Other fish to fry.

Miss Marple

I wouldn't go so far as to say I will never agree with it, but it actually needs more than circumstantial evidence, for every piece of which there is a totally innocent explanation and speculation like...

His mum was overbearing
He might have killed others
He might have used other routes to work
He might have carried meat
He might have been bitter because he was descended from a wealthy family but was poor

Without evidence to support them.

[GUT]

But then I'm a sucker for evidence.

And when it's missing (as pretty much all of it is in JtR) for assuming people did their jobs at the standard of the day, and opinions expressed by those who could reasonably have been expected to have access to the evidence are more likely to be right than we are.

[Fisherman]

But then I'm a sucker for evidence.

Then you should be happy about how Lechmere has more evidence going for him than any other Ripper contender.

But of course, you are not. Your infatuation with evidence does not stretch to that.

[Bridewell]

Then you should be happy about how Lechmere has more evidence going for him than any other Ripper contender.

GUT is a barrister. GUT is not happy about the strength of your Lechmere theory. What does that tell you?

[Hercule Poirot]

Then you should be happy about how Lechmere has more evidence going for him than any other Ripper contender.

But of course, you are not. Your infatuation with evidence does not stretch to that.

I honnestly believe that an interpretation of daily acitvities of a human being aimed at turning them into pieces of a legal line or a basket of evidence would result in concluding that this human being is actually guilty of whatever crime he's accused. A suspect, maybe, but the legal system back then as it is today requires more.

Respectfully,
Hercule Poirot

[Fisherman]

GUT is a barrister. GUT is not happy about the strength of your Lechmere theory. What does that tell you?

What does it tell you? That Lechmere was innocent? Then you need to think again. Or for the first time.

James Scobie is a barrister and a QC. He was happy enough about the evidence relating to Lechmere to say that there was enough in it to warrant a modern day trial. What does that tell you?

You are an ex-copper. You apparently cannot hear the warning bells that Andy Griffiths made no mistake about. What does that tell you? It tells me a whole lot.

A barrister will primarily ask him- or herself "Is there enough evidence in this to convict the suspect?"
In LechmereŽs case, I can understand if people think there is not. But those who present suspects out here have so far never been able to fully prove their cases - it is instead a question of the overall viablity of a suspect that we may discuss. And that viability has never been greater than it is in LechmereŽs case.

That should be a positive thing. To you, it is a negative thing. What does that tell me?

Have a guess.

[GUT]

What does it tell you? That Lechmere was innocent? Then you need to think again. Or for the first time.

James Scobie is a barrister and a QC. He was happy enough about the evidence relating to Lechmere to say that there was enough in it to warrant a modern day trial. What does that tell you?

You are an ex-copper. You apparently cannot hear the warning bells that Andy Griffiths made no mistake about. What does that tell you? It tells me a whole lot.

A barrister will primarily ask him- or herself "Is there enough evidence in this to convict the suspect?"
In LechmereŽs case, I can understand if people think there is not. But those who present suspects out here have so far never been able to fully prove their cases - it is instead a question of the overall viablity of a suspect that we may discuss. And that viability has never been greater than it is in LechmereŽs case.

That should be a positive thing. To you, it is a negative thing. What does that tell me?

Have a guess.

You can't have it both ways Fish, Scobie says there's enough to take him to trial, having asked himself "is there enough to convict", and at the same time you say "oh there's not enough to convict sure, but he's the best suspect" which do YOU say he is?

[Fisherman]

I honnestly believe that an interpretation of daily acitvities of a human being aimed at turning them into pieces of a legal line or a basket of evidence would result in concluding that this human being is actually guilty of whatever crime he's accused. A suspect, maybe, but the legal system back then as it is today requires more.

Respectfully,
Hercule Poirot

You are correct - to a degree. We can of course turn a man like - say - John Richardson into a suspect. It was done a few weeks ago, and the case was discussed. There was nothing in it - or so people thought at the time.

Richardson was a priori chosen as a suspect on account of his having been present at a murder site. I like that approach - once we find out who the killer was, there is a 100 per cent chance that he was present at all the murder sites where he killed. Believe it or not.

Then again, even those who cannot be placed at any murder site can be elevated to suspects. Bury, Kelly, Levy, Issenschmid, Puckridge all of these men with mental issues or with a history of violence can of course also be handplucked and presented as viable Ripper candidates.

Crown princes can be chosen. Politicians or singers can. It is always hard to conclusively disprove that they were the Ripper, since we do not know where they were at the times of the murders. Well, we know that the duke of Clarence was not in the East End on all the murder occasions, but up til we found out, he was bona fide material for the Rippers role.

This is the problem you are pointing to. It can only be remedied in one way - by raising the demands on the evidence. The violent suggestions and the celebrity suggestions must all be ties to any one of the murder spots or be proven to have been involved in the murders before there is any reason at all to proceed with them.

That leaves us with the ones we know were there. And that is precisely how it should be. Any police investigation should work from the presumption that those who were present at - or in the near vicinity of - the murder spots, must be cleared before the net is cast further afield.

When we look into the ones found at, or close to, the murder spots, we need to search for odditites, anomalies, things that seem not to be right. And these matters are there aplenty with Lechmere, and with nobody else. The most significant matters are:

1. He was found alone with the victim before he had raised any alarm.

2. The blood evidence, both as regards the bleeding out and the coagulation, is consistent with Lechmere having been the cutter.

3. Although we know that he used the name Lechmere when in contact with authoritites, he chose to present himself by another name to the police in connection with the murder investigation.

4. It is on record that the policeman he met on the murder night said that Lechmere claimed that there was already another PC in place in Bucks Row. This was not true, and the story as such lends itself perfectly to allow for Lechmere to have passed the police unsearched and unasked.

5. The time Lechmere claimed to have left home is not consistent with him being present in Bucks Row at 3.45.

6. Lechmeres home, working place and his mothers address (where one of his daughters lived) form a triangle, in which the Ripper murders all occurred, so he is geographically linked to the murders.

7. The route he travelled to his work would take him right through the Ripper killing fields at times that were roughly consistent with when the victims died, according to the medical expertise.

There is no other person, present at or near any of the Ripper murder sites, who have a list of anomalies like this clinging to him- or herself. A former murder squad leader and a barrister and QC are saying that before he can be cleared, there is no reason to look at any other suspect and that he would warrant a modern day trial.

So you are speaking not of Lechmere but of all the rest of the East-enders when you say that a mock case can be built against them.
Against Lechmere, a real case can be built, should be built - and has been built.

[Fisherman]

You can't have it both ways Fish, Scobie says there's enough to take him to trial, having asked himself "is there enough to convict", and at the same time you say "oh there's not enough to convict sure, but he's the best suspect" which do YOU say he is?

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.

Nor did I say "oh there's not enough to convict sure, but he's the best suspect", as you shamelessly QUOTE!! I thought you were a barrister, a man to whom the truth and honesty played a role?

I said that I can understand if people out here think that there is not enough to convict him on. Myself, I reserve my judgment on that score - I can only listen when Scobie says that a jury would not like Charles Lechmere. And I think that there is a lot of evidence pointing to him. And Scobie was not even presented with the blood evidence, since I only dug it up after the docu.

All in all, I think there is a chance that he would be convicted. And we all know that there generally is such a chance, when there is enough of a case to warrant a trial.

Scobie also said that the outcome of a trial would hinge to a large degree on what the carman had to say in his defence. To me, that sounds a lot like if Scobie is saying that it would take some defending before the carman was off the hook. If that defence could not be presented, he would be likely to be convicted, thatŽs how I read Scobies words.

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.

Tell me which other suspect could warrant a trial, based on the case evidence. Just the one name will do.
HereŽs what I feel free to say: You cannot present such a man. I guarantee that.

[GUT]

Spare your time, Gut - we have always said that there may be innocent explanations to each of the accusation elements. But that is something we never hear - we instead hear that we should not present it as a fact that Lechmere was the killer.
It is a fact that based on the amount of evidence, he is the best suspect there is - not that he must be guilty. He probably is, though.

Now IŽll leave you to it - we donŽt want to turn the thread into a Lechmere one, do we?

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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.