Coincidences, possibilities and probabilities

[caz]

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.

He might have used a name his employer, workmates, family and friends never knew him by.
He might have lied to PC Mizen and again at the inquest.
He might have mumbled his home address at the inquest or got away without giving it at all.
He might have allowed time to trawl the main road for a victim,
accompany her back to a legitimate route to work, kill her there and still make it to work on time with no visible blood to remove.
He might have chosen Hanbury Street as his next kill to incriminate Robert Paul, not caring that this could have incriminated himself as an accomplice.

The list goes on...

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

Depends on who you have on the jury, Fish. You and Ed and all your experts would be out for starters, and you'd need a unanimous guilty verdict for a murder conviction. Given the little support you get around here, from people who mostly have no favoured ripper suspect of their own and don't accept there is a strong case against Lechmere, if any case at all, and are not even convinced he is the best of a bunch of no-hopers, I'm buggered if I know how you'd ever find a jury who would conclude the evidence indicated guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If you insist on putting the theory on a legal trial by jury footing, to try and give it some much-needed oomph, you must expect any objections to be made on the same terms.

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, thatīs how I read Scobies words.

Then we read his words quite differently. To me, he is pointing out that Lechmere is no longer here to defend himself, and neither are any of his friends, work colleagues nor immediate family members, who could have been called as witnesses for the defence. The evidence against him is almost entirely based on speculative arguments which rely on his, or his associates' inability (due to the fact they are all dead) to challenge or be given the chance to try and disprove. The name issue, and potential rock solid alibis for the other murders, are but two examples. You have become so blinkered that you imagine Scobie is agreeing with you that Lechmere could offer no defence (being the murdering scumbag that he was) and would likely be convicted as a result. I'm not sure Scobie would be too thrilled with this reading of his words.

In short, Lechmere can never have a fair trial as things stand.

That's not to say any of the suspects could on present knowledge. But again, if you must argue this on a legal basis, Lechmere walks, every bit as quickly and easily as all the rest.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

He might have used a name his employer, workmates, family and friends never knew him by.
He might have lied to PC Mizen and again at the inquest.
He might have mumbled his home address at the inquest or got away without giving it at all.
He might have allowed time to trawl the main road for a victim,
accompany her back to a legitimate route to work, kill her there and still make it to work on time with no visible blood to remove.
He might have chosen Hanbury Street as his next kill to incriminate Robert Paul, not caring that this could have incriminated himself as an accomplice.

The list goes on...

Love,

Caz
X

... and since I listed 31 anomalies, we are going to need 31 excuses for him. Should be a piece of cake.

[caz]

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.

So why are you continuing to invoke the trial by jury system as if it might somehow help your case against Lechmere? Isn't that just as much a waste of your time as it would be Scobie's 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.

But with the caveat that we have no clue what his defence could have come up with had he been alive and able to stand trial. The chance he could have been convicted entirely depends on there being evidence of his guilt beyond anyone's ability at that time to show reasonable doubt.

We actually don't even need any contemporaneous defence witnesses for that. Any lawyer today worth his salt could demonstrate reasonable doubt by the bucketload.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

... and since I listed 31 anomalies, we are going to need 31 excuses for him. Should be a piece of cake.

So when does a 'might have' become a suspicious 'anomaly' in your world, Christer? The moment you open your eyes in the morning?

For each 'might have' there is a 'might not have' - or are you too far into suspicious anomaly land to glance back at neutral territory?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz: Depends on who you have on the jury, Fish.

Nope. Scobie was speaking in general terms - "a" jury would not like that.
So he meant that there were ingredients that would automatically make a jury dislike Lechmere.

You and Ed and all your experts would be out for starters, and you'd need a unanimous guilty verdict for a murder conviction.

But there is not going to BE a trial, Caz - it is all a theoretical construction. Therefore there will be no verdict. And there will be no need for me to get a unanimous verdict.
The only thing that is of interest here is that the case WOULD warrant a trial, suggesting that Lechmere was the guilty party.

Given the little support you get around here, from people who mostly have no favoured ripper suspect of their own and don't accept there is a strong case against Lechmere, if any case at all, and are not even convinced he is the best of a bunch of no-hopers, I'm buggered if I know how you'd ever find a jury who would conclude the evidence indicated guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If you insist on putting the theory on a legal trial by jury footing, to try and give it some much-needed oomph, you must expect any objections to be made on the same terms.

"On the same terms"? You are a funny woman. The terms you get on Casebook are, shall we say, quite specific. And that was the exact reason why we wringed the case out of the ripperological clutches to ask somebody with no preconceptioons about the Ripper case what to make of Lechmere.
-A prime suspect who needs to be cleared before any other suspect needs to be looked into, said the seasoned murder investigator.
-Material for a modern murder trial, said the barrister and QC.

Then we read his words quite differently. To me, he is pointing out that Lechmere is no longer here to defend himself, and neither are any of his friends, work colleagues nor immediate family members, who could have been called as witnesses for the defence.

And neither are people who could possibly have pointed him out as a strange, violent man. It works both ways.

The evidence against him is almost entirely based on speculative arguments which rely on his, or his associates' inability (due to the fact they are all dead) to challenge or be given the chance to try and disprove. The name issue, and potential rock solid alibis for the other murders, are but two examples.

The evidence is not "built on speculative arguments" at all. It is not speculative that the blood was partly coagulated when Mizen saw Nichols, it is not speculative that he changed his name etcetera. Evidence is evidence - and when a case is built on circumstantial evidence only, the different bits and pieces of evidence are best seen as links in a chain that may or may not be strong enough to convict.

You have become so blinkered that you imagine Scobie is agreeing with you that Lechmere could offer no defence (being the murdering scumbag that he was) and would likely be convicted as a result. I'm not sure Scobie would be too thrilled with this reading of his words.

Letīs begin with me, shall we? I am the one being misinterpreted here. The whole suggestion you make is preposterous: Where on earth did I say that Lechmere could offer no defence? Eh?
We-do-not-know-what-defence-he-could-offer!! That goes without saying - we are unaware of that factor.

What Scobie said was that this unknown factor would rule what happened at a trial. If Lechmere could offer evidence to support his innocence, he would walk free, if he could not, he would run the risk of getting convicted.

Please, Caz: Do not dream up, conjure up, lie about, phantasize about or anything else like that about what I think!

In short, Lechmere can never have a fair trial as things stand.

Wrong. He can never have a complete trial involving all information that was at hand in 1888. But there is no reason to presuppose that a trial against him - which in itself would be a totally theoretical construction - would be unfair. We would have to weigh the factors that are around as soundly as possible, and we would arrive at different conclusions and he would therefore walk free. That is completely fair - whether it is the correct verdict is another thing.
Trying to establish the picture that Lechmere is being treated unfairly is not a very clever thing to do, since neither of us knows for certain what applies in the guilt issue. But maybe you donīt care, maybe the more important thing is to misqoute me and to paint me out as unfair, blinkered and unable to make a sound call?

That's not to say any of the suspects could on present knowledge.

We both know that there is no other suspect who would come even close to warranting a trial, so letīs not pretend something else.

But again, if you must argue this on a legal basis, Lechmere walks, every bit as quickly and easily as all the rest.

...and your legal experience and knowledge surpasses Scobies exactly how? What you have to offer is your view, representing a very limited legal insight, or so I gather. The same goes for me - but I am saying the exact opposite thing to you: he may have been convicted. And at the end of the day, our uninformed views count for nothing in comparison with the fact that Lechmere would at any rate warrant a trial. Thereīs the true significance for you.

[Fisherman]

So when does a 'might have' become a suspicious 'anomaly' in your world, Christer? The moment you open your eyes in the morning?

For each 'might have' there is a 'might not have' - or are you too far into suspicious anomaly land to glance back at neutral territory?

Love,

Caz
X

"When the coincidences add upp, mount up - and they do in his case - it becomes one coincidence too many".
James Scobie, QC

At least I open my eyes in the morning, Caz - not everybody does.

[caz]

Actually, Christer, I'd be happy to welcome you as a jury member in the trial against Lechmere.

You know why?

Because you have frequently written on these very message boards that someone else could have killed Nichols [and therefore the other ripper victims] in the seconds before Lechmere arrived on the scene, however unlikely you consider it and however resistant you are to the possibility.

There you go.

That's reasonable doubt for you. Tricky to go back on once you have expressed it so clearly in black and white for everyone.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz: So why are you continuing to invoke the trial by jury system as if it might somehow help your case against Lechmere? Isn't that just as much a waste of your time as it would be Scobie's to ponder the outcome?

Is it a waste of time to establish that a QC thinks that the case against Lechmere would warrant a modern day trial?

To me, that question answers itself.


But with the caveat that we have no clue what his defence could have come up with had he been alive and able to stand trial.

Of course. Who said anything else?

The chance he could have been convicted entirely depends on there being evidence of his guilt beyond anyone's ability at that time to show reasonable doubt.

Yes. And we donīt know whether there was some such person or not.

We actually don't even need any contemporaneous defence witnesses for that. Any lawyer today worth his salt could demonstrate reasonable doubt by the bucketload.

Thereīs that legal expert in you again... No, any lawyer today would be able to do what you do, nothing else: say "no, there is an alternative possibe explanation to each of the 31 points".
After that, your lawyers options would be emptied. And it would be up to the jury to decide for or against.
May I remind you of Scobies words? "A jury would not like that."

A modern day trial against Lechmere on the existing evidence would put him at risk to be convicted, since no evidence whatsoever can be presented to substantiate that innocence. On no point can the theory be proven wrong. None of the links of the chain can be broken.

If we did the trial in 1888, then there is a possibility that one or more of the links COULD be broken. But a trial on the existing evidence alone could well spell disaster for the carman.

And probably rigthly so, if you ask me.

[Fisherman]

Caz:

Actually, Christer, I'd be happy to welcome you as a jury member in the trial against Lechmere.

You know why?

Because you do not know how to pick a jury that is not in any way prejudiced?

Because you have frequently written on these very message boards that someone else could have killed Nichols [and therefore the other ripper victims] in the seconds before Lechmere arrived on the scene, however unlikely you consider it and however resistant you are to the possibility.

There you go.

That's reasonable doubt for you. Tricky to go back on once you have expressed it so clearly in black and white for everyone.

But why would I want to go back? That is the exact thing that I think - that although it is less likely, somebody else than Lechmere COULD have been the killer. It would call for a less likely development on the blood issue, but such things happen.

If I was to say that there could not have been another killer, I would compromise the knowledge I have. Why would I do that?

Once again, we are discussing here whether it can be established beyond reasonable doubt that Lechmere was the killer. We have been told that he would warrant a modern day trial. There is a mountain of circumastantial evidence against the man.

We have come close to finding the Ripper, and we have unveiled the prime suspect, a man accused on caserelated facts instead of on how he was known to be violent, was mentally challenged, had a funny looking nose or something like that.

Thatīs fine by me. And when you start going on about how I have expressed that there could have ben another killer as if that would annoy me, so much the better. It goes to show what you are ready to do and say to try and diminish the case, and thatīs something I donīt mind at all.

[Fisherman]

Being quite the legal expert, Caz, maybe YOU can expand on why the evidence would be inadmissible in court?

It seems Gut has dropped the subject for some reason.

[caz]

He can never have a complete trial involving all information that was at hand in 1888. But there is no reason to presuppose that a trial against him - which in itself would be a totally theoretical construction - would be unfair.

What are you talking about? I said Lechmere cannot have a fair trial on the basis of what we know (or rather don't know) today. I wasn't saying it would have been unfair in 1888 with all the information available to prosecution and defence.

We would have to weigh the factors that are around as soundly as possible, and we would arrive at different conclusions and he would therefore walk free. That is completely fair - whether it is the correct verdict is another thing.

Glad to here it!

Trying to establish the picture that Lechmere is being treated unfairly is not a very clever thing to do, since neither of us knows for certain what applies in the guilt issue.

What? His memory is being treated unfairly, regardless of whether he was innocent as a newborn babe or guilty of countless murders, because he cannot even try to defend himself against the charges. Do you think trials can only be unfair for the truly innocent?

We both know that there is no other suspect who would come even close to warranting a trial, so letīs not pretend something else.

Be so kind as to quote me 'pretending' any such thing. I distinctly said that none of the suspects could be prosecuted today on the limited information available.

Juries are generally made up of people who have no professional legal experience, yet they are quite capable of seeing reasonable doubt when it is laid on a plate for them. You can see it too; you have said as much. So why fight it?

Love,

Caz
X

[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...

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.

I do agree with you that he should be added to the list of suspects on Casebook's suspect page given the circumstantial evidence you brought out and don't no why it hasn't been done yet. When you look at suspects such as 'The Lodger' (not even a actual name) and Sickert ( a guy who strictly did a painting looking like MJK), one wonders how they got there but not Lechmere. I used another listed suspect in my soon to be finished novel, Francis Tumblety, but never a bit of serious evidence has been put forward. I used him strictly because of his amusing personality.

Again refering to the court rule related to circumstantial evidence I mentioned previously (the general rule is that to amount to proof such evidence must be not merely consistent with guilt but inconsistent with innocence), Lechmere seems to have past the first part of the 'equation' although he might fail the second part as all the others would.

But let's put aside for a moment the guilty-not guilty issue like you do (and I accept that).

The question remains: How does someone becomes a valid suspect on Casebook? Maybe there should be a 'Ripper Hall of Shame' page with a series of open credible criterias instead of a random selection of popular 'suspects'.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

[caz]

"When the coincidences add upp, mount up - and they do in his case - it becomes one coincidence too many".
James Scobie, QC

But a hundred 'might haves' (any of which can equally be a 'might not have') don't amount to anything, because the information is not there to tell us how many can safely be converted into a 'definitely' or a 'definitely not', so we are not even in coincidence territory yet. If Scobie has been given a host of 'definites', which individually look like coincidences until taken together, he has been woefully misled.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz: What are you talking about? I said Lechmere cannot have a fair trial on the basis of what we know (or rather don't know) today. I wasn't saying it would have been unfair in 1888 with all the information available to prosecution and defence.

I am talking about how we CAN give him a fair trial based on what we know. After that, we realize that there is material missing and unavailable to us, but that does not mean that a trial would be unfair. Both evidence pointing to and away from guilt can be missing.

Glad to here it!

Me too - if he was innocent. But I would be furious if he was guilty.

What? His memory is being treated unfairly, regardless of whether he was innocent as a newborn babe or guilty of countless murders, because he cannot even try to defend himself against the charges. Do you think trials can only be unfair for the truly innocent?

If he was guilty of countless murders, his memory is still being treated unfairly...?
I did not see that coming.

Be so kind as to quote me 'pretending' any such thing. I distinctly said that none of the suspects could be prosecuted today on the limited information available.

My apologies! Itīs just that Gut thought that both Tumblety and Kosminski could have warranted modern day trials based on the evidence, so I am not used to such clear thinking as yours.

Juries are generally made up of people who have no professional legal experience, yet they are quite capable of seeing reasonable doubt when it is laid on a plate for them. You can see it too; you have said as much. So why fight it?

Fight what?