Coincidences, possibilities and probabilities

[Fisherman]

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

Iīm afraid you are going to have to prove that. Anybody, anywhere, anytime, can take it upon herself to infer that an expert like Scobie has been woefully misled. It is not very nice and more often than not, it says more of the accuser than of the accused.

If Scobie had been misrepresented and lied to - donīt you think that he would have come forward and said so?

Wait - maybe he was payed a handsome sum to lie? Howīs that?

Prove it, or be quiet. Thatīs the best advice I can give you.

More exactly, the advice to think it over BEFORE you say it is even better. But itīs a bit late for that.

I think our exchange has come to a sad end here.

[caz]

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

Yes, if he has been misled about all these so-called 'coincidences' that amount to no more than 'might haves'.

But you only needed to invoke your QC once if what he said was truly the last word on Lechmere warranting a modern day trial. The more you feel the need to repeat the message, the less punch it packs.

...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 jury doesn't have to like it, but giving them alternative explanations for each of your 31 points pretty much fits the definition of providing reasonable doubt.

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.

And that's precisely what makes the whole concept unfair and pointless. Just as Macnaghten could not have convicted Druitt on the sole basis of private evidence he claimed to have destroyed, Lechmere is not at risk of being convicted because he is entitled to a defence, but is deprived one because none of the information with the potential to turn your list of 'might haves' to ashes has apparently survived.

If we did the trial in 1888,[/B] 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.

As I say, unfair and pointless then.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Once again, we are discussing here whether it can be established beyond reasonable doubt that Lechmere was the killer.

Are we? In that case there is nothing left to discuss because you agree with me that it can't - ever. Another man could have done the deed before Lechmere arrived.

Case dismissed.

Next.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

I am no legal expert, Christer, when it comes to admissible evidence, but as a previous jury member I am hot on the subject of reasonable doubt - especially when I don't like what's been presented by a prosecution that blindfolds the defence and ties its hands behind its back.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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?

Can you PLEASE slow down and make sure you distinguish correctly between my words and yours? It's very frustrating to see you adding your own words in plain text instead of bold (as in the second paragraph above) in your rush to respond.

Thank you.

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

You didn't know that the guilty are just as entitled to a fair trial as the innocent (mainly because nobody knows if they are guilty or innocent before they are tried )? I'm amazed. Perhaps I shouldn't be.

Fight what?

The reasonable doubt rule.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Iīm afraid you are going to have to prove that. Anybody, anywhere, anytime, can take it upon herself to infer that an expert like Scobie has been woefully misled. It is not very nice and more often than not, it says more of the accuser than of the accused.

I said 'if' Scobie has been given a list of definite coincidences, which taken together look too suspicious to be coincidental, and do not each depend on a 'might have' to become a coincidence in the first place, he has been misled. I don't know if this applies, do you?

Prove it, or be quiet. Thatīs the best advice I can give you.

That 'if' rather gets in the way, doesn't it? If you have such a list, with not a 'might have' in sight, perhaps you'd like to share it with the rest of us mere mortals?

I think our exchange has come to a sad end here.

I hope not. Perhaps if you slow down a bit and read more carefully before responding you'll see things more clearly for what they are.

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

I said 'if' Scobie has been given a list of definite coincidences, which taken together look too suspicious to be coincidental, and do not each depend on a 'might have' to become a coincidence in the first place, he has been misled. I don't know if this applies, do you?



That 'if' rather gets in the way, doesn't it? If you have such a list, with not a 'might have' in sight, perhaps you'd like to share it with the rest of us mere mortals?



I hope not. Perhaps if you slow down a bit and read more carefully before responding you'll see things more clearly for what they are.

Love,

Caz
X

I am sure you remember the saying "When you have got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow" never more fitting

[Fisherman]

Now that the opportunity for you two to team up has surfaced, Caz and Trevor, I can condense my answer to a very short one:

Try the Marriott approach to Scobie, Caz - it involves calling up the expert, talking to him and subsequently claiming that he has said something he has absolutely NOT said. Trevors debacle with Jason Payne-James, the supposedly misled forensic expert from the docu, is quite revealing for anybody who entertains the unsavoury idea that Blink Films misrepresented these men.

Jason Payne-James was able to tell us that he did not think that he had been in any way misrepresented. I can only work from the honest assumption that the exact same goes for Scobie.

I have said this before, and I will say it again, but just this once: Making the kind of accusations that you do takes proof. As long as this proof is not presented, I will regard the accusations as utter drivel, unsavoury crap and useful evidence for my thesis that these boards involve a number of people who need to give their posts some long, hard afterthought.

End of story.

[Trevor Marriott]

Now that the opportunity for you two to team up has surfaced, Caz and Trevor, I can condense my answer to a very short one:

Try the Marriott approach to Scobie, Caz - it involves calling up the expert, talking to him and subsequently claiming that he has said something he has absolutely NOT said. Trevors debacle with Jason Payne-James, the supposedly misled forensic expert from the docu, is quite revealing for anybody who entertains the unsavoury idea that Blink Films misrepresented these men.

Jason Payne-James was able to tell us that he did not think that he had been in any way misrepresented. I can only work from the honest assumption that the exact same goes for Scobie.

I have said this before, and I will say it again, but just this once: Making the kind of accusations that you do takes proof. As long as this proof is not presented, I will regard the accusations as utter drivel, unsavoury crap and useful evidence for my thesis that these boards involve a number of people who need to give their posts some long, hard afterthought.

End of story.

Now listen you clown its about time you stopped slagging people off when they hit a nerve with you when they highlight the flaws in your theory.

I have never said either Scobie of Jason Payne were misrepresented. They can only give their opinions on what was presented to them, and I suggest from the conversations I had with them that there were not presented with the full facts.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[caz]

Try the Marriott approach to Scobie, Caz - it involves calling up the expert, talking to him and subsequently claiming that he has said something he has absolutely NOT said...

...blah blah - distraction tactic - blah blah blah...

I have said this before, and I will say it again, but just this once: Making the kind of accusations that you do takes proof. As long as this proof is not presented, I will regard the accusations as utter drivel, unsavoury crap and useful evidence for my thesis that these boards involve a number of people who need to give their posts some long, hard afterthought.

I have not accused anyone of anything, Christer.

How many different ways do you need me to say this?

IF Scobie was given a list, which he took to be established facts, rather than the 'might or might not haves' they have always been here on the message boards, I can see how he reached the conclusion that, collectively, the number of apparent 'coincidences' added up to something beyond coincidence, and therefore suspicious, which a jury wouldn't like. Otherwise, I am at a loss to see how he could have reached such a conclusion, if his list consisted mainly of 'might haves' which he had no means of distinguishing from a 'might not have', let alone judging what was a 'definitely' or a 'definitely not'.

You similarly failed to grasp the basic concept of a fair trial. With so much missing information, which safely gathered in could have fatally undermined the case for the prosecution or the defence, by resolving all those useless 'might haves' and apparent coincidences one way or another, there can be no fair trial whether the accused be innocent or guilty; no way for any jury to deliver a fair verdict on that basis; no fair way of seeing justice done.

Take this out of your fictional court room and you can revert to arguing the pros and cons of the theory itself, instead of getting bogged down in a trial situation which is not tenable.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Trevor!

Substantiate your claim that Scobie and Griffiths were underinformed. Specify EXACTLY which material it was they were not given access to. List it clearly, for all of us to see.

[Fisherman]

This is the one thing you need to know, both of you:

If you believe that there has been foul play involved in any manner in the making of the documentary, there is only one way to go about such a thing:

You present the proof BEFORE you accuse anybody.

That is the way it has always been, and it will remain the exact same in the future.

It is not without interest that people who cry their hearts out over how they think that the carman is accused with no evidence behind it (!), are willing to sink to levels like these. From me and Edward, you demand evidence - but when it comes to castigating a renowned film company (who puts their rumour on the line everytime they put a production out there) with no substantiation whatsoever, you feel you have the right to do so.

It is shameful, pityful, disgusting and lacking any moral.

[Patrick S]

Scoby. Griffiths. Scoby. Griffiths. Scoby. Griffiths. It seems these are the only two - aside from "Fisherman" who even pretend to entertain what's left of this "theory". Or, at least that's what "Fisherman" reports to us on these boards.

Yet, one must ask what impact "Fisherman's" presentation of these supposed "coincidences" has had on their perception of the events surrounding the Nichols' murder. After all, there's no one arguing against the theory. There is only "Fisherman", advocating "Lechmere the Ripper".

Further, one would suspect also that these gentlemen likely haven't the time nor the inclination to research the matter themselves. After all, I found the premise interesting at first. Alas, I did some research both into the "evidence" as "Fisherman" presented it and Lechmere himself. Things become rather obvious rather quickly when you proceed objectively, without invention or preconception: The theory is absurd. It is based entirely on one (or two if we include the inimitable sophisticate Edward Stow) person's imaginative/delusional thinking.

"Fisherman" continues to site those involved with his "internationally sent documentary". Well, in fairness, let's keep in mind that the production company is also responsible for exposing the fact that Bobby Kennedy killed Marilyn Monroe, and presenting the TRUTH about BIGFOOT and the Loch Ness Monster! I think that Lechmere the Ripper is in good company with this group.

[Patrick S]

This is the one thing you need to know, both of you:

If you believe that there has been foul play involved in any manner in the making of the documentary, there is only one way to go about such a thing:

You present the proof BEFORE you accuse anybody.

That is the way it has always been, and it will remain the exact same in the future.

It is not without interest that people who cry their hearts out over how they think that the carman is accused with no evidence behind it (!), are willing to sink to levels like these. From me and Edward, you demand evidence - but when it comes to castigating a renowned film company (who puts their rumour on the line everytime they put a production out there) with no substantiation whatsoever, you feel you have the right to do so.

It is shameful, pityful, disgusting and lacking any moral.

Ah. Morality. Let's not discuss the morals involved in accusing a man, long dead and unable to defend himself of having been a lifelong serial killer. What morals are involved in that? History of violence? No? So what. He's Jack the Ripper. Arrest record? No. So what. He's the Torso Killer. History of mental illness...or even ill humor? No. Ah. He was a cunning psychopath! Raised ten kids you say? Big deal. He was a KILLER! Married for 50 years? AH! He fooled everyone! Even his wife!

Yes. You and Eddie have the market on morality thoroughly cornered, "Fisherman".

A final thing worth pointing out, "Fisherman". Those who have enabled you, agree with you (few as they are), or simply don't disagree with you are afforded the highest praise. Blink films is a "renowned film company". Edward Stow is a "gifted researcher". Andy Griffiths is some modern day Sherlock Holmes. Even I wasn't so bad when I had not learned just how ridiculous your "theory" is. Conversely, anyone who disagrees is out to get you personally. You become the reason that the theory is discounted and mocked because it simply cannot be the theory itself. With that, those who disagree are themselves "shameful, pitiful (sic), disgusting and lacking any moral". You've insulted their intellect, character, and ability. This behavior is indicative of something, "Fisherman". I suggest you take a step back.

[Ausgirl]

No. I didnīt.

What you stated was:

And I would like to add that the probability for multiple murderers not knowing each other is low given the limited geographical area of the murders and the short period of time.


And what I'm saying is: the claim made above ain't necessarily so. It isn't hard... I don't agree with this statement you made, for reasons given. It's a supposition, a guess at best, and there's cases of killers (elsewhere) with overlapping territories which prove the opposite may also be true.

OK, so I guess people who are interested in that would have to look up the sizes of those areas by themselves.

If you're going to make a claim, it's only sensible that you do the work necessary to make sure it's an accurate one, no?

Again, then: To small an area and to short time period for having multiple killers committing the C-5. Thatīs all.

Regards, Pierre

But if there were, "probability" would have it that they must know each other, right? I was saying: nope, it would not necessarily do so.

No. I did not. I wrote:

Do you have some example(s)?

Regards, Pierre

And how would you have liked those arranged, if not in a list?

As for this whole issue of a "small area" -- if I might interrupt the whole Lechmere extravaganza going on here, for a moment -- it's simply not sensible to ignore the fact that this particular "small area" did not exist within some idyllic rural village, but in a place which was seriously overcrowded with desperately poor persons, many of whom had substance abuse issues, where gangs of thugs and also many people with serious mental health problems roamed, and where acts of interpersonal violence were absolutely rampant.

And given that this is the well-documented reality of that particular "small area" at the time, I don't know how anyone can claim that it's not at least *possible* that some of the C-5 crimes were committed by another killer.

Because it's not like there were never any other killers, or mentally unstable persons, or angry drunk persons, etc, there in that particular very small area at all, y'know?