The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[GUT]

I have cross examined hundreds, maybe thousands of expert witnesses.

Doctors
Psychologists
Psychiatrists
Accountants
Valuers
Lawyers
Forensic scientists
Forensic document examiners
Accident reconstructionists
Crime scene experts
Medical examiners
P.I.s
Pretty much every type of expert there is.

First question "what material did you base your opinion on" if it's faulty their opinion is worthless.

[John G]

Just to correct the typo in my post, the first sentence should have read:

On the point John was addressing, if, say, the law on hearsay changed next year and then changed back again the year after that, what possible purpose would be served by knowing that Lechmere could be charged in 2018 but could not be charged in 2019 or vice versa?

Hi David,

But the evidential test carried out by the CPS today is a simple one, i.e. is there "sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect on each charge." Surely in 1888, when the police had responsibility for prosecutions, they would have applied the same basic criteria.

[John Wheat]

And like all legal opinions,

Only as good as the info he's given

And

Even then not always right.

You can be certain the truth was as usual bent by Fisherman.

[GUT]

Wether Scobie is a legal expert or not he is still wrong as regards Lechmere.

And like all legal opinions,

Only as good as the info he's given

And

Even then not always right.

[John Wheat]

I donīt think he needs my help in that respect. I only mention him because he is a renowned expert on all matters legal who said that the Lechmere case would stand up in a modern day trial.

I said so before the docu too, but was always met by the answer "you are no renowned expert on all matters legal".

So thatīs why. If there is anything else you canīt get your head around, feel free to ask.

Wether Scobie is a legal expert or not he is still wrong as regards Lechmere.

[harry]

Expert on all matters legal.
I doubt anyone in the legal profession would own to that claim,it covering such a vast field.Just another exaggeration in an attempt to convince the unwary.

[David Orsam]

On the point John was addressing, if, say, the law on hearsay changed next year and then changed back again the year after that, what possible purpose would be served by knowing that Lechmere could changed in 2018 but could not be charged in 2019 or vice versa?

Just to correct the typo in my post, the first sentence should have read:

On the point John was addressing, if, say, the law on hearsay changed next year and then changed back again the year after that, what possible purpose would be served by knowing that Lechmere could be charged in 2018 but could not be charged in 2019 or vice versa?

[drstrange169]

>>I will make it even simpler for you.<<

Thank you.


>>If you want me to answer the question of time synchronization between Paul and Lechmere, say so.<<

I say so.

In fact I've been saying so for quite awhile now, each time, including your last post, you've avoided answering.


>> ... nobody but the completely deluded can claim that I have run or refused to answer. <<

Well you didn't answer my synchronisation question in your last post did you? Despite acknowledging I asked it. Nor when I raised the issue before, so clearly I'm right you have refused to answer, But then I've been right about everything else so far, haven't I?

Was I wrong about your police expert?
Was I wrong about about you citing my Post #4?
Was I wrong about you not taking up my $100 offer?
Is there anything in this thread that you can show I have been wrong about?

This things tend to disappear from your responses, never to be mentioned again, I wonder why?

Anyway, on this occasion, take your time, I'll be away from any internet connection for the next three days.

[David Orsam]

Yes, it is that simple. Of course what we want to know is if a barrister of today would accept that a case like Lechmereīs would stand up in court.

However, David is on a crusade, and will not take heed of such things.

On the point John was addressing, if, say, the law on hearsay changed next year and then changed back again the year after that, what possible purpose would be served by knowing that Lechmere could changed in 2018 but could not be charged in 2019 or vice versa?

But it goes further than this.

Take the issue of time. A modern jury might well be influenced by witness timings because today we all have watches, iphones, alarm clocks, radios etc. and are surrounded by accurate time throughout the day. But that is totally different from the situation in 1888 where a jury would, I suggest, have fully understood that any timings could only have been very approximate, with a wide range of error.

Then take the issue of Lechmere using the surname of Cross. In today's world it is very rare for a man to legitimately use two different surnames whereas in 1888 this was far more common and far less suspicious.

So there alone are two huge reasons why the key question has to be whether the case could have been put to a jury in 1888 rather than to a jury in the twenty-first century.

[Fisherman]

I haven't dug in to that yet. I will. Based on what (admittedly little) I know right now I don't believe they were one and the same.

So what are you waiting for? If they were the same man - and I think there is a humongous chance that they were - it is a breakthrough of immense proportions. Dig in, Patrick!

[Patrick S]

I cannot be certain that I am right, Patrick. I can be personally convinced, no more than that.

If you think you can be certain that I am wrong, that has to be your call. But given how people tell me that I am too convinced, there may be a need for you to be a little less certain too - people dislike having things presented as certainties if they cannot be.

Then again, that probably only applies to the pro-Lechmere ideas, not the ones opposing them.

By the bye, Patrick - where do you stand on the idea that the Ripper and the Thames torso killer were the same man?

I haven't dug in to that yet. I will. Based on what (admittedly little) I know right now I don't believe they were one and the same.

[Fisherman]

A few points re: newspaper articles/accounts being admitted into evidence. I can only speak to U.S. law but the difficult issue is usually getting a judge to determine the article/account is NOT hearsay. This is difficult and doesn't often happen. In the course of that determination the court - as I think someone on this thread mentioned - almost always must go deeper than what was printed/published, meaning that the reporter's notes would likely submitted, sources/witnesses on whose accounts the notes (and subsequent) story were based would be called as witnesses, etc. Of course, I think it's worth mentioning that the standards of reporting weren't then what they are now. That's been demonstrated time and again as names were gotten wrong, "facts" were mangled, differing accounts given in different publications. Applying the approach described to 1888 reportage would likely result in lengthy, complex, and ultimately pointless hearings to determine the quality of the "evidence" and how much of what appeared in print was true, relevant, and not a complete waste of time. The court would have likely - as they often do now - simply skipped all that and interviewed the witnesses whose names appeared in the newspaper accounts, not bothering with reporters or editors.

As for Scobie, I think many of us would like to see him at a future conference since, for better or for worse, his name has become part of the fabric of Christer's theory. I have no doubt he'd be treated - as he should be - with the utmost respect.

Finally, as strongly as I disagree with the Lechmere the Ripper theory I admire Christer's tenacity in defending it and the work he's put into advancing it, keeping it alive. I've always been interested in learning about the crimes, the times, the people involved, and I long ago lost interest in trying to identify "suspects" myself. That said, those who do - like Christer - keep thing interesting and - in the end - advance our knowledge of the case and our understanding of events, etc. I know that I have done hundreds of hours of research into Buck's Row, Lechmere, Mizen, Paul, Thain, Neil, et al, just so I could argue intelligently on why Lechemere was NOT the Ripper. Anyway, my point is a simple one: I am certain Christer is wrong. But, I hope he keeps pushing because it keeps things interesting and it will make for a good story, either way.

I cannot be certain that I am right, Patrick. I can be personally convinced, no more than that.

If you think you can be certain that I am wrong, that has to be your call. But given how people tell me that I am too convinced, there may be a need for you to be a little less certain too - people dislike having things presented as certainties if they cannot be.

Then again, that probably only applies to the pro-Lechmere ideas, not the ones opposing them.

By the bye, Patrick - where do you stand on the idea that the Ripper and the Thames torso killer were the same man?

[Patrick S]

I donīt think he needs my help in that respect. I only mention him because he is a renowned expert on all matters legal who said that the Lechmere case would stand up in a modern day trial.

I said so before the docu too, but was always met by the answer "you are no renowned expert on all matters legal".

So thatīs why. If there is anything else you canīt get your head around, feel free to ask.

A few points re: newspaper articles/accounts being admitted into evidence. I can only speak to U.S. law but the difficult issue is usually getting a judge to determine the article/account is NOT hearsay. This is difficult and doesn't often happen. In the course of that determination the court - as I think someone on this thread mentioned - almost always must go deeper than what was printed/published, meaning that the reporter's notes would likely submitted, sources/witnesses on whose accounts the notes (and subsequent) story were based would be called as witnesses, etc. Of course, I think it's worth mentioning that the standards of reporting weren't then what they are now. That's been demonstrated time and again as names were gotten wrong, "facts" were mangled, differing accounts given in different publications. Applying the approach described to 1888 reportage would likely result in lengthy, complex, and ultimately pointless hearings to determine the quality of the "evidence" and how much of what appeared in print was true, relevant, and not a complete waste of time. The court would have likely - as they often do now - simply skipped all that and interviewed the witnesses whose names appeared in the newspaper accounts, not bothering with reporters or editors.

As for Scobie, I think many of us would like to see him at a future conference since, for better or for worse, his name has become part of the fabric of Christer's theory. I have no doubt he'd be treated - as he should be - with the utmost respect.

Finally, as strongly as I disagree with the Lechmere the Ripper theory I admire Christer's tenacity in defending it and the work he's put into advancing it, keeping it alive. I've always been interested in learning about the crimes, the times, the people involved, and I long ago lost interest in trying to identify "suspects" myself. That said, those who do - like Christer - keep thing interesting and - in the end - advance our knowledge of the case and our understanding of events, etc. I know that I have done hundreds of hours of research into Buck's Row, Lechmere, Mizen, Paul, Thain, Neil, et al, just so I could argue intelligently on why Lechemere was NOT the Ripper. Anyway, my point is a simple one: I am certain Christer is wrong. But, I hope he keeps pushing because it keeps things interesting and it will make for a good story, either way.

[MysterySinger]

Hello Mystery Singer,

>Well given the recent activity in the area of Nichols murder, I'm glad he used the name Cross. Better Crossrail than Lechmererail?<<

Trains with "Paul"man coaches?

The crime was committed by the Bogie Man who was starting to get up a head of steam and later got into his stride - or did he?

[Fisherman]

Fisherman are you on a commission for getting Scobie work or something? As you mention him frequently.

I donīt think he needs my help in that respect. I only mention him because he is a renowned expert on all matters legal who said that the Lechmere case would stand up in a modern day trial.

I said so before the docu too, but was always met by the answer "you are no renowned expert on all matters legal".

So thatīs why. If there is anything else you canīt get your head around, feel free to ask.