The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[David Orsam]

Well perhaps one answer is that PC Mizen said in sworn testimony that he was approached by Cross and Paul "at a quarter past 4". Not about 3.45, at 3.45. This would have been about five minutes after Paul walked into Bucks Row.

PC Mizen might have known the correct time because he was engaged in 'knocking up', so it was fairly important that he woke people up at the right moment. One might even think that he was actually in the middle of a process of waking people up at 3.45am when Lechmere and Cross approached him.

[harry]

What the papers publish is information.What the reporter/s claim is hearsay.As Paul was able to give evidence in person,his version to the authorities,is the only evidence.

[Fisherman]

What the papers publish is information.What the reporter/s claim is hearsay.As Paul was able to give evidence in person,his version to the authorities,is the only evidence.

No, Harry, evidence is all the material relating to a case. Some of it will be graded higher, some lower for various reasons, but it is evidence neverthless. In your little world, you could not sue anybody for saying something in a paper interview - it would not be evidence, just information!

A little much needed reading for you:

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.

In law, rules of evidence govern the types of evidence that are admissible in a legal proceeding. Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence. The parts of a legal case which are not in controversy are known, in general, as the "facts of the case." Beyond any facts that are undisputed, a judge or jury is usually tasked with being a trier of fact for the other issues of a case. Evidence and rules are used to decide questions of fact that are disputed, some of which may be determined by the legal burden of proof relevant to the case. Evidence in certain cases (e.g. capital crimes) must be more compelling than in other situations (e.g. minor civil disputes), which drastically affects the quality and quantity of evidence necessary to decide a case.

[David Orsam]

No, Harry, evidence is all the material relating to a case. Some of it will be graded higher, some lower for various reasons, but it is evidence neverthless. In your little world, you could not sue anybody for saying something in a paper interview - it would not be evidence, just information!

A little much needed reading for you:

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.

In law, rules of evidence govern the types of evidence that are admissible in a legal proceeding. Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence. The parts of a legal case which are not in controversy are known, in general, as the "facts of the case." Beyond any facts that are undisputed, a judge or jury is usually tasked with being a trier of fact for the other issues of a case. Evidence and rules are used to decide questions of fact that are disputed, some of which may be determined by the legal burden of proof relevant to the case. Evidence in certain cases (e.g. capital crimes) must be more compelling than in other situations (e.g. minor civil disputes), which drastically affects the quality and quantity of evidence necessary to decide a case.

But a newspaper article, on its own, wouldn't be admissible evidence in a criminal trial as to what Paul said would it?

[John Wheat]

Indeed, but who'd be playing Lechmere in that scenario?

Lechmere as The Ripper is total fiction to begin with.

[drstrange169]

Hello Christer,

Yet another post from you totally off topic, why am I not suprised?


>> You lied about how I had refused to answer your questions <<

Since making this offer despite, being asked over six questions, you have answered none of them.

That is a fact, facts can be checked and verified.

Not only did you not answer the specific questions asked, you are now trying to put limitations on answering them in the future. Honest people tend not to do that sort of thing.

So, no, I did not lie, but you aren't coming out of this looking so good.

Next?



>>I have offered to do so, under controlled forms. Accept these forms or not, but donīt say I will not answer. <<

But you haven't answered any question asked by me, despite saying you would back in post #562 (were now approaching post in the #800's).

Since then you've avoided all the questions related to the case that I have asked, even adding new conditions.

If you weren't telling truth back at post #562, why should we believe you now?



>>You lied about me being on the run.<<

Aren't you supposed to be a journalist? Don't you understand that you "running away" was a figure of speech, not a literal statement?

No, I did not seriously think you ran from your computer, your wife or your town. It was a figure of speech to address the issue of your apparent cowardice in facing up to difficult questions, not just from me, but the posters who catch you out.

A figure of speech cannot be a lie.


Now, how about actually talking about the issues related to the case?

It has been shown that giving alternative names was common practice and not considered suspicious in the Victorian period, ergo if anyone is going to claim to was suspicious in this particular case it is incumbent on them to show why and as of yet nobody has managed to do that.


It has claimed by people in the past that giving another name was illegal, that is not true.


It has been claimed that criminal's give false names, that is true, but does not apply in this case, as the object of giving false names to to avoid the police.

It seems Xmere went to the police, gave his correct address and work-place, so this particular claim does not hold up.


It has been claimed by some that Xmere wanted to hide his identity from Pickfords, but as he made himself readily identifiable to Pickfords, that claim does not stand up.


It has been claimed that Xmere wanted to hide is identity from his family, but, again, as he made himself readily identifiable to his family, this claim does not stand up.



It has been claimed that Xmere did not give his address to the inquest, simply because the newspapers did not report it, but checking against other cases, it can be shown that newspapers did not always report addressees even though they were actually given.

All in all, you and the case against Charles Allen Lechmere have taken a severe beating in this thread.

[drstrange169]

>>Paul had been led by Lechmere to say that the body was very cold and must have been lying around for quite some time, but had realized when reading the papers that this was emphatically not the case, and so he was more cautious at the inquest,<<

Since it was Paul who felt the body and made the comment, how does that work out?

>>... we know that he supposedly told LLoyds that he was in Bucks Row EXACTLY 3.45, and he told the inquest that he left home shortly before 3.45, so this seems to dovetail.<<

Dovetail with what? How Scobie was misled?

The question you keep avoiding, and it's not just me asking it, how do you synchronise Paul's timings with Xmere's. Where do either man say they used the same clock?

Without that there is no case to answer.

[drstrange169]

>>How many of these men do we know used an alternative name at the inquest?<<

How many people have you checked to see if they used another name to see if Xmere was unique?


>>Who disagreed with a PC over what was said and done on the murder night?<<

Robert Paul

[harry]

Fisherman
Évidence is all the material relating to a case.You have to be joking.It is only part of the material relating to a case.And w hen is an interview between a reporter and a member of the public a legal proceeding?
We have whole books relating to the ripper crimes,containing an enormous amount of information.There are still official files cn the case containing information.Information,not evidence'.The officials of 1888 tell us there was little evidence.
If my world on the subject is small,yours appear non existant.
In some peoples minds there is little distinction between information and evidence.In criminal proceedigs there is quite a lot.
I know when talking about Cross ,evidence against Cross appears more incriminating than information concerning Cross,so your choice of the word only shows a sneaky bias,bordering on an untruthful attempt to portray Cross as a scheming killer,instead of the truthful w itness he was.

[John G]

No, Harry, evidence is all the material relating to a case. Some of it will be graded higher, some lower for various reasons, but it is evidence neverthless. In your little world, you could not sue anybody for saying something in a paper interview - it would not be evidence, just information!

A little much needed reading for you:

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.

In law, rules of evidence govern the types of evidence that are admissible in a legal proceeding. Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence. The parts of a legal case which are not in controversy are known, in general, as the "facts of the case." Beyond any facts that are undisputed, a judge or jury is usually tasked with being a trier of fact for the other issues of a case. Evidence and rules are used to decide questions of fact that are disputed, some of which may be determined by the legal burden of proof relevant to the case. Evidence in certain cases (e.g. capital crimes) must be more compelling than in other situations (e.g. minor civil disputes), which drastically affects the quality and quantity of evidence necessary to decide a case.

These are the key rules of evidence which currently exist in English law: http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforc.../rules-key.htm

And this is more comprehensive: The Rules and Practice Directions, 2015, from the Ministry of Justice site: http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...rulesmenu-2015

Happy reading!

[Fisherman]

Dusty, you have been asked to compile one (1) list, giving references to where I would have skipped over questions of yours that I have nowherre answered before.

You fail to do so, and I am not surprised. You may think that I will allow you to post time after time, then telling me that I cannot answer your questions.

That is a misconception. I wonīt do that.

You now ask a few questions that you have not asked before. And you add material that is incorrect, like when you say that "It has claimed by people in the past that giving another name was illegal, that is not true."

It was illegal to give another name than the one/s you used IF THE INTENTION WAS TO MISLEAD JUSTICE. That is what I said, and that is what I stand by.

If you add the new questions you now pose to the list I asked for, I will answer them too - it is very easy, and I will have no problems at all doing so. If you think that is wrong, then just tell me that there will be ne list, and I will answer the new questions straight away, and then I will be done with you.

You see, there is no place to hide for you. So letīs get that tooth pulled out once and for all. I have the answers - but do YOU want them?

[Fisherman]

HArry:

Évidence is all the material relating to a case.You have to be joking.

Do I? And does the legal world, that I quoted? All material, regardless of the source, that has a bearing on a case, is evidence. End of.

It is only part of the material relating to a case.

Evidence can be ruled inadmissible evidence, on account of it being unreliable, unhelpful, superfluous to the proceedings etcetera. It is neverthless evidence but inadmissible evidence. And the article as such would have a bearing on what we are discussiong so from a theoretical point of view (there will be no trial, see) it needs to be presented.

And w hen is an interview between a reporter and a member of the public a legal proceeding?

When is poking a knife between the ribs of somebody "a legal proceeding"? Does that discount the knife as evidence?

Waky, waky! Hello!!! Anybody in there? There has been thousands and thousands of legal cases involving press material, interviews etcetera. People who have sued newspapers on account of faulty and damaging articles, have they been denied a trial with the words "that was just information, itīs inadmissible as evidence"? Have they, Harry?

We have whole books relating to the ripper crimes,containing an enormous amount of information.There are still official files cn the case containing information.Information,not evidence'.The officials of 1888 tell us there was little evidence.

Can you get it into your head that the two terms are not mutually exclusive? Information can be evidence. Evidence can be information.

Itīs discussion over here, but first one little thing:

We are NOT having any trial here. There will never BE any trial. The paper interview with Paul can therefore not be used in a trial for that reason - there will be none. It stands to reason, however, that what Paul was quoted to have said about him hurrying is much more likely to be true than false. If it was not, you would not go out of your way to try and claim the illogical contrary view.

[John G]

In English Law the rules on hearsay evidence are different in civil proceedings:

Civil Evidence, Act, 1995, Section 1 provides:

"In civil proceedings evidence shall not be excluded on the ground that it is hearsay."

The Crown Prosecution Service provides a detailed analysis of the admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/hearsay/

[Fisherman]

In English Law the rules on hearsay evidence are different in civil proceedings:

Civil Evidence, Act, 1995, Section 1 provides:

"In civil proceedings evidence shall not be excluded on the ground that it is hearsay."

The Crown Prosecution Service provides a detailed analysis of the admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/hearsay/

And they point you are trying to make is this, namely...?

[John G]

And they point you are trying to make is this, namely...?

Whether, theoretically, there would be sufficient evidence to justify criminal proceedings against Lechmere/Cross, and what evidence would, theoretically, be deemed admissible.