The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Fisherman]

This is getting complicated! Thus, in respect of James Scobies opinion, was he saying there was sufficient evidence to bring a criminal case based upon modern rules, or the law as it stood in 1888?

The film crew explicitely asks "would the case against Lechmere stand up in a modern day trial?" or something to that effect. Therefore, that is what Scobie says it would.

[David Orsam]

The film crew explicitely asks "would the case against Lechmere stand up in a modern day trial?" or something to that effect. Therefore, that is what Scobie says it would.

The CPR is still irrelevant because that is the civil procedure rules.

[David Orsam]

Not that the CPR contradicts anything I've been saying, I should add.

[David Orsam]

The film crew explicitely asks "would the case against Lechmere stand up in a modern day trial?" or something to that effect. Therefore, that is what Scobie says it would.

More reason to ignore Scobie if he doesn't have sufficient knowledge of the criminal law in 1888.

[MysterySinger]

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

[Fisherman]

I find there is somebody else who needs ignoring a lot more. Why a barrister who is asked whether a case would stand up in a modern day trial needs to know the legal procedures of 1888 is beyond me. Not that I know if Scobie does, but it has nothing at all to do with assessing a case for a modern day trial.

But this is par for the course for Mr Orsam, apparently. So let´s leave him to it, and he can have his wish - to make his, ehrm, "points" without me disturbing him. No doubt, he shall end up sitting on the floor, leaning from side to side, chanting "I took down Scobie, I took down Scobie, I took down Scobie..." while gently salivating from the corner of his mouth.

The best of luck with that - I´m off.

[David Orsam]

I find there is somebody else who needs ignoring a lot more. Why a barrister who is asked whether a case would stand up in a modern day trial needs to know the legal procedures of 1888 is beyond me. Not that I know if Scobie does, but it has nothing at all to do with assessing a case for a modern day trial.

But this is par for the course for Mr Orsam, apparently. So let´s leave him to it, and he can have his wish - to make his, ehrm, "points" without me disturbing him. No doubt, he shall end up sitting on the floor, leaning from side to side, chanting "I took down Scobie, I took down Scobie, I took down Scobie..." while gently salivating from the corner of his mouth.

The best of luck with that - I´m off.

Well the point is that Lechmere is dead. The relevant question is whether there was sufficient evidence to charge him with the murder of Mary Ann Nichols when he was alive in 1888.

If Scobie was asked whether a case would stand up to a modern day trial he was being asked the wrong question.

Like I have already said, though, for the purpose of the discussion we have been having over the last couple of days, the basic principles in respect of admissible evidence for a criminal trial are the same now as they were in 1888.

[John G]

Well the point is that Lechmere is dead. The relevant question is whether there was sufficient evidence to charge him with the murder of Mary Ann Nichols when he was alive in 1888.

If Scobie was asked whether a case would stand up to a modern day trial he was being asked the wrong question.

Like I have already said, though, for the purpose of the discussion we have been having over the last couple of days, the basic principles in respect of admissible evidence for a criminal trial are the same now as they were in 1888.

But surely Scobie's opinion is relevant as regards gauging the strength of evidence against Lechmere?

[David Orsam]

But surely Scobie's opinion is relevant as regards gauging the strength of evidence against Lechmere?

But not if the law has changed in the meantime which would affect whether he would be charged today as compared to 1888.

[drstrange169]

Yet another post with no on-topic material. Can I officially call you my stalker?



>>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.<<

Ah, I see yet another caveat has been slipped in. You really are squirming over this aren't you.




>>You now ask a few questions that you have not asked before.<<

So, just to be clear, you won't answer questions I've asked before, you won't answer questions that you think might be new?

Is there any chance an invertebrate can grow a backbone?



>>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."<<

Actually is is perfectly correct, in your TV show, your police expert said Lechmere "was duty bound to give his real name". I realise details and accuracy are not your strong points.



>>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.<<

And, of course, when you said that you were citing my post#4 as a specific reference, so when push comes to shove, you acknowledge I actually know what I'm writing about. Oh dear;-)



>>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. <<

But you've just acknowledged that you think I've asked new questions and you still didn't answer them! Oh dear, again.

Now to just some of the on-topic stuff you won't debate, I repeat,

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 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.

Plus,

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.

And not fogetting,

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

Robert Paul.

I'm beginning to understand why you kept posting that childish, incorrect, deceitful and hypocritical stock answer, every time you venture out from it, your posts fall apart.

[drstrange169]

Hello David,

>Saying that "newspaper evidence" is "sometimes allowed" is totally meaningless.<<

That is how Christer promotes his Lechmere theory. Then when pressed for back up he backs away.

[drstrange169]

>In how many other cases do we come even close to that? Kosminski? Druitt? Bury? Levy?<<

If the evidence about them was presented as inaccurately as it appears to have been presented to Mr Scobie then, who knows?

[drstrange169]

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?

[harry]

Fisherman post 827.In this debate,poster"Harry" has claimed that newspaper articles cannot be evidence,since they instead are nothing but information.Like books,Harry tells us.
I have said nothing of the sort.I referred to only one article,an interview between a reporter and Paul.The books information I referred to, have no connection to that interview.Disregard the lies Fisherman spouts,and one can see the truth.
Newspapers generally are a medium for conveying information to the general public.Paul gave information to the reporter,and that information was printed in a newspaper.It was not evidence given in court,at that time.The reporter did not appear in court.It became evidence when Paul appeared at the inquest.Had Paul died before appearing at the inquest,but after he had spoken to the reporter,then maybe the reporter might have been allowed to repeat what Paul had said to him,at that inquest It w ould then have been hearsay.Is hearsay evidence?Generally no,but it is still information.
Now why do the police generally appeal for persons with information to come forward.
Why not ask for persons with evidence only to come forward.
Is the knowledge that Nichols w as married, evidence in her death.No it is information of her status.
Is the knowledge that Cross usually went to work yia Bucks Row evidence.No,only that he w as in Bucks that particular morning counts.That is evidence,the rest,including that he worked at Pickfords,is information.

So fisherman's claim that everything(or words to that effect) connected with the case is evidence,is false.Information will form a large part of any criminal case.

[Fisherman]

But surely Scobie's opinion is relevant as regards gauging the strength of evidence against Lechmere?

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

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