Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • And what would you expect to find,Fisherman.At least i would be able to answer to your findings,and you wouldn't need a barister to help you.Or would you.Anyway ,I plead not guilty in advance.

    Comment


    • Did Scobie state a trial,or a Prima Facia situation?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by harry View Post
        And what would you expect to find,Fisherman.At least i would be able to answer to your findings,and you wouldn't need a barister to help you.Or would you.Anyway ,I plead not guilty in advance.
        I pointed out that - contrary to your claim - it does not take any thorough investigation to form an opinion of somebody.

        You really need to be able to accept to be corrected, Harry. Itīs a tough thing, but it can be done. Well, most can.

        As for what I would find investigating you, letīs just say it is not going to happen.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by harry View Post
          Did Scobie state a trial,or a Prima Facia situation?
          Check the docu, and find out! Oh, and this:

          "A party with the burden of proof presents a prima facie case when the party presents enough evidence to support a verdict in the party's favor, assuming the opposing party does not rebut or disprove it. This means that the party with the burden of proof has shown that he or she can meet that burden as to each element of his or her case."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by harry View Post
            How could Dew Make any comment on anyone,without some form of investigation?
            Would this be the Walter Dew who said Polly Nichols was found in the gateway to Essex Wharf, said her father’s name was Smith and speaks of Fanny Mortimer going to her gate…?

            Paul criticised the police in his press interview and that will be what coloured Dew’s opinion of him.

            Comment


            • From what I have been reading on these boards,the docu is the last place one should look,to confirm a statement by you.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by harry View Post
                From what I have been reading on these boards,the docu is the last place one should look,to confirm a statement by you.
                Then you should really not bother asking me, should you?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                  Would this be the Walter Dew who said Polly Nichols was found in the gateway to Essex Wharf, said her father’s name was Smith and speaks of Fanny Mortimer going to her gate…?

                  Paul criticised the police in his press interview and that will be what coloured Dew’s opinion of him.
                  It will not have helped Pauls cause, thatīs for sure. But I also think that the fact that he avoided the police (and Dew erroneously thinks he did so successfully throughout) would have helped shape Dews take on him.

                  Of course, Pauls statements in the interview may also have contributed to why he was ultimately hauled in by the police and raked over the coals.

                  It seems Lechmere was never awarded that kind of attention from the police.
                  Last edited by Fisherman; 09-22-2021, 09:11 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                    He was at the very least provided with the case facts that spoke for Lechmere being the killer, and he based his verdict on that. He found these facts enough to warrant a trial that suggested the carman was guilty.
                    If the carman at such a trial would be able to provide information that spoke against guilt, and if that information had not been available to Scobie, I am sure that the QC would have considered that too and he would perhaps have been inclined to free Lechmere.

                    That is how it goes, but it is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that there are enough points of accusation, suggesting that Lechmere was the killer, to warrant a trial.

                    How about Feigenbaum, do you think that any barrister today would say that you have enough to warrant a modern day trial against him?

                    How about Kosminski?

                    How about Levy? Druitt? Bury? Barnett? Tumblety?

                    Would any barrister waste any time at all on trying to take them to court?

                    No. Not a chance in hell.

                    Once we know this, we are able to put two and two together and find out who is the prime suspect. Itīs embarrasingly easy.
                    But if the barrister was not provided with the full facts then you have to accept that what formed part of the documentary you seek to rely on is unsafe

                    You need to learn the definition of a prime suspect, and you need to learn what evidence it takes to catergorize a person as a prime suspect.

                    Finding a body and giving a name he was entitled to use does not make him or anyone else a prime suspect.

                    And the blood flow you seek to also rely on to prop up this theory is also unsafe again as you have been told, but it seems you continually reject evidence which shows what you rely on is unsafe.

                    If I was you I would let this misguided Lechmere theory drift into oblivion because it lacks any credibilty

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                      It seems Lechmere was never awarded that kind of attention from the police.
                      Thats conjecture on your part you dont know that

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        Thats conjecture on your part you dont know that

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        Have a look at that second little word, Trevor: "Seems".

                        You know what that means, do you not?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          But if the barrister was not provided with the full facts then you have to accept that what formed part of the documentary you seek to rely on is unsafe

                          You need to learn the definition of a prime suspect, and you need to learn what evidence it takes to catergorize a person as a prime suspect.

                          Finding a body and giving a name he was entitled to use does not make him or anyone else a prime suspect.

                          And the blood flow you seek to also rely on to prop up this theory is also unsafe again as you have been told, but it seems you continually reject evidence which shows what you rely on is unsafe.

                          If I was you I would let this misguided Lechmere theory drift into oblivion because it lacks any credibilty

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          Well, Trevor, I am happy to announce that you are not me. And YOU should be even more happy that I do not divulge how I tell the difference.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                            Have a look at that second little word, Trevor: "Seems".

                            You know what that means, do you not?
                            And my reply is stil the same you cannot show that the police in any way did not investigate his statement, or they disbelieved him, or they ever looked on him as a suspect. I keep telling saying you have created a mystery where there is not one to be created.

                            How many more times do you have to be shown and told that the evidnce you seek to rely on to prove Lecmhere was a killer is totally unsafe. take the blinkers off read and digest what you are told and dont be so quick to defend what is a lost cause

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              And my reply is stil the same you cannot show that the police in any way did not investigate his statement, or they disbelieved him, or they ever looked on him as a suspect. I keep telling saying you have created a mystery where there is not one to be created.

                              How many more times do you have to be shown and told that the evidnce you seek to rely on to prove Lecmhere was a killer is totally unsafe. take the blinkers off read and digest what you are told and dont be so quick to defend what is a lost cause

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              You DO understand what the word "seems" signifies, donīt you? I suggest you look it up otherwise.

                              Happy to help out!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                                Dew made the comment fifty years after the inquest, and in the capacity of a retired policeman. He gave his opinion of how he perceived a witness whose name he had forgotten, and who he seemingly though was the epitome of a hard working man, a little rough around the edges but as honest as hardened Eastenders came. Pauls name, however, he remembered as that of a man seemingly trying to dodge the police.
                                If Dews view mirrors that of the contemporary police, then it offers a possible explanation for why Paul was investigated while Lechmere was seemingly not.
                                Hi Christer,

                                If you had said that Dew's memory of events had previously been shown to be less than 100% reliable, I would have to agree! But you keep saying that Lechmere was seemingly not investigated. It seems to me to be a little bit odd that a very experienced and senior police officer would describe an Eastender as thoroughly honest, unless he had some sort of evidence to back it up. You seem to be suggesting that little or nothing was actually known about Lechmere, but Dew still gave him a glowing report, based on his total ignorance of any relevant facts.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X