Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    Yes, but dumb or not so dumb, you would be the first to call them up if a crime was committed against you

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk


    If the carman informed the police about his TWO names and his choice of the unregistered one, then BOTH names would have gone into their reports, end of.

    As for what I would do if a crime was committed against me, please read and digest Dickeres answer.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by harry View Post
      In your post 2014 Fisherman,you are referring to a Prima Facia case and not a trial.That is as far as the docu goes.The one important point is the reference to rebuttal evidence.A case would succeed if there was no rebuttal.True,but that is where the docu falls down.There was plenty of rebuttal evidence.The docu simply didn't refer to it.AS others have pointed out the only evidence considered was of an accusative nature.
      There is actually not much rebuttal evidence at all, harry. What there is, is alternative takes on what Lechmere did and why he did it. But generally speaking, yu are correct; a prima facie case is a case using the accusatory evidence only.

      Which means that going through that evidence, James Scobie concluded that it would warrant a modern day trial, that suggested that Lechmere was guilty. And he hastened to add that Lechmeres actions looked suspicious and a jury would not like that.

      This is it, basically: Scobie thought that if no rebuttal evidence was presented, the facts involved were enough to send Lechmere to the gallows.

      And this is where I once again ask:

      How can a suspect who represents a prima facie case to a seasoned barrister, a case that would send him to the gallows if no rebuttal was presented, be a bad suspect?

      Actually, he CAN - if the rebuttal ecidence that can be presented is of a conclusive or near conclusive nature, very clearly pointing to innocence.

      And IS there such evidence?

      "He would have run"?

      "It is not illegal to use an alias"?

      Are those the kind of points you would have used to clear the carman? Is that conclusive or near conclusive evidence that he was not the killer?

      You see, the case against Lechmere is far more worthy than any other case that has ever been presented against any suspect in the Ripper case. That is what Scobies verdict tells us.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
        I think you may not have understood what I meant, Christer, or I didn’t explain well enough. I was talking about a situation in which the police talked to Lechmere as a witness, (long) before there even could have been any question of a trail. So, just checking…

        …Are you saying that, if the police would find out that his birth name was Lechmere, they would ask to explain why he’d called himself Cross and he would have given the sort of innocent explanation you think he would give, this would have turned disastrous for Lechmere?
        Am I correct in thinking that what you are actually asking is this:

        "Would the name issue taken on its own be disastrous for the carmans credibility in a court of law?"

        If so, Iīd say that "disastrous" would perhaps be too harsh a word but I would never say that the jury would have found it uninteresting! it IS a trait that is very common with crime and criminals, and so it would have hleped him immensely if he had instead said "My name id Charles Lechmere, but I go by the name of Cross". Once he didnīt, reagardless of which explanation he could have offered, it would have been a very bad thing for him. And it would quickly escalate to disastrous the second he was found to have more anomalies clinging to his (unregistered) name.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
          Or would he have run?
          All he had to do when he became aware of Paul was carry on walking to work. If he was the killer the police would have had very little chance of finding him, and if they did, and asked him why he was seen standing over the body, he could just say he thought it was a tarpaulin, he was about to investigate when someone entered the street - it was a rough area and he was running late so he carried on.

          If he was the killer he chose the strategy of greatest risk. By waiting for Paul and telling a policeman about the body he was actively placing himself at the scene of the murder - why?

          All the best

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

            If the carman informed the police about his TWO names and his choice of the unregistered one, then BOTH names would have gone into their reports, end of.
            But you do not know what he told the police, or what action the police took. If he gave a legitimate explanation,there would be no need for them to record it or take any further action. In the absence of any evidence to show the explantions he gave were not accpted or even questioned all you are doing is using this feeble excuse to prop up the mystery you have created when there clearly is no mystery to be created.

            The police, the coroner, nor anyone eles from 1888 or the years that followed give any hint that there was any ulterior motive behind his use of the two names.

            Your theory might have had some credibilty had he given a name of Joe Bloggs but he gave a family name which he was fully entitled to use

            You really need to take stock of your position with this misguided belief that Lechmere was a killer.

            www.trevomarriott.co.uk


            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

              Am I correct in thinking that what you are actually asking is this:

              "Would the name issue taken on its own be disastrous for the carmans credibility in a court of law?"
              What I'm asking has nothing to do with a court of law/trial. Forget about that. What I'm asking is: would the name issue get Lechmere in trouble if asked about it by the police when he was still considered a witness?

              So, let's say the police, at that stage, had found out his birth name was Lechmere or they asked him for whatever reason if his real/birth name was Cross or if he could identify himself as Cross and Lechmere then had to explain himself, saying it was his late stepfather's name, that he used it from time to time or that it was the name he went by at work (whichever of the 2 you prefer or think is most applicable) and pointing to how all the information he gave the police regarding address and work place was truthful.

              Would that get him into trouble? Would it become disastrous in the sense that they would not buy his explanation and begin to suspect him with the real chance of discovering him?
              Last edited by FrankO; 09-23-2021, 08:23 AM.
              "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
              Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                Am I correct in thinking that what you are actually asking is this:

                "Would the name issue taken on its own be disastrous for the carmans credibility in a court of law?"

                If so, Iīd say that "disastrous" would perhaps be too harsh a word but I would never say that the jury would have found it uninteresting! it IS a trait that is very common with crime and criminals, and so it would have hleped him immensely if he had instead said "My name id Charles Lechmere, but I go by the name of Cross". Once he didnīt, reagardless of which explanation he could have offered, it would have been a very bad thing for him. And it would quickly escalate to disastrous the second he was found to have more anomalies clinging to his (unregistered) name.
                But it would not be up to him to do that, the procedure in those cases is when sworn in he would have been asked "Are you also known as -----------" thats only if the court thought it to be relevant !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                When sworn in at the inquest the name he used was never challenged, nor was he asked to give an explantion as to why he was known under two different
                names. The inquest report, the press reports all confirm this

                The police were happy with his account, the coroner was happy with his account after all this time and all that has been said to you and pointed out to you it is time for you to back down and be happy with it also

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Greenway View Post
                  If he was the killer he chose the strategy of greatest risk. By waiting for Paul and telling a policeman about the body he was actively placing himself at the scene of the murder - why?
                  Fisherman already has this covered. Lechmere was a Hannibal Lecter-esque psychopath. When he heard Paul approaching, he decided to bluff it out and play mindgames with the poor unsuspecting carman. Just another unlucky sap who fell into Lechmere's dastardly web of lies and cunning, soon to be followed by the hapless PC Mizen!

                  Comment


                  • A Prima Facia decision,in Nichols murder.and most 'Common Law' crimes,would be made by a magistrate.At that time the magistrate would consider the evidence both for and against a charged person,who can be represented.So you are incorrect Fisherman when you declare only accusative information is submitted.
                    In the case of Nichols,no such appearance took place.The police at the time(1888) declared there were no witnesses,and no suspects,a fact that should have been communicated to Scobie and Griffiths.In fairness to them,they only decided a Prima Facia would exist if no rebuttal evidence was presented at a magistrate hearing.Against that is the fact they never asked for, or were given evidence which tends to exonerate Cross,and could have been given had the police in 1888, decided there was a case to answer.

                    Comment


                    • Now I would like to take us back to the matter discussed between myself and Steve again; which story was it that made Neil deny the existence of the two men mentioned in the press on the 31 (The Star) and the 2nd (Lloyds Weekly). I have mulled it over, and I believe there is more to add.

                      Letīs begin by looking at Steves original claim: That Neil could not have denied what was in Llooyds, but must instead have denied the article in the Star. The reasons given were:

                      - The Star tells us that the two men brought Neil to the site, whereas Lloyds have an unnamed PC being directed to the site.

                      - Neils name was given in combination with the two men in the Star article, whereas no name at all was given for the PC in Lloyds.

                      - Lloyds only came out on the streets on the evening of the 2nd, and so the men alluded to in the Star could not have been the same men as those in Lloyds.

                      Steve subsequently accepted that the story as such probably had just the one source, and that it was given varying wordings in the papers. We agreed that this was probably what had happened; although Lloyds did not come out until on Sunday the 2nd, we agreed that the one source for both versions of the events would likely have been Robert Paul. He was a carman, and he may well have spoken of the events to many people, and so the story would get out among the Eastenders already on Friday the 31st, the date when The Star originally carried the article of how two men brought PC Neil to the murder spot.

                      Now, lets revisit the matter that The Star article mentioned Neil by name. If we accept that the source of both stories was Paul, then we may see that he did not know the name of the police he had spoken to; at least he never mentioned it, and there is no reason to think that he asked for it. If he could identify Mizen, it would be by his division number and not by the name.

                      To me, the obvious reason Neils name was mentioned is that it was all over the papers from the 31st on, as that of the PC who claimed to have found the body. And so, anybody who heard Paul speaking about his exploits would be likely to think that Neil was the man he spoke of. And this is where things heat up a bit, because I believe we may here see a good reason for why Lechmere was probably never investigated.

                      We know that the police were not looked favourably on from the outset of the Ripper murders. It was not until later it was remarked upon that there seemed to be a change of mindset within the Eastenders, who became more helpful as the hunt for the killer went along. But when Nichols died, this was not yet so. And what would the press report in the Star and the talk on the town look like? It would suggest that John Neil tried to steal the thunder from the real finders of the body. I believe this was something that brought on protests in the East End; here we have two honest and diligent working guys who find a body and who take a PC to the spot, and then the PC is not willing to acknowledge it...?

                      Then, on the 2nd, the story as per Paul broke in Lloyds - and still Neil would not own up to how he had been helped by two civilians. At this stage, a probably much bewildered Neil steps up and asserts the press that he WAS the first and real finder of the body, and he denies that there were two men involved. But he does not say that these two men did not follow him to the site, he says that they did not CALL him to it - meaning that he seems to be commenting on the story in Lloyds and not the one in The Star.
                      So all in all, it seems he was refuting Pauls story as it appeared in Loyds. The three points Steve originally made have by now been shown not to apply.
                      I do think, however, that Neil and the police were keenly aware of the criticism from The Star article and forwards - but it was primarily the Sunday article in Lloyds that led on the denial served up by Neil and his superiors on the same evening.

                      In this context, we must also look at Mizen. He would likely have noted Neils claim on the first day of the inquest to be the finder of the body and the denial he made public on the evening of the 2nd. And still it seems that Mizen did not come forward to set things straight. This in itīs turn would, if I am correct, be the result of how Mizen would have thought that both articles reflected the truth: Neil had NOT been either followed to or directed to the body by the carmen. If this had been the case, Neil should not have let them go, and Mizen thought he knew that Neil did just that. The picture Neil painted would have looked perfectly sound to Mizen: The carmen were not the finders of the body, Neil was, and that was why he was able to let them leave the spot and search out Mizen.

                      The time at which the story was ultimately straightened out, I think was either when the police were able to read in Pauls story in the Lloyds that he found the PC he spoke of "in Church-Row, at the top of Bucks-Row", and realized that the copper spoken of was not Neil but instead a colleague walking another beat. If this was so, the police reasonably found out late on the 2nd of September.
                      Otherwise, they missed out on this and only understood what was afoot as Lechmere reported in to the cop shop. The fact that Mizen only ID:d the carman at the inquest suggests to me that this version of events could well be the correct one.

                      If I am correct on this, I think it very much suggests that the police had a lot to be embarrased about: two papers had written that the true finders of the body were two men, and not Neil, but the police had, seemingly pigheadedly, refuted it. Then Lechmere surfaces and (more or less) verifies the papers, and the police are shamed. Small wonder, then, if Lechmere was not investigated, the way I see things.
                      Last edited by Fisherman; 09-23-2021, 09:27 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                        Fisherman already has this covered. Lechmere was a Hannibal Lecter-esque psychopath. When he heard Paul approaching, he decided to bluff it out and play mindgames with the poor unsuspecting carman. Just another unlucky sap who fell into Lechmere's dastardly web of lies and cunning, soon to be followed by the hapless PC Mizen!
                        Yes, and the carman also had green flames of fire spouting through his nostrils, wild, rolling eyes and he crouched like the hunchback of Notre-Dame as he walked. You forgot that, Harry...?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Greenway View Post

                          All he had to do when he became aware of Paul was carry on walking to work.

                          If he was the killer the police would have had very little chance of finding him, and if they did, and asked him why he was seen standing over the body, he could just say he thought it was a tarpaulin, he was about to investigate when someone entered the street - it was a rough area and he was running late so he carried on.

                          If he was the killer he chose the strategy of greatest risk. By waiting for Paul and telling a policeman about the body he was actively placing himself at the scene of the murder - why?

                          All the best
                          This matter has been discussed a million times, and this time over I wonīt reiterate what I think about it. I will only say that once any discussion of this issue is over, it will have resulted in how none of the sides has been able to prove their respective points. You wonīt be able to prove that he would never have stayed put, and I wonīt be able to prove that he stayed put for sinister reasons.

                          I recommend reading up on Jeffrey Dahmer and his victim Konerak Sinthasomphone, though, if you donīt think that serial killers will take risks.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                            What I'm asking has nothing to do with a court of law/trial. Forget about that. What I'm asking is: would the name issue get Lechmere in trouble if asked about it by the police when he was still considered a witness?

                            So, let's say the police, at that stage, had found out his birth name was Lechmere or they asked him for whatever reason if his real/birth name was Cross or if he could identify himself as Cross and Lechmere then had to explain himself, saying it was his late stepfather's name, that he used it from time to time or that it was the name he went by at work (whichever of the 2 you prefer or think is most applicable) and pointing to how all the information he gave the police regarding address and work place was truthful.

                            Would that get him into trouble? Would it become disastrous in the sense that they would not buy his explanation and begin to suspect him with the real chance of discovering him?
                            Yes, I think it would always come with the risk of him ending up in the crosshairs. An important factor would be if, as you suggest, it was the police that found out about it. That would realistically mean that they would look upon him as a liar or at least a potential liar. Again, it cannot possibly be a good thing to do what he did.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              But it would not be up to him to do that, the procedure in those cases is when sworn in he would have been asked "Are you also known as -----------" thats only if the court thought it to be relevant !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                              When sworn in at the inquest the name he used was never challenged, nor was he asked to give an explantion as to why he was known under two different
                              names. The inquest report, the press reports all confirm this

                              The police were happy with his account, the coroner was happy with his account after all this time and all that has been said to you and pointed out to you it is time for you to back down and be happy with it also

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              We are not speaking of the court only, we are speaking of the police reports of September and October too. He should have gone into them as Lechmere A K A Cross if he had disclosed his name.

                              By the way, it is interesting how you claim that I invent things - and then you go inventing that the court had reason to allow him to go by the name of Cross...? THen again, you have a history of these in consistencies, so whoīs surprised? Not me!

                              As for backing down and giving up on my theory, I can assure you that I will be the last to do so. Why donīt YOU throw olī Mr Figtree to the wind? He is a suspect from the third group, only present here because he was a violent man. Whether he was in London, Tokyo or on the dark side of the moon as the Ripper murders went down, we do not know. But we DO know where Lechmere was when Nichols died. So:

                              Feigenbaum:

                              Lechmere: The star of the show.

                              You need to get ready to hear a LOT more about him, Trevor. I will fill your days, your weeks, months and years with him, and make sure that he walks by your side permanently.
                              Howīs that?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by harry View Post
                                A Prima Facia decision,in Nichols murder.and most 'Common Law' crimes,would be made by a magistrate.At that time the magistrate would consider the evidence both for and against a charged person,who can be represented.So you are incorrect Fisherman when you declare only accusative information is submitted.
                                In the case of Nichols,no such appearance took place.The police at the time(1888) declared there were no witnesses,and no suspects,a fact that should have been communicated to Scobie and Griffiths.In fairness to them,they only decided a Prima Facia would exist if no rebuttal evidence was presented at a magistrate hearing.Against that is the fact they never asked for, or were given evidence which tends to exonerate Cross,and could have been given had the police in 1888, decided there was a case to answer.
                                You are of course wrong again (surprise, surprise). A prima facie case does not weigh in rebuttals. Prima Facie basically means "based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise".

                                Must I always correct you, Harry? Itīs getting tedious.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X