Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by Paddy Goose View Post
    No. It's a Suspect Thread.
    Indeed it is. It’s a thread for presenting evidence of innocence. Do you have any?

    Comment


    • Yes and I already presented the evidence of innocence several times on this very thread. and all it has done it gotten me mocked by you and Fisherman. You can read my previous posts, you can ignore them, you can mock them. I could care less. Continue "banging on" about the points in his favour and have a nice day, MrBarnett.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Paddy Goose View Post
        Yes and I already presented the evidence of innocence several times on this very thread. and all it has done it gotten me mocked by you and Fisherman. You can read my previous posts, you can ignore them, you can mock them. I could care less. Continue "banging on" about the points in his favour and have a nice day, MrBarnett.
        I’ve read your posts and I don’t see anything that would qualify as evidence of innocence.

        The best most people have been able to do is to challenge Christer’s evidence of guilt. To provide innocent explanations for things. I tried that myself until you decided my efforts weren’t appropriate for a suspect thread.

        Last edited by MrBarnett; 09-27-2021, 11:56 AM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by harry View Post
          No matter where I am fisherman,the answer will always be the same.What evidence, circumstantial or otherwise,places Cross at any murder site,at the time the crime was committed.Except of course the Nichols murder.Do not be shy,we understand your predicament.Without evidence there would be no charge.No charge no Prima facie case.and that was the situation in 1888.You have committed yourself,you are in the bog yourself and you can't get off to wipe yourself. I can.What a mess you are in,but then the Cross as murderer always had a smell to it.
          He did not state his alternate name.He didn't have to.Cross only had to identify himself,and that is what he did.No offence was committed,no participation was concealed.No policeman or authority was mislead,and no wrong done.No arguement can change that.
          Naw! You are kind of cute when you think you are onto something. Like when you thought that a prima facie case was the same as a prima facie hearing.

          This time over you are correct in a sense: I really AM in a bog. It is made up of parrotted ignorance and faulty assumptions, and creaed by you and a selection of posters. And yes, it is quite a bog.

          You are having some difficulties with Scobies verdict, as always, and now you think that bringing the other cases to the table would somehgow change things. It doesn´t. If you listen to Scobie, you will hear that he says that there is a pattern of offending, an area of offending. Very obviously, that does not relate to only the Nichols case, right? And equally obvious, Scobie weighs it in.

          Look at it like this: Scobie was given all the points of accusation. He had the benefit of hindsight that the police did n ot have after the Nichols murder. And Scobie realized that when there is a series of extremely rare murders in a small area of the East End, the killer is beyond reasonable doubt the same in all the cases. Therefore, he recognized that these later murders needed to be weighed in with the rest of the evidence, the geography, timings and all.

          So which case is it he speaks of? That of Nichols alone or the entire Ripper series? He does not say, does he? I suggest that a knowledgeable man like him would take a case like this to court on the Nichols case only, because the greater part of the evidence weight lies there. I´d advice him, layman that I am, to go to court on the Nichols case and get the killer off the streets, instead of going to court on the whole series, which makes for a somewhat weaker case evidence wise.

          As for the name, I suggest you read what Mr Barnett says: The real problem is not and never was that he called himself Cross. It is that he did NOT also identify himself as Lechmere.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            As I stated 20 years previous he would have used the name Cross when first employed by Pickfords, is there any known reason why he should have changed it over the years that followed?

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            Is there any known reason why he would have strayed from his habit of always calling himself Lechmere when consulting different authorities?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

              Look at it like this: Scobie was given all the points of accusation. He had the benefit of hindsight that the police did n ot have after the Nichols murder. And Scobie realized that when there is a series of extremely rare murders in a small area of the East End, the killer is beyond reasonable doubt the same in all the cases. Therefore, he recognized that these later murders needed to be weighed in with the rest of the evidence, the geography, timings and all.

              So which case is it he speaks of? That of Nichols alone or the entire Ripper series? He does not say, does he? I suggest that a knowledgeable man like him would take a case like this to court on the Nichols case only, because the greater part of the evidence weight lies there. I´d advice him, layman that I am, to go to court on the Nichols case and get the killer off the streets, instead of going to court on the whole series, which makes for a somewhat weaker case evidence wise.
              Scobies opinons as they aired are flawed because as I keep saying he was not provided with the full facts surrounding this murder. So stop keep using him to prop up your theory

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                Scobies opinons as they aired are flawed because as I keep saying he was not provided with the full facts surrounding this murder. So stop keep using him to prop up your theory

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                There was never any need to present him with the full facts in order to be able to say whether or not the points of accusation would suffice to take the carman to a modern day trial. To wenaqble Scobie to make that call, he only needed the points of accusation.

                So as you may gather, I will keep using Scobies verdict, Trevor. Not only is it a renowned legal experts view, it is also something that puts Lechmere leagues ahead of the Feigenbaums, Kosminskis and Levys and so on.

                You will be hearing a lot about him in days to come too, Trevor, believe me!

                Comment


                • This is a thread about whether or not there is evidence of innocence on Lechmeres behalf. In that vein, I am now going to post a second example of how I think that fellow poster Steve Blomer sometimes turn his assumptions into facts, with no true reason for doing so.

                  You will remember that we have already discussed one such matter, the one about which newspaper article it was that made PC Neil claim that he had not been called to the murder spot by two men. Steve´s original claim was that it must have been the article in the Star, while I favoured the one in Lloyds Weekly. After the discussion, I think it can be said that the positions had altered markedly.

                  Of course, now that I am bringing up another matter where I think Steve has turned an assumption of his into fact, I would much welcome him back to the thread. Its always to be preferred to let the accused party have a say, regardless of how the accusation is shaped.

                  This time over, we are going to discuss a topic that is very closely related to the topic of the thread, meaning that we are going to look at a potential point of evidence for innocence. As Gary Barnett has already pointed out, no such point has so far been presented, but if Steve is right on the point at hand, there IS significant evidence of innocence to be had.

                  The topic for this discussion is whether or not Robert Paul told PC Mizen that he thought that Polly Nichols was dead. And the wording I am going to start out with is this, from Steves review of my book Cutting Point in the latest Ripperologist Magazine:

                  ”Christer is also a bit dodgy when it comes to the weight attached to some information. For example, he gives prominence to a comment that Robert Paul thought he felt Nichols breathing, but underplays Paul’s statement to PC Mizen that he thought the woman was dead. ”

                  What Steve says here is that Robert Paul stated to PC Mizen that Polly Nichols was dead. And he says that I am dodgy for underplaying it whilst giving prominence to how Paul said that he thought that he felt Nichols breathing.

                  To begin with, I have always said that I do not think that Paul spoke to Mizen at all. This is very much bolstered by how Mizen never says that two men spoke to him. He instead says that ONE man came up to him and spoke.

                  Since I hold this view and always did, it seems strange to me that I should be called dodgy for not saying that Paul told Mizen that he thought that Nichols was dead. What I could possibly be accused of would be if I did not mention that the notion that Paul told Mizen this was in existence within groups of ripperologists.

                  However, since I do mention this fact not once but twice. At the second occasion, on page 75, I press the point like this: ... we have seen that Charles Lechmere claimed that Robert Paul told PC Mizen that he believed that the woman in Buck´s Row was dead...", referring back to having described it earlier in the book.

                  We apparently have Steve presenting another of his assumptions as fact here, although it is provably wrong.

                  But how about the original claim? Is it proven that Paul told Mizen that he thought that Nichols was dead?

                  Let’s begin by looking at the evidence in favour of the claim:

                  First, there is the Lloyds Weekly interview, where Paul says:

                  ”I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead.”

                  Next, there is Lechmere´s testimony as reflected in the Times, where the carmans take on matters is described: Witness (Lechmere, my remark) also said he believed she was dead or drunk, while the other man (Paul, my remark) stated he believed her to be dead.

                  We then turn to Pauls own testimony in the same paper, we get this wording:

                  ”Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen.”

                  If we now scrutinize this information with the possible view that Paul did not tell Mizen that he thought that Nichols was dead in mind, we must of course begin with Lloyds Weekly, which is a source that we know involves a lot of errors. In this case, we can see bow Paul leaves Lechmere out of the story and claims all the thunder himself:

                  He left Lechmere behind, sought out Mizen and did the informing on his own.

                  We know from the inquest proceedings that this was not true. Mizen and Lechmere agree that they had a conversation, and Mizen says nothing about Paul speaking to him. So we can safely dismiss Lloyds Weekly as a viable piece of evidence for how Paul would have told Mizen that Nichols was dead.

                  The next source is Lechmere himself, who claims that Paul told Mizen that he thought that Nichols was dead. Very clearly, if Lechmere excluded Paul from the conversation in order to be able to bluff Mizen, and if he did n ot want Paul to overhear the bluff, then we cannot rely on Lechmeres assertion that Paul spoke to the PC and told him that he thought that Nichols was dead.

                  What remains is the article where Paul says that ”we” told the PC ”what we had seen”.

                  On ibis article, it says nothing about how Paul said that he thought that Nichols was dead. Moreover, when Paul says that ”we” informed Mizen, that does. Not mean that Paul must have spoken to the PC. All he says is that the combo of Lechmere and Paul informed Mizen. As I have many times pointed out, if a schoolclass travel to a church and a pupil tells his parents afterwards ”we” lit a candle there, it does not mean that every pupil held the match.

                  It must also be considered that it would be odd if there was some sort of vicarious echolalia on Pauls behalf involved:

                  Lechmere: We´ve been to Bucks Row.

                  Paul: Yes, we’ve been to Bucks Row.

                  Lechmere: We found a woman lying there.

                  Paul: Yes, we found a woman lying there.

                  Lechmere: We think she is dead:

                  Paul: Yes, we think she is dead.

                  The next point that must be made is of course how Paul said at the inquest that he felt sure that he had detected breathing when feeling Nichols´ chest. Would a man who informed the inquest that he felt breathing then conclude that the breathing woman was actually dead???

                  So there we are, I find that Steves claim that Paul told Mizen that he believed that Nichols was dead is nothing but another assumption on his behalf, turned into fact.

                  A ”fact”, moreover, that he used to call me dodgy for having underplayed it, in his review of my book.

                  How about the rest out here, does anyone think that it is an established fact that Paul told Mizen that he thought that Nichols was dead?

                  And which are Steves own sentiments about all of this? I may have missed out on further evidence to bolster Steves claim, and if so, it would be good to be presented with it.
                  Last edited by Fisherman; 09-27-2021, 02:04 PM.

                  Comment


                  • To get away from the tedium of the name issue, do we know how tall Lechmere was?

                    I'm thinking particularly of the most likely description of the ripper, made be Lawende and Hyam Levy at 1.35 am near mitre square. Given that the body of Eddowes was found at 1.45, and it would've taken him at least 5 mins to do what he did, it doesn't leave much (if any) time to meet anyone else, if this was eddowes and the ripper. Although Lawende estimated the man's height at 5'7" he was, like all the other witnesses, giving the man's height in isolation. Hyam Levy saw the same man at the same time and said he was only slightly taller than the woman, so he was using her for scale. It sounds like there was very little in it between the height of the man and the woman. Eddowes was 5', which, to my mind, puts the man at 5'1" to 5'3".

                    If we don't know lechmere's height, are there any photos of him stood beside something we could attempt to scale from (e.g. chair, table etc) - although i suspect such a method would be inaccurate enough to prove inconclusive.

                    I'm not suggesting this as evidence (unless Lechmere turned out to be 5'8/9 plus), but it would be interesting to know.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post
                      To get away from the tedium of the name issue, do we know how tall Lechmere was?

                      I'm thinking particularly of the most likely description of the ripper, made be Lawende and Hyam Levy at 1.35 am near mitre square. Given that the body of Eddowes was found at 1.45, and it would've taken him at least 5 mins to do what he did, it doesn't leave much (if any) time to meet anyone else, if this was eddowes and the ripper. Although Lawende estimated the man's height at 5'7" he was, like all the other witnesses, giving the man's height in isolation. Hyam Levy saw the same man at the same time and said he was only slightly taller than the woman, so he was using her for scale. It sounds like there was very little in it between the height of the man and the woman. Eddowes was 5', which, to my mind, puts the man at 5'1" to 5'3".

                      If we don't know lechmere's height, are there any photos of him stood beside something we could attempt to scale from (e.g. chair, table etc) - although i suspect such a method would be inaccurate enough to prove inconclusive.

                      I'm not suggesting this as evidence (unless Lechmere turned out to be 5'8/9 plus), but it would be interesting to know.

                      Tedium???

                      CAL’s background is the most fascinating aspect of his candidacy. It’s way more riveting than how tall he was.

                      ;-)




                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post
                        To get away from the tedium of the name issue, do we know how tall Lechmere was?

                        I'm thinking particularly of the most likely description of the ripper, made be Lawende and Hyam Levy at 1.35 am near mitre square. Given that the body of Eddowes was found at 1.45, and it would've taken him at least 5 mins to do what he did, it doesn't leave much (if any) time to meet anyone else, if this was eddowes and the ripper. Although Lawende estimated the man's height at 5'7" he was, like all the other witnesses, giving the man's height in isolation. Hyam Levy saw the same man at the same time and said he was only slightly taller than the woman, so he was using her for scale. It sounds like there was very little in it between the height of the man and the woman. Eddowes was 5', which, to my mind, puts the man at 5'1" to 5'3".

                        If we don't know lechmere's height, are there any photos of him stood beside something we could attempt to scale from (e.g. chair, table etc) - although i suspect such a method would be inaccurate enough to prove inconclusive.

                        I'm not suggesting this as evidence (unless Lechmere turned out to be 5'8/9 plus), but it would be interesting to know.
                        Lechmere's descendants are not tall. Yes, I checked: one living female is under 5 feet; one deceased male was only a few inches above 5 feet.

                        M.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                          Lechmere's descendants are not tall. Yes, I checked: one living female is under 5 feet; one deceased male was only a few inches above 5 feet.

                          M.
                          doesn't necessarily follow that he was short. I'm 6'2" - my mother is 5"1.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                            There was never any need to present him with the full facts




                            Hear hear!


                            Thats how the lechmerians function!




                            The Baron

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post
                              To get away from the tedium of the name issue, do we know how tall Lechmere was?

                              I'm thinking particularly of the most likely description of the ripper, made be Lawende and Hyam Levy at 1.35 am near mitre square. Given that the body of Eddowes was found at 1.45, and it would've taken him at least 5 mins to do what he did, it doesn't leave much (if any) time to meet anyone else, if this was eddowes and the ripper. Although Lawende estimated the man's height at 5'7" he was, like all the other witnesses, giving the man's height in isolation. Hyam Levy saw the same man at the same time and said he was only slightly taller than the woman, so he was using her for scale. It sounds like there was very little in it between the height of the man and the woman. Eddowes was 5', which, to my mind, puts the man at 5'1" to 5'3".

                              If we don't know lechmere's height, are there any photos of him stood beside something we could attempt to scale from (e.g. chair, table etc) - although i suspect such a method would be inaccurate enough to prove inconclusive.

                              I'm not suggesting this as evidence (unless Lechmere turned out to be 5'8/9 plus), but it would be interesting to know.
                              Hi Wulf
                              i dont think we know his exact height, but fish has posted a picture of him in later years and I remember thinking-well he dosnt look short or stout. he looks kind of raily or wiry if I recall correctly.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by The Baron View Post





                                Hear hear!


                                Thats how the lechmerians function!




                                The Baron
                                You of course mean that I am perfectly honest, once again confirming that all Scobie would need to gauge if there is a case against Lechmere are the points of accusation.

                                And yes, that is how I function. I give the information I have at hand as correctly and honestly as I possibly can. As I have pointed out before, there is every chance that Scobie ALSO got points against guilt; I cant say, since I never saw the material. But as Paul Begg pointed out on an early stage, providing only the points against would be perfectly kosher to establish if they warranted a court case.

                                How do YOU function? Thats easy, it only takes this abomination of a post of yours to see that. You try to twist and inflame as best as you can - but you seem to have no real talent for anything.

                                I’ m glad we differ.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X