Evidence of innocence

[Fiver]

Following your "logic", we therefore get a situation where you think that the insight that the police did not investigate him tells us that they never found him suspicious.

Once we understand that the police is actually able to misjudge these things, we have our solution. They didn´t find Christie suspicious when he witnessed against Evans, did they?

The mistake you make is that you work from an assumption that people who are not investigated by the police cannot be or seem to be villains, because if they were or did, the police WOULD have investigated them.

That's a rather inaccurate summary of the position of people who disagree with you.

Also the competence of the police in the Christie case has no bearing on the competence of the police in the Ripper case.

Based on information we have, none of the police of the time considered CAL to be a suspect. That either means they did not investigate CAL or they did investigate, but, rightly or wrongly, did not find CAL to be a credible suspect. Barring the unlikely resurfacing of lost records, we have no way of knowing which is the truth.

But we can look at probabilities. Nichols was considered the second or third victim - not the first. Much of the press and public were accusing the police of incompetence. And PC Mizen had a personal stake - both Lechmere's and Paul's statements had shown him in a very poor light.

The probability is that Lechmere was investigated.

[Paddy Goose]

It seems the sheds may have been fairly sizeable.

The shed is Post-Scobie.

[Fiver]

Makes you believe that, Baron. I’d be surprised if anyone else believes that Dew’s use of the word ‘honest’ is evidence of Lechmere having been thoroughly investigated and cleared.

Dew never described CAL as "honest". Or dishonest. Fisherman's summary was not accurate.

[JeffHamm]

Why, the laws of logic, of course. Accusatory avidence can be assessed by a barrister and he can say whether or not it is sufficient to warrant a trial. He will of course be aware that contradictory evidence may exist that alters the picture, but up until the time that such evidence is presented, he is quite capable of assessing whther or not the accusatory evidence as such suggests guilt or not.

And guess what, Harry? It DOES suggest guilt in Lechmeres case, as per ... well, you know who!

I'm pretty sure a prosecutor looks at all of the case evidence, not only that for which a guilty story finds convenient while sweeping under the carpet all exculpatory evidence. It's like evaluating a chess move, if you only look at "I can check the king with my queen", failing to notice that by doing so your opponent will simply capture your queen and then you've moved into a forced mate position, you don't make that move and your evaluation of it's suitability changes substantially. Looking only at that which suits one's desired conclusion is the antithesis of logical thinking, it's biased thinking, and the idea that a rational opinion about a case against an individual can be made without being aware of the evidence against their guilt is nonsense. Scoobie, as Trevor's conversation with him shows, was not presented with some pretty basic exculpatory evidence. He would have accepted the evidence he was provided with on good faith, which appears to have been unfounded. It's not his fault he was given an incomplete evidence file, but it does mean his opinion at the time was based upon faulty data, and so his conclusion cannot be viewed as anything other than the bias in the data set, and does not reflect the actual strength of the evidence against. The evidence set, when viewed in its entirity, does not suggest guilt.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

James Scobie seems to be particularly affected by that confirmation bias. Otherwise, one would have thought that he, with his vast experience of all matters legal, should be able to steer clear of it.

Nice try, Jeff!

Indeed, he was. The bias, of course, was inherent in the evidence set he was asked to evaluate not a bias in his own thinking per se. He would have accepted in good faith the evidence he was given. Trevor's conversation with him confirms that the evidence was biased, which would in turn bias his opinion.

- Jeff

[Paddy Goose]

Give it up Jeff, of course your posts make perfect sense. Doesn't matter. It was game over the night the TV show aired. A UK Crown Prosecutor said Charles Lechmere is indictable as Jack the Ripper.

Out of the 20,000 Lechmere Suspect posts, how many are Fisherman playing the Scobie card. A thousand, (5%), two thousand (10%), I'm not counting. And it's Christer's right to do that.

Ripperology is now in the Post-Scobie era. Nothing like had ever happened. t's called a "breakthrough in ripperology" by Fisherman. And he has every right to call it that.

He can and will swat away every single objection with 'Scobie Said So.'

[Fiver]

Has it been ascertained that Lechmere was known as Cross at Pickfords?

It has not been established that CAL was known as Cross at Pickford's.

It has not been established that CAL was known as Lechmere at Pickford's.

CAL's public mention of his home and work addresses at the Inquest, as well as his shift start and length of time working for Pickfords makes it clear he was not trying to hide his identity from his coworkers.

Which makes it probable that he was know as Cross at work. Not certain, but probable.

[Fiver]

My own opinion is that Lechmere had a speech impediment, among other physical and neurological issues. Watch this space.

There is no evidence of CAL having a speech impediment in the accounts of either the 1876 or 1888 Inquest. There is no evidence of him having a "neurological issue", either. None of the witnesses who saw him or the reporters present at the Inquest noted any "physical issues" and being a carman was strenuous job with no room for those who were not physically fit.

[Mark J D]

There is evidence of him having a "neurological issue", either. [sic]

Classic demonstration of how blind rage inhibits proof-reading ability.

M.

[Fiver]

Classic demonstration of how blind rage inhibits proof-reading ability.

M.

Classic demonstration of you making negative assumptions about other posters.

We're still waiting for you to provide any evidence that CAL had a speech impediment or "other physical and neurological issues".

[Mark J D]

... CAL's public mention of his home and work addresses at the Inquest...

Folks, there is no evidence of any 'public mention' of that home address at the inquest. No paper printed Lech's address apart from The Star, and they -- an evening paper (with a savagely early deadline therefore) -- clearly got it from the same non-acoustic source from which they obtained the other personal details they reproduced without the faintest inaccuracy: no 'George Cross' for them.

M.

[Mark J D]

We're still waiting for you to provide any evidence that CAL had a speech impediment or "other physical and neurological issues".

The only person 'waiting' for it is you. And I couldn't care less about that.

M.

[Paddy Goose]

...
Which makes it probable that he was know as Cross at work.

Fiver it doesn't matter. A UK Crown Prosecutor has said Charles Lechmere is indictable as Jack the Ripper.

A hate to say this but everyone here including myself who disagrees with the Lechmere theory on Lechmere Suspect threads is playing a game of what I can only call Whack-a-Mole.

And we, you and me are the the moles. We will be swatted down with the Scobie Card. We have been. It will continue. It happens daily. Right here.

But not on the rest of Casebook. Only this section. And again, that's fine. Christer has every right to play the Scobie card and he does.

[Paddy Goose]

It's funny actually because right now, with the time zones, Fisherman is not here and have you ever heard the old expression "When the cat's away the mice will play" but in our case it's the Moles will play.

[Fiver]

Look at it like this: Scobie was given all the points of accusation.

And just as obviously, Scobie was given none of the points of exculpation.

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.

Hate to break it to you, but the police at the time had already concluded all of that.

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.

There is not enough "weight of evidence" against CAL for him to arrested, let alone brought to trial.