Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    the ole lech was innocent because a modern day lawyer who thinks theres enough circumstantial evidence to charge has rappers as clients defense! LOL. this really is spinning down the rabbit hole. talking about this nonsense for several pages and not one anti-lecher has congratulated or even mentioned Garys steller research on the pinchin/cats meat shop find. and one wonders why I im a lech apologist at best and an anti-anti-lecher? go figure.
    Hi Abby - I missed the 'cats meat shop find' amidst the nonsense - I've checked back in the thread and couldn't find it. Could you point me in the right direction?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Greenway View Post

      Hi Abby - I missed the 'cats meat shop find' amidst the nonsense - I've checked back in the thread and couldn't find it. Could you point me in the right direction?
      Its in Backchurch Lane! But not on this site. Its on JTRForums.
      Last edited by Fisherman; 09-30-2021, 07:40 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        To me, and I know I have said so a thousand times, but it cannot be said often enough, all the things that point in his way simply cannot all be coincidental.

        He just happened to find Nichols.

        She just happened to bleed for many minutes after he left her.

        She just happened to be the only Ripper victim with the damage hidden by the clothing.

        Paul just happened to arrive at the perfect moment to supply an alibi.

        He just happened not to see or hear Lechmere, 30 or 40 yards in front of himself.

        Lechmere just happened to feel and touch the body of Nichols - and he just happened to decline to help prop her up when Paul suggested it.

        He just happened to disagree about having told Mizen that a second PC was in place in Bucks Row.

        He just happened to disagreee with Mizen about whether or not he told the PC that it was a grave errand.

        He just happened to leave out that he was the finder himself when speaking to Mizen.

        He just happened to traverse the exact small area where the Spitalfields murders took place.

        He just happened to have all sorts of links to the exact area where Stride died.

        He just happened to use the name Cross with the police and inquest, whereas he otherwise ALWAYS used Lechmere in any contacts with the authorities.

        He just happened to give a departure time that should have seen him halfways down Hanbury Street at 3.40, not to speak of 3.45.

        He just happened to surface at the second day of the inquest - after Pauls interview in Lloyds.
        I see you still don't understand the meaning of coincidence.

        * Someone had to find the body. This is not evidence against CAL or any of the men who found the other victims.

        * If one of your experts is right, Nichols could have been killed 10 minutes before CAL found her body. If your other expert is right, Nichols was probably killed after Lechmere and Paul left her. Of course, they also said they were estimating based on little or no actual data.

        * The Ripper did not pull down Nichol's clothing. This is very clear from Robert Paul's testimony.

        * Paul did not supply an alibi to anyone. His arrival time has nothing to do with whether CAL was the killer. OTOH, CAL's accompanying Paul almost as far as Spitalfields Market points towards Lechmere's innocence. A guilty man would have wanted to ditch Paul as soon as possible so he could check himself for bloodstains, ditch the bloody knife, and wash up if needed.

        * We have no idea how far away Lechmere was when Paul saw him. We have no idea if Paul heard Lechmere before he saw him. No one ever asked Paul.

        * Lechmere touched Nichols hands and face - just like Robert Paul. Refusing to prop up Nichols body points towards Lechmere's innocence. A guilty man would have jumped at the chance to have an innocent explanation for blood on his hands and clothes.

        * Robert Paul also disagreed with PC Mizen. That points towards PC Mizen being wrong, not CAL being guilty.

        * CAL did not leave out that he was the finder when speaking to Mizen. Paul's testimony supports Lechmere.

        * Hundreds, if not thousands of men "happened to traverse the exact small area where the Spitalfields murders took place".

        * Lechmere had no link to the place that Stride died.

        * Lechmere gave his home and work addresses to the police. He was not trying to hide his identity.

        * The only way he could have left 22 Doveton Street at 3:30am and been "halfways down Hanbury Street at 3.40" would be if he rode a bicycle. Average walking speed is 3 to 4 miles per hour. You are assuming that a nearly forty-year-old man walked at nearly twice that rate. At 3:30am. With only Victorian streetlights for illumination. Back in reality, Lechmere's estimated time of departure matches well with the times given by PC Neil, PC Mizen, and PC Thain.

        * Lechmere did not "happen to surface at the second day of the inquest". He came forward voluntarily even though neither Paul nor PC Mizen knew who he was. This is another point where you try to treat an event as pointing towards guilt when it points towards innocence.

        Not that I expect the facts to sway your opinions. They haven't any of the many previous times you were refuted.



        "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

        "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

          Hi RJ
          He has also represented the notorious Adams family from London and at least one of the lorry drivers involved in the death of 39 Chinese migrants recently.
          Regards Darryl
          -- And so, after much casting about, we inevitably come to the forensic ad hominem.

          This display is called 'hitting every branch on the way down'.

          Let's see how many more branches there are before Scobie simply gets denounced as a witch...

          M.
          (Image of Charles Allen Lechmere is by artist Ashton Guilbeaux. Used by permission. Original art-work for sale.)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

            -- And so, after much casting about, we inevitably come to the forensic ad hominem.

            This display is called 'hitting every branch on the way down'.

            Let's see how many more branches there are before Scobie simply gets denounced as a witch...

            M.
            Its quite illuminating. Let them, I say!

            Comment


            • I have to objectively admit that as someone who doesn't have a favoured suspect or have a dog in the fight, I don't find Lechmere's candidacy as JTR overwhelming. If I was a prosecutor I wouldn't want to take him to court over the various alleged coincidences and circumstantial bits and pieces. I'm not saying he wasn't JTR. I have no idea. Nobody can say this for certain.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                Those who dislike the idea do not have that problem. ANY amount of innocent alternative explanations can always be presented. Take, for example, the covering of the wounds. I am stuck with the one explanation that Lechmere did it to fool Robert Paul.

                But YOU! The OTHER side!! You can say that:

                The clothing did not cover the wounds, the carmen just failed to see the wounds in the darkness.

                The clothing had blown up over the abdomen by way of a gust of wind.

                A passer by had felt it looked bad and so he covered it up to soften the impression (and yes, something like this HAS seemingly happened in another case!)

                Nichols did not die immediately and so she pulled the dress down herself.

                The killer lifted the dress and then let go of it after cutting the abomen and the clothing fell back in place by itself.

                ... and I´m sure that you can think of other explanations too; the possibilities are endless.
                Again, you attack positions no one ever held.

                Back in reality, it is clear that the Ripper did not cover Nichol's wounds.

                "Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach." - Robert Paul
                "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                Comment


                • Originally posted by MrTwibbs View Post
                  I have to objectively admit that as someone who doesn't have a favoured suspect or have a dog in the fight, I don't find Lechmere's candidacy as JTR overwhelming. If I was a prosecutor I wouldn't want to take him to court over the various alleged coincidences and circumstantial bits and pieces. I'm not saying he wasn't JTR. I have no idea. Nobody can say this for certain.
                  If you was a prosecutor. Then again…

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                    -- And so, after much casting about, we inevitably come to the forensic ad hominem.

                    This display is called 'hitting every branch on the way down'.

                    Let's see how many more branches there are before Scobie simply gets denounced as a witch...

                    M.
                    A bit like Lech being denounced as a murderer then when the evidence is wafer thin at best.

                    Comment


                    • Scobie gets well paid off his clients to say what they would like him to say - IE they are innocent . Did Scobie then get paid off the docu film company ? [ sorry, off the top of my head I don't know their name ] to say what they would like him to say ?
                      I will get criticised for this post I know, but it is a question what I am, and maybe others are thinking.
                      Regards Darryl

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

                        A bit like Lech being denounced as a murderer then when the evidence is wafer thin at best.
                        Not according to James Scobie.

                        Can you see how you cannot win this argument?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                          1. Why is it that Neils name was mentioned in combination with the initial stories about the mysterious two men, the ones he denied on the Sunday? If he had not spoken to two men, why is his name specifically targetted, as per the article in the Star - where, incidentally, it was not said that Neil was CALLED to the spot by two men, but instead ACCOMPANIED to it.

                          2. And while you are at it, could you offer a guess as to who these two men would have been? Or were they four? Or six? There is learoom for you to claim that this too is unproven, but I would advice against such a stance.
                          Hi Fish.

                          It beats the heck out of me why you find any of this mysterious. It is commonplace in homicide investigations for journalists to publish misinformation in the first 48-72 hours, if not longer.

                          It was originally reported that Neil found the body of Polly Nichols--full stop.

                          But, as the day progressed, it was learned that two men (Lechmere and Paul) had earlier found the body, but the exact details of this was not yet known; the two men had told a copper about it.

                          A journalist, jumping to a wrong conclusion, decided this copper must have been Neil, and that the two men had accompanied him. We know this is wrong. It was Mizen, and the two men had not accompanied him.

                          Helson denied the story, as he should have.

                          As the inquest proceeded, this muddle was resolved. The man had not accompanied Neil of J Division. They had told Mizen of H-Divison, but had continued on to work. The initial confusion (from the journalist's perspective, if nothing else) was probably increased by Mizen and Neil being in two different divisions, and the embarrassment Mizen might have felt by not getting the men's names, but instead continuing to knock up people in the neighborhood. The police were probably not eager to publicize a ****-up until Paul's statements to a journalist forced their hand.

                          The good news is that it was eventually sorted, and I would advise you against trying to glean too much information from early, inaccurate accounts, when confusion still reigned.

                          Does this answer your question?
                          Last edited by rjpalmer; 09-30-2021, 08:23 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
                            Did Scobie then get paid off the docu film company ? [ sorry, off the top of my head I don't know their name ]
                            Blink and you'll miss it.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Greenway View Post

                              Hi Abby - I missed the 'cats meat shop find' amidst the nonsense - I've checked back in the thread and couldn't find it. Could you point me in the right direction?
                              Here it is.

                              Click image for larger version Name: C93050AC-267C-4699-B97A-56D5AFB2ABC2.jpeg Views: 0 Size: 98.1 KB ID: 584236 (filedata/fetch?id=584236&d=1632838115) Back in 2016, I posted an extract of an article that had first appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette on 12th September, 1889 under the title ‘Murder Morning in

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
                                Scobie gets well paid off his clients to say what they would like him to say - IE they are innocent . Did Scobie then get paid off the docu film company ? [ sorry, off the top of my head I don't know their name ] to say what they would like him to say ?
                                I will get criticised for this post I know, but it is a question what I am, and maybe others are thinking.
                                Regards Darryl
                                So all defence lawyers are crooks?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X