Evidence of innocence

[harry]

In reply to your post 2484 Mr Barnett,i am missing no point.Fisherman stated only accusative evidence is allowed at a Prima facie hearing.That was his point,or are you now claiming it was not and that I lied?I have provided an independent source to show that Fisherman was wrong.Will you or he accept that? I doubt it.
As Trevor asks,what is evidence today,that was not available to the police in 1888?.What are the patterns of behaviour that count against Cross?The Cross is Guilty accusers are heavy on the side of making claims,absolutely useless in proving those claims.
Is there a pattern that shows Cross was present at the murder sites at the time the murders were committed.No,there isn't. No eyewitness testimony(Real evidence) was presented.Is there a pattern of evidence to show violence was a characteristic of Cross?.There was undeniably a pattern of violence shown against the victims.
Not even a pattern that showed he used the same routes to work every morning,that he arose at the same time each morning,left home at the same time each morning.Just a sad,sad,pllea that he could have done so.Unfortunately,could have done so,would not have been persuaving enough to sway a magistrate,or in 1888 a jury.Take my word on that.

[rjpalmer]

t
hi dk
well i guess whoever represented lech, or if not, lech himself is also an evil bastard for when he killed that kid when he ran over him too right? really this very silly stuff dk.

Silly indeed.

Seeing some of the toe rags that Scobie has defended against overwhelming evidence (toe rag being his own phrase), do you honestly think he would balk at defending CAL against the non-existent case that's been leveled against him? Seriously? He'd be chomping at the bit.

It was a performance for television. As Fish pointed out earlier, CAL died in 1920 so there was no real chance of putting him on trial. Scobie knows this, so his shop-talk should be viewed accordingly.

By the way, your comment makes no sense from a legal standpoint. CAL was not charged with any crime in the 1876 accident. Further, if he had been charged, he could not have defended himself. A man who has been charged cannot defend himself before a coroner's court. That's why Sadler sat mum at the Coles' inquest.

Personally, I believe Trevor Marriott's account. But there's little chance that a QC who went on record saying he would prosecute a man would retract his statement publicly. The optics wouldn't be good.

[JeffHamm]

If you want to call it a bias when a barrister is handed the accusatory evidence pointing in a suspects direction and asked if that accusatory evidence would warrant a trial that suggests guilt, then by all means do so - I would not want to deprive you of the term since it seems to be the most important one in your vocabulary.
Prima facie cases are formed or pondered every day by barristers all over the world, trained and able legal eagles. It would amaze me if they do it to the sound of their colleagues shouting "BIAS!" from behind their desks. It is a common and accepted method of establishing the value of acccusatory evidence, not a shameful act of biased thinking.

I would advice anybody who cannot understand what Scobie was asked to do to revisit the docu. In it, the question "Would the case against Lechmere stand up in a modern court?" is asked, and then it is added "Criminal barrister and Queens Councel James Scobie reviews the evidence AGAINST him."
It really should not be very hard to understand that what I call the accusatory evidence is the exact same as is described in the docu as the evidence AGAINST Lechmere. Please note that it is not said that Scobie reviewed the CASE against him.

Once more, first time over that Scobie was discussed, the exact same criticism was raised by people with little or no insight into legal matters until Paul Begg pointed out that there is nothing at all wrong to let a barrister decide if the accusatory evidence as such is enough to warrant a prima facie case suggesting guilt. Maybe you should try and digest that too, Jeff?

The "From what Trevor tells us, Scobies opionion has changed" should be seen against the backdrop of how Trevor has before stated that what Scobie (wisely) said was that added information could perhaps make him change his mind. So the one person who has changed his opinion is Trevor if he now claims that Scobie said that HE had changed his mind.
Do you want me to post Trevoirs earlier description of what Scobie said? It´s right here on this very thread and it has nothing at all to do with Scobie having changed his mind.

Gary Barnett asks a fair question: Why do you believe Trevors unrecorded and unsubstantiated claims if you don´t believe the recorded claims of James Scobie from the documentary? THIS is where we need to employ the word bias, Jeff, because it is as biased as it gets. And its on you.

Finally, and most importantly: Why do you speak of how Scobies verdict was as firm as I believe? Am I not the one to decide for myself what I believe, or has that right moved on to you now?
What I believe is that James Scobie is a very expereinced barrister who is quite able to decide if the points involved in an accusation against a suspect are prima facie enough to warrant a trial. And that is all that counts. If you were to be able to inform Scobie after that decision that it is proven that Charles Lechmere took piano lessons during the rest of the Whitechapel murders, then that will bring the suspicions against Lechmere to an end - BUT IT WILL NOT MEAN THAT SCOBIES ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS WRONG! This is what you seemingly fail to understand. There is a prima facie case against Lechmere, suggesting that he was guilty up until you can provide evidence good enough to overturn that decision.

Now, tell me, Jeff: DID Lechmere take piano lessons during the rest of the murders? Not to your knowledge? No? Great, thank you!

You see, it is not as if the case against Lechmere crumbles immediately as the collosal amount of evidence for innocence you have amassed on this thread is dragged into the courtroom.
Saying "Maybe it was not him?", and let´s be honest here, that IS what you are saying, is not going to bring your "case" back in through the window. It stays outside until you have one.

PS: Here´s Trevor Marriotts description of his alleged exchange with James Scobie, in Trevors own words and posted on this thread on the 15th of September:

going back to my conversation with Scobie for those who question it and suggest I had made it up !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1. He says he never met Christer during the making of the program

2. He was not provided with the witness testimony but simply given by C5 what he describes as bullet points relating to the evidence, which he thinks originated from Christer, It was this that he was asked to read and give his opinion on.

3. He states that the sum total of his input was between 30-45 mins of which most as was seen was edited out.

4. He states when he was asked about Cross giving a false name and its importance he replied that in his opinion that was insignificant to the other facts- edited out

5. He never saw the coroners summing up

6. He accepts that had he been shown the full facts then his opinion might have been different.

See point 6, where Scobie is quoted as saying that if he had been shown the full facts, his opinion MIGHT have been different. Can you, or can you not, see how that alters the picture somewhat, Jeff?
So what do you say, do we go on this post of Trevors, or shall we make a fresh new start and claim that Scobie was down on his knees, retracting all the things he had said about Lechmere as Trevor - allegedly - spoke to him?

Just dont speak to me about bias, Jeff.

You are deliberately misunderstanding me. I said the evidence set that he was given was biased. You agree, but appear to be unable to bring yourself to say it. The evidence he was given did not outline alternative explanations, and as Trevor tells us, left out some pretty basic information - that is the definition of a biased set of evidence. If one is only given evidence, all presented as if it points to guilt, then the conclusion will be driven by the inherent bias within the evidence. You want to twist my words to make it appear that I'm accusing Scoobie of being biased in his thinking, which even a cursory reading of what I've been saying would make it clear that is not an accurate description of what I'm saying. Hopefully this time I am able to put you right on that and you can stop misrepresenting me.

I'm not going to concern myself with your unwillingness to accept that Trevor spoke with Scoobie and Scoobie revealed there were a lot of basic facts that he was unaware of. The fact that he says they might have changed his opinion reflects his professional nature. Clearly, whatever they spoke about, was sufficient for him to express that his opinion was not rock solid. Like any professional, he would want time to think over the new information. But if his opinion was anywhere near as strong as you make it out to be then when Trevor presented him with new information it wouldn't have made a difference. He would have an answer for such things if working only from a guilty-biased evidence set was sufficient for him to determine if there was a case to answer. It appears he did not have such answers at the ready, which is hardly surprising, because the bias in the evidence provided would not have prepared him, and quite possibly led him to erroneous conclusions about the strength of the evidence against Cross/Lechmere. For example, and I have to make up an example because I don't know what he was given, but let's say all he knew was that he presented his testimony under the name Cross, but his registered name is Lechmere, and it is Lechmere that appears on various other documents, but the evidence didn't point out that Cross was his step-father's name, or that he used the name Cross years earlier in court. If the evidence set doesn't include the fact that he gave the police his address, his place of work, his correct first and middle name, then all of a sudden it does look like he's hiding his identity. But once one sees all of the evidence, including that which is not suitable for making a guilty accusation, the "hiding his identity" myth vanishes into the wishful cloud it came from. It's not Scoobie's fault he was given insufficient information to form an accurate assessment.

I have no idea what the piano reference is about. You're stirring up all sorts of dust to create confusion, which tends to smack of desperation. I would advise against using that as a tactic. But if you think it looks good, go for it.

Also, you seem to be misconstruing the fact that I don't find your arguments as being convincing as me being biased. Again, we see a version of "guilty looking behavior leads to guilt and innocent behavior leads to guilt" rationalization. Those who agree with you are unbiased, those who do not, are biased. If you could present something that actually pointed to Cross/Lechmere being guilty, I would be more than willing to accept that. I have no reason to prevent Cross/Lechmere from being identified as JtR if, in fact, he were. But nothing at all you've presented, despite your unyielding belief in it, actually indicates he was involved in any way. Again, being able to make up a story does not make the story true. And none of the evidence shapes the story you're telling, rather, it is the story that is used to shape the evidence. And that is biased thinking - by definition.

- Jeff

[GUT]

thats incredible story dude, seriously. you should write a book

No that is Mrs Gut’s job if she ever finished knocking her PhD into book form.

[Abby Normal]

Silly indeed.

Seeing some of the toe rags that Scobie has defended against overwhelming evidence (toe rag being his own phrase), do you honestly think he would balk at defending CAL against the non-existent case that's been leveled against him? Seriously? He'd be chomping at the bit.

It was a performance for television. As Fish pointed out earlier, CAL died in 1920 so there was no real chance of putting him on trial. Scobie knows this, so his shop-talk should be viewed accordingly.

By the way, your comment makes no sense from a legal standpoint. CAL was not charged with any crime in the 1876 accident. Further, if he had been charged, he could not have defended himself. A man who has been charged cannot defend himself before a coroner's court. That's why Sadler sat mum at the Coles' inquest.

Personally, I believe Trevor Marriott's account. But there's little chance that a QC who went on record saying he would prosecute a man would retract his statement publicly. The optics wouldn't be good.

thats great rj. do you have anything of real significance or research to add? lol guess not
you stay on trevor marriotts side ok and your be sure to lose. ive lost all respect for you pal
id rather study the dinosaur than read your posts mate at least fish and gary are doin real research. perhaps your better suited for the loser diary posts

[Abby Normal]

You are deliberately misunderstanding me. I said the evidence set that he was given was biased. You agree, but appear to be unable to bring yourself to say it. The evidence he was given did not outline alternative explanations, and as Trevor tells us, left out some pretty basic information - that is the definition of a biased set of evidence. If one is only given evidence, all presented as if it points to guilt, then the conclusion will be driven by the inherent bias within the evidence. You want to twist my words to make it appear that I'm accusing Scoobie of being biased in his thinking, which even a cursory reading of what I've been saying would make it clear that is not an accurate description of what I'm saying. Hopefully this time I am able to put you right on that and you can stop misrepresenting me.

I'm not going to concern myself with your unwillingness to accept that Trevor spoke with Scoobie and Scoobie revealed there were a lot of basic facts that he was unaware of. The fact that he says they might have changed his opinion reflects his professional nature. Clearly, whatever they spoke about, was sufficient for him to express that his opinion was not rock solid. Like any professional, he would want time to think over the new information. But if his opinion was anywhere near as strong as you make it out to be then when Trevor presented him with new information it wouldn't have made a difference. He would have an answer for such things if working only from a guilty-biased evidence set was sufficient for him to determine if there was a case to answer. It appears he did not have such answers at the ready, which is hardly surprising, because the bias in the evidence provided would not have prepared him, and quite possibly led him to erroneous conclusions about the strength of the evidence against Cross/Lechmere. For example, and I have to make up an example because I don't know what he was given, but let's say all he knew was that he presented his testimony under the name Cross, but his registered name is Lechmere, and it is Lechmere that appears on various other documents, but the evidence didn't point out that Cross was his step-father's name, or that he used the name Cross years earlier in court. If the evidence set doesn't include the fact that he gave the police his address, his place of work, his correct first and middle name, then all of a sudden it does look like he's hiding his identity. But once one sees all of the evidence, including that which is not suitable for making a guilty accusation, the "hiding his identity" myth vanishes into the wishful cloud it came from. It's not Scoobie's fault he was given insufficient information to form an accurate assessment.

I have no idea what the piano reference is about. You're stirring up all sorts of dust to create confusion, which tends to smack of desperation. I would advise against using that as a tactic. But if you think it looks good, go for it.

Also, you seem to be misconstruing the fact that I don't find your arguments as being convincing as me being biased. Again, we see a version of "guilty looking behavior leads to guilt and innocent behavior leads to guilt" rationalization. Those who agree with you are unbiased, those who do not, are biased. If you could present something that actually pointed to Cross/Lechmere being guilty, I would be more than willing to accept that. I have no reason to prevent Cross/Lechmere from being identified as JtR if, in fact, he were. But nothing at all you've presented, despite your unyielding belief in it, actually indicates he was involved in any way. Again, being able to make up a story does not make the story true. And none of the evidence shapes the story you're telling, rather, it is the story that is used to shape the evidence. And that is biased thinking - by definition.

- Jeff

jeff. um geo profile dude. no love for leches geo profile?

[rjpalmer]

thats great rj. do you have anything of real significance or research to add? lol guess not
you stay on trevor marriotts side ok and your be sure to lose. ive lost all respect for you pal
id rather study the dinosaur than read your posts mate at least fish and gary are doin real research. perhaps your better suited for the loser diary posts

Good riddance.

[Abby Normal]

Good riddance.

its mutual

[Abby Normal]

[QUOTE=Abby Normal;n769884]

thats all you got. lame . good bye. go do something useful rj. the diary threads await you

[Abby Normal]

a million pages and the anti lechers have not provided a single line of original research. so easy to be a nay sayer

[Abby Normal]

Good riddance.

btw im not going any where rosy. get it?

[Abby Normal]

Silly indeed.

Seeing some of the toe rags that Scobie has defended against overwhelming evidence (toe rag being his own phrase), do you honestly think he would balk at defending CAL against the non-existent case that's been leveled against him? Seriously? He'd be chomping at the bit.

It was a performance for television. As Fish pointed out earlier, CAL died in 1920 so there was no real chance of putting him on trial. Scobie knows this, so his shop-talk should be viewed accordingly.

By the way, your comment makes no sense from a legal standpoint. CAL was not charged with any crime in the 1876 accident. Further, if he had been charged, he could not have defended himself. A man who has been charged cannot defend himself before a coroner's court. That's why Sadler sat mum at the Coles' inquest.

Personally, I believe Trevor Marriott's account. But there's little chance that a QC who went on record saying he would prosecute a man would retract his statement publicly. The optics wouldn't be good.

who defended lech when he killed the kid einstein?

[JeffHamm]

jeff. um geo profile dude. no love for leches geo profile?

Hi Abby,

You have to remember, geo-profiles are not about identifying individuals, they are about identifying areas in which to look for individuals. And, based upon every one of the profile routines, Cross/Lechmere isn't strongly associated with the area of high interest - he doesn't have a known anchor point in them. His residence is too far east, and his work too far west. So, if we were to take the profiles at face value, then no, he doesn't fit all that well.

Now, that's being very strict in how one interprets it. One of the areas that does tend to get highlighted a lot is the area between Kelly's and Chapman's murder scene. And, from his testimony, he did continue with Paul up towards Hanbury, etc. So that could be his regular walk, which appears to go through the main anchor point area.

Also, with work and residence straddling the main profile area, it is possible the two anchor points are pushing the profile to a middle location, one closer to his work place than residence. In short, there's nothing that really conflicts, but again, profiles don't solve cases and they aren't evidence. Typically, though, what one would expect to find is a specific connection that area, rather than just a transitory route. If we knew, for example, that Cross/Lechmere tended to spend time at the 10 Bells, for example, then that would tell us he doesn't just pass through those streets, but he does stop in the area. That would give him the opportunity to develop the familiarity with the specific area. Sadly, we don't know those day-to-day details about any of our suspects, so it's hard to use the profiles. We can't go search the pubs, or look for who's out and about on a regular basis late at night in that area.

Cross/Lechmere's association with the main area of interest from the profiles, while not entirely absent, is transitory in nature. Typically, there is an anchor point of some sort located there. And so far, that appears to be missing. So, while he's not completely different from the profile, his fit, based on what information we have, is not particularly eye-catching either.

And of course, profiles are not always right, just like it's not always the spouse, or ex-partner. Sure, that's a good guess, and you'll be right more often than wrong, but you'll still be wrong if you treat these things as "facts", rather than as information to consider.

- Jeff

[The Baron]

The Lechmerians cannot prove Nichols was cut when Cross and Paul found her

I challenge them one by one, and name by name, to prove she was cut before!


If they cannot, and they cannot, then don't forget to say hello to Scobie when you see him!





The Baron

[Darryl Kenyon]

So all defence lawyers are crooks?

It had been a long day Gary. I admit my post wasn't the best. The point I was trying [ badly ] to make is in some suspect docu's and books I have read, if there is an expert whether that be a profiler, geo profiler ,clinical psychologist or in this case a leading QC the expert always seems to agree with the theory.
I just wonder have they looked at the case from all angles, how knowledgeable they are in the subject or have they just seen the evidence which seems to point to that suspects guilt ?
Apologies
Regards Darryl