Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    Is there any exculpatory evidence? I thought that was what Fish asked for at the outset and as yet there’s been none put forward.
    I put forward exculpatory evidence in Post #4. I and others have provided more since then. You ignoring the exculpatory evidence does not mean it does not exist.

    Besides, the burden of proof is on those who accuse Lechmere of being the killer. So far, their accusatory evidence has been a mix of opinion and speculation masquerading as facts. They have yet to provide actual evidence against Lechmere.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by MrTwibbs View Post

      I will do this. It must be very tiresome for you to have to keep replying to questions and attempting to refute arguments. 22,000 posts. Crickey you must not have a social life if you spend so much time on here. That isn't meant as an insult.
      I’ m versatile, Mr Twibbs. Somehow I managed to get a family along the road. AND a cat and a dog - which I walk three hours per day.

      I skip over sleep, see …

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

        I put forward exculpatory evidence in Post #4. I and others have provided more since then. You ignoring the exculpatory evidence does not mean it does not exist.

        Besides, the burden of proof is on those who accuse Lechmere of being the killer. So far, their accusatory evidence has been a mix of opinion and speculation masquerading as facts. They have yet to provide actual evidence against Lechmere.
        I’ve read post 4.

        As I say, no one has put forward any exculpatory evidence.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
          I’ve read post 4.

          As I say, no one has put forward any exculpatory evidence.
          You ignoring the evidence does not make it go away.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            I fail to understand nothing, Trevor. I am not the one accusing people of things they never said.
            I would not go so far as saying you accuse people of things they do not say, but your track record on accurately summarizing what they say is not the best.

            Earlier in the thread you said "Have you read Dew on the matter, where he describes Lechmere as a rough but thouroughly honest man, whereas he paints a picture of Paul as a man trying to avoid the law?"

            But Here's what Dew actually said. Dew does not describe Lechmere at as rough. Or honest, let alone "thouroughly honest".

            Dew excuses both Lechmere and Paul for not "dashing for a policeman". Dew also excuses Paul for not appearing voluntarily - "Why did he remain silent? Was it guilty knowledge that caused him to ignore the appeals of the police? In any other district and in any other circumstances this would have been a natural inference, but in the East End of London at this time the man might have had a dozen reasons for avoiding the publicity which would have followed."


            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?
              It's under the "unbiased" title ""Charles Lechmere's Lair?" on the JTRForums. MrB found out that in 1887, numbers 6 and 8 Backchurch Lane were recorded as “Catsmeat vendor - shed only”.

              That is close to where the Pinchon Street Torso was found roughly two years later.

              At least so far
              * There is no evidence that numbers 6 or 8 Backchurch Lane have anything do with the Pinchin Street Torso.
              * There is no evidence about who used 6 or 8 Backchurch Lane as a “Catsmeat vendor - shed".
              * There is no evidence about what 6 or 8 Backchurch Lane were being used for in 1889.

              So it's an interesting bit of trivia, but it gets us no closer to knowing who the Ripper or the Torso Killer was and it may have nothing to do with the killings at all.





              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                You ignoring the evidence does not make it go away.
                A young Pickfords driver giving evidence in court in 1897 said he worked from 8.30 am until 11.00 pm each day. And during his shift he was allowed and hour and a half break for dinner (lunch) and two hours for tea (dinner).

                Your ‘alibi’ just doesn’t exist. The drivers had breaks, they didn’t always have van guards and their delivery times varied according to traffic conditions.

                Alibi? My eye!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                  It's under the "unbiased" title ""Charles Lechmere's Lair?" on the JTRForums. MrB found out that in 1887, numbers 6 and 8 Backchurch Lane were recorded as “Catsmeat vendor - shed only”.

                  That is close to where the Pinchon Street Torso was found roughly two years later.

                  At least so far
                  * There is no evidence that numbers 6 or 8 Backchurch Lane have anything do with the Pinchin Street Torso.
                  * There is no evidence about who used 6 or 8 Backchurch Lane as a “Catsmeat vendor - shed".
                  * There is no evidence about what 6 or 8 Backchurch Lane were being used for in 1889.

                  So it's an interesting bit of trivia, but it gets us no closer to knowing who the Ripper or the Torso Killer was and it may have nothing to do with the killings at all.




                  There is a press report from the day of (or the day after) the discovery of the torso which speaks of a cats meat shop being at that location.

                  The Lechmere family were in the cats meat business and lived in that area - had lived at 2 addresses in Pinchin Street.
                  Last edited by MrBarnett; 10-01-2021, 09:41 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                    How about we give him the benefit of a doubt and accept that he found that there is a case against Lechmere suggesting guilt? How about you accept that he was always better suited to make that call than you are - although you are willing to dabble in it?

                    I am not naive in any sense of the word. I am fully aware that a documentary aimed at casting somebody in the rippers role will always favour material that is line with that notion. And I have no doubt whatsoever that the material chosen from Scobies interview was always going to be the most damning material there was to be had.

                    And - again - the long and the short of it is that the most damning material there was to be had, was James Scobie pointing out that there is a prima facie case against the carman, suggesting that he was the killer.

                    And that is pretty damning.
                    Damming on the basis of your theory which you failed to provide Blink films with the explanations which question that guilt, and Scobie quiet rightly stated to me that his opinion as aired was on a one sided basis because there was no evidence from any formal interview with Lechmere which them might change his opinion and on that basis it is even more clearer that he was not even provided with the inquest testimony of Lechmere otherwise he would have had some idea as what he might have said in a formal interview.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk



                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                      There is a press report from the day of (or the day after) the discovery of the torso which speaks of a cats meat shop being at that location.

                      The Lechmere family were in the cats meat business and lived in that area - had lived at 2 addresses in Pinchin Street.
                      Lechmere had grown up in and around Pinchin Street when the area was known as Tiger Bay because of the vicious prostitutes inhabiting it.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                        There is a press report from the day of (or the day after) the discovery of the torso which speaks of a cats meat shop being at that location.

                        The Lechmere family were in the cats meat business and lived in that area - had lived at 2 addresses in Pinchin Street.
                        I think Inspector Barnett has you there, Fiver. Let’s give credit where credit is due.

                        It’s difficult to believe this is not the same cat’s meat shop alluded to in the PMG, and, remarkably, he and PS Linford even deduced these sheds were the likely location of the shop before Gary tracked down Booth’s notebook.

                        Very nifty detective work. Back in the day, he probably would have been promoted from divisional C.I.D. to Scotland Yard for such dogged determination.

                        Comment


                        • I have no mission ,fisherman.I have no suspect? to defend.No lies to tell to defend that subject.
                          You do not wish to debate with me ,the answer is simple.Do not direct your posts to me.
                          I do not make false claims.It was Scobie who made the claim a prima facie case existed,not me.
                          You repeat that accusation again,I shall call you a liar,whatever the consequences.

                          Comment


                          • There is plenty of information pointing to the innocence of Cross.
                            First there is the presumtion of innocence,which every one is entitled to.
                            There are the statements of police who,in 1888 investigated the Ripper murders,and declared there was no evidene of guilt against anyone.
                            There is the lack of evidence Cross was in the company of any of the victims at the time the women were killed.
                            There is the lack of evidence to show,except in the Nichols murder,Cross was in the vicinity of the murders when the murders took place.
                            In total, a complete lack of any incriminating evidence.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by harry View Post
                              There is plenty of information pointing to the innocence of Cross.
                              First there is the presumtion of innocence,which every one is entitled to.
                              There are the statements of police who,in 1888 investigated the Ripper murders,and declared there was no evidene of guilt against anyone.
                              There is the lack of evidence Cross was in the company of any of the victims at the time the women were killed.
                              There is the lack of evidence to show,except in the Nichols murder,Cross was in the vicinity of the murders when the murders took place.
                              In total, a complete lack of any incriminating evidence.
                              Identity cannot be confirmed or he lied about it
                              claimed to have seen or been with the victim shortly before death
                              lived in ripper central
                              made himself known under dubious circumstances

                              I'm talking about hutchinson and it does sound a little like Lechmere too but it is circumstantial. I'm just pointing out that coincidences do happen and can happen. These are not smoking guns

                              Comment


                              • Cross came to Paul and gave attention to the woman laying on the ground

                                Who cares what lechmerians argue, we know he is innocent

                                No amount of half-backed documentaries and one-sided and payed openions will be able to convict him

                                When Paul and Lechmere examinded the woman, one thing was sure: that she was laying on the ground

                                Was she cut then?! Nothing can prove this, No blood was then ever detected, no wound was then ever observed, and above this we have Paul thinking she may was still breathing!

                                This is a kick at the back of this misguided theory!

                                Besides, any other theory or book must start with why one has to dismiss Kosminski as the identified police ripper suspect, and from there to go exploring other possibilities.

                                This thread has shown and demonstrated how weak the ground under lechmerians is.




                                The Baron

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X