Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • “Who cares what lechmerians argue, we know he is innocent”

    Just about sums it up.

    Unfortunately ‘we’ haven’t been able to come up with a single piece of evidence to clear Lechmere. A bit like that diary thread that hasn’t yet found a single anachronism.



    Comment


    • Originally posted by harry View Post
      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.
      You may call me what you wish, Harry. But who is going to take you seriously?

      Why on earth do you say that I would have claimed that YOU were the one saying that there existed a prima facie case???? I have always said that this is what JAMES SCOBIE tells us. Not you! If anything, you fervently deny it.

      What you DID was to introduce the term prima facie HEARING - with no reason at all. Scobie never spoke of a prima facie hearing, he always spoke of a prima facie CASE, based on the accusatory evidence. But there you were, speaking of how I was wrong to say that a prima facie HEARING did not involve exculpatory evidence, when what I actually DID say what that the prima facie CASE Scobie spoke of was based on accusatory evidence only.

      How all of this adds up to you saying that you will call me a liar if I repeat something I have never said in the first place is quite beyond me. But as I say, since I fail to see that anybody would take it seriously, go ahead if you feel so inclined. It would be regrettable, of corse, not least if Jonathan Menges closes the thread on behalf of a total misunderstanding from your side. But I am my wits end when it comes to trying to explain the matter to you, and so I feel I have done all I possibly can.

      As a consquence of this post of yours, I will do my very best to keep the discussion as sound as possible, and that is to drop you from the list of people I respond to of as of now. Have a wonderful life, Harry.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

        Unfortunately ‘we’ haven’t been able to come up with a single piece of evidence to clear Lechmere. A bit like that diary thread that hasn’t yet found a single anachronism.





        And that proves one thing, that both of them, Lechmere and Maybrick, were Jack the Ripper!





        Though I tend to agree that Lechmerians and Maybrickians have many things in common!




        The Baron

        Comment


        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
          “Who cares what lechmerians argue, we know he is innocent”

          Just about sums it up.

          Unfortunately ‘we’ haven’t been able to come up with a single piece of evidence to clear Lechmere. A bit like that diary thread that hasn’t yet found a single anachronism.


          Everyone can't be JTR

          Comment


          • 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.
            Gary, this isn't a police state. You are innocent until proven guilty. As far as last time I looked, I am an ordinary British citizen who has served on a jury.
            Not that that makes me better than anyone else. But I will say something, as it stands there is no way on earth that if I was on another jury would I find Lech guilty of any of the murders, even Polly's. Unless there is some new evidence to the contrary I would not hang a man on the very little which goes in his favour of being the killer. You cannot go off what one man says, [ no matter how high up in the judicial process that man is ] , when it is clear that man does not know all the facts and as only seen the prosecution side of things. Again we are not a police state. There is such a thing as defending yourself
            Regards Darryl

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

              Gary, this isn't a police state. You are innocent until proven guilty. As far as last time I looked, I am an ordinary British citizen who has served on a jury.
              Not that that makes me better than anyone else. But I will say something, as it stands there is no way on earth that if I was on another jury would I find Lech guilty of any of the murders, even Polly's. Unless there is some new evidence to the contrary I would not hang a man on the very little which goes in his favour of being the killer. You cannot go off what one man says, [ no matter how high up in the judicial process that man is ] , when it is clear that man does not know all the facts and as only seen the prosecution side of things. Again we are not a police state. There is such a thing as defending yourself
              Regards Darryl
              Slightly misses the point. We’ve been asked to provide evidence of innocence, none has been forthcoming.


              Do you have any yourself?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

                Everyone can't be JTR
                But someone was.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                  But someone was.
                  Who ? Lech or Maybrick ?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                    “Who cares what lechmerians argue, we know he is innocent”

                    Just about sums it up.

                    Unfortunately ‘we’ haven’t been able to come up with a single piece of evidence to clear Lechmere. A bit like that diary thread that hasn’t yet found a single anachronism.


                    But you havent been able to come up with any evidence to prove his guilt

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      But you havent been able to come up with any evidence to prove his guilt

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      And you haven’t been able to come up with any evidence that he was innocent.

                      So Lechmere remains a potential suspect. And being found with one of the victims shortly after she was attacked gives him a head start on other suspects. And not providing his full identity in court gives him another leg up.

                      Let me ask you this Trevor: if you’d been doing a cold case review of the WM and it had come to your attention that there was a lock-up cats meat shop just a few yards away from the Pinchin Street arch, that the Charles Cross who had allegedly ‘found’ Nichols’ shortly after her death and whose walk to work took him past Hanbury Street in the early hours was actually named Charles Lechmere, that he had lived in Pinchin Street and that his family ran a cats meat business, would you have paid him a visit?
                      Last edited by MrBarnett; 10-02-2021, 04:41 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Here’s a totally hypothetical question, if Charles Lechmere had rented the Backchurch Lane sheds, what name do people think he would most likely have used?



                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                          Slightly misses the point. We’ve been asked to provide evidence of innocence, none has been forthcoming.


                          Do you have any yourself?
                          Well , actually I think that what Fiver said in post 4 on the very first page is enough to cast serious doubt on Lech being Jack.

                          But the fact that he acted like an innocent man would, instead of scarpering when there would be zero chance of Paul recognising him is one point.

                          The fact that Mizen could and probably should have had the two carmen lead him to Polly knowing full well that he would search them once Mizen discovered her cut throat is another. This is how a psychopath would act ? Well when Sutcliffe was disturbed by headlights he didn't flag the car down and say " Come and look at this dead woman " He hid, and he undoubtedly was a psychopath.

                          Lech was not seen near any of the other murder victims

                          He was probably working when Annie was killed

                          He had every reason to be walking down Bucks Row, as had Paul.

                          There is no forensic evidence against him.

                          The police probably checked him out and had zero interest in him as a potential Jack. Again they were the police force of the day, not the keystone cops.

                          In fact I find it unbelievable that the police wouldn't have made at least a cursory check on him at Pickfords to acknowledge who he was.
                          And as for the Sept report where he is still called Cross , how do we know that he wasn't known as Cross at Pickfords? The tragic earlier accident involving him seems to indicate this

                          Again,in fact the whole name issue is just pure speculation as far as I am concerned. A man who gives his work address and a leading newspaper which knows his home address and prints it. And this man is trying to hide his ID . A defence lawyer would make mincemeat of that.

                          No known other offences against women.

                          He lived in a densely populated area were people would traverse Whitechapel going to work [ Paul ], look for work [ Reeves ], or come home from work [ Crow ] in the early hours of the morning. Note the Whitechapel Hospital for instance near Bucks row. Anyone of those [ going, looking, coming home] could be the killer.

                          None of the above is proof of innocence but when you put them all together , Lech, nope not for me

                          Apologies to the anti Lechmeres [ I hate that term , so I am saying it sarcastically, so to speak ], if I have left something out.

                          Regards Darryl

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

                            Well , actually I think that what Fiver said in post 4 on the very first page is enough to cast serious doubt on Lech being Jack.

                            But the fact that he acted like an innocent man would, instead of scarpering when there would be zero chance of Paul recognising him is one point.

                            The fact that Mizen could and probably should have had the two carmen lead him to Polly knowing full well that he would search them once Mizen discovered her cut throat is another. This is how a psychopath would act ? Well when Sutcliffe was disturbed by headlights he didn't flag the car down and say " Come and look at this dead woman " He hid, and he undoubtedly was a psychopath.

                            Lech was not seen near any of the other murder victims

                            He was probably working when Annie was killed

                            He had every reason to be walking down Bucks Row, as had Paul.

                            There is no forensic evidence against him.

                            The police probably checked him out and had zero interest in him as a potential Jack. Again they were the police force of the day, not the keystone cops.

                            In fact I find it unbelievable that the police wouldn't have made at least a cursory check on him at Pickfords to acknowledge who he was.
                            And as for the Sept report where he is still called Cross , how do we know that he wasn't known as Cross at Pickfords? The tragic earlier accident involving him seems to indicate this

                            Again,in fact the whole name issue is just pure speculation as far as I am concerned. A man who gives his work address and a leading newspaper which knows his address and prints it. And this man is trying to hide his ID . A defence lawyer would make mincemeat of that.
                            No known other offences against women.

                            He lived in a densely populated area were people would traverse Whitechapel going to work [ Paul ], look for work [ Reeves ], or come home from work [ Crow ] in the early hours of the morning. Note the Whitechapel Hospital for instance near Bucks row. Anyone of those [ going, looking, coming home] could be the killer.

                            None of the above is proof of innocence but when you put them all together , Lech, nope not for me

                            Apologies to the anti Lechmeres [ I hate that term , so I am saying it sarcastically, so to speak ], if I have left something out.

                            Regards Darryl
                            Re post 4 - why?

                            Apart from possibly the blood issue, none of 5ers claims are valid.


                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                              Re post 4 - why?

                              Apart from possibly the blood issue, none of 5ers claims are valid.

                              I forgot about the blood issue . Alright Gary if you think that Lech was not at work [ which I admit, is possible with the double murder because of the day ]
                              What about my points ?
                              Regards Darryl

                              Comment


                              • I would like to ask a question of the people who believe Lech as a case to answer.
                                Suppose Lech is innocent how would you expect him to react after finding Polly ?
                                Well, I would expect him to seek assistance if he thought the woman was in serious need of attention or worse dead and someone was nearby.
                                And once they realised that Polly was probably dead, with a slight chance of her still being alive,. I would expect them to seek a policeman or perhaps a doctor
                                Which is err exactly what he did. How would you expect them to react ?
                                Regards Darryl
                                Last edited by Darryl Kenyon; 10-02-2021, 05:26 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X