Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Damaso Marte View Post

    The strongest evidence for Lechmere's innocence, and exactly what I would have said if somebody put a gun to my head and forced me to argue for Lechmere not being Jack the Ripper. And while pro-Lechmere forces (wait, are you "pro-Lechmere" if you are accusing Lechmere of being a serial killer?) have sank a lot of effort into arguing about Chapman's actual time of death, there's no such possibility for Stride or Eddowes.

    I am dismayed at how poorly this forum tends to treat the Lechmere theorists, they don't deserve the hate and nastiness they get around here and they've made all of our lives more interesting with their novel theories. But the theory has serious issues with timing and fails entirely if the late morning TOD for Chapman is upheld.

    But two out of the three examples occurred on a Sunday, which of all the days of the week was the one most likely to have been Lechmere’s day off. So, we’re left with Chapman’s TOD being probably out of synch with Lechmere’s start time on the sole occasion that we have any info about his starting time.

    Working on the assumption that Lechmere carried provincial horse flesh to HB and other wholesalers across London, it’s quite possible that his earliest deliveries would be in the East End, so he could still have been in the area at whatever the latest estimate for Chapman’s TOD is chosen.

    Of course, we don’t know for certain what he carried on his cart or where and to whom, but there is a certain amount of circumstantial evidence to suggest it might have been horse flesh.






    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      As you are putting forward Lechmere as the killer the onus is you to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt not for others to prove his innocence.

      Your bleeding out times have also been challenged by an expert

      Sadly what you have postulated falls far from proving his guilt beyong that reasonable doubt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      Trevor,

      This is not a court of law, it’s a forum for discussing the murders and in particular theories as to who might have committed them.

      Christer and Ed have outlined the circumstantial evidence they believe damns Lechmere. Some responses, such as that by Harry above, ‘He is innocent of murder because he did not commit murder.’ state Lechmere’s innocence as a fact. Those are effectively theories of his innocence which deserve to be challenged as much as theories of his guilt. Which is what Christer appears to be doing on this thread.

      Gary

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

        Trevor,

        This is not a court of law, it’s a forum for discussing the murders and in particular theories as to who might have committed them.

        Christer and Ed have outlined the circumstantial evidence they believe damns Lechmere. Some responses, such as that by Harry above, ‘He is innocent of murder because he did not commit murder.’ state Lechmere’s innocence as a fact. Those are effectively theories of his innocence which deserve to be challenged as much as theories of his guilt. Which is what Christer appears to be doing on this thread.

        Gary
        Christers weak circumstantial evidence has been discussed more then enough times, is there a need to keep going over it? nothin has changed nor will it change.

        Christer is trying to justify the results of his research by asking researchers to state the reasons why Lechmere is innocent so that he can do his usual trick of ramming down everyones throat the weak facts he seeks to rely on to prove his case. Do you think for one minute that he is going to accept what anyone says which goes against what he believes? he hasnt done so for the past few years so dont hold your breath now

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 07-10-2021, 01:34 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

          Some responses, such as that by Harry above, ‘He is innocent of murder because he did not commit murder.’ state Lechmere’s innocence as a fact. Those are effectively theories of his innocence which deserve to be challenged as much as theories of his guilt. Which is what Christer appears to be doing on this thread.
          Actually, Harry’s response was a bit more sophisticated than that, since he said that Lechmere was considered innocent since he was not accused. Past tense.
          That is, the police at the time had opportunity to take his statement and probe his story, and considered him nothing more than a witness. This would qualify as circumstantial evidence of his innocence.


          Comment


          • #20
            Hi Christer,

            You asked for proof of innocence. I don't have any. But I do have some things that you have raised upon which I place little value. I do not mean any of my comments to be taken as a criticism or in any way disparaging.

            IMHO clock times from that era are of little value unless they are calibrated to a benchmark clock or are quoted from the same clock, as in chimes being heard.

            I feel that Paul not seeing blood was because it was too dark. Neil had a lantern.

            While you say that his route to work took him past the murder sites, that only applies if he was on the route near the murder and not on his alternative route on that occasion. You have a certainty in this regard only on the Nichols case and I think you need a preponderance of evidence here before you can move on to the other cases.

            On the other side of the argument, Lechmere said Paul was 40 yards behind him. Bucks Row was about 110 yards, so Paul had about 70 yards to see or hear Lechmere walking in front of him. Time intervals rather than clock times.

            Paul originally stated that he saw a man "where the body was" and later at the inquest it had become "in the middle of the road". Bucks Row was 20 feet wide wall to wall, with 3 foot footpaths. In the middle of the road is what Lechmere claims and implies passing by when he noticed the body. Where the woman was, to my mind does not imply the same thing.

            My impression was that Paul saw the ownership of the find of the body as Lechmere's, and left in the direction of his work with the intention of informing any PC he encountered, not expecting Lechmere to accompany him. I think that when they encountered Mizen, Paul would have once again conferred the ownership of the discovery to Lechmere and stood back while Lechmere spoke to Mizen, which is what Mizen testified. Whether or not Paul was within earshot is speculative. I believe Lechmere told him another officer had sent them. I don't believe that an officer with Mizen's record would have been mistaken or let them pass otherwise.

            What I then find perculiar is that, after passing Mizen, Lechmere chose to accompany Paul to Paul's workplace. Lechmere was running very late for work but passed up the quicker route on Old Montague Street. Why? If Lechmere was innocent he may just have been shaken up and needing company. If not, was Lechmere anxious to find out exactly how much Paul had seen? Did he want to know as much about Paul as possible, including where he worked, to deflect suspicion from himself to Paul should the necessity arise. Or did he want to fit Paul up for the next murder, again to deflect suspicion from himself?

            I offer my compliments on the time and effort you have put into your research, and wish you the very best for your future endevours.

            Cheers, George

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Damaso Marte View Post

              The strongest evidence for Lechmere's innocence, and exactly what I would have said if somebody put a gun to my head and forced me to argue for Lechmere not being Jack the Ripper. And while pro-Lechmere forces (wait, are you "pro-Lechmere" if you are accusing Lechmere of being a serial killer?) have sank a lot of effort into arguing about Chapman's actual time of death, there's no such possibility for Stride or Eddowes.

              I am dismayed at how poorly this forum tends to treat the Lechmere theorists, they don't deserve the hate and nastiness they get around here and they've made all of our lives more interesting with their novel theories. But the theory has serious issues with timing and fails entirely if the late morning TOD for Chapman is upheld.
              Whether or not the theory has issues with timing is very much up for debate, Iīd say. It may well be that the timings are all perfectly in line with Lechmere being the killer, but we cannot possibly know for sure. One example: Dr Killeen put the TOD for Tabram to around 2.30 - 2.45, and if Lechmere left home at 3.20, Tabram would have been dead for quite some time as the carman passed George Yard. And that wouod pose a problem for the theory, yes.
              However! How do we know that Lechmere DID leave home at 3.20 on the Tabram murder morning? If he planned to kill that day, then it would make all the sense in the world to leave earlier, in ordet to enable him to seek out a victim, killer har, clean up and then get to work in time. Furthermore, Killeen may of course have been off in his timings to some degree - he examined the body at 5.30, and so three full hours would have passed. And the more time that passed, the harder it becomes to be accurate. So what may seem as a problem with the timing here may well be a perfect fit. We donīt know. On the whole, what must be said is that the women in Whitechapel died in the early morning hours, and the early morning hours was when the carman traversed the area.

              As for Chapman, I never thought that she died at 5.30. I think Phillips is spot on and that would place Annie in the same time frame as Nichols, more or less. And even if she DID die at 5.30, how does that disenable Lechmer to have killed her?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                As you are putting forward Lechmere as the killer the onus is you to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt not for others to prove his innocence.

                Your bleeding out times have also been challenged by an expert

                Sadly what you have postulated falls far from proving his guilt beyong that reasonable doubt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                Yes, Trevor, guilt must be proven or implicated by circumstantial evidence to a degree that allows for a conviction.

                But this thread is not about that. It is about presenting whatever evidence people feel there is speaking for INNOCENCE on the carmans behalf. If you read post 1 in the thread, you will see what I mean, and then you may want to return and contribute.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                  Actually, Harry’s response was a bit more sophisticated than that, since he said that Lechmere was considered innocent since he was not accused. Past tense.
                  That is, the police at the time had opportunity to take his statement and probe his story, and considered him nothing more than a witness. This would qualify as circumstantial evidence of his innocence.

                  As has been pointed out before, if the police had probed his story in any depth, they would have established his real name. The did not. Therefore the implication is that they never probed his story at all or only in a very small degree. Any speculation that an investigation of Lechmere was made must rest on solid evidence that this was so. And that evidence does not exist. The only pointer there is in either direction is the name issue, and it very much implicates how the police probably failed to investigate Lechmere.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by harry View Post
                    Well Fisherman,as you say,Ridgeway was far from innocent,but what sets him apart from Cross,is that Ridgeway did confess,and was suspect,so he could not,and cannot be considered innocentCross on the other hand had no accusers,and no suspicion at any time was directed against him so he can be considered innocent.
                    If as you say innocence of murder is not having commited it,thats fine,as the known evidence in the Nichols murder falls way short of Cross having commited the crime,and is non existent in the other Ripper murders.
                    Being first at the scene of a crime is not incriminating,and it has no relation to being at the scene ,and in the company of a living Nichols,when the crime occured.No evidence of the later is evident,as there was no witness to the murder.How long Nichols had been attacked before Cross found her,has never been established,and cannot now be determned accurately.
                    Nor can it be established that Cross lied at any time.
                    How much of this is relevent to the question of innocence on the part of Cross matters not.He is innocent of murder because he did not commit murder.In that sense the question has been answered.
                    The legal division between innocence and guilt is a binary system. Itīs either or. Youcannot be 30 per cent guilty and 70 per cent innocent. Therefore, the only status that can be given to a person involved in an investigation is one of innocence, for the simple reason that one of guilt cannot be entertained. If we were to deem people guilty before any legal proceedings were undertaken, we would not need any such procedures. It would all have been wrapped up beforehand, and anybody involved in any sort of investigation would go to jail automatically.
                    It would be utter stupidity to have such a system. The one and only system we can have is one that considers people innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This allows for some real anomalies. Letīs for example say that the police places a person in custody, a person who is suspected of murder. Letīs further say that this person has damning evidence against his person - if we theorize that the murder he has been placed in custody for was a murder by a handgun, we may have powder on his sleeve, his fingerprints on the trigger and a CCTV caption showing how he fired his gun into the chest of the murdered victim. Such evidence is absolute proof and will result in a conviction if court. But as long as the suspect is not taken to trial, he is not a killer but instead a suspect. And although there is absolute proof that he is the killer, he will be regarded as innocent until the moment he is convicted.

                    What all this means is that the legal division into innocent/guilty people has nothing at all to do with actual and practical division of the same matters. A person we know is guilty remains "innocent" as long as no conviction has been presented. And that is why saying that Lechmere should be regarded as innocent is nothing but a legal requirement. It is not based on the evidence because the evidence has not been tried in a court of law. Wjhat we DO know is that James Scobie said that the evidence was enough to take Lechmere to court and that the facts suggested that he was guilty. And Scobie is a barrister who is as professionally able to make that call as anybody and more able than most.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                      Hi Christer,

                      You asked for proof of innocence. I don't have any. But I do have some things that you have raised upon which I place little value. I do not mean any of my comments to be taken as a criticism or in any way disparaging.

                      IMHO clock times from that era are of little value unless they are calibrated to a benchmark clock or are quoted from the same clock, as in chimes being heard.

                      I feel that Paul not seeing blood was because it was too dark. Neil had a lantern.

                      While you say that his route to work took him past the murder sites, that only applies if he was on the route near the murder and not on his alternative route on that occasion. You have a certainty in this regard only on the Nichols case and I think you need a preponderance of evidence here before you can move on to the other cases.

                      On the other side of the argument, Lechmere said Paul was 40 yards behind him. Bucks Row was about 110 yards, so Paul had about 70 yards to see or hear Lechmere walking in front of him. Time intervals rather than clock times.

                      Paul originally stated that he saw a man "where the body was" and later at the inquest it had become "in the middle of the road". Bucks Row was 20 feet wide wall to wall, with 3 foot footpaths. In the middle of the road is what Lechmere claims and implies passing by when he noticed the body. Where the woman was, to my mind does not imply the same thing.

                      My impression was that Paul saw the ownership of the find of the body as Lechmere's, and left in the direction of his work with the intention of informing any PC he encountered, not expecting Lechmere to accompany him. I think that when they encountered Mizen, Paul would have once again conferred the ownership of the discovery to Lechmere and stood back while Lechmere spoke to Mizen, which is what Mizen testified. Whether or not Paul was within earshot is speculative. I believe Lechmere told him another officer had sent them. I don't believe that an officer with Mizen's record would have been mistaken or let them pass otherwise.

                      What I then find perculiar is that, after passing Mizen, Lechmere chose to accompany Paul to Paul's workplace. Lechmere was running very late for work but passed up the quicker route on Old Montague Street. Why? If Lechmere was innocent he may just have been shaken up and needing company. If not, was Lechmere anxious to find out exactly how much Paul had seen? Did he want to know as much about Paul as possible, including where he worked, to deflect suspicion from himself to Paul should the necessity arise. Or did he want to fit Paul up for the next murder, again to deflect suspicion from himself?

                      I offer my compliments on the time and effort you have put into your research, and wish you the very best for your future endevours.

                      Cheers, George
                      Hi George!

                      I note that you - sensibly - acknowledge that there is no genune evidence of innocence on Lechmereīs behalf. You neverthless point out what you think are weaker parts of the circumstantial evidence against him, and although this is not a thread about guilt, I will answer you point by point, my replies in bold. What I will say before we get going is that of course in a collection of circumstantial evidence, all parts can not be equally strong. But here goes:

                      IMHO clock times from that era are of little value unless they are calibrated to a benchmark clock or are quoted from the same clock, as in chimes being heard.

                      The timings cannot be regarded as safe, I agree about that. But overall, the most damning timing there is CAN be regarded as safe in an important respect. The forensic medicine experts I spoke to both agreed that the expected time of bleeding out would lie in the span up to five minutes. And the time it took Mizen to get to the site after the carmen examined Nichols is much longer than those five minutes. Therefore, Lechmere is placed very much in the eye of the storm. Of course, if we speculate about an earlier killer, that killer may have preceded Lechmere by a minute only - but it is a minute that is even further removed from the suggestion made by the experts, and so Lechmere is the person who comes closest to fitting the bill whichever way we look upon things.

                      I feel that Paul not seeing blood was because it was too dark. Neil had a lantern.

                      I agree. I have never made the point that Paul must have seen the blood, nor have I said that Neil was at the same disadvantage when it came to the light.

                      While you say that his route to work took him past the murder sites, that only applies if he was on the route near the murder and not on his alternative route on that occasion. You have a certainty in this regard only on the Nichols case and I think you need a preponderance of evidence here before you can move on to the other cases.

                      Hisn route did take him past the murder sites, but not necessarily directly past them. The murders in Whitechapel were distributed in a manner that lends itself to speculating that they were carried out by somebody who traversed the area from east to west or the other way around, along the main thoroughfares. The thing is that even if Charles Lechmere walked Old Montague Street on for example the Chapman murder night, he would still be only the fewest of minutes away from 29 Hanbury Street. The area is very small, and the distance from Old Montague Street to Hanbury Street is at most a couple of hundred yards. The area as such was traversed by him in the mornings, and that makes him unique among the suspects. That, and many other things.

                      On the other side of the argument, Lechmere said Paul was 40 yards behind him. Bucks Row was about 110 yards, so Paul had about 70 yards to see or hear Lechmere walking in front of him. Time intervals rather than clock times.

                      Paul would have had 70 yards to see Lechmere walking in front of himself, yes. I donīt see why you consider that a weak argument? Or are you simply suggesting an alternative way of pointing out the viability of the argument?

                      Paul originally stated that he saw a man "where the body was" and later at the inquest it had become "in the middle of the road". Bucks Row was 20 feet wide wall to wall, with 3 foot footpaths. In the middle of the road is what Lechmere claims and implies passing by when he noticed the body. Where the woman was, to my mind does not imply the same thing.

                      25 feet wall to wall, I believe.The discussion of the distance in between Lechmere and Nichols has been an aggravated one (surprise, surprise... ), but I think that the only sensible thing to say is that Lechmere would have been in so close a distance as to allow for him to have cut Nichols, gotten up and moved away from the body before Paul arrived. The sensible thing to do to feign innocence must surely be to put some distance between yourself and the body.

                      My impression was that Paul saw the ownership of the find of the body as Lechmere's, and left in the direction of his work with the intention of informing any PC he encountered, not expecting Lechmere to accompany him.

                      I agree.

                      I think that when they encountered Mizen, Paul would have once again conferred the ownership of the discovery to Lechmere and stood back while Lechmere spoke to Mizen, which is what Mizen testified.

                      I agree again.

                      Whether or not Paul was within earshot is speculative. I believe Lechmere told him another officer had sent them. I don't believe that an officer with Mizen's record would have been mistaken or let them pass otherwise.

                      I entertain the same conviction. I incidentally also agree about Paul perhaps being within earshot. Although I think he was not, I do not rule out that Lechmere had told him that if and when they found a PC, Lechmere would tell a **** and bull story about another PC in place, thus allowing the carmen to pass and get to work in time.

                      What I then find perculiar is that, after passing Mizen, Lechmere chose to accompany Paul to Paul's workplace.

                      I think that may boil down to how Lechmere may have wanted to find out as much as possible about Paul in combination with a wish to make up a pair of men, looking less suspicious than a single one.

                      Lechmere was running very late for work but passed up the quicker route on Old Montague Street.

                      The two routes were very similar in time.

                      Why? If Lechmere was innocent he may just have been shaken up and needing company. If not, was Lechmere anxious to find out exactly how much Paul had seen? Did he want to know as much about Paul as possible, including where he worked, to deflect suspicion from himself to Paul should the necessity arise. Or did he want to fit Paul up for the next murder, again to deflect suspicion from himself?

                      All possibilities. Edward Stow has said a couple of interesting things in this context. He thinks that choosing Chapman as the next victim was perhaps partly done in order to frame Paul - the murder was quite close to Pauls working place in Corbettīs Court. Edward has also suggested that the reason that Lechmere did not take Old Montague Road may have been that he did not want to jog Mizenīs memory about how an atrocious murder had been carried out there only three weeks earlier, that of Martha Tabram.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                        Hi Christer,

                        You asked for proof of innocence. I don't have any. But I do have some things that you have raised upon which I place little value. I do not mean any of my comments to be taken as a criticism or in any way disparaging.

                        IMHO clock times from that era are of little value unless they are calibrated to a benchmark clock or are quoted from the same clock, as in chimes being heard.

                        I feel that Paul not seeing blood was because it was too dark. Neil had a lantern.

                        While you say that his route to work took him past the murder sites, that only applies if he was on the route near the murder and not on his alternative route on that occasion. You have a certainty in this regard only on the Nichols case and I think you need a preponderance of evidence here before you can move on to the other cases.

                        On the other side of the argument, Lechmere said Paul was 40 yards behind him. Bucks Row was about 110 yards, so Paul had about 70 yards to see or hear Lechmere walking in front of him. Time intervals rather than clock times.

                        Paul originally stated that he saw a man "where the body was" and later at the inquest it had become "in the middle of the road". Bucks Row was 20 feet wide wall to wall, with 3 foot footpaths. In the middle of the road is what Lechmere claims and implies passing by when he noticed the body. Where the woman was, to my mind does not imply the same thing.

                        My impression was that Paul saw the ownership of the find of the body as Lechmere's, and left in the direction of his work with the intention of informing any PC he encountered, not expecting Lechmere to accompany him. I think that when they encountered Mizen, Paul would have once again conferred the ownership of the discovery to Lechmere and stood back while Lechmere spoke to Mizen, which is what Mizen testified. Whether or not Paul was within earshot is speculative. I believe Lechmere told him another officer had sent them. I don't believe that an officer with Mizen's record would have been mistaken or let them pass otherwise.

                        What I then find perculiar is that, after passing Mizen, Lechmere chose to accompany Paul to Paul's workplace. Lechmere was running very late for work but passed up the quicker route on Old Montague Street. Why? If Lechmere was innocent he may just have been shaken up and needing company. If not, was Lechmere anxious to find out exactly how much Paul had seen? Did he want to know as much about Paul as possible, including where he worked, to deflect suspicion from himself to Paul should the necessity arise. Or did he want to fit Paul up for the next murder, again to deflect suspicion from himself?

                        I offer my compliments on the time and effort you have put into your research, and wish you the very best for your future endevours.

                        Cheers, George
                        I wasn't aware that Lechmere had walked with Paul to the latter's place of work. Wasn't he supposed to be already late that morning, "behind time" ? Knowing where Paul works using that method certainly sounds suspect, as if he could get Paul should he ever consider saying anything suggestive about Lechmere ?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          Christer is trying to justify the results of his research by asking researchers to state the reasons why Lechmere is innocent so that he can do his usual trick of ramming down everyones throat the weak facts he seeks to rely on to prove his case.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          I am offering the possibility to present any form of evidence you think there is to establish how and why Lechmere may have been innocent. If the evidence presented has a quality that suggests that Lechmere was innocent, then how can I ram anything down anyone's throat?

                          I suspect Charles Lechmere was the Ripper as well as the Torso killer. In order for me to check out to what extent that is a premature suspicion, I am asking anybody who thinks that the evidence is against the suggestion of guilt on then carmans behalf to produce that evidence. It would enable me to make as fair a call as possible, weighing in all parameters.

                          In my world, that is not an ambush. In yours, it seems you think it is. "Donīt speak up, itīs a trap!"

                          I can only think that you are reluctant to have a very meagre harvest on display out here, but the truth of the matter is that if the arguemnts that can be presented for innocence on the carmanīs behalf, then that in itself is of relevance and not something that a seripus researcher should try to sweep under the carpet.

                          if I am wrong, hereīs your chance to prove it.
                          Last edited by Fisherman; 07-10-2021, 04:54 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Dickere View Post

                            I wasn't aware that Lechmere had walked with Paul to the latter's place of work. Wasn't he supposed to be already late that morning, "behind time" ? Knowing where Paul works using that method certainly sounds suspect, as if he could get Paul should he ever consider saying anything suggestive about Lechmere ?
                            Lechmere told the inquest about how he accompanied Paul down Hanbury Street when the latter turned into Corbettīs Court. Lechmere then arguably walked on himself towards Broad Street.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                              I am offering the possibility to present any form of evidence you think there is to establish how and why Lechmere may have been innocent. If the evidence presented has a quality that suggests that Lechmere was innocent, then how can I ram anything down anyone's throat?

                              I suspect Charles Lechmere was the Ripper as well as the Torso killer. In order for me to check out to what extent that is a premature suspicion, I am asking anybody who thinks that the evidence is against the suggestion of guilt on then carmans behalf to produce that evidence. It would enable me to make as fair a call as possible, weighing in all parameters.

                              In my world, that is not an ambush. In yours, it seems you think it is. "Donīt speak up, itīs a trap!"

                              I can only think that you are reluctant to have a very meagre harvest on display out here, but the truth of the matter is that if the arguemnts that can be presented for innocence on the carmanīs behalf, then that in itself is of relevance and not something that a seripus researcher should try to sweep under the carpet.

                              if I am wrong, hereīs your chance to prove it.
                              The evidence to prove his innoncence has been presented many times its a shame you cant accept it, or wont accept it.

                              You have done nothing more than manipulate the facts in true journalistic fashion to fit your own misguided theory

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                                Actually, Harry’s response was a bit more sophisticated than that, since he said that Lechmere was considered innocent since he was not accused. Past tense.
                                That is, the police at the time had opportunity to take his statement and probe his story, and considered him nothing more than a witness. This would qualify as circumstantial evidence of his innocence.

                                What I quoted had all the appearance of a statement of fact by Harry. Of course, he can’t know it for a fact, so it’s a theory, and as such it can be challenged.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X