Evidence of innocence

[MrBarnett]

Any use, Dusty?

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...epage&q&f=true

[SuperShodan]

If you guys didn’t have such a knee jerk reaction to everything Lechmere, the fact that he had no police contact and still turns up at the inquest could actually be seen in his favour.

[drstrange169]

>>Lechmere finds a body <<

Is the evidence available to us, factually correct.

>>He passes the spot 6 days a week (established fact?) at the same time (established fact?)<<

Which is way I qualified my post by saying "was almost entirely composed of telling the known facts"

>>He goes on to work for the same company for years (established fact?)<<

The evidence with have, states he worked for the same company for 20 tears, factually correct.

>>Paul and Mizen see nothing suspicious in him (established fact?)<<

Is the evidence we have, factually correct.

>>Facts? They’re all stated as such.<<

Fact: definition - "information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article".

If police and newspaper reports aren't the facts available to us in this case, what is?

I guess you can argue the meaning of the word "fact" like you can argue the meaning of the word fantasy, but these are all distractions.

Herlock's post was largely based on the known evidence yours was largely based on pure conjecture. Conjecture that goes against the known evidence.

Take the wriggling word play out and it's all pretty simple.

[MrBarnett]

>>And there are no records to show he was ever checked out. If the police had taken the stance that as the finder (the ‘found’ finder) of the body he needed a thorough check out, wouldn’t there be a hint of it in a report somewhere?<<

Where's the hint of a report that Paul was the subject of a massive police hunt? Where's the report of him being questioned all night? Do you think they checked him out?

I doubt they did more than took his statement and kept him hanging around so that he lost a day’s work.

The only hint of a police hunt was in the imagination of Wally Dew, and he could give Tolkien a few tips.

[drstrange169]

>>And I hereby challenge you Bob to PROVE that there was a ‘gap.’ Not ‘might have been,’ not ‘could have been if x occurred,’ but proof that there was something there to raise suspicion against Lechmere in Bucks Row.<<

Don't limit it to just the time gap Herlock, let them prove there is evidence for any of the claims.

[drstrange169]

>>The Spitalfields and Whitechapel murders started within a few weeks of CAL adopting a work route that took him through Whitechapel and Spitalfields.<<

Hang didn't you just write,

"He passes the spot 6 days a week (established fact?) at the same time (established fact?)"

[MrBarnett]

>>Lechmere finds a body <<

Is the evidence available to us, factually correct.

>>He passes the spot 6 days a week (established fact?) at the same time (established fact?)<<

Which is way I qualified my post by saying "was almost entirely composed of telling the known facts"

>>He goes on to work for the same company for years (established fact?)<<

The evidence with have, states he worked for the same company for 20 tears, factually correct.

>>Paul and Mizen see nothing suspicious in him (established fact?)<<

Is the evidence we have, factually correct.

>>Facts? They’re all stated as such.<<

Fact: definition - "information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article".

If police and newspaper reports aren't the facts available to us in this case, what is?

I guess you can argue the meaning of the word "fact" like you can argue the meaning of the word fantasy, but these are all distractions.

Herlock's post was largely based on the known evidence yours was largely based on pure conjecture. Conjecture that goes against the known evidence.

Take the wriggling word play out and it's all pretty simple.

Yes, there certainly is wriggling going on.

So every statement made in court and printed in a newspaper is a fact?

Did you miss the ‘went on’ in my second point, meaning that Lechmere continued to work for Pickfords after 1888? Where’s your evidence for that?

[SuperShodan]

>>And I hereby challenge you Bob to PROVE that there was a ‘gap.’ Not ‘might have been,’ not ‘could have been if x occurred,’ but proof that there was something there to raise suspicion against Lechmere in Bucks Row.<<

Don't limit it to just the time gap Herlock, let them prove there is evidence for any of the claims.

Speaking with my Psychology hat on answering a question with a question is a basic technique to avoid an uncomfortable topic.
I notice you haven’t answered my original question. I did actually answer Herlock’s about the time gap, although he did the same as you - answered my question with his own question.

[MrBarnett]

>>The Spitalfields and Whitechapel murders started within a few weeks of CAL adopting a work route that took him through Whitechapel and Spitalfields.<<

Hang didn't you just write,

"He passes the spot 6 days a week (established fact?) at the same time (established fact?)"

You’ve got me there. For all I know, he may have got a helicopter to work. That’s possible. Or he may have taken the scenic route via Hampstead Heath. But some things are so overwhelmingly likely that we can accept them as facts.

That a man worked the same shifts every day doesn’t fall into that category.

[MrBarnett]

So we learn that a ‘fact’ is any piece of information used as evidence or printed in a newspaper. And they call Lechmerians slippery. :-)

[MrBarnett]

You’ve got me there. For all I know, he may have got a helicopter to work. That’s possible. Or he may have taken the scenic route via Hampstead Heath. But some things are so overwhelmingly likely that we can accept them as facts.

That a man worked the same shifts every day doesn’t fall into that category.

Rather ironically, the insistence on a 6 day (Mon to Fri) shift pattern with the same start time as on the night in question is one of the things I have often challenged.

[drstrange169]

>>Was there ever a ‘must have stayed’? If so, I must have missed it. <<

Yes, my mistake, I meant to repeat Mark's "The police would surely have..." instead I put "must have", my bad.

Apologies, please substitute the phrase "must have" for "would surely have" in that post.

[drstrange169]

>>Really? Is that how I defined it? <<

Yes.

Quote:
"Fantasy is something that is improbable or impossible."

[drstrange169]

>>Are you trying to tell us that the way inquests functioned in the Victorian East End is the same as today? <<

With regards to summoning witnesses, yes.
Point 19.2

[drstrange169]

>>Copy and paste Dusty grabbing some stuff off Google that’s 130 years out of date. Researchers like Ed Stow and others have looked into this issue in great depth and established the protocol.<<

Actually they haven't, I challenged the poster who goes under the name Ed Stow to produce that evidence and he couldn't. Still hasn't.

But, that's not the point here, you are desperately trying to insult me, yet when asked back up your claims with evidence you haven't. It's like the so called two hundred signatures you sworn blind existed, yet when challenged nobody could show them.

If I'm wrong, don't try to belittle me, simply prove me wrong. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong when it's shown I am.

But that's the problem, you can't. You simply ride on the coat tails of others.