Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    Yes thats a typical move from someone who cant stand the results of their work being openly critisiced

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    I have no problems with criticism. It is slander I find hard to endure.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post


      A rather unfortunate metaphor, Fish.

      You seem to be suggesting that the arguments for Lechmere’s guilt are a hundred times nuttier than the presumption of his innocence!!

      Ah, that´s really witty, R J! Thanks for that - a welcome change from the more morose and less flairful posters!! Of course, a little something could be said about the nutrition value of nuts and the oils included, making things run smoothly, but why would I, after such an elegant passage?

      The premise of this thread is utterly flawed. No, this is not a “legal” case, but a historical one, but anyone who has followed a legal trial, or has merely watched one on tv, will make the mental leap and realize the necessity of having the PROSECUTION prove their case, as well as understand concepts such as the presumption of innocence, etc.

      There is no reason at all why you should not be able to create such a thread of your own, R J. Feel free! However, as fate will have it, there has always been a need to present both the case FOR and the case AGAINST a suspect. Take, if you will, what Scobie tells us:

      The coincidences mount up in Lechmere´s case and become one coincidence too many.

      His case is a case that could be taken to a trial, suggesting that he was the killer.

      The jury would not like a man like Lechmere.

      Imagine if Lechmere had just sat still before the judge, saying nothing in his defense. Imagine his defender clamming up, not wanting to say a single word.
      That is not how a case is settled, is it? No, the prosecution states their case - and then the defense states the counterpoints, in other words, the points in favor of innocence on behalf of the accused party.
      Therefore, there is no flaw at all in the premise of this thread. It is not even a true court case, and so noone runs the risk of getting convicted and sent down. The one and only risk anybody runs is that of a long dead man who risks having it pointed out in retrospect that he was in all likelihood Jack the Ripper. He is not the first one subjected to that risk, is he?

      Are you really going to deny him the right to have everything we can dig up offered in his defense? Surely not. Or is it instead a case of how you simply don´t want it put on display how much - or precious little - evidence there is in favour of innocence?


      I might as well argue that John Leary, born in Whitechapel in 1858, is the murderer, and ask you what evidence you have for his innocence. It is gimmicky and meaningless.

      Yes, it would be utterly pointless. But he and Lechmere don´t compare, do they? In Lechmere´s case, there are lots of circumstantial evidence pointing in his way, whereas there is no such evidence at all in John Learys case. And the one reason evidence of innocence on behalf of Lechmere is asked for is his supect status.

      Let us transfer your approach to a real court case, like, say, that of Timothy Evans. He initially confessed, he was pointed out by John Christie, he was not able to produce any good enough evidence for his innocence - and he was hanged, although he was innocent.

      I don´t think he would have thought it "gimmicky and meaningless" if people had spoken up and testified to his innocence. Do you?


      You see, we should never, ever compare apples to pears, R J. Or nuts to nutshells. They are different things altogether.

      Everyone understands that the onus is on the prosecution—-as it should be.
      To produce the points of innocence on behalf of the suspect? I´d say that is very, very wrong.
      Last edited by Fisherman; 07-11-2021, 05:22 PM.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

        I have no problems with criticism. It is slander I find hard to endure.
        I feel the same way

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          I feel the same way

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          You tell me that tampering with the truth is par for the course when making suspect documentaries. Was this so with your docu about Feigenbaum? Were the facts manipulated in it to give a false picture?

          Comment


          • #65
            'You seem to forget that evidence can be hidden'.That is what you wrote Fisherman,and you directed the statement in a reply to me.If you wish to post such vague comments,without reference to their significance,do not be surprised at the interpretation I ascribe to them.
            And no I haven't been disrespectful to you.I could be,and it would be justified,but I have been factual.
            Cross cannot be placed in the company of Nichols at the time she was killed.That is fact.That is a requirement for his guilt,if he is to be considered as her killer.He cannot be placed in the company of any of the Whitechapel victims at the instance they were killed. Fact.There is not one single piece of evidence that is strong enough to justify a description of suspect,nor was there sufficient reason to charge him in court. Fact.
            Could have been ,might have been,are not facts of being,but it is all you have to offer,and they are not enough.Neither Cross or Paul knew that a crime had been commited when they met and spoke to Mizen,so any talk of lies to cover a crime will get you nowhere.


            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by harry View Post
              'You seem to forget that evidence can be hidden'.That is what you wrote Fisherman,and you directed the statement in a reply to me.If you wish to post such vague comments,without reference to their significance,do not be surprised at the interpretation I ascribe to them.
              And no I haven't been disrespectful to you.I could be,and it would be justified,but I have been factual.
              Cross cannot be placed in the company of Nichols at the time she was killed.That is fact.That is a requirement for his guilt,if he is to be considered as her killer.He cannot be placed in the company of any of the Whitechapel victims at the instance they were killed. Fact.There is not one single piece of evidence that is strong enough to justify a description of suspect,nor was there sufficient reason to charge him in court. Fact.
              Could have been ,might have been,are not facts of being,but it is all you have to offer,and they are not enough.Neither Cross or Paul knew that a crime had been commited when they met and spoke to Mizen,so any talk of lies to cover a crime will get you nowhere.

              I am never surprised by any interpretation coming from you, Harry.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by harry View Post
                Neither Cross or Paul knew that a crime had been commited when they met and spoke to Mizen,so any talk of lies to cover a crime will get you nowhere.

                This is opinion presented as fact, right ?

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                  You tell me that tampering with the truth is par for the course when making suspect documentaries. Was this so with your docu about Feigenbaum? Were the facts manipulated in it to give a false picture?
                  Now how did I know you were going to raise that issue of Feigenbaum

                  I never used the term tampering !!!!!!!!!!!!!

                  For the benefit of you and others who may not know how this works I will explain.

                  When a person is being interviewed for a doc there is always someone from the production team off screen asking questions of the person being intrerviewed,these questions never get shown in the final edit, and the person being interviewed is at times prompted for his answer. So in the final edit it comes across as though the person being interviewed comments are in free flow, when in fact the answers to questions have been edited together.

                  Example

                  Interviewer off screen "Would you say that what has been presented to you shows that--------------was the killer?

                  Prompt " I firmly belive that to be true"

                  Interviewee "From all that I have researched I firmly believe----------to have been the killer"

                  The production company have to have control otherwise they fail to deliever what they are being paid to do

                  And if you are an honest person which I am sure you are, I am sure you will confirm the above procedure in your involvement with your production company

                  As far as Feigenbaums doc I can confirm that I was asked to state he was the killer of all the women, I did not accede to that request and as far as I recall I said that I believed him to have been responsible or one, some, or all of the murders.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk


                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Dickere View Post

                    This is opinion presented as fact, right ?
                    Correct. Harry is more certain that Lechmere was innocent than Fish is that he was guilty.

                    He even claims there is no evidence that Lechmere lied when a police officer, giving evidence under oath, directly contradicted one of Lechmere’s statements.

                    I’m not sure to what extent Harry actually believes what he says. I suspect that he would disagree with anything Fish says on any subject. That’s the stance he has taken and he won’t budge. I reckon that if Lechmere had given his name as Buffalo Bill or Sweeney Todd at the inquest, Harry would still refuse to use the name Lechmere.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      Now how did I know you were going to raise that issue of Feigenbaum

                      I never used the term tampering !!!!!!!!!!!!!

                      For the benefit of you and others who may not know how this works I will explain.

                      When a person is being interviewed for a doc there is always someone from the production team off screen asking questions of the person being intrerviewed,these questions never get shown in the final edit, and the person being interviewed is at times prompted for his answer. So in the final edit it comes across as though the person being interviewed comments are in free flow, when in fact the answers to questions have been edited together.

                      Example

                      Interviewer off screen "Would you say that what has been presented to you shows that--------------was the killer?

                      Prompt " I firmly belive that to be true"

                      Interviewee "From all that I have researched I firmly believe----------to have been the killer"

                      The production company have to have control otherwise they fail to deliever what they are being paid to do

                      And if you are an honest person which I am sure you are, I am sure you will confirm the above procedure in your involvement with your production company

                      As far as Feigenbaums doc I can confirm that I was asked to state he was the killer of all the women, I did not accede to that request and as far as I recall I said that I believed him to have been responsible or one, some, or all of the murders.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      So interviewees don’t always just parrot the production company’s line? If they strongly disagree with it, they can refuse to comply?

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                        He even claims there is no evidence that Lechmere lied when a police officer, giving evidence under oath, directly contradicted one of Lechmere’s statements.
                        I don't know what Harry claims or does not claim, but in the case you mention, he'd be 100% correct, wouldn't he?
                        Key word being "lied".

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                          I don't know what Harry claims or does not claim, but in the case you mention, he'd be 100% correct, wouldn't he?
                          Key word being "lied".
                          Are you confusing evidence with proof?

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                            I don't know what Harry claims or does not claim, but in the case you mention, he'd be 100% correct, wouldn't he?
                            Key word being "lied".
                            You should read Harry’s posts, Kattrup, then you’ll know what he claims.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                              Are you confusing evidence with proof?
                              Hmm, no, I am not. But I surmise that it's pointless to get into. Have a nice day!

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                To save you the trouble of finding Harry’s claims, here’s an example:

                                ’That Cross lied,and was at the murder scene in the company of a living Nicholls is a belief not supported by evidencce’

                                But there is evidence that Lechmere told a different version of events from Mizen. Mizen said one thing, Lechmere said the opposite, and that supports Christer’s contention that a guilty Lechmere bluffed his way past Mizen.

                                Of course, there are other possible interpretations - memory failure by one or other witness, a lie by Mizen - but we don’t know what the cause was.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X