Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
    Hi Fisherman,



    This is a good example of what I perhaps did not get across very well. What we have is Cross/Lechmere contradicting Mizen's statement in the inquest. It's an interpretation that Cross/Lechmere lied. A contradiction between their statements, however, cannot be said to be "genuine evidence that Cross/Lechmere lied" implying Mizen told the truth because it could just as easily be said to be "genuine evidence that Mizen lied" implying Cross/Lechmere told the truth. Therefore, the fact there's a contradiction becomes genuine evidence that Cross/Lechmere both lied and told the truth at the same time, creating some sort of Schrodinger's morality state.

    So, if the fact that Chapman's ToD cannot be viewed as genuine because it is open to debate, then that too must apply to this as well because it too is entirely based upon interpretation, therefore it is not in and of itself evidence of anything other than the statements contradict. It is not evidence Cross/Lechmere is the one who lied; that is an interpretation.


    I have no problems at all with that, Jeff. It is much the same thing as Chapmans TOD and so it must be treated in the same manner. And itīs not as I have said that the so called Mizen scam IS genuine evidence, is it? What I am saying, though, is that the more evidence there is pointing to Lechmere, the less inclined I become to think it is a 50-50 matter on each and every (theoretical) thing like this. Scientifically, it may well be that it is wrong to reason like that, but I am sticking with the idea that the more things there are pointing in a suspects direction, the likelier it becomes that he is guilty.


    Ah, yes, so we agree on that point.

    We do.


    Yes, you have built a case around what you've referred to as "pointers" above. Those who do not agree with you, though, simply see those "pointers" as a collection of interpretations, and argue that the very same collection can simply be tied together with a different interpretation at no additional cost to the reasoning. And that makes all the pointers viewed as on par with the Chapman ToD information, and that one, when viewed from the innocence side, has a lot of clout to it as it provides him with an alibi.

    And indeed they ARE a collection of interpretations, Jeff. But they can be pointers and a collection of interpretations at the same time. Just as is the case with Schrodingers cat, we donīt know if my take on things is correct or not, and so we cannot discount the possibility that they are REAL pointers. Once again, it is not each pointer per se thqat makes the case, it is instead the fact that there are too many such pointers to be kosher. Or, worded differently, too many things allow themselves to be interpreted as signs of guilt for it to be all coincidental. Scobie, and all that, you know.

    I rather suspect those on both sides of the debate believe what they say, they simply disagree with your interpretations and you with theirs. That's to be expected in any area, particularly JtR. But it's always good to consider the counter interpretations, they show the areas where it might be fruitful to continue your research. What sort of information do you need to uncover is often informed by the counter-arguments people put forth. If that information is never discovered, it may suggest it never existed in the first place. Sadly, it also may simply have been lost in time.

    - Jeff
    There are extremes that should not be there, often enough worded "Lechmere is a crap suspect". He cannot possibly be a crap suspect. That was what I tried to get across.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 07-12-2021, 12:46 PM.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      I have what Scobie told me about his 30 minute intervierw that finished up at about a 2 minute clip in which he gave an opinion on what was presented to him which from what he told me was not the full facts had he been presented with thos facts his opinon would have not as it was shown in the finished article.

      Can you catergorically say that the tv production did not take the form as described I suspect you cant thats why you re bottling out, you probabaly wont even know what went on behind the scenes and you would not have seen the final edit.

      Well I am quite happy for the tV company to take me to task over this and I hope in doing so they will be able to show the full 30 minute interview with Scobie which I belive will scupper another important fact you seek to rely on to prove this misguided belief about Lechmere .

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      What I can categorically say is that anybody who claims to know for a fact that the material Scobie was given was manipulated does not have a place in this debate until he can prove his point.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by caz View Post

        Lechmere cannot possibly have a fair trial today, because he wasn't questioned at the time about his movements and whereabouts when any other murder was committed. He can't now defend himself with any evidence that may once have existed, to prove he had unassailable alibis for one or more of the murders which Fisherman believes he committed in addition to the one in Buck's Row.

        He canīt have any trial at all, Caz. He is dead. But on the whole, I of course agree - any condemnation of him can rest on the available facts only and not on those not available. But that does not mean that I am being unfair as such, does it? All it means is that I say that based on what we know, I am convinced he was the killer. There is nothing unfair about that.

        Fisherman relies on this absence of evidence, due to the passing of time and the very fact that Lechmere's status, as an innocent witness, was never doubted, to presume, argue and conclude today, that Lechmere had no provable alibis. But this is totally unfair, as the man never had a chance to demonstrate whether he did or he didn't.

        Once again, it has nothing to do with me being unfair. It is instead unfair of you to try and paint me out as unfair. I have never tried to make it a secret that Lechmere cannot defend himself, and I have never said that I base my take on facts we know nothing about. What I can say, is that I feel convinced that even if he HAD been able to reply to the accusations, he would not have been able to provide proof for his innocence. And it is not unfair to say that either. I base my take on the existing circumstantial evidence and I am certain that there is not a chance in hell that someone could amass such a pile of it and be innocent. That is my honest take, and others may disagree, but neither thing has anything with fairness to do unless it can be proven that I use the evidence in ways that it does not allow for.
        That being said, if I am wrong (and letīs not go into what I think of the possibilities for that), I would be the first one to say that Lechmere had been accused on unsufficient grounds and that such a thing is a very bad thing. But letīs wait until we are there before we call me unfair, shall we? Because if I am RIGHT, then would not that make a whole lot of you naysayers .... eeeh ... unfair, sort of?


        I realise this doesn't fit the strict criteria Fisherman has laid down for evidence of innocence, but the nearest regarding this post [I will have another one later] would be that the police never for one moment suspected Lechmere may have been involved in the Buck's Row murder and, by extension, any of the others. That doesn't prove he wasn't involved, but IMHO it should count as evidence that points more against that likelihood than for it.

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        We actually donīt know that the police never for a moment suspected Lechmere, at least not if we look at an individual level. Maybe there was somebody in the force who did, but did not speak up or was not listened to.
        Regardless of that, if we DO accept that the police never suspected him, you will be aware that they never suspected Christie either until it was too late. So it does not have any real evidential value. It also must be said that the lack of suspicion was seemingly matched by a lack of reseaarch into the carman. And to find things out, you must study them. And the consequence of the lack of any research into Lechmere means that the disinterest from the police cannot count as evidence of innocence. It can only count as exactly what it is: a confirmation of how the police failed to identify him as the possible killer.

        And that is evidence of slack police work, not of innocence on Lechmeres behalf.

        Comment


        • #94
          For a thread that has been dubbed silly and stupid, Iīd say it is turning up many interesting points of discussion.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

            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.
            The problem with this argument, Fishy, is that it works both ways. We have no idea what would have been the outcome, if the police had suspected that something was not quite right about this witness or his account, and had investigated accordingly.

            So you have the luxury to argue that Lechmere could have got away with murder because the police failed to ask him the right questions.

            But I have the same luxury to argue that if the police had found any reason to ask him those questions, they might have been able to eliminate him from their ripper enquiries.

            It would have been very difficult to clear him of the Buck's Row murder, had that been a one-off event, but relatively easy to establish whether he had any opportunity to commit one or more of the murders believed to be by the same hand. If, for example, he could have been cleared of the Hanbury Street murder, then there would have been bucket loads of reasonable doubt concerning Buck's Row.

            Love,

            Caz
            X
            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by caz View Post

              Lechmere cannot possibly have a fair trial today, because he wasn't questioned at the time about his movements and whereabouts when any other murder was committed. He can't now defend himself with any evidence that may once have existed, to prove he had unassailable alibis for one or more of the murders which Fisherman believes he committed in addition to the one in Buck's Row.

              Fisherman relies on this absence of evidence, due to the passing of time and the very fact that Lechmere's status, as an innocent witness, was never doubted, to presume, argue and conclude today, that Lechmere had no provable alibis. But this is totally unfair, as the man never had a chance to demonstrate whether he did or he didn't.

              I realise this doesn't fit the strict criteria Fisherman has laid down for evidence of innocence, but the nearest regarding this post [I will have another one later] would be that the police never for one moment suspected Lechmere may have been involved in the Buck's Row murder and, by extension, any of the others. That doesn't prove he wasn't involved, but IMHO it should count as evidence that points more against that likelihood than for it.

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              Hi Caz
              I think it's important to remember that Nichols was the first victim. There was no serial ripper at that stage, so it was much easier to accept Lechmere had simply stumbled upon a body. In a later case, you'd think that anyone found so near a victim would definitely have been looked at far more seriously.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                Where is the circumstantial evidence to link him to the murder Do you understand fully what circumstantial evidence is?

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                Hi Trev,

                Your question gives rise to another concern I have.

                I wonder if the case against Lechmere should have been argued the other way round. If strong circumstantial evidence could have been shown to connect Lechmere with two or more of the other murder scenes, independently of Buck's Row, it could then reasonably have been argued that his presence there was not coincidental or innocent.

                As it is, it was Lechmere's presence at one of the crime scenes that gave rise to the modern suspicions about him, which sent the theorists off to look for potential supporting evidence in the Buck's Row case [which is absolutely fair enough], and also potential connections with other murders. But if there is no strong circumstantial case against Lechmere - specifically - for any other murder, and only speculative possibilities based solely on his admitted presence in Buck's Row, then that for me would suggest it was indeed coincidental and innocent: he passed that way on his walk to work.

                A man with an appetite to kill again and again would not normally choose to be found with one of his first victims, if he could possibly help it, and then turn up at the Inquest in his usual work attire, while planning his next murders - unless he also planned to disguise his appearance each time.

                Love,

                Caz
                X

                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Dickere View Post

                  Hi Caz
                  I think it's important to remember that Nichols was the first victim. There was no serial ripper at that stage, so it was much easier to accept Lechmere had simply stumbled upon a body. In a later case, you'd think that anyone found so near a victim would definitely have been looked at far more seriously.
                  Yes, but the police knew where to find Lechmere if, after another similar murder or two, they had decided he was worth another look, for the very reason you suggest, that he had been 'found' so near the first. It evidently never dawned on them that there might have been more to it than that.

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by caz View Post

                    The problem with this argument, Fishy, is that it works both ways. We have no idea what would have been the outcome, if the police had suspected that something was not quite right about this witness or his account, and had investigated accordingly.

                    So you have the luxury to argue that Lechmere could have got away with murder because the police failed to ask him the right questions.

                    But I have the same luxury to argue that if the police had found any reason to ask him those questions, they might have been able to eliminate him from their ripper enquiries.

                    It would have been very difficult to clear him of the Buck's Row murder, had that been a one-off event, but relatively easy to establish whether he had any opportunity to commit one or more of the murders believed to be by the same hand. If, for example, he could have been cleared of the Hanbury Street murder, then there would have been bucket loads of reasonable doubt concerning Buck's Row.

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    The if:s! Gotta love them!

                    I sometimes say that what we have is what we must go by. That is something that applies here too. Yes, the police could perhaps sat down over a cuppa with Charles and been informed that he was on business in Leicester on the 8th of September. But any such suggestion, I sort in under the headline ”alternative innocent explanations”. And to be frank, I award them little interest.

                    So what DO we have to go by? Well, we have a geographical correlation that tells us that Lechmere may have passed very close to George Yard, 29 Hanbury Street and Millers Court on the murder nights. No other suspect is even remotely on par with him in this respect, and if he HAD been suspected by the police, that in itself would be enough to make them go ”Bingo!”. Then we have Stride. And Eddowes. And the fact that these late night victims both died on the working mans traditional day off. As I keep saying, the victims are not interchangable. The division into Whitechapel/early morning working day victims and Aldgate/St Georges late night Saturday/Sunday victims is in exact line with what shoul be expected with Lechmere as the killer.

                    One has to be very keen on coincidences not to see this.

                    Yes, he could have been in France when Tabram died, playing cards in Leicester whenChapman died and climbing Mount Snowdon when Kelly was slain. In which case all the things that point straight to Lechmere are all coincidences and flukes, every single one of them. But you know what?
                    What we have is what we go by.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by caz View Post

                      Hi Trev,

                      Your question gives rise to another concern I have.

                      I wonder if the case against Lechmere should have been argued the other way round. If strong circumstantial evidence could have been shown to connect Lechmere with two or more of the other murder scenes, independently of Buck's Row, it could then reasonably have been argued that his presence there was not coincidental or innocent.

                      As it is, it was Lechmere's presence at one of the crime scenes that gave rise to the modern suspicions about him, which sent the theorists off to look for potential supporting evidence in the Buck's Row case [which is absolutely fair enough], and also potential connections with other murders. But if there is no strong circumstantial case against Lechmere - specifically - for any other murder, and only speculative possibilities based solely on his admitted presence in Buck's Row, then that for me would suggest it was indeed coincidental and innocent: he passed that way on his walk to work.

                      A man with an appetite to kill again and again would not normally choose to be found with one of his first victims, if he could possibly help it, and then turn up at the Inquest in his usual work attire, while planning his next murders - unless he also planned to disguise his appearance each time.

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X
                      Traditional police work is to take a look at an identified suspects geographical pattern and whether he has links to the people involved (and serial killers very rarely have, since they typically target strangers).

                      Fact: He is a suspect in the Nichols case.

                      Fact: Other cases seem to have been perpetrated by the same man.

                      Technuique: Check whether he has links to the other suspects and whether his geographical pattern and timings fits with the other cases.

                      If they have a match, they also have a prime suspect.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by caz View Post

                        Yes, but the police knew where to find Lechmere if, after another similar murder or two, they had decided he was worth another look, for the very reason you suggest, that he had been 'found' so near the first. It evidently never dawned on them that there might have been more to it than that.

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X
                        Exactly. And the next question is: Do we rely blindly on how this lack of a dawning is something that was led on by a flawless and perfect intuition? Or can the police miss out on a killer?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by caz View Post

                          Hi Trev,

                          Your question gives rise to another concern I have.

                          I wonder if the case against Lechmere should have been argued the other way round. If strong circumstantial evidence could have been shown to connect Lechmere with two or more of the other murder scenes, independently of Buck's Row, it could then reasonably have been argued that his presence there was not coincidental or innocent.

                          As it is, it was Lechmere's presence at one of the crime scenes that gave rise to the modern suspicions about him, which sent the theorists off to look for potential supporting evidence in the Buck's Row case [which is absolutely fair enough], and also potential connections with other murders. But if there is no strong circumstantial case against Lechmere - specifically - for any other murder, and only speculative possibilities based solely on his admitted presence in Buck's Row, then that for me would suggest it was indeed coincidental and innocent: he passed that way on his walk to work.

                          A man with an appetite to kill again and again would not normally choose to be found with one of his first victims, if he could possibly help it, and then turn up at the Inquest in his usual work attire, while planning his next murders - unless he also planned to disguise his appearance each time.

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X
                          I don’ t think Nichols was one of the first victims. I think he had around half a dozen earlier victims at that stage, at least. And, not least, I think that the specifics of a case is what governs what the killer does. I don’ t think he whipped out his abacus before deciding whether to stay put or not.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                            We actually donīt know that the police never for a moment suspected Lechmere, at least not if we look at an individual level. Maybe there was somebody in the force who did, but did not speak up or was not listened to.
                            Regardless of that, if we DO accept that the police never suspected him, you will be aware that they never suspected Christie either until it was too late. So it does not have any real evidential value. It also must be said that the lack of suspicion was seemingly matched by a lack of reseaarch into the carman. And to find things out, you must study them. And the consequence of the lack of any research into Lechmere means that the disinterest from the police cannot count as evidence of innocence. It can only count as exactly what it is: a confirmation of how the police failed to identify him as the possible killer.

                            And that is evidence of slack police work, not of innocence on Lechmeres behalf.
                            Not sure Christie is a great example to use, Fish, because had the police known, while they were investigating Evans, that there were other victims concealed in Christie's house and back yard, the situation would have been entirely different. Evans was only thought to have killed his wife and baby daughter, for personal motives.

                            The Buck's Row murder appeared to be connected by a single hand to those that followed within the next few weeks. At any point the police would have been in a position to question Lechmere about those subsequent murders, or indeed Tabram's, if his behaviour on or after 31st August had given them any cause for concern. Eliminating him from the Hanbury Street murder, for instance, would instantly have relieved them - and Lechmere - of any suspicions about his discovery of the body in Buck's Row.

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X
                            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by caz View Post

                              Not sure Christie is a great example to use, Fish, because had the police known, while they were investigating Evans, that there were other victims concealed in Christie's house and back yard, the situation would have been entirely different. Evans was only thought to have killed his wife and baby daughter, for personal motives.

                              I know, Caz. But he had not killed them either, but Christie pointed at him and he was hauled in, raked over the coals and confessed, whereupon he was promptly executed. What I said was that he would not have thought it silly if somebody spoke up for him. That stands.

                              The Buck's Row murder appeared to be connected by a single hand to those that followed within the next few weeks.

                              It did.

                              At any point the police would have been in a position to question Lechmere about those subsequent murders, or indeed Tabram's, if his behaviour on or after 31st August had given them any cause for concern.

                              Yes, and so we must surmise that his behaviour did not give them cause for such concern. And the one behaviour they had to go by was the inquest. After that, they likely never spoke to him again. And so many of the points where he fits the bill had still not come to exist. They could therefore not be examined by the police. What the police SHOULD have done was to realize that Nicholsī bleeding time put Lechmere in the picture, just as they should have noted that he disagreed with Mizen - in a way that implied an effort to circumnavigate the police! And a few other bits and bobs.

                              This is however what they SHOULD have done, and not necessarily what they actually DID. There is good policing, eminent policing, bad policing and really worthless policing. The argument that the boys in blue are always so up to scratch that we may instantly forget about any ideas that they may have missed out actually leads us back to Christie, who, when intereviewed by the police, had a fencepost fahioned form a femur in his garden. The police missed out on it, and they have missed out on other things a zillion times, just as they have done good and thorough work a zillion other times. And it is only if we acknowledge one of these things but not the other that we may clear Lechmere. If the police was infallible, then he was innocent. If they were not - and they were not - then he could easily have slipped under a defective radar.

                              Can we please not use the "the police would NEVER!" argument - it is not a good one.


                              Eliminating him from the Hanbury Street murder, for instance, would instantly have relieved them - and Lechmere - of any suspicions about his discovery of the body in Buck's Row.

                              Love,

                              Caz
                              X
                              What we have is what we go by. Sorry.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by caz View Post

                                It evidently never dawned on them that there might have been more to it than that.

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X
                                I am sure it did and I bet they checked his and Pauls accounts and movements after they found them both.

                                We have nothing anywhere from anyone back then to show Lechmere was looked upon as a suspect, despite all the ambiguities that have arisen, if they didnt at the time I am sure when the names conflcit arose they woud have looked more closely, but of course if that ambiguity was soon negated then he was exonerated and if they had have looked on him as a suspect you can bet your life that after the next murder he would have been first in line to be re visisted

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X