Evidence of innocence

[harry]

Quite true Trevor.
Now we have a claim of hidden evidence,would you believe it.
Hidden by whom?
Surely if evidence is hidden.no decision can be made on it's content,because it cannot be seen,cannot even be deemed to be evidence.
You are correct John,it is bordering on stupidity.

[John Wheat]

It has been asked from those who post here to keep a respectful tone. Please comply with that request or refrain from posting.

Are you admin? Because if you are not admin you have no jurastriction over what someone posts on this thread or any other

PS I'm still waiting for my complimentary copy of your book Christer. I'm starting to worry. Maybe it's got lost in the post. Perhaps you could send me another copy?

[Fisherman]

Are you admin? Because if you are not admin you have no jurastriction over what someone posts on this thread or any other

PS I'm still waiting for my complimentary copy of your book Christer. I'm starting to worry. Maybe it's got lost in the post. Perhaps you could send me another copy?

No, I am not admin. Therefore, my request for a respectful exchange is something you need not worry about. You are free to be as disgraceful as you wish to - on that account. On the other hand, admin has a general request for a civil exchange, and so it would be in line with that request if you conducted a respectful debate here.

I have nothing further to add and I think that asking you to behave twice should suffice, and so now it is up to you.

Goodbye.

[Fisherman]

Quite true Trevor.
Now we have a claim of hidden evidence,would you believe it.
Hidden by whom?
Surely if evidence is hidden.no decision can be made on it's content,because it cannot be seen,cannot even be deemed to be evidence.
You are correct John,it is bordering on stupidity.

Have another look, Harry. Did I claim that there was hidden evidence or did I say that hidden evidence can give the inprression that there is no evidence?

Can I ask you too to keep a respectful tone, please?

[Fisherman]

The evidence is that there is no evidence to prove his guilt!!!!!!!!!!

Perhaps you should look at the movements of those others who found bodies, perhaps you can manipulate their accounts to make them suspects but then again that would weaken your misguided theory for Lechmere.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But there IS evidence that implicates guilt. Flatly denying it will not alter that. You know quite well that Scobie said that there is a court case that suggests he is guilty, and Scobie is a very qualified man.

If you want to make as strong a case for any other of those who found bodies, you are welcome to. The simple truth is that you cannot do so since no other finder of a body comeds even close to Lechmere in terms of what looks like guilty implications.

And before you speak of manipulation on my behalf, you are welcome to prove it. You are the one demanding proof, so it would be becoming if you did.

But let´s be honest, Trevor, you cannot do that either, can you?

[Fisherman]

To those of you who have contributed in a productive way as well as to those who would like to do so, I am sorry that posters Trevor Marriott, Harry and John Wheat have not been able to keep a civil tone.

[John Wheat]

To those of you who have contributed in a productive way as well as to those who would like to do so, I am sorry that posters Trevor Marriott, Harry and John Wheat have not been able to keep a civil tone.

I believe I have kept a civil tone and I'm sure if I haven't admin will inform me.

[Fisherman]

I believe I have kept a civil tone and I'm sure if I haven't admin will inform me.

Suggesting that the site has been "hijacked by lunatics" is actually not keeping a respectful tone, as most people with insights into such matters would realize. More pertinently, though, if you consider the thread stupid, why participate on it? Surely, your wit and insights could be put to better use elsewhere, like for example on the Bury threads? They seem to be get little attention these days, so why not give it a try?

[John Wheat]

Suggesting that the site has been "hijacked by lunatics" is actually not keeping a respectful tone, as most people with insights into such matters would realize. More pertinently, though, if you consider the thread stupid, why participate on it? Surely, your wit and insights could be put to better use elsewhere, like for example on the Bury threads? They seem to be get little attention these days, so why not give it a try?

I might take your advice and post on a Bury thread. Thanks Christer.

[Trevor Marriott]

But there IS evidence that implicates guilt. Flatly denying it will not alter that. You know quite well that Scobie said that there is a court case that suggests he is guilty, and Scobie is a very qualified man.

And I spoke to him in person following the documentary being aired, and ascertained that he wasnt presented with the full facts which casts a major doubt about the part of his interview you seek to rely on. His interview which was shown lasted a matter of minutes where as his interview lasted at least 30 mins, the interview was edited to fit in with your suspect theory.

Were you allowed to listen to his full interview? I bet you were not

If you want to make as strong a case for any other of those who found bodies, you are welcome to. The simple truth is that you cannot since no other finder of a body comeds even close to Lechmere in terms of what looks like guilty implications.

There are no guilty implications only those created by you which have no evidential value in the grand scheme of things

But you have been told many times and you keep being told but you cannot or wont accept it that finding a body does not make the finder a killler.

And before you speak of manipulation on my behalf, you are welcome to prove it. You are the one demanding proof, so it would be becoming if you did.

But let´s be honest, Trevor, you cannot do that either, can you?

Of course I can, you and the televison company have manipulated the facts to suit this theory you presented them with, you have created mysteries where there are none to be created. All suspect tv crime documentaries are made with a view to trying to show at the end the criminal featured in them is guilty thats what the production company are paid to do.

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

I might take your advice and post on a Bury thread. Thanks Christer.

You´re welcome.

[jmenges]

We rely on our members to assist us in policing the boards. We cannot be everywhere and we cannot read every post. Also, we presume to some extent that if no one is complaining (by reporting a post) then there are no problems. If you see a post that violates one of the rules, please use the Report Post button.

JM

[Fisherman]

Of course I can, you and the televison company have manipulated the facts to suit this theory you presented them with, you have created mysteries where there are none to be created. All suspect tv crime documentaries are made with a view to trying to show at the end the criminal featured in them is guilty thats what the production company are paid to do.

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Does James Scobie fully understand what circumstantial evidence is? I´d say we can be pretty sure he does.

And what did James Scobie say? Exactly, he said that the case would be good enough to make a court case of it, suggesting that Lechmere was guilty. meaning that whatever circumstantial is, there is enough such evidence in Lechmere´s case to take him to trial.

If you are further interested in what circumstantial evidence is, relating to crininal law, here is an explanation from the net for you:


Criminal law

Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning.

With obvious exceptions (immature, incompetent, or mentally ill individuals), most criminals try to avoid generating direct evidence. Hence, the prosecution usually must resort to circumstantial evidence to prove the existence of mens rea, or intent. The same goes for the plaintiff's establishing the negligence of tortfeasors in tortlaw to recover damages from them.

One example of circumstantial evidence is the behavior of a person around the time of an alleged offense. In the case of someone charged with theft of money, were the suspect seen in a shopping spree purchasing expensive items shortly after the time of the alleged theft, the spree might prove to be circumstantial evidence of the individual's guilt.


And another one:

Definition of circumstantial evidence

evidence that tends to prove a fact by proving other events or circumstances which afford a basis for a reasonable inference of the occurrence of the fact at issue.

And a third one:

In legal terms, circumstantial evidence is evidence that is not directly related to a fact in question. Instead, it is related to other circumstances from which the occurrence of the fact may be inferred. For our purposes, this simply means that when there is no direct evidence of a problem, it's a good idea to look around for any other evidence that might be useful.

Now, a practical test of this is as follows: You claim that the information that Scobie got was manipulated. This is neither direct proof or circumstantial evidence. You cannot prove the point, nor can you point to anything that bolsters it.

What we are dealing with here is therefore something else, namely slander. Here is the definition of that particular commodity, also taken from the net:

noun
1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.
3. Law. defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.

You have on this thread stated that the onus of proof lies on me when it comes to whether Lechmer was the killer, and I agreed - although I had to point out to you that the thread is not about his guilt but instead about his potential innocence.

When it comes to your accusation about Scobie having been given manipulated material, the onus of proof lies on YOU, I´m afraid. And if you have no proof, the simple fact is that it must be regarded as slander only. In combination with that, and as a response to the post from Admin, I have now reported the matter, something I believe you are entitled to know, Trevor.

I have for the longest made it my policy never to report anything to Admin, but this is too exceptional not to be reported.

[Trevor Marriott]

Does James Scobie fully understand what circumstantial evidence is? I´d say we can be pretty sure he does.

I am sure he knows what circumstantial evidnce is and what it entails from a legal perspective but that has nothing to do with what he was provided with which was not a true reflection of all the facts and the evidence,

And what did James Scobie say? Exactly, he said that the case would be good enough to make a court case of it, suggesting that Lechmere was guilty. meaning that whatever circumstantial is, there is enough such evidence in Lechmere´s case to take him to trial.

That what he said in his 1 minute of air time in the documentary and when the full facts were presented to him he stated that there would not be enough to consider a prosecution.

If you are further interested in what circumstantial evidence is, relating to crininal law, here is an explanation from the net for you:

I am fully aware of what circumstantial evidnce is and dont need you to remind me

When it comes to your accusation about Scobie having been given manipulated material, the onus of proof lies on YOU, I´m afraid. And if you have no proof, the simple fact is that it must be regarded as slander only. In combination with that, and as a response to the post from Admin, I have now reported the matter, something I believe you are entitled to know, Trevor.

I never said he was provided with manipulative material I said he wasnt provided with the full facts about the case and what was presented to him was one sided.

I have for the longest made it my policy never to report anything to Admin, but this is too exceptional not to be reported.

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[rjpalmer]

But the guilty nutshell is a lot bigger than the innocent one. It compares to a coconut and a hazelnut…

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!!

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.

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.

Everyone understands that the onus is on the prosecution—-as it should be.