Evidence of innocence

[MrBarnett]

Hmm, no, I am not. But I surmise that it's pointless to get into. Have a nice day!

Let’s say for the sake of argument that Lechmere had indeed lied to Mizen. Then, surely, the discrepancy between their two statements would be evidence of his having lied, would it not?

Unless we know for certain that Lechmere didn’t lie, then we can’t say that something that is fully consistent with his having done so is not evidence of the fact, can we?

[Trevor Marriott]

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

If they refused to comply then a compromise would try to be reached, at the editing stage a decision may be made to not include that persons interview if it was not in line with what was required.

You have to realise that a production co is funded to make a doc based on what they have been provided with from those funding the doc which may not always be accurate if the original funding co have been unitentionally misled

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Kattrup]

Let’s say for the sake of argument that Lechmere had indeed lied to Mizen. Then, surely, the discrepancy between their two statements would be evidence of his having lied, would it not?

Unless we know for certain that Lechmere didn’t lie, then we can’t say that something that is fully consistent with his having done so is not evidence of the fact, can we?

I don't think it's necessary to consider hypothetical scenarios, let's just go through the statements:

Mizen goes first, so cannot actually contradict anything. He says Cross tells him he (Mizen) is wanted by a policeman.

Then Cross, he is asked if he said Mizen was wanted by a policeman - answer: no.

Is this evidence of a lie? No, I don't think it is. And neither did anyone else. Is it consistent with a lie? Yes, it is indeed possible to think up fanciful scenarios where it could be.

[JeffHamm]

Let’s say for the sake of argument that Lechmere had indeed lied to Mizen. Then, surely, the discrepancy between their two statements would be evidence of his having lied, would it not?

Unless we know for certain that Lechmere didn’t lie, then we can’t say that something that is fully consistent with his having done so is not evidence of the fact, can we?

Hi MrBarnett,

I think if you compare post #5 and #7, that hasn't applied when the evidence points to innocence. To summarize, in #5 Fiver suggested that given Annie Chapman's ToD corresponds to when Cross/Lechmere was at work, he has an alibi, and therefore that would constitute evidence of innocence. Fisherman's reply in #7 is that Chapman's time of death cannot be fully established, so it is not evidence of his innocence.

Now, if we apply your suggestion of the type of logic we should use from above, then we should be able to say that "unless we know for certain Annie was killed prior to Cross/Lechmere being at work, then because a ToD after 4:45 (Richardson's visit) is fully consistent with him being at work when she died then we call call that evidence of his innocence". Now, unless we conflate evidence and proof, then the above does qualify as evidence for his innocence, it's just evidence that can be questioned. All of the evidence for Cross/Lechmere's guilt is found in the interpretation of his actions and statements, but not within the actions and statements as given, therefore that too constitutes evidence that can be questioned. Do we throw that out? Apparently not.

We mustn't forget that it's harder to produce evidence of innocence because innocence is basically saying someone "didn't do" something, and "not doing something" leaves no trace. Guilt is the act of "doing something", in this case murder, and actions leave traces, which we call evidence. What we don't have are the types of traces of guilt that unequivocally lead to the interpretation of guild, we don't have anyone finding blood on him, or that he was in possession of a knife, or fingerprints, or dna, or even him being spotted in the vicinity of other crime locations, or a drunken confession, etc. What we have are statements he made at the inquest, and a bit of information about his interactions with Paul and PC Mizen, all of which can be interpreted from the point of view of him being innocent because the information in those statements and records do not include direct evidence of guilt. Clearly, as Fisherman has presented, they can be interpreted from the point of view of him being guilty too. That's because none of those things are evidence of guilt or innocence, they are just a recording of what he said, and what he did, and what others report about him. The "guilt/innocence" aspect comes from interpretations of those facts along the lines of him as a suspect/witness.

For innocence one would have to show he couldn't have done it, and Annie Chapman's murder, looking to be in the early dawn, would appear to provide him with just such an alibi. Fisherman disagrees with a ToD around 5:25-5:30ish, but even if she was murdered at 4:30ish, that still puts Cross/Lechmere at work for 30 minutes. She would have to have been murdered well before 4:00. Both of those latter times, though, mean that when John Richardson visited the back yard of Hanbury street, at around 4:40-4:45, he didn't see her body despite sitting on the step with his feet on the flagstones (i.e. sitting right beside her). So if she's not there at quarter to 5:00, and Cross/Lechmere's work starts at 4:00, then that would be evidence of his innocence with regards to Annie Chapman. And given the similarities between Nichols and Chapman's murders, that lead to them being linked to the same killer, cleared of one cleared of both (that's not how a police investigation would work, of course, and each crime would be treated separately, but from a JtR approach, unless one argues for separate killers of Nichols and Chapman then that would apply here.)

For guilt, one has to show something that directly ties him to the act of murder. Clearly we do not have that (no bloody knife, no blood on his hands/body, no statement from Paul saying he saw Cross/Lechmere bent over something and drawing his arm across as if cutting something, etc). We have neutral actions and statements, some that conflict with other witness' statements and some that do not, which can be coloured with descriptive language that bias one to view them as the actions of a guilty or innocent man. But adjectives are not actions, and adjectives are not evidence.

Anyway, if this thread is really about presenting things that would constitute evidence of his innocence, then I think Fiver's suggestion in post #5 is the type of thing that "counts". If it's about presenting "proof of his innocence", then that would have to be balanced by presenting "proof of his guilt", otherwise it's a tilted playing field. There is no "proof of his guilt", only evidence interpreted based upon him being guilty, which in turn can just as easily be interpreted based upon him being innocent. We know that because there are hundreds, maybe even thousands, of posts doing just that - presenting the same thing from both the innocent and guilty point of view. The potential alibi is probably the closest either side has to proof, but the debate around Chapman's ToD, which appears to be crucial to a number of suspect theories that need it to be either pre-Richardson or post-Richardson, pending on which suspect theory you choose, and thus ensuring it will never be agreed upon, probably means it will never be viewed as solid enough to stamp with the "proof" label.

- Jeff

[harry]

Dickere,
No it is not opinion presented as fact.It is a correct assessment based on the evidence of Cross and Paul.What they explained to Mizen was that there was a woman in Bucks Row who they considered was either dead or dying.They neither claimed she was a victim of foul play,or had injuries consistent with an attack on her person.
Mr Barnett,
If you will be so kind as to refresh my memory of the evidence given,then I might be able to answer your claim.What was the statement that was contradicted by an officer?
You sound to me like the fellow that boasted to his friend that he had once driven a herd of cattle from London England ,to Paris France. When the friend sarcastickly asked him how he had crossed the English Channel,he replie"I didn't go that way".

[Fisherman]

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

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

No, that is true. What you said, and I quote ad verbatim:

"you and the televison company have manipulated the facts to suit this theory you presented them with"

And that is of course far worse.

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You have absolutely no idea what was said between me and the film crew, just as you have absolutely no idea that anything was manipulated in any way. I have an idea what these claims of yours make you, however: Somebody who slanders a highly respected film company.

There really is nothing more to say about it. Which is why our conversation ends here.

[Fisherman]

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.

Exactly. And as for the part about not being in place with a living Nichols, Pauls statement that he believed that he felt Nichols stir as he felt her chest is evidence pointing to how she was seemingly alive at that stage, meaning that Harry is wrong not on one count only, but on both counts.

[Fisherman]

Let’s say for the sake of argument that Lechmere had indeed lied to Mizen. Then, surely, the discrepancy between their two statements would be evidence of his having lied, would it not?

Unless we know for certain that Lechmere didn’t lie, then we can’t say that something that is fully consistent with his having done so is not evidence of the fact, can we?

It´s good to have a non-Lechmereian pointing to these basic things!

[Fisherman]

Hi MrBarnett,

I think if you compare post #5 and #7, that hasn't applied when the evidence points to innocence. To summarize, in #5 Fiver suggested that given Annie Chapman's ToD corresponds to when Cross/Lechmere was at work, he has an alibi, and therefore that would constitute evidence of innocence. Fisherman's reply in #7 is that Chapman's time of death cannot be fully established, so it is not evidence of his innocence.

- Jeff

I actually speak of "genuine evidence of innocence", Jeff, making the point that what is always served in Lechmere´s case are so called "alternative innocent explanations". It can of course be claimed, for example, that Mizen misheard Lechmere, or that he lied about it and so on. Each of these things CAN per se have happened, but there is no existing evidence to bolster the claim.

When it comes to Chapman, there is evidence that she was killed late and there is evidence that she was killed early. That makes both suggestions inconclusive, and so I used the term "genuine evidence", meaning that it is totally inconclusive.

However, the term "genuine" can always be discussed, and so there may be different conclusions.

What cannot be claimed, though, is that there is no evidence against Lechmere. Just as Gary Barnett points out, Mizens testiony is evidence to how Lechmere seemingly lied to him. Lechmere´s own testimony goes the other way, and so we are once again faced with inconclusive evidence.

The case against Lechmere is not built on a piece of inconclusive evidence, though. It is built on a large pile of circumstantial evidence. And that is what made Scobie make his call in the documentary: it becomes on coincidence too many.

I have no problem saying that the number of coincidences and flukes we must accept in order to paint an innocent Lechmere is way too large for it to be acceptable. Once again, just as "genuine" is a term that people may disagree on, so is "acceptable". And that is where we are at. There are those who are ready to accept all the pointers to Lechmere as mere flukes and coincidences.

There there are those who say that there is only a single pointer to him, be that the name, the disagreement with Mizen, the pulled down clothing, the geographical correlations, the failure on Pauls behalf to speak about Lechmere walking in front of himself. the bleeding time on Nichols´ behalf or any other item they pick and choose and claim to be the only thing that speaks against him

Finally, there are the dogmatics who simply say that there is not a single point at all towards possible guilt.

It makes for a rather surrealistic debate at times. And it makes me wonder how many of the various naysayers actually believe in what they say.

But I take heart in how those not engaged in hardcore ripperology seem to have a less complicated view of the carman. They can be found on various channels on the net, and they are very often baffled about the various types of denial exhibited out here. It is refreshing, it gives me hope, and it is why I keep saying that the future belongs to Charles Lechmere.

[FrankO]

This is opinion presented as fact, right ?

This is exactly what lays bare how rather silly this thread is, Dickere. A guilty Lechmere and an innocent one would act in the very same innocent way that the other would after a murder, meaning that a guilty Lechmere would act in the exact same way in certain situations as an innocent one would. So, as long as we don't have a solid alibi for an innocent Lechmere along the lines provided by Jeff Hamm, each and every example of what might be interpreted as innocent behaviour will be outweighed by the guilty ones, or so Christer will undoubtedly explain it. And as long as we don't have any such solid alibi, we can only counter the aspects that Christer sees as incriminating, but, since he told us in his O.P. that we are not allowed to do just that on this thread, it's a rather silly thread (meaning this in a light, monty pythonesque way).

So, for example, I could say: a guilty Lechmere would never have deposed at the inquest that he told Mizen he thought the woman was either dead or drunk, when he knew he hadn't said any such thing to Mizen. So, the fact that he did state this points to his innocence. And then Christer might say something like: not true, because this is exactly the kind of thing we might expect a psychopath serial killer to do and very much in line with his staying put and bluffing out first Paul and then Mizen.

Carry on!

[JeffHamm]

Hi Fisherman,

I actually speak of "genuine evidence of innocence", Jeff, making the point that what is always served in Lechmere´s case are so called "alternative innocent explanations". It can of course be claimed, for example, that Mizen misheard Lechmere, or that he lied about it and so on. Each of these things CAN per se have happened, but there is no existing evidence to bolster the claim.

When it comes to Chapman, there is evidence that she was killed late and there is evidence that she was killed early. That makes both suggestions inconclusive, and so I used the term "genuine evidence", meaning that it is totally inconclusive.

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.

However, the term "genuine" can always be discussed, and so there may be different conclusions.

What cannot be claimed, though, is that there is no evidence against Lechmere. Just as Gary Barnett points out, Mizens testiony is evidence to how Lechmere seemingly lied to him. Lechmere´s own testimony goes the other way, and so we are once again faced with inconclusive evidence.

Ah, yes, so we agree on that point.

The case against Lechmere is not built on a piece of inconclusive evidence, though. It is built on a large pile of circumstantial evidence. And that is what made Scobie make his call in the documentary: it becomes on coincidence too many.

I have no problem saying that the number of coincidences and flukes we must accept in order to paint an innocent Lechmere is way too large for it to be acceptable. Once again, just as "genuine" is a term that people may disagree on, so is "acceptable". And that is where we are at. There are those who are ready to accept all the pointers to Lechmere as mere flukes and coincidences.

There there are those who say that there is only a single pointer to him, be that the name, the disagreement with Mizen, the pulled down clothing, the geographical correlations, the failure on Pauls behalf to speak about Lechmere walking in front of himself. the bleeding time on Nichols´ behalf or any other item they pick and choose and claim to be the only thing that speaks against him

Finally, there are the dogmatics who simply say that there is not a single point at all towards possible guilt.

It makes for a rather surrealistic debate at times. And it makes me wonder how many of the various naysayers actually believe in what they say.

But I take heart in how those not engaged in hardcore ripperology seem to have a less complicated view of the carman. They can be found on various channels on the net, and they are very often baffled about the various types of denial exhibited out here. It is refreshing, it gives me hope, and it is why I keep saying that the future belongs to Charles Lechmere.

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.

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

[Trevor Marriott]

You have absolutely no idea what was said between me and the film crew, just as you have absolutely no idea that anything was manipulated in any way. I have an idea what these claims of yours make you, however: Somebody who slanders a highly respected film company.

There really is nothing more to say about it. Which is why our conversation ends here.

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 .

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

A thread devoted to offering space where those who think there is evidence pointing to innocence on Charles Lecherme´s behalf can provide their thoughts and ideas. My personal take is that there is no genuine evidence at all that points to innocence on the carmans behalf, but since it has been led on that I ommitted to present such evidence in my book "Cutting Point", it would be interesting to see what that evidence consists of.

What this thread is not for is presenting alternative innocent explanations, like "Mizen may have made up the stuff about that other PC", because it would drown the thread totally - such alternative explanations can be provided en an endless stream, and although we must consider them, they are not genuine evidence of innocence but only "what if's".

What we do not need out here either are claims like "Lechmere is a useless suspect". Althoug anybody is entitles to entertain that idea, it is the evidence they can put behind it that counts.

So let´s not speak about how there may have been alternative innocent explanations at play, but instead start our contributions with "Charles Lechmere cannot have been the killer because..." and than add true and genuine evidence. Another starting point can of course be "Charles Lechmere is not likely to be the killer because..." - just as there can be circumstantial evidence pointing to guilt, there can also be circumstantial evidence speaking of innocence.

But is there?

Let me know.

Anybody who can master this debate without descending into disrespectfulness is welcomed to the thread. And I demand that attitude from everyone, myself included.

hi fish
evidence of innocence or exculpitory evidence: I really cant see any except for possibly he had a perfectly good reason for being where he was and he called paul over (instead of fleeing). but its very weak exculpitory evidence and as i mentioned before, anyone seen with a freshly killed victim would need to be investigated and cleared, which apparently didnt happen.

[caz]

The only thing that you have is him being the first discover Nichols, but his alibis for the other times of death would exonerate him alone if he was suspected. As it did for John Pizer. People have latched on to letch because of the accident with the child and his name change. Neither of which makes him JtR.

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

[Fisherman]

This is exactly what lays bare how rather silly this thread is, Dickere. A guilty Lechmere and an innocent one would act in the very same innocent way that the other would after a murder, meaning that a guilty Lechmere would act in the exact same way in certain situations as an innocent one would. So, as long as we don't have a solid alibi for an innocent Lechmere along the lines provided by Jeff Hamm, each and every example of what might be interpreted as innocent behaviour will be outweighed by the guilty ones, or so Christer will undoubtedly explain it. And as long as we don't have any such solid alibi, we can only counter the aspects that Christer sees as incriminating, but, since he told us in his O.P. that we are not allowed to do just that on this thread, it's a rather silly thread (meaning this in a light, monty pythonesque way).

So, for example, I could say: a guilty Lechmere would never have deposed at the inquest that he told Mizen he thought the woman was either dead or drunk, when he knew he hadn't said any such thing to Mizen. So, the fact that he did state this points to his innocence. And then Christer might say something like: not true, because this is exactly the kind of thing we might expect a psychopath serial killer to do and very much in line with his staying put and bluffing out first Paul and then Mizen.

Carry on!

I take your points, Frank, but I am going to keep on being silly. It can per se never by of no interest to hear why those who think Lechmere is innocent entertain that feeling, the way I see things. And I am also very wary about how I am conviced about the carmans guilt myself, and so I am intersted to try and look at things from other perspectives, not least since I may perhaps not realize that such perspectives exist.

If that is silly - in the Graham Chapmanesque manner or any other manner - then yes, I am silly.