Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

I challenge you to prove Nichols was dead or even cut when Lechmere left her.


If you cannot, and you can not, then Lechmere is innocent.


The Baron

B does not follow from A.

[Fisherman]

Neither innocence nor guilt is proven by finding a body. But the guilty nutshell is a lot bigger than the innocent one. It compares to a coconut and a hazelnut…

well actually it is not.
The guilty nutshell is not a lot bigger than the innocent one at all , that is only your opinion.
while you could be right in your assumption or belief sadly and this is a fact
There is no 100% indisputable fact or evidence that backs that belief up.
Non.
There is conjecture assumptions opinions but not one factual piece of evidence either posted by yourself or in your book that indicates he is guilty.
you or others could argue that there is nothing to prove his innocence either which is also correct.
Therefore the nutshells you speak of are equal unless you can post a undisputed fact that points to guilt.

That is not how I see it, I´m afraid. There are numerous cases throughout history where there have been so called police solutions. That basically means that the police are certain that they have their man, nut they do not have the evidence to convict him. There can be a ton of evidence pointing to guilt, but the case neverthelss lacks that one small piece that will secure a conviction.

In such cases, the nutshells are not equally sized at all. And the same goes for Lechmere. I could easily say the same thing as you do: making your claim is somethibng that has to stand for you, because I disagree. And that disagreement is partly based on how James Scobie said that there was a case good enough to take to court, and that suggested guilt. That is quite a nutshell.

[Fisherman]

The name he used at the inquest, must have been in his original statement made to the police, and that is why there is no mystery surrounding the names, other than the one you have created. If he had given the statement to the police in one name and then used another at the inquest questions would have been asked at the inquest and it would have been recorded and we would all be the wiser.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The September and October reports were however not the original statement. And he is still called Cross in them.

[Fisherman]

When posters use terms like suspicion,possibilities,beliefs,opinions,it is a sure sign they do not know the facts

You use those terms yourself on a reoccuring basis.

[Trevor Marriott]

The September and October reports were however not the original statement. And he is still called Cross in them.

But you cannot prove that he did not give the same name in his police statement to that which he gave at the inquest.

The inquest testimony is documented in several differnet newspapers and there is no mention of the issues of differnet names being raised when he was sworn in.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FrankO]

For a thread that has been dubbed silly and stupid, I´d say it is turning up many interesting points of discussion.

It's only rather silly in the way I've outlined in my post #85, Christer, but if you're still happy with the outcome so far, then who am I to judge? There's can be no sillyness in that!

[Harry D]

Would Charlie Boy have murdered Annie Chapman five days after coming forward at the Nichols' inquest?

[harry]

I have not and would not use the terms I used in post 119 Fisherman,to accuse a person of murder.I have and would use them in a situation where I was unsure of the facts,but unlike you I would not claim they provided proof.
One doesn't need to prove innocence on the part of Cross.That situation already existed.

[Fisherman]

But you cannot prove that he did not give the same name in his police statement to that which he gave at the inquest.

The inquest testimony is documented in several differnet newspapers and there is no mention of the issues of differnet names being raised when he was sworn in.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That is correct. Thdere is no mention whatsoever of the name Lechmere. In the inquest reports as well as in the ensuing police reports dated the 19th of September and October, respectively, he is called Cross. And the inference of that can be one thing only: that he called himself Cross with the police and inquest and that no checkout on account of the police was undertaken into the matter of the name.

[Fisherman]

It's only rather silly in the way I've outlined in my post #85, Christer, but if you're still happy with the outcome so far, then who am I to judge? There's can be no sillyness in that!

That´s how I feel about it too, Frank. Stay well!

[Trevor Marriott]

That is correct. Thdere is no mention whatsoever of the name Lechmere. In the inquest reports as well as in the ensuing police reports dated the 19th of September and October, respectively, he is called Cross. And the inference of that can be one thing only: that he called himself Cross with the police and inquest and that no checkout on account of the police was undertaken into the matter of the name.

So your sugestion that the name change as a means of deflecting away from him the fact that he was the killer has now gone out the window and that you no longer seek to use this as part of your case against him?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Would Charlie Boy have murdered Annie Chapman five days after coming forward at the Nichols' inquest?

Edward Stow has suggested that 29 Hanbury Street was perhaps chosen in order to position Robert Paul in the crosshairs (excuse the pun). If this was so, the short time elapsed may be explained by how Lechmere wanted to steer away any interst in his own person as soon as possible.

Even if this was not so, why would Lechmere not kill on the 8th? Because that would make the police go "Wait a minute - that is on the route the carmen took"? If they were not able to see where Nichols´ bleeding time and the disagreement between Lechmere and Mizen pointed, why would they think twice about the Chapman murder? Yes, you and I know why they should have - but would a narcissistic psychopath worry about such a thing? Or would he think, like so many narcissitic serial killer have, "There´s not a chance in hell that they can outsmart me"? We are probaly dealing with a man who was up for the challenge of killing twice on the same night, so killing twice in four days does not seem much of an obstacle to me.

[Fisherman]

So your sugestion that the name change as a means of deflecting away from him the fact that he was the killer has now gone out the window and that you no longer seek to use this as part of your case against him?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I think I am instead suggesting that you have misread my post rather badly if that is the conclusion you arrived at.

[Fisherman]

I have not and would not use the terms I used in post 119 Fisherman,to accuse a person of murder.I have and would use them in a situation where I was unsure of the facts,but unlike you I would not claim they provided proof.
One doesn't need to prove innocence on the part of Cross.That situation already existed.

Once again, you are as clueless about whether he was the killer or not as you have always been. What you rely upon is the legal process of not calling a man guilty until he is convicted in a court of law, and I have already shown you why that does not work practically. Back up some posts and you will see how it works.

What you said about the terms was a general statement, you made no division of contexts, and so you will have to live with people thinking that what you write is actually what you mean. It makes a healthy change from your take on how you are free to interpret away anything in any way you want to.

[The Baron]

B does not follow from A.

Trying to run away huh?!


Ok, Nichols was not cut when Lechmere left her. you cannot prove otherwise, its just like this, you cannot.

-Paul didn't notice any blood.

-Paul detected what might have been a faint breath.


Nichols was not cut=
Lechmere innocent.



Game Over