Evidence of innocence

[Kattrup]

Why didn’t he conform to the pattern painstakingly identified by Kattrup and David Barrat and disclose both names?

Allow me to correct this as a misunderstanding, the examples did not show such a pattern.
Some of the witnesses did not disclose their ‘real’ name until asked/pressed about it.

You could then repeat your assertion at one remove, namely that there was a pattern of bringing out both names through the course of the court proceedings, but that is a different argument from claiming that the persons themselves felt it necessary to divulge their original name. Not all did.

[Fisherman]

Then please,Fisherman,do tell us what is the difference between a Prima Facia hearing,and a prima facia case?

A prima facie case is presented at a prima facie hearing to determine whether a case merits going to trial.

The hearing therefore adds points from the defence side. They are not around in the prima facie case itself, which only focuses on tbe points of accusation.

A prima facie case needs to show that the charges likely have merit, but it does not have to prove that the defendant is guilty. Basically, a prima facie case is a case suggesting guilt, exactly as Scobie puts it. It suggests guilt, it does not prove it.

[Fisherman]

I did say that this point was trivial and not worth pursuing, but now the issue has been escalated by an accusation of misrepresentation, and I cannot let that allegation stand without a simple defence.

Christer, I would never knowingly misrepresent anything of yours, or anyone else on these pages. But misunderstand you, yes certainly that is possible, as you have also misread my items on occasions.

So, to explain, you wrote "... the shocking thing is that Lechmere was seemingly not investigated. Have you read Dew on the matter .... I think that is a helpful thing to digest." That seemed crystal clear to me at the time. Dew's view on "the matter" had to relate to Lechmere not being investigated, because there was nothing else in the paragraph for it to refer to, and this was consolidated by the final comment that this was a "helpful thing to digest". So, yes, I admit I thought you were suggesting that we should consider Dew's view in relation to the issue.

Now you say that you would not present Dew's views as evidence because of known flaws in his recollections. That did not seem to be the case in the item of yours which I quoted above. If his views were known to be flawed as you correctly say, then I am not sure why you felt it appropriate to introduce them, and to seem to stress their helpfulness.

Hopefully you can see why I believed what I did, and also that my interpretation was perfectly understandable.

You can of course not read my mind. If you could, you would know that I never considered Dews words evidence. I thought that you would easily see this when a worded myself the way I did. I was wrong. But there you are.

[Fisherman]

While I was thinking about that, too, what I mainly remember is you and Caz discussing the matter using odd names like Wigglebottom and you always ending by saying that it was, obviously, much better using the name Cross, as he had a link to that name, etc..

As I implied, I can't remember you actually saying during these discussions with Caz that you thought using Cross would have been quite risky, as you do now, and maybe, by leaving that open, I just "remember" you implying that it wouldn't be a problem for a guilty Lehmere. But, anyway, I'm glad to now know your correct view on this.


If he wasn't known by the name Cross at work or anywhere else, using it all the same would have been a huge risk and, therefore, not too intelligent, which is why I think he was known by that name in at least one social circle of his life.

Completely agreed.

What I am saying is basically that REGARDLESS of whether a name presented by somebody who has been sworn in to tell the truth in legal proceedings is a name he or she has proveable links to or not, it can never be a point for the defence when it happens. It is always a point for the prosecution. No jury will like it and think "An alternative name? He must be innocent then!", whereas many jurys will reason "An alternative name? Warning flag!".

It is only AFTER that point that it becomes evident that it will be infinitely better for the defence if there IS a link. And in Lechmere´s case, he could come up with an explanation. But even if he did, the jury would already have hoisted the warning flag. They would of course realize that maybe that flag was not as damning as there would have been room for if there was no link at all, but things like these will stick in the mind of any juror.

Does that explain things for you, Frank?

[Fisherman]

That should now silence Fish and the others who support this misguided theory of his

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

While it should not silence you and your suggestion of Feigenbaum as the killer?

Dream on!

[Fisherman]

Henry Cox:

"We had many people under observation while the murders were being perpetrated, but it was not until the discovery of the body of Mary Kelly had been made that we seemed to get upon the trail. Certain investigations made by several of our cleverest detectives made it apparent to us that a man living in the East End of London was not unlikely to have been connected with the crimes."



Lechmerians want you to believe three things:

-That Lechmere lied to Miszen and denied what he actually told him that night in front of the coroner and the jury!

Are there any records of killers lying to the police? Hmmm, let´s see now ... Tough one! Let´s go to your next "point"!

-That he went to kill again in 5 days after contradicting Mizen at the inquest!

Gary Ridgway killed again three days after he had been questioned by the police at the day of a woman disappearance, a woman who was subsequently found murdered - by Ridgway.

-And That this man was not investigated or watched by the police!





The Baron

I think other posters have established the full value of that "point", so I won´t bother.

[Doctored Whatsit]

You can of course not read my mind. If you could, you would know that I never considered Dews words evidence. I thought that you would easily see this when a worded myself the way I did. I was wrong. But there you are.

Of course I cannot read your mind, I can only read what you wrote.

[Fisherman]

Allow me to correct this as a misunderstanding, the examples did not show such a pattern.
Some of the witnesses did not disclose their ‘real’ name until asked/pressed about it.

You could then repeat your assertion at one remove, namely that there was a pattern of bringing out both names through the course of the court proceedings, but that is a different argument from claiming that the persons themselves felt it necessary to divulge their original name. Not all did.

And historically, would you agree that a large part of those who have not "feel it necessary" to give their original and registered names have been criminals of all kinds? If you agree, how is that NOT a relevant factor in the discussions about the name? Could you explain?

[Fisherman]

Of course I cannot read your mind, I can only read what you wrote.

Yes, I am fully aware of that. So it boils down to the two matters of how clear I was and how perceptive you were. And apparently, I was hoping for too much.

[harry]

Yes Fisherman,obviously a police case in a prima facie case is going to suggest guilt,and obviously a defence is going to suggest innocence.The magistrate hearing the case has to decide,on the face of it,whether the level of guilt is greater ,and sufficient to warrant a trial.At this level it doesn't have to be
beyond a reasonable doubt.
So here is the poblem.We know that in 1888 no policeman suggested guilt on the part of Cross,and no prima facie hearing took place.The evidence that existed then has not changed,and is the only evidence that can be considered.How then can any one,Scobie included,decide that a prima facie case would succeed?

[MrBarnett]

Allow me to correct this as a misunderstanding, the examples did not show such a pattern.
Some of the witnesses did not disclose their ‘real’ name until asked/pressed about it.

You could then repeat your assertion at one remove, namely that there was a pattern of bringing out both names through the course of the court proceedings, but that is a different argument from claiming that the persons themselves felt it necessary to divulge their original name. Not all did.

But many did, and the concept of a’ real’ name that it was appropriate to bring out in court was amply demonstrated by your and David’s research.

Perhaps Lechmere didn’t read the newspapers and was unaware of the zeitgeist.

Or perhaps he was so used to being referred to as Charlie Cross by all and sundry that the had forgotten what his real name was.

[Greenway]

No jury will like it and think "An alternative name? He must be innocent then!", whereas many jurys will reason "An alternative name? Warning flag!".

It is only AFTER that point that it becomes evident that it will be infinitely better for the defence if there IS a link. And in Lechmere´s case, he could come up with an explanation. But even if he did, the jury would already have hoisted the warning flag. They would of course realize that maybe that flag was not as damning as there would have been room for if there was no link at all, but things like these will stick in the mind of any juror.

How do you know with such certainty what a hypothetical jury would think when presented with the facts about his use of two names? What about if a number of the jury themselves went by a couple of different names? There are a several family circumstances where this can happen so it is is quite common. Aren't you playing 'fantasy football' here?

If I was on the jury I'd be perfectly happy with his explanation and wouldn't see it as suspicious at all. I'd be more concerned with evidence that he committed the murder, of which I've seen none presented here so far (and no, evidence that he was at the scene is not evidence that he committed murder)

All the best.

[MrBarnett]

and what is supicious about that, someone has to find a dead body when there is a body to be found

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Absolutely nothing. My point exactly.

So why would he have been investigated?

[MrBarnett]

No, nor would the police in 1888 that not how investigations are conducted.

It is not a crime for a person to use an alias unless its with intent to deceive,or defraud someone

In the case of Lechmere it is neither and so I fail to see why you are making such a big issue out of this.

It is his evidence that is the important factor that would have been scrutinized and checked out and it is foolhardy to suggest it wasnt

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We seem to be on the same page, Trevor. Neither of us believe it is likely that the police would have dug into Lechmere’s background and discovered his real name.

That’s what some believe.

[Greenway]

Absolutely nothing. My point exactly.

So why would he have been investigated?

Because you might find out something that was suspicious. Him finding a dead body on his route to work isn't intrinsically suspicious if he walks that route at that time every day.

All the best.