Evidence of innocence

[Fiver]

The only person 'waiting' for it is you. And I couldn't care less about that.

M.

I'm not waiting for it. I'm expecting you will never provide any evidence that CAL had a speech impediment or "other physical and neurological issues".

Just like I expect you will never blame Fisherman's proofreading errors on "blind rage".

[Fiver]

Is there any known reason why he would have strayed from his habit of always calling himself Lechmere when consulting different authorities?

We only have speculation as to why he used the name Charles Allen Cross at the Inquests. We do know he gave his home and work addresses, so CAL was not trying to hide his identity from the police.

[Greenway]

We only have speculation as to why he used the name Charles Allen Cross at the Inquests. We do know he gave his home and work addresses, so CAL was not trying to hide his identity from the police.

Because the name Cross would have been recognised at both addresses, whereas Lechmere wouldn't have been recognised at his work place?

All the best.

[Fiver]

There was never any need to present him with the full facts in order to be able to say whether or not the points of accusation would suffice to take the carman to a modern day trial. To wenaqble Scobie to make that call, he only needed the points of accusation.

I hate to break it to you, but that is not how the courts work. Competent legal authorities want to know the full facts before pressing charges, let alone bringing a case to court. It helps avoid complete embarrassment, costly lawsuits, and charges of false arrest.

[rjpalmer]

Dew never described CAL as "honest". Or dishonest. Fisherman's summary was not accurate.

They are probably confusing Dew's account of CAL with Dew's account of George Hutchinson, who was described as honest.

But you're right. In the passage about Buck's Row, Dew doesn't use honest in describing CAL. This mistake came around when they started suggesting that Dew was contrasting the 'honest' CAL with the 'shadowy' Paul, strictly for dramatic effect as a fictitious storyteller might do. It doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

Meanwhile, the point is often made that Dew would have not been involved in the Nichols murder investigation, because it took place in J Division.

But Dew doesn't try to disguise this. He states at the very beginning it was just outside his immediate jurisdiction; there is a tendency to never give Dew credit--only derision.


"Bucks Row was just a few yards outside the boundary of " H " Division to which I was attached. The district was squalid. The spot for such a crime was ideal. Close by were a number of slaughterhouses.

No better illustration of East-End conditions at the time could be afforded than by the behaviour of Charles ______ , a middle-aged carman, who was the first to see the body."

Two rhetorical questions:

1. Why doesn't Dew give CAL's last name? He mentions others by name throughout the chapter: Richardson, Mortimore, Davis, etc. Isn't this somewhat curious, knowing what we know? There are a few other names he does not give--could it simply be that he no longer remembers them, or did he know there wasn't something quite right about it? My guess is that it's the former, or a combination of the two.

2. Much is made about Dew's supposed unreliability. How do the Lechmere theorists explain Dew correctly referring to CAL as a 'middle-aged' carman? Where in contemporary press reports was CAL's age given??

Does this suggest first-hand knowledge, or are we to believe that it was just a lucky guess?

[Fiver]

To begin with, I have always said that I do not think that Paul spoke to Mizen at all. This is very much bolstered by how Mizen never says that two men spoke to him. He instead says that ONE man came up to him and spoke.

You have "always" said this. You have gone even further and claimed that Paul wasn't even close enough to hear what Lechmere said to PC Mizen.

The evidence does not support you.

"Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying."

"Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen." - Robert Paul

Mizen said that TWO men came up to him. His testimony does only mention Lechmere speaking, but it also makes it clear Paul was present.

Paul testified that he was present and that both he and Lechmere told PC Mizen "what they had seen".

[Fiver]

2. Much is made about Dew's supposed unreliability. How do the Lechmere theorists explain Dew correctly referring to CAL as a 'middle-aged' carman? Where in contemporary press reports was CAL's age given??

Does this suggest first-hand knowledge, or are we to believe that it was just a lucky guess?

It could suggest first-hand knowledge, but it could also suggest an educated guess. CAL did testify that "he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for over twenty years." And the job was strenuous enough that I expect there were few elderly carman. So calling him 'middle-aged' might just be a good memory of the Inquest testimony and a logical estimate based on the "over twenty years" of employment.

[JeffHamm]

Give it up Jeff, of course your posts make perfect sense. Doesn't matter. It was game over the night the TV show aired. A UK Crown Prosecutor said Charles Lechmere is indictable as Jack the Ripper.

Out of the 20,000 Lechmere Suspect posts, how many are Fisherman playing the Scobie card. A thousand, (5%), two thousand (10%), I'm not counting. And it's Christer's right to do that.

Ripperology is now in the Post-Scobie era. Nothing like had ever happened. t's called a "breakthrough in ripperology" by Fisherman. And he has every right to call it that.

He can and will swat away every single objection with 'Scobie Said So.'

Hi Paddy,

Oh, Fisherman's beliefs are neither changeable nor derived from evidence. As he pointed out earlier in the thread, anything that Cross/Lechmere does that appears like the actions of an innocent person will simply be viewed by him as a guilty person trying to look innocent. He's completely sealed his theory off from being influenced by evidence, because guilty looking evidence going in will come out concluding guilty, and innocent looking evidence going in will also come out concluding guilty. Effectively, no matter what goes in will always come out as guilty. That's not a theory, that's faith.

I'm not expecting Fisherman to change his mind based upon anything anyone actually posts, it will all go through the above filter, which diverts all evidence to the guilty conclusion. However, Fisherman is only one of us contributing posts, and the discussion involves all of us. My comments are for those of us who do not evaluate suspects and theories using only one possible output regardless of input.

As I've indicated a few times, I do think Cross/Lechmere is a person who is worthy of consideration, there's a good basis for wanting to examine him further. That's what we're doing, for the most part. But based upon that examination, the evaluation of the evidence we have clearly comes out on the innocent side. There would, of course, be possible evidence that we could evaluate that would come out on the guilty side, though. For example, evidence he was also in the area of the other crimes at the times of the other crimes. We don't have any such evidence, what we have are people suggesting he might have been - but that's just stating what I'm saying would actually be guilty looking evidence - it's the hypothesis not the data. Document his being in those locations, don't just say he could have been because he could have been elsewhere - could have been's are great statements for directing research, but they are not evidence.

That's a different approach to evidence evaluation from Fisherman's, who through his "innocent evidence is just a guilty person trying to look innocent" rubric is unable to conclude anything other than guilty. It is this difference in how evidence is evaluated that underscores the vast majority of the debates in this thread and why people on both sides find it so frustrating at times. If both sides are using completely different approaches to how the evidence gets evaluated, the same objective evidence can be presented, but what that evidence signifies will be not be agreed upon, and can never be agreed upon because the evaluation systems are completely at odds with each other.

- Jeff

[harry]

But it isn't the laws of logic,fisherman,nor a Barrister advising the police,that hear and decide at a hearing.It is a magistrate who has no side to favour.That same magistrate accepts evidence of a defence,as well as the accusations against.Your arguement is that only accusatory evidence is considered,and you are wrong.
Now I am quite aware that the prosecution side is the one that summarises the case to the court,and that summary lays out the police evidence of involvementPerhaps that is what you are harking on.What you conveniently fail to mention,is that the accused has the right to plead not guilty,and his/her soliciter the power to challenge the police evidence.Alternately,the magistrate can direct the police to prove their case,and evidence is then given on oath.It is even possible,in a case where a defendent pleads guilty,for a magistrate to advise the defence to change that and enter a plea of not guilty.Very rare,but I know of such a case
Your problem Fisherman,is that you do not understand the workings of a magistrates court.

[harry]

No word yet on'A pattern of offending',and 'An area of offending'.I was given the impression both showed guilt on the part of Cross.

[Paddy Goose]

Thank you for the reply Jeff, and yes of course I agree with you. But that is not my point really. It is instructive again to read Fisherman's opening post in full. Please take a moment to do that.

A thread devoted to offering space where those who think there is evidence pointing to innocence on Charles Lechermeīs 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 letīs 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.

Here is my point - Fisherman's way of putting things in his opening post is that Charles Lechmere is guilty to start with - only evidence of guilt exists and nothing else. For the reasons he Christer enumerated in his TV show in which a UK Crown Prosecutor said Charles Lechmere is indictable as Jack the Ripper, a moment characterized as a "breakthrough in ripperology" by Fisherman. And he has every right to do that.

And every single day starting after the TV show aired he has the right to tell you in advance that anything you might suggest falls into the category "Evidence of Innocence" is nothing but "Alternative Innocent Explanations." He tells you this in advance, and as you post, he tells you this after your post. Each and every one of you. Because the UK Crown Prosecutor said Charles Lechmere is indictable. Fisherman (Christer) has the weight of legal expertise behind him. That's why he has made the rules of the thread and anyone who does not agree with him as to Lechmere's guilt is not following the parameters of the thread, plus you are contradicting a UK crown prosecutor.

Ask yourself- do you enjoy being the Mole in a game of Whack-a-Mole?

[Darryl Kenyon]

I hate to break it to you, but that is not how the courts work. Competent legal authorities want to know the full facts before pressing charges, let alone bringing a case to court. It helps avoid complete embarrassment, costly lawsuits, and charges of false arrest.

Exactly Fiver, Colin Stagg for instance.
Regards Darryl

[MrBarnett]

Thank you for the reply Jeff, and yes of course I agree with you. But that is not my point really. It is instructive again to read Fisherman's opening post in full. Please take a moment to do that.



Here is my point - Fisherman's way of putting things in his opening post is that Charles Lechmere is guilty to start with - only evidence of guilt exists and nothing else. For the reasons he Christer enumerated in his TV show in which a UK Crown Prosecutor said Charles Lechmere is indictable as Jack the Ripper, a moment characterized as a "breakthrough in ripperology" by Fisherman. And he has every right to do that.

And every single day starting after the TV show aired he has the right to tell you in advance that anything you might suggest falls into the category "Evidence of Innocence" is nothing but "Alternative Innocent Explanations." He tells you this in advance, and as you post, he tells you this after your post. Each and every one of you. Because the UK Crown Prosecutor said Charles Lechmere is indictable. Fisherman (Christer) has the weight of legal expertise behind him. That's why he has made the rules of the thread and anyone who does not agree with him as to Lechmere's guilt is not following the parameters of the thread, plus you are contradicting a UK crown prosecutor.

Ask yourself- do you enjoy being the Mole in a game of Whack-a-Mole?

Is Scobie a Crown Prosecutor?

[Fisherman]

I note that we still have no answers from R J Palmer on the questions I asked him yesterday. Letīs give him some more time to ponder the questions, shall we? And if anybody else wants to have a crack at them, here they are again:

Who was it that PC Neils name was connected to the story of the two men who accompanied/called a PC to the murder site, when we know that it was instead Jonas Mizen who was the PC involved?

Who were these men, mentioned in The Star, possibly also in the East End gossip and finally in Lloyds Weekly? Were there two teams, one that approached PC Neil and another that approached PC Mizen?

Connect the dots, ladies and gentlemen, and letīs see if you can beat R J Palmer to the solution of these riddles!

[Fisherman]

No word yet on'A pattern of offending',and 'An area of offending'.I was given the impression both showed guilt on the part of Cross.

Excuse me? Are you addressing me here?