Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

To all of those who say that a suspect must be offered the right to defend himself, I can only say that I agree. But that is not the object of our discussion about Scobies verdict. That verdict was passed on the accusatory evidence only, and so it is comparable to how a legal process is halted in the midst of the proceedings.

1. In a legal case, the series of events should involve the prosecution determining whether or not the accusatory evidence warrants a trial, suggesting guilt.

2. Then they should consider if there is evidence to prevent such an idea.

3. If they find that the evidence for is likely to warrant a conviction and that there is not enough evidence to the contrary to stop that conviction, they will go ahead with the case and take it to a court of law to be tried.

In the case with Scobie, we have not moved beyond the first point - his words are based only on that question, as far as I know. That is why he speaks of a prima facie case.

So letīs not get outraged about how Lechmere gets no defence. Itīs up to anybody to present it on this very thread!

[Fisherman]

Indeed, he was. The bias, of course, was inherent in the evidence set he was asked to evaluate not a bias in his own thinking per se. He would have accepted in good faith the evidence he was given. Trevor's conversation with him confirms that the evidence was biased, which would in turn bias his opinion.

- Jeff

Nope, Trevors alleged conversation with Scobie tells us that he likely was not handed any evidence agaisnt guilt and not informed about any alternative possibilities. He was handed the accusatory evidence, he decided on the accusatory evidence, and that is just fine as per Paul Begg. Not in a real life trial, of course, but as a way of probing the value of the evidence against the carman.

[Fisherman]

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

Actually, I was hoping to be a tad more versatile than that. But it is true to say that I will not accept laymens' assertions that there is nothing at all suspicious about Lechmere over the word of a seasoned barrister who very clearly say there is.

If you can find any reason why I should not take that stance, please do not hesitate to name it.

[Greenway]

Actually, I was hoping to be a tad more versatile than that. But it is true to say that I will not accept laymens' assertions that there is nothing at all suspicious about Lechmere over the word of a seasoned barrister who very clearly say there is.

If you can find any reason why I should not take that stance, please do not hesitate to name it.

Because he wasn't being paid to work as a barrister - he was being paid to work as a TV pundit. He was probably smart enough to realise that if he said 'you're barking at the moon' he wouldn't have made the final edit. His comments are worthless as legal opinion because of the context in which they were made.

All the best.

[JeffHamm]

Nope, Trevors alleged conversation with Scobie tells us that he likely was not handed any evidence agaisnt guilt and not informed about any alternative possibilities. He was handed the accusatory evidence, he decided on the accusatory evidence, and that is just fine as per Paul Begg. Not in a real life trial, of course, but as a way of probing the value of the evidence against the carman.

Yes. Having only the accusatory evidence and not being provided with the alternative possibilities is by definition biased. And, as you note, it's not good enough for a real life trial, so his opinion, based upon a biased presentation, is reflective only of the biased data, and as you say is not an evaluation of the evidence as it would apply in a real life trial. As such, it's worth little more than the entertainment value it was intended to provide.

- Jeff

[harry]

In answer to your post 2460,Fisherman,you are excused.I was addressing any one who wished to share knowledge of 'A pattern of offending',or an 'Area of offending' in regard to Cross.I was not addressing you in particular,you are not that important,but you can,if you wish, show such a pattern

[Fisherman]

Yes. Having only the accusatory evidence and not being provided with the alternative possibilities is by definition biased.

I think the word "biased" is a poor choice, because to me, that word implicated the involvement of twisted data. In the case at hand, there is not twisted data at hand, there is a lack of data. The information handed to Scobie will have been perfectly correct - Lechmere DID disagree with Mizen, he DID walk through the killing fields etc - and so there will have been no twisting involved in that sense.

Of course, anybody with a bias who hides away important information to get the kind of outcome he or she wants to, is acting in a way that is not sound. But in the case at hand, Scobie will have been aware that what he was asked to do was to base a verdict on accusatory evidence only, and as I have pointed out, a man like Paul Begg verifies that such a methodoogy is perfectly good to use - not to get a fair court verdict, but to evaluate the strenght of the accusatory evidence.

So there is no bias involved at all, Jeff. That is just a term you want to intriduce wherre if does not belong. We are instead looking at a perfectly sound tool of determining whether or not, based on the accusatory evidence, there is a prima facie case exists against Charles Lechmere - and there is, as per a seasoned barrister.
Basically, what James Scobie tells us is that if Charles Lechmere was put on trial and could not give acceptable explanations to his actions and statements in combination with the Nichols murder, he would more likely than not be convicted. Try that suit on any otrher suspect and see what happens!

Would Ksominski be convicted on the existing evidence? No.

Would Druitt? No.

Would Levy? No.

Would Tumblety? No.

Would Bury? Donīt make me laugh!

Would Kelly? Dear me!

Would Feigenbaum? Hilarious!

Would Barnett? Not a chance.

And so on, and so on. Even. if these men had not a iot to say in their respective defences, no cae could be built against any of them that would stand up in a court of law. But against Lechmere, the case against himWOULD stand up and get him convicted unless he was able to clear himself.

This is why Charles Lechmere is the game changer of ripperology. Regardless of what naysayers out here may think.


And, as you note, it's not good enough for a real life trial, so his opinion, based upon a biased presentation, is reflective only of the biased data, and as you say is not an evaluation of the evidence as it would apply in a real life trial. As such, it's worth little more than the entertainment value it was intended to provide.

- Jeff

This is where you go way wrong again, Jeff. The fact that Scobie regarded the accusatory evidence enough for a trial that suggested guilt is worth much, much more than anything that has been presented to accuse any other suspect than Charles Lechmere. And it is as effective a counterbid to the one who - like you - have claimed that there is nothing at all suspicious about what Lechmere said and did. Scobie throws that kind of nonsense out the window, and itīs about time that was done. It is a biased view, so it was about time it was discarded.

And yes, THAT is what a bias looks like.

[Fisherman]

Because he wasn't being paid to work as a barrister - he was being paid to work as a TV pundit. He was probably smart enough to realise that if he said 'you're barking at the moon' he wouldn't have made the final edit. His comments are worthless as legal opinion because of the context in which they were made.

All the best.

STEVE EARLE, "Snake Oil", (From "Copperhead Road", 1988):

Ladies and gentlemen, attention please
Come in close so everyone can see
I got a tale to tell, a listen don't cost a dime
If you believe that, weīre going to get along just fine

[Trevor Marriott]

Is Scobie a Crown Prosecutor?

No he is not, barristers gets appointed by the crown on a case to case basis sometimes they are instructed by the defence.

This is another misleading statement made by Fish

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

In answer to your post 2460,Fisherman,you are excused.I was addressing any one who wished to share knowledge of 'A pattern of offending',or an 'Area of offending' in regard to Cross.I was not addressing you in particular,you are not that important,but you can,if you wish, show such a pattern

Itīs in the docu.

[MrBarnett]

No he is not, barristers gets appointed by the crown on a case to case basis sometimes they are instructed by the defence.

This is another misleading statement made by Fish

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Not really, it doesn’t detract from Scobie’s credentials as someone with considerable experience of criminal prosecutions.

[Greenway]

STEVE EARLE, "Snake Oil", (From "Copperhead Road", 1988):

Ladies and gentlemen, attention please
Come in close so everyone can see
I got a tale to tell, a listen don't cost a dime
If you believe that, weīre going to get along just fine

'It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it'.

I'm not selling books or anything else.

All the best

[Trevor Marriott]

This is where you go way wrong again, Jeff. The fact that Scobie regarded the accusatory evidence enough for a trial that suggested guilt is worth much, much more than anything that has been presented to accuse any other suspect than Charles Lechmere. And it is as effective a counterbid to the one who - like you - have claimed that there is nothing at all suspicious about what Lechmere said and did. Scobie throws that kind of nonsense out the window, and itīs about time that was done. It is a biased view, so it was about time it was discarded.

And yes, THAT is what a bias looks like.

There is no way that on the facts and evidence you have put forward that Lechmere would have been charged and appeared at court. That statement is based on over 30 years of dealing with criminal cases at all levels and so I think I have enough knowledge to offer that opinion as to what evidnce is required to form a prima facie case.

How it works is that the police gather the information and evidence, a decision is then made as whether they have enough evidence to charge a person,or they may send it to a barrister such as Scobie for a legal opinion as to whether there is sufficient to charge someone.

Based on what we know and what you have provided and all the flaws in your theory which have been identified there would not be enough evidence to charge him. So that is wht Scobies contribution to the program is flawed because he clearly was not provided with the full facts and had he been he would not have beel led up the garden path by Blink films who simply provided him with your original theory missing out the point that negate what to postulate.

In an earlier reply to one of my posts you make mention of the recruitment of contributers and if I recall you told Blink films that you didnt want any ripperolgists to take part, now I wonder why that was, I guess that would be to prevent any of them showing the flaws in you theory? That wouldnt make good viewing !!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Not really, it doesn’t detract from Scobie’s credentials as someone with considerable experience of criminal prosecutions.

And i notice that Andy Griffiths also an experineced officer makes no mention of the fact warranting a trial, why are the two not singing from the same song sheet especially if they were provided with the same material by Blink

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Greenway]

And i notice that Andy Griffiths also an experineced officer makes no mention of the fact warranting a trial, why are the two not singing from the same song sheet especially if they were provided with the same material by Blink

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If either one had said anything negative about the case against Lechmere it wouldn't make the final cut - that's not how these types of documentaries are made. I thought it was a good, well made documentary, but there was no intention to present a balanced case (which is their prerogative).

All the best.