Evidence of innocence

[Paddy Goose]

... I have had quite enough of some ripperologists and their capapbilities over the years.

Then why are you here?

And this is not personal. I understand you are a practicing journalist, raising a family, and you like to fish! You are okay in my book.

I recall you said you made new friends when the TV show appeared, and that's great. Surely there are book signing, talks you give around the UK. I wish you the best and am trying to get everyone here to stop bickering. That's all I'm trying to do now. We need to all move past this. Here. In the Post-Scobie era.

We need Peace in the Valley as Elvis once sang.

[MrBarnett]

If I used the wrong term, mock me, you've done it before over one single term. So it certainly won't bother me to be mocked by you. I can put in my CV I've played the Mole in a game of Whack-a-Mole AND the Mole in a game of Mock-a-Mole.

And you missed my point, too. I am trying to get every poster here to put up a white flag. Cease and desist. Christer has won. He has obtained his self proclaimed "breakthrough in ripperology." By developing what he refers to as his "evidence of guilt" of CAL, then Scobie is hired, told of this evidence and Scobie declares CAL is indictable for serial murder. And as Fish pointed out, no other suspect proponent has accomplished this. And in fact Fisherman you read my mind, because I had a thread all ready to start called Scobie Said So in which I was going to one by one enumerate all the suspects that DON'T have a Scobie Said So. (I'll use that term instead of UK Crown Prosecutor, since any violation of the UK vernacular is noted by you instantly, Mr Barnett, and you are the same person who gives us a welcome hello by telling us dozens of times you have ancestors in the East End. Some Welcome you've got going there, pal!)

But Fish, I agree with you. You have obtained a breakthrough no one else has. And you have every right to trumpet it.

I am trying explain to everyone else that these Lechmere Suspect threads are a dead end for everyone except Fish and anyone who agrees with CAL's "guilt" his lifelong "deception." I am seeing this on a whole other plane that others have not reached. I accept it. I am defeated. Others should accept defeat. Casebook has many other sections and components where people can discuss the case. The only thing done here is to enumerate Lechmere's guilt. No innocence exists. We were told that in Post 1. Anything you say here will be dismissed as "Alternative Innocent Explanations" and YOU WERE TOLD THAT at the start. Listen to Fisherman. Play by his rules. Which means say nothing, because CAL's innocence does not exist.

We are in the Post-Scobie era now. The breakthrough happened the night the TV show aired. Accept that and everyone can get back to enjoying Casebook.

First you tell me to move my thoughts about the name issue to a ‘sidebar’, now you’re advising everyone to cease and desist. Have you ever considered ignoring the stuff you don’t like and letting others make up their own minds?

Start a thread on a subject that meets your high standards. I’m sure people will flock to it.

[Fisherman]

He would have been had he been provided with all that facts and the evidence both for and against Lechmere being the killer.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

He is quite capable of deciding whether or not there is a prima facie case suggesting guilt by way of looking at the accusatory evidence only. It is not as if you cannot assess that as professionally as you can assess evidence from both sides.
By the way, Trevor, and before I forget it: Thank you for your gracious apoligies for mistakenly have claimed that I would have called Scobie a crown prosecutor, and for having said that this was another example of me misleading.
You were always a gentleman!

[Paddy Goose]

Start a thread on a subject that meets your high standards. I’m sure people will flock to it.

That's a great idea, thank you.

And my thread won't be in the Lechmere Suspect section because as I've tried to explain, a brick wall with Socbie Said It painted on it has been erected in this section. If people want to keep trying to shout over the wall to be heard, have at it.

[JeffHamm]

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 it´s 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.

Sorry Fisherman, but an evidence set that only presents evidence that fits one outcome, and does not present the evidence that fits the alternative, is by definition biased. Not sure what the point was about listing other suspects as that has no bearing on the case concerning Cross/Lechmere. As for Scoobie, you're simply incorrect. His opinion was derived from a biased set of information. From what Trevor tells us, when presented with evidence from the other side, Scoobie's opinion has changed. To what extent, and in response to what exactly, we do not know. However, if it was that easily shakable, it was not as firm a conviction as you believe. Therefore, Scoobie's opinion is not the solid trump card you see it as, and he throws nothing out the window.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

Sorry Fisherman, but an evidence set that only presents evidence that fits one outcome, and does not present the evidence that fits the alternative, is by definition biased. Not sure what the point was about listing other suspects as that has no bearing on the case concerning Cross/Lechmere. As for Scoobie, you're simply incorrect. His opinion was derived from a biased set of information. From what Trevor tells us, when presented with evidence from the other side, Scoobie's opinion has changed. To what extent, and in response to what exactly, we do not know. However, if it was that easily shakable, it was not as firm a conviction as you believe. Therefore, Scoobie's opinion is not the solid trump card you see it as, and he throws nothing out the window.

- Jeff

If you want to call it a bias when a barrister is handed the accusatory evidence pointing in a suspects direction and asked if that accusatory evidence would warrant a trial that suggests guilt, then by all means do so - I would not want to deprive you of the term since it seems to be the most important one in your vocabulary.
Prima facie cases are formed or pondered every day by barristers all over the world, trained and able legal eagles. It would amaze me if they do it to the sound of their colleagues shouting "BIAS!" from behind their desks. It is a common and accepted method of establishing the value of acccusatory evidence, not a shameful act of biased thinking.

I would advice anybody who cannot understand what Scobie was asked to do to revisit the docu. In it, the question "Would the case against Lechmere stand up in a modern court?" is asked, and then it is added "Criminal barrister and Queens Councel James Scobie reviews the evidence AGAINST him."
It really should not be very hard to understand that what I call the accusatory evidence is the exact same as is described in the docu as the evidence AGAINST Lechmere. Please note that it is not said that Scobie reviewed the CASE against him.

Once more, first time over that Scobie was discussed, the exact same criticism was raised by people with little or no insight into legal matters until Paul Begg pointed out that there is nothing at all wrong to let a barrister decide if the accusatory evidence as such is enough to warrant a prima facie case suggesting guilt. Maybe you should try and digest that too, Jeff?

The "From what Trevor tells us, Scobies opionion has changed" should be seen against the backdrop of how Trevor has before stated that what Scobie (wisely) said was that added information could perhaps make him change his mind. So the one person who has changed his opinion is Trevor if he now claims that Scobie said that HE had changed his mind.
Do you want me to post Trevoirs earlier description of what Scobie said? It´s right here on this very thread and it has nothing at all to do with Scobie having changed his mind.

Gary Barnett asks a fair question: Why do you believe Trevors unrecorded and unsubstantiated claims if you don´t believe the recorded claims of James Scobie from the documentary? THIS is where we need to employ the word bias, Jeff, because it is as biased as it gets. And its on you.

Finally, and most importantly: Why do you speak of how Scobies verdict was as firm as I believe? Am I not the one to decide for myself what I believe, or has that right moved on to you now?
What I believe is that James Scobie is a very expereinced barrister who is quite able to decide if the points involved in an accusation against a suspect are prima facie enough to warrant a trial. And that is all that counts. If you were to be able to inform Scobie after that decision that it is proven that Charles Lechmere took piano lessons during the rest of the Whitechapel murders, then that will bring the suspicions against Lechmere to an end - BUT IT WILL NOT MEAN THAT SCOBIES ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS WRONG! This is what you seemingly fail to understand. There is a prima facie case against Lechmere, suggesting that he was guilty up until you can provide evidence good enough to overturn that decision.

Now, tell me, Jeff: DID Lechmere take piano lessons during the rest of the murders? Not to your knowledge? No? Great, thank you!

You see, it is not as if the case against Lechmere crumbles immediately as the collosal amount of evidence for innocence you have amassed on this thread is dragged into the courtroom.
Saying "Maybe it was not him?", and let´s be honest here, that IS what you are saying, is not going to bring your "case" back in through the window. It stays outside until you have one.

PS: Here´s Trevor Marriotts description of his alleged exchange with James Scobie, in Trevors own words and posted on this thread on the 15th of September:

going back to my conversation with Scobie for those who question it and suggest I had made it up !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1. He says he never met Christer during the making of the program

2. He was not provided with the witness testimony but simply given by C5 what he describes as bullet points relating to the evidence, which he thinks originated from Christer, It was this that he was asked to read and give his opinion on.

3. He states that the sum total of his input was between 30-45 mins of which most as was seen was edited out.

4. He states when he was asked about Cross giving a false name and its importance he replied that in his opinion that was insignificant to the other facts- edited out

5. He never saw the coroners summing up

6. He accepts that had he been shown the full facts then his opinion might have been different.

See point 6, where Scobie is quoted as saying that if he had been shown the full facts, his opinion MIGHT have been different. Can you, or can you not, see how that alters the picture somewhat, Jeff?
So what do you say, do we go on this post of Trevors, or shall we make a fresh new start and claim that Scobie was down on his knees, retracting all the things he had said about Lechmere as Trevor - allegedly - spoke to him?

Just dont speak to me about bias, Jeff.

[MrTwibbs]

Out of curiosity are there any examples of prima facie evidence resulting in a murder trial in the UK?

[Abby Normal]

I beleive most lawyers-either defense or prosecution are paid for there services lol. so I guess theyre all biased

[Trevor Marriott]

If you want to call it a bias when a barrister is handed the accusatory evidence pointing in a suspects direction and asked if that accusatory evidence would warrant a trial that suggests guilt, then by all means do so - I would not want to deprive you of the term since it seems to be the most important one in your vocabulary.
Prima facie cases are formed or pondered every day by barristers all over the world, trained and able legal eagles. It would amaze me if they do it to the sound of their colleagues shouting "BIAS!" from behind their desks. It is a common and accepted method of establishing the value of acccusatory evidence, not a shameful act of biased thinking.

I would advice anybody who cannot understand what Scobie was asked to do to revisit the docu. In it, the question "Would the case against Lechmere stand up in a modern court?" is asked, and then it is added "Criminal barrister and Queens Councel James Scobie reviews the evidence AGAINST him."
It really should not be very hard to understand that what I call the accusatory evidence is the exact same as is described in the docu as the evidence AGAINST Lechmere. Please note that it is not said that Scobie reviewed the CASE against him.

Once more, first time over that Scobie was discussed, the exact same criticism was raised by people with little or no insight into legal matters until Paul Begg pointed out that there is nothing at all wrong to let a barrister decide if the accusatory evidence as such is enough to warrant a prima facie case suggesting guilt. Maybe you should try and digest that too, Jeff?

The "From what Trevor tells us, Scobies opionion has changed" should be seen against the backdrop of how Trevor has before stated that what Scobie (wisely) said was that added information could perhaps make him change his mind. So the one person who has changed his opinion is Trevor if he now claims that Scobie said that HE had changed his mind.
Do you want me to post Trevoirs earlier description of what Scobie said? It´s right here on this very thread and it has nothing at all to do with Scobie having changed his mind.

Gary Barnett asks a fair question: Why do you believe Trevors unrecorded and unsubstantiated claims if you don´t believe the recorded claims of James Scobie from the documentary? THIS is where we need to employ the word bias, Jeff, because it is as biased as it gets. And its on you.

Finally, and most importantly: Why do you speak of how Scobies verdict was as firm as I believe? Am I not the one to decide for myself what I believe, or has that right moved on to you now?
What I believe is that James Scobie is a very expereinced barrister who is quite able to decide if the points involved in an accusation against a suspect are prima facie enough to warrant a trial. And that is all that counts. If you were to be able to inform Scobie after that decision that it is proven that Charles Lechmere took piano lessons during the rest of the Whitechapel murders, then that will bring the suspicions against Lechmere to an end - BUT IT WILL NOT MEAN THAT SCOBIES ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS WRONG! This is what you seemingly fail to understand. There is a prima facie case against Lechmere, suggesting that he was guilty up until you can provide evidence good enough to overturn that decision.

Now, tell me, Jeff: DID Lechmere take piano lessons during the rest of the murders? Not to your knowledge? No? Great, thank you!

You see, it is not as if the case against Lechmere crumbles immediately as the collosal amount of evidence for innocence you have amassed on this thread is dragged into the courtroom.
Saying "Maybe it was not him?", and let´s be honest here, that IS what you are saying, is not going to bring your "case" back in through the window. It stays outside until you have one.

PS: Here´s Trevor Marriotts description of his alleged exchange with James Scobie, in Trevors own words and posted on this thread on the 15th of September:

going back to my conversation with Scobie for those who question it and suggest I had made it up !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1. He says he never met Christer during the making of the program

2. He was not provided with the witness testimony but simply given by C5 what he describes as bullet points relating to the evidence, which he thinks originated from Christer, It was this that he was asked to read and give his opinion on.

3. He states that the sum total of his input was between 30-45 mins of which most as was seen was edited out.

4. He states when he was asked about Cross giving a false name and its importance he replied that in his opinion that was insignificant to the other facts- edited out

5. He never saw the coroners summing up

6. He accepts that had he been shown the full facts then his opinion might have been different.

See point 6, where Scobie is quoted as saying that if he had been shown the full facts, his opinion MIGHT have been different. Can you, or can you not, see how that alters the picture somewhat, Jeff?
So what do you say, do we go on this post of Trevors, or shall we make a fresh new start and claim that Scobie was down on his knees, retracting all the things he had said about Lechmere as Trevor - allegedly - spoke to him?

Just dont speak to me about bias, Jeff.

What you keep failing to understand and Scobie made this point, is that if the police suspected him on the basis of your factual theory then they had the option to formally arret him and formally interviewed him. There is no evidence then or now that he was looked upon as a suspect, the police had the power to arrest on suspicion

When interviewed and having given his account as we know it there would be no prima facie case to answer because there would be no evidence to warrant him being charged, and there has to be a pima facie case fror a charge to be preferred so as has been said Scobies opinion is flawed as it was presented in the program, because of the one sided evidential facts he was provided with which were incomplete.

Scobie gave his opinion in good faith based on what he was presented with

There is no case to answer against Lechmere the sooner you accept it evryone can get back to some form of normality instead of the merry go round this thread has created.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Out of curiosity are there any examples of prima facie evidence resulting in a murder trial in the UK?

There will be lots and lots of them, I suspect. And its not prima facie evidence (I think) but prima facie case. Basically, all cases must be assessed as prima facie cases before there is any reason to move on if I understand it correctly - it means that gauging the evidence, the prosecution decides whether a case will likely lead to a conviction or not. If the answer is yes, THEN they take it to court.
Adding my lack of knowledge again, I dont think a case is ever presented to a court as a prima facie case, it is - as I understand it - a face preceding the court case, a weighing, if you will.
Others, more versed in legal matters, are welcome to chime in.

[Fisherman]

What you keep failing to understand and Scobie made this point, is that if the police suspected him on the basis of your factual theory then they had the option to formally arret him and formally interviewed him. There is no evidence then or now that he was looked upon as a suspect, the police had the power to arrest on suspicion

When interviewed and having given his account as we know it there would be no prima facie case to answer because there would be no evidence to warrant him being charged, and there has to be a pima facie case fror a charge to be preferred so as has been said Scobies opinion is flawed as it was presented in the program, because of the one sided evidential facts he was provided with which were incomplete.

Scobie gave his opinion in good faith based on what he was presented with

There is no case to answer against Lechmere the sooner you accept it evryone can get back to some form of normality instead of the merry go round this thread has created.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I fail to understand nothing, Trevor. I am not the one accusing people of things they never said. I am not the one changing the goalposts as to what Scobie said.
YOU are!

I have told you a thiusand times that I very much agree that Lechmere was never a suspect. I have also told you that the police on the 3rd of September did not have the amount of evidence against Lechmere that we have today. And I have told you that the writing on the wall, spelled Cross, indicates that the carman was never investigated.

I am not the one failing to understand here.

Now, can you tell us whether it is your first assertion, that Scobie said that if he had added evidence, that MIGHT change his views, or if it is the second one, claiming that he DID change his views, that applies.

One option only can save your behind, I hope you can see that.

[Greenway]

What you keep failing to understand and Scobie made this point, is that if the police suspected him on the basis of your factual theory then they had the option to formally arret him and formally interviewed him. There is no evidence then or now that he was looked upon as a suspect, the police had the power to arrest on suspicion

When interviewed and having given his account as we know it there would be no prima facie case to answer because there would be no evidence to warrant him being charged, and there has to be a pima facie case fror a charge to be preferred so as has been said Scobies opinion is flawed as it was presented in the program, because of the one sided evidential facts he was provided with which were incomplete.

Scobie gave his opinion in good faith based on what he was presented with

There is no case to answer against Lechmere the sooner you accept it evryone can get back to some form of normality instead of the merry go round this thread has created.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So the case Scobie was presented with in order to make an 'official pronouncement' consisted of bullet points written by Fisherman? And that is what is being presented as a considered legal opinion! I'd love to know how much time he spent considering those 'bullet points'!

[Trevor Marriott]

I fail to understand nothing, Trevor. I am not the one accusing people of things they never said. I am not the one changing the goalposts as to what Scobie said.
YOU are!

I have told you a thiusand times that I very much agree that Lechmere was never a suspect. I have also told you that the police on the 3rd of September did not have the amount of evidence against Lechmere that we have today. And I have told you that the writing on the wall, spelled Cross, indicates that the carman was never investigated.

I am not the one failing to understand here.

Now, can you tell us whether it is your first assertion, that Scobie said that if he had added evidence, that MIGHT change his views, or if it is the second one, claiming that he DID change his views, that applies.

One option only can save your behind, I hope you can see that.

so what evidence do we have today that wasn’t available to the police in 1888?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

So the case Scobie was presented with in order to make an 'official pronouncement' consisted of bullet points written by Fisherman? And that is what is being presented as a considered legal opinion! I'd love to know how much time he spent considering those 'bullet points'!

No it wasn’t.

[Fiver]

The next source is Lechmere himself, who claims that Paul told Mizen that he thought that Nichols was dead. Very clearly, if Lechmere excluded Paul from the conversation in order to be able to bluff Mizen, and if he did n ot want Paul to overhear the bluff, then we cannot rely on Lechmeres assertion that Paul spoke to the PC and told him that he thought that Nichols was dead.

Both PC Mizen's testimony and Robert Paul's testimony strongly disagree with your theory. Both men's testimony make it clear that Lechmere did not exclude Paul from the conversation.

It must also be considered that it would be odd if there was some sort of vicarious echolalia on Pauls behalf involved:

Lechmere: We´ve been to Bucks Row.

Paul: Yes, we’ve been to Bucks Row.

Lechmere: We found a woman lying there.

Paul: Yes, we found a woman lying there.

Lechmere: We think she is dead:

Paul: Yes, we think she is dead.

Congratulations on attacking a position no one ever held. None of the multiple versions given by witnesses bear any resemblance to this nonsense.

There's the version that Lechmere testified, which is supported by Paul. Combining their accounts, it would be something like.

"We found a woman lying in Buck's-row. She looks to me to be either dead or drunk." - Charles Lechmere
"I think she's dead."" - Robert Paul
"All right." - PC Mizen

Lechmere testified that Mizen "then walked on", while Paul said "He continued calling the people up".


Then there's PC Mizen's version, which would be roughly.

"You are wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row. There is a woman was lying there.
"All right." - PC Mizen

PC Mizen conspicuously failed to mention Lechmere and Paul both telling him that the woman could be dead. Under questioning, he denied that he had continued knocking up rather than going directly to Buck's Row. And didn't even try to get either carman's name or address.

PC Mizen doesn't appear to have been the shiniest apple on the tree.