Evidence of innocence

[Fiver]

I will do. Could you in return remind me of your source for claiming that Pickfords drivers worked 18 hour shifts. The press report about the strike meeting.

I did not claim that Pickfords drivers worked 18 hour shifts. I posted an article from the Standard 29 June, 1891 that showed Pickford's (and other) carman claimed that they worked 14 to 18 hour days.

Your ‘alibi’ claim seems to be based on the idea that Pickfords drivers jumped out of bed onto their carts and were under constant supervision for 18 hours, and at the end of their shift they would have been too knackered to even pay a visit their old Ma a visit.

You continue to puts words in my mouth. Nothing in what you say matches anything I said and some of it is the complete opposite of what I said. Is you reading comprehension really that poor?

As I noted in Post #1890.

"As I have already repeatedly stated, Pickford's often assigned "van guards" or "van boys" to prevent pilferage by the general public or their own carmen. The Old Baiely records, which I have cited before, are full of examples.

Pickford's drivers were given a schedule of pickups and deliveries. Those pickups and deliveries were witnessed and signed for. Strange time gaps would be noticeable. And every pickup and delivery would be a chance for one, possibly several people, to notice unexplained bloodstains on the driver. Pickfords was a general goods service, not a slaughterhouse."

[Fiver]

The ”research” I made was in a small, narrow cobblestoned street in my home town. I could very easily hear peoples footfalls from far away.

So much for keyboard pundits.

So your test was done in conditions little or nothing like walking down Bucks Row in 1888?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Yes, you THINK he did - but you cannot possibly know. And you have no reason for thinking that he acted entirely in the way an innocent man would, even in the instances when his story is not corroborated, because you do not know him as such. Not do I, of course!
You seemingly notice what he did when he was under observation, and when he accordingly WOULD act innocently - and then you accept it as an indication of how he was entirely innocent throughout.

You do it that way, I do it another way.

But regardless of that, it remains that by saying that you think he was entirely innocent, you also accept each and every point I listed in my post to you as being coincidental. We need to keep that in mind when assessing your contribution.

But he wasn't under observation Fish, He chose to put himself under observation. The actions of a guilty man ?

And I have to say I think you are missing the point, suppose it was you, me, Joe bloggs who stumbled across poor Polly. If you were innocent you would act in one of two ways 1- Walk on by thinking who cares. Or 2- Show some concern and find a doctor, policeman or stop a passerby and then find a doctor or policeman. Which lech did.
When you say Lech wouldn't go down the street shouting " I did it " , of course he wouldn't . But you are starting there on the premise that he is guilty and he was almost caught in the act. Which we know he wasn't . Again Paul -he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Paul) stepped in the roadway to pass him.

Regards Darryl

[Fisherman]

But he wasn't under observation Fish, He chose to put himself under observation. The actions of a guilty man ?

Ask yourself whether or not there are examples of serial killers who have injected themselves into police investigations into their own crimes, Darryl. We will always be dealing with people who are walking anomalies when we look at serial killers. In this case, we could of course say "But he would not kill Polly Nichols, because that is not what people normally do." and we would be statistically spot on. But statistics are only so useful.

When we look at serial killers, we look at people who do NOT act the way normal people do. When we look at psychopaths, we look at people who do NOT react to danger the way normal people do.

You question is therefore somewhat redundant. We both know that a guilty man will normally try and evade punishment. But we also know that the outcome of Lechmeres actions was that he DID evade punishment - and he also avoided being investigated, as it seems.

What if I ask the question: Can there be more than one way of trying to evade punishment? Or must it always be running away that is the only solution to that problem? And are psychopaths and narcissists likely to go about things differently than the rest of us?

And I have to say I think you are missing the point, suppose it was you, me, Joe bloggs who stumbled across poor Polly.

Okay. Lets suppose that. Iīll play!

If you were innocent you would act in one of two ways 1- Walk on by thinking who cares. Or 2- Show some concern and find a doctor, policeman or stop a passerby and then find a doctor or policeman. Which lech did.

No, if I stumbled across a woman in the street, I would not walk on by, I would do it the number 2 way you suggest. But I understand your point; there ARE those whoīd do it according to the number 1 proposition too. We could of course add a third possibility; those who would panick and start running around like headless chickens. But overall I agree with you, and since we are looking at the conundrum theoretically, I am willing to go along with what you say. Letīs accept that innocent people would do things in one out of your two ways!

When you say Lech wouldn't go down the street shouting " I did it " , of course he wouldn't .

Iīm glad we agree on that point too.

But you are starting there on the premise that he is guilty and he was almost caught in the act.

No, not really. I am starting from the point that he was guilty, end of. And I am saying that REGARDLESS if he was nearly caught in the act or not, anybody who is guilty and wants to hide that fact, is completely unlikely to do or say anything that is NOT in line with what innocent people would do. THAT is my point. And since we only have corroboration for what Lechmere did from the stage after Paul was in place to do that corroboration, we have no idea at all what he did BEFORE Paul arrived.

Think, if you will, about the schoolyard bully, who lands a left hook on the nose of a classmate. The classmate screams "Ouch!" and a teacher emerges through a schoolhouse door to investigate. When he does, the bully is still in place, and guess what he says? "That was not me!"

Surely you can see how this works? You do the deed, someone arrives and you deny having done it. Itīs anything but rocket science.
In your world, the bully would have run away, while I am saying that he may well have stayed put in our case - and won advantages by doing so.

Luckily, we can put the issue to the test by going a step further, something we will do in just a little while, after I have answered your last point.

Which we know he wasn't . Again Paul -he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Paul) stepped in the roadway to pass him.

Regards Darryl

And there we are: Your last point says nothing about guilt or innocence, unless we accept that anybody who stays put at a murder site cannot be the killer. And we cannot do that.

What we should instead do is to return to your claim that I am missing the point. Because you see, what YOU just did was to totally skip over MY point.
When we have a situation like the one at hand, where two master detectives (what the heck, itīs purely theoretical, why not elevate ourselves when we can? ) like you and me draw different conclusions in a case of murder, it īs of the essence to put our respective takes to the test.

And there IS a test to which we can put our respective takes!

Once we have a person involved in a crime, and one we have the two possible outcomes guilty/innocent to choose from, we must look at all the evidence involved in the case.
In this case, we have the master detective Darryl Kenyon puffing on his pipe, and telling his colleague this:

"You really should not be so cynical, Holmgren - whatīs wrong with helping out, the way olī Lechmere did? He did absolutely nothing that he shouldnīt have! Iīm telling you, you grumpy old fart, that once we check him out, we will find nothing at all that indicates anything else than the work of a good citizen.
He will have given us his real personal details.
He will have a story to tell that dovetails nicely with what all the rest of the involved parties say, not least PC Mizen, bless his soul.
He will have a time schedule to present that is spot on.
He will have done all he can to help out on the spot, propping the victim up and caring for her.
He will have been duly noted walking down the street by that other fellow who came just after him to the site.
And last, but not least, youīll find that his pathways are not in any way connected to the rest of these cursed murder cases that followed on the Nichols case. He will have been far away on the other side of town when they occurred, I feel certain of that! And so you can let go of your misgivings, Holmgren. People really are not that bad, least of all family men with impeccable working records!"

And what happens as the carman is checked out?

You see, Darryl, this and this only is the one way to check who of us is right, you or me. If I cannot use this evidence as very clear evidence pointing to guilt, then what can I use? It is the practical police approach to these kinds of things, and it points the carman out as a sizzling hot suspect who seemingly lied and feigned innocence instead of being an honest citizen.
Iīve done the work and found the evidence - how can that result in you giving him a clean bill?

You still have not answered that part, which is the only important one. The acts of what seems to be innocence at the murder site are totally unimportant in comparison. They are the question, the follow up check is the answer.

Why not comment on that?

[mpriestnall]

The evidence for innocence is that no evidence at all to support his candidature for JTR has been provided. Zilch, nada etc.

The Defence rests.

[Trevor Marriott]

The evidence for innocence is that no evidence all all to support his candidature for JTR has been provided. Zilch, nada etc.

The Defence rests.

Exactly, and while Fish continues to not recognise this because he cant bring himself to admit he has been wrong with his misguied theory, and that the evidnece he seeks tp rely on is flawed and has been proved to be flawed he will continue to have his head buried in the sand.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[mpriestnall]

It speaks volumes about Lechmere's candidature that it has not progressed, in terms of any meaningful evidence or support being provided, since it was first aired.

[Fisherman]

The evidence for innocence is that no evidence at all to support his candidature for JTR has been provided. Zilch, nada etc.

The Defence rests.

Precisely. And it was that very lack of evidence that made James Scobie conclude that there is a prima facie case against the carman, suggesting guilt.

[Fisherman]

Exactly, and while Fish continues to not recognise this because he cant bring himself to admit he has been wrong with his misguied theory, and that the evidnece he seeks tp rely on is flawed and has been proved to be flawed he will continue to have his head buried in the sand.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I dare say that from your vantage point, you are likely to be well aquainted with what is below the sand.

[mpriestnall]

Precisely. And it was that very lack of evidence that made James Scobie conclude that there is a prima facie case against the carman, suggesting guilt.

Until you provide any meaningful evidence to support your claim that Lechmere was JTR, any appeal to any authority, good, bad or indifferent is pointless.

[Fisherman]

Until you provide any meaningful evidence to support your claim that Lechmere was JTR, any appeal to any authority, good, bad or indifferent is pointless.

Yes, and when I actually DO provide meaningful evidence, it may perhaps be good enough for a barrister to say it comprises a prima facie case, suggesting the carman was the killer.

I have encountered hundreds of M Priestnalls along the way. They never deter me in the least. They are a whiff of summers gone by to me - hot air.

[mpriestnall]

Yes, and when I actually DO provide meaningful evidence, it may perhaps be good enough for a barrister to say it comprises a prima facie case, suggesting the carman was the killer.

I have encountered hundreds of M Priestnalls along the way. They never deter me in the least. They are a whiff of summers gone by to me - hot air.

What evidence would that be then?

[Fisherman]

What evidence would that be then?

If you are not aware of the evidence presented, how can you dismiss it?

Itīs the evidence used by a barrister to conclude that there is a prima facie case against Lechmere, of course.

If you havent seen the docu or read the book or even read up on the boards you are currently posting on, I find it slightly embarrasing on your behalf.

[Harry D]

If you are not aware of the evidence presented, how can you dismiss it?

Itīs the evidence used by a barrister to conclude that there is a prima facie case against Lechmere, of course.

If you havent seen the docu or read the book or even read up on the boards you are currently posting on, I find it slightly embarrasing on your behalf.

You should not hang your hat on the credibility of professionals too strongly.

If I remember rightly, Trevor Marriott found medical experts who concurred that the killer could not remove the victim's organs, but I take it you do not bow to their authority?

[mpriestnall]

If you are not aware of the evidence presented, how can you dismiss it?

Itīs the evidence used by a barrister to conclude that there is a prima facie case against Lechmere, of course.

If you havent seen the docu or read the book or even read up on the boards you are currently posting on, I find it slightly embarrasing on your behalf.

What evidence do you have to support Lechmere as JTR. It's a simple question.