Evidence of innocence

[drstrange169]

Given the reluctance of people like Bob to knowledge things, perhaps I shouldn't be so subtle,

On their summonses was printed in red letters across the subpoena:
N.B. - Bring this summons with you.
He was then summoned to give evidence at the inquest on two different days,

[MrBarnett]

>>... anything given in evidence in court or written in a newspaper is a ‘fact’. And when it comes out of the mouth of a copper it’s presumably doubly unchallengeable. <<

Wow, talk about wriggling and twisting what people have actually written!

Jeff explained what he meant by "fantasy" and yet people kept insisting he use their words simply because they didn't like the word "fantasy" even after Jeff explained he didn't meant in the sense they used the word.

I explained how I, specifically, used the word "fact" and in what context I used it in. And you now attempt to claim it's some catch all phrase.

It is a fact that anything written on this case exists and is evidence. And I repeat, Herlocks post was largely based on the evidence that factually exists, where as your follow up post was based largely on conjecture that has no factually existing evidence, e.g. police reports or newspaper articles.

This is tiresome. But then you told us earlier that you are never wrong, so I suppose you are desperate to maintain that illusion.

Mike’s post contained more conjecture presented as facts than mine did. I wonder if he’s happy that you’ve turned our exchange into a point scoring exercise.

[MrBarnett]

Why would I doubt it?

Go on, I’ll indulge you. What is it you seem to think Bob and I, and unspecified others, might doubt?

On their summonses was printed in red letters across the subpoena:
N.B. - Bring this summons with you. All fees and expenses are required by the Act of Vic., cap. 68. sec. 1, to be advanced and paid by the coroner immediately after the termination of the inquest to such witnesses as the coroner may think fit to allow.

[MrBarnett]

>> .. you might like to track down Jeff Hamm’s posts where he insisted that checking out Lechmere would have been standard procedure.<<

Are you referring to this comment?

"...we do know that police procedures of the day involve the verification of people's accounts for themselves (we see reference to this in the police files for other people brought to police attention), which, when appropriate, involved talking to the person's family (i.e. Pizer - his brother verified his whereabouts). We therefore have evidence that police procedures involved what has been suggested..."

Seems a reasonable enough comment. Particularly in Cross's case as Swanson claimed,

"... enquiries were made into the history and accounts given of themselves of persons, respecting whose character & surroundings suspicion was cast in statements made to police."

If a man turns up claiming that Neil wasn't the first person to discover the body and can't prove it because the other witness is in hiding, then when they go to the inquest another policeman disputes what that witness said and then a new murder is committed where that witness said he passed, isn't ground for "suspicion was cast in statements made to police" I don't know what is.

Are you unable to grasp what is being said here?


“... enquiries were made into the history and accounts given of themselves of persons, respecting whose character & surroundings suspicion was cast in statements made to police."

Who do you imagine made a statement to the police casting suspicion on Lechmere? That’s what it’s saying. Nothing to do with a witness turning up and providing evidence they had not previously been aware of.

[drstrange169]

>>This is tiresome. But then you told us earlier that you are never wrong, so I suppose you are desperate to maintain that illusion.<<

Love to see that post Gary!

Come on, seriously, is that what it's come to?

[drstrange169]

>>Who do you imagine made a statement to the police casting suspicion on Lechmere?<<

Neil, in the newspapers and Mizen at the inquest for starters.

[MrBarnett]

>>I doubt they did more than took his statement and kept him hanging around so that he lost a day’s work. <<

... and that is in which police record?

None that has survived as far as I know. Your point is?

[MrBarnett]

>>Who do you imagine made a statement to the police casting suspicion on Lechmere?<<

Neil, in the newspapers and Mizen at the inquest for starters.

So you’re using conjecture to conclude that the checking out of people suspected of the murder also applied to those where there was a minor discrepancy in a witnesses evidence?

[MrBarnett]

>>This is tiresome. But then you told us earlier that you are never wrong, so I suppose you are desperate to maintain that illusion.<<

Love to see that post Gary!

Come on, seriously, is that what it's come to?

To date, people have disagreed with me, as is their right, but none have proven anything I've written is wrong.

[MrBarnett]

To date, people have disagreed with me, as is their right, but none have proven anything I've written is wrong.

To be helpful, I’ve rewritten my comment.

This is tiresome. But then you told us earlier that you have never been proven to have written anything wrong, so I suppose you are desperate to maintain that reputation.

Do you still stand by that?

[drstrange169]

>>To date, people have disagreed with me, as is their right, but none have proven anything I've written is wrong.<<

So "to date" is cynically altered to "never wrong" .

"But then you told us earlier that you are never wrong"

So how do explain ignoring my later post,

"Yes, my mistake, I meant to repeat Mark's "The police would surely have..." instead I put "must have", my bad.
Apologies, please substitute the phrase "must have" for "would surely have" in that post."

Why do you describe those words as someone who claims they are never wrong?

I've great respect for virtually all your posts and research on other subjects. But when it comes to Lechmere, for some reason you reduce yourself to this kind of silly stuff.
So, I'll pass on these kind of posts from now on.

[MrBarnett]

>>To date, people have disagreed with me, as is their right, but none have proven anything I've written is wrong.<<

So "to date" is cynically altered to "never wrong" .

"But then you told us earlier that you are never wrong"

So how do explain ingnoring my later post,

"Yes, my mistake, I meant to repeat Mark's "The police would surely have..." instead I put "must have", my bad.
Apologies, please substitute the phrase "must have" for "would surely have" in that post."

Why do you describe those words as someone who claims they are never wrong?

I've great respect for virtually all your posts and research on other subjects. But when it comes to Lechmere, for some reason you reduce yourself to this kind of silly stuff.
So, I'll pass on these kind of posts from now on.

You’re really nitpicking here, Dusty. You boasted that you’d never been proven wrong. I worded it as your never having been wrong. The difference is negligible.

You chose for some reason to inaccurately portray my response to Mike’s summary as vastly more conjectural than his. That was wrong (so that’s at least twice in your life). And I’ve no idea why you felt the need to intervene. Perhaps it’s you who who resorts to ‘silly stuff’ when the subject is Lechmere.

Incidentally, you were very complimentary about my research into Lechmere’s family background, so I cant always go off the rails when I hear the L word. :-)

I’ll take my leave and let you guys slug it out.

[Abby Normal]

duplicate

[Abby Normal]

Yes and no. The classical Autumn of Terror and C5+1 are easy to do, given certain assumptions (e.g. he kept working out of Broad Street right through to the Kelly murder); and I've done it...



For the others, the problem is that the triangle may have changed through time, and we won't know how. Thanks to Edward Stow, we have a roughly dated succession of addresses for Lechmere and his mother; but the further we move from the date of the Nichols killing the less we can be confident that he was working out of Broad Street rather than from one of the two other Pickfords bases in the area or some other location entirely. The data we need may be findable, some of it; but only if more people start looking...

Let me have a go at a few, and we'll see how they look...

M.

thats pretty good

[MrBarnett]

thats pretty good

Is it my imagination, or do his suggested work routes form a sort of FISH shape?