Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Fisherman]

G'day again Fisherman


You actually have the onus reversed here, the onus in the common law world is on the prosecution. It is the indications of guilt that must overcome the presumption of innocence, other than in a couple of very limited circumstances, insanity being the most common, the defence does not have to prove a single solitary thing.

You DO see what you are saying, donīt you? That the indications of guilt must overcome "the presumption of innocence"?

There IS thus always a presumtion of innocence around in any circumstantial case.

I have a feeling that you are not fully understanding what we are discussing here. Nobody is claiming that innocent explanations will not be considered. What I am claiming is that it is wrong to say that when innocent explanations are offered, no conviction will be passed. It will be passed REGARDLESS of the innocent explanations if they are not deemed sufficient as a counterweight to the sinister implications.

As an aside, I think you may be working from the presumption that "innocent" must mean truly innocent. But it does not. If we know that the innocent explanations ARE really innocent explanations, then we have absolute proof. But if that was so, no circumstantial case could be brought from the outset.

In any circumstantial case, any point of accusation has two sides of the coin, one guilty and one innocent. And for both parameters, it applies that they are only suggestions, suggestions that may be right or wrong. It is the task of the court to decide which is the reasonable decision to make.

Just as you say, it takes more to prove guilt in a criminal case than in any other case. But that does not mean that convictions in criminal cases brought on circumstantial grounds are based on any knowledge that there were never any aternative innocent explanations available. On the contrary. It only tells us that they were not deemed sufficient in the eyes of the court.

By the way, I know that the onus of proof lies on the prosecution. I never went into that particular topic, so what you are talking about in this respect, I have no idea about.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

GUT: G'day Fisherman

Gee so the Chef Justice didn't know what he was talking about when he said and I repeat

"in a criminal case the circumstances must exclude any reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence."

On the contrary, GUT - he (or she) knew exactly what was said - that before we convict, we must be able rule out the existing implications of innocence on account of them not being significant enough to exconerate the suspect.
The main thing here to keep your eye on is that fact that these implications of possible ionnocence are still there. Thatīs why the have to be ruled out. If we rule them out, that does not mean they were non-existent from the outset.

And again that is your problem with Cross, there is a reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence.

Aha. Well, thatīs for anybody to decide for themselves. But you are moving the goalposts when you introduce the Lechmere case. What you and me were discussing was whether, generally speaking, there is always a suggestion of innocence when we deal with circumstantial evidence. I will quote what was said in the initial post:

I wrote:

Circumstantial evidence convicts people in courts of law, if there is enough of it.

... which is clearly a generalized statement and not one referring specifically to the Lechmere case.

You answered:

But not when each and every item of that circumstantial evidence has an innocent explanation.

Which is clearly an answer in the same vein of generalized statements.

If you were referring to the Lechmer case only, then you should have said so.

Gereally speaking, you were wrong - much as the innocent explanations must be deemed insufficient before you can convict in a circumstantial criminal case, they are neverthelss around. Otherwise it would not be a circumstantial case in the first place.

Now if you are conceding that you have suspicions, even strong suspicions if you like, but wouldn't get a conviction on what you have at the moment, I am happy to bow out.

As I said, we were NOT discussing anything else but the generalized cases of circumstantial evidence being presented, and it applies that every time a court of law rules that a suspect is guilty on circumstantial evidence only, there has always been innocent explanations to consider first.

I am perfectly happy to discuss the Lechmere case and itīs specific implications as such, but that is a discussion that is not of relevance to the issue at hand - the generalized discussion.

If you wish to discuss whether there is enough in the Lechmere case to justify A/ a trial and/or B/ a conviction, then I suggest you make a thread of itīs own. I will happily participate and make my view clear on the issue.

Just bear in mind that it is another discussion than the one initiated here.

The best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

G'day again Fisherman

I know full well that indications of innocence can have a suspect aquitted. But whether that suspect is let go or not is dependant on the quality of those indications. If there are reasonable indications of innocence, then the principle of our courts is that we should choose that indication over the sinister indications and let the suspect go.

However, if the indications of innocence are NOT strong enough to overcome the implications of guilt, then the suspect will be convicted, IN SPITE of there having been alternative innocent explanations around.

You actually have the onus reversed here, the onus in the common law world is on the prosecution. It is the indications of guilt that must overcome the presumption of innocence, other than in a couple of very limited circumstances, insanity being the most common, the defence does not have to prove a single solitary thing.

[GUT]

Incidentally, when you quote...

"in a criminal case the circumstances must exclude any reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence."

...you are also ad verbatim pointing to the fact that in criminal court cases based on circumstantial evidence, there ARE always hypothesises around consistent with innocence. What the judge and jury do is to evaluate how reasonable they are.

All the best,
Fisherman

G'day Fisherman

Gee so the Chef Justice didn't know what he was talking about when he said and I repeat

"in a criminal case the circumstances must exclude any reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence."

And again that is your problem with Cross, there is a reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence.

Now if you are conceding that you have suspicions, even strong suspicions if you like, but wouldn't get a conviction on what you have at the moment, I am happy to bow out.

[Fisherman]

Incidentally, when you quote...

"in a criminal case the circumstances must exclude any reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence."

...you are also ad verbatim pointing to the fact that in criminal court cases based on circumstantial evidence, there ARE always hypothesises around consistent with innocence. What the judge and jury do is to evaluate how reasonable they are.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

And that is what you cannot at this point in time do, exclude any reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence nor can you prove each element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ah! You are now specifically speaking of the case against Lechmere! Now THAT is another matter.

I am not speaking of any specific case - I am speaking of the priciple that circumstantial evidence is circumstantial because there is:
A/ No absolute proof, and thus
B/ ALWAYS an innocent alternative explanation around, of varying quality

The case against Lechmere must be weighed on itīs own merits. And we will differ wildly assessing that!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

G'day Fisherman


WRONG

A judge in a criminal trial must give the jury a direction that if there is an explanation that is consistent with innocence they MUST acquit.

Have you ever studied law? Have you ever ran a criminal trial? Do you have a degree in law? Have you ever read a Judge's bench book? Have you ever sat on the bench?

Yes , I have actually studied law, many years ago, before I changed careers and went into journalism instead.

But that does not belong to this issue. This is a given.

I know full well that indications of innocence can have a suspect aquitted. But whether that suspect is let go or not is dependant on the quality of those indications. If there are reasonable indications of innocence, then the principle of our courts is that we should choose that indication over the sinister indications and let the suspect go.

However, if the indications of innocence are NOT strong enough to overcome the implications of guilt, then the suspect will be convicted, IN SPITE of there having been alternative innocent explanations around.

These innocent explanations will to a smaller or lesser degree introduce doubt as to whether the suspect is guilty. To convict the suspect in spite of them is to accept that there is not reasonable doubt around to set him free. That is why the term "beyond reasonable doubt" is used.

Circumstantial evidence ALWAYS has alternative innocent explanations to it. Always. Otherwise the evidence would have been classed as absolute proof.

The whole concept of circumstantial evidence is based on the lack of absolute proof. Conversely, a lack of absolute proof is always something that is based on the existence of innocent, alternative explanations.

If you donīt believe me, GUT, then you shall have to point to a single case in the history of law where a person convicted on circumstantial evidence could not point to an alternative, innocent explanation.

Can you do that?

All the best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

n case there is any doubt let me quote from a case on point:

When the evidence is circumstantial the jury, whether in a civil or criminal care are required to draw an inference from the circumstances of the case; in a civil case the circumstances must raise a more probable inference n favour of what is alleged, and in a criminal case the circumstances must exclude any reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence.

Or how about

Every fact necessary to be proved to sustain proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every element of the offence charged must itself be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

And that is what you cannot at this point in time do, exclude any reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence nor can you prove each element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

[GUT]

Totally wrong, Iīm afraid.

If no proof can be provided, then it is up to judge and jury to decide whether the sinister or the innocent implications should be given more weight.

When we speak of circumstantial evidence, we speak of matters where absolute proof is beyond our reach. It therefore applies that in each and every case of convictions made on circumstantial evidence, there has always - no exceptions - been alternative, innocent explanations:

I slipped and thatīs when the gun went off.

I lost my grip on that bowling ball, otherwise I would not have dropped it in the head of the deceased.

I actually thought it was sugar. How was I to know that it was poison?

This is what a case built on circumstantial evidence is about - a weighing between the guilty and the innocent explanations. If there had been proof, there would not have been any innocent explanations possible.

So yes, people who are convicted on circumstantial evidence are always convicted IN SPITE OF the existence of alternative, innocent explanations.

All the best,
Fisherman

G'day Fisherman


WRONG

A judge in a criminal trial must give the jury a direction that if there is an explanation that is consistent with innocence they MUST acquit.

Have you ever studied law? Have you ever ran a criminal trial? Do you have a degree in law? Have you ever read a Judge's bench book? Have you ever sat on the bench?

[Fisherman]

But not when each and every item of that circumstantial evidence has an innocent explanation.

Totally wrong, Iīm afraid.

If no absolute proof can be provided, then it is up to judge and jury to decide whether the sinister or the innocent implications should be given more weight.

When we speak of circumstantial evidence, we speak of matters where absolute proof is beyond our reach. It therefore applies that in each and every case of convictions made on circumstantial evidence, there has always - no exceptions - been alternative, innocent explanations to each and every item:

I slipped and thatīs when the gun went off.

I lost my grip on that bowling ball, otherwise I would not have dropped it on the head of the deceased.

I actually thought it was sugar. How was I to know it was poison?

This is what a case built on circumstantial evidence is about - a weighing between the guilty and the innocent explanations. If there had been proof, there would not have been any innocent explanations possible.

So yes, people who are convicted on circumstantial evidence are always convicted IN SPITE OF the existence of alternative, innocent explanations. The very thing that there IS an alternative, innocent explanation around is what makes the case circumstantial in the first place.

All the best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

Everything guilty allegation so far has a perfectly understandable innocent reasoning on its flipside

Yes, that is absolutely true. And Edward and me have never said anything else - there has always been an innocent explanation to each individual allegation. We have pointed that out ourselves, numerous times.

...

Circumstantial evidence convicts people in courts of law, if there is enough of it.

But not when each and every item of that circumstantial evidence has an innocent explanation.

[Fisherman]

moonbegger:

Everything guilty allegation so far has a perfectly understandable innocent reasoning on its flipside

Yes, that is absolutely true. And Edward and me have never said anything else - there has always been an innocent explanation to each individual allegation. We have pointed that out ourselves, numerous times.

What we have also said, though, is that the sheer amount of allegations based on anomalies, is enough to convince rationally reasoning people that Charles Lechmere is the top contender for the Ripper title.
You donīt have this kind of controversy surrounding any other suspect, and thatīs because none of them have one tenth of practically based, cirumstantial evidence pointing in their respective ways.

Circumstantial evidence convicts people in courts of law, if there is enough of it.

...if you can produce some irrefutable solid evidence ... I would love to hold my hands up and sing the praises of team Lechmere !

Iīll be specifically listening for your voice in the choir when that happens, Moonbegger. But I am not sure exactly how the kind of evidence would look that truly talented naysayers like your own good self could not refute if you truly put your mind to it.

All the best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Fish ,

Trust me. There is more to come on Lechmere. All the evidence and all the implications are not on the table yet.

I , and i suppose most on here would like nothing more than yourself and Edward to nail down some undeniable irrefutable evidence against Mr Lechmere .

Everything guilty allegation so far has a perfectly understandable innocent reasoning on its flipside .. Even when make your little lists of each individual allegation , most of the stuffing included has no base in fact .. for example , your well trotted out line ..

He couldnīt leave home that day in his Sunday best, because that would give him away. So he didnīt

.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest he knew in advance of he's imminent court appearance .. in fact as I have pointed out on many an occasion , the fact that he was in work attire suggests that's exactly where he thought he was going to be that day ..

So basically , if you can produce some irrefutable solid evidence that does not consist of flimsy coincidence or conjecture , I would love to hold my hands up and sing the praises of team Lechmere ! Lets be aving ya

cheers , moonbegger

[Fisherman]

DRoy:

All you've been able to do is guess at why he called himself Cross. Quickly decides to lie? That is an assumption on your part. I'm saying he called himself Cross because that is what he goes by.

And none of us can prove our respective points, right? So we have to look at the collected evidence. Do we know of any other instances where we have his name on record?

I'm paying attention Fish, we don't know what other people called him. That is established. I sent the example of Hyams which shows an innocent reason on why someone in the hood would call someone other than their legal name.

Innocent? Well, if you accept what his brother said, then perhaps. But it deserves pointing out that Solomon Hyams seemingly belonged to a gang of thieves, amongst whom MANY called themselves Mitchell, presumably to hide who they really were.
We may need to be a bit less allowing and a bit more cynical here, thatīs all Iīm saying.

But it is important to establish that we have no knowledge of what other people called the carman. So far, what you have been pushing is the rather odd view that we have established that he was known as Cross. Once we realize that the only person that seemingly knew him as Cross was Cross himself, that "evidence" kind of dissolves, does it not?

You forgot about the innocent people that use different names and are called different names like brother Hyams. Once again you are going under the presumption he is guilty hence the name change but innocent people did it too.

No, DRoy, I did not forget about them - I pointed out that with your reasoning, there would BE no bad guys - you would allow them the right to aliases, regardless of why the used them.
I am perfectly aware that there are people in this era that used aliases - but they were very, very few once we rule out the criminal classes! Dig really deep in your books and see how many you can come up with.

... and once again, the Hyams/Mitchell matter seems anything but innocent to me. It has a fishy smell to it. Have you actually read the WHOLE story...?

Your reasoning which is specualtion based on presumed guilt otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Yes, thatīs better and more close to the truth. I do speculate that he was the killer, but then again I do have a good many pointers to bolster that speculation. If you had counted them and seen the implications, then that would have equally been a good reason not to have this discussion!

Excuse me? How is that very very wrong? Two police officers and the victim knew him as Mitchell, a name he never ever owned. If you can't grasp the very simple reason for me posting it, or if you do get it but choose to ignore it then just say so.

It went awry when you stated that EVERYBODY knew Solomon Hyams and his brother as Mitchell. That clearly was not the case. I therefore think that you misrepresented the whole thing. Itīs all very simple.

It's okay Fish, I'm done with Lech threads. I've been foolish staying while most others have left never to return. I do however hope to see you in other threads, you always give true thought and sound reasoning in those ones.

Which maybe should lead you to the conclusion that I just may have that exact capacity in this matter too?
But we all have to make our own decisions, and you are free to make yours. Thank you for the kind words, by the way, DRoy - I am of the exact same opinion about you: apart from one crucial topic, you have a good grip.

Trust me. There is more to come on Lechmere. All the evidence and all the implications are not on the table yet.

All the best!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Maybe almost as bonkers as waiting on Paul to make it up the Row and encouraging him to examine his fresh mutilation

moonbegger .

Yeah. Or as bonkers as running and waking up the whole neigborhood, even.

Havenīt you realized yet that if Lechmere was the killer, then he ever so smoothly stole away from what he had done and stayed undetected and unsuspected? Hasnīt that penny dropped?

The best,
Fisherman