Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Fisherman]

I guess that's where we are coming at it from different perspectives, and please understand have a great deal of respect for you and Fisherman and the work you are doing on Cross, however I believe that the onus is to prove guilt not to prove innocence but that is probably because am an ardent supporter of Innocent until proven guilty.

If Lechmere goes down, he goes down on circumstantial evidence, not on conclusive proof.
It would not be the first time that a guilty verdict was reached on circumstantial evidence only. Far from it.

The mere fact that we are discussing the possibility of him being taken to task on the existing evidence should tell the story when it comes to how viable he is as a suspect.

All the best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

If Lechmere goes down, he goes down on circumstantial evidence, not on conclusive proof.
It would not be the first time that a guilty verdict was reached on circumstantial evidence only. Far from it.

The mere fact that we are discussing the possibility of him being taken to task on the existing evidence should tell the story when it comes to how viable he is as a suspect.

All the best,
Fisherman

G'day Fisherman

Yes possibly more convictions on circumstantial evidence that direct evidence prior to the developments in forensics no arguments about that.

But the fact that we are discussing it tells us nothing about his viability as a suspect, somewhere else on these boards someone was discussing Van Gogh that doesn't make him a viable suspect does it?

[Lechmere]

GUT
If we are discussing his viability as a suspect, then how can you deny that he is a viable suspect when you admit there are guilty interpretations to his actions?
When determining viability as a suspect a much lower threshold of evidence or presumption is surely required compared to that necessary to initiate proceedings in court.

To destroy his viability as a suspect (and eliminate him as a suspect) some proof of innocence would be needed I would suggest. Or if not absolute proof of innocence, then something that very strongly suggests proof of innocence at this remove.
Such as that he was elsewhere on a given night, that he had an alibi that was known at the time, or that he was cleared at the time or investigated at the time and effectively 'let go', or some other circumstance that makes the relevant person wholly improbable.

Absolute proof of innocence would not of course be required to find him not guilty in a trial, because as you say people in such circumstances are innocent until found guilty and so proof of guilt is required, rather than proof of innocence (and the guilt can be based purely on circumstantial evidence).

[GUT]

GUT
If we are discussing his viability as a suspect, then how can you deny that he is a viable suspect when you admit there are guilty interpretations to his actions?
When determining viability as a suspect a much lower threshold of evidence or presumption is surely required compared to that necessary to initiate proceedings in court.

To destroy his viability as a suspect (and eliminate him as a suspect) some proof of innocence would be needed I would suggest. Or if not absolute proof of innocence, then something that very strongly suggests proof of innocence at this remove.
Such as that he was elsewhere on a given night, that he had an alibi that was known at the time, or that he was cleared at the time or investigated at the time and effectively 'let go', or some other circumstance that makes the relevant person wholly improbable.

Absolute proof of innocence would not of course be required to find him not guilty in a trial, because as you say people in such circumstances are innocent until found guilty and so proof of guilt is required, rather than proof of innocence (and the guilt can be based purely on circumstantial evidence).

G'day Lechmere

I think my words were that there is a glimmer of a possibility of a guilty interpretation. However see an innocent explanation as being consistent with all of the proven issues, as opposed to the speculative issues.

[Fisherman]

G'day Fisherman

Yes possibly more convictions on circumstantial evidence that direct evidence prior to the developments in forensics no arguments about that.

But the fact that we are discussing it tells us nothing about his viability as a suspect, somewhere else on these boards someone was discussing Van Gogh that doesn't make him a viable suspect does it?

No, it does not. But that was not the point I am making.

Nobody in his right mind would even dream to suggest that a court case could be presented against van Gogh.

But it is clear that such a suggestion can be made visavi Lechmere.

He has the other suspects beaten by miles in this respect.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

'an innocent explanation as being consistent with all of the proven issues, as opposed to the speculative issues'.

And the innocent explanations are not based on speculation? Really?
Proven issues? Like what exactly?
At least I can admit that the guilty explanations are based on conjecture and speculation.

[GUT]

The proven issues that spring to mind are the route to work and the name.

And yes the innocent explanations are also to a large part based on speculation because that is all we really have, [and I know that the same applies to his guilt] but I keep going back to the fact that the prosecution has to prove the case and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and so far it's just not there.

But again it may all be that we want different levels of persuasion.

[Fisherman]

The proven issues that spring to mind are the route to work and the name.

And yes the innocent explanations are also to a large part based on speculation because that is all we really have, [and I know that the same applies to his guilt] but I keep going back to the fact that the prosecution has to prove the case and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and so far it's just not there.

But again it may all be that we want different levels of persuasion.

That is VERY apparent, GUT!

Ifwe do not speak about the courts, but instead of the police: Do you think that they would have taken an interest in Lechmere if they had known what we know about the false name, his timings, his routes, the Mizen scam, the lack of hearing each other in Bucks Row - and Bath Street, the lighting conditions in Bath Street, the covered up body, the situation of his motherīs place, his old connections to St Georges-in-the-East ...?

I have always said that they would immediately identify him as the number one suspect and be all over him like a rash if they had known all these factors (obviously some of them were apparent, but they seem not to have investigated them further).

What policeman worth his salt could say "Nah, letīs leave him alone" with that kind of knowledge?

All the best,
Fisherman

[drstrange169]

Hello Fisherman,

>... the two will have walked ... thirty, forty feet inbetween them for around 200 yards, without hearing or seeing each other.
Remarkable, that!<<

About as remarkable as snow in Sweden, I'm afraid.

Like every other Lechmere theory, the facts don't quite resemble the conspiracy.

This line of sight, from all the different Foster Street angles, clearly shows how the two could miss each other over a very short distance.

Even then, you're pre-supposeing Paul was specifically looking for Crossmere, which of course he wasn't. Like most of us going to work, our mind is away from the daily trudge, absorbed in our own thoughts. In Paul's case he was probably thinking about being late.

[drstrange169]

Hello Lechmere,

>Dr Strange seems to be suggesting that Lechmere bog hopped his way from urinal to urinal all the way from Doveton Street to Bucks Row <<

I've drunk the warm watery British beer. Urinal hopping sounds really realistic to me :-)

[MrBarnett]

And we have no idea of their relative speeds. If Paul was in more of a hurry, the distance between them when he left out could have been significantly narrowed by the time they met in Bucks Row.

Warm? Watery? Our beer ? That's fighting talk, DrStrange. Only 1 W (weak) away from an international incident!

MrB

[Fisherman]

Hello Fisherman,

>... the two will have walked ... thirty, forty feet inbetween them for around 200 yards, without hearing or seeing each other.
Remarkable, that!<<

About as remarkable as snow in Sweden, I'm afraid.

Like every other Lechmere theory, the facts don't quite resemble the conspiracy.

This line of sight, from all the different Foster Street angles, clearly shows how the two could miss each other over a very short distance.

Even then, you're pre-supposeing Paul was specifically looking for Crossmere, which of course he wasn't. Like most of us going to work, our mind is away from the daily trudge, absorbed in our own thoughts. In Paul's case he was probably thinking about being late.

It very rarely snows where I live here in Sweden, Dr Strange. And Paul would - no matter how we angle things (!) - have had a clear view of 55-60 yards as he turned the corner. They would both have had noisy, hard soles. And Lechmere would have walked under the brightly lit great lamps of the brewery.

Not to notice him would be virtually impossible. But maybe Paul had a bag over his head, plugs in his ears and was thinking deep thoughts of Nietsche, so who knows? All I am saying is that on balance, he should have both seen and heard Lechmere if he was there. But he says he saw noone until he suddenly saw this man, standing in the middle of the street.

Easy enough.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hello Lechmere,

>Dr Strange seems to be suggesting that Lechmere bog hopped his way from urinal to urinal all the way from Doveton Street to Bucks Row <<

I've drunk the warm watery British beer. Urinal hopping sounds really realistic to me :-)

It would. For explicable reasons.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

And we have no idea of their relative speeds. If Paul was in more of a hurry, the distance between them when he left out could have been significantly narrowed by the time they met in Bucks Row.

Warm? Watery? Our beer ? That's fighting talk, DrStrange. Only 1 W (weak) away from an international incident!

MrB

You donīt give away twenty yards if you are in a hurry yourself. Our best guess is that they both hurried along. Lechmere was VERY late for all we know, having fifteen minutes to cover a thirty plus minute trek. More so than Paul, in fact. If anything, we should perhaps predispose that Lechmere and Paul were only twenty yards apart in Bath Street.

But go ahead, help the guy out. He needs it badly by now.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Proven route to work and his name disprove the theory?
That's news to me.