Charles Lechmere interesting link

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[GUT]

G'day Fisherman

at post 662 you said

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.

That is where the onus comes in you are wrong t is the other way around the evidence, circumstantial or otherwise must as a question of law overcome the presumption of innocence.

Maybe it is a language thing that has lead to our difference on this issue.

and at #657 you said

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.

Again it may be language but if there is an innocent explanation for for each individual explanation.
then you have not excluded a reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=GUT;304693]G'day Fisherman

That is where the onus comes in you are wrong t is the other way around the evidence, circumstantial or otherwise must as a question of law overcome the presumption of innocence.

I was not alluding in any shape or form to where the onus of proof lies. We both, you and me alike, know that it is normally the prosecution that must prove their case, having initiated the trial in the first place.

It nevertheless applies that once the weighing is carried out - regardless of where the onus of proof lies - if the indications of innocence are outweighed by the implications of guilt, the suspect will loose the case.

Maybe it is a language thing that has lead to our difference on this issue.

Again it may be language but if there is an innocent explanation for for each individual explanation, then you have not excluded a reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

No,we have not excluded that Lechmere would be exonerated in a court of law. But once again, you and me were not discussing the Lechmere case! I know I wasnīt, at least - I simply said that there will be innocent alternative explanations around in every case brought on circumstantial grounds, generally speaking. And I added that although this is the case, people will nevertheless many times be convicted on circumstantial evidence only.

The question whether Lechmere could be brought to trial and perhaps convicted on the existing circumstantial evidence is another issue. Just as I said, I am happy to give my views on that issue, but it is a different discussion than the generalized discussion, and it should have a thread of itīs own if you wish to pursue it.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I would also once again stress the fact that we are now pondering the possibilitites to take a case against a suggested Ripper suspect to trial.

That should say something about the quality of the suspect as such.

How many other suspects could potentially be brought to trial on what we have on them ...?

Not a single one, I would propose.

The best,
Fisherman

[Patrick S]

I would also once again stress the fact that we are now pondering the possibilitites to take a case against a suggested Ripper suspect to trial.

That should say something about the quality of the suspect as such.

How many other suspects could potentially be brought to trial on what we have on them ...?

Not a single one, I would propose.

The best,
Fisherman

FOOLISHNESS! Utter DRIVEL! Absurdity built upon ABSURDITY!

I'm referring, of course to this entire Lechmere business, and also my complete inability to not comment on the nonsense that is posted on these boards (by Fisherman and "Lechmere")! Alas, the above, along with Fisherman's contention that he has a background in the law and feels that some reasonable case could be made in a court of law is completely out of bounds.

"we are now pondering the possibilitites to take a case against a suggested Ripper suspect to trial."

WE are not! YOU (and Ed) are. What IS happening is this: People on this thread are attemping to point out the folly of this Lechmere the Ripper business. Alas, it's falling on deaf, deluded ears.

What you have against Lechmere IN THE EYES OF THE LAW is NOTHING. For the sake of argument, let's - to use your phrase - view these circumstances with 'an eye on Lechmere being guilty (which is on it's face ridiculous from both a practical and (especially) a legal persepctive):

Lechmere gives a false name. Didn't make it up, but - according to you - very nearly. Why? Well....we don't know. Before we can even ponder further interest in Lechmere, much less seek an indictment, go to trial, seek a conviction, get a conviction, etc., well, we - as prosecutors - must endeavor to know WHY he gave a "false" name. We must then reject the all of the OTHER "whys" in favor of a judgement that he gave the name Cross because he VERY LIKELY killed Nichols.

Bear in mind, any fool can come up with any number of reasons why he may have called himself Cross other than being the killer, and YOU, Fisherman, cannot disprove ANY of them!

- You can't disprove the he was - in fact - commonly known, in his private and/or professional life as Cross.
- You cannot disprove that everyone just called him "Cross" and had since he was a boy. Thus, his name was leagally Lechmere, but everyone called him Cross.
- You can't prove that he didn't give the name to try his best to just not get involved and get to work.
- You can't prove that he had an IQ of 85 and often became confused and just blurted out CROSS.
- You can't prove that he once had a bad experience with the police and was attempting to not involve himself with them further.
- You can't prove that he became confused when rattled. Seeing a dead woman rattled him, or the thought of being late for work again (since you can't prove he was not chronically tardy, either) rattled him, or being near a copper rattled him...thus he said CROSS......
- You can't prove that the police didn't have all the information they needed on him being CROSS and not Lechmere, and - being completely satisifed - say, "Okay! That's good enough for me, Chuck!"
- You can't prove, either, that he said CROSS because he was, in fact, Jack the Ripper.

EVERYTHING you have is based on this one, small, likely insignificant bit of information. Everything else is built from this. The fact of the matter is, had he said, my name is Lechmere, there'd be nothing to see here. And, seeing as his plan, his interaction with Paul, the "Mizen Scam", all of it, was so MASTERFUL and worked perfectly to get him "off the hook" why would he not SEE INTO THE FUTURE (as he did in your scenario every step of the waY)...and just say, "I'm Lechmere!"?

Forgive me. But I cannot see how ANY reasonably intelligent person could be believe this theory? It has nothing to do with the unaccepting nature of Ripperolgoy, upsetting the applecart, or any of the other cute turns of phrase you've used to dismiss any common sense opposition to this Lechmere nonsense! It has do with reality! It has to do with simple reasoning! You and Ed repeat the same absurd trivia and supposition again and again, as if it will one day become fact. It won't.

Lastly, when I see the photo of Lechmere's decendents thinking their great grandad was Jack, it upsets me to no end. Ed should be ashamed of himself. It is wonderful fodder for interviews and dinner parties that you may never have been invited to otherwise, isn't it? "Here's a photo of my mom with great-grandpappy......JACK THE RIPPER!" It makes me physically ill. These people are no longer anonymous are they? It may lead to a reality TV stint or feature film. It's disgusting and I feel like taking a shower just being exposed to this filth.

[Patrick S]

I'm posting this (below) again because my dander is up (again). In your view, this man's ONE slip up was giving a "false" name (omitting for now the invented Mizen Scam). Had he given his LEGAL name (Lechmere) we'd have missed him, Jack the Ripper, still...after all these years. Yet, in all other interaction he was not only perfect in his ability to predict the outcome(s) of each and every action that he took, even though (if he were guilty) nearly every one of these actions was exactly contrary to what a man who SECONDS before Paul arrive had cut the throat and BUTCHERD Polly Nichols would have done. Consider:

1. Virtually caught in the act of murder, he doesn't run.
2. He doesn't attack Paul. He's armed, Paul isn't.
3. He approaches Paul and says, "Come see this woman (I just killed?)". He doesn't pull a ruse, "My wife is drunk again!", wait for Paul to pass, and disappear into the night. No. He invites a stranger to get involved! Paul didn't see what was going on and say, "Hey, you!" No. Crossmere approached him and said, "COME SEE!"
4. He declines to move the body (which would have given him a reason for having blood on her person, which - in the dark and having just killed Nichols - he had no way of knowing if had blood visible on his clothing or not.
5. He moves off with Paul in the same direction, in search of police. He doesn't say, "I go this way. I'll look for a copper on my way. See you later." No. He goes on a walk with Paul.
6. He finds Mizen and tells him, "I think she's dead." Not, "She's probably drunk." No. She's dead. And he killed her (?). He he tells a cop she's dead. He's the killer. Brilliant.
7. He's not asked for ID. He's asked his name. He gives a "fake" name, but one that can be reasonably argued that he's entitled to (although YOU and Ed want it both ways: He's entitlted to it, except he's not, because he's never used it in official documents). He gives his genuine home address. He gives his genuine place of work. AND a "fake" name (?). He doesn't give fake everything - which he could easily have done, and then simply disappear into the crowded abyss of the East End. No. He gives information that can lead the police DIRECTLY to him. Here's where I live. Here's where I work....you know...just in case you want to find me and talk to me and investigate me...at any time of the day or night...you'll know where to find me (the killer). He wants to remain undetected by his kin? How about remaining undetected by the POLICE?

[Sally]

Forgive me. But I cannot see how ANY reasonably intelligent person could be believe this theory? It has nothing to do with the unaccepting nature of Ripperolgoy, upsetting the applecart, or any of the other cute turns of phrase you've used to dismiss any common sense opposition to this Lechmere nonsense! It has do with reality! It has to do with simple reasoning! You and Ed repeat the same absurd trivia and supposition again and again, as if it will one day become fact. It won't.

Lovely.

But not to worry, don't despair: most reasonably intelligent frequenters of these boards, having already fallen asleep several times whilst reading the pro-Crossmere 'arguments'; have now departed in search of far more interesting pursuits - like squabbling over the fakery [or not] of photographs e.g.

I myself would rather watch paint dry than countenance this tired old nonsense further - which is what I shall return to right now.

It's a charming shade of magnolia - extra interesting [by comparison]

[Fisherman]

I myself would rather watch paint dry than countenance this tired old nonsense further - which is what I shall return to right now.

Is THAT where your true talent lies? Iīve often wondered when I have read your posts.

Good luck with it, and remember - you do NOT want to post on Lechmere any more since it bores you.

Donīt take your eye off that target now, Sally!

All the best,
Fisherman