Lechmere Continuation Thread

[Abby Normal]

Debra's certainly a great researcher. Maybe Debra and yourself should write a book together!

Hi johnG
I've been asking Debra for a while to write a book on the torsos and or ripper as the same man.

She says perhaps.

If she does I'll be the first to buy!

[Fisherman]

Any randomly selected twelve men and women.

Then I am pretty certain that you have the wrong end of the stick.
And even more certain that none of us will be able to prove our respective stances.
A moot discussion, thus.

[John G]

It is under consideration at times. On other occasions I am less enthusiastic about the prospect. I think the best thing that could happen would be if Debra Arif took on the task.

Debra's certainly a great researcher. Maybe Debra and yourself should write a book together!

[David Orsam]

Who´s in the jury...?

Any randomly selected twelve men and women.

[Fisherman]

Surely the winner of Ripperology's overstatement of the century.

Who´s in the jury...?

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

Although I disagree with you as to the weight of evidence against Cross and, as I'm sure you know, whether JtR was also the Torso perpetrator! I would be very interested in any book you might write on the subject, as you clearly have a wealth of knowledge on this subject. Is this something you've considered?

It is under consideration at times. On other occasions I am less enthusiastic about the prospect. I think the best thing that could happen would be if Debra Arif took on the task.

[David Orsam]

IThe case against Lechmere is n ot one where any of the points made against him will on it´s own bring him down. It is and remains the combined weight, the mounting up of coincidences, that points a finger at the man who in all probability killed Poly Nichols and the rest of the ripped 1888 victims.

Surely the winner of Ripperology's overstatement of the century.

[David Orsam]

It is quite apparent that posters arguing against me do not know the difference between evidence and information.They do not know the law.Fisherman has admitted it.They are accusing Cross on se veral accounts,none of which is supported by evidence.That he was a vicious serial killer,that he lied under oath. That he is suspect,but suspect of what? The best rebuttal to their claims of course,is not myself ,but the investigating officers of that time,several who are recorded as reporting there were no suspects,and no evidence pointing to the ripper murderer.If arrogance will allow them that.

Harry, I can only assume this post is not addressed at me in any way because you refer to people who are "accusing Cross".

If you do happen to have me in mind then it confirms what I have suspected all along that you haven't understood what I have been saying, that you are unable to grasp the distinction between suspicion and accusation and, further, that you have been railing the entire time against an argument I have never made.

[John G]

I think Scobie weighed in a large number of matters, like the name change, the pulled down clothing, how Paul did not say he had heard or seen Lechmere on his route, like the time Lechmere said he left home, like how he reused to help prop Nichols up etcetera.
That, I beleive, is why Scobie said the coincidences mounted up - there were very many of them.
He also specifically spoke of how he disliked the talk about coincidences that was prevalent in many cases; they will not be around in large numbers, was a point he pressed, although it did not make it into the doocumentary. I have seen the snippet, though, and I thoroughly agree. The case against Lechmere is n ot one where any of the points made against him will on it´s own bring him down. It is and remains the combined weight, the mounting up of coincidences, that points a finger at the man who in all probability killed Poly Nichols and the rest of the ripped 1888 victims.
To my mind, there can be no trustworthy doubt that the Ripper was also the Torso killer, and therefore Lechmere must be the prime suspect for that series too, at least in my book.

Hi Fisherman,

Although I disagree with you as to the weight of evidence against Cross and, as I'm sure you know, whether JtR was also the Torso perpetrator! I would be very interested in any book you might write on the subject, as you clearly have a wealth of knowledge on this subject. Is this something you've considered?

[Fisherman]

Hi, Fisherman and harry.
The full quote as given by Scobie is, I believe:
'He is somebody who seems to be acting in a way that is suspicious, which a jury would not like. When the coincidences mount up against a defendant, it becomes one coincidence too many.'.

The context appears clear from his statement; he very much seems to be referring to the notion that a prosecutor could well construct a broader case against Lechmere/Cross, in a courtroom. Such a presentation would consider not just his closeness to the first murder but also his likely movements within the areas and at the times the other murders occurred.

Yours, Caligo

I think Scobie weighed in a large number of matters, like the name change, the pulled down clothing, how Paul did not say he had heard or seen Lechmere on his route, like the time Lechmere said he left home, like how he reused to help prop Nichols up etcetera.
That, I beleive, is why Scobie said the coincidences mounted up - there were very many of them.
He also specifically spoke of how he disliked the talk about coincidences that was prevalent in many cases; they will not be around in large numbers, was a point he pressed, although it did not make it into the doocumentary. I have seen the snippet, though, and I thoroughly agree. The case against Lechmere is n ot one where any of the points made against him will on it´s own bring him down. It is and remains the combined weight, the mounting up of coincidences, that points a finger at the man who in all probability killed Poly Nichols and the rest of the ripped 1888 victims.
To my mind, there can be no trustworthy doubt that the Ripper was also the Torso killer, and therefore Lechmere must be the prime suspect for that series too, at least in my book.

[John G]

Hi, Fisherman and harry.
The full quote as given by Scobie is, I believe:
'He is somebody who seems to be acting in a way that is suspicious, which a jury would not like. When the coincidences mount up against a defendant, it becomes one coincidence too many.'.

The context appears clear from his statement; he very much seems to be referring to the notion that a prosecutor could well construct a broader case against Lechmere/Cross, in a courtroom. Such a presentation would consider not just his closeness to the first murder but also his likely movements within the areas and at the times the other murders occurred.



Yours, Caligo

Yes, I would tend to agree with this. It seems to mean, as I've argued that Mizen's evidence raises a suspicion against Cross. And I certainly don't accept that the default position should be to believe Cross, particularly as PC Mizen had an impeccable record. Nor do I accept the somewhat strange argument of one poster: that PC Mizen might not have had an impeccable record, i.e. on the basis of some, hitherto, undisclosed information. I mean, on that basis you could simply argue that Cross is probably guilty, on the grounds that there might be some other as yet undiscovered evidence against him.

Nonetheless, PC Mizen may have lied, or Cross could have had an innocent reason for lying. What is frustrating is that the normally robust coroner, Wynne Baxter, clearly no shrinking violet, doesn't appear to have challenged the evidence of either witness: he acted very differently in the Austin case, where a number of witnesses appeared to have lied, in what was probably a major cover up.

Moreover, as your post implies, I do think more evidence would be required to warrant committing Cross to trial, such as a connection to the subsequent "Whitechapel" murders, let alone to determine him to be guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

However, the reality could have been conceivable different. In the Wallace Murder case there were many reasonable grounds for suspicion against the defendant, William Wallace, and also against another suspect, Gordon Parry, who may well have given John Parkes what amounts to a confession.

Parry, however, had a number of seemingly unbreakable alibis. Wallace was committed to trial, and subsequently found guilty. Perhaps not surprisingly the conviction was quashed on appeal, on the grounds that no reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty based upon the available evidence- a surely correct decision when you consider that, based upon the testimony of witnesses, it would have been a physical impossibility for him to have committed the crime within the likely available time frame.

[John G]

Damaso Marte,
What rules then would you choose we use,or should it be open slather?
It was a case of murder,surely we should use the laws that apply to murder.
In my last post it is clear I used the comments of officers of the period,not laws or rules.

Fisherman,
"he is someone who seems to be acting in a way,behaving in a way,that is suspicious". Where is the evidence or proof in that sentence ,that he cut a woman's throat and mutila ted her body.. "Seems to be".Not very convincing.What sort of behaviour,and w hy suspicious?Not very descriptive.
So we've looked at what he(Scobie)said.Does it amount to enough to convince a magistrate that a prima facia case of murder exists.
When I stop laughing,i'll tell you.

But if your suggesting that we shouldn't even discuss a suspect unless there was evidence beyond all reasonable doubt that he committed an offence, then all suspect threads would have to be closed down.

In fact, in a criminal case the evidential burden on the prosecution isn't even that onerous and, if it were, there would be little point in proceeding to trial as guilt would already have been proven:

"The evidential burden of proof is the burden of proving that there is some evidence of a fact in issue. By 'some evidence of a fact in issue' we mean evidence on which the jury would be entitled to resolve that fact in issue in favour of the party adducing that evidence...at the end of the prosecution's case the accused may make a submission of no case to answer. Such a submission essentially entails arguing that, in respect of one or more facts in issue, the prosecution has failed to adduce some evidence, on which the jury would be entitled to resolve that fact in issue in favour of the prosecution." (Charleton J, in DPP v Kieran Smyth (Snr) and Kieran Smyth (Jnr). See: http://www.cram.com/flashcards/evide...-cases-2156610

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi, Fisherman and harry.
The full quote as given by Scobie is, I believe:
'He is somebody who seems to be acting in a way that is suspicious, which a jury would not like. When the coincidences mount up against a defendant, it becomes one coincidence too many.'.

The context appears clear from his statement; he very much seems to be referring to the notion that a prosecutor could well construct a broader case against Lechmere/Cross, in a courtroom. Such a presentation would consider not just his closeness to the first murder but also his likely movements within the areas and at the times the other murders occurred.



Yours, Caligo

[Fisherman]

Here´s a little something for you to laugh about, Harry. It´s the definition of suspect taken from The Free Dictionary:

sus·pect (sə-spĕkt′)
v. sus·pect·ed, sus·pect·ing, sus·pects
v.tr.
1. To consider (something) to be true or probable on little or no evidence: I suspect they are very disappointed.
2. To have doubts about (something); distrust: I suspect his motives.
3. To consider (a person) guilty without proof: The police suspect her of murder.

The underlinings are mine. Laugh away, Harry; laugh away!

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
"he is someone who seems to be acting in a way,behaving in a way,that is suspicious". Where is the evidence or proof in that sentence ,that he cut a woman's throat and mutila ted her body.. "Seems to be".Not very convincing.What sort of behaviour,and w hy suspicious?Not very descriptive.
So we've looked at what he(Scobie)said.Does it amount to enough to convince a magistrate that a prima facia case of murder exists.
When I stop laughing,i'll tell you.

Harry.

I do not know how many more times I have the patience to say this to you. I would be eternally grateful if you caught on this time, and we´d be done with it.

Scobie said that Lechmere seemed to be acting in a way that was suspicious. That is the whole idea of the term "suspicious" - it is all about what SEEMS to be. When you feel that somebody acts in a suspicious way, you hold the opinion that what this man or woam does SEEMS to be strange/odd/deviating in a manner that evokes suspicion.

You may for example find it suspicious if a man fumbles with a gun outside a bank, wearing a balaclava. In such a case, you may SUSPECT that he is about to rob the bank.

That is the whole meaning of a suspicion - it is a feeling we have that somebody is up to (or have been up to) no good.

Does that suspicion have to involve proof that the man outside the bank will rob it - or have robbed it? No, it does not. If we had proof that the man was about to rob the bank or had already done so, then we would no longer entertain suspicion against him. We would, instead of suspecting him to be a bankrobber, actually KNOW that he was.

It is not a very subtle difference we are talking about here, as you hopefully grasp by now. It is like comparing an elephant to a matchbox, a prayer to an oceanliner or an ignorant man to an enlightened one.

Laugh away, Harry, all you can. It will make you look very silly, but maybe you think silly is good. By now, I really cannot tell.