Lechmere Continuation Thread

[Fisherman]

Louis was surprisingly young, in his mid-twenties.


Holy crap, you two type fast.

Yes, and one of us do so on a factual basis.

[Fisherman]

Yes that was my mistake

Typing too fast?

I can think of a few other mistakes on your behalf...

[Fisherman]

Where's the evidence that Lechmere's work route "dovetailed" with all of the murder sites?

All over the boards.

To be fair, what I say is that there is logical reason to suggest that Lechmere could have been at all of the murder sites at the relevant hours.

Others, like Bury (just to offer one small example), are completely baseless in this respect.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: It doesn't however make him the prime suspect you keep thinking he is

Have you noticed how there IS no definitive prime suspect? How people have their OWN prime suspects?
Lechmere is the only candidate who has an abundance of caserelated evidence pointing his way. That´s why I favour him over, say, Feigenbaum.

It negates your theory that there may have been some suspicion against him from some source that was never acted upon, but you cant identify the source can you? and in the absence of anything from 1888 or thereafter we rightly have to assume there was no suspicion.

Are you completely bonkers? I don´t think and I have never thought that he was suspected back in 1888. So it will be hard to negate...

So what hard evidence do you have as we speak that wasn't available to the police in 1888, which had it have been would have made him a suspect.?

By hard evidence I dont mean your experts opinions, or the blood flow issue, both you seem to heavily rely on in your contemporary theory.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"The evidence never lies, but it doesn't always tell the truth"

[Fisherman]

So what hard evidence do you have as we speak that wasn't available to the police in 1888, which had it have been would have made him a suspect.?

By hard evidence I dont mean your experts opinions, or the blood flow issue, both you seem to heavily rely on in your contemporary theory.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"The evidence never lies, but it doesn't always tell the truth"

Then what DO you mean by hard evidence, Trevor? A knife with prints and blood on it?

By the way, where did I say that I do have "hard evidence" (is that a euphemism for proof?) that would have made him a suspect?

It was hard enough for Scobie, please keep that in mind.

[Fisherman]

Harry D!

Here´s a little homework for you. Look up Robert Black, a convicted child molestor and -killer who did in prison this year.

Find out how the investigation proceeded, how Black came to become a focal point for the investigation, how the police entertained grave suspicions against him, and why and how he could finally be convicted.

I makes for an interesting parallel to the Lechmere case in many a respect.

Enjoy.

[Trevor Marriott]

Harry D!

Here´s a little homework for you. Look up Robert Black, a convicted child molestor and -killer who did in prison this year.

Find out how the investigation proceeded, how Black came to become a focal point for the investigation, how the police entertained grave suspicions against him, and why and how he could finally be convicted.

I makes for an interesting parallel to the Lechmere case in many a respect.

Enjoy.

No two cases are the same !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Robert Black was a van driver who travelled the UK in a Van, thus giving him the opportunity to seize and abduct any young child that he encountered who were on their own.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

No two cases are the same !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Robert Black was a van driver who travelled the UK in a Van, thus giving him the opportunity to seize and abduct any young child that he encountered who were on their own.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I cannot for the life of me remember when I said that two cases are the same, Trevor.

Apart from that smallish interlude, what I am pointing to in the Black case lies in the circumstantial evidence that was deemed "hard" enough to convict him, against his denial.

No conclusive evidence was ever found, tying Black to the abductions and murders, but the police felt they were sure they had their man anyhow (something for Harry to ponder). What it took to get Black convicted was a number of petrol receipts, confirming that he had been in the neighbourhood when the three or four girls that were abducted disappeared.

Of course, anybody ELSE could have been the killer, and a lot of OTHER people were living close to the abduction sites. But it was neverthless quite, quite enough for the judge and jury to make a call on circumstantial evidence and send Black down for life.

That is the importance of the geography issue. It serves as a litmus paper when there is suspicion against anybody. If it can be confirmed that such a suspected individual has been close to (not necessarily at) the murder spots at the relevant hours, then the corroboration looked for will be at hand.

In Lechmere´s case, we cannot say that we know that he was close to the murder sites at the relevant hours - but for one such spot, where we know that he was found alone with a freshly killed victim. But we CAN establish that it would be completely logical if he was at the other spots too, and that he had reason to pass these spots.

There we go.

[Trevor Marriott]

I cannot for the life of me remember when I said that two cases are the same, Trevor.

Apart from that smallish interlude, what I am pointing to in the Black case lies in the circumstantial evidence that was deemed "hard" enough to convict him, against his denial.

No conclusive evidence was ever found, tying Black to the abductions and murders, but the police felt they were sure they had their man anyhow (something for Harry to ponder). What it took to get Black convicted was a number of petrol receipts, confirming that he had been in the neighbourhood when the three or four girls that were abducted disappeared.

Of course, anybody ELSE could have been the killer, and a lot of OTHER people were living close to the abduction sites. But it was neverthless quite, quite enough for the judge and jury to make a call on circumstantial evidence and send Black down for life.

That is the importance of the geography issue. It serves as a litmus paper when there is suspicion against anybody. If it can be confirmed that such a suspected individual has been close to (not necessarily at) the murder spots at the relevant hours, then the corroboration looked for will be at hand.

In Lechmere´s case, we cannot say that we know that he was close to the murder sites at the relevant hours. But we CAN establish that it would be completely logical if he was, and that he had reason to pass these spots.

There we go.

But of course he was arrested after having been seen at a location away from his home address to abduct a young girl and was found soon afterwards with the girl still alive in the back of his van. So the evidence was fairly strong to support the evidence of the petrol receipts and to show the court a course of conduct on his part !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

But of course he was arrested after having been seen at a location away from his home address to abduct a young girl and was found soon afterwards with the girl still alive in the back of his van. So the evidence was fairly strong to support the evidence of the petrol receipts and to show the court a course of conduct on his part !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, there was a very damning background, and Black freely spoke of having molested many young girls.
But he fervently denied having murdered anybody at all, and it is the duty of the law to protect anybody against lofty accusations. It matters not if you have a former record in the business when it comes to judging cases where there is no proof to convict. And there was not in the Black case.

So the gist of the matter is that the geographical ties formed by the petrol receipts were what got him convicted. Without them, he would have walked. And legally correct it would have been too.

It is a forceful reminder of the inportance of geographical ties, no matter if they exist in a large metropolis. And it forms a useful lesson for those who say that many men will have walked the Whitechapel Streets back in 1888. That is true - but just the one of them was found with a freshly killed victim, and just the one of them disagreed with the police over what had been said on the murder night.

That puts him under suspicion, and once we have somebody under suspicion, we go looking for geographical corroboration. If we find it, we have most likely found our killer. It is that simple.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, there was a very damning background, and Black freely spoke of having molested many young girls.
But he fervently denied having murdered anybody at all, and it is the duty of the law to protect anybody against lofty accusations. It matters not if you have a former record in the business when it comes to judging cases where there is no proof to convict. And there was not in the Black case.

So the gist of the matter is that the geographical ties formed by the petrol receipts were what got him convicted. Without them, he would have walked. And legally correct it would have been too.

It is a forceful reminder of the inportance of geographical ties, no matter if they exist in a large metropolis. And it forms a useful lesson for those who say that many men will have walked the Whitechapel Streets back in 1888. That is true - but just the one of them was found with a freshly killed victim, and just the one of them disagreed with the police over what had been said on the murder night.

That puts him under suspicion, and once we have somebody under suspicion, we go looking for geographical corroboration. If we find it, we have most likely found our killer. It is that simple.

If only murder investigations were as simple as that. You have been watching to many murder programs where they solve them in 50 mins.

But if Cross didnt agree with the police evidence it was his right to say so was it not, and for someone else within the higher echelons of the police to question the officers to try to establish the truth. Those issues should not be held against Cross after all he may have been telling the truth!

Any geographical profiling goes out the window if the killer didnt live in an around Whitechapel but simply came into the area from outside to kill and then exited thereafter. So your odds are slashed by half. then out of the remaining half, you have the thousands of males all crammed into Whitechapel all perhaps likely to have been the killer.

Remember someone has to find the body. Would you still be pursing the same line if the body had been found by Fanny Arbuckle on her way to the factory. or one of the many homeless street urchins ?|

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"The evidence never lies, but it doesn't always tell the truth"

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: If only murder investigations were as simple as that. You have been watching to many murder programs where they solve them in 50 mins.

Mmmm - and I have spent thirty years plus looking into the Ripper case. For the record, I am not saying that they solve cases in fifty minutes. In the Black case, it was painstaking and time consuming enough, that´s for certain. But once they felt they had their man, it WAS easy enough to check his petrol bills. Black saved them to get money back from the company where he worked.
So you are wrong once more, Trevor.

But if Cross didnt agree with the police evidence it was his right to say so was it not, and for someone else within the higher echelons of the police to question the officers to try to establish the truth. Those issues should not be held against Cross after all he may have been telling the truth!

This is so poorly worded I cannot make heads or tails of it. But I do know that it has notbing to do with the geography issue, so I am predisposing that you are changing the goalposts.

Any geographical profiling goes out the window if the killer didnt live in an around Whitechapel but simply came into the area from outside to kill and then exited thereafter.

And it stays well inside the window in Lechmere´s case, since he lived in Doveton Street. And it him and his routes that are scrutinized here.

So your odds are slashed by half. then out of the remaining half, you have the thousands of males all crammed into Whitechapel all perhaps likely to have been the killer.

Yawn. How many of them were in Bucks Row at 3.45? How many of them were found with the freshly slain body of Nichols? How many of them disagreed with the police?
To quote Griffiths: Before Lechmere can be cleared, there is no need to look any further. Noone else in the district is under suspicion on factual, caserelated grounds. End of. Lechmere IS. End of.

Remember someone has to find the body. Would you still be pursing the same line if the body had been found by Fanny Arbuckle on her way to the factory. or one of the many homeless street urchins ?|

Yes, I would work with the exact same methodology. I would check the surrounding circumstances, I would check the geography, I would do all I could to look into the particulars. And I would try to stay unprejudiced.
I would of course be aware that women knife killers are very much rarer than men, and I would weigh that in. As for "street urchins", I find it a sad classification, and a very unspecific one. Drifters, hobos, vagrants like Toole and Lucas have been serial killers, as has men like Fish and Rolling.


So you are wrong again.

[David Orsam]

It is a generaly accepted principle that the onus is on the accuser.In this case Mizen.
In a trial the onus is on the prosecution to prove, with evidence.
Cross also gave evidence in a court,under oath.He is entitled to be considered innocent.That is the law.He cannot be suspect unless evidence proves otherwise.None did. I am not wrong on any count.

Please explain the rule that states,or infers that suspicion exists without evidence.Show examples. To protect innocent persons there are the laws of libel and slander.

Law enforcement officers,from my experience,do not accept that suspicion is warranted,unless some evidence of an offence exists.

1. Mizen never accused Cross of anything. He simply gave his evidence as to his recollection of what he heard.

2. By definition, suspicion can only be attached to someone who has not been proven guilty. If someone has been proved guilty there's no suspicion involved because you already have proof. The logical conclusion of your argument is that no-one can ever suspect anyone of anything.

3. There is evidence for suspicion against Cross. That is the evidence of Mizen.

4. Libel and slander has nothing to do with this. We are talking about whether there is any reason for suspicion against Cross. You seem to translate "suspicion of committing a murder" in your head into "accusation of committing a murder."

5. Police officers investigating a murder invariably suspect people who turn out to be innocent. That's what you have to do when you are a police officer.

6. I suppose if you were a police officer investigating a murder case you would not suspect anyone unless you had cast iron proof that they had committed the murder and even then they couldn’t be a suspect in your eyes because they are innocent until proven guilty.

[John G]

Of course, Cross was never an accused in a criminal trial, where the legal burden of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt.

There is no legal burden of proof for someone to be merely a suspect.

Slander and libel are civil offences, where the burden of proof is the balance of probabilities.

Statements made in the course of judicial proceedings are protected by absolute privilege, which is a complete defence in English law to a defamation action.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;389128]

That is the importance of the geography issue. It serves as a litmus paper when there is suspicion against anybody. If it can be confirmed that such a suspected individual has been close to (not necessarily at) the murder spots at the relevant hours, then the corroboration looked for will be at hand.

Yes, it is actually only a condition that the individual is close to what you call "murder spots" to be relevant at all. I think you are using the word "close" since that is what you think, and what I think, Lechmere was.

But then the problems start to mount up. It is not enough for an individual to be at one murder site. You have to find evidence saying that he was at the other murder sites as well. It is not sufficient to postulate that a serial killer is found by indicating that he did one murder in a series. One indication is far from enough. You need several indications and from several murder sites. When you have several indications, you can hypothesize that he was a serial killer, since you need a coherent time line on a micro level

You can not postulate one murder with just one indication and build a chain on that. It will be far to weak. Every link in the chain, i.e. every indication, builds the hypothesis about a serial killer. Without a link to every murder, at least that should be the principle, the hypothesis of a serial killer will be to weak.

In Lechmere´s case, we cannot say that we know that he was close to the murder sites at the relevant hours - but for one such spot, where we know that he was found alone with a freshly killed victim. But we CAN establish that it would be completely logical if he was at the other spots too, and that he had reason to pass these spots.

Logic is one part of philosophy with many internal conditions, which you can not apply on the social reality. So in this case it is useless to talk about "logic".

What you have is a presence at a murder site, a postulated but very problematic "lie", since there are other explanations that are better. There is nothing more to Lechmere. A mother who remarried, a cat meat´s woman, and him moving from the mother.

All of that is probably very common in the background of people in Whitechapel. And so is going to work through Buck´s Row an early morning in 1888.

Do you really want to find the killer? Or do you want to write books and make movies?

Best wishes, Pierre