The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Chris]

And a highly respected criminal defence QC isn't aware?
Gordon Bennett

It would help if you read the discussion before jumping in.

I'm asking Fisherman (not Scobie) if he is aware of the difference between civil and criminal cases, because Fisherman (not Scobie) copied and pasted some stuff about prima facie in relation to civil cases, and when I pointed out that it was irrelevant, he said it was because it still referred to "a court case".

Get it?

[Stewart P Evans]

Whatever...?

Andy Griffiths is a very recently retired murder squad superintendent with 30 years experience investigating just this sort of crime, leading complex investigations and interviewing suspects (one of his specialities). He was not a general purpose uniformed constable. His opinions on this matter carry weight.
In general we have no statements or inquest papers to go on - so it is pointless building a case around them.

Whatever is 'a general purpose uniformed constable'? You really don't have a clue do you? I joined the police force in 1969. What were you doing then?

From then I was giving evidence in all sorts of courts from Magistrates', through Assizes, Crown Court and coroners' courts. I worked at the sharp end for most of my service and was a tutor constable training around 60 officers to do the job, and certainly not flying a desk. I was on the firearms team, often acted as coroner's officer, was involved in murder cases, actually finding the body on one occasion, made trips to the miners' strike and often acted in a supervisory capacity.

From posts you have made you seem pretty clueless to me and I don't really want to debate with you.

[GUT]

G'day Stewart

was involved in murder cases, actually finding the body on one occasion,

hope you arrested yourself then, because as we all now know finding the body makes you a prime suspect.

[Monty]

By the way, I have no problem at all with anyone making out a best case scenario for the guilt of a chosen suspect. However, I draw the line at b*llsh*t and turning interpretation and opinion into fact. I thought the documentary was well made and interesting.

I wholeheartedly agree with you Stewart,

Despite the load, it was extremely well made. I enjoyed the drone shots, and the imagery a lot.

Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

You actually...

Andy Griffiths is a very recently retired murder squad superintendent with 30 years experience investigating just this sort of crime, leading complex investigations and interviewing suspects (one of his specialities). He was not a general purpose uniformed constable. His opinions on this matter carry weight.
...

You actually make an interesting point here.

Old style police interviewing bears little resemblance to today's methods which are strapped with political correctness and stringent new legislation. I was regarded as being very at good interviewing and we had courses on interview technique. It all changed very radically in 1984 with the advent of PACE (the Police and Criminal Evidence Act). Since then interviewing technique has borne very little resemblance to that the Victorians would have used.

[lynn cates]

Andy himself

Hello All. Why not go to the source? (Sorry, couldn't help myself.)

Cheers.
LC

[GUT]

Thanks for that Lynn I've been wondering if they meant Andy Griffith or Ben Matlock.

[Fisherman]

Surely you're aware that the standards of proof in civil cases are completely different from those in criminal cases?

What I did was to post a comprehensive description of what a prima faciae case is.

Yes, the source I used was referring to civil cases.

And yes, the standards of proof differ between civil cases and criminal cases.

But the term prima faciae depicts the exact same thing: a demand on the case to be able to supply evidence enough to warrant a court case.

What this effectively means is that a prima faciae civil case has lower demands on the evidence supplied, where as a prima faciae criminal case calls for stronger evidence. Meaning that when Scobie says that the Lechmere case is a prima faciae case, he implicitly tells us that he regards the evidence as strong. This is further unerlined by how he describes that evidence as the most probative, powerful material a court can use.

So the fact that I quoted what prima faciae was from a page concerned with civil right is nothing but nitpicking - both types of crimes can be and are regarded as prima faciae cases if the evidence allows for it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

Fisherman

We're discussing the standard of evidence required for a criminal prosecution. The information you posted about civil procedure is irrelevant to that question.

The point is that - as Trevor Marriott pointed out to you - a criminal prosecution requires more than a prima facie case. I've provided a link to the CPS guidance which confirms that explicitly.

No wonder these discussions go round in circles for so long.

[Fisherman]

Stewart P Evans:

But, and can't you see this, what evidence are we talking about?

The circumstantial evidence in the Lechmere case, such as Lechmere being found alone with the victim at a murder spot. I can see that, and a lot more. So could Griffiths, and so could Scobie.

And I am sure that you could find another lawyer to disagree with the opinion given.

But why would I? If you are correct, then it would serve your purposes better to present such a barrister. Up til the time you do, I will go with Scobie. And there are no guarantees that an added, disagreeing barrister will change my mind. It all depends on what he or she would say.

Evidence was my bread and butter for nearly 30 years so don't try to tell me what it is.

When exactly did I actually try to tell you personally anything at all about evidence? I donīt doubt that you have some sort of insight. What I DO doubt, however, is that it would compare to the knowledge and experience of James Scobie.

It is important that you understand that much of the significance of what Scobie says lies in the fact that he corroborates the suggestions that Edward and I have made on these boards - that Lechmere has a lot going for him as a suspect in terms of circumstantial evidence. Up til now, it has been laughed at by a lot of biased Ripperologists with vested interests, and it is therefore good to hear that when we turn to unbiased true expertise, that expertise tells us that, lo and behold, we had good cause to present the case like we did, whereas those who laughed had no cause at all to do so.

Once again, please provide another barrister that has another view of things, and I will look at what he or she has to say. Be aware though, that this is a very strange place where any barrister - including the one or ones you may provide - may be called things like drip-fed and ignorant. With no proof to back it up, believe it or not! Do you agree that this is a disgrace?

As to the old chestnut of the name, well the police knew where he lived, knew where he worked (and had done for many years) and evinced, in the surviving official reports we have, no suspicion about him at all (nor did the coroner for that matter).

Has it not occurred to you that the fact that they did NOT know what his name was is a clear implication that they never investigated him enough to find out? And has it not struck you that people who are not suspected can be criminals in spite of the lacking suspicions? Are only those who were contemporarily suspected relevant and viable bids?

I find you are oversimplifying and fitting things into boxes of the wrong shape. Thatīs your prerogative - but it is my prerogative to point out the matter.

As for Mizen, how do you account for his actions being in line with having been told about another PC - but distinctly not in line with NOT having been told this lie?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Fisherman

We're discussing the standard of evidence required for a criminal prosecution. The information you posted about civil procedure is irrelevant to that question.

The point is that - as Trevor Marriott pointed out to you - a criminal prosecution requires more than a prima facie case. I've provided a link to the CPS guidance which confirms that explicitly.

No wonder these discussions go round in circles for so long.

It has circled enough. My last post to you effectively put a stop to it. Scobie said that

A/ There was a prima faciae case, and that
B/ There was enough in it to put it before a jury

... and that is all you need to know.

The best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

G'day Fisherman

But why would I? If you are correct, then it would serve your purposes better to present such a barrister. Up til the time you do, I will go with Scobie. And there are no guarantees that an added, disagreeing barrister will change my mind. It all depends on what he or she would say.

Well here's one.

[Sally]

Gordon Bennett

Now you're talking - erratic behaviour, dodgy relationship with women... yep - I think you've nailed it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gordon_Bennett,_Jr.

A contender for Astrakhan Man, at the very least?

[Chris]

Scobie said that

A/ There was a prima faciae case, and that
B/ There was enough in it to put it before a jury

No. As quoted by you, he said:
"What we would say, is that heīs got a prima faciae case to answer, which means itīs a good enough case to put before a jury and that suggests he was the killer."

What we are discussing is whether a prima facie case is sufficient for a criminal prosecution. The CPS says:
Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect on each charge. They must consider what the defence case may be, and how it is likely to affect the prospects of conviction.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/codetest.html

That means a prima facie case is not enough.

Having said that, the idea that there's a prima facie case is itself ridiculous. The thought that any jury would convict on the kind of evidence that's been advanced against Lechmere/Cross is mind-boggling.

[Ghost]

Why does the Lechmere theory bother people so much?