The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Lechmere]

Oh I did read the discussion Chris.
If you have seen the programme (which I trust you have because besides showing incredible arrogance in discussing something unseen, if unseen, it would also show woeful ignorance) you will know that Scobie used the phrase prima facie. Any suggestion that Fisherman does not know it's meaning or relevance implies Scobie doesn't.
I do hope you get that.

[Stewart P Evans]

Nonsense

...
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.
...

What a nonsense, a person coming across a murder victim and then being joined by someone else, especially in a public place, is certainly not unique. And it certainly does not make the first one there a murderer. However, the police would always look at the first to person find a body in order to establish that no suspicion attached to them.

[Stewart P Evans]

Because...

Why does the Lechmere theory bother people so much?

Because they mislead some people. Are you misled?

[Lechmere]

Ghost
That is an interesting question in itself and strikes at the heart of the question of what 'Ripperology' actually is and why certain people take an interest in it.
We would need to consult an expert psychiatrist for the answer.

[Stewart P Evans]

Fixed

...
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.
...

You are the one trying to build a case out of very little, not I. I really don't have any interest in changing your mind - it's fixed.

[Stewart P Evans]

Some sort of insight

...
Stewart P Evans:
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.
...
Fisherman

'Some sort of insight'? That remark is insulting.

[Stewart P Evans]

Has it not occurred...?

...
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?
...
Fisherman

Has it not occurred to you that the police may well have been aware of his alternative name? You are not even prepared to concede that - it would damage your theorizing too much. You have no idea whatsoever how much the police would have investigated him. The statement they certainly would have taken from him has not survived, and that's a pity. Your problem is you take your own interpretations as fact - and they are not.

[Sally]

Ghost
That is an interesting question in itself and strikes at the heart of the question of what 'Ripperology' actually is and why certain people take an interest in it.
We would need to consult an expert psychiatrist for the answer.

Psychologist, Ed - unless you're suggesting that Ripperologists are suffering from a mental disorder by virtue of their interest in the case?

[Chris]

Any suggestion that Fisherman does not know it's meaning or relevance implies Scobie doesn't.

Just when I thought the non sequiturs couldn't get any more bizarre.

Let's try once more.
(1) No one is disputing that Scobie used the phrase prima facie.
(2) The meaning of the phrase prima facie is not at issue.
(3) What's at issue is whether a prima facie case is enough for a criminal prosecution. Scobie says yes. The CPS says no.

Get it now?

[Lechmere]

We are presented here with the slightly amusing spectacle of ex policemen - who regularly preen their thirty year feathers for us to admire, and to silence any alternative viewpoint - blithely ignore the opinions of a much more highly qualified policeman (or try and convince themselves that this better qualified policeman was somehow bamboozled by team Lechmere).
Of course it is about opinions. Of course circumstantial evidence doesn't prove guilt. As much was said at the end of the documentary. But what we see from the usual suspects is a total denial that there is anything to the case against Lechmere, when it is blindingly obvious that there is. Details can be argued over certainly.
Thirty years service?
One wonders.

[Stewart P Evans]

I am not...

...
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?
...
Fisherman

I am not oversimplifying anything at all. I have given many of the reports regarding this case for others to read and draw their own conclusions. And I include all of the reports without excising anything.

I appreciate that you consider it your prerogative to keep ramming your ideas down the throats of others ad infinitum, I merely sometimes choose to give my opinion on your slanted reasoning - others may agree or disagree with what I say, that's up to them.

Mizen's statements, as presented in press reports, do not, in fact agree with what two other witnesses say. I am not sure what you mean by 'his actions being in line with having been told about another PC.'

Any police officer being told by two members of the public that they have just found a woman lying in the street (whether or not they said another policeman was there) should -
a. Obtain details of the informants and, if anything seems suspicious about them detain them until the story is clarified (i.e. ask them to accompany him back to the location)
b. Immediately attend the location to ascertain if his help or further action is required.
According to such evidence we have he did neither, as initially he carried on 'knocking up' which was Paul's main complaint about him before the inquest even started.

[Stewart P Evans]

There you go again...

Ghost
That is an interesting question in itself and strikes at the heart of the question of what 'Ripperology' actually is and why certain people take an interest in it.
We would need to consult an expert psychiatrist for the answer.

There you go again, casting aspersions on others when you have no idea at all what their motives might be. Personally it's a case that has interested me since 1961 (what were you doing in 1961?) and in which I am still interested, despite the fact that I know that the mystery will never be solved.

[Stewart P Evans]

You again display...

We are presented here with the slightly amusing spectacle of ex policemen - who regularly preen their thirty year feathers for us to admire, and to silence any alternative viewpoint - blithely ignore the opinions of a much more highly qualified policeman (or try and convince themselves that this better qualified policeman was somehow bamboozled by team Lechmere).
Of course it is about opinions. Of course circumstantial evidence doesn't prove guilt. As much was said sovthecr end of the documentary. But what we see from the usual suspects is a total denial thatvtgread us anything yo the case against Lechmere, when it is blindingly obvious that there is. Details can be argued over certainly.
Thirty years service?
One wonders.

You again display your almost total ignorance. Anything that you might consider preening has been instigated by your own misguided posts.

Please don't give me the old 'better qualified' claptrap it just won't wash with those who know what is going on here. There is no viable case against Cross - just face that fact.

[Bitsie]

This thread does read a bit like the Monty Python Argument Clinic with a lot of 'yes it is' and 'no it isn't' going on.

I do think it's 'interesting' that some folk wont entertain the idea of Lechmere even as a suspect and as a newb it's a little frustrating that there are few clear reasons given here for why not.

[Lechmere]

No Sally I used the right word