Originally posted by harry
View Post
I have always thought Cross's 'tarpaulin' comment had an innocent ring of truth about it, but this was more instinctive than based on any evidence.
Oddly enough, only last night I began reading The Bus Stop Killer by Geoffrey Wansell, about serial killer Levi Bellfield. On page 5 the following passage hit me like a brick:
Shortly after 10.15, with the shadows now deep and dark, student Tristram Beasley-Suffolk [great name!] was walking across the Green, 'taking a breath of air from his studies', when he saw what he thought was some white plastic sheeting lying on the ground on the edge of the cricket square. But as he got closer he realized, to his horror, it was a person.
Now, people generally don't expect to see dead bodies lying around when they are out walking. The few who are unlucky enough to have that experience rarely have it more than once in their lifetime. Our brains tend to see what we might expect to see, particularly in the darkness, so a dead body is likely to be seen initially as some other motionless object - a shop dummy for example, if the body is left naked - until we get up close enough and our expectations are shot to pieces.
For me, Cross's 'tarpaulin' is now the strongest evidence for his innocence. How could he have known what an innocent person's brain was likely to make of a dead body, when coming across one unexpectedly for the first and probably only time in their life, unless that's exactly what he had just experienced for himself?
I'm sorry, but the man was innocent.
Love,
Caz
X
Leave a comment: