Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    Edward Stow has suggested that 29 Hanbury Street was perhaps chosen in order to position Robert Paul in the crosshairs (excuse the pun). If this was so, the short time elapsed may be explained by how Lechmere wanted to steer away any interst in his own person as soon as possible.

    Even if this was not so, why would Lechmere not kill on the 8th? Because that would make the police go "Wait a minute - that is on the route the carmen took"? If they were not able to see where Nicholsī bleeding time and the disagreement between Lechmere and Mizen pointed, why would they think twice about the Chapman murder? Yes, you and I know why they should have - but would a narcissistic psychopath worry about such a thing? Or would he think, like so many narcissitic serial killer have, "Thereīs not a chance in hell that they can outsmart me"? We are probaly dealing with a man who was up for the challenge of killing twice on the same night, so killing twice in four days does not seem much of an obstacle to me.
    I don't follow the argument that a killing was designed to put Paul in the frame as it's accepted that he turned up at the Nichols scene after Lechmere. Unless there's a possibility that he knifed her first, disappeared and reappeared after Lechmere found her.

    The idea that he or whoever was simply a psychopath is far more realistic.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

      I think I am instead suggesting that you have misread my post rather badly if that is the conclusion you arrived at.
      My conclusion is the right one there can be no other

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • Originally posted by The Baron View Post





        Trying to run away huh?!


        Ok, Nichols was not cut when Lechmere left her. you cannot prove otherwise, its just like this, you cannot.

        -Paul didn't notice any blood.

        -Paul detected what might have been a faint breath.


        Nichols was not cut=
        Lechmere innocent.



        Game Over
        IF Nichols was not cut when Lechmere arrived and subsequently left the site, THEN Lechmere is innocent. And since you speak of how I need to prove things, how about you proving that she was not cut as Lechmere left the site?

        "Trying to run away"?

        In a sense, yes - I am eager to get away from posts like this, because it has absolutely nothing to offer. It is nothing but useless semantics, leading abslutely nowhere. And yes, if there is anything I would want to get away from, it is precisely that.

        For the moment, though, I will not run anywhere, but instead check out the contributions to the thread. Posts like yours however, will be given the attentiion they deserve, which is no attention at all. So you need to forgive me if you decide to continue your claims along the lines you have so far used and if I provide no answer. If you feel the need to, you are perfectly welcome to claim that I am running from you. You will even be correct to a degree, right?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          My conclusion is the right one there can be no other

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          Iīll just let that claim stand for itself, for everyone to see and ponder.

          If you have anything of value to offer out here, please feel free to do so. Until it happens, I am not going to engage in any criticism at all of your claims of infallibility. it would be, I sense, a waste of time and space.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Dickere View Post

            I don't follow the argument that a killing was designed to put Paul in the frame as it's accepted that he turned up at the Nichols scene after Lechmere. Unless there's a possibility that he knifed her first, disappeared and reappeared after Lechmere found her.

            The idea that he or whoever was simply a psychopath is far more realistic.
            If you read up on Dews remarks in his book about the Ripper deeds, you will see how he reasoned that Lechmere gave the impression of being a rough but honest man, whilst Paul seemed to Dew to be a shady figure:

            "All this was afterwards told in evidence by the carman (Lechmere). It never had the corroboration of the other man (Paul). The police made repeated appeals for him to come forward, but he never did so.

            Why did he remain silent? Was it guilty knowledge that caused him to ignore the appeals of the police?


            Here, you may see how a man involved in the investigation speaks of how Paul perhaps had a guilty knowledge that he wanted to keep from the police, although Dew know quite well that Paul was claimed to be second on the scene. Maybe it was reasoned that Paul had perhaps done the deed and hidden, only to then reemerge so as to get an alibi, I donīt know. The important matter is that the police clearly were interested in Paul in the capacity of a bad guy. We know that he was pulled out of his bed and subjected to questioning later on.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by harry View Post
              When posters use terms like suspicion,possibilities,beliefs,opinions,it is a sure sign they do not know the facts,and facts are what prove situations.It is quite permissable to entertain a suspicion,which is what occured at the finding of the body of Nichols. There was a a suspicion that Nichols might have been alive when found,a suspicion that was never proven.The evidence of Neil,together with the medical evidence,make it unlikely that Nichols was alive when found.So no,Fisherman I am not wrong on any account.Try again.
              It is quite common for witnesses in criminal cases to give conflicting evidence.Rarely does it end up in one or the other being charged with perjury,or misleadin the police.Cross answered a question put to him at the inquest,under oath.There is a suspicion among certain posters that he lied.They have not of course proved it to be a lie.No suspicion of lying was raised by either the Coroner,the jury,or the police,yet those same posters(Fisherman,Mr Barnett etc) continue to try and persuade otherwise.
              The killing of Nichols was a real event.There was a police investigation.We can only argue the guilt or innocence of Cross from the information available,and nowhere in that information,are facts that prove Cross guilty,and if he cannot be proven guilty,by the laws that existed in 1888,he must be considered innocent.
              this isnt a court of law, and no one is alive who lived back then so it never will be possible to prove anyone guilty . but someone murdered these women, but by your logic no one did because everyone is innocent since they cant be proven guilty.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                Okay, I will correct you if you are wrong. Psychopaths are very good at mimicking all sorts of behaviors, meaning that they are very aware how people with other perspectives than their own react to different matters. This is why they cry, seem upset, laugh, worry etc. together with other people - not because they feel sad, upset, happy or worried, but because they know what is expected from them.

                The tarp matter is something I myself think is perfectly in line with what a psychopath could conjur up. Letīs remember that he was not giving his evidence a minute after the affair; he had three days to ponder what he should say. Coming up with the tarpaulin in that time would be easy-peasy for anybody, psychopaths included. They are gifted liars who enjoy playing games and feeling superior.

                As for "tearing your suggestion to shreds", I said at the outset of this thread that I want a civil debate, and I am not deviating from that stance now. I try, as best as I can, to give my view and support it by known facts, and I am thankful for whatever suggestions may arrive.
                Okay, Fish, I'll give you that, as far as it goes: a twisted kind of empathy, whereby a psychopath may imagine human emotions and mimic them perfectly, even when he can't feel them for himself.

                But I notice you have not addressed the point about an innocent witness facing a situation he would never have experienced before, and reacting as other humans do in similar circumstances - in this case seeing a tarpaulin that turns into a human being on closer inspection.

                Unless Lechmere actually knew about this natural human reaction, from first-hand experience, or from reading all about it in his dog-eared copy of "Normal Human Reactions To 100 Extraordinary Events For Dummies", could you explain how Lechmere would have found it 'easy-peasy' to put himself in the shoes of anyone experiencing the once-in-a-lifetime event of seeing his victim from a distance, whether he had three days or the rest of his life to ponder what that person might think they were seeing, if not what it actually was.

                One can only mimic a natural sensory response to a highly unnatural situation if you have seen this play out before, or at least know of others who have experienced the same thing. Lechmere wasn't psychic or a time traveller. So how and when did he learn about it?

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  Even if this was not so, why would Lechmere not kill on the 8th? Because that would make the police go "Wait a minute - that is on the route the carmen took"? If they were not able to see where Nicholsī bleeding time and the disagreement between Lechmere and Mizen pointed, why would they think twice about the Chapman murder? Yes, you and I know why they should have - but would a narcissistic psychopath worry about such a thing? Or would he think, like so many narcissitic serial killer have, "Thereīs not a chance in hell that they can outsmart me"? We are probaly dealing with a man who was up for the challenge of killing twice on the same night, so killing twice in four days does not seem much of an obstacle to me.
                  But I've seen it suggested (perhaps by yourself?) that Lechmere only came forward to the inquest because Paul mentioned him.

                  Was Lechmere trying to keep a low profile, or was he a brazen psychopath who enjoyed living on the edge?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                    A genius? I think that is overegging the pudding rather dramatically. Think of him, sitting at home, pondering how he should play his cards if he was the killer. Surely, stating that he at first thought it was a tarpaulin would be a very trivial thing to do? It would serve well to convince the inquest that he was innocent - not least if they shared your demands for ingenuity!
                    So you think Lechmere invented the phenomenon, of initially taking a stricken human being for a tarpaulin, or bundle of rags, or doll, or shop dummy, or some white plastic sheeting? Or did he know instinctively that innocent witnesses in future murder cases would respond exactly like this? Have you any evidence that this was a widely recognised human trait in 1888, which Lechmere could expect to be taken as an indication of his wide-eyed innocence?

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    Last edited by caz; 07-13-2021, 12:42 PM.
                    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      Of course, if Lechmere only decided to come forward as a result of Pauls 2nd of September interview, he would only have one day to figure out what to say, not three. But it is ample time nevertheless.
                      Only if he already knew of witnesses who had found a body outdoors and mistaken it at first glance for an inanimate object.

                      You can't make up something like that, and expect it to become a recognised phenomenon in future serial murder cases, where a victim is discovered innocently and unexpectedly.

                      But assuming Lechmere made up the tarpaulin from whole cloth [ha ha], not appreciating how jolly insightful this was, why bother? He was a psychopath, who could say or do anything and pull the wool over the eyes of anyone he needed to fool, without having to try that hard. Just say he immediately saw this was a woman who might need help, and did the right thing by getting Paul to assist him. What could be simpler, or more credible than that?

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X
                      Last edited by caz; 07-13-2021, 01:14 PM.
                      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        Thatīs how I feel about it too, Frank. Stay well!
                        Thanks, Christer, you too!

                        "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                        Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                          Iīll just let that claim stand for itself, for everyone to see and ponder.

                          If you have anything of value to offer out here, please feel free to do so. Until it happens, I am not going to engage in any criticism at all of your claims of infallibility. it would be, I sense, a waste of time and space.
                          or would it be I am right and you have no answer to give

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Overegging the pudding! excellent!

                            I'll just throw in since I haven't posted in a while. Evidence of innocence.

                            You really can only judge innocence on what we know, not what we can suppose.

                            Cross, according to Paul is standing in the middle of the road. a few different variations of this statement are reported, but given the width of the street I'm going with this example.

                            It's dark. Only one prominent light source on the road, outside of incidental lighting from buildings.

                            We don't know how noisy this street was at that time. I doubt it was so quiet you could hear a pin drop, and I'm sure the noise level was something the surrounding community was used to.

                            Cross is roughly 40-70 yards in front of Paul. He sees a form in the dark and investigates. He says this himself. If true he has time to stop, investigate and back into the middle of the street.

                            The evidence of innocence - He doesn't run. He doesn't hop the fence, he doesn't just keep walking as Paul approaches. He has enough time to run. it only takes seconds to run and Paul would've had no idea why he was running if he did see him take off. Then he would just take a different route to work so Paul never sees him again.

                            What he does, if we're looking at innocence, is exactly what a good, conscientious person would do. He stops Paul and shows him Nichols. He and Paul actually investigate the scene.

                            He could've very well told Paul "she's drunk, forget her" and continued on. He didn't. If he didn't know Paul then he could very well have just kept walking. He didn't. He spent considerable time at the scene. He intentionally made Paul a witness. He spoke with a Policeman. He walked with Paul and probably conversed during the walk.

                            He voluntarily attends Nichols inquest.

                            All he had to do is run. Even if Paul was 10 feet behind him he could've run.

                            In other words, he intentionally made himself known to the world as the person who discovered Nichols.

                            All evidence of innocence.

                            Look at the Stride murder. If the theories are to be believed, Cross is hiding in the yard when LD comes in with his horse and cart. He's hiding. He doesn't pop out behind a gate and point to stride. He hides then runs. He had more than enough time to run when Paul's approaching him.

                            One point that was brought up on this thread is that Cross wasn't questioned by the police and cleared. We have no idea if he was questioned and cleared. With the amount of documentation lost over the last century we can't verify anything about whether the police questioned him or not. But they certainly questioned him at the inquest.

                            So that's my submission for evidence of innocence. Not gonna debate it, because I have no opinion either way and no dog in the fight.

                            On a side note, I'm enjoying your book! still working my way through it as time permits.

                            Columbo




                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Columbo View Post
                              Overegging the pudding! excellent!

                              I'll just throw in since I haven't posted in a while. Evidence of innocence.
                              I agree that if Lechmere wanted to play it safe he would've continued walking and taken one of several possible escape routes.

                              If Paul hadn't been stopped, he could've very easily moseyed on straight past the body. It was Lechmere who brought Nichols to his attention, and neither them thought she was a murder victim.

                              Therefore, we have three explanations:
                              1. Lechmere was an innocent bystander who alerted the first passer-by
                              2. Lechmere was the killer who got caught short by Paul (which seems unlikely as wouldn't the killer be on high alert?) and improvised
                              3. Lechmere was the killer and willingly engaged with Paul out of some psychopathic desire.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by caz View Post

                                Okay, Fish, I'll give you that, as far as it goes: a twisted kind of empathy, whereby a psychopath may imagine human emotions and mimic them perfectly, even when he can't feel them for himself.

                                Itīs not that I am ungrateful, but you donīt have to give me something I had beforehand, Caz. It is common knowledge that this is how psychopaths blend in.

                                But I notice you have not addressed the point about an innocent witness facing a situation he would never have experienced before, and reacting as other humans do in similar circumstances - in this case seeing a tarpaulin that turns into a human being on closer inspection.

                                I think it would be a very likely thing to do for an innocent witness. psychological research tells us that we often see what we expect to see in situaations like this, by way of interpretation. And an innocent witness would not expect to see a dead woman on the pavement. It would be likelier that he interpreted the shape as some sort of bundle of cloth - or a tarpaulin. So I agree that such an observation would be not only understandable but even likely.
                                However, that does not mean that it works the other way around: If you say you thought you were looking at a tarpaulin, that means you are innocent. Consider what there was to gain on Lechmereīs behalf if he was the killer and the story was swallowed: Then. the jury would regard him as the man who thought Nichols was a tarpaulin, and they would never think of him as the possible killer. A stroke of genius, therefore, and if I can count that out, then so can a psychopathick killer with time on his hands.


                                Unless Lechmere actually knew about this natural human reaction, from first-hand experience, or from reading all about it in his dog-eared copy of "Normal Human Reactions To 100 Extraordinary Events For Dummies", could you explain how Lechmere would have found it 'easy-peasy' to put himself in the shoes of anyone experiencing the once-in-a-lifetime event of seeing his victim from a distance, whether he had three days or the rest of his life to ponder what that person might think they were seeing, if not what it actually was.

                                People do not have to learn these thiongs from books. "What if I say I thought it was a tarp?" is not a very revolutionary thing to come up with, Iīm afraid. I am more baffled by how you think it is some sort of surefire method of identifying an innocent man.

                                One can only mimic a natural sensory response to a highly unnatural situation if you have seen this play out before, or at least know of others who have experienced the same thing. Lechmere wasn't psychic or a time traveller. So how and when did he learn about it?

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X
                                See the above.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X