Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

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?

We donīt know, so all I can provide is my guess:

He would not have come forward, was it not for Pauls interview. But he was not afraid to come forward when it became necessary, and he did not mind playing games at all. Psychopaths are brazen in the extreme and totally confident that they will win.

[Fisherman]

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

See my earlier answer, Caz.

[Fisherman]

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

Yes, you CAN make something like that up. Read up on psychopathic killers and you will see that they have made a lot up historically.

[Fisherman]

or would it be I am right and you have no answer to give

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Letīs leave it to those who read the thread to decide, shall we?

If you can identify a single question asked over the last decade that I have had no answer to, you are welcome to post it.

[Fisherman]

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

If Lechmere was the killer of Stride and hiding in the yard, just how likely would he be to get involved in another murder a month after his previous performance in Bucks Row? What would the police say:

Oh, such luck - itīs that helpful innocent carman again!

or

Now weīve got you!

The fact that he stayed has been discussed too many times for me to reiterate my take on it, and I am sure you already know it. if I am wrong about that, just tell me and I will oblige!

[Fisherman]

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.

My take on things is that what probably applies is a combination of points 2 and 3, Harry.

[Columbo]

If Lechmere was the killer of Stride and hiding in the yard, just how likely would he be to get involved in another murder a month after his previous performance in Bucks Row? What would the police say:

Oh, such luck - itīs that helpful innocent carman again!

or

Now weīve got you!

The fact that he stayed has been discussed too many times for me to reiterate my take on it, and I am sure you already know it. if I am wrong about that, just tell me and I will oblige!

Well, as I said you asked for evidence of innocence. that's what I gave you. Now if you said let's debate on evidence if innocence that's an entirely different thread So you found nothing in favor of his innocence?

[Fisherman]

Well, as I said you asked for evidence of innocence. that's what I gave you. Now if you said let's debate on evidence if innocence that's an entirely different thread So you found nothing in favor of his innocence?

I am fine with you providing what you believe to be possible evidence of innocence, Columbo; indeed, that is what I have asked for. I do comment on what is presented, though, and I hope you donīt mind that.

I have found a large pile of things that may point to innocence, by the way. What I have not found is such pointers that outshine the pointers to guilt, in my opinion. In the end, there are just too many guilty pointers for them to be purely coincidental. It would be the coincidence collection of all time, and I for one am convinced that we have something entirely different.

[Columbo]

I am fine with you providing what you beleive to be possible evidence of innocence, Columbo; indeed, that is what I have asked for. I do comment on what is presented, though, and I hope you donīt mind that.

I have found a large pile of things that may point to innocence, by the way. What I have not found is such pointers that outshine the pointers to guilt, in my opinion. In the end, there are just too many guilty pointers for them to be purely coincidental. It would be the coincidence collection of all time, and I for one am convinced that we have something entirely different.

That may be true but since you started this thread for innocence, you should participate. It's usually the case that when someone accuses a person of being JTR they don't want to look at the innocence side of it. Much like Cornwell, Knight, etc. I think at the very least you would want to show some impartiality and explain some of these coincidental pointers you say you found towards innocence because there is just as little towards Cross' guilt at this point.

[Fisherman]

That may be true but since you started this thread for innocence, you should participate. It's usually the case that when someone accuses a person of being JTR they don't want to look at the innocence side of it. Much like Cornwell, Knight, etc. I think at the very least you would want to show some impartiality and explain some of these coincidental pointers you say you found towards innocence because there is just as little towards Cross' guilt at this point.

The pointers I speak of are the ones mentioned out here already, Columbo. Like how he stayed put at the site, as you mention. That COULD be a sign of innocence and good citizenship as such. Itīs just that I see it from another angle.

The thing about alternative innocent explanations is that they are endless. If we look at, say, how he disagreed with Mizen, I have already said that alternative innocent explanations can involve:
- Mizen misheard him.
- Mizen intentionally lied about it.
- Mizen had voices in his head, telling him that Lechmere had spoken of another PC.
- Lechmeres wording involved a word that was similar to the word "police" and so it got muddled.
- The papers at the inquest misheard Mizen.
... and so on, and so on, and so on.

The alternative innocent explanations are innumerable in each instance, whereas the guilty explanation is one only. So the guilty implications will always be outweighed by the sheer numbers of possible (or not so possible) innocent alternative explanations.

However, the sheer fact that there is a long chain of circumstantial evidence means that we really should not bother about thinking up innocent alternatives. It is an open and shut case the way I see it. I would never embark on an effort to supply such a number of damning bits of circumstantial evidence with innocent alternatives, because it is deeply unrealistic to do so.

He is guilty, or we have a completely amazing new world record of coincidences.

And now itīs goodnight for me. See you in the morning!

[Columbo]

The pointers I speak of are the ones mentioned out here already, Columbo. Like how he stayed put at the site, as you mention. That COULD be a sign of innocence and good citizenship as such. Itīs just that I see it from another angle.

The thing about alternative innocent explanations is that they are endless. If we look at, say, how he disagreed with Mizen, I have already said that alternative innocent explanations can involve:
- Mizen misheard him.
- Mizen intentionally lied about it.
- Mizen had voices in his head, telling him that Lechmere had spoken of another PC.
- Lechmeres wording involved a word that was similar to the word "police" and so it got muddled.
- The papers at the inquest misheard Mizen.
... and so on, and so on, and so on.

The alternative innocent explanations are innumerable in each instance, whereas the guilty explanation is one only. So the guilty implications will always be outweighed by the sheer numbers of possible (or not so possible) innocent alternative explanations.

However, the sheer fact that there is a long chain of circumstantial evidence means that we really should not bother about thinking up innocent alternatives. It is an open and shut case the way I see it. I would never embark on an effort to supply such a number of damning bits of circumstantial evidence with innocent alternatives, because it is deeply unrealistic to do so.

He is guilty, or we have a completely amazing new world record of coincidences.

And now itīs goodnight for me. See you in the morning!

The Mizen episode is really a non-started for me. if either lied it doesn't change Cross' actions at the time of the discovery. It was established he spoke with Mizen. that's all we need to know. He went to the police. He didn't need to. He didn't even have to go with Paul at all. The fact that he went with Paul to locate the police is another bit of evidence towards innocence. as a matter of fact it really indicates that Paul was the dominant personality between the two. Paul wanted to sit Nichols up. Cross was just squeamish or scared to touch her. This bit of info is used against his innocence, but why? whether they discovered she was murdered or not wouldn't matter. Paul didn't suspect Cross of anything when he came upon him. Most likely he wouldn't have suspected he killed nichols if they discovered she was dead. What if Paul decided to sit her up himself? Would Cross kill him? run? He could've run miles already.

All these theories about how conniving and brilliant Cross was is just not really applicable because there is not one fact in the record to support guilt. I said fact not supposition. All the facts, i.e. Cross' movements and subsequent actions during the Nichols discovery are documented.

More evidence of innocence.

[Trevor Marriott]

Letīs leave it to those who read the thread to decide, shall we?

I think the marjority have already decided long ago !!!!!!!!

If you can identify a single question asked over the last decade that I have had no answer to, you are welcome to post it.

You do have all the answers sadly they are the wrong ones

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Abby writes that this is not a court of law.Does that disqualify my comments? Is that his method of proof that I am wrong.He also has stated he does not think Cross was the killer.About the only sensible observation he has made.
Fisherman' last post to me indicates only one thing.He has no answer to my claims of innocence of Cross,so he resorts to his usual method of attacking the person and not the message.So much for his opening post of keeping things pleasant.
Even if we start from a position of proving innocence,and he does not explain his wish for this,it doesn't change things.It doesn't alter the evidence we have to rely on.It doesn't alter the fact,as has been pointed out and he will not accept,that he still has to counter with evidence of Guilt,and there's the rub,he cannot do it.Leave my comments out,and still the overwhelming view is that Cross is innocent.

[Fisherman]

Abby writes that this is not a court of law.Does that disqualify my comments?

The fact that legal proceedings are obliged to work from the stance that anybody who is not convicted in a court of law should be considered innocent until such a conviction is handed down means that the innocence you ascribe to Lechmere is a purely formal one. I think that is what Abby - and I - point out to you. To little avail, admittedly, but since you asked - again - there you are.

Fisherman' last post to me indicates only one thing.He has no answer to my claims of innocence of Cross,so he resorts to his usual method of attacking the person and not the message.So much for his opening post of keeping things pleasant.
Even if we start from a position of proving innocence,and he does not explain his wish for this,it doesn't change things.It doesn't alter the evidence we have to rely on.It doesn't alter the fact,as has been pointed out and he will not accept,that he still has to counter with evidence of Guilt,and there's the rub,he cannot do it.Leave my comments out,and still the overwhelming view is that Cross is innocent.

Since you say that I have no answer to your claims of innocence of Lechmere, please see the above.

[Fisherman]

I will leave Trevor Marriotts post unanswered for obvious reasons.