Evidence of innocence

[JeffHamm]

Have I made any claims?

Ah, it's like that is it? Ok.

- Jeff

[The Baron]

There is no evidence against the carman, nothing at all, what the party Lechmere is trying to do, is to create anomalies within his actions sourcing newspapers reports, smoke and mirrors, like all antique magic tricks they want to pull a guilty Lechmere out of thin air.

They failed miserably, and the magic turned against the magician!

You cannot prove someone is guilty when the truth is he is innocent.

It is a mission impossible for Lechmerians.




The Baron

[rjpalmer]

Again, can you see how the risk Jeff Dahmer took when sntaching his Thai murder victim from the hands of the police? Serial killers are risktakers by nature, and some of them enjoy it a great deal.
As for the benefits of hiding bhis name, that has been explained hundreds of times, so I must reccommend a thorough look through the material. I´m sure you´ll find it if you put your mind to it.

This is still a weak analogy, Fish; you might want to consider dropping it from your repertoire.

Dahmer had no choice but to bluff the police; his victim had escaped. An identical occurrence happened in a lesser known case in Kansas City. An abducted man escaped from his would-be killer, who falsely told the police the two men were lovers. The police didn’t believe him and secured a search warrant which sealed his fate. Like Dahmer, he was forced into the bluff, which was out of sheer desperation and was not motivated by inherent “risk taking.” You have
misinterpreted both the psychology and the motive of Dahmer’s actions.

By stark contrast, if Lechmere was a killer, he’s already bluffed his way past Paul and Mizen. He’s in the clear. He made it to work and has all day to clean up and get his story straight—which is simplicity itself, since the murder occurred on his route to work. He literally has nothing to “explain away,” and he’s already achieved his thrill. Now he just has to play it straight. Thus, as I said, his use of an “alias” at this point would be ridiculous. A far more smug and egotistical thrill would be to simply tell the police anything they wanted to know.

That’s why I believe his use of the name Cross has an innocent explanation—it was the name he used when he began working for Pickford and it stuck. These places have a retention of memory. There was a guy at one of my former jobs known as “J.R.” I never knew why—these were not his initials. It turns out he was nicknamed ‘Junior,’ because his father worked for the firm many years earlier, and junior morphed into J.R. None of us young guys knew his father—he hadn’t worked there in years. But we still used that name. If Cross had used Cross when he began working there in the 1860s,it could have easily stuck with him for decades

[Trevor Marriott]

I actually think I have assessed and evaluated the evidence in an unbiased manner, Trevor. I believe that the real problem is that you are completely unable to realize that. And so you make endless and pointless generalistic posts, basically saying "You are dumb".

That really does not amount to much of an argument, does it?

There is nothing to realize posters keep telling you and pointing out the flaws in your theory but for some reason you cant or wont accpet them. If thats what you want me to say to ou I will say it "you are dumb" because that is a fact and I ind it strange that a highly eduvated man such as yourself cannot see and identify your failings

I wish admin would close this thread down now it has run its course, and by doing wo would save us all a lot of keep having to repeat oursleves in an attempt to make you understand why the "evidence" and I wil call it that which you seek to rely on is flawed and that Lechmere is not the prime suspect you make him out to be.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[The Baron]

The evidence was "meaningful" enough for a barrister to conclude that there exists a prima facie case against the carman that suggests that he was the killer. Basically, this means that if no evidence for innocence came forward, Scobies best guess is that lechmere would be convicted of murder.

And here we have it! at last!

After 2834 posts we know now why this thread has been created at the first place!

I was wondering myself why every post and then he stops to bring back Scobie, although Trevor has shown un how Scobie was misinformed from the start.

He wanted to arrive at this, and now he couldn't resist it anymore and spelled it out!

Thats why they will not bow to any evidence of Cross innocence, they will simply ignore it and don't accept it, it is a premade case.


Another terrible trial to justify this misguided theory.

Scobie did point out to me that in the grand scheme of things, there was not sufficient evidence to have ever secured a conviction, and that the CPS would probably have never authorized a charge if it had been today. I wonder if these comments were also edited out. He also stated he raised concerns with the program makers in relation to some of what was presented to him, but could not be specific.

Thank you Trevor for taking the time and effort to clear things up!




The Baron

[Fisherman]

And here we have it! at last!


The Baron

Eehhh - it has been spelt out for seven years now.

Maybe you missed it?

[Fisherman]

This is still a weak analogy, Fish; you might want to consider dropping it from your repertoire.

Dahmer had no choice but to bluff the police; his victim had escaped.

Oh, I see! So what Dahmer did was NOT audacious - it was something he HAD to do?

Let me explain this to you, R J, so we don´t mnisunderstand each other in the future about this:

What I said to Harry was basically that doing audacious things is something that is second nature to psychopaths. You now say that Dahmer had no choice. But he DID have a choice - that of panicking. Of course, psychopaths will not panic - and that is what I am trying to get across here, seemingly to little avail.
What we must ask ourselves is this: Would a non-psychopathic criminal do what Dahmer did? Would he put his head in the crocodiles mouth like Jeffrey?
Let´s begin by assessing the risks involved. The young Asian boy had, as you put it, R J, escaped. I work from the exact same presumption.
Now, if he escaped, he would have escaped from something - most likely from Dahmers grasp, a grasp that spelled certain and imminent death. That´s the implication of somebody drilling a hole in your head and pouring acid into it (as I remember it).
So the boy was afraid of Dahmer. And anybody who is afraid of somebody is likely to show that in some fashion if confronted with that somebody. Therefore, thre must have been a very obvious possibility that the boy protested wildly when Dahmer cooly went down to fetch him from the policemen. And that would have carried huge risks with itself. Nevertheless, Dahmer - who COULD have opted for leaving Milwaukee and trying to go into hiding - had the coolness to go get the boy.
He assessed his options, and then he approached the policemen, showing no fear or doubt whatsoever.
Those are not the actions of a normally functioning criminal, they are the typcal actions of a psychopathich nature.
And therefore, the example works extremely well. regardless of your misgivings.

An identical occurrence happened in a lesser known case in Kansas City. An abducted man escaped from his would-be killer, who falsely told the police the two men were lovers. The police didn’t believe him and secured a search warrant which sealed his fate. Like Dahmer, he was forced into the bluff, which was out of sheer desperation and was not motivated by inherent “risk taking.” You have
misinterpreted both the psychology and the motive of Dahmer’s actions.

I am not the one who misinterprets here, R J. You, on the other hand...

By stark contrast, if Lechmere was a killer, he’s already bluffed his way past Paul and Mizen. He’s in the clear. He made it to work and has all day to clean up and get his story straight—which is simplicity itself, since the murder occurred on his route to work. He literally has nothing to “explain away,” and he’s already achieved his thrill. Now he just has to play it straight. Thus, as I said, his use of an “alias” at this point would be ridiculous. A far more smug and egotistical thrill would be to simply tell the police anything they wanted to know.

That’s why I believe his use of the name Cross has an innocent explanation—it was the name he used when he began working for Pickford and it stuck. These places have a retention of memory. There was a guy at one of my former jobs known as “J.R.” I never knew why—these were not his initials. It turns out he was nicknamed ‘Junior,’ because his father worked for the firm many years earlier, and junior morphed into J.R. None of us young guys knew his father—he hadn’t worked there in years. But we still used that name. If Cross had used Cross when he began working there in the 1860s,it could have easily stuck with him for decades

His use of an alias is something we cannot establish as innocent, no matter how hard we try. You are - yes - misinterpreting this matter too. Just as has been pointed out to you, if Lechmere had either a past involving accusations against hbis person in the name of Lechmere or connections he wanted to keep out of the loop, so as to enable him to proceed with the killing without these connections understanding that he was the carman finding Nichols, then he would have been lying to obscure. And once we acknowledge that he always used the name Lechmere in his other authority contacts, the suggestion that there was foul play involved when he used Cross becomes a very good suggestion.

The problem is that many cannot even bring themselves to acknowledge that his authority name was typically Lechmere, let alone to accept that he may never have used Cross other than in instances of violent death.

They usually claim it is "bizarre" or something such to suggest that he called himself Lechmere in all walks of life. Which is - yes - a misinterpretation.

[Fisherman]

There is nothing to realize posters keep telling you and pointing out the flaws in your theory but for some reason you cant or wont accpet them.
www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I will let you in on WHY I don´t accept them: it is qualified drivel with no anchoring in the facts.

Surely that´s a fair enough reason not to buy into the nonsense?

[Trevor Marriott]

I will let you in on WHY I don´t accept them: it is qualified drivel with no anchoring in the facts.

Surely that´s a fair enough reason not to buy into the nonsense?

The facts you seek to rely on have sunk like a ships anchor !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

His use of an alias is something we cannot establish as innocent, no matter how hard we try. You are - yes - misinterpreting this matter too. Just as has been pointed out to you, if Lechmere had either a past involving accusations against hbis person in the name of Lechmere or connections he wanted to keep out of the loop, so as to enable him to proceed with the killing without these connections understanding that he was the carman finding Nichols, then he would have been lying to obscure. And once we acknowledge that he always used the name Lechmere in his other authority contacts, the suggestion that there was foul play involved when he used Cross becomes a very good suggestion.

The problem is that many cannot even bring themselves to acknowledge that his authority name was typically Lechmere, let alone to accept that he may never have used Cross other than in instances of violent death.

They usually claim it is "bizarre" or something such to suggest that he called himself Lechmere in all walks of life. Which is - yes - a misinterpretation.

Is that enough evidence to charge and convict him.if the criminal justice system worked in the same way based on your interpretation of facts there would be a lot of innocent people in jail

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

The facts you seek to rely on have sunk like a ships anchor !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Out of sheer curiosity - do you really believe in the nonsense you write? The Lechmere theory is by far the most debated and many net discussions on numerous forums bear witness to how the carman is the number one candidate for lots and lots of people. And here you are, thinking that nobody believes in it...?

Amazing. I don´t think I´ve seen anything quite like it, not even out here.

[Fisherman]

Is that enough evidence to charge and convict him.if the criminal justice system worked in the same way based on your interpretation of facts there would be a lot of innocent people in jail

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

With your take on things, it would appear the jails would remain empty - regardless of what people did.

[Trevor Marriott]

With your take on things, it would appear the jails would remain empty - regardless of what people did.

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and a jury has to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that based on the evidence put before them a person is guilty of the crime. Before a case is ever put before a jury the prosecution has to be satisfied that they have at least 50/60 per cent realsitic chance of securing a conviction

In the true interpretation as to what evidence is you do not have any, The back bone of your theory is nothing more that your misguided interpretation of the the witness testimony and you own personal opinon based on that false interpretation

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Out of sheer curiosity - do you really believe in the nonsense you write? The Lechmere theory is by far the most debated and many net discussions on numerous forums bear witness to how the carman is the number one candidate for lots and lots of people. And here you are, thinking that nobody believes in it...?

Yes they believe it becasue have you have misled many of those people by the way you have projected your theory and by using Scobie to prop it up. Well Scobies contribition is unsafe and not to be relied on so thats a big hole in your theory for a start let alone all the other facts pointed out to you on here which also do your theory no good.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FrankO]

Therefore, thre must have been a very obvious possibility that the boy protested wildly when Dahmer cooly went down to fetch him from the policemen. And that would have carried huge risks with itself. Nevertheless, Dahmer - who COULD have opted for leaving Milwaukee and trying to go into hiding - had the coolness to go get the boy.
He assessed his options, and then he approached the policemen, showing no fear or doubt whatsoever.

Actually, the situation was somewhat different, Christer. When Dahmer returned from the liquor store, he saw the boy with two 17-18 year old girls and went over to them. He tried to get the boy away from them, whilst being rather aggressive and changing the boy’s name a couple of times, which made the girls distrust him even more than they already seem to have done. They had already called the cops before Dahmer arrived, so, in fact, he only had the choice to walk away at that point (and leave Milwaukee) or to stay and bluff it out. Obviously, walking away would, very likely, have put the police immediately on his track.