Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by The Baron View Post



    I remember reading a brilliant post of Caz, where she presented another case for a person who also confused a body with a tarpaulin.


    But the Lechmerians remained in their subzero state of denial.



    The Baron
    Thank you Baron.

    But in that other case, from the 21st century, the person who innocently discovered a serial killer's victim thought at first it was some white plastic sheeting.

    But the analogy is there, and a fair one I submit.

    It's a common feature when anyone comes across the last thing they ever expect or wish to see - a body left in a public place. But the person who put it there would have no such experience - or indeed empathy - to imagine what that's like for the poor bastard who has the misfortune to find it.

    That is my strongest evidence of Lechmere's innocence.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Last edited by caz; 08-10-2021, 05:07 PM.
    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


    Comment


    • Originally posted by caz View Post
      When my late father-in-law worked in a foundry in the East End, in the 1930s and 40s, if you were so much as a minute late, you were automatically docked a quarter of an hour's wages, so it was very important to leave home in good time and allow for any unforeseen delays on the way. I imagine it would have been similarly strict in 1888.
      Quite. My workplace wasn't nearly that draconian, so I can only imagine how anxious Cross and Paul were to avoid being late. Not that either of them said that they were, mind, I believe the phrase used was "behind time". Which to my mind sounds like they weren't necessariy late yet, but their safety margin had been eaten in to.

      My original point, in case it wasn't clear, was; without knowing how much safety margin Cross liked to allow himself, it's impossible to draw meaningful conclusions about his journey time.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by caz View Post

        Thank you Baron.

        But in that other case, from the 21st century, the person who innocently discovered a serial killer's victim thought at first it was some white plastic sheeting.

        But the analogy is there, and a fair one I submit.

        It's a common feature when anyone comes across the last thing they ever expect or wish to see - a body left in a public place. But the person who put it there would have no such experience - or indeed empathy - to imagine what that's like for the poor bastard who has the misfortune to find it.

        That is my strongest evidence of Lechmere's innocence.

        Love,

        Caz
        X


        Agree, thats how innocent and normal people think and behave.

        That must be highlighted!



        The Baron

        Comment


        • Originally posted by caz View Post

          Thank you Baron.

          But in that other case, from the 21st century, the person who innocently discovered a serial killer's victim thought at first it was some white plastic sheeting.

          But the analogy is there, and a fair one I submit.

          It's a common feature when anyone comes across the last thing they ever expect or wish to see - a body left in a public place. But the person who put it there would have no such experience - or indeed empathy - to imagine what that's like for the poor bastard who has the misfortune to find it.

          That is my strongest evidence of Lechmere's innocence.

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          I guess our Baron holds Court only a station or two away from Fulham Broadway.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

            , and very early for his stated usual departure time of 3:20. I should add here that I place no stock on clock times, but I do on time differences.


            Cheers, George
            Hi George

            The 3,20 is nowhere said to be his usually departure time, thats simply an assumption people make.

            3.20 is reported in 2 papers using almost identical wording, in reality its probably a typo.

            I actually work on an assumed average speed of 3.5mph.

            He may indeed a

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

              Oh dear, I'm not sure where I estimated 40 seconds, so can't be sure what my error would be, but it's possible I accidently put in 40 for the time as 40 yards between them has often been bandied about. Typically I use 3.5 mph as the estimated walking speed (that's reported to be the average walking speed for people), which would take about 1 min 16 seconds. At 3.5 mph, 40 seconds would cover about 68 yards. Anyway, I'll try and track that post down and make a correction. Sorry about that.

              - Jeff
              we all make mistakes Jeff, I know I do

              steve

              Comment


              • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                Hi Harry,

                You also have to think it reasonable that two men could walk down the cobblestones of Bucks Row for 70 yards without becoming aware of each other. If you were the discoverer of a body in an area known for knockdown robberies and a stranger approached you out of the dark, would you move to incercept and touch him on the shoulder before requesting help? When he came that close I would not have been surprised if Paul had knocked Lechmere down and run away.

                Cheers, George
                George,

                they are walking on the pavement, not on cobbles


                steve

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                  George,

                  they are walking on the pavement, not on cobbles


                  steve
                  What would the pavement have been made of? Any idea?
                  G U T

                  There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                    George,

                    they are walking on the pavement, not on cobbles


                    steve
                    Hi Steve,

                    I daresay that Thain was walking on the pavement on the opposite side of Brady St (thanks to Dusty for that information) and was still heard by Neil over 130 yards away. It has to be conceded that the police would have been wearing hobnail boots were as the foot wear of the carmen is unknown, but it would be a pretty good bet that they were hard soled long wearing boots.

                    Cheers, George

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by caz View Post

                      Hi Steve,

                      I've raised this point before, that if it had been PC Neil instead of Robert Paul, who was the next man to arrive, would Lechmere still be accused of not raising the alarm, if he behaved towards the PC exactly as he did with Paul, and beckoned him over to where the woman was lying?

                      I don't recall seeing a sensible answer.

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X
                      Hi Caz,

                      The normal expectation for raising the alarm I would have thought been to beckon him over to where the woman was lying, accompanied by a verbal such as "look, there is a woman lying here". But Lechmere didn't do that. In an area that Paul described as dangerous Lechmere moved towards Paul to intercept his attempt to walk by and reached out at him before he said anything. Was he hoping Paul would run away?

                      Cheers, George

                      Comment


                      • Just to clear up audio footfall issues.

                        The police wore wooden soles and were instantly recognisable because of it, plus Neil would be expecting Thain to pass by. In normal circumstances they would have met at the top of Buck's Row or very close to it.

                        Mmes Lilley, Green and Purkis made no claims about having heard any sound of footfalls and Cross claimed only to have heard them when Paul was close, so the evidence is that they did not wear hobnail boots. As carmen there would be no need for them to wear metal studs, as a large part of their working day was spent sitting down.

                        It's just one of the many myths put out there to imply guilt, it has no evidential basis to it.
                        dustymiller
                        aka drstrange

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                          Just to clear up audio footfall issues.

                          The police wore wooden soles and were instantly recognisable because of it, plus Neil would be expecting Thain to pass by. In normal circumstances they would have met at the top of Buck's Row or very close to it.

                          Mmes Lilley, Green and Purkis made no claims about having heard any sound of footfalls and Cross claimed only to have heard them when Paul was close, so the evidence is that they did not wear hobnail boots. As carmen there would be no need for them to wear metal studs, as a large part of their working day was spent sitting down.

                          It's just one of the many myths put out there to imply guilt, it has no evidential basis to it.
                          Hi Dusty,

                          Are you referring to the pieces of wood resembling cow hooves that were attached to the sole and heel?

                          I was under the impression that the witnesses said they they heard nothing unusual. Lechmere and Paul made this trip 6 days a week, as did other workmen one might presume, so the sound of walking may have been to them white noise? I was also under the impression that hob nails were a economic measure employed to extend the life of the boot sole and heel.

                          Cheers, George

                          Comment


                          • With regards to Cross/Lechmere hearing Paul (and vice versa), the sound of their own footfalls will be much louder than those of the other person 40-50 yards away. Cross/Lechmere is unlikely to have heard Paul walking behind him until he stopped moving himself, which is what it sounds like actually happened. He stopped in the middle of the street trying to work out what he was seeing, and that's when he could hear the distant footsteps of Paul.

                            Paul, on the other hand, may have been aware of Cross/Lechmere for much longer as one would expect him to be able to see the fellow ahead, unless he's a ground looker (walks with their head down, looking not that far ahead of themselves rather than looking down the street at things more distant). We don't know when Paul first became aware of Lechmere as I don't think he's asked that specifically.

                            In the end, Cross/Lechmere not hearing Paul behind him is probably no more mysterious than the fact he's walking to work, his own movements being enough to mask the footsteps of someone well behind him.

                            - Jeff

                            Comment


                            • When a murder is committed the usual becomes the comment worthy, which is why Fanny Mortimer commented on the not unusual P.C. Smith's footsteps.

                              It has been said that hobnails were for extending the life of a boot, but there specific use was for grip, which is why navvies tended to use them because of the mud. From experience I know, for walking on hard ground, they are a pain in the part of the body you tend to fall on because of there slipperiness! As I noted, carmen spent significant parts of there day on that same piece of anatomy, making boot life extensions not a priority.
                              dustymiller
                              aka drstrange

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                                When a murder is committed the usual becomes the comment worthy, which is why Fanny Mortimer commented on the not unusual P.C. Smith's footsteps.

                                It has been said that hobnails were for extending the life of a boot, but there specific use was for grip, which is why navvies tended to use them because of the mud. From experience I know, for walking on hard ground, they are a pain in the part of the body you tend to fall on because of there slipperiness! As I noted, carmen spent significant parts of there day on that same piece of anatomy, making boot life extensions not a priority.
                                Hi Dusty,

                                Thanks for sharing your actual life experience of hobnail boots. My life experience includes working as a Surveyor for Sydney Water and that employer's preference was for hard soled steel cap boots driven by safety aspects. I would imagine that safety would feature in the choice for carman in their day, plus the fact that their jobs were not highly paid so economy would also be a feature over comfort.

                                Cheers, George

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X