Evidence of innocence

[FrankO]

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

Hi Jeff (& George),

Good point, Jeff; it's something I'd been meaning to post as well, but you beat me to it.

Actually, below is what I'd been meaning to write in reply something GBinOz/George wrote in post #605. He wrote there: "Innocent or guilty, they should have been aware of each other if only 40 yards apart as Lechmere testified." And my response would have been:

I’m not among those who think both must have been paying much attention, if any at all, to their surroundings while they were hurrying along on their way to work. I, for one, am very good at “locking myself up” with just my thoughts along my way to work, doing everything I have to on autopilot, only breaking out when something (out of the ordinary) happens that needs my attention. For Lechmere, that something may have been the figure he saw lying across the street and for Paul, that something may have been a man he saw standing in the middle of the street. Also, the sound of their own footfalls may well have been drowning out the sound of the other’s.

Cheers,
Frank

[caz]

Don't forget we have 'clever' Trevor in here too

And Billericay Dickere!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Wouldn't the answer be the same, he's just discovered the body. Though he may have added that yes he did hear footsteps running quickly away in that direction officer if you're quick. Allowing him to make his own exit and or ditch the knife.

The difference is that a copper with a lamp could have seen blood on Lechmere, which Lechmere himself may not have been aware of, and could have done nothing about.

I'm not sure he'd have wanted to try and bluff his way out of that one.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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

He likes to Turn 'em Green.

[caz]

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

How would Lechmere have distinguished Robert Paul's footwear from that of a beat copper, I wonder?

[GBinOz]

Hi Jeff (& George),

Good point, Jeff; it's something I'd been meaning to post as well, but you beat me to it.

Actually, below is what I'd been meaning to write in reply something GBinOz/George wrote in post #605. He wrote there: "Innocent or guilty, they should have been aware of each other if only 40 yards apart as Lechmere testified." And my response would have been:

I’m not among those who think both must have been paying much attention, if any at all, to their surroundings while they were hurrying along on their way to work. I, for one, am very good at “locking myself up” with just my thoughts along my way to work, doing everything I have to on autopilot, only breaking out when something (out of the ordinary) happens that needs my attention. For Lechmere, that something may have been the figure he saw lying across the street and for Paul, that something may have been a man he saw standing in the middle of the street. Also, the sound of their own footfalls may well have been drowning out the sound of the other’s.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

Thank you for your comments. I would submit in reply that IF Lechmere was guilty he had every reason to be on high alert. Paul stated his concern for the reputation of the area so that would, I should think, have made him more observant at that time. You may well be right about the foot falls, and possible echos, making it difficult to discern a seperate set of foot steps, but thrown in with that reservation is Paul's failure to see a moving figure only 40 yards in front of him. The terrible "ifs" accumulate.

Cheers, George

[caz]

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.

Ah, apologies, Dusty, just read your post.

So Lechmere would instantly recognise Robert Paul's footsteps as not being the old bill approaching? Would that have made up his mind to stay and bluff rather than walk swiftly away?

Love,

Caz
X

[GBinOz]

How would Lechmere have distinguished Robert Paul's footwear from that of a beat copper, I wonder?

Hi Caz,

Well, according to Dusty, the beat cops were wearing wooden soled shoes and Paul was wearing sneakers or slippers or some other form of quiet foot wear. Another point is that Lechmere had been walking this street for some months and presumably may have been aware that Neil's beat was in an easterly direction along Bucks Row.

Cheers, George

[caz]

Hi Frank,

Thank you for your comments. I would submit in reply that IF Lechmere was guilty he had every reason to be on high alert. Paul stated his concern for the reputation of the area so that would, I should think, have made him more observant at that time. You may well be right about the foot falls, and possible echos, making it difficult to discern a seperate set of foot steps, but thrown in with that reservation is Paul's failure to see a moving figure only 40 yards in front of him. The terrible "ifs" accumulate.

Cheers, George

Did Paul actually say that he failed to see Lechmere's 'moving figure' only 40 yards in front of him?

Could he not have been oblivious, head down and just wanting to walk as quickly as possible along Buck's Row without mishap? Lechmere may have had to distract him from this purpose by touching him on the shoulder to prevent him from walking on by.

Ever since I was a child in south west London, I have always looked down at the pavement as I walk, to avoid uneven or broken paving slabs, chewing gum and dog poo. [What did dogs eat back in the 1960s to make their poo white??]. I wouldn't pay any particular attention to anyone walking in front of me, but am aware if anyone is walking too close behind me without overtaking. I am more aware of the traffic than of other pedestrians, but apart from that I tend to get lost in my thoughts unless someone goes out of their way to distract me or attract my attention.

Love,

Caz
X

[GBinOz]

Did Paul actually say that he failed to see Lechmere's 'moving figure' only 40 yards in front of him?

Could he not have been oblivious, head down and just wanting to walk as quickly as possible along Buck's Row without mishap? Lechmere may have had to distract him from this purpose by touching him on the shoulder to prevent him from walking on by.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

In both his Lloyd's interview and his inquest testimony he stated that he first saw a man "standing". He gave no indication that he was aware of Lechmere before that point. I would think that the prudent thing to have done was for Lechmere to speak to Paul rather than approach and reach out at him before saying a word.

Cheers, George

[rjpalmer]

[What did dogs eat back in the 1960s to make their poo white??]

Sarah Silverman must not be well-known in the UK.

That White Dog Poop From the 70’s | All Dogs Poop | Pet Service For NJ

[Fiver]

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.

Another example is the 1947 murder of Elizabeth Short. The woman who discovered her body initially thought it was a discarded store mannequin.

Lewis Deimshutz, who found Elizabeth Stride's body, said "Then I noticed that there was something unusual about the ground, but I could not tell what it was except that it was not level. I mean that there was something there like a little heap. But I thought it was only mud or something of that kind, and did not take much notice of it. However, I touched it with my whip-handle, and then I was able to tell that it was not mud. I wanted to see what it was, so jumped out of the trap and struck a match. Then I saw that there was a woman lying there."

[FrankO]

Paul stated his concern for the reputation of the area so that would, I should think, have made him more observant at that time.

Hi George,

I don’t necessarily think so, nor does his Lloyd interview give the impression that he was, until he saw Lechmere.

"It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth."

The hurrying along, combined with the dark & the dangerous locality suggest, to me, that his caution was only awakened by seeing a man standing in the middle of the street. What Paul said about the criminal activities in the neighbourhood may well have been just another criticism of the police, albeit disguised. And, of course, interesting from the newspaper’s view.

So, I think it’s still quite possible that Paul wasn’t paying much attention to his surroundings until he actually became aware of Lechmere. The fact that Paul must have walked through Buck’s Row on all of his working days but didn’t mention any personal bad experiences, supports that.

You may well be right about the foot falls, and possible echos, making it difficult to discern a seperate set of foot steps, but thrown in with that reservation is Paul's failure to see a moving figure only 40 yards in front of him. The terrible "ifs" accumulate.

I’m inclined to be with Caz on this. If he just worried about getting to work as quickly as possible, then he may well have been more or less oblivious, hurrying with his head down to look directly in front of him where he was just able to see.

But I can’t help but throw in another terrible “ifs”, George. The thing is that we don’t know how far apart they were supposed to have been walking, exactly. Yes, Lechmere said that he only heard Paul when he noticed the figure was a woman and that Paul then was about 40 yards away, but do we know that Lechmere didn’t slow down before deciding to cross the street and stop halfway? And do we know how accurate his estimate of 40 yards was? Do we even know that he could see Paul immediately after turning around when hearing him? And do we know that visibility was equal for both men? Do we know that Paul was walking at the same pace as Lechmere was walking? What if Paul walked quicker than Lechmere? So, what if Paul actually walked 60 yards behind him? Or what if his visibility was worse than Lechmere’s? Or both? Of course, I don’t claim to have the answers to all those questions, but the 40 yards perhaps aren’t written in stone.

Cheers,
Frank

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

You make some good points in the above comments. Lechmere said that he heard Paul approaching whereas Paul doesn't mention hearing Lechmere, but says he saw him. The problem for analysis is Paul's account to Lloyds is quite contradictory of his inquest statement and the reports of the different newspapers on the inquest are also contradictory in places.

I should add that I am by no means rusted on to Lechmere as a suspect, but I feel that there are enough anomalies to keep him on my Persons of Interest list, albiet not anywhere near the top.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

I have no problems with examining Cross/Lechmere as a possible candidate, but in my opinion, the results of that examination throws up no actual red flags. Everything we know about his actions and movements are entirely consistent with someone innocent. Anything can be spun to appear nefarious, but when it comes right down to it, nothing reported leads directly to his guilt until viewed under a guilty light. Others believe differently, but so far I've seen nothing that is more difficult to view under an innocent light and to me, a lot of it looks more plausible.

For example, in a later post than the one I'm replying to, you make the point "I would submit in reply that IF Lechmere was guilty he had every reason to be on high alert." Which makes perfect sense, if he's guilty. But then, that means he would have been aware of Paul pretty much when Paul enters Buck's row, and would have had well over a minute to leave the scene. He could have simply walked away, rounded the boarding school out of Paul's sight, and then scarpered off more quickly, fitting the "cool, unshakable killer" that the guilty premise requires him to be. With over a minute before Paul even reaches the crime scene, Cross/Lechmere would easily have made it to Whitechapel Road, where he would just be another carman heading to work, lost in the crowd. Moreover, it would take Paul some time to find a police officer (it took them about 4 minutes to find PC Mizen, and there's no reason to believe that time would be reduced; Paul might not even have stopped to check the "drunk woman in the street", leaving PC Neil to be the one to discover her, by which time Cross/Lechmere is over 5 minutes away and well beyond risk of being stopped and questioned.

In other words, a guilty Cross/Lechmere, on high alert, has no reason to want to "bluff it out". That only comes into play if he was unaware of Paul coming down Buck's Row and is surprised by his appearance. And if he's crouched over the body, facing east (as the crime scene suggests he would be), and he's on high alert, as such an individual would be, it seems to me highly implausible to suggest that he could have been unaware of Paul's approach long before Paul was 40 yards distant.

I am unaware of any other murderer, psychopath or not, who has the opportunity to leave the scene with little chance of being identified or even noticed, who has chosen to remain in order to directly interact with someone. As such, the idea that a psychopath would do this, is something that I have never seen documented anywhere else. That, to me, makes the suggestion a psychopath would do this unsupportable. We never see them doing this, so the probability of them doing this is vanishingly small in my opinion. Of course, I do not know every case of every psychopath, so it may be there are examples out there, but so far, nobody has presented a similar one. (I know of cases - Peter Sutcliff - where they have chosen to remain with a body to remain hidden from a witness, but that was to avoid the witness coming to their location, which doesn't apply here; and I know of cases where they have interacted with police after a victim has escaped - Jeffrey Dahmer - but again, by that point it was the only thing they could do to avoid capture, their hand was forced, so to speak). But nowhere have I seen a killer choose to reveal themselves when they would have the opportunity to disappear unnoticed, or at least, without being identified - and that appears to be what we're dealing with here.

- Jeff

[Harry D]

But nowhere have I seen a killer choose to reveal themselves when they would have the opportunity to disappear unnoticed, or at least, without being identified - and that appears to be what we're dealing with here.

- Jeff

Off the top of my head, I can only think of Betsy Aardsma's murder. She was a college graduate who was stabbed in an academic library in Pennsylvania, 1969.

Two students—Joao Uafinda and Marilee Erdley—then observed a man running from the direction of the commotion, concealing his right hand, exclaiming, "That girl needs help!" Erdley described this man as being dressed in khaki washable slacks, a tie, and a sports jacket. He had well-kept brown hair, was approximately 6 ft in height, about 185 lbs, and may have been wearing glasses. This individual led Uafinda and Erdley into the Core, where he pointed toward the prone body of Aardsma lying between scattered books and metal shelves which had also been knocked loose. As Erdley began to check for signs of a pulse, Uafinda observed this individual leaving the library; he discreetly followed the man upstairs, where the individual ran out of the library. Uafinda attempted to chase this man, but was outpaced.

Of course, in this case, it was never established if that individual was responsible for the murder.