Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    hi harry
    i obviously meant my dahmer example that included a detailed explanation of why its similar. and it is absolutely comparable-almost a direct comparison. Both involved them murdering someone (if lech is guilty of course)and both could have seemingly disappeared completely, and yet walked right in to the maw of police!
    Hardly the same, Abby.

    Dahmer’s victim was alive and in the hands of the police. Dahmer only had one option to avoid guilt and that was to try to manipulate his way out of the situation, otherwise he was a wanted killer.

    If Lechmere was the killer, he could’ve simply walked away and avoided any encounter. Robert Paul may have easily ignored the victim, and even had he stopped to inspect her, by the time he notified a policeman Lechmere would be long gone.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

      Hardly the same, Abby.

      Dahmer’s victim was alive and in the hands of the police. Dahmer only had one option to avoid guilt and that was to try to manipulate his way out of the situation, otherwise he was a wanted killer.

      If Lechmere was the killer, he could’ve simply walked away and avoided any encounter. Robert Paul may have easily ignored the victim, and even had he stopped to inspect her, by the time he notified a policeman Lechmere would be long gone.
      absolutely incorrect Harry
      the poor kid had already been attacked, tortured and had a hole drilled in his skull and acid poured into his brain by Dahmer. He was incoherent and couldnt even remember his own name, let alone dahmer or where he lived. which was a moot point anyway because Dahmer himself led the police to his apartment(where there was already a rotting corps from his previous kill) in a successful ruse to convince the cops the kid was his lover. He could have just avoided the whole situation and all the cops had on their hands was an incapacitated kid who couldnt talk, remember anything and who would shortly be dead or in a coma anyway.

      if lech was guilty, this is is very similar to what he did. intentionally initiating contact with police in a ruse to get away with murder, when one possibility could have been to just walk away.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

        absolutely incorrect Harry
        the poor kid had already been attacked, tortured and had a hole drilled in his skull and acid poured into his brain by Dahmer. He was incoherent and couldnt even remember his own name, let alone dahmer or where he lived. which was a moot point anyway because Dahmer himself led the police to his apartment(where there was already a rotting corps from his previous kill) in a successful ruse to convince the cops the kid was his lover. He could have just avoided the whole situation and all the cops had on their hands was an incapacitated kid who couldnt talk, remember anything and who would shortly be dead or in a coma anyway.

        if lech was guilty, this is is very similar to what he did. intentionally initiating contact with police in a ruse to get away with murder, when one possibility could have been to just walk away.
        Poor kid indeed, Abby!

        I don't know much about Dahmer, but that's the stuff of nightmares.

        Trepanning and acid, then you manage to escape only for the police to hand you right back to your captor.

        Beyond awful.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

          absolutely incorrect Harry
          the poor kid had already been attacked, tortured and had a hole drilled in his skull and acid poured into his brain by Dahmer. He was incoherent and couldnt even remember his own name, let alone dahmer or where he lived. which was a moot point anyway because Dahmer himself led the police to his apartment(where there was already a rotting corps from his previous kill) in a successful ruse to convince the cops the kid was his lover. He could have just avoided the whole situation and all the cops had on their hands was an incapacitated kid who couldnt talk, remember anything and who would shortly be dead or in a coma anyway.
          I wonder why the kid left Dahmer's apartment, Abby....
          "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 Abby Normal View Post

            absolutely incorrect Harry
            the poor kid had already been attacked, tortured and had a hole drilled in his skull and acid poured into his brain by Dahmer. He was incoherent and couldnt even remember his own name, let alone dahmer or where he lived. which was a moot point anyway because Dahmer himself led the police to his apartment(where there was already a rotting corps from his previous kill) in a successful ruse to convince the cops the kid was his lover. He could have just avoided the whole situation and all the cops had on their hands was an incapacitated kid who couldnt talk, remember anything and who would shortly be dead or in a coma anyway.

            if lech was guilty, this is is very similar to what he did. intentionally initiating contact with police in a ruse to get away with murder, when one possibility could have been to just walk away.
            Hi Abby,

            While what you say about Dahmer's victim Konerak Sinthasomphone is correct, and we know that now, Dahmer himself at the time would not know if Konerak was unable to lead the police back to his flat or not. Konerak had escaped after all, so as far as Dahmer was aware, he was more than capable of leading the police back. Dahmer was in a situation where he was, effectively, discovered. That is very different from a situation where it is a choice between being discovered or not. Dahmer was past that stage, as far as he knew, he was in the "dealing with having been discovered" stage of things and so had nothing to lose and everything to gain by interacting with the police to see if he could somehow get out of it. Sadly, he succeeded.

            On the other hand, Peter Sutcliff hid by laying low with his victim's body while someone walked their dog nearby. He did so to avoid "being discovered at all". In all likelihood, had the dog walker been walking directly towards him, he would have fled while they were at a good distance to avoid being identifiable (prevent discovery; seeing someone fleeing is not the same as seeing the person in an identifiable way). In Buck's Row, we are dealing with the situation where Paul is approaching the crime scene, and therefore is going to eventually get close enough to identify Cross/Lechmere. And if Cross/Lechmere was JtR, it has been pointed out that he is going to be on high alert. And the evidence from the crime scene tells us he would be facing towards where Paul enters Buck's Row, will have been aware of him long before he got within 40 yards, having as much as 1 minute 15 seconds to leave the area. And this applies to Cross/Lechmere entering Buck's Row as well, meaning if JtR was crouched over Nichols when Cross/Lechmere first enters Buck's Row, JtR as other could likewise have 1 minute 15 seconds or so to simply leave the area. It's only about 126 feet to the corner of the School, where he would duck out of sight, and it's about 390 feet from the eastern entrance to Buck's Row to the crime scene. There's simply no motivation, even for a psychopath, to wait to bluff out a situation they can avoid by simply leaving the area. Even at nothing more than an average walking speed, JtR would cover that distance in about 24 seconds, at which point Cross/Lechmere would still be 265 feet (88 yards) away, and that is double the distance that Paul estimates he was when he talks about seeing Cross/Lechmere (though of course, we don't know for sure that Paul hadn't seen Cross/Lechmere a head of him before that, but 40 yards is mentioned somewhere - I don't have my notes to check the details, sorry).

            The Dahmer situation is fundamentally different because Dahmer was in a situation where as far as he would know, Konerak could indeed lead the police back to his flat, at which point it was all over for him. While we might now know that was unlikely, Dahmer did not have our benefit of hindsight. And that makes the situation, and his decision as to how to handle it, fundamentally different from the situation in Buck's Row in my view.

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

              Hi Abby,

              While what you say about Dahmer's victim Konerak Sinthasomphone is correct, and we know that now, Dahmer himself at the time would not know if Konerak was unable to lead the police back to his flat or not. Konerak had escaped after all, so as far as Dahmer was aware, he was more than capable of leading the police back. Dahmer was in a situation where he was, effectively, discovered. That is very different from a situation where it is a choice between being discovered or not. Dahmer was past that stage, as far as he knew, he was in the "dealing with having been discovered" stage of things and so had nothing to lose and everything to gain by interacting with the police to see if he could somehow get out of it. Sadly, he succeeded.

              On the other hand, Peter Sutcliff hid by laying low with his victim's body while someone walked their dog nearby. He did so to avoid "being discovered at all". In all likelihood, had the dog walker been walking directly towards him, he would have fled while they were at a good distance to avoid being identifiable (prevent discovery; seeing someone fleeing is not the same as seeing the person in an identifiable way). In Buck's Row, we are dealing with the situation where Paul is approaching the crime scene, and therefore is going to eventually get close enough to identify Cross/Lechmere. And if Cross/Lechmere was JtR, it has been pointed out that he is going to be on high alert. And the evidence from the crime scene tells us he would be facing towards where Paul enters Buck's Row, will have been aware of him long before he got within 40 yards, having as much as 1 minute 15 seconds to leave the area. And this applies to Cross/Lechmere entering Buck's Row as well, meaning if JtR was crouched over Nichols when Cross/Lechmere first enters Buck's Row, JtR as other could likewise have 1 minute 15 seconds or so to simply leave the area. It's only about 126 feet to the corner of the School, where he would duck out of sight, and it's about 390 feet from the eastern entrance to Buck's Row to the crime scene. There's simply no motivation, even for a psychopath, to wait to bluff out a situation they can avoid by simply leaving the area. Even at nothing more than an average walking speed, JtR would cover that distance in about 24 seconds, at which point Cross/Lechmere would still be 265 feet (88 yards) away, and that is double the distance that Paul estimates he was when he talks about seeing Cross/Lechmere (though of course, we don't know for sure that Paul hadn't seen Cross/Lechmere a head of him before that, but 40 yards is mentioned somewhere - I don't have my notes to check the details, sorry).

              The Dahmer situation is fundamentally different because Dahmer was in a situation where as far as he would know, Konerak could indeed lead the police back to his flat, at which point it was all over for him. While we might now know that was unlikely, Dahmer did not have our benefit of hindsight. And that makes the situation, and his decision as to how to handle it, fundamentally different from the situation in Buck's Row in my view.

              - Jeff
              Hi Jeff

              hile what you say about Dahmer's victim Konerak Sinthasomphone is correct, and we know that now, Dahmer himself at the time would not know if Konerak was unable to lead the police back to his flat or not. Konerak had escaped after all, so as far as Dahmer was aware, he was more than capable of leading the police back. Dahmer was in a situation where he was, effectively, discovered. That is very different from a situation where it is a choice between being discovered or not. Dahmer was past that stage, as far as he knew, he was in the "dealing with having been discovered" stage of things and so had nothing to lose and everything to gain by interacting with the police to see if he could somehow get out of it. Sadly, he succeeded.
              wrong. It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. if the kid could have remembered anything that could bust Dahmer like leading the police back to his place, than surely walking up to the police while he was there would have busted him immediately. And Dahmer hadnt been "discovered" at all! what are you talking about?In fact-quite the opposite. and he may have well known the kid was so out of it he couldnt implicate him -he had just tortured and poured acid in his brain so he might have had a good idea. And if he stayed away and the small chance the kid could implicate him and lead police to his flat, all he has to do is deny it and say I dont this kid hes crazy-what could the police do?!?so either way what Dahmer did was an absolutely insane risk where by the far safer thing would have been if he just stayed away.

              and I see you all also conveniently leave out the fact that Dahmer himself led police back to his own apartment as part of the successful ruse-talk about insane risk after insane risk!

              So you are quite wrong-Its fundamentally the same thing Lech did, if guilty. More risky in fact.


              Not sure why people are having a hard time with this-I guess anything to deny anything about lech. good grief.

              Last edited by Abby Normal; 08-12-2021, 08:51 PM.

              Comment


              • It also needs to be factored in that Dahmer had a form of separation anxiety and fear of abandonment. Part of the reason he poured acid into the skulls of his victims and hoarded the bodies is because he couldn't bear for his victims to leave him. I'm sure this had some bearing on his decision to reclaim Konerak from the police.
                Last edited by Harry D; 08-12-2021, 09:12 PM.

                Comment


                • Hi Abby,

                  Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                  and he may have well known the kid was so out of it he couldnt implicate him -he had just tortured and poured acid in his brain so he might have had a good idea.
                  Yet, the kid still had presence of mind enough to get out of Dahmer's apartment. I'm sure Dahmer didn't think he just happened to fall into the direction of the door and then on the door handle and got out by sheer chance.

                  Frank

                  "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


                  • As I understand it, Dahmer didn't walk up to the police. He was chasing the poor kid as he escaped from his apartment building, when two young women tried to protect the boy. It was they who then called the police when Dahmer tried to persuade them to let him take his "friend" back inside.
                    ​​​​​​

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                      Hi Abby,


                      Yet, the kid still had presence of mind enough to get out of Dahmer's apartment. I'm sure Dahmer didn't think he just happened to fall into the direction of the door and then on the door handle and got out by sheer chance.

                      Frank
                      then engaging with the police while the kid was there was even crazier. thats why i said it makes no difference

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                        As I understand it, Dahmer didn't walk up to the police. He was chasing the poor kid as he escaped from his apartment building, when two young women tried to protect the boy. It was they who then called the police when Dahmer tried to persuade them to let him take his "friend" back inside.
                        ​​​​​​
                        wrong. he came back from the liquor store and found him babbling on the side of the street with three women who told dahmer they called the police and refused to let him take him. the police arrived and dahmer engaged them, rusing them into letting him take the boy back to his aprtment. he was so brazen about it he even led the cops to his apartment where the rotting corpse of his previous victim was.
                        at any time he could have walked away and it would have been much safer.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                          It also needs to be factored in that Dahmer had a form of separation anxiety and fear of abandonment. Part of the reason he poured acid into the skulls of his victims and hoarded the bodies is because he couldn't bear for his victims to leave him. I'm sure this had some bearing on his decision to reclaim Konerak from the police.
                          absolutely true and i agree.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by caz View Post

                            Hi George,

                            Didn't Robert Paul put himself centre stage in that interview, regarding how the conversation went with PC Mizen?

                            If Lechmere did all the talking, out of Paul's earshot, it seems odd that Paul would have invented a conversation that he wasn't party to and didn't even hear, which Mizen could simply have denied.

                            Moreover, that interview gave Lechmere his second chance to slip away but he fluffed it. Paul didn't describe him, and as far as Mizen could have known from reading it, Paul may just as well have been Lechmere. He didn't know one from the other and they were both carmen. One - Lechmere - remained unidentified and pretty much unidentifiable until he came forward voluntarily.

                            Don't quote me, but I think the explanation used to be that Lechmere must have got a thrill from engaging with the authorities a second time on the same case.

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X
                            Hi Caz,

                            The gist of Paul's statement to Lloyds was that he had found a man standing over a body, had left that man with the body and located a PC whom he unsuccessfully attempted to persuade to return to the body with him by telling him the woman was dead. When this failed he proceeded to work. I am at a loss to imagine why this interview was so radically different and contradictory of the testimony presented at the inquest.

                            The testimony at the inquest differs according to which newspaper you are reading, but my impression is that Mizen identified Lechmere as the person he was talking to with Paul commenting at a distance. What was said is disputed. Maybe Mizen read more into Lechmere's words than was intended or maybe Lechmere was deliberately misleading. We'll never know if Lechmere would have come forward had not Paul raised the controversy with his Lloyds interview. One might think that Lechmere may have been interviewed as well as apparently Lloyds had set about intercepting men on their way home, but Lechmere seems to have either delayed his return from work or declined the interview. It has been suggested earlier that the police were aware of Lechmere by Sunday, but the circumstances of his location are unknown.

                            The thrill of engagement in the case is really the best reason he had for not departing the scene in the first event, unless he just froze until too late. IF he was guilty, he must have gained some satisfaction from getting past Mizen, however I would think that both men would have been questioned by the police when later located. Lechmere's innocence at that later stage relies entirely on Paul being only seconds behind him in Bucks Row, having lost the opportunity for Mizen and Neil to search and find, or not, the knife and blood stains.

                            I should add that if the carmen were dressed as shown in the photo in Dusty's post #665, my suspicions about Lechmere would be reduced.

                            Cheers, George
                            “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                              Hi Jeff



                              wrong. It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. if the kid could have remembered anything that could bust Dahmer like leading the police back to his place, than surely walking up to the police while he was there would have busted him immediately. And Dahmer hadnt been "discovered" at all! what are you talking about?In fact-quite the opposite. and he may have well known the kid was so out of it he couldnt implicate him -he had just tortured and poured acid in his brain so he might have had a good idea. And if he stayed away and the small chance the kid could implicate him and lead police to his flat, all he has to do is deny it and say I dont this kid hes crazy-what could the police do?!?so either way what Dahmer did was an absolutely insane risk where by the far safer thing would have been if he just stayed away.

                              and I see you all also conveniently leave out the fact that Dahmer himself led police back to his own apartment as part of the successful ruse-talk about insane risk after insane risk!

                              So you are quite wrong-Its fundamentally the same thing Lech did, if guilty. More risky in fact.


                              Not sure why people are having a hard time with this-I guess anything to deny anything about lech. good grief.
                              No, it's definitely not the same thing Abby. I agree, though, Dahmer's leading the police back was brazen, but what else could he do if he was going to pull it off? He was trying to convince the police there was nothing for them to be concerned about, so he had to act as if it was fine for them to come back to his place. But regardless, there is a fundamental difference between Dahmer's situation and that in Buck's Row.

                              And the fundamental difference, as I said before, is in Buck's Row Nichols killer had the opportunity to choose between waiting there to be discovered and identified (as in seen and recognized) and leaving the scene, risking nothing more than possibly the person sees someone leaving the area, but not risking that he could be identified (he can't see who it is, only someone coming, so he would know they can't see who he is either). In contrast, Dahmer was in a situation where as far as he knew the jig was already up. The only option, in Dahmer's view, would be to try and convince the police there was nothing to see and no problem for them to be concerned with. Basically, by that point he had nothing to lose. In Buck's Row, there was everything to lose. That makes all the difference in the world, and makes them completely different situations that would require completely different choices to be made.

                              As for denying anything about Cross/Lechmere, I don't care if in Buck's Row we're talking about Cross/Lechmere being Nichols' murderer or if we're talking JtR as other, it's the situation between who ever was Nichols killer is different from Dahmer's because the "problem" they have to solve is different. Nichols' killer is facing a decision about whether or not to be identified, while Dahmer already was (as far as he knew). That applies equally to both situations.

                              What is sort of more similar to Buck's Row, but not quite, are those who commit a murder, and manipulate the situation later to appear to be the one who "finds" the body with someone else, or arranges for someone else to find it. This is often a partner, who then comes home from work, and invites a coworker home with them, only to "find" their partner has been murdered. Or, maybe they call a neighbor feigning concern and ask them to "go check". However, those situations are again very different from allowing oneself to be found over a freshly murdered victim, and are often attempts to try and deal with the fact that partners are often of interest by the police, so they're trying to deal with that issue. I don't think that applies to Buck's Row.

                              I'm trying to think of other serial killers who were almost caught in the act, and what their reactions were. I'm sure there's more than Peter Sutcliff, but at the moment I can't think of any. Even the above case, the murder in the Library, is different if the fellow was the killer because he was fleeing the scene, and spotted while doing that. That would be more like Dahmer, now he's been seen, so he has to diffuse that situation, etc. I'm sure there are others, and it may be there are those who did "wait and bluff it out", I just can't think of any. But I can't think of any more who "hid and fled later" (in the Sutcliff way; because they were not being approached), or those who "were seen as someone fleeing the scene when someone arrived", which is what I suspect would be the case most of the time. But that is an empirical question, and without those numbers, it's a prediction, which may be right or wrong. But those numbers need to come from cases as similar to Buck's Row as possible, and Dahmer isn't one of them.

                              Anyway, it's clear we have very different views on that, and I don't expect either one of us is going to change the other's mind, which is fine. I think I'm mostly musing this over for myself actually, sort of thinking of what parameters I think would be important, as I might try and look through various books and cases I have to see if I can find any examples that would meet my criterions. I like to try and set those before I look for cases, so I don't end up just modifying my search based upon a case fitting my expectations. We're all subject to confirmation bias, but there are things we can do ahead of time to try and minimize that influence on our research.

                              - Jeff

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                                No, it's definitely not the same thing Abby. I agree, though, Dahmer's leading the police back was brazen, but what else could he do if he was going to pull it off? He was trying to convince the police there was nothing for them to be concerned about, so he had to act as if it was fine for them to come back to his place. But regardless, there is a fundamental difference between Dahmer's situation and that in Buck's Row.

                                And the fundamental difference, as I said before, is in Buck's Row Nichols killer had the opportunity to choose between waiting there to be discovered and identified (as in seen and recognized) and leaving the scene, risking nothing more than possibly the person sees someone leaving the area, but not risking that he could be identified (he can't see who it is, only someone coming, so he would know they can't see who he is either). In contrast, Dahmer was in a situation where as far as he knew the jig was already up. The only option, in Dahmer's view, would be to try and convince the police there was nothing to see and no problem for them to be concerned with. Basically, by that point he had nothing to lose. In Buck's Row, there was everything to lose. That makes all the difference in the world, and makes them completely different situations that would require completely different choices to be made.

                                As for denying anything about Cross/Lechmere, I don't care if in Buck's Row we're talking about Cross/Lechmere being Nichols' murderer or if we're talking JtR as other, it's the situation between who ever was Nichols killer is different from Dahmer's because the "problem" they have to solve is different. Nichols' killer is facing a decision about whether or not to be identified, while Dahmer already was (as far as he knew). That applies equally to both situations.

                                What is sort of more similar to Buck's Row, but not quite, are those who commit a murder, and manipulate the situation later to appear to be the one who "finds" the body with someone else, or arranges for someone else to find it. This is often a partner, who then comes home from work, and invites a coworker home with them, only to "find" their partner has been murdered. Or, maybe they call a neighbor feigning concern and ask them to "go check". However, those situations are again very different from allowing oneself to be found over a freshly murdered victim, and are often attempts to try and deal with the fact that partners are often of interest by the police, so they're trying to deal with that issue. I don't think that applies to Buck's Row.

                                I'm trying to think of other serial killers who were almost caught in the act, and what their reactions were. I'm sure there's more than Peter Sutcliff, but at the moment I can't think of any. Even the above case, the murder in the Library, is different if the fellow was the killer because he was fleeing the scene, and spotted while doing that. That would be more like Dahmer, now he's been seen, so he has to diffuse that situation, etc. I'm sure there are others, and it may be there are those who did "wait and bluff it out", I just can't think of any. But I can't think of any more who "hid and fled later" (in the Sutcliff way; because they were not being approached), or those who "were seen as someone fleeing the scene when someone arrived", which is what I suspect would be the case most of the time. But that is an empirical question, and without those numbers, it's a prediction, which may be right or wrong. But those numbers need to come from cases as similar to Buck's Row as possible, and Dahmer isn't one of them.

                                Anyway, it's clear we have very different views on that, and I don't expect either one of us is going to change the other's mind, which is fine. I think I'm mostly musing this over for myself actually, sort of thinking of what parameters I think would be important, as I might try and look through various books and cases I have to see if I can find any examples that would meet my criterions. I like to try and set those before I look for cases, so I don't end up just modifying my search based upon a case fitting my expectations. We're all subject to confirmation bias, but there are things we can do ahead of time to try and minimize that influence on our research.


                                - Jeff
                                hi jeff
                                nope, any way you slice it there behavior is fundamentally the same. id say agree to disagreeat this point but since i know im right im not. so we just disagree, but your wrong.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X