Evidence of innocence

[Herlock Sholmes]

When Lechmere and Paul decided to look for a police officer on their way to work a guilty Lechmere would have had to have come up with the plan of how to speak to that officer out of Paul’s earshot so that he could enact what’s come to be known as The Mizen Scam which would have allowed him to pass on to work without being searched or being asked to accompany the officer back to the scene. It’s difficult to see how he could have even tried this with an expectation of it succeeding without arousing the suspicions of Robert Paul? After all they would have arrived together and had both seen Nichols body so why would Lechmere have taken the Constable to one side to talk to him without Paul hearing? And even if he’d managed to do it how could he have known that the Constable wouldn’t have called Paul over to hear what he had to say? If he was guilty surely a far better and less fraught with danger plan would have been for him to have suggested that they’d have had better luck finding a Constable if they had split up and went different ways? Then all he’d have had to have done would have been to avoid a Constable on his way to work.

[paul g]

If they both started work at the same time and both took the same regular route one would think there paths would of crossed quite a few times.
weather from a distance or a faint recognizing or noticing

[JeffHamm]

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.

Oh, that's an interesting possibility, but given we don't know if the person was the murderer, it's hard to know if this is actually such an example. I've not heard of this case, so I'm going to see what I can find about it.

So, we have one example that has a chance of being an example of the sort we would be looking for. That's a bit closer to something than we had before, but whether we're really still at zero or not is open for debate. I would, however, point out that 1 example out of the many cases of psychopathic murderers does not a common behaviour make.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

>>Well, according to Dusty, ...<<

Not according to me, I wasn't there.

According to the people who were there, Purkis, Lilley, Green, Neil, et.al.

"Mrs. Green, Mr. and Mrs. Perkins, the watchman in Schneider's tar factory, and the watchman in a wool depot, which are both situation in Buck's-row, agree that the night was an unusually quiet one for the neighbourhood."

"I should have heard it had there been any, I think," said Mrs. Green, when interviewed, "for I have trouble with my heart, and am a very light sleeper."

"Across the row lives a Mr. Perkins, whose wife is not very well. They sleep in the front room, and either Mr. Perkins or his wife was awake at short intervals up to four o'clock on Friday morning. Neither heard the slightest sound in the street, and both agreed that it was an unusually quite night"

"The watchman in Schneider's factory, just above the Perkins's, heard nothing."

"The Coroner: Did you hear any noise that night?
PC Neil: No, I heard nothing. The farthest I had been that night was just through the Whitechapel-road and up Baker's-row. I was never far away from the spot. "

"Mrs. Lilley said: - I slept in front of the house, and could hear everything that occured in the street.

Always follow the evidence not the conspiracy theories."

[drstrange169]

Charles Lechmere at work? Boots and all.

[GBinOz]

When Lechmere and Paul decided to look for a police officer on their way to work a guilty Lechmere would have had to have come up with the plan of how to speak to that officer out of Paul’s earshot so that he could enact what’s come to be known as The Mizen Scam which would have allowed him to pass on to work without being searched or being asked to accompany the officer back to the scene. It’s difficult to see how he could have even tried this with an expectation of it succeeding without arousing the suspicions of Robert Paul? After all they would have arrived together and had both seen Nichols body so why would Lechmere have taken the Constable to one side to talk to him without Paul hearing? And even if he’d managed to do it how could he have known that the Constable wouldn’t have called Paul over to hear what he had to say? If he was guilty surely a far better and less fraught with danger plan would have been for him to have suggested that they’d have had better luck finding a Constable if they had split up and went different ways? Then all he’d have had to have done would have been to avoid a Constable on his way to work.

Hi Herlock,

The critical point for Lechmere, IF he was guilty was when he decided to stay and bluff rather than flee. He couldn't have anticipated or planned for anything that happened after that and would have just had to deal with whatever situation presented itself. The men's prime motive seemed to be to be on time for work rather than finding a Constable. Had Paul not given his interview to Lloyds they may never have been heard of at all.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Charles Lechmere at work? Boots and all.

Thanks for the picture Dusty. If that was Pickfords carman uniform, it wouldn't double well as a choice of clothing for a serial killer.

Cheers, George

[drstrange169]

[Harry D]

Oh, that's an interesting possibility, but given we don't know if the person was the murderer, it's hard to know if this is actually such an example. I've not heard of this case, so I'm going to see what I can find about it.

So, we have one example that has a chance of being an example of the sort we would be looking for. That's a bit closer to something than we had before, but whether we're really still at zero or not is open for debate. I would, however, point out that 1 example out of the many cases of psychopathic murderers does not a common behaviour make.

- Jeff

Quite right, Jeff. We don't know for sure if that individual was the killer. In Betsy's case, I think it had the hallmarks of a 'thrill kill', which could be why the perpetrator deliberately drew attention to himself. However, we know that serial killers tend to fall into a different category of murderer.

[JeffHamm]

Quite right, Jeff. We don't know for sure if that individual was the killer. In Betsy's case, I think it had the hallmarks of a 'thrill kill', which could be why the perpetrator deliberately drew attention to himself. However, we know that serial killers tend to fall into a different category of murderer.

From the few different sites I checked out, there are those who suggest it was a fellow she dated a couple times, who was a bit of a hothead and got into trouble with the law later (charged with molesting young boys). But, apparently the police do not consider him a suspect, though think he may have known something about it. It's difficult to judge given any suspect focused sites can often be presenting a very one sided view. The fact the police do not appear to think he's guilty suggests to me the case against him is not as compelling as it is made out to be. At least they admit it's circumstantial. Her boyfriend was ruled out as he was studying with friends and had multiple people able to testify as to where he was at the time.

She died of a single stab wound, which seems odd for a thrill kill to me. And in the stacks in a library seems a strange place to seek a victim. But, then again, I recall back in the 1980s a woman was attacked by someone with a hammer at Dalhousie University's Library, though other than that I can't recall anything specific details, so perhaps not so unusual (I don't think it was a fatal attack, and I don't know if she knew her attacker). Anyway, I can see why this could be an attack by someone who knew her, but there's nothing to rule out a stranger attack. Most accounts I've read just suggest the fellow who drew attention to her just left the building and I've only seen the bit about going back with the two fellows in the Wikipedia version I think it was. But that detail doesn't show up in other places. Tracking down the details on that are on my list of things to try and remember to do!

- Jeff

[caz]

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

Christer would no doubt have arrested that woman on suspicion!

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."

Good points Fiver.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

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

i guess you forgot about my dahmer example a few pages back already. but i agree it is rare

[caz]

Hi Herlock,

The critical point for Lechmere, IF he was guilty was when he decided to stay and bluff rather than flee. He couldn't have anticipated or planned for anything that happened after that and would have just had to deal with whatever situation presented itself. The men's prime motive seemed to be to be on time for work rather than finding a Constable. Had Paul not given his interview to Lloyds they may never have been heard of at all.

Cheers, George

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

[Harry D]

i guess you forgot about my dahmer example a few pages back already. but i agree it is rare

The post you quoted literally mentions Dahmer.

Also, Dahmer's situation was not comparable to the one in Buck's Row.

[Abby Normal]

The post you quoted literally mentions Dahmer.

Also, Dahmer's situation was not comparable to the one in Buck's Row.

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!