Evidence of innocence

[SuperShodan]

Originally posted by Fisherman
"... I, on the other hand, know EXACTLY what material he [Griffiths] had, and I can tell you that it was not in any way skewed. It was a very full compilation of newspaper articles and police reports..."



-- And this (below) is very obviously a screengrab of the two men sitting together and able to see each other's folders and compare their contents...



M.

It’s worth pointing out that as a former head of a murder squad and also having an academic PhD Griffiths is likely to be gullible and highly suggestible.

[John Wheat]

Originally posted by Fisherman
"... I, on the other hand, know EXACTLY what material he [Griffiths] had, and I can tell you that it was not in any way skewed. It was a very full compilation of newspaper articles and police reports..."



-- And this (below) is very obviously a screengrab of the two men sitting together and able to see each other's folders and compare their contents...



M.

I don't believe you and I don't believe Fisherman. There is no evidence against Lechmere. All Lechmere did was find a body.

[John Wheat]

It’s worth pointing out that as a former head of a murder squad and also having an academic PhD Griffiths is likely to be gullible and highly suggestible.

Which is one of the reasons I don't believe Fisherman is telling the truth.

[SuperShodan]

I don't believe you and I don't believe Fisherman. There is no evidence against Lechmere. All Lechmere did was find a body.

Like many others you are even getting the basics wrong. You look but you can’t see.
Lechmere finding a body isn’t exactly what happened. He was found next to the body by a witness. It’s a subtle but important difference. And it changes everything.

[John Wheat]

Like many others you are even getting the basics wrong. You look but you can’t see.
Lechmere finding a body isn’t exactly what happened. He was found next to the body by a witness. It’s a subtle but important difference. And it changes everything.

I am getting nothing wrong. Lechmere found a body end of story.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Scrupulously honest, fair-minded and unbiased posters do not work from auppositions as if they were facts, though. I would like to direct you to my latest post to Jeff, and see part of my critique against him and his methods.

We would not want me to be hinted at as somebody pulling a scrupulously honest, fair-minded and unbiased poster over the coals, would we? What would that make me? A Mother Teresa denier? An insensitive and unfair guy?

I have given my reason for what I donīt think we can accept long time gaps. You can read all about it in my posts to Frank.

I have read them Fish and I disagree with you. As far as I’m concerned we can’t keep trying to tie down estimations to conveniently short times. If someone says “about 3.30” then 3.23 or 3.35 is entirely possible. In fact I’d say that an error of 10 minutes would be a possibility. And when someone says something like “not long before 3.45” then 3.40 is not too long a gap. These are just facts of life when it comes to estimating.

The problem is Fish that if a first time reader looked at these arguments/discussions then he/she would come away from it thinking “why is it that those who don’t think Lechmere was guilty are quite willing to accept a + or - each way (including times that potentially allow for a guilty Lechmere) and yet those that are pro Lechmere appear to be absolutely determined to reduce these estimations to the narrowest possible margins which on every occasion favours their argument.

Basically estimates are just estimates. There simply are no timings that can show anything provably suspicious against Lechmere. I’m confidant the we can call that point a fact.

[Abby Normal]

If the cap fits.

as long as its a peaked cap ; )

[Herlock Sholmes]

Like many others you are even getting the basics wrong. You look but you can’t see.
Lechmere finding a body isn’t exactly what happened. He was found next to the body by a witness. It’s a subtle but important difference. And it changes everything.

How many times do you have to be corrected on this one Bob. Lechmere wasn’t discovered next to the body. He was in the middle of the road when Paul saw him. That’s a ‘basic’ and yet you keep getting it wrong. Like you said 3.30 in your article but it was actually ‘about 3.30.’ That’s basic. So when your ‘basics’ all appear to favour a guilty Lechmere it’s hard not think that they’re intentional.

Millions of people have discovered bodies but they don’t usually have someone else arriving. I’d suggest that it’s because bodies are usually found in isolated spots or in rooms or buildings. Lechmere differs because Paul arrived. So it’s actually Paul’s arrival that introduces suspicion. They then go for a Constable. If Lechmere had found the body in exactly the same place at exactly the same time and Paul hadn’t shown up and he still went for a Constable would you be claiming that he’d done it because he was a psychopath and he loved risk? No, Lechmere would have been the man that discovered the body. Paul’s entrance allows people to state that he was somehow caught in the act. But there’s just no evidence for that and the fact that he didn’t escape when he had ample opportunity goes against that.

Why is it suggested that Paul interrupted Lechmere but it’s not possible that Lechmere himself interrupted the killer. And the killer did what any killer would do….he scarpered.

[SuperShodan]

How many times do you have to be corrected on this one Bob. Lechmere wasn’t discovered next to the body. He was in the middle of the road when Paul saw him. That’s a ‘basic’ and yet you keep getting it wrong. Like you said 3.30 in your article but it was actually ‘about 3.30.’ That’s basic. So when your ‘basics’ all appear to favour a guilty Lechmere it’s hard not think that they’re intentional.

Millions of people have discovered bodies but they don’t usually have someone else arriving. I’d suggest that it’s because bodies are usually found in isolated spots or in rooms or buildings. Lechmere differs because Paul arrived. So it’s actually Paul’s arrival that introduces suspicion. They then go for a Constable. If Lechmere had found the body in exactly the same place at exactly the same time and Paul hadn’t shown up and he still went for a Constable would you be claiming that he’d done it because he was a psychopath and he loved risk? No, Lechmere would have been the man that discovered the body. Paul’s entrance allows people to state that he was somehow caught in the act. But there’s just no evidence for that and the fact that he didn’t escape when he had ample opportunity goes against that.

Why is it suggested that Paul interrupted Lechmere but it’s not possible that Lechmere himself interrupted the killer. And the killer did what any killer would do….he scarpered.

Just for clarification when I say Lechmere was found next to the body I mean that he was indeed 2 or 3m away in the middle of the street. My view is that being 2 or 3m from a body places you at the crime scene, and this can legitimately be described as being near / next to the body in terms of a murder investigation.

[rjpalmer]

I’m a Psychology graduate so this is one area where I can pull rank a little. Psychopathy has been linked to heroism and bravery. I even read one article suggesting many war heroes could be Psychopathic.
Here is an article that suggests psychopaths can possess “fearless dominance” which is exactly what I suggest with Lechmere in Bucks Row. He thinks he can dominate, manipulate and control the approaching witness. Running off isn’t on his radar. He’s a psychopath.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...92656613000822

“We examine the relation between psychopathy, especially its fearless dominance dimension, and heroism…”

How on earth does any of this relate to Charles Allen Lechmere? What can you point to in CAL's life to show that he was 'heroic'?

As always, the reasons for suggesting that CAL was psychopathic are entirely circular; his life was entirely banal, stable, and unremarkable, and he doesn't tick a single box for psychopathy.

Further, CAL's behavior in Buck's Row is indistinguishable from the behavior of an ordinary citizen finding a body.

He immediately alerted the next person who come walking up the street. How is that evidence of 'heroic' psychopathy, if there is such a thing?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m a Psychology graduate so this is one area where I can pull rank a little. Psychopathy has been linked to heroism and bravery. I even read one article suggesting many war heroes could be Psychopathic.
Here is an article that suggests psychopaths can possess “fearless dominance” which is exactly what I suggest with Lechmere in Bucks Row. He thinks he can dominate, manipulate and control the approaching witness. Running off isn’t on his radar. He’s a psychopath.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0092656613000822

“We examine the relation between psychopathy, especially its fearless dominance dimension, and heroism…”

But it doesn’t make them humongous dimwits Bob assume?

If it was a close run thing….stay or go…..and Lechmere thought that he had a chance of blagging his way to safety then yes he might have decided to stay but that’s just not the case.

1. He had ample time to get out of there before Paul got anywhere near him.
2. There’s no way on earth, no matter how much of a good talker he was, that he could have avoided going for a Constable if that was what the man approaching had suggested - and that would have been close to an absolute certainty. Talking his way out of it was just a non-starter.
3. In the almost pitch black there’s just no way that he could have known if he gotten blood on his clothing and it’s very possible/likely that he would have had blood on his hands. So he couldn’t clean up.
4. He couldn’t discard the knife because that would have pointed the police immediately and solidly at him. So he’d have faced talking to a Policeman very probably with blood on his hands, possibly on his clothes and carry a bloodied knife.
5. Even if Paul had seen the body the chances of him chasing after a knife-wielding murderer would be slim to non-existent. The chances of him catching Lechmere with a minutes head start and not knowing which way that he went equally slim.

And what do we get thrown up as the downside of running? He might have bumped into a Constable! Always a risk for a man murdering women on the street of course but why would that particular Constable have paid any particular attention to a bloke walking to work?

And that’s it.

There is simply no down side. Fleeing the scene is a 100% no-brainier. A guilty man staying around unnecessarily is tantamount to a wish for the gallows.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just for clarification when I say Lechmere was found next to the body I mean that he was indeed 2 or 3m away in the middle of the street. My view is that being 2 or 3m from a body places you at the crime scene, and this can legitimately be described as being near / next to the body in terms of a murder investigation.

Fair enough Bob.

[Mark J D]

It’s worth pointing out that as a former head of a murder squad and also having an academic PhD Griffiths is likely to be gullible and highly suggestible.

Yeah! What a maroon!

M.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m not suggesting dishonesty here but I seem to recall (and Fish can obviously correct me if I’m misremembering) that the experts Scobie and Griffiths presented will files which were basically the case for Lechmere being guilty? The case for the Prosecution in other words. I’m assuming that they didn’t spend weeks looking into the case? So surely we would have to ask what their outcomes have been if they had also been presented with a file as the case for Lechmere’s innocence? I’m sure that most of us would agree that anyone seeking to give a fully rounded and accurate opinion would need to fully appreciate not only the points for but also the points against so that they could be weighed against each other.?

For example (and again, I’m not saying that this occurred because I don’t know) what if Scobie was told that Lechmere said that he’d left home at 3.30 and had found the body at 3.45 with a 7 minute journey? Anyone receiving that information wouldn’t need Scobie’s knowledge and experience to hear the alarm bells going off. But if he’d been told that Lechmere had actually said “about 3.30” and that Pc Neil said that he’d come across the body at 3.45, the same time that Mizen said that Paul and Lechmere were with him, would he have heard the same alarm bells? Unlikely in the extreme I’d suggest. He would have known that if this was in court the Defence would very obviously have stated the very obvious possibility that he might have left the house at 3.35 and that Paul might well have run into Lechmere at 3.42 or 3.43 leaving no gap. No jury in the world would have assumed a gap on this evidence. You can’t say ‘if’ he left the house a x and ‘if’ he met Paul at y then z must be the case when we can’t know x and y. Not a jury in the world would have stood for it.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Fisherman,

The whole problem with the three PC:s 3.45 timings is - and it is not as if it has not been pointed out before - that they represent suggestions about what the time was. And although it would be nice, it is not as if three people giving the same timing means thnat this timing is true.

That is the way you look upon it, apparenty, but I beg to differ.

If we instead look at the time you discounted on account of how Mizen said 3.45 and it seemed to jibe with Thains and Neils times, namely Robert Pauls timing, it syands on itīs own as a suggested timing, but that - surprise, surprise - does not mean that it must be wrong.

The problem is more complex than that.

As I have pointed out, there is no anchoring for the 3.45 timigs given by the police. Neils time is not anchored by Thains and Mizens ditto - they are all mere suggestions that cannot be checked against anything.

Robert Pauls timing, however, CAN be checked to a degree - we can see that if the examination/ conference/trek to Mizen took around four minutes, as Paul suggested, and if he had arrived at the site at around 3.46, as suggested by how he said he was walking down Bucks Row at exactly 3.45 (strengthened by how he said at the inquest that he left home at approximately 3.45 or just thereafter), then he and Lechmere would have reached Mizen at around 3.50. And if the conference at the crossing of Bakers Row and Hanbury Street together with Mizens trek to the murder site took another logical 4 minutes, then he would have arrived at around 3.54, meaning that if we pair this with how Thain would have left for LLewellyn at around 3.53, we can see that it makes sense. Adding on how Llewellyn said 3.55 - 4.00 for Thains calling hi to Bucks Row, that too makes sense. In fact, every time offered in that end of the line makes sense - but ONLY if Lechmere found the body at 3.45. So there is the amount of independent data Baxter spoke of, and there are the only give times that CAN be checked.

You seem to think that the three PC:s cannot possibly all have given 3.45 if it wasnīt correct. But you fail to acknowledge that Pauls and LLewellyns timings are mutually corroborative. And, not least, you willingly accept that both these men would have given times that were simultaneously five minutes ahead - the amount of timne that we must alter is the same for both men, and it goes in the same direction.
Why would not that be at least as unexpected to have happened as it is that the PC:s could be wrong, Jeff?
Why would we not accept the timing that is supported by surrounding factors?
And why do you take the liberty to claim that I would think myself better than the people that were there? Were Paul and LLewellyn NOT there?
Mayby a slight thought process would be useful before you start flinging accusations around yourself- you, who think you are "better than" Llewellyn and Paul.

Childish, thatīs what it is.

From the recreation analysis I've presented, the methods which I've fully explained and outlined, the estimated times for all people involved correspond well with the qualified times they testify to. That includes PC Mizen, PC Neil, PC Thain, Dr. Llewellyn, Baxter's summing up statement about the time of discovery by Cross/Lechmere and Paul, the fact that both Paul and Cross appear to get to work on time, etc. The largest discrepancy would be Paul's statement that he left home about 3:45, while in the recreation it appears he left home closer to 3:38 type thing (relative to the PC's 3:45). Part of that discrepancy could easily be explained by the fact that Paul's basis for setting his time (i.e. his clock if he has one, or being knocked up if that's what happened) is not the same as the police (who would check a clock somewhere on their beat). As such, it may be that Paul's idea of the time is simply out of sync with the police's. But it also may be that Paul is just out by 6 or 7 minutes; eye witnesses tend to be pretty bad, and personally I'm generally impressed with how well things line up in these cases rather than concerned about a witness being off by 10 minutes in their guess at the time.

Anyway, as I've said and shown, the statements of all the witnesses are consistent with the recreation. None of the times estimated by the recreation adjust any of the witness statements more than can be accounted for simply due to basing their idea of the time on a different "source". Even Paul's 6-7 minutes fits that statement as it was considered common for clocks to differ by 10 minutes.

As such, there is no basis for moving the PC's stated time. There is certainly no foundation for assuming that somehow Paul's notion of the time is more accurate than the police's.

I've said this all before. I've presented the analysis, I've described the methods by which I come up with the times, and I describe the criteria upon which I evaluate the results.

You don't agree with my reasoning, which is fine. I don't agree with yours, which is fine too. What I don't appreciate are your misinterpretations of my intentions, and your tendency to assume that anyone who disagrees with you is determined to find Cross/Lechmere innocent. You treat that assumption as a fact. But if you read how I conducted the analysis, and the parameters I've chosen, you will see that every parameter that I have to choose (speeds, routes, etc) are all in favour of your idea. I can't "fudge" how long it takes to cover 100 yards at 3.2 mph though, those are objective calculations. I do not "eat up time" for example, by having Cross/Lechmere and Paul examine the body for 2 minutes, but suggest they spent very little time (30 seconds). Similarly with the time for PC Mizen interacting with the carmen, I keep that short. I don't "eat up time" by having PC Thain stop and discuss with PC Neil their options, etc, I just have him continue on his way immediately. And I don't randomly choose a duration for Dr. Llewellyn to "get ready and go" after PC Thain knocks on his door, I used the same duration as I found for Dr. Blackwell in the Stride case.

In other words, the method by which I create things has very little room for me to fudge things, or cherry pick, and lo and behold, the times that fall out of that correspond with the witness statements.

What you object to is that it does not support your theory.

- Jeff