Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Geddy2112]

Remember these are people who say a carman wearing a carman's uniform was an attempt at deception and thus proof of his guilt.

I see your carman's uniform and I'll raise you 'giving your legal name, home and work address in court' as a sign of guilt. I think it was the fact it was a Friday morning that proves beyond any doubt it was Cross...

[Fiver]

You have to feel sorry for Cross. If he’d have been seen next to the body they would have shouted “guilty.” He was actually seen in the middle of the road and they still shout “guilty.” It begs the question where could Cross have been and what could he have said or done not to have looked guilty in the eyes of some. Perhaps if he’d run toward Paul squealing “murder, help, help?!” Or perhaps if Paul had found him sitting on the pavement bawling his eyes out saying “oh the poor woman. Woe is me!” As it stands, it appears that if Cross was found to have been Cornwall on the evening of the Double Event someone would suggest the fact as proof of his guilt.

If he'd run towards Paul shouting "murder, help, help!"; Lechmereians would say that proved his guilt, since an innocent man couldn't have seen the wounds from that distance.

If Paul had found him sitting on the pavement, bawling his eyes out, saying "Oh the poor woman. Woe is me!"; Lechmerians would say it was a confession of guilt - feigned contrition for having killed the woman followed by self-pity that he's going to hang for it.

Remember these are people who say a carman wearing a carman's uniform was an attempt at deception and thus proof of his guilt.

[Geddy2112]

Then, staggeringly, we get a Cross supporter calling those that don’t see him as a suspect as ‘Deniers.’ As if his guilt is known and we are wilfully denying a truth.

Yes had the 'deniers' thrown at me numerous times. Like is it supposed to hurt or something, do I get a badge and a monthly magazine? They called me a 'denier' so sorry I believe now. Is that how it works, call someone petty names and they will change their mind because that is all that matters? Christ on a bike...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Do you consider Cross is unique in that situation or have other researchers done the 'starting with a suspect' and working backwards to find evidence to suit?

For me it's not just the evidence to suit it's the sheer cherry picking of evidence to suit.

Paul's exactly 3:45 am, yeah we can use that to produce a gap... we will have it.
Paul going to Mizen alone... nah we can't have that, we need Paul and Cross together (but apart) for the Scam.
Let's not believe Mizen with his 3:45 timing, but let's believe him about the wanted by a PC in Bucks Row.

It's an absolute shambles of a way to do proper research.

The way that Cross seems unique to me is the point that you make in your second sentence. It’s the lengths that people have gone to. I think that people saw Cross mentioned, and thought ‘yes, it’s obvious, the killer has been under our noses all the time.’ Then followed an epidemic of tunnel vision. Everything pointed to his guilt, even things that clearly pointed to his innocence.

This is why we see cherrypicking, the editing of evidence, bizarre suggestions, weird interpretations of language and other nonsense that wouldn’t be required with a valid suspect. Then, staggeringly, we get a Cross supporter calling those that don’t see him as a suspect as ‘Deniers.’ As if his guilt is known and we are wilfully denying a truth.

[Geddy2112]

These are the issues of course that arise if you begin from a point that a certain suspect ‘must’ have been guilty.

Do you consider Cross is unique in that situation or have other researchers done the 'starting with a suspect' and working backwards to find evidence to suit?

For me it's not just the evidence to suit it's the sheer cherry picking of evidence to suit.

Paul's exactly 3:45 am, yeah we can use that to produce a gap... we will have it.
Paul going to Mizen alone... nah we can't have that, we need Paul and Cross together (but apart) for the Scam.
Let's not believe Mizen with his 3:45 timing, but let's believe him about the wanted by a PC in Bucks Row.

It's an absolute shambles of a way to do proper research.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You have to feel sorry for Cross. If he’d have been seen next to the body they would have shouted “guilty.” He was actually seen in the middle of the road and they still shout “guilty.” It begs the question where could Cross have been and what could he have said or done not to have looked guilty in the eyes of some. Perhaps if he’d run toward Paul squealing “murder, help, help?!” Or perhaps if Paul had found him sitting on the pavement bawling his eyes out saying “oh the poor woman. Woe is me!” As it stands, it appears that if Cross was found to have been Cornwall on the evening of the Double Event someone would suggest the fact as proof of his guilt.

These are the issues of course that arise if you begin from a point that a certain suspect ‘must’ have been guilty. From such a starting point it can be surprising what you can find that appears to point toward guilt or suspicion. This is why we get an innocuous fact, like the fact that Cross wore his working clothes to the inquest, being suggested as being somehow indicative of guilt. Now, Sherlock Holmes could almost certainly have deduced something from Cross’s clothing at the inquest but surely us mere mortals should desist.

[Herlock Sholmes]

However if you are referring to 'my 60 feet' then your problem is with Cross not me or any member of the forum. He said he was 'by' the gateway to the Wool Warehouse. That corner is 61 feet diagonally from the body. Unless someone moved the Warehouse and or body. However he only mentions a body after advancing to the middle of the of the road. If and I'm sure he would have advanced along the diagonal that means he was 30 feet away, then and only then did he notice it was a woman. So again as a true Cross supporter you are misrepresenting the evidence and twisting what folks say.

In my last few posts on this 'distance' thing I've been laughed at and scorned because people think there is no way in the world you can see a woman in the dark from 30 feet away so they assume the 30 feet is wrong. That 30 feet shortens to 27 feet if going across from the middle of the gateway or 22 feet if West of the gateway (I discount the two shorter versions due to Cross saying 'by' the gateway, surely he would have said 'middle' or 'past' for the other two to be correct.) I'm sorry but I'm not wrong going off the evidence of what we DO KNOW. We can't assume the lighting conditions or how good or bad Cross' eyesight was. If he was used to walking those streets in near darkness his night vision would be better than normal. He may of even have lit a match, who knows. We also do not know if he used confirmation bias a bit like Mizen who assumed Cross meant a PC wanted him because when he got to Bucks Row a PC was in situ.

My point has never been IF Cross could see it was woman from 30, 27 or 22 feet because I simply CAN'T SUGGEST that because two many variables are in place but what I can state, according to Cross' words is where he was when he did so. Not that it really makes much difference because he never approached the body alone and that is in corroborated evidence by Cross and Paul.

As far as I can see Geddy you’ve accurately set out the distances that morning based on the two ‘knowns’ - the location of the Wool Warehouse and the location of the body. Obviously we can’t be certain of Cross’s exact position when he first realised that the random shape was actually a woman but I’d have thought 30 feet a reasonable estimation (with a bit of a + or - to account for it being an estimation) I’d suggest that we would be on a sticky wicket when trying to assess what someone might or might not have been able to see at that time and in whatever light was available at a certain distance.

Nothing in the statements of either men leads us to suspect that Cross wasn’t being truthful and of course we have to consider the potential consequences of the huge risk that he would have been taking by being less than honest. If Cross had been the killer, and had been next to the body and then walked back to the middle of the road on hearing Paul approach, then the risk was obvious. Paul might well have observed him walking back to the middle of the road but Cross would have had no way of knowing if Paul had seen him doing this or not. Cross then tells the police that he hadn’t been near the corpse on his own then Paul tells them he saw him walking back from it. Why would Cross have been this stupid?

[Geddy2112]

The idea that Lechmere would say 'Come and look at this woman' when all he'd previously done is peer at her from 60-odd feet away is, as Euclid would say, absurd.

However if you are referring to 'my 60 feet' then your problem is with Cross not me or any member of the forum. He said he was 'by' the gateway to the Wool Warehouse. That corner is 61 feet diagonally from the body. Unless someone moved the Warehouse and or body. However he only mentions a body after advancing to the middle of the of the road. If and I'm sure he would have advanced along the diagonal that means he was 30 feet away, then and only then did he notice it was a woman. So again as a true Cross supporter you are misrepresenting the evidence and twisting what folks say.

In my last few posts on this 'distance' thing I've been laughed at and scorned because people think there is no way in the world you can see a woman in the dark from 30 feet away so they assume the 30 feet is wrong. That 30 feet shortens to 27 feet if going across from the middle of the gateway or 22 feet if West of the gateway (I discount the two shorter versions due to Cross saying 'by' the gateway, surely he would have said 'middle' or 'past' for the other two to be correct.) I'm sorry but I'm not wrong going off the evidence of what we DO KNOW. We can't assume the lighting conditions or how good or bad Cross' eyesight was. If he was used to walking those streets in near darkness his night vision would be better than normal. He may of even have lit a match, who knows. We also do not know if he used confirmation bias a bit like Mizen who assumed Cross meant a PC wanted him because when he got to Bucks Row a PC was in situ.

My point has never been IF Cross could see it was woman from 30, 27 or 22 feet because I simply CAN'T SUGGEST that because two many variables are in place but what I can state, according to Cross' words is where he was when he did so. Not that it really makes much difference because he never approached the body alone and that is in corroborated evidence by Cross and Paul.

[FrankO]

This is that no native English speaker would say 'Come and look at this woman' unless (i) she was close by, and (ii) he had been even closer to her.

The idea that Lechmere would say 'Come and look at this woman' when all he'd previously done is peer at her from 60-odd feet away is, as Euclid would say, absurd.

I don’t know who claims that Cross said ‘Come and look at this woman’ when all he’d previously done was peer from 60-odd feet away, but I have two remarks, Mark.

It was Paul who said that Cross said ‘Come and look at this woman’, while Cross himself said ‘Come and look over here. There's a woman.’

Secondly, according to the statements of both Paul & Cross, the latter had, in fact, been closer to Nichols when he said to Paul what he said. They both said that. Cross started in the middle of the road, and then, as Paul got closer, Cross walked back towards the pavement and then Paul stepped on to the roadway in order to pass him.

And it was at that point Cross said 'Come and look over here. There's a woman.' So, you're completely right. Except for suggesting that what Cross said according to Paul would suggest guilt/lying on Cross's part - if that was what you were trying to suggest, of course.

Cheers,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think we must all agree that Lechmere was i) close to the woman, close enough to identify that it was a woman's body, that she was not moving, and that possibly needed aid. How close is a matter for debate, because we cannot be absolutely sure about the amount of light, but we know it was quite dark, so he probably needed to get quite close to establish the situation. Whether ii) he had been even closer to her is pure conjecture. All we know is that he was close enough to express concern about her.

Exactly. Cross did exactly as he said at the inquest. As did Paul. We have no need for the fantasies, fictions and creative writing. Evidence kills the case against this pretend suspect.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Abby. Hope you are well.

You know, while everyone is having such terrific fun at the Buck's Row Trigonometry Festival, there's a simple fact that can't be ignored.

This is that no native English speaker would say 'Come and look at this woman' unless (i) she was close by, and (ii) he had been even closer to her.

The idea that Lechmere would say 'Come and look at this woman' when all he'd previously done is peer at her from 60-odd feet away is, as Euclid would say, absurd.

Bests,

Mark D.

You never disappoint me Mark as you display the same unerring abilities that other Cross supporters regularly display. That someone can actually make that claim is another jaw-dropper in an increasingly long list of jaw-droppers.

Cross sees a shape and moves to a position where he can make out that it was the figure of a woman. We have no way of knowing what distance away he was when he identified that it was a woman. He hears a man approaching, waits at that spot until he arrives and asks him to come with him to look at the woman. Why would he have needed to have been closer if he could see that it was a woman from his position in the middle of the road…where Paul saw him.

First invent a 60 feet and then you misuse the English language. It’s no wonder you favour a guilty Cross with ‘reasoning’ like this. The whole case is built on inventions and poor reasoning.

Surely it’s time that you gave up. The game has been over for a long time. Cross is a joke suspect. The ‘case’ against him has been comprehensively disposed of.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Abby. Hope you are well.

You know, while everyone is having such terrific fun at the Buck's Row Trigonometry Festival, there's a simple fact that can't be ignored.

This is that no native English speaker would say 'Come and look at this woman' unless (i) she was close by, and (ii) he had been even closer to her.

The idea that Lechmere would say 'Come and look at this woman' when all he'd previously done is peer at her from 60-odd feet away is, as Euclid would say, absurd.

Bests,

Mark D.

I think we must all agree that Lechmere was i) close to the woman, close enough to identify that it was a woman's body, that she was not moving, and that possibly needed aid. How close is a matter for debate, because we cannot be absolutely sure about the amount of light, but we know it was quite dark, so he probably needed to get quite close to establish the situation. Whether ii) he had been even closer to her is pure conjecture. All we know is that he was close enough to express concern about her.

[Mark J D]

to tell it was the body of a woman on a darkened street lech had to be at most 20 feet away . although by pauls description of " he was standing were tje woman was" i would imagine he was probably closer.

Hi Abby. Hope you are well.

You know, while everyone is having such terrific fun at the Buck's Row Trigonometry Festival, there's a simple fact that can't be ignored.

This is that no native English speaker would say 'Come and look at this woman' unless (i) she was close by, and (ii) he had been even closer to her.

The idea that Lechmere would say 'Come and look at this woman' when all he'd previously done is peer at her from 60-odd feet away is, as Euclid would say, absurd.

Bests,

Mark D.

[Admin]

I have to agree with Abby. Christer has his theory and strongly promotes it, as do other members of this forum on their single suspect theories. The subject can be discussed without the pillaring of any particular advocate of the suspect of their choice, particularly when they are not here to defend their position. I see the constant vilification of Christer, and his subjection to perceived humorous pejoratives, to be an attack on the standards of this forum. Knock it off.

Thus endeth the sermon for today.

Cheers, George

First, nobody but me gets to tell anyone on this forum to knock off anything. So knock it off.

Second, Christer is a published author who makes, or attempts to make, money off his theory. He is selling it, to the masses. As such, he is a public figure and earns no more protection in terms of people discussing what he is SELLING than any other author, be it Patricia Cornwell and her Sickert bullshit, the Diary gang, and their Maybrick bullshit, or any other author attempting to sell and profit off a theory.

He is not immune from the criticism that comes along with selling a product to the gullible masses.

Everyone needs to get off their high horses and recognize that just because you might like, or know someone personally, doesn't make them immune from criticism. And if you think that's different, take a look back at 2001-2002 and how I was raking Paul Begg and Martin Fido over the coals, for how they characterized, in The A-Z, another person/author I actually didn't like at all and had also personally raked over the coals on some of his more egregious BS.

I don't give a ****, who it is. When you offer your theory for money, to the masses, you don't get to clutch your pearls at people taking issue with your words. He has written a book on his theory. He happily debates and gives interviews on said theory. Criticism is fair game.

[GBinOz]

we can argue the merits of the lechmere theory on its own merits or lacktherof, especially when someone is not bringing those two up. they overegg the pudding, have a cult like following on their social media stuff, and are also disliked by many, especially stow (and for good reason) so by bringing them up it just taints the debate imho.

but of course if someone on the lech favorable side brings them up than by all means its fair game. i dont know how many times i and others will be making some point that has nothing to do them, and the response drags them into it for no reason.

if the particular argument dosnt involve them, leave them out.

I have to agree with Abby. Christer has his theory and strongly promotes it, as do other members of this forum on their single suspect theories. The subject can be discussed without the pillaring of any particular advocate of the suspect of their choice, particularly when they are not here to defend their position. I see the constant vilification of Christer, and his subjection to perceived humorous pejoratives, to be an attack on the standards of this forum. Knock it off.

Thus endeth the sermon for today.

Cheers, George