Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Pcdunn]

Off-topic and on

Hey Pcdunn,

That's good to know about ancestory.com. I have friends who use it that seem to have difficulty because they don't know the info may be off.

Columbo

Hello, Columbo (loved your TV show, by the way!)-- Ancestry.com is great about allowing you to submit corrections, and making the changes in the clear transcription. I had to submit a change to a census record featuring my great-uncle, because the enumerator wrote down "father" for relationship to head of household, instead of "father-in-law"-- which threw off my own family line! Good old human error creeps in everywhere.

On topic-- Fisherman's theory only really works for Nichols, from what I've seen.

[GUT]

Omg, is that another one typing all in bold.

It's the conversational equivalent of this:

I've seen one particular bold poster asked a number of times not to. He says he won't but keeps doing it.

[Ausgirl]

Omg, is that another one typing all in bold.

It's the conversational equivalent of this:

[GUT]

Lest there be any doubt: my 'agree entirely' post was Directed to Mr. Barnet #780

Thanks I was wondering about that.

[GUT]

If he wanted to, he could've said that he witnessed someone else walking ahead of him up Buck's Row, or that he heard footsteps in the distance, anything.

So easy isn't it.

I thought I heard someone a bit ahead of me before I saw the body. They were walking the same direction I was.

[wigngown]

Lest there be any doubt: my 'agree entirely' post was Directed to Mr. Barnet #780

[wigngown]

Agree entirely,

Best regards

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Ausgirl;378089]This very neatly sums up my whole problem with this aspect of this theory. Not so much attending the inquest (which guilty persons have done, though I agree, it's hardly suspicious behaviour in itself), but the matter of "lying" about his name - which, really.. he didn't.
/QUOTE]

To know this, you need to know that he used the name Cross otherwise. If that applies, then he did not lie about his name.
If we cannot establish that he DID use the name Cross otherwise, then there was something odd going on, to say the very least.
One can of course argue that he had a right to use the name as such, but that is not the pertinent issue is it? If this was a one-off, and if he always called hiomself Lechmere otherwise, then we are going to need an explanation for his using the name Cross in combination with a murder case where he had been found alone with the freshly killed victim.

[Fisherman]

That's not even true Fisherman. Even though I wanted to know whether you agreed or disagreed with the TV documentary voiceover, I ultimately 'accepted' your answer that you wanted to amend the wording of the TV documentary from "there is a major gap" to "it seems there is a major gap". On that basis, I asked you further questions (see #644) but you did not reply to those questions at all, in any way.

If you are saying that you did reply to those questions please let me know in which post you did so.

I am saying that I stopped answering your questions on account of your attitude. Surely that is rather obvious?
And it did not help one little bit when you decided that your attitude was just fine and that the reason I did not answer the rest of your questions was that I could not do so without losing the debate. What you sow, you reap.

[Ausgirl]

Furthermore, what exactly did Lechmere do to deflect attention away from himself? If he wanted to, he could've said that he witnessed someone else walking ahead of him up Buck's Row, or that he heard footsteps in the distance, anything. Lechmere neglects to do anything of the sort. He gives his stepfather's surname but yields other personal details and voluntarily attends the inquest. How exactly is any of this behaviour suspicious and how is any of it designed to cover up his alleged guilt?

This very neatly sums up my whole problem with this aspect of this theory. Not so much attending the inquest (which guilty persons have done, though I agree, it's hardly suspicious behaviour in itself), but the matter of "lying" about his name - which, really.. he didn't.

And I can think of several good, perfectly sound reasons as to why he might have done so.

I think making the name thing such a big deal to this theory actually weakens the entire premise of it.

[Harry D]

If you want an example of a proper 'witness/murderer' look no further than Henry H. Newell Jr. In 1975, he raped and murdered 14 year-old Christine Mullins in a wooded area behind a shopping mall in Columbo, Ohio. After committing the grisly deed, he returned home and took his family out for a walk to deliberately 'find' the body and give himself an excuse for tampering with evidence, as well as provide false testimony that he witnessed another man fleeing the crime scene. Newell later testified against a mentally handicapped man who had been picked up by the police but Newell's testimony didn't stand up to scrutiny and the charges were acquitted.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/11/06/Cold-case-murder-closed.html

Henry Newell got away with the murder, he died of cancer in 2013, but he was considered a suspect at the time and recent revelations from Newell's relatives have shown that he confessed to the crime.

Now where does Lechmere figure into all of this? Well, for one, Lechmere wasn't anywhere he shouldn't have been at that time. We can argue the toss about precise timings but he found the body on his usual route to work. He wasn't out for an early morning stroll that just happened to "coincide" with a bloody murder scene. Furthermore, what exactly did Lechmere do to deflect attention away from himself? If he wanted to, he could've said that he witnessed someone else walking ahead of him up Buck's Row, or that he heard footsteps in the distance, anything. Lechmere neglects to do anything of the sort. He gives his stepfather's surname but yields other personal details and voluntarily attends the inquest. How exactly is any of this behaviour suspicious and how is any of it designed to cover up his alleged guilt?

[Errata]

Perhaps I should start to take Freudian psychology more seriously!

The guy was on point a few times. Less so the rest of his career.

[David Orsam]

I have answered a number of your questions - but you have not accepted my answers.

That's not even true Fisherman. Even though I wanted to know whether you agreed or disagreed with the TV documentary voiceover, I ultimately 'accepted' your answer that you wanted to amend the wording of the TV documentary from "there is a major gap" to "it seems there is a major gap". On that basis, I asked you further questions (see #644) but you did not reply to those questions at all, in any way.

If you are saying that you did reply to those questions please let me know in which post you did so.

[Fisherman]

Well Fisherman there were two categories of question. Some you responded to but didn't answer yes or no as requested, some you have totally ignored and not responded to at all.

For those in the first category you could have answered them yes or no and then provided whatever qualification you wanted. I sought a yes or no answer for clarity because otherwise it provides the opportunity to ramble on without really answering them (as, I would argue, you did).

The questions I asked were simple questions perfectly capable of yes or no answers and were not of the type "Was Lechmere JTR?"

If you had Lechmere in the witness box on trial today you would presumably want to ask him: "Did you say at the inquest that you left your house at 3.30?"

That kind of question demands a yes or no answer. You don't want him rambling on and he wouldn't be allowed to. The judge would force him to answer directly.

As for those in the second category, why haven't you answered these?

I wasn't being unfair to you and I can still only conclude that you stopped responding because you thought the questions were too difficult to answer. If that's not true please go ahead and answer them.

I have answered a number of your questions - but you have not accepted my answers. When that happens, I am not going to oblige any whim of yours, David.

You got completely honest answers from me, and you rewarded it by claiming that I had not given any answers. When I said that there was a difference between things that are X and things that seem to be X, you - exotically - said that it was the same thing to you, or something to that effect.

Such a thing makes you seem uninformed and unfit to conduct a serious discussion. Then again, we all know that you are not.

So maybe there is a difference, huh?

Play nice. Let people express their views the way the feel is correct for them. Donīt imply that they cannot answer your questions when you have no idea about it.

I could live with such a discussion. As it stands, you are making a fool of yourself, which is fine by me. It should be less fine by yourself, though.

[Pierre]

Those killings were not along his route to work. There is another theory that covers that, though.

It is called "ad hoc".

Regards, Pierre