Yes you are quite right. You falsely accusing me of lying in respect of a sentence that isn't even capable of being a lie is certainly bad enough on one occasion and we don't want it happening again.
Avoid it, then.
I remains that what you wrote about me was not true:
"Fisherman is really trying to argue on the basis of Dr Llewellyn's evidence that ONLY Lechmere could have done it."
To begin with, you realized that Llewellyns evidence only was not enough, you had to add your false assertion that I was saying that Lechmere must have been in Bucks Row at 3.37 to close the suggestion from both ends.
So the suggestion is lacking from the beginning, since Llewellyns evidence allows for another killer, no matter if we have him there at 4.10 or if we use the exotic idea that "I was called up at about 4" really means "I arrived in Bucks Row about 4".
Such trifles aside, it remains that you are in no position to decide on my behalf what I am "trying to argue". Nor am I trying to argue that only Lechmere could have done it - there are ample examples in many threads where I say that there is room for another killer.
On top of this, we cannot establish the exact removes in time when things happend - we can outline it broadly, we can go by the timings given by the sources and no matter how we do that, Lechmere stays in the picture.
What you do is to work like a defense attorney, wringing things to their extremes, and thatīs as it should be since it will point out that there is learoom for another killer.
But if we stay away from the extremes and look at the moderate time suggestions, we get a smaller window for an alternative killer. And indeed, if Lechmere was in place at 3.37 and if Nichols was killed at around 3.40-3.45, as clearly implied by the blood evidence and to some extent by Llewellyns suggestion, if we accept that he could not both be called up at about 4 and arrive in Bucks Row at the same time, then Charles Lechmere was with great certainty the killer.
Then again, that is what I have been saying all along: he is probably the killer.
What I have not said is that Llewellyns evidence tells us that only Lechmere could be the killer. Not am I trying to argue on basis of what he said that only Lechmere could have done it.
That is why your statement is false. If you think, as you seem, that it cannot be false, Iīm afraid it says mnore about your level of perceived infallability than of the truth.
So what is the rule concerning personal graves there? I know it Italy they recycle private graves every 20 years or so. I have relatives buried that are about to be moved from the grave to a mausoleum. I was curious because I saw a Stephen Knight documentary from 1979 and he went to William Gull's grave and I was surprised it was still there.
My mother was buried under rubble from a doodlebug. I still have her teddy bear that she was holding when they dug her out.
She was one of the lucky ones as she survived the experience.
Although not near as frightening I remember a few years back being in a tornado with my folks as it destroyed their home. Horrific to face death that close. I can't imagine what your mother was feeling, going through that as a child. I'm glad it worked out for her.