Lechmere Continuation Thread

[Columbo]

You say "obviously" but Fisherman, relying on the medical evidence, is trying to say that she could only have been murdered in the few minutes between 3:40 and 3:45. That's what I've been arguing against.

Which I agree with you based on my interpretation of the evidence. She could not have been killed between 3:40 and 3:45 because paul was already there. He had to be or they would've been seen leaving by the PC who I believe did show up at 3:45a.

But I don't think that eliminates the possibility of Lechmere killing Nichols if he did leave at 3:30a. It may actually dovetail more with Paul's arrival because it shouldn't take 3 minutes to inflict her wounds.

I've always maintained that if Lechmere killed Nichols it was an opportunistic murder. He didn't engage her, they didn't haggle about price etc. She probably was drunk and came to him and offer services and he just killed her without a seconds hesistation.

It really only could've been this way if true because he would not have time to kill her if he was standing there having a conversation at 3:37a.

Columbo

[Abby Normal]

Which I agree with you based on my interpretation of the evidence. She could not have been killed between 3:40 and 3:45 because paul was already there. He had to be or they would've been seen leaving by the PC who I believe did show up at 3:45a.

But I don't think that eliminates the possibility of Lechmere killing Nichols if he did leave at 3:30a. It may actually dovetail more with Paul's arrival because it shouldn't take 3 minutes to inflict her wounds.

I've always maintained that if Lechmere killed Nichols it was an opportunistic murder. He didn't engage her, they didn't haggle about price etc. She probably was drunk and came to him and offer services and he just killed her without a seconds hesistation.

It really only could've been this way if true because he would not have time to kill her if he was standing there having a conversation at 3:37a.

Columbo

Hi Columbo
Ive often wondered if the ripper didn't come across her as she was dozing on the sidewalk of bucks row.

[David Orsam]

Which I agree with you based on my interpretation of the evidence. She could not have been killed between 3:40 and 3:45 because paul was already there. He had to be or they would've been seen leaving by the PC who I believe did show up at 3:45a.

But I don't think that eliminates the possibility of Lechmere killing Nichols if he did leave at 3:30a. It may actually dovetail more with Paul's arrival because it shouldn't take 3 minutes to inflict her wounds.

You seem to have posted a bit of a non sequitur there Columbo when you say "I don't think that eliminates the possibility of Lechmere killing Nichols", which appears to have been in response to me agreeing with you that Nichols could have been killed at any time between 3.15 and 3.40. I mean, if Lechmere left his house at 3.30 and Nichols was murdered at 3.25, or 3.35, then it wasn't Lechmere who committed the murder was it?

I repeat what I said in my post to which you responded (with an important bit that you might have missed highlighted):

"If Nichols was murdered at between 3:15 and 3:40 then it hurts the Lechmere theory if Lechmere's evidence that he left his house at about 3:30am is true because it either gives him no time or not very much time to commit the murder, depending on whether death occurred before or after 3:30."

So I wasn't eliminating Lechmere but I was saying that it hurts the theory because it encompasses the possibility that Nichols was murdered before he left his house, if he left his house at the time he said he did. I think we agree on this.

Consequently, ANYONE in the vicinity could have murdered Nichols. I think that's the key point because Fisherman is really trying to argue on the basis of Dr Llewellyn's evidence that ONLY Lechmere could have done it.

[Columbo]

You seem to have posted a bit of a non sequitur there Columbo when you say "I don't think that eliminates the possibility of Lechmere killing Nichols", which appears to have been in response to me agreeing with you that Nichols could have been killed at any time between 3.15 and 3.40. I mean, if Lechmere left his house at 3.30 and Nichols was murdered at 3.25, or 3.35, then it wasn't Lechmere who committed the murder was it?

I repeat what I said in my post to which you responded (with an important bit that you might have missed highlighted):

"If Nichols was murdered at between 3:15 and 3:40 then it hurts the Lechmere theory if Lechmere's evidence that he left his house at about 3:30am is true because it either gives him no time or not very much time to commit the murder, depending on whether death occurred before or after 3:30."

So I wasn't eliminating Lechmere but I was saying that it hurts the theory because it encompasses the possibility that Nichols was murdered before he left his house, if he left his house at the time he said he did. I think we agree on this.

Consequently, ANYONE in the vicinity could have murdered Nichols. I think that's the key point because Fisherman is really trying to argue on the basis of Dr Llewellyn's evidence that ONLY Lechmere could have done it.

I was a little unclear and after reading a little closer i can see where I became confusing.

I got things a little muddled in my mind but you're right, if we are basing Lechmere's viability as a suspect on the TOD given by the doctor then it doesn't wash because we would have to accept as fact the doctor was within just a few minutes of the actual time of death. I can't accept that he was able to be so precise. If TOD is what pro-lechmere people are using to bolster thier case then it's weak and most likely incorrect.

So if I was pro-lechmere I would not use that as a base for my accusation. There are other inconsistencies that are more interesting then the TOD that do allow for suspicion.



I appreciate the patience. Very informative.

Columbo

[John G]

Of course I'm referring to the inquest evidence. How can a descriptive comment by a journalist who never went near the crime scene be taken seriously?

If the Nichols inquest was 'a somewhat perfunctory affair' then that's bad luck for us. It doesn't mean we substitute the evidence given at the inquest for something a journalist, who never saw any of the blood, put into a newspaper.

Well, as I suggested earlier, a degree of caution is required when relying on newspaper reports. However, I do not accept that such reports have no evidential value. For instance, was anything said at the inquest which directly contradicts the claim that blood was flowing profusely from the wound? Moreover, we cannot rely on Dr Llewellyn's notes for guidance as they no longer exit.

[David Orsam]

Well, as I suggested earlier, a degree of caution is required when relying on newspaper reports. However, I do not accept that such reports have no evidential value. For instance, was anything said at the inquest which directly contradicts the claim that blood was flowing profusely from the wound? Moreover, we cannot rely on Dr Llewellyn's notes for guidance as they no longer exit.

The evidence at the inquest, as I have already said, was that PC Neil "saw blood oozing from a wound in the throat".

[David Orsam]

I posted this some time ago but a re-post now might helpful:

Chambers Dictionary

Ooze - to flow gently, to percolate, as a liquid through pores or small openings, to leak.

Collins English Dictionary

Ooze - to flow or leak out slowly.

Oxford Dictionary of English

Ooze - slowly trickle or seep out of something.

Concise Oxford English Dictionary

Ooze - (of a fluid) slowly trickle or seep out.

[John G]

The evidence at the inquest, as I have already said, was that PC Neil "saw blood oozing from a wound in the throat".

Erm..that's a bit inconclusive as blood may be described as oozing profusely, or oozing as in a trickle.

For completeness, Dr Biggs had this to say as to whether bleeding could continue for twenty minutes:

"The flow of blood is likely to have slowed to a trickle at this time as pressure inside the vessels would have dissipated and the volume of blood remaining available to leak out would have become very little. (Marriott, 2013).

[John G]

I posted this some time ago but a re-post now might helpful:

Chambers Dictionary

Ooze - to flow gently, to percolate, as a liquid through pores or small openings, to leak.

Collins English Dictionary

Ooze - to flow or leak out slowly.

Oxford Dictionary of English

Ooze - slowly trickle or seep out of something.

Concise Oxford English Dictionary

Ooze - (of a fluid) slowly trickle or seep out.

Ah but as I've noted before "oozing profusely" does appear to be an accepted medical term, at least in 1900 when this medical dictionary was written: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...fusely&f=false

Of course, the addition of the adjective "profusely" changes the context somewhat, and I'm therefore not totally convinced that PC Neil's statement is as clear cut as you suggest.

[David Orsam]

Erm..that's a bit inconclusive as blood may be described as oozing profusely, or oozing as in a trickle.

Well that's the evidence we have.

And I would comment that, despite whatever obscure references Fisherman has managed to find on the internet, one does not normally refer to something oozing profusely, bearing in mind that it means to "trickle" or to "seep" or to "leak out slowly".

[David Orsam]

For completeness, Dr Biggs had this to say as to whether bleeding could continue for twenty minutes:

"The flow of blood is likely to have slowed to a trickle at this time as pressure inside the vessels would have dissipated and the volume of blood remaining available to leak out would have become very little. (Marriott, 2013).

As I mentioned earlier, Trevor asked Biggs last year to comment on this issue and he posted his reply on the forum. He said:

"I think that, though it might seem unlikely for a significant quantity of blood to be flowing out of a body several minutes after death, it would certainly be possible for blood still to be dripping / oozing out of a body 20 mins later. This is likely to be minimal (almost negligible) in nature, as the majority of the blood that was able to come out would have done so much sooner. If a witness discovered a body that was still bleeding relatively profusely then the injuries are likely to have been inflicted more recently than 20 mins previously… but if the 20 min period is critical in ruling out / in certain suspects then I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility of some continued blood loss at this time, as I think it would be possible. (I base this on my own observations of seeing blood leak out of bodies when I have been present at murder scenes some hours after death. This is why I am open to many things being ‘possible’, even though I can’t state categorically what ‘would’ or ‘would not’ have happened in an individual case.)"

[David Orsam]

Ah but as I've noted before "oozing profusely" does appear to be an accepted medical term, at least in 1900 when this medical dictionary was written: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...fusely&f=false

Of course, the addition of the adjective "profusely" changes the context somewhat, and I'm therefore not totally convinced that PC Neil's statement is as clear cut as you suggest.

Neil was not a medical man and I feel sure would have been using the word in its normally accepted English meaning rather than as it was used in an obscure Indian homeopathic medical dictionary published 12 years after he was giving his evidence at the inquest.

[David Orsam]

Some editions might have been published in England but just to add that in the context of oozing out of the skin, I can see that if this was some form of excessive oozing from the skin then I suppose you could describe it as oozing profusely because the skin isn't meant to ooze, so any form of inordinate oozing out of the pores would be profuse. But when referring to blood oozing out of a body I don't think it can ooze profusely unless it's coming out of multiple holes in the body. Oozing is, by definition, to leak out slowly or to trickle out. So really, John, I do think that Neil's statement is clear cut.

[Joshua Rogan]

Hello Columbo,


>> 4. Most likely the doctor arrived about 10 minutes after 4. If he was told she was dead, he was not going to be in a huge hurry, especially if he had to put his suit on, even partially, according to Victorian Mores. He's not gonna wear a tank top and shorts.<<

Unfortunately, this cannot be said with any certainty at all.
Dr. Llewellyn may well have meant he arrived at the murderer site around four o’clock.
There’s a contemporary example of what of mean,


“Mr. Frederick William Blackwell said, - I live at 100, Commercial-road, and am a surgeon. At 10 minutes past 1 on Sunday morning I was called to 40, Berner-street. I was called by a policeman, and my assistant, Mr. Johnson, went back with him. I followed immediately I had dressed. I consulted my watch on my arrival, and it was just 1:10.”
(my emphasis)


So, being called, did not need to mean, being called!;-)

Didn't Dr Blackwell say it was 01:16 by his watch when he arrived at Dutfield's Yard, not 01:10 ?
Meaning it took 6 minutes for him to dress and get to the scene of crime. As it's just about the same distance as Dr Llewellyn had to cover to Buck's Row, this seems a reasonable estimate for him too.

[drstrange169]

You're right!

I only checked in the Ultimate Jtr (p166) which quotes the Times, which in turn is obviously in error.

Six minutes it is. Thanks, for picking that up.