Lechmere Continuation Thread

[drstrange169]

>>Google the term "oozing profusely" (2180 hits) or "oozed profusely" (854 hits) and you will have the answer to what people think about that.<<

Surely the only relevant point is, was the term, “oozed profusely” ever mentioned by anyone involved in the investigation to Mrs. Nichols murder?

[drstrange169]

>>So what we need to do is to realize that coupled with the extensive use of the phrase "ooze profusely", we may well have a case where Nichols bled profusely as Neil saw her.<<

Presumably, what you claim is “extensive use of the phrase” is what the rest of us call, the phrase was never used!?!


Is this another one of your of your quote alterations?

[drstrange169]

>> I did not take it from "a" journalist. A large number of papers used the word profusely, and these papers would have been represented by a large number of journalists. Funny, is it not, that they should all have opted for the exact same term...?<<

Since the main body of the wording and particularly the sentence where the word “profusely” was used were almost identical, it is logical to assume they all came from one source.


This is an excellent example of how the "Xmere was Jtr" debate is pushed.

Misrepresenting the actual information.

Where it suits their bias better, they use unsourced stories over actual witness testimony. So purple prose by one journalist who wasn’t there is given preference over a firsthand account, sworn under oath by the very person in question.

[drstrange169]

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!;-)

[drstrange169]

I don't accept that Dr. Llwellyn could in give a time of death to within minutes, but for those that do, it may well be the case that he meant t.o.d. to be around 3:25.

And where would that leave Fisherman's favourite phrase, "oozing profusely"?

[Columbo]

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!;-)

Absolutely. I was going off his statement recorded in the Evening News:

Dr. Llewellyn made the following statement yesterday: I was called to Buck's-row, about five minutes to four this morning by Police-constable Thane, who said a woman had been murdered. I went to the place at once, and found deceased lying on her back with her legs out straight as though she had been laid down.

So am I incorrectly interpreting this as he was woken up at 5 minutes to 4a? If not then it seems the Dr. was saying he was called at 3:55a had to get dressed and headed to the site. If I had to choose between the mentioned 4:05 or 4:10 arrival times I would say it was closer to 4:10a. I do see your point though.

Columbo

[drstrange169]

The problem here is t.o.d is meaningless unless it has a fixed point.
What time a doctor was awakened is of no interest to an inquest. The relevant time is the time he saw the body.

With Blackwell, "called" meant, the time he first saw Mrs Stride.

That makes sense.

I don't know, but it's possible that was the convention at the time. If so, "around four," means the time he arrived in Buck's Row.

[Columbo]

The problem here is t.o.d is meaningless unless it has a fixed point.
What time a doctor was awakened is of no interest to an inquest. The relevant time is the time he saw the body.

With Blackwell, "called" meant, the time he first saw Mrs Stride.

That makes sense.

I don't know, but it's possible that was the convention at the time. If so, "around four," means the time he arrived in Buck's Row.

Ok, I see what you're saying. interesting. that would be a strange convention.

Columbo

[drstrange169]

I just did some cross checking of the other murders. Those doctors gave the time they left home and the time they arrived. Of course, they had further to go than Llewellyn and Blackwell who both lived virtually next to their respective crime scenes.

So who knows?

[John G]

Why do you keep asking me about blood "oozing profusely"?

That is not the evidence in this case. So why would I be arguing anything about it?

Ah, by "evidence in this case" you're presumably referring to the inquest rather than newspaper reporting. However, in comparison with the later inquests involving Whitechapel victims, wasn't the Nichols inquest a somewhat perfunctory affair with less detailed questioning by the coroner?

[Fisherman]

Great.

Not only do I have the constant quibbling from David - now Dusty is joining the ranks too...

So here goes, then:

I have not cut away any relevant passages. Dusty has. End of. (And you don´t want me to cut and paste your effort in the discipline, Dusty, since it is extremly embarrasing for you).

Dusty speaks of "misrepresenting" on my behalf. When in an earlier debate he believed that Charles Lechmeres sister was still alive during the autumn of terror and would therefore be able to give away her brother, I asked him whether he actually thought that such a thing could happen.

He answered yes, and I told him no - since Emily Lechmere was long dead in 1888.

And what happens? Does he say "Aha, I didn´t know that"? No, he says "I have been deceived!" That is to say he lays the guilt for his not knowing that Emily Lechmere was dead on ME, and predisposes that his lack of knowledge owes to a deception on my behalf.

That is all I have to say about the veracity of Dusty.

As for the timing issue, the discussion is going round and round and it is said that we cannot establish when Llewellyn reached Bucks Row. It is suggested that the line "Dr. Llewellyn, 152 Whitechapel road, deposed that on Friday morning about four o'clock he was called up by a policeman with whom he went to Buck's row" actually means that the doctor arrived in Bucks Row at about four o´ clock and not that he was called up then. And it is suggested that I am trying to skew the facts by changing about for around.

Such is the level of the discussion.

I will lay down a few things before I leave the debate (oh, yes I will!).

I am working from the assumption that Robert Paul was the best source of the timings. He was exact, nobody else was. And a later time fits the evidence better than an earlier one.

But if we are to be salomonic in this regard, let´s go for the middle bid and make it 3.42.30 when Robert Paul arrived at Browns.

If this was the case, then according to me, Charles Lechmere cut the neck of Nichols as he heard Paul enter the street, one minute earlier, taking us to 3.41.30. I am a firm believer of what Llewellyn said, that the abdominal wounds came first. The cut to the neck was to ensure silence and death, according to me. And the lack of blood under the neck owes to how the blood had seeped into the abdominal cavity during the first onslaught, just as Llewellyn said.

Dr Llewellyn also said "I believe she had not been dead more than half-an-hour" at the inquest, as per the Daily Telegraph. The Times had it "He should say the deceased had not been dead more than half an hour". The Morning Advertiser wrote "I believe she had not been dead more than half an hour."

This means that according to Llewellyn, death had occurred NO MORE but quite possibly LESS than half an hour before his examination.

Now, let´s do it the other way around and use the suggested neck-cutting time of 3.41.30 and move that time thirty minutes forward.
That takes us to 4.11.30.

So if 3.41.30 is correct (and it can only be an assumption), then if Llewellyn arrived at the last second of the time he allowed for, then he should have been in place at 4.11.30.

If we then add the fact that Llewellyn actually did not reason that thirty minutes was the actual time that had passed (thirty minutes was the extreme) and reason that he actually would opt for twentyfive minutes as the optimum guess, then Llewellyn should have been in place at 4.06.30 to be spot on. And if twenty minutes was the optimum, then he should have been there at 4.01.30.

Whichever way, we can see that Llewellyns weighing of the TOD keeps Charles Lechmere very much in the frame for the murder. If we move the cutting time to 3.40 or 3.45 (I would recommend the latter), we are faced with much the same. But the further forward in time we fix the cutting, the better it tallies with how both Neil and Mizen saw blood running from the wound.

So this is where all of Davids blustering has gotten him.

If he from the outset had said that we cannot be sure of the timings and we cannot be sure who killed Nichols, I would have agreed. The bullshit about me having somehow led on that I can prove that Lechmere was the killer is a myth, invented by people like David. I have never said I can prove my case. I am however quite convinced myself that Lechmere is by far the best bid for the killers role, and my personal take is that the carman was guilty. I am entitled to both think it and say it. And rest assured that I will!

Now I leave this thread to those who believe that more needs to be said. Personally, I don´t belong to that tally.

[David Orsam]

The timing debate is fine if you know when to quit, especially when it's nothing but snide comments and re-hashing from other threads.

I'm glad you manged to get that comment in before your apology for being judgemental.

[David Orsam]

Here's what you should know about time.

1. Around and about are the same thing. Around 4a is the same as about 4a.

2. Nichols could've been bleeding for 5 minutes or 20 minutes or half an hour. the position of her body coupled by the entry of the wound shows she bled not profusely as there was only a small puddle and the flow was slow enough to keep it from going beyond her shoulders. Everyone here should take notice that an accurate, detailed medical description was not given at the crime scene.

3. If Lechmere killed her at 3:30a he wouldn't have been standing there when Paul came around the corner. If he killed her at 3:37a he's the damned luckiest man in the world.

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.

5. No medical specialist today can give you anything but the most basic information concerning this murder. They or I were not there.

So here's your timeline.

1. Nichols was killed between 3:15 and 3:40a. we all know why.
2. No one knows when Lechmere really left the house so by his word he left at 3:30a.
4. Paul says he arrived at 3:45 but Neil says he arrived at 3:45 so I'm going with him because he walked the damn route every night!
5. That puts Paul in Buck's row about 3:40a.
6. Paul and Lechmere have a minute or so conversation and then leave on a several minutes walk.
7. They talk to the other PC, he continues knocking up doors and then goes to Buck's Row. So he's probably there at 3:55a, takes 2 minutes or less to get to the doctor.
8. We're at 3:57a, the doctors woken up, puts on his suit and coat and walks back to Buck's Rows. that'll put him at about or around 4:10a.

Have fun picking that apart.

Columbo

So having complained about too much discussion on the subject of time you now want to add a post on that very subject yourself!

The only point which seems relevant to my discussion with Fisherman is this:

"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."

The problem with that comment is that you don't address the issue of the starting point. I mean, how long are you saying it took the doctor to get dressed and out to Bucks Row? 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 20 minutes. And on what basis do you select one of those times?

Actually, there are two problems, the second being your assumption that the doctor would not have been in a "huge hurry" having been told there was a dead woman in the street, something which is pure unfounded speculation on your part.

[David Orsam]

So am I incorrectly interpreting this as he was woken up at 5 minutes to 4a? If not then it seems the Dr. was saying he was called at 3:55a had to get dressed and headed to the site. If I had to choose between the mentioned 4:05 or 4:10 arrival times I would say it was closer to 4:10a. I do see your point though.

It's funny. Fisherman thinks the doctor was called up at 4:00am and arrived at the murder site at 4:10am.

You now seem to think the doctor was called up at 3:55am and still arrived at the murder site at 4:10am.

All on an imaginary vision of how long it took the doctor to get dressed!!

[David Orsam]

Ah, by "evidence in this case" you're presumably referring to the inquest rather than newspaper reporting. However, in comparison with the later inquests involving Whitechapel victims, wasn't the Nichols inquest a somewhat perfunctory affair with less detailed questioning by the coroner?

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.