But the big problem is, there is no evidence anywhere that Lech/cross was a psychopath.
It's fine to say if he killed Polly and acted like he did he must have been psycho, but then you'd look for proof in the rest of his life that he was a psychopath, indeed what little we know of the rest of his life would seem to deny this.
I keep coming back to Dennis Rader. I agree with you, but there's always Dennis Rader.
Which leads me to wonder why Robert Paul only reported the possible movement of breathing, but said nothing about the sound of air being expelled. If Nichols truly had been "freshly killed" mere minutes previously, with the blood wet and flowing in the tissues of her neck, wouldn't a raspy, rattling breath (aka stridor) have been readily detectable in the early morning stillness?
I'd welcome Paul's (Kjab3112) view on this.
This was as far as my layman's research got me too - that if she were freshly attacked the signs of struggling life would've been unmissable, and if she were found at that last stage of life we would more likely have been expecting intermittent, diminishing, but unmistakable gasps and heaves.
But the language varies from account to account, and none of it is beyond question.
My gut feeling is she was dead, and Paul was mistaken.
Stridor which is the sea lion like sound of upper airway obstruction relies on air movement and obstruction. A cut across the trachea would remove any stridorous sounds, especially with minimal air movement. Having witnessed many dying breaths (in a professional role), those last agonal gasps are not the Hollywood style, but rather an ineffectual silent breath which would be near silent and only noticeable on checking for chest movement (a la Paul's statement)
Your comments about Griffiths are - of course - nonsense. I don't know the man's character and I'm not inferring that he's a less than honest fellow.
I am sorry, but you cannot first say that Andy Griffiths was paid to say what the film crew wanted him to say, and then call him honest. That is not compatible with honesty on any level. It is prostituting yourself, view-wise.
What I am saying is that I wonder how much he knows of the opposing viewpoint, the issues that have been presented here and elsewhere that may suggest "the carman" was exactly what we've always thought him to be.
No, that is not what you are saying at all. It is perhaps what you SHOULD be saying, but you instead opted for saying that Andy Griffiths was paid to say what the film crew wanted him to say. Meaning that everything he said counts for absolutely nothing, since he was a marionette only, through which the film crew chanelled their message.
Once you have made such a remarkable accusation, the obvious continuation would be for you to call me hysterical for pointing it out - which you have done. Strategically, all that lacks now is you saying that I may be a tad naive and that I don´t seem to understand how the film industry and Ripper ditto work, how it is sweet that somebody can be as hopeful about human nature as I am but alas ...
Still waiting for that one, Patrick?
Of course, I am not the slightest hysterical or naive. I am very calm and very versed in all of these strategies, and I simply put it to you that you have overstepped not only a line of decency but also the line where your own credibility starts to smoulder away.
It´s all very undramatic to me, I´m afraid. I hope I am quite clear on what I am saying.
Yes; But we were disscusing far more than that in April my dear Fish.
Just rewatched the section In the documentary.
The diagram shows no major vertical cut, Payne-James refers to the wounds as minor compared to the other victims. There is no mention that the abdomenial wounds may have killed her.
Depth is the primary risk of blood on the cutter?
Is it really?
Sorry that really is utter rot.
What dictates the risks to the cutter are:
Which vessels are cut, arteries may spray.
How the blood flows from the wounds, and that includes the cuts to the skin and muscle.
And of course if the hands are likely to come in contact with any blood or tissue.
With the Neck, can cut away from himself, you can't do that so easily that if cutting vertical and horizontal strokes into the abdomen, without moving, which you would need to do to avoid reaching across other wounds, and thus increasing the risk of getting blood stained. And you certainly cannot see which vessels you may hit And try to avoid those which may mark you.
To be honest I am not even sure why you are arguing this. It's clear in the documentary what Payne-James said. Anyone can watch it if they want, and see what he does actual say; not what you or I claim he says and knew.
I was hoping that you would be a bit more willing to take in what I am saying when I speak in general terms. A deep wound is more likely to set off blood on a person than a shallow one because the hand of the perpetrator will travel closer to the victims body.
After that, yes a cut vessel will play a role. But they are not placed in the skin layer, are they? They are instead normally placed... yes...wait for it... DEEP inside the body.
Can you see now what I am saying? Or is it still "a rot"?
Last edited by Fisherman : 06-29-2017 at 10:42 PM.
In terms of Christer's argument about the psychopathy and resultant behaviours, I suspect one reason why it gets so heated is that he and others end up repeating the same arguments over and over again - and this is unavoidable, because until such time as proof or disproof is forthcoming both positions are tenable and rational:
If Cross was innocent then he acted like an innocent man. Naturally.
If Cross was the killer, a psychopath, then - knowing he had been seen - he took control by acting like an innocent man. And convincingly so.
What I don't agree with is the suggestion that Christer's interpretation of those events is somehow invalid because it's based on the presumption of guilt and psychopathy, the idea that he's playing a magic get-out-of-jail-free card. It's not as though Christer thinks Lech was guilty because he acted innocent and that's something a psychopath can do convincingly. He thinks Lech is guilty primarily because in his estimation the woman was not even dead yet when Paul reached her, nobody else was seen or heard, and Lech was standing near her, her wounds were covered, he refused to help prop her up, told a lie to a police officer, and used a name that he did not normally use.
Given those readings of the night's events, I think Christer is well within his rights to hypothesize an explanation for those actions of Lechmere that look more innocent than those listed above.
There's no point getting so riled about the use of this argument. Either he was innocent, or he was guilty and did a good job of impersonating innocence. Christer is just saying, that's not untypical of psychopathic behaviour. And none of us know with 100% certainty which was true.
Oh. Except Rainbow. Who apparently does. But that's .... that's something else.
Exactly so, Henry. A very concise and to the point description, if I may say so.
The problem here, though, is that much as you and I both understand the viability of the point I am making, others, like Gareth, would want to disallow for the point to be made at all. Away, foul accusation!
Since I cannot prove that Lechmere was a psychopath, it should not be accepted to point to how such a thing offers the possibility to realize his actions in combination with the murder night. That is Gareths view.
Goes to show how differently we look at things every now and then.
It can be compared (shallowly) to how Gareth says that he is absolutely certain that Dr Phillips was wrong on the TOD for Chapman; it is quite alright not only to work from the unproven assumption that Phillips was wrong, but also in fact to work from the idea that this is a certainty.
Wheras it is not allowed to work from the assumption that Lechmere MAY have been a psychopath.
I trust most people can see the elephant in the room.
It is highly variable for time to brain death post ischaemia (loss of blood supply), in addition the brain stem is protected by primarily relying on the posterior circulation from the vertebral arteries thus not effected as much by severance of the carotid arteries. In monkey studies ischaemia of 20 minutes is associated with inevitable death, but only within seven days. Consciousness is from the forebrain area which is where the seconds figure comes.
Given that Nichols had had her neck severed down to the bone and her abdomen cut very severely, so severely as to make Llewellyn say that it was enough to kill immediately - can we reason that Nichols would possibly have gone on breating for a couple of minutes? Or even a minute? Are there any examples of people with this kind of extensive damage doing that? Would not the cut off air supply to the brain ensure that we are looking at a very short period of breathing indeed?
If people with this kind of damage CAN breathe for a couple of minutes or so - is that something that is mostly an offhand possibility or is it more like a general rule that they do? Can something - anything - be said about the general possibilities that there will be this kind of breathing with these kinds of victims?
What I am asking is whether you can offer any idea of your own about how long you personally would think it likely that Nichols would have breathed. Even if you are prepared to allow for a couple of minutes, would you think it the more likely thing? If you find that a question you rather not would answer, I am fine with that.
Please note that I am not expressing an opposite view here - I am genuinely interested in finding out as much as I can, that´s all.