Favorite suspect/s?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Much as I havent proved that Paul was within earshot, surely if it cannot be excluded it cannot be said that it CAN be excluded...? I feel you are making very simple matter very hard here.

I’d put it this way....

We have no tangible reason for believing that Paul was out of earshot.

Unless you need him to be of course.....

[Fisherman]

“One of them only was found close to the body while it was still bleeding.”

I have no books with me at the moment to check this but remind me how you know that she was still bleeding?

It´s either that or she started bleeding inbetween the time when Lechmere found her and when Neil arrived. Effectively meaning that she either did not initially bleed from the wounds in abdomen and neck for some reason, or somebody else arrived at the scene between Lechmere and Neil and cut her.

[Herlock Sholmes]

“One of them only is known to have used an alias that he otherwise did not use in authority contacts.”

Which gained him no advantage in terms of ‘throwing the police off the scent’ so, for the life of me, I can’t see why you keep bringing it up as if it in any remote way points toward CL’s guilt. Its no more incriminating than if we discovered that CL had knocked a couple of years off his true age.

[Fisherman]

Found your point, sorry i honestly beleieved i had covered it in my reply, clearly i didn't



"The time elaspsed was much shorter" in what context?
Kelly could (I only say could) concevably been killed up to 10am, While i do not think that is the case, it cannot be ruled out on medical grounds of on witness statements, and that does remain a possibility(that term again), however unlikel on those grounds.

Therefore the time comaparison cannot be said to be "much shorter"
I contest also that a shorter period between death and examination will necessarily make TOD estimation easier, particularily so in the conditions and with the knowledge in 1888.


You may not agree, but there is my considered response to your point (certainly a point, not a question, I concur).


Steve

Generally speaking, if a body is long dead, it is harder to determine a TOD than for a body that has been dead for a short time only.

We can make all sorts of objections based on specific conditions, but if we treat the question from a general perspective only, we can´t.

And the only way there is to bring Kelly and Chapman closer to each other in the perspective of elapsed time since death, is to accept that Kelly died much later than is generally beleived, and that Chapman die much earlier.

If Chapman had been dead for around an hour only as she was examined by Phillips, then Kelly will have been dead much longer than so when she was examined, given that she was first seen dead on her bed at 10.45, and then the door was not broken open until around 1.30 if I remember correctly, so that means that if Kelly was killed at, say, 10.30 (which nobody believes anyway, but for the sake of clarity...), three would have passed.

So if we want to have the same time frame for Chapman, we need to put her murder at 3.30.

I´m fine with that, and I think it is close to the truth.

In her case.

Not in Kellys.

[Herlock Sholmes]

“One of them only was found close to the body while it was still bleeding.”

I have no books with me at the moment to check this but remind me how you know that she was still bleeding?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Pick the one detail that you think speaks loudest for his innocence, and we will scrutinize it together. Then we will see how strong an argument you have.

Go ahead, don´t be shy! Which single detail is most out of line with Lechmere possibly being guilty?

Probably the fact the CL didn’t make his escape when he could but decided possibly drop himself right in the You-know-what.

[Elamarna]

Can anyone offer an 'innocent' explanation of why Charles Lechmere (as he seemingly described himself in every other recorded situation where he had dealings with officialdom) might have used his long deceased stepfather's surname alone when reporting his finding of Polly's body to the police and subsequently appearing at her inquest? Even if he was known by the name of Cross at Pickfords, isn't it just a bit odd that he didn't mention that his real name was Lechmere? Or that if he did, no record of the fact exists?

Could it really have been a simple oversight?

Gary

Good question.

Of course we do not know what details he gave to the Police, a record of such would have been so helpful. We are left to assume he gave the same info to the police as at the inquest, lacking any evidence to the contrary.

Of course it may be possible that he was know to some Police as the step son of the late PC Cross and that he used the name for that reason.

The incident which you mention in the next post, is tantilisingly is it not Gary?
If it was him, it suggests that he used the name at Pickfords, indeed to provd it was him would require an address which could be link to Lechmere. All records of which no longer exist. Of course purely hypothetically if such records showed him listed as Cross, it would suggest that nothing significant can be drawn from it use, as he gave it for the earlier incident. If however he was listed as Lechmere, there are questions to answer.
Of course if he was listed as Lechmere, it would be impossible to link him to the man in the accident unless a report existed giving the carman's addresss.

To answer your question It may have been, but i think it unlikely. Morelikely there was a reason, which need not be suspicious.


Steve

[harry]

The biggest thing going for Cross's innocence?As there are several,i'll explain one.
He gave evidence under oath.An element of that evidence was that the Injuries to Nichols were made before he(Cross)reached the spot where she lay.As no evidence has surfaced,or was presented as contradictory to that claim,he cannot ,under the law of that time,be held reasponsible for her death.The presumption of innocence must prevail.That is why no Prima Faci hearing of guilt would succeed.

He is innocent,not because I say so,but because the Common Law of England demands it.

[Fisherman]

To use your phrase, which is good, obviously your training coming into play,

"In that context and with these predispositions, it would not have been possible for Paul to have been out of earshot"

Provide some source based evidence in addition to what we already have, as i have said all along, and i will concede that such was possible.

Which of course is NOT me claiminhg to have PROVED anything its saying you have not PROVED.


I not sure how much clearer i can make my position and how it differs from yours.


Steve

Much as I havent proved that Paul was within earshot, surely if it cannot be excluded it cannot be said that it CAN be excluded...? I feel you are making very simple matter very hard here.

[Elamarna]

Found your point, sorry i honestly beleieved i had covered it in my reply, clearly i didn't

Not only was there no contesting TOD:s in Chapmans case, it also applies that the time elapsed was much shorter, and so the task of establishing a TOD becomes easier.

Moreover, in Chapmans case, Phillips gave a span, not a decided time. He said that she had been dead at least two hors and probably more.

"The time elaspsed was much shorter" in what context?
Kelly could (I only say could) concevably been killed up to 10am, While i do not think that is the case, it cannot be ruled out on medical grounds of on witness statements, and that does remain a possibility(that term again), however unlikel on those grounds.

Therefore the time comaparison cannot be said to be "much shorter"
I contest also that a shorter period between death and examination will necessarily make TOD estimation easier, particularily so in the conditions and with the knowledge in 1888.


You may not agree, but there is my considered response to your point (certainly a point, not a question, I concur).


Steve

[Elamarna]

1315. And I didn´t say "question", I said "point".

Good point, however if it requires answering it still must by definition pose a question.

I will now go and look and answer.


Steve

[Elamarna]

So we do not agree that Paul could have been out of earshot as Lechmere spoke to Mizen?

Is that correct?

You are of the meaning that Paul could not possibly have been out of earshot as this happened?

Or what are you saying? Or trying to say?

To use your phrase, which is good, obviously your training coming into play,

"In that context and with these predispositions, it would not have been possible for Paul to have been out of earshot"

Provide some source based evidence in addition to what we already have, as i have said all along, and i will concede that such was possible.

Which of course is NOT me claiminhg to have PROVED anything its saying you have not PROVED.


I not sure how much clearer i can make my position and how it differs from yours.


Steve

[Fisherman]

I must have missed the question, which post was it in? I need to read the full context before reying obviously.


Steve

1315. And I didn´t say "question", I said "point".

[Fisherman]

Sorry but "In that context and with these predispositions, it would not have been possible for Paul to have been out of earshot" as you so eloquently write we agree on no such thing.


Steve

So we do not agree that Paul could have been out of earshot as Lechmere spoke to Mizen?

Is that correct?

You are of the meaning that Paul could not possibly have been out of earshot as this happened?

Or what are you saying? Or trying to say?

[Elamarna]

I was pulling your leg. Just as I thought you were pulling mine. How many times must I say that? Ten? Twenty?

How about instead answering my point that the far-reaching differences in the amounts of time that had passed when the bodies of Chapman and Kelly were found would play a very large role in the process of determining TOD?

I must have missed the question, which post was it in? I need to read the full context before reying obviously.


Steve