Window of Time for Nichols murder

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

It's as Steve's supposing: I'm giving a worse case option with Christer's theory in mind. That is, if Lechmere's was guilty and wanted to stay & bluff it out, he had to do these things. There was no need to do these before hearing Paul. On the "abdominal wounds camera first", I alsof follow Christer's theory, but not because I necessarily believe it.

All the best,
Frank

Cheers Frank

Ive never gone for the idea of abdominal mutilations first. Makes little sense to me. Surely thoat cutting achieves the priority most efficiently- silence then death?

[FrankO]

Hello Frank

I don’t understand why Lechmere would have to have done any of these things after hearing Paul for the first time? Couldn’t he have already finished what he was doing when he first heard him approach? Also you’re saying that the abdominal wounds were inflicted before the throat (or neck as Fish would insist) wounds? Is that realistic?

Hi Herlock,

It's as Steve's supposing: I'm giving a worse case option with Christer's theory in mind. That is, if Lechmere's was guilty and wanted to stay & bluff it out, he had to do these things. There was no need to do these before hearing Paul. On the "abdominal wounds camera first", I alsof follow Christer's theory, but not because I necessarily believe it.

All the best,
Frank

[Elamarna]

I assume Frank is giving a worse case option, as per the suggestions made by pro Lechmere people

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Then, assuming this is, in fact, realistic, Lechmere would have to do a number of things right after hearing Paul for the first time. Like, at least, covering the abdominal wounds, move to the head, cut the throat twice, put the knife away and move away from the body as silently as possible and take his position in the middle of the street and wait for Paul.

Hello Frank

I don’t understand why Lechmere would have to have done any of these things after hearing Paul for the first time? Couldn’t he have already finished what he was doing when he first heard him approach? Also you’re saying that the abdominal wounds were inflicted before the throat (or neck as Fish would insist) wounds? Is that realistic?

[Elamarna]

With you now Frank, i agree with that in general.
I work in mph so had to convert that 6.3, and it's 3.9
I have worked to slightly slower, my preferred rate being a tad over 3.5mph, or 5.6kph.

Both are above average and I can work with either.

I have in my work include a range from 3 up to 5mph.

Thanks

Steve

[FrankO]

Frank,
Can I ask what you base the at least 60 yards on?
I am more than open to any suggestion, once I see how it is arrived at.

He Paul does not give any distance and Lechmere says around 40, so I wonder where 60 comes from.

Or are you saying, he must be at least 60 if Lechmere is guilty and not telling the truth?

Steve

Hi Steve,

I assume that, if about 40 yards would have been the distance at which Lechmere could discern Paul, then this would be about the same for Paul. Even though that's just supposition on my part, it seems realistic enough to me.

Then, assuming this is, in fact, realistic, Lechmere would have to do a number of things right after hearing Paul for the first time. Like, at least, covering the abdominal wounds, move to the head, cut the throat twice, put the knife away and move away from the body as silently as possible and take his position in the middle of the street and wait for Paul.

I estimate that this would have taken about 15 seconds at least. Supposing that Paul walked at a speed of 6.3 km/hr, Paul would have covered about 26 meters in 15 seconds before he was at a distance of about 40 yards. Which would make the distance between the 2 man some 60 yards when L. heard P. for the first time.

All the best,
Frank

[drstrange169]

Key to point out here is that no human can judge distance by sound alone, it's simply not possible, therefore the 40 yards needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.

[Elamarna]

Frank,
Can I ask what you base the at least 60 yards on?
I am more than open to any suggestion, once I see how it is arrived at.

He Paul does not give any distance and Lechmere says around 40, so I wonder where 60 comes from.

Or are you saying, he must be at least 60 if Lechmere is guilty and not telling the truth?

Steve

[FrankO]

I keep saying that Lechmere will have heard Paul from 130 yards away.

Just as I keep saying that I agree that a guilty Lechmere will have heard him at that point because he had every reason to listen for sounds (unlike an innocent Lechmere). What I wouldn't agree to is that a guilty Lechmere would have decided to wait for Paul right after hearing him for the first time. He would have had enough time to get away (more than a minute) and he would have realised that. The corner of the board school was only 40 yards away. That he would have waited for Paul just to play games while he had enough time to get away belongs to stuff in Hollywood films as far as I'm concerned.

But anyway, my point to Patrick and others was that Paul wasn't 40 yards off when a guilty Lechmere would have heard him for the first time (as he and others keep writing), but at the very least some 60 yards.

[drstrange169]

>The main reason why i joined this site around a week ago, was to put forward different scenarios, theories and ideas which i deliberately want to be challenged and countered, in order to flush out as many different aspects of the case as possible. There is always new things to discover and sometimes asking questions is the best way to move forward<<

A perfect reason for using these boards.

[drstrange169]

>>>C/ Lechmere head Paul from 40 yards away. Why didn´t the others do that? They were as close.<<

>>Good question, Off hand, I don't know, unlike you I'm happy to admit anomalies instead of trying bluff my way through them. Anomalies are not evidence, they are just unknown things awaiting an answer.<<

Having done some tests I'm now able to answer this. Somebody outside is able to hear soft footfalls that cannot be heard inside. Seems pretty obvious, but I did want to test it first.

[drstrange169]

>>If Paul nevertheless came close to the neck, it would be hard for Lechmere to say "No! Don´t touch the neck!", would it not?<<


In control means not letting that situation arise.


>>Once again, there is also the factor of the perceived invincibility many serial killers speak of. Lechmere could well have thought "there is no risk involved, and I can rule the day whatever happens here", they way that ilk generally reason.<<

I can certainly see that agruement, but again, it falls down against you own theory, if he had perceived invincibility, he wouldn't be worrying to much about Mizen, only someone in fear would need to lie.

[drstrange169]

>It´s the Daily Telegraph only who got it wrong, the rest got it right. Lechmere refused to help prop her up.<<

Wasn't it you on this very thread that said, just because the bulk of newspapers say something doesn't mean that the one paper that says something else is wrong?

Did you clear those goalposts through customs when you shipped them to Sweden??

[drstrange169]

>>I have a zillion times said that MY viewpoint is that if Lechmere was the killer and tried a bluff, he would NOT do so hovering over the body...<<

Yes, to us here who know the real facts better, Sadly, your show portrayed to the world the encounter happening beside MrsNichols body and when you hear the lay persons, who watched your show, comment, they say "Oh but he was found stooping over the body". And so another myth is put out to the world abut this crime.

[JeffHamm]

Jeff, you make absolutely brilliant points which i fully acknowledge and accept.

I appreciate you taking the time to counter and challenge some of the ideas i put forward.

The main reason why i joined this site around a week ago, was to put forward different scenarios, theories and ideas which i deliberately want to be challenged and countered, in order to flush out as many different aspects of the case as possible. There is always new things to discover and sometimes asking questions is the best way to move forward

In other words, i'm NOT here to try and suggest my theories on the case are better than anyone else, i'm here to have my theories on the case stripped bare and broken down to see if anything credible remains which can warrant further investigation.

I would never criticize or be dismissive of anyone putting forward ideas which oppose or counter my own, i actually welcome that because it's the only real way for us to us to succeed as a collective.

Solving the case is paramount and i welcome your response to my post.

Hats off to you sir!


The Rookie Detective

HI TRD,

I'm glad you found my comments useful to your thinking. You'll find that the vast majority of responses, even if they appear curt or dismissive, will point you to useful information. Often, given the nature of conversations on boards like this, what might read as an attack was not written as an attack. Most often, a reply is written quickly, and a concise pointer to information the responder thinks is important isn't really intended as an insult, but rather as assistance to help you find important material and a reference to why they think so. Sometimes, yes, things get personal, but just remind yourself, when someone resorts to sarcasm and insults as their rebuttal it's because they have nothing else but mud left and you're probably on the more solid ground. Take away from that a sign of your victory, even if they don't admit defeat. Just also remember, that someone disagreeing with you isn't them being disagreeable. We all will have our opinions on the importance of things to consider, but opinions are not facts. We all have different levels of tolerance for complexity and speculation, and most disagreements are really about those differences. I believe that things can get too speculative and complicated, but I also believe that we have to speculate to a certain degree. I think there are limits to how far is reasonable, and it's certainly further than I tend to set as my criterion, but the borders are fuzzy and sometimes the conversation should just end with "well, that's goes beyond my tolerance levels" because neither side can see the problem the other does (X sees things as based upon unsafe speculation and Y sees things as a logical flow based upon evidence - if you can't agree on what you're looking at, there's no point in arguing over the conclusions that follow).

Anyway, my recommendation is to try not to get too focused on any one suspect (though that can be fun). You'll miss out on a lot of really interesting ideas.

- Jeff