Window of Time for Nichols murder

[JeffHamm]

One glaring problem with Rookies fantasy story is the bit about he doesn’t want “the dirty whores blood on him, he never has, that’s the way he works” on what is widely accepted as his first or second kill. There are others but that one jumps out almost 8meduately.

Well, I think we can allow for some artistic licence on an unknowable stream of consciousness presented for dramatic flare. One could just change that to "I know I didn't get any blood on me as it all went into the street", but where's the fun in that?

It's the emphasis on responding "fight" to explain why he sticks around to cool it out with Paul, and then not attacking (as I believe a psychopath would) once Paul became vulnerable, because Paul is a threat to him because now Paul has seen him. Suddenly the fight explanation that kept him there starts to get in the way of explaining his subsequent choices, and a new hypothetic will have to be included to get around the problem created by the first hypothetic. That's the sort of thing that I tend to be sensitive to because it starts becoming too complicated and my brain likes simplicity, others have a higher tolerance for complexity. Unless the case gets solved, it's a matter of opinion.

- Jeff

[GUT]

One glaring problem with Rookies fantasy story is the bit about he doesn’t want “the dirty whores blood on him, he never has, that’s the way he works” on what is widely accepted as his first or second kill. There are others but that one jumps out almost 8meduately.

[JeffHamm]

....

If Lechmere was innocent and stumbled over a body of a woman then why didn't he RUN and find a policeman immediately after discovering her?

Is there any account of Lechmere's story BEFORE Paul arrived?

If Paul was less than a minute behind Lechmere, then Lechmere may have seen the body, heard Paul and then so on and so forth...

But if Lechmere was minutes ahead of Paul, how long does an innocent man stand looking at a body before he runs to find help or calls for help?

If Lechmere saw her and didn't want to have anything to do with her, he would have just walked past her and Paul would have found her instead. But because Lechmere intercepts Paul, it indicates Lechmere spent at least some time with Nichols. Lechmere's seemingly timid interaction with Paul doesn't indicate a man who thinks they've found a body, but maybe a man who is playing it cool because they're paranoid they've been rumbled and missed the opportunity to run in the first instance.

the jury is out


Thoughts please?

According to Lechmere/Cross's testimony (consider the source of course) we have this:
George [sic] Cross, a carman, stated that he left home on Friday morning at 20 minutes past 3, and he arrived at his work, at Broad-street, at 4 o'clock. Witness walked along Buck's-row, and saw something lying in front of the gateway like a tarpaulin. He then saw it was a woman. A man came along and witness spoke to him. They went and looked at the body. ..."

So, his story sounds like he had only just noticed something, which took him a moment to figure out that it was a woman. And it seems he spotted Paul about that point in time too, so he waited for Paul before having him join him to examine things further. That doesn't sound like a situation where he would be expected to immediately run and find a policeman as he hasn't worked out what the situation is yet. Also, there's nothing in Paul's testimony to contradict that, yet Paul does directly contradict other testimony (that of PC Mizen), so Paul does appear willing to set the record straight if he believes something else (note, he may believe something else, but that doesn't mean his counter-belief is true of course). Cross/Lechmere's waiting for Paul can be seen as consistent with someone who doesn't really feel comfortable in checking out what he's found, so asking Paul to accompany him makes sense in that light. His refusal to help shift the body also is consistent with someone nervous about what he's come across.

Basically, it looks like Paul was maybe what, 20 seconds behind Cross/Lechmere? Not right behind him, but certainly not minutes either. I think people have suggested it's a 7 minute walk from Lechmere/Cross's house, so a minute would be 1/7th of that distance. If we had a map, we could work out the distance and mark it off in 7 equal sections, but I don't have one available with that information on it. It would also allow us to estimate roughly how much time was between Cross and Paul, and since we know Paul's estimated time of departure from home, we could work out how well all of those testimonies "match up" (I suspect they would be pretty good given that every analysis of the time lines tends to mesh as well as one can expect, given the error associated with estimated times).

So, from what we have, unless we suggest that Cross/Lechmere is lying about when he left home (and if we do that just to make it work for him to be JtR, it's circles again - so it's just a hypothesis in need of evidence, which we'll never be able to obtain despite knowing what we might look for if we were to send investigators around asking if they saw Cross/Lechmere leave home, and if so, at what time, etc), then what we have suggests there was little time between Cross/Lechmere finding the body and Paul's arrival. But we only have that part from Cross/Lechmere himself, so ...

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi TRD,

Interesting scenario. It could work, provided Cross/Lechmere is a psychopath, for which we have no independent evidence other than to assume he's JtR in the first place, which makes it a circular argument. I don't think I've seen anything that could be taken as evidence that he was a psychopath, other than to say he was JtR and so must have been - which is the circularity problem.

Also, psychopaths will run if there's a chance they will get caught. They'll do bizarre things that we might see as extraordinary risk taking (Dahmer kept heads in his locker at work; he convinced police a young boy who escaped was just his lover and they were having a dispute; Kemper went to see his psychologist (or psychiatrist, councilor? can't recall) with a head in the trunk of his car; Bundy kept a head in a box in his apartment until it smelled so bad his girlfriend asked what it was - and he burned it in a fireplace before she got home; Bundy also walked through a parking lot that was part of a crime scene while the police were examining it and picked up some evidence and took it away). These situations, however, are not them being caught in the act but ones where they felt in control of the situation. Bundy fled when the police followed him in a car. His instinct was to not get caught, despite him being able to brazen it out when he had time to prepare himself.

So even a psychopath would be prone to exit stage left if someone came across them. Think Bundy fleeing the sorority house in Florida. On his way out he ran past another girl, Neary. He didn't stop to attack her, he continued to flee (that's probably the closest we'll come to the situation you described above). That's just one case, of course, and this could be a counter-example (but could be's aren't worth much really). But any offender, psychopathic or not, has a strong self preservation response. Psychopaths, when they feel in control of the situation, believe they can "self preserve" through actions you and I would think are fool hardy options that would ensure self destruction. But when the unexpected happens, like someone comes along unexpectedly, believing they can escape successfully seems the more probable line of thought.

But, let's say, he does choose the stay option because his decision is as you suggest to fight rather than flee, and while that seems foolhardy to us, to his psychopathic mind it seems like the best way for him to control the situation. Ok, I could buy that as they make weird choices, so we're not running up against any problems there and things fit so far. But it is at that point a psychopath's responses will differ from yours or mine, so I don't think the emotional descriptions you suggest would apply. Rather, a psychopath would now feel like they have regained control - their decision to stay and fight is to them regaining control of the situation - so all those responses go away and they calm right down (hence their ability to bluff through situations that most would find too stressful to even attempt). But that's just colourful description of the unknowable internal thinkings, which nothing in the evidence is going to address for us. But here, to me, is the rub. If staying to fight was his decision as to how to regain control, then as soon as Paul bent over to check Nicholls for breathing or her pulse, etc, then he would have attacked Paul and killed him because that would be the time to strike and he stayed to fight after all. What's missing is the "fight" in the actual events. I can't see his decision being to stay to fight, and then not fighting when the moment presents itself and Paul is getting really close to discovering the murder, and therefore, him. And Paul has seen him, so Paul is now a threat to him, and he's going to want to eliminate that threat, but he doesn't. That's why, to me, that's the weak link in the chain. And, I think, even if we can get past that, I think once Paul and Cross left the scene, he would have found a way to part company (i.e. the "you look that way for a PC I'll go this way" type thing).

Still, we know there's ample time prior to Cross/Lechmere's arrival for someone else to have committed the murder, so that also means there's ample time for Cross/Lechmere as well (it doesn't have to be someone else after all). The problem is Cross/Lechmere's behavior and choices don't really mesh well with the scenerios where he's the killer; either he does things that don't make sense if he's guilty, or he fails to do things a guilty person would be highly expected to do. Even the current suggestion hits that type of wall where staying to fight is invoked at one point to get past one hurdle, and now something else has to be thought of to overcome the new hurdle that pops up due to the original solution. I find those kinds of twists and turns and knots to be arguments against a working hypothesis, especially when the comparison (the someone else did it hypothesis) seems free from those sorts of complications. But, I'm a simple man, and I like simple things so I can understand them.

It's worth exploring, and that's what people have been doing, but whether Cross/Lechmere was or was not a psychopath, the pattern of behaviour and choices that he makes are really hard to account for in a consistent way; yet all of them make perfect sense if you start from Cross/Lechmere was just some guy who found Nicholl's body and had no other connection to the murder event.

But maybe we've not found the right Cross/Lechmere counter-argument, and when we do, that will look to be the better one. So keep at it.

- Jeff

[The Rookie Detective]

Reading through the past series of posts; it's been refreshing to see a discussion based on logical analysis and debate between people with contrasting viewpoints who can discuss and theorize in a respectful manner. I concur with the vast majority of the arguments made, as they seem logical and well thought out and very much in context with the specific question i raised at the very top of this link regarding the Window of Time for Nichols murder.

May i add a slightly varied viewpoint into the mix, NOT with the any intent to challenge or criticize anyone whatsoever, but purely to see whether there is any scope for a valid counter argument to the points raised.

For a moment, let's contemplate hypothetically that Lechmere was JTR and the man who had just slain Nichols

For this to work, we have to try something a little different to see where it takes us...

We need to think outside the box a little.

I'm a trained actor so i like to get inside the head of all the characters i take on.

(Please humor me at the very least)

So...imagine you're Lechmere...your adrenaline is pumping and you feel powerful and unstoppable after dominating Nichols...

Then you hear footsteps.

Someone's coming!

FLOOD of CORTISOL and adreneline

FIGHT or FLIGHT?!

RUN!!!...

NO!

You can't go now, You've not finished your work!!!
You feel enraged...

BUT you've got to act quickly...knife away...damn it!...is there blood on me?.. damn it, you can't tell!...

*Footsteps getting louder...

you instinctively cover up her wounds quickly...

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT I WANTED!

You get up and move away just in time...

Now RUN!...

You notice Paul approaching

Too late!

Damn it, did he see me?! Did he see me?!

Paranoia

You intercept Paul

As you and Paul go over to Nichols, Paul kneels down to check for signs of life

But you won't touch her.

You don't want that filthy wh**s blood over you!

You NEVER get blood on you, that's why you're so good at your work

All the while internally you're looking at Paul to judge and test his reaction.
all the while sneakily checking yourself for signs of blood on your clothes
Gripping the knife on the inside lining of your coat
Have you got "Buckled?"
So much as a sniff and you'll will cut him too

He didn't see me. He didn't see me

relief sets in. You feel good

Flood of SERATONIN

How can they catch me? I'm so good at my work!

BUT he (Paul) hasn't even noticed my work!

WHY did i cover her?!

Outwardly
Agree to go find a policeman

Inwardly;
I'll make sure i show them all next time. Show they have no heart Show what they're really made of Ha Ha

You leave with Paul and minutes later find Mizen.

All the while checking for blood
All the while angry that you covered her
Should you have run?
But that's NOT what YOU do!

See Mizen

Inwardly:
Will you get Buckled? You feel alive

Outwardly;
Calmly speak to Mizen and then go on your way with Paul

...

So...is that a viable scenario?

Please accept my sincere and unreserved apologize if that was not the most ethical approach to try and solving thsi case. But i believe that sometimes looking at things from a different angle may contribute to the argument as a whole.

The reason why i mentioned Fight or Flight is because we ALL have an AUTOMATED RESPONSE to moments of extreme stress or that feeling of threat. It's a primeval instinct within all of us and it's essentially our defensive mechanism against the feeling of being in mortal danger or likewise.

In other words, just because Lechmere DIDN'T run, DOESN'T mean that he chose not to, it means that his automated response was to and FIGHT. This can also relate directly to psychopathy in that the thrill of killing and that natural predatory instinct would make a killer more inclined to fight as opposed to run. Predators don't like to run from danger, they are the danger.

When we feel stressed or under extreme threat (i.e. from being caught having murdered someone) the brain release a chemical called Cortisol (and also adrenaline) to help deal with the threat.


Cortisol produces the "fight of flight" response


The Fight or Flight response is actually a Physiological reaction that occurs in RESPONSE to a perceived attack or threat to survival

The term is also referred to as the FFF response; namely the Fight, Flight or Freeze response.

We ALL have a response to it as human beings and as a psychopath, JTR would have been; statistically at least, more inclined to Fight and retain his predatory control over the situation.


So, with a mixture of theatrical creativity, scientific terminology and an exploration into how psychopathy varies immensely outwardly compared to what's actually going on inside the mind; does my scenario hold any credence whatsoever?

On a personal level, despite the theatrics, i'm not convinced that there's much of a case against Lechmere... BUT it doesn't mean there isn't ANY case against him.

I wanted to try and emphasize the point that just because Lechmere didn't run, doesn't mean that he consciously chose not to. His Fight or Flight response due to the release of Cortisol may have prevented him from instinctively doing so.
In fact, my imagined version above would support Lechmere NOT running away and strengthen the case against him. If he were innocent, then why did he spend ANY time with Nichols whatsoever?

If Lechmere was innocent and stumbled over a body of a woman then why didn't he RUN and find a policeman immediately after discovering her?

Is there any account of Lechmere's story BEFORE Paul arrived?

If Paul was less than a minute behind Lechmere, then Lechmere may have seen the body, heard Paul and then so on and so forth...

But if Lechmere was minutes ahead of Paul, how long does an innocent man stand looking at a body before he runs to find help or calls for help?

If Lechmere saw her and didn't want to have anything to do with her, he would have just walked past her and Paul would have found her instead. But because Lechmere intercepts Paul, it indicates Lechmere spent at least some time with Nichols. Lechmere's seemingly timid interaction with Paul doesn't indicate a man who thinks they've found a body, but maybe a man who is playing it cool because they're paranoid they've been rumbled and missed the opportunity to run in the first instance.

the jury is out


Thoughts please?


Einstein- "Imagination is more important than knowledge"

[JeffHamm]

I have been making this argument on these pages for five years. It stands to reason that if he had killed her he'd have taken the opportunity to touch or move her body, with Paul witnessing him doing it, in order to reasonably and simply explain any blood on his person. Here we have Paul SUGGESTING they move her... yet Lechmere declines.

Christer's argument is always that Lechmere needn't have had much or ANY blood on his hands and/or clothing. And that he refused to "give her a prop" because he didn't want her injuries revealed. Yet...he just went to Paul and asked him to come see, even as Paul tried to walk past. He'd no idea if Paul had a match with which to light the scene, as Louis Diemschutz had with a candle in Dutfield's Yard. Yet he essentially forced the man to have a look at her. And now... he doesn't want her injuries revealed? If concealing her injuries was his objective, then why didn't he let Paul walk on in the first place (or walk on himself, etc.)?

In my opinion, it's unreasonable to believe that Lechmere could have cut Nichols throat, nearly decapitating her, performed the abdominal mutilations, and then hid the bloody knife in his clothing without getting some blood on his clothing. I mean, I applied caulk - which is certainly much thicker and less prone to splashing, running, etc. than blood - to my driveway last weekend, I dispensed it from a gun, wore rubber gloves, and still found I'd gotten some on my shorts, t-shirt, and wrists. But that, of course, may just be me.

Alas, I cannot say it's impossible that Lechmere got nary a drop of blood anywhere on his hands, clothing, etc. But, as I've said, the fact that he may not have gotten blood on his hands and/or clothing is irrelevant in that there is no way he could have been certain enough that he did not to behave as he did, at least not to my way of thinking. First, if he had in fact heard Paul some forty yards off as he was performing the mutilations, he had enough time only to stop what he was doing, stow the knife in his clothing, cover her wounds, and step away from her body. He certainly didn't have time to check himself thoroughly for blood. Second, it was so dark in Buck's Row that he couldn't have checked himself for blood. So dark that Paul didn't notice Nichols wounds or blood. Neil didn't either, until he used his lamp. Therefore, how could Lechmere have known whether he had blood on him or not? Yet he goes and TOUCHES Nichols with a hand we're to believe he'd just moments before employed for murder and mutilation? He then goes off in search of a PC whom he knows full well will be carrying a lamp?

Hi Patrick S,

I'm not surprised it's come up before, and it's entirely possible I read your suggestion and forgot that I had as well. I recall reading similar ideas, like he declined to help to avoid revealing her injuries, but does nothing to stop Paul from examining her (checking breathing, pulling down clothes, etc, all potentially revealing the very injuries he's supposed to be trying to ensure are not revealed, etc) but couldn't recall the missed opportunity to explain any potential blood on him. But, memory is a horribly fallible thing, so my apologies for not attributing you to it.

Obviously, I agree with you though, and I like your logic. The use of statements to explain why one odd behviour might occur then creates further complications later (i.e. won't shift her to avoid revealing injuries despite opportunity to explain any blood but then that creates problems with the let's Paul explore the body as much as he wants showing he's not concerned if her injuries are discovered). It highlights the inconsistencies of making the assumption in the first place; if hold something to be true then show how it ends up having to be false, creating a paradox, but holding it to be false remains consistent, allows you to conclude what the situation must be. (vice versa works too of course).

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

It's often hard to tell from the inquest media reports. What with Cross and Paul being called "the witness" and "the other man", etc. It was Paul, though, that suggested the "prop" and Cross indicating he wouldn't touch her.

Yes, thanks. That's exactly what happened as I was jumping between a book, the screen, and my fingers and as I was flipping back and forth between the Cross and Paul testimony, that was enough to overload my brain and make a hash of it. Re-reading it again, though, it's clear and unambiguous, Paul suggested moving her, and Cross/Lechmere declines. Thanks for correcting my error.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I am afraid you got it wrong, it is the other way round again, Lechmere is the one who refused to help shifting the woman, a completely strange behaviour to do after seeking Paul attention to the woman.


The Baron

Yes, you're right. I was looking at the testimony and misread it this time through and misread "He wanted witness to assist in shifting her, but he would not do so" as He meaning Cross and witness as Paul because the previous sentence is a quote from Paul (but it's Cross quoting what Paul supposedly said, so "he" is Paul and of course, witness makes it unambiguous as the witness is Cross. Sigh. Reading and thinking and typing in haste is never a good thing) Thanks for pointing that out.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Alas, I cannot say it's impossible that Lechmere got nary a drop of blood anywhere on his hands, clothing, etc. But, as I've said, the fact that he may not have gotten blood on his hands and/or clothing is irrelevant in that there is no way he could have been certain enough that he did not to behave as he did, at least not to my way of thinking. First, if he had in fact heard Paul some forty yards off as he was performing the mutilations, he had enough time only to stop what he was doing, stow the knife in his clothing, cover her wounds, and step away from her body. He certainly didn't have time to check himself thoroughly for blood. Second, it was so dark in Buck's Row that he couldn't have checked himself for blood. So dark that Paul didn't notice Nichols wounds or blood. Neil didn't either, until he used his lamp. Therefore, how could Lechmere have known whether he had blood on him or not? Yet he goes and TOUCHES Nichols with a hand we're to believe he'd just moments before employed for murder and mutilation? He then goes off in search of a PC whom he knows full well will be carrying a lamp.

I don’t think that this point can reasonably disputed Pat. Not only could Lechmere have been unaware if he’d gotten any blood on him or not I’d go so far as to say that anyone in his position (if guilty) would have had to have assumed that he would have gotten blood on him after killing and mutilating a woman, in the street, in the dark and under the time pressure of worrying that someone might turn up and catch him in the act.

This makes it unlikely that he would have stuck around when fleeing was massively the easiest and safest option. We are also being asked to accept that Lechmere was confident and savvy enough to be able to convince Paul that he was simply the man that found the body and to scam his way past a Constable (possibly with blood on him and carrying the bloodied knife) and yet he couldn’t take advantage of a very obvious opportunity of giving himself an excuse for having blood on him.

I dont see how it can be suggested that Lechmere didn’t want to touch the body because he didn’t want the extent of the injuries being revealed? Paul checked for signs of life. Lechmere had no control over him. What if he’d checked the neck for a pulse? What if he’d tried to sit her up on his own if Lechmere had been to squeamish to have handled the body?

Then we can ask if Lechmere would have killed on his way to work leaving himself very little time to check himself for blood and potentially clean up before getting to work at 4.00? And would he have killed a women at a spot that he passed every day at that time?

I can’t see anything about Lechmere’s behaviour that doesn’t appear to be the actions of a man that discovered a body on the way to work, called someone over for assistance, went off to look for a Constable and then voluntarily turned up at the inquest.

[Patrick S]

Yes, that's a good point. Cross/Lechmere testifies he saw the body by the gateway, and waited for Paul to come up and then they went to the body. Paul testifies that he saw a man standing in the middle of the street, but doesn't indicate where, but that would fit with Cross being some distance from the body when Paul comes along.

Oh, and I see it was Cross/Lechmere who asked Paul to assist in shifting her and Paul declined, not the other way round as I had thought in my earlier post above.

- Jeff

It's often hard to tell from the inquest media reports. What with Cross and Paul being called "the witness" and "the other man", etc. It was Paul, though, that suggested the "prop" and Cross indicating he wouldn't touch her.

[Patrick S]

One thing I've not mentioned, nor have I seen anyone else, is that when Paul suggests they move her, if Lechmere has just killed her and can't be sure if he's got blood on him, that would be a perfect opportunity for him to create an entirely innocent explanation for having blood on his hands when they then go off to find a police officer. His evidence of guilt turns into "we tried to move her and I got blood all over me when we did", etc. But he refuses to, which to me, sounds far more like the choice of an innocent person not wanting to touch what might be a dead body. Again, others will interpret that differently.

I have been making this argument on these pages for five years. It stands to reason that if he had killed her he'd have taken the opportunity to touch or move her body, with Paul witnessing him doing it, in order to reasonably and simply explain any blood on his person. Here we have Paul SUGGESTING they move her... yet Lechmere declines.

Christer's argument is always that Lechmere needn't have had much or ANY blood on his hands and/or clothing. And that he refused to "give her a prop" because he didn't want her injuries revealed. Yet...he just went to Paul and asked him to come see, even as Paul tried to walk past. He'd no idea if Paul had a match with which to light the scene, as Louis Diemschutz had with a candle in Dutfield's Yard. Yet he essentially forced the man to have a look at her. And now... he doesn't want her injuries revealed? If concealing her injuries was his objective, then why didn't he let Paul walk on in the first place (or walk on himself, etc.)?

In my opinion, it's unreasonable to believe that Lechmere could have cut Nichols throat, nearly decapitating her, performed the abdominal mutilations, and then hid the bloody knife in his clothing without getting some blood on his clothing. I mean, I applied caulk - which is certainly much thicker and less prone to splashing, running, etc. than blood - to my driveway last weekend, I dispensed it from a gun, wore rubber gloves, and still found I'd gotten some on my shorts, t-shirt, and wrists. But that, of course, may just be me.

Alas, I cannot say it's impossible that Lechmere got nary a drop of blood anywhere on his hands, clothing, etc. But, as I've said, the fact that he may not have gotten blood on his hands and/or clothing is irrelevant in that there is no way he could have been certain enough that he did not to behave as he did, at least not to my way of thinking. First, if he had in fact heard Paul some forty yards off as he was performing the mutilations, he had enough time only to stop what he was doing, stow the knife in his clothing, cover her wounds, and step away from her body. He certainly didn't have time to check himself thoroughly for blood. Second, it was so dark in Buck's Row that he couldn't have checked himself for blood. So dark that Paul didn't notice Nichols wounds or blood. Neil didn't either, until he used his lamp. Therefore, how could Lechmere have known whether he had blood on him or not? Yet he goes and TOUCHES Nichols with a hand we're to believe he'd just moments before employed for murder and mutilation? He then goes off in search of a PC whom he knows full well will be carrying a lamp?

[The Baron]

Oh, and I see it was Cross/Lechmere who asked Paul to assist in shifting her and Paul declined, not the other way round as I had thought in my earlier post above.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I am afraid you got it wrong, it is the other way round again, Lechmere is the one who refused to help shifting the woman, a completely strange behaviour to do after seeking Paul attention to the woman.


The Baron

[Elamarna]

Thanks Dusty, no major rewrite needed.
I am not fully convinced of the location, I assume it's from the Echo, the Standard and Morning Advertiser give it a little differently, and place the body on the North side of Bucks Row.

However your reading remains very possible and I have mentioned your suggestion and article in several places in the work.

If correct it simply makes the gap between attack and discovery by Neil, even longer.


Steve

[JeffHamm]

Yes, that's a good point. Cross/Lechmere testifies he saw the body by the gateway, and waited for Paul to come up and then they went to the body. Paul testifies that he saw a man standing in the middle of the street, but doesn't indicate where, but that would fit with Cross being some distance from the body when Paul comes along.

Oh, and I see it was Cross/Lechmere who asked Paul to assist in shifting her and Paul declined, not the other way round as I had thought in my earlier post above.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

Rather stupidly, I measured the distance from Brown's stable yard to the wool warehouse where Cross said he was and added the width of the road, but, of course, the pair would have walked diagonally towards the body not at right angles, I even showed them walking it in the picture I made for the article, but still made the error, doh!

The point is still valid though, that Cross might well have been some quite sum distance from the body when the Paul encounter happened. Certainly not bending over the body as Christer TV show portrayed the incident.