Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Window of Time for Nichols murder

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fisherman
    replied
    Here´s a VERY quick one for you, R J. I found that Kjab, a medico posting out here called Paul, wrote this: "A cut vein, unlike an artery does not spasm so will continue to bleed until a clot forms or there is insufficient pressure to overcome gravity."

    So Payne-James will have spoken of a vein in all probability - I do remember that he offered that insight when I wrote to him about how posters out here said that there could have been vessel spasms hindering the bleeding out. Not so, said Payne-James!

    Leave a comment:


  • Patrick S
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    I see no reason to tell the two apart. Abby was not aware that a crime was being committed and came upon the perp at the crime site. Paul was not aware that a crime was being committed and came upon the perp at the crime site (accepting that Lechmere was the killer).

    It is the same thing, basically.
    So you judge that the man Abby interrupted having knocked out someone out and in the act of robbing someone was, perhaps, a narcissist psychopath who could have chosen to walk away - even though Abby was looking directly at him - but instead reasoned to "bluff it out" for the thrill? Further, it seems as if this fellow's "bluff" was designed to remove Abby from the immediate situation so that he could... wait for it now.... ESCAPE... which he did. You have Lechmere HEARING, not SEEING, Paul from 40 yards off in your echo chamber, Paul has seen neither Lechmere nor his victim (Abby saw both). When Paul does arrive, Lechmere doesn't send him to find a PC so he can make his escape, he asks him to come see, inspects his victim with Paul, and then goes with Paul to find a PC.
    Last edited by Patrick S; 04-17-2019, 05:36 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    Two points. Cox states that postmortem bleeding can last for a "considerable time," and mentions cases where a body is still bleeding significantly when on an autopsy slab. The bigger the wound, the more it will bleed. He also seems to indicate that the phenomenon has not been well studied and there are considerable uncertainties in how long it can last. How could it be otherwise? One seldom gets the opportunity to put a stopwatch to a corpse that is slowly bleeding out. I would hope the physician would be more interested in trying to revive the victim.

    I am just slightly skeptical about these various estimations of how long Nichols was dead, especially considering that Mackenzie was still bleeding from her wounds 20+ minutes after the body had been discovered, yet Phillips insisted she had died almost instantly.
    Yes, exactly - the bigger the wound, the more it will bleed. And the more open the wound, the faster it will flow. And when you cut ALL vessels in the neck, no vessel spasm can occur, stopping the bloodflow - or so Jason Payne-James told me.
    I do think that stopwatches will have been used at beheadings of criminals, and that there will be such records available. I´ll see if I can find one or two.
    MacKenzie did not have anything at all to compare with Nichols when it comes to the severity of the cutting. I am not surprised that MacKenzie bled for a much longer period. Her left carotid artery was severed, while the rest of the large vessels in the neck seems to have been left untouched. I cannot remember which exact vessel it was that ensured a quick bleeding out, but I can try to find what Payne-James said on the matter.
    This may take some substantial time, but I will get back to you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    Hi Fisherman. This has probably been dealt with before, but I couldn't help noticing that in the documentary everyone pronounces the "Lech" in "Lechmere" as if it rhymed with wretch, or fetch, or catch.

    However, in Boston, U.S.A., there is a Lechmere Square (not too far from MIT). We all pronounced it "Leck-mere," the lech rhyming with heck, deck, neck, Gregory Peck. To me, that is the correct way.

    Who has it right?

    You'll hear the woman pronouncing Lechmere Square at the beginning of the following short video:

    If you find our videos helpful you can support us by buying something from amazon.https://www.amazon.com/?tag=wiki-audio-20Lechmere Square Lechmere Square (p...







    The name has Flemish origin, actually, and has been spelt in a number of ways, one of them being Letchmere. That leads me to think that the correct pronounciation in English (which will at any rate have differed from the Flemish pronounciation) rhymes with fetch and wretch.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    What importance for the case do you ascribe to the article you refer to?
    Two points. Cox states that postmortem bleeding can last for a "considerable time," and mentions cases where a body is still bleeding significantly when on an autopsy slab. The bigger the wound, the more it will bleed. He also seems to indicate that the phenomenon has not been well studied and there are considerable uncertainties in how long it can last. How could it be otherwise? One seldom gets the opportunity to put a stopwatch to a corpse that is slowly bleeding out. I would hope the physician would be more interested in trying to revive the victim.

    I am just slightly skeptical about these various estimations of how long Nichols was dead, especially considering that Mackenzie was still bleeding from her wounds 20+ minutes after the body had been discovered, yet Phillips insisted she had died almost instantly.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Hi Fisherman. This has probably been dealt with before, but I couldn't help noticing that in the documentary everyone pronounces the "Lech" in "Lechmere" as if it rhymed with wretch, or fetch, or catch.

    However, in Boston, U.S.A., there is a Lechmere Square (not too far from MIT). We all pronounced it "Leck-mere," the lech rhyming with heck, deck, neck, Gregory Peck. To me, that is the correct way.

    Who has it right?

    You'll hear the woman pronouncing Lechmere Square at the beginning of the following short video:

    If you find our videos helpful you can support us by buying something from amazon.https://www.amazon.com/?tag=wiki-audio-20Lechmere Square Lechmere Square (p...








    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    If a person dies suddenly, it takes longer for their blood to start clotting. This, according to Dr. Cox.





    In the Nichols case, it is not so much about clotting as it is about bleeding out. Jonas Mizen said that the blood in the pool was partly coagulated when he saw it, and it makes very good sense if Lechmere was the killer and if Mizen arrived at the murder site around seven minutes after the carmen had left the body - blood will start coagulating immediately as it leaves a wound, but although there is an ongoing process it will not be visibly coagulating until around four minutes after the bloodshed starts. So if there was still blood running at that stage, then the fresh blood would not be coagulated whereas the blood that had left the wound more than four minutes earlier would be visibly so.
    What importance for the case do you ascribe to the article you refer to?

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by kjab3112 View Post
    Blood would not have clotted though simultaneously with pulse loss (estimates could run to thirty minutes or more if cold and a clotting disorder)
    If a person dies suddenly, it takes longer for their blood to start clotting. This, according to Dr. Cox.






    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Patrick S View Post

    Sounds like a harrowing thing all around. I think that it's worth pointing out that Cross tried his supposed bluff without Paul having witnessed anything suspicious at all. In fact, Paul didn't see Nichols and tried to walk past Cross, whereas you came upon the assailant during the commission of the crime itself. In any event. Glad you came out okay.
    I see no reason to tell the two apart. Abby was not aware that a crime was being committed and came upon the perp at the crime site. Paul was not aware that a crime was being committed and came upon the perp at the crime site (accepting that Lechmere was the killer).

    It is the same thing, basically.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Patrick S View Post

    Sounds like a harrowing thing all around. I think that it's worth pointing out that Cross tried his supposed bluff without Paul having witnessed anything suspicious at all. In fact, Paul didn't see Nichols and tried to walk past Cross, whereas you came upon the assailant during the commission of the crime itself. In any event. Glad you came out okay.
    Thanks patrick.
    yeah only got a bruised ego, as i felt stupid i had been fooled.

    Leave a comment:


  • Patrick S
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    Hi herlock.
    love you buddy but your wrong on this one. I had a similar thing happen to me. I surprised someone who had just knocked a dude out in a dark parking lot, and he acted like he was helping him out and asked me to go get help. When i got back with a cop the knocked out dude was waking up and had been robbed by the other guy. The guy could have run away, i was about 25 yards away when he noticed me, but he chise to bluff it out. Now he didnt go wit me to find the cop, but he didnt run away right away either.
    Sounds like a harrowing thing all around. I think that it's worth pointing out that Cross tried his supposed bluff without Paul having witnessed anything suspicious at all. In fact, Paul didn't see Nichols and tried to walk past Cross, whereas you came upon the assailant during the commission of the crime itself. In any event. Glad you came out okay.

    Leave a comment:


  • Patrick S
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    Once more no, this is not what we should discuss. The case is a very rich one with all sorts of angles and tons of information. If that is not enough for you without adding material about what you perceive to be moral shortcomings on my behalf, then you must discuss with somebody else. Those are the rules and yes, I have established them. Fifteen minutes ago, as it were. Take it or leave it.
    Not a problem for me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Patrick S
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    No. We are not discussing any feigning versus calling things idiocy. If anything, we are discussing the case.
    And there's plenty of that in there. As it is... nothing I wrote really requires your responses.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Patrick S View Post

    Except by you. Those are the rules as you've established them. Got it.
    Once more no, this is not what we should discuss. The case is a very rich one with all sorts of angles and tons of information. If that is not enough for you without adding material about what you perceive to be moral shortcomings on my behalf, then you must discuss with somebody else. Those are the rules and yes, I have established them. Fifteen minutes ago, as it were. Take it or leave it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Patrick S
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    It really is becoming clear that Griffiths opinion counts for very little (as we’ve been suggesting for a while now.) He’s almost viewing Lechmere as a cornered animal. Someone that had no choice but to stay and try and talk his way out of the situation. This just wasn’t the case. Yes I’m repeating myself here but it’s important. He was faced with two choices. Are they remotely close or debatable. Was it a difficult decision to make? Of course it wasn’t. It was a no-brainer:

    Either stay, possibly with blood contamination and definitely with the knife, and call over a complete stranger the result of which conversation would almost certainly lead to a confrontation with a Constable (again possibly with blood on him and crying the knife on him.)

    or, walking away knowing that by the time Paul reached Nichols (if he didn’t just pass by) and he’d deduced that she was dead he would have been at the end of Buck’s Row, in the dark, and safe. Even if Paul stands yelling at the top of his voice a policeman wouldn’t have been able to connect a passing Lechmere with the guy shouting. It’s as near to risk free as you could get.

    id even suggest that running was an option. How would it have been an issue? From 40 yards away Paul hears a man running. Does he shout ‘murderer’ straight away? Of course not, he probably thinks it’s someone leaving one of the cottages late for work. Again, by the time he sees the body and susses that she’s dead Lech is two streets away.

    Lechmere had a fairly simple choice between almost suicidal risk and almost certain escape to freedom. It’s no choice.
    Agreed. Of course this is no indictment of Andy Griffiths. In that we now know that Christer didn't express to him the idea that Lechmere COULD have fled quite easily but rather CHOSE to stay and "bluff it out", I think its clear that he (Griffiths) gave his thoughts based on his real world experience as a homicide investigator: Guilty men flee when they can and choose another course of action when they cannot. I think it may be safe to say that Griffiths has never had a case where a man who'd just committed murder voluntarily stayed on the scene with the murder weapon on his person, recruited the first man who came along to "come see" his victim and then went off looking for a policeman. Frankly, I'm interested to know what he'd make of that idea.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X