Window of Time for Nichols murder

[Fisherman]

>>... Lechmere, who just happened to have his timings wrong, who just happened to use the name Cross instead of Lechmere, who just happened to have a PC disagree with himself over what was said on the murder morning, who just happened to have a working trek that was roughly consistent or very consistent with being at the murder sites at the correct times, who just happened to have reason to visit St Georges, who just happened to have reason to be familiar with Mitre Square and who just happened to be found stading alone in the street nearby a murdered Ripper victim one cold August morning in 1888, also just happened to be present at the one murder site where the victim just happened to have had her wounds hidden from sight. It just so happens that this, taken together, makes for a very good case of guilt.<<

Virtually every single person who has a suspect has a list of "just happens", yours is no different in that respect. even the more ridiculous have "just happens that in themselves are factual, the proof is in the quality of the interpretation.

>>A case, that it just so happens, a QC tells me would make it to court.<<

Given Scobie's exact words in the TV show, there is considerable doubt as to his full understand of the evidence.


>>Anyone is welcome to say "I donīt think it was Lechmere". Fine. But saying that he is not a good suspect is absolute bonkers in my humble view.<<

I'd put him on a par with Louis Diemshitz, giving there are about the same about of "just happens".

There is nobody with a suspect that has a list of "just so happens" that comes anywhere near the Lechmere list in terms of factual case connections. That is because virtually no other suspect HAS a factual case connection the way he has. He CAN be put on the spot while most others cannot, like Kosminsky, Bury, Levy, Druitt, Chapman, Kelly, Feigenbaum, Sickert etc. So it just so happens that there is noone who compares to Lechmere in the "just so happens" department.

The rest of your many posts only go to say that you donīt think that Lechmere was the killer, and not to providing any evidence at all that supports your take. You disagree, as you always have, and thatīs fine as long as you donīt intentionally mislead about it.

[Fisherman]

Do serial killers stand still near their victimis, carrying there weapons, and waiting for the first person to come who me come out to be a policeman, then follow him and touch him on the shoulder to show him their victims, then go with him sesrching for policemen with their weapons still on themselves ?!


No, I havent heared of such a thing, nor I will hear, this is not real, this is some sort of an alternative reality, you can ignore the problem (Carrying the weapon on himself) but it will be always there.



The Baron

Do serial killers who see a victim they have chosen escape from their clutches and walk up to the police, anked and very afraid, join up and tell the police that it is all a mistake and offer to take the victim into their own custody again? Is ANYONE that dumb and reckless? Answer: Yes. Jeff Dahmer did precisely this, whereupon he killed the regained victim directly afterwards.

We are NOT speaking about people like you and me, we are speaking of people who want to kill, who feel justified to kill and who on a regular basis cannot even panic. Once they get in to their stride, there is just about nothing they are not willing to risk on account of being dead certain that they are so superior that they will NEVER be outsmarted by the police.

[Fisherman]

Hi Patrick,

Before being found in the middle of the road, Lechmere had to cover the abdominal wounds, cut her throat twice, possibly cover the throat wound (but leave the eyes open) and then silently move away from the body to take his position in the middle of the street and wait for Paul. As this would have taken some time, Paul would have been more like, at least, 60 yards away when he first heard him. Make of that what you wish.

All the best,
Frank

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

[Fisherman]

A question for Fish out of genuine interest.

We interpret the information that has been passed down differently. You believe that the known facts point toward Lechmere’s guilt so i’d ask how you think that Lechmere’s behaviour and actions might have differed had he been innocent?

And congrats on the Spurs win by the way.

I think he would have given the name Lechmere if innocent.
I think he would not have disagree with Mizen if innocent.
If there WAs a misunderstanding, I donīt think that it would have been tailormade to allow Lechmere to pass Mizen by.
I think he would have given a time that fit with his being in Bucks Row at such a late stage.
I think he would have told Mizen that he though that Nichols was dead, and that he would have been required to give his name and to stay put with Mizen if innocent.

For example.

And thanks for the congrats on Tottenham - that was a TIGHT squeeze, and I have no idea how they are going to get to terms with Ajax with no Kane OR Son...

Then again, I simply love Ajax and their football too, so no harm done either way. Perhaps Liverpool-Ajax would be the best possible final in terms of entertainment value.

[drstrange169]

>>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? <<


In answer to your questions. According to Cross he didn't stumble over the body, he saw something he at first thought was a tarpaulin. He stepped into the middle of the road to get a closer look at the object still quite a few yards in front of me at which point he could see it was a person. At that point he heard Paul and waited for him, then they both went over to the body. What possible reason would he have to "run and find a policeman? Even after examining the body neither man said they didn't know she had been murdered. Remember this was Victorian England, keeping their jobs by turning up on time was a matter of vital importance.



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

The newspaper section on this site will give Cross's story, look around the 4th of September for the bulk of them. Basically they describe what I have just written.


>>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?<<

See my first answer.


>>... 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.<

Sorry, but I can't see any logical reasoning in that.

[Fisherman]

I see we still have the nonsense about 3, 5 or 7 minutes placing Lechmere at the eye of the storm.

The hypothesis does not work, it is fatally flawed, as will be shown in the next few weeks.
Before you say I am disagreeing with Payne-james, I will say I am not, only that the information he supplied has been over enthusiastically and completely misinterpreted.

Blood flow rates from the Carotėds alone make those figures redundant, and given that some remain of the view that the cause of death is loss of blood from the abdomen, those figures are , if correct, even more meaningless.

And has I said before the hypothesis does not actually work, it cannot even be tested.


With regards to the possible gap, it is impossible to reach a meaningful conclusion.

We can assume the body is not there at 3.15.
We can assume the latestest it is found is around 3.45.

However we cannot be sure of the actual time that Lechmere arrives, or Paul, or Neil or Thain or Mizen.

These events are all open to debate.
We can make educated guesses at the intervals between each event, but there is even debate on those.

All of which is covered in "Inside Bucks Row" (almost ready for release) giving all the options.


Harriet Lilley is tantalising, however we do not know what time the train passed.
We do know the scheduled time, but that is not the same thing.


We can make a best guess about the gap, using the available evidence, and say the following.

If Lechmere is not the killer, and the evidence does not in my opinion say that he is, the killer probably attacks in the 5-10 minutes before Lechmere arrives.


Anything else is not based on evidence, but on wishful thinking.


Steve

Ps, sorry for long delay in the book, but these things take time.

I disagree. It is not only Payne-James who speak of a quick bleeding out time if all vessels in the neck are cut. Have you heard of a decapitation where the victim was most likely to have been decapitaded a quarter of an hour before the neck stopped bleeding? I havent. Thatīs why I am so nonsensical. I am pretty sure that you have a debate on your hands if that is what you are going to claim. Payne-James said that he was never willing to uneqivocally rule out longer times of bleeding but the 3-5 minute range was the one that was more likely in his eyes. I was the one who asked, we were the ones who discussed it and you are the one who tell me I misinterpreted him, although you havent seen the full conversation.
I will leave it there.

[Fisherman]

Just finished reading this thread.
Been away, a few weeks, and nothing changes.

The same old tired personal account of the murders being posted. The same rebuttals being made, and those are again ignored or sidestepped.

Just as Monty posted, there is nothing New being presented, no new medical insights, no new evidence of any type in fact.

I am sorry I have been away, but the book has taken up much of my time, and while it has been delayed, due to personal circumstances, it is nearing release now.

I expect to be back here more permanently by the end of May.
No doubt having new arguments over old issues.


Steve

Monty was wrong. I pointed out that there has been developments. You need to read that to get the picture. But I agree that the same tiresome rebuttals will crop up like a patella reflex. Every time, regardless of the information given.

[Fisherman]

I asked this question when the documentary first aired some years back. And was told a file was presented by Ed and/or Christer and/or the producers (I forget who precisely).

The question is what exactly was in that file? The exact contents were never revealed. Not that they should be. However transparency and all that.

Monty

You are VERY transparent, Monty. No issues there.

[Fisherman]

Well from my telephone conversation with Scobie shortly after the prog aired it was clear he was not provided with all the relevant information

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Such as? Feigenbaum?

[Fisherman]

I wish this Lechmere debacle would disappear down the same black hole from which it appeared

for the last time the case against Lecherme is all about timings

He is supposed to have killed Nichols within a short time frame between leaving his house and Robert Paul coming across him in the street, and to support that, those postulating this theory seek to rely on what Dr Llewellyn says about the time of death, and their own interpretation of also trying to estimate a time of death by reason of the various descriptions given witnesses who viewed the body in situ, and what they said about blood flowing from the neck wound.

Of course if the time of death can be proved to be wrong then Lechmere is eliminated forever. I purposely put what Dr LLewely had said to Dr Biggs his reply I think now puts it firmly to bed for ever I have posted this before but it seem there are some who choose to ignore it

"In the olden days, doctors used to state a confident and precise ‘time of death’ based on subjective observations, but this was little more than guesswork. Nowadays, we recognize that it is subjective and highly variable. In fact, the official guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator is that pathologists shouldn’t attempt to estimate the post mortem interval! Even with a measured temperature you couldn’t estimate a time since death to within less than a few hours. Suggesting that death happened 30 minutes previously based on subjective observations would be laughed out of court these days... but in 1888 people believed just about anything a doctor said"

"It is possible that death could have occurred even a few hours before the time of body discovery, and the observations made by the doctor would have been the same. Clothing state can affect the time of death calculations, but in reality, it would make very little difference in the scenario you describe. I think the doctor’s estimation of the time of death should be taken with a pinch of salt, and in fact, it could have been far earlier. This is not a criticism: back then that was the sort of thing that was said and done. We just know more now and therefore, can’t be so ‘certain’."

"A window of 15 minutes would certainly allow someone to do the deed, and for the blood to have collected as stated... but a considerably longer period would look no different and so many eventualities are possible"

"Blood is a funny substance, and doesn’t necessarily ‘congeal’ in all cases... therefore a lack of congealing doesn’t indicate a particular time frame. Nor does the presence of congealed blood, for that matter (other than the fact that it doesn’t happen instantaneously, so a ‘small number of minutes’ can probably be relatively safely ‘assumed’)."

"As I’ve said before, blood ‘still flowing’ from a dead body does not necessarily indicate that death has only just happened. I’ve certainly been at scenes some hours after death (or even the next day) and been able to make more blood ooze out of a wound with very little movement of the body"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That is a very damning post, almost totally ensuring your aim will be reached and Lechmere stricken off the suspect list: "Blood is a funny substance".

Wow. I mean ...WOW!

[Fisherman]

Very clear points by Dr Biggs, Trevor.

A pity that others do not address them correctly.

Why they continue to repeat the TODs given 130 years ago as if they are fact , when the methods used were purely subjective, is the real question?

Steve

Who states the TOD:s as facts, Steve? Examples, please!

[drstrange169]

>>I think a strong case can be made for how Lechmere, if he was the killer, may have chosen to tag along with Paul in order to try and sniff out exactly what he had seen and heard, and to find out who he was. That, and a will to keep in control, may have been what lay behind how things played out.<<

I can certainly see a logic in that as one alternative. The problem I have, however, is that he exhibited no control when the pair looked at Mrs Nichols body. He allowed Paul to poke around the neck and the abdomen. Logically these should have been the areas that he tried to control the situation with.

[Fisherman]

Steve
Its not that they dont listen, its because they wont accept what they hear because they have their own agendas.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So there are facts that rule out Lechmere? Why have I not been told this before? Letīs have them listed, Trevor!

[Fisherman]

Trevor,

What I see time after time is a sidestepping of the facts, in favour of:

The doctor used his experience

Or

He could tell how long a body had been dead, he had seen dead bodies before


Or better still

Or course he was aware of the issues surrounding touch to assess body warmth, and the possible issues with RM; but he obviously took these into account.

Which translates as his experience is more important than the science.

Steve

Again, who is using the TOD:s as established facts? And is it a fact that the TOD:s established by victorian doctors was guesswork only? Or was there some empirically gained insights behind them? I know full well that it was hard to establish a TOD, but I would not rule out the competence and experience involved in what a victorian doctor said altogether. It also depends much on the lenght of the time that has passed between death and determination of TOD, the closer in time to death a doctor looks at a body, the lesser the risk of getting it very wrong, generally speaking.

[Elamarna]

One issue I find amazing is that people still appear to accept the time Paul gives for events, 3.45.
There are many issues with this.

The pricise 3.45 is given only in the newspaper account, carried in Lloyds Weekly and several other papers.
That this report has serious issues is hard to deny, Paul takes the lead role in all events, and shows a marked anti-police attitude in general.

There is also the distinct possibility, looking at the style of the article that it is at the very least lead by the journalist.

Of course some Lechmere proponents, while dismissing much of Paul's account, cling to the 3.45 as fact because it fits there hypothesis.

This time of 3.45 is at odds with the sworn testimony of 3 seperate police officers.

Lechmere proponents then attempt to dismiss these times, by quoting from a latter police report, which gives the time of discovery as 3.45, and given Paul and Lechmere are first there, this must mean they arrive at 3.45.

Such of course masks the serious issue of time keeping and reporting in 1888. And ignores that a previous report stated 3.40.
What was meant is thus not as clear as pro Lechmere researchers claim.

I have read this thread, and seen the suggestion that Paul heard a clock strike the quarter to.

Such is of course perfectly possible, however no one else reported hearing any such strike, neither indeed did Paul, so such a suggestion must therefore remain unsupported speculation.

There is a further very large assumption being made that the times are Syncronizied.
Paul may well have a time piece at home, but that does not mean it shows the same time as used by Lechmere or the Police.
But perhaps he used a clock at the Albion Brewery, maybe, but the very same issues of synchronization still occur.
Given his time cannot be verified, and there is evidence which counters it, or can not be shown to be in anyway synchronised to others involved in the events in Bucks Row, I humbly suggested it cannot be used to suggest any form of gap at all, be it long or short, between Paul and Lechmere.

When Paul finally gives his testimony on the 17th, it is short and somewhat altered from his press article.
The pricise 3.45 for entering Bucks Row, now becomes about 3.45 for leaving his home.
Questions are not asked, which should be asked, the appearance on the 17th raises more questions than it answers.
One can wonder why? I attempt to address some possible answers in "Inside Bucks Row"

I see nothing in the sources, which when looked at carefully and without starting from the point that Lechmere is JtR, that indicates that Paul is much more than 30-40 seconds at most behind Lechmere.

This comes from the testimonies of both men as to when they become aware of the other(including the Lloyds Weekly account, with all its flaws).
This could be even shorter depending on the relative walking pace of the two men..



Steve