Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[Columbo]

In the inquest, Robert Paul said:

The clothes were disarranged, and I helped to pull them down. Before I did so I detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint

This phrase alone incriminates Lechmere, since the Endotracheal of the victim was recently severed, and still there was a trace of air movement because of the altered pressure of her chest. that means she couldn't have been killed more than a couple of minutes.

that's a good point but it would've had to have been way before 2 minutes in order for Lechmere to get to the mutilations.

Of course he also could've detected a post death spasm.

Columbo

[Elamarna]

or to fly in the sky

after he cut her throat, he went to mutilate her abdomen.
or maybe you have forgotten about this

keep running ahead..

How long do you think that would take? The throat cut and the incomplete mutilations to the abdomen that is

And what do you base any time you give for this on?


Steve

[Rainbow]

The time between cutting her throat and Paul approaching and examining the woman, and still there was an air movement in her lungs, leave no space for another killer except Lechmere.

If the bleeding can last for 5 minutes, the air movement in her lungs cannot last that long.

[Rainbow]

Lechmere was seen not only standing where the woman was, he was there at the exact time of her death too.

Case closed.

[GUT]

Lechmere was seen not only standing where the woman was, he was there at the exact time of her death too.

Case closed.

No he was standing in the middle of the road.

Not where the body was.

[Elamarna]

No he was standing in the middle of the road.

Not where the body was.

Gut,

The problem we have is the Rainbow appears to accept that every statement made in support of Lechmere as the killer is a proven fact, set in stone.

He/She gives the impression of not being interested in debate in any meaningful sense of the work.


Steve

[GUT]

Gut,

The problem we have is the Rainbow appears to accept that every statement made in support of Lechmere as the killer is a proven fact, set in stone.

He/She gives the impression of not being interested in debate in any meaningful sense of the work.


Steve

Yeah I've noticed the same.

And unfortunately some have taken every allegation against him, here, the documentary or elsewhere as gospel, without applying and filter as to reliability of the accusations.

[Fisherman]

Off-topic: Anyone else find it sketchy how Fisherman & Rainbow appear to come and go at the same time? I'm not saying, I'm just saying.

Report it to the administrators of the boards, Harry!

Of you are right in implying that we are one and the same, I´ll be kicked off the boards forever.

If you are wrong, you will just be reprimanded, and asked to apologize publically.

What have you got to loose, you sad, sad man?

[Fisherman]

Fisherman

Agreed.

As the expert on Lechmere normally online, I am sure you have some idea of his normal work hours, or am I wrong in that assumption?

Am I right in thinking the TOD by Phillips is far more in keeping with Lechmere performing the attack?

steve

Same answer: That depends on where Lechmere was at the time of Chapmans death.

[Fisherman]

...although I'm not a huge fan of criminal profiling, Lechmere does not fit the mold of an SK.

Columbo

Family men have been serial killers.

Men with steady jobs have been serial killers.

Do we know much more about Charles Lechmere than so? Is this what you work from, or a preconceived notion that he was a law-abiding, good man?

[Trevor Marriott]

Family men have been serial killers.

Men with steady jobs have been serial killers.

Do we know much more about Charles Lechmere than so? Is this what you work from, or a preconceived notion that he was a law-abiding, good man?

Every one law abiding or otherwise, is innocent until proved guilty, and that guilt has to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you think that you have proved Lechmeres guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Every one law abiding or otherwise, is innocent until proved guilty, and that guilt has to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you think that you have proved Lechmeres guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

A person who is accused of a crime can one day be convicted as baing beyond reasonable doubt guilty, whereas on the next day, he may find himself aquitted.

You may be aware of this, Trevor? That law is not an exact science? Yes?

It therefore applies that "beyond reasonable doubt" is a somewhat flexible term.

Can you follow that reasoning too?

So! What one person considers "reasonable doubt" may be unreasonable doubt to another person.

Can you take that in?

Now we arrive at the point where I will answer your question. And I have answered it before, but you may have missed out on it. Would I convict Lechmere if I was to hold a trial against him myself?

The answer is no, I would not. And of course, given how I have always accepted that there MAY have ben another killer, that is the only reasonable thing to do on my behalf.

I would let him go. But I would still fell very certain that he is the probable killer, I would entertain little doubt about his culpability.

[Rainbow]

Gut,

He/She gives the impression of not being interested in debate in any meaningful sense of the work.


Steve

Agreed, except for one word 'meaningfull', which has to be Fantasyfull .. Phantomfull .. sense of the work.

A killer who flew in the sky with two wings, while Lechmere was standing there and looking ...

[Harry D]

Report it to the administrators of the boards, Harry!

Of you are right in implying that we are one and the same, I´ll be kicked off the boards forever.

If you are wrong, you will just be reprimanded, and asked to apologize publically.

What have you got to loose, you sad, sad man?

It was an observation, that's all. I'm sure the admins are capable of doing their own IP checks without my say-so.

Also, the word you're looking for is lose, not loose. If you're going to insult me, at least do it properly.

[Fisherman]

It was an observation, that's all. I'm sure the admins are capable of doing their own IP checks without my say-so.

Also, the word you're looking for is lose, not loose. If you're going to insult me, at least do it properly.

I´m sorry - what have you got to lose, you sad, sad man?

Better?

You see, I am Swedish, and so I may spell things wrong from time to time. Then again, I have a feeling your Swedish is perhaps not up to scratch.

By the way, if you trust the amdministrators to do their job without your say-so, then why do you feel a need to spread this kind of **** on a public board? If you get it wrong, you have made youself guilty of a very ugly accusation on no grounds at all.

And why is it that you think I am insulting you, when I react to your filthy disinformation implying a very foul behaviour on my account? Does that really put you in a position to whine about being maltreated? Of course I am not insulting you - it was an observation, that´s all: people who do what you just did are sad, sad people.