Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[drstrange169]

Ahh, we at that stage.

The stage where you turn to semantics, rather than deal with actual material.

So far we've dealt with three points off your 31 point list and we can put two of them down to unverified guesswork.

I'm not surprised you are backpedalling from the issues raised.

[Fisherman]

There - just whizzed past Dustys other posts.

Nothing of interest going on there.

[Harry D]

So Lechmere claimed that he never saw or heard anything before he discovered the body. Wow, way to take the heat off yourself there, Lechy. If you were the killer you could've said you heard the faintest of retreating footsteps as you entered Buck's Row. Anything. But nope. It's almost as if he's naively telling the truth, isn't it?

[Fisherman]

Dusty:

"We have indeed and you are still not managing not to grasp the actual facts of the case."

Ah! So Freud was correct after all!

[Fisherman]

Actually, thinking about what you wrote Fisherman, you put yourself in a Catch 22 situation.

If you accept that Paul touched the neck area, uncovering the wound, then it is possible that he caused settled blood to leak out of the neck. It then becomes possible that that is what Neil then saw when he arrived moments later.

If your new theory were true, it changes the notion that Mrs. Nichols could only have been killed close to the time Xmere encountered Paul. Your, so called, "Blood Evidence" goes out the window.

Conversely, if you reject your new found theory, it cannot be claimed that all the wounds were covered when the two men approached the body.

Read the above. Yawn. I´ll see later today if I feel up to shredding your next posts too.
It´s too simple and little fun, but maybe I´ll do it anyway.

[Fisherman]

drstrange169

It is not a fact that the wound in the neck was uncovered when Paul arrived. Paul pulled the clothing down, and that may well have uncovered the neck wound.

(Paul) “did not feel any other part of her body except the hands and face ... While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast”

No mention of touching the neck area.

He did not have to touch the neck to pull the clothes down from over her neck wound, Dusty. If I pull at the end of your trouserleg, things will happen up at the top of the trousers too. Nichols wore a frock and an ulster. Any of these garments can be pulled at down by the legs, and both of them will travel downwards, all the cloth included, when you do so.

… it would be wrong to say that it is a fact that the wound was uncovered all along.

Which is why I said, “I guess that's as near as facts get in this case.”

It´s not "near a fact" at all. It can be either way.

As for the cherrypicked quote that the clothing was raised almost up to the stomach ...

If it’s “cherrypicking” to quote the most detailed available article about Robert Paul’s testimony … guilty as charged.

Cherrypicking is choosing the quotation that fits you over the ones that don´t, so yes, guilty.


… there are other quotes putting the dress lower. But you avoided them, for some reason?

Here’s what I wrote, “If the above quote is accurate (accounts do vary) it is not necessarily a fact that her wounds were covered.”

Do you understand what “accounts do vary” mean?

Yes, it means that you could have been neutral but chose not to be. And "almost to the stomach" is still under it.


The only other quotes come from Xmere and you claim he lied at the inquest. Are you now claiming Xmere is a more reliable witness than Paul? Seems there is some “cherrypicking” going on after all and it’s not mine.

Paul could confirm or deny what Lechmere said, so he was not at liberty to lie on the point - whooopla, Dusty.


Anyhow, ALMOST up to the stomach is BELOW the stomach, and the cuts were IN the stomach. I trust you can see how this works too?

I do indeed, but, embarrassingly for you, it appears you don’t.

I have nothing to be embarrased about, since I am not the on wringing the evidence inside out.

There was no recorded evidence, that I have come across, that says there was any let alone all the wounds to the stomach.

Below is a diagram of the wounds as recorded by various witnesses.

Is there? I was always under the impression that there was a consensus that we cannot know exactly how the wounds looked and where they were placed. And here you are, at long last, with the solution! Bravo, Dusty...


We´ve been through it all before, and it ends up the same way each time.

We have indeed and you are still not managing not to grasp the actual facts of the case.

If you are talking about where the wounds are, it seems only to be you who labour under the miscomprehension that we can know that.

It´s always the same, is it not? Once scrutinized, you end up with your pants down and deeper into the misinformation bog. The solution to your problem is easy. Stop posting.

[drstrange169]

Hello Rainbow,

>> There was not a soul about. I had been round there half an hour previously, and I saw no one then<<

Since Neil was talking about after Xmere and Paul left and 15 mins before Xmere claims to have left his home respectively, how is this relevant?


There was a pool of blood just where her neck was lying. It was running from the wound in her neck.

Oozing, and thanks to Fisherman, we now know this could have been because of Paul causing settled blood in the neck to ooze out.


>>I was never far away from the spot.<<

But far enough away not to hear two "normal workers" in "hob-nail boots" walk down an "acoustic tunnel", apparently;-)

>>Alfred Malshaw , a night watchman in Winthorpe-street, had also heard no cries or noise. In a straight line he was about thirty yards from the spot where the deceased was found<<

See above answer.


>>this side of the the row was closed by the police constable Neil for the phantom killer to flee ...<<

No, by his own admission he was in Thomas Street at the time.


>> ...and the other side of the row was closed too by Paul ...<<

Have you ever been to Durward Street? Do you know just how easy and quickly you can get to Winthorp Street or the alleyway that leads to Whitechapel Road?


>>... and the blood was still running from the wound on the victim's neck.<<

Thanks to Fisherman's new theory, this claim cannot be made with any degree of accuracy.

[drstrange169]

>>Harry D: First of all, we don't know to what extent the clothes were already pulled down.
Fisherman: Correction We do not know to what EXACT extent they were pulled down. But we DO know that it was to somewhere between the knees and the abdomen.<<

Factual correction: Accept by Paul, we do not know that the clothes were pulled down at all.

[drstrange169]

>>Here´s the next piece from Dusty´s post that needs a little work:P.C.’s Thain and Neil wore wooden soled shoes and walked at a regulated pace. It is an accepted fact that a policeman’s tread was recognisable.What Dusty "forgets" to mention here is that the normal worker would also wear hobnail boots - only the fewest wore rubber soles.<<

Sigh.

I mentioned the policemen's boots specifically to explain your point,"we know that John Neil heard his colleague Thain walk past the Buck´s Row/Brady Street crossing – 130 yards away!" No other reason. A "normal worker" whatever that is, could wear anything on his feet, what Paul and Xmere is unknown. Fact.

What we do know, is the inhabitants of three houses in Buck's Row close to the murder site said they did not hear anything.

What we do know is Paul did not say he heard Xmere moving away from the body to get to the position he found him.

Strange circumstances for a supposed "acoustic tunnel ... that ... was dead silent. If a needle fell upon a plate, it would be audible from 130 yards away."


>>Plus Lechmere asserted that he would hear if anyone moved down by Browns the moment he entered Bucks Row. That was 130 yards away.<<

Double sigh.

It just becomes so silly when you start inventing things. Here's what Xmere is ACTUALLY claimed to have said.

"From the time I left my home I did not *see* anyone until I saw the man who overtook me in Buck's-row."

"Witness had never *seen* him before."

"The constable and the man were the only people he *saw* after leaving his home ... Witness heard no sounds of a *vehicle*."

"I did not see anyone at all around except the constable I spoke to. I don't think I met anybody after I left my house till I got to the body."

So overwhelmingly the coverage of Xmere's testimony did not mention anything about him "asserting that he would hear if anyone moved down by Browns the moment he entered Bucks Row... 130 yards away."

Presumably, Fisherman has singled out the one quote that is at odds with all the others. It said,

"Witness did not hear any sounds of a vehicle, and *believed* that had any one left the body *after* he got into Buck's-row he must have heard him."

Once again, Fisherman relies on altering the actual wording to boost his obsession. He clearly said it was his "belief", no assertions involved. And that was only "after" he had entered Buck's Row. How long after, he doesn't say, Just after? Half way down? Just before he reaches the Wool Warehouse?

But let's just think clearly here.

Fisherman believes Xmere lied at the inquest, but he is cherrypicking an Xmere quote and altering it to boost his cause.

Think about it, is it in the interests of a guilty Xmere to claim that there could not have been anyone else in the street?

Of course not.

A guilty man would deliberately leave that option open.


>>The rest of the points Dusty makes are more of the same. If I can work up the will, I will pick them off, one by one.<<

It's been a disaster for you so far, but by all means keep 'em coming.

[drstrange169]

Actually, thinking about what you wrote Fisherman, you put yourself in a Catch 22 situation.

If you accept that Paul touched the neck area, uncovering the wound, then it is possible that he caused settled blood to leak out of the neck. It then becomes possible that that is what Neil then saw when he arrived moments later.

If your new theory were true, it changes the notion that Mrs. Nichols could only have been killed close to the time Xmere encountered Paul. Your, so called, "Blood Evidence" goes out the window.

Conversely, if you reject your new found theory, it cannot be claimed that all the wounds were covered when the two men approached the body.

[drstrange169]

>> It is not a fact that the wound in the neck was uncovered when Paul arrived. Paul pulled the clothing down, and that may well have uncivered the neck wound.<<


(Paul) “did not feel any other part of her body except the hands and face ... While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast”

No mention of touching the neck area.


>>… it would be wrong to say that it is a fact that the wound was uncovered all along.<<

Which is why I said, “I guess that's as near as facts get in this case.”


>>As for the cherrypicked quote that the clothing was raised almost up to the stomach ...<<

If it’s “cherrypicking” to quote the most detailed available article about Robert Paul’s testimony … guilty as charged.

If it’s “cherrypicking” to quote the only first-person account of the incident by Paul … guilty as charged.

If it’s “cherrypicking” to not be able to find an article about Paul’s testimony that contradicts the stomach quote … guilty as charged.


>> … there are other quotes putting the dress lower. But you avoided them, for some reason?<<

Here’s what I wrote, “If the above quote is accurate (accounts do vary) it is not necessarily a fact that her wounds were covered.”

Do you understand what “accounts do vary” mean?

The only other quotes come from Xmere and you claim he lied at the inquest. Are you now claiming Xmere is a more reliable witness than Paul? Seems there is some “cherrypicking” going on after all and it’s not mine.


>>Anyhow, ALMOST up to the stomach is BELOW the stomach, and the cuts were IN the stomach. I trust you can see how this works too?<<

I do indeed, but, embarrassingly for you, it appears you don’t.

There was no recorded evidence, that I have come across, that says there was any let alone all the wounds to the stomach.

Below is a diagram of the wounds as recorded by various witnesses.

A. is (approximately) the where the stomach is.

B. is were Paul (and apparently you) might have thought incorrectly where the stomach is.

C. is the general area below which Paul could have described as, "almost up to the stomach."

D. is the cut as described by Inspector Spratling.


>>We´ve been through it all before, and it ends up the same way each time.<<

We have indeed and you are still not managing not to grasp the actual facts of the case.

To use your own criteria, “I trust you can see how that works, and how it would be wrong to say that it is a fact that” the wounds were covered.

[John Wheat]

Well I am glad to see you now finally accept that by reason of this Lechmere is not such a viable suspect after all

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If only he would.

[Fisherman]

Well I am glad to see you now finally accept that by reason of this Lechmere is not such a viable suspect after all

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Are you now? And when did we even start to discuss the viability of Lechmere as the killer? I must have missed that. All I saw was you saing that much of the evidence was inconclusive and conflicting.

That does not mean that all of it is, does it?

Maybe you should bring out those wooden blocks with letters on their sides and start practicing again, Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

If it was not, Trevor, we would not discuss it out here.

Well I am glad to see you now finally accept that by reason of this Lechmere is not such a viable suspect after all

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

And much of that is inconclusive, and conflicting.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If it was not, Trevor, we would not discuss it out here.