Some questions re. Lechmere

[Columbo]

Thank you for the reply, but I was asking about the documentary, and what the documentary presented, not for every theory about what may have happened.

I will rewatch the show. I will get back to you.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

Thank you for the reply, but I was asking about the documentary, and what the documentary presented, not for every theory about what may have happened.

Ah - well, the documentary presented a view thatīs very close to what I was saying. Andy Griffiths said that Paul knelt down by the body and examined Nichols without seeing any blood and without getting any blood in his person, and added that this would have meant that the cuts must have been very fresh at that stage. He believed that Paul should have seen the pool of blood if it had been there, and I think he has a point; we can be certain that this pool was growing over time as the blood filled the cavity under Nicholsī neck over time, eventually running over the brim and forming a stream running into the gutter. So logically, there would have been less blood to see when Paul was there than when Neil arrived.

Also, to my mind, if you can see a hat that is lying some way away from the body and therefore out of focus to an extent, then why would you not be able to see a pool of blood and a stream of it running from the body you are looking at?
Of course, if the neck wound was hidden and if Paul looked at the body from above, then the neck could have obscured the pool of blood from sight. If that was the case, however, then there would not have been any stream of it running into the gutter when Paul looked at her, and the pool under her neck would still have been very small - pointing to how it had only just started to form.

[David Orsam]

Nice to see, like most threads on this forum, that it has run off without addressing my initial questions.

The intent of my original post was to ask about the documentary and what it presented. Not about theories, speculations, debates, arguments, just about what was presented in the documentary and my questions in post #5.

Now, if everyone is happy to just ignore it and debate about other things then I will simply take my bat and go play somewhere else....

Heh! It's not actually your thread Billiou! And you didn't pen the "original post". It was started by eighty-eighter in which it was said of Lechmere: "I find myself in the somewhat odd position of believing that he could have killed Nichols but at the same time cannot bring myself to believe he was the perpetrator of the series of killings grouped into one as the "Whitechapel Murders".

In other words, your "initial questions" are not the topic of this thread and the discussion that I and others were involved in at the time of your latest posting was on topic of the OP.

[FrankO]

Tabram - strangulation then mutilation and a finishing-off coup de grace through the sternum to ensure death.

Nichols - strangulation (or a punch to the head)mutilation and a finishing-off cut to the throat to ensure death and silence.

Hi Abby,

Reading the above, a number of questions spring to mind.
- Why finish off with a different coup de grace if the previous one worked?
- Why not start the next time with a 'coup de grace'?
- Why, if an approaching Paul was causing Lechmere to act and every second counted, choose a coup de grace (to finish) that would clearly take more time to perform than the previous, effective one? Why make 2 cuts and why cut all the way to the bone, thus taking more time?

All the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Hi Abby,

Reading the above, a number of questions spring to mind.
- Why finish off with a different coup de grace if the previous one worked?
- Why not start the next time with a 'coup de grace'?
- Why, if an approaching Paul was causing Lechmere to act and every second counted, choose a coup de grace (to finish) that would clearly take more time to perform than the previous, effective one? Why make 2 cuts and why cut all the way to the bone, thus taking more time?

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank!

Can I have a shot?

- Why finish off with a different coup de grace if the previous one worked?

Two suggestions: He did not have the same sturdy weapon in Bucks Row as in George Yard, and was not sure that he could penetrate the breast bone, or he was not disturbed in George Yard, so he did not feel the need to secure immediate silence there, whereas he knew somebody was approaching in Bucks Row, and prioritized silence.

- Why not start the next time with a 'coup de grace'?

Perhaps because he prioritized the abdominal cutting; that may have been what he came for. Eventually, from Chapman onwards, he DID go for the coup de grace first.
At any rate, Llewellyn says the abdominal wounds came first, and thatīs that for me.

- Why, if an approaching Paul was causing Lechmere to act and every second counted, choose a coup de grace (to finish) that would clearly take more time to perform than the previous, effective one? Why make 2 cuts and why cut all the way to the bone, thus taking more time?

Once again, maybe the blade did not allow for it. Plus the deeper you cut, the more certain you will be that you kill - and sever the vocal chords. The first effort may have felt inadequate to him.

I donīt think that we can always apply our own logic and thinking and predispose that the killer will have thought along the exact same lines. We must leave a lot of slack in that department.

[FrankO]

If he was not happy about the outcome, he may have started to ponder how to get even more publicity - and come up with how killing in the open street may do the trick, more or less posing the bodies for maximum shock value.

And, that way, going from relatively well planned to rather impulsive murders at much greater risk, Fish? How would you explain that?

I could see it happening the other way around, but in this order? Not really.

Cheers,
Frank

[FrankO]

Hi Christer!

Can I have a shot?

Of course you can!

Two suggestions: He did not have the same sturdy weapon in Bucks Row as in George Yard, and was not sure that he could penetrate the breast bone, or he was not disturbed in George Yard, so he did not feel the need to secure immediate silence there, whereas he knew somebody was approaching in Bucks Row, and prioritized silence.

But why a "coup the grace" to silence her at all if he's finished and ready to leave while she's not making a sound?

Perhaps because he prioritized the abdominal cutting; that may have been what he came for.

I'm quite sure that he came for just that; he was willing to risk his very life for it, in fact. But it seems that, if he had actually killed Tabram, too, and he actually dealt her the stab to the heart to secure silence, he didn't learn anything from it. Which I would find odd.

At any rate, Llewellyn says the abdominal wounds came first, ...

... but didn't maintain this, which makes it a little less trustworthy in my view.

I donīt think that we can always apply our own logic and thinking and predispose that the killer will have thought along the exact same lines. We must leave a lot of slack in that department.

That's true, from whatever angle we look at it.

The best!
Frank

[Fisherman]

FrankO: Hi Christer!Of course you can!

Thanks!

But why a "coup the grace" to silence her at all if he's finished and ready to leave while she's not making a sound?

Arguably because he was not sure that she would no be able to make a sound.

I'm quite sure that he came for just that; he was willing to risk his very life for it, in fact. But it seems that, if he had actually killed Tabram, too, and he actually dealt her the stab to the heart to secure silence, he didn't learn anything from it. Which I would find odd.

I donīt think he necessarily needed silence from Tabram in the same degree he did from Nichols. He may just have felt that he needed to be sure she was dead. Realizing that a cut to the neck would take care of both death and silence could represent evolving, quite simply.

... but didn't maintain this, which makes it a little less trustworthy in my view.

He maintained it. Helson was not being on the money when he denied that, as far as I understand. Not sure that I can work up the will to once more produce the evidence, though. How about taking my word for it...?

[Fisherman]

Here we are: the coroner said, when summing up, that " Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were first".

Thatīs long after Helson claimed the opposite.

So we have Llewellyn saying from the outset that the abdomen came first.

And we have Llewellyn qouted by the coroner at the summation as saying that the abdomen came first.

And we have Helson inbetween, claiming that Llewellyn was MAINTAINING his view that the neck came first.

Make of that what you want, Frank!

[FrankO]

Here we are: the coroner said, when summing up, that " Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were first".

Thatīs long after Helson claimed the opposite.

So we have Llewellyn saying from the outset that the abdomen came first.

And we have Llewellyn qouted by the coroner at the summation as saying that the abdomen came first.

And we have Helson inbetween, claiming that Llewellyn was MAINTAINING his view that the neck came first.

Make of that what you want, Frank!

I was willing to take your word for it, Christer! Although from what you posted it's clear that Llewellyn wasn't sure, it's good enough for me. That's what I make of it.

Cheers,
Frank

[Pcdunn]

Lechmere and Pickford's

Can anyone answer me how we know Lechmere worked for Pickfords for 20 years? Is it simply his own one-time statement at the inquest?

I believe that is so, though perhaps his occupation is listed in census reports. Fisherman replied to my question once that Pickford's employment records for the period had been lost, so we don't know for sure about Cross/Lechmere's schedules or routes.

[Fisherman]

I was willing to take your word for it, Christer! Although from what you posted it's clear that Llewellyn wasn't sure, it's good enough for me. That's what I make of it.

Cheers,
Frank

I am of the opposite meaning. We have Llewellyn himself stating that the abdomen came first.

Then we have Helson saying that Llewellyn "maintains" the view that the neck came first, which is clearly in conflict with what Llewellyn himslef said.

And then we have Baxter confirming that Llewellyns stance throughout was that the abdomen came first.

[Fisherman]

I believe that is so, though perhaps his occupation is listed in census reports. Fisherman replied to my question once that Pickford's employment records for the period had been lost, so we don't know for sure about Cross/Lechmere's schedules or routes.

He is listed as a carman, but Pickfords is not mentioned. The suggestion that he did not work for Pickfords at Broad Street fro 20 years plus can only be baseless conjecture, therefore.

[Columbo]

Ah - well, the documentary presented a view thatīs very close to what I was saying. Andy Griffiths said that Paul knelt down by the body and examined Nichols without seeing any blood and without getting any blood in his person, and added that this would have meant that the cuts must have been very fresh at that stage. He believed that Paul should have seen the pool of blood if it had been there, and I think he has a point; we can be certain that this pool was growing over time as the blood filled the cavity under Nicholsī neck over time, eventually running over the brim and forming a stream running into the gutter. So logically, there would have been less blood to see when Paul was there than when Neil arrived.

Also, to my mind, if you can see a hat that is lying some way away from the body and therefore out of focus to an extent, then why would you not be able to see a pool of blood and a stream of it running from the body you are looking at?
Of course, if the neck wound was hidden and if Paul looked at the body from above, then the neck could have obscured the pool of blood from sight. If that was the case, however, then there would not have been any stream of it running into the gutter when Paul looked at her, and the pool under her neck would still have been very small - pointing to how it had only just started to form.

Excellent, so no need to re-watch

Columbo

[Fisherman]

Excellent, so no need to re-watch

Columbo

Well, there is always the entertainment value to consider...