The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Fisherman]

Hi David
Thanks for the response. since we don't know for sure what time lech left home(or Paul for that matter)-I'm just going off Lechs and pauls story of how they met in Bucks row.

It seems to me that lech discovers the body and then paul arrives-what? 20-30 seconds later-at most?

if your 20-30 seconds behind someone walking surely they would have seen or heard each other prior to the meeting in Bucks row? no?

And if you are 11-15 seconds behind, as may have been the case if Paul walked at a quick pace - like he said he did?

[David Orsam]

Sorry, David - it is exclusively aimed for Dusty. I was rather expecting you to try and hitchhike along...

Your refusal to answer my question is again noted.

[David Orsam]

No, it is not necessarily wrong - it is incomplete. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. I can see why.

No, I'm sorry Fisherman, it IS wrong. Lechmere was not reported as saying he left his house "at 3.30". He was reported as saying he left his house "at about 3.30".

In the context of an argument that Lechmere could have killed Nichols in only a few minutes, it is absolutely critical.

[David Orsam]

Mountain. Molehill.

The reason it's not a molehill is because it was upon these facts that Scobie based his opinion upon which you rely so much. If the facts were wrongly reported to him, where does that leave his much vaunted opinion?

[David Orsam]

The timings are hurtful for Lechmere. There is seemingly an overall pattern that is not flattering at all for him.

No, the most one can say is that on one version of the timings he had the opportunity to commit murder. But on another, very plausible version of the timings he had no time to do so. Consequently, the timings cannot "really hurt" Lechmere, and Scobie goes too far (based on what he has been inaccurately told of course).

[drstrange169]

>>List the question you claim I am avoiding, and I will answer each and every one of them. Donīt forget any of them, bring them all.<<

Not sure why need me to repeat them, all you have to do is do some research and see what questions you haven't answered for yourself ... sorry I was forgetting you're not big on research are you?

Obvious place to start is the last I asked from my last batch of posts yesterday

"... are claiming the fact the newspapers didn't include Pitman's address is a delusion?

And presumably you are also claiming the fact that Pitman DID give his name to the court is also a delusion?

Here we are again, you make very unspecified allegations, whilst all around you are citing clear and verifiable factual information."


>>As for adding grown up material, the very reason I am avoiding YOU (not any questions, though) is that you are a mockery to that aim.<<

If you are not avoiding my questions why wasn't your post to me today an answer to the questioned I asked yesterday?


>>Now bring me that list of questions you claim to have asked and gotten no answers to, and letīs get that particular part of your delusions cleared away.<<

By definition, the fact that you did not answer yesterdays questions means there is no "delusions" on my part. It is simply a fact that you did not answer.


>>I could have added that YOU avoid to answer MY questions, but I wonīt.<<


Of course you won't, that's the problem, you tend to avoid details when you accuse people. That simple fact is I don't "avoid" answering questions, because exchange of views is what I'm here for.



Fot the record: Any post from you stating that you are not going to list the questions for one reason or another will go down the way it deserves. Make no mistake about it.


I don't understand what you are trying to say in the above quote, why on earth would I not want you answer questions? Surely the whole point of asking questions is to get an answer, unless they are rhetorical questions.

>>So post the list and do so now, preferably pointing me to the posts where you originally asked these so called unanswered questions.<<

Isn't that exactly what I've just done?

[David Orsam]

Hi David
Thanks for the response. since we don't know for sure what time lech left home(or Paul for that matter)-I'm just going off Lechs and pauls story of how they met in Bucks row.

It seems to me that lech discovers the body and then paul arrives-what? 20-30 seconds later-at most?

if your 20-30 seconds behind someone walking surely they would have seen or heard each other prior to the meeting in Bucks row? no?

Well let's look at what was said in the famous documentary, Abby:

"Robert Paul was in Bucks Row for a full minute before he noticed Lechmere."

From that, I can only glean that he was about 60 seconds behind him.

From my own timings I don't have any problems with that. I would certainly say it's about a 60 second walk from the end of current Durward Street (Bucks Row) to the site of the murder, where Lechmere was standing, looking at what appeared to be a body, when he would have heard Paul's footsteps coming towards him.

[drstrange169]

They would quite probably have seen each other if Lechmere told the truth; Pauls doorstep was around 40 yards from Bath Street, and the junction of Foster and Bath was well lit by the brewery lamps there.


Point one: What evidence do you have that proves Xmere walked along Bath St.?

Point Two: You can put this on the list of questions you haven't answered because I've asked this on several threads and not recieved a proper answer, where is the evidence that Bath Street was well lit near Foster?


>>This is one of the matters that give Lechmere away. Of course, we can say that if this was so, then Nichols should have bled for many a minute after the carmen left her, if ... oh, wait - she did<<

Yet another unanswered question from you, where is the forensic evidence that Mrs. Nichols was "bleeding" as opposed to simply leaking due to being moved slightly by either Paul or Mizen?

>>Well then, if the guily scenario should be considered, then why did not Lechmere cover the ... oh, wait - the wounds to the abdomen WERE covered.<<

Go back and check the questions I asked about this, I'm getting tired of endless repeating my questions.

>>Well then, the carman would not have had the time to ... oh, wait, Lechmere said he left around 3.20 or 3.30.<<

Oh dear, yet more unanswered questions, this one about synchronisation.


>>Anyway, as I said, nothing at all to be seen here. And those who speak for potential guilt of the carman are soon enough dissolved by the insightful and wise criticism offered by Dust. Oh, wait ... Dusty!<<

What was i saying about being grown up?

[drstrange169]

>Sorry, David - it is exclusively aimed for Dusty. I was rather expecting you to try and hitchhike along... <<

So you haven't answered David's questions either, it not a good look for you is it?

Ps You STILL didn't answer his question!

[drstrange169]

David wrote,
>>It is misleading to have told Scobie that Lechmere appears to have "initially" said that he left home earlier.<<

Christer replied,

>>Mountain. Molehill.<<

As a journalist, if you don't understand the significance implied by "initially" in that sentence then you shouldn't be in the job.

[drstrange169]

>>The timings are hurtful for Lechmere. There is seemingly an overall pattern that is not flattering at all for him.<<

Without synchronisation, the timings are irrelevant to any serious study of the case. But that's just one of your unanswered questions isn't it. Why? Because suddenly the case against Charles Lechmere starts to weaken if we have to start accepting actual facts like this.

[drstrange169]

>>Thatīs nine minutes. He should have been out of Bucks Row.<<

How do you know, by Xmere's clock, he wasn't "out of Buck's Row", as you put it?
Once again you fudge the figures to produce a result you want.

[David Orsam]

"What Scobie must have been told". The arrogance.

There is no arrogance.

Do you think it is even remotely likely that Scobie was given different facts in his briefing note to those in the documentary?

Don't try to bluster this out Fisherman. We know that Scobie was wrongly told that Lechmere said he left his house at 3.30. We know that he was told that the Lechmere appears to have initially given another time when this is speculative assumption.

Just on what we do know for a fact about what Scobie was told it is enough for us to conclude that we cannot rely on his opinion as to whether there was a case against Lechmere. Scobie is a barrister not an historian and he cannot be expected to be making assumptions about the facts presented to him.

[drstrange169]

Hello Abby,

>> since we don't know for sure what time lech left home(or Paul for that matter)-I'm just going off Lechs and pauls story of how they met in Bucks row.

It seems to me that lech discovers the body and then paul arrives-what? 20-30 seconds later-at most?<<

Just be clear about how dependable the timings we have are. According to the newspapers, which is our only source, the time of Mizen meeting with the two men varies in the newspaper accounts by an unbelievable Two hours thirty five minutes!!!

[Abby Normal]

Well let's look at what was said in the famous documentary, Abby:

"Robert Paul was in Bucks Row for a full minute before he noticed Lechmere."

From that, I can only glean that he was about 60 seconds behind him.

From my own timings I don't have any problems with that. I would certainly say it's about a 60 second walk from the end of current Durward Street (Bucks Row) to the site of the murder, where Lechmere was standing, looking at what appeared to be a body, when he would have heard Paul's footsteps coming towards him.

Thanks David.
But they noticed each other when they were about 30 yards away on bucks row. So aren't we back to the 20-30 seconds Paul behind lech? Isn't that distance/time one would expect they would have noticed each other before bucks row?