The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[David Orsam]

Even if the pattern only became apparent later, there were tens of thousands of others linked to the area to whom the same criterion applied.

Yup, which is why I categorised it as baffling.

[Fisherman]

I haven't brushed anything aside Fisherman. I quoted Scobie's entire statement as broadcast. I repeat it here:

"The timings really hurt him because she could have been very very recently fatally killed. You can inflict injuries, as I'm sure a pathologist will tell you, with a knife in seconds and the question is, "where were you?" "what were you doing during that time?" Because actually he has never given a proper answer. He is somebody who seems to be acting in a way, behaving in a way that is suspicious, which a jury would not like. A jury would not like that. When the coincidences add up, mount up against a defendant, and they mount up in this case, it becomes one coincidence too many. The fact that there is a pattern of offending, almost an area of offending, of which he is linked geographically and physically, you add all those points together, piece it all together and the prosecution have the most probative powerful material the courts use against individual suspects. What we would say is that he has got a prima facie case to answer which means there is a case good enough to put before a jury which suggests that he was the killer."

So why does Scobie think there is a good case against Lechmere?

Point 1 – The timings "really hurt him".

Point 2 – Following directly on from point 1, he has never given a proper answer as to where he was or what he was doing.

Point 3 - Following directly on from point 2, he was behaving suspiciously.

Point 4 – He is linked geographically and physically to a pattern or area of offending.

Those are the only reasons given.

Point 1 is based on wrong information. Point 2 is not correct. It follows that Point 3 is unsustainable. Point 4 is baffling and, in any case, not something that existed at the time of the Nichols murder.

Although Scobie refers to "coincidences" he doesn't identify any of them in the case against Lechmere and it is said in the context of a general statement.

So what have I brushed aside?

You disagree with Scobie, and you bein doing so by pointing to a time that clearly meant nothing to Scobie, since he says that the deed could have been done in seconds. So no need for a time space! From there on you make another interpretaion than Scobie about what is suspicious behaviour - fine, but I think Scobie is at least as good a judge of such things as you are. So what you end up with is your take on things, which differs from mine and Scobies.

And that´s fine, up until the point where you seem to claim that only you can be right.
That´s patently wrong, see.

[Fisherman]

So was it another mistake in the documentary when the voiceover said:
"Robert Paul was in Bucks Row for a full minute before he noticed Lechmere."?

The docu must stand for itself. I am not the one who made it, I appeared in it, and I am saying what I always said - I think that it is overall a very good docu, but there are sections and details that I would have done differently, and where there is a more drastic wording than I would have used. And that is to be expected in a docu of this type, promoting a suspect.

[David Orsam]

If you walk at similar speeds on soundless soles in darkness, you can be in a street 40 yards away from a person for an indefinite amount of time without ever noticing the other person.

Right, so you must be disagreeing with Abby's point that Paul should have seen Lechmere before they walked into Bucks Row because he was only 40 yards behind?

If not please explain why not given that you say that you can be 40 yards away from someone without noticing them.

It could not be a case of Lechmere stepping out into the street as Paul entered Bucks Row, though, since we know that Lechmere said that it was when he stepped out into the street that he heard Paul approaching, estimating that the latter was at that stage 30-40 yards off.

The key here is estimating. How can he possibly accurately estimate a distance from the sound of footsteps?

Is he a bat? Does he have radar like hearing?

[Sam Flynn]

How can he possibly accurately estimate a distance from the sound of footsteps? Is he a bat? Does he have radar like hearing?

Jack the Doppler.

[Fisherman]

But I think we HAVE got somewhere. We have established that Scobie was misinformed on the facts. Therefore we cannot place any weight on his opinion as to the guilt or innocence of Lechmere.

Yes, we can. The transformation from molehill to mountain you are presenting is uninteresting, since Scobie knew quite well that there was no need for a time gap - he stated very clearly that a deed like the Nichols deed could be done in seconds, wherefore the hurtful timing he spoke about was not this perceived time gap.
And Scobie used a good many parameters to entertain suspicion against Lechmere, some of which may well have been sorted out from the material. As I keep telling you, I saw more material with Scobie, where he elaborated on things in a manner that was left out.

We also have Andy Griffiths, who has the great advantage of not being a barrister but instead a murder squad leader, who also pointed a finger at Lechmere.
So there are two men with adequate knowledge in their fields that arrived at the same conclusion - Lechmere is a really good bid. In Griffiths case, it is stated that he believes that Nichols was cut when Lechmere was with her. But he may of course have been lied to. Just jump on that train if you wish - others have embarked upon it before.

Of course, when the outcome of what experts like these men say does not fir with people´s own views, it will be of the essence to speculate that they were deceived to say what the film crew wanted to hear.

I believe the Lechmere case is unique in this matter too.

[Fisherman]

Quite. Good call, Harry.

No examination, no alibi for any blood. Plus how would Lechmere know that Paul would not check himself? Better then to take the lead and steer things up.

[David Orsam]

For David Orsam:

You claim that Scobie said "The timings really hurt him" because he had been unrightfully told that Lechmere left home at exactly 3.30.

However, let´s take a look at the WHOLE quote - it actually involves a "because", explaining WHY Scobie thought the timings were hurtful.

Here it is:

"The timings really hurt him, BECAUSE she could have been very, very recently fatally killed.
You can inflict injuries, as I am sure a pathologist will tell you, with a knife in seconds.
And the question is: Where were you? What were you doing?"

Don't know why those three sentences are on three different lines or why you've felt the need to put a full stop after the word "seconds" to break up what I regard as the second sentence.

I also don't know why you have omitted some relevant words. The full quote is this:

"The timings really hurt him because she could have been very very recently fatally killed. You can inflict injuries, as I'm sure a pathologist will tell you, with a knife in seconds and the question is, "where were you?" "what were you doing during that time?" Because actually he has never given a proper answer."

So, far from believing that the nine minutes offered if the timed path to Bucks Row from Doveton Street (7 minutes, 7 seconds) is weighed against Robert Pauls claim to have entered Bucks Row at 3.45, was a prerequisite to be able to committ the murder, Scobie is instead talking about how Nichols seemed to have been very, very recently killed - offering no real alternatives to Lechmere as the killer. Whether Scoboe grounded this on the bleeding details I cannot say, but it is the subject that springs to mind. It is very obvious that he does not feel any need for nine minutes at the other end of the strike, since he acknowledges that the knifing could have been overwith "in seconds".

That clears away your suggestion effectively, and makes for a fuller and more factbased background.

It in no way clears away my suggestion at all. Scobie starts by saying that the timings really hurt Lechmere, he expands on this and ends with the claim that Lechmere has never given a proper answer to the question of where he was and what he was doing. That assumes there was a period of time for which Lechmere has not given an account of his movements.

As for your point about Scobie referring to Nichols having been recently fatally killed it has no meaning if Nichols had been murdered at 3.35 and Lechmere left his house at 3.33. Of course Nichols had been murdered shortly before Lechmere found her body but how does that alone "really hurt" Lechmere. How is even capable of hurting Lechmere?

Surely Scobie cannot be confusing Lechmere being a suspect due to Nichols having recently been killed with actual evidence that makes a case against him.

For Scobie to draw any conclusions about the relevance of Nichols having been recently killed he would have needed to factor in the time Lechmere left his house, the time Nichols was murdered and the time Lechmere found the body. Of this, we know for a fact that Scobie was misinformed about the time Lechmere left his house and we can assume he was given the same information as in the documentary for the finding of the body. Let's remind ourselves of that information:

v/o: According to Paul’s evidence, Lechmere found the body some sixteen minutes after he claimed he left home.

Christer: "And it says 7 minutes, seven seconds. That would have meant that if Lechmere left his home as he said at 3.30 he should have been here at 3.37". Andy Griffiths: "Well that’s very interesting because Paul says he came into the street at 3.45." v/o: Andy and Christer have found a major gap in Lechmere’s timings.

[Fisherman]

But Fisherman, that is exactly my point because it shows how crucial the difference between "at 3.30" and "about 3.30" is. It's the possible difference, easily, between 3.30 and 3.33. Remove the 3 minutes and perhaps the timings now do not "really hurt" Lechmere, in Scobies view. This is why Scobie needed accurate information on timings before forming an opinion.

No, he did not. He knew that the deed could have been done in seconds, so he would not ask for a time window. He knew that Lechmere was found alone with the body, and that there could be no certainty about for how long he had been there. He asks the questions "where were you? what were you doing" for this precise reason and says that Lechmere has never given any proper answer, which I take to mean that his answer is uncorroborated and must be so.

[Fisherman]

No that is speculation too far. The place for it to have been mentioned was in the paragraph I quoted. It would make no sense for a caveat to be written in another part of the document.

This is where I get off the train. Your arrogance is becoming too much for me. Where did you get it from that you should be called upon to decide what is "speculation too far" and what is not? You say that it would make no sense for a caveat in another part of the document, but you consistently point out that there would have been lots of sense to do so - it would have cleared the issue away. If that is not sense, then I don´t know! And just how odd would it be if it was added that the timings were not necessarily 100 per cent correct? I see that sort of caveat out on these boards once a week!

I am not interested in discussing things with somebody who reserves himself the right to decide what is reasonable speculation and what is not, especially not if that self same person has a vested interest in trying to establish that a film crew I got the feeling was well read up, honest, very interested and always asking questions so as not to get things wrong, was instead trying to lead Scobie wrong. And to boot, the detail as such is irrelevant to the full picture.

It´s just not my cup of tea. You will have to push your propaganda without my participation. I congrautlate you on having prolonged the debate this far - when Trevor Marriott tried the same stunt, I told him to go xxxxxxxxx in one post flat.

Goodbye.

[Fisherman]

Jack the Doppler.

If he was not a bat, and if he had no radar - what possible reason could he have had to try and establish a distance of 30-40 yards? Who asked for the information? Who stood to gain from giving it?

Any ideas?

Goodnight to you, Gareth.

[David Orsam]

The idea that Paul would not have heard Lechmere 15-20 seconds in front of him, and vice versa, is not a good one as far as I am concerned.

But 15-20 seconds is pure invention by you.

You have no idea how fast Paul was walking and how long it would have taken him to cover 40 yards.

But more than this there is no possible way that Lechmere could have accurately estimated the distance from nothing more than the sound of footsteps. For that reason 40 yards could, in reality, have been 80 yards, 100 yards or 130 yards.

Or perhaps Lechmere did indeed say that Paul was 130-40 yards away and this was misheard by the reporters.

In any event, in saying "15-20 seconds" you haven't factored in ANY time for Lechmere to have slowed down, looked at the bundle on the ground, stopped, thought about what it was before walking to the middle of the road.

[David Orsam]

You disagree with Scobie

It's not a question of me agreeing or disagreeing with Scobie. I'm saying he was given incorrect facts so his opinion is of no value.

[Abby Normal]

Without knowing the relative walking speeds of Lechmere and Paul it's impossible to draw any firm conclusions. For example, as Lechmere turned into Bucks Row, Paul could easily have been a full two minutes behind him. But if Lechmere was walking slowly and Paul was walking quickly, that alone would explain why Paul could have caught up to within 40 yards of Lechmere in Bucks Row. I mean, perhaps Paul would have overtaken him before the end of the Row had they both continued walking without stopping. So how is it possible to say that "Lech and Paul should have seen each other" prior to this?

Out of interest Abby, what do you say is the minimum distance (in both yards and seconds) that the two men needed to be apart where, on the dark streets, they would not be expected to have seen or heard each other?

Do you agree that if there was 60 seconds walking distance between them then they would not be expected to have seen or heard each other?

Thanks David

By my timings 60 seconds walking distance equals about 30 yards. so, considering the time, desertedness, and aparrently Paul at least was on the look out for ruffians, I do think they(or at least Paul) would have noticed each other. But maybe not. it was dark, who knows-but I still lean toward it was close enough to notice each other before Bucks row.

[Abby Normal]

What is the evidence that Paul was walking at 'slightly faster than normal walking pace'?

none. pure speculation. but a man on his way to work in a dark city whos worried about thugs would probably be walking at faster than the normal pace, IMHO.