Lechmere The Psychopath

[Rainbow]

I guess we will never know for sure if he felt breathing or not.
I think good arguments can be made in either direction.

Your post 672 was a good post on the position I believe.

Steve

And what interesting, is that this very word ' Sure ' is the word that has been used in the report!

[Pierre]

It's the only inquest report of Paul where he says he thinks she is dead!

However it fits very well with the Lechmere reports of the same event.

The Times 18/09/88

"He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not, and he thought she was dead"

However later he says:
"He touched the breast , and then, fancied he felt a slight movement"

To me he is confused himself. Was the movement breathing or not ? and if so why earlier say he thought she was dead.


Steve

No, Steve, I donīt think he was confused.

If the article is correct Paul just tried to use his senses. That was all he had.

So firstly he tried to hear breathing but didnīt (due to surrounding sounds, wind for example) and secondly he touched the chest to try and see if he could experience any breathing. So he used seeing, hearing and touching.

Since touching is very different from hearing it also gives a very different result.

But he had to interpret it and it was difficult.

So he was not confused. But the source may seem confusing if one does not understand it.

Cheers, Pierre

[Elamarna]

OK, so on a postulated scale for "temperature in the past", an imaginative device, we must use sources having different statements about temperature.

The result is no validity at all.

Cheers, Pierre

I was just reporting what the report said. So I am not sure what you are saying.
It's been along day.

Steve

[Fisherman]

If Paul really detected breathing than it points towards Lechmere if it's at the shorter end of the range

Steve

You do realize that this means that we must accept that Paul never detected any breathing?

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;419453]

Yes, but brain death equals no signals travelling through the brain. And if you cut the blood supply, it seems that the brain shut down in 20-30 seconds. it was not dead, but inactive as if it was dead. And after three minutes, irreparable damage would start appearing.
The crucial question is this: regardless if there is a possible to save the brain by turning on the blood supply again, does not the inactivity of it 20-30 seconds after the blood supply is cut, ensure that there will be no breathing?

Whereīs that medico when you need him?

I sent him a pm to ask for his view. Didn't say what figures we were talking about just that his input would be useful. (Kjab3112).



Steve

[Pierre]

I was just reporting what the report said. So I am not sure what you are saying.
It's been along day.

Steve

Yes, I know you did. And what I say is just that we can not measure temperature by using newspaper articles. We can not even estimate if the body was "warm" or "cold". So there is no validity in any result we get, if we must guess.

Cheers, Pierre

[Pierre]

You do realize that this means that we must accept that Paul never detected any breathing?

No. What we "must accept" is that the validity of any interpretation is low.

You can not apply a "realistic" view on very problematic sources.

[Elamarna]

No, Steve, I donīt think he was confused.

If the article is correct Paul just tried to use his senses. That was all he had.

So firstly he tried to hear breathing but didnīt (due to surrounding sounds, wind for example) and secondly he touched the chest to try and see if he could experience any breathing. So he used seeing, hearing and touching.

Since touching is very different from hearing it also gives a very different result.

But he had to interpret it and it was difficult.

So he was not confused. But the source may seem confusing if one does not understand it.

Cheers, Pierre

He said he may have felt some movement, in that report he is not specific as to what the movement was. He is certainly not 100% .
However as I have said I can accept either alternative.


Steve

[Patrick S]

You may be forgetting that you must allow for the possibility that Lechmere was in Bucks Row a number of minutes before Paul arrived. And in such a case, there may definitely have been twitching some time after Lechmere cut her (if he was the cutter, and I do think he was, as you know), and possibly there may have been breathing too - or so I am told.

Whether Paul did or did not feel any movement, we will never know for sure, but it is interesting that you speak of the "obvious explanation", since it is much in line with what I just posted about people always going for what they define as the common sense solution. Which is understandable, but not necessarily correct in each case.

Well. There's been a lot posted about coincidences and all that. At some point "common sense solutions" matter. I mean, let's run it down:

Paul says he thought Nichols was breathing at 3:45am. We KNOW that when Neil shined his light, what is it, five, eight minutes later.....that her head has been (nearly) detached from her body. Thus, what's LIKELY is that Paul was mistaken. She wasn't breathing.

Cross waited for Paul to get to where he was. He called to him to look at the woman on the ground. Paul tried to avoid him. Cross persisted...."Come see.." Was this some grand ruse or simply a guy who acting like anyone (other than Rainbow) would had he found a woman lying on the street?...HE TOLD SOMEONE (rather than run screaming into the night). So, what common sense tell us is its LIKELY that he didn't kill Nichols.

Mizen says he was told that he was "wanted" by a PC in Buck's Row. Cross says flatly that no one told him that was the case. Paul doesn't mention it, but he does mention that Mizen didn't much react to the news of a woman (Paul says a "DEAD" woman) and that he didn't say if he should come or not. What a great shame...since he'd been "told the woman was dead". Thus, its clear Mizen would benefit from selling a story about another PC. So...what's LIKELY is that Mizen fudged things a bit....to make him look....NOT QUITE as bad has Paul made him out in Lloyd's.

I can give (and have given) dozens of such examples. But...I don't have the energy today.

[Elamarna]

You do realize that this means that we must accept that Paul never detected any breathing?

No. I still think it is open. It can go either way I think.

That particular report seems to fit some of the Lechmere accounts of the event, but not all.

Oh for the official record.


Steve

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;419458]

I sent him a pm to ask for his view. Didn't say what figures we were talking about just that his input would be useful. (Kjab3112).



Steve

Great, Steve - should be interesting to hear his answer, if he finds the time.

[Elamarna]

Yes, I know you did. And what I say is just that we can not measure temperature by using newspaper articles. We can not even estimate if the body was "warm" or "cold". So there is no validity in any result we get, if we must guess.

Cheers, Pierre

Ok I am with you now. Had a brain block I think.

Steve

[Pierre]

Well. There's been a lot posted about coincidences and all that. At some point "common sense solutions" matter. I mean, let's run it down:

Paul says he thought Nichols was breathing at 3:45am. We KNOW that when Neil shined his light, what is it, five, eight minutes later.....that her head has been (nearly) detached from her body. Thus, what's LIKELY is that Paul was mistaken. She wasn't breathing.

Cross waited for Paul to get to where he was. He called to him to look at the woman on the ground. Paul tried to avoid him. Cross persisted...."Come see.." Was this some grand ruse or simply a guy who acting like anyone (other than Rainbow) would had he found a woman lying on the street?...HE TOLD SOMEONE (rather than run screaming into the night). So, what common sense tell us is its LIKELY that he didn't kill Nichols.

Mizen says he was told that he was "wanted" by a PC in Buck's Row. Cross says flatly that no one told him that was the case. Paul doesn't mention it, but he does mention that Mizen didn't much react to the news of a woman (Paul says a "DEAD" woman) and that he didn't say if he should come or not. What a great shame...since he'd been "told the woman was dead". Thus, its clear Mizen would benefit from selling a story about another PC. So...what's LIKELY is that Mizen fudged things a bit....to make him look....NOT QUITE as bad has Paul made him out in Lloyd's.

I can give (and have given) dozens of such examples. But...I don't have the energy today.

The principle for the standpoint of Fisherman is simple:

X1*o >
X2*o > Y=Lechmere was a serial killer
X3*o >

where x1 and any number of variables can "measure" anything x times overinterpreted (o) to get Y.

Now, people on the other hand try to destroy the overinterpretations to destroy the variables to destroy the Y.

It is a struggle.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;419466]

Great, Steve - should be interesting to hear his answer, if he finds the time.

He was on yesterday I think. Probably going to end up as a small range is my guess which is not definitive ; particularly as it's far from conclusive that Paul felt breathing.


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;419466]

Great, Steve - should be interesting to hear his answer, if he finds the time.

Yes, very, very great and interesting. Please tell me, Fisherman: How did Lechmere murder Kelly?