Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    No, Her÷ock, any of them is not equally likely. Instread, the further you move away from 4.15, the less likely it becomes. If somebody says "I did it at around 4.15", then you will of course agree that 9.30 is not as likely a time as 4.15. And that begins immediately - any minute added to or detracted from 4.15 is less likely than 4.15 itself, and the further you move away from 4.15, the less likely the suggestion becomes. It is not as if we have a given amount of times that are equally likely, is it? if it was, then that time area must be defined, and how on earth would that be possible? If 4.16 and 4.17 and 4.19 is "around 4.15", is 4.21 also "around 4.15"? 4.29?
    I see what you're saying, Fish, but I think the idea that 2 minutes is less likely than 3, but more likely than 1 is stretching things a bit too far.

    Around 4.15 say can in practical terms mean 4.10 to 4.20 realistically. I don't think it makes 4.15 itself more likely, otherwise you'd say 4.15 if you were sure. If not sure, then any other minute applies equally within 5 either way.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you but if Neil got to the body at 3.51 and Thain arrived at 3.52. How is that an issue if Thain got to Llewellyn at 3.55?
      It is not. But if, as Llewellyn testified to under oath, he was waken up by Thain at 4.00, it is most certainly an anomaly if the good doctor simulatenously arrived in Bucks Row.
      Even if Llewellyn was waken up by Thain at 3.55, it would be hard for him to get up, get dressed, get his things and arrive in Bucks Row at 4.00.

      For him to get to Bucks Row at 4.00, we must tweak the times.

      I prefer not to. I prefer to think that what people say about the times is the best bet we have.

      And I have alread pointed out numerus times that if Pauls 3.45 was correct - as Baxter and Swanson promoted - then we can sit tight and alter NOTHING and we will get a nicely working timeline:

      The body was found at around 3.45 - as Paul said.

      Neil would have arrived at around 3.51.

      Thain would have arrived at around 3.52.

      He would have set off for LLewellyn at around 3.53, after having been informed by Neil.

      He would get to Llewellyn at around 3.55-3-56.

      It was said that Thain arrived back with LLewellyn at around ten minutes after he was sent off for the doctor. That would point to some minutes after 4.00.

      We must add a good few minutes for LLewellyn to be waken up, to get out of bed, to get his clothes and get dressed and then to fetch his bag and chaeck its contents and so on before setting out, so I believe the ten minutes referred to may be a tad optimistic. My own thought is that the doctor arrived between 4.05 and 4.10, but I am open to the suggestion that he was a tad earlier.

      It all dovetails if we listen to the testimony given, working from what was Baxters and Swansons conclusion that the body was found by Lechmere at 3.45. That should be celebrated, not pooh-poohed (not that I think you do, but others will).

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        And as I keep trying to convey Fish, 3.30 was an estimation. This cannot be questioned. It’s a fact. We don’t know what time that he left the house. He could even have lied and left the house at 2.30 for all that we know. But we simply can’t reduce any margin for error simply because we want to make a point.

        Even the possibility that he left the house at 3.35/3.36 renders the point about there being a suspicious amount of time that Lechmere was in Bucks Row with the body is rendered null and void. You can’t use an unknown to prove something.
        I am not proving things, Herlock - I am pointing out the likeliest solution. And the closer we get to 3.30, the likelier it becomes.

        Comment


        • And now I┤m off for some little time.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

            We should not refute that assessment at all. The doctors back then could not determine the TOD with any real accuracy. But two eminent and very senior forensic physicians concur that Nichols bleeding time would most likely be over after 3-5 minutes or so, and that means that since she still bled as Mizen saw her, we are pointes to Lechmere as the probale cutter. For another cutter to have preceded him, it would take a very unexpected bleeding time.
            Again, Arne Thiblin did not call a bleeding time of ten to fifteen minues impossible, but he did point it out as extreme an very unexpected.

            So Lechmere is and remains the probable cutter.
            Or the person that fled the scene a minute or less before Lechmere found the body?
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes

            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

              I am not proving things, Herlock - I am pointing out the likeliest solution. And the closer we get to 3.30, the likelier it becomes.
              But it’s still being suggested that if Lechmere left the house at 3.30 then there was a sinister gap of time. It’s the old saying Fish “if my Auntie had b*****s she’d have been my uncle.”
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes

              “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                We should not refute that assessment at all. The doctors back then could not determine the TOD with any real accuracy. But two eminent and very senior forensic physicians concur that Nichols bleeding time would most likely be over after 3-5 minutes or so, and that means that since she still bled as Mizen saw her, we are pointes to Lechmere as the probale cutter. For another cutter to have preceded him, it would take a very unexpected bleeding time.
                Again, Arne Thiblin did not call a bleeding time of ten to fifteen minues impossible, but he did point it out as extreme an very unexpected.

                So Lechmere is and remains the probable cutter.
                I quote Dr Biggs

                "There is nothing about blood flow from a wound that will help estimate the time of death"

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  Hi Frank. Could you please post the material you are referring to so I may see if we are talking about the same thing or not? What I am saying is that Baxter did not say that Llewellyn was in place in Buycks Row at 4.00, but instead that he arrived there a quarter of an hour after Neil had felt Nichols arm for warmth. Are we speaking about the same thing or not?
                  Seeing that you're quoting Dusty here, Christer, I think you want him to answer, but on the off chance that you actually meant me, then I can only say that I was directing Jeff to where he can find Llewellyn saying that he was called by Thain around 3.55.

                  Cheers,
                  Frank
                  "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                  Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Dickere View Post

                    I see what you're saying, Fish, but I think the idea that 2 minutes is less likely than 3, but more likely than 1 is stretching things a bit too far.

                    Around 4.15 say can in practical terms mean 4.10 to 4.20 realistically. I don't think it makes 4.15 itself more likely, otherwise you'd say 4.15 if you were sure. If not sure, then any other minute applies equally within 5 either way.
                    I was about to say a somewhat similar thing, Dickere. If we'd assume that the Greenwich Mean Time actually indicated, say, 4.11, at the time that was estimated as "about 4.15", then 4.08, 4.09, 4.10, 4.12, 4.13 and 4.14 would actually be more likely then 4.15.

                    Cheers,
                    Frank
                    "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                    Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      Why is it that some posters out here fail to give the whole and true picture?

                      Did you give the 'whole and true picture,' Fish, when you suggested that Lilley was kept from the inquest because she was an untrustworthy publicity hound?

                      The media frenzy that we will see a week later after the discovery of Annie Chapman hadn't yet begun; it was still 'early days' so we can't give Harriet the same jaundiced glare that we will later use with Matt Packer.

                      And why would she have been brought before the inquest? Her account may have been of interest to the police, or to us, but as she couldn't identify the victim, nor help determine the cause of her death--which are the aims of an inquest.

                      That's the 'whole and true' picture, isn't it?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        But it’s still being suggested that if Lechmere left the house at 3.30 then there was a sinister gap of time. It’s the old saying Fish “if my Auntie had b*****s she’d have been my uncle.”
                        If Lechmere leaves home at 03.30 then it is a sinister gap of time. Very much so. Leaving home at 03.30 makes being found in Bucks Row at 03.45 very incriminating.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

                          If Lechmere leaves home at 03.30 then it is a sinister gap of time. Very much so. Leaving home at 03.30 makes being found in Bucks Row at 03.45 very incriminating.
                          Isnt that the way he walked to work, whats incriminating about that?

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

                            If Lechmere leaves home at 03.30 then it is a sinister gap of time. Very much so. Leaving home at 03.30 makes being found in Bucks Row at 03.45 very incriminating.
                            If you say you're running late and say you left home at around 3.30 that likely means 3.20-3.30 at the very latest, and then you'd be hurrying. You wouldn't still be in Bucks Row at 3.45 having stopped to investigate tarpaulins laying around, whatever they turned out to be.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              Isnt that the way he walked to work, whats incriminating about that?

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              Doveton Street to Bucks Row is a 6 or 7 minute walk. So if Lechmere leaves home at 03.30 then he arrives in Bucks Row at 03.37. Being found in Bucks Row at 03.45 means there is time missing.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Dickere View Post

                                If you say you're running late and say you left home at around 3.30 that likely means 3.20-3.30 at the very latest, and then you'd be hurrying. You wouldn't still be in Bucks Row at 3.45 having stopped to investigate tarpaulins laying around, whatever they turned out to be.
                                Where did Lechmere say that he was late leaving home? He didn’t.

                                Where did Lechmere say that he usually left home at 3.20? He didn’t.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                                “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X