Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    No, that is entirely a made up person to begin with, and so he cannot compete with Lechmere. His presence at the site is proven - and at a remove in time that is consistent with being the cutter. We also know that Nichols bled for so long a time as to make the proposition of another, earlier cutter, less credible.

    To make the suggestion of a preceding killer as likely or likelier than Lechmere, it would require that the carman had facts attaching to himself that were not in line with being the killer. If, for example, we could see that he was unlikely to have been the killer in the other cases, that would promote the candidacy of another killer. But as you know,we instead have a picture where Lechmere seems to fit the other murders quite well.

    So no, an earlier killer is not as likely at all. The suggestion is instead much unlikelier.
    I can’t agree with that Fish and I’m guessing that I’d be far from alone in that. We just can’t promote Lechmere over an unknown killer simpy because we can put a name to him. It’s entirely possible that the killer fled the scene a matter of seconds before Lechmere arrived. Indeed it might have been the case that he was disturbed by Lechmere’s approach.

    Lechmere is no more or less likely than an as yet anonymous killer. This is a fact.
    Regards

    Herlock Sholmes

    Comment


    • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
      Ah yes, thanks for pointing out the mistake on my part, Christer. Of course, I meant September.

      Cheers,
      Frank
      It had me wondering a whole lot, and reading a whole lot more. Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

        But that is the precise case: If Lechmere left home at 3.30 and if the body was found at 3.45, then there IS a sinister gap. And bollocks.

        We can discuss how mjuch we can invest in the timings til the cows come home, but that wonīt change that if the tiings given were correct or very nearly correct, they disfavor Lechmere.
        And absolutely nothing will change the fact that Lechmere said that he left the house ‘about 3.30’ and not 3.00 as you claimed in your book Fish. Leaving out ‘about’ is a huge omission. This tells us without a shadow of a doubt that he was estimating the time and there are simply no rules as to how accurate or inaccurate an estimation must be.

        Therefore it is entirely possible that he might have left the house at 3.35 leaving us with no gap.

        The gap point is categorically null and void and should not be used.
        Regards

        Herlock Sholmes

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

          I think we can be certain that if he missed Nichols at 3.15, opening for the option of her having been in place since 2.45, then the body would not have been warm as Llewellyn checked it.
          Can I again remind you on Dr Biggs comments on this issue

          Q. Reading the doctors reports from 1888, they all give estimated times of death based on how warm the bodies were at the time the examined them at the crime scenes, would the times be accurate, and can times of death be determined in his way?

          A. Being ‘cold to the touch’ really isn’t helpful as even live people can feel cold to the touch. Body temperature doesn’t start to drop straight away as soon as a person dies, but there is a plateau or ‘lag’ phase that can last a few hours. In other words, somebody could have been dead for a couple of hours but still have an essentially ‘normal’ body temperature, whereas a live person can feel stone cold.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

            It is nothing of the sort if the body was found at 3.45.
            Which is your opinion Fish and something that cannot be proven. Neil said that he came upon the body at 3.45 and Mizen, who was waking people up to tell them the time, said that Lechmere and Paul got to him at 3.45. Baxter then said that Nichols was killed before 3.45. You dispute this of course. But the point is that you cannot prove that it was found at 3.45 and not closer to 3.40.

            And if the time that he left the house cannot be proven and the exact time of the discovery of the body cannot be proven then logic and reason tells us that we cannot assume a gap of time.

            Therefore the point has to be considered null and void.

            Regards

            Herlock Sholmes

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

              The examination of the body would have taken around a minute or so. That amount of time in a 30 minute walk is not representative of being behind time. The likely thing is that both men were behind as they left home - or laimed to be. We know that Paul was hurrying along, and hurrying is very representative of being late.
              Lechmere never claimed to have been late when he left home. We should avoid making assumptions just to make a point.

              Regards

              Herlock Sholmes

              Comment


              • .
                The foreseeable convulsions this will cause is something I am going to leave for the rats and vultures to scavenge on. I have no further need to do that work myself.
                I’m sorry Fish but I fail to see how you can continue to assume the moral high ground whilst using terminology like this about people that disagree with you.
                Regards

                Herlock Sholmes

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                  The "almost up to the stomach" reference needs to be pitted against a large number of OTHER references, like how it was claimed that the clothing was "over the knees" for example.

                  A logical explanation would be that Nichols lay on her garments, making it very hard to pull them down any further. This seems mirrored in how Paul tries to drag them down to the feet, but only gets them to the knees.

                  At any rate, "almost" to the stomach means "close to but NOT to the stomach", and so the sounds WERE hidden.

                  It has earlier been suggested that since it was the first murder (which we donīt know), the killer may have come up with the idea of posing his victim only AFTER it. Your suggestion now is that the killer was haapy fiddling around under the garments in Bucks Row, only to suddenly develop a desire to throw the clothing out of the way in order to allow him to cut in Hanbury Street.

                  The rather obvious inference is that this killer was much into cutting bellies open. The suggestion that he perhaps hindered himself to see what he did in Bucks Row, while there was never any reason for hiom not to get the garments out of the way, is not a good one in my view. It is along the lines of always presenting alternative innocent explanations, and I keep saying that such a thing is good up until when we need dozens of them. At that stage, if we havent taken stock of the indications, we are lagging seriously behind.
                  Or the logical explanation could be that under oath Paul said “Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach.”

                  There is nothing suspicious about this.
                  Regards

                  Herlock Sholmes

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    And absolutely nothing will change the fact that Lechmere said that he left the house ‘about 3.30’ and not 3.00 as you claimed in your book Fish. Leaving out ‘about’ is a huge omission. This tells us without a shadow of a doubt that he was estimating the time and there are simply no rules as to how accurate or inaccurate an estimation must be.

                    Therefore it is entirely possible that he might have left the house at 3.35 leaving us with no gap.

                    The gap point is categorically null and void and should not be used.
                    Leaving at 03.35 means Lechmere arrives at the murder scene at 03.41 or 03.42. So he’s still comfortably got a few minutes alone in Bucks Row. And of course at 03.42 Paul is still at home, so he couldn’t catch him up and meet Lechmere at the body, unless Lechmere has been stationary at the body for a few minutes. The timing really hurts Lechmere, you can’t get away from that, and even leaving at 03.35 (which is very generous in Lechmere’s favour) doesn’t change that.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      And absolutely nothing will change the fact that Lechmere said that he left the house ‘about 3.30’ and not 3.00 as you claimed in your book Fish. Leaving out ‘about’ is a huge omission. This tells us without a shadow of a doubt that he was estimating the time and there are simply no rules as to how accurate or inaccurate an estimation must be.

                      Therefore it is entirely possible that he might have left the house at 3.35 leaving us with no gap.

                      The gap point is categorically null and void and should not be used.
                      It is only if he said ”around 3.35” that you have a point, Herlock.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        I can’t agree with that Fish and I’m guessing that I’d be far from alone in that. We just can’t promote Lechmere over an unknown killer simpy because we can put a name to him. It’s entirely possible that the killer fled the scene a matter of seconds before Lechmere arrived. Indeed it might have been the case that he was disturbed by Lechmere’s approach.

                        Lechmere is no more or less likely than an as yet anonymous killer. This is a fact.
                        No, it is not. It is not until you have a proven presence of somebody else at the murder site or its vicinity that you can begin to gauge his or hers likelihood of being a killer. And THAT, as opposed to your claim, IS a fact.
                        If you had said that it is a fact that another killer cannot be ruled out, I would have agreed.
                        But your reasoning goes along the line that even if the police have a prime suspect, another person, whose existence cannot be established, is just as likely to have been the killer.

                        That is, plain and simple, totally wrong.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

                          Leaving at 03.35 means Lechmere arrives at the murder scene at 03.41 or 03.42. So he’s still comfortably got a few minutes alone in Bucks Row. And of course at 03.42 Paul is still at home, so he couldn’t catch him up and meet Lechmere at the body, unless Lechmere has been stationary at the body for a few minutes. The timing really hurts Lechmere, you can’t get away from that, and even leaving at 03.35 (which is very generous in Lechmere’s favour) doesn’t change that.
                          Yet again you are quoting opinions and unknowns as if they were known facts.

                          Lechmere discovered the body before 3.45. The last time that I checked 3.42 and 3.43 are both before 3.45.

                          Unless we know the exact time that Lechmere left the house and the exact time that the body was discovered then the point simply can’t be made. Any attempt at saying ‘about’ could only have meant 1 or 2 minutes screams of bias Im afraid. We simply don’t know for anything approaching certainty. And without certainty the ‘gap’ point is dead in the water. It’s quite simply a non-starter because all that’s being said is “if x was the case and y was also the case then z was the case.” When x and y are definitely unknowns.

                          This is a point that should beyond dispute. It’s one of simple reason and logic.

                          Regards

                          Herlock Sholmes

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                            It is only if he said ”around 3.35” that you have a point, Herlock.
                            11 out of 19 reporters in court said that he did. Are you suggesting they imagined the word ‘about?’

                            Regards

                            Herlock Sholmes

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              Can I again remind you on Dr Biggs comments on this issue

                              Q. Reading the doctors reports from 1888, they all give estimated times of death based on how warm the bodies were at the time the examined them at the crime scenes, would the times be accurate, and can times of death be determined in his way?

                              A. Being ‘cold to the touch’ really isn’t helpful as even live people can feel cold to the touch. Body temperature doesn’t start to drop straight away as soon as a person dies, but there is a plateau or ‘lag’ phase that can last a few hours. In other words, somebody could have been dead for a couple of hours but still have an essentially ‘normal’ body temperature, whereas a live person can feel stone cold.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              Ask Biggs from me if he agrees with Payne-James and Thiblin that the likely time span for the bleeding from Nichols’ neck is around 3-5 minutes, wheras times over ten minutes are less likely. That way, we will put Biggs to good use. And I dont want to know what the extremes are, I want the likeliest times!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                I’m sorry Fish but I fail to see how you can continue to assume the moral high ground whilst using terminology like this about people that disagree with you.
                                Read again. I am not calling anybody rats and vultures. I am saying that I would like rats and vultures scavenge on efforts to misrepresent me.

                                And from my ”moral high ground”, I am saying it in a post to a man who has called me personally stupid and a liar, plus he has compared Lechmerians to cockroaches.

                                If that makes a difference to you, which I hope it does!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X