Evidence of innocence

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

No Fish, you are defying reason. I’m glad that your not a Police Officer because every single person who discovers a body would have the cuffs slapped on. The notion that someone couldn’t have killed Nichols and fled the scene a few seconds before Lechmere is frankly preposterous Fish. Surely you can see this?

[Fisherman]

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.

Nor did I say so. I pointed put how Paul under oath testified to how any wound in the abdomen would be hidden ( which is the case if the clothing is only almost up to the abdomen), and I added that other estimations had the clothing as low down as over the knees.

[Fisherman]

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.

And still, people who are quite lucid dispute what you are saying. Maybe that should make you pause, Herlock…?

[Fisherman]

11 out of 19 reporters in court said that he did. Are you suggesting they imagined the word ‘about?’

Noone suggeted that he said ”around 3.35”. My point is another one than the one you challenge, thus.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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!

Likeliest isn’t the point.

If something could have taken between 10 and 20 minutes (as a random example) then both 10 and 20 are possible and can’t be dismissed. So there’s little point in going for ‘likeliest’ unless something is vastly unlikely or likely.

[Fisherman]

No Fish, you are defying reason. I’m glad that your not a Police Officer because every single person who discovers a body would have the cuffs slapped on.

Dont start that crap again, please. It is only if you are at a murder site at a time consistent with having been the killer, and if you had opportunity, if nothing militates against you being the killer and if no other suspect is found that you can get under suspicion. Can we please, please respect this instead of generalizing wildly and incorrectly?

The notion that someone couldn’t have killed Nichols and fled the scene a few seconds before Lechmere is frankly preposterous Fish. Surely you can see this?

But I NEVER said that, did I? I instead said that no such person can be on equal terms as a suspect with Lechmere, not lesst since no such persons presence can be proven! The difference is humongous from what you accuse me of. I actually pointed out that if you say that there may have been another killer, I would fully agree!

If we are to debate, we must represent our opponents views fairly and correctly.

[Fisherman]

Likeliest isn’t the point.

If something could have taken between 10 and 20 minutes (as a random example) then both 10 and 20 are possible and can’t be dismissed. So there’s little point in going for ‘likeliest’ unless something is vastly unlikely or likely.

I disagree. Likeliest is as close as we can possibly come. It will not prove the case beyond doubt, but it will point out what is the most reasonable guess, and since we have pisters out here who rejoice in claiming that Lechmere is the worst possible suspect, endorsed by ”idiots”, it goes a long way to make the trolls turn to stone.

Actually, Thiblin ruled out 20 minutes. He said that 10-15 minutes was what he would allow for.

And frankly, Herlock, even if we do allow for 20 minutes, we must recognize that it would be a very extreme and unexpected outcome. All it can do is to represent some sort of weird proposal with no proven perpetrator behind it whilst Lexhmere fits the bill 100 per cent - AND is proven to have been in place, alone with the victim.

Why do you fear having that established?

[Fisherman]

Now I will take a break. I need some breathing space, and I do not want to become enemies with you, Herlock.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But I NEVER said that, did I? I instead said that no such person can be on equal terms as a suspect with Lechmere, not lesst since no such persons presence can be proven! The difference is humongous from what you accuse me of. I actually pointed out that if you say that there may have been another killer, I would fully agree!

If we are to debate, we must represent our opponents views fairly and correctly.

That persons identity doesn’t have to be proven though. All that is required is the possibility that such a person could have existed. Lechmere isn’t more likely than an unnamed man to have been the killer. If you admit of the possibility that another person might have been there then he’s no less likely than Lechmere to have been the killler.

[SuperShodan]

The defence of Lechmere and the timing question still requires a great deal of creative accounting so to speak.

03.30 becomes 03.35 (a huge liberty in my view). And of course Lechmere said he left home ‘about 03.30’ and not ‘about 03.35’.

Then the time the body is found needs to move from 03.45 to 03.42 or earlier. Coroner Baxter and Swanson both have to wrong. And as both are acting in a professional capacity they would likely be accurate as possible in their assessments. So we are now already at 4 occasions where any potential discrepancies, if there are any in the first place, are moved in Lechmere’s favour.

Furthermore, we also need Paul to be wrong about when he leaves home so we are up to 5 data points all going in Lechmere’s favour.

If any one of these goes in the other direction, for example if Lechmere leaves at 03.25, the body is found at 03.45 or later, if Paul is accurate about leaving home at 03.45 then it all starts to fall apart.

The defence of Lechmere involves taking a 15 minute time frame from 03.30 to 03.45 and reducing it by more than half to 6 or 7 minutes.

How about doing a time frame where we only change one data point and everything else stays the same, and this time it goes against Lechmere. He leaves at 03.25 and he’s found at 03.45. How does it look now ?

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

But your suggestion goes out the window if she was killed much earlier even before Lechmere left home

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I disagree. Likeliest is as close as we can possibly come. It will not prove the case beyond doubt, but it will point out what is the most reasonable guess, and since we have pisters out here who rejoice in claiming that Lechmere is the worst possible suspect, endorsed by ”idiots”, it goes a long way to make the trolls turn to stone.

Actually, Thiblin ruled out 20 minutes. He said that 10-15 minutes was what he would allow for.

And frankly, Herlock, even if we do allow for 20 minutes, we must recognize that it would be a very extreme and unexpected outcome. All it can do is to represent some sort of weird proposal with no proven perpetrator behind it whilst Lexhmere fits the bill 100 per cent - AND is proven to have been in place, alone with the victim.

Why do you fear having that established?

But absolutely nothing comes close to convicting Lechmere though Fish. The blood evidence doesn’t point to or away from him anymore or less than an unnamed person fleeing the scene seconds before he arrived. No sinister gap of time can be suggested or assumed because we don’t know for certain what time he left the house or what time he first came into contact with Nichols. Of course we can’t categorically disprove Lechmere as a possible ripper but there are very few subjects that we can categorically dismiss.

I think that the thing that annoys, and it’s probably something that has been thought about anyone proposing a suspect, is that it appears that everything is viewed through a ‘guilty Lechmere’ lens. For example, if from the beginning someone had said “hold on, Lechmere said ‘about 3.30’ therefore we can’t know what time that he set out and we can’t know what time he arrived at the body therefore we cannot assume a sinister gap,” then what is there about Lechmere that differentiates him from anyone that’s ever found a body? The name is mentioned but we have an entirely reasonable explanation for that. This is why people say “what’s there that points to guilt?”

[SuperShodan]

But absolutely nothing comes close to convicting Lechmere though Fish. The blood evidence doesn’t point to or away from him anymore or less than an unnamed person fleeing the scene seconds before he arrived. No sinister gap of time can be suggested or assumed because we don’t know for certain what time he left the house or what time he first came into contact with Nichols. Of course we can’t categorically disprove Lechmere as a possible ripper but there are very few subjects that we can categorically dismiss.

I think that the thing that annoys, and it’s probably something that has been thought about anyone proposing a suspect, is that it appears that everything is viewed through a ‘guilty Lechmere’ lens. For example, if from the beginning someone had said “hold on, Lechmere said ‘about 3.30’ therefore we can’t know what time that he set out and we can’t know what time he arrived at the body therefore we cannot assume a sinister gap,” then what is there about Lechmere that differentiates him from anyone that’s ever found a body? The name is mentioned but we have an entirely reasonable explanation for that. This is why people say “what’s there that points to guilt?”

Lechmere finding the body isn’t exactly what happened. He was found near the body by a witness. Its a subtle difference, but I think it’s important one.

[Trevor Marriott]

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!

Already been done here is his observations now can we put this Lechmere fiasco to bed once and for all

"I think it is certainly possible that ‘bleeding’ could go on for a period of twenty minutes, although I would make a distinction between ‘post mortem leakage of blood from the body’ and actual ‘bleeding’ that occurred during life. The flow of blood is likely to have slowed to a trickle by this time as the pressure inside the vessels would have dissipated and the volume of blood remaining available to leak out would have become very little."

"In many cases, the majority of the blood found at the scene may have seeped out of the veins. This can happen under the influence of gravity, and therefore, is not dependent on a beating heart (i.e. blood can continue to seep out for quite some time after death). As long as there is still blood throughout the body it can theoretically still leak out under gravity, so there could be a period of several minutes where blood continues to flow after an injury (including after death... it is not unusual for a body that has been dead for some time to ‘bleed’ from a knife wound when you start moving it)."

"This is likely to be minimal (almost negligible) in nature, as the majority of the blood that could come out would have done so much sooner. If a witness discovered a body that was still bleeding relatively profusely, then the injuries are likely to have been inflicted more recently than 20 minutes previously... but if the 20 minute period is critical in ruling out / in certain suspects, then I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility of some continued blood loss at this time, as I think, it would be possible. (I base this on my own observations of seeing blood leak out of bodies when I have been present at murder scenes some hours after death"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Lechmere finding the body isn’t exactly what happened. He was found near the body by a witness. Its a subtle difference, but I think it’s important one.

hi super
agree with this and your previous well put post. to me the timings minutia debate is somewhat secondary in that he was found standing near the body of a freshly killed victim. so he is clearly in the frame to be her killer, regardless of the timings, because were never going to be able to pin them down to exact time and it would have only taken a short amount of time a minute or two to kill her any way.

and agree with you on your previous post about leaving about or around 3:30. when someone says something like that, it dosnt mean he says he didnt leave at 3:30, it means hes unsure of exactly when he left. and since no one knows exactly when he left the best bet is he left closer to 3:30 then any other time. totally get your point.

IMHO the timing and the circs (being seen near the freshly dead victim) is more incriminating than exculpatory. but that just me.