Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

    I think people assume an element of forward planning in Bucks Row and I don’t think there was.
    Bingo. It would have been a case of adjusting to what came along. From Pauls arrival on, nothing would - or indeed could -have been in any plannning on Lechmeres behalf.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

      Bingo. It would have been a case of adjusting to what came along. From Pauls arrival on, nothing would - or indeed could -have been in any plannning on Lechmeres behalf.
      This is all ridiculous you have no proof Lechmere killed anyone.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
        However much blood the killer might or might not have got on his hands Fish we surely at least have to accept the very real possibility (even probability) that the killer would have had some blood on his hands plus a bloodied knife. When he heard Paul approaching he had the opportunity to walk away into the darkness. By the time that Paul arrived at the body, checked and found that she was dead, perhaps 30, 40 or 50 seconds would have passed by which time the killer would have left Bucks Row. Anyone that he ‘might’ have bumped into wouldn’t have known about the murder and would have paid little attention to him especially in the poorly lit streets. And how many people who decide to chase after a knife-wielding killer?

        Yes ther are always risks but taking flight was a massively less risky option for the killer. By waiting for Paul to arrive Lechmere couldn’t have failed to realise that getting a Constable would have been suggested. This would have meant first walking past street lamps with the chance of Paul spotting blood plus the added risk of close questioning by a Constable with a request to “turn out your pockets.’

        Of course there were massive risks involved in killing a woman in the streets but the killer killed because he was compelled to do so and would probably have intended to continue doing so (as he did) To do this, very obviously, he needed to remain at liberty. So why the absolutely needless risk when a far lower risk option was available. And let’s face it, this wasn’t a complex decision.
        There is also the likelihhod that if he were the killer and he had blood on his hands with the panic that would have set it when he heard Paul coming he might not have even noticed the blood on his hands, or if he did how would he have firstly cleaned his hands because ant blood would have dried quickly on his hands making it difficult to remove, and secondly how would he have explained it to Paul and if that blood was of significant quantity Paul might have noticed it.

        I know some will say that he could have explained it by simply saying that he touched the body, but then the police should have got him to explain exactly how he touched the body to seee if the victims blood could have been transferred in that way

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
          [I][B]... Lechmere is innocent because Paul says Mrs Nichols was dead before Lechmere left home...
          Nice to see Robert Paul's expertise in forensic pathology being properly acknowledged. Frankly, I'm staggered the police didn't seek out his estimates concerning all the other killings.

          M.
          Last edited by Mark J D; 01-08-2022, 12:09 PM.

          Comment


          • Interesting news paper article from a previous post. It would appear to place our Pickford’s carman at the scene of the crime very close to the point of death.




            She was first discovered by a carman named Cross on his way to his work. Paul, another carman, came up, and together they went to the woman. She was only just dead, if life was really extinct. Paul says he felt a slight movement of her breast, and thought she was breathing. Cross says her hand was cold, but her face was warm. Neither appears to have realised the real condition of the woman, and no injuries were noticed by them; but this, no doubt, is accounted for by the early hour of the morning and the darkness of the spot.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post
              Interesting news paper article from a previous post. It would appear to place our Pickford’s carman at the scene of the crime very close to the point of death.




              She was first discovered by a carman named Cross on his way to his work. Paul, another carman, came up, and together they went to the woman. She was only just dead, if life was really extinct. Paul says he felt a slight movement of her breast, and thought she was breathing. Cross says her hand was cold, but her face was warm. Neither appears to have realised the real condition of the woman, and no injuries were noticed by them; but this, no doubt, is accounted for by the early hour of the morning and the darkness of the spot.
              It also correctly suggests Lechmere was a witness and nothing more.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by John Wheat View Post

                This is all ridiculous you have no proof Lechmere killed anyone.
                Would you direct me to the post where I said that there is absolute proof that Lechmere killed all or any of the Ripper victims? Because if you canīt, then you have no point, do you?

                You are participating on public boards where the Ripper case is discussed and much of that discussion revolves around suspects in the case. If you find that ridiculous, I really canīt see what you are doing out here. Maybe you should devote your time to less ridiculous boards?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post
                  Interesting news paper article from a previous post. It would appear to place our Pickford’s carman at the scene of the crime very close to the point of death.




                  She was first discovered by a carman named Cross on his way to his work. Paul, another carman, came up, and together they went to the woman. She was only just dead, if life was really extinct. Paul says he felt a slight movement of her breast, and thought she was breathing. Cross says her hand was cold, but her face was warm. Neither appears to have realised the real condition of the woman, and no injuries were noticed by them; but this, no doubt, is accounted for by the early hour of the morning and the darkness of the spot.
                  Indeed. And the two experts in my book tells us that the kind of damage she had would have been likely to bleed out in around 3-5 minutes. If Lechmere did the cutting, then he would have done so around a minute before Paul arrived at the site, spending that minute covering up the wounds, stashing the knife on his person, possibly checking his hands for any blood on them (I am not unreasonable) and stepping back from the body. We then get a cutting time of around 3.45, Paul arriving at around 3.46, and the likely time of when the blood should have seized to exit the neck wound would be 3.48-3.50, according to Payne James and Thiblin. However, since Mizen did not arrive until around 3.54, we can see that Nichols exceeded the pathologists expectations, bleeding for around at least nine minutes. And then we have Arne Thiblin telling us that ten to fifteen minutes would likely be the maximum possible time of bleeding, meaning that the suggested phantom killer would enter this oxygen-deprived time space - if he ever existed.

                  The scenario that offers itself up is readily there to grab for those interested in facts and realities. Those who dislike such things are welcome to favor the phantom killer, of course. They are even welcome to claim that he is by far the likliest solution - and to explain how that would work.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

                    I think people assume an element of forward planning in Bucks Row and I don’t think there was. Lechmere took a big chance in Bucks Row, it’s not a great place for a murder. Somebody turns the corner from the Brady Street entrance, or walks round the corner from the Board School, and you’re caught. And that’s exactly what happened.

                    The last thing Lechmere expected was that a witness would turn the corner, and the last thing he expected was that a few minutes later he would end up in front of a policeman.

                    Once Paul arrives it’s all gone horribly wrong and Lechmere has completely lost control of the situation.

                    People say it’s crazy to interact with a witness with blood on your hands, it’s suicidal to chat to a policeman after committing a murder, perhaps with the murder weapon in your pocket. The point is Lechmere had zero choice in any of this. He was a murderer on survival mode. He had avoided being caught by seconds. Everything that follows is him reacting to the unfolding situation. He had little room for manoeuvre and few options.

                    Interacting with Paul is a huge risk, fetching a policeman and talking to Mizen an obstacle he had to negotiate his way past. However, in each case Lechmere had zero choice.

                    So having blood on his hands, if indeed he did, was just one more problem he had to deal with. And for all we know he simply wiped his hands on his apron.
                    But he had every opportunity of walking away. When Lechmere first saw Paul he would have heard him first. It’s impossible to know how far away Paul would have been. Fish himself has spoken about the echoing of boots in regard to the issue of Paul not hearing Lechmere up ahead on his walk to work. So as soon as Lechmere heard footsteps, which for all that he’d known might have been a Constable, he could have walked. This could have been what 60/70/80/90 yards away. This isn’t a case of bending facts Bob it’s just the acceptance that Lechmere would probably have heard Paul approach before seeing him.

                    So Lechmere would immediately have been faced with the chance of being caught at the scene of a murder by a Constable, with blood on his hands and a bloodied knife on him. How could anyone claim that this is a reasonable option.

                    And even if he was confident that it wasn’t a Constable (perhaps it could be claimed that he’d judged the footsteps as being to fast?) then what could he expect from calling a stranger over? How could he know that Paul would just stand their yelling for a Constable? One thing that we know for certain is that he couldn’t have hoped that this stranger would have said “let’s ignore it and move on.” Therefore the obvious and likeliest outcome would have been a search for a Constable. This is simple common sense. A man who has had no time to check himself over for blood. How does he explain wet blood to either Paul or a Constable? And he can’t even discard the knife because if it was found then it would have pointed straight to Lechmere because why would another killer, unseen by anyone, have discarded his knife?

                    Lechmere would have had the option of walking away before Paul came into view. Paul would of course have also heard Lechmere walking or running away but, until he’d arrived at the body the checked to find that it was a dead woman, he would have had no reason for suspicion. And even after he’d found that she was dead Lechmere could have had a minute to get away. He could have been 2 streets away. How could Paul have found him? Would he have chased after a knife killer?

                    It just doesn’t add up. If Lechmere had no choice but to bluff it out then ok but he clearly would have had ample time. Unless we suggest that Lechmere had absolutely no sense of self-preservation I fail to see how this can be claimed. As I said….it doesn’t add up.
                    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

                      Would you direct me to the post where I said that there is absolute proof that Lechmere killed all or any of the Ripper victims? Because if you canīt, then you have no point, do you?

                      You are participating on public boards where the Ripper case is discussed and much of that discussion revolves around suspects in the case. If you find that ridiculous, I really canīt see what you are doing out here. Maybe you should devote your time to less ridiculous boards?
                      You start from the point that Lechmere was the Ripper though. Your other post assumes Lechmere is the Ripper. But as I keep saying you have no proof Lechmere was the Ripper. I find all this ridiculous because Lechmere is an extremely weak suspect. Perhaps you should find a better suspect than Lechmere?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                        Not killing at all is even less risky, Herlock. Why do that in the first place?
                        Of course there’s risk involved Fish. No one could deny that. But remaining at the scene was close to handing himself in.
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes

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

                        Comment


                        • Again we can see how Lechmere turns the tables, as I have so often pointed out. Ripperology used to be about suspectologists trying to shoehorn their suspects in, not minding if they had to tweak a little here and chage a little there as they went along.
                          With Lechmere, the tweaking and changing is all performed by the naysayers:

                          -The killer is likelier to have been there ten minutes or more before Lechmere, although two prominent pathologiusts say that the bleeding would have been most likely to stop after three to five minutes.

                          -3.45 is taken as the time when Neil got to the body, although Baxter clearly says that the time at which the body was found is fixed by "so many independent data". And there is NO independent data anywhere that fixes 3.40 as the Lechmere finding time, whereas there IS when it comes to 3.40.

                          - When Swanson altered the time Lechmere found the body to 3.45 in his October report, it is claimed that either A: He actually did not alter it at all, or B: It means absolutely nothing that he did.

                          - When I have an explanation to offer for why Thain was questioned about whether or not he visited the knackers en route to Llewellyn, everything goes silent and nobody can offer an alternative explanation to mine: That Baxter beleived that this was why the three PC:s said 3.45.

                          -Time and time again, the bacon-saving renovation, revision and restauration team is sent in to put fingers in the holes of the scenario the naysayers prefer, but all the time, the leaks are getting more and worse.

                          And in all of this, a poster who lives in some sort of parallel universe claims that when I leave Casebook on occasion, it is because I no longer have the ability to defend my theory...? The real reason is that I find that it becomes tedious and improductive when the same old nonsense is wheeled onto the stage to make a case of likely innocence on the carmans behalf that was never there.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            There is also the likelihhod that if he were the killer and he had blood on his hands with the panic that would have set it when he heard Paul coming he might not have even noticed the blood on his hands, or if he did how would he have firstly cleaned his hands because ant blood would have dried quickly on his hands making it difficult to remove, and secondly how would he have explained it to Paul and if that blood was of significant quantity Paul might have noticed it.

                            I know some will say that he could have explained it by simply saying that he touched the body, but then the police should have got him to explain exactly how he touched the body to seee if the victims blood could have been transferred in that way

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            Plus the Police would have said “how could you have put your hand in blood without knowing?” Especially if it was a significant amount.
                            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 John Wheat View Post

                              You start from the point that Lechmere was the Ripper though.

                              I seem to think that you start from the point that Bury was. Tell me, why is that something that is kosher in your case but not in mine?

                              Your other post assumes Lechmere is the Ripper.

                              Oh, there are MANY posts of mine that assumes so, not just the one, John.

                              But as I keep saying you have no proof Lechmere was the Ripper.

                              And as I keep saying, it would be interesting to see where I have claimed that there WAS proof. As far as I know, what I say is that there is a wealth of circumstantial evidence that makes the case very strong. You DO know the difference between proof and evidence, donīt you?

                              I find all this ridiculous because Lechmere is an extremely weak suspect. Perhaps you should find a better suspect than Lechmere?
                              One upon a time, many people found it ridiculous when they had it suggested to them that the world was spheric, John. What you personally find ridiculous is therefore something I weigh it against what the people, some well versed in Ripperology, say. And when I do, I find that your take on things is nothing I have to worry about.
                              It would be nice, though, if you could bring something valuable to the table once in a while, in stead of repeatedly puking about how Lechmere is a bad suspect. Then again, such a thing takes knowledge and motivation in combination, and we are not quite there, perhaps.


                              Ta-da.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                Plus the Police would have said “how could you have put your hand in blood without knowing?” Especially if it was a significant amount.
                                Yes, of course they would. IF they stopped him and IF he had lots of blood on his hands. But how does that mean that a killer who did not anticipate to be disturbed when cutting into the belly of a victim, and who certainly would not have expected to engage in conversation with a PC on the night would never have decided to bluff an oncoming civilian?
                                How do we, for example, know that Lechmere had not made the decision to kill Paul if he seemed to understand what Lechmere was about? And how do we know that he had not checked his hands for blood as Paul arrived? All it would take would be a quick glance and some little rubbing of the hands, and he would know if they were in any way wet or not.
                                And again, we are dealing with a man who cut out innards from women in public spots. Letīs never forget that.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X