Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

I still don’t see the significance in terms of Lechmere’s proposed guilt, even if he did discover the body at 3.43, because we don’t know what time Lechmere left his house. He said ‘about 3.30.’ So if he’d left the house at 3.35 or 3.36 where is the issue? How can a definite point be made by using an unknown?

3.35 is not around 3.30, though. It is around 3.35. And we tend to divide the time up in five minute sections, like how Llewellyn spoke of 3.35 and 4.00, whereas it may well have been 3.58.

It will always be a case of what we have is what we go by. The significance in terms of guilt on Lechmeres behalf remains how him saying ”around 3.30” fits with a finding time of 3.40 but much less so with 3.45.

I have mant times remarked that the average suspect demands that we alter the facts somewhat to achieve a smell of possible guilt, wheras when it comes to Lechmere it is the other way aroun: Here, people alter the facts to try and make him less guilty. 3.40 is proposed instead of the official line 3.45, you suggest a departure time of 3.35 instead of what Lechmere said himself, it is claimed that Baxter spoke of Neil, not Lechmere, as the finder at 3.45, it is proposed that Nichols woukd have bled for more than 20 minutes although experts say it would not be in sny way likely to happen and so on.

The various indicators of Lechmeres guilt are all dug into and altered so as to dissolve the impression they give unaltered.

To me, that has to mean something.

[Herlock Sholmes]

3.35 is not around 3.30, though. It is around 3.35. And we tend to divide the time up in five minute sections, like how Llewellyn spoke of 3.35 and 4.00, whereas it may well have been 3.58.

It will always be a case of what we have is what we go by. The significance in terms of guilt on Lechmeres behalf remains how him saying ”around 3.30” fits with a finding time of 3.40 but much less so with 3.45.

I have mant times remarked that the average suspect demands that we alter the facts somewhat to achieve a smell of possible guilt, wheras when it comes to Lechmere it is the other way aroun: Here, people alter the facts to try and make him less guilty. 3.40 is proposed instead of the official line 3.45, you suggest a departure time of 3.35 instead of what Lechmere said himself, it is claimed that Baxter spoke of Neil, not Lechmere, as the finder at 3.45, it is proposed that Nichols woukd have bled for more than 20 minutes although experts say it would not be in sny way likely to happen and so on.

The various indicators of Lechmeres guilt are all dug into and altered so as to dissolve the impression they give unaltered.

To me, that has to mean something.

3.35 is around 3.30 to someone estimating the time. It doesn’t matter how many times you say it Fish. Lechmere was estimating the time. This means that we have to allow a reasonable margin for error and 5 or 6 minutes is not unreasonable. You talk of altering the facts but I’m afraid that exactly what you are doing. You are tying down an estimated time to a more specific time.

Unless we can stated as an incontrovertible fact that Lechmere couldn’t have left his house at 3.35 or 3.36 then we cannot state that there’s an unexplained gap. I can’t prove that the gap didn’t exists but you can’t prove that it did. So the point falls.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another scenario:

3.43 Lechmere discovers the body

3.44 Paul arrives

They spend a couple of minutes at the body then…

3.46 the go looking for a PC

3.50 they find Mizen. He continues knocking up

3.50 Neil comes upon the body.

3.52 Thain arrives after being signalled by Neil.

3.53 Mizen arrives in Bucks Row.

[Fisherman]

3.35 is around 3.30 to someone estimating the time. It doesn’t matter how many times you say it Fish. Lechmere was estimating the time. This means that we have to allow a reasonable margin for error and 5 or 6 minutes is not unreasonable. You talk of altering the facts but I’m afraid that exactly what you are doing. You are tying down an estimated time to a more specific time.

Unless we can stated as an incontrovertible fact that Lechmere couldn’t have left his house at 3.35 or 3.36 then we cannot state that there’s an unexplained gap. I can’t prove that the gap didn’t exists but you can’t prove that it did. So the point falls.

I dont have to say it many times, and I hope you wont make me. When somebody says around 3.30, then 3.30 is a likelier truth than 3.35.
We will never get the exacts facts and timings, but we CAN see which are the likely ones.

[Fisherman]

Another scenario:

3.43 Lechmere discovers the body

3.44 Paul arrives

They spend a couple of minutes at the body then…

3.46 the go looking for a PC

3.50 they find Mizen. He continues knocking up

3.50 Neil comes upon the body.

3.52 Thain arrives after being signalled by Neil.

3.53 Mizen arrives in Bucks Row.

Again, you are starting with Lechmere finding the body at 3.43. As I say, I am fine with that. It is more 3.45 than 3.40.
Problems: Paul was adamant that it took no more than four minutes from the second he arrived by Lechmeres side to the moment they reached Mizen. And it did not take four minutes to cover the trek from Browns to Mizen, least of all if the carmen hurried.

Again, why not accept the times given? Paul arrived in Bucks Row at 3.45 and it took no more than four minutes to reach Mizen. Why must that be altered?

[SuperShodan]

Another scenario:

3.43 Lechmere discovers the body

3.44 Paul arrives

They spend a couple of minutes at the body then…

3.46 the go looking for a PC

3.50 they find Mizen. He continues knocking up

3.50 Neil comes upon the body.

3.52 Thain arrives after being signalled by Neil.

3.53 Mizen arrives in Bucks Row.

If Lechmere finds the body at 03.43 then Paul has to leave home earlier too. If Lechmere finds the body at 03.43 then he’s walking up Bucks Row before Paul has even left home.

However, whatever the time I still don’t see how Paul can catch up with Lechmere and meet him at the body unless Lechmere has been stationary at the body for a period of time, and not just seconds either.

In Lechmere’s version he finds Nichols just as he becomes aware of Paul. These 2 events happen almost simultaneously. This can only be the case if the 2 men are relatively close together walking up Bucks Row. But we know they can’t have been close or Paul would have sight well before he sees Lechmere “standing where the woman was”.

My point being that we have caught Lechmere in a lie. His version isn’t credible. Moving the time backwards to 03.43 makes it even less so. The further back we move the time Lechmere finds the body, the bigger the headstart he had over Paul, and the more improbable it is that Paul can catch him up.

For example, if Lechmere finds the body at 03.40, then Paul catching him up and meeting him in Bucks Row becomes completely impossible. Paul is still at home at this time.

[mpriestnall]

Q: What's a Lechmerian's favourite Dylan song?

A: The Times They Are A-Changin'.

Thank you.

[Fisherman]

Q: What's a Lechmerian's favourite Dylan song?

A: The Times They Are A-Changin'.

Thank you.

The naysayers are, I guess, much less taken with that tune?

Changing times? Never! It was Kosminski, but it will never be solved.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I dont have to say it many times, and I hope you wont make me. When somebody says around 3.30, then 3.30 is a likelier truth than 3.35.
We will never get the exacts facts and timings, but we CAN see which are the likely ones.

That’s simply not true.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Lechmere finds the body at 03.43 then Paul has to leave home earlier too. If Lechmere finds the body at 03.43 then he’s walking up Bucks Row before Paul has even left home.

However, whatever the time I still don’t see how Paul can catch up with Lechmere and meet him at the body unless Lechmere has been stationary at the body for a period of time, and not just seconds either.

In Lechmere’s version he finds Nichols just as he becomes aware of Paul. These 2 events happen almost simultaneously. This can only be the case if the 2 men are relatively close together walking up Bucks Row. But we know they can’t have been close or Paul would have sight well before he sees Lechmere “standing where the woman was”.

My point being that we have caught Lechmere in a lie. His version isn’t credible. Moving the time backwards to 03.43 makes it even less so. The further back we move the time Lechmere finds the body, the bigger the headstart he had over Paul, and the more improbable it is that Paul can catch him up.

For example, if Lechmere finds the body at 03.40, then Paul catching him up and meeting him in Bucks Row becomes completely impossible. Paul is still at home at this time.

Lechmere hasn’t lied. The only issues exist if we refuse to accept an entirely reasonable margin for error. It’s one of the curses of this case and occurred time and time again on the Berner Street threads.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Again, you are starting with Lechmere finding the body at 3.43. As I say, I am fine with that. It is more 3.45 than 3.40.
Problems: Paul was adamant that it took no more than four minutes from the second he arrived by Lechmeres side to the moment they reached Mizen. And it did not take four minutes to cover the trek from Browns to Mizen, least of all if the carmen hurried.

Again, why not accept the times given? Paul arrived in Bucks Row at 3.45 and it took no more than four minutes to reach Mizen. Why must that be altered?

Because it’s important to realise that times can’t all be taken as being exact. And to realise that the English language doesn’t allow a statement of ‘about 3.30’ to mean something specific. It simply means that he could have left the house before or after 3.30. Yes, we couldn’t stretch it to 15 minutes but 5 is absolutely nothing and entirely in keeping with the accepted use of language. This is simply a fact Fish. I’ve been speaking English for 56 years so I can say with confidence that I know what ‘about 3.30’ does or doesn’t mean. We can’t manipulate it to fit. 3.35 or 3.36 is an entirely reasonable possibility. Under normal circumstances so would 3.24 or 3.25 be but as he was supposedly running late that later time is more likely.

The whole point is that Lechmere’s time of leaving the house 100% could have been 3.35 or 3.36. Therefore we cannot claim a gap of time without claiming an estimation as an exact time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Again, you are starting with Lechmere finding the body at 3.43. As I say, I am fine with that. It is more 3.45 than 3.40.
Problems: Paul was adamant that it took no more than four minutes from the second he arrived by Lechmeres side to the moment they reached Mizen. And it did not take four minutes to cover the trek from Browns to Mizen, least of all if the carmen hurried.

Again, why not accept the times given? Paul arrived in Bucks Row at 3.45 and it took no more than four minutes to reach Mizen. Why must that be altered?

When you accept that ‘about 3.30’ could mean 3.35

[Fisherman]

When you accept that ‘about 3.30’ could mean 3.35

I already did - with the reservation that it is much likelier to mean 3.30.

[Fisherman]

That’s simply not true.

Of course it is. When somebody says ”I did it at around 4.15”, then that time is likelier to be the correct one than 4.10 or 4.20.

[Fisherman]

That’ s it for me for today. Nighty-night!