Evidence of innocence

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

So are all the other persons who found the bodies of the other victims suspects in your eyes

The time of death of Nicholls has not been conclusivley proved so your term freshly dead doesnt apply she could have been killled long before Lechmere even left home

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[SuperShodan]

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.

Cheers Abby. I appreciate that. I do think people get bogged down in minor details and miss the big picture. When you take a step back we have a man found standing near a freshly killed dead body down a deserted back street. And many don’t appear to find this suspicious.

[Trevor Marriott]

Cheers Abby. In appreciate that. I do think people get bogged down in minor details and miss the big picture. When you take a step back we have a man found standing near a freshly killed dead body down a deserted back street. And many don’t appear to find this suspicious.

What was suspicious he was on route to his work a route he took everday !!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[SuperShodan]

What was suspicious he was on route to his work a route he took everday !!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It’s suspicious because the route is a short 6 or 7 minute walk from his home to the body. On this occasion it took him 15 minutes.

There is time missing, potentially 8 or 9 minutes. And what has he being doing in this time ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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 ?

I’m finding it more than a little strange that you can keep suggesting that times are being somehow manipulated in favour of Lechmere’s innocence and I’m finding it increasingly difficult to accept that you can’t understand what’s being said. Especially when I’ve stated numerous times that “about 3.30” could also have encompassed a time before 3.30. I’m sorry but I have to say that this is nothing more than a ploy.

Ill try again but you are clearly intent on defending your position without regard to logic, reason and respect for the meaning of a simple word.

I’ll begin by saying that I haven’t ‘moved’ any times to favour Lechmere. Not a single one. “About 3.30” is not a time. It’s an estimation of a time and I fail to see why you won’t accept that an estimation cannot be stated to be a specific time which is what you’re continually trying to do.

If I said to you: “I was walking along the High Street yesterday morning and I saw Trevor Marriott.” And you said: “Really? What time was that?” And I said “it must have been about 9.30 because I had a doctors appointment at 10.00.” Would you say to me, in all conscience, “so that must have been either 9.30 or 9.31 or 9.32 at the latest?” Honest answer?

You can’t for a minute claim that to have been the case. Everyone on here knows that it might have been 9.24 or 9.25 or 9.35 or 9.36 and all points in between. How can this childishly obvious point be disputed by anyone? And even if you feel that some times might be more likely than others it’s doesn’t alter the fact that we cannot state times with confidence.

…..

And so……

The point that’s being made by yourself (and Fish of course) is that if Lechmere left the house at 3.3O and found the body at 3.45 with a journey time of around 7 minutes then this leaves an unexplained/sinister gap of around 8 minutes where Lechmere could have killed Nichols. Two points are very obvious though…..

1. Lechmere actually said “about 3.30” which leaves us not knowing what time he actually left the house. 3.24 or 3.23 is a possibility but so is 3.35 or 3.36. Plus, although you and Fish go for a discovery time of 3.45 many others think that a time nearer to 3.40 is likelier but again, it’s an unknown. So I’ll ask again…..how can you claim a known (the gap) from to unknowns? The doubt itself eliminates the point. Or at least it should do when viewed dispassionately.

2. If Lechmere had left the house at 3.30 and arrived at 3.37 why the hell was he still there when Paul allegedly arrived at 3.45? Why didn’t he mutilate further? Why didn’t he scarper? Or did he just stand around having a smoke waiting for someone to show his handiwork to?

I can’t be clearer than this SS.

[Trevor Marriott]

It’s suspicious because the route is a short 6 or 7 minute walk from his home to the body. On this occasion it took him 15 minutes.

There is time missing, potentially 8 or 9 minutes. And what has he being doing in this time ?

The times are questionable as this thread has shown

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Any single person in the history of crime that found a body would be said to have been ‘found near a body’ if someone else had turned up. We can read no more into it than that. Do we really think that he would have hung around?

Let’s remember that by hanging around until someone arrived he’d have known that this would have probably meant going to find a police officer. It would have meant walking past street lamps and to areas of better lighting where either the police officer or Paul might have spotted blood? (And yes I know that Fish would probably say that he handled meat carcasses but he was on his way to work not coming home. How could he have explained wet blood? How could he have known that he might not have been taken to the station to make a statement about finding the body?

And all this for a man who has just butchered a woman in the almost totally darkness. How could he have known that he wasn’t covered in blood? How could he have cleaned himself up? What would he have done with the bloodied knife? This wasn’t just the boldness of a psychopath it was suicidal stupidity from a man who completely evaded capture in some pretty tight circumstances.

Doesn't make sense to me and I’m not alone in that.

[SuperShodan]

Any single person in the history of crime that found a body would be said to have been ‘found near a body’ if someone else had turned up. We can read no more into it than that. Do we really think that he would have hung around?

Let’s remember that by hanging around until someone arrived he’d have known that this would have probably meant going to find a police officer. It would have meant walking past street lamps and to areas of better lighting where either the police officer or Paul might have spotted blood? (And yes I know that Fish would probably say that he handled meat carcasses but he was on his way to work not coming home. How could he have explained wet blood? How could he have known that he might not have been taken to the station to make a statement about finding the body?

And all this for a man who has just butchered a woman in the almost totally darkness. How could he have known that he wasn’t covered in blood? How could he have cleaned himself up? What would he have done with the bloodied knife? This wasn’t just the boldness of a psychopath it was suicidal stupidity from a man who completely evaded capture in some pretty tight circumstances.

Doesn't make sense to me and I’m not alone in that.

In terms of hanging around the crime for any length of time I don’t think he did. I think he killed Nichols and was caught completely unawares by Paul. I think at most Nichols was killed a minute or so before Paul arrives. Maybe less. When Paul sees Lechmere “standing where the woman was” I think Lechmere has quickly tidied up the murder scene and stepped back from the body.

I think he was a blitz killer, he was impulsive, and put very little thought into it. In my view of the C5 killings he narrowly avoided being caught at 2 of them. Nichols and Stride. He was clumsy, impulsive, a risk taker, and only good luck and incompetent police saved him. He wasn’t a master criminal, just a very lucky one.

Moving on, Lechmere could indeed have been covered in blood, but he didn’t have time to weigh up the pro’s and con’s, he was acting on impulse and reacting to the developing situation. Luckily for him he wasn’t covered in blood, likely as Nichols had been strangled to death before he cut her i.e. no blood pressure and blood spurting out arteries. I also suspect he had the murder weapon in his pocket the whole time.

Lechmere had lost control of the situation and was just reacting. Zero planning, just a murderer on survival instinct.

Lastly, it’s been mentioned about people finding the body being suspects. This just isn’t a fair critique of Lechmere’s candidacy. Every victim is found by someone and clearly that doesn’t make them the killer. However, if you are found near a body by a witness, and that body has been recently killed, then you are front and centre of any credible investigation. It’s astonishing to me that Lechmere wasn’t.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In terms of hanging around the crime for any length of time I don’t think he did. I think he killed Nichols and was caught completely unawares by Paul. I think at most Nichols was killed a minute or so before Paul arrives. Maybe less. When Paul sees Lechmere “standing where the woman was” I think Lechmere has quickly tidied up the murder scene and stepped back from the body.

But you’ve stated a belief that he left the house at 3.30 and appear to agree with Fish in a discovery time of just before 3.45. So that’s a period of around 14 minutes. The walk would have taken way 7 minutes. This leaves us with 7 minutes. How could it have taken anywhere near 7 minutes to inflict the injuries that were inflicted on Nichols?

I think he was a blitz killer, he was impulsive, and put very little thought into it. In my view of the C5 killings he narrowly avoided being caught at 2 of them. Nichols and Stride. He was clumsy, impulsive, a risk taker, and only good luck and incompetent police saved him. He wasn’t a master criminal, just a very lucky one.

Ok. But that’s your opinion. Others may disagree of course.

Moving on, Lechmere could indeed have been covered in blood, but he didn’t have time to weigh up the pro’s and con’s, he was acting on impulse and reacting to the developing situation. Luckily for him he wasn’t covered in blood, likely as Nichols had been strangled to death before he cut her i.e. no blood pressure and blood spurting out arteries. I also suspect he had the murder weapon in his pocket the whole time.

So he had time to concoct the Mizen Scam but he didn’t have time to deduce that someone arriving on the scene might suggest looking for a Constable? There’s no way he could have been sure that he had no wet blood on his clothes or that he could have removed any blood from his hands. This isn’t just ‘risk taking,’ all Murder involves risk, this would have been colossal and unbelievable stupidity. It’s not reality. Killers usually try and avoid being caught so that they can carry on killing. They don’t stand in the middle of the street calling someone over when they know that they probably have wet blood on them and are carrying a bloodied knife. This isn’t realistic.

Lechmere had lost control of the situation and was just reacting. Zero planning, just a murderer on survival instinct.

There’s no evidence that this was the case. It’s simply an opinion.

Lastly, it’s been mentioned about people finding the body being suspects. This just isn’t a fair critique of Lechmere’s candidacy. Every victim is found by someone and clearly that doesn’t make them the killer. However, if you are found near a body by a witness, and that body has been recently killed, then you are front and centre of any credible investigation. It’s astonishing to me that Lechmere wasn’t.

But it doesn’t mean that you’re guilty. Whether they should have looked closer or not still doesn’t come close to making him guilty. It makes him worthy of consideration but that’s all.

[Darryl Kenyon]

The body can still bleed for a while, as the system is still pressurised, or is full of liquid blood which will leak out if the system is cut or otherwise damaged. This pressurised state may last for an hour or so; but there is no blood circulation associated with it.

Regards Darryl

[Darryl Kenyon]

I also believe that when we look at the blood evidence we should take into consideration whether Polly was alive or dead when her throat was cut. As, again from what I believe blood will seep out far more slowly without circulation. Even if Polly was alive for only a few seconds after her throat was cut the initial spurt would empty most of the blood from the carotid artery and surrounding area a lot quicker.
Regards Darryl

[Dickere]

What was suspicious he was on route to his work a route he took everday !!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Do we have a source here or is this opinion presented as fact ?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Do we have a source here or is this opinion presented as fact ?

No, but on the other side of the coin, people who believe Lech to be guilty say that he could have traversed past George yard on his way to work the night Martha was murdered . The same with Hanbury St with Annie. Either way there is no proof , just speculation but his possible work routes are sometimes seen as evidence that Lech was guilty , or innocent if you will
Regards Darryl

[FrankO]

The Morning Advertiser tells us very effectively how Baxter spoke of LECHMERE as the finder.

I’m not disputing that the MA tells us that, Christer. After all, it was the truth and not only the MA tells us that.

The bit about 3.45 was what concluded a long listing of how Lechmere found the body and what he did.

Indeed it did, but it's not the conclusion of the long listing, it's what's missing from the long listing as per the DN and the Times.

The DN, for instance, carried the bit in the summing up as follows:
“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. Cross and Paul reported the circumstance to a constable at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, about 300 yards distant, but in the meantime Police constable Neil discovered the body. The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from a quarter to four a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data.”

As you can see, the sentence in bold is missing from the MA’s version and, so, the long listing you refer to above actually ended with Neil finding the body and this, albeit implicitly, introduces Neil’s timing to the table.

I can’t, for the life of me, see how Neil’s timing couldn’t, shouldn’t or wouldn’t be the 3.45 meant by Baxter in the final sentence of the DN quote. In fact, I think it’s no more than logical that Baxter, not having an estimated time of the discovery of the body given to him by Lechmere, sought to give an estimate for it himself, based on all the evidence he’d heard – including Neil’s timing and never disputing it - and comparing it to the closest timing he did have and to which he implicitly alluded at the end of the long listing.

I don’t see anything crooked about this line of thinking, but that may just be me.

Cheers,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m not disputing that the MA tells us that, Christer. After all, it was the truth and not only the MA tells us that.

Indeed it did, but it's not the conclusion of the long listing, it's what's missing from the long listing as per the DN and the Times.

The DN, for instance, carried the bit in the summing up as follows:
“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. Cross and Paul reported the circumstance to a constable at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, about 300 yards distant, but in the meantime Police constable Neil discovered the body. The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from a quarter to four a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data.”

As you can see, the sentence in bold is missing from the MA’s version and, so, the long listing you refer to above actually ended with Neil finding the body and this, albeit implicitly, introduces Neil’s timing to the table.

I can’t, for the life of me, see how Neil’s timing couldn’t, shouldn’t or wouldn’t be the 3.45 meant by Baxter in the final sentence of the DN quote. In fact, I think it’s no more than logical that Baxter, not having an estimated time of the discovery of the body given to him by Lechmere, sought to give an estimate for it himself, based on all the evidence he’d heard – including Neil’s timing and never disputing it - and comparing it to the closest timing he did have and to which he implicitly alluded at the end of the long listing.

I don’t see anything crooked about this line of thinking, but that may just be me.

Cheers,
Frank

It’s certainly not you Frank. Baxter was quite clearly saying that Nichols was found by Lechmere before Neil arrived at 3.45. It’s not a very convenient suggestion though.