Evidence of innocence

[Aethelwulf]

Ah, too late to edit.

I wanted to remove the bit where it says Christer ignors the 3:55, he doesn't always and that was my mistake. However, here is an example of what I was saying about his more frequent and larger shifts:
---------------------
Robert Pauls timing, however, CAN be checked to a degree - we can see that if the examination/ conference/trek to Mizen took around four minutes, as Paul suggested, and if he had arrived at the site at around 3.46, as suggested by how he said he was walking down Bucks Row at exactly 3.45 (strengthened by how he said at the inquest that he left home at approximately 3.45 or just thereafter), then he and Lechmere would have reached Mizen at around 3.50. And if the conference at the crossing of Bakers Row and Hanbury Street together with Mizens trek to the murder site took another logical 4 minutes, then he would have arrived at around 3.54, meaning that if we pair this with how Thain would have left for LLewellyn at around 3.53, we can see that it makes sense. Adding on how Llewellyn said 3.55 - 4.00 for Thains calling hi to Bucks Row, that too makes sense. In fact, every time offered in that end of the line makes sense - but ONLY if Lechmere found the body at 3.45. So there is the amount of independent data Baxter spoke of, and there are the only give times that CAN be checked.
------------------

Note, Christer has shifted PC Mizen by 5 minutes, he's shifted Thain by almost 8 minutes (I have PC Thain being summond at 3:45 by PC Neil, so he leaves the crime scene at 3:45 and change, the change being the time required to run to the crime scene to meet PC Neil in the first place). In this post he doesn't mention when PC Neil arrives, but, given he has Paul arriving at 3:46, PC Neil has been shifted by at least a minute. But since PC Neil says he pretty much immediately summons PC Thain, well, PC Neil appears to be shifted by about 8 minutes too.

Also, given that the recreation/simulation I presented, which requires none of those shifts in time, also recovers the 3:55 and 4:00 times for Dr. Llewellyn, Christer's claim that I've underlined is false, by demonstration, but this is what he offers as justification for those shifts in the first place. In my view, that seems a bit ... unsound.

Again, if you have a problem with my suggestion that Paul may have left a bit earlier (less than 4 minutes earlier than he would have to in order to get there at 3:45), then the guilty theory must really rattle your cage when you see shifts of 5 and 8 minutes. My single "shift" is based on the fact that Paul has to get there such that he arrives at PC Mizen at PC Mizen's non-shifted time. I shift less frequently, and by a smaller amount. So you must agree that is better, particularly given the basis for Christer's larger shifts is false, as I posted well before Christer's above post showing how Dr. L's 3:55 and 4:00 also get accounted for without these large 5 and 8 minute shifts. As such, there is no basis for his more frequent and larger shifts.

Or is asking for both versions to be evaluated on the same criteria just me "moving the goalposts" again?

- Jeff

Your posts on this issue are very good - some of the best I've read on casebook. You must realise you're wasting your time though? I suspect Fisherman and others have invested too much time and effort in Lechmere to concede even the smallest point (despite that nagging doubt they must have that he's innocent). I suppose you're keeping his ideas in check.

[JeffHamm]

Your posts on this issue are very good - some of the best I've read on casebook. You must realise you're wasting your time though? I suspect Fisherman and others have invested too much time and effort in Lechmere to concede even the smallest point (despite that nagging doubt they must have that he's innocent). I suppose you're keeping his ideas in check.

Oh, thank you. There are those far more knowledgeable than I here, and I've learned a lot over the years from them. Standing on the shoulders of giants, as they say. Also, what Christer keeps missing, is that I'm not trying to "prove" Cross/Lechmere is innocent, I'm just analysing the statements, and that ends up consistent with innocence. There's no obvious conflict in the statements. As such, that would be evidence of innocence (because that's what you would expect if he is innocent), but it's not "proof" of innocence. I've mentioned a couple times that the guilty theory would fare far better if they stopped shifting the times to suit, but focused on the fact that if Cross/Lechmere lied about when he left home, all the rest would make sense (those who have reason to be accurate about times would still be accurate, etc), and the one person who they claim has motive to lie, would be the one they accuse of maybe lying.

Now, that said, there are other problems with the guilty theory. The description of how Cross/Lechmere and Paul first meet, which is corroborated by Paul, doesn't make any sense. The positions are all wrong for a guilty Cross/Lechmere. The argument for why he doesn't leave (he fears he will be seen moving away from the area, etc) is a problem that is not overcome by choosing to move towards the oncoming Paul, and that choice only increases the risk he's supposed to be avoiding by not fleeing. It's self contradictory. And it requires that Paul not be able to see Cross/Lechmere as he moves away from the body in the first place. And if Cross/Lechmere knows he can't be seen, then the argument he doesn't flee because he's afraid of being spotted is gone. But if he doesn't know he can't be seen, how does he know it's safe to move towards Paul?

Again, I didn't set out with that solution in mind, I just set up the positions, wrongly at first because I didn't know which building was the wool warehouse, and upon examining that, and considering the guilty theory, nothing made sense. But the positions make perfect sense if Cross/Lechmere is innocent, so again, the conclusion of the analysis of the positions is the outcome of analysing them from both points of view. One makes sense and one does not. Had it made sense for the guilty theory, then that is what I would have said, but it doesn't.

And yes, Christer will have a response to this, where he will present his idea of how it does, indeed make sense. And if he presents something that is coherent in its logic, and indeed, makes sense, I'll reconsider my conclusion. I may very well have overlooked something. Happens all the time. So far, however, he's not presented to me anything that I find convincing. But he and I evaluate things very differently.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

This is something that is no revelation, Trevor. It has been posted before, and nobody has challenged that the human body is sometimes unpredictable. Certainly, there are cases where people with massive damage have bled for a long time.

But what I am after is how long physicians would expect a body with the kind of damage Nichols had, placed in the kind of position that she was, to bleed. When Mizen looked at the body, around nine minutes or so after Lechmere left her, the blood was still running from the neck. And what Jason Payne James and Arne Thiblin said was that anything beyond three to five minutes would not be impossible per se (which is what Biggs says), but it would be less likely. And of course, nine minutes is a lot more than five minutes and every added minute would be less expected than the one preceding it.

I am not as much looking for "It COULD happen" as for "It WOULD happen" if you take my meaning. They are very different beasts.

I hope you have read and digested the reply from Dr Biggs on the question you asked me to put to him on bleed out time.

I think having read and digested Dr Biggs answer I think your experts are not corrcet and as another poster suggested their replies to your questions were in line with what you wanted them to say to back up your theory.

So the reality is that Nichols could have beeen murdered some time before Lechmere came along, a fact even you have to now accept because your bleeding out evidnce you have sought to rely on is no more.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

This is not a court of law, it’s a forum for discussing the murders and in particular theories as to who might have committed them.

Christer and Ed have outlined the circumstantial evidence they believe damns Lechmere. Some responses, such as that by Harry above, ‘He is innocent of murder because he did not commit murder.’ state Lechmere’s innocence as a fact. Those are effectively theories of his innocence which deserve to be challenged as much as theories of his guilt. Which is what Christer appears to be doing on this thread.

Gary

I beg to differ, all he is doing is trying desparatley to prop up his theory which as the days go by becomes weaker and more unbelievable as the evidence he seeks to rely on and cleary supported by you is negated

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

I do enjoy your posts Jeff but after moving the times around we are now moving Lechmere 30m away from the body.

It appears to me that by Pauls arrival Lechmere has ascertained its a woman. I don’t see how he could possibly know this without getting close - she’s lying in the darkness. It seems their interaction begins with Lechmere saying “come and look at this woman”.

I would add that if Lechmere can tell it’s a woman at 30m then Paul can see a guy walking in front of him at 40.

Oh, I just measured the distance from the body to the more accurate location, it's about 12m, not 30.

- Jeff

[MrBarnett]

I beg to differ, all he is doing is trying desparatley to prop up his theory which as the days go by becomes weaker and more unbelievable as the evidence he seeks to rely on and cleary supported by you is negated

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So what discredited evidence is it that I ‘clearly’ support?

[MrBarnett]

Oh, I just measured the distance from the body to the more accurate location, it's about 12m, not 30.

- Jeff

Jeff,

Where does your ‘more accurate’ about 12m come from?

Gary

[JeffHamm]

Jeff,

Where does your ‘more accurate’ about 12m come from?

Gary

I misidentified the wool warehouse originally, and had him about 4m away. Once the correct building was identified, resulting in the new calculation of the location, SS thought that was 30m, but it measures to 12m. You can find the conversation above.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

So what discredited evidence is it that I ‘clearly’ support?

You support Fish`s belief that Lechmere was the killer which we now know is a non starter

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

I misidentified the wool warehouse originally, and had him about 4m away. Once the correct building was identified, resulting in the new calculation of the location, SS thought that was 30m, but it measures to 12m. You can find the conversation above.

- Jeff

Ah, I see. Thank you.

[MrBarnett]

You support Fish`s belief that Lechmere was the killer which we now know is a non starter

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But we know nothing of the sort, Trevor. There is more than enough wiggle room for Lechmere to have been the killer. I bet your Dr Biggs would be in agreement with that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh, I forgot to mention, Christer says that Paul testifies at the inquest that he left home at approximately 3.45 or just thereafter. I've seen his testimony as saying he left home about a quarter to 4 (that's in the Times). I know the wording can differ between papers, but I don't ever recall a paper indicating that he left ... just thereafter.? What newspaper does that come from?

- Jeff

Yup, estimations constantly used as exact times

[Trevor Marriott]

But we know nothing of the sort, Trevor. There is more than enough wiggle room for Lechmere to have been the killer. I bet your Dr Biggs would be in agreement with that.

There is no wiggle room end of !!!!!!!!!!!!!! The TOD cannot be determined by estimating the time it would have taken for Nicholls to bleed out.

The last nail in the coffin was dispelling Fish`s interpretation regarding a bleeding out time for Nichols which put Lecmehere in the frame for committing the murder whilst on his way to work. If you believe that then you might want to start believing in fairies at the bottom of your garden

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

But we know nothing of the sort, Trevor. There is more than enough wiggle room for Lechmere to have been the killer. I bet your Dr Biggs would be in agreement with that.

bingo Gary
Especially since he was seen near her freshly killed body before raising any kind of alarm. It would have only taken him a minute or two to kill her and inflict the wounds.

Its one of the reasons I find the timings minutia bac and forth somewhat meaningless.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Dusty,



Well, I would start on simply suggesting that Cross/Lechmere must have lied about the time he left home. Since we have no documented evidence concerning what, if anything, the police did to verify his statement about leaving for work "about 3:30", then that's a critical statement that otherwise has no corroboration. All the other times generally marry up the way one would expect, and none of the other individuals would have a motivation to lie. In the Cross/Lechmere theory, by definition he has a motive to be untruthful. Moreover, as we're talking about his route to work, he would also know how long it would take him to get there from home well enough that he would be able to work out what time he had to leave to appear innocent.

That would handle the timing evidence.

But, his behaviour. waiting for Paul, calling Paul over to look at the body, continuing with Paul until they actually do find a police man, all the while with potentially incriminating evidence (blood on him; a knife, etc) I find are incompatible with guilt. I've read and considered the explanations that are offered on the basis he's guilty, and while they are clever stories, they seem to me to be clever to the point of being fanciful. Explaining the rest of his behaviour, and the fact that if he's not guilty he has no reason to lie about his time of departure (which fits with all the others), is just so trivially easy if he's innocent, while explaining all of that from a guilty perspective requires far too self contradictory and fantastic ideas, that the guilty version comes out as improbable to the point where I think it can be rejected.

Obviously, others assess all of that differently. But again, if I were to try and come up with a story with Cross/Lechmere being guilty, I would simply start with "and clearly he left home earlier than he claimed", rather than change every other witness's statement to fit with the suspect's time of leaving home. But that's just me.

- Jeff

hi Jeff
I pretty much agree with this. If lech was the killer I think he left home earlier than the time he stated. But its possible he left at the time he stated too.
Just a note-and it seems odd to me that he discovers a body on a day he just happens to also be running late.