Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Herlock Sholmes]

unless of course, lechmere scared away the killer as he arrived in bucks row. then its still just seconds since she was cut and dying and paul and lech examining her.

“While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement.”

He fancied that he felt a slight movement.”

So I typed in ‘fancied that he heard’ because ‘fancied that he felt’ didn’t work, to find a definition, same gist in terms of meaning. Not that I needed to check online though Abby because we all understand the language. It means:

“someone believed something without evidence or certainty.”

How can any weight be placed on this when Paul himself very clearly wasn’t certain?

I’m no doctor but, Cross kills Nichols. There’s bruising on her jaw introducing the possibility that she’d been strangled which is commonly assumed in these murders. There is a 4” and an 8” gash in her through with the second cut down to her vertebra. Then we have the abdominal cuts but because a completely non-medically trained cart driver ‘fancied’ that he ‘might’ have felt movement we have to believe that she was still alive?!

Really?

[The Baron]

unless of course, lechmere scared away the killer as he arrived in bucks row. then its still just seconds since she was cut and dying and paul and lech examining her.

If Nichols’ throat was cut to the bone, the dying process wasn’t a slow, drawn-out affair, it would’ve taken seconds.
A fatal wound like that doesn’t leave room for the killer to stick around, let alone vanish before Lechmere arrived.

If we are to entertain the idea of another assailant slipping away just before Lechmere’s arrival, then the faint breath Paul detected wouldn’t have been possible.

You can’t give a killer time to escape and still have Nichols showing signs of life when Paul arrived. The timeline doesn’t allow for it.

Why bother chasing after some phantom attacker in an almost impossible time frame, when we’ve got Lechmere who just happened to be standing there... alone... in the dark... at the exact moment Nichols might still be gasping for air?!



The Baron

[John Wheat]

Let’s be clear, I will not engage with anyone who has shown disrespect in any form, whether in the past or present. If you've crossed that line, don’t expect a response.



The Baron

Does that include everyone who has disrespected Cross by trying to frame him for several murders that he clearly didn't commit?

[Abby Normal]

Let’s cut through any ambiguity. If Nichols was still faintly breathing when Paul examined her, the fatal wound had been inflicted just moments before. And who was standing there at that precise moment? Lechmere.

If the cut occurred moments before Paul examined her, there could still be a small reserve of oxygenated blood in her system. The brain might retain enough oxygen to trigger reflexive, agonized gasps for a very brief period.

The killer would have had no time to flee unseen, he would have had seconds, mere seconds, to cut her throat and vanish without a trace before Paul’s arrival. That kind of vanishing act is impossible, the timing is crystal clear here, Nichols was just attacked, and Lechmere was right there. If Paul’s observation is correct, then Lechmere was not a passerby, he was caught red-handed in the aftermath of his own crime.

This isn’t speculation, it is basic logic. A faint breath means the murder had just happened. And if the murder had just happened, then Lechmere was the only person who could have done it.

Anything less than calling this what it is, a damning implication, is a refusal to face the facts.



The Baron

unless of course, lechmere scared away the killer as he arrived in bucks row. then its still just seconds since she was cut and dying and paul and lech examining her.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well he did on the whole book to be honest. Not tricky though when someone believes PCs on blood evidence, something they are not qualified as such to comment on but does not believe them on timings, something they are qualified to comment on...

Im currently reading Carroty Nell by John E. Keene and I noticed from the Mackenzie murder that Andrews found her body at 12.50. He blew his whistle and Sgt Badham arrived moments later and told Andrews to stay with the body while he went for help. Fifteen minutes after that Inspector Reid arrived to find blood still seeping from the throat wound. So, even if she was killed just 5 minutes before Andrews found her body this meant that blood was still seeping from her wound over 20 minutes later.

How can anyone try to claim that Cross was the likeliest killer? The killer could have been back home by the time that Cross arrived.

[Geddy2112]

Orsam slaughtered Christer’s efforts on the medical stuff and ToD. I almost winced.

Well he did on the whole book to be honest. Not tricky though when someone believes PCs on blood evidence, something they are not qualified as such to comment on but does not believe them on timings, something they are qualified to comment on...

[Geddy2112]

Let’s be clear, I will not engage with anyone who has shown disrespect in any form, whether in the past or present. If you've crossed that line, don’t expect a response.

Sorry? I'm not sure anyone has shown you any disrespect and if you perceive it as that I'm sure that is not the posters issue. You must admit your last few posts on this thread have not been your usual 'style.' You usually stick to one or two sentences and post brief but to the point posts. Similar to what John Wheat posts.

I'm fairly sure no one is wishing to disrespect you at all, I'm sorry I do not see it.

[John Wheat]

There is still nothing whatsoever to suggest Cross murdered anyone.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Orsam slaughtered Christer’s efforts on the medical stuff and ToD. I almost winced.

[The Baron]

Let’s be clear, I will not engage with anyone who has shown disrespect in any form, whether in the past or present. If you've crossed that line, don’t expect a response.



The Baron

[Geddy2112]

rjpalmer Apologies our posts overlapped.

I have the transcripts here and Thiblin never actually answers if he is referring to agonal breathing or not. Bit like Payne-James never actually directly answers the questions put to him, and of course Holmgren just makes up the replies as if they have. Lechmere Theory should be on Jackanory.

[Geddy2112]

Let’s cut through any ambiguity. If Nichols was still faintly breathing when Paul examined her, the fatal wound had been inflicted just moments before. And who was standing there at that precise moment? Lechmere.

If the cut occurred moments before Paul examined her, there could still be a small reserve of oxygenated blood in her system. The brain might retain enough oxygen to trigger reflexive, agonized gasps for a very brief period.

The killer would have had no time to flee unseen, he would have had seconds, mere seconds, to cut her throat and vanish without a trace before Paul’s arrival. That kind of vanishing act is impossible, the timing is crystal clear here, Nichols was just attacked, and Lechmere was right there. If Paul’s observation is correct, then Lechmere was not a passerby, he was caught red-handed in the aftermath of his own crime.

This isn’t speculation, it is basic logic. A faint breath means the murder had just happened. And if the murder had just happened, then Lechmere was the only person who could have done it.

Anything less than calling this what it is, a damning implication, is a refusal to face the facts.

Is this a copy and paste? Some posts today do not seem in your style Baron. My Spidey sense is tingling.

Ah the faint breath. The one Holmgren refers to as agonal breathing. I had the luck of been shown the transcript of his conversation with Prof Thiblin regarding said subject... after years of refusing to give it up he eventually did..

My question is: For how long a time after the throat is cut can the body perform something that can be interpreted as breathing movements? I am aware that there is something called agonal breathing, but I am uncertain whether or not it can be a question of agonal breathing in this case. Nichols had her throat severed at least half a minute or a minute before Robert Paul was sure that he felt movement as of breathing. Can it be that such movement remained at this stage, or could Paul have felt something else, a weak heart beat or a chemical/electrical reaction of sorts?

If it is correct that oxygen deprivation in the brain at a heart stop causes agonal breathing, it is also reasonable that oxygen depletion following on bleeding out also causes it. It is fully conceivable that a shallow breathing could be felt a couple of minutes after the bleeding out, which in its turn could have taken some minutes after the damage was inflicted. Other explanations, such as weak heart beats or an electrical reaction, I would regard as highly unlikely.

These are both Holmgren's translations as the original was of course in Swedish. Shall we examine them? Ok, for kick off the good Prof answers with 'If it is correct...' so he is not sure then is he? Remember this is the same Prof who when asked about 'bleeding out time' admitted to having 'no empirical data to go off.' Holmgren states Polly had her throat cut 30 to 60 seconds before Paul arrived, erm he is making that up. We do not know at what time the throat was cut. Please read Prof Thiblin's answer, like in the case with Payne-James the Prof is not actually answering Holmgren's question is he? He never mentioned 'agonal breathing.'

From the Sudden Cardiac Arrest Website on what is Agonal Breathing -

Agonal breathing refers to irregular, gasping breaths that happen during cardiac arrest. It is the body’s automatic reflex as the heart stops pumping adequate blood to the brain and vital organs. These sporadic gasps may persist for several minutes after someone loses consciousness. Agonal breaths sound like snorting, gurgling, or moaning noises. The chest may appear to rise and fall.

Does this sound like faint breathing to you? Like from a child as Paul testified? The term 'agonal' comes from the word 'agony.'

The agony of agonal respiration: is the last gasp necessary? R.M. Perkin, D.B. Resnik. "It may be as brief as one or two breaths to a prolonged period of gasping lasting minutes or even hours."

So that begs the question, why did Cross, PC Neil or the good Doctor not witness this 'breathing' I mean they all had a good enough look at Polly. It also means that the breathing could have started a while before Cross and Paul got there. Meaning someone else killed Polly and fled. You have to remember in the corroborated evidence Cross never approached the body alone.

Aberdeen Free Press 4th Sept 1888 - "Cross, cabman ,stated that about half-past three on Friday morning he passed down the back road, and discovered the body simultaneously with another man. They found a constable, and informed him of their discovery."

[rjpalmer]

This isn’t speculation, it is basic logic. A faint breath means the murder had just happened. And if the murder had just happened, then Lechmere was the only person who could have done it.

Not so. Even if we accept the unlikely explanation of agonal breathing, here is what Dr. Thiblin told Christer back in 2021:

"A few minutes" is the answer Thiblin gives on the question how long [agonal breathing] can go on for, and so it does not rule out an alternative killer preceding Lechmere..."

---Christer Holmgren 8/20/2021 "How Sure Was Paul?"

(Fisherman then resorts to his blood oozing argument for a more recent time of death)

[The Baron]

Let’s cut through any ambiguity. If Nichols was still faintly breathing when Paul examined her, the fatal wound had been inflicted just moments before. And who was standing there at that precise moment? Lechmere.

If the cut occurred moments before Paul examined her, there could still be a small reserve of oxygenated blood in her system. The brain might retain enough oxygen to trigger reflexive, agonized gasps for a very brief period.

The killer would have had no time to flee unseen, he would have had seconds, mere seconds, to cut her throat and vanish without a trace before Paul’s arrival. That kind of vanishing act is impossible, the timing is crystal clear here, Nichols was just attacked, and Lechmere was right there. If Paul’s observation is correct, then Lechmere was not a passerby, he was caught red-handed in the aftermath of his own crime.

This isn’t speculation, it is basic logic. A faint breath means the murder had just happened. And if the murder had just happened, then Lechmere was the only person who could have done it.

Anything less than calling this what it is, a damning implication, is a refusal to face the facts.



The Baron

[Geddy2112]

If Cross was cunning enough to come up with the silly Mizen Scam then why couldn’t Paul have been cunning enough a killer to have killed Nichols and then doubled back to ‘come upon’ whoever discovered the body?

According to HoL that would have been impossible, the idea is in the 'nutty column.' Even though basic maths proves he could have done it with about 10 mins to spare in between PC Neil visits.

Why do you think he gave the paper the 'exactly 3:45am' timing, for an alibi, he knew PC Neil would be on scene at that time... no stop I best not go there...