Originally posted by Fisherman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Lets get Lechmere off the hook!
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View PostIf the body did bleed for 3-5 minutes you still cant prove actual time of death
www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Of course, if she was killed an unspecified amount of time before she was cut, then it would not be possible to establish the time of death. But if she bled for 3-5 minutes after she was cut, then we could rule out any other cutter than Lechmere or Paul, unless somebody else entered the stage and cut her AFTER the carmen left the body.
So maybe we have somebody strangling her and leaving, whereupon Lechmere surfaces and cuts her. Is that your suggestion?
Or did somebody strangle her, whereupon Lechmere surfaces and tries to help her, and then, when Lechmere leaves, somebody else comes along and cuts her?
You are confusing things rather badly, are you not?
The best,
FishermanLast edited by Fisherman; 12-17-2014, 04:22 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View PostThere is also the possibility that Lechmere actualy told Paul "Hey, when we come up to that PC, I´ll tell him that there´s another PC waiting for him in Buck´s Row - that way, he won´t detain us, and we´ll be in time for work".
Paul would perhaps have been none to keen to divulge having approved of that later.
You se, Robert - all of your naysaying does not get you very far, does it?
Answer me this: IF Lechmere DID lie consciously about his name and if he lied about the other PC and if he played down the seriousness of the errand - where would that put you? If you knew this to be true, what would your reasoning about it be?
The best,
Fisherman
Just catching up...
My own reasoning might be that Lechmere (as well as Paul) genuinely didn't want Mizen to detain them and make them late for work, on the strength of a woman who may only have passed out drunk. You've pissed on your own cornflakes by coming up with this innocent explanation if he told Mizen there was already a copper at the scene - and especially if the innocent Paul was likely to approve of it. Not such a dastardly lie then, is it?
We've been through the name thing a million times, but if this is a man who does not want to be detained and made late for work, regardless of whether a woman be drunk, in need of immediate aid or foully murdered, he is arguably also a man who would have preferred his name not to be associated with that woman. So a Lechmere calling himself Cross in that context, when coming forward later, is not so surprising. Unwise perhaps, but not suspicious. And still we don't know that he didn't go by the name of Cross at work, and therefore used it quite naturally when describing his eventful journey there that morning.
Love,
Caz
X"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov
Comment
-
Originally posted by Robert View PostJust a small point, Fish : Paul spoke to the Lloyd's journalist on Friday.
And a not so small point : Nichols was not decapitated. I know that you know that, but I'm just trying to stop Nichols's head ending up in the middle of the road.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
Comment
-
I forgot to ask, Fishy: how do you imagine Paul came up with his press story, in which he was the star who informed Mizen about Nichols, if he never said a word to him and was also too far away to hear what conversation passed between the policeman and Lechmere?
Paul must have had a better developed imagination than yours, Fishy.
Love,
Caz
X"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov
Comment
-
Originally posted by Robert View PostJust a small point, Fish : Paul spoke to the Lloyd's journalist on Friday.
Nichols was not decapitated. I know that you know that, but I'm just trying to stop Nichols's head ending up in the middle of the road.
The point I am trying to make is that it matters little to the bloodflow if you are fully decapitated or if the head hangs on to the body by the spine. A failure to understand that is equally headless.
As for the Paul interview, you are right. It says in the paper, and I had forgotten about that.
The best,
FishermanLast edited by Fisherman; 12-17-2014, 10:51 AM.
Comment
-
Caz:
Hi Fishy,
Just catching up...
I wish you were.
My own reasoning might be that Lechmere (as well as Paul) genuinely didn't want Mizen to detain them and make them late for work, on the strength of a woman who may only have passed out drunk. You've pissed on your own cornflakes by coming up with this innocent explanation if he told Mizen there was already a copper at the scene - and especially if the innocent Paul was likely to approve of it. Not such a dastardly lie then, is it?
No, it is not. And I anticipated it from the outset. I do, however, think that the elaborate trimmings that came with that meal - the played down inportance of the errand and the sly lie about both Lechmere and Paul speaking to Mizen - seals the fact that it was a complex lie, and not something that was quickly concocted.
There is one more thing that needs to be weighed in and that you don´t touch upon in your post: Lechmere would have made himself guilty of obstructing police work. Keep in mind that he was supposedly going to pass Mizen´s beat the very next day too. If he had lied to the PC just to get him off his back (as you suggest), then Mizen could well have hauled him in and raked him over the coals for it the next day. And what seemed a win could easily turn into a serious loss.
So logic militates against the suggestion. So does all the other known facts, such as the false name, the pulled down dress etcetera. It only all fits in one context, and that context is NOT a story of a man that had the worst luck in the world when it came to coincidences pointing his way in a murder case.
We've been through the name thing a million times, but if this is a man who does not want to be detained and made late for work, regardless of whether a woman be drunk, in need of immediate aid or foully murdered, he is arguably also a man who would have preferred his name not to be associated with that woman. So a Lechmere calling himself Cross in that context, when coming forward later, is not so surprising. Unwise perhaps, but not suspicious. And still we don't know that he didn't go by the name of Cross at work, and therefore used it quite naturally when describing his eventful journey there that morning.
To begin with: find out before you speculate in it.
To carry on: At the stage when the inquests second day played out, Lechmere knew quite well that the woman in Bucks Row had been savagely murdered. He also knew that he had been alone with the body. He also knew that the police were privy to that information.
It would not have been "unwise" to lie about his name, thus - it would have been suicidal.
Hey, Caz, by the way - do you remember how you used to say that we had no case when it comes to Lechmere? And when we said we had a good case, you said that we could never take it to court, and that was what you had meant....?
Things sometimes DO change quickly, don´t they?
The best,
FishermanLast edited by Fisherman; 12-17-2014, 10:51 AM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Chris View PostImpossible.
The best,
Fisherman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View PostMost papers had said nothing about when Neil claimed to have found the body. It is only the Times, I think, that say on the 1:st that it was at a quarter to four.
"As Constable John Neil was walking down Buck's-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four o'clock this morning, he discovered a woman lying at the side of the street"
Then you also have this in the Morning Advertiser of Saturday, 1 Sept:
"At a quarter to four o'clock Police constable Neill, 97 J, when in Buck's row, Whitechapel, came upon the body of a woman lying on a part of the footway"
And the Times said the same thing on the Saturday morning. Clearly the police were briefing the press on the Friday morning or afternoon. Then you have Neil's evidence at the inquest reported in the Saturday evening papers. So by Sunday morning it was basically the official time that the body had been found (although I personally believe Paul was spoken to by the reporter on the Friday when the reporter was in the area speaking to the local residents).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View PostWhat is embarrasing is your denial to accept that the more senior man (Swanson) actually discarded the 3.40 suggestion in a latter report than Abberlines.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View PostBut I have also siad that what we have is what we have - and that is Lechmere´s assertion that he left home at 3.30.
Comment
Comment