Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Fisherman]

No, now you are seriously confusing the issue. As I've demonstrated in another thread, six out of the eight identified court reporters heard him say "about 3.30" and that must be what he said. BUT that was his own account and if he was the killer he could have left his house at absolutely any time and surely that is the point you need to focus on.

I DO focus on that too, David, you would have known that if you had read my posts over the years.
But the fact remains that as he said about 3.30, 3.30 has to be the opening point for any discussion.

Otherwise, I am familiar with the fact that people, kiilers included, sometimes lie.

At any rate, if we work from the 3.30 time, there was time to kill Nichols.

Once again, it is really, really simple.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

And, in a way, you have identified the flaw in your theory. There was no need for Lechmere to have incriminated himself in such a way - it would make far more sense for him to have given a false time of departure to the inquest, so your focus on using his evidence against him (when that evidence is so vague) is particularly bizarre.

Iīm afraid that does not change the given time one bit, David.

Letīs aslo admit that he may have been forced to give the right time, if his wife left bed with him and saw him off at 3.30.

In such a case, saying 3.40 would be the bizarre thing to do, since that could have him in deep trouble.

Life is a complicated thing, David. It is ever so easy to yell "bizarre!" and "flaw!" until we realize this.

He gave a time. We donīt know why. It allows for killing Nichols.

The best,
Fisherman

[David Orsam]

It would have made more sense for him to run when he heard Paul. That might have been what the real Ripper did when he heard Cross approaching.

You know Tom, I don't agree with that. If he'd run and Paul saw him then noticed the dead body it would only have needed Paul to shout "Stop! Murderer!" or some such and we know the area was crawling with police officers not to mention that there were night watchmen all over the place. Suddenly whistles would be sounding, lanterns flashing and Cross likely gets caught. So staying put and "styling it out" would have had its attractions for the killer.

Also - let's assume Cross is innocent - note that Cross said in his inquest evidence that "had any one left the body after he got into Buck's-row he must have heard him" so that alone seems to make it unlikely that the killer heard Cross approaching and fled.

[David Orsam]

If Lech being the killer is partially based on his lies, how can it then be argued he is telling the truth in some cases which makes the 'Mizen Scam' theory work?

Hi DRoy, apologies but I'm not sure I understand the question. Can you elaborate on it for me?

[Fisherman]

It would have made more sense for him to run when he heard Paul. That might have been what the real Ripper did when he heard Cross approaching.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

He was a serial killer if I am correct, Tom. And he was a psycopath. Since when should we expect "sense" from such men?

How about that knowledge of yours about bloodletting rates - can we share in it?

Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi David, or staying and knocking out Paul. Presenting yourself to the police is simply not something a man who just killed a woman - and still has the knife to prove it - is likely to do.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

I know - but seemingly only the Times gave the time.

Now we are going backwards! The Star on Friday and the Morning Advertiser (and thus probably the Morning Post also) and the Times on Saturday all gave the time of discovery as being about 3:45. So in telling a reporter that he was at Buck's Row at exactly 3:45 (if that's what he did say), Paul would have been contradicting the "official" account - as the police were clearly briefing the press about it.

[Tom_Wescott]

He was a serial killer if I am correct, Tom. And he was a psycopath. Since when should we expect "sense" from such men?

How about that knowledge of yours about bloodletting rates - can we share in it?

Fisherman

It's just common sense, Fish. Oozing blood is not the same as bleeding.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

But the fact remains that as he said about 3.30, 3.30 has to be the opening point for any discussion.

As if by magic you move seamlessly from "about 3.30" to exactly 3.30! If someone says they did something at "about 3.30" then about 3.30 has to be the opening point for any discussion, not 3.30!

[Fisherman]

David,

I've said the same thing many times to no avail. If Lech being the killer is partially based on his lies, how can it then be argued he is telling the truth in some cases which makes the 'Mizen Scam' theory work? Good luck convincing some though...

Cheers
DRoy

A killer who wants to stay undetected and who speaks to the police will not be honest in all he says. Otherwise he will give himself away when he answers "killing the victim" when the police asks him what he was doing last Thursday night at 11 AM.

Can we agree on that?

A killer who wants to stay undetected and who speaks to the police will try and stay as close to the truth as possible. Otherwise he will give himself away when he answers "visiting the planet Yihuuda-2" when the police asks him what he was doing last Thursday night at 11 AM.

Can we agree on that too?

Good. Then that should answer your question.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

It's just common sense, Fish. Oozing blood is not the same as bleeding.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

And "running blood", appearing fresh, what is that? And how does your common sense approach that? The last time over, you said that Nichols was not bleeding as Mizen saw her, which was a bit baffling. Where do you stand now?

Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;323630]Help me out here Trevor. What do you mean by a long time? Your own expert said this:

"there could be a period of several minutes where blood continues to flow after an injury (including after death)".

To me, "several minutes" does not sound like a particularly long time, although I appreciate the answer provided includes reference to discussing the length of a piece of string. Is there any chance of going to back to your expert to ask for a maximum amount of time that blood can ooze from a wound in the circumstances of a severed carotid artery? In particular, the expert that Fisherman quotes mentions a time of three and a half minutes for bleeding to death but, to my mind, it is not entirely clear from this if blood continues to flow after death and, if so, for how long. I mean, is there a maximum time? And when you yourself refer to "a long time" what is that actually based on? I mean, does that come from an expert?[/QUOTE

I have answers will post later tonight

[David Orsam]

Hi David, or staying and knocking out Paul. Presenting yourself to the police is simply not something a man who just killed a woman - and still has the knife to prove it - is likely to do.

Well, we don't know the relative sizes of Paul and Cross or whether Cross felt able to take Paul unawares like he did the women he murdered. The way I see it (if Cross was the killer caught unawares in the process of murdering Nichols, and that is a big if) is that he has no option but to act normally and agree to report the find to a police officer because anything else would have looked very strange to Paul. I mean, basically that's the whole point behind the lie he supposedly told Mizen, i.e. he needs to get away from the constable to avoid being searched as he is carrying a knife.

As I've said to Fisherman, this line of argument would be much stronger if Cross really had been found by Paul kneeling over the body.

[Fisherman]

Now we are going backwards! The Star on Friday and the Morning Advertiser (and thus probably the Morning Post also) and the Times on Saturday all gave the time of discovery as being about 3:45. So in telling a reporter that he was at Buck's Row at exactly 3:45 (if that's what he did say), Paul would have been contradicting the "official" account - as the police were clearly briefing the press about it.

I donīt think that is very damning in any way at all, David. And I donīt see any contradiction, since there was never any mentioning that Neil had timed it exactly. It was a matter of the fewest of minutes, and Paul did not stand much hope to discredit the police on the count. He had already done that damage by speaking of the coldness of the body.

It is not an impossible suggestion, but I donīt think it has much going for it.

The best,
Fisherman

[David Orsam]

I have answers will post later tonight

Cool, thank you Trevor. It's an interesting point and thanks for investigating.