Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Fisherman]

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!

I´m sorry, David, but there was no way we could reenact that in the documentary by starting our walk at about 3.30. 3.30 was the only reasonable option, since that was the hour mentioned. The closest guess one can make when somebody says "about 3.30" is 3.30.

Of course, you could argue that 3.30 is not "about" 3.30, and that we should have left at either 3.29 or 3.31 to satisfy you - but personally I find the argument slightly ludicrous.

There must be something else that we can discuss?

The best,
Fisherman

[David Orsam]

I don´t think that is very damning in any way at all, David.

I'm not saying it is. This all came about from you saying that there was no reason for Paul or the reporter to have come up with a time of 3.45 because there was no sensationalist value to it. And then drstrange169 pointed out that, in fact, there was sensationalist value to this time because it contradicted the official police account. I agreed with drstrange 169 and still do.

[Robert]

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?

You bet we can, Fish. So why would Crossmere tell the police his name was 'Cross' without mentioning the alternative name 'Lechmere' to them, especially if he used 'Lechmere' for all official business and never used 'Cross' even among his friends or workmates? He would have been crazy. He would either have given them both names, or he would have simply called himself Lechmere. Or did he have a sudden fit of psychopathic irrationality?

[Fisherman]

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.

"My" expert was speaking of the time it would take for all seven liters of blood to leave the body through a cut carotid artery, Trevor. It is a very theoretic construction, since that would predispose that the body was posed in a way that allowed for all the blood to leave.

The more pertinent thing is that the maths were done using the suggestion that the heart was pumping blood throughout. In the Nichols case, there is reason to believe that no heart pumping put the blood vessels under pressure, and it would therefore be a slower process to bleed her out.
But the fact remains that she did not only have one artery cut - she had tow cut, plus all the other vessels in the neck. That should speed up things.
She would also have had a lot less blood than seven liters in her body - thre and a half is a better guess, owing to her small size. That would also speed up the process.
There is also the fact to consider that not all of the three and a half literes would leave the body. Some would stay in the body, due to reasons of gravity. That too would speed up the process.

What end reslut we should expect, however, is very hard to say. There will luckily not be many other victims to compare with, who had their blood let after they were killed by means of cutting off all the blood vessels in the neck.

Maybe somebody has checked the process with for example dead pigs, I don´t know. I would be grateful for any input that we can get, so I welcome whatever your pathologist has to say.

The best,
Fisherman

[David Orsam]

I´m sorry, David, but there was no way we could reenact that in the documentary by starting our walk at about 3.30. 3.30 was the only reasonable option, since that was the hour mentioned. The closest guess one can make when somebody says "about 3.30" is 3.30.

Of course, you could argue that 3.30 is not "about" 3.30, and that we should have left at either 3.29 or 3.31 to satisfy you - but personally I find the argument slightly ludicrous.

There must be something else that we can discuss?

I wish there was something else to discuss but I still don't think you get what I am saying. I mean, why did you need to re-enact anything in the documentary? What I'm saying is that such a re-enactment was meaningless. The best you could do was time the route (as I did) and come up with (as I did) a brisk walk taking 7 minutes and a slow walk taking 10 minutes. You don't need to "start" at 3.30 or 3.29 or 3.31 or any other time. The short point is that what you were attempting to do was impossible given the vagueness of the witness time estimates.

[Fisherman]

I'm not saying it is. This all came about from you saying that there was no reason for Paul or the reporter to have come up with a time of 3.45 because there was no sensationalist value to it. And then drstrange169 pointed out that, in fact, there was sensationalist value to this time because it contradicted the official police account. I agreed with drstrange 169 and still do.

Well, I didn´t and I still don´t. If there had truly been sensationalist value in it, we would have heard it from the papers- they do not miss out on sensations.

It could have raised the odd police eyebrow, I guess. But if the police had concluded that Paul must have been lying thoruh his teeth, then it is VERY odd that Swanson ultimately bough what he should have regarded as a sensational lie.

And just to put the record straight - when Swanson made his call, he had weighed in what Abberline had to say.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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?

You bet we can, Fish. So why would Crossmere tell the police his name was 'Cross' without mentioning the alternative name 'Lechmere' to them, especially if he used 'Lechmere' for all official business and never used 'Cross' even among his friends or workmates? He would have been crazy. He would either have given them both names, or he would have simply called himself Lechmere. Or did he have a sudden fit of psychopathic irrationality?

Think long and hard, Robert, and I am sure that you will be able to remember what I argue on this point without me having to repeat it. A hint: it is knit to my suggestion that the killer will want to be as truthful as possible, without making his own life harder.

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

How can he make his life harder by being truthful with the police about a minor matter? Or are you buying the 'people coming out of the woodwork' scenario?

[Fisherman]

I wish there was something else to discuss but I still don't think you get what I am saying. I mean, why did you need to re-enact anything in the documentary? What I'm saying is that such a re-enactment was meaningless. The best you could do was time the route (as I did) and come up with (as I did) a brisk walk taking 7 minutes and a slow walk taking 10 minutes. You don't need to "start" at 3.30 or 3.29 or 3.31 or any other time. The short point is that what you were attempting to do was impossible given the vagueness of the witness time estimates.

To begin with: I did not make the documentary myself. I participated, but I was not the director.

To go on: What we have is what we have. And that seemingly allows for Lechmere to have killed Nichols, timewise.

In a sense, the exact given time of a nine minute gap is absurd - but is not absurd because it would be wrong. It is absurd because it COULD be wrong.

However, what was presented was the fact that Lechmere spoke of having left home at 3.30 (or around 3.30). That tallies badly with his being in Bucks Row at 3.45. To be in Bucks Row at 3.45, he should have left home at 3.38.

If he left at "around" 3.30, meaning 3.32, and if the body was found at 3.40, then the time gap disappears. I know that. It´s not as if I don´t understand!

However, the timings very much point to Paul being correct about 3.45, the way I see things (Thain´s trek, not least!), and "around" 3.30 can just as well mean 3.28 as 3.32 - which is why we can only work from 3.30 if we want to theorize. Otherwise, we tilt things.

Does that make sense to you? I really hope so, because I´m done for tonight!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

How can he make his life harder by being truthful with the police about a minor matter? Or are you buying the 'people coming out of the woodwork' scenario?

Think long and hard, Robert - you know my answer, you have had it hundreds of times. It´s just that you don´t like it. Remember?

I´m off to bed now. Tomorrow, when I wake up, I hope that you will once and for all have given the exact distance that counts as "by the side of".

Nighty-night, Robert!

Fisherman

[Robert]

I'm afraid I don't remember, Fish, but good night. I hope you have no difficulty reaching your bedside table, despite its doubtless being several feet from the bed.

[DRoy]

Think long and hard, Robert, and I am sure that you will be able to remember what I argue on this point without me having to repeat it. A hint: it is knit to my suggestion that the killer will want to be as truthful as possible, without making his own life harder.

The best,
Fisherman

Fish,

Wouldn't he be making his life easier if he said he left his house at 3:35 instead of around 3:30 so there would be no 'time gap'? Wouldn't he be making his life easier if he didn't make a comment to Mizen about a policeman wanting him in Buck's Row? Wouldn't he be making his life easier if he just ran or and hid instead of bringing Paul over to the body? Wouldn't he make his life easier by not killing someone so close to his work time?

I could go on but I think you get my point. Sure, if he was the killer, I guess you're right, he got away with it! However, he sure made a lot of decisions that did make his life harder.

Cheers
DRoy

[David Orsam]

Does that make sense to you? I really hope so, because I´m done for tonight!

We have certainly got much closer to an understanding, even if there is still a little distance between us. Thanks for engaging in the debate.

[David Orsam]

Wouldn't he be making his life easier if he didn't make a comment to Mizen about a policeman wanting him in Buck's Row? Wouldn't he be making his life easier if he just ran or and hid instead of bringing Paul over to the body?

As Fish has temporarily left us, I will take on those two questions. In respect of telling Mizen about a policeman, the point I think that Fisherman would make (and with which I would agree, up to a point) is that Cross is making his life easier by ensuring that Mizen does not insist that he accompany him back to Buck's Row where he could be searched and his knife discovered. He can't avoid speaking to the policeman because Paul has supposedly caught him (almost) in the act of murder. He can't run because of the risk of being caught by one the many police officers patrolling the area, while hiding would be madness because police would quickly be on the scene and how does he then escape?

[DRoy]

As Fish has temporarily left us, I will take on those two questions. In respect of telling Mizen about a policeman, the point I think that Fisherman would make (and with which I would agree, up to a point) is that Cross is making his life easier by ensuring that Mizen does not insist that he accompany him back to Buck's Row where he could be searched and his knife discovered. He can't avoid speaking to the policeman because Paul has supposedly caught him (almost) in the act of murder. He can't run because of the risk of being caught by one the many police officers patrolling the area, while hiding would be madness because police would quickly be on the scene and how does he then escape?

David,

I know how the theory goes but in the order of events it seems all he did was complicate things instead of making things easier.

1) If he said he left later, no 'time gap'.
2) He could have ran then stopped just to get further from Paul who would have taken time to walk to the body anyway. Then he could continue walking normally. Plus, just because Lech chose to check out the 'tarp', why assume Paul would?
3) Lech and Paul approached Mizen only knowing that some woman was on the ground. They didn't say carved up or head almost cut off, just two guys walking to work who saw the same thing. There is no reason to suspect either one if they both just said what they saw.

Again, I could go on but these are early examples where he had the most opportunity to make things easy on himself but didn't.

Cheers
DRoy