Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott:

You can argue all day about these issues and as i said in an earlier post there are always going to be experts who will challenge what another experts says.

That´s not true. No expert will challenge that if a person is decapitated, he or she will die, for example. Disagreements will occur only when there is a level of complexity involved. And I am not sure that there is here. Nothing stopped the blood from flowing, end of story.

Its time you dropped this smokescreen about bleeding out etc. It doesn't matter when or how she bled out does it? Because time of death cannot be established by this fact alone you have been told this, yet you wont accept it.

Yes, it matters a whole lot when she bled out if your pathologist is correct. I will explain why:
If your pathologist is correct, then we can bank on it having taken a couple of minutes only for Nichols to bleed out.
She had NOT bled out as Mizen saw her, no sooner than five or six minutes afterwards.
If there was somebody in Bucks Row BEFORE Lechmere, who cut Nichols, then we can conclude that she would have bled for seven or eith minutes, and that seems quite a stretch to fit in with your pathologists verdict. Even Mizen´s five or six minutes seem tight, but it is a very much more realistic suggestion.

The issue in question is what time she was killed, and for the 100th time of telling you, time of death cannot be firmly established by what we have available to us. So your theory cannot be conclusively proven give the times you seek to rely on to prove that theory.

Wrong again. If the timings that your pathologist spoke of apply, then we DO have something to go by. Then we must accept that she had been cut only a couple of minutes before she stopped bleeding. And that has the name Lechmere screaming all over it.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott:

We clearly do not know if the the neck wound was open or closed via the position of the neck. A person can lay on their back and still have their head to one side.

The pathologist very clearly said that if the neck wounds were very severe - and they could be no more severe than with Nichols - no such closing would come into play. So we do know that there was no obstacle for the blood to flow.
It does not matter in the least if Nichols had her head to the side. If she was on her back, and if her head was hanging on to the body by the spine only, how on Gods green earth do you think that tilting the head to the side would stop the bloodflow? To stop the flow, you would need to press the head against the neck WITHOUT tilting it.

And how could the head be pressed against the neck, if she was lying flat on her back? That´s correct - it couldn´t!

I fail to see what else any pathologist can now bring to the table with regards to this.

I don´t. I think that such a man would confirm what your guy said: that Nichols would have bled out in a matter if a few minutes, given that there were no blood inhibiting issues.

The best,
Fisherman

You can argue all day about these issues and as i said in an earlier post there are always going to be experts who will challenge what another experts says.

Its time you dropped this smokescreen about bleeding out etc. It doesn't matter when or how she bled out does it? Because time of death cannot be established by this fact alone you have been told this, yet you wont accept it.

The issue in question is what time she was killed, and for the 100th time of telling you, time of death cannot be firmly established by what we have available to us. So your theory cannot be conclusively proven give the times you seek to rely on to prove that theory.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Fisherman, you said on post #901 on this thread,

‘There must be something else that we can discuss?’

Here’s something else. (You must have missed my question the first time, post #826 on this thread.)

Why did Lechmere stop?

It’s a simple, honest question.
I would be surprised if have never been asked or considered an answer because I think this would make him the only serial killer to have done so.

I have posted my answer to this on both this thread and on the documentary thread. I have quoted the FBI, who say that it is a myth that serial killers never stop.

Here is the link:

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/pu.../serial-murder

And here is an excerpt from the site. They list a number of myths, and one of those myths is that serial killers will never stop. Please read and digest!

Myth: Serial killers cannot stop killing.

It has been widely believed that once serial killers start killing, they cannot stop. There are, however, some serial killers who stop murdering altogether before being caught. In these instances, there are events or circumstances in offenders’ lives that inhibit them from pursuing more victims. These can include increased participation in family activities, sexual substitution, and other diversions.

• BTK killer, Dennis Rader, murdered ten victims from 1974 to 1991. He did not kill any other victims prior to being captured in 2005. During interviews conducted by law enforcement, Rader admitted to engaging in auto-erotic activities as a substitute for his killings.

• Jeffrey Gorton killed his first victim in 1986 and his next victim in 1991. He did not kill another victim and was captured in 2002. Gorton engaged in cross-dressing and masturbatory activities, as well as consensual sex with his wife in the interim.

I have also asked a counterquestion that you are most welcome to answer:

DID he stop? Do you know that he did? If so, how?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

More powerful evidence.

You are welcome to expand on this.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Interesting how you approach the phrase 'a couple of minutes,' Fish. You obviously don't want Nichols to have bled for no more than two minutes, because that would prove that Neil killed Nichols. So you stretch the meaning. I think 7 or 8 minutes was your tops. That would, you say, allow Crossmere to kill and mutilate Nichols, deal with Paul, inform Mizen, and for Mizen to reach Neil. Now, I would say that 'a couple of minutes' is rather less than 7 or 8. But if you're going to stretch the meaning like this, Fish, then why not 9, or 10, 11, 12...?

The truth is, Fish, that you cannot make hard-and-fast rules at a remove of 126 years, concerning a body that you have not examined, and expect to be right to within a minute or two. You are asking for something that cannot be got.

I am not asking you for anything, Robert. I am listening to the pathologist, who said that that the bleeding off in a case like that we have would have been over in a couple of minutes.

Then I am fiorst and foremost ruling Harriet Lilley out.

Then I am saying that another killer than Lechmere seems a very long stretch, since such a man would have left Nichols bleeding for at least eight or nine minutes, and probably more, and that seems to tally very badly with the pathologists verdict.

If she bled for five or six minutes, however, it tallies a lot better with the same verdict.

Basically, the pathologist sees to it that the window of time for another killer is so dramatically diminished as to more or less disappear. And he strengthens the suggestion that Lechmere WAS the killer in equal proportions.

If we had had only this little bit to go on, and nothing else, it would still be a very tantalizing piece of evidence against the carman.

And when we add all the things we DO know: How he lied about his name, how he conned Mizen, how the clothes were pulled down, how Paul never heard or saw Lechmere in front of him, etcetera, etcetera, then there can be no doubt whatsoever that Lechmere is the prime suspect for the Nichols murder - and very little doubt that he WAS the killer.

What you do, is to - in the face of the growing pile of evidence - consistently claim that we cannot know that the was the killer, that he may have had innocent reasons to change names, to lie to a PC etcetera. It is all beginning to carry a very hollow sound by now.
And what innocent reason can Lechmere have had for Nichols still bleeding away when Mizen saw her...?

What "a couple" really means is totally uninteresting in this context. It is a buffoon issue in the errand. It has nothing at all to do with the underlying implications: Nichols would have bled for a few minutes only after having been cut, if Trevors pathologist is on the money. Ergo, if we want to find the killer, we should not look beyond such an amount of time.

The best,
Fisherman