Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott:

Fisherman
Please read and digest properly !


I invariably choose my own meals. They are easily enough digested.

But he could not have been able to give an accurate time of death based on the temperature of the body for the reasons I have shown.

Your reasons were somewhat odd. You spoke of the clothing covering the legs or something such. Well, it didnīt. It was up over the thighs until Paul pulled it to the knees. In contrast, her arms would have been covered down to the hands throughout. So if your musing swith cloth keeping you warm has something going for it, Nicholsī hands - not her feet - should have been warm.
There will always be an uncertainty involved in determining the TOD. But what we have is what we have. It should not have us go "he could not have been right". The better guess is that Llewellyns guess was an informed one.

To this point you talk utter rubbish ! You show me anywhere in any case where time of death has been solely determined by blood loss from a wound.

How eloquent you are, Trevor; utter rubbish, no less. It goes without saying that a person lying on the ground and bleeding from a totally severed neck can not bleed for very long.

You are ducking and diving because you know i am right !

I think many people out here work from the reverse assumption.

"If the police officers were not where they said they were, or their timings were wrong, they had ample time to make their statements fit before the inquest to cover up their wrongdoings, because by then they would have known the estimated time of death given by the doctor. That`s why we now have these anomalies with regards to the statements and press reports"

Aha. So itīs "if" again? If the policemen lied, then we have the wrong picture?

How informative.

The best,
Fisherman

[David Orsam]

David Orsam: How on earth can you say that I am factually wrong??? I can accept that I CAN be wrong, but how would you know that I am, David?

Have a look at Pauls paper interview. In it, he says that he came into Bucks Row at EXACTLY 3.45. Why would he lie about it? Why would he offer it, if it was not true? Why would the reporter make it up?

You most certainly are factually wrong because in claiming that Paul said he came into Buck's Row at 3.45 you have deviated from the evidence in the case and, in the evidence in the case, Paul never said he came into Buck's Row at exactly 3.45. Further, as you well know, Inspector Abberline concluded that the time the body was discovered by Cross and Paul was 3.40.

How you can possibly rely on that LWN newspaper interview I cannot fathom. You know perfectly well that Paul supposedly stated in the interview that "I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw" which was untrue. And what about "I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not.... after I had told him the woman was dead"? Do you say that is accurate? If not, you are simply cherry picking the bits of a supposed interview that suit your case while ignoring others that don't. The LWN interview has clearly ended up being published in garbled form through the interpretation and re-writing of a journalist. Paul might have said he needed to be at work at exactly 3.45am and the journalist misunderstood or misremembered when he came to write up the story. That's why we have to use the sworn testimony of a witness where we have it in circumstances where there is no reason to suspect that witness of lying.

[David Orsam]

Anyhow, itīs 3.46, and then we add four minutes, and we have the time 3.50. If we work from an initial timing of 3.45, we get 3.49. None of these timings can be said not to dovetail with Mizen saying that it was "around 3.45".

But here's the real problem you now caused yourself Fisherman. In saying to me that PC Mizen's evidence that he met Cross and Paul at "about 3:45" dovetails with it actually having been 3:50 then you must accept that Cross's evidence that he left his house at "about 3:30" equally dovetails with it actually having been 3:35 and then, if he took 7 minutes to reach Buck's Row, he arrived at Buck's Row at 3:42 and your "major" 9 minute gap has suddenly disappeared into a major black hole.

[Tom_Wescott]

Harriette Lilley Is as likely as anyone else to be speaking the truth.The time might be difficult to determine accurately,but 3.30, as has been credited,appears to rule out Cross,who of course needs to be the last person proven to have been with Nichols while she was alive.

Again comes Harry with a short burst of much needed simplicity and common sense. Yes, Harriet Lilley is the only person it might be claimed witnessed the murder of Polly Nichols. Her evidence should be afforded the same respect as Cadosch receives in the Chapman case, but it does not. This is largely because of the myth that she was 'awakened' and 'drowsy' which I notice Fisherman dredges up in his reply. At the beginning of this thread I offered to discuss the true story of Harriett Lilley but Fisherman couldn't be arsed so it will have to wait for my next book. Does it prove beyond doubt that Cross didn't kill Nichols? No, because such a thing cannot be proved. But then it likewise doesn't prove that Paul didn't kill Nichols, or PC Niel, or Mrs. Green for that matter. However, what it does is throw a big wrench in the works for the current mutation of the Cross the Ripper gene.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Again comes Harry with a short burst of much needed simplicity and common sense. Yes, Harriet Lilley is the only person it might be claimed witnessed the murder of Polly Nichols. Her evidence should be afforded the same respect as Cadosch receives in the Chapman case, but it does not. This is largely because of the myth that she was 'awakened' and 'drowsy' which I notice Fisherman dredges up in his reply. At the beginning of this thread I offered to discuss the true story of Harriett Lilley but Fisherman couldn't be arsed so it will have to wait for my next book. Does it prove beyond doubt that Cross didn't kill Nichols? No, because such a thing cannot be proved. But then it likewise doesn't prove that Paul didn't kill Nichols, or PC Niel, or Mrs. Green for that matter. However, what it does is throw a big wrench in the works for the current mutation of the Cross the Ripper gene.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Would Nichols bleed 20-25 minutes after having been cut?

Would Lilley have been called to the inquest if her story was deemed to be of interest?

Are you still claiming that all three PC:s were mistaken when they said that Nichols was bleeding as they saw her?

Big wrench? Good stuff, Tom!

Is it proven beyond doubt that Lechmere killed Nichols? I donīt know why the question has come up, since nobody has suggested it.

Is Lechmere the top candidate to have killed Nichols? Very much so, yes.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: But here's the real problem you now caused yourself Fisherman. In saying to me that PC Mizen's evidence that he met Cross and Paul at "about 3:45" dovetails with it actually having been 3:50 then you must accept that Cross's evidence that he left his house at "about 3:30" equally dovetails with it actually having been 3:35 and then, if he took 7 minutes to reach Buck's Row, he arrived at Buck's Row at 3:42 and your "major" 9 minute gap has suddenly disappeared into a major black hole.

Paul said he entered Bucks Row at exactly 3.45. I think that is the correct time. He would have reached the murder site about a minute later, at 3.46.

Lechmere said he left home at 3.30. That should have gotten him to Bucks Row at around 3.37. But he was by the body at 3.46, when Paul arrived. We know this because Paul actually found Lechmere there. After that, they examined the body and then they walked away down Bucks Row, took a right into Bakers Row and found Mizen. At that stage, the time could no longer have been 3.45, David. It would not have stood still. And Paul said it took four minutes in all, so we arrive at 3.50, justaboutish.

If Mizen mistook the time, why and how would that have forced Lechmeres departure time five minutes forward?

Have you really thought this over...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: You most certainly are factually wrong because in claiming that Paul said he came into Buck's Row at 3.45 you have deviated from the evidence in the case and, in the evidence in the case, Paul never said he came into Buck's Row at exactly 3.45. Further, as you well know, Inspector Abberline concluded that the time the body was discovered by Cross and Paul was 3.40.

In his paper intereview, Paul said that it was exactly 3.45 as he passed down Bucks Row. At the inquest, he said he left home just before 3.45. It pans out perfectly, and is therefore factually correct, as far as the evidence goes.

How you can possibly rely on that LWN newspaper interview I cannot fathom.

No? Then why is it that dovetails perfectly with what Paul said at the inquest? Can you fathom that?

You know perfectly well that Paul supposedly stated in the interview that "I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw" which was untrue. And what about "I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not.... after I had told him the woman was dead"? Do you say that is accurate?

Have I even mentioned it? Are you suggesting that the time he gave, and that is corroborated by what he said at the inquest MUST be wrong, since other bits were? Then think again.

If not, you are simply cherry picking the bits of a supposed interview that suit your case while ignoring others that don't. The LWN interview has clearly ended up being published in garbled form through the interpretation and re-writing of a journalist.

Then why does it dovetail with what Paul said at the inquest? Why does he say that it was just before 3.45 as he left his home?

Paul might have said he needed to be at work at exactly 3.45am and the journalist misunderstood or misremembered when he came to write up the story. That's why we have to use the sworn testimony of a witness where we have it in circumstances where there is no reason to suspect that witness of lying.

Oh! He "might have said"? And I am factually wrong?
By all means, use the sworn testimony if you want to: Paul left home just before 3.45.

Personally I wonder how that would take him into Bucks Row at 3.40!

Maybe you can explain that too, alongside with explaining how Lechmere must have left home at 3.35 if Mizen was out on the timings. And why Thain would spend nearly a quarter of an hour looking for 152 Whitechapel Road.

All the best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Fisherman,
We can also,as you do,accept that times are only approximate,that Lilley may have fully aware of what was happening,that the murder itself occurred after 3.30,but before the arrival of Cross.No forty minutes interval there.Your theory depends on a number of elements being factual,but which you can only state as being possible.Prove the possibilities as fact and you have a case.Cross could only have been the murderer if he was in the company of Nichols w hile she w as alive.Prove that he was.

[Trevor Marriott]

Would Nichols bleed 20-25 minutes after having been cut?

Would Lilley have been called to the inquest if her story was deemed to be of interest?

Are you still claiming that all three PC:s were mistaken when they said that Nichols was bleeding as they saw her?

Big wrench? Good stuff, Tom!

Is it proven beyond doubt that Lechmere killed Nichols? I donīt know why the question has come up, since nobody has suggested it.

Is Lechmere the top candidate to have killed Nichols? Very much so, yes.

The best,
Fisherman

Where have you got this fixation for the bleeding being such a relevant factor in determining time of death? There are so many factors which determine the amount of blood a body will lose through these types of wounds, and none can be conclusive so this is where you fall down.

You have to accept that the doctors estimate may not be as accurate as you make out and therefore the time of death could have been much earlier as i said before even 10 minutes earlier which there is certainly time for, ruins your theory.

I spoke about the honesty of all witnesses re timings. Now I accept that these times maybe not accurate to the minute, and you must accpet this and that it must apply to all witnesses you cant cherry pick the ones which fit your theory.

Pc Neil
first pass in Bucks Row should have been 3.15am approx
second pass should have been 3.27approx (12 minute round beat)
third pass 3.39am approx which is when he finds body.

Now according to the evidence, by then Cross and Paul had already found the body and gone off to find a policeman, deduct 3-4 minutes for that so that brings the time down to 3.35am approx when Cross and Paul left the scene. Now take of the time allowed for Cross to be seen standing in the road as Paul approached, and time they spent with the body and that takes it down even more.

So there is no time for Cross to have killed Nicholls.

According to the evidenve, he then says he arrived at work at 4am

Pc Mizen says that he was told about the murder at 4.15am by Cross so if Cross arrived at work at that time then Mizen is wrong.

You see you case is built upon all the witnesses and your suspect being not only correct, but honest about where they were and what they did with regards to the timings. Clearly there are such fine lines involved that you cannot keep saying the evidence fits so Cross must be the killer, because the evidence you seek to rely on is unsafe.

I do not intend to keep trying to make you aware of these issues and it is clear that you are not going to relent, but be careful that your tenacity and enthusiasm for what you have done which is to be admired doesn't turn into an obsession.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Monty]

Beats are 30 minutes in the day, and halved on night patrol.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Beats are 30 minutes in the day, and halved on night patrol.

Monty

I am only stating what was reported in The Times dated Sept 3rd and cited on page 35 of The Sourcebook.

[Monty]

I'm just stating procedure.

I'm sure the fifteen minutes wouldn't be spot on. If an incident, or break, occurred on one pass, he would try to make it up on a following pass, and tread that one a little quicker.

Monty

[Garry Wroe]

Would Nichols bleed 20-25 minutes after having been cut?

Stride did.

Is Lechmere the top candidate to have killed Nichols? Very much so, yes.

Sorry, Fish, but those of us who assess the evidence without recourse to confirmation bias believe otherwise.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
We can also,as you do,accept that times are only approximate,that Lilley may have fully aware of what was happening,that the murder itself occurred after 3.30,but before the arrival of Cross.No forty minutes interval there.Your theory depends on a number of elements being factual,but which you can only state as being possible.Prove the possibilities as fact and you have a case.Cross could only have been the murderer if he was in the company of Nichols w hile she w as alive.Prove that he was.

I think most people out here are aware of what can be proven or not. Equally, I think it is a bit useless to go "prove this, and prove that".

Lechmere was found alone by a freshly killed victim, without having raised any alarm.

She was still bleeding many minutes after Lechmere left her.

When he went to the police, he started out by giving them a name that he is not known to have used on any other occasion. We also know that he regularly used his real name of Lechmere when speaking to the authoritites.

He seemingly lied his way past the police on the murder night.

His two logical treks to work, along Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street, would have taken him right past four of six murders, whereas the other two can be explained by other factors in his life.

There are a number of anomalies built into the case, like the accoustic evidence, the pulled down dress, etcetera, that fit nicely into the theory that he was the killer.

A barrister and a murder squad detective both thought that Charles Lechmere was a very good and viable suspect, presenting a case good enoug to present before a court of law.

That does not make it a proven case. But it DOES make it the best case ever made for the Ripperīs role.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe: Stride did.

I will let you expand on that, establishing exactly when Stride was cut, and following it up by finding us proof that she bled twenty or more minutes afterwards.

Then, when you have established these trifles, we can start discussion the differences in damage inbetween Nichols and Stride.

The best,
Fisherman