Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[gnote]

Different people will ALWAYS interpret things differently out here. I have vast experience of that.

I once engaged a forensic document expert who confirmed what I suspected in a case with a signature. The person I debated with "interpreted" it differently.

I then asked the expert to clarify, and he did. He put it beyond doubt that I was right.

Guess what my opponent did then? Correct: He said "That was not what he said the first time!"

So much for "interpretations"!

The best,
Fisherman

More powerful evidence.

[Richard Patterson]

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.

[Fisherman]

Well that may be so but the evidence nevertheless was that it was very dark.

Paul: "It was very dark, and he did not notice any blood".

Cross: "He did not notice any blood, as it was very dark".

So whichever way you look at it, it was very dark. Now think of the colour of blood. It's dark isn't it? How do you see something dark in the dark? I would suggest it's not easy.

And while he might have seen her clothes (it's not actually clear from the evidence if he saw or felt them) he certainly did not see her breath, which would be quite a feat. He said he "knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe". Why you think that involves seeing anything is beyond me.

David!

A few points.

Blood is dark, yes. But that does not necessarily mean that is is hard to see in darkness! What we actually do loose in darkness is our ability to see colours. What is left to us is the ability to recognize greyscales.
Basically, what that means is that we will have difficulties seeing dark things against dark backgrounds.
We will, however, easily see dark things against light backgrounds.
It must be VERY dark before we mistkake a zebre for a horse.

Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul did not walk through a city with no light. They did not do their treks by feeling their way against the house facades. They walked briskly along pavements that they could readily see.

When Lechmere was five or six yards from the body outside Browns, he could make it out (of course, I think that he never did see it from there, but anyway...)
He could see Paul and Paul could see him. They could see that the bonnet was off, but close to her head (and it was a black bonnet, so how could they see that one...?) They could see the drawn up clothes, and Paul did not trip over Nichols´ body as he knelt down to check her breath. He could see where her head and mouth were (which is why I said that he could see to check for breath, by the way), and he did not have to fumble with his hands to find her. She looked as if she had been outraged, both men say, and that too was something they assessed by sight.

In the Daily Telegraph, Lechmere says that he could not see that her neck had been cut, on account of it being a dark night. And that is a situation where dark blood would have been present on white skin. He SHOULD have been able to see it - if he looked. The same goes for Paul. That is why I think Lechmere may have covered the neck wounds too.

Look once more at how the two men word things. You quoted that from the Times, but did you see the difference?

Paul: "It was very dark, and he did not notice any blood".

Cross: "He did not notice any blood, as it was very dark".

What Paul says is that it was very dark, and that he did not notice any blood. He does not say that it was so dark that he could not see the blood, he just acknowledges that it WAS very dark, and from there he goes on to say that he did not see any blood. He does not couple the two statements to each other per se. It is af he reasons that he may perhaps have missed the blood on account of the darkness, as if he suggests that this could be so.

Lechmere, however, DOES couple the same statements. It was too dark to see any blood. That was why he did not see it.

But it was NOT too dark to see any blood. If it had been there and if it had been against the skin, it would have been something that he could have made out.

But instead of recognizing this, he feeds the inquest the information that it was too dark to enable for him (or anybody else) to see any blood.

It is an interesting difference. It may be down to how the paper reported it, and the carmen may have expressed themselves differently. But in the end, I find it very typical that this difference is there. It´s always like that when we look at what was said at the inquest - Lechmere always leaves me with a feeling of having steered things in the direction he wanted to.

Others will laugh at this point, though!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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

[The Good Michael]

Look once more at how the two men word things. You quoted that from the Times, but did you see the difference?

Paul: "It was very dark, and he did not notice any blood".

Cross: "He did not notice any blood, as it was very dark".

What Paul says is that it was very dark, and that he did not notice any blood. He does not say that it was so dark that he could not see the blood, he just acknowledges that it WAS very dark, and from there he goes on to say that he did not see any blood. He does not couple the two statements to each other per se. It is af he reasons that he may perhaps have missed the blood on account of the darkness, as if he suggests that this could be so.

Lechmere, however, DOES couple the same statements. It was too dark to see any blood. That was why he did not see it.

But it was NOT too dark to see any blood. If it had been there and if it had been against the skin, it would have been something that he could have made out.

Paul said the same thing exactly by intent, if not by the same literal components. He gave the excuse that it was dark to qualify his inability to see any blood. Any nuance you suggest that makes Cross out to be more cunning in his statements comes from prejudice on your part and not from reality. This kind of thing is absolute dishonesty.

Mike

[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

[Fisherman]

More powerful evidence.

You are welcome to expand on this.

The best,
Fisherman

[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

[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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[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

[Richard Patterson]

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,

Thank you. Your answer was really good. I wish I had thought of that when I have been asked the same question over the years. Well done. As to your counter-questions; I don't know the answers but if your suspect was the Ripper, then it opens up possibilities of other crimes, which is very interesting. Thanks again.

Respectfully,

[harry]

Mrs Lilley says she heard signs of distress(moan).She says she heard whispered conversation,plus louder sounds that were not of a kind associated with normal group rowdiness of that area.She said it was very dark.She heard a carriage pass by.She did not say she heard a murder committed,but felt that the timing of w hat she heard fitted in well with the murder.She gives a time about 3.30AM,when Cross says he was leaving for work.Now had she poked her head through the window,she would undoubtedly have seen who was making the sounds,though because of the darkness not able to distinguish features.So her evidence would have been of an aural and not visual nature.Does it lessen the importance.Not really.Nothing else of a significant nature was reported.Can she be believed?Why not?

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Nicholls wasn't decapitated was she? she had a deep wound which severed the spinal cord but that's not decapitation. No one back then mentions decapitation its a modern perception based on the injuries noted.

I am getting fed up with saying this to you because it isn't registering. Time of death cannot be established in the way you seem to think with this bleeding out issue, there are so many factors, which you have been told about which preclude this.

To me this is your only trump card, that because of what was seen by witnesses when they looked at the body, that death must have only occurred within minutes. It has been pointed out the unreliability of those you seek to rely on to prop this up not only with timings but what they actually saw or could have seen given the light available

Your theory is a nothing more than a catalog of "If`s"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Mrs Lilley says she heard signs of distress(moan).She says she heard whispered conversation,plus louder sounds that were not of a kind associated with normal group rowdiness of that area.She said it was very dark.She heard a carriage pass by.She did not say she heard a murder committed,but felt that the timing of w hat she heard fitted in well with the murder.She gives a time about 3.30AM,when Cross says he was leaving for work.Now had she poked her head through the window,she would undoubtedly have seen who was making the sounds,though because of the darkness not able to distinguish features.So her evidence would have been of an aural and not visual nature.Does it lessen the importance.Not really.Nothing else of a significant nature was reported.Can she be believed?Why not?

I find it easy to believe that she heard something - but what that someting was is hard to say.

I know that some people were eager to get their fifteen minutes of fame, so I don´t exclude that she made it up.

If it all went down at 3.30, it seems out of the question that Nichols was cut at this time, since she was bleeding a full twenty minutes or more afterwards.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott:

Nicholls wasn't decapitated was she? she had a deep wound which severed the spinal cord but that's not decapitation. No one back then mentions decapitation its a modern perception based on the injuries noted.

I did not say that she was decapitated. I used decapitation in an example that did not entail Nichols in the least. I have no "modern perception" that either of the Rippers victims were decapitated. I know the exact extent of the damage done, as reported.
If you read what I actually say, you will - hopefully - avoid many misunderstandings.

I am getting fed up with saying this to you because it isn't registering. Time of death cannot be established in the way you seem to think with this bleeding out issue, there are so many factors, which you have been told about which preclude this.

If your pathologist is correct, then Nichols bled out in the initial couple of minutes. Whether you are fed up of hearing it or not is of no interest or consequence.

To me this is your only trump card, that because of what was seen by witnesses when they looked at the body, that death must have only occurred within minutes. It has been pointed out the unreliability of those you seek to rely on to prop this up not only with timings but what they actually saw or could have seen given the light available

Are you saying that Neil, Mizen and Thain ALL mistakenly only thought that she was bleeding? Mizen even said that the blood looked fresh, so he will have looked very closely. As an aside "the light available" was the lamps of the PC:s.

Your theory is a nothing more than a catalog of "If`s"

All suspect theories involve if´s, Trevor. But the better ones also includes facts.

I am not saying that IF he gave a false name. I am saying that he gave a false name. That is a fact. It is also a fact that the clothes were pulled down over Nichols´ injuries, that Paul never said that he heard ort saw Lechmere walking in front of him, that Mizen said that he was told about a second PC, that Lechmere signed himself Lechmere in all the examples we have but one and so on.

Those are not if´s - those are facts. I would be pleased IF (!) you understood that.

The best,
Fisherman