Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Fisherman]

Batman:

It doesn't get thrown out but linking observations from amateurs to create a scenario that Lechmere killed her is going beyond the evidence.

The two are not in any way interconnected. As long as the evidence presented is there, it makes no difference if it is presented by proffesionals or amateurs. It does not go away. If it had been a doctor who said the blood appeared fresh, the we would have to accept that the blood probably appeared fresh. When a PC says it, the same applies - we have to accept that he was probably correct. It is not in any shape or form "going beyond the evidence", it is presenting the evidence in the exact form we had it handed down to us, and sourcing it appropriately.

You may not LIKE the evidence, Batman, but that is another issue altogether.

All that can be said is that the victim died close to the time she was found. We get this from the expert analysis of the doctors accounts and pathology examination.

No, one hell of a lot more can - and should - be said. If you want to go with the recorded evidence, you should for example keep in mind that coroner Baxter said that Nichols was very freshly killed - or even still alive! - as Paul looked at her. Baxter is often uniformed and he is a bad judge of what people say at times, but this IS in the evidence nevertheless.

Blood movement/amounts/flow rate/ground topography/atmospheric conditions/her health/ etc., all the factors need measurements to be able to talk about the blood significantly. Adjusting these factors even minimally can alter the outcome.

The moment I say that all blood evidence is totally predictable you have a point. Up til then, you have no such thing. I have over and over and over and over again pointed out that we cannot convict on the blood evidence, since these things may deviate.
What we DO have, however - and that wonīt go away either - is the fact that if things developed normally, then things point to Lechmere as Nicholsī killer. Shoehorning and squeezing may allow for inventing another killer, a man nobody saw, who silently creeped in and out of the murder spot with nobody noticing, a man that judged that heīd better cover up the abdominal wounds for some reason - but the fact of the matter is that he is only a brain ghost at present.

All one can say is the minimal. She died close to the time her body was discovered. The data simply isn't there to say he did it. Could he have done it?

Why ask? We all know he could.

Fluid dynamics won't answer that question here I'm afraid.

Actually, it can be very helpful in narrowing things down, and lots of people have been convicted on account of fluid dynamics, killers included.

I like the question put to you why he didn't run away given you said he had a full minute to put away his knife when he saw the other witness coming.

Then Iīd like to ask you the question if you can tell the difference between a psychopath and a non-psychopath? Have you heard of the startle reflex, for instance? It is the reflex that makes YOU flee - but not psychopaths.
Did you know that your muscles will autonomically get tense if you perceive imminent dagner? That is because your body gets ready to leg it.
Were you aware that typically, this does not happen with psychopaths?

Did you know that when a panic breaks in a group of people, the person that moves calmly and ratinally within that group is usually a psychopath? They donīt panic, the way the rest of us do. Instead of resorting to headless running, they instead ask themselves "what is the rational thing to do here? How do I solve this situation to my benefit?"

Are you familiar with these things?

There are absolutely tremendeous differences between psychopaths and non-psychopaths. Nobody seems to realize this out here, though. Here, posters think "what would I have done?", and then they think they have the answer to what anybody would have done. Itīs very wrong, to be sparse with the criticism.

That's 60 seconds if walking away. A nice head start if you ask me.

If there was 60 seconds, yes. It may have been so, but it may also have been more or less. In THIS issue, doubt must be there. It is much less certain than the blood evidence in that respect. But no matter what applies, we have Andy Griffiths saying in the documentray that the one thing he would NOT have done would be to run. I agree - you donīt have to. All you have to do is to accept that you may be wrong, as hinted at by people with a lot more experience and professional insight into these things than you have. Supposedly?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

In fact I believe that argument to be devastating to the Lechmere as murderer hypothesis.

According to your story Lechmere has a full minute to do what the killer actually did. To walk away because someone was coming and would arrive in 1 minute.

You have Lechmere hanging around as the murderer when he has every reason to leave and none to stay.

You really should go back to 2011 and start reading from there. And you really shouldnīt tell me what I have and what I donīt have. Lechmere may have had everything from an abundance of time down to a very narrow timegap to bluff things out. He may well have been in a "bubble" for some time, finally getting the chance to carve away at a victim at his leisure - or so he thought.

It could have been 80, 70, 62, 53, 39 or 22 seconds - or anything before inbetween or after. If you think it over, you will realize that this is what applies. My response about the 60 seconds was because you were having trouble to understand how he could have had time to stash the knife (!). He may have had oceans of time and he may have had little time.

If you find this ingenuity of yours "devastating" to the Lechmere theory I can only despair about the insights with which you try your hands at detective work, Batman.

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Fish, I do not think that covering the neck rings untrue. I believe that cutting the neck and promptly covering it rings untrue.

[Dane_F]

The best thing to say at this point is that the evidence you present Fish is only convincing to you and a small minority of other people. It is clear you are invested in Lechmere and are going to ride this ship down no matter what. Sadly, I think continuing to try and reason with you is an effort in futility and is shame on me if I did. As soon as fluid dynamics become argued points in a JTR murder based off of conflicting newspaper reports I should have known this thread was too far gone.

Anyway, I wish you the best in your research on Lechmere Fish. Maybe you will turn up some more evidence that might be able to persuade people and I can finally come around on him as a suspect. I don't have another suspect to cheer for anyway so on the outside chance there is something to Lechmere, I hope you find it.

[Fisherman]

Fish, I do not think that covering the neck rings untrue. I believe that cutting the neck and promptly covering it rings untrue.

Why?

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Dane_F: The best thing to say at this point is that the evidence you present Fish is only convincing to you and a small minority of other people.

Perhaps the best thing to say is instead that it is good that somebody has noticed Lechmere...?

It is clear you are invested in Lechmere and are going to ride this ship down no matter what.

Wrong. If anything points away from him, Iīll take that under consideration. Why wouldnīt I? If the odds are for excluding him, I will exclude him. But I would like to wait until that happens before I do so.

Sadly, I think continuing to try and reason with you is an effort in futility and is shame on me if I did.

Reason? Try and sway, you mean? It is equally meaningless for me to propagate for Lechmere, Iīm afraid. But of course, itīs much more fun to cast me as the fanatic...

As soon as fluid dynamics become argued points in a JTR murder based off of conflicting newspaper reports I should have known this thread was too far gone.

Anyway, I wish you the best in your research on Lechmere Fish. Maybe you will turn up some more evidence that might be able to persuade people and I can finally come around on him as a suspect. I don't have another suspect to cheer for anyway so on the outside chance there is something to Lechmere, I hope you find it.

Thanks! If I can, I will. And I fully expect more evidence to be forthcoming to point to the carman. The problem is that what I HAVE found, has been pooh-poohed in spite of itīs value. Thatīs sad, but to be expected - here.

The best,
Fisherman

[Batman]

Batman:

As long as the evidence presented is there, it makes no difference if it is presented by proffesionals or amateurs. It does not go away.

Only experts can really interpret evidence well. Facts are explained by experts. It is called expert witness testimony. The explanation of the facts is therefore subject to expertise. What is presented in terms of blood evidence is only what the doctor can say about it. The medical examiner may take in other witness testimony which would be looked at when discussing the case with the key investigators before the inquest. The medical examiner is under no pressure to accept their observations because observations are never as good as their doctors measurements and experiments.

If it had been a doctor who said the blood appeared fresh, the we would have to accept that the blood probably appeared fresh. When a PC says it, the same applies - we have to accept that he was probably correct.

The same doesn't apply. We accept that the doctor's opinion will overrule any observations made by amateurs including the police. It is not upon the PCs testimony that the strength of what we can say about the blood resides. It is with the doctors. That is why the police use them! They are an investigators tool.

It is not in any shape or form "going beyond the evidence", it is presenting the evidence in the exact form we had it handed down to us, and sourcing it appropriately. You may not LIKE the evidence, Batman, but that is another issue altogether.

Going beyond the evidence is saying more about forensics than the forensic expert is telling you. Anything in addition to what is the forensic pathologist reported is going beyond the evidence because you need expert witness testimony to say what that extra evidence is.

All that can be said is that the victim died close to the time she was found. We get this from the expert analysis of the doctors accounts and pathology examination.


No, one hell of a lot more can - and should - be said. If you want to go with the recorded evidence, you should for example keep in mind that coroner Baxter said that Nichols was very freshly killed - or even still alive! - as Paul looked at her. Baxter is often uniformed and he is a bad judge of what people say at times, but this IS in the evidence nevertheless.

That alone tells you that if the pathologists are uncertain, then how greater the uncertainity is that testimony of the amateur observations (not measurements). Freshly killed and alive are two different states for any organism to be in.

The moment I say that all blood evidence is totally predictable you have a point. Up til then, you have no such thing. I have over and over and over and over again pointed out that we cannot convict on the blood evidence, since these things may deviate.
What we DO have, however - and that wonīt go away either - is the fact that if things developed normally, then things point to Lechmere as Nicholsī killer.

Nowhere does the medical examiner reach that conclusion on the evidence presented. He doesn't say the killer is the person standing next to her in such a such condition as observed by persons X and Y. That is what you need to have evidence pointing directly to Lechmere. He doesn't even allow for it. If he would have allowed for it, he would have said it.

Shoehorning and squeezing may allow for inventing another killer, a man nobody saw, who silently creeped in and out of the murder spot with nobody noticing, a man that judged that heīd better cover up the abdominal wounds for some reason - but the fact of the matter is that he is only a brain ghost at present.

You have to show that the abdominal area was exposed first to make that claim. He may not have had to cover up anything. Just retract his hand from under her clothes.

The fact of the matter is that JtR did many of things you claim he doesn't. JtR has murdered at least three more without being seen commiting the crime or creeping in/out of the murder scene.

We have plenty of evidence for people coming upon a dead body like Lechmere though.

Fluid dynamics won't answer that question here I'm afraid.

Actually, it can be very helpful in narrowing things down, and lots of people have been convicted on account of fluid dynamics, killers included.[/i]

The doctor is giving you the best account of fluid dynamics he can. You are trying to go beyond what he has stated by invoking more fluid dynamics. Fluid dynamics when presented by experts is an entirely different matter.

I like the question put to you why he didn't run away given you said he had a full minute to put away his knife when he saw the other witness coming.

Then Iīd like to ask you the question if you can tell the difference between a psychopath and a non-psychopath? Have you heard of the startle reflex, for instance? It is the reflex that makes YOU flee - but not psychopaths.

JtR fled plenty of times. Serial Killers flee. There is a difference between being stupid (standing around waiting to get caught) and being a cold blooded person.

Did you know that your muscles will autonomically get tense if you perceive imminent dagner? That is because your body gets ready to leg it.
Were you aware that typically, this does not happen with psychopaths?

I want to read that. Do you have a forensic pathology paper that supports that? Psychopaths are dangerous. They have big egos and an urge to control everything. That doesn't mean they don't flee responding to a situation where they can get caught. Obviously they do flee.

Do you have any evidence for serial killers that have hung around the crime scene as a witness?

Did you know that when a panic breaks in a group of people, the person that moves calmly and ratinally within that group is usually a psychopath? They donīt panic, the way the rest of us do. Instead of resorting to headless running, they instead ask themselves "what is the rational thing to do here? How do I solve this situation to my benefit?"

This sounds like absolute poppycock, Sir. What you are doing to taking 'PTSD' examples where under criticial situations some people freeze and other people try to do something to get themselves out of the situation. The ones that don't freeze are not psychopaths. Seriously, you have a very strange few of the flight or fight response.

There are absolutely tremendeous differences between psychopaths and non-psychopaths. Nobody seems to realize this out here, though. Here, posters think "what would I have done?", and then they think they have the answer to what anybody would have done. Itīs very wrong, to be sparse with the criticism.

No, we don't ask what would I have done. We ask, what has JtR done. How does your position fit with what JtR has done?

That's 60 seconds if walking away. A nice head start if you ask me.

If there was 60 seconds, yes. It may have been so, but it may also have been more or less. In THIS issue, doubt must be there. It is much less certain than the blood evidence in that respect. But no matter what applies, we have Andy Griffiths saying in the documentray that the one thing he would NOT have done would be to run. I agree - you donīt have to. All you have to do is to accept that you may be wrong, as hinted at by people with a lot more experience and professional insight into these things than you have. Supposedly?

You proposed the full minute for him to do something with knife while the witness came towards him. I have no idea if Andy Griffiths addressed that. I don't know why he said JtR wouldn't have tried to run. He certainly has a history of walking/going away.

[Robert]

Fish, imagine you have just ripped up a woman and have pulled out part of her intestines. You hear a man coming. "Goodness Gracious," you think to yourself. "I've strangled her, and I've mutilated her abdomen. But how do I know she's dead? And now there's some fellow coming along. He mustn't see these wounds. I'll pull the skirt down. And I'll cut her throat to make sure she's dead. There! Oops. That's a big hole, and - yes - there's blood coming out. I know : I'll pull up her coat round her neck. Then I'll just sidle to the middle of the road, and wait for this fellow to arrive. He won't spot a thing. Good job I have a high IQ."

[Batman]

You really should go back to 2011 and start reading from there. And you really shouldnīt tell me what I have and what I donīt have.

Your post # 1333

"would you think he hid the knife quickly if he could hear Paul approaching for a full minute?"

You proposed that full minute to give Lechmere time to do something with the bloody knife while Paul approached. If Lechmere is apprehensive about someone coming, then there is no reason why the killer wouldn't be apprehensive about Lechmere coming. If it's good enough for Lechmere, it's good enough for JtR.

Lechmere may have had everything from an abundance of time down to a very narrow timegap to bluff things out. He may well have been in a "bubble" for some time, finally getting the chance to carve away at a victim at his leisure - or so he thought.

You are saying he is doing these things while knowingly hearing footsteps coming towards him rather than leaving.

You have him knowingly about to come in contact with someone in under 1 minute with plenty of time to not just escape but be blocks away and home in time for Cornflakes, but decides to hang about to become a witness.

That is devastating to the Lechmere hypothesis.

I look forward to your examples of Serial Killers who did this. Hung around and pretended to be just a witness.

[Ausgirl]

Not wanting to step in anything here... but if we're talking psychopaths and chutzpah, there's plenty of modern examples of killers who have done some incredibly bald-faced things at the risk of being caught. Some for the sake of remaining uncaught, some for the helluvit.

Dahmer, when a drugged and tortured, naked victim got away and ran to police for help, went to reclaim the poor kid, telling the cops the boy was his lover, and drunk - and persuaded them to let him take the victim 'home'.

Kemper hung out in a cop bar, chatting regularly with cops who'd tell him how badly they wanted to get the Co-Ed Killer, while buying the Co-Ed Killer a beer.

Psychopaths can indeed stay cool as a cucumber under pressure, and even enjoy the situation since it offers them an opportunity to feel superior. Some have participated in searches for their victims, alongside cops and family members. I can't think of any who've done exactly what is being proposed here, off the top of my head - but I'm sure could I find one or two, given time.

What I'm less clear about is how Lechmere was not, as far as I can see, covered in blood if he indeed cut Polly up and played Cool Hand Luke with a surprise passerby rather than striking out or bolting away. Not a lot of time to clean himself up, eh?

Noobish question time: Was Polly really covered in a tarpaulin? Were any other victims covered like that, if so? Does anyone think that's a bit odd? I always had this image of JtR victims being very much displayed. Somehow the significance (and research into the veracity of..) the 'tarpaulin' thing seems to have utterly escaped me. But then - I am pretty much a noob.

[Ausgirl]

So much easier to type with the lights on...

Just a further thought while entertaining the idea that Lechmere was the killer: his actions actually seem pretty reasonable - he did, after all, have a good reason for being out at that hour, meatcart and all. Trundling about selling his wares as he did, there's a good chance he was not entirely unknown to local people. So, being happened on suddenly, he might have pondered the risk of an interloper recognising him to one degree or another, and decided it was less chancy to stay and act the innocent. Except for the giving a false name thing. They're not all geniuses.

[David Orsam]

Was Polly really covered in a tarpaulin?

I'll take this one.

Hi Ausgirl - In the dark, from a distance, Cross said he thought it was a tarpaulin lying on the ground but once he got closer he realised it was a woman. There was no tarpaulin!

[David Orsam]

I would add that in timings you have yourself posted, you seem to suggest that: "After around seven minutes, the coagulation process will be complete". So unless Llewellyn examined the body within seven minutes after her death perhaps you can explain to the board how come the blood had not congealed

Fisherman, I must admit I now can't work out what was in my mind, if anything, when I wrote that and it does appear to be gobbledigook. I hadn't even been drinking.

[David Orsam]

Thain. Evidence. Congealed mass. Around 4.10.

Fisherman, I asked you to provide the evidence that the blood had clotted when Dr Llewellyn saw the body and your answer is, dare I say it, gobbledigook. Unless PC Thain was looking over the doctor's shoulder as he carried out his examination, and his evidence related to him doing so, the name "Thain" should not be in your answer. Dr Llewellyn never said he saw a "congealed mass" so how can we say on the basis of the evidence whether the blood was congealed or not when he was there?

[David Orsam]

Your post was an interesting one, David. It pointed to a parellel universe with some skill. But it did not hold up to scrutiny, did it?

It certainly does hold up to scrutiny, it is your interpretation of the evidence which fails.

Regarding Tomkins, he could not have left his work at 4:15 as you suggest.

In the Morning Advertiser extract that you quoted, you will note that Tomkins said he went for a walk to see the murdered body which "a policeman had told us of a few minutes before". When did this happen? The answer is in Tomkins' evidence:

From the Times:

"The constable was at the slaughterhouse at about a quarter past 4, when he called for his cape. It was then that they heard of the murder".

So 4:15 was the time Thain popped in to collect his cape. As stated in the Morning Advertiser, that was "a few minutes" before he went for his walk.

Some corroboration to show this is not a fluke? From the Telegraph:

"He deposed that he was in the employ of Messrs. Barber, and was working in the slaughterhouse, Winthrop-street, from between eight and nine o'clock on Thursday evening till twenty minutes past four on Friday morning. He and his fellow workmen usually went home upon finishing their work, but on that morning they did not do so. They went to see the dead woman, Police-constable Thain having passed the slaughterhouse at about a quarter-past four, and told them that a murder had been committed in Buck's-row.

The Star actually quotes Tomkins' own words to the coroner:

"No sir, we heard no sound - no cry. No one passed the slaughter-house except the policeman at a quarter past four."

The Star confirms: "He left off work at twenty minutes past four on Friday morning"

The Echo carries Tomkins' own words regarding when he left work:

"And none of you left the place afterwards? - No, Sir. Until twenty minutes past four."

The Echo corroborates the Star as to the arrival of Thain:

"No one passed except the policeman at 4.15"

I could go on as all the other newspapers of which I am aware say exactly the same thing.

So, Thain came to the slaughterhouse to collect his cape at about 4:15, then left, and Tomkins and his colleague Mumford, no doubt having first spoken to each other about the shocking news, decided to go for a walk to Buck's Row at about 4:20.

You also seem to suggest that, almost immediately after Tomkins arrived on the scene, the body was rushed onto the ambulance. I mean, you suggest, on the basis of no evidence, that Tomkins arrived at 4:16 and the body was removed by 4:18. Yet, from the evidence, that does not seem to have been the case.

From the Illustrated Police News report of Tomkins' evidence:

"When he arrived in Buck's-row with the intention of seeing the murdered woman he found the doctor and three or four policemen there, and he believed that two other men whom he did not know were also there. He heard no statement as to how the deceased came into Buck's-row. About a dozen people came up before the body was taken away."

Worth repeating that:

"About a dozen people came up before the body was taken away."

So between about 4:21 when Tomkins arrived on the scene, as many as twelve passers-by appeared before the body was removed onto the ambulance. This suggests the passage of a certain amount of time, just as I said in my post.