The Lechmere trail - so far

[Fisherman]

FrankO:
No offence, Fish, but I'd hoped that you'd actually put the question I asked to Mr. Payne-James.

I don´t see what he could say other than what I said myself. He said that three or five minutes were more credible than seven and that forms a logical line that is easy enough to understand: The more time we add, the more unexpected it would be.
Are you thinking that he could say something else? I do not want to impose too much on his time, and he has already been very helpful, so I would need a good reason to contact him. Not sure that this is it.

What must we at least be looking at then, in your view, and how do you arrive at that amount of time?

I think it would be a bit presumptous to try and estblish an absolute minimum, Frank. But we both know that Paul said "no more than four minutes", meaning that it could perhaps have been three, three and a half, and we both know that the speed at which they actors travelled would have an impact and so on.
That is not to say that I don´t see how you could be correct - but the gist of the matter is that the more time we add, the smaller the chance of another killer. I hope you can see how I think that works!

[FrankO]

I can only take this to mean that with every added minute, the chances that she would go on bleeding were reduced.
Seven minutes would be unexpected, but possible. Reasonably, 7,5 to 8 minutes would be even more unexpected and a little less possible.

No offence, Fish, but I'd hoped that you'd actually put the question I asked to Mr. Payne-James.

I don´t think that we must be looking at 7,5 to 8 minutes, but I certainly do not exclude it.

What must we at least be looking at then, in your view, and how do you arrive at that amount of time?

[Patrick S]

With repsect to the "blood evidence", and I've said this repeatedly, it simpy does not exist, hard as that is for Christer to believe. There simpy is no forensic evidence, there wasn't so much as a photgraph taken of Nichols' body as it lay in Buck's Row. Further, the case files do not exist (or at least they haven't - as yet - been found). Therefore, we are left to rely upon 127 years old newspaper accounts. On it's own, that's a slippery slope, made more so in this case as - and I'm hardly the first to make this observation - the newspapers were notoriously inaccurate in their reporting in general, and of the Whitechapel murders in particular. Further, Christer treats adjectives chosen by people (trained, experienced PCs or no) who didn't intend for those adjectives to inform a forensic theory, in that forensics - as it's employed in the analyis of modern blood evidence - simply did not exist.

To have any confience in Christer's conclusion one must - as Christer does - pick and choose whom to believe, which newspapers were accurate, who to believe, and who to discount as a liar.

I'll grant you that this is all old hat in 'Ripperology'. If Christer presented all this and suggested that it's 'possible' that Lechmere was the killer or that these aspects the story are 'suspicous' then I think that many of us would become far less, uh, exercised...in our responses. Alas, wishing a thing and repeating it to the universe (and posters on this board!) will not make it true. Facts are facts....and there are precious few of those available to us.

I think that Christer's issue is that he simply cannot understand the difference between theory and conclusion. He's convicted Lechmere. He has - in my view - conned others into buying into his conclusion by including deatail that supports it, and omitting or minimizing the importance of those that do not.

[drstrange169]

>You may be interested to hear that in the report of the 19:th of September, signed Your Holyness Frederick Abberline, it is stated that Llewellyn even before Nichols was ID:d was of the meaning that the abdomoinal wounds preceded the neck cuts. I take it that this settles the matter once and for all, since Abberline signed the report? And Abberline is never wrong?<<


I see where the bulk of problems are coming from, Fish, you don't understand what you are reading.

Firstly, as I have already told you elsewhere, I have no problem with the order the wounds were inflicted, you are confusing me with someone else.

Secondly, as I pointed out in my post, I hold Abberline's reports in no higher or lesser regard than Swanson's.

As also pointed out in my post, but you apparently again missed. I cross check to see if the information can be verified by other sources. If it can verify it, I take it to be probably correct. If I can't, I label it as unverified.

[drstrange169]

Hello FrankO,

I wouldn't worry too much about the distance, as the blood beat up is just that,
something manufactured, albeit in good faith by Fish, but manufactured nonetheless. To believe it, anyone must ignore the doctor's evidence, his assistants comments and Baxter's official summation. But then, what would they know? They were only there;-)

[Patrick S]

What he said was that three or five minutes were more likely estimations than seven.
I can only take this to mean that with every added minute, the chances that she would go on bleeding were reduced.
Seven minutes would be unexpected, but possible. Reasonably, 7,5 to 8 minutes would be even more unexpected and a little less possible.

I don´t think that we must be looking at 7,5 to 8 minutes, but I certainly do not exclude it. The gist of the matter is, though, that every added second would detract from the possibility of another killer.

Around half an hour after Lechmere left Nichols, the blood was a congealed mass, so Nichols´ blood congealed fully.

Whichever way we look on things, Lechmere has a lot of explaining to do.

I suspect that Christer - in his mania - would view anything and everything as further proof that Lechmere is guilty. It would be entertaining if it weren't so ridiculous.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish!

If I re-do the math, we wouldn’t be looking at six and a half or seven minutes, but rather 7.5 to 8 minutes. What is Jason Payne-James's opinion about this? Would he still think the blood flew according to the normal schedule? Or could it mean that some unforeseen circumstance was at play, making her bleed longer than the norm?

All the best,
Frank

What he said was that three or five minutes were more likely estimations than seven.
I can only take this to mean that with every added minute, the chances that she would go on bleeding were reduced.
Seven minutes would be unexpected, but possible. Reasonably, 7,5 to 8 minutes would be even more unexpected and a little less possible.

I don´t think that we must be looking at 7,5 to 8 minutes, but I certainly do not exclude it. The gist of the matter is, though, that every added second would detract from the possibility of another killer.

Around half an hour after Lechmere left Nichols, the blood was a congealed mass, so Nichols´ blood congealed fully.

Whichever way we look on things, Lechmere has a lot of explaining to do.

[FrankO]

Meaning that we need to accept that six minutes may have been too little; maybe we´re looking at six and a half, seven minutes. And that closes a part of the window for an earlier killer.
…
We must, however, accept that the window closed at some stage, and Jason Payne-James says that seven minutes would be a stretch whereas three or five minutes would be more credible.

Hi Fish!

If I re-do the math, we wouldn’t be looking at six and a half or seven minutes, but rather 7.5 to 8 minutes. What is Jason Payne-James's opinion about this? Would he still think the blood flew according to the normal schedule? Or could it mean that some unforeseen circumstance was at play, making her bleed longer than the norm?

All the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

I think you’re a bit too far off the mark with 250 meters. Starting at the crime spot, with only 250 meters to go one wouldn’t even arrive at the corner of Old Montague Street and Baker’s Row. According to Google Earth or Google Maps that corner is about 265 meters from the crime spot. But even that’s not where the 2 men met Mizen. We know Mizen was at the end of Hanbury Street in the act of knocking up people, which would put him at the red line at the furthest in the map below (but probably somewhat more to the west in front of the last houses in Hanbury Street) when he met the carmen. That’s at least about 285 meters from the crime spot (red dot).


All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank!

Thanks for this - I made a very rough approximation only, so I am grateful to have it laid out more exactly.
All in all, this only detracts from the possibility of another killer - the longer the stretch, the longer the time to walk it. Meaning that we need to accept that six minutes may have been too little; maybe we´re looking at six and a half, seven minutes. And that closes a part of the window for an earlier killer.

Of course, it can always be reasoned that is she bled for six minutes, she could have bled for seven, and if shebled for seven, she may have bled for eight and so on.

We must, however, accept that the window closed at some stage, and Jason Payne-James says that seven minutes would be a stretch whereas three or five minutes would be more credible. So with every second we add to the time between Lechmere leaving the body and Mizen arriving at it, we detract from the possibility of another killer.

[FrankO]

But never mind. Let´s look at a few unbendable facts:

From the spot where Nichols lay to the spot where the carmen found Mizen, it is a stretch of around 250 meters.

Hi Fish,

I think you’re a bit too far off the mark with 250 meters. Starting at the crime spot, with only 250 meters to go one wouldn’t even arrive at the corner of Old Montague Street and Baker’s Row. According to Google Earth or Google Maps that corner is about 265 meters from the crime spot. But even that’s not where the 2 men met Mizen. We know Mizen was at the end of Hanbury Street in the act of knocking up people, which would put him at the red line at the furthest in the map below (but probably somewhat more to the west in front of the last houses in Hanbury Street) when he met the carmen. That’s at least about 285 meters from the crime spot (red dot).


All the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Hope he's got room to run.

You do know I hope that they're actually American, not Australian?

Yep, I am aware of that. Supposedly, they originally emigrated from the Basque parts in Spain.
And yes, he´s got room to run. There´s a spacious garden (where he tends to the plants and flowers, leaving very little to stand) and then there´s a large valley with a stream running through it directly adjacent to our house, so he´s got miles on end to explore!

[GUT]

An absolutely and incredibly awesome dog. I am training him to be a researcher - he is by far the smarter one of us. Problem is, whenever I ask him who the killer was, he goes "Baul! Baul! Baul!"

Then again, he´s just a pup.

Hope he's got room to run.

You do know I hope that they're actually American, not Australian?

[Patrick S]

Did anybody else in the drama give a time and claim that it was exact, Caz? Why do you think Paul did so? How could he do it?

Did he just sense, as he walked into Bucks Row, that the clock must be exactly 3.45? IS that how we determine what the time is?

Myself, whenever I say that something happened "exactly" at a given time, have CHECKED the time to be able to be sure.

It is no harder than that. In all probability, Paul heard the clock strike as he was in Bucks Row.

And to think that amazes you! And on top of that, you - piling post upon post - claim that words almost fail you?

Should you not have kept - almost - quiet if they did?

Someone should have kept quiet. That's for sure. The same person that should have refrained from inventing crackpot theories about 'false names' and 'Mizen Scams'.

[Fisherman]

If you want your suspect to be mister grey, boring, unremarkable everyman, the kind of guy who blends into the crowd and is careful not to draw negative attention to himself, particularly in a public setting like a murder inquest, where all eyes will be on the man who found the body, I would suggest you might want to change tack on this one and accept the argument that the paper was keen to describe the finder any way it could, while Lechmere was keen not to look out of place, and not to waste time changing his clothes if his whole working day was unlikely to be taken up with giving his evidence.

Love,

Caz
X

Much ado about nothing - the paper remarked on the coarse sack apron, and that means they found it unexpected.

[Fisherman]

Amazing, and yet you have argued that we can take Paul's 3.45 as an exact time because he gave it as an exact time.

Now, it's only a difference of five minutes, which as 'any coroner' would know could easily be explained with no sinister implications. Obviously this common sense approach would apply equally to Paul's timing and the police timings. Any coroner in Victorian times would know this, yes, and most other reasonable observers, but not apparently a Lechmere theorist in 2015, who sees only sinister implications for his suspect in the collective timings given by the various witnesses, even though accuracy could never be guaranteed in those days down to the nearest ten or fifteen minutes, let alone five.

Words - almost - fail me.

Love,

Caz
X

Did anybody else in the drama give a time and claim that it was exact, Caz? Why do you think Paul did so? How could he do it?

Did he just sense, as he walked into Bucks Row, that the clock must be exactly 3.45? IS that how we determine what the time is?

Myself, whenever I say that something happened "exactly" at a given time, have CHECKED the time to be able to be sure.

It is no harder than that. In all probability, Paul heard the clock strike as he was in Bucks Row.

And to think that amazes you! And on top of that, you - piling post upon post - claim that words almost fail you?

Should you not have kept - almost - quiet if they did?