The Lechmere trail - so far

[caz]

The 3.45 time was not much of a challenge of the police, methinks. There was a difference of five minute only, and any coroner would know that such a difference could easily be explained with no sinister implications,
Plus, it was not out of sync with the other timings on the whole - it was IN sync with the implications of Llewellyn.

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

[Ben]

No, no you aremissing the intricacies of the British class system. No working class man would address another as "old man".

That's still nonsense, I'm afraid, C4.

Yes, they would.

Working class people from Victorian times also thought nothing of using such expressions as "why" and "I say", as in "Why, isn't it strange how some people are determined to place an upper class gent in Buck's Row without any good evidence?", or "I say, there's an awful lot of misunderstanding here about Victorian slang!".

Just because they might sound a bit posh and archaic to a modern ear; it doesn't mean they would be considered so to a working class male (or "white collared" male from a working class background) in 1888.

But straight back to discussing Lechmere we go...(never thought I'd say that, let alone want it!)

[caz]

So why would the paper remark on it? You seem to forget this point.

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

[Fisherman]

Cross: Her bonnet was off but close to her head

PC Neil:Her bonnet was off and lying close to her left hand



Described as close to her head, and close to her left hand - these are very helpful descriptions - no ambiguity

Why, maybe it was kicked their by accident, maybe someone picked it up with a view to putting it on her head, until they gave up trying to prop her up.



Indeed, with such attention to detail you should appreciate what I am trying to point out to you.
We know Paul and Cross tampered with the body before PC Neil got there.

I don`t know why you`re getting defensive about it, Christer ?
It`s just another little detail working towards an accurate picture of what happened.

Dear me, Jon - I am not defensive at all! It´s just that I am thinking that the hat could well have been positioned between head and hand.
Polly Nichols was around 150 centimeters tall. That means that if she stretched out her arms, there would equally be 150 centimeters between the fingertips of each hand.
Since the trunk would have been around 40 centimeters wide, we are left with arms that were around 150/2 - 40/2 centimeters=55 centimeters long.

That means that there would have been a stretch of around half a metre between head and hand, roughly speaking. Place a hat in the middle of that distance, and it will be close to both body parts.

I don´t quite see how it is defensive to promote such a stance...? I am in no way opposed to thinking they could have moved the hat, I just don´t see any necessity.

[Fisherman]

I'd say that puts an end to the whole stupid 'false name' argument, but I have a feeling it won't make a hap'orth of difference.

Love,

Caz
X

And that means that he could have called himself Higginbottomsworth just that once, never having used it before, never again using it - and it STILL would not be a false name.
In fact, he could not use a false surname - it is impossible to do so. No matter which name you use, it is legally correct.

Could you explain to me, Caz, this excerpt from an article in the honourable Grimsby Express:

"A MAN who gave a false name to the police when he was spotted after failing to appear in court has been jailed for four months.

Nathan Gladwell, 25, of Risedale, Caistor, was stopped by officers after they saw him walking down Monks Road in Lincoln on June 19.

Gladwell was arrested and in interview admitted giving a false name because he knew he was wanted.

Judge John Pini QC told Gladwell: "You were seen by police officers on Monks Road at 3.15pm and you obstructed them by giving them a false name and date of birth."

Gladwell admitted obstructing a police officer, breaching a suspended sentence for theft, and breaching a conditional discharge for theft."


Wherefrom did that judge get the idea that Gladwell used a "false name"? He incidentally swopped Gladwell for Shepperton. Surely, that was his legal right to do so...?

In the documentary, did you notice how Andy Griffiths said that he would have been obliged to give his real name to the inquest? Griffiths seems to anoyher one of those people hanging on to the "stupid" idea of false names...

[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?

[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.

[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'.

[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?

[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!

[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]

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]

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!

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.

[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.