Lechmere Found "With" Nichols' Body

[Fisherman]

2. How about before he left?

Theoretically, there are a number of possibilities. She could have been cut before Lechmere arrived in Bucks Row, she could have been cut by Lechmere and she could have been cut after Lechmere left the street.

The third option is the least credible - but nevertheless a possibility.
The first option is the second best one - since Jonas Mizen cannot have been in place until at least five minutes after Lechmere left the body, and since we must add another minute (at least) for the alternative killer to have made his escape undetected, we are faced with a bleeding time that is longer than we should expect in this scenario.
The middle option is the best one, since it tallies better with the bleeding than any assumption of a earlier killer. Since Mizen arrived so late in the process, with every minute we stretch the time she bled, we get a less likely scenario. Probably not impossible, but less likely nevertheless.

Myself, I have no problems making the assumption that a man who kept his true name from the police and who disagreed with the police about what was said on the murder morning and who had logical geograaphical connections to all the murder sites, may also have been a shady character. I have no need whatsoever to invent a second killer.

[drstrange169]

>>... these ARE established facts.<<

Clearly not.

>>1. He WAS alone with the body - it may have been a few seconds only and he may not have been close enough to touch it, or he may have had lots of time with it, being able to cut away. No matter what, he was alone with the body.<<

This is basically just semantics, as you now admit, there is no evidence that he was close enough to Mrs. Nichols body to touch it, ergo for purposes relevant to our research, it is not a fact that he was alone "with" the body.


>>2. She DID bleed for a number of minutes after he left - we have two policemen testifying to that, and so there can be no doubt.<<

Since in post 31 you admit there are other scenarios possible, this again is NOT a fact.

PS, since the second policeman story is an invention on your part, it is indisputably NOT a fact.

Houses built on sand.

[Varqm]

Theoretically, there are a number of possibilities. She could have been cut before Lechmere arrived in Bucks Row, she could have been cut by Lechmere and she could have been cut after Lechmere left the street.

The third option is the least credible - but nevertheless a possibility.
The first option is the second best one - since Jonas Mizen cannot have been in place until at least five minutes after Lechmere left the body, and since we must add another minute (at least) for the alternative killer to have made his escape undetected, we are faced with a bleeding time that is longer than we should expect in this scenario.
The middle option is the best one, since it tallies better with the bleeding than any assumption of a earlier killer. Since Mizen arrived so late in the process, with every minute we stretch the time she bled, we get a less likely scenario. Probably not impossible, but less likely nevertheless.

Myself, I have no problems making the assumption that a man who kept his true name from the police and who disagreed with the police about what was said on the murder morning and who had logical geograaphical connections to all the murder sites, may also have been a shady character. I have no need whatsoever to invent a second killer.

Is it clear to you that Nichols could not have been suffering before Lechmere arrived? It's not to me.

The facts,however little,are more important than the need. Lechmere is an interesting character/suspect.

[Fisherman]

drstrange169: ... these ARE established facts.

Clearly not.

Oh yes, they are.

1. He WAS alone with the body - it may have been a few seconds only and he may not have been close enough to touch it, or he may have had lots of time with it, being able to cut away. No matter what, he was alone with the body.

This is basically just semantics, as you now admit, there is no evidence that he was close enough to Mrs. Nichols body to touch it, ergo for purposes relevant to our research, it is not a fact that he was alone "with" the body.

Semantics? Thatīs your game, not mine - cutting quotes in suitable snippets and so on. The very worst of things to do, consciously trying to hide information.

You speak of how I "now admit" that there is no evidence that he was close enough to Nichols body to touch it. Please provide any examples at all where I have ever said that we know that he must have been close enough to touch it!
Wringing, disfiguring, distorting - that is how you work, is it not?

Year in and year out, I have said that we KNOW that he was close to the body but it is impossible to establish just how close.
Meanwhile, by cutting away information, you have tried to make the point that he was halfways to Picadilly.

...and now you write: "...ergo for purposes relevant to our research, it is not a fact that he was alone "with" the body."

I am aware of your purposes. But how would not knowing exactly where he stood equal being sure that it is not a fact that he was alone with the body?

By his own admission, he saw and recognized that it was a woman lying on the pavement. By his own admission, he was alone at that stage. Well, alone but for the body of Nichols that is. It is therefore a fact that he WAS alone with the body. What can be discussed - but not established - is how close to the body he was. It cannot be discussed, however, that he was alone with the body.

And since when is there a "with" the body, as opposed to a with the body....? Amazing!

Make, if you will, the assumption that ten men find a dead body lying in a room. Nine of them then decide that man number ten must stay in the room as they go in search of a policeman. They shove man number ten into the room, and close the door...LEAVING THE TENTH MAN ALONE WITH THE BODY!
Do we know that he is close enough to touch the body? No, and that is totally irrelevant - he is nevertheless alone with the body.

But how can he be? If he is not the killer, then that is "irrelevant to our purposes", is it not?

But out purpose was NOT to show that man number ten was the killer, was it? It was to show what it is to be alone with a body, and what that semantic construction means.

The exact same goes for Lechmere - my purpose is not to show that he could have killed Nichols when I say that he was alone with the body for an unknown amount if time. It is only to show that he was alone with the body for an unknown amount of time.

And precisely BECAUSE he was alone with the body for an unknown amount of time, there is also the possibility that he was the killer.

Can you see how that works: "Alone with the body for an unknown amount of time could have been the killer". Can you? It is not the same as "Alone with the body for an unknown amount of time - MUST have been the killer".

Basically, it is about opportunity. The mere fact that he WAS alone with the body for an unknown amount of time, is what tells us that we are looking at a man where that factor plays a role.

Maybe this is a tough lesson for you to take in. But you really need to, before you start tampering with the truth.

2. She DID bleed for a number of minutes after he left - we have two policemen testifying to that, and so there can be no doubt.

Since in post 31 you admit there are other scenarios possible, this again is NOT a fact.

In all three scenarios, she would have bled for minutes after Lechmere left her. That was what I postulated, and that is not touched upon by the various scenarios.

So you are - once more - wrong. It seems you are turning it into an art.

PS, since the second policeman story is an invention on your part, it is indisputably NOT a fact.

Why would you bring it up, even? It was not among the two things I named facts, was it? So why? Whatīs the point? We all know it is a theory, a working hypothesis. Nobody has called it a fact.
Is this how you debate? If so, how sad.

Houses built on sand.

Sand is a lot more tangible than hot air. Lechmere is and remains the best bid there is. Sorry.

[Fisherman]

Is it clear to you that Nichols could not have been suffering before Lechmere arrived? It's not to me.

The facts,however little,are more important than the need. Lechmere is an interesting character/suspect.

Not sure what you mean? Are you asking if I regard it as a fact that nobody could have cut her before Lechmere arrived? If so, not that cannot be a fact. It would be less PROBABLE, but it can nevertheless be true.

[Varqm]

Not sure what you mean? Are you asking if I regard it as a fact that nobody could have cut her before Lechmere arrived? If so, not that cannot be a fact. It would be less PROBABLE, but it can nevertheless be true.
Theoretically, there are a number of possibilities. She could have been cut before Lechmere arrived in Bucks Row, she could have been cut by Lechmere and she could have been cut after Lechmere left the street.

What I was getting at is it's not clear which is more probable,the first or second option.And all the killer needed was a few minutes before Lechmere arrived.

[Fisherman]

What I was getting at is it's not clear which is more probable,the first or second option.And all the killer needed was a few minutes before Lechmere arrived.

Actually, it is less credible with an alternative killer. The physical realities ensures that.

We have Jonas Mizen arriving at the murder spot around five minutes after Lechmere left. To reason that it may only have been four minutes would be very improbable. It is more likely that it was six minutes.

Regardless of which applies, I have been told by Jason-Payne James that the kind of trauma that Nichols suffered would arguably have resulted in a limited time of bleeding. His judgment was that we should expect a bleeding time of a few minutes only. When I asked him if he was talking about three, five or seven minutes, he answered that the two shorter times were definitely more probable than the longer one.

In short, he thought that the bleeding should have been over before we reached the seven minute border.

Now, letīs agree that every case is unique - we cannot say that something MUST have applied in Nicholsī case. But we know that the bleeding was long since over when Thain looked at the dried-up clot of blood being taken from the street. And we know that Payne-James suggests a time of less than seven minutes. And practically, that means that he would not expect Nichols to have been cut a minute or two (or more) before Lechmere arrived at the scene.

Counting backwards, if we theorize that Lechmere stopped in the middle of the street at 3.45 sharp, then we need to add half a minute before Robert Paul arrived (he was 30-40 yards away as Lechmere noticed him). So that takes us to 3.45.30.
Then Lechmere spoke to Paul, and the two men walked over the street and examined the body, they discussed what to do, they decided on trying t find themselves a policeman. Letīs say that they managed this in a minute. We will then be at 3.46.30.

They walk off, and they had a promenade of around two minutes before reaching Mizen. We are at 3.48.30.

Lechmere now informed Mizen of what had happened. It could well have been a quick matter, Mizen says that "a man passing" told him about the woman. So letīs say that it was a matter of few seconds only, and letīs add no time to the agenda.

Mizen then went to Bucks Row, which was another two minutes. Keep in mind that the PC first finished a knocking-up errand, so he could not have been any quicker (but perhaps less quick).

We have now arrived at 3.50.30. Lechmere stood in the street, looking at the body at 3.45. Five and a half minutes have passed.

3.45 is the very latest time (in this scenario) when Lechmere himself could have cut the neck. There is a chance that he could have done so, thereafter quickly and silently sneaking out into the middle of the street. The more probable thing is that we should add at least half a minute more, though, taking the time between the cutting of the neck and Mizens arrival to six minutes.

But if it was another killer, we must add at least a minute more, allowing for the killer to have made the neck cut as his last measure and sneaking away unheard by Lechmere.

Then we have an absolute minimum of seven minutes. Which is exactly the amount of time where Payne-James says that we have entered an unlikely amount of time. And even then, we must accept that the alternative killer made the neck cut as his absolutely last contribution.

This is why I say that it MAY have been another killer, but it is not as likely as Lechmere being the cutter. The amount of time passing speaks for the carman being the killer, quite simply. An alternative killer would stretch the time into unexpeted time territory. Even with Lechmere as the cutter, she bled unexpectedly long - to ask for even more is not very logical.

[drstrange169]

Obviously you've had ballet training Christer. The untrained couldn't do that much spinning without getting dizzy.


>>By his own admission, he saw and recognized that it was a woman lying on the pavement. By his own admission, he was alone at that stage. <<

I prefer to stick with the actual evidence.

"I walked into the centre of the road, and saw that it was a woman. AT THE SAME TIME I heard a man come up behind..."

Charles Alan Lechmere.



>>Why would you bring it up (two policemen) ... It was not among the two things I named facts, was it?<<


You wrote.

" ... these ARE established facts ...

2. She DID bleed for a number of minutes after he left - we have TWO policemen testifying to that, and so there can be no doubt."

My emphasis

[Fisherman]

drstrange169

By his own admission, he saw and recognized that it was a woman lying on the pavement. By his own admission, he was alone at that stage.

I prefer to stick with the actual evidence.

No, you donīt.

"I walked into the centre of the road, and saw that it was a woman. AT THE SAME TIME I heard a man come up behind..."

Looking at the evidence, we can tell that IF Lechmere was telling the truth, then Paul would have been in Bucks Row at the same time as Lechmere was. Paul would have walked thirty to forty yards behind Lechmere, meaning that since there was around 120 yards from Brady Street down to the murder site, Paul will have been 80-90 yards down Bucks Row as Lechmere had taken up his position in the middle of the road.

In that respect, both men were in the street with Nichols lying in it.

But Paul never said he saw Lechmere and he never said he heard Lechmere, and he did not say that he noticed Lechmere stepping into the middle of the street. He was not aware of his fellow carmans presence until he arrived at the murder site.

And up until Paul arrives there and can see Lechmere, Lechmere is alone with the victim. Up until that stage, Lechmere could have been doing anything and nobody would have been in place to witness it. In THAT respect, he was alone with the body.

Do you think that Lechmere COULD have killed Nichols? Then ask yourself why - is it because there is a period of time open to him, where nobody can corroborate his version of the events?

Why would you bring it up (two policemen) ... It was not among the two things I named facts, was it?

You wrote ... these ARE established facts ...

2. She DID bleed for a number of minutes after he left - we have TWO policemen testifying to that, and so there can be no doubt."

Are you contesting that two PC:s testified to how Nichols bled?

[Varqm]

Actually, it is less credible with an alternative killer. The physical realities ensures that.

Thanks for your replies.

It's just hard for me to believe that time estimates are accurate up to the minute or even up to 1.5 - this is sufficient time for the killer to have escaped,especially if in a hurry.

[Fisherman]

Thanks for your replies.

It's just hard for me to believe that time estimates are accurate up to the minute or even up to 1.5 - this is sufficient time for the killer to have escaped,especially if in a hurry.

Have a try yourself, Varqm - the distances are measured, and it is really rather an easy exercise.

What you may want to do is to try and bring the overall time down dramatically. The problem is, however, that no matter what schedule you end up with, your alternative killer will add a minute or two to that time - and thus he WILL become a less realistic alternative.

All the while, when we are doing these exercises, it should be kept in mind that we are theorizing - maybe Nichols bled for ten minutes, offering up a real opportunity for an alternative killer.
In the end, though, we have it from a top authority that such a long bleeding time would have been very unexpected.

At the end of the day, the verdict can only be the one I have already stated: Much as we cannot exclude an alternative killer, it applies that such a killer is a less realistic bid than Charles Lechmere.

And, as usual, I keep coming back to that question: Why would we look for another killer? What is it in Lechmere that tells us that he could/would not have been our man?

But, like I said, I urge you to make up a schedule of your own. If nothing else, it is very helpful for the overall understanding of the different factors of the case and how they fit into each other. And it has the double advantage that you can add your own perspective instead of having to rely on others.

If you should decide on doing the exercise, then it would be interesting if you shared your thoughts on the matter out here!

[drstrange169]

>>In that respect, both men were in the street with Nichols lying in it.<<


Finally, thank you.


>>Are you contesting that two PC:s testified to how Nichols bled?<<

I'm contesting what you wote, no more, no less and you wrote

" ...fact ... 2. She DID bleed for a number of minutes after he left - we have TWO policemen testifying to that, and so there can be no doubt."

Are you now trying to change what you wrote?

Actually, no answer required as you've now backed away from both "facts"
this conversation has become redundant.

[Fisherman]

drstrange169

In that respect, both men were in the street with Nichols lying in it.

Finally, thank you.

"Finally"? I have written extensively about the positions of the carmen in Bucks Row. Every time, both men have been in the street, with 30-40 yards inbetween them. You should change "finally" for "obviously". Or was it news to you?
The thing that matters for - as you so eloquently put it - "our purposes", is that until Paul arrived outside Browns (and not at the wool warehouse...), Lechmere was alone with the body. Nobody saw or heard what he did, and nobody could say for how long he had been alone with Nichols. The only source we have for his innocense is himself.

Are you contesting that two PC:s testified to how Nichols bled?

I'm contesting what you wote, no more, no less and you wrote

" ...fact ... 2. She DID bleed for a number of minutes after he left - we have TWO policemen testifying to that, and so there can be no doubt."

Are you now trying to change what you wrote?

Actually, no answer required as you've now backed away from both "facts"
this conversation has become redundant.

I have backed away from nothing. I am not changing anything, Lechmere was alone with the body for an unknown amount of time: fact, and Nichols bled for a number of minutes after Lechmere left her; fact.

The only redundant thing in this debate is your twisted reasoning. Fact.

[Varqm]

It's just hard for me to believe that time estimates are accurate up to the minute or even up to 1.5 - this is sufficient time for the killer to have escaped,especially if in a hurry.

If you should decide on doing the exercise, then it would be interesting if you shared your thoughts on the matter out here!

My answer is same as above.None of the witnesses can be relied upon to be accurate to the minute. All the exercises won't solve that.I can accept that there is not enough facts to ascertain which of the 2 scenarios is more probable.It's possible that it was Lechmere .

But you're so committed ....

[Fisherman]

It's just hard for me to believe that time estimates are accurate up to the minute or even up to 1.5 - this is sufficient time for the killer to have escaped,especially if in a hurry.




My answer is same as above.None of the witnesses can be relied upon to be accurate to the minute. All the exercises won't solve that.I can accept that there is not enough facts to ascertain which of the 2 scenarios is more probable.It's possible that it was Lechmere .

But you're so committed ....

Of course there can be deviations. But that does not change the distances. And although we cannot know exactly how fast or slow they walked, we CAN see when we are drawing close to ridiculous suggestions. And no matter how optimistic we are, there is no way that Mizen could have been in place until at least four or five minutes after Lechmere left the body.

Once we realize that, we can also see that much as we cannot discard the suggestion of an alternative killer, such a suggestion must always be less credible.

That alternative killer must be fit in at the end of the time-space, and add to it. If Mizen magically arrived a mere four minutes after Lechmere left, then the alternative killer suggestion stretches the time to five or six minutes - which is less likely than four.
If we thing that Mizen was slower than a slug, arriving ten minutes after Lechmere left, the that alternative killer will stretch the time to eleven or twelve minutes - which is less likely than ten.

No matter how we look at it, an alternative killer must always be less likely than Lechmere to be the culprit. Thatīs just how it works; itīs simple physics. In itself, it has nothing to do with any commitment, Iīm afraid.

I would not say that it is merely possible that it was Lechmere. I would say that it was very, very probable that it was Lechmere - but possible that it was somebody else.