Lechmere Found "With" Nichols' Body

[Sam Flynn]

I reckon Paul dunnit.

[caz]

caz: Hi Christer,

The 'only' source, you say?

Yes. And I say that because he was alone with the body before Paul arrived.

What? Are you saying the only source for Lechmere's innocence is Lechmere himself, for confirming that he was alone with the body before Paul arrived? That makes no sense, Christer. He had no need to come forward and do that, since Paul lied in his press interview about their roles and Mizen didn't have a blessed clue who was with the body first, and like everyone else on the planet at the time was plumping for PC Neil!

Surely we also have Paul's allegation that the body was so cold she must have been dead for quite a while before she was found? Even if he was stretching the truth about it, he was effectively clearing the man who got there before him, and there is no hint that he was protecting this man or found his behaviour in any way suspicious.

Matters not. He was not there until after a stage when Lechmere either found Nichols or found her.

Eh?

Paul cannot corroborate either, and we know from Llewellyns examination that the body was anything but cold. The hands were cold, but hands can be cold on very living people.

Great for Lechmere then. The bigger the porkies and misinformation Paul comes out with, the less likely his word can be relied on to put the unidentified Lechmere at the scene first. Would they have believed Paul's sequence of events had Lechmere not generously materialised to support it?

Surely we also have the entire police force and everyone who attended the inquest, who effectively cleared Cross by seeing no reason whatsoever to question his status as the witness who found Nichols and raised the alarm.

Haha! Thereīs desperation for you!

Well it remains a fact, which is why I questioned your claim that Lechmere is our only source for his innocence. How many sources have you for his guilt? None. Not a single solitary source. Even you have to admit there is and never will be anything resembling hard evidence, never mind proof (as with all the other individuals ever fingered). So every single source on the planet cries out for Lechmere's presumed innocence. You can only conjure up circumstantial evidence against him by presuming his guilt and trying to make sense of his behaviour and the limited information available in that context. That's not the same as being a source for his guilt.

Regarding how long Lechmere could have been with Nichols before he became aware of someone else approaching, surely it would not have been more than a minute or two at most, innocent or guilty?

Sorry, wrong again. How are you going to prove that he could not have been in place one minute after Neil left the street on his former visit? Just how, Caz?

I don't need to prove a thing. I asked you why he'd have needed to be with Nichols for more than a couple of minutes, and you ducked the question, saying I was 'wrong' (about what??). So prove me wrong with details of what he was doing with Nichols, before or during the attack, that would have taken him longer than a couple of minutes? Scrabble perhaps? Discussing their star signs? A long session of slap and tickle as foreplay before he finally whipped his weapon out and got stuck in? You argue for it; you have to support it. Would your blood evidence, not to mention common sense, allow for him to have done all the blood-letting one minute after Neil had disappeared, followed by standing back, arms folded, admiring his work until he realised someone was about to surprise him?

How long do you think it would have taken the killer to inflict her injuries?

I really donīt know. If you are asking how fast he COULD have inflicted them, Iīd say in a minute - or even in seconds.

I rest my case then.

Isn't the likelier scenario by far that the killer did the deed quickly while PC Neil wasn't around and managed to slip away before he would have been seen or heard by Lechmere or Paul?

No. Because that would stretch the bleeding time into what Jason Payne-James called UN-likely territory. That is how you weigh the likelihoods.

So the bleeding time would be equally consistent with a killer who pounced on the insensible woman when the carmen had disappeared and was gone again in a minute - or even seconds? No knife wounds had been observed by Paul, and Lechmere said the woman may have fainted after being outraged. And as you admit, 'hands can be cold on very living people'.

Is it in any way plausible that a guilty Lechmere would have contradicted the official line that PC Neil had made the discovery, by coming forward to identify himself as the man in Paul's story who had been there before any policeman?

Yes, it is. There is both the fact that he would have become the prime suspect AND the fact that many seasoned serialists like to outwit the coppers and play games with them. So far from not being in any way possible, it is instead in MANY ways possible.

You do know there's a world of difference between 'plausible' and 'possible', I trust?

It's possible that my great grandmother killed Nichols and managed to outwit the coppers and play games with them because they didn't suspect a woman, but it is very far from plausible.

And it's nowhere near a 'fact' that Lechmere - any more than my great grandmother - would have become the prime suspect had he not bothered to confirm, clarify and correct the various disputable elements of Paul's and PC Mizen's accounts. With that kind of muddle going on, how much chance do you really think there would have been of making an eventual murder charge stick? Lechmere wasn't there when the murder was discovered; he was only seen with the woman by one unreliable witness, who examined her and found no signs of violence; there was no visible blood on Lechmere's person; no evidence of a concealed weapon; not even a hint of a murder until PC Neil arrived and found the woman alone with fatal knife injuries.

Good luck making any more of it than that.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

It strikes me that I may need to add an important detail, Caz. A question you often ask is, basically, this:
"Is it not likelier that Lechmere was innocent than guilty?"

That question is a dangerous one to ask when looking for a serial killer. Serial killers are -luckily - rare creatures, and it therefore applies that when we lift out a person about whom we know nothing and who has no former criminal track record that we are aware of, then statistically, that person is a zillion times more likely NOT to be a serialist.

But if the police were to work to that standard, men like John Eric Armstrong, Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy would still walk amongst us.

[Fisherman]

caz: Hi Christer,

Just catching up again...

Surprise, surprise...

The 'only' source, you say?

Yes. And I say that because he was alone with the body before Paul arrived.

Surely we also have Paul's allegation that the body was so cold she must have been dead for quite a while before she was found? Even if he was stretching the truth about it, he was effectively clearing the man who got there before him, and there is no hint that he was protecting this man or found his behaviour in any way suspicious.

Matters not. He was not there until after a stage when Lechmere either found Nichols or found her. Paul cannot corroborate either, and we know from Llewellyns examination that the body was anything but cold. The hands were cold, but hands can be cold on very living people.

Surely we also have PC Mizen's stated impression that he was wanted by another policeman, effectively putting Cross and Paul in the role of innocent messengers until Cross echoed Paul's claim to have seen no policeman at the scene!

Before that other PC was found and corroborated the story, Lechmere is not exonerated in any way.

Mizen doesn't appear to have revised his initial position of not seeing anyone suspicious, or if he did, because he worked out both men were liars, it could have cut no ice with his superiors.

Does not shield Lechmere either.

Surely we also have the entire police force and everyone who attended the inquest, who effectively cleared Cross by seeing no reason whatsoever to question his status as the witness who found Nichols and raised the alarm.

Haha! Thereīs desperation for you! Why not add yourself as a guarantee for his innocence - you donīt think he did it either!!

In fact, if Lechmere had never come forward, the only source for his potential guilt would have been the liar Robert Paul - the only person on the planet to put another man at the scene before his own arrival. Mizen would not have had a clue who was really there first without Lechmere's confirmation!

Hum-de-dum-de-dum... How does THAT mean that Lechmere was not the only person who provided evidence for his innocence?

Regarding how long Lechmere could have been with Nichols before he became aware of someone else approaching, surely it would not have been more than a minute or two at most, innocent or guilty?

Sorry, wrong again. How are you going to prove that he could not have been in place one minute after Neil left the street on his former visit? Just how, Caz?

How long do you think it would have taken the killer to inflict her injuries?

I really donīt know. If you are asking how fast he COULD have inflicted them, Iīd say in a minute - or even in seconds.

And how much longer than that would he have dared to spend on an attack in that location, whether anyone had come along before he could finish up and get safely away or not?

Eh - this man dared to kill and cut up women in public places. My guess is that he left when he was certain that somebody was going to come upon him on occasions when he could not hide what he had done. In Bucks Row, he could play the bluff card, but after that he could not. So my answer is that he would have dared to stay for an undefined amount of time.

He would not have hung around the corpse for one second if he could have got away unseen and unheard after doing what he set out to do.

And what did he set out to do, dearest Caz? Was he finished with Nichols after having cut a few shallow and one large hole in her? Was he not after procuring organs, is that not what we are supposed to think?

And if an innocent Lechmere had effectively interrupted the killer's flow, or if Paul had effectively interrupted a guilty Lechmere's flow, the actual attack from beginning to end would have taken even less time than the killer had allowed for himself.

Had allowed? Are you suggesting that he said to himself "I think I will allow three minutes for this one"?

The argument that Lechmere was there any longer than a minute or two before Paul doesn't really work if Nichols was indeed very freshly killed when the second man arrived.

Would that not depend on whether he commenced the attack immediately, or whether he waited? I am not saying that he did, but I am saying that you are a bit triggerhappy.

And she'd have been just as freshly killed when Lechmere got there, if they were only a minute or so apart and both innocent.

The fact that Lechmere would have cut her later than your infamous phantom killer is hard to discard in my view.

Isn't the likelier scenario by far that the killer did the deed quickly while PC Neil wasn't around and managed to slip away before he would have been seen or heard by Lechmere or Paul?

No. Because that would stretch the bleeding time into what Jason Payne-James called UN-likely territory. That is how you weigh the likelihoods.

Is it in any way plausible that a guilty Lechmere would have contradicted the official line that PC Neil had made the discovery, by coming forward to identify himself as the man in Paul's story who had been there before any policeman?

Yes, it is. There is both the fact that he would have become the prime suspect AND the fact that many seasoned serialists like to outwit the coppers and play games with them. So far from not being in any way possible, it is instead in MANY ways possible.
But I fear that I am wasting my time with you, such is your determination that Lechmere would not have been the killer. It will see you ending up at the wrong end of the stick (the shitty one), but that is your choice. Enjoy, while it lasts.

[caz]

The only source we have for his innocense is himself.

Hi Christer,

Just catching up again...

The 'only' source, you say?

Surely we also have Paul's allegation that the body was so cold she must have been dead for quite a while before she was found? Even if he was stretching the truth about it, he was effectively clearing the man who got there before him, and there is no hint that he was protecting this man or found his behaviour in any way suspicious.

Surely we also have PC Mizen's stated impression that he was wanted by another policeman, effectively putting Cross and Paul in the role of innocent messengers until Cross echoed Paul's claim to have seen no policeman at the scene! Mizen doesn't appear to have revised his initial position of not seeing anyone suspicious, or if he did, because he worked out both men were liars, it could have cut no ice with his superiors.

Surely we also have the entire police force and everyone who attended the inquest, who effectively cleared Cross by seeing no reason whatsoever to question his status as the witness who found Nichols and raised the alarm.

In fact, if Lechmere had never come forward, the only source for his potential guilt would have been the liar Robert Paul - the only person on the planet to put another man at the scene before his own arrival. Mizen would not have had a clue who was really there first without Lechmere's confirmation!

Regarding how long Lechmere could have been with Nichols before he became aware of someone else approaching, surely it would not have been more than a minute or two at most, innocent or guilty? How long do you think it would have taken the killer to inflict her injuries? And how much longer than that would he have dared to spend on an attack in that location, whether anyone had come along before he could finish up and get safely away or not? He would not have hung around the corpse for one second if he could have got away unseen and unheard after doing what he set out to do. And if an innocent Lechmere had effectively interrupted the killer's flow, or if Paul had effectively interrupted a guilty Lechmere's flow, the actual attack from beginning to end would have taken even less time than the killer had allowed for himself.

The argument that Lechmere was there any longer than a minute or two before Paul doesn't really work if Nichols was indeed very freshly killed when the second man arrived. And she'd have been just as freshly killed when Lechmere got there, if they were only a minute or so apart and both innocent.

Isn't the likelier scenario by far that the killer did the deed quickly while PC Neil wasn't around and managed to slip away before he would have been seen or heard by Lechmere or Paul? Is it in any way plausible that a guilty Lechmere would have contradicted the official line that PC Neil had made the discovery, by coming forward to identify himself as the man in Paul's story who had been there before any policeman?

Love,

Caz
X

[jerryd]

I have stayed well away from this conversation and maybe I ought to keep away. But, there is something to be said about the bleeding that occurred from the neck wounds and the timing of Lechmere at the body. That, in my opinion, is what really needs to be examined. All the other stuff is really irrelevant.

[Fisherman]

>>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.<<

From the Dr Jari Louhelainen school of dot placement science.

Ah, Dusty. Some scorn, some fooling arund and nothing that has anything to do with the issue.

I see.

[Fisherman]

>>I have backed away from nothing. <<

And yet you've altered your "facts", go figure?

Then,

"fact ... 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."

Now,

"fact, ... Nichols bled for a number of minutes after Lechmere left her;"


Question One:

If, "Lechmere was alone with the body for an unknown amount of time" is indeed a fact, then you are saying it is impossible that Paul saw Xmere at the same time Xmere saw the body, correct?

QuestionTwo:

I understand "Nichols bled for a number of minutes after Lechmere left her" to mean Mrs Nichols commenced bleeding prior to Paul's arrival, is that correct?

I have to be very short, since I am off on a fishing trip this weekend.

Question one: Paul said that as he came down to Browns, he saw a man standing in the middle of the street. That means that he did not see what Lechmere did BEFORE taking up that stance. That in itīs turn means that Paul could not tell what Lechmere did before taking up his stance. He could have gotten to the middle of the street from both sidewalks. And that means that Lechmere was found alone with the body, and that it cannot be established for how long he was so.
Which, come to think about it, is exactly what I said from the outset.

Question two: No, when I say that Nichols bled for a number of minutes after Lechmere left her means that Nichols bled for a number of minute after Lechmere left her. It should not be too hard to grasp, should it?
Why would what I say mean something you conjure up instead of what I say? Can you explain, please?

[drstrange169]

>>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.<<

From the Dr Jari Louhelainen school of dot placement science.

[drstrange169]

>>I have backed away from nothing. <<

And yet you've altered your "facts", go figure?

Then,

"fact ... 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."

Now,

"fact, ... Nichols bled for a number of minutes after Lechmere left her;"


Question One:

If, "Lechmere was alone with the body for an unknown amount of time" is indeed a fact, then you are saying it is impossible that Paul saw Xmere at the same time Xmere saw the body, correct?

QuestionTwo:

I understand "Nichols bled for a number of minutes after Lechmere left her" to mean Mrs Nichols commenced bleeding prior to Paul's arrival, is that correct?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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!