What happened to Lechmere......

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: Will you ever listen?

I do it all the time. Itīs normally quite amusing.

It may be a powerful argument bit it lacks proof.

Yes, thatīs why I call it a theory and not a proven case.

Do you not accept there is every possibilty she was murdered outside your time window, because Jason Payne now states that either scenario cannot be dismissed.

No, I donīt accept that there is "every possibility" that she was killed outside that time window. I accept that there is a small such possibility.

Therefore you cannot go saying the evidence is overwleming to say Lechmere was the killer.

Yes, I can.

As I have said before time of death cannot be established and Jason Payne now agrees with that.

EVERY pathologist agrees that it cannot be exactly established and EVERY pathologist agrees that there are mormal schedules that are normally followed.

Now, you were going to tell me who is a better suspect than Lechmere, were you not? And you were going to substantiate it too!

Everyone is a better suspect that Lechmere !

No, Trevor, that wonīt do - I want you to give one example of a better suspect than Lechmere and substantiate it. Iīll go further this time and say that I know that you cannot do it. And that you know that I will prove that if you try.
Cīmon, old man - baffle me!

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: Will you ever listen?

I do it all the time. Itīs normally quite amusing.

It may be a powerful argument bit it lacks proof.

Yes, thatīs why I call it a theory and not a proven case.

Do you not accept there is every possibilty she was murdered outside your time window, because Jason Payne now states that either scenario cannot be dismissed.

No, I donīt accept that there is "every possibility" that she was killed outside that time window. I accept that there is a small such possibility.

Therefore you cannot go saying the evidence is overwleming to say Lechmere was the killer.

Yes, I can.

As I have said before time of death cannot be established and Jason Payne now agrees with that.

EVERY pathologist agrees that it cannot be exactly established and EVERY pathologist agrees that there are mormal schedules that are normally followed.

Now, you were going to tell me who is a better suspect than Lechmere, were you not? And you were going to substantiate it too!

Everyone is a better suspect that Lechmere !

No, Trevor, that wonīt do - I want you to give one example of a better suspect than Lechmere and substantiate it. Iīll go further this time and say that I know that you cannot do it. And that you know that I will prove that if you try.
Cīmon, old man - baffle me!

We don`t have any suspects for this murder, finding the body doesn't make him a suspect. You have tried to build a case for him to be looked upon as a suspect and I would suggest you have not fully understood what Jason Payne has said, or you interpreted it in a way which suits your theory.

Dr Biggs a forensic pathologist stated that time of death cannot be established and anything is possible given the facts that all he had to go on was what was recorded. So in reality death could have occurred between your time frame. But equally time of death could have been much earlier and outside that time window.

Now I had a long telephone conversation with today with Jason Payne your expert whereby we discussed these issues firstly Jason Payne is not a forensic pathologist he is a forensic physician. He openly admits he deals with the living and not the dead. that being said he is an expert in his field and has to be respected.

I am not going to repeat all we we discussed save for the fact that in essence he concurs with all that Dr Biggs says regarding estimating times of death, and agrees that what the forensic regulator says is correct that attempts to determine times of death should not be used. If that applies today there is no way estimated times of death going back 126 years can be established or relied upon.

Now you totally rely on Jason Paynes opinion because you tell us that he stated that death could have occurred within your time window and you have tried to baffle us with blood flows and the coagulation process in support of this. But you are reluctant to accept that there is only a 50/50 chacce that death did occur within that time window.

Jason also says that for his part in the program he was given a set of prepared questions to answer, and his answers edited into the program in the form of opinions.

Example

Q "With the absence of any blood splatter would you say the victim was strangled first before her throat was cut?"

A Yes

Now just answering yes doesn't work for television so to make it work he has to reply " In the absence of blood splatter it cannot be ruled out that she was strangled first"

This is what the viewer sees so in effect they are leading questions seeking a specific answer, if the answer is as I have written then it goes into the program. However if the answer is this

"Well that is a possibility however a lot may depend on the angle of the neck and the body at the time the throat was cut if the angle of neck was such that it held the wound together then there would be very little blood loss"

This answer is perhaps not what the film makers want to hear so it gets edited out. This is the way these film makers operate.

You and Ed both have different agendas for championing Lechmere as a suspect. It is clear you are never going to give this up but you have to face up to facts and reality.

The sooner this wild speculative theory of Lechmere killing Nichols is forgotten the better, along with the even wilder suggestion that he killed other women.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Templarkommando]

Will you ever listen ?

It may be a powerful argument bit it lacks proof.

Do you not accept there is every possibilty she was murdered outside your time window, because Jason Payne now states that either scenario cannot be dismissed. Therefore you cannot go saying the evidence is overwleming to say Lechmere was the killer. As I have said before time of death cannot be established and Jason Payne now agrees with that.

Everyone is a better suspect that Lechmere !

I have a quick question Mr. Marriot. I'm new(I apologize for being uninformed on this), but I'm curious where the information from Jason Payne on time of death can be found?

Also, since PC Thain went down Bucks row at 3:15, do you think that the murder was committed before that (3:15) and Thain just overlooked what he thought was a drunk lady in the street? Or do you think the window for the murder is between Thain's passing through Buck's Row and Cross/Lechmere's discovery of Nichols in the street?

[Fisherman]

I have a quick question Mr. Marriot. I'm new(I apologize for being uninformed on this), but I'm curious where the information from Jason Payne on time of death can be found?

Also, since PC Thain went down Bucks row at 3:15, do you think that the murder was committed before that (3:15) and Thain just overlooked what he thought was a drunk lady in the street? Or do you think the window for the murder is between Thain's passing through Buck's Row and Cross/Lechmere's discovery of Nichols in the street?

Neil. It was Neil who passed down Buckīs Row, not John Thain.

The information from Jason Payne-James is something he offered in a private mail conversation with me. Basically, he says that Lechmere fits in with the normal schedule of bleeding and coagulation, but that this cannot be taken as any absolute proof that it was he who did the cutting.
When I asked how long we should expect Nichols to have bled, I worded myself "Could she have bled for three minutes? For five? For seven?", whereupon Jason Payne-James answered that all three opportunitites could apply, but the two shorter times were more credible to be correct in his view.

I take that to strengthen the suggestion that Lechmere was the killer. It could have been somebody else, but that is quite simply less credible, going by the bloodflow.

[Trevor Marriott]

Neil. It was Neil who passed down Buckīs Row, not John Thain.

The information from Jason Payne-James is something he offered in a private mail conversation with me. Basically, he says that Lechmere fits in with the normal schedule of bleeding and coagulation, but that this cannot be taken as any absolute proof that it was he who did the cutting.
When I asked how long we should expect Nichols to have bled, I worded myself "Could she have bled for three minutes? For five? For seven?", whereupon Jason Payne-James answered that all three opportunitites could apply, but the two shorter times were more credible to be correct in his view.

I take that to strengthen the suggestion that Lechmere was the killer. It could have been somebody else, but that is quite simply less credible, going by the bloodflow.

Its not less credible that it was another. No one can estimate time of death by any means as you have continually been told, let alone from a written description of blood flow as described by non medical experts back in 1888 whose description in any event may or may not be accurate.

You yourself state that this important issue is the backbone of your theory but surely you must be able to see that it is flawed.

If you want to label Lechmere in any suspect category he is nothing more than a person of interest, and that I base on why he used the different names. We dont know the answer to that, but if there is a plausible explanation then what other suspicions are there against him from your perspective?.

He walked to work past other murder sites, so did hundreds of others.
He had relatives living near crime scenes, so did many others.

On the other side of the argument these are very relevant

Did he have a history of violence -No
Was he known to carry a knife -No
Did he have a hatred of women-No
Was he known to be out late at night- No
Did he come to the notice of the police-No
Was he ever looked upon as a suspect-No
Was he known to have any medical knowledege- No
Can he physically be placed at any other crime scenes- No

You have to be commended for all the work and effort you have put into trying to prove your theory but you have fallen short, as have I and every other person who has tried to prove conclusively who killed who in 1888 and what the motives were for the killings.

Its time to let go !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I have a quick question Mr. Marriot. I'm new(I apologize for being uninformed on this), but I'm curious where the information from Jason Payne on time of death can be found?

Also, since PC Thain went down Bucks row at 3:15, do you think that the murder was committed before that (3:15) and Thain just overlooked what he thought was a drunk lady in the street? Or do you think the window for the murder is between Thain's passing through Buck's Row and Cross/Lechmere's discovery of Nichols in the street?

As with all the police witness testimony we have to accept it on face value as to whether or not they were where they say they were at the time they say they were there, or they did what they say they did.

It only needs one distraction for a police officer on a fixed beat to put his beat and timings out of sync. That may be to due with police work, or equally in 1888 stopping off for another purpose! or simply neglect of duty.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: Its not less credible that it was another. No one can estimate time of death by any means as you have continually been told, let alone from a written description of blood flow as described by non medical experts back in 1888 whose description in any event may or may not be accurate.

Donīt be a fool again, Trevor. Just because you donīt like what was sais aboyt the blood, we cannot dismiss it as irrelevant or untrustworthy. The ones mentioning it were trained PC:s, and the mere fact that Mizen commented on the degree of coagulation tells us that he knew what he spoke of.
Anybody could be wrong? Yes, anybody could be wrong, but the fact of the matter is that BOTH Neil and Mizen say that she bled, and only Mizen speaks of a coagulation, and that is totally in line with the time schedule, plus the two PC:s corroborate each other to an extent. So you may need to live with it, instead of trying to throw it out.

You yourself state that this important issue is the backbone of your theory but surely you must be able to see that it is flawed.

No, I have not stated that it is the backbone of my theory, that is a blatant lie. It is one of many legs the theory stands on, THAT is what I have said. If you can disprove me by providing a quotation where I say that the blood issue is the backbone of the theory, please do so. But I predict that you will - as usual - fail miserably.

If you want to label Lechmere in any suspect category he is nothing more than a person of interest, and that I base on why he used the different names. We dont know the answer to that, but if there is a plausible explanation then what other suspicions are there against him from your perspective?.

They have all been listed and are easily accessible on the boards.

He walked to work past other murder sites, so did hundreds of others.

But not at 3.45, when the Bucks Row area was very empty and quiet.

He had relatives living near crime scenes, so did many others.

You know this how? Guesswork? Aha.

On the other side of the argument these are very relevant

Did he have a history of violence -No

Impossible to know, guesswork on your behalf. There is no RECORDED history of violence, bt that is another matter, and something that is consistent with a number of known serialists.

Was he known to carry a knife -No

Apparently, carmen carried knives on a regular basis, so as to be able to cut the harnesses in the event of an accident. A carman would also need a knife to cut strings and ropes, methinks.

Did he have a hatred of women-No

Once more, you are guessing away with no substantiation at all. It is pathetic and unworthy.


Was he known to be out late at night- No

What?? There are records telling us that he was not out late at night? Interesting.
You really should not flaunt your shortcomings like this. Itīs embarrasing.


Did he come to the notice of the police-No

Yes - by reporting in himself.

Was he ever looked upon as a suspect-No

Which may explain how he managed to stay uncaught. Until you become a suspect, you are a non-suspect. That is something that has applied to every serialist at a remove in time.

Was he known to have any medical knowledege- No

Was the killer known to have any medical knowledge? No.

Can he physically be placed at any other crime scenes- No

Did he have reasons to visit each and every one of them at the murder times? Yes.

You have to be commended for all the work and effort you have put into trying to prove your theory but you have fallen short, as have I and every other person who has tried to prove conclusively who killed who in 1888 and what the motives were for the killings.

Its time to let go !

Yes - of you. I wish you a quick recovery.

[Templarkommando]

Neil. It was Neil who passed down Buckīs Row, not John Thain.

The information from Jason Payne-James is something he offered in a private mail conversation with me. Basically, he says that Lechmere fits in with the normal schedule of bleeding and coagulation, but that this cannot be taken as any absolute proof that it was he who did the cutting.
When I asked how long we should expect Nichols to have bled, I worded myself "Could she have bled for three minutes? For five? For seven?", whereupon Jason Payne-James answered that all three opportunitites could apply, but the two shorter times were more credible to be correct in his view.

I take that to strengthen the suggestion that Lechmere was the killer. It could have been somebody else, but that is quite simply less credible, going by the bloodflow.

I need to thank both you Mr. Holmgren as well as Mr. Marriot for answering my questions. I do have another one now though.

My question is according to what I've been able to learn from this: http://www.casebook.org/victims/polly.html

That page lists PC Thain (Now that I read it closer, it also says SGT. John Kerby as well) as passing down Buck's Row at 3:15 AM on the morning of Polly's murder. It also says that both of them report nothing out of the ordinary.

Then later - a little after 3:40 - 3:45 PC Neil discovers Polly Nichols dead in the street, and he signals Thain and is quickly joined by Mizen.

Do you mean to say that timeline is incorrect?

My question to Mr. Marriot was that if he believed that Polly was already dead or dying at 3:15 when Thain passed through(and that he overlooked her), or if she was killed sometime after 3:15 closer to when her body is discovered by Lechmere and Paul. His answer seemed to indicate that he wasn't sure that we could trust the police testimony completely about what time Thain was passing through Buck's Row. I don't know for sure, but this would seem to indicate that he thinks that Polly may have possibly been killed before even 3:15 - depending on whether or not Thain really passed through Buck's Row at the time that is recorded.

[Fisherman]

I need to thank both you Mr. Holmgren as well as Mr. Marriot for answering my questions. I do have another one now though.

My question is according to what I've been able to learn from this: http://www.casebook.org/victims/polly.html

That page lists PC Thain (Now that I read it closer, it also says SGT. John Kerby as well) as passing down Buck's Row at 3:15 AM on the morning of Polly's murder. It also says that both of them report nothing out of the ordinary.

Then later - a little after 3:40 - 3:45 PC Neil discovers Polly Nichols dead in the street, and he signals Thain and is quickly joined by Mizen.

Do you mean to say that timeline is incorrect?

My question to Mr. Marriot was that if he believed that Polly was already dead or dying at 3:15 when Thain passed through(and that he overlooked her), or if she was killed sometime after 3:15 closer to when her body is discovered by Lechmere and Paul. His answer seemed to indicate that he wasn't sure that we could trust the police testimony completely about what time Thain was passing through Buck's Row. I don't know for sure, but this would seem to indicate that he thinks that Polly may have possibly been killed before even 3:15 - depending on whether or not Thain really passed through Buck's Row at the time that is recorded.

The report on Thain is incorrect - his beat never involved Bucks Row. It was John Neil who passed down Bucks Row at around 3.15.

My personal belief is that Neil found Nicholsī body at around 3.48-3.50. Robert Paul said that he went down Bucks Row at 3.45 precisely.

Given the damage to Nicholsīneck (it was cut to the bone, severing all blood vessels, and left gapingly open), there is not any real possibility that she was cut before 3.15. That would mean that she bled from the neck wound for at least 35 minutes, and the mere suggestion is more or less ridiculous.

It also applies that Paul said that he felt a slight movement as he touched the chest of Polly Nichols - it would be odd if she produced that movement half an hour after she was killed. She was also completely warm apart from the hands as she was examined by Dr Llewellyn, who fixed the TOD to at most half an hour before he arrived. And he seemingly arrived at approximately 4.10, putting tthe doctors extreme limit to 3.40. It should be added that determining TOD is not any exact science (indeed, you are about to find out that Mr Marriott thinks that no time gap at all can be suggested in any case), but these are the particulars of the case nevertheless.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: Its not less credible that it was another. No one can estimate time of death by any means as you have continually been told, let alone from a written description of blood flow as described by non medical experts back in 1888 whose description in any event may or may not be accurate.

Donīt be a fool again, Trevor. Just because you donīt like what was sais aboyt the blood, we cannot dismiss it as irrelevant or untrustworthy. The ones mentioning it were trained PC:s, and the mere fact that Mizen commented on the degree of coagulation tells us that he knew what he spoke of.
Anybody could be wrong? Yes, anybody could be wrong, but the fact of the matter is that BOTH Neil and Mizen say that she bled, and only Mizen speaks of a coagulation, and that is totally in line with the time schedule, plus the two PC:s corroborate each other to an extent. So you may need to live with it, instead of trying to throw it out.

You yourself state that this important issue is the backbone of your theory but surely you must be able to see that it is flawed.

No, I have not stated that it is the backbone of my theory, that is a blatant lie. It is one of many legs the theory stands on, THAT is what I have said. If you can disprove me by providing a quotation where I say that the blood issue is the backbone of the theory, please do so. But I predict that you will - as usual - fail miserably.

If you want to label Lechmere in any suspect category he is nothing more than a person of interest, and that I base on why he used the different names. We dont know the answer to that, but if there is a plausible explanation then what other suspicions are there against him from your perspective?.

They have all been listed and are easily accessible on the boards.

He walked to work past other murder sites, so did hundreds of others.

But not at 3.45, when the Bucks Row area was very empty and quiet.

He had relatives living near crime scenes, so did many others.

You know this how? Guesswork? Aha.

On the other side of the argument these are very relevant

Did he have a history of violence -No

Impossible to know, guesswork on your behalf. There is no RECORDED history of violence, bt that is another matter, and something that is consistent with a number of known serialists.

Was he known to carry a knife -No

Apparently, carmen carried knives on a regular basis, so as to be able to cut the harnesses in the event of an accident. A carman would also need a knife to cut strings and ropes, methinks.

Did he have a hatred of women-No

Once more, you are guessing away with no substantiation at all. It is pathetic and unworthy.


Was he known to be out late at night- No

What?? There are records telling us that he was not out late at night? Interesting.
You really should not flaunt your shortcomings like this. Itīs embarrasing.


Did he come to the notice of the police-No

Yes - by reporting in himself.

Was he ever looked upon as a suspect-No

Which may explain how he managed to stay uncaught. Until you become a suspect, you are a non-suspect. That is something that has applied to every serialist at a remove in time.

Was he known to have any medical knowledege- No

Was the killer known to have any medical knowledge? No.

Can he physically be placed at any other crime scenes- No

Did he have reasons to visit each and every one of them at the murder times? Yes.

You have to be commended for all the work and effort you have put into trying to prove your theory but you have fallen short, as have I and every other person who has tried to prove conclusively who killed who in 1888 and what the motives were for the killings.

Its time to let go !

Yes - of you. I wish you a quick recovery.

Christer
You whole thinking in relation to this is illogical. You are totally obsessed with this theory, and clearly will have nothing said, nor will you accept anything that shows it is flawed.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Christer
You whole thinking in relation to this is illogical. You are totally obsessed with this theory, and clearly will have nothing said, nor will you accept anything that shows it is flawed.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

On the contrary - if it is flawed, I really wish to know it.

That, however, does not include a wish to have it pointed out to me that Charles Lechmere "did not hate women". From out of the blue!

As always, when it is pointed out to you that you have gotten things very, very wrong, you answer by posting some generalized nonsense about rose tinted glasses, being out with the elfs or being obsessed. It wonīt do, Trevor.

You see, it is all a question of the level on which we work, and how we reason. Some meet the requirements, some donīt.

And some play in a league all of their own. And thatīs not meant as a compliment. Not in your case.

[Trevor Marriott]

On the contrary - if it is flawed, I really wish to know it.

That, however, does not include a wish to have it pointed out to me that Charles Lechmere "did not hate women". From out of the blue!

As always, when it is pointed out to you that you have gotten things very, very wrong, you answer by posting some generalized nonsense about rose tinted glasses, being out with the elfs or being obsessed. It wonīt do, Trevor.

You see, it is all a question of the level on which we work, and how we reason. Some meet the requirements, some donīt.

And some play in a league all of their own. And thatīs not meant as a compliment. Not in your case.

Christer

As to playing in leagues I think you are in danger of being relegated from the one you are in in and having to apply for re election

You have had all the flaws pointed out to you many times by many different people but you are so obsessed to the point that you cannot or will not accept them and the sad fact is that you cannot see that. Why is it so hard for you to take a step back?

Not only are you obsessed with Lechmere you have now formed and obsession for the Thames Torsos calling the killer Torso man ! when there is no evidence that a serial killer was at work. You really do need to get a life or take some pills to combat obsession

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: Christer

As to playing in leagues I think you are in danger of being relegated from the one you are in in and having to apply for re election

Yes, Trevor. But you know, thatīs you.

You have had all the flaws pointed out to you many times by many different people but you are so obsessed to the point that you cannot or will not accept them and the sad fact is that you cannot see that. Why is it so hard for you to take a step back?

Why is it so hard to take a step forward, Trevor? There are no flaws in the theory, there are a number of matters that can be interpreted in more than one way. That is not the same as a flaw. A flaw is something that is definitely wrong. Point out one such "flaw" to me - if you can.

Not only are you obsessed with Lechmere you have now formed and obsession for the Thames Torsos calling the killer Torso man ! when there is no evidence that a serial killer was at work. You really do need to get a life or take some pills to combat obsession

Or start taking advice from you...? There is lots of evidence that a serial killer was at work when it comes to the Torso man. You are perhaps mixing evidence up with proof?

Now, rewarding as it is to poke fun at you, I really cannot spare the time. Just produce that flaw, and I will kick your ignorant behind and we can go our separate ways!

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;373473]

You are perhaps mixing evidence up with proof?

Good point.

Regards, Pierre

[dixon9]

for the sake of devils advocate,would be interesting to know whether Cross worked saturdays(for the chapman slaying)

Do we know if carmen/cross worked saturdays regularly?as it looks as though he started work normally around 4am

not being lazy i have tried to find out about the working hours,ie factory acts etc but couldn't find anything about pickfords working hours/days per week