Disregarded evidence

[DVV]

David:
"So when she says she was sleeping, that can't be true."
Think again.
The best,
Fisherman

Done, Fish. Now I think she became Lechmere's mistress (on Sunday evening, most probably) and subsequently changed her version.

[Fisherman]

Tom:

"my apologies then in jumping to conclusions."

No probs, Tom.

"The way the timing of the train was being discussed, I was left with the impression that some argument was being cooked up and I was at a loss to see how it would fit to Cross."

That IS problems - why would I cook up anything at all? Iīm fine with the evidence as it is.

"The suggestion of the thread is that Lilley's evidence was disregarded by the police ..."

It was. What we know, we know courtesy of the papers. The police did not knock on Lilleys door, apparently.

"... as though it leads down a different trail than that already suggested by the body of Nichols and the evidence of Cross and Paul, that they spent a few moments over the body."

Lilley may have heard another couple altogether - if she wandered between sleep and awakeness, drifting in and out if the states, then Lord knows when and what she heard.

But if she genuinely heard moans and whispers, divided by seconds only, then things are looking bleak for our carman.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David:

"So when she says she was sleeping, that can't be true."

Think again.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Fish, my apologies then in jumping to conclusions. The way the timing of the train was being discussed, I was left with the impression that some argument was being cooked up and I was at a loss to see how it would fit to Cross. The suggestion of the thread is that Lilley's evidence was disregarded by the police, as though it leads down a different trail than that already suggested by the body of Nichols and the evidence of Cross and Paul, that they spent a few moments over the body.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DVV]

Hi Fish

Mrs Green was a very light sleeper, David.
Fisherman

So when she says she was sleeping, that can't be true.

[Fisherman]

It would! But who says it came first, Lynn? Is it not more reasonable to argue that he was displeased with his first effort and added a second, to make really sure?

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

hurry

Hello Christer. If Cross were in haste because of the approaching Paul, and wanted to ensure that Polly was dead, why on earth two cuts? The deep one would have sufficed.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

David:

"She said she was sleeping until the constables knocked her front door.
No need to question her about the train or voices, thus.
She heard nothing because she was sleeping.
Conclusion : Mrs Green doesn't contradict Mrs Lilley's account - who must have been "disregarded" for other reasons, good or bad."

Simplification - where would we be without it?

Mrs Green was a very light sleeper, David. And just as you reason that she does not contradict Lilley since she was fast asleep, I can with an equal amount of simplification say that Green not waking up tells us that Lilley must have been wrong.

Grey, David, is what comes out of mixing black and white.

Grey is a complicated colour.

Not many people like it.

The TRULY interesting thing to note here is that the police may have forgotten to ask Green about the train, yes - but the very apparently forgot to ask Lilley anything at all. She lived right next to New Cottage, and the police omitted to talk to her. Now THAT is strange. Maybe the police were the fast sleepers?

The best,
Fisherman

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

David:
" then again, did Mrs Green, that world-famous light sleeper, hear the train ?"

Was she asked about it? It would not have been something out of the ordinary, and therefore she would perhaps not have offered it a thought even if she DID hear it.
Fisherman

Hi Fish.
She said she was sleeping until the constables knocked her front door.
No need to question her about the train or voices, thus.
She heard nothing because she was sleeping.
Conclusion : Mrs Green doesn't contradict Mrs Lilley's account - who must have been "disregarded" for other reasons, good or bad.

[Lechmere]

Tom
I haven't Given a considered or detailed appreciation of lilley's story. Yet. But clearly it Could be used to bOlster the Charles lechmere case.

[Fisherman]

Tom:

"what I came away with was that Lilley was an auditory witness to three events - a train, choking noises, and two people whispering...in that order. The train is clearly an unrelated event, whereas the choking and whispering were linked (in her mind) as related"

But thatīs not how Lilley paints it out. She says "It was quite dark at the time, but a luggage train went by as I heard the sounds." and that links not the moans and the whispers but instead the train and the moans. Of course, if Lilley is right on this, then what she heard was NOT the murder.

She goes on to say that there were also whispers, but she does not say that they were at the same time or following very closely to the moans.

All in all, if we are to allow for her having heard the murder, then she must have gotten the connection to the train wrong - and this may have been so if she was hovering inbetween awakeness and sleep, getting it muddled up as she tried to make sense of things and recall what she had heard.

"I'm also at a loss as to what Lechmere and Fisherman are going for with their take on Lilley, since both believe that Cross was a lone killer."

Exactly what do you mean here, Tom? My take is that Lilley either muddled the events or got it spot on - in which case she heard something else than the murder, possibly a sexual transaction between other people altogether. How does this preclude Lechmere being the single murderer?

Unless you mean that the sound effects give away TWO murderers, working in tandem? The whispers being close in time to the moans, an so on? If so, Iīd say that if Lechmere killed and cut Nichols, only to be disturbed by Paul, then there would have been a matter of seconds only inbeweeen the moans produced by Nichols (if it WAS her moaning) and the whispers produced by Lechmere and Paul. Llewellyn was from the outset of the meaning that the abdominal wounds were inflicted first, and that opens for a possible scenario where Lechmere subdues Nichols, partially strangling her, gets her on the ground, lifts her skirt, chops and cuts away at her abdomen, she gives a painful moan or two, Lechmere notices Paul coming, considers running for it, realizes that Nichols is not dead, decides to ensure that she IS by cutting her neck with two almighty cuts, Paul is meanwhile drawing much closer, Lechmere stashes the knife and gets on his feet, thinking "Bloody hell, how much has this guy seen or heard?", steps out into the street, still very tense and strung like a fiddle, scares Paul who tries to round him ...

That would tally with what Lilley says, I guess. The moans and then, thereafter the whispers, voices she canīt quite make out, since they are some way away.

But, as ever - the train does not fit into it!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Curious:

"I, too, have attempted to research this, but the amount of time I found was anywhere from 2 to 4 minutes for the heart to stop beating, then 3 to 15 minutes for the blood to clot. Doing the math, at the short end, you would have 5 minutes and at the long end you would have 19 minutes for death to occur and for the oozing to stop."

I donīt think doctors do their math like this, however. From what I gather, an extremely severe damage such as having ALL your vessels in the neck severed will - in combination with a victim lying down - ensure that the body is bled out in a matter of very few minutes.

In fact, there are records that tell us that a heart can beat much longer than 4 minutes even if your spine is broken, as per hanging - but a beating heart would not slow the bleeding process - it would speed it up. And with the heart still beating and the kind of damage Nichols suffered, a minute, two at the most, would suffice to empty the body of itīs blood.

Thatīs what I have been able to secure by reading up as best as I could, but Iīm sure that there are medically skilled people out on these threads, so it would be interesting if they could chime in. Iīm sure there will be variations inbetween the bids, but I personally find 19 minutes a very hard figure to believe in.

If we, for comparison, look at Stride, the we have her being cut in the period between 0.45-1.00, and we have Johnston arriving at the scene at 1.12-1.13. That means that she was cut 12-27 minutes before he saw her, and when he did, all the blood had run away and was in a clotted state. And this from a much, much smaller damage, with just the one carotid artery being only partially severed. The amount of opened-up vessels in her neck would not be half as many as the case was for Nichols, and Stride had not had any damage to her stomach to bleed through, whereas there was extensive such damage done to Nichols.

But letīs listen to the ones who know this business, if somebody is willing to take a shot at it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David:

"Fish, we don't know precisely when she heard the train (could have been at 3.35, 3.32, 3.25, whatever...), but more importantly, we don't know how many minutes have passed by before she heard the two voices."

I believe it has been said that the train was on schedule. But if Lilley was only semi-awake and mixed things and times up, then yes, she may have heard the train, dozed off for some minutes, woke up, heard the killing and Lechmere/Paul. Itīs a very wooly scenario, though.

" then again, did Mrs Green, that world-famous light sleeper, hear the train ?"

Was she asked about it? It would not have been something out of the ordinary, and therefore she would perhaps not have offered it a thought even if she DID hear it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

"Unfortunately, Christer, as you know, we do not know how the killer subdued his victim. He may have punched her in the stomach and face to stun her on her feet before pulling her a few yards to the gates and away from the house windows. He could have been walking with his arm around her neck (remember how Marshall`s man was walking with Stride and his arm around her neck) and on approaching the gates tightened his grip."

This is all very true, Jon. Itīs just that I think - and it is no more than thinking, of course, but anyways ... - that if the couple was walking from East to West, then why would he attack her right outside a place where he would know that people lived and quite possibly could hear him? He would have had the fewest of yards to walk to get to the stable doors, and, beyond that, the school building, where no people would be in place and some sort of secure surroundings were on offer. Why first take the risk of waking people up in Lilleys house (AND here window was open, right? Worst possible choice, therefore), only to thereafter drag Nichols along a few yards and set about cutting her?

Does not mean that it could not have happened like this, but it is an awkward scenario in many ways. And if the walked from West to East ... No, letīs not even go there!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"The number ran on one side.

Courtesy of Robert Clack."

Thanks, Monty - AND Robert!

"Incidently, Cutbush lived at No7 prior to the Lilleys."

Thomas Haynes C? Wow! Talk of a small world...? When did he move out of there?

Okay, okay - just saw the Albert Cutbush bit. Good one, Monty!

The best,
Fisherman