Lechmere Continuation Thread

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: Well we've now established that you don't know what the word "about" means when it comes to estimating times in the nineteenth century and we've established that you are trying to use a time of "about" 4am to prove that Lechmere was the murderer.

I think I know more than you do about language as such, David. One thing I know is that the meaning of different words always floats; it changes from time to time.
And far from trying to prove that Lechmere was the murderer by using Llewellyns timing, I instead point to how this timimg points to Lechmere as the PROBABLE killer.

What we may have achieved is an ignorance on your behalf when it comes to the difference between a theory and a proven matter.

So we are making some progress and it's no wonder that you believe there is "a major timing gap" in this case if you think that times were being fixed with precision by the witnesses.

I suppose you can point to where I state this? Otherwise, you will look quite the dunce.

But this is all a funny way of not debating the topic with me any further.

Funny? Itīs not funny at all. Regardless of what meaning we give that word.

[Fisherman]

Right so we are making some progress.

Now let's get down to business.

Could it have been 4:05?

Come on, donīt be shy, try the 4.00 angle - thatīs where you are going anyway!

[Fisherman]

No it isn't, and the other fact we have is that he issued a statement on 31 August in which he said "I was called to Buck's row about five minutes to four this morning".

Can we work from this Mr Fisherman?

One can always work from a fair weighing. And try all angles.

[David Orsam]

David Orsam: As the only time mentioned at the inquest was 4am, I'm suggesting that this was quite possibly the time he was saying he examined the body as opposed to the time he was called up.

And the Daily News effectively buries that idea.

No it doesn't, for two reasons.

Firstly, if the question actually asked was "What time were you called to Bucks Row?" the answer of 4:00am is ambiguous, because it could be either the time of the knock on his door OR the time he arrived at Bucks Row, and the Daily News reporter could quite easily have interpreted it wrongly, especially as the other newspapers don't report it in quite the same way .

Secondly, the Daily News reported the time as "about 4:00am" so even if the doctor was saying he was called up at his home at "about 4:00am" - by which he presumably meant 3:55am as mentioned in his statement of 31 August - the fact that 4:00am was the only time mentioned to the jury would still naturally mean that he was putting time of death at 3:30am.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: As I understand your argument, it is that if you are correct in your interpretation of the evidence, it strengthens the case against Lechmere as being the murderer or in your weasel words, "Lechmere remains a very strong candidate for the Nichols murder".

"Weasel words"? And of course it strengthens the case against Lechmere if I am correct about the evidence. I would have thought that goes without saying, generally speaking.

It's hard to think of a more important contribution to Ripperology than to establish if a timing issue does or does not strengthen the case against a suspect.

Is it? I can think of many things that are equally important.

Perhaps you don't think it is really very important. A minor issue. I hardly think so but perhaps that reveals your understanding that the point you are making is so insubstantial as to hardly be worth debating.

And if I thought it was of minor importance, would I spend so many miserable hours debating it with you...?

[David Orsam]

David Orsam: Well we've now established that you don't know what the word "about" means when it comes to estimating times in the nineteenth century

I think I know more than you do about language as such, David. One thing I know is that the meaning of different words always floats; it changes from time to time.

Well I can tell you Fisherman that if you think that the word "about" cannot easily incorporate a time difference of ten minutes then you really don't know more about language than I do.

[David Orsam]

David Orsam: and we've established that you are trying to use a time of "about" 4am to prove that Lechmere was the murderer.

And far from trying to prove that Lechmere was the murderer by using Llewellyns timing, I instead point to how this timimg points to Lechmere as the PROBABLE killer.

Yeah, because that's such a big difference. You're not trying to prove he was the killer you are trying to prove he probably was the killer.

And you accuse ME of a lack of "qualitative" argument!!!!

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: Biggs told us that he had personal experience of blood running from a corpse some hours after death. Therefore, the questions he was asked by Trevor were irrelevant if that is true.

No, it was not irrelevant. The actual circumstances under which a victim is found are always relevant. Compare with two liquid-filled basketballs, if you like, cut one in half and pierce the other with a sowing needle and see if the circumstances are of relevance or not.

I'm not aware of any response from Payne James about what Biggs said.

Then again, you did not speak to him, did you?

Given the paucity of evidence about Nichols' death - and the fact that we are sitting here arguing about what the newspaper reports said - I fail to see how Payne James was in any kind of position to make informed comments about the Nichols case in particular.

He was informed about the temperature, the position in which Nichols was found and the approximate extent of the damages done to her. So there was a lot to comment on.

Either blood can run from a corpse for hours after death or it can't. Can it or can't it?

If the victim displayed the kind of damage Nichols did, and was positioned the way she was in the kind of temperature that prevailed, it is completely unlikely that the bleeding would go on for any prolonged time, and Jason Payne-James said that the bleeding would be over in a matter of minutes only. When I asked him if he was talking about three, five or seven minutes, he said that the two shorter times were more likely to be true than the longer one.
Thatīs as far as we can get - likelihoods. And they point a finger at the carman.

[John G]

Hi John, you can humbly refer me to anything you like but can I humbly point out in response that I have not claimed that Biggs said anything about blood "oozing profusely" from a neck wound after several hours. The "oozing profusely" business is an invention based on the words "flowing profusely" that Fisherman has taken from a journalist (guessing that the journalist picked it up from the police). But it was not something said in evidence by any witness.

All we know is that at about 3.45am Neil saw "blood oozing from a wound in the throat". The quote from Biggs I was referring to was posted on this forum by Trevor about a year or so ago, specifically in response to questions that I requested him to ask Biggs about in respect of blood flow from a corpse, but the one from 2013 that you've quoted makes the same point, i.e. "blood can continue to seep out for quite some time after death".

So I would humbly suggest, in view of the expert opinion, that there is nothing impossible or unlikely about Nicholas having been murdered at 3.30am and Neil seeing blood oozing from her throat 15 or even 20 minutes later.

Hello David,

On what basis would you argue that blood exiting the neck at a "trickle", would be described as "oozing profusely"? I would also point out that Dr Biggs further opined: " If a witness discovered a body that was still bleeding relatively profusely, then the injuries are likely to have been inflicted more recently that 20 minutes previously..." (Marriott, 2013)

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: Hi John, you can humbly refer me to anything you like but can I humbly point out in response that I have not claimed that Biggs said anything about blood "oozing profusely" from a neck wound after several hours. The "oozing profusely" business is an invention based on the words "flowing profusely" that Fisherman has taken from a journalist (guessing that the journalist picked it up from the police). But it was not something said in evidence by any witness.

I did not take it from "a" journalist. A large number of papers used the word profusely, and these papers would have been represented by a large number of journalists. Funny, is it not, that they should all have opted for the exact same term...?

[Fisherman]

So what? He was giving evidence for the benefit of the jury who were responsible for trying to work out when Nichols was murdered and 4:00am, if the newspaper reports are correct, was the only time given to the jury as the starting point to work backwards half an hour.

Maybe he DID give the time, and not a paper took it down? Like with Lechmeres address...?

[David Orsam]

David Orsam: So we are making some progress and it's no wonder that you believe there is "a major timing gap" in this case if you think that times were being fixed with precision by the witnesses.

[B]I suppose you can point to where I state this? Otherwise, you will look quite the dunce.

Heh!

From the documentary 'Jack the Ripper: The Missing Evidence':

"Christer Holmgren: And it says 7 minutes, seven seconds. That would have meant that if Lechmere left his home as he said at 3.30 he should have been here at 3.37.

Andy Griffiths: Well that’s very interesting because Paul says he came into the street at 3.45.

Voiceover: Andy and Christer have found a major gap in Lechmere’s timings."

Perhaps you can clarify. Did the documentary get in wrong in saying "Andy and Christer have found a major gap in Lechmere's timings"?

[Fisherman]

And it just so happens that your "fair guess" implicates Lechmere in the murder.

Funny that.

It just so happens that a fair weighing puts the carman in the middle of the picture. Or would you call it an unfair weighing, given what was said by Llewellyn?

[David Orsam]

David Orsam: But this is all a funny way of not debating the topic with me any further.

Funny? Itīs not funny at all. Regardless of what meaning we give that word.

No, it's absolutely frikkin' hilarious.

[David Orsam]

Come on, donīt be shy, try the 4.00 angle - thatīs where you are going anyway!

So, as usual you've ducked the difficult question.

I'll try again though.

Could the doctor have examined the body of Nichols at 4:05am?