Lechmere Continuation Thread

[David Orsam]

That hinges on many factors, one of them being whether the timepieces involved were correct. I will say that I find it less likely but not entirely impossible. And no, I cannot establish the exact minute when it becomes entirely impossible.

Let me put it this way. Your assumption seems to be that if Dr Llewellyn was called up at 4am he would have been examining Nichols in Bucks Row at 4.10am.

So you factor in ten minutes from the calling up to the examination.

Bearing in mind the doctor's statement of 31 August that he was called to Bucks Row at about 3:55 (a statement that you continually ignore), if we take 3.55 as the starting point, is it not entirely reasonable using your own estimate of ten minutes to get dressed and walk to Bucks Row to say that he was there at 4:05?

Why is this "less likely" than 4:10?

Surely, given the statement of 31 August, it is more likely isn't it?

[David Orsam]

Here´s my question in return: If Llewellyn was knocked up at, say, 3.59, is it likely that he was examining Nichols at 4.05?

Could the doctor had got out of bed, dressed and into Bucks Row in six minutes? Yes, I would say it's possible. But there is no information or evidence as to how long it did in fact take. You are the one who has come up with an estimate of 10 minutes - plucked out of the air - so you must accept that if the doctor was called at 3.50 he would have been at Bucks Row at 4:00, and if he was called at 3:55 he would have been there at 4:05, otherwise you are simply fixing a time to suit the case against Lechmere.

[Pcdunn]

Could the doctor had got out of bed, dressed and into Bucks Row in six minutes? Yes, I would say it's possible. But there is no information or evidence as to how long it did in fact take. You are the one who has come up with an estimate of 10 minutes - plucked out of the air - so you must accept that if the doctor was called at 3.50 he would have been at Bucks Row at 4:00, and if he was called at 3:55 he would have been there at 4:05, otherwise you are simply fixing a time to suit the case against Lechmere.

I believe I read somewhere in another thread that someone tried to recreate the walk from Buck's Row to Llewellyn's house and back again, and did give results there. Perhaps it is under the Doctors section?

[David Orsam]

I believe I read somewhere in another thread that someone tried to recreate the walk from Buck's Row to Llewellyn's house and back again, and did give results there. Perhaps it is under the Doctors section?

Yes, it was me. In the Scenes of the Crimes section in thread Bucks Row Timings.

It's really very close, about two minutes at a brisk walk from the house to where the body was found, perhaps three or four at a slower pace but I think you'd be walking very slowly to do it in four.

[Columbo]

We're spending alot of time on time. There's not going to be total agreement on it, and no matter who says what or what was reported it's all hypothesis. Let's try to open our minds a little.

Columbo

[David Orsam]

We're spending alot of time on time. There's not going to be total agreement on it, and no matter who says what or what was reported it's all hypothesis. Let's try to open our minds a little.

I do love your judgemental postings Columbo. Over in the Lawende thread you complained that the posts about Lechmere were off topic. Now in this on-topic thread we are, apparently, spending "a lot of time" on one issue - although it's only been a single day - and the problem is that we are discussing a subject about which "There's not going to be total agreement on". Well if we only discussed subjects on which there is going to be total agreement we would be a bit stuck for subjects.

Have you considered posting what you want to post and not constantly moaning about other people's posts?

[Columbo]

I do love your judgemental postings Columbo. Over in the Lawende thread you complained that the posts about Lechmere were off topic. Now in this on-topic thread we are, apparently, spending "a lot of time" on one issue - although it's only been a single day - and the problem is that we are discussing a subject about which "There's not going to be total agreement on". Well if we only discussed subjects on which there is going to be total agreement we would be a bit stuck for subjects.

Have you considered posting what you want to post and not constantly moaning about other people's posts?

Nah, I think I'll keep moaning.

The timing debate is fine if you know when to quit, especially when it's nothing but snide comments and re-hashing from other threads.

Here's what you should know about time.

1. Around and about are the same thing. Around 4a is the same as about 4a.

2. Nichols could've been bleeding for 5 minutes or 20 minutes or half an hour. the position of her body coupled by the entry of the wound shows she bled not profusely as there was only a small puddle and the flow was slow enough to keep it from going beyond her shoulders. Everyone here should take notice that an accurate, detailed medical description was not given at the crime scene.

3. If Lechmere killed her at 3:30a he wouldn't have been standing there when Paul came around the corner. If he killed her at 3:37a he's the damned luckiest man in the world.

4. Most likely the doctor arrived about 10 minutes after 4. If he was told she was dead, he was not going to be in a huge hurry, especially if he had to put his suit on, even partially, according to Victorian Mores. He's not gonna wear a tank top and shorts.

5. No medical specialist today can give you anything but the most basic information concerning this murder. They or I were not there.

So here's your timeline.

1. Nichols was killed between 3:15 and 3:40a. we all know why.
2. No one knows when Lechmere really left the house so by his word he left at 3:30a.
4. Paul says he arrived at 3:45 but Neil says he arrived at 3:45 so I'm going with him because he walked the damn route every night!
5. That puts Paul in Buck's row about 3:40a.
6. Paul and Lechmere have a minute or so conversation and then leave on a several minutes walk.
7. They talk to the other PC, he continues knocking up doors and then goes to Buck's Row. So he's probably there at 3:55a, takes 2 minutes or less to get to the doctor.
8. We're at 3:57a, the doctors woken up, puts on his suit and coat and walks back to Buck's Rows. that'll put him at about or around 4:10a.

Have fun picking that apart.

Columbo

[Columbo]

I do love your judgemental postings Columbo. Over in the Lawende thread you complained that the posts about Lechmere were off topic. Now in this on-topic thread we are, apparently, spending "a lot of time" on one issue - although it's only been a single day - and the problem is that we are discussing a subject about which "There's not going to be total agreement on". Well if we only discussed subjects on which there is going to be total agreement we would be a bit stuck for subjects.

Have you considered posting what you want to post and not constantly moaning about other people's posts?

And one more thing, if I'm judgemental I apologize for coming across as so.

Columbo

[Abby Normal]

Nah, I think I'll keep moaning.

The timing debate is fine if you know when to quit, especially when it's nothing but snide comments and re-hashing from other threads.

Here's what you should know about time.

1. Around and about are the same thing. Around 4a is the same as about 4a.

2. Nichols could've been bleeding for 5 minutes or 20 minutes or half an hour. the position of her body coupled by the entry of the wound shows she bled not profusely as there was only a small puddle and the flow was slow enough to keep it from going beyond her shoulders. Everyone here should take notice that an accurate, detailed medical description was not given at the crime scene.

3. If Lechmere killed her at 3:30a he wouldn't have been standing there when Paul came around the corner. If he killed her at 3:37a he's the damned luckiest man in the world.

4. Most likely the doctor arrived about 10 minutes after 4. If he was told she was dead, he was not going to be in a huge hurry, especially if he had to put his suit on, even partially, according to Victorian Mores. He's not gonna wear a tank top and shorts.

5. No medical specialist today can give you anything but the most basic information concerning this murder. They or I were not there.

So here's your timeline.

1. Nichols was killed between 3:15 and 3:40a. we all know why.
2. No one knows when Lechmere really left the house so by his word he left at 3:30a.
4. Paul says he arrived at 3:45 but Neil says he arrived at 3:45 so I'm going with him because he walked the damn route every night!
5. That puts Paul in Buck's row about 3:40a.
6. Paul and Lechmere have a minute or so conversation and then leave on a several minutes walk.
7. They talk to the other PC, he continues knocking up doors and then goes to Buck's Row. So he's probably there at 3:55a, takes 2 minutes or less to get to the doctor.
8. We're at 3:57a, the doctors woken up, puts on his suit and coat and walks back to Buck's Rows. that'll put him at about or around 4:10a.

Have fun picking that apart.

Columbo

Hi Colombo
Could you please explain your number three a bit more?

[GUT]

Hi Colombo
Could you please explain your number three a bit more?

Seems to me that he's saying if he killed her at 3:30 he'd be long gone by 3:40, if in the other hand he killed her at 3:37 he was dead lucky that Oaul want a couple of minutes earlier.

[Columbo]

Hi Colombo
Could you please explain your number three a bit more?

Hey Abby,

Sure, by the timeline I put forth Lechmere only had roughly 3 minutes to kill Nichols before Paul came around the corner, which is entirely possible given the wounds, but if he did it was a razor's edge close call he wasn't seen doing anything else but standing in the road.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Seems to me that he's saying if he killed her at 3:30 he'd be long gone by 3:40, if in the other hand he killed her at 3:37 he was dead lucky that Paul want a couple of minutes earlier.

Exactly.

Columbo

[Abby Normal]

Thanks Colombo and gut

[harry]

in answer to post 96.
The circumstantial evidence is argueably that Cross was telling the truth,and a Jury,in my opinion,would have difficulty in finding otherwise.What he is to us is a person under discussion,no information suggests he killed anyone,Scobies reasoning regardless.

[drstrange169]

Re: Neil’s beat

I asked if you had legitimate references to support that claim, you’re lack of direct answer tells us, you don’t. That’s all we needed to know.

>>It is YOU who edit important matters out of quotes, not me, Dusty.<<

So you keep claiming to avoid talking about your slice and dice in post #23.
May I remind you of what you wrote in post#47.
“I am not any great fan of such antics. Frankly, I think it disqualifies anybody who does it from the discussion.”
So you are excusing yourself from any more comments?

Re: Police not knowing the details of Mizen’s meeting when they gave the “late Sunday” interview.

You were so desperate to muddy the waters you didn’t even notice you ended up agreeing with me,
“2. The report did not mention the carmen. It will simply have said "3.45 - was summoned to Bucks Row by a fellow PC."

That suits me fine.

My contention was the investigators didn’t know and if they didn’t, it negates your reasoning for that Xmere could not have contacted the police earlier.
(Shaking head in disbelief)

Re: Quoting

You wrote,

>>… we shall compare them all to YOUR whopper from the olden days. And we will all see who acts deceptively.<<

Sure, let’s compare … oh sorry, we can’t, because you won’t acknowledge your post #23 and as you wrote, “it disqualifies anybody who does it from the discussion.”

So until you ‘fess up about your scissor work there is nothing to discuss. Or is it a case of “do as I say, not as I do?”


>>The question was whether Mizen had seen anybody leaving the scene to attract attention.<<

Is this like Neil’s beat? How the hell do you know what the question was or if Mizen was even asked one?