Lechmere Continuation Thread

[David Orsam]

It is a lot less reasonable option than the one I am suggesting. End of.

What I have noted is that you consistently say on this forum that Dr Llwellyn arrived in Bucks Row at about 4:10am - and I'm sure you've sucked me into repeating this myself - but when one looks at the evidence it becomes apparent that there is no evidential support for such a claim.

But you repeat it, I suggest, because it enables you to say that if Nichols was murdered half an hour earlier then she was murdered at 3:40 which is roughly when you believe Lechmere must have arrived in Bucks Row.

It is, however, at least equally plausible that the doctor arrived in Bucks Row at about 4:00am. There is certainly nothing unreasonable in that suggestion and I fail to see how it is more or less reasonable than your wholly speculative opinion that it was at 4:10am.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: What I have noted is that you consistently say on this forum that Dr Llwellyn arrived in Bucks Row at about 4:10am - and I'm sure you've sucked me into repeating this myself - but when one looks at the evidence it becomes apparent that there is no evidential support for such a claim.

Okay, your last answer from me for today, David, since you are hellbent on it. I "consistently say" that Llewellyn would have arrived in Bucks Row at about 4.10 because I believe that is as close an approximation as we can make, not because it is in the written evidence.
You, on the other hand, make the assumption that Llewellyn meant that he arrived in Bucks Row at around four o clock, instead of being alerted to the errand as such at around four o clock, having to get dressed and to collect his stuff before taking of in company with Thain.

Here´s the Daily News from the 3:rd, reporting from the inquest:

Dr. Llewellyn, 152 Whitechapel road, deposed that on Friday morning about four o'clock he was called up by a policeman with whom he went to Buck's row.


So, as you can read for yourself, "about four o´ clock" was the time when Llewellyn was awakened by Thain knocking on his door, and not the remove in time when he arrived at the murder site.
You are therefore making a suggestion that does not dovetail with the known facts, as established at the inquest.

But you repeat it, I suggest, because it enables you to say that if Nichols was murdered half an hour earlier then she was murdered at 3:40 which is roughly when you believe Lechmere must have arrived in Bucks Row.

[B]Yes, and a charming suggestion it is - you are suggesting that I am fitting the facts to dovetail with my theory. Nice.
I have no idea when Lechmere arrived in Bucks Row, it may have been anywhere between 3.15 and 3.45. There is not any record of what took place between these hours, unless we want to think that Robert Paul was wrong on the timings, and that he was there at 3.40. However, if he was, then it would be odd that Thain did not arrive at Llewellyns place until around 4 o clock. If anything, the timings make more sense if we add some little time instead of detracting it.
I do believe that Nichols´s neck was cut at around 3.40-3.45. And I do believe that Llewellyn would have arrived at the site at around 4.10. It is not something I lie about or try to make up, regardless of what you see fit to imply.

It is, however, at least equally plausible that the doctor arrived in Bucks Row at about 4:00am. There is certainly nothing unreasonable in that suggestion and I fail to see how it is more or less reasonable than your wholly speculative opinion that it was at 4:10am.

It is interesting that you should speak of my opinion as wholly speculative - as if your own opinion was not . The Daily News tells us quite clearly that Llewellyn was called up by Thain at around 4 AM. "Called up" means called up from bed. Once Llewellyn woke, he had to get dressed (and he would not have used a pair of jeans and a t-shirt, but instead a victorian suit with lots of buttons, taking some time to get into). After that he would have to collect his bag, quite possibly checking it for contents, before he set off together with Thain to the murder spot.
The distance from Llewellyns practice would be covered in two or three minutes, add to this the time it took for the doctor to get out of bed, get dressed and ready.

If you look at Blackwell, he was alerted to the nearby murder site in Berner Street a hundred yards away or so at 1.10 and arrived at 1.16:
"On Sunday morning last, at ten minutes past one o'clock, I was called to Berner-street by a policeman. My assistant, Mr. Johnston, went back with the constable, and I followed immediately I was dressed."


I find an estimation of around ten minutes for Llewellyns trek to Bucks Row very reasonable.

You find it a potentially deceitful misleading on my behalf.

My, how different we are, David. And my what different aims we have with our respective work.

Now that this has been established, I really cannot be bothered to answer your unfortunate posts any more today.

[David Orsam]

Fisherman, if I had a pound coin for every time you told me you were not going to reply to me any more but then continued to reply I'd be quite a rich man. Well I'd certainly have a few pound coins at least!

Leaving aside that the Daily News report could well be nothing more than the reporter's own interpretation of the Q&A sequence that I set out earlier, what it says is entirely consistent with what I have been saying.

For the key difference in the Daily News report, as opposed to say the report in the Times, is that Llwellyn is recorded as saying that he was called up "at about four o'clock' whereas other papers have it as "at four o'clock". That being so, it is consistent with the doctor saying in his 31 August statement that he was called to Bucks Row at "about five minutes to four". As you know, in my previous choronology of events, I have suggested that Thain might have knocked at his door at 3:52 which is consistent with what was reported in the Daily News.

So we simply come to the issue of how long it took the doctor to take to get dressed of which we have no evidence and about which I am suggesting the espousal of pure speculation on your part, talking about buttons etc. For all we know it could have taken him 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 20 minutes or half an hour. So why plump for 4:10 as his time of arrival? Perhaps it was 4:20 right? But then what becomes of your "half an hour"? Because time of death clearly wasn't 3:50am.

So I think you are adjusting to 4:10 to make sense of the doctor's evidence. But if you make that adjustment why can someone else not adjust to 4:00am or even 4:05 am which would then put time of death - according to the doctor - at 3:35?

And perhaps at 3:35 Lechmere was just leaving his house.

My point, Fisherman, is that we add nothing to the case against (or for) Lechmere by fixing on points such as this "half an hour" of Dr Llwewllyn which, given what we know, or rather don't know about the timings that morning, is so vague as to be meaningless.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: Fisherman, if I had a pound coin for every time you told me you were not going to reply to me any more but then continued to reply I'd be quite a rich man. Well I'd certainly have a few pound coins at least!

You know, you have quite an eccentric approach to these matters.

First you say "You are running, you scoundrel!"

Then, when I answer, you say "You promised not to answer, you scoundrel!"

It is a very odd approach, and one may easily get the idea that you are more after trying to paint me out as confused than to have any real discussion.

Leaving aside that the Daily News report could well be nothing more than the reporter's own interpretation of the Q&A sequence that I set out earlier, what it says is entirely consistent with what I have been saying.

No, it is not. It states very clearly that Llewellyn was waken up at around four in the morning by Thain. Any other "interpretation" is a distortion of the facts.

For the key difference in the Daily News report, as opposed to say the report in the Times, is that Llwellyn is recorded as saying that he was called up "at about four o'clock' whereas other papers have it as "at four o'clock". That being so, it is consistent with the doctor saying in his 31 August statement that he was called to Bucks Row at "about five minutes to four". As you know, in my previous choronology of events, I have suggested that Thain might have knocked at his door at 3:52 which is consistent with what was reported in the Daily News.

But less so with the other timings, of course. But why care about that?

So we simply come to the issue of how long it took the doctor to take to get dressed of which we have no evidence and about which I am suggesting the espousal of pure speculation on your part, talking about buttons etc. For all we know it could have taken him 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 20 minutes or half an hour. So why plump for 4:10 as his time of arrival? Perhaps it was 4:20 right? But then what becomes of your "half an hour"? Because time of death clearly wasn't 3:50am.

Oh dear, David. You ARE itching, are you not?

Say that Thain knocked on Llewellyns door at 3.52. Say that the doc was a dressing whizz kid, and got that sorted double quick, arriving in Bucks Row at 3.57.

Llewellyn did effectively NOT say that Nichols died half an hour before he saw her. He said that she had been dead for no more than half an hour. Meaning that she died within that half hour before he arrived.
If he arrived at 4.10, then Nichols according to Llewellyn died between 3.40 and 3.45, since those five minutes are the only ones unaccounted for in the evidence. And that puts Lechmere in the frame.
If he arrived at 3.57, then Llewellyn would have her dead somewhere between 3.27 and 3.45, since we would get that unaccounted gap of time. And that puts Lechmere in the frame.

In the latter case, we are faced with the problem that Nichols would have bled from the neck wound for 18 minutes before Neil found her, if she was cut at 3.27. And Jason Payne-James tells us that 3-5 minutes are likelier than 7 minutes. What he would say about 18 minutes is anybody´s guess.


So I think you are adjusting to 4:10 to make sense of the doctor's evidence. But if you make that adjustment why can someone else not adjust to 4:00am or even 4:05 am which would then put time of death - according to the doctor - at 3:35?

Adjust away, David - and try to make it fit the blood evidence. It is really, really hard, I can tell you that much.

And perhaps at 3:35 Lechmere was just leaving his house.

Or maybe at 2.29?

My point, Fisherman, is that we add nothing to the case against (or for) Lechmere by fixing on points such as this "half an hour" of Dr Llwewllyn which, given what we know, or rather don't know about the timings that morning, is so vague as to be meaningless.

It is not meaningless at all. It fits the overall puzzle very nicely, and so it becomes another detail pointing in the carmans direction. And timelines can be built with at least some accuracy. Like it or not.

Now, David, have I been nice to you since I did not run away, or have I been a naughty boy since I said I did not wish to discuss with you any more - and still did so? I find it increasingly hard to keep track of. Any which way, I really mean it when I say that I do not feel like discussing any further with you.
If you can bring yourself to realize that this is on account of how I think you are not a very qualitative debater, instead of any fear for you, I would be most grateful.

[Columbo]

I think we should remember we're not here to prove Lechmere/Cross guilty or innocent. None of us here know that at all. A decent case from Edward and Fisherman has been made but as Fisherman pointed it out it's not provable.

We also don't know with any certainty if the times discussed are correct and those who claim to know these are correct are fooling themselves. At this late stage any times put forth by any of the contemporary sources are estimates and guesses at best. Not once that I've seen in the discussions did Dr. soandso say he knew the time because this clock struck at this time etc. same goes for the PC's, although I would give their estimates a little more weight as they did the same beat over and over.

As for the newspapers, that's really an individual choice and I still think alot of them got their inquest info from a news agency, hence the near identical reporting. So if the agency got it wrong, then guess who else got it wrong?

My opinion only, and as the great poet said "opinions are like a**holes, we've all got them and most of them stink"

Columbo

[David Orsam]

You know, you have quite an eccentric approach to these matters.

First you say "You are running, you scoundrel!"

Then, when I answer, you say "You promised not to answer, you scoundrel!"

It is a very odd approach, and one may easily get the idea that you are more after trying to paint me out as confused than to have any real discussion.

My approach is not eccentric or odd in the slightest. It's your approach that is the problem. You constantly say you are not going to reply further to me - without even knowing what I'm going to say - then you invariably DO reply a number of times before usually running away.

You also completely mischaracterise my response by having me say "You promised not to answer". I don't care whether you do or don't reply but it's madness for you to continually say you are not going to reply then reply.

Why not just not say anything about it? Reply if you want to and don't reply if you don't want to. How about THAT for a suggestion?

[David Orsam]

ME: "Leaving aside that the Daily News report could well be nothing more than the reporter's own interpretation of the Q&A sequence that I set out earlier, what it says is entirely consistent with what I have been saying".

YOU: "No, it is not. It states very clearly that Llewellyn was waken up at around four in the morning by Thain. Any other "interpretation" is a distortion of the facts."

No, it doesn't say "around four" so that's your first fail. It says "about four". A very subtle difference but let's stick with the actual wording.

That could very easily have meant ten minutes to four. The only reason I've suggested closer to 3:55 is because of Dr Llwellyn's statement of 31 August.

So the evidence in the Daily News of him being called up at about four is perfectly consistent with him arriving at Bucks Row at either 4am or, alternatively, 4:05, giving him up to 15 minutes to get dressed and walk round there. Considering that you have only given him 10 minutes, from 4:00 to 4:10, that's very generous!

[David Orsam]

Oh dear, David. You ARE itching, are you not?

Say that Thain knocked on Llewellyns door at 3.52. Say that the doc was a dressing whizz kid, and got that sorted double quick, arriving in Bucks Row at 3.57.

Llewellyn did effectively NOT say that Nichols died half an hour before he saw her. He said that she had been dead for no more than half an hour. Meaning that she died within that half hour before he arrived.
If he arrived at 4.10, then Nichols according to Llewellyn died between 3.40 and 3.45, since those five minutes are the only ones unaccounted for in the evidence. And that puts Lechmere in the frame.
If he arrived at 3.57, then Llewellyn would have her dead somewhere between 3.27 and 3.45, since we would get that unaccounted gap of time. And that puts Lechmere in the frame.

So there isn't really a point here because whatever estimate the doctor gave for time of death, Lechmere (the first to discover the body) was in the frame. That's basically what you are saying. That's fine but the doctor's estimate gets us no further forward.

[David Orsam]

In the latter case, we are faced with the problem that Nichols would have bled from the neck wound for 18 minutes before Neil found her, if she was cut at 3.27. And Jason Payne-James tells us that 3-5 minutes are likelier than 7 minutes. What he would say about 18 minutes is anybody´s guess.

No, I'm afraid you are faced with the problem that Trevor's expert told us that Nichols could have bled from the neck wound for some hours after death.

[David Orsam]

Adjust away, David - and try to make it fit the blood evidence. It is really, really hard, I can tell you that much.

And perhaps at 3:35 Lechmere was just leaving his house.

Or maybe at 2.29?

Yes or maybe at 1:00am. But the point is that we can definitely place Lechmere in Bucks Row at some point between 3:40 and 3:45 which is obviously why you are so keen on Dr Llewellyn estimating a time of death of not more than 30 minutes prior to 4:10. There is less force in the point if it's up to 30 minutes prior to 4:00am because we have no evidence of Lechmere being in Bucks Row at 3:30.

[David Orsam]

It is not meaningless at all. It fits the overall puzzle very nicely, and so it becomes another detail pointing in the carmans direction. And timelines can be built with at least some accuracy. Like it or not.

But the "overall puzzle" for you is that Lechmere murdered Nichols so if you create timings to fit that "overall puzzle" then of course you will come up with a detail pointing in the carman's direction. If the "overall puzzle" is that Lechmere is innocent (you know, the one that those "naysayers" were going on about) then a time of 4:00am or 4:05 am fits that "overall puzzle" very nicely and there is nothing more correct in the evidence about one over the other.

[Fisherman]

My approach is not eccentric or odd in the slightest. It's your approach that is the problem. You constantly say you are not going to reply further to me - without even knowing what I'm going to say - then you invariably DO reply a number of times before usually running away.

You also completely mischaracterise my response by having me say "You promised not to answer". I don't care whether you do or don't reply but it's madness for you to continually say you are not going to reply then reply.

Why not just not say anything about it? Reply if you want to and don't reply if you don't want to. How about THAT for a suggestion?

Nah - it is important to me to point out to you that I dislike your debating methods, and I therefore make it a point to tell you that I prefer not to debate with you at all. Consequentially, I will withdraw from the discussion as fast as I can.

And - believe it or not - I prefer to do things my way, instead of taking your advice.

And it remains eccentric to mix the odd "You are running" with the odd "You responded in spite of saying that you would not". It makes you impossible to please. Not that it is any priority of mine, but ...

[David Orsam]

Now, David, have I been nice to you since I did not run away, or have I been a naughty boy since I said I did not wish to discuss with you any more - and still did so? I find it increasingly hard to keep track of. Any which way, I really mean it when I say that I do not feel like discussing any further with you.
If you can bring yourself to realize that this is on account of how I think you are not a very qualitative debater, instead of any fear for you, I would be most grateful.

The delicious irony here is that while saying that you have not run away you then set the scene up for you to run away!

Just to repeat that I don't care whether you run away or not, or whether you post or not, so saying that you have been "nice" to me is a mistake.

What I don't understand is why you keep making these type of "drama queen" posts - especially when you don't usually stick with what you are saying.

And, by the way, I didn't miss the insult of you calling me "not a very qualitative debater" but I personally think the opposite is true and that you are very happy to debate all day long with people who you think you can easily show to be wrong but you don't like discussing with me because you never get anywhere.

[David Orsam]

Nah - it is important to me to point out to you that I dislike your debating methods, and I therefore make it a point to tell you that I prefer not to debate with you at all. Consequentially, I will withdraw from the discussion as fast as I can.

And - believe it or not - I prefer to do things my way, instead of taking your advice.

And it remains eccentric to mix the odd "You are running" with the odd "You responded in spite of saying that you would not". It makes you impossible to please. Not that it is any priority of mine, but ...

Here we go, not quite stopping yet then? Yes I'm sure you don't like my debating methods Fisherman because I focus on the evidence and point out to your discomfort where you have gone wrong.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: ME: "Leaving aside that the Daily News report could well be nothing more than the reporter's own interpretation of the Q&A sequence that I set out earlier, what it says is entirely consistent with what I have been saying".

YOU: "No, it is not. It states very clearly that Llewellyn was waken up at around four in the morning by Thain. Any other "interpretation" is a distortion of the facts."

No, it doesn't say "around four" so that's your first fail. It says "about four". A very subtle difference but let's stick with the actual wording.

Eh - what is the actual "subtle difference" but for the spelling...?

That could very easily have meant ten minutes to four. The only reason I've suggested closer to 3:55 is because of Dr Llwellyn's statement of 31 August.

No, David, that could not very easily have meant ten minutes to four. The doctor was testifying in a murder inquest, and he would be anxious not to be too inexact.

So the evidence in the Daily News of him being called up at about four is perfectly consistent with him arriving at Bucks Row at either 4am or, alternatively, 4:05, giving him up to 15 minutes to get dressed and walk round there.

In your world only. With the champagne. In my world, it is desert time for you again. He was knocked up, undressed and in bed, at around four o´clock by Thain. That means that he was not in Bucks Row simultaneously or five minutes earlier. That only hapens in your parallel universe.