Lechmere Continuation Thread

[David Orsam]

So this is where all of Davids blustering has gotten him.

I'll tell you where my "blustering" has got me. You have consistently stated on this forum (without challenge) that Dr Llewellyn arrived in Bucks Row at 4:10am. Consequently, if the doctor's estimate of time of death of not more than half an hour before his arrival was 100% correct, it would mean Nichols was murdered not earlier than 3.40am, thus incriminating Lechmere who said he left his house at about 3.30am in a walk that should not have taken him more than 10 minutes.

Now, however, you have agreed that Dr Llewellyn might have arrived a bit earlier in Bucks Row, say at 4:05am meaning that Nichols might have been killed at least five minutes before Lechmere's supposed arrival in Bucks Row, and possibly more if you could be pushed back to 4:00am as being the time of the doctor's arrival (although of course you tell us you are going to run away from the discussion before I have had a chance to ask you about this).

This seems to me like an important subject and I think it has been a worthwhile exercise having the debate.

[drstrange169]

Good old Christer, predictable as ever, loses the argument, so starts attacking the person to distract from his failure.

Yes, you did trick us all over Lechmere's sister. It just highlights the fact that you are here to point-score in some imagined game rather than join the rest of us in sharing information.

Let's stick to the thread you are trying disrupt shall we?

Here are some of the things in this thread you keep avoiding.

Where is your proof of Neil's beat you keep insisting on you know?

What question is it you claim you know Mizen was asked?

Can you cite some the "extensive use" you claimed, of the phrase, "oozed profusely" in the reporting of Mrs. Nichols murder?

Where is the evidence that more than one reporter claimed the blood "flowed profusely"?

Why do you set more store by an unnamed sensationalistic source than sworn testimony?

Did the police know about Mizen meeting two men when Helson gave the interview or not?

Did you or did you not cut out the last sentence about Mizen from your post #23?

[Columbo]

So having complained about too much discussion on the subject of time you now want to add a post on that very subject yourself!

The only point which seems relevant to my discussion with Fisherman is this:

"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."

The problem with that comment is that you don't address the issue of the starting point. I mean, how long are you saying it took the doctor to get dressed and out to Bucks Row? 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 20 minutes. And on what basis do you select one of those times?

Actually, there are two problems, the second being your assumption that the doctor would not have been in a "huge hurry" having been told there was a dead woman in the street, something which is pure unfounded speculation on your part.

Good questions. So here we go:
Of course this is all speculation. I'm not in total agreement with the doctor's TOD so I will not use that for any purpose in the timeline.

The doctor himself is quoted that he was called at 3:55a. working from there I made the following suppositions:
1. He probably looked at his watch when he saw the cop at his door.
2. This is most likely not the first time he was called for this situation.
3. I would give him about a minute to answer the door and talk to the PC.
4. A complete guess, but I would say 5-7 minutes to wake up and get dressed.
5. 2-5 minutes or so to get to the scene.

So if I had to choose between 4:05a or 4:10a I would give him some leeway and say 4:10a.

Columbo

[Columbo]

I'll tell you where my "blustering" has got me. You have consistently stated on this forum (without challenge) that Dr Llewellyn arrived in Bucks Row at 4:10am. Consequently, if the doctor's estimate of time of death of not more than half an hour before his arrival was 100% correct, it would mean Nichols was murdered not earlier than 3.40am, thus incriminating Lechmere who said he left his house at about 3.30am in a walk that should not have taken him more than 10 minutes.

Now, however, you have agreed that Dr Llewellyn might have arrived a bit earlier in Bucks Row, say at 4:05am meaning that Nichols might have been killed at least five minutes before Lechmere's supposed arrival in Bucks Row, and possibly more if you could be pushed back to 4:00am as being the time of the doctor's arrival (although of course you tell us you are going to run away from the discussion before I have had a chance to ask you about this).

This seems to me like an important subject and I think it has been a worthwhile exercise having the debate.

But why would the TOD matter if she was not found at 3:15 when the PC did his routes? She could very easily have been dead at 3:20a, 3:25a,etc.

I say this because there is only a 30 minute window from the PC's route for this to happen. Forget TOD, that could be off by as much as 30 minutes (not directed at anyone in particular).

Lechmere only had until 3:40a to COMPLETE the murder before being caught by Paul or else Mizen would've walked up on him, or both of them examining the body, so that negates any bearing of time of death.

Why? because a seasoned PC who walks the route nightly says he discovered Nichols at 3:45a. I would trust his opinion over Paul, Lechmere or even a sleepy doctor.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Great.
I am however quite convinced myself that Lechmere is by far the best bid for the killers role, and my personal take is that the carman was guilty. I am entitled to both think it and say it. And rest assured that I will!

I agree he's a great suspect. I don't have any idea if he's JTR but we don't know that about any suspect.

Columbo

[Columbo]

I'm glad you manged to get that comment in before your apology for being judgemental.

Thank you. I do my best.

Columbo

[Harry D]

I agree he's a great suspect.

Compared to the Duke of Clarence? Sure.

Based on his own merits? Hells nah.

[David Orsam]

But why would the TOD matter if she was not found at 3:15 when the PC did his routes? She could very easily have been dead at 3:20a, 3:25a,etc.

I say this because there is only a 30 minute window from the PC's route for this to happen. Forget TOD, that could be off by as much as 30 minutes (not directed at anyone in particular).

Lechmere only had until 3:40a to COMPLETE the murder before being caught by Paul or else Mizen would've walked up on him, or both of them examining the body, so that negates any bearing of time of death.

Why? because a seasoned PC who walks the route nightly says he discovered Nichols at 3:45a. I would trust his opinion over Paul, Lechmere or even a sleepy doctor.

I'm not entirely sure you've fully understood the debate that you have decided to participate in Columbo. I'm certainly not arguing against the idea that PC Neil discovered Nichols at 3.45.

If you are saying that when Dr Llewellyn testified that Nichols had been dead for "no more than half an hour" at the time he examined her he was completely wrong and she could have been murdered an hour earlier then that's fine, you may be right.

Mind you, if that is what you are saying you will have to forgive me for being a little surprised because in another thread you said to me, "Can the medicos give an exact time of death? no. Based on their 20 + years experience dealing with dead bodies in 1888 can they give a reasonable assessment? yes they can." So I rather thought you'd be gung ho in support of Dr Llewellyn's assessment as being a reasonable one.

But if your position is that Nichols could have been murdered at any time between 3:15 and 3:40 then there is nothing further for us to discuss because there is no disagreement and the time of Dr Llewellyn's arrival at Bucks Row becomes irrelevant.

[Columbo]

I'm not entirely sure you've fully understood the debate that you have decided to participate in Columbo. I'm certainly not arguing against the idea that PC Neil discovered Nichols at 3.45.

If you are saying that when Dr Llewellyn testified that Nichols had been dead for "no more than half an hour" at the time he examined her he was completely wrong and she could have been murdered an hour earlier then that's fine, you may be right.

Mind you, if that is what you are saying you will have to forgive me for being a little surprised because in another thread you said to me, "Can the medicos give an exact time of death? no. Based on their 20 + years experience dealing with dead bodies in 1888 can they give a reasonable assessment? yes they can." So I rather thought you'd be gung ho in support of Dr Llewellyn's assessment as being a reasonable one.

But if your position is that Nichols could have been murdered at any time between 3:15 and 3:40 then there is nothing further for us to discuss because there is no disagreement and the time of Dr Llewellyn's arrival at Bucks Row becomes irrelevant.

I probably loose track on all these debates, but I'm not trying to debate you on this at all, just conversing.

I do believe back then they could give a reasonable time of death but obviously not down to the minute. Reasonable is subjective but within an hour of the death I think would be reasonable.

the Doctor said she'd been dead a half an hour but in my opinion that doesn't mean it was precisely half an hour. We have to be reasonable and give the doctor some wiggle room.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Compared to the Duke of Clarence? Sure.

Based on his own merits? Hells nah.

Wasn't Clarence the best suspect? I loved all the hullabaloo when Stephen Knight's book came out. Spectacular!

I have to admit that was a great story, even if it was crap.

Columbo

[Columbo]

But if your position is that Nichols could have been murdered at any time between 3:15 and 3:40 then there is nothing further for us to discuss because there is no disagreement and the time of Dr Llewellyn's arrival at Bucks Row becomes irrelevant.

To clarify, Nichols was obviously killed between 3:15a and 3:40a. For the purposes of the Lechmere theory it's important that she's killed no earlier than 3:37a. It's possible that could've happened. It falls within the hour I give as a reasonable range for time of death.

That doesn't help or hurt the Lechmere theory, it just shortens his window of opportunity because of Mizen, who I believe is more accurate with his timing.

Columbo

[David Orsam]

To clarify, Nichols was obviously killed between 3:15a and 3:40a.

You say "obviously" but Fisherman, relying on the medical evidence, is trying to say that she could only have been murdered in the few minutes between 3:40 and 3:45. That's what I've been arguing against.

[David Orsam]

That doesn't help or hurt the Lechmere theory,

If Nichols was murdered at between 3:15 and 3:40 then it hurts the Lechmere theory if Lechmere's evidence that he left his house at about 3:30am is true because it either gives him no time or not very much time to commit the murder, depending on whether death occurred before or after 3:30.

Lechmere's evidence might not be true though which is why I have repeatedly challenged Fisherman about the "major gap in timings".

[Columbo]

If Nichols was murdered at between 3:15 and 3:40 then it hurts the Lechmere theory if Lechmere's evidence that he left his house at about 3:30am is true because it either gives him no time or not very much time to commit the murder, depending on whether death occurred before or after 3:30.

Lechmere's evidence might not be true though which is why I have repeatedly challenged Fisherman about the "major gap in timings".

I always thought the the crux of the lechmere theory is he was almost caught in the act because he didn't have enough time, hence the last minute decision to get Pauls attention to the body, and also why the clothes were pulled down.

Absolutely Lechmere's evidence might not be true and the timing gaps are a problem, which I think I pointed out on an earlier thread. They become more problematic when more are added to the mix.

That's why I believe in this case the TOD should not be used as a major source because we already have a window of opportunity for her murder. We know positively when her death had to occur, between 3:15a and 3:40a. TOD could very well include 3:15a. It's entirely possible the doctor's estimate was 20 minutes off so it's a major mistake to make any exact time judgements based on his TOD estimation.

Columbo

[Harry D]

I am entitled to both think it and say it. And rest assured that I will! .

While you were always so reticent before...