Lechmere Continuation Thread

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: Fisherman this statement of yours is ridiculous: "I am patently not saying that Lechmere MUST have been in Bucks Row at 3.37, I am saying that if he left his home at 3.30, he SHOULD have been." There's no difference!

There is a world of difference, potentially, since we do now know if he was held up, if he relieved himself, if he took an alternative route etcetera - believe me, I have seen all the suggestions that can be put forward in this discipline. It applies that he SHOULD have been there, but whether he was or not cannot be established.

Your timing is 7 minutes from his house to Bucks Row so what's the difference here between "must" and "should"? If he leaves at 3.30 and it's a 7 minute walk to Bucks Row he arrives at Bucks Row at 3.37 doesn't he?

The difference between "must" and "should"? Are you serious???

If Nichols isn't murdered until 3:40 - according to Dr Llewellyn - and Lechmere is "found" by Paul in Bucks Row at 3:45 (as you claim) then there is no other possibility: Lechmere has murdered Nichols. No-one else could have done it between 3:40 and 3:43 as you now seem to be suggesting because Lechmere was already in Bucks Row on your case.

But contrary to you, David, I actually realize that I may be wrong. That is why I have not said that "If Llewelyn was correct on the time and if he arrived in Bucks Row at 4.10, it proves that Lechmere was the killer. It does not. There are other factors to weigh in, and there is a window of opportuinit for another killer, although it is a small one.

So I am confident that my statement - about what you have been really trying to say - is perfectly true, it's just that you refuse to admit what you are really trying to do.

What I "am trying to do" is not something you can decide for me, David. It is something that is my concern alone, and not yours to any extent at all. I would appreciate if you realized that. The sooner the better.

It doesn't matter what exact words are used though.

It matters a whole lot. Just look at how you managed to get tangled up in a lie on account of your poor choice of wording.

On the basis of Dr Llewellyn's estimate you clearly believe that the evidence points to Lechmere.

I believe that the evidence points to Lechmere, yes, and I do so partly on account of Llewellyns evidence. But one can do so without claiming that it is impossible for another killer to have been at work.

That's why I was trying to explain to Columbo - in a discussion I was having with Columbo - why the timing of Dr Llewellyn's estimate affects the Lechmere theory. Your rude intervention has been utterly pointless and your daft claims that I am somehow lying in offering my own interpretation of your views is ludicrous.

And that would mean that your interpretation could not be wrong, of course.
I do believe that you may be the most arrogant person I have come across out here. You are not in a position to speak about rudeness, having taking it upon yourself to "interpret" what I say, and to boot, having claimed that you cannot be wrong about it.
I always thought that the prerogative of deciding what I mean when I say something lies with me. It is not until the last few days I have realized that I actually have competition from you on that point. Amazing!

You are really quite some machinery, David.

[Fisherman]

Talk about digging a hole for oneself.

Yes, that is about the worst shotgun hole through a foot I have ever seen out here. Horrific stuff, absolutely horrific.

[Fisherman]

No wonder you want to retract this post.

What I actually wrote was "What Fisherman is really trying to say...."

By definition that means it's not what he's actually saying but what he is getting at.

The reason I can say this when Fisherman "is on record" as saying that Nichols could have been killed by another hand is because he has introduced a new argument into the equation in this thread, namely that, if Llewellyn is correct, Nichols cannot have been murdered before 3.40.

That, as far as I'm aware, is a new addition to the Fisherman canon.

And if Nichols cannot have been murdered before 3.40 then, in Fisherman's World, the murderer cannot be anyone other than Lechmere because he also tells us that Lechmere left his house at 3.30 and it would have taken him 7 minutes to reach Bucks Row (going through the modern Sainsbury's development but that's another matter), thus arriving in Bucks Row no later than 3.37.

So you tell me Observer. If Lechmere would have arrived in Bucks Row at 3.37 and Nichols was not murdered before 3.40, how could the murderer have been anyone other than Lechmere?

I'd love to hear the answer.

David, get help. Really, I mean it.

I am not answering any further to this crap.

[Columbo]

For some reason I always associate "oozing" with a thick substance like honey. I never would've thought to apply it to a wound unless it was infected i.e. oozing pus. I've never heard of fresh water oozing out of a faucet. Strange how people think isn't it?

Columbo

[Fisherman]

For some reason I always associate "oozing" with a thick substance like honey. I never would've thought to apply it to a wound unless it was infected i.e. oozing pus. I've never heard of fresh water oozing out of a faucet. Strange how people think isn't it?

Columbo

My take on things here is that the blood that poured out of Nichols´ neck was under no heart pressure, and it therefore did not pump out but instead it ran at a steady, slow pace. This is why Neil chose to use the word "oozed", if I am correct.

Mind you, Columbo, I need not be...

[Columbo]

My take on things here is that the blood that poured out of Nichols´ neck was under no heart pressure, and it therefore did not pump out but instead it ran at a steady, slow pace. This is why Neil chose to use the word "oozed", if I am correct.

Mind you, Columbo, I need not be...

I think you're right on that, because a throat wound is not the same as a faucet. I would think the blood would be coming from the top, sides and in the middle so it may very well have an oozing, drippy effect. If I had seen it I might have said it as well, fortunately I didn't. Gruesome.

Columbo

[David Orsam]

There is a world of difference, potentially, since we do now know if he was held up, if he relieved himself, if he took an alternative route etcetera - believe me, I have seen all the suggestions that can be put forward in this discipline. It applies that he SHOULD have been there, but whether he was or not cannot be established.

So that's it is it? That's all you've got? He was somehow diverted or delayed on his route. You know, I'm obviously aware of the possibilities but your case is that he was not diverted or delayed isn't it? That being so he must have been at the crime scene at the time of the murder. It's not rocket science and if the basic underlying facts are correct namely:

1. Murder not before 3:40am;

2. Cross left his house at 3.30am;

3. The walk from 22 Doveton Street to Bucks Row is a 7 minute walk

then you've got a case to put to a jury in a criminal trial beyond reasonable doubt haven't you?

But of course if the underlying facts are not correct, there's the problem.

[David Orsam]

David Orsam: Your timing is 7 minutes from his house to Bucks Row so what's the difference here between "must" and "should"? If he leaves at 3.30 and it's a 7 minute walk to Bucks Row he arrives at Bucks Row at 3.37 doesn't he?

The difference between "must" and "should"? Are you serious???

Yes, they are effectively the same in this scenario Fisherman. If he should have been there at 3.37 then, to all intents and purposes, he must have been there at 3.37. That doesn't mean he definitely was there taking into account every possible scenario in the universe but to a criminal standard of proof.

I note that you didn't answer my question which I will repeat:

If he leaves at 3.30 and it's a 7 minute walk to Bucks Row he arrives at Bucks Row at 3.37 doesn't he?

[David Orsam]

But contrary to you, David, I actually realize that I may be wrong. That is why I have not said that "If Llewelyn was correct on the time and if he arrived in Bucks Row at 4.10, it proves that Lechmere was the killer. It does not. There are other factors to weigh in, and there is a window of opportuinit for another killer, although it is a small one.

Have you actually forgotten what I said to Columbo, about which you so rudely took objection, or are you just pretending to forget?

I said: "Fisherman is really trying to argue on the basis of Dr Llewellyn's evidence that ONLY Lechmere could have done it."

So it's no good you saying "oh well Llwelleyn's evidence might be flawed" because the premise of my statement was that it was correct and that your argument was based on the premise that it was correct.

Perhaps you simply didn't understand the point I was making to Columbo in which case I look forward to your apology.

[David Orsam]

What I "am trying to do" is not something you can decide for me, David. It is something that is my concern alone, and not yours to any extent at all. I would appreciate if you realized that. The sooner the better.

I wasn't deciding anything for you, I was just explaining to Columbo the significance of the point I was making. I have justified my statement quite clearly and it is a perfectly justified interpretation of the effect your arguments.

[David Orsam]

David Orsam: It doesn't matter what exact words are used though.

It matters a whole lot. Just look at how you managed to get tangled up in a lie on account of your poor choice of wording.

How is it even possible for me to lie about my interpretation of what you are trying to argue? Perhaps if I was claiming to be your official spokesman it might.

But I stand by every word of what I wrote - which it has become clear to me that you didn't read properly - and I have justified it with perfect clarity.

[David Orsam]

I believe that the evidence points to Lechmere, yes, and I do so partly on account of Llewellyns evidence. But one can do so without claiming that it is impossible for another killer to have been at work.

Right, so that's why it was important to establish whether Llewellyn was there at 4:00am or 4:10am which I was trying to explain to Columbo. The estimate of Llewellyn (according to you) means that the evidence of guilt points to Lechmere and not to anyone else. It's basically the same thing.

You really do need to chill out Fisherman. As if anyone could possibly think I was giving the official Fisherman view when I said "What Fisherman is really trying to say...."

[David Orsam]

I do believe that you may be the most arrogant person I have come across out here.

I think what you are really trying to say here Fisherman is that I'm not prepared to accept any of your nonsense and that I come back at you with reasoned arguments so that you are forced in desperation to categorise me as "arrogant".

[David Orsam]

David, get help. Really, I mean it.

I am not answering any further to this crap.

The post that you were responding to was addressed to Observer so I have no idea why you replied to it.

And, of course, it is the last refuge of the internet scoundrel to say to one's debating opponent that they should "get help".

Just stand back for a moment Fisherman. You are the person who, day after day, is accusing a potentially innocent man on an open internet forum of a string of horrendous murders with barely any evidence at all.

So which one of us really needs to get help?

[David Orsam]

For some reason I always associate "oozing" with a thick substance like honey. I never would've thought to apply it to a wound unless it was infected i.e. oozing pus. I've never heard of fresh water oozing out of a faucet. Strange how people think isn't it?

It's not just how "people" think Columbo, it's also what dictionaries say. For example, the Oxford Dictionary:

Ooze

verb

1 [no object, with adverbial of direction] (Of a fluid) slowly trickle or seep out of something:
‘blood was oozing from a wound in his scalp’
‘honey oozed out of the comb’

More example sentences-

A trickle of green blood oozed from the malachite-green hide, but it was little more than a pinprick.’
‘At one point we accidentally overturned a sledge and a trickle of brown liquid oozed out of the sledge onto the white snow.’
‘Blood oozed from the wound, trickling down his side to the towel beneath him.’

So there's nothing "strange" at all about applying the word to blood. In fact, it's perfectly normal.