Lechmere graves and tragedy

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

I have to disagree with the last sentence. We can look at the evidence at hand and make a fairly sound judgement on why she didn't buy a grave at the time of his death.

You're currently involved in other threads about a theory that cannot be proven and also should not be discarded but assumptions have been made on the evidence available, so why can we not do it here?

Columbo

Assume away, by all means!

I am just saying that I find it impossible myself to speculate what applies.

[Fisherman]

Your argument belongs on the "Lechmere Continued Thread" please leave there and not disrupt yet another thread.

If anyone wants to talk about Dr. Llwellyn on this thread then it should about his grave, which I believe is in the same cemetery.

The thread is called Lechmere graves and tragedy, not Llewellyn graves and tragedy.

Maybe you did not notice?

[GUT]

I'll probably end up in a coffee can on a shelf. Probably in the garage.

Columbo

When we were breeding dogs I always said "Just feed me to the dogs". Probably a better finish than I'll get.

[Columbo]

I'd have expected so.

I'll probably end up in a coffee can on a shelf. Probably in the garage.

Columbo

[GUT]

Holy cow! I guess his widow had a few bucks from the will!

Columbo

I'd have expected so.

[Columbo]

>>Does he have a headstone?<<

A bloody big one;-)

Holy cow! I guess his widow had a few bucks from the will!

Columbo

[drstrange169]

>>Does he have a headstone?<<

A bloody big one;-)

[Columbo]

Thanks for the link Robert.

My mother was buried under rubble from a doodlebug. I still have her teddy bear that she was holding when they dug her out.

She was one of the lucky ones as she survived the experience.

Although not near as frightening I remember a few years back being in a tornado with my folks as it destroyed their home. Horrific to face death that close. I can't imagine what your mother was feeling, going through that as a child. I'm glad it worked out for her.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Hi Miss Marple,

So what is the rule concerning personal graves there? I know it Italy they recycle private graves every 20 years or so. I have relatives buried that are about to be moved from the grave to a mausoleum. I was curious because I saw a Stephen Knight documentary from 1979 and he went to William Gull's grave and I was surprised it was still there.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Your argument belongs on the "Lechmere Continued Thread" please leave there and not disrupt yet another thread.

If anyone wants to talk about Dr. Llwellyn on this thread then it should about his grave, which I believe is in the same cemetery.

Does he have a headstone?

Columbo

[Columbo]

The pre-planning I am talking about was the one preceding Charlesī burial. That was the burial that made sure that the two would not spend eternity together.

And since he left a neat sum of money (262 pounds) there would have been enough to buy a private gravesite, allowing room for the future arrival of his wife.

That, and that only, is what is of interest here. It leaves the possibility open that Elizabeth made a conscious decision to stay apart from Charles when dead.

As I and Gary have told you repeatedly, it is a moot question whether there was such a decision made. It cannot be proven, and it cannot be discarded.

Hi Fisherman,

I have to disagree with the last sentence. We can look at the evidence at hand and make a fairly sound judgement on why she didn't buy a grave at the time of his death.

You're currently involved in other threads about a theory that cannot be proven and also should not be discarded but assumptions have been made on the evidence available, so why can we not do it here?

Columbo

[drstrange169]

Your argument belongs on the "Lechmere Continued Thread" please leave there and not disrupt yet another thread.

If anyone wants to talk about Dr. Llwellyn on this thread then it should about his grave, which I believe is in the same cemetery.

[Fisherman]

Yes you are quite right. You falsely accusing me of lying in respect of a sentence that isn't even capable of being a lie is certainly bad enough on one occasion and we don't want it happening again.

Avoid it, then.

I remains that what you wrote about me was not true:

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

To begin with, you realized that Llewellyns evidence only was not enough, you had to add your false assertion that I was saying that Lechmere must have been in Bucks Row at 3.37 to close the suggestion from both ends.

So the suggestion is lacking from the beginning, since Llewellyns evidence allows for another killer, no matter if we have him there at 4.10 or if we use the exotic idea that "I was called up at about 4" really means "I arrived in Bucks Row about 4".

Such trifles aside, it remains that you are in no position to decide on my behalf what I am "trying to argue". Nor am I trying to argue that only Lechmere could have done it - there are ample examples in many threads where I say that there is room for another killer.

On top of this, we cannot establish the exact removes in time when things happend - we can outline it broadly, we can go by the timings given by the sources and no matter how we do that, Lechmere stays in the picture.

What you do is to work like a defense attorney, wringing things to their extremes, and thatīs as it should be since it will point out that there is learoom for another killer.

But if we stay away from the extremes and look at the moderate time suggestions, we get a smaller window for an alternative killer. And indeed, if Lechmere was in place at 3.37 and if Nichols was killed at around 3.40-3.45, as clearly implied by the blood evidence and to some extent by Llewellyns suggestion, if we accept that he could not both be called up at about 4 and arrive in Bucks Row at the same time, then Charles Lechmere was with great certainty the killer.

Then again, that is what I have been saying all along: he is probably the killer.

What I have not said is that Llewellyns evidence tells us that only Lechmere could be the killer. Not am I trying to argue on basis of what he said that only Lechmere could have done it.

That is why your statement is false. If you think, as you seem, that it cannot be false, Iīm afraid it says mnore about your level of perceived infallability than of the truth.

[David Orsam]

Good idea - one time is bad enough.

Yes you are quite right. You falsely accusing me of lying in respect of a sentence that isn't even capable of being a lie is certainly bad enough on one occasion and we don't want it happening again.

[Robert]

A strange woman indeed who would live with a man she thought to be a serial killer until the day he died, but get cold feet about sharing the same grave.