Lechmere Continuation Thread

[Fisherman]

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.

There are many points here, David. The fact that Lechmere cannot be ruled out either way is but one of them.

[Fisherman]

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.

If you are listening to what Trevor says, then you are the one with the problem.

[David Orsam]

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

Well they are two different words, "about" and "around". Why have you changed "about" to "around"?

Do you accept that "about 4am" and "around 4am" could very easily incorporate 3:50am?

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: Yes or maybe at 1:00am.

Bravi!

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.

Nope. It matters not if Lechmere was there earlier, he would still be in the frame since he would have stayed put til 3.45. For all I know, the two could have had tea and biscuits while waiting to become history.

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.

I disagree. What happens is that it would open up for a larger window for an alternative killer. But Jason Payne-James puts a stop to too lofty speculations in that direction, and we are still having Lechmere in place, having been found alone with a freshly killed victim. And we still do not have Paul testifying that he had seen or heard his fellow carman although he really ought to. Combining this, Lechmere remains the chief candidate.

Shall we go on? Are you okay with that? Or should I run?

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: Well they are two different words, "about" and "around". Why have you changed "about" to "around"?

Out of mistake - donīt be paranoid!

Do you accept that "about 4am" and "around 4am" could very easily incorporate 3:50am?

No.

[David Orsam]

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.

Clearly you don't understand what the word "about" means as opposed to the word "at".

To say that something happened at "about 4am" when it happened at ten minutes to four is not being "inexact". It falls perfectly within an acceptable definition of that phrase.

[David Orsam]

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 oīclock by Thain. That means that he was not in Bucks Row simultaneously or five minutes earlier. That only hapens in your parallel universe.

Once again you use "around four o'clock" so clearly there is some kind of difference in your mind between "about" and "around", pushing the time closer to 4am.

How you can take the evidence and fit exact timings down to the nearest five minutes is beyond me. How you think it is possible to say that the doctor's examination was at 4:10 and not 4:05 is baffling.

Then we get on to how you think the doctor could have narrowed down the time of death to no more than 30 minutes prior to his examination but not more than 35 minutes or 40 minutes. That is something I'd like to hear some medical explanation about.

[David Orsam]

If you are listening to what Trevor says, then you are the one with the problem.

I would never, of course, listen to what Trevor says but he actually quoted the words of an expert on this matter. So I feel I must listen to what an expert says. Perhaps you feel you can ignore experts who don't support your opinion?

[David Orsam]

ME: Do you accept that "about 4am" and "around 4am" could very easily incorporate 3:50am?

YOU: No.

Well there we have it.

As unreasonable as it's possible to be.

Only in Fisherman's World can a time of "about 4am" not very easily mean "ten minutes to 4am". Amazing!

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: Clearly you don't understand what the word "about" means as opposed to the word "at".

I thought it was as opposed to "around"...?

To say that something happened at "about 4am" when it happened at ten minutes to four is not being "inexact". It falls perfectly within an acceptable definition of that phrase.

That, I suggest, would depend on the circumstances. When we have a practicing medico reporting his role at a murder inquest, the margins will be different from when we speak about a less pressing errand.

Maybe that belongs to the things that - God forbid - YOU donīt understand? Or donīt want to understand?

We can always try and move the goalposts of the case by saying that the times are only approximations, and so they can be juggled with, ten inutes here, a quarter of an hour there, and it will be fine and dandy. But the gist of the matter is that the times given must be the times we work from. Otherwise, I could say that it was not 4.10, it was 4.14, pinning Lechmere down as the killer.
But that would be stupid. And I donīt. I simply say that if the timings given were correct, then Lechmere remains a very strong candidate for the Nichols murder.

It may nag you, you may blush with indignancy, you may want to shout "unfair", but it wonīt make any difference at all.

Shall we continue? Are we making progress, do you think?

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: Once again you use "around four o'clock" so clearly there is some kind of difference in your mind between "about" and "around", pushing the time closer to 4am.

Donīt-be-paranoid! I can change it to about if you wish; to me the expressions are totally interchangable in this context. You?

How you can take the evidence and fit exact timings down to the nearest five minutes is beyond me. How you think it is possible to say that the doctor's examination was at 4:10 and not 4:05 is baffling.

I guess it could have been 4.09 or 4.11 too. Maybe you need to realize that I am estimating a time from what we have...?

Then we get on to how you think the doctor could have narrowed down the time of death to no more than 30 minutes prior to his examination but not more than 35 minutes or 40 minutes. That is something I'd like to hear some medical explanation about.

Not from me, you wouldnīt.

[Fisherman]

Well there we have it.

As unreasonable as it's possible to be.

Only in Fisherman's World can a time of "about 4am" not very easily mean "ten minutes to 4am". Amazing!

Oh no - things can be a lot more unreasonable! And I happen to think that it is unreasonable to suggest that a doctor playing the role Llewellyn did, simply winged things very broadly.
But no matter if you think he DID, we STILL have him saying arou... sorry, ABOUT four AM. And that is what we work from, unless it is in conflict with the other facts. Which it isnīt.

How do you think we are doing? Are we making priceless contributions to Ripperology? Or is this debate complete crap? I know what I think!

[Fisherman]

I would never, of course, listen to what Trevor says but he actually quoted the words of an expert on this matter. So I feel I must listen to what an expert says. Perhaps you feel you can ignore experts who don't support your opinion?

When they have been led astray by being asked the wrong questions, I would not be opposed to such a thing. Biggsī comments were unrelated to the Nichols case, whereas Jason Payne-Jamesī comments were directly relating to it.

For some reason, I think that was why the answers differed.

I have otherwise stated that I have full trust for Biggs - if he is only correctly, fully and adequately informed about the facts from the case he is supposed to comment on. Jason Payne-James of course knew all the medical factors involved.

Maybe such matters are unimportant to you? All experts are equal?

Do you feel we are getting anywhere, David? Moving forward?

[David Orsam]

David Orsam: Clearly you don't understand what the word "about" means as opposed to the word "at".

I thought it was as opposed to "around"...?

No, you thought wrong. I said there was a subtle difference between "about" and "around", whereby the latter could be interpreted as being closer to time it is linked to. That's why I think you keep using it instead of the word that was used by the witness. There is a big difference between "about" and "at".

[David Orsam]

That, I suggest, would depend on the circumstances. When we have a practicing medico reporting his role at a murder inquest, the margins will be different from when we speak about a less pressing errand.

This is really the point I was making. Why would the doctor say that Nichols had not been murdered more than half an hour before a certain time without saying what that time was? It doesn't make much sense.

Not everyone is able to precisely estimate the time it would have taken him to get dressed Fisherman.

As the only time mentioned at the inquest was 4am, I'm suggesting that this was quite possibly the time he was saying he examined the body as opposed to the time he was called up. The latter time was irrelevant for medical purposes whereas the time he examined the body was rather more important.