Lechmere Continuation Thread

[David Orsam]

Yes, a naysayer could -and would! - say anything, no matter how stupid. And such a naysayer would probably avoid the context:
"On Friday morning I was called to Buck's row at about four o'clock. The constable told me what I was wanted for. On reaching Buck's row I found the deceased woman lying flat on her back in the pathway, her legs extended."

So Llewellyn divides things into two parts: When he was summoned (about four o clock) and the PC told him what is was about, and when he arrived in Bucks Row. Probably dressed. Which takes a fair few minutes too.

I don't think that Llewellyn was dividing anything "into two parts" in his evidence. He would have been answering questions from the coroner. So the bare summary from the newspaper reports can give a misleading impression.

For example, the Q&A's might have gone like this:

Q. What time were you called on Friday morning to Bucks Row?

A. 4:00am.

Q. Did the constable tell you what you were wanted for?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you find on reaching Bucks Row?

A. Deceased was lying flat on her back on the pathway, her legs being extended.

So far from the naysayers being 'stupid' they would have a reasonable point.

[David Orsam]

Incidentally, since blood was running from the wound a couple of minutes AFTER Neil saw the body - as established by Mizen -

I guess you've forgotten a long discussion we had last year about the ambiguity in the evidence as to the time when Mizen saw any blood.

Or perhaps you haven't forgotten at all and nothing that anyone can say will make you qualify your remarks to ensure you are not making potentially misleading statements.

[Fisherman]

I guess you've forgotten a long discussion we had last year about the ambiguity in the evidence as to the time when Mizen saw any blood.

Or perhaps you haven't forgotten at all and nothing that anyone can say will make you qualify your remarks to ensure you are not making potentially misleading statements.

You forgot the third possibility: That I remember the discussion and am as conviced now as I was then that Mizen commented on the blood he saw as he first arrived to the murder spot.

If you want to list alternatives, you should see to it that they are all represented. Anything else would be unfair.

[Fisherman]

I don't think that Llewellyn was dividing anything "into two parts" in his evidence. He would have been answering questions from the coroner. So the bare summary from the newspaper reports can give a misleading impression.

For example, the Q&A's might have gone like this:

Q. What time were you called on Friday morning to Bucks Row?

A. 4:00am.

Q. Did the constable tell you what you were wanted for?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you find on reaching Bucks Row?

A. Deceased was lying flat on her back on the pathway, her legs being extended.

So far from the naysayers being 'stupid' they would have a reasonable point.

That would depend on who you ask, David. I would not be too eager to hand you the prerogative to say what is reasonable and what is not. It could well go horribly wrong.

[David Orsam]

You forgot the third possibility: That I remember the discussion and am as conviced now as I was then that Mizen commented on the blood he saw as he first arrived to the murder spot.

Bearing in mind that you were unable to put forward a convincing argument to that effect then I suggest that the second possibility I mentioned covers it.

[Fisherman]

harry: No one has to clear Cross,he was never a suspect.

He is now.

The onus is on anyone who argues he was the killer,and they have to prove Cross was with the victim while she was alive,or prove the impossibility of anyone else but Cross being in her company when she was killed.It can't be done,and no amount of might have been will change those conditions.

Which is why the case cannot be proven. But many a case is settled on circumstantial evidence only. And as Scobie put it, a jury would not like Charles Lechmere.

[Fisherman]

Bearing in mind that you were unable to put forward a convincing argument to that effect then I suggest that the second possibility I mentioned covers it.

As I said, I would not want you to have the prerogative to judge what is reasonable. That actually extends to the term "convincing" too.

In your little word, you may cork up the champagne. In my world, it´s another thirsty day in the desert for you.

And as we are ending up where we always tend to end up, I am going to need a much more qualified and interesting discussion to spend any more time on you.

That probably means goodbye, David.

[David Orsam]

That would depend on who you ask, David. I would not be too eager to hand you the prerogative to say what is reasonable and what is not. It could well go horribly wrong.

I'm saying it's a reasonable point in light of the rest of what I posted in #91, as well as in #83, which you are evidently unable to contradict, thus confirming the reasonableness of what I wrote.

[David Orsam]

As I said, I would not want you to have the prerogative to judge what is reasonable. That actually extends to the term "convincing" too.

My point is really that you are aware that there is a cogent counter argument that Mizen saw the blood later than you are suggesting. Yet you continue to say that Mizen "established" the time as if it is a confirmed and uncontroversial fact.

[David Orsam]

That probably means goodbye, David.

You running away from a discussion is no more than I've come to expect from you Fisherman.

[Fisherman]

I'm saying it's a reasonable point in light of the rest of what I posted in #91, as well as in #83, which you are evidently unable to contradict, thus confirming the reasonableness of what I wrote.

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

[Fisherman]

My point is really that you are aware that there is a cogent counter argument that Mizen saw the blood later than you are suggesting. Yet you continue to say that Mizen "established" the time as if it is a confirmed and uncontroversial fact.

It is not much of a cogent argument. It is an outside possibility with a very small viability. End of.

[Fisherman]

You running away from a discussion is no more than I've come to expect from you Fisherman.

My problem is not a wish to run - it is the fact that I too often engage in worthless quibbling instead of leaving the discussion.

I know you and your methods quite well. I suspect you think I am correct on many things, and if I was to ask you who you think is the best suspect identified so far, you would most likely say Lechmere.

But you are too engulfed by your wish to look smart to work in a fruitful manner from your knowledge. That is why leg it whenever you surface. Not because I have no answers, but because I dislike your approach.

There, I did it again, engaged in worthless quibbling. But now I´m out!

[David Orsam]

It is not much of a cogent argument. It is an outside possibility with a very small viability. End of.

I don't agree with your summary of what was a long and definitely inconclusive debate but even by your assessment it means that nothing is "established".

[David Orsam]

I know you and your methods quite well. I suspect you think I am correct on many things, and if I was to ask you who you think is the best suspect identified so far, you would most likely say Lechmere.

That is most certainly not true.