Lechmere Continuation Thread

[David Orsam]

I simply say that if the timings given were correct, then Lechmere remains a very strong candidate for the Nichols murder.

And here's the nub of it. You ARE trying to use "the timings" to support your case that Lechmere murdered Nichols.

But really Fisherman: "if the timings given were correct". What timings????

Unless he examined the body at 4am, the doctor doesn't give a time for that examination. So we don't have a time other than your speculation for when he did so.

So please don't say "if the timings given are correct" when you really mean if your speculative timings are correct.

[David Orsam]

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

Well we've now established that you don't know what the word "about" means when it comes to estimating times in the nineteenth century and we've established that you are trying to use a time of "about" 4am to prove that Lechmere was the murderer.

So we are making some progress and it's no wonder that you believe there is "a major timing gap" in this case if you think that times were being fixed with precision by the witnesses.

But this is all a funny way of not debating the topic with me any further.

[David Orsam]

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.

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

I would say let's stick with the word reported to have been used by the witness.

[David Orsam]

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...?

Right so we are making some progress.

Now let's get down to business.

Could it have been 4:05?

[David Orsam]

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 isn´t.

No it isn't, and the other fact we have is that he issued a statement on 31 August in which he said "I was called to Buck's row about five minutes to four this morning".

Can we work from this Mr Fisherman?

[David Orsam]

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!

As I understand your argument, it is that if you are correct in your interpretation of the evidence, it strengthens the case against Lechmere as being the murderer or in your weasel words, "Lechmere remains a very strong candidate for the Nichols murder".

It's hard to think of a more important contribution to Ripperology than to establish if a timing issue does or does not strengthen the case against a suspect.

Perhaps you don't think it is really very important. A minor issue. I hardly think so but perhaps that reveals your understanding that the point you are making is so insubstantial as to hardly be worth debating.

[David Orsam]

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

Biggs told us that he had personal experience of blood running from a corpse some hours after death. Therefore, the questions he was asked by Trevor were irrelevant if that is true.

I'm not aware of any response from Payne James about what Biggs said.

Given the paucity of evidence about Nichols' death - and the fact that we are sitting here arguing about what the newspaper reports said - I fail to see how Payne James was in any kind of position to make informed comments about the Nichols case in particular.

Either blood can run from a corpse for hours after death or it can't. Can it or can't it?

[Columbo]

I would say let's stick with the word reported to have been used by the witness.

On this I would agree with David. We should use the words the witnesses used and not paraphrase or change them. Alot of misconceptions come from paraphrasing.

Columbo

[John G]

Biggs told us that he had personal experience of blood running from a corpse some hours after death. Therefore, the questions he was asked by Trevor were irrelevant if that is true.

I'm not aware of any response from Payne James about what Biggs said.

Given the paucity of evidence about Nichols' death - and the fact that we are sitting here arguing about what the newspaper reports said - I fail to see how Payne James was in any kind of position to make informed comments about the Nichols case in particular.

Either blood can run from a corpse for hours after death or it can't. Can it or can't it?

Hello David,

May I humbly refer you to my earlier post, post 68 on this thread? I quoted verbatim what Dr Biggs had to say on the matter and he most definitely did not opine that blood could be "oozing profusely" from a neck wound after several hours. In fact, after as little as 20 minutes he stated that "the flow of blood would have slowed to a trickle by this time as pressure inside the vessels would have dissipated and the volume of blood available to leak out would be very little." (Marriott, 2013)

For completeness, he added "in many cases, the majority of blood found at the scene may have seeped out of the veins. This can happen under the influence of gravity, and therefore, is not dependent upon a beating heart (I.e. blood can continue to seep out for quite some time after death.)" (ibid)

[Fisherman]

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".

Then you should be reassured by what I have already written - to me, the two are interchangable.

[David Orsam]

Hello David,

May I humbly refer you to my earlier post, post 68 on this thread? I quoted verbatim what Dr Biggs had to say on the matter and he most definitely did not opine that blood could be "oozing profusely" from a neck wound after several hours. In fact, after as little as 20 minutes he stated that "the flow of blood would have slowed to a trickle by this time as pressure inside the vessels would have dissipated and the volume of blood available to leak out would be very little." (Marriott, 2013)

For completeness, he added "in many cases, the majority of blood found at the scene may have seeped out of the veins. This can happen under the influence of gravity, and therefore, is not dependent upon a beating heart (I.e. blood can continue to seep out for quite some time after death.)" (ibid)

Hi John, you can humbly refer me to anything you like but can I humbly point out in response that I have not claimed that Biggs said anything about blood "oozing profusely" from a neck wound after several hours. The "oozing profusely" business is an invention based on the words "flowing profusely" that Fisherman has taken from a journalist (guessing that the journalist picked it up from the police). But it was not something said in evidence by any witness.

All we know is that at about 3.45am Neil saw "blood oozing from a wound in the throat". The quote from Biggs I was referring to was posted on this forum by Trevor about a year or so ago, specifically in response to questions that I requested him to ask Biggs about in respect of blood flow from a corpse, but the one from 2013 that you've quoted makes the same point, i.e. "blood can continue to seep out for quite some time after death".

So I would humbly suggest, in view of the expert opinion, that there is nothing impossible or unlikely about Nicholas having been murdered at 3.30am and Neil seeing blood oozing from her throat 15 or even 20 minutes later.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: 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.

Nope. And there is every probability that the time in question was stated in Llewellyn´s report.

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

Nobody is able to. We have to make what we think is a fair guess, and that will be the end of it.

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.

And the Daily News effectively buries that idea.

The latter time was irrelevant for medical purposes whereas the time he examined the body was rather more important.

But to us sleuths BOTH times are important.

[Fisherman]

And here's the nub of it. You ARE trying to use "the timings" to support your case that Lechmere murdered Nichols.

But really Fisherman: "if the timings given were correct". What timings????

Unless he examined the body at 4am, the doctor doesn't give a time for that examination. So we don't have a time other than your speculation for when he did so.

So please don't say "if the timings given are correct" when you really mean if your speculative timings are correct.

A number of timings point to Lechmere. Lechmeres own time for leaving hbis house, the time it took to get to Bucks Row, etcetera, etcetera.

[David Orsam]

David Orsam: 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.

Nope. And there is every probability that the time in question was stated in Llewellyn´s report.

So what? He was giving evidence for the benefit of the jury who were responsible for trying to work out when Nichols was murdered and 4:00am, if the newspaper reports are correct, was the only time given to the jury as the starting point to work backwards half an hour.

[David Orsam]

Nobody is able to. We have to make what we think is a fair guess, and that will be the end of it.

And it just so happens that your "fair guess" implicates Lechmere in the murder.

Funny that.