Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Fisherman]

Trevor!

That´s one of the very worst posts you have put together - and that is saying something!

Here are your very strange interjections countered:

"this would happen within the initial couple of minutes". Conjecture on your part

On MY part? I was quoting YOUR pathologist, word by word!

Conjecture on your part again you are not a pathologist

How can it be conjecture when I am once again quoting your pathologist, Trevor? It is HE, not I, that is saying that the blood would stop flowing after the initial couple of minutes.

Conjecture on your part again.

Can´t you see the quotation marks...? Who do you think I am quoting, really?

Exactly how much blood was at the scene cant be proven conclusively

Nor does it play any role at all. Didn´t you read your pathologist? He clearly and expressively says that it don´t matter a iot how much blood is found, since vessel spasms and clotting will have a great impact, as will the position of the body. I am not trying to prove how much blood was on the site. I am saying that the reports speak of very little blood, though, and concluding that since the position of the body - once again according to your pathologist - would not have had an impact in our case, it CAN be down to clotting and spasms. But overall, the amounts of blood is totally, totally uninteresting since it cannot help us to establish anything in relation to time.

But you cant prove either you cherry picking which one suits you theory

I don´t HAVE to prove anything, since your pathologist has done it for me. I don´t have to choose what applies since he clearly said that a totally severed neck would not be subjected to any "squeezing shut". The amount of damage would see to that. Raed what you posted, man!
Even IF there could have been a "squeezing shut" (which there couldn´t), such a thing would require an awkward position where the neck was compressed. But Nichols was lying on her back in what looked like a relaxed position!
So no, I don´t have to cherrypick. I can´t cherrypick. I have no choice. Your pathologist has seen to that. One option only is open to me - and you - and that option says that she would have bled out in the initial couple of minutes.

You are deluded

I will let that stand for you, and I will work from the assumption that you have actually realized that you just posted a pathologists views that point Lechmere out for the Nichols murder. I can understand if that hurts, and when something hurts, we may occasionally loose what manners we have.

And then you finish off by saying that you are "still happy to say that Cross was not the killer"..? That´s priceless coming from a poster that has singlehandedly produced one of the best bits of evidence to prove his guilt - oh, the irony!

Merry Christmas, Trevor. And don´t even ponder getting me any more Christmas gifts.

All the very best,
Fisherman

[J6123]

I think it makes sense that he didn't run or hide from Paul....that is, IF he was the killer. If he runs and gets spotted, well, he's running away from the body of a recently murdered woman - it's game over for him. And there's a man already in the street and policeman very nearby. So i disagree with the people who are questioning the plausibility of his decision to stay and bluff things out, and if he was WAS the killer, then the decision he made there is obviously the right one, probably the ONLY one he could have made to get away with it.

then he finds himself in a very hairy situation - he's off to look for a policeman with another witness, whilst carrying a murder weapon, so it sort of makes sense that he realises he has to take charge of the situation, and go over to speak to PC Mizen, and lie about a policeman being with the body.

I am not totally convinced about the Lechmere theory but i am sure as hell intrigued by it.

[Fisherman]

The give away is PC Neil`s carroty moustache ... !!

No, the giveaway is the timing, as served by the pathologist. Polly Nichols would have bled the initial couple of minutes only. THAT is the giveaway.

What does it tell you, other than it´s time to jest about Neil? Who do you think would be put in the fram if this is true? (and why would it NOT be?)

Read what is said. Do the maths. Once again, Lechmere has the bad luck of having the evidence pointing a sinister finger at him.

When will the donkeys back break? Never? Regardless?

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Fish, by your own interpretation :

A couple of minutes is not ten minutes.

Bang on, Fish. I am detecting signs of improvement. Oh, but now you've spoilt it :


How long a period of time is that? The initial couple of minutes, I mean? Four? Five? That would sound about true to me.

Nope. You're heading in the wrong direction, Fish. Lower than four, Fish. In fact, lower than three. Perhaps I should get Bruce Forsyth on to explain it.

[Jon Guy]

No, the giveaway is the timing, as served by the pathologist. Polly Nichols would have bled the initial couple of minutes only. THAT is the giveaway.

Yes, and the blood had reduced to "oozing" when Neil saw it.

What does it tell you, other than it´s time to jest about Neil? Who do you think would be put in the fram if this is true? (and why would it NOT be?)

Why jest about Neil ?
He was alone with the body, and had a carroty moustache, just like two other persons of interest

Read what is said. Do the maths. Once again, Lechmere has the bad luck of having the evidence pointing a sinister finger at him.

I see you pointing a sinister finger at him.

When will the donkeys back break? Never? Regardless?

We will just have to see how it pans out.
In twenty years time will Ripper books discuss Cross as a suspect.
I suppose that will be up to the Ripper authors of the future.

[Robert]

Of course, a theory can still ooze for quite some time after it's been killed off, but 20 years seems a bit of a stretch.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor!

That´s one of the very worst posts you have put together - and that is saying something!

Here are your very strange interjections countered:

"this would happen within the initial couple of minutes". Conjecture on your part

On MY part? I was quoting YOUR pathologist, word by word!

Conjecture on your part again you are not a pathologist

How can it be conjecture when I am once again quoting your pathologist, Trevor? It is HE, not I, that is saying that the blood would stop flowing after the initial couple of minutes.

Conjecture on your part again.

Can´t you see the quotation marks...? Who do you think I am quoting, really?

Exactly how much blood was at the scene cant be proven conclusively

Nor does it play any role at all. Didn´t you read your pathologist? He clearly and expressively says that it don´t matter a iot how much blood is found, since vessel spasms and clotting will have a great impact, as will the position of the body. I am not trying to prove how much blood was on the site. I am saying that the reports speak of very little blood, though, and concluding that since the position of the body - once again according to your pathologist - would not have had an impact in our case, it CAN be down to clotting and spasms. But overall, the amounts of blood is totally, totally uninteresting since it cannot help us to establish anything in relation to time.

But you cant prove either you cherry picking which one suits you theory

I don´t HAVE to prove anything, since your pathologist has done it for me. I don´t have to choose what applies since he clearly said that a totally severed neck would not be subjected to any "squeezing shut". The amount of damage would see to that. Raed what you posted, man!
Even IF there could have been a "squeezing shut" (which there couldn´t), such a thing would require an awkward position where the neck was compressed. But Nichols was lying on her back in what looked like a relaxed position!
So no, I don´t have to cherrypick. I can´t cherrypick. I have no choice. Your pathologist has seen to that. One option only is open to me - and you - and that option says that she would have bled out in the initial couple of minutes.

You are deluded

I will let that stand for you, and I will work from the assumption that you have actually realized that you just posted a pathologists views that point Lechmere out for the Nichols murder. I can understand if that hurts, and when something hurts, we may occasionally loose what manners we have.

And then you finish off by saying that you are "still happy to say that Cross was not the killer"..? That´s priceless coming from a poster that has singlehandedly produced one of the best bits of evidence to prove his guilt - oh, the irony!

Merry Christmas, Trevor. And don´t even ponder getting me any more Christmas gifts.

All the very best,
Fisherman

I wont, if you promise to tear up that book you are writing on Cross being the Ripper !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

No, the giveaway is the timing, as served by the pathologist. Polly Nichols would have bled the initial couple of minutes only. THAT is the giveaway.

What does it tell you, other than it´s time to jest about Neil? Who do you think would be put in the fram if this is true? (and why would it NOT be?)

Read what is said. Do the maths. Once again, Lechmere has the bad luck of having the evidence pointing a sinister finger at him.

When will the donkeys back break? Never? Regardless?

The best,
Fisherman

You have been cherry picking again !

Pathologist

The position of the neck could potentially influence the rate of flow of blood in that it could either ‘hold open’ or ‘squeeze shut’ various vascular injuries. In practice, if the neck was injured almost to the point of decapitation, then there might be little in the way of a ‘clamping’ effect possible no matter how the neck is angled.


"I think it is certainly possible that ‘bleeding’ could go on for a period of twenty minutes, although I would make a distinction between ‘post mortem leakage of blood from the body’ and actual ‘bleeding’ that occurred during life. The flow of blood is likely to have slowed to a trickle by this time as pressure inside the vessels would have dissipated and the volume of blood remaining available to leak out would have become very little"

So as you keep banging on about trickling blood etc.

If she had been killed around 3.20am by the time the body was found the wound could have still been trickling blood

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

If she had been killed around 3.20am by the time the body was found the wound could have still been trickling blood

Neil testified to blood oozing from the neck wound and he said he found the body at about 3:45am which, allowing for 20 minutes of oozing or trickling, means that Nichols must have been killed any time between 3:25 and 3:40 (when Cross and Paul found her body). That itself seems to be useful in establishing the approximate time of death.

I fail to understand, however, why this means that "Cross could not have been the killer" as you said in #920. Are you able to explain what you mean by that?

I must also say that the quote from your expert is a little ambiguous because, when he says that it is possible that bleeding could go on for a period of twenty minutes, it is not clear if he means in circumstances where the neck has been nearly decapitated so that there is little in the way of 'clamping' effect. In other words, I can't quite make out if a lack of 'clamping' effect speeds up the time (due to the blood all flowing out quickly) or slows it down (because there is nothing to stop it and it thus takes longer). As Fisherman has pointed out, the expert also says that with a body lying motionless on the ground a few hundred millilitres would spill out in the "initial few minutes" and that this trickle could go on for "many minutes". Does this also mean 20 minutes, in circumstances of near decapitation, or some other time?

Just to add to that in #927 you seem to say that the vagueness of witness timings is relevant here but I don't think it's that important. It's common ground that Cross and Paul found the body about five minutes before Neil so that if blood would have taken no longer than 5 minutes to ooze out of the neck wound then Cross is definitely in the frame but, if 10 minutes or longer (up to the expert's limit of 20 minutes), then it could have been Cross or virtually anyone else in the area.

[curious]

Neil testified to blood oozing from the neck wound and he said he found the body at about 3:45am which, allowing for 20 minutes of oozing or trickling, means that Nichols must have been killed any time between 3:25 and 3:40 (when Cross and Paul found her body). That itself seems to be useful in establishing the approximate time of death.

I must also say that the quote from your expert is a little ambiguous because, when he says that it is possible that bleeding could go on for a period of twenty minutes, it is not clear if he means in circumstances where the neck has been nearly decapitated so that there is little in the way of 'clamping' effect.

l out in the "initial few minutes" and that this trickle could go on for "many minutes". Does this also mean 20 minutes, in circumstances of near decapitation, or some other time?

It's common ground that Cross and Paul found the body about five minutes before Neil so that if blood would have taken no longer than 5 minutes to ooze out of the neck wound then Cross is definitely in the frame but, if 10 minutes or longer (up to the expert's limit of 20 minutes), then it could have been Cross or virtually anyone else in the area.

Isn't it strange that the blood flow wasn't enough for Paul to have noticed it?

And the expert was asked specifically about 20 minutes.

His first reference was to "many minutes" and then in reply to a direct question discussed the possibility of 20 minutes . . .


curious

[David Orsam]

Isn't it strange that the blood flow wasn't enough for Paul to have noticed it?

Not at all. This was raised at the inquest and the evidence was that it was too dark for Paul to have been able to see any blood at all.

And the expert was asked specifically about 20 minutes.

His first reference was to "many minutes" and then in reply to a direct question discussed the possibility of 20 minutes . . .

The mention of 20 minutes follows an explanation that there will be different rates of blood flow depending on whether or not there is a 'clamping' effect. Thus, it seems to me that the expert is saying that one of the two options (i.e. clamping or no clamping) will produce a flow of blood for a longer period of time. Ultimately it is said that it is "possible" for the blood to flow for as long as twenty minutes but I am trying to establish which scenario this applies to. Perhaps it is both but it is unclear to me as it is written.

[curious]

Not at all. This was raised at the inquest and the evidence was that it was too dark for Paul to have been able to see any blood at all.



The mention of 20 minutes follows an explanation that there will be different rates of blood flow depending on whether or not there is a 'clamping' effect. Thus, it seems to me that the expert is saying that one of the two options (i.e. clamping or no clamping) will produce a flow of blood for a longer period of time. Ultimately it is said that it is "possible" for the blood to flow for as long as twenty minutes but I am trying to establish which scenario this applies to. Perhaps it is both but it is unclear to me as it is written.

Hi, David,
I know why Paul didn't notice any blood, but my post was poorly worded.

My point was that IF the kill was as fresh as Fish claims when Paul came along, Paul would most likely have felt the blood gushing out. Light would not have been necessary. They were, after all, fumbling around in the dark feeling her hands and face.

The fact that the flow had already slowed makes it appear as though the main outpouring was already past, as in, she had been cut several minutes before and was not freshly cut. Therefore making the killer someone earlier than Lechmere.

AND I beg to differ concerning the many minutes and the question about 20 minutes.

Here is the quote:


it would be possible that a lot less blood would be apparent at the scene. It is also possible that a continued slow trickle could go on for many minutes after death if the wound / gravity conditions were right, ending up with even a few litres of blood being present in extreme circumstances.

In simple terms, nasty neck wounds can bleed a lot (but don’t always). Blood can leak out after death (and for quite some time). You can’t tell anything about time of injury / death by assessing the blood loss at the scene.

I then asked 3 more questions as set out below to which he gave a collective reply part of which overlaps his firs answer as above

Q.To what extent would the position of the neck have an impact on bleeding for such a wound?

Q.Could a body with this kind of damage bleed from the neck wound for more than twenty minutes?

Q.Would the severe wounds to the stomach that victim had in any way have an impact on how long it took for her to bleed out?

A. The position of the neck could potentially influence the rate of flow of blood in that it could either ‘hold open’ or ‘squeeze shut’ various vascular injuries. In practice, if the neck was injured almost to the point of decapitation, then there might be little in the way of a ‘clamping’ effect possible no matter how the neck is angled.

I think it is certainly possible that ‘bleeding’ could go on for a period of twenty minutes, although I would make a distinction between ‘post mortem leakage of blood from the body’ and actual ‘bleeding’ that occurred during life. The flow of blood is likely to have slowed to a trickle by this time as pressure inside the vessels would have dissipated and the volume of blood remaining available to leak out would have become very little."

end quote

curious

[David Orsam]

Hi, David,

They were, after all, fumbling around in the dark feeling her hands and face.

But if they didn't specifically feel her neck then they wouldn't have felt any blood would they?

The fact that the flow had already slowed makes it appear as though the main outpouring was already past, as in, she had been cut several minutes before and was not freshly cut. Therefore making the killer someone earlier than Lechmere.

I don't know how you come to that conclusion. We know that Neil saw the body about five minutes after it was discovered by Cross so of course Nichols had been "cut several minutes before". And this could easily make the killer Lechmere.

AND I beg to differ concerning the many minutes and the question about 20 minutes.

Here is the quote:


it would be possible that a lot less blood would be apparent at the scene. It is also possible that a continued slow trickle could go on for many minutes after death if the wound / gravity conditions were right, ending up with even a few litres of blood being present in extreme circumstances.

In simple terms, nasty neck wounds can bleed a lot (but don’t always). Blood can leak out after death (and for quite some time). You can’t tell anything about time of injury / death by assessing the blood loss at the scene.

I then asked 3 more questions as set out below to which he gave a collective reply part of which overlaps his firs answer as above

Q.To what extent would the position of the neck have an impact on bleeding for such a wound?

Q.Could a body with this kind of damage bleed from the neck wound for more than twenty minutes?

Q.Would the severe wounds to the stomach that victim had in any way have an impact on how long it took for her to bleed out?

A. The position of the neck could potentially influence the rate of flow of blood in that it could either ‘hold open’ or ‘squeeze shut’ various vascular injuries. In practice, if the neck was injured almost to the point of decapitation, then there might be little in the way of a ‘clamping’ effect possible no matter how the neck is angled.

I think it is certainly possible that ‘bleeding’ could go on for a period of twenty minutes, although I would make a distinction between ‘post mortem leakage of blood from the body’ and actual ‘bleeding’ that occurred during life. The flow of blood is likely to have slowed to a trickle by this time as pressure inside the vessels would have dissipated and the volume of blood remaining available to leak out would have become very little."

Firstly you seem to be assuming that "many minutes" is twenty minutes. As a matter of plain English that is not necessarily the case and is what I am trying to establish.

Secondly, in your bold highlighting you have missed out the key paragraph. In response to the question: "Would the severe wounds to the stomach that victim had in any way have an impact on how long it took for her to bleed out?" the expert seems to me to be saying "Yes, it would. With clamping it will take [x] minutes and with no clamping it will take [x] minutes. It is possible that it could take up to 20 minutes".

I'm simply saying that it would be most helpful if the expert could confirm that in the circumstances of this case with a woman having her throat cut to the point of near decapitation (possibly after strangulation), lying motionless on her back - would the blood still plausibly be continuing to ooze from the neck wound after 20 minutes?

As you know, Fisherman hasn't yet been convinced and it might be helpful all round if we can just have a clear statement (or as clear a statement as the expert feels it is possible to give) in respect of the blood flow as it relates to what we know of the Nichols murder.

[Fisherman]

Fish, by your own interpretation :

A couple of minutes is not ten minutes.

Bang on, Fish. I am detecting signs of improvement. Oh, but now you've spoilt it :


How long a period of time is that? The initial couple of minutes, I mean? Four? Five? That would sound about true to me.

Nope. You're heading in the wrong direction, Fish. Lower than four, Fish. In fact, lower than three. Perhaps I should get Bruce Forsyth on to explain it.

Yes, get Bruce. He can´t be worse than you.

A quick check on the net reveals that people disagree. Some say two, three or four, others say more than two but not very many.

No matter which version we choose, it is apparent that stretching it beyonf seven, eight minutes is not to recommend.

Maybe I should just leave Casebook and hand things over to Trevor.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

Yes, and the blood had reduced to "oozing" when Neil saw it.

... and then it increased to running blood when Mizen did. After Neil.

"Oozing" would perhaps just have meant that the blood was not pumped out - it flowed with no underlying pressure. The pathologist says that the very first amounts would have been under some pressure, but then it would just flow away at a slower rate. Ooze, sort of. Or run.

Why jest about Neil ?
He was alone with the body, and had a carroty moustache, just like two other persons of interest

I´ll leave him to you. Maybe you have finally found your man.

I see you pointing a sinister finger at him.

I do. For a reason.

We will just have to see how it pans out.
In twenty years time will Ripper books discuss Cross as a suspect.
I suppose that will be up to the Ripper authors of the future.

In twenty years time, Lechmere will be universally accepted as the killer. The rate at which things turn up to implicate him will ensure that, Jon.

The best,
Fisherman