Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly killed in daylight hours.? - by DJA 4 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly killed in daylight hours.? - by Wickerman 4 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly killed in daylight hours.? - by Pcdunn 4 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: "Murder...!" cry - by DJA 5 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: "Murder...!" cry - by c.d. 5 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: "Murder...!" cry - by DJA 6 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere The Psychopath - (116 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly killed in daylight hours.? - (11 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: "Murder...!" cry - (9 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (9 posts)
Rippercast: 10 Weeks in Whitechapel Audio Series - (2 posts)
Witnesses: Henry Maxwell - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Lechmere/Cross, Charles

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1001  
Old 02-16-2017, 02:56 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: north london
Posts: 2,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Hi Steve,

Yes, this is a possible interpretation. Thus, "running" could have referred to the "pool of blood just where her neck was lying", not to the wound in her neck.
Yes John,

That is a possible viewpoint.

However has I have said I have not reach a full conclusion on the bloodflow.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1002  
Old 02-16-2017, 03:47 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 6,977
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick S View Post
If it makes you feel better he's also better than Lewis Carroll, Prince Albert Victor, and Jill the Ripper.
And Van Gogh.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1003  
Old 02-17-2017, 02:02 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 14,571
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Okay, but didn't Payne-James say that blood could have leaked or dribbled out of the neck for several minutes?
No, he did not say several - he said minutes. And in private correspondance with me, when I asked if it would have bled for three, five or seven minutes, he answered that the two shorter times were the more realistic suggestions.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1004  
Old 02-17-2017, 02:08 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 14,571
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Hi Steve,

The problem is PC Neil effectively contradicted himself at the inquest. Firstly, he said blood was "oozing" from the wound, but then he described it as "running from the wound in her neck." It's also worth noting that Paul said he believed she was still breathing when he examined her, i.e. after he placed his hand on her heart.
Yes! But nobody wants to read the word "running", since it dissolves the wanted picture produced by "oozing". As I have said before, the initital interviews - discareded by people who prefer "oozed" - have Neil saying that the wound bled "profusely".

Plus we have Neil saying the blood was running. And we have Mizen saying the blood was running.

But non of these parameters are allowed to come into play.

We have scores of examples on the net of people writing "oozed profusely".

But that parameter is also disallowed. We only want Neils "oozed" to rule the day, and it MUST have meant trickled very slowly, it can NOT have meant "welled out of the neck with no underlying pressure", in spite of how Neil says that the blood was running in the next sentence.

Itīs a game of pick and choose, and just the one word is picked, and the right to interpret it belongs to those who will never accept that the blood was running.

There will not have been any cascade of blood when Neil and Mizen looked at her, for the simple reason that there was not much blood in the pool. It probably flowed gently but steadily. But no matter how much blood came from the wound per second, it remains that it exited the body through a gaping hole, and it would therefore for reasons of gravitation have been over in a matter of minutes, more likely three or five minutes than seven, as per Payne-James.

That is all I have to say on the issue.

Last edited by Fisherman : 02-17-2017 at 02:16 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1005  
Old 02-17-2017, 07:56 AM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 848
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
But he doesn't say it was "flowing" either.
The problem I have with this "blood evidence", beyond the fact that no medical/scientific observations were recorded, is that these statements weren't elaborated upon. Clearly Baxter gave them little credence as he did not press Neil to expand upon them.

Neil made two statements that - I suppose - we are now labeling "blood evidence". Here is the first:

"Deceased was lying lengthways along the street, her left hand touching the gate. I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat."

Neil goes on to explain the position of the body, the state of her clothing, etc. Baxter does not ask Neil to elaborate on his chosen verb (oozing). He does NOT ask any follow-up questions such as, "Do you mean the blood was actively flowing from the wound when you found the body? Is this your recollection? Or do you mean to say simply that the blood was visible, having flowed from the wound? Was the blood congealed at this point? How would you describe the consistency of the blood? The color?"

Neil goes on to say this:

"There was a pool of blood just where her neck was lying. It was running from the wound in her neck."

Baxter does not stop Neil and say, "PC Neil. Earlier in your testimony you used the term "oozing". Now you say the blood was "running". These two terms create very different impressions. Which was it now? Oozing? Running? Are you simply trying to tell us that you observed that blood HAD flowed from the neck wound to this pool you describe or was it actively RUNNING, as you now say? Or was it OOZING, as you said earlier? This is important, PC Neil. Think."

Clearly, Baxter took no notice of Neil's contradiction, as he immediately (according to press reports) asked this:

"Did you hear any noise that night?"

Llewellyn was the doctor at the scene. These are his contributions to the "blood evidence" (as I've been informed that our metric for establishing "blood evidence" is , basically, any instance where someone mentions the word "blood"):

"There was very little blood round the neck. There were no marks of any struggle or of blood, as if the body had been dragged."

"No blood at all was found on the breast either of the body or clothes."

Someone please inform me how we are supposed to view this "blood evidence" exactly?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1006  
Old 02-17-2017, 08:02 AM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 848
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Yes! But nobody wants to read the word "running", since it dissolves the wanted picture produced by "oozing". As I have said before, the initital interviews - discareded by people who prefer "oozed" - have Neil saying that the wound bled "profusely".


Plus we have Neil saying the blood was running. And we have Mizen saying the blood was running.

But non of these parameters are allowed to come into play.

We have scores of examples on the net of people writing "oozed profusely".

But that parameter is also disallowed. We only want Neils "oozed" to rule the day, and it MUST have meant trickled very slowly, it can NOT have meant "welled out of the neck with no underlying pressure", in spite of how Neil says that the blood was running in the next sentence.

Itīs a game of pick and choose, and just the one word is picked, and the right to interpret it belongs to those who will never accept that the blood was running.

There will not have been any cascade of blood when Neil and Mizen looked at her, for the simple reason that there was not much blood in the pool. It probably flowed gently but steadily. But no matter how much blood came from the wound per second, it remains that it exited the body through a gaping hole, and it would therefore for reasons of gravitation have been over in a matter of minutes, more likely three or five minutes than seven, as per Payne-James.

That is all I have to say on the issue.
Well. I think that if the blood was running, perhaps if was even only oozing then Robert Paul was correct. Nichols was breathing, if only barely when Lechmere called him over to have a look at her. The killer had throttled her, heard Lechmere arrive, hid nearby, emerged when they left and finished her off. Thus, Neil DID find a VERY 'freshly killed' Polly Nichols. Maybe it's time we start looking at people who lived in Buck's Row? Someone who picked up Nichols, choked her out, darted inside and watched Lechmere and Paul fiddle about, popped out when they left and finished up?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1007  
Old 02-17-2017, 08:33 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 4,473
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick S View Post
Well. I think that if the blood was running, perhaps if was even only oozing then Robert Paul was correct. Nichols was breathing, if only barely when Lechmere called him over to have a look at her. The killer had throttled her, heard Lechmere arrive, hid nearby, emerged when they left and finished her off. Thus, Neil DID find a VERY 'freshly killed' Polly Nichols. Maybe it's time we start looking at people who lived in Buck's Row? Someone who picked up Nichols, choked her out, darted inside and watched Lechmere and Paul fiddle about, popped out when they left and finished up?
So comes back cuts her throat, mutilates her abdomen and takes off all before PC Neil arrives? Makes the lech theory seem pedestrian by comparison.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1008  
Old 02-17-2017, 08:46 AM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 848
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
So comes back cuts her throat, mutilates her abdomen and takes off all before PC Neil arrives? Makes the lech theory seem pedestrian by comparison.
Eh. Both equally out there, I think. But, I'm going to go with it...for now.

Remember, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." And, if Neil said the blood was RUNNING "profusely" how can we ignore that? How could blood have been running profusely when Neil arrived after we know that Lechmere and Paul arrived even before he did.....and they saw nothing. Remember, Paul and Lechmere saw no wounds, no visible blood. That could be explained if she had no wounds, correct? Further, it could explain why Paul thought he detected a 'slight movement'. She was alive...dying. They left, Saucy Jack pops out, cuts her throat, starts work on the mutilations....hears those distinctive PC foot-falls of Neil....and off he goes again. It stands to reason that if - as Christer maintains - Lechmere had virtually no blood on him and therefore had nothing to fear from tapping Paul on the shoulder, casually chatting up Mizen, that THIS Jack could have gone inside, cleaned off his knife, put it back in the butchers block, washed up, and gone out to see what all the fuss was about.

This is making more sense all the time. Who wants to be my literary agent? Who would have thought that what started as a tongue-in-cheek response would have led to Lechmere's exoneration and the likely solution to Ripper murders?

Last edited by Patrick S : 02-17-2017 at 08:54 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1009  
Old 02-17-2017, 08:55 AM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 848
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
So comes back cuts her throat, mutilates her abdomen and takes off all before PC Neil arrives? Makes the lech theory seem pedestrian by comparison.
In all seriousness. I disagree. I think I could successfully defend this theory as being MORE plausible then the Lechmere theory.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1010  
Old 02-17-2017, 09:18 AM
Rainbow Rainbow is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 282
Default

After reading all of this , I believe Lechmere had picked up an amazing choice when he did not run away that night..

Such a choice granted him a lifelong innocence!


Rainbow°
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.