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:
Kosminski, Aaron: Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have? - by Elamarna 32 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: The Lechmere/Cross "name issue" - by Elamarna 1 hour and 17 minutes ago.
Kosminski, Aaron: Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have? - by Damaso Marte 6 hours ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: The Lechmere/Cross "name issue" - by drstrange169 7 hours ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: The Lechmere/Cross "name issue" - by drstrange169 7 hours ago.
Elizabeth Stride: Lipski - by c.d. 12 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: The Lechmere/Cross "name issue" - (10 posts)
Kosminski, Aaron: Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have? - (8 posts)
A6 Murders: Here we go again.... - (4 posts)
Tumblety, Francis: More Newspaper Articles - (3 posts)
Elizabeth Stride: Lipski - (3 posts)
Non-Fiction: Patricia Cornwell - Walter Sickert - BOOK 2 - (2 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
  #981  
Old 02-16-2017, 01:26 PM
John G John G is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
The whole Biggs thing started when I raised the issue of whether the evidence about the blood still oozing at 3.45 (when PC Neil said he found the body), or 3.50 when Mizen seems to have arrived, meant that we could rule out Nichols being murdered before a certain time (i.e. 3.30).

In response, Trevor Marriott contacted Dr Biggs who said this:

"I think that, though it might seem unlikely for a significant quantity of blood to be flowing out of a body several minutes after death, it would certainly be possible for blood still to be dripping / oozing out of a body 20 mins later. This is likely to be minimal (almost negligible) in nature, as the majority of the blood that was able to come out would have done so much sooner. If a witness discovered a body that was still bleeding relatively profusely then the injuries are likely to have been inflicted more recently than 20 mins previously… but if the 20 min period is critical in ruling out / in certain suspects then I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility of some continued blood loss at this time, as I think it would be possible. (I base this on my own observations of seeing blood leak out of bodies when I have been present at murder scenes some hours after death. This is why I am open to many things being ‘possible’, even though I can’t state categorically what ‘would’ or ‘would not’ have happened in an individual case."


For me, this means that no, we cannot "safely" fix a time of death from the evidence of the blood still oozing. If it can leak out at murder scenes "some hours" after death then how can we?
But Dr Biggs doesn't say that it would be likely that blood would still be oozing from the body after 20 minutes.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #982  
Old 02-16-2017, 01:28 PM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 748
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Not sure if I am supposed to thank you for that...
If it makes you feel better he's also better than Lewis Carroll, Prince Albert Victor, and Jill the Ripper.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #983  
Old 02-16-2017, 01:30 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 13,799
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.
Now we´re talking!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #984  
Old 02-16-2017, 01:33 PM
John G John G is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Hi JohnG
Thanks! Re Richardson-well I think his story has some yellow flags in it too. Also, he admitted he was there, with a knife, and Physically could have been her killer. I think its "witnesses" like him and Lechmere, hutch, bowyer etc. that definitely warrant a closer look. so to answer your question directly-yes I view him as a lesser "suspect" than lech, but certainly viable. many "witnesses" in the annals of murder turn out to be the killer.
Thanks Abby. It does seem, however, that there was some suspicion against Richardson, hence the coroner instructed him to produce his knife. He then returned with a blunt knife, which he conceded was not sharp enough to cut shoe leather, even though he'd previously admitted to using the knife to do just that!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #985  
Old 02-16-2017, 01:37 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: north london
Posts: 2,118
Default

There seems to be some confusion about what is called the "blood evidence"

Let me try and make clear exactly what this is:

Firstly we have an expert view (James-Payne) on how long it a major cut, such as the throat wounds to Nichols, would bleed for, this is how long it would actively flow.

There will always be a possibility that a wound may leak blood for a considerable time, this has been comment on by another expert (Biggs), what he says is NOT at odds with what Payne-James, who is talking about free flow.


This time will vary from person to person and there may be a considerable difference if someone has problems with clotting.

In addition, additional wounds may have a bearing on the what I term active flow time,

So that is the theory.


How it is applied in this case is the issue.

Excluding Lechmere, the first witness is Paul who sees no blood, so no information available there on the bloodflow.

Next we have PC Neil, who gives a description, this is followed by PC Mizen who also makes comments.


The whole question of the state of the wound and how the blood was flowing in this case is mainly down to how one interprets what they say.
This assessment must be done in conjunction with assessing what effect other wounds may have had on the flow time.

This is what I have been researching and it is fairly complicated.
While I am fairly sure on how the witness evidence should be interpreted, it is the question of what effect, if any, the abdomen wounds may have had on the flow time.

This has meant I have not yet reached a firm conclusion on the "blood evidence".


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #986  
Old 02-16-2017, 01:38 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 13,799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
But Dr Biggs doesn't say that it would be likely that blood would still be oozing from the body after 20 minutes.
The pertinent fact to note is that much as Biggs may well have seen bodies of murder victims leak out blood after 20 minutes, he would NOT have seen the type of murder represented by Nichols doing the same thing. If a murder victim suffers only minor damage to the blood vessels, I am sure they can bleed for the longest. I am equally sure that people who have every major vessel in their necks severed will NOT bleed for the longest, especially not if there is no obstacle for the blood to leave the body.

This is the type of thing Jason Payne-James meant when he said that suggestions from lawyers sometimes became absurd:
"If it can bleed two minutes, then surely it can bleed three minutes?"
"Yes, but..."
"And if it can bleed three minutes, then surely it can bleed four minutes?"
"Well, I..."
"And if it can bleed..."

Using that tactic, the formerly mentioned Tutanchamon could still be bleeding.

We MUST be specific when discussing specific wounds. Why we would drag in the mentioning that dead people CAN bleed for many, many minutes or even half an hour, is beyond me, if we do not get any specification of the particular cases and damages it concerns.

Polly Nichols´ wounds in the neck was a spinal column away from a decapitation, and the paper srticles pointed to a gaping wound, something that is consistent with the position of the body. That means something.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #987  
Old 02-16-2017, 01:45 PM
John G John G is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
The pertinent fact to note is that much as Biggs may well have seen bodies of murder victims leak out blood after 20 minutes, he would NOT have seen the type of murder represented by Nichols doing the same thing. If a murder victim suffers only minor damage to the blood vessels, I am sure they can bleed for the longest. I am equally sure that people who have every major vessel in their necks severed will NOT bleed for the longest, especially not if there is no obstacle for the blood to leave the body.

This is the type of thing Jason Payne-James meant when he said that suggestions from lawyers sometimes became absurd:
"If it can bleed two minutes, then surely it can bleed three minutes?"
"Yes, but..."
"And if it can bleed three minutes, then surely it can bleed four minutes?"
"Well, I..."
"And if it can bleed..."

Using that tactic, the formerly mentioned Tutanchamon could still be bleeding.

We MUST be specific when discussing specific wounds. Why we would drag in the mentioning that dead people CAN bleed for many, many minutes or even half an hour, is beyond me, if we do not get any specification of the particular cases and damages it concerns.

Polly Nichols´ wounds in the neck was a spinal column away from a decapitation, and the paper srticles pointed to a gaping wound, something that is consistent with the position of the body. That means something.
Okay, but didn't Payne-James say that blood could have leaked or dribbled out of the neck for several minutes?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #988  
Old 02-16-2017, 01:48 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: north london
Posts: 2,118
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
The whole Biggs thing started when I raised the issue of whether the evidence about the blood still oozing at 3.45 (when PC Neil said he found the body), or 3.50 when Mizen seems to have arrived, meant that we could rule out Nichols being murdered before a certain time (i.e. 3.30).

In response, Trevor Marriott contacted Dr Biggs who said this:

"I think that, though it might seem unlikely for a significant quantity of blood to be flowing out of a body several minutes after death, it would certainly be possible for blood still to be dripping / oozing out of a body 20 mins later. This is likely to be minimal (almost negligible) in nature, as the majority of the blood that was able to come out would have done so much sooner. If a witness discovered a body that was still bleeding relatively profusely then the injuries are likely to have been inflicted more recently than 20 mins previously… but if the 20 min period is critical in ruling out / in certain suspects then I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility of some continued blood loss at this time, as I think it would be possible. (I base this on my own observations of seeing blood leak out of bodies when I have been present at murder scenes some hours after death. This is why I am open to many things being ‘possible’, even though I can’t state categorically what ‘would’ or ‘would not’ have happened in an individual case."


For me, this means that no, we cannot "safely" fix a time of death from the evidence of the blood still oozing. If it can leak out at murder scenes "some hours" after death then how can we?


David ,

Very true if the wound was oozing I fail to see how it could fix a time at all.

However is not the argument which has been given that the blood was still flowing, meaning that Lechmere had to be at the murder site at the approximate time the fatal cut?


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #989  
Old 02-16-2017, 02:04 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,975
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Why we would drag in the mentioning that dead people CAN bleed for many, many minutes or even half an hour, is beyond me
Might it have something to do with preventing innocent people being falsely accused of murder?
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #990  
Old 02-16-2017, 02:06 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,975
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
David ,

Very true if the wound was oozing I fail to see how it could fix a time at all.

However is not the argument which has been given that the blood was still flowing, meaning that Lechmere had to be at the murder site at the approximate time the fatal cut?
If you mean that Fisherman has put this argument forward Steve then that's possible but I'm not aware of any witness saying that the blood was "flowing".

Oozing means to flow slowly or gently but that's as fast as I am aware that the blood was seen to be flowing.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
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 04:28 AM.


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