Documentary: Jack The Ripper: Has Christer Holmgren discovered the killer's identity?

[Fisherman]

The circumstantial evidence for Lechmere being the Ripper is extremely weak at best.

Found alone with a freshly killed victim - extremely weak?

Blood running from the neck at least five or six minutes after Lechmere left the body - extremely weak?

Changing your name when speaking to the police - extremly weak?

Implicated by a serving PC as having mislead him - extremely weak?

Having had a working route that fits with four out of six murders, geographically and timewise - extremely weak?

May I remind you, John, that your man cannot be proven to have been anywhere near any of the murder sites, there is no physical evidence even remotely pointing to him etcetera - that is what an extremely weak case looks like.

Simply disliking not being able to keep up should not encourage you to try and diminish the very real factors pointing to Lechmere. Try establishing a single fact about Bury that ties him to the case in any manner at all, and you may have something to speak up about.

May, that is - it depends.

[Fisherman]

I think that is well put.

You´d wish.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;385898]

Found alone with a freshly killed victim - extremely weak?

Of course he was found alone. He was alone on his way to work. Paul was also on his way to work and walked alone on the same street.

That is no crime.

Blood running from the neck at least five or six minutes after Lechmere left the body - extremely weak?

Who was the policeman seen by Lechmere?

Changing your name when speaking to the police - extremly weak?

You mean using a secondary name.

There are more hypotheses for why he used the name Cross. The worst one would be that he was a killer. You picked the worst one.

Implicated by a serving PC as having mislead him - extremely weak?

Avoiding to use his primary name in court. Avoiding to give the same statement as on the night in Buck´s Row.

No indications of being a serial killer. On the contrary. If he was, he should have made the same statements in court to avoid suspicion.

Having had a working route that fits with four out of six murders, geographically and timewise - extremely weak?

A lot of people used those streets. Were they all serial killers? If they were, they were smarter than Lechmere. They stayed away from the police.

May I remind you, John, that your man cannot be proven to have been anywhere near any of the murder sites, there is no physical evidence even remotely pointing to him etcetera - that is what an extremely weak case looks like.

Yes, I agree. Such an approach is weak.

Simply disliking not being able to keep up should not encourage you to try and diminish the very real factors pointing to Lechmere.

They are not "real" factors. They are your factors.

Try establishing a single fact about Bury that ties him to the case in any manner at all, and you may have something to speak up about.

I agree.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

They are not "real" factors. They are your factors.

Aha.

So he was NOT found alone with a freshly killed victim - that is not real?

And Nichols was NOT bleeding from the neck in her wound for at least five or six minutes - that is not real either?

And the carman did NOT use a name he otherwise did not use in official circumstances when speaking to the police - that is wrong, and something I have gotten wrong?

And Mizen did NOT testify to the effect that Lechmere had mislead him? That is "not real"?

Nor did the carman have a working route that took him through the area where four out of six victims were killed? That is a figment of my imagination, it is "not real"?

I suddenly remember why I avoid you, Pierre. It is because you lack knowledge. You do not understand the simplest of things, you are poorly read up and you are trying to disguise all of this behind a veil of claimed historical righteousness.

Pathetic is what it is. And as full of falsities as it is shameful. I have wasted enough time on you, and I only have myself to blame for it. But no more - goodbye.

[John Wheat]

Found alone with a freshly killed victim - extremely weak?

Blood running from the neck at least five or six minutes after Lechmere left the body - extremely weak?

Changing your name when speaking to the police - extremly weak?

Implicated by a serving PC as having mislead him - extremely weak?

Having had a working route that fits with four out of six murders, geographically and timewise - extremely weak?

May I remind you, John, that your man cannot be proven to have been anywhere near any of the murder sites, there is no physical evidence even remotely pointing to him etcetera - that is what an extremely weak case looks like.

Simply disliking not being able to keep up should not encourage you to try and diminish the very real factors pointing to Lechmere. Try establishing a single fact about Bury that ties him to the case in any manner at all, and you may have something to speak up about.

May, that is - it depends.

Yes it's all extremely weak. Lechmere found a body so what? Lechmere gave a name that could easily be traced to him. No big deal either. Find something concrete and I'll give a ****.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;385903]

Aha.

So he was NOT found alone with a freshly killed victin - that is not real?

And Nichols was NOT bleeding from the neck in her wound for at least five or six minutes - that is not real either?

And the carman did NOT use a name ho otherwise did not use in official circumstances when speaking to the police - that is wrong, and something I have gotten wrong?

And Mizen did NOT testify to the effect that Lechmere had mislead him? That is "not real"?

Nor did the carman have a working route that took him through the area where four out of six victims were killed? That is a figment of my imagination, it is "not real"?

Why do you pretend not to know the difference between historically established facts and your interpretation of historically established facts?

Kind regards, Pierre

[kjab3112]

What is the bleeding time?

This is my first post, and may i start by saying I find Cross an interesting suspect. A lot of store is placed on the time that it took for the blood to clot, I contain a link to the old "bleeding time" measure where although the normal time for blood to clot from a standard incision is 1-9 minutes it can in fact be much longer e.g. as a result of liver failure or alcohol intoxication. A cut vein, unlike an artery does not spasm so will continue to bleed until a clot forms or there is insufficient pressure to overcome gravity.

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/2085022-overview#a2

Paul

[Elamarna]

This is my first post, and may i start by saying I find Cross an interesting suspect. A lot of store is placed on the time that it took for the blood to clot, I contain a link to the old "bleeding time" measure where although the normal time for blood to clot from a standard incision is 1-9 minutes it can in fact be much longer e.g. as a result of liver failure or alcohol intoxication. A cut vein, unlike an artery does not spasm so will continue to bleed until a clot forms or there is insufficient pressure to overcome gravity.

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/2085022-overview#a2

Paul

Hi there Paul

nice first post, welcome to the world that is casebook.


regards


Steve

[kjab3112]

Thanks Steve

[Columbo]

Here we go again!

Columbo

[Fisherman]

This is my first post, and may i start by saying I find Cross an interesting suspect. A lot of store is placed on the time that it took for the blood to clot, I contain a link to the old "bleeding time" measure where although the normal time for blood to clot from a standard incision is 1-9 minutes it can in fact be much longer e.g. as a result of liver failure or alcohol intoxication. A cut vein, unlike an artery does not spasm so will continue to bleed until a clot forms or there is insufficient pressure to overcome gravity.

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/2085022-overview#a2

Paul

You are prefectly correct in saying that blood can clot over different times. The same goes for bleeding times, they too can vary.
There must therefore always be an element of uncertainty.
However, what I am saying is that if the bleeding and coagulation followed a normal path, then Lechmere is a bulls´ eye suggestion for the killers role. Jason Payne-James agrees with this, he says that three to five minutes bleeding is more credible than seven and that the coagulation pattern is in correlation with Lechmere if it followed the normal schedule.
Conclusion: If it was not Lechmere, then we are loooking at Polly Nichols differering from the normal in these respects - and she could well have done that. But any sound reasoning must take in the fact that Lechmere fits the normal pattern, and if the normal pattern applied, there is no very realistic chance of another killer.

[Columbo]

You are prefectly correct in saying that blood can clot over different times. The same goes for bleeding times, they too can vary.
There must therefore always be an element of uncertainty.
However, what I am saying is that if the bleeding and coagulation followed a normal path, then Lechmere is a bulls´ eye suggestion for the killers role. Jason Payne-James agrees with this, he says that three to five minutes bleeding is more credible than seven and that the coagulation pattern is in correlation with Lechmere if it followed the normal schedule.
Conclusion: If it was not Lechmere, then we are loooking at Polly Nichols differering from the normal in these respects - and she could well have done that. But any sound reasoning must take in the fact that Lechmere fits the normal pattern, and if the normal pattern applied, there is no very realistic chance of another killer.

Hey Fisherman,

Wouldn't weather conditions also apply to the coagulation of the blood?

Columbo

[Robert St Devil]

Her blood alcohol content could have decreased coagulation times. She was pist drunk.

[Columbo]

Yes it's all extremely weak. Lechmere found a body so what? Lechmere gave a name that could easily be traced to him. No big deal either. Find something concrete and I'll give a ****.

Hey John,

So you don't think the person who was seen by the body should be investigated? Forget the names, the PC being mis-lead etc., does this simple discovery of Lechmere by the body not warrant some questions about him?

Columbo

[Fisherman]

Hey Fisherman,

Wouldn't weather conditions also apply to the coagulation of the blood?

Columbo

Not in any really high degree, no. Coagulation is something that starts the second the blood exits a wound, and comes in contact with collagenes in the wound walls. After that, it will take a few minutes before it show and the kind of temperatures that prevailed at the Nichols murder scene, would not change that.
However, we should keep in mind that as long as there is blood running from a wound down into a pool, there will be a stirring effect, and stirring prevents coagulation to a degree. In this case, it would not be much of a stirring, but nevertheless.
The coagulation had begun to show, though, and that should mean that we have passed the first three, four minutes.
The more interesting thing is the bleeding, that should have been over fairly quickly. It is normally a matter of minutes only before a victim with this kind of damage have bled out.