Lechmere Continuation Thread

[Fisherman]

Nichols body temperature is a bone of contention with many of the anti-lechmere gang, and I can see why. Unfortunately it's one of those interpretation situations that I have no expertise in whatsoever and I don't even try to fathom a guess.

Columbo

Nor did Llewellyn offer a guess, he instead offered his prefessional opinion that "Her hands and wrists were cold, but the body and lower extremities were warm. I examined her chest and felt the heart. It was dark at the time. I believe she had not been dead more than half-an-hour."

Llewellyn would have been in place at around 4.10, so his timing seems to be spot on. According to the doctor, Nichols died at around 3.40 or thereafter. Meaning that this too is a point where the naysayers have to try and dissolve the professional bid in order to clear Lechmere.

[John G]

Nichols body temperature is a bone of contention with many of the anti-lechmere gang, and I can see why. Unfortunately it's one of those interpretation situations that I have no expertise in whatsoever and I don't even try to fathom a guess.

Columbo

Hi Columbo,

Unfortunately, as has been discussed many times, body temperature alone is not a particularly accurate means of determining time of death because there are too many variables: see, for example, Payne-James et al, 2014 https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...0raine&f=false

Interestingly, Payne- James also refers to the Henssge's Nonongram method, which relies on three measurements: body temperature, ambient temperature and body weight, as representing the most useful method. However, even taking this modern approach, the 95% accuracy claimed for this method "is, at best, only 2.8 hours on either side of the most likely time (a total spread of over 5.5 hours). See, ibid, p61: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...0raine&f=false

[Fisherman]

Hi Columbo,

Unfortunately, as has been discussed many times, body temperature alone is not a particularly accurate means of determining time of death because there are too many variables: see, for example, Payne-James et al, 2014 [url]https://books.google.co.uk/books?
Interestingly, Payne- James also refers to the Henssge's Nonongram method, which relies on three measurements: body temperature, ambient temperature and body weight, as representing the most useful method. However, even taking this modern approach, the 95% accuracy claimed for this method "is, at best, only 2.8 hours on either side of the most likely time (a total spread of over 5.5 hours). See, ibid, p61: [url]https://books.google.co.uk/books?

Interesting and accurate as that is, when the death is quite recent like in the Nichols case, there will be no spread over any 5, 5 hours as I think you will realize. The longer away a death is in time, the harder it is to determine the TOD. If a victim is in the state of Mary Kelly, for example, we know that we are dealing with multiple hours of death, and it get´s trickier. But when a death is very recent, the doctor has an easier task. And let´s keep in mind that Llewellyn was not saying that death was half an hour away - he said that it was no more than half an hour away.

[Columbo]

Interesting and accurate as that is, when the death is quite recent like in the Nichols case, there will be no spread over any 5, 5 hours as I think you will realize. The longer away a death is in time, the harder it is to determine the TOD. If a victim is in the state of Mary Kelly, for example, we know that we are dealing with multiple hours of death, and it get´s trickier. But when a death is very recent, the doctor has an easier task. And let´s keep in mind that Llewellyn was not saying that death was half an hour away - he said that it was no more than half an hour away.

Very true. Of course if we didn't have blood flowing from Nichols it would be much more difficult to pin down. I know the blood flowing debate, etc but as reported IMO it still supports the Lechmere theory.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Hi Columbo,

Unfortunately, as has been discussed many times, body temperature alone is not a particularly accurate means of determining time of death because there are too many variables: see, for example, Payne-James et al, 2014 https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...0raine&f=false

Interestingly, Payne- James also refers to the Henssge's Nonongram method, which relies on three measurements: body temperature, ambient temperature and body weight, as representing the most useful method. However, even taking this modern approach, the 95% accuracy claimed for this method "is, at best, only 2.8 hours on either side of the most likely time (a total spread of over 5.5 hours). See, ibid, p61: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...0raine&f=false

Hi John,

To me the only pluses on the timing of Nichols death are the strict times of the police had for the routes they patrolled. And quite frankly we have to trust that the police are not playing "Cover Your A**". So I think Neil is our best bet as far as the time range of death.

What's fascinating to me is there were the beginnings of Forensics being developed by different people independently of each other yet I haven't read anything yet about the development of a better way to deal with TOD during that period. I'm just investigating that now.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Nor did Llewellyn offer a guess, he instead offered his prefessional opinion that "Her hands and wrists were cold, but the body and lower extremities were warm. I examined her chest and felt the heart. It was dark at the time. I believe she had not been dead more than half-an-hour."

Llewellyn would have been in place at around 4.10, so his timing seems to be spot on. According to the doctor, Nichols died at around 3.40 or thereafter. Meaning that this too is a point where the naysayers have to try and dissolve the professional bid in order to clear Lechmere.

Absolutely agree. I think I said in a previous thread that I think the doctors were a little more accurate then people give them credit. It's not a fair argument to judge them by today's knowledge and technology.

Again the time of death fits with the PC route times so unless someone lied and didn't do their job I would agree with the doctor.

But I believe that's not the anti-lechmere gangs problem. It's not time of death but how long was she dead when Paul came upon Lechmere. His description of her possibly stirring and all the other medical related statements he made are in fact a guess. Good guesses, but none the less they're just guesses.

Being a layman and not a medical person by any stretch, I think the description Paul gives is of a very recently dead person, within minutes of him seeing her.

Columbo

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Abby Normal;387369]

As usual-Wrong Pierre
Along with the gospels, including Mark, written about 70 AD, well within the lifetime of Jesus contemporary eyewitnesses, there two possibly three non Christian independent sources: Josephus, who also mentions Jesus brother James, Tacitus, who notes the crucifiction under Pontius Pilate and Serapion, who mentions in a letter, the crucifiction of the "wise king of the jews".

The first two are indisputable, and do prove the existence of Jesus as a historical real person and none are "worthless".

You're ideas are worthless, as you continue to embarrass yourself on these boards.

No, you are wrong, Abby.

1. There are no contemporary sources.
2. The sources are written decades and centuries after the year 33.
3. The sources differ enormously and they are copies of copies of copies.
4. The writers of the gospels never met Jesus.
5. Paul never met Jesus.
6. These sources are not primary sources. They are written by christians in Alexandria and Ephesus and based on hebrew religion from Babylonia.

The sources therefore do NOT prove the existence of any Jesus and they are totally worthless sources for proving anything about Jesus.

You should also notice that Paul writes - if it is even his own writings, there are massive problems with the sources from "Paul" - that he belongs to "The Way" and that he constructs the description of the vision of Jesus as happening when he is going FROM Jerusalem TO Damascus. The Way is the movement described in the Dead Sea Scrolls and that movement was created, according to the descriptions in the scrolls, in Damascus. Paul therefore symbolically confessed to belong to this movement, to Yahad, in Damascus. Yahad was created by their leader "The teacher of righteousness", long before the scrolls were written and long before the movement fled to Qumran. The teacher, who was believed to be the teller of "the truth" and the "fountain of life" for the followers of The Way, is with very high probability the ideal type on which the followers of the late Way built "Jesus". The new testament even describes Jesus as the way, the truth and life. The rest is a "bios" text, much of it based on old testament models for practice, where Jesus does what Moses does and so on. Yahad created what they believed was a new covenant, and that is also what the christians did. Yahad did not know their original leader, he was mythologized and so was Jesus. They are with high probability the same construction, as I said.

You must understand the function of these sources, Abby. Do some external and internal source criticism. GUT should also do that since he understands nothing about these sources. These sources are not even primary sources, they are late copies of copies of even more copies and no one knows what the "originals" contained. There are not even such a thing as an "original".

So, there is no proof of a Jesus and the sources are useless. They are not at all reliable.

I think you will enjoy this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-cZncVmtIU

Sorry for going off topic, if you want more discussion about this, I suggest you create a new thread.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

Interesting and accurate as that is, when the death is quite recent like in the Nichols case, there will be no spread over any 5, 5 hours as I think you will realize. The longer away a death is in time, the harder it is to determine the TOD. If a victim is in the state of Mary Kelly, for example, we know that we are dealing with multiple hours of death, and it get´s trickier. But when a death is very recent, the doctor has an easier task. And let´s keep in mind that Llewellyn was not saying that death was half an hour away - he said that it was no more than half an hour away.

Yes, that's a fair point. Of course, both Sergeant Kirby and PC Neil passed down Bucks Row at about 3:15, without noticing anything, so the witness testimony suggests Nichols must have been killed less than 30 minutes before the body was discovered. And, assuming Dr Llewellyn is correct, an extra four to five minutes needs to be added to allow time for the mutilations to be effected, so a killer couldn't have left the scene before, say, 3:20.

Then there's the frustrating reference to blood "oozing" from the neck. Thus, Dr Biggs stated that bleeding could continue for 20 minutes, but makes a distinction between "post mortem leakage of blood from the body" and bleeding during life. His conclusion was 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 remaining available to leak out would become very little." (Marriott, 2013).

So was the blood oozing profusely from the neck, which would presumably indicate the victim had been killed very recently, or was it merely a trickle?

[Fisherman]

Yes, that's a fair point. Of course, both Sergeant Kirby and PC Neil passed down Bucks Row at about 3:15, without noticing anything, so the witness testimony suggests Nichols must have been killed less than 30 minutes before the body was discovered. And, assuming Dr Llewellyn is correct, an extra four to five minutes needs to be added to allow time for the mutilations to be effected, so a killer couldn't have left the scene before, say, 3:20.

Then there's the frustrating reference to blood "oozing" from the neck. Thus, Dr Biggs stated that bleeding could continue for 20 minutes, but makes a distinction between "post mortem leakage of blood from the body" and bleeding during life. His conclusion was 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 remaining available to leak out would become very little." (Marriott, 2013).

So was the blood oozing profusely from the neck, which would presumably indicate the victim had been killed very recently, or was it merely a trickle?

A large number of papers commented on that before the inquest, like Lloyds Weekly on the 2:dn:
A murder excelling in atrocity any that has disgraced even the East-end was discovered on Friday in a street off Whitechapel-road. Between three and four in the morning the body of a murdered woman was found lying in the gutter in Buck's-row. It presented a horrible spectacle. The throat had been cut right open from ear to ear, the instrument with which the deed was done tracing the throat from left to right. The wound was about two inches wide, and blood was flowing profusely.

Either the papers made it up or Neil said it.

[John G]

A large number of papers commented on that before the inquest, like Lloyds Weekly on the 2:dn:
A murder excelling in atrocity any that has disgraced even the East-end was discovered on Friday in a street off Whitechapel-road. Between three and four in the morning the body of a murdered woman was found lying in the gutter in Buck's-row. It presented a horrible spectacle. The throat had been cut right open from ear to ear, the instrument with which the deed was done tracing the throat from left to right. The wound was about two inches wide, and blood was flowing profusely.

Either the papers made it up or Neil said it.

Well that suggests to me that she'd been killed very recently! And that may be all the more significant when you consider no one was heard, or seen, fleeing from the scene.

[Columbo]

A large number of papers commented on that before the inquest, like Lloyds Weekly on the 2:dn:
A murder excelling in atrocity any that has disgraced even the East-end was discovered on Friday in a street off Whitechapel-road. Between three and four in the morning the body of a murdered woman was found lying in the gutter in Buck's-row. It presented a horrible spectacle. The throat had been cut right open from ear to ear, the instrument with which the deed was done tracing the throat from left to right. The wound was about two inches wide, and blood was flowing profusely.

Either the papers made it up or Neil said it.

Or it could be the papers chose to dress it up a bit for shock value. These are the kind of things from the press that we need to be careful with. The Star was very good at shocking things up during the murders.

Columbo

[harry]

No one was seen fleeing from the scene of any of the killings.In Nichols killing,doesn't prove anything.Would only have needed a matter of seconds for the killer to leave before Cross arrived.Fifty seconds would give a hundred paces.Did another person need that even?

[drstrange169]

>>Neil would not have covered the intersection of Bakers Row and Hanbury Street - his beat would have entailed the parts of Bakers Row and Thomas Street WEST of the Bucks Row entrance.<<

Do you have legitimate references to support that claim?

>>So the police were left with Mizen only.<<

The last sentence you edited out of your quote, is a Rosetta stone to understanding what might have happened, but I suspect you might already know that;-)

On the morning of Sept 1st, PC Neil took the stand and told the inquest that he was alone in the street with the body. The first people to arrive, he told Baxter, were PC Thain and PC Mizen. He also stated both men came because he believed he summoned them.

He did not send anyone with a message to summon them.

From that moment onwards PC Mizen could and should have known that the two men he saw were not sent by a policeman in Buck’s Row. If Mizen genuinely believed Xmere and Paul told him they were sent by Neil, alarm bells should have been ringing by Saturday afternoon, and he should have informed the investigators immediately.

The story was published in all the evening newspapers, it was repeated in the Sunday papers. Clearly, something was amiss in relation to Mizen.


If by “late Sunday” the police were claiming there was not two men in Buck’s Row, then there are one of three reasons for that, I can see:

1: Mizen lied or withheld information.
2: The police lied or withheld information during the Sunday interview.
3: For whatever reason, Mizen had not yet told his story to the people involved in Sunday's interview.



>>As for "editing out" the passage you mention, you know quite well that it is not I but you who edit out relevant parts of quotations.<<

Self-evidently you do edit out relevant parts of quotations, because you have, as all here can read for themselves in your post #23. Would you like me cite other examples?



>>In this case, I have explained a hundred times that it is the part "to attract attention" that explains Mizens answer.<<

Ask your TV show companion, Andy Griffiths, if, in his opinion, two men leaving a murder scene is worthy of attention to any policeman anywhere anytime and let us know his answer.

Compound that with the question being asked of Neil in this specific instance;
"Were there two men in Buck’s Row when PC Neil was there?"

Compound it further by the fact that PC Neil’s testimony at the inquest had spread across the world (literally) by “late Sunday”.

Indisputably, "to attract attention" does not explain anything. It only attacts questions.

[drstrange169]

>>... since numerous independent sources tell us that Lechmere said that there was another PC awaiting Mizen in Bucks Row, we may treat it as an established fact that the carman actually said this.<<

Since numerous independent sources said Lechmere denied saying that, should we follow the above logic and treat it as an established fact that he did not?

Obviously, this is a flawed approach.

[drstrange169]

Hello John,

>>So was the blood oozing profusely... <<

Can something "ooze profusely"?