Blood oozing

[Fisherman]

Out of interest: How do you weigh the two suggestions about Llewellyn? Given that he said that the lack of blood spoke for the body haveing been carried to the spot and placed there, do you think it is MORE likely that he saw the ground when Nichols had been removed, LESS likely or EQUALLY likely?

My weighing is 99 per cent in favour of Llewellyn having been in place as the body was removed and taking note of the scarcity of blood on which he commented. I think the possibility that he commented without having checked is only a freak one.

Yours?

[Elamarna]

Given that it is wrong, it IS an insult. To rational thinking, that is.

Am I to assume that your original comment to me was meant as an insult ?

You say it wrong, you may be correct over the whole of your history on the forum. I rally do not have time to check and will take your word.
However that does not appear to be the recent situation.
My statement was based on that and was as I say an observation not an insult.
You interpret it as one, that is down to you..

Hope you are having a good day.

[Elamarna]

Out of interest: How do you weigh the two suggestions about Llewellyn? Given that he said that the lack of blood spoke for the body haveing been carried to the spot and placed there, do you think it is MORE likely that he saw the ground when Nichols had been removed, LESS likely or EQUALLY likely?

My weighing is 99 per cent in favour of Llewellyn having been in place as the body was removed and taking note of the scarcity of blood on which he commented. I think the possibility that he commented without having checked is only a freak one.

Yours?

At last back to a real debate.

I do note that this is not an evidence based but opinion based attempt to answer the question of was he present when the body was removed.

There is nothing in what you say which supports the idea that he was there when such happened.
All of his reported statements can be easily ascribed to what he saw when he arrived at the scene. A pool near to her neck, he say little else about the scene. You rightly say he says he gave instructions for the body to be removed and finished by saying contact him if anything arose.

That is it.
Do any of the police say he was there when they moved the body?

Considering the above I feel it is Less likely.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Am I to assume that your original comment to me was meant as an insult ?

I canīt even tell which was my original comment, Steve. It is not my aim to throw horseshit on anybody, but I tend to fire back when under bombardment. Sometimes, when that bombardment comes from many directions, Iīm sure I could have weighed my answers more carefully. Not saying that it applies here, just making a general observation.

You say it wrong, you may be correct over the whole of your history on the forum. I rally do not have time to check and will take your word.

Nor do I, but I know for sure that we would both come up with mistakes on my behalf, so itīs a non-issue, really.

However that does not appear to be the recent situation.
My statement was based on that and was as I say an observation not an insult.
You interpret it as one, that is down to you..

Hope you are having a good day.

Run of the mill, more like. Had better, had worse. Spending my time arguing with you is not the pinnacle of my days. You may have the same impression visavi me, of course.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: At last back to a real debate.

Yes, and who took us there....?

I do note that this is not an evidence based but opinion based attempt to answer the question of was he present when the body was removed.

All he said is evidence. It is in evidence that he offered a view on the sarcity of blood on the murder site, and it therefore implies that he had it checked, Steve. That is no opinion, it is evidence.

There is nothing in what you say which supports the idea that he was there when such happened.

Of course there is - he was able to comment on how the lack of blood spoke for a murder somewhere else. How could he do that without having full knowledge?

All of his reported statements can be easily ascribed to what he saw when he arrived at the scene. A pool near to her neck, he say little else about the scene. You rightly say he says he gave instructions for the body to be removed and finished by saying contact him if anything arose.

That is it.

Actually, it is not - not by a far cry. The statement that the scarcity of blood in combination with the position of the body led him to think that the murder had been committed elsewhere cannot be ascribed to his forst impressions of the scene. There was a huge area under Nichols that could hide litres of blood, and to be able to comment on a scarcity, he needed to have that settled first.

Do any of the police say he was there when they moved the body?

Iīm not sure - maybe I will be able to work up enough of an interest to check once more. I would very much like to be able to find a confirmation textwise and not only logically.

Considering the above I feel it is Less likely.

You forgot to make a weighing. Please?

[Harry D]

The appeal of the Phantom killer is that he can be adjusted to doing things the exact way we would have wanted him to do it. He can be given any name and shape. Thatīs attractive, of course.

Please tell me the irony wasn't lost on anyone else here?

There's no evidence that Lechmere murdered Nichols, and certainly nothing to tie him to the other murders, so it must have been a phantom!

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: At last back to a real debate.

Yes, and who took us there....? steve:- on that i feel we will disagree as well

I do note that this is not an evidence based but opinion based attempt to answer the question of was he present when the body was removed.

All he said is evidence. It is in evidence that he offered a view on the sarcity of blood on the murder site, and it therefore implies that he had it checked, Steve. That is no opinion, it is evidence.

No it was his opinion. based on his observations.. and while it is evidence, it is backed by none but his own opinions.

There is nothing in what you say which supports the idea that he was there when such happened.

Of course there is - he was able to comment on how the lack of blood spoke for a murder somewhere else. How could he do that without having full knowledge?

Easily, it did not require knowledge to make the statement, just his opinion, why can you not see that?

All of his reported statements can be easily ascribed to what he saw when he arrived at the scene. A pool near to her neck, he say little else about the scene. You rightly say he says he gave instructions for the body to be removed and finished by saying contact him if anything arose.

That is it.

Actually, it is not - not by a far cry. The statement that the scarcity of blood in combination with the position of the body led him to think that the murder had been committed elsewhere cannot be ascribed to his forst impressions of the scene. There was a huge area under Nichols that could hide litres of blood, and to be able to comment on a scarcity, he needed to have that settled first.

This is where we disagree, and I feel we will convince neither of the opposites view, given what sources we have, and what they say.

Do any of the police say he was there when they moved the body?

Iīm not sure - maybe I will be able to work up enough of an interest to check once more. I would very much like to be able to find a confirmation textwise and not only logically.

I am sure if there were we would not be having this debate.
I looked into this some time back, and I have found nothing to say that the Doctor was present when the body was loaded onto the ambulance. It also appears that the ambulance had not arrived when Llewellyn arrived on site, do you agree?

Considering the above I feel it is Less likely.

You forgot to make a weighing. Please?

Sorry, my natural inclination is to never go above 90% unless there is definitive proof either way, however as you give 99% based on the same data, i see no issue with also giving 99% in the opposite direction.


steve

[Patrick S]

Please tell me the irony wasn't lost on anyone else here?

There's no evidence that Lechmere murdered Nichols, and certainly nothing to tie him to the other murders, so it must have been a phantom!

It certainly wasn't lost on me. I posted a treatise a few years ago, and several others since, that argue that Lechmere's behavior only makes sense had he had access to a crystal ball. If we assume his desire was to avoid capture, only knowledge of the future would have led him to:

- WAIT for an unidentified man, on the spot where he'd supposedly just killed and disemboweled Nichols

- APPROACH that man, Robert Paul, even as Paul tried to avoid him and walk past

- TOUCH Paul's shoulder with a hand - confident it was free of blood - and ask Paul to "COME SEE THIS WOMAN"

- INSPECT the body of his alleged victim with Paul - confident that Paul did not have a match with which to reveal the fact that she'd been nearly decapitated and dissected

- REFUSE to touch the victim when Paul suggests that they move her even though this would give him a perfectly reasonable explanation for any blood that may have gotten on his clothing during said near decapitation and dissection

- GO WITH PAUL to find a PC to TELL about the woman he'd supposedly just killed even though he could have simply gone the other way, turned another direction at any point before they found said PC because Paul had absolutely no clue who he was, where he lived, where he worked

- TELL MIZEN that he thinks the woman is DEAD, confident he'll not take him BACK to the scene, use his lantern to inspect his person, or search for the KNIFE which was STILL ON HIM

- Pull Mizen aside and TELL MIZEN lies - out of poor Robert Paul's earshot - about another PC waiting at Buck's Row, confident that Paul won't think that odd in the least

And now...the grand plan has succeeded. He's supposedly just killed and eviscerated Nichols. He's managed to navigated his way out of the situation, albeit in the most inexplicable way one could possibly imagine. He's free. Mizen didn't ask his name. Paul didn't as his name. Paul speaks to Lloyd's and describes him only as 'a man'. He's unnamed. No description of him is given. And, to boot, Paul casts himself as the prime actor. He does the talking. He editorializes about what a 'great shame' the PCs reaction was upon being told the WOMAN WAS DEAD......... Mission accomplished, right? He's free to continue the murder spree that started - if we believe the theory - years earlier and would not conclude for decades. And what does he do?

- HE SHOWS AT THE INQUEST to TELL MORE LIES about PC Mizen.

[David Orsam]

But you said the two words could mean the same thing, did you not? Has that changed all of a sudden?

Are you for real? Do I have to explain it all again?

What I said was that "oozing" is unambiguous and clearly defined, with a single meaning, whereas "running" is ambiguous and vague, with several meanings, because it could mean moving slow, moving fast or something in between or even not moving at all, just as Dr Llewellyn referred to a bruise running along Polly's face.

That's why I wanted you to answer the question using the non-ambiguous word; a word that PC Neil definitely and without doubt used to describe the blood coming from the neck wound in his witness testimony. It's also the word that Dr Biggs used when he said that oozing can easily go on for 20 minutes after death. So by using the word "oozing" we can get some clarity which we can't do with the word "running".

But you are clearly determined not to answer the question and I will be drawing my own conclusions from that.

[David Orsam]

Of course it involves movement. But not necessarily running.

If you have to resort to gibberish of this nature then the argument is already lost. In fact, you lost it quite some time ago.

I am not saying that Neil said it ran rather profusely. I am suggesting he may have, and that this is what was set off in the early paper articles.

You keep posting as if there is little doubt in the matter that Neil used the word profusely. You could hardly be more wrong. There is no good reason to think that he ever did use the word "profusely" and he certainly did not use it when he was standing in the witness box under oath.

[David Orsam]

It is suggested out here that Nichols MAY have been cut twenty minutes before Neil saw her, putting it in the vicinity of 3.25.

No, that is not the suggestion. The suggestion is that Nichols MAY WELL have been cut twenty minutes before Neil saw her, putting it in the vicinity of 3.25.

In other words, not a theoretical possibility only, which is what your wording implies, not something that just might have happened but is unlikely, but something that could easily and unsurprisingly have happened.

[David Orsam]

Although it MAY be that Lechmere was not the killer, he is certainly the one and only man that is pointed out by the blood evidence.

That's a ridiculous sentence. Utterly absurd in fact. She had obviously been recently killed when Lechmere pointed her out to Paul (i.e. PC Neil would have seen her on his previous beat if she had been there much longer than 30 minutes) but nothing in the "blood evidence" adds to that fact or makes it more or less likely that Lechmere was the killer. It certainly does not point out Lechmere as the killer. If Nichols was killed at 3.25 there was ample opportunity for an unknown assailant to have murdered her

And, once more, a more realistic way of writing the first part of your sentence is that it MAY WELL be that Lechmere was not the killer. The second part needs to be deleted entirely.

[David Orsam]

Does that mean that Lechmere can be exonerated? No.

Nothing that I have said in this thread about the blood oozing has for one second been about exonerating Lechmere. It has all been about being fair to him.

Are you being fair to him by refusing to agree (with Dr Biggs) that blood could easily have been oozing 20 minutes after death? Clearly not.

Are you being fair by refusing to agree that Neil even saw blood oozing? Obviously not.

You have been trying to pin the blame on Lechmere in every post, twisting the evidence to suit your own anti-Lechmere purpose.

When you agree that there would have been nothing surprising, strange or out-of-the-ordinary for the blood to have oozed from Nichols' wound for 20 minutes, that is the time when it can be said that you are behaving in a fair and non-devious manner.

[John G]

Aha. So if you throttle somebody, then you will inevitably cut the neck first, because you have already directed interest to it? Is that how you reason?

I would say it's virtually inevitable. Any other approach doesn't make sense.

[John G]

All as I predicted therefore. Llewellyn said that he ordered the body removed, and he subsequently said that there was a small pool of blood only, and that this fact, taken together with the position of the body, led him to conclude that the murder was committed elsewhere and the body placed at the spot afterwards.

So he had taken in the picture about how much blood there was, otherwise he would not be able to speak of a scarcity of it - there could have been litres of the stuff under the body, and it was not until he checked that he would be able to make his call.

But you reason that he may have made the call anyway, and that he may have forgotten to check the amounts of blood on the spot.

This is why you should not be given too much attention - you are not able to take in what is said.

Or should I say that "some" are not able to. More stylishly, sort of? Of course, the problem is that anybody reading it will know who I am referring to. That is how we function - well, most of us, at least.

Some donīt.

Is this the same Dr Llewellyn who failed to notice the victim had been mutilated? Maybe he had a major visual impairment!