Blood oozing

[Fisherman]

If we want to know what Dr Payne James thought happened to Mary Ann Nichols in respect of "post-mortem bleeding", we can turn to the famous TV documentary.

First we have the voiceover:

"Dr Payne James believes that the killer would not necessarily have had blood on his hands. Dr James has worked out that like the other victims Polly Nichols was strangled to death first. Without blood pressure there would have been no arterial spray. Polly Nichols’ killing was surprisingly bloodless."

At the same time, there is also a list on screen entitled:

"Forensic Pathology
Polly Nichols Murder"

Underneath of this heading is shown:

"Strangulation
Neck severed to the bone
Total of twelve injuries
Less extensive injuries compared to the other victims
2 minutes to kill
Dead before knife was used
No blood spray"

Then we have Dr Payne James in his own words on the murder of Nichols:

"I think there is always an assumption that somebody stabbed to death, there is going to be blood everywhere. I think it’s entirely possible that there wouldn’t necessarily be large amounts or indeed any blood necessarily obvious on that person...Although we know the carotid arteries were cut it would seem that that was after death so it may just leak out or dribble out or drain out around the contours of the neck in this case, over a period of minutes".

I am not a forensic pathologist nor an expert in mathematics or physics but it strikes me as obvious that if you have no arterial spray and no initial gushing of blood then all the blood that would have emerged from the body of Nichols had she not been strangled would remain in her body after strangulation and cut throat. If that same blood was leaking or dribbling or draining (or oozing) out of her body very slowly then it would surely take much, much, longer for the blood to "bleed out" to use an expression much loved of Fisherman (by which he appears to mean no more than "stop bleeding") than would otherwise have been the case, because so much more of it would have remained in the body.

The obvious question to have asked Dr Payne James therefore would have been this: When you speak of blood leaking or dribbling or draining out of the body, how long could or would this leaking/dribbling/draining have lasted?

Although Payne James refers to "minutes" in the documentary this is to contrast a situation where there was an immediate gushing or flowing of blood which would have caused the killer’s hands to be bloody.

What we want him to do is to quantify those minutes.

But that wasn’t Fisherman’s approach. The simple questioning was not for him.

His first question to Payne James was this:

"Just how quickly CAN a person with the kind of damage that Nichols had bleed out, if we have nothing that hinders the bloodflow, and if the victim is flat on level ground? Can a total desanguination take place in very few minutes in such a case?"

Payne-James' answer was "Yes".

So this questioning is based on the murder of a woman who has suffered "the kind of damage that Nichols had". Yet Fisherman only mentions two elements of this murder. Firstly, that there was nothing to hinder the bloodflow and secondly that the victim was on flat ground. Nothing is said about strangulation or anything else that is supposed to be unique to Nichols.

Now, pausing there, one wonders how Dr Biggs, when giving his answer about blood oozing to Trevor Marriott, in the context of the JTR murders generally, can possibly not have had in mind the murder of a woman lying on flat ground with nothing hindering the blood flow. So that when he said that blood oozing after death can certainly continue for 20 minutes, it would be astonishing if this could not be said to apply to the circumstances set out by Fisherman in his question to Payne James.

But it gets worse, much worse. For look at the final part of the question:

"Can a total desanguination take place in very few minutes in such a case?"

Desanguination means a massive loss of blood. So Fisherman was here asking Dr Payne James if, in the case of Nichols, there could be a massive loss of blood in a very few minutes. And Payne James said yes!

Now hold on a moment! Didn’t Payne James say that with Nichols having been strangled the blood may just leak out or dribble out or drain out around the contours of the neck in this case?

Yes he did!

Where is the desanguination, or massive blood loss, in this case? How can there be a massive loss of blood in a few minutes if, as a result of the strangulation, it is doing no more than leaking or dribbling out around the neck?

So am going to suggest that Fisherman has confused his expert by introducing the concept of desanguination into the equation which has now put into the expert’s mind the idea that there is actually a massive flow of blood out of the neck wound after the throat was cut, a different scenario to the one he offered in the TV documentary, and thus not applying directly to what he believed happened to Nichols.

And remember that Fisherman didn't do any more than ask him about a person "suffering the kind of damage Nichols had". He did NOT establish that this person had been strangled first. Instead he said that there was desanguination.

We can skip over the next embarrassing question and answer when the great "post mortem bleeding expert" was asked if he knew of any examples of total desanguination taking place in a few minutes and he said "No".

So we now come to what is supposed to be the question and answer which condemns Lechmere as the murderer of Mary Ann Nichols and thus identifies Jack the Ripper on the blood evidence. The question was this:

"Is it possible for such a person to bleed out completely and stop bleeding in three minutes? In five? In seven?"

The answer was this:

"I guess blood may continue to flow for up to this amount of time, but the shorter periods are more likely to be more realistic."

So Fisherman’s question was about "such a person", namely the person who has suffered from "total desanguination". We are not talking about blood leaking or dribbling or draining out of a neck wound. We are talking about someone with a cut throat suffering from massive blood loss.

Because that is what Mr Clever Fisherman who wanted to show his expert that he knew the meaning of a long medical word like "desanguination" has asked him.

Of course, the expression "bleed out" is not defined and is rather vague but let’s assume that the expert took it to mean that at the point of "bleeding out" the victim would stop bleeding. And let's ignore that dead people don't really bleed.

So he says (or rather guesses) that the bleeding would stop most likely after 3 minutes but it could go on for up to 7 minutes.

That is fine but it is, of course, in the context of a massive blood loss. What Payne James cannot be speaking about is the situation which he believed related to Polly Nichols because he thought she was strangled and that there was no massive blood loss, only a dribbling of the blood.

So how long can that dribbling or, let me see if I can find another word for that….oh, I know, oozing, last?

Payne James doesn’t tell us but Dr Biggs does deal with this subject. It can easily last for 20 minutes. That is a general answer for sure but one for which there is no reason to think it could not apply to Polly Nichols and nothing in Payne James’ answers to Fisherman suggests that it could not apply to her.

Fisherman is sunk. Nothing in the "blood evidence" points specifically to Lechmere. There was sufficient time for another individual to have murdered Polly Nichols before Lechmere turned into Bucks Row. By analysing Fisherman's questions to Payne James, and Payne James' answers carefully, we have saved a man from being framed for murder.

Yawn. Just yawn.

"Fisherman is sunk".

Davids wet dream all over again.

"We have saved a man from being framed for murder".

Delusions of grandeur.

Payne-James is of the meaning that Lechmere fits very well with the blood evidence. But he is wise enough to recognize that another killer cannot be excluded. Meaning that much as he recognizes that Lechmere fits the blood bill, he does not reccommend convicting the carman categorically.

I am of the exact same meaning. Lechmere fits the blood bill, but all we can say is that it would be less likely with another killer, not that it absilutely MUST have been the carman. Taken together with the many anomalies surrounding Lechmere, though, he does become a very compelling candidate, and personally, I have little doubt that he did it.

That does not mean that I am "framing a man for murder", nor that Payne-James does so. It means that we are pointing to him as a quite likely candidate, and I entertain a personal belief that the killer has been found.

David Orsam has been toppled over! Hoorah!! The reign of the nifty naysayer is over! A man who seems to have been the killer of Nichols can finally be reinstated as the main suspect again (for those who so wish)!!! Flags, champagne, fireworks!!!!

Farcical, David, farcical. But quite rewarding to realize that you always regarded my theory as floating, up until now that you, ehrm, "sunk it". You have forgotten to tell me that, so thanks.

[Elamarna]

Payne-James is of the meaning that Lechmere fits very well with the blood evidence. But he is wise enough to recognize that another killer cannot be excluded. Meaning that much as he recognizes that Lechmere fits the blood bill, he does not reccommend convicting the carman categorically.

What do you mean by "is of the meaning"? Do you mean that he has given you that opinion? That is has he said to you something along the lines of " yes lechmere must have been there or close"?

And if so what timings as he used/been given for the two witnesses you use Neil and Mizen? Was he told for instance as stated in the documentary that Neil arrived within two minutes of Lechmere leaving the scene? How long after this was he told Mizen arrived?

Or do you mean that the data Payne-James has given you fits the time scale as you see it. The use of "meaning" is confusing me, could you please clarify?

I am of the exact same meaning. Lechmere fits the blood bill, but all we can say is that it would be less likely with another killer, not that it absilutely MUST have been the carman. Taken together with the many anomalies surrounding Lechmere, though, he does become a very compelling candidate, and personally, I have little doubt that he did it.

The statement that it is less likely is entirely dependent on several issues none of which are established.

1. The actual degree of blood loss seen by Neil.
2. The time Neil arrived.
3. The time Mizen arrived.

Without these being established the hypothesis itself cannot be tested and as such must fail. That how hypothesis work. And you are left with an unproven theory.

And again what do you mean by "meaning"? It's a confusing way of expressing oneself.


Steve

[Elamarna]

The two most interesting and just a tad controversial comments made on this thread in the last few days are::

Post #287

"the one and only truly logical bid there ever was for the Ripper´s role"

That seems to demonstrates a remarkable lack of objectivity, a closed mind and that no other suspect can or should be compared to Lechmere.

The second point was even more telling:

Post # 290
" You need to take on board that from an investigative point of view, the Ripper case is nowadays a one-man show. Like it you must not, but there you are."


That is a truly remarkable statement.*
Where does the recent Tumblety research for instance fit in that statement?* Where does Adam Woods long awaited book on Swanson fit?
Not to mention all the other research which is going on.

This again just shows a complete lack of objectivity towards not only Lechmere, but the research in general in this field.

Maybe we should all just accept those views; or maybe we can debate objectively all the issues in a more accepting fashion in an attempt to advance research into the case, including that on Lechmere


Steve

[Harry D]

A. There is evidence pointing to Lechmere killing Nichols, but there is no proof.
B. I have never said that there IS proof for it.
C. The conclusion that it must have been a phantom predisposes that we can say for certain that Lechmere was not the killer.

So where´s the "irony"?

Because like most suspect-based posters you use selective reasoning to bend your chosen suspect into whatever shape he needs to be in order to don the Ripper mantle. Patrick S summarised it beautifully.

As the killer's identity remains as elusive as ever, the 'phantom' would take precedence over any named suspect. Of course, not all named suspects are equal.

Now the so-called blood evidence has been debunked, so let's see some hard evidence of Lechmere's guilt.

[Patrick S]

Because like most suspect-based posters you use selective reasoning to bend your chosen suspect into whatever shape he needs to be in order to don the Ripper mantle. Patrick S summarised it beautifully.

As the killer's identity remains as elusive as ever, the 'phantom' would take precedence over any named suspect. Of course, not all named suspects are equal.

Now the so-called blood evidence has been debunked, so let's see some hard evidence of Lechmere's guilt.

I'm happy you used the term "so-called blood evidence", Harry. I can't say I've managed to slog my way through each contentious post debating the this "blood evidence", but I can say - from what I have read - that nothing new or compelling comes from it. It is always argument for argument's sake over a point that's ultimately irrelevant. It's a red herring. Fisherman will concede no points made against this "blood evidence", just as he concedes nothing to common sense, human nature, and rational thought when discussing how a man who (if we are to believe Fisherman) murdered and mutilated a woman mere seconds before launching into a fly-by-the-seat-of-his pants plan to get away with it by continually submitting himself to examination, scrutiny, "authority", and as a target for suspicion (yet no one involved seems to have had any against him).

Discussion of "blood evidence" takes our eyes off the ball, and I think that's by design. Because there IS no blood evidence, only words like "oozing" taken from press reports, nothing can ultimately be proven. Fisherman can go 'round and 'round, claim victory (because this is ALL based on opinion and no opinion can be proven correct or incorrect), and tell us his theory has withstood yet another assault from the jealous haters who have been against him from the start.

Descriptions of what Lechmere did, while coming to us from those same media sources, are - I think - more easily understood. We have myriad statements from Paul, Mizen, Neil, Thain, Lechmere himself, media accounts of his appearance at the inquest. We know - with some degree of reliability - what he did, how he acted. We know he waited for Paul to reach him. We know he called Paul's attention to Nichols. We know he examined Nichols with Paul. We know he went in search of a PC. We know he found Mizen. We know Paul gave a statement to Lloyds and we know that statement didn't identify Lechmere to any extent and we know that it diminished Lechmere's role in Bucks Row to insignificance. And we know that Lechmere appeared of his own volition at the Inquest some 48 hours after the murder.

So, where does that leave us? Well, for me, if I apply logic to what we know of Lechmere's actions, I see nothing suspicious. I see a man who submitted himself completely as a witness. So, now what? So, let's look at the man. What do we know of him. Is there anything there that pairs with his actions to make us suspect him? Well, we know that he was married for fifty years. We know that he raised 10 children. We know he maintained steady employment and opened a shop later in life. We know he died an old man in his 70s. We know he left his wife a nice sum on his death. We know of no violent episodes. No arrests. No allegations of domestic abuse. No allegations that he "hated women". No allegations that he "hated his mother". But we know he used a "false name"! But, then...it wasn't "false", was it? So, our heroes select a different word, "alternate" name. But, what do we know of that issue? Not much. NOTHING to make anyone to believe that the man was JACK THE RIPPER!

Of course, we can hear tales of this serial killer and that. How he had kids. How he was married. Again. More red herrings. Just apply one simple metric: Is it reasonable to believe that Charles Lechmere was Jack the Ripper?

One must also look at the further leaps in logic required to fit Lechmere as the Ripper. Why did he stop killing? He didn't! He was the Torso Killer.....among others! Then we hear these other reasons to suspect him: His route to work took him near all the murder sites (except the sites that weren't on his route to work, of course. He was visiting his mom at those times. Because they were on the weekend, too.)? The murders took place across a small geographic area. Close to one...is close to all. Especially when dealing with a situation where the "suspect" is MOVING THROUGH the AREA. A route is different from a home, or a place of employment, a station. He's moving. Through a small geographic area. He - and MANY OTHERS - are going to come close to these spots because they walked the same streets as the killer.

Again, logic tells you one thing. The theory tells you another.

[Elamarna]

I'm happy you used the term "so-called blood evidence", Harry. I can't say I've managed to slog my way through each contentious post debating the this "blood evidence", but I can say - from what I have read - that nothing new or compelling comes from it. It is always argument for argument's sake over a point that's ultimately irrelevant. It's a red herring. Fisherman will concede no points made against this "blood evidence", just as he concedes nothing to common sense, human nature, and rational thought when discussing how a man who (if we are to believe Fisherman) murdered and mutilated a woman mere seconds before launching into a fly-by-the-seat-of-his pants plan to get away with it by continually submitting himself to examination, scrutiny, "authority", and as a target for suspicion (yet no one involved seems to have had any against him).

Discussion of "blood evidence" takes our eyes off the ball, and I think that's by design. Because there IS no blood evidence, only words like "oozing" taken from press reports, nothing can ultimately be proven. Fisherman can go 'round and 'round, claim victory (because this is ALL based on opinion and no opinion can be proven correct or incorrect), and tell us his theory has withstood yet another assault from the jealous haters who have been against him from the start.

Descriptions of what Lechmere did, while coming to us from those same media sources, are - I think - more easily understood. We have myriad statements from Paul, Mizen, Neil, Thain, Lechmere himself, media accounts of his appearance at the inquest. We know - with some degree of reliability - what he did, how he acted. We know he waited for Paul to reach him. We know he called Paul's attention to Nichols. We know he examined Nichols with Paul. We know he went in search of a PC. We know he found Mizen. We know Paul gave a statement to Lloyds and we know that statement didn't identify Lechmere to any extent and we know that it diminished Lechmere's role in Bucks Row to insignificance. And we know that Lechmere appeared of his own volition at the Inquest some 48 hours after the murder.

So, where does that leave us? Well, for me, if I apply logic to what we know of Lechmere's actions, I see nothing suspicious. I see a man who submitted himself completely as a witness. So, now what? So, let's look at the man. What do we know of him. Is there anything there that pairs with his actions to make us suspect him? Well, we know that he was married for fifty years. We know that he raised 10 children. We know he maintained steady employment and opened a shop later in life. We know he died an old man in his 70s. We know he left his wife a nice sum on his death. We know of no violent episodes. No arrests. No allegations of domestic abuse. No allegations that he "hated women". No allegations that he "hated his mother". But we know he used a "false name"! But, then...it wasn't "false", was it? So, our heroes select a different word, "alternate" name. But, what do we know of that issue? Not much. NOTHING to make anyone to believe that the man was JACK THE RIPPER!

Of course, we can hear tales of this serial killer and that. How he had kids. How he was married. Again. More red herrings. Just apply one simple metric: Is it reasonable to believe that Charles Lechmere was Jack the Ripper?

One must also look at the further leaps in logic required to fit Lechmere as the Ripper. Why did he stop killing? He didn't! He was the Torso Killer.....among others! Then we hear these other reasons to suspect him: His route to work took him near all the murder sites (except the sites that weren't on his route to work, of course. He was visiting his mom at those times. Because they were on the weekend, too.)? The murders took place across a small geographic area. Close to one...is close to all. Especially when dealing with a situation where the "suspect" is MOVING THROUGH the AREA. A route is different from a home, or a place of employment, a station. He's moving. Through a small geographic area. He - and MANY OTHERS - are going to come close to these spots because they walked the same streets as the killer.

Again, logic tells you one thing. The theory tells you another.

Patrick,

One has to agree with most of the points made. Your posts are always interesting.

However on the issue of blood evidence it is not purely Fisherman's opinion.
Unfortunately for those attempting to use medical science as evidence; it tmay eventually come back and bite them. Such is true in this case.

The details will be discussed in part 3 of the Bucks Row project. And at that point it will be clear how the bleeding time hypothesis fails. Nothing to do with opinion just hard scientific/Medical facts.


Steve

[Pierre]

I'm happy you used the term "so-called blood evidence", Harry. I can't say I've managed to slog my way through each contentious post debating the this "blood evidence", but I can say - from what I have read - that nothing new or compelling comes from it. It is always argument for argument's sake over a point that's ultimately irrelevant. It's a red herring. Fisherman will concede no points made against this "blood evidence", just as he concedes nothing to common sense, human nature, and rational thought when discussing how a man who (if we are to believe Fisherman) murdered and mutilated a woman mere seconds before launching into a fly-by-the-seat-of-his pants plan to get away with it by continually submitting himself to examination, scrutiny, "authority", and as a target for suspicion (yet no one involved seems to have had any against him).

Discussion of "blood evidence" takes our eyes off the ball, and I think that's by design. Because there IS no blood evidence, only words like "oozing" taken from press reports, nothing can ultimately be proven. Fisherman can go 'round and 'round, claim victory (because this is ALL based on opinion and no opinion can be proven correct or incorrect), and tell us his theory has withstood yet another assault from the jealous haters who have been against him from the start.

Descriptions of what Lechmere did, while coming to us from those same media sources, are - I think - more easily understood. We have myriad statements from Paul, Mizen, Neil, Thain, Lechmere himself, media accounts of his appearance at the inquest. We know - with some degree of reliability - what he did, how he acted. We know he waited for Paul to reach him. We know he called Paul's attention to Nichols. We know he examined Nichols with Paul. We know he went in search of a PC. We know he found Mizen. We know Paul gave a statement to Lloyds and we know that statement didn't identify Lechmere to any extent and we know that it diminished Lechmere's role in Bucks Row to insignificance. And we know that Lechmere appeared of his own volition at the Inquest some 48 hours after the murder.

So, where does that leave us? Well, for me, if I apply logic to what we know of Lechmere's actions, I see nothing suspicious. I see a man who submitted himself completely as a witness. So, now what? So, let's look at the man. What do we know of him. Is there anything there that pairs with his actions to make us suspect him? Well, we know that he was married for fifty years. We know that he raised 10 children. We know he maintained steady employment and opened a shop later in life. We know he died an old man in his 70s. We know he left his wife a nice sum on his death. We know of no violent episodes. No arrests. No allegations of domestic abuse. No allegations that he "hated women". No allegations that he "hated his mother". But we know he used a "false name"! But, then...it wasn't "false", was it? So, our heroes select a different word, "alternate" name. But, what do we know of that issue? Not much. NOTHING to make anyone to believe that the man was JACK THE RIPPER!

Of course, we can hear tales of this serial killer and that. How he had kids. How he was married. Again. More red herrings. Just apply one simple metric: Is it reasonable to believe that Charles Lechmere was Jack the Ripper?

One must also look at the further leaps in logic required to fit Lechmere as the Ripper. Why did he stop killing? He didn't! He was the Torso Killer.....among others! Then we hear these other reasons to suspect him: His route to work took him near all the murder sites (except the sites that weren't on his route to work, of course. He was visiting his mom at those times. Because they were on the weekend, too.)? The murders took place across a small geographic area. Close to one...is close to all. Especially when dealing with a situation where the "suspect" is MOVING THROUGH the AREA. A route is different from a home, or a place of employment, a station. He's moving. Through a small geographic area. He - and MANY OTHERS - are going to come close to these spots because they walked the same streets as the killer.

Again, logic tells you one thing. The theory tells you another.

One important reason this so called theory can survive is that all so called theories about who Jack the Ripper was are so weak.

[Abby Normal]

One important reason this so called theory can survive is that all so called theories about who Jack the Ripper was are so weak.

and yours??

[David Orsam]

A. There is evidence pointing to Lechmere killing Nichols, but there is no proof.

For clarification, in this thread about blood oozing, there is no evidence in respect of the blood which points to Lechmere killing Nichols. None at all.

[David Orsam]

My conclusion is that the question you asked has been answered to the full, and I therefore conclude that your only aim is and was to try and misinform about me.

Answered to the full? Ha ha! The only way you felt able to answer my question at all (as a "no") was by expressly qualifying the word "oozing". In fact, you could not even bring yourself to use the word "oozing" in your answer. Thus, you gave your answer as:

"My answer to your question is no. Nichols could not very possibly have been murdered 20 minutes before Neil saw the blood running… there is no realistic possibility that she may have bled actively for twenty minutes."

I didn't ask anything about the time of the blood "running". Nor did I ask you whether she may have "bled actively" for 20 minutes. I asked specifically about the time of blood oozing.

You clearly could not answer that question – even when asked hypothetically – so I conclude that the answer you knew you would have to give was "Yes, blood could very possibly and unsurprisingly ooze for 20 minutes after death", as confirmed by Dr Biggs, thus killing off any lingering hope of framing Lechmere on the basis of the blood evidence.

[David Orsam]

You keep reading my posts as if you have problems understanding the simplest of things.
A. I have never expressed - and nor do I think - that there is little dount that Neil used the word profusely.
B. You have no idea if I would have been wrong if I had been of the meaning that Neil must have used profusely.
C. We all know that he did not use the word profusely at the inquest, so the point is a total waste of time.

Can I please ask you not to present your take on what I think and what I don´t think as some sort of truth in the future? Otherwise, I shall have to start spreading misinformation about you too, and that is not what the boards are meant for.

I was not "spreading misinformation" about you. I said that you keep posting as if there is little doubt in the matter that Neil used the word profusely. That is the case.

Just look at what you said in #322:

"The problem is that we cannot establish what it took for Neil to use the term profusely. It may have been enough that the blood was steadly running into the pool, which is what I think happened."

That is a post AS IF Neil did use the term.

Then, in #356, you said to me:

"Do YOU realize that there may have been a steady stream of blood running from the wound, and that this may have been enough for Neil to say that it ran rather profusely?"

Again, a question based on the assumption that Neil did say "it ran rather profusely".

That's why I say you keep posting as if there is little doubt he said it.

Further, you said earlier in this thread:

"Once more, profusely MAY be wrong, but since it is in the reports, it is more likely not." (#230)

So you think it is more likely than not that he did say "profusely". An absurd position.

You have offered the following explanation:

"Why would the reporters make up that the blood was said to be running profusely? How did they know that Nichols was so freshly killed as to still bleed? Why would the source NOT be Neil? Why should we favour the idea that is was make-believe over the idea that Neil simply said that the blood ran profusely?" (#188)

Suggesting that the reporters would not make up the word "profusely" is another way of saying there is little doubt that Neil said it.

Indeed, despite the fact that we have the inquest testimony, you have actually stated that "profusely" is the best evidence we have about the blood, thus:

"Until evidence can be presented to dispell what the papers - and they were many - said about the blood running profusely, it has to stand as the best bid we have." (#192)

So I have now presented the evidence to back up my claim. Perhaps you forgot the things you've said but you HAVE been posting as if there is little doubt that Neil used the word "profusely", which was the reason for my complaint.

[David Orsam]

Yawn. Just yawn.

"Fisherman is sunk".

Davids wet dream all over again.

"We have saved a man from being framed for murder".

Delusions of grandeur.

Payne-James is of the meaning that Lechmere fits very well with the blood evidence. But he is wise enough to recognize that another killer cannot be excluded. Meaning that much as he recognizes that Lechmere fits the blood bill, he does not reccommend convicting the carman categorically.

I am of the exact same meaning. Lechmere fits the blood bill, but all we can say is that it would be less likely with another killer, not that it absilutely MUST have been the carman. Taken together with the many anomalies surrounding Lechmere, though, he does become a very compelling candidate, and personally, I have little doubt that he did it.

That does not mean that I am "framing a man for murder", nor that Payne-James does so. It means that we are pointing to him as a quite likely candidate, and I entertain a personal belief that the killer has been found.

David Orsam has been toppled over! Hoorah!! The reign of the nifty naysayer is over! A man who seems to have been the killer of Nichols can finally be reinstated as the main suspect again (for those who so wish)!!! Flags, champagne, fireworks!!!!

Farcical, David, farcical. But quite rewarding to realize that you always regarded my theory as floating, up until now that you, ehrm, "sunk it". You have forgotten to tell me that, so thanks.

Strangely enough, Fisherman, while you obsess over some of the concluding language I used, you don't seem to have addressed any of the substantive points I made in my post.

Your only point seems to be that you have never actually excluded the (theoretical) possibility that someone other than Lechmere committed the murder of Nichols. How magnanimous of you!

I have always been aware that you have never said it can only be Lechmere. The criticism I am making of you is that you keep saying that the evidence of the blood somehow points towards Lechmere or makes him the most likely suspect. For the reasons I have set out in great detail, to which you have not responded, this is a conclusion which is not properly available to you.

Look at what Dr Biggs said in the clearest possible terms:

"You can’t tell anything about time of injury / death by assessing the blood loss at the scene."

If you can't tell anything about the time of death by assessing the blood loss at the scene then you can't tell anything about whether Lechmere committed the murder or not by assessing the blood loss at the scene.

Yet, in the most tortuous language imaginable you say: "Payne-James is of the meaning that Lechmere fits very well with the blood evidence."

It's so tortuously worded because you know full well that Payne James has said nothing about whether Lechmere "fits with the blood evidence". Not in any quote that has been provided from him at least. What, I think you are saying, in an extremely devious way, is that it is your own (highly subjective) interpretation of what Payne James has said that Lechmere fits very well with the blood evidence.

But I have given the clearest reasons why this is not the case and you have not refuted them.

Saying that "Payne-James is of the meaning that Lechmere fits very well with the blood evidence" is just another blatant and ever more desperate attempt to frame Lechmere with a statement that is at best misleading, at worse completely untrue.

Lechmere cannot possibly be said to be any more (or less) likely than anyone else to have committed the murder on the basis of the witness observations that were made about the blood.

Fortunately your cunning scheme to frame Lechmere with the blood evidence has now been foiled.

[Pierre]

Strangely enough, Fisherman, while you obsess over some of the concluding language I used, you don't seem to have addressed any of the substantive points I made in my post.

Your only point seems to be that you have never actually excluded the (theoretical) possibility that someone other than Lechmere committed the murder of Nichols. How magnanimous of you!

I have always been aware that you have never said it can only be Lechmere. The criticism I am making of you is that you keep saying that the evidence of the blood somehow points towards Lechmere or makes him the most likely suspect. For the reasons I have set out in great detail, to which you have not responded, this is a conclusion which is not properly available to you.

Look at what Dr Biggs said in the clearest possible terms:

"You can’t tell anything about time of injury / death by assessing the blood loss at the scene."

If you can't tell anything about the time of death by assessing the blood loss at the scene then you can't tell anything about whether Lechmere committed the murder or not by assessing the blood loss at the scene.

Yet, in the most tortuous language imaginable you say: "Payne-James is of the meaning that Lechmere fits very well with the blood evidence."

It's so tortuously worded because you know full well that Payne James has said nothing about whether Lechmere "fits with the blood evidence". Not in any quote that has been provided from him at least. What, I think you are saying, in an extremely devious way, is that it is your own (highly subjective) interpretation of what Payne James has said that Lechmere fits very well with the blood evidence.

But I have given the clearest reasons why this is not the case and you have not refuted them.

Saying that "Payne-James is of the meaning that Lechmere fits very well with the blood evidence" is just another blatant and ever more desperate attempt to frame Lechmere with a statement that is at best misleading, at worse completely untrue.

Lechmere cannot possibly be said to be any more (or less) likely than anyone else to have committed the murder on the basis of the witness observations that were made about the blood.

Fortunately your cunning scheme to frame Lechmere with the blood evidence has now been foiled.

I myself am of the meaning that Fisherman is of the meaning that P-J is of the meaning.

[John G]

Dear me. Dear, dear me. That speaks for itself.

So sayeth the man who's thinking on this subject has become so blinkered that he believes an unattributed article, in a sensationalist rag, should take priority over the sworn testimony of a police officer at an inquest.

Oh dear. How far the mighty have fallen...fallen...fallen.

[John G]

You have not learnt a iot of all the information passed on out here, have you?

Llewellyn was called out, not to perform a full autopsy on the sidewalk, but to determine if the woman was dead. He then directed the body to be taken to the mortuary FOR FURTHER EXAMINATION! What do you think that further examination was about?
Perhaps it was about getting a full picture? Eh?

There were numerous people by the body in Bucks Row, some of whom handled the body and lifted it onto the ambulance. None of them noticed the wounds to the abdomen.

What a pack of incompetent idiots, eh? Or is it just Llewellyn who needs to be painted out as such?

Do you have any idea why the coroner did not severely reprimand Llewellyn for his lack of professionalism? Why did the coroner not demand that he could see through cloth when required? Any ideas?

There is one imcompetence only, and it rests firmly with you. For opening your mouth when you could have kept it shut. It is really a very sad business, and it carries with itself the risk that somebody may read you and take what you say as useful and correct information, when it is instead the exact opposite - disinformation.

And how many of those other individuals were medical professionals? Dr Llewellyn was a medical professional but, despite this, he failed to thoroughly examine the body in situ. Now, maybe the responsibilities of medical men were less onerous in those days, but that suggests incompetence to me.

And it's not as if he didn't view the body closely. I mean, it's not as if he turned up with a big stick and started poking the body from several feet away, before declaring: "well, she's not moving. I can confidently confirm that this individual is definitely dead!"