Blood oozing

[John G]

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.

Well said again Patrick. And how on earth any modern forensic scientists can come to any form conclusions, regarding the blood evidence in the Nichols case, is anybody's guess. I mean, it's not as if we have a completed, thoroughly detailed forensic report. What we're essentially left with is what was said at inquest and, in that regard, much of the medical evidence is vague, limited and potentially ambiguous, at least by today's standards.

And, if you're going to go to the trouble of engaging a modern expert, it would help if you asked the right questions in a unconvoluted manner.

[John G]

Yes, Gareth, we all know how Gary Ridgway stopped killing the second he was approached by the police. And Sutcliffe, who was approached multiple times, of course also stopped killing on account of that. No serialist would be brazen enough to kill when under possible suspicion! Not Hansen, not Gacy, not a single one of them.

Why is it that comments like this one are even uttered by people like you, who should be decently well read up on the history of serial killing?

Did either of these individuals commit a murder during an inquest, into a previous murder they'd committed, was on going, and to which they were called to attend?

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, Gareth, we all know how Gary Ridgway stopped killing the second he was approached by the police. And Sutcliffe, who was approached multiple times, of course also stopped killing on account of that. No serialist would be brazen enough to kill when under possible suspicion! Not Hansen, not Gacy, not a single one of them.

Had any of them been summoned to attend an ongoing inquest into a murder that had happened barely a week previously, and went on to commit yet another murder whilst the inquest was in full swing?

Edit: I see John G has made the same point. Great minds...

[David Orsam]

The Source of the Star's Report of 31 August

Was PC Neil the source of the Star's comment about blood flowing profusely from the wound, as Fisherman argues, or can we put it down to some journalistic invention?

Well let's just look at what the Globe published in its second edition of 31 August 1888, timed at 12.30pm, based on a Central News agency report:

"SECOND EDITION
GLOBE OFFICE, 367, Strand, 12.30 p.m.
ANOTHER WHITECHAPEL MYSTERY
BRUTAL MURDER OF A WOMAN
The Central News says: - Scarcely have the horror and sensation caused by the discovery of the murdered woman in Whitechapel some short time ago had time to abate, when another discovery is made, which for the brutality exercised on the victim, is even more glaringly outrageous and horrible. The affair up to the present is enveloped in mystery, and the police have as yet no evidence to trace the perpetrators of the outrage. The facts are that as constable John Neil was walking down Bucks-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four o’clock this morning he discovered a woman between 35 and 40 years of age lying at the side of the street with her throat cut from ear to ear. The wound was about two inches wide, and the woman was lying in a pool of blood. She was conveyed to the Whitechapel Mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat, the lower part of her body was shockingly mutilated, the injuries, which were of a sickening nature, having apparently been effected with a large knife. As the body lies in the mortuary it presents a ghastly sight. The victim is a woman 5ft. 2in. in height. The hands are bruised and bear evidence of having engaged in a severe struggle. There is the impression of a ring having been worn on one of the deceased’s fingers, but there is nothing to show that it had been wrenched from her in a struggle. Some of the front teeth have been knocked out, and the face is bruised on both cheeks, and very much discoloured. The deceased wore a rough brown ulster, with large buttons in front. Her clothes are torn and cut up in several places, bearing evidence of the ferocity with which the murder was committed. The only way by which the police can prosecute an inquiry at present is by finding some one who can identify the deceased and then, if possible, trace those in whose company she was last seen. In Buck’s-row the greatest excitement prevails, and several persons in the neighbourhood state that an affray occurred shortly after midnight, but no screams were heard, nor was anything noticed beyond what might have been considered evidence of an ordinary brawl."

Now compare that to what appears to have been a story based on that exact same agency report which appeared in the Star that same afternoon (almost certainly in a later edition):

"Scarcely has the horror and sensation caused by the discovery of the murdered woman in Whitechapel recently had time to abate, when another discovery is made, which for the brutality exercised on the victim is even more shocking. As Constable John Neil was walking down Buck's-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four o'clock this morning, he discovered a woman lying at the side of the street with her throat cut from ear to ear. The wound was about two inches wide and blood was flowing profusely. She was immediately conveyed to the Whitechapel mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open and the bowels were protruding. The wound extends nearly to her breast, and must have been effected with a large knife. As the corpse lies in the mortuary, it presents a ghastly sight. The victim seems to be between 35 and 40 years of age, and measures 5ft. 2in. in height. The hands are bruised, and bear evidence of having engaged in a severe struggle. There is the impression of a ring having been worn on one of deceased's fingers, but there is nothing to show that it had been wrenched from her in a struggle. Some of the front teeth have also been knocked out, and the face is bruised on both cheeks and very much discoloured. Deceased wore a rough brown ulster, with large buttons in front. Her clothes are torn and cut up in several places, bearing evidence of the ferocity with which the murder was committed. Several persons in the neighborhood state that an affray occurred shortly after midnight, but no screams were heard, nor anything beyond what might have been considered evidence of an ordinary brawl."

Let's go through them and compare the wording side by side:

Globe: Scarcely have the horror and sensation caused by the discovery of the murdered woman in Whitechapel some short time ago had time to abate, when another discovery is made, which for the brutality exercised on the victim, is even more glaringly outrageous and horrible.
Star: Scarcely has the horror and sensation caused by the discovery of the murdered woman in Whitechapel recently had time to abate, when another discovery is made, which for the brutality exercised on the victim is even more shocking.

Globe: Body found "lying at the side of the street" by "constable John Neil" as he was "walking down Bucks-Row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel" at about quarter to four o'clock and her throat was cut "from ear to ear".
Star: "As Constable John Neil was walking down Buck's-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four o'clock this morning, he discovered a woman lying at the side of the street with her throat cut from ear to ear"

Globe: woman was "between 35 and 40 years of age"
Star: The victim seems to be between 35 and 40 years of age.

Globe: wound about two inches wide.
Star: The wound was about two inches wide.

Globe: the woman was lying in a pool of blood.
Star: blood was flowing profusely.

Globe: She was conveyed to the Whitechapel Mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat, the lower part of her body was shockingly mutilated.
Star: She was immediately conveyed to the Whitechapel mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open and the bowels were protruding.

Globe: injuries were of a sickening nature having been inflicted with a large knife.
Star: The wound extends nearly to her breast, and must have been effected with a large knife.

Globe: victim is 5ft 2 in. in height.
Star: victim measures 5ft. 2in. in height.

Globe: hands are bruised and bear evidence of having engaged in severe struggle.
Star: The hands are bruised, and bear evidence of having engaged in a severe struggle.

Globe: There is the impression of a ring having been worn on one of the deceased’s fingers, but there is nothing to show that it had been wrenched from her in a struggle.
Star: There is the impression of a ring having been worn on one of deceased's fingers, but there is nothing to show that it had been wrenched from her in a struggle.

Globe: Some of the front teeth have been knocked out, and the face is bruised on both cheeks, and very much discoloured. The deceased wore a rough brown ulster, with large buttons in front.
Star: Some of the front teeth have also been knocked out, and the face is bruised on both cheeks and very much discoloured.

Globe: The deceased wore a rough brown ulster, with large buttons in front.
Star: Deceased wore a rough brown ulster, with large buttons in front.

Globe: Her clothes are torn and cut up in several places, bearing evidence of the ferocity with which the murder was committed.
Star: Her clothes are torn and cut up in several places, bearing evidence of the ferocity with which the murder was committed.

Globe: The only way by which the police can prosecute an inquiry at present is by finding some one who can identify the deceased and then, if possible, trace those in whose company she was last seen.
Star: Not mentioned

Globe: In Buck’s-row the greatest excitement prevails, and several persons in the neighbourhood state that an affray occurred shortly after midnight, but no screams were heard, nor was anything noticed beyond what might have been considered evidence of an ordinary brawl.
Star: Several persons in the neighborhood state that an affray occurred shortly after midnight, but no screams were heard, nor anything beyond what might have been considered evidence of an ordinary brawl.

There can be no doubt, therefore, that the Star's source was the Central News Agency report which was circulating at just after midday on 31 August. The two stories are virtually identical in their facts and wording, although the Star has changed the order around slightly, tinkered with a few words and presented it as its own report.

There are only two significant differences between the reports. Whereas the Star says that "the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open and the bowels were protruding", for reasons of taste, to protect the sensibilities of its readers, the Globe appears to have modified this, or used a modified version of the report, to simply say that the lower part was "shockingly mutilated".

But the most interesting difference is that the original Central News report only speaks of Nichols lying in a pool of blood. This must at least create the suspicion that the Star has modified this for journalistic effect to say that the blood was flowing profusely, which is what many have suspected all along.

[Elamarna]

Was PC Neil the source of the Star's comment about blood flowing profusely from the wound, as Fisherman argues, or can we put it down to some journalistic invention?

Well let's just look at what the Globe published in its second edition of 31 August 1888, timed at 12.30pm, based on a Central News agency report:

"SECOND EDITION
GLOBE OFFICE, 367, Strand, 12.30 p.m.
ANOTHER WHITECHAPEL MYSTERY
BRUTAL MURDER OF A WOMAN
The Central News says: - Scarcely have the horror and sensation caused by the discovery of the murdered woman in Whitechapel some short time ago had time to abate, when another discovery is made, which for the brutality exercised on the victim, is even more glaringly outrageous and horrible. The affair up to the present is enveloped in mystery, and the police have as yet no evidence to trace the perpetrators of the outrage. The facts are that as constable John Neil was walking down Bucks-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four o’clock this morning he discovered a woman between 35 and 40 years of age lying at the side of the street with her throat cut from ear to ear. The wound was about two inches wide, and the woman was lying in a pool of blood. She was conveyed to the Whitechapel Mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat, the lower part of her body was shockingly mutilated, the injuries, which were of a sickening nature, having apparently been effected with a large knife. As the body lies in the mortuary it presents a ghastly sight. The victim is a woman 5ft. 2in. in height. The hands are bruised and bear evidence of having engaged in a severe struggle. There is the impression of a ring having been worn on one of the deceased’s fingers, but there is nothing to show that it had been wrenched from her in a struggle. Some of the front teeth have been knocked out, and the face is bruised on both cheeks, and very much discoloured. The deceased wore a rough brown ulster, with large buttons in front. Her clothes are torn and cut up in several places, bearing evidence of the ferocity with which the murder was committed. The only way by which the police can prosecute an inquiry at present is by finding some one who can identify the deceased and then, if possible, trace those in whose company she was last seen. In Buck’s-row the greatest excitement prevails, and several persons in the neighbourhood state that an affray occurred shortly after midnight, but no screams were heard, nor was anything noticed beyond what might have been considered evidence of an ordinary brawl."

Now compare that to what appears to have been a story based on that exact same agency report which appeared in the Star that same afternoon (almost certainly in a later edition):

"Scarcely has the horror and sensation caused by the discovery of the murdered woman in Whitechapel recently had time to abate, when another discovery is made, which for the brutality exercised on the victim is even more shocking. As Constable John Neil was walking down Buck's-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four o'clock this morning, he discovered a woman lying at the side of the street with her throat cut from ear to ear. The wound was about two inches wide and blood was flowing profusely. She was immediately conveyed to the Whitechapel mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open and the bowels were protruding. The wound extends nearly to her breast, and must have been effected with a large knife. As the corpse lies in the mortuary, it presents a ghastly sight. The victim seems to be between 35 and 40 years of age, and measures 5ft. 2in. in height. The hands are bruised, and bear evidence of having engaged in a severe struggle. There is the impression of a ring having been worn on one of deceased's fingers, but there is nothing to show that it had been wrenched from her in a struggle. Some of the front teeth have also been knocked out, and the face is bruised on both cheeks and very much discoloured. Deceased wore a rough brown ulster, with large buttons in front. Her clothes are torn and cut up in several places, bearing evidence of the ferocity with which the murder was committed. Several persons in the neighborhood state that an affray occurred shortly after midnight, but no screams were heard, nor anything beyond what might have been considered evidence of an ordinary brawl."

Let's go through them and compare the wording side by side:

Globe: Scarcely have the horror and sensation caused by the discovery of the murdered woman in Whitechapel some short time ago had time to abate, when another discovery is made, which for the brutality exercised on the victim, is even more glaringly outrageous and horrible.
Star: Scarcely has the horror and sensation caused by the discovery of the murdered woman in Whitechapel recently had time to abate, when another discovery is made, which for the brutality exercised on the victim is even more shocking.

Globe: Body found "lying at the side of the street" by "constable John Neil" as he was "walking down Bucks-Row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel" at about quarter to four o'clock and her throat was cut "from ear to ear".
Star: "As Constable John Neil was walking down Buck's-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four o'clock this morning, he discovered a woman lying at the side of the street with her throat cut from ear to ear"

Globe: woman was "between 35 and 40 years of age"
Star: The victim seems to be between 35 and 40 years of age.

Globe: wound about two inches wide.
Star: The wound was about two inches wide.

Globe: the woman was lying in a pool of blood.
Star: blood was flowing profusely.

Globe: She was conveyed to the Whitechapel Mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat, the lower part of her body was shockingly mutilated.
Star: She was immediately conveyed to the Whitechapel mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open and the bowels were protruding.

Globe: injuries were of a sickening nature having been inflicted with a large knife.
Star: The wound extends nearly to her breast, and must have been effected with a large knife.

Globe: victim is 5ft 2 in. in height.
Star: victim measures 5ft. 2in. in height.

Globe: hands are bruised and bear evidence of having engaged in severe struggle.
Star: The hands are bruised, and bear evidence of having engaged in a severe struggle.

Globe: There is the impression of a ring having been worn on one of the deceased’s fingers, but there is nothing to show that it had been wrenched from her in a struggle.
Star: There is the impression of a ring having been worn on one of deceased's fingers, but there is nothing to show that it had been wrenched from her in a struggle.

Globe: Some of the front teeth have been knocked out, and the face is bruised on both cheeks, and very much discoloured. The deceased wore a rough brown ulster, with large buttons in front.
Star: Some of the front teeth have also been knocked out, and the face is bruised on both cheeks and very much discoloured.

Globe: The deceased wore a rough brown ulster, with large buttons in front.
Star: Deceased wore a rough brown ulster, with large buttons in front.

Globe: Her clothes are torn and cut up in several places, bearing evidence of the ferocity with which the murder was committed.
Star: Her clothes are torn and cut up in several places, bearing evidence of the ferocity with which the murder was committed.

Globe: The only way by which the police can prosecute an inquiry at present is by finding some one who can identify the deceased and then, if possible, trace those in whose company she was last seen.
Star: Not mentioned

Globe: In Buck’s-row the greatest excitement prevails, and several persons in the neighbourhood state that an affray occurred shortly after midnight, but no screams were heard, nor was anything noticed beyond what might have been considered evidence of an ordinary brawl.
Star: Several persons in the neighborhood state that an affray occurred shortly after midnight, but no screams were heard, nor anything beyond what might have been considered evidence of an ordinary brawl.

There can be no doubt, therefore, that the Star's source was the Central News Agency report which was circulating at just after midday on 31 August. The two stories are virtually identical in their facts and wording, although the Star has changed the order around slightly, tinkered with a few words and presented it as its own report.

There are only two significant differences between the reports. Whereas the Star says that "the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open and the bowels were protruding", for reasons of taste, to protect the sensibilities of its readers, the Globe appears to have modified this, or used a modified version of the report, to simply say that the lower part was "shockingly mutilated".

But the most interesting difference is that the original Central News report only speaks of Nichols lying in a pool of blood. This must at least create the suspicion that the Star has modified this for journalistic effect to say that the blood was flowing profusely, which is what many have suspected all along.

David, great work. I await a rebuttal based on the two sources rather than personal belief.


Steve

[Pierre]

Was PC Neil the source of the Star's comment about blood flowing profusely from the wound, as Fisherman argues, or can we put it down to some journalistic invention?

Well let's just look at what the Globe published in its second edition of 31 August 1888, timed at 12.30pm, based on a Central News agency report:

"SECOND EDITION
GLOBE OFFICE, 367, Strand, 12.30 p.m.
ANOTHER WHITECHAPEL MYSTERY
BRUTAL MURDER OF A WOMAN
The Central News says: - Scarcely have the horror and sensation caused by the discovery of the murdered woman in Whitechapel some short time ago had time to abate, when another discovery is made, which for the brutality exercised on the victim, is even more glaringly outrageous and horrible. The affair up to the present is enveloped in mystery, and the police have as yet no evidence to trace the perpetrators of the outrage. The facts are that as constable John Neil was walking down Bucks-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four o’clock this morning he discovered a woman between 35 and 40 years of age lying at the side of the street with her throat cut from ear to ear. The wound was about two inches wide, and the woman was lying in a pool of blood. She was conveyed to the Whitechapel Mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat, the lower part of her body was shockingly mutilated, the injuries, which were of a sickening nature, having apparently been effected with a large knife. As the body lies in the mortuary it presents a ghastly sight. The victim is a woman 5ft. 2in. in height. The hands are bruised and bear evidence of having engaged in a severe struggle. There is the impression of a ring having been worn on one of the deceased’s fingers, but there is nothing to show that it had been wrenched from her in a struggle. Some of the front teeth have been knocked out, and the face is bruised on both cheeks, and very much discoloured. The deceased wore a rough brown ulster, with large buttons in front. Her clothes are torn and cut up in several places, bearing evidence of the ferocity with which the murder was committed. The only way by which the police can prosecute an inquiry at present is by finding some one who can identify the deceased and then, if possible, trace those in whose company she was last seen. In Buck’s-row the greatest excitement prevails, and several persons in the neighbourhood state that an affray occurred shortly after midnight, but no screams were heard, nor was anything noticed beyond what might have been considered evidence of an ordinary brawl."

Now compare that to what appears to have been a story based on that exact same agency report which appeared in the Star that same afternoon (almost certainly in a later edition):

"Scarcely has the horror and sensation caused by the discovery of the murdered woman in Whitechapel recently had time to abate, when another discovery is made, which for the brutality exercised on the victim is even more shocking. As Constable John Neil was walking down Buck's-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four o'clock this morning, he discovered a woman lying at the side of the street with her throat cut from ear to ear. The wound was about two inches wide and blood was flowing profusely. She was immediately conveyed to the Whitechapel mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open and the bowels were protruding. The wound extends nearly to her breast, and must have been effected with a large knife. As the corpse lies in the mortuary, it presents a ghastly sight. The victim seems to be between 35 and 40 years of age, and measures 5ft. 2in. in height. The hands are bruised, and bear evidence of having engaged in a severe struggle. There is the impression of a ring having been worn on one of deceased's fingers, but there is nothing to show that it had been wrenched from her in a struggle. Some of the front teeth have also been knocked out, and the face is bruised on both cheeks and very much discoloured. Deceased wore a rough brown ulster, with large buttons in front. Her clothes are torn and cut up in several places, bearing evidence of the ferocity with which the murder was committed. Several persons in the neighborhood state that an affray occurred shortly after midnight, but no screams were heard, nor anything beyond what might have been considered evidence of an ordinary brawl."

Let's go through them and compare the wording side by side:

Globe: Scarcely have the horror and sensation caused by the discovery of the murdered woman in Whitechapel some short time ago had time to abate, when another discovery is made, which for the brutality exercised on the victim, is even more glaringly outrageous and horrible.
Star: Scarcely has the horror and sensation caused by the discovery of the murdered woman in Whitechapel recently had time to abate, when another discovery is made, which for the brutality exercised on the victim is even more shocking.

Globe: Body found "lying at the side of the street" by "constable John Neil" as he was "walking down Bucks-Row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel" at about quarter to four o'clock and her throat was cut "from ear to ear".
Star: "As Constable John Neil was walking down Buck's-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four o'clock this morning, he discovered a woman lying at the side of the street with her throat cut from ear to ear"

Globe: woman was "between 35 and 40 years of age"
Star: The victim seems to be between 35 and 40 years of age.

Globe: wound about two inches wide.
Star: The wound was about two inches wide.

Globe: the woman was lying in a pool of blood.
Star: blood was flowing profusely.

Globe: She was conveyed to the Whitechapel Mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat, the lower part of her body was shockingly mutilated.
Star: She was immediately conveyed to the Whitechapel mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open and the bowels were protruding.

Globe: injuries were of a sickening nature having been inflicted with a large knife.
Star: The wound extends nearly to her breast, and must have been effected with a large knife.

Globe: victim is 5ft 2 in. in height.
Star: victim measures 5ft. 2in. in height.

Globe: hands are bruised and bear evidence of having engaged in severe struggle.
Star: The hands are bruised, and bear evidence of having engaged in a severe struggle.

Globe: There is the impression of a ring having been worn on one of the deceased’s fingers, but there is nothing to show that it had been wrenched from her in a struggle.
Star: There is the impression of a ring having been worn on one of deceased's fingers, but there is nothing to show that it had been wrenched from her in a struggle.

Globe: Some of the front teeth have been knocked out, and the face is bruised on both cheeks, and very much discoloured. The deceased wore a rough brown ulster, with large buttons in front.
Star: Some of the front teeth have also been knocked out, and the face is bruised on both cheeks and very much discoloured.

Globe: The deceased wore a rough brown ulster, with large buttons in front.
Star: Deceased wore a rough brown ulster, with large buttons in front.

Globe: Her clothes are torn and cut up in several places, bearing evidence of the ferocity with which the murder was committed.
Star: Her clothes are torn and cut up in several places, bearing evidence of the ferocity with which the murder was committed.

Globe: The only way by which the police can prosecute an inquiry at present is by finding some one who can identify the deceased and then, if possible, trace those in whose company she was last seen.
Star: Not mentioned

Globe: In Buck’s-row the greatest excitement prevails, and several persons in the neighbourhood state that an affray occurred shortly after midnight, but no screams were heard, nor was anything noticed beyond what might have been considered evidence of an ordinary brawl.
Star: Several persons in the neighborhood state that an affray occurred shortly after midnight, but no screams were heard, nor anything beyond what might have been considered evidence of an ordinary brawl.

There can be no doubt, therefore, that the Star's source was the Central News Agency report which was circulating at just after midday on 31 August. The two stories are virtually identical in their facts and wording, although the Star has changed the order around slightly, tinkered with a few words and presented it as its own report.

There are only two significant differences between the reports. Whereas the Star says that "the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open and the bowels were protruding", for reasons of taste, to protect the sensibilities of its readers, the Globe appears to have modified this, or used a modified version of the report, to simply say that the lower part was "shockingly mutilated".

But the most interesting difference is that the original Central News report only speaks of Nichols lying in a pool of blood. This must at least create the suspicion that the Star has modified this for journalistic effect to say that the blood was flowing profusely, which is what many have suspected all along.

Do you really mean to say that you do not trust journalists?

[David Orsam]

Do you really mean to say that you do not trust journalists?

About as much as I trust you my dear boy.

[David Orsam]

David, great work. I await a rebuttal based on the two sources rather than personal belief.

Thanks Steve.

[Patrick S]

Had any of them been summoned to attend an ongoing inquest into a murder that had happened barely a week previously, and went on to commit yet another murder whilst the inquest was in full swing?

Edit: I see John G has made the same point. Great minds...

I understand the point, and its a good one. However, Fisherman will supply some example and he'll contend that it "proves his point" because, well, if you dig long and hard you'll find an example - obscure as it may be - that you can at least bend to fit almost any narrative.

I contend that it's a point that needn't even be discussed because rational judgment tells you that Charles Lechmere did not kill Polly Nichols or anyone else for that matter. Thus, he certainly didn't also kill Annie Chapman during the Nichols inquest. We could say the same for Robert Paul, Jonas Mizen, Thain, Henry Tompkins, et al. They participated in the Nichols inquest, as well. Thus, when Fisherman finds the curious case of Sven Nordenblatter who in 1756 killed his landlady and while testifying at her inquest killed his laundress, he'll tell us that this example further points the finger of guilt at Lechmere. Yet the only difference between Lechmere and all the names I listed is that Fisherman thinks he was Jack the Ripper because he gave a "false name"....along with his genuine address, his actual employer.....as well as appearing in person...... GOD! The number of absurdities boggles the mind. If you wanted to conceal your identity by giving a false name.....WHY SHOW UP AND GIVE THE FALSE NAME IN PERSON!?

[Sam Flynn]

Thus, when Fisherman finds the curious case of Sven Nordenblatter who in 1756 killed his landlady and while testifying at her inquest killed his laundress, he'll tell us that this example further points the finger of guilt at Lechmere.

I know. The "Argument From Precedence" fallacy (for want of a better term) is a device commonly used in suspect-centric ripperology, and not just in the Lechmere context, to be fair to Christer.

[drstrange169]

>>My point was that fisherman said probably for which I see no support.<<

Certainly, no probably, just a possibly. If that sentence makes sense;-)

My guess is Llewellyn, came out, did a quick recce of the scene pronounced her dead, told them it was ok to move the body to the mortuary and went home again, as quick as he could. Meanwhile, the police waited for Mizen to come back with the ambulance.

Re: Secombe, we don't have any eyewitness confirming his presence, but that snippet I posted does seem to suggest he was there, but who knows?

It's all a bit hazy, Christer could be right, but he could just as easily be wrong.

[Elamarna]

>>My point was that fisherman said probably for which I see no support.<<

Certainly, no probably, just a possibly. If that sentence makes sense;-)

My guess is Llewellyn, came out, did a quick recce of the scene pronounced her dead, told them it was ok to move the body to the mortuary and went home again, as quick as he could. Meanwhile, the police waited for Mizen to come back with the ambulance.

Re: Secombe, we don't have any eyewitness confirming his presence, but that snippet I posted does seem to suggest he was there, but who knows?

It's all a bit hazy, Christer could be right, but he could just as easily be wrong.

On the balance of probability I would say not, but new evidence could push that the other way.

Steve

[Fisherman]

David, great work. I await a rebuttal based on the two sources rather than personal belief.

Steve

This is a very useful post. Ot will enable me to clarify things.

Steve awaits a "rebuttal" of Davids post. A rebuttal is a denial.

Steve also implies that there is a risk that I would put personal belief before facts.

That is how Steve reasons.

Of course, Davids post is quite clear in deminstrating the source for the Star article. The other papers who had the term profusely were seemingly building on the same source.

That means that the probable thing is that the term profusely was added by a reporter. The odd thing is that there is such a discrepancy between the two wordings, one says that the body was lying in a pool of blood and the other that the blood flowed profuselt from the wound. To me, that means that there is an outside chance that the term profusely did originate with Neil or the police, and came about after a question had been asked. But it has to be an outside chance only, and the better bid is that profusely was not used by either Neil or the police.

Before this find, I said that pur best guess was that profusely originated with Neil or the police, and that it would stand until evidence to the contrary surfaced.

It has surfaced now. And therefore, the term profusely should be regarded as having been added by a journalist.

That is how I work, Steve. There is no rebuttal, because denying the obvious would be outright silly.

There is, though, personal belief on my behalf - personal belief that David is correct on this score. I hope you are okay with me going with THAT personal belief?

What does it do the to the question of the blood evidence? Does it establish Neils "oozing" as a description of a very small bloodflow? No, it does not. It still applies that the term "oozing profusely" was used back then as well as now, so oozing could involve a relatively large amount of blood exiting the body.
And we still have Mizen saying that as he saw the blood, it was still running into the pool under Nicholsī neck. The only logical deduction we can make is that there was not less bleeding going on when Neil saw her.

And we still have Payne-James opting for three or five minutes being a more realistic bleeding time than seven, meaning that he was uninclined to believe in longer bleeding times than so, although he was not categorically ruling them out.

Logically, we are therefore left with Lechmere being the realistic bid. And we are left with there being no obvious other bid - Paul is the only other confirmed person at the murder site, and he arrived after Lechmere.

So there is nothing much new going on. And Lechmereīs viability is not diminished in any shape or form.

That is the calm and collected picture that emerges. But who wants calm and collected when I can be described as the Wicked witch of the East?

A swarmful of munchkins canīt be wrong about that, can they?

Now I really donīt need much more of the kind of "great minds" offered out here. I have go better things to do, but I thought Iīd point out to you how not to debate.
Then again, you already knew how not to debate, so it may all have been a waste of time.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;415532]

This is a very useful post. Ot will enable me to clarify things.

Steve awaits a "rebuttal" of Davids post. A rebuttal is a denial.

Steve also implies that there is a risk that I would put personal belief before facts.

That is how Steve reasons.

That is not only how Steve reasons but a fundamental problem within science. Therefore we learn to analyze our own ideas and bias when we do research.

And the most important reason for this is that we try to generate knowledge - i.e. scientific knowledge - instead of pure opinions.

Now, scientific knowledge can also be an opinion but an opinion is never per definition scientific knowledge.

No wonder these points are relevant for ripperology, a field of study where anyone can say anything anytime since there is money to make or attention to get from non scientific writing about a serial killer.

Of course, Davids post is quite clear in deminstrating the source for the Star article. The other papers who had the term profusely were seemingly building on the same source.

That means that the probable thing is that the term profusely was added by a reporter. The odd thing is that there is such a discrepancy between the two wordings, one says that the body was lying in a pool of blood and the other that the blood flowed profuselt from the wound. To me, that means that there is an outside chance that the term profusely did originate with Neil or the police, and came about after a question had been asked. But it has to be an outside chance only, and the better bid is that profusely was not used by either Neil or the police.

The substantial significance you try to create by being very precise or by using strong expressions from articles is pointless - since there are NO SOURCES connecting Lechmere to the other murders. Therefore, you can try to create weight for your statements by overinterpretation or exactness: that does not show that Lechmere was at any of the other murder sites.

Before this find, I said that pur best guess was that profusely originated with Neil or the police, and that it would stand until evidence to the contrary surfaced.

It has surfaced now. And therefore, the term profusely should be regarded as having been added by a journalist.

That is how I work, Steve. There is no rebuttal, because denying the obvious would be outright silly.

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT LECHMERE FOUND A VICTIM: THE ONE CLOSEST TO HIS OWN HOME!

There is, though, personal belief on my behalf - personal belief that David is correct on this score. I hope you are okay with me going with THAT personal belief?

What does it do the to the question of the blood evidence? Does it establish Neils "oozing" as a description of a very small bloodflow? No, it does not. It still applies that the term "oozing profusely" was used back then as well as now, so oozing could involve a relatively large amount of blood exiting the body.

People saw blood oozing more than an hour after death. THERE IS NO VALIDITY IN THIS CONCEPT. Therefore it is useless.

And we still have Mizen saying that as he saw the blood, it was still running into the pool under Nicholsī neck. The only logical deduction we can make is that there was not less bleeding going on when Neil saw her.

Same type of problem here: "running" can be resultative since "flowing" was used like that. So the concept has very low validity.

And we still have Payne-James opting for three or five minutes being a more realistic bleeding time than seven, meaning that he was uninclined to believe in longer bleeding times than so, although he was not categorically ruling them out.

The man with the time travel machine: Payne-James. That is how you treat his talk. YOU APPLY IT ON USELESS DATA. It is like applying Christianity on the Big Bang.

Logically, we are therefore left with Lechmere being the realistic bid.

Two very difficult philosophical concepts in one meaning: 1. "LOGICALLY": Logic is a part of philosophy and a big one. WHICH LOGIC DO YOU MEAN? 2. "REALISTIC": Same problem: WHAT SORT OF REALISM DO YOU MEAN?

YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT THE MEANING OF THE CONCEPTS. BUT YOU USE THEM. YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT THE THINKING OF P-J. BUT YOU APPLY IT.

You are like a church father who try to apply the Bible on the creation of the world.

And we are left with there being no obvious other bid - Paul is the only other confirmed person at the murder site, and he arrived after Lechmere.

HALLELUJAH! ONE RELIGION! ONE CHURCH! ONE HISTORICAL PERSON: LECHMERE! AND ONE PRIEST: YOU!

So there is nothing much new going on. And Lechmereīs viability is not diminished in any shape or form.

Poor poor Lechmere. A worker on his way to work an early morning in 1888.

Why do you have to raise him from the dead? Let the man rest in peace.

That is the calm and collected picture that emerges.

In four Gospels soon, I am sure. You are Paul. You never saw him but on your way to Damascus...suddenly, there he is: Jack the Ripper!

But who wants calm and collected when I can be described as the Wicked witch of the East?

Oh, yes! We can recognize that too from the new, small society of THOSE IN THE KNOW. They are blamed, they are misunderstood, they are threatened! Any one who contradicts them will be accused of being witch hunters! Oh, these martyrs! All they have left now is Scobie and Payne-James!

A swarmful of munchkins canīt be wrong about that, can they?

Reduction in absurdum.

Now I really donīt need much more of the kind of "great minds" offered out here. I have go better things to do, but I thought Iīd point out to you how not to debate.

Thank you. Thank you so much.

Then again, you already knew how not to debate, so it may all have been a waste of time.

How can it be a waste of time when you want to enlighten the masses? Go ahead and do it! Lechmere is already sacrificed!

Best wishes, Pierre

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Pierre;415546]

This is a very useful post. Ot will enable me to clarify things.

Steve awaits a "rebuttal" of Davids post. A rebuttal is a denial.



That is not only how Steve reasons but a fundamental problem within science. Therefore we learn to analyze our own ideas and bias when we do research.

And the most important reason for this is that we try to generate knowledge - i.e. scientific knowledge - instead of pure opinions.

Now, scientific knowledge can also be an opinion but an opinion is never per definition scientific knowledge.

No wonder these points are relevant for ripperology, a field of study where anyone can say anything anytime since there is money to make or attention to get from non scientific writing about a serial killer.




The substantial significance you try to create by being very precise or by using strong expressions from articles is pointless - since there are NO SOURCES connecting Lechmere to the other murders. Therefore, you can try to create weight for your statements by overinterpretation or exactness: that does not show that Lechmere was at any of the other murder sites.



IT IS OBVIOUS THAT LECHMERE FOUND A VICTIM: THE ONE CLOSEST TO HIS OWN HOME!



People saw blood oozing more than an hour after death. THERE IS NO VALIDITY IN THIS CONCEPT. Therefore it is useless.



Same type of problem here: "running" can be resultative since "flowing" was used like that. So the concept has very low validity.



The man with the time travel machine: Payne-James. That is how you treat his talk. YOU APPLY IT ON USELESS DATA. It is like applying Christianity on the Big Bang.


Two very difficult philosophical concepts in one meaning: 1. "LOGICALLY": Logic is a part of philosophy and a big one. WHICH LOGIC DO YOU MEAN? 2. "REALISTIC": Same problem: WHAT SORT OF REALISM DO YOU MEAN?

YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT THE MEANING OF THE CONCEPTS. BUT YOU USE THEM. YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT THE THINKING OF P-J. BUT YOU APPLY IT.

You are like a church father who try to apply the Bible on the creation of the world.



HALLELUJAH! ONE RELIGION! ONE CHURCH! ONE HISTORICAL PERSON: LECHMERE! AND ONE PRIEST: YOU!



Poor poor Lechmere. A worker on his way to work an early morning in 1888.

Why do you have to raise him from the dead? Let the man rest in peace.



In four Gospels soon, I am sure. You are Paul. You never saw him but on your way to Damascus...suddenly, there he is: Jack the Ripper!



Oh, yes! We can recognize that too from the new, small society of THOSE IN THE KNOW. They are blamed, they are misunderstood, they are threatened! Any one who contradicts them will be accused of being witch hunters! Oh, these martyrs! All they have left now is Scobie and Payne-James!



Reduction in absurdum.



Thank you. Thank you so much.



How can it be a waste of time when you want to enlighten the masses? Go ahead and do it! Lechmere is already sacrificed!

Best wishes, Pierre

Say again...?