The Bucks Row Project Summary Report.

[Fisherman]

Ed Stow, I believe. And it's a lot more than 4...

Yes. And yes.

Itīs good to have somebody say something that is correct on this thread. AND be humble about it.

[Fisherman]

Hi Steve

And from an evidence perspective there is nothing.

The only person who has orchestrated Lechmeres suspect status is Fishermen and he has failed to come up with anything more than a number of wild speculative unproven theories surrounding the statement and the movements of Lechmere

There was no suspicion as being recorded against him at any time. He gave his inquest testimony, none of that was challenged or found to be false or gave rise to the police having any suspicion against him then or in the years that followed. The name difference must have also been clarified.

Fisherman has set his stall out and as can be seen cannot go back he has to maintain his Lechmere stance.

Why do people keep flogging dead horses !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, Trevor, I have to maintain absolutely nothing. I only do so because it is by far the best solution. If it was not the best solution, I would abandon it.

Then again, you telling me it is not the best solution does not do the trick. Sad but true.

[Fisherman]

Don't confuse clotting of still blood samples in the lab, with how long a wound can take to coagulate and blood flow slow and stop.

Given the nature of the neck wounds to Nichols, this would not occur until after the heart had failed (about 3-4 minutes).
After this you would still get blood loss by gravity until a clot formed at the wound site, bleeding could start again if the body is touched or moved, disturbing the clots.


Given the above data, its highly unlikely the Neil saw bleeding under pressure, but possible that he saw bleeding by gravity, in the case of Mizen, it is likely that he only sees bleeding by gravity because the body is disturbed when he gives his account, after returning with the ambulance.

Steve

...at which point Mizen goes "Look at that, the blood appears to be fresh! And it is still running!"

Yes, that is very likely indeed, Steve. More than one paper has it that way around, so that must be true.

By the way, the coagulation process starts the second the blood leaves a wound. It is led on by a protein called collagene.

This is why a blood puddle can be partially coagulated while the cut person is still bleeding. What is true, and what you may have wished to express, is that there will be fresh blood added all along, and so the blood will be stirred to some extent, preventing coagulation, and the fresh blood will be fluid for some minutes.

[Fisherman]

That is his opinion, and I am surprised to hear that from someone so experienced, because there is absolutely no foundation for him to say that, human nature fear of apprehension would determine escaping. He had no need to stay and put himself in that situation.

If you do a survey on here and ask what posters would do in the same situation if they had just murdered someone and heard footsteps coming towards them. The result would be heavily agasint you theory

I think you must be the only person in this universe besides Griffiths who believes the killer of Nicholls was Lechmere and that he stayed and fronted it out

And besides if you are suggesting Lechmere was the killer of Eddowes then why did he not stay and front it out on that occasion when Pc Harvey was approaching, or would that have been to obvious to the police, because it would seem from the evidence that Pc Harvey likely as not disturbed the killer, who ran off

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So it is for you to categorically say that Andy Griffiths had absolutely no foundation for his view? You cover all the bases better than he does? I see.

Take a look at the reactions to the docu out on the net, and you will see how many people agree with me. They count in hundreds if not thousands. And then add Edward Stow, Michael Connor and Derek Osborne to the tally, all of them much respected ripperologists.

Why did Lechmere not stay put in the Eddowes case, and bluff Harvey? Yes, Trevor, that is a VERY good question! Could it be that the police may find it hard to believe that he TWICE found freshly killed women along his paths? No, of course not - that would be to subtle for them, right?

[Fisherman]

Hi Trevor

Maybe because they can't go back.
I had been hoping that there was something that had not been made public, however Christer has now said that is not so.

I hope "Inside Bucks Row", will put the arguments into perspective. That is he cannot be conclusivemy ruled out, but there is at present nothing in my opinion which makes any sort of case against him.



Steve

Sigh. No, Christer has definitely not said that there is nothing that has not been made public. Wrong again.

[MrBarnett]

It's all very well suggesting Lechmere killed Polly, but now it has to be proven that Lech was the killer of the other 4 victims and therefore Jack the Ripper. Who's doing the book on this one?!

Ed Stow, I believe. And it's a lot more than 4...

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve

And from an evidence perspective there is nothing.

The only person who has orchestrated Lechmeres suspect status is Fishermen and he has failed to come up with anything more than a number of wild speculative unproven theories surrounding the statement and the movements of Lechmere

There was no suspicion as being recorded against him at any time. He gave his inquest testimony, none of that was challenged or found to be false or gave rise to the police having any suspicion against him then or in the years that followed. The name difference must have also been clarified.

Fisherman has set his stall out and as can be seen cannot go back he has to maintain his Lechmere stance.

Why do people keep flogging dead horses !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor

Maybe because they can't go back.
I had been hoping that there was something that had not been made public, however Christer has now said that is not so.

I hope "Inside Bucks Row", will put the arguments into perspective. That is he cannot be conclusivemy ruled out, but there is at present nothing in my opinion which makes any sort of case against him.



Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Surely it needs to be shown that lechmere is probable for Polly, not just that he suggested


Steve

Hi Steve

And from an evidence perspective there is nothing.

The only person who has orchestrated Lechmeres suspect status is Fishermen and he has failed to come up with anything more than a number of wild speculative unproven theories surrounding the statement and the movements of Lechmere

There was no suspicion as being recorded against him at any time. He gave his inquest testimony, none of that was challenged or found to be false or gave rise to the police having any suspicion against him then or in the years that followed. The name difference must have also been clarified.

Fisherman has set his stall out and as can be seen cannot go back he has to maintain his Lechmere stance.

Why do people keep flogging dead horses !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

It's all very well suggesting Lechmere killed Polly, but now it has to be proven that Lech was the killer of the other 4 victims and therefore Jack the Ripper. Who's doing the book on this one?!

Surely it needs to be shown that lechmere is probable for Polly, not just that he suggested


Steve

[Busy Beaver]

It's all very well suggesting Lechmere killed Polly, but now it has to be proven that Lech was the killer of the other 4 victims and therefore Jack the Ripper. Who's doing the book on this one?!

[Elamarna]

Even Paul said he was avoiding him because he might be someone he doesn't want to run into. It is why he was across the road when called over. No reason why JtR didn't finish him off there and then if he was afraid of being IDed.

Exactly.
I think it was more the spot that Paul was concerned about, rather than Lechmere himself.

It was very simple for Lechmere to just walk away if he was the killer, and just has Christer says this has been discussed many times.


Steve

[Elamarna]

They pulled it down from just below her stomach to just above her knees. Below the stomach isn't the groin area. You have colon and intestines for example. You need to look where the stomach is.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/project...tSystem-01.jpg

How is a stomach anywhere near the groin???

Batman, most people have no idea where the stomach is, for many people the whole of the lower abdomen isreferrred to as the stomach.

I serious doubt that The carmen knew where the stomach was located, unless that is we accept lechmere is the killer and shows medical knowledge, both of which are seriously debateable.

Forensically blood MUST coagulate in contact with air within minutes. Takes approx 30 secs for it to coagulate. So this idea there is no coagulation is demonstrably false in a lab. There can still be bleeding by anything that bleeds out has approx 30 secs before turning into clots and not liquid. Unless you add EDTA, you can forget about it staying liquid for long.

Don't confuse clotting of still blood samples in the lab, with how long a wound can take to coagulate and blood flow slow and stop.

Given the nature of the neck wounds to Nichols, this would not occur until after the heart had failed (about 3-4 minutes).
After this you would still get blood loss by gravity until a clot formed at the wound site, bleeding could start again if the body is touched or moved, disturbing the clots.

Here we have the carmen touching, Neil possibly disturbing it and Llewellyn certainly doing so.

Given the above data, its highly unlikely the Neil saw bleeding under pressure, but possible that he saw bleeding by gravity, in the case of Mizen, it is likely that he only sees bleeding by gravity because the body is disturbed when he gives his account, after returning with the ambulance.




Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, Trevor... Where where you when this was discussed a thousand times before?

Would your PC stop and detain Lechmere if Paul was yelling blue murder fifty yards off? No?

But we cannot speculate on what Paul might have done if it had been him that found the body. for all we know he might have walked straight past in in the same belief that Lechmere first had, that it was a tarpaulin or someone drunk, or asleep

Perhaps you should put it to the test to see how far you could run away from someone approaching from a given distance, and besides he didnt even need to run he could equally walked away in haste.

Plus, as has been stated over and over again, it is quite possible that Lechmere actually enjoyed the exercise if he was a psychopath - and nine out of ten serial killers are.

I think you are the only one to have stated this

Your colleague Andy Griffiths was very adamant on the take that Lechmere would never have run if he was the killer. So, you see, your logic does not appeal to him at all. People differ in this way; when somebody says "he would have done X", somebody else says "No, he would have done Y".

That is his opinion, and I am surprised to hear that from someone so experienced, because there is absolutely no foundation for him to say that, human nature fear of apprehension would determine escaping. He had no need to stay and put himself in that situation.

If you do a survey on here and ask what posters would do in the same situation if they had just murdered someone and heard footsteps coming towards them. The result would be heavily agasint you theory

I think you must be the only person in this universe besides Griffiths who believes the killer of Nicholls was Lechmere and that he stayed and fronted it out

And besides if you are suggesting Lechmere was the killer of Eddowes then why did he not stay and front it out on that occasion when Pc Harvey was approaching, or would that have been to obvious to the police, because it would seem from the evidence that Pc Harvey likely as not disturbed the killer, who ran off

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Batman]

And why would you stop a man walking?


Steve

Even Paul said he was avoiding him because he might be someone he doesn't want to run into. It is why he was across the road when called over. No reason why JtR didn't finish him off there and then if he was afraid of being IDed.

[Elamarna]

But he would have no problems in running away,because the body would not have been discovered until he was long gone, and no reason for a policeman to stop a man running who if stopped could say he was late for work, that's of course if he had have come in contact with a policeman.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And of course the key point is there was no need to actually run, even if we take the 40 yards given by Lechmere as being the distance when he became aware of someone approaching, he could still just walk.

And why would you stop a man walking?


Steve