Some questions re. Lechmere

[Fisherman]

I was willing to take your word for it, Christer! Although from what you posted it's clear that Llewellyn wasn't sure, it's good enough for me. That's what I make of it.

Cheers,
Frank

I am of the opposite meaning. We have Llewellyn himself stating that the abdomen came first.

Then we have Helson saying that Llewellyn "maintains" the view that the neck came first, which is clearly in conflict with what Llewellyn himslef said.

And then we have Baxter confirming that Llewellyns stance throughout was that the abdomen came first.

[Pcdunn]

Lechmere and Pickford's

Can anyone answer me how we know Lechmere worked for Pickfords for 20 years? Is it simply his own one-time statement at the inquest?

I believe that is so, though perhaps his occupation is listed in census reports. Fisherman replied to my question once that Pickford's employment records for the period had been lost, so we don't know for sure about Cross/Lechmere's schedules or routes.

[FrankO]

Here we are: the coroner said, when summing up, that " Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were first".

Thatīs long after Helson claimed the opposite.

So we have Llewellyn saying from the outset that the abdomen came first.

And we have Llewellyn qouted by the coroner at the summation as saying that the abdomen came first.

And we have Helson inbetween, claiming that Llewellyn was MAINTAINING his view that the neck came first.

Make of that what you want, Frank!

I was willing to take your word for it, Christer! Although from what you posted it's clear that Llewellyn wasn't sure, it's good enough for me. That's what I make of it.

Cheers,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Here we are: the coroner said, when summing up, that " Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were first".

Thatīs long after Helson claimed the opposite.

So we have Llewellyn saying from the outset that the abdomen came first.

And we have Llewellyn qouted by the coroner at the summation as saying that the abdomen came first.

And we have Helson inbetween, claiming that Llewellyn was MAINTAINING his view that the neck came first.

Make of that what you want, Frank!

[Fisherman]

FrankO: Hi Christer!Of course you can!

Thanks!

But why a "coup the grace" to silence her at all if he's finished and ready to leave while she's not making a sound?

Arguably because he was not sure that she would no be able to make a sound.

I'm quite sure that he came for just that; he was willing to risk his very life for it, in fact. But it seems that, if he had actually killed Tabram, too, and he actually dealt her the stab to the heart to secure silence, he didn't learn anything from it. Which I would find odd.

I donīt think he necessarily needed silence from Tabram in the same degree he did from Nichols. He may just have felt that he needed to be sure she was dead. Realizing that a cut to the neck would take care of both death and silence could represent evolving, quite simply.

... but didn't maintain this, which makes it a little less trustworthy in my view.

He maintained it. Helson was not being on the money when he denied that, as far as I understand. Not sure that I can work up the will to once more produce the evidence, though. How about taking my word for it...?

[FrankO]

Hi Christer!

Can I have a shot?

Of course you can!

Two suggestions: He did not have the same sturdy weapon in Bucks Row as in George Yard, and was not sure that he could penetrate the breast bone, or he was not disturbed in George Yard, so he did not feel the need to secure immediate silence there, whereas he knew somebody was approaching in Bucks Row, and prioritized silence.

But why a "coup the grace" to silence her at all if he's finished and ready to leave while she's not making a sound?

Perhaps because he prioritized the abdominal cutting; that may have been what he came for.

I'm quite sure that he came for just that; he was willing to risk his very life for it, in fact. But it seems that, if he had actually killed Tabram, too, and he actually dealt her the stab to the heart to secure silence, he didn't learn anything from it. Which I would find odd.

At any rate, Llewellyn says the abdominal wounds came first, ...

... but didn't maintain this, which makes it a little less trustworthy in my view.

I donīt think that we can always apply our own logic and thinking and predispose that the killer will have thought along the exact same lines. We must leave a lot of slack in that department.

That's true, from whatever angle we look at it.

The best!
Frank

[FrankO]

If he was not happy about the outcome, he may have started to ponder how to get even more publicity - and come up with how killing in the open street may do the trick, more or less posing the bodies for maximum shock value.

And, that way, going from relatively well planned to rather impulsive murders at much greater risk, Fish? How would you explain that?

I could see it happening the other way around, but in this order? Not really.

Cheers,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Hi Abby,

Reading the above, a number of questions spring to mind.
- Why finish off with a different coup de grace if the previous one worked?
- Why not start the next time with a 'coup de grace'?
- Why, if an approaching Paul was causing Lechmere to act and every second counted, choose a coup de grace (to finish) that would clearly take more time to perform than the previous, effective one? Why make 2 cuts and why cut all the way to the bone, thus taking more time?

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank!

Can I have a shot?

- Why finish off with a different coup de grace if the previous one worked?

Two suggestions: He did not have the same sturdy weapon in Bucks Row as in George Yard, and was not sure that he could penetrate the breast bone, or he was not disturbed in George Yard, so he did not feel the need to secure immediate silence there, whereas he knew somebody was approaching in Bucks Row, and prioritized silence.

- Why not start the next time with a 'coup de grace'?

Perhaps because he prioritized the abdominal cutting; that may have been what he came for. Eventually, from Chapman onwards, he DID go for the coup de grace first.
At any rate, Llewellyn says the abdominal wounds came first, and thatīs that for me.

- Why, if an approaching Paul was causing Lechmere to act and every second counted, choose a coup de grace (to finish) that would clearly take more time to perform than the previous, effective one? Why make 2 cuts and why cut all the way to the bone, thus taking more time?

Once again, maybe the blade did not allow for it. Plus the deeper you cut, the more certain you will be that you kill - and sever the vocal chords. The first effort may have felt inadequate to him.

I donīt think that we can always apply our own logic and thinking and predispose that the killer will have thought along the exact same lines. We must leave a lot of slack in that department.

[FrankO]

Tabram - strangulation then mutilation and a finishing-off coup de grace through the sternum to ensure death.

Nichols - strangulation (or a punch to the head)mutilation and a finishing-off cut to the throat to ensure death and silence.

Hi Abby,

Reading the above, a number of questions spring to mind.
- Why finish off with a different coup de grace if the previous one worked?
- Why not start the next time with a 'coup de grace'?
- Why, if an approaching Paul was causing Lechmere to act and every second counted, choose a coup de grace (to finish) that would clearly take more time to perform than the previous, effective one? Why make 2 cuts and why cut all the way to the bone, thus taking more time?

All the best,
Frank

[David Orsam]

Nice to see, like most threads on this forum, that it has run off without addressing my initial questions.

The intent of my original post was to ask about the documentary and what it presented. Not about theories, speculations, debates, arguments, just about what was presented in the documentary and my questions in post #5.

Now, if everyone is happy to just ignore it and debate about other things then I will simply take my bat and go play somewhere else....

Heh! It's not actually your thread Billiou! And you didn't pen the "original post". It was started by eighty-eighter in which it was said of Lechmere: "I find myself in the somewhat odd position of believing that he could have killed Nichols but at the same time cannot bring myself to believe he was the perpetrator of the series of killings grouped into one as the "Whitechapel Murders".

In other words, your "initial questions" are not the topic of this thread and the discussion that I and others were involved in at the time of your latest posting was on topic of the OP.

[Fisherman]

Thank you for the reply, but I was asking about the documentary, and what the documentary presented, not for every theory about what may have happened.

Ah - well, the documentary presented a view thatīs very close to what I was saying. Andy Griffiths said that Paul knelt down by the body and examined Nichols without seeing any blood and without getting any blood in his person, and added that this would have meant that the cuts must have been very fresh at that stage. He believed that Paul should have seen the pool of blood if it had been there, and I think he has a point; we can be certain that this pool was growing over time as the blood filled the cavity under Nicholsī neck over time, eventually running over the brim and forming a stream running into the gutter. So logically, there would have been less blood to see when Paul was there than when Neil arrived.

Also, to my mind, if you can see a hat that is lying some way away from the body and therefore out of focus to an extent, then why would you not be able to see a pool of blood and a stream of it running from the body you are looking at?
Of course, if the neck wound was hidden and if Paul looked at the body from above, then the neck could have obscured the pool of blood from sight. If that was the case, however, then there would not have been any stream of it running into the gutter when Paul looked at her, and the pool under her neck would still have been very small - pointing to how it had only just started to form.

[Columbo]

Thank you for the reply, but I was asking about the documentary, and what the documentary presented, not for every theory about what may have happened.

I will rewatch the show. I will get back to you.

Columbo

[Billiou]

It was dark. That is all we can conclude. Some say it was too dark to see anything at all, but that was not so - the carmen did not feel their way down Bucks Row. Paul hurried along on the pavement, and so he was able to see where he was going. He saw Lechmere standing in the street, silently waiting, some yards away. They saw that the dress was pulled up to the hips. They noticed the bonnet lying some little way from the body - a black object on the dark pavement.

That is why I think that blood would have been visible if it as there to see. Not only would it be moving by running (and movement always makes things easier to observe), it would also reflect the light there was, since it is a fluid.

Another thing to note is that Neil says that there was a pool under the victimīs neck, whereas Mizen adds that there was a stream of blood travelling from the pool down to the gutter.

I think that the killer cut the abdomen first, something Dr Llewlellyn suggested. That is why there was very little blood under the neck - most of it had seeped into the abdominal cavity.

Then he cut the neck, when Nichols was already dead and when a lot of blood had already seeped into the abdomen. It would have caused a smallis, passive stream of blood, slowly beginning to fill up a cavity under her neck. That was when Paul and Lechmere was in place.

Then the pool grew larger, and Neil arrived, shone his light on the victim and reported that pool - but no stream towards the gutter.

When the pool was filled to the brim, it ran over the brim and started floating towards the gutter. That was when Mizen saw it and reported it. He added that the blood was somehat congealed, which it would have been since six or seven minutes had passed since she was cut - and coagulation begins to show after three to four minutes.

Paul knelt by the head of Nichols. If there had been blood running towards the gutter at that stage, he would have been likely to get that blood on his person.

Thank you for the reply, but I was asking about the documentary, and what the documentary presented, not for every theory about what may have happened.

[Billiou]

Hi Billiou

I thought your questions were pretty well covered in the first few pages. Unfortunately it is the norm for a thread to go off completely in another direction.

Let's see if we can get back on track.

Columbo

Well maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough.

The main point of my post was to ask, did the documentary present the position that Cross and Paul didn't see any blood because there wasn't any there (the argument being that the murder was so fresh that the blood hadn't had a chance to flow yet), but was noticed by Neil because by then it had had a chance to flow when he arrived a few minutes later [and he had a lamp to see with].

Did the documentary not mention how dark it was and Cross and Paul, not having a lamp, couldn't see the details, such as the blood flowing from the neck?

[John Wheat]

Then there should not be any problem in you agreeing with everything I've said John.

And I was really responding to comments that one needs to prove that Lechmere murdered every victim before drawing any conclusions. Thus, for example, Pierre said:

"Look for historical data, analyse them and validate them and see if they indicate that Lechmere did one, two, three or more murders and dismemberments."

Based on the premise that I have mentioned, you don't need to do this. If Jack the Ripper murdered all the C5, then finding the murderer of Mary Ann Nichols is enough to find Jack the Ripper.

I don't have any problem with what you are saying David. In my initial post I had failed to spot you were responding to Pierre.

Cheers John