Some questions re. Lechmere

[David Orsam]

To answer Billiou's question:

The documentary voiceover states (at approximately 26 minutes):

"From his testimony Paul says he saw no blood despite getting close enough to check her breathing. It is clear from his next action that he didn’t think Polly Nichols was dead."

Then: "At that point Robert Paul told Lechmere he would go and find a policeman but Lechmere didn’t wait by the body he followed him. Less than two minutes after they left Nichols lying in the street PC Neil found the body. He immediately noticed a pool of blood."

Andy Griffiths then says this:

"That gives me a very, very interesting thought. One of the things that PC Neil thinks is most noticeable about the body is the pool of blood around the neck. Now when Paul was at the body you know he got down close to the body he looked for signs of life he did not see any blood. That means that those cuts were very, very fresh."

The voiceover then says:

"Despite leaning over Nichols Robert Paul sees no blood and gets none on his hand or clothes. The blood discovered by PC Neil had to have been incredibly fresh".

There is no mention at all of Cross's testimony that "He did not notice any blood, as it was very dark". Nor the testimony of Paul that "It was very dark, and he did not notice any blood".

Nor does the documentary mention that Neil would have been carrying a lantern so that there is nothing surprising about him seeing the blood when neither Cross nor Paul did.

Nor does the documentary explain why Paul would have got any blood on his hand or clothes simply by "leaning over Nichols".

[Fisherman]

Nor does the documentary explain why Paul would have got any blood on his hand or clothes simply by "leaning over Nichols".

The Times, Sept 18 1888:

Robert Baul [Paul], a carman, of 30, Foster-street, Whitechapel, stated he went to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields. He left home about a quarter to 4 on the Friday morning and as he was passing up Buck's-row he saw a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness approached him he walked towards the pavement, and witness stepped on to the roadway in order to pass him. He then touched witness on the shoulder, and said, "Come and look at this woman here." Witness went with him, and saw a woman lying right across the gateway. Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach. Witness felt her hands and face, and they were cold. He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not, and he thought she was dead.

[David Orsam]

The Times, Sept 18 1888:
He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not, and he thought she was dead.

My point, Fisherman, was that the documentary stated:

"Despite leaning over Nichols Robert Paul sees no blood and gets none on his hand or clothes".

It did not explain why he would get blood on his hand or clothes by simply "leaning over" Nichols.

And you haven't explained how by kneeling down he would get blood on his hands or clothes, unless his hands and knees touched the ground which is not in the evidence.

[Fisherman]

My point, Fisherman, was that the documentary stated:

"Despite leaning over Nichols Robert Paul sees no blood and gets none on his hand or clothes".

It did not explain why he would get blood on his hand or clothes by simply "leaning over" Nichols.

And you haven't explained how by kneeling down he would get blood on his hands or clothes, unless his hands and knees touched the ground which is not in the evidence.

I am pointing out that he knelt down, which ordinarily means that you plave your knee on the ground - at least when you are going to check a person lying down for breath. In the process, you will normally place one hand or two on the ground too, or on the person you are checking for breath.

That is all I am doing - and all I aim to do.

Goodnight to you.

[David Orsam]

I am pointing out that he knelt down, which ordinarily means that you plave your knee on the ground

No it doesn't. Ordinarily you would bend your knees but not touch the ground at all with them. Cross touched Nichols' hands, Paul (says Cross) put his hand over her heart and (says Paul) felt her hands and face. Neither of them say they touched her neck or abdomen where they would have been blood.

[Fisherman]

No it doesn't. Ordinarily you would bend your knees but not touch the ground at all with them. Cross touched Nichols' hands, Paul (says Cross) put his hand over her heart and (says Paul) felt her hands and face. Neither of them say they touched her neck or abdomen where they would have been blood.

Checking for breath means that you need to go down close to the head of the person lying on the ground. Bending your knees to crouch down will not take you into such a position, and you are likely to fall forward if you try.

If you were to be dubbed a knight, you were told to kneel - and that did not mean bending your knees without touching the ground.

But I will not go ny further into this with somebody as given to bickering and nitpicking as you, which means that you are going to have to go on by yourself.

You don´t seem to mind that, however, so it should keep us both completely happy.

Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Simple Definition of kneel
: to move your body so that one or both of your knees are on the floor : to be in a position in which both of your knees are on the floor

[David Orsam]

Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Simple Definition of kneel
: to move your body so that one or both of your knees are on the floor : to be in a position in which both of your knees are on the floor

I'll take the Oxford English Dictionary definition thanks:

"a. intr. To fall on the knees or a knee; to assume, or remain in, a posture in which the body is supported on the bended knees or on one of them, as in supplication or homage".

When you are outside, on the street, the natural thing would be to balance on bended knees rather than touch the dirty ground.

[MrBarnett]

I'll take the Oxford English Dictionary definition thanks:

"a. intr. To fall on the knees or a knee; to assume, or remain in, a posture in which the body is supported on the bended knees or on one of them, as in supplication or homage".

When you are outside, on the street, the natural thing would be to balance on bended knees rather than touch the dirty ground.

You learn something every day. All my life I have obviously confused kneeling with crouching. I wonder which dictionary Robert Paul preferred.

[Fisherman]

You learn something every day. All my life I have obviously confused kneeling with crouching.

As you may observe, both dictionaries tell us that it is first and foremost about falling on your knees. That is why there are two terms, I think, kneeling and crouching.
David astutely observes that a carman would not go down on his knees in his shining white uniform, since that may put the first stain on his hitherto spotless working clothes, and I can´t argue with that.
I can argue that it is much harder to check for breath by crouching than by kneeling, though.

Over and out.

[David Orsam]

.
David astutely observes that a carman would not go down on his knees in his shining white uniform, since that may put the first stain on his hitherto spotless working clothes, and I can´t argue with that.

No I didn't say his uniform was "shining white", nor did I say he had "spotless" working clothes. I suggested that like anyone he probably wouldn't have wanted to put his knees onto dirty ground.

[MrBarnett]

As you may observe, both dictionaries tell us that it is first and foremost about falling on your knees. That is why there are two terms, I think, kneeling and crouching.
David astutely observes that a carman would not go down on his knees in his shining white uniform, since that may put the first stain on his hitherto spotless working clothes, and I can´t argue with that.
I can argue that it is much harder to check for breath by crouching than by kneeling, though.

Over and out.

Fish,

The suggestion that kneeling means anything else is beyond absurd.

Gary

[Fisherman]

Fish,

The suggestion that kneeling means anything else is absurd.

Gary

Thanks, Gary - I seemingly misunderstood you. Sorry about that. I need to chill sometimes...

By the way, I just checked the internet by googling pictures of kneeling people - the 200 or so pics I checked adjusted nicely to Merriam-Webster. None had read Davids dictionary, however ...

[Pierre]

Yes, based on the premise David set. That is: The belief that all five were murdered by the same hand.

Hi Jerry,

But theoretical "premises" were not enough to sentence people to death in 1888 and connecting one person to one murder is not enough for convicting him for five murders

You need evidence that he committed each of those murders.

I am very glad that David is not a judge.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

By the way, I just checked the internet by googling pictures of kneeling people - the 200 or so pics I checked adjusted nicely to Merriam-Webster. None had read Davids dictionary, however ...

Unless they were kneeling in the street you were wasting your time.

[David Orsam]

You need evidence that he committed each of those murders.

I am very glad that David is not a judge.

Why do you keep referring to this mysterious "judge" Pierre? There is no trial here but if there was it would be a jury who would determine guilt or otherwise.

My point, however, is that if a jury rightly convicted an individual of the murder of Nichols then, based on the premise that all the C5 were murdered by JTR (which, using your superior analytical skills, you have told us is the case), that individual must have been JTR so that there wouldn't even be a need for a trial on the other four victims for us to know we have found him.

But what amuses me more is that in the past you have insisted to me and others that we are not in a court room or a court of law and now you introduce a fictional judge into the thread!!!