Some questions re. Lechmere

[Columbo]

Thank you for making my point for me Columbo. Some would say "kneeling", exactly. That's what people say. They might not technically be correct but that's how it is used in normal every day speech.

Well, yeah I do agree with you. It's just the argument over it that's kind of silly. I think we all know what were talking about when it's described as Paul possibly kneeling at the body. He was most likely crouching. Who want's to kneel on a cobblestone street?

Columbo

[John Wheat]

Wether Paul was kneeling or crouching the body would have to have been recently mutilated for Paul not to get blood on him. I've read several pages about the definition of kneeling/crouching and I'm not sure why? All I know is that its extremely boring.

[Billiou]

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".

Thank you David, that was exactly what I was after.

My apologies for saying the thread went off topic, I should have said my question seemed to be ignored, and maybe I should have started a new thread in the first place (which I did mention at the start of my post).

[Mayerling]

[QUOTE=Pierre;381052]

"Based on the premise" is not a valid situation in a court room, David. If you are accused for having murdered X1 and the judge says that you also will be convicted for murdering X2, X3, X4 and X5 without trial for each of these murders, you would not accept that, and you would ask why. If they would tell you "this is our premise", you could certainly not accept that. And this is naturally not how the legal system works.

Actually you are wrong Pierre. It depends on the criminal procedure rules of the jurisdiction involved. In New York State we have the "Molineux Rules" in homicide trials (since 1901) where the situation you outlined is the situation we use - no conviction on other similar suspicious actions connected to the defendant, then you can't use them. This is the situation where a prosecution seeks to show similar method in killings linked to the defendant. But in Great Britain they have allowed it (Rex v. Smith, 1915 where the trial judge - Scrutton - did mention two previous bride drownings that G. J. Smith was connected to, to show a pattern, and the conviction was upheld despite protests by defense counsel, Marshall-Hall; Smith hanged).

Jeff

[Pcdunn]

Men do seem to enjoy debating the finer points of semantics here...

I would interpret "leaning over" Polly to mean Paul stood near her body, bent forward, and reached down to touch her face or hand. I would not assume he either crouched or knelt from that phrase. Nor would I expect him to have stepped in blood (as much of it had soaked the clothing under Polly's body), or to have necessarily gotten blood on his hand from touching her.

The newspaper quote, on the other hand, specifies "knelt down", which I think has led to the debate about crouching as opposed to kneeling. We do get the impression that Paul got considerably closer to the body than he might have if he had merely "leaned over" it. Whether this involved touching a single knee to the ground-- as the documentary's animation of Lechmere the Ripper showed-- both, or neither... does it honestly matter?

I think the blood was trapped underneath Polly's body, soaked into her coat. I
don't think there was enough of a pool for Paul to worry about stepping or slipping in it.

[GUT]

[QUOTE=Mayerling;381091]

Actually you are wrong Pierre. It depends on the criminal procedure rules of the jurisdiction involved. In New York State we have the "Molineux Rules" in homicide trials (since 1901) where the situation you outlined is the situation we use - no conviction on other similar suspicious actions connected to the defendant, then you can't use them. This is the situation where a prosecution seeks to show similar method in killings linked to the defendant. But in Great Britain they have allowed it (Rex v. Smith, 1915 where the trial judge - Scrutton - did mention two previous bride drownings that G. J. Smith was connected to, to show a pattern, and the conviction was upheld despite protests by defense counsel, Marshall-Hall; Smith hanged).

Jeff

And in Australia we have the rule about tendency, a tendency to act in a certain manner can be used to show a probability that you acted in that way, but that will only get you convicted of the charge before the Court, the other charges will need to be dealt with individually, so Pierre is actually right for once in that a conviction for one of the C5 won't automatically be a conviction for the others, but I don't see much hope.

Seems Pierre knows more about Law than History.

[Fisherman]

Well, yeah I do agree with you. It's just the argument over it that's kind of silly. I think we all know what were talking about when it's described as Paul possibly kneeling at the body. He was most likely crouching. Who want's to kneel on a cobblestone street?

Columbo

I think a victorian carman would have had a type of work that involved getting your clothes dirty throughout the day, so I don´t think Paul would have any second thoughts about going down on his knees. Those trouserknees of his would not have been very clean before he went down on them, if my take is correct.

If we are to go by the Times, Paul knelt beside the body and tried to hear if Polly Nichols was breathing. To me, that means that he turned his head and put his ear really close to her mouth. That is the only way you can do such a check, since breating is not a very loud business.

And that is not something you are going to be able to readily do when crouching, but it is the simplest thing in the world if you are on your knees.

This is why I think that Paul was firmly on his knees when checking for breath.

[David Orsam]

I think a victorian carman would have had a type of work that involved getting your clothes dirty throughout the day, so I don´t think Paul would have any second thoughts about going down on his knees. Those trouserknees of his would not have been very clean before he went down on them, if my take is correct.

If we are to go by the Times, Paul knelt beside the body and tried to hear if Polly Nichols was breathing. To me, that means that he turned his head and put his ear really close to her mouth. That is the only way you can do such a check, since breating is not a very loud business.

And that is not something you are going to be able to readily do when crouching, but it is the simplest thing in the world if you are on your knees.

This is why I think that Paul was firmly on his knees when checking for breath.

Once more Fisherman you avoid the point of the discussion. As I said at the start of this conversation, the documentary stated:

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

The point being made here (as far as it can be understood) was that Paul was leaning over the body yet did not get any blood on his hands or clothes from the body.

Nothing was said about kneeling next to the body but you came back with the statement that Paul knelt down (not on, but next to the body) as if that answered the point. Even if his knee or knees touched the ground your answer would only make sense if there must have been, or must likely have been, blood on the ground where Paul's knee(s) touched the ground. You have remained silent on that point.

And you have not even begun to explain why kneeling on the ground would have got blood on his hands.

[Fisherman]

Once more Fisherman you avoid the point of the discussion. As I said at the start of this conversation, the documentary stated:

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

The point being made here (as far as it can be understood) was that Paul was leaning over the body yet did not get any blood on his hands or clothes from the body.

Nothing was said about kneeling next to the body but you came back with the statement that Paul knelt down (not on, but next to the body) as if that answered the point. Even if his knee or knees touched the ground your answer would only make sense if there must have been, or must likely have been, blood on the ground where Paul's knee(s) touched the ground. You have remained silent on that point.

And you have not even begun to explain why kneeling on the ground would have got blood on his hands.

There you are, Sir David - now you have ended up where you always end up, by saying that I avoid the issues.

I told you I would accomodate you on that point! And I delivered!!

PS. You are of course correct in saying that there is absolutely nothing saying that Paul knelt next to the body. Of course, he did so to check Nichols for breath, but he may have knelt outside Schneiders cap factory to do that, of course - my bad!

[David Orsam]

There you are, Sir David - now you have ended up where you always end up, by saying that I avoid the issues.

I told you I would accomodate you on that point! And I delivered!!

If we always end up with me saying that you are avoiding the issues then that is only because you always avoid the issues.

You seem to think it's some kind of achievement. I don't.

[Columbo]

I think a victorian carman would have had a type of work that involved getting your clothes dirty throughout the day, so I don´t think Paul would have any second thoughts about going down on his knees. Those trouserknees of his would not have been very clean before he went down on them, if my take is correct.

If we are to go by the Times, Paul knelt beside the body and tried to hear if Polly Nichols was breathing. To me, that means that he turned his head and put his ear really close to her mouth. That is the only way you can do such a check, since breating is not a very loud business.

And that is not something you are going to be able to readily do when crouching, but it is the simplest thing in the world if you are on your knees.

This is why I think that Paul was firmly on his knees when checking for breath.

Quite avoiding the question and tell us what you think!

Makes sense.


Columbo

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Mayerling;381091]

Actually you are wrong Pierre. It depends on the criminal procedure rules of the jurisdiction involved. In New York State we have the "Molineux Rules" in homicide trials (since 1901) where the situation you outlined is the situation we use - no conviction on other similar suspicious actions connected to the defendant, then you can't use them. This is the situation where a prosecution seeks to show similar method in killings linked to the defendant. But in Great Britain they have allowed it (Rex v. Smith, 1915 where the trial judge - Scrutton - did mention two previous bride drownings that G. J. Smith was connected to, to show a pattern, and the conviction was upheld despite protests by defense counsel, Marshall-Hall; Smith hanged).

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

but that was in 1915.

Regards, Pierre