Another nail in the Lechmere coffin?

[Fisherman]

I believe that we are in agreement Fisherman that Polly Nicholl's throat was cut while lying down (if not all of the women). I don't read anything from the crime scene that supports any of their throats being slashed while standing or bending over, and this belief is based on where the blood would expect to flow out onto the body in either upright position.

In all fairness Fisherman I am not out of the woods on the theory that two men filled the role of Jack the Ripper. "Jack" being the fisherman, the one who caught and killed 'the fish'; "the Ripper" being the man who ripped 'the fish'. As macabre as that sounds, it's still an unresolved speculation of mine. I mention this point because one of the prevailing aspects of the Marta Tabram case is the suspicion of two men committing and accomplicing(?) the murder.

38 stab wounds would seem too many to survive, I think, but she had to have been dead before those injuries were inflicted. My reason being, if the 38 stab wounds had occurred first, she should've coughed up blood, spit up, gurgled up, drooled out. 'That', and her hands would have been cut by defending herself against the knife. Against this rationale, the 38 stab wounds is pushed to occurring later in the assault. I think that they came after the fatal stab wound, which echoes the criticism in The Echo: were they an act of mania, or was the killer masking over the heart wound? Even then, I think that she may have been dead or near-dead before her heart was stabbed. My reason being, the Reeves never heard a sound. Is it safe to say you and I would howl like banshees if anyone stabbed us through the heart with a bayonet? Now The Echo does say that there were reports of "Murder!" heard elsewhere in the building. I could see her being 'caught and killed' elsewhere, her body being moved, one man standing guard while the other man ripped her. Any wonder that it happened in front of the landlord's door?

Can this apply to Polly Nicholl's murder? Maybe. I'll adapt my scenario one last time bc 1) no one likes shifting hypotheses, 2) can't prove squat, and 3) no one really supports the two man theories. Still, food for thought...
I think you may be correct about one of the abdominal wounds occurring before the cutting of the throat. It would be the deep jagging wound on her left side. This is the wound that penetrates into the abdominal cavity, filling it with blood. With that being said and purely speculative at this point:
{...The two men attack a standing Polly Nicholls at the slaughterhouse, stabbing her in her left side. She's bundled and transported to Buck,s Row as you would expect two men to carry a body - one at the shoulders, one at the feet. Blood from her abdominal wound fills into her abdominal cavity and also pools at the back of her dress, splotchlettes(?) dropping on the ground as they walk. In Buck's Row, her dress is lifted, and the killers notice that blood from the side wound had flowed down her thigh when she was stabbed, which they clean off. The cuts across her belly and right side are made. Then her bonnet is removed, and her throat is cut...}

I suspect that you think the throat was cut last because Paul mentions that she may have been barely alive when she was found. If her throat had been cut before the abdominal wounds, it might lean to her being dead by the time Paul arrived.

A diverting claim; now back to the lone wolf theories...



Did PC Mizen know that Cross and Paul were carmen because they were wearing aprons? The idea of how a possibly bloodied Cross could approach the constable has crossed (npi) my mind lately. (npi =no pun intended)

Hi Steve and DJA.

On Tabram, I think that we need to include the blow she suffered on her head. The, I think, may explain the silence of the deed. There is also the fact that her hands were clenched, which would be consistent with an elelement of partial or complete strangulation.
If this was a Ripper deed, it seems that this killer made a point of ensuring silence before he turned to the knife work. So reasoning that the same may have applied to Tabram makes sense to me.
In that case, we should not expect any defensive wounds on her hands. Whether the wounds to the lungs would ensure any coughing or spitting up blood, I donīt know. If she was out cold/partially strangled, I donīt know to what extent that would apply. More to the point, though - how do we know that she had NOT bled from the mouth and nose?

As for the two killers theory (overall), I donīt think it is the more likely scenario. Others will have to do the work in that department!

What made Mizen go for a guess of two carmen is open to debate. Could have been the aprons, but the 1920īs sketch does not have any apron on Lechmere. That is close enough in time, one would have thought, for the drawing to be reasonably correct on the score. The aprons were big and bulky, and I would imagine that they were not comfortable to walk in. So possibly Mizen identified the carmanship - of which he was not certain - by some other parameter.

[Elamarna]

I believe that we are in agreement Fisherman that Polly Nicholl's throat was cut while lying down (if not all of the women). I don't read anything from the crime scene that supports any of their throats being slashed while standing or bending over, and this belief is based on where the blood would expect to flow out onto the body in either upright position.

In all fairness Fisherman I am not out of the woods on the theory that two men filled the role of Jack the Ripper. "Jack" being the fisherman, the one who caught and killed 'the fish'; "the Ripper" being the man who ripped 'the fish'. As macabre as that sounds, it's still an unresolved speculation of mine. I mention this point because one of the prevailing aspects of the Marta Tabram case is the suspicion of two men committing and accomplicing(?) the murder.

38 stab wounds would seem too many to survive, I think, but she had to have been dead before those injuries were inflicted. My reason being, if the 38 stab wounds had occurred first, she should've coughed up blood, spit up, gurgled up, drooled out. 'That', and her hands would have been cut by defending herself against the knife. Against this rationale, the 38 stab wounds is pushed to occurring later in the assault. I think that they came after the fatal stab wound, which echoes the criticism in The Echo: were they an act of mania, or was the killer masking over the heart wound? Even then, I think that she may have been dead or near-dead before her heart was stabbed. My reason being, the Reeves never heard a sound. Is it safe to say you and I would howl like banshees if anyone stabbed us through the heart with a bayonet? Now The Echo does say that there were reports of "Murder!" heard elsewhere in the building. I could see her being 'caught and killed' elsewhere, her body being moved, one man standing guard while the other man ripped her. Any wonder that it happened in front of the landlord's door?

Can this apply to Polly Nicholl's murder? Maybe. I'll adapt my scenario one last time bc 1) no one likes shifting hypotheses, 2) can't prove squat, and 3) no one really supports the two man theories. Still, food for thought...
I think you may be correct about one of the abdominal wounds occurring before the cutting of the throat. It would be the deep jagging wound on her left side. This is the wound that penetrates into the abdominal cavity, filling it with blood. With that being said and purely speculative at this point:
{...The two men attack a standing Polly Nicholls at the slaughterhouse, stabbing her in her left side. She's bundled and transported to Buck,s Row as you would expect two men to carry a body - one at the shoulders, one at the feet. Blood from her abdominal wound fills into her abdominal cavity and also pools at the back of her dress, splotchlettes(?) dropping on the ground as they walk. In Buck's Row, her dress is lifted, and the killers notice that blood from the side wound had flowed down her thigh when she was stabbed, which they clean off. The cuts across her belly and right side are made. Then her bonnet is removed, and her throat is cut...}

I suspect that you think the throat was cut last because Paul mentions that she may have been barely alive when she was found. If her throat had been cut before the abdominal wounds, it might lean to her being dead by the time Paul arrived.

A diverting claim; now back to the lone wolf theories...



Did PC Mizen know that Cross and Paul were carmen because they were wearing aprons? The idea of how a possibly bloodied Cross could approach the constable has crossed (npi) my mind lately. (npi =no pun intended)

Hi Steve and DJA.

Robert, one of the issues with this, and something I am working on at present, is that the wound called "deep", only appears to reach as far as the intestines, which later (or not as the case may be) pop out.

There is no record of any significant damage to the Intestines, and certainly none beyond them deep in the body. Of course just cutting as far as the intestines will produce a significant amount of bleeding anyway, the question of course is how much?

I have learnt so much over the last 4 days, reading a vast number of reports, both press and official, and it appears nothing is quite as it is often portrayed.

Was Cross bloodied? probably not, at least it is not recorded from what I can See.

Should he have been ? probably yes, but how much? and where?
That depends to a degree on the order of attack ?


However not got an answer on that yet, or several other issues.
Not going to say wait a year, maybe a week, give or take a few days.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Should he have been ? probably yes, but how much? and where?
That depends to a degree on the order of attack ?


However not got an answer on that yet, or several other issues.
Not going to say wait a year, maybe a week, give or take a few days.


Steve

Just in case not clear that is only if he is the killer.


Steve

[Columbo]

It seems to me we've gotten a little too complicated with the dual killer theory and this blood discussion.

The blood theory of the abdomen being attacked first really makes no sense. This has been posted on several threads before. All of the recent posters are trying to box in a situation that has too many variables. When Nichols was strangled, it slowed the heart and the throat cut was not as explosive as it could've been if her throat had been cut first.

If fisherman's expert is saying a decapitation victim will bleed out within a minute he is wrong. that is a general sweeping statement and should be taken with a big box of salt. No offense, but it's that kind of "expert" evidence that muddies the case. There is no way this expert can prove it and make it apply to this case. As far as I know, nothing's been posted as to how many decapitation tests this expert made or how he comes to this conclusion.

As far as Mizen knowing the men were Cartmen, they may have told him. Everyone's under the impression that what the papers reported was the entire content of the discussion between the three men. We have no idea if he asked them where they were going, or if one of them said he needed to get to work at Pickford's etc.

One thing people must ask is exactly how closely did these two men examine her? I believe there would've been some blood on her face from the wounds and I don't believe they looked at her that closely at all. If they could see the bonnet, they should be able to see more details then they testified.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

Just in case not clear that is only if he is the killer.


Steve

Youīre in the clear, Steve - I never thought that you had suddenly converted...

[Fisherman]

Columbo:

The blood theory of the abdomen being attacked first really makes no sense. This has been posted on several threads before. All of the recent posters are trying to box in a situation that has too many variables. When Nichols was strangled, it slowed the heart and the throat cut was not as explosive as it could've been if her throat had been cut first.

We do not know to what exact degree she was strangled, and we do not know what happened to the heartbeat, Columbo. A heart can go on beating for many a minute in hanged people, as I said before.
Of course, we can work from the suggestion that it happened the way you speak for, and in such a case, there would not be the kind of explosive bleeding that we connect with an artery with an underlying heartbeat pressure being cut.
However, the pressure does not disappear totally when the heart stops beating; for some time there will be a built-up pressure in the vessels anyway, and that will manifest itself with a less powerful bloodspurt when an artery is cut.
But these matters are somewhat secondary to how there should have been a lot more blood in the pool under Nicholsī neck if it was cut first. Compare it, if you will, to a shaken bottle of coke and a bottle of still water. If we lay them on the ground and open the corks, the coke will spurt out, whereas the water will only run out. But the respective amounts of liquid lost will be more or less the same.

So to me, it is the idea that the neck was cut first that makes a lot less sense.

If fisherman's expert is saying a decapitation victim will bleed out within a minute he is wrong. that is a general sweeping statement and should be taken with a big box of salt.

But what if he is NOT saying that? What if what he said was that it COULD bleed out in less than a minute and that it would in any case be a short affair, generally speaking?

No offense, but it's that kind of "expert" evidence that muddies the case. There is no way this expert can prove it and make it apply to this case. As far as I know, nothing's been posted as to how many decapitation tests this expert made or how he comes to this conclusion.

I donīt think that we should put quotation marks around Payne-Jamesī expert status. I do however, think that if he says that decapitated people can loose their blood in less than a minute and that it is a shortish affair timewise GENERALLY SPEAKING, then he will know what he is talking about. I have seen many people, some experts, some medical students, say the same thing on the net, and I have so far not seen a single one saying that it will be an affair of many minutes.

As far as Mizen knowing the men were Cartmen, they may have told him.

Actually, the Echo nullifies that proposition:
"Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman." (The Echo, Sept 3)


Everyone's under the impression that what the papers reported was the entire content of the discussion between the three men. We have no idea if he asked them where they were going, or if one of them said he needed to get to work at Pickford's etc.

We do have some idea, since that would have belonged to the material Mizen would have testified about. And both suggestions are nullified by the Echo, as per the above. But it is true that something could have been said that was not mentioned at the inquest, but it would in such a case have been deemed irrelevant by either Mizen or, later on, by the inquest or the reporters.

One thing people must ask is exactly how closely did these two men examine her? I believe there would've been some blood on her face from the wounds and I don't believe they looked at her that closely at all. If they could see the bonnet, they should be able to see more details then they testified.

Yes, that is absolutely true. Paul kneeled down by the body, and still he did not see the cut to the neck, a gaping dark wound against the white neck. And he could see a black bonnet on the ground, but he did not see any pool of blood under the neck. Nor did he see any stream of blood running towards the gutter, a stream that would have been closer than the bonnet and that would have reflected light.

So itīs either a case of Paul not looking very carefully as he bent down over the woman, or a case of the wound not being visible and the blood not having formed the pool yet, and much less so of the pool having run over the brim and shaped a stream of blood running towards the gutter.
What you really cannot see, you cannot report about.

Why do you feel that the wounds should have produced blood in the face of Nichols? I donīt see the underlying reasoning for that.

[Elamarna]

It seems to me we've gotten a little too complicated with the dual killer theory and this blood discussion.

The blood theory of the abdomen being attacked first really makes no sense. This has been posted on several threads before. All of the recent posters are trying to box in a situation that has too many variables. When Nichols was strangled, it slowed the heart and the throat cut was not as explosive as it could've been if her throat had been cut first.

If fisherman's expert is saying a decapitation victim will bleed out within a minute he is wrong. that is a general sweeping statement and should be taken with a big box of salt. No offense, but it's that kind of "expert" evidence that muddies the case. There is no way this expert can prove it and make it apply to this case. As far as I know, nothing's been posted as to how many decapitation tests this expert made or how he comes to this conclusion.

As far as Mizen knowing the men were Cartmen, they may have told him. Everyone's under the impression that what the papers reported was the entire content of the discussion between the three men. We have no idea if he asked them where they were going, or if one of them said he needed to get to work at Pickford's etc.

One thing people must ask is exactly how closely did these two men examine her? I believe there would've been some blood on her face from the wounds and I don't believe they looked at her that closely at all. If they could see the bonnet, they should be able to see more details then they testified.

Columbo

Hi Columbo

exactly why i am looking into the whole issue of wounds, blood and associated issues in the Nichols case.

much of this does revolve about just what was seen in the hour or so following the murder.


Steve

[Columbo]

Columbo:

The blood theory of the abdomen being attacked first really makes no sense. This has been posted on several threads before. All of the recent posters are trying to box in a situation that has too many variables. When Nichols was strangled, it slowed the heart and the throat cut was not as explosive as it could've been if her throat had been cut first.

We do not know to what exact degree she was strangled, and we do not know what happened to the heartbeat, Columbo. A heart can go on beating for many a minute in hanged people, as I said before.
Of course, we can work from the suggestion that it happened the way you speak for, and in such a case, there would not be the kind of explosive bleeding that we connect with an artery with an underlying heartbeat pressure being cut.
However, the pressure does not disappear totally when the heart stops beating; for some time there will be a built-up pressure in the vessels anyway, and that will manifest itself with a less powerful bloodspurt when an artery is cut.
But these matters are somewhat secondary to how there should have been a lot more blood in the pool under Nicholsī neck if it was cut first. Compare it, if you will, to a shaken bottle of coke and a bottle of still water. If we lay them on the ground and open the corks, the coke will spurt out, whereas the water will only run out. But the respective amounts of liquid lost will be more or less the same.

So to me, it is the idea that the neck was cut first that makes a lot less sense.

If fisherman's expert is saying a decapitation victim will bleed out within a minute he is wrong. that is a general sweeping statement and should be taken with a big box of salt.

But what if he is NOT saying that? What if what he said was that it COULD bleed out in less than a minute and that it would in any case be a short affair, generally speaking?

No offense, but it's that kind of "expert" evidence that muddies the case. There is no way this expert can prove it and make it apply to this case. As far as I know, nothing's been posted as to how many decapitation tests this expert made or how he comes to this conclusion.

I donīt think that we should put quotation marks around Payne-Jamesī expert status. I do however, think that if he says that decapitated people can loose their blood in less than a minute and that it is a shortish affair timewise GENERALLY SPEAKING, then he will know what he is talking about. I have seen many people, some experts, some medical students, say the same thing on the net, and I have so far not seen a single one saying that it will be an affair of many minutes.

As far as Mizen knowing the men were Cartmen, they may have told him.

Actually, the Echo nullifies that proposition:
"Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman." (The Echo, Sept 3)


Everyone's under the impression that what the papers reported was the entire content of the discussion between the three men. We have no idea if he asked them where they were going, or if one of them said he needed to get to work at Pickford's etc.

We do have some idea, since that would have belonged to the material Mizen would have testified about. And both suggestions are nullified by the Echo, as per the above. But it is true that something could have been said that was not mentioned at the inquest, but it would in such a case have been deemed irrelevant by either Mizen or, later on, by the inquest or the reporters.

One thing people must ask is exactly how closely did these two men examine her? I believe there would've been some blood on her face from the wounds and I don't believe they looked at her that closely at all. If they could see the bonnet, they should be able to see more details then they testified.

Yes, that is absolutely true. Paul kneeled down by the body, and still he did not see the cut to the neck, a gaping dark wound against the white neck. And he could see a black bonnet on the ground, but he did not see any pool of blood under the neck. Nor did he see any stream of blood running towards the gutter, a stream that would have been closer than the bonnet and that would have reflected light.

So itīs either a case of Paul not looking very carefully as he bent down over the woman, or a case of the wound not being visible and the blood not having formed the pool yet, and much less so of the pool having run over the brim and shaped a stream of blood running towards the gutter.
What you really cannot see, you cannot report about.

Why do you feel that the wounds should have produced blood in the face of Nichols? I donīt see the underlying reasoning for that.

I apologize for the quotes around expert, not my intention to mock anyone.

I have no medical qualifications but I think there would have to be blood on her chin from the initial wound, because if the throat cut was the cause of death there would have been some splatter, because the heart is still beating, maybe not a huge exit of blood but enough to smear around the neck and chin. but as I'm writing this I'm also thinking about the possibility of the mutilations. If Jack had started the mutilations first, as theorized before, he would have relieved the blood pressure and maybe the neck wound would not be as messy as I theorize.

But that takes us back to square one. If the mutilations happened before the neck wound then that would mean Lechmere or whoever had to kill her a lot earlier than posted because the blood from the neck wound needed more time to leak out and soak her clothes because the blood would be flowing much more slowly than if the neck was the death wound.

The clothes being soaked with blood, in my opinion points to the neck wound as the first cut.

I also don't think we can apply any opinion from medical experts of our time as Gospel. A very general guide but there's just no way they can know. there's too many factors involved.

How long does it take for a body to stop bleeding from decapitation? What is this based on?

You would need to know weather conditions, body weight, angles, how big is the wound, how tight where the victims clothes, were there any other wounds?

Why did Cross and Paul not see steam rising from the neck if they could see the bonnet?

If the neck wound was first and then the abdomen, did the abdomen relieve enough pressure for blood to trickle from the neck, but her clothing still get soaked almost to the waist?

Given that it was probably cold that morning it is most likely Polly was killed much earlier then the time given to Lechmere. It doesn't exonerate him by any means but the clothing to me shows it had to be earlier.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

Columbo:

I have no medical qualifications but I think there would have to be blood on her chin from the initial wound, because if the throat cut was the cause of death there would have been some splatter, because the heart is still beating, maybe not a huge exit of blood but enough to smear around the neck and chin. but as I'm writing this I'm also thinking about the possibility of the mutilations. If Jack had started the mutilations first, as theorized before, he would have relieved the blood pressure and maybe the neck wound would not be as messy as I theorize.

Exactly! That is how I see it too - the pressure there was, was let go off when a number of arteries within the abdomen were cut. To be frank, I am a bit perplexed by how many people find it impossible that the neck came second, when just about everything seems to speak for it.

But that takes us back to square one. If the mutilations happened before the neck wound then that would mean Lechmere or whoever had to kill her a lot earlier than posted because the blood from the neck wound needed more time to leak out and soak her clothes because the blood would be flowing much more slowly than if the neck was the death wound.

The clothing covered the cut areas in the abdomen, Columbo. It was said that "the clothing on the upper surface was not stained", but that does not in any way preclude that the blood low down it the ulster, at waist height, came from a contact between the clothes and the wounds to the abdomen. And then my guess is that the clothing originally covered the neck wounds too, thereby allowing for the ulster to soak up blood to a lesser extent from there. Afterwards, the guess was made that the blood in the ulster had all come from the neck wounds, but the small amounts of blood in the pool speak against it, and I find it incredible that the blood would have been soaked from there all the way down to the waist.
So we are not back to square one, the way I see it. Lechmere cuts the adomen for a couple of minutes, blood seeps into the ulster underneath her the blood, the pressure goes away and much blood leaks into the abdominal cavity where Llewellyn later finds it on the slab. Then Paul enters the street, Lechmere hears him and decides to bluff him, cuts the neck to ensure silence and death, and steps back into the road after having covered the wounds. At this stage, blood starts to leak into the clothing at the neck, and to run down slowly to the ground. Paul looks at her, but the pool under her has only just started to form and is concealed by the neck, and the wounds to the neck are hidden by the clothing. Paul then pulls the clothing down and leaves, whereupon the neck wounds are revealed, and blood will no longer go into the ulster. Instead it fills up the pool that grows and becomes readily visible to Neil. And when Mizen arrives, it has run over the brim and started to flow towards the gutter.


The clothes being soaked with blood, in my opinion points to the neck wound as the first cut.

If all the blood in the ulster came from there, yes. But where is the bloodspurt? And why is the pool so small?
That can all be explained by how most of the blood in the ulster came from the abdominal wounds. For the blood to have been soaked all the way down to the waist, it would have taken the suction power of a vacuum cleaner, methinks.

I also don't think we can apply any opinion from medical experts of our time as Gospel. A very general guide but there's just no way they can know. there's too many factors involved.

Experts "of our time" actually know more that experts of that time. But of course, there can always be deviations, no body is protesting that there cannot. However, if the body was flat on the ground - and it was, as far as we can tell - and if the wound allowed the blood to flow freely - and it did, as far as we can tell - then it would take something out of the normal for it to flow for much more than three or five minutes. It would in reality seem that it ran for at least six or seven minutes, but that may have been due to how the neck wounds can have had clothing pulled over them.

How long does it take for a body to stop bleeding from decapitation? What is this based on?

It is to a degree based on the certainty that there can be no vessel contraction if both the external and the internal carotid arteries are cut. The heart beating will then push the blood out at a frightening speed. To exactly establish how long it will take for decapitaded person to bleed out is impossible, and will to a large degree depend on the position of the body, but if it lies flat on the ground, Jason Payne-James says that it will all be over very quickly, quite possibly in under a minute.
History has recorded thousands of decapitations, so there is no dearth of studying material.

You would need to know weather conditions, body weight, angles, how big is the wound, how tight where the victims clothes, were there any other wounds?

If we are speaking of decapitation, then why ask how big the wound is? That has very little to do with it. What matters is the number of severed vessels, and they are ALL severed in a decapitation. To a degree, if the decapitation is carried out with a small knife, craving more time, or a guillotine, chopping the head off instantly, will play a role, but generally speaking, once all the vessles have been severed, a minute or so of bleeding is what there is left.
Angles will only play a role in the sense that the bleeding may not be as complete in some angles as it will in others - a person tied to a chair and decapitated will retain a lot of blood in the body due to gravity. But what blood he losses will be lost quickly.

Why did Cross and Paul not see steam rising from the neck if they could see the bonnet?

Because the temperature never dropped below 14 degrees celsius on the night - and possibly because the wounds were covered.

If the neck wound was first and then the abdomen, did the abdomen relieve enough pressure for blood to trickle from the neck, but her clothing still get soaked almost to the waist?

No. Cutting the abdomen would not diminish the size of the vessels cut in the neck. Unless the aorta was severed in the abdominal cavity, the greater blood escape route would always be via the neck, therefore. And why would a trickle travel down to the waist...? The suggestion sounds preposterous to my ears.

Given that it was probably cold that morning it is most likely Polly was killed much earlier then the time given to Lechmere. It doesn't exonerate him by any means but the clothing to me shows it had to be earlier.

How does that work? People do not bleed slower in cold conditions, Columbo. And precisely what has the clothing got to do with it...?

[Elamarna]

How does that work? People do not bleed slower in cold conditions, Columbo.

HI Fisherman and Columbo

You may find the following interesting on this Topic:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4265340/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7712760

Steve

[Elamarna]

Columbo:

I have no medical qualifications but I think there would have to be blood on her chin from the initial wound, because if the throat cut was the cause of death there would have been some splatter, because the heart is still beating, maybe not a huge exit of blood but enough to smear around the neck and chin. but as I'm writing this I'm also thinking about the possibility of the mutilations. If Jack had started the mutilations first, as theorized before, he would have relieved the blood pressure and maybe the neck wound would not be as messy as I theorize.

Exactly! That is how I see it too - the pressure there was, was let go off when a number of arteries within the abdomen were cut. To be frank, I am a bit perplexed by how many people find it impossible that the neck came second, when just about everything seems to speak for it.

But that takes us back to square one. If the mutilations happened before the neck wound then that would mean Lechmere or whoever had to kill her a lot earlier than posted because the blood from the neck wound needed more time to leak out and soak her clothes because the blood would be flowing much more slowly than if the neck was the death wound.

The clothing covered the cut areas in the abdomen, Columbo. It was said that "the clothing on the upper surface was not stained", but that does not in any way preclude that the blood low down it the ulster, at waist height, came from a contact between the clothes and the wounds to the abdomen. And then my guess is that the clothing originally covered the neck wounds too, thereby allowing for the ulster to soak up blood to a lesser extent from there. Afterwards, the guess was made that the blood in the ulster had all come from the neck wounds, but the small amounts of blood in the pool speak against it, and I find it incredible that the blood would have been soaked from there all the way down to the waist.
So we are not back to square one, the way I see it. Lechmere cuts the adomen for a couple of minutes, blood seeps into the ulster underneath her the blood, the pressure goes away and much blood leaks into the abdominal cavity where Llewellyn later finds it on the slab. Then Paul enters the street, Lechmere hears him and decides to bluff him, cuts the neck to ensure silence and death, and steps back into the road after having covered the wounds. At this stage, blood starts to leak into the clothing at the neck, and to run down slowly to the ground. Paul looks at her, but the pool under her has only just started to form and is concealed by the neck, and the wounds to the neck are hidden by the clothing. Paul then pulls the clothing down and leaves, whereupon the neck wounds are revealed, and blood will no longer go into the ulster. Instead it fills up the pool that grows and becomes readily visible to Neil. And when Mizen arrives, it has run over the brim and started to flow towards the gutter.


The clothes being soaked with blood, in my opinion points to the neck wound as the first cut.

If all the blood in the ulster came from there, yes. But where is the bloodspurt? And why is the pool so small?
That can all be explained by how most of the blood in the ulster came from the abdominal wounds. For the blood to have been soaked all the way down to the waist, it would have taken the suction power of a vacuum cleaner, methinks.

I also don't think we can apply any opinion from medical experts of our time as Gospel. A very general guide but there's just no way they can know. there's too many factors involved.

Experts "of our time" actually know more that experts of that time. But of course, there can always be deviations, no body is protesting that there cannot. However, if the body was flat on the ground - and it was, as far as we can tell - and if the wound allowed the blood to flow freely - and it did, as far as we can tell - then it would take something out of the normal for it to flow for much more than three or five minutes. It would in reality seem that it ran for at least six or seven minutes, but that may have been due to how the neck wounds can have had clothing pulled over them.

How long does it take for a body to stop bleeding from decapitation? What is this based on?

It is to a degree based on the certainty that there can be no vessel contraction if both the external and the internal carotid arteries are cut. The heart beating will then push the blood out at a frightening speed. To exactly establish how long it will take for decapitaded person to bleed out is impossible, and will to a large degree depend on the position of the body, but if it lies flat on the ground, Jason Payne-James says that it will all be over very quickly, quite possibly in under a minute.
History has recorded thousands of decapitations, so there is no dearth of studying material.

You would need to know weather conditions, body weight, angles, how big is the wound, how tight where the victims clothes, were there any other wounds?

If we are speaking of decapitation, then why ask how big the wound is? That has very little to do with it. What matters is the number of severed vessels, and they are ALL severed in a decapitation. To a degree, if the decapitation is carried out with a small knife, craving more time, or a guillotine, chopping the head off instantly, will play a role, but generally speaking, once all the vessles have been severed, a minute or so of bleeding is what there is left.
Angles will only play a role in the sense that the bleeding may not be as complete in some angles as it will in others - a person tied to a chair and decapitated will retain a lot of blood in the body due to gravity. But what blood he losses will be lost quickly.

Why did Cross and Paul not see steam rising from the neck if they could see the bonnet?

Because the temperature never dropped below 14 degrees celsius on the night - and possibly because the wounds were covered.

If the neck wound was first and then the abdomen, did the abdomen relieve enough pressure for blood to trickle from the neck, but her clothing still get soaked almost to the waist?

No. Cutting the abdomen would not diminish the size of the vessels cut in the neck. Unless the aorta was severed in the abdominal cavity, the greater blood escape route would always be via the neck, therefore. And why would a trickle travel down to the waist...? The suggestion sounds preposterous to my ears.

Given that it was probably cold that morning it is most likely Polly was killed much earlier then the time given to Lechmere. It doesn't exonerate him by any means but the clothing to me shows it had to be earlier.

How does that work? People do not bleed slower in cold conditions, Columbo. And precisely what has the clothing got to do with it...?

I will have answers I hope for both of you, on this matters in the next week or so


Steve

[Fisherman]

HI Fisherman and Columbo

You may find the following interesting on this Topic:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4265340/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7712760

Steve

The temperature never sank below 14 degrees Celsius. She had her neck severed to the bone, all vessels included.

[Fisherman]

I will have answers I hope for both of you, on this matters in the next week or so


Steve

Iīve hoped for answers for more than thirty years, so itīs about time.

[Pierre]

Thanks for he link dusty, I had been looking at so many articles last 24hrs, I had obviously missed it

Steve

Hi Steve,

did you draw any conclusions about Lechmere from your research?

Regards, Pierre

[John Wheat]

Lechmere despite all the crap written about him is still a random witness.