Another nail in the Lechmere coffin?

[Elamarna]

drstrange: He is referring to the highly edited version in the Echo 3/10/88 which leaves out relevant information

This is of course typical Dusty work: If there is a paper that goes against your beliefs, call it highly edited and misinforming.

The Echo is actually one of the best sources we have, often covering things we otherwise would not know. One example is how the Echo informs us that Mizen had not taken the carmensī names, by pointing out that the PC did not know Lechmeres name until the inquest day.
To be frank, he did not know it then either, since Lechmere gave an alias, but nevertheless!

The Echo very much belongs to a correct understanding - more so than most papers. Those who dislike that, are for some reason also those who claim that Mizen was referring to the remove in time when he helped put Nichols on that stretcher, when he said that the blood was STILL running, that it was looking fresh, that it was partially coagulated and that it was running into the gutter.

Hi Fisherman,

I at this stage am not passing judgement on which, if either, version is best.

All I required was the source.

many thanks


Steve

[Elamarna]

One more thing: If Nicholsī neck came first, many will say that he had strangled her to begin with, and the heart will have stopped, so that was why there was no blood spurting; the pressure was gone.
But the heart may go on to beat long after you have been strangled. People who are hanged may have a beating heart many minutes afterwards. It is a very strong muscle, and it works by way of reflex.
Normally, the heart will NOT stop immediately that you are strangled, and therefore, if the killer cut the neck in combination with the strangulation, then spurting blood would have been to expect.

Correct in essences, there will probably be a reduction in pressure, but it will still spurt Until the heart stops, which may take some minutes.
However and the "spurt" will not be as big or powerful as under normal conditions.

If the abdomen was cut first, and she died from those injuries - as suggested by Llewellyn - then it is another thing. Even if the heart went on pounding, there would have been cut vessels in the abdomen where the blood would go out, and the pressure would taper off and disappear.

True, and how fast that would happen to a degree will depend on which vessels are cut or damaged.


And thanks to Robert for the original post.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

I at this stage am not passing judgement on which, if either, version is best.

All I required was the source.

many thanks


Steve

Which is as it should be. It just makes me a bit sad when a poster takes it upon himself to disqualify a source that does not fit his thinking.

Anybody is free to argue that source A seems to be more correct than source B, but thatīs about all as long as there can be no factual clarity.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Correct in essences, there will probably be a reduction in pressure, but it will still spurt Until the heart stops, which may take some minutes.
However and the "spurt" will not be as big or powerful as under normal conditions.

But nevertheless, one would expect the bloodspurt to be traceable in the Nichols case if this was so.


True, and how fast that would happen to a degree will depend on which vessels are cut or damaged.

Of course. And I think that Llewellyn leads on that there was massive and lethal damage in the Nichols case.

[Joshua Rogan]

But nevertheless, one would expect the bloodspurt to be traceable in the Nichols case if this was so.

Not necessarily. If Polly was lying on the ground and her head turned to the left when her throat was cut, any arterial spray would be directed onto the pavement, and would likely soon be obliterated by the pooling of escaping blood.

[Fisherman]

Not necessarily. If Polly was lying on the ground and her head turned to the left when her throat was cut, any arterial spray would be directed onto the pavement, and would likely soon be obliterated by the pooling of escaping blood.

Possibly, yes - but if there WAS a jet of blood that was later covered by more blood from ttohe neck, I would have expected more blood under her neck than there was. Plus if that was what happened, why did a significant amount end up soaked in the clothing...?

[Elamarna]

But nevertheless, one would expect the bloodspurt to be traceable in the Nichols case if this was so.

There should be yes.
This is part of the work alluded to yesterday, it is quite in depth,some of the data may have a bearing on this, but I have not even started to analysis it yet.

True, and how fast that would happen to a degree will depend on which vessels are cut or damaged.

Of course. And I think that Llewellyn leads on that there was massive and lethal damage in the Nichols case.

From what I have seen so far, looking at all the sources I can find(there are far more than I expected for this case) he seems to fail to mention which vessels he specifically believes may have been cut. I may be wrong on that specific item as I said above it will need time to look at everything collected in the last 36 hours of so.


Steve

[Pierre]

Possibly, yes - but if there WAS a jet of blood that was later covered by more blood from ttohe neck, I would have expected more blood under her neck than there was. Plus if that was what happened, why did a significant amount end up soaked in the clothing...?

"A significant amount". How much exactly? And what is your source for that?

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Fisherman,


I am sure its in the thousands of posts on here, but could you point me towards a post where you posted what payne-james actually said, obviously i understand you may not have posted it complete, as there are probably confidentiality issues, but just what we can use, without any interpretation, by me or you or anyone else for that matter, looking for a baseline.

And is it possible to say what information he used to reach his opinion, was it just general, or based on specific information from the case.

hopefully i am not asking too much

thanks in advance



Steve

[Pierre]

Hi Fisherman,


I am sure its in the thousands of posts on here, but could you point me towards a post where you posted what payne-james actually said, obviously i understand you may not have posted it complete, as there are probably confidentiality issues, but just what we can use, without any interpretation, by me or you or anyone else for that matter, looking for a baseline.

And is it possible to say what information he used to reach his opinion, was it just general, or based on specific information from the case.

hopefully i am not asking too much

thanks in advance

Steve

Post 459 in "Charles Allen Lechmere - New suspect" ? (my question mark)

Fisherman wrote:

"Thatīs fine with me - Jason Payne-James said that a decapitation would normally cause the blood to leave the body in a minute or so - or even less. So the difference you point to is seemingly reflected in how Payne-James then accepts that three or even five minutes could/should have been the case with Nichols. He also accepted that we could get some more bleeding time, but he thought it less likely (and obviously, every added second would be less likely than the second before it). This would take in how a certain slowing down of the bleeding will have been around in the parts of the neck closest to the spine (where the cut surfaces would have been closer to each other than in front), plus it also encompassed how there was little or no blood pressure in the vessels when the neck was cut, going by the looks of things.

What is important to recognize here, though, is that we are looking at a very quick bleeding out unless something very strange occurred, just as you seem to accept."

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Post 459 in "Charles Allen Lechmere - New suspect" ? (my question mark)

Fisherman wrote:

"Thatīs fine with me - Jason Payne-James said that a decapitation would normally cause the blood to leave the body in a minute or so - or even less. So the difference you point to is seemingly reflected in how Payne-James then accepts that three or even five minutes could/should have been the case with Nichols. He also accepted that we could get some more bleeding time, but he thought it less likely (and obviously, every added second would be less likely than the second before it). This would take in how a certain slowing down of the bleeding will have been around in the parts of the neck closest to the spine (where the cut surfaces would have been closer to each other than in front), plus it also encompassed how there was little or no blood pressure in the vessels when the neck was cut, going by the looks of things.

What is important to recognize here, though, is that we are looking at a very quick bleeding out unless something very strange occurred, just as you seem to accept."

Regards, Pierre

thanks Pierre

I am hoping for something a bit more than that, i could provide details myself, but that would not be the same, we have a theory of possible timings, which at present seems more than reasonable to me, however I need a baseline so to speak to work against.

anyway thanks


steve

[Pierre]

thanks Pierre

I am hoping for something a bit more than that, i could provide details myself, but that would not be the same, we have a theory of possible timings, which at present seems more than reasonable to me, however I need a baseline so to speak to work against.

anyway thanks

steve

I do understand that and certainly hope he can provide it.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

The wording from Jason Payne-James comes from a mail conversation he and I had. He was given all the information there is surrounding the case. We discussed Llewellyns take that the abdominal wounds came first, and we spoke about the different paper articles mirroring what the involved PC:s said, and so on and so forth. That is why I say that Payne-James is the best we can hope for when it comes to having a useful background together with heaps of experience in the exact fields we are interested in - AND a thorough knowledge of the Nichols case.

We discussed bleeding times, and he took great care to point out that it was no exact science. I then asked him if there were likelihoods to lean against, and I exemplified with suggestions; was it likely that Nichols would have bled for three minutes, for five, for seven...? He then replied that all three could apply, but he believed that the shorter times were the more credible suggestions.

That is the gist of the matter. One crux is that all Payne-Jamesī posts carry a text that explicitely forbids the receiver of the post to make the information public. However, I thought that his take on things was of the utmost interest, so I asked him if I could quote him on the particular passage, and he was fine with that.

I have the message in my mailbox, but I am not going to reproduce it, so you are going to have to make do with this. We exchanged quite a lot of mails.

[Elamarna]

The wording from Jason Payne-James comes from a mail conversation he and I had. He was given all the information there is surrounding the case. We discussed Llewellyns take that the abdominal wounds came first, and we spoke about the different paper articles mirroring what the involved PC:s said, and so on and so forth. That is why I say that Payne-James is the best we can hope for when it comes to having a useful background together with heaps of experience in the exact fields we are interested in - AND a thorough knowledge of the Nichols case.

We discussed bleeding times, and he took great care to point out that it was no exact science. I then asked him if there were likelihoods to lean against, and I exemplified with suggestions; was it likely that Nichols would have bled for three minutes, for five, for seven...? He then replied that all three could apply, but he believed that the shorter times were the more credible suggestions.

That is the gist of the matter. One crux is that all Payne-Jamesī posts carry a text that explicitely forbids the receiver of the post to make the information public. However, I thought that his take on things was of the utmost interest, so I asked him if I could quote him on the particular passage, and he was fine with that.

I have the message in my mailbox, but I am not going to reproduce it, so you are going to have to make do with this. We exchanged quite a lot of mails.

Thanks Fisherman

that is standard for most UK research / medical schools, no one is ever prepared to commit themselves.

its often added by the system automatically, so that probably explains why he was still happy to have you quote him.

it does give me something to use, unfortunately not as much as i was hoping for but enough to work with.


again many thanks


Steve

[Robert St Devil]

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.