The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Elamarna]

Thanks John.

All helps me with my Bucks Row project


Steve

The report, which the newspaper relies upon, comes from the Central News Agency. However, early reports from this source were not always reliable: http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18881121.html

Moreover, I don't see how such reports can possibly take precedence over what the press reported as being stated at the inquest. And, of course, in this regard PC Neil is directly quoted as using the word "oozing" to describe the flow of blood from the neck, with no mention of the adverb "profusely". http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...t_nichols.html

[John G]

Hi after some help from another member, many thanks David, I have been able to read the apparent quote Fisherman was referring to in post #1004.

The source would appear to be in The East London Advertiser 1st September 1888:

"The facts are that Constable John Neil was walking down Buck's-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four on Friday morning, when he discovered a woman between 35 and 40 years of age lying at the side of the street with her throat cut right open from ear to ear, the instrument with which the deed was done traversing the throat from left to right. The wound was about two inches wide, and blood was flowing profusely. She was discovered to be lying in a pool of blood. "


This does not appear to be a direct quote from Neil, there is certainly no indication of any quotes being used. nor any indication that this report is the result of Neil being interviewed as implied in post #1004.

Therefore while it is indeed an early report, we can have no idea if it is based on anything which Neil may or may not have said.


One little issue cleared up.



Steve

The report, which the newspaper relies upon, comes from the Central News Agency. However, early reports from this source were not always reliable: http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18881121.html

Moreover, I don't see how such reports can possibly take precedence over what the press reported as being stated at the inquest. And, of course, in this regard PC Neil is directly quoted as using the word "oozing" to describe the flow of blood from the neck, with no mention of the adverb "profusely". http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...t_nichols.html

[Elamarna]

Hi after some help from another member, many thanks David, I have been able to read the apparent quote Fisherman was referring to in post #1004.

The source would appear to be in The East London Advertiser 1st September 1888:

"The facts are that Constable John Neil was walking down Buck's-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four on Friday morning, when he discovered a woman between 35 and 40 years of age lying at the side of the street with her throat cut right open from ear to ear, the instrument with which the deed was done traversing the throat from left to right. The wound was about two inches wide, and blood was flowing profusely. She was discovered to be lying in a pool of blood. "


This does not appear to be a direct quote from Neil, there is certainly no indication of any quotes being used. nor any indication that this report is the result of Neil being interviewed as implied in post #1004.

Therefore while it is indeed an early report, we can have no idea if it is based on anything which Neil may or may not have said.


One little issue cleared up.



Steve

[Elamarna]

Perhaps we can now get back to the thread topic.

Hang on I think we have provided enough evidence to suggest that the use of Cross was not sinister or an attempt to mislead.

What with also showing that Mizen's statements cannot reasonably be used to establish a possible time of death I think this has been a very useful thread.

Just in case I have not said so before, great research in the first place by Kattrup.


steve

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Thanks. I would agree. It might also be significant that PC Mizen's evidence could be interpreted as the blood started "running" as the body was moved to the ambulance, which presumably could have opened up a wound. In this regard Dr Biggs revealed:

"I did an autopsy last week, where the body had been transported a great distance to the mortuary, and death had occurred almost 24 hours prior to my examination...and yet the injuries continued to 'bleed' relatively profusely for quite some time." (Marriott, 2013).

Hi John

yes that that is of course possible and actually probably what he did see.
All I have been interested in here has been to establish if Mizen described what Fish thinks he did?
My main support in this has be Panye-James himself and the press reports supplied by Fisherman.

steve

[John G]

Hi, yes.

I think I have established that Mizen cannot be used in this regards as a witness and that the interpretation of Payne-James as given, is seriously open to question.


Steve

Hi Steve,

Thanks. I would agree. It might also be significant that PC Mizen's evidence could be interpreted as the blood started "running" as the body was moved to the ambulance, which presumably could have opened up a wound. In this regard Dr Biggs revealed:

"I did an autopsy last week, where the body had been transported a great distance to the mortuary, and death had occurred almost 24 hours prior to my examination...and yet the injuries continued to 'bleed' relatively profusely for quite some time." (Marriott, 2013).

[John G]

I'm guessing that a lot of that would depend on whether the blood were allowed to drain away freely, but in Nichols' case, her neck and back were lying in a pool of the stuff and her clothing soaked a lot of it up. Besides, a "very little" amount of leakage is still leakage, and the layman would still likely perceive/describe it as "flowing" or "running".

Yes, I would agree. Of course, we don't know the exact basis on which Payne James made his assessment. Was he, for instance, under the impression that blood was gushing out under pressure, implying the victim was still alive?

[Elamarna]

I'm guessing that a lot of that would depend on whether the blood were allowed to drain away freely, but in Nichols' case, her neck and back were lying in a pool of the stuff and her clothing soaked a lot of it up. Besides, a "very little" amount of leakage is still leakage, and the layman would still likely perceive/describe it as "flowing" or "running".

That makes perfect sense.


Steve

[Elamarna]

According to Dr Biggs: "I think it certainly possible that bleeding could go on for a period of twenty minutes, although I would make a distinction between 'post mortem leakage of blood from the body' and actual 'bleeding' that occurred during life. The flow of blood is likely to have slowed to a trickle by this time as pressure inside the vessels would have dissipated and the volume of blood remaining available to leak out would have become very little." (Marriott, 2013).

Hi, yes.

I think I have established that Mizen cannot be used in this regards as a witness and that the interpretation of Payne-James as given, is seriously open to question.


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

he flow of blood is likely to have slowed to a trickle by this time as pressure inside the vessels would have dissipated and the volume of blood remaining available to leak out would have become very little." (Marriott, 2013).

I'm guessing that a lot of that would depend on whether the blood were allowed to drain away freely, but in Nichols' case, her neck and back were lying in a pool of the stuff and her clothing soaked a lot of it up. Besides, a "very little" amount of leakage is still leakage, and the layman would still likely perceive/describe it as "flowing" or "running".

[Elamarna]

Bear in mind that Mizen, after having arrived at and taken in the scene, went to the police station to fetch the ambulance (just a hand-cart in those days) and wheel it back to Bucks Row. This could easily have added another 10 minutes onto the timeline... and the blood was still oozing out as they loaded the body onto the cart. Well, I'd expect there to be, and I shouldn't be surprised if there was still some apparent "blood-flow" going on after the body's arrival in the mortuary.

Agree 100% Gareth.

But the point Fish argues is that running means bleeding profusely is it not?

Here we have a situation which says either Mizen is mistaken that it is flowing, or rather Christer's interpretation is wrong,
or
if it is still flowing rather than oozing the degree of flow cannot be used to place Lech at the site at the time of the death cut.

It is not possible to argue both that Mizen is right and that this flow can be used to determine the time of cut.


Steve

[John G]

According to Dr Biggs: "I think it certainly possible that bleeding could go on for a period of twenty minutes, although I would make a distinction between 'post mortem leakage of blood from the body' and actual 'bleeding' that occurred during life. The flow of blood is likely to have slowed to a trickle by this time as pressure inside the vessels would have dissipated and the volume of blood remaining available to leak out would have become very little." (Marriott, 2013).

[Sam Flynn]

3) Probably the most serious issue in regards to the blood evidence from Mizen.

It is clear that he says the blood is still running when he assists in putting the body into the ambulance. Exactly how long after Lechmere and Paul were in Buck's Row was this?

I had already suggested that Mizen arrived at Buck’s Row approximately 10 minutes after the fatal cut; However if his evidence is from when the ambulance arrived one must ask just how long did this neck wound bleed for?

Bear in mind that Mizen, after having arrived at and taken in the scene, went to the police station to fetch the ambulance (just a hand-cart in those days) and wheel it back to Bucks Row. This could easily have added another 10 minutes onto the timeline... and the blood was still oozing out as they loaded the body onto the cart. Well, I'd expect there to be, and I shouldn't be surprised if there was still some apparent "blood-flow" going on after the body's arrival in the mortuary.

[Elamarna]

Good Evening,

I have been rereading the posts on this thread and something has struck me which is serious.


In post #1004, Fisherman posted :


“Yes! But nobody wants to read the word "running", since it dissolves the wanted picture produced by "oozing". As I have said before, the initital interviews - discareded by people who prefer "oozed" - have Neil saying that the wound bled "profusely".





In post #1041 I asked Fisherman to clarify this interview:

"Hi can you point me in the direction of that interview please Fish, I can't seem to find it?"




Post 1046 Fisherman gave a reply which seemed to answer that:


“The Morning Advertiser: “

"The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman."





This confused me for several reasons, one of which i shall come onto later, and because it did not include the word “profusely” which Fisherman had quoted Neil as saying, therefore in post 1048 I asked him to clarify:

“You quote one source, which I had overlooked, mainly because it does not claim the bleeding was profuse at all, or am I miss understanding and this quote is not the interview you were talking about?”


Unfortunately Fisherman decided not to answer that question, which was a shame because the answer was very important.



However fortunately in post #1067 Dusty gave the full quote, which gives a little more very important information.

"He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman."




Now we have several issues here:

1) We have not been shown an interview where Neil uses the word "profusely", can anyone point me in that direction please?


2) The quote provided is from the Morning Advertiser’s report of Mizen’s testimony, which was why I asked Fisherman if this quote, which he provided, was what he was referring too in post 1004.
I was expecting that he would say no and additionally point me in the direction of the correct source.



3) Probably the most serious issue in regards to the blood evidence from Mizen.

It is clear that he says the blood is still running when he assists in putting the body into the ambulance.
Exactly how long after Lechmere and Paul were in Buck's Row was this?,


I had already suggested that Mizen arrived at Buck’s Row approximately 10 minutes after the fatal cut; However if his evidence is from when the ambulance arrived one must ask just how long did this neck wound bleed for?
If it was still flowing when put into the ambulance, when did it stop? How long did it bleed for?


I think we can be sure that Mizen’s evidence on this issue proves nothing at all with regards to the time the murder took place.



Finally where does this leave the whole blood evidence concept, given that Payne-James says 7minutes is at the top end of what he would expect, if the wound is still bleeding when the ambulance arrives?




Steve

[drstrange169]

>You make a very good point re number 3. It wasn't apparent to them that she was dead. Never the less I still find it odd that Paul just happened to come upon lech when he was standing there.<<

Fair enough.