The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby Normal,


>>1. according to lechs testimony it seems mere seconds that he discovers the body and Paul shows up. so to me there is still the question of why they didn't notice each other before bucks row.<<


Given the geography of the street this is not in any way surprising. The two could have been within seconds of each other and still not seen each other. I've shown diagrams before showing just how easily it could occur, I can post them here if you like.



>>2. missing time-good arguments on either side, but the no real missing time side is swaying me. if he left at 3:20 then definitely missing time-red flag. If he left "about 3:30" then probably not-or at least its still unclear. so the missing time thing is still up in the air but has lost a little bit of its luster for me.<<

Fair enough.


>>3.This one bothers me the most now-lech is seen near the body before he raises the alarm. whats the chances of that happening?<<


Very high.

It’s an incident that’s played across the world, perhaps even, on a daily basis.

You might be confusing what we know, with what Xmere and Paul actually saw.

Lechmere said he saw what he initially thought was a tarpaulin, obviously no need to raise any alarm for that.

Then he saw it was person, dossers sleeping rough, again are not something to raise an alarm about. Anyone reading this who lives in a big city probably has seen plenty. I know I have.

Even when they actually inspected the body they saw no signs of blood. At worst, Xmere and Paul were a bit callous and more concerned about work than getting involved.

If his story is true, Xmere did nothing odd or unusual. Nothing we wouldn’t reasonably expect anybody else would have done in the same circumstances. Certainly nothing that Robert Paul didn’t also do.



>>Paul just happens to come upon him in the few seconds he notices the body and stops-but before he tries to find someone or call for help? <<

Did Paul call for help or did he do exactly the same thing?




>> He still isn't in my first tier of favored suspects but hes a valid one IMHO-and at least one that deserves the attention and further research.<<


Fisherman will tell you otherwise, but most of us agree Xmere is a person of interest along with anyone else involved in this case and well worth researching.

It's the way stories are sometimes altered to make him look guilty that worries people.

Hi dr
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.

[Fisherman]

As you said yourself the wound was gaping, it will never form a clot big enough to stop all bleeding, some blood will leak, maybe for hours, you just can't see that can you?

Steve

Just a minor point - it was Jason Payne-James who could not see this, not me. It was he who said that at some time, suggestions about very prolonged bleeding times will become absurd. It was he who said that the type of wound Nichols had, would bleed out in a matter of minutes, more likely three or five than seven.

I am only reiterating his view, since I am no medical expert.

[Fisherman]

She was a very light sleeper? I see. Case closed. Nothing to see here.

But, wait......She didn't hear the commotion around the body, Neil calling to Thain and Mizen. She awakened when the police knocked on the door, unaware of the rest of it. Sounds like she was either a pretty heavy sleeper or she was actually protecting her son, as you said, The Ripper. So far, we've established far fewer moving parts with my theory than with yours, no Mizen scams, "alternate names", conversations out of earshot, impossible establishment of times, how long it took from point a to point b, who had the time exact, who had it wrong. All a require is a mother who was either sound asleep, or protecting her son. Neither is much of stretch. Plus, I don't have to wonder how long it took the Ripper to walk from 22 Doveton Street. The Ripper was used his HOME as his home base. Either protected by his family, leveraging the ignorance, willful or otherwise. Wasn't you who have given myriad examples of "serialists" with families, operating with them unaware of his awful activities. Here we have Green only having to enlist or fool a sister, a brother, a mother, rather than wife and ten kids.

Neil didn´t call to Thain and Mizen - he used his lamp to signal them down. For example. But I digress. As I said, if you want to point to James Green, then you are welcome.

[Sam Flynn]

the wound was gaping, it will never form a clot big enough to stop all bleeding, some blood will leak, maybe for hours

Precisely.

[Elamarna]

So this, Steve, is your answer to how Dusty tells you that the wording used does not necessarily mean that the blood was STILL running.

The Morning Advertiser:

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

Does that in any way change your mind? , which it is

I have too much to do to participate in these surrealistic exchanges. You need to get a grip of the matter, to read all the sources and to make a fair weighing.

People don´t, not out here. And when anyone listens to Dusty, they are in very serious trouble, I´m afraid.

I´m off. Have a wonderful life.

Fisherman

I said what I quoted was plausible, which it is.

The same way as Lechmere is viable as the killer of Nichols.

That does not mean either are true, just not unrealistic.

The problem we seem to have is that you consider a flow of any sort, signifies the same thing Payne-James was speaking about.

As you said yourself the wound was gaping, it will never form a clot big enough to stop all bleeding, some blood will leak, maybe for hours, you just can't see that can you?




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?

I and others have argued IT is YOUR interpretation of the word "running" which is not that of others have; you appear not to be willing to consider that yours may be wrong, there is again an unwillingness to debate an issue.


I have spent months reading every report, looking to produce a report on Bucks Row, based on what evidence we actually have.
It was your suggestion that the neck wound was possibly done last which set me off on this. I did this with no preset agenda of my own, but rather a wish to see if your suggestion was possible, and if so what effect it may have had on the"blood evidence"

My view has changed several times while I have been doing this, first one way and then the other, and although I am about 90% finished I am still not sure enough to reach a definite conclusion on all the issues .

I could just post what I have, but I want it to be fair, which I feel it is, and complete, which it is not at present; So please don't suggest I need to read more and be fair in how I do it.

The tendency to make disparaging remarks about certain posters is unfortunate in my view as are posts suggesting those who disagree have closed minds.

you have a great time too


Steve

[Patrick S]

I hope you are joking, and not being sarcastic, Patrick?

It´s not about James Green only, it is also about his mother, who professed to be a very light sleeper. She would reasonably have heard if her son got dressed and sneaked out, only to later return back into New Cottage, undress and go to bed again. This is from the inquest:

"Emma Green, of New Cottage, Buck's row, said - I am a widow and occupy the cottage next to where the deceased was found. I have a daughter and two sons living with me. On the night before the murder I went to bed about eleven o'clock, my children going about an hour earlier. My bedroom is on the first floor, and I do not remember waking till I heard a knock at the street door.

The Coroner: What time was that?

Witness: I should think about four o'clock. I opened the window and looked out. There were several constables near my door.

Coroner: Did you see any body on the ground?

Witness: I saw something like a body but it was very dark at the time, and I could hardly distinguish it.

Coroner: I may take it that you heard no noise during the night?

Witness: None of us heard any.

Coroner: Are you a heavy sleeper?

Witness: A very light sleeper."

A mother is a mother, and she may have protected her son, the Ripper, of course. And there has actually been a suggestion that James Green was the killer - that was when somebody mixed up the two James Greens of the Ripper saga, though, so it was nothing but a mistake.

You are most welcome to vote for young James as the Ripper, should you wish to. And you are welcome to make a mockery of what I say too. But I would personally find it sad, since we have found out that we actually can discuss intelligibly with each other.

She was a very light sleeper? I see. Case closed. Nothing to see here.

But, wait......She didn't hear the commotion around the body, Neil calling to Thain and Mizen. She awakened when the police knocked on the door, unaware of the rest of it. Sounds like she was either a pretty heavy sleeper or she was actually protecting her son, as you said, The Ripper. So far, we've established far fewer moving parts with my theory than with yours, no Mizen scams, "alternate names", conversations out of earshot, impossible establishment of times, how long it took from point a to point b, who had the time exact, who had it wrong. All a require is a mother who was either sound asleep, or protecting her son. Neither is much of stretch. Plus, I don't have to wonder how long it took the Ripper to walk from 22 Doveton Street. The Ripper was used his HOME as his home base. Either protected by his family, leveraging the ignorance, willful or otherwise. Wasn't you who have given myriad examples of "serialists" with families, operating with them unaware of his awful activities. Here we have Green only having to enlist or fool a sister, a brother, a mother, rather than wife and ten kids.

[Fisherman]

That seems perfectly plausible to me.

Steve

So this, Steve, is your answer to how Dusty tells you that the wording used does not necessarily mean that the blood was STILL running.

The Morning Advertiser:

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

Does that in any way change your mind?

I have too much to do to participate in these surrealistic exchanges. You need to get a grip of the matter, to read all the sources and to make a fair weighing.

People don´t, not out here. And when anyone listens to Dusty, they are in very serious trouble, I´m afraid.

I´m off. Have a wonderful life.

[Fisherman]

Let me understand this, Christer. Lechmere can pretend that he didn't kill Nichols, that he didn't know she was dead, give an "alternate" name, tell Mizen he was "wanted" in Bucks Row....but Green cannot pretend he as asleep. In order suspect the "Pavement Cleaner" must we have him sitting in the road? Hanging out the window? Clearly, only Lechmere is capable of the level of sinister intellect required to pretend he's asleep.

I hope you are joking, and not being sarcastic, Patrick?

It´s not about James Green only, it is also about his mother, who professed to be a very light sleeper. She would reasonably have heard if her son got dressed and sneaked out, only to later return back into New Cottage, undress and go to bed again. This is from the inquest:

"Emma Green, of New Cottage, Buck's row, said - I am a widow and occupy the cottage next to where the deceased was found. I have a daughter and two sons living with me. On the night before the murder I went to bed about eleven o'clock, my children going about an hour earlier. My bedroom is on the first floor, and I do not remember waking till I heard a knock at the street door.

The Coroner: What time was that?

Witness: I should think about four o'clock. I opened the window and looked out. There were several constables near my door.

Coroner: Did you see any body on the ground?

Witness: I saw something like a body but it was very dark at the time, and I could hardly distinguish it.

Coroner: I may take it that you heard no noise during the night?

Witness: None of us heard any.

Coroner: Are you a heavy sleeper?

Witness: A very light sleeper."

A mother is a mother, and she may have protected her son, the Ripper, of course. And there has actually been a suggestion that James Green was the killer - that was when somebody mixed up the two James Greens of the Ripper saga, though, so it was nothing but a mistake.

You are most welcome to vote for young James as the Ripper, should you wish to. And you are welcome to make a mockery of what I say too. But I would personally find it sad, since we have found out that we actually can discuss intelligibly with each other.

[Patrick S]

Since he was inside the house with his mother and had to be awaken by her after the murder as I remember things, I dare say there´s no such need.

Let me understand this, Christer. Lechmere can pretend that he didn't kill Nichols, that he didn't know she was dead, give an "alternate" name, tell Mizen he was "wanted" in Bucks Row....but Green cannot pretend he as asleep. In order suspect the "Pavement Cleaner" must we have him sitting in the road? Hanging out the window? Clearly, only Lechmere is capable of the level of sinister intellect required to pretend he's asleep.

[Elamarna]

Maybe, but it still appeared to be running even when Mizen arrived on the scene:

There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter (Echo, 3rd Sept)

Compare this with Edward Spooner, who arrived at Dutfield's Yard some time after Liz Stride sustained her throat wound:

Was any blood coming from the throat? - Yes; it was still flowing

Did you notice whether the blood was still moving on the ground? - It was running down the gutter (Daily Telegraph, 3rd Oct)

Spooner seems to have erred in respect of time (or his testimony fell foul of a typo), saying he arrived at Dutfield's about "25 minutes to one". I'd suggest that what he really meant, and perhaps what he really said, was that he got there at 25 past one, which would fit in with what happened in Dutfield's Yard/IWMEC before the "Berner Street Runners" were dispatched to get help, and who alerted Spooner in the first place.

If so, the blood from Stride's wound appeared to be "running" perhaps half an hour after her death.

The same appears to be true in the case of Alice Mckenzie, at least according to the statements of one witness, who claim it was flowing for a considerable time.

We are relying on lay person descriptions which may or may not be accurate and which seem to be contrary to accepted science at times.



Steve

[Elamarna]

Hello Steve,

>>Neil certainly uses oozing.
However Mizen does not say oozing and that as I understand it is part of the issue.<<


Of Course when Mizen saw the the blood is contentious. And the description "running" does NOT necessarily men it was actually still running. Blackwell, who by his own reckoning believed Mrs Stride had been killed 30 minutes before his arrival, described the blood as "running". Presumably, what he meant was "had run".

Hi Dusty,

That seems perfectly plausible to me.

There is also the factor that we cannot dismiss, that the blood oozing that Neil saw my have been caused by blood pooled in a cavity leaking because either her Paul moved the body.

I feel that the suggestion is less likely but cannot be ruled out.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Sorry I was out most of yesterday, but some very interesting point have been made.

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".

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

Plus we have Neil saying the blood was running. And we have Mizen saying the blood was running."

Now lots is being batted back and forth, with little effect so lets look at what was actually said.


Neil as it has already been stated gave two differently worded answers to questions at the inquest:

1.)“I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat. She was lying on her back, with her clothes disarranged”

The coroner at that point according to the press reports asked:

2.“The Coroner: Did you notice any blood where she was found?


Witness: There was a pool of blood just where her neck was lying. It was running from the wound in her neck.”


This account in particular the wording is backed by both the Evening News and The Times


Now lets look at Mizen's statements,




Echo 3rd September

“There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter.”



Star 3rd September

"He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed."


We have 2 versions here, which do not differ greatly, one as slightly more detail than the other, indeed the star version seems to back Neil's assertion there was a single pool. It also adds the blood was already somewhat congealed.
There is no reason I can see to think one is more correct than the other.


The comment By Mizen stating that the pool was somewhat congealed is very interesting, as this is only likely to happen once the flow has diminished significantly from the initial flow.


What we actually have is a description of "running" to describe flow towards the gutter, has I have suggested before it would be highly unusual to say that a fluid was "oozing" towards the gutter, "running" would be a more likely word to use in that particular context.

Basically it seems this is all about how one uses the English language

Given that Neil used the word "oozing" to describe the actual condition of the wound, it seems fair to accept that as the condition he saw, and by saying the blood was running into a pool and across the street was and is not contradictory.

The descriptions which use the word "running" are all describing the scene of the blood flowing across the road away from the throat, and the use of the term "running" seems perfectly in keeping there.

But that parameter is also disallowed. We only want Neils "oozed" to rule the day, and it MUST have meant trickled very slowly, it can NOT have meant "welled out of the neck with no underlying pressure", in spite of how Neil says that the blood was running in the next sentence.

Fish the approach you taking in suggesting that people do not see things from any but one direction is unfair.

I find your description:

"welled out of the neck with no underlying pressure,"


to be not that different from

"trickled very slowly"

Its a question of semantics is it not?



The real question is was the wound still actively bleeding ?

Neil's response suggests very probably not!

One of the issues we all have is that the descriptions used by the witnesses are far from scientifically accurate and it is hard to know just what is mean by the witness statements?


I see no problem with using "running" to describe the flow, it is not as David has rightly said at odds with "oozing".

However you appear to interpret this "oozing " has been in line with the conditions described by Payne-James, I disagree !

There will not have been any cascade of blood when Neil and Mizen looked at her, for the simple reason that there was not much blood in the pool. It probably flowed gently but steadily. But no matter how much blood came from the wound per second, it remains that it exited the body through a gaping hole, and it would therefore for reasons of gravitation have been over in a matter of minutes, more likely three or five minutes than seven, as per Payne-James.

When Payne-James gives a time, it is not a time for blood loss to stop completely, it is a estimation, based on sound scientific data, for the active flow to stop in normal conditions..

Apart from the obvious loss of circulation due to heart failure(Death) one of the major factors in this happening is the clotting time and formation of a scab, over the wound.

However has Fisherman rightly points out we have a a gaping hole in the neck, therefore it is highly unlikely that a scab would form and thus there would be little to stop the wound bleeding until the volume of blood left in the body was greatly reduced, it would however bleed at a much slower rate, and "oozing" is a good description of this.

A further factor to consider is what effect the bleeding from the abdominal wounds would have on the reduction in flow/pressure, and an additional factor which I have been looking at is Fisherman's suggestion that the throat wounds were performed after the abdomen wound, this may also have an effect on the condition of the neck wound when seen by Neil.


This is the issue I am still grappling with.


The comments about the bleed time being 3-5 minutes are very true,

However this causes a very real issue given the time-lines suggested, in particular for the comments of Mizen!

Basically if it was still actively bleeding rather than seeping or oozing,(as would be if one accepts Mizens statements) the timings for the death cut do not fit with the time line for Paul and Lechmere finding Mizen, and he going to the body and seeing the flow.

Inevitably we are are then looking at a far longer time than 3-5 minutes, particularly if the throat is indeed cut first.

I have been prepared to push this 3-5 minutes a few minutes further, but in this case we are really talking about doubling the time!


Steve

[Fisherman]

I notice, Dust, that in your multitude of posts, you do not go near the fact that you had the question you claimed I was running from extensively answered?

Maybe there is more coming from your printing press, though. Let´s see.

[Fisherman]

I am very sorry to have confused this, Christer. I beg forgiveness. Now, I've quite nearly proven James Green was Jack the Ripper. Shall we get "the pavement cleaner" off the hook?

Since he was inside the house with his mother and had to be awaken by her after the murder as I remember things, I dare say there´s no such need.

[John G]

That's not what I'm suggesting, John. It's a very easy, and understandable, slip that would account for "25 past one" being reported, or said, as "25 to one". 25 past fits in very well with events at the IWMEC; from Dymshitz's discovery, his checking that his wife was OK, informing people inside the club, club members inspecting the scene, club members fanning out to find a policeman, their alerting Spooner in the process, and the latter's arrival on site.

The problem is, Gareth, that 1:25 doesn't correspond with the known facts. Thus, Dr Blackwell checked his watch upon arrival and it was precisely 1:16. PC Lamb said that this was 10 minutes after he arrived on the scene, which was therefore about 1:06. And Spooner stated PC Lamb arrived about 5 minutes later than him, meaning that he arrived at about 1:01 and therefore, unless Dr Blackwell's watch was seriously defective, most definitely not 1:25.

See: http://www.casebook.org/witnesses/w/Edward_Spooner.html and http://www.casebook.org/witnesses/w/Henry_Lamb.html and http://www.casebook.org/witnesses/fr...blackwell.html