The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Abby Normal]

Well. I think that if the blood was running, perhaps if was even only oozing then Robert Paul was correct. Nichols was breathing, if only barely when Lechmere called him over to have a look at her. The killer had throttled her, heard Lechmere arrive, hid nearby, emerged when they left and finished her off. Thus, Neil DID find a VERY 'freshly killed' Polly Nichols. Maybe it's time we start looking at people who lived in Buck's Row? Someone who picked up Nichols, choked her out, darted inside and watched Lechmere and Paul fiddle about, popped out when they left and finished up?

So comes back cuts her throat, mutilates her abdomen and takes off all before PC Neil arrives? Makes the lech theory seem pedestrian by comparison.

[Patrick S]

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".


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

But non of these parameters are allowed to come into play.

We have scores of examples on the net of people writing "oozed profusely".

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.

Itīs a game of pick and choose, and just the one word is picked, and the right to interpret it belongs to those who will never accept that the blood was running.

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.

That is all I have to say on the issue.

Well. I think that if the blood was running, perhaps if was even only oozing then Robert Paul was correct. Nichols was breathing, if only barely when Lechmere called him over to have a look at her. The killer had throttled her, heard Lechmere arrive, hid nearby, emerged when they left and finished her off. Thus, Neil DID find a VERY 'freshly killed' Polly Nichols. Maybe it's time we start looking at people who lived in Buck's Row? Someone who picked up Nichols, choked her out, darted inside and watched Lechmere and Paul fiddle about, popped out when they left and finished up?

[Patrick S]

But he doesn't say it was "flowing" either.

The problem I have with this "blood evidence", beyond the fact that no medical/scientific observations were recorded, is that these statements weren't elaborated upon. Clearly Baxter gave them little credence as he did not press Neil to expand upon them.

Neil made two statements that - I suppose - we are now labeling "blood evidence". Here is the first:

"Deceased was lying lengthways along the street, her left hand touching the gate. I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat."

Neil goes on to explain the position of the body, the state of her clothing, etc. Baxter does not ask Neil to elaborate on his chosen verb (oozing). He does NOT ask any follow-up questions such as, "Do you mean the blood was actively flowing from the wound when you found the body? Is this your recollection? Or do you mean to say simply that the blood was visible, having flowed from the wound? Was the blood congealed at this point? How would you describe the consistency of the blood? The color?"

Neil goes on to say this:

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

Baxter does not stop Neil and say, "PC Neil. Earlier in your testimony you used the term "oozing". Now you say the blood was "running". These two terms create very different impressions. Which was it now? Oozing? Running? Are you simply trying to tell us that you observed that blood HAD flowed from the neck wound to this pool you describe or was it actively RUNNING, as you now say? Or was it OOZING, as you said earlier? This is important, PC Neil. Think."

Clearly, Baxter took no notice of Neil's contradiction, as he immediately (according to press reports) asked this:

"Did you hear any noise that night?"

Llewellyn was the doctor at the scene. These are his contributions to the "blood evidence" (as I've been informed that our metric for establishing "blood evidence" is , basically, any instance where someone mentions the word "blood"):

"There was very little blood round the neck. There were no marks of any struggle or of blood, as if the body had been dragged."

"No blood at all was found on the breast either of the body or clothes."

Someone please inform me how we are supposed to view this "blood evidence" exactly?

[Fisherman]

Hi Steve,

The problem is PC Neil effectively contradicted himself at the inquest. Firstly, he said blood was "oozing" from the wound, but then he described it as "running from the wound in her neck." It's also worth noting that Paul said he believed she was still breathing when he examined her, i.e. after he placed his hand on her heart.

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".

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

But non of these parameters are allowed to come into play.

We have scores of examples on the net of people writing "oozed profusely".

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.

Itīs a game of pick and choose, and just the one word is picked, and the right to interpret it belongs to those who will never accept that the blood was running.

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.

That is all I have to say on the issue.

[Fisherman]

Okay, but didn't Payne-James say that blood could have leaked or dribbled out of the neck for several minutes?

No, he did not say several - he said minutes. And in private correspondance with me, when I asked if it would have bled for three, five or seven minutes, he answered that the two shorter times were the more realistic suggestions.

[GUT]

If it makes you feel better he's also better than Lewis Carroll, Prince Albert Victor, and Jill the Ripper.

And Van Gogh.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Yes, this is a possible interpretation. Thus, "running" could have referred to the "pool of blood just where her neck was lying", not to the wound in her neck.

Yes John,

That is a possible viewpoint.

However has I have said I have not reach a full conclusion on the bloodflow.


Steve

[John G]

John this is the issue is it not.

Neil at first says the wound was oozing, he then says the blood is running from the neck on to the roadway.

Is that a contradiction?

I guess it all about how we use language is it not?

I see oozing being the description of the flow from the wound and the running the description of the flow on the road.
For instance the blood was running from the body onto the road and into the gutter.
I mean would one say it was oozing across the road? I certainly would not.


I therefore suggest on the balance of probability that he used ooze to describe the actual wound because that is what he saw.


However I am sure others will disagree on that interpretation.


Steve

Hi Steve,

Yes, this is a possible interpretation. Thus, "running" could have referred to the "pool of blood just where her neck was lying", not to the blood emanating from the wound in her neck.

[John G]

So if I say my nose is running, it must mean mucus is coming out quickly?

I can't say my nose is running slowly?

And if I take a piece of chalk and draw a line on the ground, can I say: "I have drawn a line running from point A to point B?". Does that imply speed of any kind?

I would agree that, in this context, the word is ambiguous!

[Elamarna]

But he doesn't say it was "flowing" either.

I agree David.

However that is how the evidence has been interpreted by some I believe.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Put simply, oozing means slow, whilst running generally means quick.

John this is the issue is it not.

Neil at first says the wound was oozing, he then says the blood is running from the neck on to the roadway.

Is that a contradiction?

I guess it all about how we use language is it not?

I see oozing being the description of the flow from the wound and the running the description of the flow on the road.
For instance the blood was running from the body onto the road and into the gutter.
I mean would one say it was oozing across the road? I certainly would not.


I therefore suggest on the balance of probability that he used ooze to describe the actual wound because that is what he saw.


However I am sure others will disagree on that interpretation.


Steve

[David Orsam]

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

But he doesn't say it was "flowing" either.

[David Orsam]

Put simply, oozing means slow, whilst running generally means quick.

So if I say my nose is running, it must mean mucus is coming out quickly?

I can't say my nose is running slowly?

And if I take a piece of chalk and draw a line on the ground, can I say: "I have drawn a line running from point A to point B?". Does that imply speed of any kind?

[Elamarna]

If you mean that Fisherman has put this argument forward Steve then that's possible but I'm not aware of any witness saying that the blood was "flowing".

Oozing means to flow slowly or gently but that's as fast as I am aware that the blood was seen to be flowing.

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

If I am wrong about this I am sure I will be corrected quickly.

Once again if it's only oozing there is no way to pinpoint the time of the fatal cut.

Steve

[John G]

How is that a contradiction?

Put simply, oozing means slow, whilst running generally means quick.