The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[John G]

Ah! Now I see! I don´t hold those views at all - I recommended them as a bit better than "nonsense", as suggested by Patrick.

"A realistic prospect of conviction", by the way - it would hinge on the defense Lechmere could put up. If he put up no defense at all, then I would think there was a very good chance of a conviction based on the case evidence. On the face of things - "prima faciae" - he looks like the killer.

Okay, fair enough. For what it's worth, I certainly don't consider him to be a hopeless suspect. And, in my opinion, he's certainly a better suspect than, say, James Maybrick, Michael Maybrick or Walter Sickert!

[David Orsam]

well I think we can safely say that according to the blood evidence that polly was probably killed very soon upon being discovered, right? I mean at least within the half hour(or 15 minutes?) at the very most.

and that shortens the window of time someone could have killed her does it not?

The whole Biggs thing started when I raised the issue of whether the evidence about the blood still oozing at 3.45 (when PC Neil said he found the body), or 3.50 when Mizen seems to have arrived, meant that we could rule out Nichols being murdered before a certain time (i.e. 3.30).

In response, Trevor Marriott contacted Dr Biggs who said this:

"I think that, though it might seem unlikely for a significant quantity of blood to be flowing out of a body several minutes after death, it would certainly be possible for blood still to be dripping / oozing out of a body 20 mins later. This is likely to be minimal (almost negligible) in nature, as the majority of the blood that was able to come out would have done so much sooner. If a witness discovered a body that was still bleeding relatively profusely then the injuries are likely to have been inflicted more recently than 20 mins previously… but if the 20 min period is critical in ruling out / in certain suspects then I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility of some continued blood loss at this time, as I think it would be possible. (I base this on my own observations of seeing blood leak out of bodies when I have been present at murder scenes some hours after death. This is why I am open to many things being ‘possible’, even though I can’t state categorically what ‘would’ or ‘would not’ have happened in an individual case."

For me, this means that no, we cannot "safely" fix a time of death from the evidence of the blood still oozing. If it can leak out at murder scenes "some hours" after death then how can we?

[Abby Normal]

Yes, absolutely. What I should have said is that it proves nothing as regards the case against Lechmere.

Just out of interest, do you consider John Richardson a lesser suspect? For instance, he admitted to being in possession of a knife and gave contradictory accounts: http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-doubt.html

Hi JohnG
Thanks! Re Richardson-well I think his story has some yellow flags in it too. Also, he admitted he was there, with a knife, and Physically could have been her killer. I think its "witnesses" like him and Lechmere, hutch, bowyer etc. that definitely warrant a closer look. so to answer your question directly-yes I view him as a lesser "suspect" than lech, but certainly viable. many "witnesses" in the annals of murder turn out to be the killer.

[Patrick S]

well I think we can safely say that according to the blood evidence that polly was probably killed very soon upon being discovered, right? I mean at least within the half hour(or 15 minutes?) at the very most.

and that shortens the window of time someone could have killed her does it not?

It's worth pointing out, also, that this is true of several canonical victims, isn't it? It's likely that Eddowes was killed within an even smaller window. Of course, her killer didn't stick around to provide guided tour of her body as Lechmere is supposed to have done with Paul. If you buy Stride as a Ripper victim, how long do we estimate she was on the ground before Louis and his horse came upon her? Two minutes? One? Chapman and Kelly were killed in environments that offered some level of secrecy, a backyard, an interior room. Bodies on the street weren't likely to go undiscovered for long. Lechmere following along behind the killer fails to convince that he was the killer.

[Fisherman]

Okay, fair enough. For what it's worth, I certainly don't consider him to be a hopeless suspect. And, in my opinion, he's certainly a better suspect than, say, James Maybrick, Michael Maybrick or Walter Sickert!

Not sure if I am supposed to thank you for that...

[John G]

The whole Biggs thing started when I raised the issue of whether the evidence about the blood still oozing at 3.45 (when PC Neil said he found the body), or 3.50 when Mizen seems to have arrived, meant that we could rule out Nichols being murdered before a certain time (i.e. 3.30).

In response, Trevor Marriott contacted Dr Biggs who said this:

"I think that, though it might seem unlikely for a significant quantity of blood to be flowing out of a body several minutes after death, it would certainly be possible for blood still to be dripping / oozing out of a body 20 mins later. This is likely to be minimal (almost negligible) in nature, as the majority of the blood that was able to come out would have done so much sooner. If a witness discovered a body that was still bleeding relatively profusely then the injuries are likely to have been inflicted more recently than 20 mins previously… but if the 20 min period is critical in ruling out / in certain suspects then I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility of some continued blood loss at this time, as I think it would be possible. (I base this on my own observations of seeing blood leak out of bodies when I have been present at murder scenes some hours after death. This is why I am open to many things being ‘possible’, even though I can’t state categorically what ‘would’ or ‘would not’ have happened in an individual case."

For me, this means that no, we cannot "safely" fix a time of death from the evidence of the blood still oozing. If it can leak out at murder scenes "some hours" after death then how can we?

But Dr Biggs doesn't say that it would be likely that blood would still be oozing from the body after 20 minutes.

[Patrick S]

Not sure if I am supposed to thank you for that...

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

[Fisherman]

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

Now we´re talking!

[John G]

Hi JohnG
Thanks! Re Richardson-well I think his story has some yellow flags in it too. Also, he admitted he was there, with a knife, and Physically could have been her killer. I think its "witnesses" like him and Lechmere, hutch, bowyer etc. that definitely warrant a closer look. so to answer your question directly-yes I view him as a lesser "suspect" than lech, but certainly viable. many "witnesses" in the annals of murder turn out to be the killer.

Thanks Abby. It does seem, however, that there was some suspicion against Richardson, hence the coroner instructed him to produce his knife. He then returned with a blunt knife, which he conceded was not sharp enough to cut shoe leather, even though he'd previously admitted to using the knife to do just that!

[Elamarna]

There seems to be some confusion about what is called the "blood evidence"

Let me try and make clear exactly what this is:

Firstly we have an expert view (James-Payne) on how long it a major cut, such as the throat wounds to Nichols, would bleed for, this is how long it would actively flow.

There will always be a possibility that a wound may leak blood for a considerable time, this has been comment on by another expert (Biggs), what he says is NOT at odds with what Payne-James, who is talking about free flow.


This time will vary from person to person and there may be a considerable difference if someone has problems with clotting.

In addition, additional wounds may have a bearing on the what I term active flow time,

So that is the theory.


How it is applied in this case is the issue.

Excluding Lechmere, the first witness is Paul who sees no blood, so no information available there on the bloodflow.

Next we have PC Neil, who gives a description, this is followed by PC Mizen who also makes comments.


The whole question of the state of the wound and how the blood was flowing in this case is mainly down to how one interprets what they say.
This assessment must be done in conjunction with assessing what effect other wounds may have had on the flow time.

This is what I have been researching and it is fairly complicated.
While I am fairly sure on how the witness evidence should be interpreted, it is the question of what effect, if any, the abdomen wounds may have had on the flow time.

This has meant I have not yet reached a firm conclusion on the "blood evidence".


Steve

[Fisherman]

But Dr Biggs doesn't say that it would be likely that blood would still be oozing from the body after 20 minutes.

The pertinent fact to note is that much as Biggs may well have seen bodies of murder victims leak out blood after 20 minutes, he would NOT have seen the type of murder represented by Nichols doing the same thing. If a murder victim suffers only minor damage to the blood vessels, I am sure they can bleed for the longest. I am equally sure that people who have every major vessel in their necks severed will NOT bleed for the longest, especially not if there is no obstacle for the blood to leave the body.

This is the type of thing Jason Payne-James meant when he said that suggestions from lawyers sometimes became absurd:
"If it can bleed two minutes, then surely it can bleed three minutes?"
"Yes, but..."
"And if it can bleed three minutes, then surely it can bleed four minutes?"
"Well, I..."
"And if it can bleed..."

Using that tactic, the formerly mentioned Tutanchamon could still be bleeding.

We MUST be specific when discussing specific wounds. Why we would drag in the mentioning that dead people CAN bleed for many, many minutes or even half an hour, is beyond me, if we do not get any specification of the particular cases and damages it concerns.

Polly Nichols´ wounds in the neck was a spinal column away from a decapitation, and the paper srticles pointed to a gaping wound, something that is consistent with the position of the body. That means something.

[John G]

The pertinent fact to note is that much as Biggs may well have seen bodies of murder victims leak out blood after 20 minutes, he would NOT have seen the type of murder represented by Nichols doing the same thing. If a murder victim suffers only minor damage to the blood vessels, I am sure they can bleed for the longest. I am equally sure that people who have every major vessel in their necks severed will NOT bleed for the longest, especially not if there is no obstacle for the blood to leave the body.

This is the type of thing Jason Payne-James meant when he said that suggestions from lawyers sometimes became absurd:
"If it can bleed two minutes, then surely it can bleed three minutes?"
"Yes, but..."
"And if it can bleed three minutes, then surely it can bleed four minutes?"
"Well, I..."
"And if it can bleed..."

Using that tactic, the formerly mentioned Tutanchamon could still be bleeding.

We MUST be specific when discussing specific wounds. Why we would drag in the mentioning that dead people CAN bleed for many, many minutes or even half an hour, is beyond me, if we do not get any specification of the particular cases and damages it concerns.

Polly Nichols´ wounds in the neck was a spinal column away from a decapitation, and the paper srticles pointed to a gaping wound, something that is consistent with the position of the body. That means something.

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

[Elamarna]

The whole Biggs thing started when I raised the issue of whether the evidence about the blood still oozing at 3.45 (when PC Neil said he found the body), or 3.50 when Mizen seems to have arrived, meant that we could rule out Nichols being murdered before a certain time (i.e. 3.30).

In response, Trevor Marriott contacted Dr Biggs who said this:

"I think that, though it might seem unlikely for a significant quantity of blood to be flowing out of a body several minutes after death, it would certainly be possible for blood still to be dripping / oozing out of a body 20 mins later. This is likely to be minimal (almost negligible) in nature, as the majority of the blood that was able to come out would have done so much sooner. If a witness discovered a body that was still bleeding relatively profusely then the injuries are likely to have been inflicted more recently than 20 mins previously… but if the 20 min period is critical in ruling out / in certain suspects then I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility of some continued blood loss at this time, as I think it would be possible. (I base this on my own observations of seeing blood leak out of bodies when I have been present at murder scenes some hours after death. This is why I am open to many things being ‘possible’, even though I can’t state categorically what ‘would’ or ‘would not’ have happened in an individual case."

For me, this means that no, we cannot "safely" fix a time of death from the evidence of the blood still oozing. If it can leak out at murder scenes "some hours" after death then how can we?

David ,

Very true if the wound was oozing I fail to see how it could fix a time at all.

However is not the argument which has been given that the blood was still flowing, meaning that Lechmere had to be at the murder site at the approximate time the fatal cut?


Steve

[David Orsam]

Why we would drag in the mentioning that dead people CAN bleed for many, many minutes or even half an hour, is beyond me

Might it have something to do with preventing innocent people being falsely accused of murder?

[David Orsam]

David ,

Very true if the wound was oozing I fail to see how it could fix a time at all.

However is not the argument which has been given that the blood was still flowing, meaning that Lechmere had to be at the murder site at the approximate time the fatal cut?

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.