Lechmere The Psychopath

[Abby Normal]

But I still fail to see how giving Mizen the name of Cross would help if he had been the killer and wanted to get away with it.

I have read nearly all posts on just about every thread on Lechmere, and watched your most intriguing documentary. You have made a case that is significantly stronger than others (the wide-boy, his dodgy DNA "expert" and the piece of cloth, Cornwall's Sickert nonsense, dear Dale and Vincent, and above all, Pierre's "I have found him but I'm not going to tell you" rubbish), but I am not persuaded.

If the "carman" was the killer and wanted to get away with it he would not IMO have used a name by which he was (or at least had been) known, that was used in at least one census, and was the surname of his stepfather.

Why not "my name is <insert false name> and I live at <insert false address>..........and be on his way?

I just couldn't put the noose around Crossmere's neck on the basis that he used a name by which he was known!

hi Rocky
first off-we don't know cross was the name he was known by. all we know is he used Lechmere on official documents and Cross on this Nichols issue.
The question is why?
If he was guilty he might wanted to keep his common name out of the paper but still was cautious about a flat out lie by giving police a totaaly false name and address. and he certainly couldn't give a false address without serious problems if the police found out about that!

I also agree with you re other nonsense suspects. but I don't think lech is one of them either. He is exactly the type of person (or "witness") that needs to be looked closely IMHO.

[Rainbow]

I agree Fisherman,

I don't won't to convince anyone, I have noticed and certain, there are people who will never be convinced, this is the life and I accept it.

All I am saying, that I am happily convinced, in my mind, there is no time for a phantom killer whatsoever, Paul said those words in the inquest, I accept them, why did I brought him and asked him in the first place if I want to discard such a very important statement ?!

Let others do this.

[Henry Flower]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;419391]

It's fairly simple, basic stuff, and the the way this question is posed strikes me as displaying either a remarkable lack of basic physiological knowledge...

Canīt be ruled out!

... or else a needless desire to score points in an argument.

THAT would be a first!

The breathing is the result of the brain and CNS regulating muscles of the ribs and the diaphragm. But If the body loses too much blood the heart fails, and soon after, the brain and CNS will die due to oxygen starvation. However, even this is subject to variables. The mechanism and timing of brain death after heart failure is also not set in stone.

There was clearly no conflict between what I said and what Steve said, Christer. I feel you're being willfully cheeky

Me? Nah. What I was thinking of was how muscles are divided up into two categories - those we regulate by will and those we cannot regulate by will. Like the breathing muscles, for example; we cannot commit suicide by holding out breath. So I was kind of curious what applied. And my gut instinct tells me that nobody with the kind of damage Nichols had can breathe for a couple of minutes. But I am happy to stand corrected on that score if that gut feeling is wrong.

You may be right, Christer. My gut instinct tends to agree with you. But it's not my area of expertise, so my gut instinct gets put where it belongs:

[Fisherman]

ohrocky: But I still fail to see how giving Mizen the name of Cross would help if he had been the killer and wanted to get away with it.

He did not give Mizen any name at all. Nor did Paul. No adress or working place was offered, and Mizen did not ask for any such information.
This is why some say that Mizen was a lousy copper.
It is also why some say that Mizen was a good copper, who was fooled into believing that there was another PC in Bucks Row who had the errand in hand.

The name Cross was something the carman used after having had eons of time to ponder what to tell the police. My suggestion is that he chose "Cross" because he wanted to keep his identity hidden to the newspapers, not to the police; they got his address and working place too, so they could ID him. But there is only one paper reporting bis address, and I believe this was because he never offered it in open court. So I think the Star reporter got it from a desk clerk, which was why he got it spot on spellingwise. None of the other papers got a syllable of it, or if they did, they rejected the idea of publishing it.

My conclusion: Lechmere tried to hide his identity from those who got information from the papers. Friends, family, aquaintances - people who know his paths.

I have read nearly all posts on just about every thread on Lechmere, and watched your most intriguing documentary. You have made a case that is significantly stronger than others (the wide-boy, his dodgy DNA "expert" and the piece of cloth, Cornwall's Sickert nonsense, dear Dale and Vincent, and above all, Pierre's "I have found him but I'm not going to tell you" rubbish), but I am not persuaded.

I am. And I often think about how some will have it that it was Druitt who turned the corner at the schoolhouse as Lechmere came into Bucks Row, while others opt for Levy. Or Kosminski. Or... well, you name it!
However, I can only do so much. I cannot force people to go against their instincts - after all, I go with mine, so why would i disallow others to do the same?

If the "carman" was the killer and wanted to get away with it he would not IMO have used a name by which he was (or at least had been) known, that was used in at least one census, and was the surname of his stepfather.

Any other truly false name would, however, have gotten him into real trouble with the police if they checked him out.
Cross - yeah, I use that name since my stepfather was called it.
Jenkins? Well, I just felt like it. Do you mind? Really?

I trust you can see the distinction.

Why not "my name is <insert false name> and I live at <insert false address>..........and be on his way?

LIke I said, he never gave any name at all to Mizen. I do think he would have been more likely to do a Jenkins in that case, though, hoping to be lost afterwards and having had less time to contemplate the different options.

I just couldn't put the noose around Crossmere's neck on the basis that he used a name by which he was known!

Ouch! I would advice agaisnt claiming that he was known by the name of Cross. There is absolutely no evidence to support that take - we only know that it was a deviation from his usual manners when he used it, because he otherwise regularly used "Lechmere" with the aouthorities.
No matter what, I would never hang him on account of the name issue only. Iīm not sure that I would hang him at all, come what may - but I AM sure that there are many more factors involved in the accusation act than the name issue.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Henry Flower;419395]

You may be right, Christer. My gut instinct tends to agree with you. But it's not my area of expertise, so my gut instinct gets put where it belongs:

Hmm. We donīt know where it belongs, methinks. It is not until that happens that we head for the toilet OR the trophy shelf.

[Fisherman]

Iīm worried. The debate is fair and measured and nobody is puking on the Lechmere theory.

What happened?

[Elamarna]

I noticed that Henry Flower opted for the brain steering the breathing process. But you seem to say that it is connected to the heart? So which is it? Will the braindead or the heartdead breathe go on breathing longer?

It's not as clear cut as that, if the heartfails circulation stops and all organs are affected,
In Nichols case the brain has been deprived of oxogen and brain death will occur first. The lungs may well continue to function for a period in those circumstances.
.

And she may have had the aorta severed, Steve. There is nothing contradicting it. We should also acknowledge that there is a time factor involved - if many large vessels are severed in the abdomen, then the brain WILL be deprived of oxygen at some time.

I do not deny it is possible however I consider it unlikely. No mention of it by Llewellyn helps neither side of the argument. The other vessels all mentioned by Kjab3112 do not bleed fast enough for the time frame.


There is no evidence for any of the organs in the abdomen being cut, Steve, so I find the argument that the aorta was not mentioned a bit superfluous. It was said that "all vital organs" or something such (I donīt remember the exact wording) were struck, and that says something about how the abdomen suffered very severe damage.

That is indeed what Llewellyn said , we differ on the intpretation and how reliable it is.
However as I said if the aorta were cut, death would be very quick. Breathing would probably stop before Paul examined her, especially if the aorta was cut before the Neck.

Yes, that is very clear - cutting the windpipe does not rule out breathing. But cutting the neck to the bone and all the vital organs of the abdomen does rule it out. And my hunch - a very unmedical one - is that we are looking at a very short perio of time.
Once more, feel free to agree, īcause it is coupled to no risk. I do not think it in any way established that Nichols was breathing as Paul felt her chest.

I will disagree in that damage to the abdomen will not overtly effect breathing unless the aorta is cut or the diapham is damaged.
And we do not know if such was true or not for either. Llewellyn did not serve us well by not being specific about the wounds.

Also cutting the Neck to the bone will not prevent breathing instantly, failure will ensure at some point be it by blood lose causing heart failure or by blood obstructing the windpipe.
I do agree with you that we have no way of knowing if Paul did detect breathing,personally I doubt it, but do not actually exclude the possibility.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Under five minutes what? Would she bleed for under five minutes? Or are you saying that she had not been dead for more than five minutes as Lechmere first saw her? Or as Paul first saw her? Please clarify!

Sorry the first cut is made less than 5 minutes from the time Paul see Lechmere.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: I will disagree in that damage to the abdomen will not overtly effect breathing unless the aorta is cut or the diapham is damaged.
And we do not know if such was true or not for either. Llewellyn did not serve us well by not being specific about the wounds.

If the damage done is enough to kill, it WILL effect the breathing, Iīm afraid. And since Llewellyn asserts us that this was precisely so, I tend to believe him.
On a different note, I think Llewellyn served you better than he served me, because he enabled you to opine that the aorta and the diaphragm may NOT have been hurt...

Also cutting the Neck to the bone will not prevent breathing instantly, failure will ensure at some point be it by blood lose causing heart failure or by blood obstructing the windpipe.

The guess that it will be a very short process must be a really good one, though - that is how I look upon it.

I do agree with you that we have no way of knowing if Paul did detect breathing,personally I doubt it, but do not actually exclude the possibility.

We canīt, simple as that. I think the possibility is larger than the possibility that he did not, since he mentioned it. But no certainty at all can be reached.

[Elamarna]

Saying that the heart is the organ that controls breathing and that she will continue to breath till the heart stop is out of any science or knowledge.

and the suggestion was not that she will stop breathing because the windpipe was cut. She suffered a monstrous abdominal injury and the head was almost severed from the body, and she can't continue to breath for more than a minute or two.

That is not what was said.
The lungs will not function if there is no blood supply. So if the heart stops so will the lungs cease to function.

Dr Biggs in the book I quoted is clear about the effects of severing a windpipe.

Breathing is controlled by the brain, and the central nervous system, this was still intact in Nichols the spinal column was intact.


Steve

[Rainbow]

The brain has lost his blood supply, within a couple of minutes , there will be no activity in the brain that could be ever measured.

[Elamarna]

If the damage done is enough to kill, it WILL effect the breathing, Iīm afraid. And since Llewellyn asserts us that this was precisely so, I tend to believe him.

And that is the point is it not?
As I happily acknowledge if the Aorta was cut then it would be a very quick death. Anything but that while it may ultimately lead to death would be secondary in blood loss to the Neck.

On a different note, I think Llewellyn served you better than he served me, because he enabled you to opine that the aorta and the diaphragm may NOT have been hurt...

A negative is not enough for a conclusive view as you well know, but it does help.

The guess that it will be a very short process must be a really good one, though - that is how I look upon it.

It's a good guess, but not the only option.

We canīt, simple as that. I think the possibility is larger than the possibility that he did not, since he mentioned it. But no certainty at all can be reached.

I find his own uncertainty edges me towards not; say 55/45%

Steve

[Elamarna]

Iīm worried. The debate is fair and measured and nobody is puking on the Lechmere theory.

What happened?

Simply most are not discussing Lechmere as such, but the injuries to Nichols.

And we are actually debating, rather than just repeating phrases, that certainly helps.

Steve

[Fisherman]

I find his own uncertainty edges me towards not; say 55/45%

Steve

Thatīs not how uncertainty works for me. If somebody says "I think I saw a man there", I donīt count it as a larger chance that there was nobody because the certainty was not there.

But it is a fairly academic issue anyway.

[Fisherman]

Simply most are not discussing Lechmere as such, but the injuries to Nichols.

And we are actually debating, rather than just repeating phrases, that certainly helps.

Steve

Oh, but surely there is no animosity per se against discussing Lechmere out here?