Framing Charles

[Trevor Marriott]

Again, even if the woman was no prostitute - and there are seasoned prostitutes with well shaped hands and groomed nails, just as there are those with such commodities who only just enroll in prostitution - there is absolutely no reason to think that the killer was only able to kill unfortunates or that he must have had that agenda.

As for bleeding times, it is not I who say that a woman with the kind of damage Nichols had would likely bleed out in three to five muntes, it is two renowned forensic pathology professors, so it is them you must convince that you are the better judge of matters medical, not me.

A body can have differing bleed out times for your benefit and others I have posted below a series of specific questions I posed to Dr Biggs a modern day forensic pathologist in relation to the Nichols murder

Q. I would like to talk about another victim Polly Nichols she was found murdered with her throat cut and some minor abdominal mutilations. It has been suggested that the person who found the body could have been her killer, as it was reported that blood was still flowing from the throat wound, and the body was still warm 30 minutes later when the doctor examined the body at the scene. Could a body with these injuries bleed from a neck wound for more than twenty minutes?

A. I think it is 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 the pressure inside the vessels would have dissipated and the volume of blood remaining available to leak out would have become very little.

In many cases, the majority of the blood found at the scene may have seeped out of the veins. This can happen under the influence of gravity, and therefore, is not dependent on a beating heart (i.e. blood can continue to seep out for quite some time after death). As long as there is still blood throughout the body it can theoretically still leak out under gravity, so there could be a period of several minutes where blood continues to flow after an injury (including after death... it is not unusual for a body that has been dead for some time to ‘bleed’ from a knife wound when you start moving it).

This is likely to be minimal (almost negligible) in nature, as the majority of the blood that could 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 minutes previously... but if the 20 minute 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.)

Q. To what extent would the position of the neck have had an impact on bleeding from such a wound?

A. The position of the neck could potentially influence the rate of flow of blood in that it could either ‘hold open’ or ‘squeeze shut’ various vascular injuries. In practice, if the neck was injured almost to the point of decapitation, then there might be little in the way of a ‘clamping’ effect possible no matter how the neck is angled. In simple terms, nasty neck wounds can bleed a lot (but don’t always). Blood can leak out after death (and for quite some time). You can’t tell anything about the time of injury/death by assessing the blood loss at the scene.

The short answer is that ‘a lot’ of blood would be lost from neck wounds such as this..., but the exact volume could vary greatly depending upon individual circumstances. In terms of time, there would be an initial rush of blood, but the victim’s blood pressure would rapidly subside (in a matter of seconds if the blood loss is particularly profuse) so that the rate of flow would become considerably less relatively soon after injury. After the circulation has stopped, it will be down to gravity to continue the blood loss, and clearly, this will depend on position/angle and so on.

Sometimes a wound will be ‘propped open’ by the position of the body, whereas in other cases the wound may be ‘squeezed shut’ by the weight of the body.
Things like vessel spasm and rapid clotting can be surprisingly good at staunching the flow of blood from even very catastrophic injuries. Even if a person is lying such that their injury is gaping open and is ‘down’ in terms of gravitational direction, this does not necessarily mean that blood will continue to flow out until the body is ‘empty’. Things like collapsing vessels and valve effects can prevent this passive flow, and there are lots of ‘corners’ for the blood to go around (it is spread around lots of long thin tubes, not sitting in a large container) before it finds its way out of the injury... so it might end up ‘trapped’ within the body. I have certainly seen cases with multiple large knife wounds and copious blood at the scene, where a significant proportion of the victim’s blood has remained within the vessels to allow me to obtain good samples for toxicological analysis later in the mortuary.

Getting back to the specific case in question, if the body were lying motionless on the ground with significant open neck wounds, then I would imagine that at least a few hundred millilitres (and probably considerably more) could flow out passively and that this would happen within an initial couple of minutes. If this doesn’t sound like a lot, remember that a little blood can look like an awful lot when it is spilt onto the pavement. For the reasons mentioned above, it would be possible that a lot less blood would be apparent at the scene. It is also possible that a continued slow trickle could go on for many minutes after death if the wound/gravity conditions were right, ending up with even a few litres of blood being present in extreme circumstances.

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 before my examination... and yet the injuries continued to ‘bleed’ relatively profusely for quite some time. So much so that we struggled to get a ‘clean’ photograph as the blood flooded back as quickly as we could wipe it away! This is why I have been cautious about commenting on ‘maximum’ timings and quantities of blood loss.

Q. Would the wounds to the stomach have an impact on how long it took for her to bleed out?

A. Severe abdominal wounds would ‘contribute’ to the rapidity of bleeding to death, but this effect could range from almost negligible (if the neck wounds were so bad that death would have been very quick, and the abdominal wounds didn’t hit anything major) to be very great (if the neck wounds miraculously missed all the major vessels, and the abdominal wounds pranged something big).

There is nothing about blood flow from a wound that will help estimate the time of death. Dried blood on the skin can indicate the position of the body relative to the direction of gravity, but that’s about it.

Basically your theory is shot to pieces in more ways than one and a definate non starter, but fair play to you who has continued to stand by what you belive to be the truth

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Once again: every theory that is not proven is based on speculation. And it is not as if speculation is something bad. The Spitalfields victims were all killed along streets where Lechmere would logically have passed en route to work, and so saying that this is in line with him being the culprit and speculating that he was is sound and logical. The same goes for all the other inclusions in the theory - they are speculation, but sound speculation based on the facts.

There was a time when you were a copper, Trevor. During that time, you will on many occasions have suspected various people of being the culprit you looked for. The suspicions you harboured were - hopefully - not taken out of thin air. They should, if you did your job well, have been sound speculation.

Now, forget about how the inquest would have been aware of the name Lechmere until you can prove it. It is unsound speculation until then. Think about it as another of those many unlucky "coincidences" connected to Lechmere - while in scores of other cases there are two names mentioned, telling us that these people used aliases while they were registered by other names, how unlucky is it not that the authorities "forgot" to take down one of the two names the carman had so graciously supplied them with ...

Crimes are not solved on coicidences.

The fact that there was no mention made by the authorities of challenging this anomaly proves that there was nothing sinister when giving his evidence

Do you not think that with the police sitting in on the inquest they would have not sat up and took notice if he gave a different name to that which appeared on his statement, and the same applies to the coroner. There is no mention of anything sinster in his testimony or anything sinister when he was formally exmamined at the inquest.

There is no evidence of any suspicion against by the police at the time, or in any police documents or memoirs therefater.

You have well and truly burnt your bridges with your claims which are without foundation. There is no way back for you, other than to make a public statement accepting Lechmere should now be exonertated from any further suspicion

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Strangely, I'm with Fish on this one--at least halfway. Swanson's statement was written on the 10th, and is obviously based on a conversation with the police surgeons (who he mentions, though not by name); he was informed that the trunk was 'too full of blood' for hemorrhaging to have been the cause of death. It could have been a head wound, he writes, but it was impossible to say, because the head was missing.

But, as Fish rightly notes, the autopsy hadn't even been performed yet (it would be the following day, the 11th) and this belief was obviously revised.

What wasn't revised is what was noticed immediately, and what is stated explicitly in Hebbert's notes: the neck wound was moist and red, while the legs wounds were black and dry.

Thus, there is little or no reason to doubt Swanson's conclusion that "dismemberment had taken place at an earlier period than the head for the raw flesh [of the legs] had from continued exposure dried on the surface which presented a blackened appearance."

He even writes on the 10th that neck still had "blood oozing from it."

But here is where we part company. We know from Fisherman's other writings that he doesn't care for the idea of blood oozing from a body for many minutes, let alone hours and days, yet here we are to believe that the Pinchin Street victim's neck had been slit four or five days earlier and her head removed, yet the wound was still moist, red, and even oozing blood when discovered, despite the fact that the rest of the body is obviously decomposed, patched with green spots, and the hips so far gone that they have even dried out and turned black.

A miracle of almost biblical proportions: a neck wound that remains fresh and oozes blood for nearly a week.

Phillip's had the good grace to admit that his throat cutting theory was just that: a theory. If there had been conclusive evidence for it, it would have been a fact.

As I already stated, there are modern forensic papers outlining case of people who bled to death from head wounds, so that possibility does not contradict Hebbert's report.

I am also finding it remarkably easy to find cases in Victorian Britain of murder victims bleeding to death from cuts to their femoral artery. Had this been the case with the Pinchin Street victim we would not know it, for her legs, like her head, were missing.

My conclusion? Any suggestion that the victim was an East End 'unfortunate' who died from having her throat cut is not made out. Her shapely and well-groomed hands were unaccustomed to the rigors of mangling and charring, and her breasts appeared to have never suckled an infant.

Again, even if the woman was no prostitute - and there are seasoned prostitutes with well shaped hands and groomed nails, just as there are those with such commodities who only just enroll in prostitution - there is absolutely no reason to think that the killer was only able to kill unfortunates or that he must have had that agenda.

As for bleeding times, it is not I who say that a woman with the kind of damage Nichols had would likely bleed out in three to five muntes, it is two renowned forensic pathology professors, so it is them you must convince that you are the better judge of matters medical, not me.

[rjpalmer]

A few femoral artery cases:

A fight between Irishmen in Leeds in 1863: "In a moment the prisoner rose up and with the knife in his hand stabbed the deceased in the femoral artery... carried home, he died in five or six minutes."



Two Irish brothers spar in Roscommon in 1879; one brother is stabbed in the femoral artery, producing "immediate death."




A gamekeeper in Kerry in 1887 is shot in the leg; his femoral artery is severed and he bleeds out in 2 or 3 hours.




Death from hemorrhaging does not have to involve the throat. The legs will suffice, but in the Pinchin case, the legs were missing. We don't know.

[rjpalmer]

Should we even bother to consider Swanson’s opinion?

Strangely, I'm with Fish on this one--at least halfway. Swanson's statement was written on the 10th, and is obviously based on a conversation with the police surgeons (who he mentions, though not by name); he was informed that the trunk was 'too full of blood' for hemorrhaging to have been the cause of death. It could have been a head wound, he writes, but it was impossible to say, because the head was missing.

But, as Fish rightly notes, the autopsy hadn't even been performed yet (it would be the following day, the 11th) and this belief was obviously revised.

What wasn't revised is what was noticed immediately, and what is stated explicitly in Hebbert's notes: the neck wound was moist and red, while the legs wounds were black and dry.

Thus, there is little or no reason to doubt Swanson's conclusion that "dismemberment had taken place at an earlier period than the head for the raw flesh [of the legs] had from continued exposure dried on the surface which presented a blackened appearance."

He even writes on the 10th that neck still had "blood oozing from it."

But here is where we part company. We know from Fisherman's other writings that he doesn't care for the idea of blood oozing from a body for many minutes, let alone hours and days, yet here we are to believe that the Pinchin Street victim's neck had been slit four or five days earlier and her head removed, yet the wound was still moist, red, and even oozing blood when discovered, despite the fact that the rest of the body is obviously decomposed, patched with green spots, and the hips so far gone that they have even dried out and turned black.

A miracle of almost biblical proportions: a neck wound that remains fresh and oozes blood for nearly a week.

Phillip's had the good grace to admit that his throat cutting theory was just that: a theory. If there had been conclusive evidence for it, it would have been a fact.

As I already stated, there are modern forensic papers outlining case of people who bled to death from head wounds, so that possibility does not contradict Hebbert's report.

I am also finding it remarkably easy to find cases in Victorian Britain of murder victims bleeding to death from cuts to their femoral artery. Had this been the case with the Pinchin Street victim we would not know it, for her legs, like her head, were missing.

My conclusion? Any suggestion that the victim was an East End 'unfortunate' who died from having her throat cut is not made out. Her shapely and well-groomed hands were unaccustomed to the rigors of mangling and charring, and her breasts appeared to have never suckled an infant.

[Fisherman]

But that does not make him a killer.

Not on its own, no - but it adds to the case against him.

The authorities at the inquest would have been aware of this anomaly, and it seems were happy with whatever explantion he gave to explain this, which he clearly did, although we do not have anything to show what explantion was given.

No, there is no reason at all to assume that the authorities were aware of his name change. Once the authorities had two names for one person, they noted them both in their reports. And understandably so - the name Cross was not the one he was registered by, and so it would not help to find him in the future. The relevance of this is seen in how it was not until in the early years of this century that he was identified.
In case you are unaware of it, the reason the police and inquest asks for a name is to enable them to link the person asked to an established identity. If this was not so, there would be no reason at all to ask for it.

If they were happy with it you should be and therefore it removes one of you reasons for suspecting him to be a killer.

No, Trevor, even if they WERE happy with it - and the abundantly clear indication is that they did not have a clue about it - it would not keep me happy. I would still say that changing your names in combination with a case of deathly violence where you may be the culprit is something that does not look good at all.

The rest of your suspicions are nothing more than speculative

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Once again: every theory that is not proven is based on speculation. And it is not as if speculation is something bad. The Spitalfields victims were all killed along streets where Lechmere would logically have passed en route to work, and so saying that this is in line with him being the culprit and speculating that he was is sound and logical. The same goes for all the other inclusions in the theory - they are speculation, but sound speculation based on the facts.

There was a time when you were a copper, Trevor. During that time, you will on many occasions have suspected various people of being the culprit you looked for. The suspicions you harboured were - hopefully - not taken out of thin air. They should, if you did your job well, have been sound speculation.

Now, forget about how the inquest would have been aware of the name Lechmere until you can prove it. It is unsound speculation until then. Think about it as another of those many unlucky "coincidences" connected to Lechmere - while in scores of other cases there are two names mentioned, telling us that these people used aliases while they were registered by other names, how unlucky is it not that the authorities "forgot" to take down one of the two names the carman had so graciously supplied them with ...

[Trevor Marriott]

It remains an anomaly when somebody who otherwise always presented himself as Charles Lechmere to the authorities suddenly decided that he was Charles Cross instead when witnessing at a murder inquest. As has been pointed out, it is a very clear example of what an anomaly is - an exception to the rule.

But that does not make him a killer.

The authorities at the inquest would have been aware of this anomaly, and it seems were happy with whatever explantion he gave to explain this, which he clearly did, although we do not have anything to show what explantion was given.

If they were happy with it you should be and therefore it removes one of you reasons for suspecting him to be a killer.

The rest of your suspicions are nothing more than speculative

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Just a refreshener before we start thinking that Lechmere must have been known as Cross at Pickfords.

Lechmere said he had worked for Pickfords for twenty years when he testified at the inquest of Polly Nichols.

This means that he would have been hired at around 1868. The Broad Street station where we know Lechmere worked as a carman at the time of the Nichols murder opened for business on May 18, 1868. It therefore seems to fit with the possibility that this was where he had worked all along, although we cannot know for sure.

Charles was born in 1849. In 1858, his mother married Thomas Cross, a policeman.

On the 16th of January 1859, the year after, Charles and his sister were baptized. They were given the name Lechmere, in spite of how the siblings mother was (bigamously) married to Thomas Cross.

In 1861, the census of that year recorded all the members of the family by the name of Cross, Charles included. It may well be that the informant was Thomas Cross. If this was the case, what is proven is not that all the members of the family called themselves Cross. What is proven is that Thomas Cross chose to call his family members by his name as he passed on information to the census takers.

In 1869, Thomas Cross died.

In July of 1870, Charles married Elizabeth Bostock. He signed the marriage certificate "Charles Lechmere".

Much as none of this prevents Charles from having called himself Cross at work, how does it prove - or even make it likely - that he did so? He was baptized Lechmere nine years before he was hired by Pickfords, he signed himself Lechmere when marrying two years after having started working for Pickfords and he went on to fill out every form from the authorities with that name and to answer every question from the authorities about his identity with the same Lechmere name, with the one exception of the Polly Nichols murder inquest.

Having this information at hand does not allow for claiming as a fact that he was known as Charles Cross at Pickfords. On the contrary, the likelier thing is that he was known as Lechmere there. And once more, what I have to do is to point out the possibilities. It is up to those who think that they can deny these possibilities to prove that he was known as Cross at his work.

It remains an anomaly when somebody who otherwise always presented himself as Charles Lechmere to the authorities suddenly decided that he was Charles Cross instead when witnessing at a murder inquest. As has been pointed out, it is a very clear example of what an anomaly is - an exception to the rule.

[Fisherman]

>>Could you explain what ”large volume of people” you are talking about? <<

It's pretty clear from everything I've posted, I don't believe there was a large volume.

But you wrote: " To be true, such a large volume of people have to have kept the secret, that is just not within the bounds of credibility." Why did you do that, if you dont think there was a large volume?


>> Therefore, he would likely have had a substntial amount of his contacts living in that area.<<

Ah! So there's the large volume that you think existed!

This is getting more and more spaced ...

All these people who apparently never read a paper, never listened to gossip, never knew his mother, never knew where he moved to and quite possibly never knew he was called Cross at work. You are chasing your tail once again.

We don' t know that he was called Cross at work, however. All we know is that during the time he kept his work at Pickfords, he signed himself Lechmere every time he was in contact with authorities, with the one exception of when he was involved in a case of violent death. So just how likely is it that he used one name at work and another one when filling out forms and talking to authorities?
To have a case, you must PROVE that he called himself Cross at work, not just blithely suggest that this was so. The cards are stacked very much against you when we look at the signature track record.

>>I am simply pointing this out as a possibility you seem to have overlooked. <<

Since I've been responding to the notion, indisputably, I can't have overlooked the possibility, just pointed out the legion of problems inherent in the suggestion.

What YOU perceive a problems, Dusty. But you perceive a lot, Lechmere calling himself Cross at work amongst it. The fact of the matter is that your suggestion that it would be unlikely that Lechmere visited his mother without bringing his wife is nothing but another example of these perceptions of yours.

Again, I need only point to possibilities and open doors. You need to PROVE that they were shut before you have a case. Until that happens, all you represent is someone who is clever enough to say "Maybe it was not him".

And that really isnīt much of an achievement. I can say it myself, although I would not be truthful if I did.

[drstrange169]

>>Could you explain what ”large volume of people” you are talking about? <<

It's pretty clear from everything I've posted, I don't believe there was a large volume.


>> Therefore, he would likely have had a substntial amount of his contacts living in that area.<<

Ah! So there's the large volume that you think existed!

All these people who apparently never read a paper, never listened to gossip, never knew his mother, never knew where he moved to and quite possibly never knew he was called Cross at work. You are chasing your tail once again.



>>I am simply pointing this out as a possibility you seem to have overlooked. <<

Since I've been responding to the notion, indisputably, I can't have overlooked the possibility, just pointed out the legion of problems inherent in the suggestion.

[Fisherman]

I see no reason why he wouldn't visit is daughter on his day off, if indeed it was his day off, but, again it's stretching things to think a mother wouldn't want to visit her daughter too and make the visit a family affair.

Just noticed this. It brings us back to the territory staked out when it was suggested that Lechmere would be too knackered to go out on the Saturday night, and so he is likely not the killer of Stride. It has the same overall qualities: It canīt have been Lechmere because it predisposed that he visited his mother and if he did, he would have brought his wife.

We really need to do better.

I have numerous times said that there is not need to think that the only reason Lechmere could have had for seeking out St Georges on the night of the double event was to visit his mother. He had grown up and lived for many years in the area before he moved to Doveton Street in mid June, not many weeks before the double event.

Therefore, he would likely have had a substntial amount of his contacts living in that area. It is likely that he would have frequented the pubs in the area for all those years, and so it would not be unexpected if this was where he spent an evening out. And if he went for a pub crawl, it is not likely that he would bring his wife.

However! If we DO reason that he visited his mother on the occasion, then we cannot know if he brought his wife or not. He may of course have done so, and then, when it was time to go home, Lechmere could have continued his evening with a pub crawl whereas Elizabeth went back home.

I am simply pointing this out as a possibility you seem to have overlooked. I know full well that the likely next argument is "He would never have left her to walk home alone in darkness along those streets, and so it cannot have been Lechmere who was the killer."

All I am doing is to point out how the possibilities are much, much wider than you seem to allow for. Plus I am taking heart in the knowledge that if these kinds of things are the best you can do when trying to rule Lechmere out, then I really do not have much to worry about ...

[Fisherman]

The idea that the man widely reported as discovering Mrs Nichols body, was in a pub near Berner St on the night of Mrs Strides murder socialising, was not the subject of local knowledge is stretching things a little too thin for comfort.

I see no reason why he wouldn't visit is daughter on his day off, if indeed it was his day off, but, again it's stretching things to think a mother wouldn't want to visit her daughter too and make the visit a family affair.

We are back to, if the Cross connections are so blindingly clear to people, pushing 200 years later, why weren't they blindingly obvious to all his family, friends, neighbours and associates?

We are at the hurdle conspiracy theories tend to fall at. To be true, such a large volume of people have to have kept the secret, that is just not within the bounds of credibility.

Could you explain what ”large volume of people” you are talking about? The ones who knew that he had had a stepdad named Cross? Nineteen years earlier?

Cross, by the way, is a common name. You may want/need to weigh that into your ”conspiracy theory” musings. Together with some sense.

[drstrange169]

The idea that the man widely reported as discovering Mrs Nichols body, was in a pub near Berner St on the night of Mrs Strides murder socialising, was not the subject of local knowledge is stretching things a little too thin for comfort.

I see no reason why he wouldn't visit is daughter on his day off, if indeed it was his day off, but, again it's stretching things to think a mother wouldn't want to visit her daughter too and make the visit a family affair.

We are back to, if the Cross connections are so blindingly clear to people, pushing 200 years later, why weren't they blindingly obvious to all his family, friends, neighbours and associates?

We are at the hurdle conspiracy theories tend to fall at. To be true, such a large volume of people have to have kept the secret, that is just not within the bounds of credibility.

[drstrange169]

>> (the meeting got underway about 11pm.) <<

And why do you think it was at that time? Surely, to allow overworked employees, time to finish their extra workload and rest up.

[drstrange169]

>>Was he ever known as Cross in and around James Street? Perhaps not. If not, then by not mentioning the name Lechmere he was effectively concealing his identity.<<

"'Ere, Charlie, it's your turn to buy the pints, now who is this Charles allen who lives in your house at 22 Doveton St?"