Framing Charles

[Astatine211]

This is very outside the box and a huge long shot but directly in front of the exact location of where Lechmere's house was are two patches of grass. Looking at maps from 1888 suggest the grass was still there. Has anyone taken a metal detector to see if any knives or any of items of interest might be buried.

[Fisherman]

Crimes are not solved on coicidences.

Now, but many times they are solved on checking out people who have too many coincidences involved in their stories.

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

The only thing proven is that the authorities did not mention the anomaly at all. That does not in its turn mean that it was cleared up. It is. ot as if cases where the authorities do not mention things are always cases where they have the answer. That should be obvious in the extreme.

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.

But he DIDNīT give another name than the one that appeared on his statement. He called himself Cross with the police and he called himself Cross at the inquest - but he NEVER otherwise called himself Cross in contacts with the authority, as far as we know. And we have around a hundred examples to go by. SO why would the authorities recognize the anomaly, Trevor?

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

Are you aware of how many cases of serial killing there is that involve no suspicion from the police until the killer is caught? Do you believe that not being suspected is the same as not being guilty? If so, the time has come to rethink.

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I beg to disagree. In my world, the only one who has well and truly burnt his bridges is the ex-copper who reaches a level of understanding of the case that involves thinking that Lechmere called himself Lechmere in the police statement but Cross at the inquest. Its farcical.

[Fisherman]

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

If you want to think that Biggsīcomments on it is more likely to describe the realities of what happened to Nichols than what the two forensic pathology professors I quote in my book - and who both read up on all the details pertaining to the Nichols case and knew it in detail before commenting on it - then be my guest. Those with a more genuine interest in the case will think differently.

Both men are very aware that people can bleed for different periods of time (amazing, is it not, that two forensic pathology professors would know about such matters!), none of them is willing to state a maximum time of bleeding for Nichols, but BOTH of them agree that given the circumstances involved, the time of bleeding would more likely be 3-5 minutes than 7 or more.

Do ask Biggs if he considers Jason Payne James and Ingemar Thiblin, both much senior to Biggs in every professional respect, mere amateurs and idiots; it would be interesting to find out.

Incidentally, by way of case insights, you could not shoot a wet paper bag to pieces.

[Trevor Marriott]

I beg to disagree. In my world, the only one who has well and truly burnt his bridges is the ex-copper who reaches a level of understanding of the case that involves thinking that Lechmere called himself Lechmere in the police statement but Cross at the inquest. Its farcical.

As far as I am aware there is no evidence to show what name he gave in his police statement by the fact that no one questioned his name at the time or therefater suggests he gave the name Cross in which case you suspicion surrounding him goes out the window.

Because I do find it strange that this anomaly you seek to heavily rely on is never ever mentioned

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

If you want to think that Biggsīcomments on it is more likely to describe the realities of what happened to Nichols than what the two forensic pathology professors I quote in my book - and who both read up on all the details pertaining to the Nichols case and knew it in detail before commenting on it - then be my guest. Those with a more genuine interest in the case will think differently.

Both men are very aware that people can bleed for different periods of time (amazing, is it not, that two forensic pathology professors would know about such matters!), none of them is willing to state a maximum time of bleeding for Nichols, but BOTH of them agree that given the circumstances involved, the time of bleeding would more likely be 3-5 minutes than 7 or more.

Do ask Biggs if he considers Jason Payne James and Ingemar Thiblin, both much senior to Biggs in every professional respect, mere amateurs and idiots; it would be interesting to find out.

Incidentally, by way of case insights, you could not shoot a wet paper bag to pieces.

I think you should revist those professors and ask them the same questions I asked Dr Biggs and let all of us see their response because Dr Biggs comments and observations clearly shoot your theory down in flames and even a wet paper bag wont dampen the efffect.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Instead, he prefers to have Nichols at that exact spot by sheer circumstance; she had gone there with another man, and Lechmere just happened to come along while she was still lingering at the gate, only moments after this unknown client had buttoned up his trousers after a knee-trembler, before leaving.

It is not about what I "prefer", Iīm afraid. I do not object to the idea that Lechmere could have sought Nichols out in Whitechapel Road, but I DO object to the idea that this MUST have been so. There are numerous factors to weigh in, and one of them is how Polly meets Emily Holland at 2.30, where Osborne Street enters Whitechapel Road. She would then supposedly - if your take on things must be the only alternative - have sought out a spot in Whitechapel Road to offer her services to punters, and if that spot was adjacent to Bucks Row. It would not have been many minutes away from Osborn Street, perhaps ten or fifteen even if Polly did not make much speed in her drunken state.
We then have her parading on Whitechapel Road, together with the rest of the ladies of the night who were looking for business. They were ALL in Whitechapel Road, remember? And although we have all of these prostitutes in place, and although we have a stupendously drunk Polly Nichols in their midst, not one of them nor any of their punters, nor anybody else comes forward and says "I saw her"?
You see, your scenario looses a lot in credibility once we add this factor.
Furthermore, would a killer seek out his prey in well lit streets full of potential witnesses or would he prefer to look for them in dark alleyways? What do you think?

So you see, far from it being a case of what I "prefer", it is instead a case of weighing in the facts and keeping a door open for other possibilities that the one you want to cement as the only possible one.

[Fisherman]

Ok, here's a thought. Bear in mind I'm not a Letchmereian.

When trying to tie Chuck to the double, we look at his visiting Ma, despite it being an odd hour, or his meeting up with drinking buddies, after visiting his mum, or anything that connects him to his mum's house. What about, mother Letchmere visited him and the kids at Doveton St, and he walked her home? I mean, he would, late night, in that area. That way, you can plausibly place him in the area, at that time of night. It also allows for the absence of the time, because how long might he claim to stay at his mum's? When might he get home? Who would forensically ask?

Pure speculation, but so is his visiting his mum, out drinking with old pals, murdering and heading to work when he shouldn't be there and anything else that night.

Ties up some loose ends there. Walks Ma home, puts him the area at the right time, nips off for a couple of quick murders, covers his familiar stomping ground, heads home later than usual, no questions asked.

You want to place Charles near Berner St at that time, on that day, I'd go for walking mother home.

It is of course a possibility, Al. The main matter is that Lechmere had very long-standing ties with the Berner Street/St Georges area, and it would not be odd in any sdhape or form if he was there on a Saturday night. Quite the opposite.

[Fisherman]

I think you should revist those professors and ask them the same questions I asked Dr Biggs and let all of us see their response because Dr Biggs comments and observations clearly shoot your theory down in flames and even a wet paper bag wont dampen the efffect.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I have asked the pathologists the relevant questions and they have given answers that very much point to how Lechmere is a very good bid for the cutters role in Bucks Row. Its in my book, Trevor.

I have a lot of fun reading your "shoot down in flames" and "Blow out of the water" comments. They remind me of a great favourite of mine from years gone by, a man who was called "Bagdad Bob".

[Fisherman]

As far as I am aware there is no evidence to show what name he gave in his police statement by the fact that no one questioned his name at the time or therefater suggests he gave the name Cross in which case you suspicion surrounding him goes out the window.

Because I do find it strange that this anomaly you seek to heavily rely on is never ever mentioned

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

As far as you are aware?

Okay.

[Fisherman]

By the bye, if anyone is interested, I will be interviewed for the Obscura True Crime podcast tomorrow. 10 am, CET, downloading the Stereo app will allow you to listen in.

[Trevor Marriott]

As far as you are aware?

Okay.

Well prove me wrong!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I have asked the pathologists the relevant questions and they have given answers that very much point to how Lechmere is a very good bid for the cutters role in Bucks Row. Its in my book, Trevor.

Well if that be the case you wont have any problem in detailing and providing for all to see the questions and their answers in the way I have done.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Well prove me wrong!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Okay. Swansons reports from September and October name the carman Cross. And the anomaly remains, since his registered name was Lechmere.

So you are wrong. And it is proven. I shudder at the prospect of having to prove you right ...

[Fisherman]

Well if that be the case you wont have any problem in detailing and providing for all to see the questions and their answers in the way I have done.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It is in the book, Trevor. And I make a point of avoiding to do things the way you do.

[Trevor Marriott]

Okay. Swansons reports from September and October name the carman Cross. And the anomaly remains, since his registered name was Lechmere.

So you are wrong. And it is proven. I shudder at the prospect of having to prove you right ...

But he gave his name as Cross at the inquest, and in his police statement and to the coroner otherwise how would swanson know he was called Cross

Did he at any time use the name Lechmere in this investigation? No he didnt, so you are creating a mystery where there is none to create.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk