Every minute counts

[Fisherman]

For Fiver.

PC Mizen from the inquest, as quoted by The Star, 3rd of September 1888:

He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed.

This quotation establishes that the blood had not fully congealed, and so it was running as in moving.

PC Mizen from the inquest, as quoted by The Morning Advertiser, 4th of September 1888:

The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.

This quotation establishes the same thing as the quotation above, since the blood is described as "still" running we can be sure that Mizen speaks of an ongoing process.

PC Mizen from the inquest, as quoted by The East London Observer, 8th of September 1888:

A Juryman: Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted?
Witness (PC Mizen, my remark): No; I only finished knocking up one person.

This quotation establishes that PC Mizen actually did continue his knocking up business after he had been told about Nichols. Crucially, we can see that he contradicts himself somewhat by first denying to have done so, but then clarifies exactly what happened. It is understandable that he first said no because the juryman asks his question as if Mizen had knocked up numerous people before he went to Bucks Row. The contradiction involved in Mizens testimony is what has stuck in some papers, forgetting to make the addition about Mizen finishing an already begun errand.

[JeffHamm]

Thank you Jeff and nice post.

So, in the case of Alice McKenzie, a witness that states when he saw the body the blood from her neck was "spurting", "gushing" or "running vey fast". In this case the cutter would have been at the body very recently? Correct? By the way, this witness didn't arrive at the body until a few minutes after it was discovered by PC Andrews.

Hi jerryd,

Sorry, I think I missed this before. I'm a bit rusty on the McKenzie case, but if the blood was still "spurting", that sounds like the heart was still pumping to me. And given one would expect the heart to stop fairly quickly after the throat was cut, then I think it would be safe to conclude that she had been murdered very shortly before that time (if spurting was intended to convey what it does to me, of course). I think both the other descriptions gushing and very fast would also point to that conclusion, although some caution might be warranted given they could be viewed as more subjective in nature than "spurting".

- Jeff

[rjpalmer]

The Echo also claims that Mizen said "Witness went to the spot directly Cross told him, and did not stop to knock any one up." This completely contradicts your original post which claimed that Mizen continued "some of his waking up duties before he set out for Bucks Row".

Yes, but to be fair to the Lechmere theorists, you have to ask yourself why the Jury asked Mizen this question.

There had been an allegation that Mizen was less than punctual in proceeding to Buck's Row.

In the statement you quote, he is merely denying the allegation. The question is whether one believes him, or doesn't believe him.

There has been a good deal of debate about this point.

[Fiver]

Dried blood does't come into it. We are talking about blood that had exited the body a few minutes before and looked fresh. Ooze suggests a certain viscosity doesn't it, something thick slowly exiting from a small opening. If the blood from the deer was fresh and looked semi-liquid I might describe it as oozing from the wound even if it wasn't visibly moving.

Here's a study on similar topic - the drying of blood pools. With the samples used, transformation of the blood to a gel state took over 3 hours and the blood did not fully dry until over 9 hours after it was originally deposited.

[Fiver]

There can be one answer to these questions only, and that is that Mizen spoke of the bleeding and coagulation as he first saw the body. We can read about it in the Echo:

"Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman. Witness asked him what was the matter, and Cross replied, "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there." Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance.

The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter."

Thanks for providing another source for PC Mizen's testimony at the Nichols's inquest. As previously noted, running can mean "flowing", but it can also mean "measured in a straight line". Either meaning could apply to Mizen's statement that "There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter."

The Echo also claims that Mizen said "Witness went to the spot directly Cross told him, and did not stop to knock any one up." This completely contradicts your original post which claimed that Mizen continued "some of his waking up duties before he set out for Bucks Row".

[Fiver]

Yes. But if this was what Mizen spoke of, why would he say that the blood was STILL running as he saw Nichols? Did he presume that she had been bleeding for half an hour?
Why did he say that the blood looked fresh after half an hour?
Why was the blood in the pool partially coagulated? It had had hakf an hour to coagulate and Thain tells us that it was a clot of blood at this stage, not half coagulated haf liquid.

Neither PC Mizen nor PC Thain nor anyone else said any of those things at the Nichols Inquest.

[Fiver]

Mizen said that the blood "was still flowing" and "looking fresh", and he pointed out that it was partly coagulated.

Neither PC Mizen nor anyone else said any of those things at the Nichols Inquest.

[Fiver]

As Mizen arrived at the murder site, he said that the blood was still running from the neck, and that it had at this stage started to run into the gutter. He said the blood looked fresh and that it was partly coagulated in the pool. Coagulation begins at around the four minute mark and so it all makes sense.

As previously noted, Constable Mizen did not testify about Nichols' wounds or the blood. You are counting every minute for the wrong man.

Lets look at PC Neil's testimony about the wounds and the blood, remembering that Neil arrived several minutes before Mizen.

"I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat."

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

Now lets compare that with your statements - "he said that the blood was still running from the neck, and that it had at this stage started to run into the gutter. He said the blood looked fresh and that it was partly coagulated in the pool."

PC Neil did not say that "the blood was still running from the neck", he said blood "was running from the wound in her neck" and that there was "blood oozing from a wound in the throat." "Still running" would mean that blood was flowing from the wound, but Neil said "running", not "still running". "Running" is an imprecise word -any dictionary will give several meanings for "running". One meaning is "flowing".

Another is "measured in a straight line", meaning there was a line of blood going from Nichols' neck wound to the pool of blood on the ground. For an example of "running" being used in this way, Dr Llewellyn testified that "On the right side of the face there is a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw. It might have been caused by a blow with the fist or pressure by the thumb. On the left side of the face there was a circular bruise, which also might have been done by the pressure of the fingers. On the left side of the neck, about an inch below the jaw, there was an incision about four inches long and running from a point immediately below the ear."

PC Neil's use of the word "oozing" makes it probable when he said "running", he did not mean "flowing". Oozing fluid is barely moving, not flowing freely. Bodies can ooze blood for many hours after a person died.

PC Neil did not say "that it had at this stage started to run into the gutter." Neither PC Neil any other witness at the Nichols' inquest mentioned a gutter.

PC Neil did not say that "the blood looked fresh". His use of the word "oozing" implies the blood was not fresh.

PC Neil did not say that the blood "was partly coagulated in the pool". Neil makes no mention of whether the pool was uncoagulated, partly coagulated, or fully coagulated.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

Presumably, yes, if you move JtR as other two days further away for example, and leave Cross/Lechmere in place, I'm pretty sure the data would indicate JtR as Other would be far less likely. But that's hardly the alternative theory though, is it? Proving Cross/Lechmere is better than an impossible situation doesn't mean much, but if you're really just wondering if there would be be a gap large enough that the test could detect, then yes, there would be time differences that could be reliably separated. However, as I've been saying, I'm positive those time differences would be much larger than the ones being considered here and that the 30-60 second gap is below the sensitivity of a test to differentiate. Biological processes like bleeding are just not that precise of a measurement.

Basically, and again, without us actually having data on this, including at a bare minimum, the average time for bleeding to stop and the variation of those times (we must have both), there's no way to know how it would come out. And even if we had both of those, we would have to assume that bleeding duration is normally distributed, which we know it can't be (because it can't be negative time, or bleeding started before the injury). It will probably be a skewed distribution of some sort, so we would need to know the mean, variance, and the skew in order to construct our density function model. If we had that, I could answer such questions, but without those, it's anybody's guess.

- Jeff

Okay, thanks for the lesson. Statistics is a funny discipline at times. Much can be ”proven” by it. In the case at hand, I think I will simply stay with the oldfashioned take on things, telling me that if the forensic specialists tell me in a random case that I probably have a cutting time of around 00.05, then if a man X has been at the cutting site at a time of 00.00 only to then disappear, and another man Y has been in place at the cutting site at 00.01 and then left it, then Y is the one who is in place at the cutting site at a time that is closer to the estimation made by the forensics, and that will make me favor Y over X as the likelier cutter.
Similarly, since the alternative Bucks Row killer will add time to the bleeding, time not expected by the pathologists, I will favor Lechmere over him because it saves an unspecified amount of bleeding time. (Of course, I also tend to prioritize people whos existence is proven over people made up out of thin air, but that is another matter).

I make for a poor statistician, I’ m afraid.

[JeffHamm]

Okay. You don´t know how far you would have to move the alternative killer before he becomes a less likely killer than Lechmere.

Does that mean that he WILL become a less likely killer sooner or later as we move him along the scale? Or do we have to have the bleeding times fixed before we know that?

Hi Fisherman,

Presumably, yes, if you move JtR as other two days further away for example, and leave Cross/Lechmere in place, I'm pretty sure the data would indicate JtR as Other would be far less likely. But that's hardly the alternative theory though, is it? Proving Cross/Lechmere is better than an impossible situation doesn't mean much, but if you're really just wondering if there would be be a gap large enough that the test could detect, then yes, there would be time differences that could be reliably separated. However, as I've been saying, I'm positive those time differences would be much larger than the ones being considered here and that the 30-60 second gap is below the sensitivity of a test to differentiate. Biological processes like bleeding are just not that precise of a measurement.

Basically, and again, without us actually having data on this, including at a bare minimum, the average time for bleeding to stop and the variation of those times (we must have both), there's no way to know how it would come out. And even if we had both of those, we would have to assume that bleeding duration is normally distributed, which we know it can't be (because it can't be negative time, or bleeding started before the injury). It will probably be a skewed distribution of some sort, so we would need to know the mean, variance, and the skew in order to construct our density function model. If we had that, I could answer such questions, but without those, it's anybody's guess.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

I can't say how far along one would have to move him because that requires actually knowing the density function for this kind of data, and to know that we don't just have to know the most common time range (you've mentioned 3-5 minutes) but the variability of the times as well. So, I can't answer that question because we don't have the information available to us to work out what the answer is. We would, however, have to know when the bleeding stopped and work back in time from there. While the bleeding is ongoing, we can't know where in the process we are (is this minute 3 of bleeding or is it minute 5? If we knew that, we don't need a test, do we?)

However, in general terms, as I've mentioned above, yes, it is entirely possible for either Cross/Lechmere or JtR as other to end up being the more likely (or the less likely if you prefer). That's one of the signals that this is an actual test of two ideas, where you were headed with using the cumulative probabilities is along a line that can only imply the more recent is the more probable, even in situations where that's not true. That's not a very good test.

Again, even though I don't know what the density function probabilities actually are, having looked at a few types of data based upon biological processes of this sort, I do know they are associated with very high variation, and a small time difference of 30-60 seconds is just going to be too small to be detected (meaning, we wouldn't be able to tell with any certainty which was actually the more probable).

- Jeff

Okay. You don´t know how far you would have to move the alternative killer before he becomes a less likely killer than Lechmere.

Does that mean that he WILL become a less likely killer sooner or later as we move him along the scale? Or do we have to have the bleeding times fixed before we know that?

[JeffHamm]

This is getting more and more absorbing by the minute.

So here´s a question for you, Jeff:

You say that the two suggested killers, Lechmere and Mr Alternative, can probably not be told apart in tertms of viability as the killer and this owes to how we cannot establish the expanse of the bleeding time and use the density method.

Assuming that the alternative killer was in place before Lechmere was and accepting that the pathologists were correct when they said that the bleeding was most likely to end around minutes 3-5, plus accepting that we cannot say when the bleeding stopped, therefore leaving that particular parameter totally open, what happens if we move that alternative killer along the time axis? Does he at any stage become less viable than Lechmere as the killer? If we say that he was in place 5, 15, 25 or 100 minutes before Lechmere, can we at any of those stages say, working with the density method, that Mr Alternative is not as likely as killer as Lechmere? If we can conclude such a thing, just how large must the time gap be? Or can it be of any size, and the two are nevertheless equally viable as long as we leave the bleeding time open?

Hi Fisherman,

I can't say how far along one would have to move him because that requires actually knowing the density function for this kind of data, and to know that we don't just have to know the most common time range (you've mentioned 3-5 minutes) but the variability of the times as well. So, I can't answer that question because we don't have the information available to us to work out what the answer is. We would, however, have to know when the bleeding stopped and work back in time from there. While the bleeding is ongoing, we can't know where in the process we are (is this minute 3 of bleeding or is it minute 5? If we knew that, we don't need a test, do we?)

However, in general terms, as I've mentioned above, yes, it is entirely possible for either Cross/Lechmere or JtR as other to end up being the more likely (or the less likely if you prefer). That's one of the signals that this is an actual test of two ideas, where you were headed with using the cumulative probabilities is along a line that can only imply the more recent is the more probable, even in situations where that's not true. That's not a very good test.

Again, even though I don't know what the density function probabilities actually are, having looked at a few types of data based upon biological processes of this sort, I do know they are associated with very high variation, and a small time difference of 30-60 seconds is just going to be too small to be detected (meaning, we wouldn't be able to tell with any certainty which was actually the more probable).

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

This is called guilt by association. He was walking to work and discovered the victim. He is not guilty.

Cross stopped because he noticed her laying there. Something was horribly wrong. Soon Paul came along and he called him over to have a look see, too. Together they went and found the first policeman and notified him.

It's simple. Also, a good deep study of that time and place where multiple people would be walking to work at that hour wouldn't hurt.

Paddy

It would be outrageous if somebody said that Lechmere proved himself the killer - or even a suspect - by way of finding Nichols´s body on his way to work. I am a hundred per cent with you on that score.

My main problem, though, is that people do not look at the whole picture when assessing the carman.

Yes, anybody can have the poor luck of finding a dead body if it is laying around in a public space. The fact is, somebody WILL find it.

But let´s take a look on the matters that line the road of Lechmere´s finding Nichols´s body.

To begin with, he found it at a stage where she was still bleeding and would go on to do so for many minutes. That does not per se make Lechmere any guiltier. If you can find a long cold body, then you can find a warm and bleeding body too. But if you DO find a warm and bleeding body, then you will become a person of interest if that dead body belongs to a person who has been murdered, if the killer has not been identified and if there are no other circumstances that make it clear that you are not the killer.

This isolates a group of people who have found or claim to have found, or who have themselves been found with a murdered person at a remove in time that is consistent with being the killer. Some of these people will be innocent, some will be guilty, no specific figures stated. Charles Lechmere belongs to this group of people. We cannot take his word as gospel when it comes to how he said that Robert Paul arrived immediately after himself, thereby supplying an alibi. The reason is that if Lechmere was guilty, then he would likely lie about such a thing in order to evade responsibility.

These are the basics of what kind of status you get when finding a dead body, adding the varying circumstances into the picture.

As most people will gather, if the police cannot find a killer and if they have a person of interest who found or claimed to have found or was found by a freshly dead body, they will look into the specifics of this person of interest and try to see if they can eliminate him or her from their investigation. If they cannot, they wil instead see if there is evidence pointing in his or her direction as being the killer. And in Lechmere´s case, we have a whole array of such matters. We have the correlation between the area he traversed and three further murders, we have the correlation between his mothers/daughters place and the Stride murder and the fact that the Eddwes case happened more or less along his old working trek from James Street to Broad Street. There is also the fact that the four murders that happened along his logical working treks also happened on what was normally early working day mornings, whereas the murders that happened on a Saturday - which was nornally a day off - did not happen along his work treks. So that all fits the picture.

Then we have the fact that he alerted Paul to the body - but would not assist in propping Nichols up.

Then we have the fact that he disagreed with Mizen about what was said on the murder morning. And interestingly, what he said according to Mizen was in perfect line with trying to pass the police by unquestioned.

Then we have the fact that he did not use the name he was registered by when speaking to the police, whereas he seems to have used the name Lechmere in all other contacts with the authorities.

Then we have the fact that the clothes were pulled down over the wounds on Nichols´s body, something that would be essential if he wanted to con Robert Paul.

Then we have the fact that Nichols seemingly bled for so long a period that it becomes hard to believe in an earlier killer.

Then we have the fact that once a torso victim was dumped on Ripper territory, it was dumped on the exact street where Lechmere and his immediate family had a very large presence over the years.

Then we have the fact that the rag from Eddowes´s apron was dumped in a place that indicated that the killer was walking northeast - towards the area where Lechmere lived.

Then we have the fact that another rag was found the day after the Pinchin Street torso was found - and lo and behold, that rag was dumped in a direct line from the railway arch in Pinchin Street up to 22 Doveton Street.

Now, by all means, we can pick any of these matters and supply it with an innocent explanation. Take the last one, for example:

"Nah, we don´t even know that this rag was connected to the Pinchin Street murder, and it could have been anyone who threw it away there. If you want to throw a rag away, you have to do it somewhere, and regardless of where you do it, it WILL point in SOME direction and there WILL be someone living along the line it points out. Does that make them all killers?"

This, though, is not how a proper investigation is made when looking at a suspect. A proper investigation weighs these matters together and look at whether the collected weight is enough to make somebody a suspect. it does not pick the matters off, one by one, supplying them all with - easily enough made up - innocent explanations.

At the end of the day, either that rag is a further absolutely massive coincidence in an ocean of other coincidences all wrongfully pointing to Lechmere, or it is circumstantial evidence pointing a killer out. And at the end of that self same day, that is precisely why we should not say that somebody had to find the body and speak of guilt by association. There is an overwhelming collection of indicators pointing in the exact same direction, and it lies upon us to do a sound weighing up of them instead of isolating them and picking them off one by one. It is the easisest thing in the world to do, but it is also a surefire way to exonerate any potential killer, regardless of the amount and quality of the evidence.

[Paddy Goose]

This is called guilt by association. He was walking to work and discovered the victim. He is not guilty.

Cross stopped because he noticed her laying there. Something was horribly wrong. Soon Paul came along and he called him over to have a look see, too. Together they went and found the first policeman and notified him.

It's simple. Also, a good deep study of that time and place where multiple people would be walking to work at that hour wouldn't hurt.

Paddy

[Abby Normal]

lest anyone get lost in the minutia, its clear that the fact that nichols was still bleeding puts lech clearly in tje frame for her murder because we all agree at some point bleeding stops. she clearly wasnt murdered a half hour before lech arrived. hes seen standing alone near a recently killed victim before trying to raise any alarm. paul dosnt see or hear him walking in front of him. by lechs own admission on when he left his house he has time to commit the murder. there is no other evidence of anyone else around.
lech is clearly in the frame for her murder.