Every minute counts

[drstrange169]

>>Nichols' clothing was pulled down over the wounds, and that was something the killer never did otherwise. But all in all, one must perhaps accept that the killer chose to do it in Bucks Row but nowhere else. Illogical? Absolutely. But possible? Yes.<<

Assuming for the sake of this debate there was only one killer, there is is nothing illogical about the killer attempting to pull down Mrs Nichols clothes. The killer seems to have been interrupted twice and on both occasions the body was not posed. Covering the wounds, if that's what actually happened, would give a killer interrupted by Cross time to escape before any alarm would be raised. Nothing could be more logical, whether the killer was Lechmere or anybody else.


>>... decapitated people can bleed out in a minute only.<<

What medical evidence are you basing that on?

The completely decapitated Pinchin Street torso bled 24 hours later, ergo it did not bled out. Yes, it would require movement to do so and that's could well be what happened with Mrs Nichols, as we know Cross and Paul touched the body and Neil may well have too.


>>Instead of asking "how long could Nichols bleed?" we should ask "how long is it likely that she bled?"<<

Which is like asking, "how long is a piece of string?". There are so many forensic variables that we could make case for anything we like.


>>When I asked Jason Payne-James that question, I gave him thee alternatives. I asked whether it was likely that she would have bled three, five or seven minutes. His answer was that all these three times were possible, but he personally thought that three or five minutes were the likelier propositions.<<

We all due respect, that is a nonsense question. To answer he would need to know:
Was she strangled first?
Was it a partial strangulation or a terminal one?
Did the body mutilation happen first?
Was the head higher than the body at any stage to compress the arteries?
Was the body interfered with at any stage?
Which accounts about blood flow/leakage were accurate?
So on and so an.


>> Jason Payne-James would personally have expected Nichols to stop bleeding within the 3-5 minute interval, although he did not rule out 7 minutes as a possibility.<<

According to what you told us, that answer was based on pre-mortem bleeding. Payne James noted that he had no actual experience of the sceanario and that his answer was guesswork.


>>When I spoke to professor Ingemar Thiblin, he concurred with Jason Payne-James in this respect<<

According to your book, he said there was insufficient data to accurately answer.


>> I quickly realized that I had missed out on a very important factor that can be worded like this: every minute of bleeding that was added onto Nichols overall bleeding time was one where that bleeding was less expected than it was the minute before.<<

Expected by what data? Thiblin said there was insufficient data. Again, you do not factor in the variables like the body being moved by some unknown degree.


>>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. <<

None of the above can be said to be factually accurate as it assumes timings that are strongly debated and contains cherry-picked words from varying reports.


>>this nevertheless leaves us with the implication that Lechmere is by far the LIKELIEST cutter!<<

Given that the difference between Cross being the killer or someone he disturbed could be as little as one or two minutes, the above claim is nonsense.

To this day, modern forensics cannot be that specfic about the time of death. Given the sheer volume of forensic evidence we don't have and the minimal time between the two possible killers, it is impossible to say which is the more likely killer. I would love for Payne James and Niblin to read this and publicly agree you are right and I am wrong.


>>If another killer than Lechmere did for Nichols, then he must have slipped away before Lechmere arrived, and Lechmere said he would have noticed if anyone was in place at the murder site as he himself approached it. So we must add at the very least a minute.<<

Show us the newspaper quote where Cross says,"he would have noticed if anyone was in place at the murder site as he himself approached it." !!!

Here is the accurate version of events as described in the newspapers.

1: A reporter paraphrased evidence,

"(Cross) ... had any one left the body after he got into Buck's-row he must have heard him".

So in other words, Cross was NOT looking. A silent killer could could have easily escaped.

And this is a direct quote, seemingly not paraphrased by a reporter,

"I don't think I met anybody after I left my house till I got to the body."

So Cross actually had no idea whether anyone was around or not.

That is a VERY different from the scenario you crafted.


>>Charles Lechmere is therefore by far the likeliest killer of Polly Nichols. The blood evidence puts it beyond doubt.<<

Sadly, the "blood evidence" doesn't exist, it never did.

It was cobbled together from dubious newspaper accounts of timing, altered accounts about what Cross said, cherry-picked words of Mizen's from differing newspapers bundled together to give the appearance of one sentence and zero serious reliable forensic data.

[drstrange169]

>>So, from one layman to another, avoiding the input from the real experts? Yes, you do that, Dusty.<<

It's not me who is avoiding Dr Biggs's first hand experience.

It's not me avoiding the medicos I quoted in the Old Bailey files.

It's not me asking Payne James about pre-mortem bleeding and then pretending he spoke of post-mortem bleeding.

It's not me avoiding that your Swedish expert saying the data isn't there to make a qualified judgment.

It's not me pretending your blood theory has any medical credibilty.

[drstrange169]

>>Neil spoke of how Nichols was bleeding profusely in the initial reports.<<

'Fraid not Christer.

It's those pesky facts again. Neil like all his fellow policeman was forbidden from talking to the press, it's in their police code book and he would have suffered punitive measures if he did and, in turn, those punishments would have been recorded in police orders. There is no record of him being fined or demoted, so we can be sure he did NOT speak to a journalist as you try to claim.

As to the journalists being accurate in early reports, take the time to read their initial reports, they full of errors.

Those are the facts.

Here's an example of early reporting:

It seems that on Friday morning Police-constable Neale [Neil], 97 J, was on his beat at about half-past four, in the neighbourhood of Buck's-row. It was then just after half-past four, and, in the early light of day he discovered lying on the pavement just outside the high brick wall which surrounds the Essex Wharf, the form of a woman. She was lying on her back, with hands that were tightly clenched, and presenting altogether the appearance of one who had died in the greatest agony. She was wearing a little black straw bonnet, battered almost out of recognition, and placed at the back of her head. Around her was a cloak - a threadbare garment that had once been red, but was now a dull, dirty colour. It was open in front, and the black bodice of her dress was thrown slightly open, revealing a horrible gash more than an inch in diameter, extending from one ear to the other, and completely severing the windpipe, which protruded from the deep wound. Constable Neale at once called for assistance, and with the help of some scavengers who were cleaning the roads at the time, managed to carry the body to the mortuary, which is situated in the Pavilion Yard close by. Mr. Edmunds, the keeper of the mortuary, was in attendance, and assisted by the officer and the scavengers, undressed the poor creature and placed her in one of the black coffins lying about the mortuary.

Another report writes about Neil lifting her up!

And the one you bizarrely believe was a first hand account from Neil made these errors:

The wound was about two inches wide and blood was flowing profusely. She was immediately conveyed to the Whitechapel mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open and the bowels were protruding. The wound extends nearly to her breast, and must have been effected with a large knife. As the corpse lies in the mortuary, it presents a ghastly sight. The victim seems to be between 35 and 40 years of age, and measures 5ft. 2in. in height. The hands are bruised, and bear evidence of having engaged in A SEVERE STRUGGLE. There is the impression of a ring having been worn on one of deceased's fingers, but there is nothing to show that it had been wrenched from her in a struggle. Some of the front teeth have also been knocked out, and the face is bruised on both cheeks and very much discoloured. Deceased wore a rough brown ulster, with large buttons in front. Her clothes are torn and cut up in several places, bearing evidence of the ferocity with which the murder was committed.


If Mrs Nichols was bleeding profusely Neil would said as such at the inquest, instead he chose a word that means the opposite. Let's just stick the facts, if Cross's case is so strong, why do you feel the need to constantly invent things?

[MrBarnett]

The ‘blood evidence’ really is pretty weak. It tells us what is fairly obvious, that CAL arrived at the crime scene shortly after Nichols was killed.

[MrBarnett]

No, like it is the straw grasped for by those who desperately want to rid themselves of evidence of some kind.

Do journalists make things up? Yes, it happens. Is it the general rule. No, it is not. The general rule is that they report as faithfully as they can.

And so, much more likely than not, Neil spoke of how Nichols was bleeding profusely in the initial reports.

If it were not the general rule, then we should find hardly any difference in the wording of the press reports of court cases.

You are the one grasping at straws. Others seem to be urging caution.

[MrBarnett]

Since Christer has ‘made his excuses and left’, perhaps we should leave the last word to his medical expert, Professor Thibling, who apparently said that establishing how long a victim such as Nichols would have continued bleeding is difficult because there is not much empirical data to go on.

And even though Prof. T. apparently said that such bleeding could continue for up to ten to fifteen minutes (not sure why the ‘ten’ makes an appearance) we are told that he favours a seven minute cessation.

Isn’t this all about as vague as vague can get?

[JeffHamm]

Sorry, entirely meant for humor and I couldn't resist. It is not really meant as a counter-argument the point Fisherman is making.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

Before the semantical onslaught gets underway, I would like to add that I am not saying that I must be correct about the interpretations. I never have, although I of course believe that I am correct. Others may think the same about other interpretations, of course. What is of the essence when presenting a suspect is mainly that there IS a logical path to follow and that there ARE interpretations/options/facts/indications that are in line with the suspicions, whereas there is nothing that factually nullifies them.

Some will say - as Fiver did before - that if an interpretation is more represented in the papers than another, then that first interpretation should be accepted as the likelier one. But that only works if we look away from the content of the articles. Five articles claiming that a pig flew by is not going to trump one article that says it walked by. And so we will be left with the inevitable ripperological quibbles about what we may conclude from the word "ooze" and so on, and rational reasoning in a friendly tone will be as common as henīs teeth.

There is a logical chain linked to Lechmereīs role as a suspect, and it is one that is much more detailed than what is the case for any other suspect. He is unique in this respect. As I point out in the book, to claim innocence on his behalf, a large heap of coincidences and flukes must be given innocent alternative explanations. My take on things is that the heap is far too big to make it a god suggestion to go looking for those alternative explanations. They are too many and too damning to actually allow for innocence, the way I see things. And that has meant that people - like R J Palmer on the Framing Charles thread - persist in isolating one matter, suggesting that if it is provided with an alternative innocent explanation, the problem goes away.

It actually does no such thing. I, however, will go away for some little time now.

[Fisherman]

This for me is a key question.

I can think of two obvious answers:

1. I have evidence to prove/suggest that my belief is reasonable.

2. Although I have no evidence, and there is much evidence to suggest the opposite, I prefer to believe that because it supports my theory.

Christer is a man of high principals who takes a very dim view of someone even using close synonyms when describing the events in Buck’s Row, so option 2. cannot be the correct one. In the past when querying this, I’ve been told of anecdotal evidence that the Lechmere family had boiled horse flesh in their back yard in the 1920s/30s. Perhaps that’s why he believes old Ma Lechmere processed large chunks of bone-in meat in the middle of the Ratcliff Highway.

I donīt think it would be wise to continue this discussion much further. Principals (!) and all. I have already said that there was no ban on owning bone saws, and so the issue is in essence a non-issue. Once we start speaking of dim views, it is time to put an end to the matter.

[Fisherman]

I use the word ‘immediately’ instead of ‘at once’ and am slated for ‘claim[ing]things as facts that cannot be claimed as facts...’

Christer presents us with Mizen saying ‘There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter’ and turns it into ‘it had run over the brim and started to pour into the gutter’.

You are welcome to any take on the semantic matters, Gary. As am I. And anybody else. It is how people as a whole weigh things up that results in what most people find likely.
The fact is that Neil did not speak of any blood entering the gutter whereas Mizen did. Those who pooh-pooh it as evidence are likely to be pooh-poohed themselves. Sorting away things we think speaks against out views is never very becoming. And the logical weighing up of Neils and Mizens testimony does not produce a picture of blood that did not run, it provides one of a pool of partially coagulated blood that is slowly filling and rinning over the brim.

Do we have to like that? No. Does our disliking it make it go away? Same answer.

[Fisherman]

Can you explain the quantitative difference between ‘at once’ and ‘immediately’? In terms of seconds preferably. To me the two terms carry the same meaning.

To me too, actually. But I was not the one who said that Mizen was "sent immediately for the ambulance". That means that Mizen was sent away the moment he reached Neil. But what Mizen instead says is that he was told to fetch the ambulance and went to do so at once - arguably meaning that he went as soon as he was told to do it. That however leaves the opportunity that he was NOT told immediately to get the ambulance, but instead had the time to look at the blood - which he apparently did.
Tell me now - can you see how these things make for different possibilities?

Perhaps you are in receipt of expert opinion that ‘at once’ allows for sufficient delay for someone to inspect a body and check on blood flow.

See the above. Furthermore, we know that Mizen answered the question whether it was true that he continued knocking people up before he went to Bucks Row with the words "No; I only finished knocking up one person." This effectively means that he gave the impression that he went directly, whereas he actually did not do so. Apply that to the ambulance business, and you get the possible outcome: "Is it true that you examined Nichols before you went to get the ambulance? - No, I only took a look at the blood and then left immediately".
Food for thought, perhaps?

Finally, if, as you suggested, Neil actually HAD said that he immediately sent Mizen for an ambulance, that actually does not necessarily mean that Mizen immediately went away for it. With that kind of semantic construction (that was never there), it could still apply that Mizen did not immediately follow Neils bid, but instead took a look at the bleeding before he went away.

And would that not be a very good thing? It secures evidence that is vital. It was only because Mizen DID look at the blood that he was able to provide the inquest with that vital information. Without his alertness, we would be much less informed.

“I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.”

See the above. And a few more papers.

[Fisherman]

Stunning!

Nothing I posted was about people illegally cutting up horse flesh. Where on earth did you get that from?

From the discussion on JTR Forums, where the matter is referred to many times.

Since you mention it, what evidence do you have that Joseph Forsdike was in hospital at the time CAL was carving up the Pinchin Street victim? And if there is any, what makes you think that Victorian hospitals encouraged patients’ family members to sit by their besides for any length of time?

That really does not matter, since it is the same kind of stuff as the bonesaw business. It is idle chatter, leading nowhere. And I donīt want the more important bits to get bogged down in an ocean of such chatter.

[Fisherman]

>>What cannot be suggested is that the pathologists in my book were unaware of how bleeding processes go down, or that they would not be able to make a fair assessment of those matters. Iīm sure you have heard it before, but you are no medico - they are. <<

I'll leave that to David Orsam's analysis of the matter, which covers the problems with the medicos comments.

So, from one layman to another, avoiding the input from the real experts? Yes, you do that, Dusty.

[Fisherman]

>>The alternative is that it was made up by journalists...<<

Like that's never happened!

No, like it is the straw grasped for by those who desperately want to rid themselves of evidence of some kind.

Do journalists make things up? Yes, it happens. Is it the general rule. No, it is not. The general rule is that they report as faithfully as they can.

And so, much more likely than not, Neil spoke of how Nichols was bleeding profusely in the initial reports.

[MrBarnett]

Perhaps you can explain why you think her chunks were much bigger and bonier.

Neither of us can prove our point, but I can provide endless examples that support mine. Do you have any examples to support yours?

This for me is a key question.

I can think of two obvious answers:

1. I have evidence to prove/suggest that my belief is reasonable.

2. Although I have no evidence, and there is much evidence to suggest the opposite, I prefer to believe that because it supports my theory.

Christer is a man of high principals who takes a very dim view of someone even using close synonyms when describing the events in Buck’s Row, so option 2. cannot be the correct one. In the past when querying this, I’ve been told of anecdotal evidence that the Lechmere family had boiled horse flesh in their back yard in the 1920s/30s. Perhaps that’s why he believes old Ma Lechmere processed large chunks of bone-in meat in the middle of the Ratcliff Highway.