Every minute counts

[Fisherman]

Fact: It is not proven, that Nichols was dead when Lechmere and Paul first examined her.

The Baron

Fact: All of the investigations into the matter will nevertheless work from that assumption. You are welcome to revolutionize the world of Ripperology, though!

[Fisherman]

PC Neil makes for a better suspect than Lechmere!

If we look at the bleeding only, he makes for a viable suspect. Not a better one, though, since both pathologists kept the door open for a longer bleeding time than the 3 and 5 minute stages they said were the likeliest minutes of bleeding.

Paul thought he detected a faint breath, she could have been still alive when they examined here.

Both Paul and Lechmere didn't notice any Blood.

We Know PC Neil was there before the murder.

He may have started murdering her before he was interrupted, and after Paul and Lechmere went a way he came and finished her.

The Baron

Yes, you should work along that line, and tell us all about Neils exploits when you are ready.

[Fisherman]

Fiver, I will not comment on your posts, other than to say that we cannot claim something for true without having seen the whole material. It will inevitably go wrong if we do.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

Well, maybe someone can be decapitated and stop bleeding a minute later, but as Nichols was not decapitated that doesn't really apply here.

Which vessels are opened up by decapitation? And which were opened in the Nichols case? Her head hung on by the spine only, and so the difference will not be that large, really.

And yes, I agree, clotting isn't going to stop the bleeding from a severed cartoid artery, that was just me mulling over ideas (if not very appropriate ones for this case, but we've both made that mistake).

True. Thank you for explaining the underlying reason.

Anyway, all I can say is that the probability distribution you're describing is the "logical inverse" of a cumulative one with respect to "not bleeding any more", meaning "after a cut everyone bleeds immediately, so 0% are not bleeding" then at some interval later (call that X) some percent stop bleeding, say 0.5% have stopped. Then another interval later and more have stopped bleeding, say we're at 1.05%, and so on, until we eventually get to the point where all cases (100%) have stopped bleeding. That means, the logical inverse cumulative probablity for bleeding starts at 100% and yes,I see what you mean, it then decreases until it reaches 0%. That decrease would be slowly at first, then it would tend to decrease more quickly, and then slow down again as we get into the range of rare long bleeders.

That's not the one that would be used, though, to compare the likelihood between the two theories. One uses the density function version, which is "what percent stop bleeding between 0 and X" and then what percent fall between X and 2X, and then between 2X and 3X, and so on. It's the same information, but it's not plotting the running totals (or in this case the running decrease), but rather the values between two successive multiples of your interval. It's the density function that is used to test questions like this (is Cross/Lechmere more or less likely than JtR as Other), not the cumulative distribution. The two distributions come from exactly the same data, they are just different ways to represent them, but the differences are fundamentally important with regards to making probabilistic inferences of this sort. I get where you're coming from, but inferentially speaking, the probabilities you're talking about are not the ones that you want.

And again, without us knowing what that density function looks like, there's no way for us to know which would be the more probable because it depends upon which side of the peak the two theories end up. But I am sure, that given how little of a time difference we're talking about, any difference in either direction is going to be so very small nobody would consider one more likely than the other in any real sense, only a purely mathematical one.

Anyway, I spend enough time at work lecturing on statistics that I'm not about to bore everyone here with it. I'll leave it to you to decide what you want to do with that though. It has got me wondering if there are any papers on this, but I doubt it as I can't imagine how one could ever obtain such data with enough knowledge of when a cut was produced and how long it took that wound to eventually stop bleeding since, well, that requires the participant to die. They don't sign up for such studies.

- Jeff

I am aware of how there are many ways to calculate probabilities. What you seem to be saying here is that all people are different kinds of bleeders and until we know what kind of a bleeder Nichols was, we do not know how long she was likely to bleed for. Correct me if I´m wrong.
However, this is something I have already admitted will have a bearing - individuals bleed individually.

But the overall picture is not changed by that. We know for certain that the bleeding will stop at some time, and therefore any minute of bleeding that is recorded as coming after another minute MUST be closer to the end of the bleeding. Consequentially, it must also be accepted that the later minute is a less likely one to occur, REGARDLESS of the disposition of the bleeder. There can be no arguing about that. We can never say "If we cut a person´s neck open, then that person is likelier to bleed in minute 8 than in minute 7. Instead, we can say that he or she is likelier to bleed in minute 7 than in minute 8.

In the discussion, we must work from the assumption that Nichols was a "normal" bleeder, meaning that there was nothing much that told her away from other bleeders. The fact that her blood was in a large clot as it was cleaned away seems to be in line with such a suggestion.

Given all of this and accepting that the pathologists were correct in saying that the third and fifth minute are likelier bleeding minutes than the seventh, the implication is easy enough to see. After that, Nichols may have had a gene from Queen Victoria and some sort of hemophilia (although it is contradicted by the clotted blood that was washed away) or some other condition that made her a different bleeder than the average one, and so that may have had an impact.

The conclusion, though, reasoning not from how we may b 2X or 3X:s, but instead looking at the general picture (which was what the pathologists must have done when making their call), becomes one where Lechmere is simply a likelier cutter than an alternative killer who must add time to the schedule.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Christer,

A dead "prostitute" was found in Bucks Row.

Bucks Row was infested with prostitution.

When was the last time a prostitute was discovered, dead or alive, in Bucks Row?

Simon

[MrBarnett]

Of course, if ano killer heard Lechmere approaching, he may have swiftly pulled the clothing down, fearing that if the carman had caught sight of the wounds he would have screamed ‘Murder!’ at the top of his voice and alerted any copper in earshot.

[The Baron]

Fact: It is not proven, that Nichols was dead when Lechmere and Paul first examined her.


The Baron

[The Baron]

PC Neil makes for a better suspect than Lechmere!


Paul thought he detected a faint breath, she could have been still alive when they examined here.

Both Paul and Lechmere didn't notice any Blood.

We Know PC Neil was there before the murder.

He may have started murdering her before he was interrupted, and after Paul and Lechmere went a way he came and finished her.



The Baron

[Fiver]

The stretch from Brady Street to the murder site was around 130 yards. Walked in a quick pace, Paul would make it in a minute, just about.

The stretch from the murder site to the junction Bakers Row/Bucks Row, was nearly twice as long. Walked in a quick pace, it would take nearly twice as long, as you may understand.

What maps I can find puts the murder far closer to the midpoint of Buck's Row. Either way, it does appear that it would take about 2 minutes for Lechmere and Paul to reach the end of Buck's Row. Counting in a 1/2 a minute to a minute for them to miss PC Neil and it appears the Neil found Nichol's body about 5 or 6 minutes after Lechmere and Paul.

Which brings us back to Neil's contradictory terms "running" and "oozing". The first makes it more probable, though far from certain, that Lechmere killed Nichols. The second makes it very unlikely that Lechmere killed Eddowes.

[Fiver]

[B]Oh dear, oh dear. Who has suggested that Neil found the body nine minute after the carmen left it? Before you comment on these things, you must know what it is you comment on, Fiver.

It's not my fault that you incorrectly attributed PC Neil's description of Nichols' body to PC Mizen. That mistake on your part means your timeline is irrelevant. Every minute does not count, because you're counting minutes for the wrong man. The important question is how long after Nichols' was killed did PC Neil see her body.

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

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

We are not sure when Neil saw Nichols' body. It was probably only a minute or two after Lechemere and Paul had left Nichols body. It certainly wasn't 9 minutes, it probably wasn't even 5. Unfortunately, Neil uses the contradictory terms "running" and "oozing". If we go with the 3 to 7 minutes estimation, then "running" blood gives a time frame for Nichols throat being cut from 3 or 4 minutes before Robert Paul saw her body to the clearly impossible a minute after Paul left. "Oozing" blood would indicate that internal blood pressure had dropped and a significant amount of coagulation had started, which would make it wildly improbable that Lechmere killed Nichols.

[Fiver]

If you put your mind to it, you will find where Mizen commented on the bloodflow too. Promise!

Here is Mizen's testimony at the Nichols Inquest.

"Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body."

This does not support your claim that "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." Mizen does not mention the blood flow at all.

It was said by PC Neil, who arrived well before Mizen.

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

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

We are not sure when Neil saw Nichols' body. It was probably only a minute or two after Lechemere and Paul had left Nichols body. It certainly wasn't 9 minutes, it probably wasn't even 5. Unfortunately, Neil uses the contradictory terms "running" and "oozing". If we go with the 3 to 7 minutes estimation, then "running" blood gives a time frame for Nichols throat being cut from 3 or 4 minutes before Robert Paul saw her body to the clearly impossible a minute after Paul left. "Oozing" blood would indicate that internal blood pressure had dropped and a significant amount of coagulation had started by the time PC Neil saw the body, which would make it wildly improbable that Lechmere killed Nichols.

[Fiver]

Then read again, because BOTH Paul and Mizen mentions it.

Here is Paul's testimony at the Nichols Inquest.

"Robert Paul, 30, Forster-street, Whitechapel, carman, said as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Baul) stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman, who was lying across the gateway. He felt her hands and face, and they were cold. The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down. Before he did so he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint. The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman. Not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he first saw the woman. Before he reached Buck's-row he had seen no one running away."

Here is Mizen's testimony at the Nichols Inquest.

"Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body."

So neither Mizen nor Paul nor Lechmere said Mizzen that continued with waking up duties. This is hardly surprising, it would have been a severe dereliction of duty on Mizzen's part when he thought he had been summoned by another constable.

[Fiver]

No, it is not. And if you think that something took perhaps two minutes, you don´t say that it took no more than four minutes. And why does it appear to you that Paul did not have a watch? I mean, I don´t think he had one, but why wouold it appear to us as if he hadn´t? What is the indication that guides you?

"The man [Lechmere] walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman. Not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he first saw the woman." - Robert Paul

The phrase "Not more than four minutes" is clearly an estimate, which strongly implies Paul did not have watch. Other possible explanations would be that Paul had a watch, but never looked at it, or that it was too dark for him to read his watch. All of this is irrelevant to my point - Paul said "not more than four minutes", which is not the same thing as "around four minutes". Paul's estimate gives a maximum time he thinks passed between seeing Eddowes and finding a policeman - 4 minutes or less. We have no idea how accurate Paul was at estimating time. Anywhere from 2 to 5 minutes is probably a reasonable guess.

[Abby Normal]

"The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down." - Robert Paul

This makes it clear that Paul claimed he was helping someone pull the clothing down. The only other conscious person present was Lechmere.

You started this thread by saying "One of the things I thought did not look right with such a proposition was that 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."

According to Robert Paul's testimony, your theory that the killer pulled down Nichols' clothing is false. Unless you have switched theories and now think Robert Paul was the Ripper.

hi fiver
nichols is the only victim to have her dress pulled back down over the wound. however it was still somewhat hitched up, and i beleive that is what paul is referring to.

[Fiver]

And how do we know that Lechmere did not hear Paul as he was 130 yards away, entering Bucks Row? Because he said so himself?

I said "Lechmere says he heard Paul when Paul was "about forty yards away"."

This number - forty yards - is clearly an estimate on Lechmere's part. Since it is an estimate, it could have been wrong - perhaps he heard Paul when Paul was 30 yards away. Perhaps the distance was 50 yards. That still means a distance that could be covered 20 to 35 seconds going at a walking pace; well under your 1 minute estimate.

The other possibility is that Lechmere lied about how far away he heard Paul, but Lechmere would have no motive for lying and it would gain him nothing.

Also, the farther away we assume Paul was, the more likely it is that Lechmere did not kill Polly Nichols. A killer with a 130 heard head start could have just walked away into the darkness.