Evidence of innocence

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, I am calling you a liar. I suggest you report me to the administrators - but I would suggest that you are going to have to be able to disprove me before you do.

But that is not going to happen, is it? Whether or not you are intellectually unfit to understand what proof is and what it represents, or whether you are simply lying for any other reason, I donīt know. But the gist of the matter is that you are not telling the truth. The truth is that the theory has NEVER been disproven in any way. And I can -easily - prove that here and now:

If the theory had been disproven by anybody, it is not as if everybody but you would prefer not to talk about it. I would have been blown off Casebook, scorned and laughed at and hung out to dry, and there would have been a queue formed by people taking turn to spit at me.

It is the wet dream of numerous posters out here to disprove the Lechmere theory. If it had ever happened, we should all - me included - know that.

But we donīt.

Last week in one of my posts to which you replied in which we were discussing your experts opinons regarding how long a body would take to bleed out. I stated thst there is no defintive answer to that and that your experts were clearly saying what you wanted them to say to fit with your theory. At that time you challenged me to ask Dr Biggs my expert the same question which I did, and i have posted his reply below which clearly shows there can be no definitive answer to that question

Question to Dr Biggs
"In relation to one particular victim Mary Nicholls who had her throat cut and her body only subjected to minor abdominal wounds with no attempt made to remove organs can I ask how long it would approx take for her body to bleed out, if at all?"

Dr Biggs answer
"Your question sounds like it “should” be fairly simple to answer, but as always there are hidden complications. TV and movies usually show a cut throat leading to almost instantaneous collapse / death, but in reality it will take at least a short period of time for blood loss to become so great that it causes unconsciousness, followed by death after another additional period of time. Depending on the blood vessels severed, this will vary, but even in a worst (best?) case scenario, where the carotid arteries and jugular veins have all been cut open, it will still take many seconds or even several minutes for the accumulated blood pumped / leaked out to reach a level where it actually results in death. A victim could potentially survive for a surprising length of time with a cut throat, gradually bleeding to death. Also, the rate of bleeding slows as the blood pressure drops, so after an initial rush of blood there may be a relatively long period of collapsed survival, where a severely weakened or unconscious person clings on and on until the remaining blood necessary to prove fatal finally ebbs away.

However, other factors may prevail before a victim has had a chance to die from blood loss alone. For example, if the windpipe has also been cut open by the blade, there is the potential for blood to enter the airways and lungs, causing a more rapid death due to choking or “aspiration” (a bit like drowning, only with blood entering the lungs rather than water). A perhaps less-frequently talked about, but definitely relevant, factor is the process whereby air enters the circulation via open blood vessels. When a large neck vein is severed, especially in an upright person, air effectively gets “sucked” into the vein (blood is constantly in the process of being drawn back to the heart through the circulation, and gravity is also pulling it downwards if you are upright, creating a negative pressure in the neck veins that sucks air in as soon as there is a hole in the vessel wall). Once air has been drawn into the heart, it ceases to work very well as a pump – it is really good at pumping liquid, but cannot shift gas very well at all… so simply ends up “churning” the air within the heart, rather than pumping out any blood. This can lead to a very rapid collapse – within a few seconds, and certainly faster than you might expect due to blood loss alone. This phenomenon (cardiac air embolism) reveals itself at post-mortem examination in the form of a tell-tale “froth” of tiny bubbles within the right side of the heart, and we see this relatively frequently following stabbings and other incidents where injuries have resulted in damage to blood vessels in the neck and other areas.

So in summary, a person could feasibly last a surprisingly long time with a cut throat when considering blood loss alone as a potential cause of death, but there are other mechanisms that might cause death more quickly, including within a matter of seconds. This could potentially explain, for example, a scenario where “not enough” blood has been found at a crime scene, for example.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[mpriestnall]

Last week in one of my posts to which you replied in which we were discussing your experts opinons regarding how long a body would take to bleed out. I stated thst there is no defintive answer to that and that your experts were clearly saying what you wanted them to say to fit with your theory. At that time you challenged me to ask Dr Biggs my expert the same question which I did, and i have posted his reply below which clearly shows there can be no definitive answer to that question

Question to Dr Biggs
"In relation to one particular victim Mary Nicholls who had her throat cut and her body only subjected to minor abdominal wounds with no attempt made to remove organs can I ask how long it would approx take for her body to bleed out, if at all?"

Dr Biggs answer
"Your question sounds like it “should” be fairly simple to answer, but as always there are hidden complications. TV and movies usually show a cut throat leading to almost instantaneous collapse / death, but in reality it will take at least a short period of time for blood loss to become so great that it causes unconsciousness, followed by death after another additional period of time. Depending on the blood vessels severed, this will vary, but even in a worst (best?) case scenario, where the carotid arteries and jugular veins have all been cut open, it will still take many seconds or even several minutes for the accumulated blood pumped / leaked out to reach a level where it actually results in death. A victim could potentially survive for a surprising length of time with a cut throat, gradually bleeding to death. Also, the rate of bleeding slows as the blood pressure drops, so after an initial rush of blood there may be a relatively long period of collapsed survival, where a severely weakened or unconscious person clings on and on until the remaining blood necessary to prove fatal finally ebbs away.

However, other factors may prevail before a victim has had a chance to die from blood loss alone. For example, if the windpipe has also been cut open by the blade, there is the potential for blood to enter the airways and lungs, causing a more rapid death due to choking or “aspiration” (a bit like drowning, only with blood entering the lungs rather than water). A perhaps less-frequently talked about, but definitely relevant, factor is the process whereby air enters the circulation via open blood vessels. When a large neck vein is severed, especially in an upright person, air effectively gets “sucked” into the vein (blood is constantly in the process of being drawn back to the heart through the circulation, and gravity is also pulling it downwards if you are upright, creating a negative pressure in the neck veins that sucks air in as soon as there is a hole in the vessel wall). Once air has been drawn into the heart, it ceases to work very well as a pump – it is really good at pumping liquid, but cannot shift gas very well at all… so simply ends up “churning” the air within the heart, rather than pumping out any blood. This can lead to a very rapid collapse – within a few seconds, and certainly faster than you might expect due to blood loss alone. This phenomenon (cardiac air embolism) reveals itself at post-mortem examination in the form of a tell-tale “froth” of tiny bubbles within the right side of the heart, and we see this relatively frequently following stabbings and other incidents where injuries have resulted in damage to blood vessels in the neck and other areas.

So in summary, a person could feasibly last a surprisingly long time with a cut throat when considering blood loss alone as a potential cause of death, but there are other mechanisms that might cause death more quickly, including within a matter of seconds. This could potentially explain, for example, a scenario where “not enough” blood has been found at a crime scene, for example.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thanks for posting. Very interesting info.

[rjpalmer]

There was one of these cases recently in Brooklyn, N.Y. A 37-year-old man was found lying on the sidewalk stabbed & with his throat cut. The police were called and arrived at 6.31 a.m. where they found him "unconscious and unresponsive." The paramedics arrived soon afterwards, but the man died at the scene.

Initially, it was reported that the man had been murdered at 'around 6.30 a.m.' But the police traced surveillance camera footage showing the attack actually happened just after 4.00 a.m.

The man must have laid there unconscious and bleeding to death for fully two-and-a-half hours.

[drstrange169]

Another day dawns another broken promise from Christer. Where are the answers he keeps promising, but never delivers?

It has become clear Christer knows he can't explain and is just here to play some games and then disappear every time it gets too difficult.

With Bob, it seems he has become so obsessed that he is no longer capable of rational debate. Perhaps he genuinely doesn't understand why he needs to explain the claims in his article.

When people ask about Lechmere as a suspect, I just show them the posts these two put up. That goes to the heart of the theory better than I ever could.

[drstrange169]

>>An excerpt from how Dusty does his Ripperology:<<

Actually, your post is an example of how you and Bob do ripperology.

You ignored the substance of my post, which refuted your Daily News claims, to wit,

"Late on Thursday night she was seen staggering along in drink ... A little while after, she was found with her throat cut" .

But, this what is debate has been reduced by you and Bob. Surely, there is someone out there who can mount a sensible case against Charles allen Lechmere?

[harry]

What Griffith says about Cross is what one would expext.Cross became a person of interest.He can be placed at the scene of the crime.That is all,but further to that he cannot be connected to the killing.There is a difference.Evidence of being at the scene,after Nichols was attacked,is undeniable,but in itself not sufficient to suspect Cross killed Nichols.Accusers say that Cross lied about his movements before being seen by Paul,but have shown no evidence Cross lied.He could have,is all that's been suggested,and that is not enough.

[drstrange169]

>>The two options aren’t approaching equal in merit.<<

You are not kidding Herlock. Not only did a guilty Lechmere move away from the body towards the newcomer without being seen. He then turned his back on who ever was coming. He then stopped Paul who was intent on passing him by. He then led Paul to the body and allowed him to touch around the only area where the wounds were uncovered.

Then at the inquest, he volunteered the information that he wouldn't move the body. Something Paul never talked about. Why would a guilty man volunteer that?

And finally, instead of giving himself an out, he tells the coroner that the street was empty and quiet.

All actions one would expect from an innocent man, but not a guilty one.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Dusty,

>>An excerpt from how Dusty does his Ripperology:<<

...

Surely, there is someone out there who can mount a sensible case against Charles allen Lechmere?

Well, I would start on simply suggesting that Cross/Lechmere must have lied about the time he left home. Since we have no documented evidence concerning what, if anything, the police did to verify his statement about leaving for work "about 3:30", then that's a critical statement that otherwise has no corroboration. All the other times generally marry up the way one would expect, and none of the other individuals would have a motivation to lie. In the Cross/Lechmere theory, by definition he has a motive to be untruthful. Moreover, as we're talking about his route to work, he would also know how long it would take him to get there from home well enough that he would be able to work out what time he had to leave to appear innocent.

That would handle the timing evidence.

But, his behaviour. waiting for Paul, calling Paul over to look at the body, continuing with Paul until they actually do find a police man, all the while with potentially incriminating evidence (blood on him; a knife, etc) I find are incompatible with guilt. I've read and considered the explanations that are offered on the basis he's guilty, and while they are clever stories, they seem to me to be clever to the point of being fanciful. Explaining the rest of his behaviour, and the fact that if he's not guilty he has no reason to lie about his time of departure (which fits with all the others), is just so trivially easy if he's innocent, while explaining all of that from a guilty perspective requires far too self contradictory and fantastic ideas, that the guilty version comes out as improbable to the point where I think it can be rejected.

Obviously, others assess all of that differently. But again, if I were to try and come up with a story with Cross/Lechmere being guilty, I would simply start with "and clearly he left home earlier than he claimed", rather than change every other witness's statement to fit with the suspect's time of leaving home. But that's just me.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

Last week in one of my posts to which you replied in which we were discussing your experts opinons regarding how long a body would take to bleed out. I stated thst there is no defintive answer to that and that your experts were clearly saying what you wanted them to say to fit with your theory. At that time you challenged me to ask Dr Biggs my expert the same question which I did, and i have posted his reply below which clearly shows there can be no definitive answer to that question

Question to Dr Biggs
"In relation to one particular victim Mary Nicholls who had her throat cut and her body only subjected to minor abdominal wounds with no attempt made to remove organs can I ask how long it would approx take for her body to bleed out, if at all?"

Dr Biggs answer
"Your question sounds like it “should” be fairly simple to answer, but as always there are hidden complications. TV and movies usually show a cut throat leading to almost instantaneous collapse / death, but in reality it will take at least a short period of time for blood loss to become so great that it causes unconsciousness, followed by death after another additional period of time. Depending on the blood vessels severed, this will vary, but even in a worst (best?) case scenario, where the carotid arteries and jugular veins have all been cut open, it will still take many seconds or even several minutes for the accumulated blood pumped / leaked out to reach a level where it actually results in death. A victim could potentially survive for a surprising length of time with a cut throat, gradually bleeding to death. Also, the rate of bleeding slows as the blood pressure drops, so after an initial rush of blood there may be a relatively long period of collapsed survival, where a severely weakened or unconscious person clings on and on until the remaining blood necessary to prove fatal finally ebbs away.

However, other factors may prevail before a victim has had a chance to die from blood loss alone. For example, if the windpipe has also been cut open by the blade, there is the potential for blood to enter the airways and lungs, causing a more rapid death due to choking or “aspiration” (a bit like drowning, only with blood entering the lungs rather than water). A perhaps less-frequently talked about, but definitely relevant, factor is the process whereby air enters the circulation via open blood vessels. When a large neck vein is severed, especially in an upright person, air effectively gets “sucked” into the vein (blood is constantly in the process of being drawn back to the heart through the circulation, and gravity is also pulling it downwards if you are upright, creating a negative pressure in the neck veins that sucks air in as soon as there is a hole in the vessel wall). Once air has been drawn into the heart, it ceases to work very well as a pump – it is really good at pumping liquid, but cannot shift gas very well at all… so simply ends up “churning” the air within the heart, rather than pumping out any blood. This can lead to a very rapid collapse – within a few seconds, and certainly faster than you might expect due to blood loss alone. This phenomenon (cardiac air embolism) reveals itself at post-mortem examination in the form of a tell-tale “froth” of tiny bubbles within the right side of the heart, and we see this relatively frequently following stabbings and other incidents where injuries have resulted in damage to blood vessels in the neck and other areas.

So in summary, a person could feasibly last a surprisingly long time with a cut throat when considering blood loss alone as a potential cause of death, but there are other mechanisms that might cause death more quickly, including within a matter of seconds. This could potentially explain, for example, a scenario where “not enough” blood has been found at a crime scene, for example.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Question to Dr Biggs
"In relation to one particular victim Mary Nicholls who had her throat cut and her body only subjected to minor abdominal wounds with no attempt made to remove organs can I ask how long it would approx take for her body to bleed out, if at all?" Dr Llewellyn ''There were no injuries about the body till just about the lower part of the abdomen. Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. It was a very deep wound, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. On the right side there were also three or four similar cuts running downwards. All these had been caused by a knife, which had been used violently and been used downwards. The wounds were from left to right, and might have been done by a left-handed person. All the injuries had been done by the same instrument. One could hardly describe what Dr Llewellyn said at the inquest of Polly Nichols as '' Minor Abominal wounds '' lets be sure when giving information about the murders its accurate as so people get the full picture and not something that lessons their impact , wether its relevant or not .

[JeffHamm]

Hi all,

I've zoomed in to the crime scene area. The body was found at the red dot location. Cross/Lechmere is seen in the middle of the street, and I've seen a post where he says by the wool warehouse? I'm assuming that's the building across the road? Anyway, if I'm wrong, and it's the next one up and to the east, then the suggestions here just become more likely.

So, I've taken the middle of that building, and estimated the line that would go to the body. I place Cross/Lechmere where that line puts him in the middle of the street. That's about 15.5 feet from the body. This is his position when he says he spots Paul 40 yards up Berner Street (light blue circle with dark edge). Now, if Cross/Lechmere had to move from the body to that location, and he just walks it (to avoid sound and drawing attention to himself), then Paul will be roughly 15.5 feet further up Berner Street as well (so at the dark blue dot). So Paul is about 135 feet from the body.

And if Cross/Lechmere spots Paul at that point (which of course is the idea, since he moves towards Paul that 15.5 feet), it's interesting to note that he could have simply walked to the corner of the Board School and would have reached that before Paul reached the area of body. Also, Paul would be 5 feet away but on the far side of the street, roughly just above the middle of the letter E where Cross/Lechmere is located. The distance from there to the body would be about 17 ft. So the distance to the body for Paul would still be greater than the distance Cross/Lechmere testifies he realised it was a human, and "guilty Cross/Lechmere" is now out of sight (and free to run for all he's worth).

Of course, if the wool warehouse is the next building up, and we use the corner of it to draw our line to the middle of the street (about the 2nd E in Street, so shift Cross/Lechmere up to the next letter) which means not only is Cross/Lechmere is further from the body than I've depicted, it also means that at the time guilty Cross/Lechmere at the crime scene initially spots Paul, Paul is also that much further away.

To me, I cannot fathom a guilty Cross/Lechmere moving towards Paul (because of course if he's seen moving from the body, the jig is up) when he could just turn tail and flee. He's got about the same distance to go as the person approaching so even if he just walks, he's home free. A slightly quicker pace, and he's even better off.

I really can't see this scenario playing out the way it gets presented, and the relative positions of everything tied with the improbable choices that must be assumed in order to suggest Cross/Lechmere is guilty, make the guilty scenerio far less supported than the innocent one, making these positions evidence of innocence.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

According to Cross's testimony he was somewhere in this circle when the encounter took place.

Neither the police or Paul disputed that testimony.

If true, that completely alters any claims made about Lechmere's guilt.

[JeffHamm]

According to Cross's testimony he was somewhere in this circle when the encounter took place.

Neither the police or Paul disputed that testimony.

If true, that completely alters any claims made about Lechmere's guilt.

Ah, so the wool warehouse must be the next building up I take it? I had some thought that might be the case, but I wanted to err on the side of caution, meaning set it up in as favourable way to the Cross/Lechmere theory as possible. Because, you know, I'm biased against it apparently. Oddly, I would have thought that would mean I would try and alter the evidence to be harder to conclude guilt, but Christer and I have different ways of interpreting data and making predictions so I'm sure he'll be able to explain it. But despite giving it the benefit of the doubt, the guilt theory still doesn't make sense. And if Cross/Lechmere was in the circle, that just makes the guilt theory work even less.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

The wool warehouse was the huge monolithic building that dominated Buck's Row running almost its full length. The gates (marked by the star), were where Cross says he was when he saw what he thought was a tarpaulin.

He then walked into the middle of the road (presumably on the diagonal) to get a better look when Paul arrived.

A VERY different scenario from "leaning over" or being "next to the body". Remember Paul was heavily questioned by police, if he told them Cross was "next to" or "leaning over" the body they would have brought it up at the inquest. It is after all a VERY important difference.

[drstrange169]

The night watchman of the wool warehouse claimed to have seen off two men earlier that evening, but heard nothing at the time of the murder.

[JeffHamm]

The wool warehouse was the huge monolithic building that dominated Buck's Row running almost its full length. The gates (marked by the star), were where Cross says he was when he saw what he thought was a tarpaulin.

He then walked into the middle of the road (presumably on the diagonal) to get a better look when Paul arrived.

A VERY different scenario from "leaning over" or being "next to the body". Remember Paul was heavily questioned by police, if he told them Cross was "next to" or "leaning over" the body they would have brought it up at the inquest. It is after all a VERY important difference.

Absolutely. To be consistent with Cross/Lechmere's statement (which we have to consider as that comes from the innocence theory) and to be as least biased against the guilty theory then the shortest diagonal would be from the corner of the wool warehouse. And that would place Cross/Lechmere (the green dot) eastward, to about the 2nd e in metres but on the blue line. And of course, that shifts Paul eastward by the same amount, but the separation between "40 yard Paul" and "first spotted by guilty Cross/Lechmere" has to be increased to account for the increased distance guilty Cross/Lechmere has to travel towards Paul to get to where he's seen.

The guilty theory also requires that Cross/Lechmere is able to travel that distance without being seen by Paul to have done so. It also requires us to believe that Cross/Lechmere decided not to flee in case he was spotted by Paul, and so he decides to move towards Paul , which also requires him not to be seen.

So the explanation for not fleeing, he might be seen, is self contradicted by the fact the theory requires a guilty Cross/Lechmere to move towards Paul, which obviously raises an even greater risk of being seen!

The guilty theory is, therefore, logically irrational no matter what the distances are. Hence, given the guilty theory is logically irrational, but the innocent theory is not, this is evidence of innocence.

- Jeff