Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

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

This post has nothing at all to do with your lie about how the theory wouod have been disproven, though, Trevor. And discussing whether or not Nichols had the type of damage that would kill her is, if you excuse the term, stupid.

[Fisherman]

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.

Describe the exact extent of the damage to the throat, please - each cut vessel included. And the exact position of the body. Without that information, your post is pretty useless.

[JeffHamm]

I´m afraid that you cannot get Pauls and Llewellyns times to correspond with the times given by the PC:s unless you allow for some inventive moving of the clock arms. You know it and I know it, so let´s not try and pretend anything else.

You nasitly add "What you object to is that it does not support your theory", but the truth of the matter is that I can just as easily point out that what YOU do is to try and support YOUR thinking, so you are shooting with soaking wet powder. Add to this that whereas MY timing is supported WITHOUT changing the times Paul and LLewellyn gave, YOUR timing rests on the good old "maybe they were wrong?" suggestion.

My timeline can be anchored. Yours can´t. What you are about can be summed up as "let´s beleive the three UNANCHORED timings given by the PC:s". The timings, by the way, that the Daily News, Wynne Baxter and Donald Swanson threw out.

You see, nothing has changed in that department, nor will it do so.

Interesting, as always.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

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.

I have told you numerous times that making up fairytales about this is improductive. As I say, list your questions and I will answer them. Not entertaining a wish to exchange with people like you is a sign of health, not of fear. The only person fearing something here is you, who prefer to make the kind of untrue claims you do to simply providing me with a list.
Then again, the last time you DID provide me with questions, you did not like the answers I gave. But you see, not liking answers is not the same as not having had the questions answered.

So go ahead, ask away! I have all the answers I need and then some.

[Fisherman]

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.

You seem to have forgotten a whole lot of what Griffiths said, Harry. One of those things was that no other person could be accused of the murders before Lechmere could be taken of the list. For example.

[Fisherman]

>>Dr Andy Griffiths, former head of Sussex Murder Squad.
“From a Police point of view, the person who finds a body in circumstances like this is always going to be significant to an enquiry. Certainly, in the modern age you couldn’t prosecute anyone with eliminating him [Lechmere] first... because obviously you’ve got somebody who’s been with the body very close to the point of death, and is possibly the person who causes the death, so is definitely a very significant person in terms of the investigation.”<<

It would be bizarre in the extreme if Cross was not investigated by the Victorian police.

Again, they did not find out his registered name. That is a very clear implication of how Lechmere was never investigated in any depth at all. Plus, of course, whereas we know that Paul and Richardson and Barnett were hauled over the coals, we have no source at all mentioning any questioning at all of Lechmere.

And you of all people should know that life is full of bizarre inclusions. For example, when somebody you are exchanging with takes some time off from the boards, you bizarrely proclaim yourself winner of the deabte and hour opponent a frightened rabbit. Althoug the rabbit regularly returns to bite your ass.

[Fisherman]

>>Absolutely classic. Thats laugh out loud funny. Don’t ever change Dusty.<<


Sigh, we're back to responding to the insignificant parts my posts and ignoring the the key points in them.

But since the key parts cast SIGNIFICANT doubt on Lechmere's candidacy, that's what the rest of us have come to expect from you and Christer, just misinformation, evasion and insults.

You are predisposing that one of the main experts commenting on Lechmere did not mean what he said - and that is NOT significant?

Thank you, Dusty.

[Fisherman]

I do enjoy your posts Jeff but after moving the times around we are now moving Lechmere 30m away from the body.

It appears to me that by Pauls arrival Lechmere has ascertained its a woman. I don’t see how he could possibly know this without getting close - she’s lying in the darkness. It seems their interaction begins with Lechmere saying “come and look at this woman”.

I would add that if Lechmere can tell it’s a woman at 30m then Paul can see a guy walking in front of him at 40.

You should not pay much attention to Dustys ramblings. Nobody did when they were originally published.

[Fisherman]

I don't think I did move times around. It's Christer who is moving times around. It's Christer who is saying that PC Mizen's reported time of 3:45 really means something like 3:50 (I forget what time he randomly seems to have chosen, but he's moved it nonetheless). What I did was stick to the testified times]

Let´s try and be a little more honest, shall we?

I have not said that Mizens 3.45 really means something like 3.50. It is not as if I think Mizen said one thing and meant another. I think he got the time wrong. That is what you think too, but about other actors in the drama. But you have the gall to say that you stick to the testified times, whereas we all know you don´t. You stick to the times you PREFER to stick to and thrown the others under the bus.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why is it that Bob appears to think that accepting that the use of the word ‘about’ shows that someone has made an estimation is somehow wrong? Or that it’s somehow wrong to apply a reasonable margin for error either way when we know that someone has made an estimation? I’d say that this speaks volumes.

[Fisherman]

Oh, I forgot to mention, Christer says that Paul testifies at the inquest that he left home at approximately 3.45 or just thereafter. I've seen his testimony as saying he left home about a quarter to 4 (that's in the Times). I know the wording can differ between papers, but I don't ever recall a paper indicating that he left ... just thereafter.? What newspaper does that come from?

- Jeff

The Daily BNews, 18th of September 1888:

"Robert Paul said he lived at 30 Forster street, Whitechapel. On the Friday he left home just before a quarter to four ..."

Anything else I can do for you, Jeff? No?

[Fisherman]

Thanks Frank! I was wondering if there was a version out there that I hadn't seen before, but it appears Christer included his interpretation with a statement about what was said at the inquest, making it inadvertently appear like an actual quote.

- Jeff

I was pointing out that Robert Paul never gave any evidence in any shape or form that meant that his timing needed to be questioned on grounds of what he said. It is all neatly in line, he leaves home about or just before 3.45, he walks down Bucks Row at 3.45 precisely. There is consistency throughout, end of.

[Fisherman]

Is there really anything suspicious about Charles Lechmere being just where he would have been expected to have been at just the time that he would have been expected to have been there giving himself just enough time to be on his way to doing something that he had to do 6 days a week?

The only difference being that on this occasion some unknown person killed a woman on that spot.

We cannot prove or disprove that Lechmere had been there longer than he said that he was and neither are impossible.

As I keep saying, his "finding" the body is but one of the pointers in his direction. The name change, the hidden wounds, the refusal to prop Nichols up, the trek to work taking him through the killing fields, etc, are all quite enough to entertain suspicion.

If we accept that, then his "finding" Nichols must be viewed in that light. And what we have is:

Lechmere out of all people being the "finder".

Lechmere "finding" the body at a remove in time that is in perfect line with him being the killer, as far as the blood evidence goes. She STILL bled when Mizen saw her!

Lechmere having Paul arrive at the scene in the exact minuscule area of time that provided Lechmere with a makeshift alibi. If Paul had arrive a minute later - no alibi. If he had arrived a minute before - he would have seen the character of Lechmere´s dealings with the body and whether they were innocent or not.

And Paul never spoke of Lechmere walking in front of him.

Could this all have gone down like this? Yes - which is why Lechmere, if the killer, chose to present things like this.

Is it likely to have gone like this? That´s a harder question. But it remains that there are a number of coincidences involved befoere we can dub Lechmere an innocent finder of a dead body.

[Mark J D]

The Daily BNews, 18th of September 1888:

"Robert Paul said he lived at 30 Forster street, Whitechapel. On the Friday he left home just before a quarter to four ..."

I have always been struck by the opening sentence in Paul's 'Lloyd's' interview. I can't see any reason to think his anti-police orientation and the paper's activist agenda would have falsified it...

"It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row..."

As for how he'd feel entitled to the 'exactly' after walking the 110 yards to Buck's row from his front door, my 1890s map suggests that he passed a brewery on the way. If Mrs Long can hear a brewery clock (accurate enough for running a large business), why can't Paul?

M.

[Fisherman]

>>then if true, dosnt that point to lech leaving on time at 3:30 <<

By his time source, yes.


>>(didnt lech say he usually left for work at 3:20?)<<

Definitely not, that was a story invented by Christer. No newspaper states that.

"Suggested". Another term, of course, but very, very useful.