Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[rjpalmer]

I inadvertently misstated Dr. Jason Payne-James's name in my earlier post, so I apologize for that.

Here is a screen shot of his statement in the 'Missing Evidence' video and what I think it states. The exact wording of the last sentence is uncertain.

"The lack of blood at the scene strongly suggests she was strangled to death before she was cut. This removed any arterial pressure. Death from asphyxia takes a minimum of two minutes and a maximum of four minutes.

"Lack of wounds on her hands and arms suggests there was no struggle. This corroborates the [death by asphyxia?] hypothesis."

[A P Tomlinson]

I have posted below several questions posed to Dr Biggs a forensic pathologist along with his answers on this topic

Q. Evidence from the crime scenes seems to show a distinct lack of arterial blood spray. Now given the throats were cut, and in some cases, the carotid arteries were severed is there any explanation for the absence of arterial spray?

A. Blood loss could have been great if major neck vessels were severed. It is possible for much of the bleeding to remain within the body, though, so it would not necessarily result in a large volume of blood being visible externally. The lack of documented arterial blood pattern is not surprising as, despite being common in textbooks; arterial spurting is actually quite uncommon ‘in the wild’. Arteries, even large ones, usually go into acute spasm when cut, providing very effective control of bleeding (at least initially). The large arteries in the neck are quite well ‘hidden’ behind muscles and other structures, so they can be missed by even very extensive cuts to the neck. Also, even if cut, the initial ‘spray’ is blocked by the surrounding structures such that blood either remains inside the body or simply gushes / flows / drips out of the external skin hole rather than spurting.

...

www.trevormarriott.co.uk[/FONT][/FONT]

[/SIZE]

In addition to your coroners report, a consultant trauma surgeon at the hospital my Mrs used to work at pointed out that the angle of the blade and position of the chin can cause the cuts to "overlap" so a blade angled slightly upward with the chin being pushed down would effectively push the lower part of the wound back and cause the top of the wound to slightly overlap the bottom, which would force the flow of blood downward. Which would probably cause the blood to run into the clothing.
This was not a "gentle exercise in precision positioning" it was a violent attack requiring strength and determination to not only subdue and kill the victim, but also manouever her dead body about.
I still consider it a possibility that she was killed slightly further away and manouevered to the position by the gate, (her skirts being bunched up behind her making them difficult to pull down, may well have been the result of her being dragged but a yard or so by her feet.) and if the Police had had the opportunity to check the cobbles before half of the East End descended on the scene they may have found some of that arterial spray we allkeepwondering about.
It would also have likel got quite a bit of blood on the perpetrator, (depending on the position he was in). If for example, he lowered Nichols to the ground (with the result that the blood flowed into the back of her clothes, with very little down the front) his hands and cuffs would have "probably" been drenched in blood.

If the blood they reported in her clothes was due to "bleeding out" in situ, it's hard to correlate that with a wound that almost severed the head. "Bleeding out" should have been a fairly brief matter.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Anyone is free to propose a suspect and present the case for that person but the problem is that some just can’t accept that they might not have solved the case. Once they have planted their flag in the ground they then feel honour-bound to defend their theory because they feel that to admit to even the possibility of being wrong might mean accepting that they aren’t the brilliant detective that they thought that they were. So we get people going overboard in defending a suspect when we all know that we don’t know who the killer was. They start to leave reason, common sense and fairness behind in an agenda propagated by bias. In close to 40 years interest in the case nowhere have I seen it taken to such lengths in the case of Cross. Some of the points raised in his favour are laughable if they weren’t such a sad reflection and what’s worse is that we have people using the ‘tactic’ of talking as if the case has been solved so that casual readers might accept this.

I couldn’t care less that Cross was ‘there’ and I’m tired of having this obvious fact repeated as if by some particularly unimaginative parrot. Every single person in the history of crime that found a body was ‘there,’ how many of them turned out to have been the killer? The fact that he used his stepfathers name and gained no advantage from it is about as notable as if we found out that he used to pull girls hair in the playground. Worst of all we get a 100% proven deliberate omission in both book and documentary purely to manufacture a mysterious ‘gap’ to create suspicion against Cross and to con a Barrister into believing that there was a case to answer against Cross. A Barrister that clearly did no background research himself but was fed spoonfuls of drivel by people with a vested in promoting this passer-by as a suspect. On and on it goes. Nothing that Charles Cross did that morning was even remotely suspicious. Everything that he and Paul did was absolutely normal behaviour for normal, fallible human beings. All that the evidence tells us is that Polly Nichols was killed a short time before Cross arrived in Bucks Row by an unknown man who did what all killers do after killing…he escaped rather than loitering around for a chat with Cross and the evidence very clearly tells us that he arrived at around 3.40 in comparison with the timings of the three Constable’s. We can answer the question honestly….could Cross have killed Nichols? Yes, it’s physically possible. Is there any evidence that points in that direction? No, there isn’t. Is there evidence against it? Yes, there is.

Who ever heard of a Ripper suspect with a tv channel and a fan club? It’s a crusade of misinformation, bias, ego and gullibility. Cross is an appalling suspect. Nothing (and I mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING) even remotely points to his guilt. He was there..he was there..he was there!!!

[Lewis C]

Ah yes indeed. If someone had seen Tomas Bowyer peering through the window does that put him in the same category.

16) Only suspect that can be placed at the scene of the crime.

Who made him 'suspect' status?

If a suspect is anyone that has been named as a suspect by someone, there is a theory that Louis Diemshutz committed the murders in conjunction with 2 other men. And what about George Hutchinson and John Richardson?

[Geddy2112]

It was Derek Osborne in Ripperana 24 years ago. You may have forgotten but I posted a transcription of the article on here a while ago. I can post it again if anyone hasn’t read it?

I can remember it thanks, but yes how does he have the right to do that? A 'suspected suspect' surely, a possible suspect maybe... but to nail it on is poor form IMO.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ah yes indeed. If someone had seen Tomas Bowyer peering through the window does that put him in the same category.

16) Only suspect that can be placed at the scene of the crime.

Who made him 'suspect' status?

It was Derek Osborne in Ripperana 24 years ago. You may have forgotten but I posted a transcription of the article on here a while ago. I can post it again if anyone hasn’t read it?

[Geddy2112]

15) He was seen near Nichols body. (The amusing part is that finding a body is more suspicious if someone sees you finding it than if you do it without being seen.)

Ah yes indeed. If someone had seen Tomas Bowyer peering through the window does that put him in the same category.

16) Only suspect that can be placed at the scene of the crime.

Who made him 'suspect' status?

[Lewis C]

Let me see we have had to my knowledge... I'm certain there are many more.

1) Made up time gap.
2) Unknown time for Cross leaving home, added to unknown walking speed of Cross added to unknown route to work to equal a fact of time in Bucks Row.
3) Believing Paul over three sworn statements by Police referring to timings.
4) 'Confusing' opinions from a KC (wrong info fed to Scobie Doo.)
5) 'Confusing' opinions from two Professors regarding blood evidence and agonal breathing.
6) Not believing Mizen with regards to timing but believing him in regards to Cross lying.
7) Bagels
8) Tigers
9) Nichola Bulley
10) People who knew each other in real life are buried next to each other in the graveyard.
11) Doveton Street drains are blocked with human remains and should be dug up.
12) False Names which are not false.

Then there are my 3 favorites:
13) He wore his work clothes to the inquest.
14) He didn't want to touch Nichols' body.
15) He was seen near Nichols body. (The amusing part is that finding a body is more suspicious if someone sees you finding it than if you do it without being seen.)

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff
I totally agree with you and Dr Biggs has highlighted the different ways blood flow can be influenced

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Indeed. Even measures that are used to estimate ToD are subject to a wide range of influences that cannot be factored into the calculations of the estimate, which is why properly given medical testimony presents estimated ranges that span hours, or in some cases where bodies are found a long time after death, the ranges can be in terms of days or even months, but those latter extremes are situations unlike the JtR cases of course.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can answer 8.

In 1857 a tiger escaped from a crate and grabbed a young boy. Charles Jamrach, the owner, managed to free the child.

The Lechmere "tie in" is that 3 decades later Charles Lechmere's children started attending school near the site.

No, you can't make this stuff up. HoL has descended into self-parody.

If I didn’t know that you aren’t given to just making stuff up I’d be assuming that’s exactly what you were doing. Unbelievable.

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks Trevor. Mind you, part of me bristles when this topic appears because Fisherman invented blood flow as a "thing". Meaning, he created the idea that using witness statements about bleeding is informative as to the time of death. Personally, I can't think of anything (reasonable) more unreliable, but hey, I've been wrong before! Anyway, my doubts aside, the above clearly indicates that the concerns people have around Fisherman's adventures into forensic biology are well founded. My view is, leave it to the experts, but get the view of multiples experts before you leave it. Remember, the experts you hear from are the experts the person posting wants you to hear from. So maybe my endorsement should be viewed that way (and yes, of course, it should - but I think you would do well in this case to agree )

Hi Jeff
I totally agree with you and Dr Biggs has highlighted the different ways blood flow can be influenced

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fiver]

I haven’t a clue about 7, 8, 9 and 10?

I can answer 8.

In 1857 a tiger escaped from a crate and grabbed a young boy. Charles Jamrach, the owner, managed to free the child.

The Lechmere "tie in" is that 3 decades later Charles Lechmere's children started attending school near the site.

No, you can't make this stuff up. HoL has descended into self-parody.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are telling me you do not watch the fabulous House of Lechmere channel on YouTube... shame on you. 7,8,9 and 10 all have connections to Lechmere according to the 'star' of the videos. The tiger one is great... mind you so is the drains..

I’ve never watched one. I don’t really do much online tbh Geddy. I’m thinking of reforming The Luddites.

[Geddy2112]

I haven’t a clue about 7, 8, 9 and 10?

You are telling me you do not watch the fabulous House of Lechmere channel on YouTube... shame on you. 7,8,9 and 10 all have connections to Lechmere according to the 'star' of the videos. The tiger one is great... mind you so is the drains..

[JeffHamm]

I have posted below several questions posed to Dr Biggs a forensic pathologist along with his answers on this topic

Q. Evidence from the crime scenes seems to show a distinct lack of arterial blood spray. Now given the throats were cut, and in some cases, the carotid arteries were severed is there any explanation for the absence of arterial spray?

A. Blood loss could have been great if major neck vessels were severed. It is possible for much of the bleeding to remain within the body, though, so it would not necessarily result in a large volume of blood being visible externally. The lack of documented arterial blood pattern is not surprising as, despite being common in textbooks; arterial spurting is actually quite uncommon ‘in the wild’. Arteries, even large ones, usually go into acute spasm when cut, providing very effective control of bleeding (at least initially). The large arteries in the neck are quite well ‘hidden’ behind muscles and other structures, so they can be missed by even very extensive cuts to the neck. Also, even if cut, the initial ‘spray’ is blocked by the surrounding structures such that blood either remains inside the body or simply gushes / flows / drips out of the external skin hole rather than spurting.

Q. I would like to talk about another victim Polly Nichols she was found murdered with her throat cut and some minor abdominal mutilations. It has been suggested that the person who found the body could have been her killer, as it was reported that blood was still flowing from the throat wound, and the body was still warm 30 minutes later when the doctor examined the body at the scene. Could a body with these injuries bleed from a neck wound for more than twenty minutes?

A. I think it is certainly possible that ‘bleeding’ could go on for a period of twenty minutes, although I would make a distinction between ‘post mortem leakage of blood from the body’ and actual ‘bleeding’ that occurred during life. The flow of blood is likely to have slowed to a trickle by this time as the pressure inside the vessels would have dissipated and the volume of blood remaining available to leak out would have become very little.

In many cases, the majority of the blood found at the scene may have seeped out of the veins. This can happen under the influence of gravity, and therefore, is not dependent on a beating heart (i.e. blood can continue to seep out for quite some time after death). As long as there is still blood throughout the body it can theoretically still leak out under gravity, so there could be a period of several minutes where blood continues to flow after an injury (including after death... it is not unusual for a body that has been dead for some time to ‘bleed’ from a knife wound when you start moving it).

This is likely to be minimal (almost negligible) in nature, as the majority of the blood that could come out would have done so much sooner. If a witness discovered a body that was still bleeding relatively profusely, then the injuries are likely to have been inflicted more recently than 20 minutes previously... but if the 20 minute period is critical in ruling out / in certain suspects, then I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility of some continued blood loss at this time, as I think, it would be possible. (I base this on my own observations of seeing blood leak out of bodies when I have been present at murder scenes some hours after death. This is why I am open to many things being ‘possible’, even though I can’t state categorically what ‘would’ or ‘would not’ have happened in an individual case.)

Q. To what extent would the position of the neck have had an impact on bleeding from such a wound?

A. The position of the neck could potentially influence the rate of flow of blood in that it could either ‘hold open’ or ‘squeeze shut’ various vascular injuries. In practice, if the neck was injured almost to the point of decapitation, then there might be little in the way of a ‘clamping’ effect possible no matter how the neck is angled. In simple terms, nasty neck wounds can bleed a lot (but don’t always). Blood can leak out after death (and for quite some time). You can’t tell anything about the time of injury/death by assessing the blood loss at the scene.

The short answer is that ‘a lot’ of blood would be lost from neck wounds such as this..., but the exact volume could vary greatly depending upon individual circumstances. In terms of time, there would be an initial rush of blood, but the victim’s blood pressure would rapidly subside (in a matter of seconds if the blood loss is particularly profuse) so that the rate of flow would become considerably less relatively soon after injury. After the circulation has stopped, it will be down to gravity to continue the blood loss, and clearly, this will depend on position/angle and so on.

Sometimes a wound will be ‘propped open’ by the position of the body, whereas in other cases the wound may be ‘squeezed shut’ by the weight of the body.
Things like vessel spasm and rapid clotting can be surprisingly good at staunching the flow of blood from even very catastrophic injuries. Even if a person is lying such that their injury is gaping open and is ‘down’ in terms of gravitational direction, this does not necessarily mean that blood will continue to flow out until the body is ‘empty’. Things like collapsing vessels and valve effects can prevent this passive flow, and there are lots of ‘corners’ for the blood to go around (it is spread around lots of long thin tubes, not sitting in a large container) before it finds its way out of the injury... so it might end up ‘trapped’ within the body. I have certainly seen cases with multiple large knife wounds and copious blood at the scene, where a significant proportion of the victim’s blood has remained within the vessels to allow me to obtain good samples for toxicological analysis later in the mortuary.

Getting back to the specific case in question, if the body were lying motionless on the ground with significant open neck wounds, then I would imagine that at least a few hundred millilitres (and probably considerably more) could flow out passively and that this would happen within an initial couple of minutes. If this doesn’t sound like a lot, remember that a little blood can look like an awful lot when it is spilt onto the pavement. For the reasons mentioned above, it would be possible that a lot less blood would be apparent at the scene. It is also possible that a continued slow trickle could go on for many minutes after death if the wound/gravity conditions were right, ending up with even a few litres of blood being present in extreme circumstances.

I did an autopsy last week, where the body had been transported a great distance to the mortuary, and death had occurred almost 24 hours before my examination... and yet the injuries continued to ‘bleed’ relatively profusely for quite some time. So much so that we struggled to get a ‘clean’ photograph as the blood flooded back as quickly as we could wipe it away! This is why I have been cautious about commenting on ‘maximum’ timings and quantities of blood loss.

Q. Would the wounds to the stomach have an impact on how long it took for her to bleed out?

A. Severe abdominal wounds would ‘contribute’ to the rapidity of bleeding to death, but this effect could range from almost negligible (if the neck wounds were so bad that death would have been very quick, and the abdominal wounds didn’t hit anything major) to be very great (if the neck wounds miraculously missed all the major vessels, and the abdominal wounds pranged something big).
There is nothing about blood flow from a wound that will help estimate the time of death. Dried blood on the skin can indicate the position of the body relative to the direction of gravity, but that’s about it.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thanks Trevor. Mind you, part of me bristles when this topic appears because Fisherman invented blood flow as a "thing". Meaning, he created the idea that using witness statements about bleeding is informative as to the time of death. Personally, I can't think of anything (reasonable) more unreliable, but hey, I've been wrong before! Anyway, my doubts aside, the above clearly indicates that the concerns people have around Fisherman's adventures into forensic biology are well founded. My view is, leave it to the experts, but get the view of multiples experts before you leave it. Remember, the experts you hear from are the experts the person posting wants you to hear from. So maybe my endorsement should be viewed that way (and yes, of course, it should - but I think you would do well in this case to agree )