Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Fisherman]

anyway you look at it the blood evidence is a check mark in the favor of lech being the killer.

she had obviously been killed very recent to discovery. Its not like she had been killed hours or even a large amount of minutes before.

I think it possible that lech might have been heard/seen by the killer who then fled, but even Lech himself said he heard or saw no one leaving the scene.

Plus that phantom killer would have stretched the bleeding time to a significant amount, delving into Jason Payne James "Not-very-likely-land" (I was tempted to say "Not-bloody-likely-land" ).

[Fisherman]

One thing though: it's not a fact that Lech found a body. It's a fact that he claimed to have found a body. And if he'd killed her, well, he would say that wouldn't he...?

I made the same argument, more or less, against David Orsam a while back. He said that Lechmere found the body, I said that he either did, or he killed her and CLAIMED that he did. I then had the audacity to say that my version of events was better, since it covered both possibilities, but David would have nothing of it. To him, my possibility was agenda-pushing, and his version was the better one.

Well, well - we are all different. Except, maybe, for David.

PS. Come to think of it, perhaps your take on things (the same as mine, admittedly) is okay, since you are not "pushing an agenda" - who knows?

[Fisherman]

Certainly, given my background, i will not argue with the science unless there is good reason to, which there appears not to be.

Steve

Can I just ask you - you have said, I believe, that you donīt think Lechmere is a very good proposition for the killers role (I may be wrong on the wording, but not on the meaning of them, I think).
Given that you accept that Lechmere was there either as Nichols was cut or in very close proximity to it - why do you not consider the carman a very reasonable suggestion? Why do you think - as you obviously do - that somebody was there just a minute before Lechmere, who cut Nichols?

We know about the name business, we know how the clothes were pulled down, we know how Mizen tells a story that implies that Lechmere lied his way past him, etcetera.

Why then, do you not regard the carman as the very obvious number one suspect?

[Abby Normal]

anyway you look at it the blood evidence is a check mark in the favor of lech being the killer.

she had obviously been killed very recent to discovery. Its not like she had been killed hours or even a large amount of minutes before.

I think it possible that lech might have been heard/seen by the killer who then fled, but even Lech himself said he heard or saw no one leaving the scene.

[Henry Flower]

One thing though: it's not a fact that Lech found a body. It's a fact that he claimed to have found a body. And if he'd killed her, well, he would say that wouldn't he...?

[Henry Flower]

Hi Henry

Thanks for the response. Fair enough if you were having fun trying to deflate some of the anger. I take your point about fabricating however it seems to me Fisherman has taken very little in terms of the facts. Which are that Lechmere found a body and gave a false name. Albeit one that could very easily be traced back to him. And then spent years passing off pure speculation as supposed facts.
As for dyslexia, dyslexic's often get similar words or words that are pronounced the same but spelt differently confused such as there, their and they're and were and where. But some dyslexic's may otherwise be excellent spellers.

Cheers John

Thanks John, appreciated.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere ... and gave a name he usually did not use to the first policeman he spoke to.

To be perfectly correct;
He gave a name that was not his registered name, and a name that he never otherwise used in authority contacts, as far as we know (there are a hundred plus examples).
And he did not give that name to the first policeman he spoke to. That PC was Mizen, and he was never given the carmans name. If he had been, the suggestion that the carman called himself Cross on an everyday basis, but Lechmere when he spoke to the authorities, would fit in better; in such a case, it could be reasoned that he was in "work mode" as he gave his name to the police.
But we know that he did not come forward during the first few days, and when he did, he seemingly came forward on his own accord. So he would have had ample time to work out what he should call himself when contacting the police.

It may seem like details, but Iīm a stickler for these matters to be correct. Sorry about that.

[Elamarna]

Thatīs fine with me - Jason Payne-James said that a decapitation would normally cause the blood to leave the body in a minute or so - or even less. So the difference you point to is reflected in how Payne-James then accepts that three or even five minutes could/should have been the case with Nichols. He also accepted that we could get some more bleeding time, but he thought it less likely (and obviously, every added second would be less likely than the second before it). This would take in how a certain slowing down of the bleeding will have been around in the parts of the neck closest to the spine (where the cut surfaces would have been closer to each other than in front), plus it also encompassed how there was little or no blood pressure in the vessels when the neck was cut, going by the looks of things.

What is important to recognize here, though, is that we are looking at a very quick bleeding out unless something very strange occurred, just as you seem to accept.

Certainly, given my background, i will not argue with the science unless there is good reason to, which there appears not to be.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

One small point which I think you are not 100% correct on.




I understand what you mean, but it will not be exactlythe same bleedwise, although it is fair to say that the difference will be small from a medical point of view.

In fully decapitation , there is nothing to apply pressure to the vessels thus blood will flow, or in the case of arteries spurt, basically uncontrolled.

In the case of Nichols, where part of the wound was open, that would be the case, but in other areas of the wound there would be some, limited pressure applied by the surrounding tissue, this would slow the blood flow to a limited extent and may encourage clotting from those particular vessels.

However it is fair to say that such massive wounds will cause death very quickly, although blood flow/loss will continue for sometime, that is particularly true if the victim is on the ground,and the wound is level with or below the heart,and gravity takes over, which would be a fair description of of Nichols.

A point to note is that any movement of the body, say examination by the police or movement to the mortuary, would in all probability result in the disturbance of the clots, and blood would again start to emerge from the wounds, however it would now be more likely to be oozing rather than flowing.


Hope you don't mind me pointing that out, and it should make the argument clearer to others.


regards


Steve

Thatīs fine with me - Jason Payne-James said that a decapitation would normally cause the blood to leave the body in a minute or so - or even less. So the difference you point to is seemingly reflected in how Payne-James then accepts that three or even five minutes could/should have been the case with Nichols. He also accepted that we could get some more bleeding time, but he thought it less likely (and obviously, every added second would be less likely than the second before it). This would take in how a certain slowing down of the bleeding will have been around in the parts of the neck closest to the spine (where the cut surfaces would have been closer to each other than in front), plus it also encompassed how there was little or no blood pressure in the vessels when the neck was cut, going by the looks of things.

What is important to recognize here, though, is that we are looking at a very quick bleeding out unless something very strange occurred, just as you seem to accept.

[Elamarna]

Hi Fisherman,

One small point which I think you are not 100% correct on.

I didnīt say that Nichgols was decaptitated - but just like decapitated people, she had all the major vessels in her neck severed. so bleedingwise, it will be the same thing.

I understand what you mean, but it will not be exactlythe same bleedwise, although it is fair to say that the difference will be small from a medical point of view.

In fully decapitation , there is nothing to apply pressure to the vessels thus blood will flow, or in the case of arteries spurt, basically uncontrolled.

In the case of Nichols, where part of the wound was open, that would be the case, but in other areas of the wound there would be some, limited pressure applied by the surrounding tissue, this would slow the blood flow to a limited extent and may encourage clotting from those particular vessels.

However it is fair to say that such massive wounds will cause death very quickly, although blood flow/loss will continue for sometime, that is particularly true if the victim is on the ground,and the wound is level with or below the heart,and gravity takes over, which would be a fair description of of Nichols.

A point to note is that any movement of the body, say examination by the police or movement to the mortuary, would in all probability result in the disturbance of the clots, and blood would again start to emerge from the wounds, however it would now be more likely to be oozing rather than flowing.


Hope you don't mind me pointing that out, and it should make the argument clearer to others.


regards


Steve

[John Wheat]

Hi Henry

Thanks for the response. Fair enough if you were having fun trying to deflate some of the anger. I take your point about fabricating however it seems to me Fisherman has taken very little in terms of the facts. Which are that Lechmere found a body and gave a false name. Albeit one that could very easily be traced back to him. And then spent years passing off pure speculation as supposed facts.
As for dyslexia, dyslexic's often get similar words or words that are pronounced the same but spelt differently confused such as there, their and they're and were and where. But some dyslexic's may otherwise be excellent spellers.

Cheers John

[Henry Flower]

To Henry

Well as far as I'm concerned Fisherman over stepped the mark he referred to me as coming across as a mixture of football hooligan and wannabe Ripperologist. So maybe the fallout from that is making me sound angry. As for getting there and their mixed up I'm dyslexic are you going to castigate me for that? Fisherman's theory is a pathetic pet theory. He has spent years fabricating a theory to try to convict a clearly innocent man. If that's not a pathetic pet theory could you explain why not? Yes a lot of the Ripper theories could be termed pathetic pet theories. Many authors seem to come up some random suspect just to sell books etc. I don't have what I would call a pet theory. I happen to agree with the likes of William Beadle and Euan McPherson that in all likelihood Bury was the Ripper for no other reason than I think there correct.

Cheers John

Hi John - thanks for the reply

If Fisherman called me a football hooligan or a wannabe ripperologist I have to say I'd laugh heartily. People get too steamed up here! Anyway it's better than being called an actual ripperologist or a wannabe football hooligan.

I don't feel it's quite fair to say he has 'fabricated' a theory. He has interpreted what are undoubted facts and come up with a theory. Lechmere was discovered alongside a very recently killed, still bleeding victim, and gave a name he usually did not use to the first policeman he spoke to. That alone says to me, worth a second look. It's not proof, it's a theory. I'm sure he would agree. To call it 'pathetic' is to say only that you don't agree with it, to call it a 'pet' theory is to say only that it is his theory. So yes, I guess it is in your eyes his pathetic pet theory. I stand corrected. It's not my place to tell anyone else what to do or say I know that, I was having some fun trying to deflate the anger a bit, that's all.

Apologies for the spelling correction, not something I usually do, but you sounded so angry I couldn't resist! I don't know much about dyslexia: maybe you can tell me, how does it manifest? Your post is almost faultlessly spelled, but you use the wrong form of 'there' in several instances. How does that work? I'm not doubting you at all, just genuinely interested in the symptomology.

[John Wheat]

First two points: classic straw-man arguments. Fisherman has never made any such claims. Fisherman claims that his particular areas of undoubted expertise make his claims worth considering, he certainly knows what he is talking about, more than most of us certainly. True - different experts often give conflicting statements, that's a problem. But very often a broad consensus can be established - though not by angry ranting.

Third point: you mean 'their' not 'there', and when you mention 'there pathetic pet theory' do you in fact mean 'their theory'? It certainly reads better, makes you sound just a little less angry and demented.

Yes, he has a theory. Why does that mean it is his 'pathetic pet theory'? Half the researchers of this case have, by your logic, had 'pathetic pet theories'.

Do you have one, John? I do. My pathetic pet theory is that Kosminski had a pathetic pet - an asthmatic weasel, probably - and he used this pathetic pet to lure women into dark corners.

To Henry

Well as far as I'm concerned Fisherman over stepped the mark he referred to me as coming across as a mixture of football hooligan and wannabe Ripperologist. So maybe the fallout from that is making me sound angry. As for getting there and their mixed up I'm dyslexic are you going to castigate me for that? Fisherman's theory is a pathetic pet theory. He has spent years fabricating a theory to try to convict a clearly innocent man. If that's not a pathetic pet theory could you explain why not? Yes a lot of the Ripper theories could be termed pathetic pet theories. Many authors seem to come up some random suspect just to sell books etc. I don't have what I would call a pet theory. I happen to agree with the likes of William Beadle and Euan McPherson that in all likelihood Bury was the Ripper for no other reason than I think there correct.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

Take care, Henry - John may get angry with you...

[Henry Flower]

Does any of that make him infallible?
No.
Does any of that make him any more likely to be right than any other so called expert?
No.
Does any of that make it unlikely that someone with a proven track record of bending and twisting the words of experts will twist it and bend there words in support of there own pathetic pet theory?
No.

First two points: classic straw-man arguments. Fisherman has never made any such claims. Fisherman claims that his particular areas of undoubted expertise make his claims worth considering, he certainly knows what he is talking about, more than most of us certainly. True - different experts often give conflicting statements, that's a problem. But very often a broad consensus can be established - though not by angry ranting.

Third point: you mean 'their' not 'there', and when you mention 'there pathetic pet theory' do you in fact mean 'their theory'? It certainly reads better, makes you sound just a little less angry and demented.

Yes, he has a theory. Why does that mean it is his 'pathetic pet theory'? Half the researchers of this case have, by your logic, had 'pathetic pet theories'.

Do you have one, John? I do. My pathetic pet theory is that Kosminski had a pathetic pet - an asthmatic weasel, probably - and he used this pathetic pet to lure women into dark corners.