Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Fisherman]

Well I didn't say I didnt trust Jason Payne-James,and Nichols wasn't decapitated.So for a poster that doesn't trust me,here is the address

angelfire,com/sc3/cjrp/forensicsofdeath.html

Doesn't take much finding.

I didn´t say that you do not trust Jason Payne-James, I was speaking of somebody else who voiced that opinion.

I didn´t 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 didn´t say that I do not trust you, I said that you probably got things wrong in this errand - and that can happen to anybody.

I have looked into your post, and it seems that this is what you apparently aimed at:
"Normal clotting time for blood is 3 - 15 minutes, but clotting time is extremely individual and can be affected by certain diseases such as hemophilia and some leukemia?s and various medications including blood thinners."
[/B]
So this is all about clotting time, and not about bleeding time, and it therefore is unrelated to Jason Payne-James estimation that the body of Nichols would have bled out in a few minutes only, more likely three to five than seven minutes. We are discussing how long it takes for the blood to leave the body, not how long it takes for it to clot. Well, I am, at least.

The site you are using is in it´s turn sourcing:
The Forensic Science of CSI Katherine Ramsland 2001 Berkely Publishing Group
and
Forensics for Dummies D.P. Lyle MD 2004 Wiley Publishing

To what extent these books are reliable, I don´t know. "Forensics for Dummies" is not the most awe-inspiring of titles, if I may say so. To what extent they are quoted in a correct manner, I don´t know. Nobody is taking responbsibility for the quoting by namning him- or herself. But if we are to choose between two sources, I would choose Jason Payne-James, who commented directly on the case of Polly Nichols, over an Internet site called "Angelfire" all days in the week. First and foremost, I would not bring up the topic of coagulation in a discussion of bleeding times, mostly since the blood will not start to coagulate until it leaves the body.

Thanks for the link, it helped to straighten things out.

PS.Normal clotting time for blood is certainly not three minutes - it takes three to four minutes before the clotting begins to show visibly. But that is another matter.

[John Wheat]

Since a poster has taken it upon himself to say that he does not trust Jason Payne-James, I thought I´d post his credentials out here, so that anybody with an interest can see for him- or herself what Payne-James is about:

Jason Payne-James is a Specialist in Forensic & Legal Medicine (one of the first to be recognised by the UK General Medical Council). He is a forensic physician in active clinical practice as a Forensic Medical Examiner. He is an independent researcher, an author and an editor and initiates, leads or has collaborated in research projects with a number of organisations including the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the Metropolitan Police Service, the Home Office Centre for Applied Science & Technology and the National Injuries Database (part of the National Crime Agency). He is an advisor to governmental and other agencies in the UK and abroad. He is co-author of Faculty of Forensic & Legal Medicine documents related to medication management in custody, management after exposure to Taser® and irritant spray, head injury and choking. He is frequently asked to act as an expert witness in a range of settings. He has been involved in many high profile and sensitive cases. He has provided pro-bono support in a number of cases.

He qualified in medicine in 1980 at the London Hospital Medical College and undertook additional postgraduate education to higher degree level at Cardiff Law School, the Department of Forensic Medicine & Science at the University of Glasgow and with the University of Ulster, Northern Ireland. He is an Accredited Mediator and is a member of the Forensic Healthcare Services Mediation Panel.

He is Honorary Clinical Senior Lecturer at Cameron Forensic Medical Sciences, Barts & the London School of Medicine & Dentistry, University of London, UK. He is Honorary Consultant at the Department of Emergency Medicine at St George’s Hospital, London. He is Director of Forensic Healthcare Services Ltd and Payne-James Ltd, and is Editor-in-Chief of the peer-reviewed Journal of Forensic & Legal Medicine. He is President of the Faculty of Forensic & Legal Medicine.

His forensic and legal medicine interests have included healthcare of detainees (prisoners), deaths, harm and near misses in custody, torture, drugs and alcohol, wound and injury interpretation, asphyxia, sexual assault, neglect, non-accidental injury, restraint and use of force injury (including Taser and irritant spray), excited delirium syndrome, police complaints, age estimation and photographic imaging of injury. Some examples of his research publications and his research background can be found at www.researchgate.net.

He provides expert opinion and advice for defence solicitors, the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, Service Prosecuting Authority, HM Coroners and other agencies in the UK and overseas. He has developed new scales (the ForensiGraph®) for use in forensic imaging – www.forensigraph.com and with Cathy Cooke the ForensiBag® and OOHBag® . He advises on, contributes to and has broadcast in a number of media settings, including a documentary on Jack the Ripper . He has contributed to a number of episodes of the Channel 5 series, Autopsy.

Jason has developed, co-edited, co-authored and contributed to a number of books including the Encyclopedia of Forensic & Legal Medicine (the 2nd Edition has just been published, co-edited with Roger Byard); Forensic Medicine: Clinical & Pathological Aspects; Symptoms and Signs of Substance Misuse (1st & 2nd and 3rd editions – the most recent jointly with Margaret Stark and Mike Scott-Ham); Artificial Nutrition Support in Clinical Practice (the 3rd edition is being developed); Symptoms and Early Warning Signs; Medicolegal Essentials of Healthcare (1st and 2nd editions); Colour Atlas of Forensic Medicine. He is co-author of Simpson’s Forensic Medicine (13th Edition – work on the 14th edition has started – an Irish edition co-authored with Cliona McGovern has been published orientated in the context of law in Eire); he co-authored the Oxford Handbook of Forensic Medicine and co-edited both Age Estimation in the Living with Sue Black and Anil Aggrawal and Current Practice in Forensic Medicine (a second volume co-edited with John Gall will be published later in 2016).

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.

[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.

[Fisherman]

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

[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

[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]

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

[Elamarna]

Hi Fisherman,

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

I didn´t 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

[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

That´s 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]

That´s 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]

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 I´m a stickler for these matters to be correct. Sorry about that.

[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.

[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...?

[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.

[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 don´t 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?