Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Robert]

Fish, of course Crossmere could have been the killer. But I doubt it.

Re your linguistic point : yes, language does evolve, and not always for the better. I am not steeped in late Victorian literature, but even if I were, such knowledge would only give an indication of how words were used in literature. There is also everyday conversation to consider. I imagine that dictionary compilers lag behind everyday conversation, and words can gradually change their meanings in a subterranean manner, as it were. Eventually the old use of a word becomes an old-fashioned use, and a new use becomes dominant, and this is finally acknowledged in the dictionaries.

Anyway, if you want to download the following, you can check on the 1888 state of play of the word 'ooze.' I don't know what an RAR file or a Torrent is, but if you know, then be my guest.

http://www.theabsolute.net/dictionar...nary_1888.html

[Fisherman]

Fish, I am not trying to decide whether Neil said the blood was oozing when he should have said it was running, or Mizen said the blood was running when he should have said it was oozing. I am merely pointing out to you that the normal meaning of 'oozing' is to seep out slowly. You may find people who use the word incorrectly, but such things happen. There isn't a word of English or any other language that hasn't been used incorrectly by someone, somewhere.

I´m still not buying your assertion that you are the only one who is entitled to say how the word "ooze" is correctly or incorrectly used, Robert.

I trade in language, being a journalist. I am very aware that language is a "floating" (or perhaps oozing?) commodity, that changes over time. What we say is misspellings today is tomorrows rule. When we say "but it does not mean that" today, we may have to eat humble pie tomorrow.

Exactly how the word oozed was used in 1888 generally and by Neil specifically, we cannot know. We CAN however, quickly see that we have a woman who bled, and that the PC:s who watched her bleed used different expressions describing it. That should not lead us to think that they all saw different things or that there is somewhere an implication hidden that they were wrong to a smaller or larger extent.

The only credible thing to accept is that Nichols was bleeding as Neil saw her and still bleeding as Mizen saw her. It therefore stands to reason to suggest that if there was any difference in blood flow volume, then it would have entailed Mizen seeing lesser blood flow than Neil saw. And Mizen still chose to word himself that blood was running from the wound in her throat, and that this blood appeared fresh.
Logically, blood was running from the wound in Nichols neck when Neil saw her too, and equally logically, that blood would have appeared fresh then too.

Maybe you will object to this, I don´t know. There can be no logically based objection, so I don´t care much, to be perfectly frank. Blood flowed, and that blood had started to congeal as Mizen looked at it. That puts Lechmere smack, bang alacazam in the middle of things, like it or not.

The blood COULD have flowed longer in Nichols´ case than what is normally the case. There must be room reserved for a killer that had escaped when Lechmere arrived.

The blood COULD have congealed at a slower pace than what is normally the case. There must be room reserved for a killer that had escaped when Lechmere arrived.

But overall, the picture given by the PC:s observing the blood, including how it flowed towards the gutter as Thain saw her, all speaks of a very clear possibility that Lechmere was the killer. If he was NOT, then these parameters are seemingly deviating from the normal behaviour - which they CAN have done, which they MUST NOT have done, and which they more PROBABLY NOT did.

Lechmere is therefore the most probable killer of Polly Nichols, albeit we cannot say that he MUST have been the murderer.

That is what I see here. If you have any other objections to that reasoning other than "not all blood reacts in the same way" or "there may well have been time for another killer", I´d like to hear them. I am no medico myself, and I am sure that many people are better equipped to deduct from the material than I am.

What I am also sure of, however, is that Charles Allen Lechmere simply must be the prime suspect in the Nichols case.

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Fish, I am not trying to decide whether Neil said the blood was oozing when he should have said it was running, or Mizen said the blood was running when he should have said it was oozing. I am merely pointing out to you that the normal meaning of 'oozing' is to seep out slowly. You may find people who use the word incorrectly, but such things happen. There isn't a word of English or any other language that hasn't been used incorrectly by someone, somewhere.

[Fisherman]

Fish, yes, some people do use the word incorrectly, but I don't think we're entitled to assume that Neil did too.

But that is YOUR interpretation of what is "correct" and "incorrect", Robert, not mine. Others have interepreted and used the word in other contexts than the one you promote, medicos and physicians being amongst them.
You may appreciate that a free flowing of blood, based on gravity and therefore slowish, is what people on the thread are right now agreeing about. And that is exactamundo what I am saying: "oozing", "flowing" and "running" can all describe the exact same phenomenon. And since Neil and Mizen saw the same woman, it is far, far more credible that her blood was running when BOTH men saw her, than it is to believe that Neil only saw a miniscule trickling of blood whereas Mizen was totally wrong. The only reasonable and by far the simplest explanation is that Neil desribed the blood flowing from Nichols´ neck as oozing, but we DO have the Morning Advertiser, in which Neil is quoted as having said that the blood was running. Maybe he used both expressions, or maybe the reporter of the Morning Advertiser simply had a context that we don´t have that told him that the blood was running. We weill never know, I´m sure. But we DO know that Mizen said the blood was running and Thain said the exact same thing, so if Neil also siad that it was running, we should be non too surprised.

The only reason I can think of to refuse to accept this and to steadfastly claim that the blood MUST have been only trickling very slowly and in miniscule volumes is if we are dead set on denying that Lechmere fits with the killers´role in this context. Is that what you are up to, Robert? I should hope not.

The best,
Fisherman

[Dane_F]

Oozing would be free-flowing based on gravity and would be slow. I think.

Mike

Yes that is another way to look at it which I would accept. Oozing blood is free flowing.

[The Good Michael]

It's not free flowing because I do not interpret it as such. I believe it was oozing. When does oozing not mean oozing?

Oozing would be free-flowing based on gravity and would be slow. I think.

Mike

[Dane_F]

I am not sure that I understand what you mean with free flowing here? If the blood exits the wound with no obstacles, and flows out of it, then why would it not be free flowing..?
Anyways, I concur that Neil and Mizen saw and described the same thing, and that´s what matters.

The best,
Fisherman

It's not free flowing because I do not interpret it as such. I believe it was oozing. When does oozing not mean oozing?

[Robert]

Fish, yes, some people do use the word incorrectly, but I don't think we're entitled to assume that Neil did too.

[Fisherman]

How can anyone speak specifically about the body of Nicholls 126 years later when they did not see it. The expert gave his views on Dr Llewellyns report, he gave valuable info about estimating times of death and the fact that time of death cannot be established by looking at a wound, or by blood flowing/oozing from an open wound.

But none of that sits well with you does it, so you keep constantly muddying the waters.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I am not muddying any waters, Trevor. I quote your pathologist ad verbatim, and I hope you don´t think HE is muddying any waters?

You, on the other hand, chose to pick a generalized statement by your guy - which equals muddying the waters when you represent it as if it was his view of the Nichols case.

Now you choose to try and further blur the picture by claiming that nobody who did not see Nichols´ body could possibly comment on it!
And yet, this is exactly what your pathologist did, specifically pointing out this by speaking of "the specific case in question".
Any ideas which case that may have been, Trevor? The Black Dahlia case? The Kingsbury Run case? Or any other case? Could it perhaps have been the Nichols case that he spoke of as "the specific case in question"?

Perhaps that question is veiled to your mind, but it is not to mine. Here is the exact quote where your man has the audacity to comment on a case you claim he cannot comment on since he never saw the body:

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 the initial couple of minutes.

Now, Trevor, you will undoubtedly notice that once your pathologist does NOT speak generally about crimes of this category, but insted SPECIFICALLY about the Nichols case, he does not for a split second suggest that she would have bled for twenty minutes. He instead says that the bleeding "would happen within the initial couple of minutes".

Explain to me, if you will, how it can be muddying the waters to point to the where your pathologist - by his own admission - speaks of the Polly Nichols case? And how can it be to muddy the waters to point out that YOU choose to ignore this passage, instead opting for a generalized phrasing about bodies with damage to the neck?

I am suggesting that the only muddying around her is courtesy of your own good self, Trevor.

Me, I am not doing anything but quoting. And it´s your man I am quoting.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I don't think a working man on his way to work every day accosted and killed a street woman, helped to report it, went on his way to work,etc.-- and managed to do the same four more times. I just don't.

Well, to begin with, he did not do the same thing four times - he only "helped to report" his crimes one time, for example, so your comparison is lacking.

Myself, I find it hard to believe that Gary Ridgway pulled HIS stunt fifty (50) times and h´got away with it And compared to Pedro Lopez he was a mere newbie - Lopez killed around 300 young girls.

Surely, PCDunn, that MUST be wrong? Surely THAT could never have happened? I mean, if Lechmere could never have killed four times and gotten away with it...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

... and let ME remind YOU that we should look at not one cherrypicked item but instead at ALL the things he said. In part, he made generalized statements, speaking not of the body and wounds of nichols, but instead of "a" body.

Like here, for example.

The best,
Fisherman

How can anyone speak specifically about the body of Nicholls 126 years later when they did not see it. The expert gave his views on Dr Llewellyns report, he gave valuable info about estimating times of death and the fact that time of death cannot be established by looking at a wound, or by blood flowing/oozing from an open wound.

But none of that sits well with you does it, so you keep constantly muddying the waters.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

After 123 pages, the thread has finally shown me that no matter what, Lechmere is not the man to be let off the hook. This thread was an attempt to just keep conversation going about a lame non-suspect in order to keep interest alive for some future publication. The interest may be alive for newbies, but for the rest of it, it's deader than a door nail. If it took this long for me to come to that realization, I'm a sucker.

Mike

So what is it you are saying? That you would prefer if Lechmere was not discussed at all?

I see.

But why is it then that you have contributed with such heat? You have called me dishonest, you call Lechmere a lame non-suspect and if you could forbid the discussion about him, Pol Pot-style, you obviously would.

Some would say that you seem woefully desperate, Mike.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Fish
Let me remind you and others what the expert stated

"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 mins previously… but if the 20 min 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.)"

... and let ME remind YOU that we should look at not one cherrypicked item but instead at ALL the things he said. In part, he made generalized statements, speaking not of the body and wounds of nichols, but instead of "a" body.

Like here, for example.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Bridewell: In the English language the verb 'ooze' necessitates slow movement. It a substance is moving other than slowly it isn't oozing.

Absolutely true - as far as I am concerned! And this is exactly what I have been saying for days on end - oozing is not primarily a description of the volumes that escape, but instead of the speed at which it does so! You are very much on the money therefore.

Neil said that the blood oozed according to most papers. In at least one of them, the Morning Advertiser, the word "running" was used instead, if memory serves me. And that is the exact word that Mizen used.

And just like oozing does not have to point to only the odd drop of blood, running does not have to mean that it ran like tap water. BOTH expressions could well describe the exact same slowish flowing of blood - and indeed, there is no reason whatsoever to suspect they don´t.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

How long would it take the putative escaping killer to run from the entrance to Brown's Yard around the corner onto Winthrop Street? Thirty seconds perhaps? So do the claims made for the coagulation rates of blood, which vary from one individual to another anyway, prove that Lechmere killed Nichols? I don't see how they can - or ever could. These times are estimates yet treated here as though they were accurate to the second.

No, Colin, they are not. I have written very clearly that these matters are NOT enough to convict on, since there may well be deviations. The interesting thing about them is that they point to a very clear possibility that Lechmere was the killer, and we can see that the timings have him in the very meddle of the frame. That is about it.

As Fisherman will rightly point out, there is no evidence for the existence of the putative escaping killer, but that is not the point. A good defence barrister would postulate the existence of such an individual which the prosecution would have to disprove.

Exactly! And therefore, there would be doubt enough to stop a conviction of Lechmere. Just like I say, we cannot hang Lechmere, but we can see that there is a very good reason to regard him as the prime suspect. Given the rest of the material surrounding Lechmere, I think many policemen woud have regarded the case as one of the cases where they thought they had the name of the killer, but were forced to let him go for legal reasons.

Introduce the inaccuracy of Victorian timepieces, the time estimates of witnesses, the accuracy of recall, variations in temperature etc and the "blood starts to coagulate in an average time of about 3 minutes" argument dissolves into irrelevance.

It never can be irrelevant, Colin. It should be looked upon with caution, but never with scepticism. Surely you realize that?

The best,
Fisherman