Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Fisherman]

Instead of arguing over the word oozing, I'd like to argue the word flow. In my interpretation that word means oozing. Which means they both said the same thing. The blood wasn't free flowing like some assume he meant. It was oozing with some clotting already appearing.

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 thatīs what matters.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Robert:

Have a look at the pumpkin clip again, Fish. Does that really look like oozing to you? It looks more like someone throwing up.

I have two answers for you, and I believe that you are going to like the first one:

No, the pumpkin clip is not a representation of oozing that I would have used myself.

The next answer: That does not belong to the issue. I did not say that I was going to post what I think oozing looks like. I specifically said that I went to Youtube to see what people will sometimes think represents oozing!

As for the pumpkin clip, I myself think that the initital shots, where the gooey stuff is pressed out of the pumpkin, is not oozing. There is far too much underlying pressure behind it, and it explodes out of the holes in the pumpkin. However, as the pressure tapers off, the pressureless welling of the stuff could well be said to be oozing. I think it much resembles the clip with the lava that wells up, and that to me works much better as oozing.

If you can spare the time, then look at how many Yotube clips with pumpkins there are that are said to represent oozing! It goes to show how people look at and describe the word ooze at times, and THAT is what I wanted to press home.

[I]Re the timings : this is from your post #930 :

So according to that, Lechmere is the only plausible killer. He as alone with the victim, and if we are to believe what everybody out here seems to think, the cuts to the throat were delivered first. Then he would have taken a min ut to cut the abdomen. Thatīs the first minute ticking away.
After that, Paul arrives - another minute goes as he approaches. Thatīs two.
Then they examine the body, and go to find Mizen, and Paul says that from his meeting Lechmere to finding Mizen, it took four minutes. Thatīs six minutes gone after the cutting of the neck.
Then Mizen goes down to Bucks Row - add two minutes. We have eight minutes now. And Nichols still bleeds as he gets there.

Maybe he cut the abdomen first, like Llewellyn suggested? Itīs back to seven. Maybe it did go a little quicer? Thatīs still six.

I think it MAY have been seven or eight minutes. I think it can have been five. If I was to choose, Iīd go for five or six.

I really donīt know if I can be any clearer.

The best,
Fisherman

[Pcdunn]

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

I thought the thread was supposed to collect and list evidence for why we didn't believe Lechmere could have done the Ripper murders. I went in with no preconceived idea of a suspect, interested in this case because it is one of the newest suspects, dutifully reading everything I could find about Lechmere and his involvement in the Nichols case, and then watching as most observations by others were contested and opposed... I really don't see the premise, sorry. 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.

[The Good Michael]

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

[Trevor Marriott]

Robert: Fish, the point is a semantic one. Neil said the blood was oozing. You may be able to find examples of people misusing the word, or using it eccentrically, but the common meaning of 'ooze' - the term's centre of gravity, if you like - is to seep slowly.

There IS no very "common" meaning of the expression, Robert. Most people will probably say that seeping is a useful synonym,. but many, many others will accpet that oozing can involve much more than that - as shown in myriads of examples by now.

My main aim was to stop you running with this ball, because before long you would have the blood spurting or gushing, in the same way that the middle of the road is beside Nichols, intercepting someone is being found by the person you've intercepted, two people together turns into a dinner party with one spokesman, and 'we' refers to one person.

Why would I say that the blood was gushing or spurting when it very apparently never did? The blood NEVER gushed or spurted, something that is totally evident when looking at the murder site. It ran - or oozed! - down into a pool under the neck of Nichols, so her heart had stopped beating as the wounds to the neck were dealt.

The fact that you cannot bring yourself to accept any other interpreatations of expressions than your own does not allow you to make accusations like these. Itīs groundless, uninformed and not very nice. You really should learn to accept defeat with a bit more grace.

The best,
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.)"

[Bridewell]

There IS no very "common" meaning of the expression, Robert.

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

[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.

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. 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.

[Dane_F]

Instead of arguing over the word oozing, I'd like to argue the word flow. In my interpretation that word means oozing. Which means they both said the same thing. The blood wasn't free flowing like some assume he meant. It was oozing with some clotting already appearing.

[Robert]

There's an example of what I mean, Fish. I point out to you the normal meaning of 'ooze' and you seem to take it as my defeat.

Have a look at the pumpkin clip again, Fish. Does that really look like oozing to you? It looks more like someone throwing up.

Re the timings : this is from your post #930 :

So according to that, Lechmere is the only plausible killer. He as alone with the victim, and if we are to believe what everybody out here seems to think, the cuts to the throat were delivered first. Then he would have taken a min ut to cut the abdomen. Thatīs the first minute ticking away.
After that, Paul arrives - another minute goes as he approaches. Thatīs two.
Then they examine the body, and go to find Mizen, and Paul says that from his meeting Lechmere to finding Mizen, it took four minutes. Thatīs six minutes gone after the cutting of the neck.
Then Mizen goes down to Bucks Row - add two minutes. We have eight minutes now. And Nichols still bleeds as he gets there.

Maybe he cut the abdomen first, like Llewellyn suggested? Itīs back to seven. Maybe it did go a little quicer? Thatīs still six.

[Fisherman]

Robert: Fish, the point is a semantic one. Neil said the blood was oozing. You may be able to find examples of people misusing the word, or using it eccentrically, but the common meaning of 'ooze' - the term's centre of gravity, if you like - is to seep slowly.

There IS no very "common" meaning of the expression, Robert. Most people will probably say that seeping is a useful synonym,. but many, many others will accpet that oozing can involve much more than that - as shown in myriads of examples by now.

My main aim was to stop you running with this ball, because before long you would have the blood spurting or gushing, in the same way that the middle of the road is beside Nichols, intercepting someone is being found by the person you've intercepted, two people together turns into a dinner party with one spokesman, and 'we' refers to one person.

Why would I say that the blood was gushing or spurting when it very apparently never did? The blood NEVER gushed or spurted, something that is totally evident when looking at the murder site. It ran - or oozed! - down into a pool under the neck of Nichols, so her heart had stopped beating as the wounds to the neck were dealt.

The fact that you cannot bring yourself to accept any other interpreatations of expressions than your own does not allow you to make accusations like these. Itīs groundless, uninformed and not very nice. You really should learn to accept defeat with a bit more grace.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I said that it COULD be as much as eight minutes - but my estimation lands on five or six.

I seem to remember you had it at 7 or 8 minutes plus - and then shaved off two minutes for no apparent reason.

I said that it COULD well be as much as seven or eight minutes, Robert. Read my post to Jon, and you will see how I look at it - apparent reasons and all. Incidentally, Jon thinks Mizen was in place outside Browns Stable Yard two minutes after Lechmere left the body...

Sigh.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy: Yes, I can see it been quite easy to tip toe out of there, in the shadow of the wall running to the Board School.
It was quiet, but there was also a railway running under the murder spot.

With no trains on it, what does that matter? Lechmere said that no vehicle was heard, even.

Five or six minutes ? Where did you get that from ?
Neil would have found the body within 1 min of Lechmere leaving it, and Mizen joined him a minute or so later.

The distance from the murder spot to where the carmen met Mizen was around double the distance from Brady Street down to the murder spot.

The distance from Brady Street to the murder spot was around 125 yards. Here is part of a study of how long it takes people to cross streets on green light:

"The average walking speed for older pedestrians was 4.11 feet per second, compared with 4.95 for younger pedestrians."

Letīs say that Lechmere was a young pedestrian. That would mean that it took him 75 seconds to go from the corner of Brady Street down to the murder spot. From the murder spot up to Mizen, it was twice the distance, taking 150 seconds, or two and a half minutes to walk.

Coming into Bucks Row from Thomas Street, Neil would have had 150 yards left to the murder spot, approximately. That would have taken him around two minutes to cover if he walked at average policeman speed, which was a slowish speed.

So if Neil had found Nichols a minute after Lechmere left her, he would actually first have met the carmen at the outlet of Court Street into Bucks Row.

But Neil never saw the carmen. So they must have passed Thomas Street and turned the corner up at Bakers Row before Neil got into Bucks Row. Therfore, we can say with ablsoute certainty that two minutes is the absolute minimum of time that would have passed after Lechmere left the body and until Neil saw it.

There is also no way that Mizen could have reached the body in a minute. He spoke for some time to one of the carmen (tick-tack, tick-tack...), proceeded to finish of a knocking up errand (tick-tack, tick-tack...) and then he WALKED down to the murder spot.

So, doing the maths, when Neil turns into the empty Bucks Row, he has two minutes to walk before he gets to the body, and the carmen will have walked a stretch from Browns Stable Yard down to the corner of Bakers Row and turned it, something that would have taken them two minutes. After that, they have a 20-30 second stretch up to Mizen. So they will reach Mizen two and a half minutes after they left the body. And then Mizen has a two minute walk down there - if he walked quickly.
That adds up to four and a half minutes. To this we must add the time after which Nichols was cut and before Paul arrived at Browns Stable yard, unless we suppose that Lechmere cut the neck and jumped out in the middle of the street in a split second. If we add a very mizely 30 seconds, we end up with five minutes, if we add more, we draw closer to six minutes.

Your proposition is an uninformed one, therefore.

Paul noted that she felt like she`d already been dead for a short while when he first investigated with Cross.

And that she moved as he felt her breast, the way dead people do, eh? Who do you think you are fooling, Jon?

He would have initially given the name as a witness when he presented himself at the Police station. This name would have been carried forward by the authorities to the inquest.

Thatīs the first true thing you have managed in this post! Yes, that is exactly what will have happened.

All the samples of the name Lechmere are official ones where you have to use your official title (like the odd occasions I have to use the name Jonathan instead of John or the document becomes void). If I was a witness to an accident, chances are I would use the name John if giving a statement to the police.

But he was not an immediate witness, was he? The police did not stand by his side, asking him for his name, did they? Instead, he had days to ponder what he was going to say - and what he was going to call himself.
Giving a statment to the police in that capacity is as authority-related as it gets, Jon. We need to make a very odd leap of faith before we can suggest that he would probably have called himself Cross.

Censustakers knocked at his door and asked him for his name, giving him no time at all to think it over. He said Lechmere to them, didnīt he?

Why wonīt you admit that there is a very obvious chance that he actively chose to lie about his name when it is so very obvious?

The name business is and remains a pointer to a lie on his behalf, up until the time that we can prove that he called himself Cross otherwise.

I don`t know what Scobie and Griffiths saw. They know it`s all showbiz.

Are you implying that the would be less discerning on account of that? That they would not apply their knowledge to the case, thinking that they were cast in a musical?

But it was an excellent programme, Christer. It really was. You especially !!!
I really hoped it would be you the same time a week later on Channel 5 standing on the ramparts of Castle Urquhart investigating Nessie.

Brilliant hint there, Jon. But if it HAD been me, I would have gone with the facts in that case too and said that it was in all probability bollocks.

Anyway, Happy New Year to you, Christer
Speak to you in the New Year.

And to you too, Jon!

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

I said that it COULD be as much as eight minutes - but my estimation lands on five or six.

I seem to remember you had it at 7 or 8 minutes plus - and then shaved off two minutes for no apparent reason.

[Robert]

Fish, the point is a semantic one. Neil said the blood was oozing. You may be able to find examples of people misusing the word, or using it eccentrically, but the common meaning of 'ooze' - the term's centre of gravity, if you like - is to seep slowly.

My main aim was to stop you running with this ball, because before long you would have the blood spurting or gushing, in the same way that the middle of the road is beside Nichols, intercepting someone is being found by the person you've intercepted, two people together turns into a dinner party with one spokesman, and 'we' refers to one person.

[Batman]

Batman:

What? Itīs "just semantics"?

If he killed en route to work, then it would require for the victims to have fallen prey on working days. They did, with the exceptions of Stride and Eddowes, who did not die along his working routes anyway.

Yes, this is just semantics to conflate the need to find words like 'work day' and 'holiday' if the context of the statement is straight-forward.

Look, let's try your view.

The Daily Telegraph SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1888
From the sketch map of the locality given it will be seen that the sites of all the seven murders, five of which are, without any hesitation or doubt, ascribed by the police to one man, are contained within a limited area. A comparison of the dates reveals remarkable coincidences.

What is the remarkable coincidence? Your explanation is that the remarkable coincidence is that they were killed on 'working days'. Does your view make any sense there? It doesn't.

Let's look at my view, which is the contemporary view at the time. The remarkable coincidence is that they were killed on holidays or days when someone had the weekend off from work.

Are you claiming nobody in whitechapel had the weekend off from work and holidays?

Your suspect doesn't fit that pattern because for your hypothesis to work Lechmere needs to kill randomly without respect to weekends off and holidays. Yet the MO/Signature is different.

I think your view that JtR killed on work days is a modern view not contemporary.