Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Fisherman]

In any case, Fish, since you insist that the blood was still running when Mizen saw Nichols - which I think you reckoned as being about 8 minutes after Crossmere's cutting her throat - I have to ask whether you believe that the blood continued to run after Mizen went for the ambulance. After all, it would be a remarkable coincidence if Nichols's wounds stopped running the moment Mizen saw her. This is, after all, PC Mizen and although he had been graded as 'good' he was no Rasputin when it came to staunching blood flows.

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

Did the blood continue to flow after Mizen went for the ambulance?

What kind of question is that?

It stopped flowing somewhere in time after Mizen saw her, thatīs all anybody can say. Since Trevors Pathologist said that it would bleed for an initital couple of minutes only, and since we KNOW that the blood still flowed five minutes (and I think that is a minimum bid) after Lechmere left Nichols, I think the more intelligent guesses would be that it did not bleed for much more than five or six minutes - and that Lechmere therfore was the probable killer.

If the blood could have run for seven, eight minutes and if it would have waited coagulating for longer than normal, then somebody else could (only just) have found a window of time to killer her. If we move the strike further back in time, it becomes increasingly ridiculous with every minute we add.

It is extremely simple and very basic in that way.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: Well you are suggesting that the blood flow evidence suggests that Nicholls was recently killed, and that killing took place within the time frame Cross could have had if he had been the killer.

I am saying that Lechmere fits the frame. I am not saying heīs convicted, as you suggest. He is the prime suspect, and rightly so.

But you cant tie the time of death down to that precise period of time you seek to rely on.

What I CAN do is to point to what your pathologist said about how long the wound would bleed, and I can also point to how long it takes for blood to start coagulating. And Lechmere fits the frame.

Doctors estimated time of death --Guesswork

It is not guesswork that there is only so much blood in a person, and that that blood WILL leave the body. Nor is it guesswork that blood coagulates and that it starts showing after three minutes, justaboutish. Bitter though that pill seem to be to swallow on your behalf.

Mizens description and other witnesses of blood/flowing/oozing open to interpretation.

Or re-interpretation, just like Robert says - maybe Mizen was wrong, maybe the blood was not starting to clot, maybe it was raspberry syrup, spilled on the ground.

Once more: what we have is what we have. If we dislike it, we can start conjuring up our own truths. You are as welcome to do so as anybody else. But it will not change what Mizen and Neil said - and itīs implications.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish

And a Happy New Year to you, my friend.

I have watched your videos. None of these things were oozing, since they were travelling too fast (except, the blood thing which I found incomprehensible).

I could probably give you an example of oozing by making the cake myself. This is because there would doubtless be defects in the cake and oozing would occur. However, I would probably not even reach that stage. Cookery is not a strong point of mine.

Robert, to the minds of the ones who posted these videos, they were ALL oozing!
You may have an interpretation of your own, and thatīs just fine. But do not believe that this will make you right - as with any expression like this one, there WILL be many interpretations, and none of them will be the only right one. Nor will any of them be totally wrong.

You know by now that medicos and physicians in the 19:th centure used the expression "oozed profusely", and that is all that matters. Whether you think they were in their right to do so or not is neither here nor there in this question.

Itīs much the same as when we speak of how dark Bucks Row was. SOme will have it that the darkness was impenetrable, others say that it is apparent that there was quite enough light to use for orientation and for seeing clothing items etcetera.

Actually, your raving on about what oozing can or cannot mean has somwehat made me forget what it is you are arguing. Could you refresh me in that department?
Are you basically saying that since Neil must have confessed to the same interpretation of "oozed" as you do, the blood can only have been seeping very slowly as he saw the body, and that this means that Mizen must have been wrong when he said that the blood was running fresh three, four minutes afterwards?

Is that it?

Because if it is, then itīs time to end the discussion. We have seen proof that many people regard oozing as something totally different from a slow and miniscule seeping, and Neil may well have belonged to these people. We DO know that both PC:s speak of an ongoing bloodshed, and it would be very odd to think it was there when Neil saw it but not when Mizen did, especially since the latter expresses himself very clearly: The blood appeared fresh and was still running from the wound in the neck".

So what is there to discuss, Robert? And to what extent does it exonerate Lechmere?

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

And anyone leaving the scene for a sinister reason would make the effort not to make noise.

Mmm - but COULD you, with hard-soled shoes and a totally quiet street? Lechmere banked on that being impossible. And at any rate, it would be harder the nearer the carman drew.

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.

Ok, 2 mins.

Thank you kindly, Sir. Now add that to the five or six minutes that had passed since Lechmere left and look what should have happened coagulationwise. And ask yourself "Would the blood still run after seven, eight minutes?".

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.

Now that is desperate.

How so? Wasnīt Lechmere there? Do his timings not work with a scenario where he is the killer? Is not another killer a figment of our imagination until we can prove his presence?

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

There was one indication that he used the name Cross in 1888.

Only and merely in combination with an inquest where he had been alone with a body. As you well know, Lechmere habitually signed himself LEchmere when dealing with the authoritites. He certaily used the name when speaking to the authoritites THIS time - which is why we must ask ourselves why he did so, when he apparently did not otherwise, speaking to the authorities.?".

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.
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.

I would, if there was something to justify it.

Maybe if you could see that something, Jon. Or would. But you wonīt. What do you think Scobie and Griffiths saw? Or were they conned by us and the film team? Is that why Andy says that Lechmere is of tremendeous interest to the investigation? Is that why he says that no other suspect needs to be looked into until the carman can be cleared?

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

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

[Robert]

More likely re-interpretation.

[Trevor Marriott]

Who said it did, Trevor?

Canīt you PLEASE follow the discussion?

The best,
Fisherman

Well you are suggesting that the blood flow evidence suggests that Nicholls was recently killed, and that killing took place within the time frame Cross could have had if he had been the killer.

But you cant tie the time of death down to that precise period of time you seek to rely on.

Doctors estimated time of death --Guesswork

Mizens description and other witnesses of blood/flowing/oozing open to interpretation

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Robert]

In any case, Fish, since you insist that the blood was still running when Mizen saw Nichols - which I think you reckoned as being about 8 minutes after Crossmere's cutting her throat - I have to ask whether you believe that the blood continued to run after Mizen went for the ambulance. After all, it would be a remarkable coincidence if Nichols's wounds stopped running the moment Mizen saw her. This is, after all, PC Mizen and although he had been graded as 'good' he was no Rasputin when it came to staunching blood flows.

[Robert]

Hi Fish

And a Happy New Year to you, my friend.

I have watched your videos. None of these things were oozing, since they were travelling too fast (except, the blood thing which I found incomprehensible).

I could probably give you an example of oozing by making the cake myself. This is because there would doubtless be defects in the cake and oozing would occur. However, I would probably not even reach that stage. Cookery is not a strong point of mine.

[Fisherman]

Well it dam sure doesn't convict him !


www.trevormarriott

Who said it did, Trevor?

Canīt you PLEASE follow the discussion?

The best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

Itīs not as if I have not answered all of this before, Trevor.

And it is not as if you are right about things here.

You are not.

But I wonīt once more go over why with a man who apparently thinks that the blood evidence somehow CLEARS Lechmere. Itīs too tough a hill to climb.

The best,
Fisherman

Well it dam sure doesn't convict him !


www.trevormarriott

[Fisherman]

Don't worry, Fish. I have no intention of stepping into the river. Heraclitus used to say that you cannot step into the same river twice. I will not step into this one even once.

I am aware that there is pressure in the river, Fish. It is due to gravity. If it wasn't for gravity, rivers would not flow. So we are back to a volume of water under the influence of gravity, which is what I originally said.

Bugger! Then how can we make Fisherman look ridiculous?
I leave that in your capable hands, Fish.

Now Fish, with uncanny intuition you have put your finger on the reasons that Niagara Falls cannot be said to be oozing. It is to do with the speed and the volume. You may think that Neil should not have used the word 'ooze.' You may think that a better description would be that the blood was running. But Neil used the word 'ooze' and your attempts to re-interpret the meaning of the word 'ooze' are pointless. An ooze is an ooze, Fish.

I just posted WHAT an ooze is, according to Youtube. You really should watch.

We cannot compare the underlying pressure of the Niagara Falls to that of human blood, Robert. Letīs try and be fair, shall we? Explosive outlets of water will never be described as oozing. What Neil and Mizen saw was anything but explosive, since there was no underlying pressure from the heart and extremely low pressure due to gravity.

After all of this, you can answer this question: Is it possible that what Neil described as oozing could be what Mizen described as running three or four minutes later?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

And anyone leaving the scene for a sinister reason would make the effort not to make noise.

Mmm - but COULD you, with hard-soled shoes and a totally quiet street? Lechmere banked on that being impossible. And at any rate, it would be harder the nearer the carman drew.

Ok, 2 mins.

Thank you kindly, Sir. Now add that to the five or six minutes that had passed since Lechmere left and look what should have happened coagulationwise. And ask yourself "Would the blood still run after seven, eight minutes?"

Yes, that`s what I wrote. He was a policeman and reported what he saw.
I`m not sure how accustomed Mizen was to congealed blood. Did he deal with many serious crimes that would have involved congealing blood ?
But anyway, I don`t have a problem with his observations.

Nor do I - I take them to represent what he said.

Now that is desperate.

How so? Wasnīt Lechmere there? Do his timings not work with a scenario where he is the killer? Is not another killer a figment of our imagination until we can prove his presence?

There was one indication that he used the name Cross in 1888.

Only and merely in combination with an inquest where he had been alone with a body. As you well know, Lechmere habitually signed himself LEchmere when dealing with the authoritites. He certaily used the name when speaking to the authoritites THIS time - which is why we must ask ourselves why he did so, when he apparently did not otherwise, speaking to the authorities.

The anomaly is absolutely glaring, and it happens at the worst of times - just when it can give rise to a suspicion that he was a killer.

I would, if there was something to justify it.

Maybe if you could see that something, Jon. Or would. But you wonīt. What do you think Scobie and Griffiths saw? Or were they conned by us and the film team? Is that why Andy says that Lechmere is of tremendeous interest to the investigation? Is that why he says that no other suspect needs to be looked into until the carman can be cleared?

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Don't worry, Fish. I have no intention of stepping into the river. Heraclitus used to say that you cannot step into the same river twice. I will not step into this one even once.

I am aware that there is pressure in the river, Fish. It is due to gravity. If it wasn't for gravity, rivers would not flow. So we are back to a volume of water under the influence of gravity, which is what I originally said.

Bugger! Then how can we make Fisherman look ridiculous?
I leave that in your capable hands, Fish.

Now Fish, with uncanny intuition you have put your finger on the reasons that Niagara Falls cannot be said to be oozing. It is to do with the speed and the volume. You may think that Neil should not have used the word 'ooze.' You may think that a better description would be that the blood was running. But Neil used the word 'ooze' and your attempts to re-interpret the meaning of the word 'ooze' are pointless. An ooze is an ooze, Fish.

[Fisherman]

Robert!

Your Youtubing gave me an idea - what do people think is oozing in videos?

oozing pumpkins:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g_awF_OJY0

oozing blood:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz1qBjORsBw

oozing lava:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeJmVDPK4FY

oozing chocolate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x08TBhoCjQg

oozing water:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbtHtEf01uY

oozing cream:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8V7oco7Liw

Strange, is it not? This is absolutely not how you describe oozing, is it? And still, people seem to think that these are oozing things...?

Maybe I am correct, Robert? Maybe itīs about the speed at which the liquid or mass it travelling?

The best,
Fisherman

PS. Happy New Year - let the champagne ooze over the brim of your glass!

[Jon Guy]

Yet, he didn`t notice the "tarp" until he was on the opposite side of the road?[/I]

It was dark, Jon. He would have HEARD anybody stirring, he would not have seen them.

And anyone leaving the scene for a sinister reason would make the effort not to make noise.

That`s the order I`d go with. A minute at best, I`d say.

And then add the minute plus it took for Lechmere to get to the stable yard door. Thatīs two. At least..

Ok, 2 mins.

Not qualified as medicos, but certainly as professionals who were accustomed to congealing blood. Mizen looked at the blood, and he saw it had started to congeal, and thatīs it. He knew that blood would congeal, and he knew it happened in stages and he recognized an early stage. He added that the blood coming from the wound appeared fresh, so he knew his business

Yes, that`s what I wrote. He was a policeman and reported what he saw.
I`m not sure how accustomed Mizen was to congealed blood. Did he deal with many serious crimes that would have involved congealing blood ?
But anyway, I don`t have a problem with his observations.

I think it was the man who sneaked off in the shadows just before Cross reached the body. You know, the man who had just killed and mutilated someone and scarpered, not Charles Cross, who hung around and asked for help.

There is no such man recorded.He is a figment of your imagination only. And the suggestion fits poorly with the blood evidence. Why would we not point a finger at Lechmere, who WAS there, who HAS anomalies attaching to him, and who DOES tally with the blood evidence?.

Now that is desperate.

Have you yet proved he was know as Charles Lechmere at Pickfords ?

Have you? Iīm not even trying.?.

Ok, fair enough, it`s your own bid. I`m working on my own stuff.

That`s what you need to do to make your name thing work.

Not at all. All I need is evidence that he used the name Lechmere on a regular basis and that there are no indications that he ever used any other name. It works eminently after that.?.

There was one indication that he used the name Cross in 1888.

Well, I`d lay into him along with you and Ed if we had something to justify it.

No, you wouldnīt. Obviously not..?.

I would, if there was something to justify it.