Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Robert]

Unable to find what you wanted me to find, Fish, but I'll look at any links you care to post.

Strictly speaking, 'oozed profusely' is a contradiction in terms.

There is a sense in which 'ooze' has a slightly different meaning, if it is spoken with the emphasis on 'ooze' e,g. :

"There isn't much jam in these doughnuts."
"Nonsense! They're oozing with it."

So, if for example PC Neil was a vampire, he might have said, licking his lips 'blood was oozing out.' But I doubt if Neil was a vampire, Fish.

[Fisherman]

Batman: The contemporary coroner report in summing up said "It seems astonishing at first thought that the culprit should have escaped detection, for there must surely have been marks of blood about his person. If, however, blood was principally on his hands, the presence of so many slaughter-houses in the neighbourhood would make the frequenters of this spot familiar with blood- stained clothes and hands, and his appearance might in that way have failed to attract attention while he passed from Buck's-row in the twilight into Whitechapel-road, and was lost sight of in the morning's market traffic."

The coroner was not any medico, Batman, let alone any pathologist like Payne-James. Tell me WHY the killer should have gotten bloodied? How would that have come about?

So in this retro-forensic analysis we have to say Payne-James is not in agreement with the Coroner's suggestion. I am open to the idea that the murderer didn't get blood on his hands throughout any of this, but that would be more to do with a person with medical knowledge than someone thinking they can slash someone without getting a blood stain on them. Possible if coupled with that but again, not the contemporary view.

There were contemporary medicos who would not necessarily have expected any significant amount of blood on the killer if my memory serves me. And once again - exactly why and how would he get bloodied if there was no blood pressure?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer

How long does it take to walk up Bucks Row ?
That`s how long the killer needed to scarper before Cross reached him.

Yes, but no.

Lechmere very clearly said that he would have noticed if anybody stirred up at Browns Stable yard as he got into Bucks Row. So there was nobody there for that one minute plus walk.
And before that, the killer had spent time covering up the wounds - for whatever reason. Silly, wasnīt it, since he was not there!
And if we are to believe people out here (But why should we? Good point!), the killer FIRST cut Nicholsī neck, and THEN he cut the abdomen. So there goes another minute or two!

And that takes us to seven to nine minutes before Mizen saw her, if Lechmere didnīt cut her. And look what should have happened with the blood, Jon:
Blood coagulates in about three minutes and a half; the coagulation is usually completed in seven minutes and in twelve minutes the mass becomes firm.

Wow. But the mass was not firm, was it? It was still in the process of congealing as Mizen saw it.

Now, who do you think fits the frame best? Your conjured up killer, or the real Charles Lechmere? The man who gave the wrong name to the police, the man who seemingly fed Mizen the lie of the century?

Why are you so keen on protecting him, Jon? Tell me, Iīm intrigued by the farce put on out here by numerous posters.

The best,
Fisherman

[Batman]

Batman:
Jason Payne-James, forensic pathologist, from the documentary: "I donīt think that the killer must have had much or indeed any blood on his person".

The contemporary coroner report in summing up said "It seems astonishing at first thought that the culprit should have escaped detection, for there must surely have been marks of blood about his person. If, however, blood was principally on his hands, the presence of so many slaughter-houses in the neighbourhood would make the frequenters of this spot familiar with blood- stained clothes and hands, and his appearance might in that way have failed to attract attention while he passed from Buck's-row in the twilight into Whitechapel-road, and was lost sight of in the morning's market traffic."

So in this retro-forensic analysis we have to say Payne-James is not in agreement with the Coroner's suggestion. I am open to the idea that the murderer didn't get blood on his hands throughout any of this, but that would be more to do with a person with medical knowledge than someone thinking they can slash someone without getting a blood stain on them.

If JtR has left behind witnesses, some who may have disturbed him before he could finish, then we should accept there is a history there or precidence for saying people stumble across his victims very close to when he is murdering them.

[Fisherman]

I see that the word 'ooze' is now undergoing selective reinterpretation.

Poor you, Robert -am I being devious again? The selective reinterpretation you are speaking of is courtesy of a web dictionary, by the way.

Now, google "blood oozed profusely" on your computer, and tell me what you find. Read the excerpts, some of them quite old. Read and tell me what you learn from it!

The very best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Remove the killer five minutes before Lechmere, and we have very serious trouble making the blood evidence fit.

Hi Christer

How long does it take to walk up Bucks Row ?
That`s how long the killer needed to scarper before Cross reached him.

[jerryd]

This also means someone has blood on their hands, literally.

The Star
Largest Circulation of Any Evening Paper in the Kingdom.
LONDON. WEDNESDAY, 5 SEPTEMBER, 1888.


THE TWO LARGE DROPS OF BLOOD,
clear and undeniable, which were visible on the Buck's*row pavement, 25 and 35 feet above the place
where the body lay, were made by fresh thick blood, and were probably caused by something in the
hands of the murderer as he walked away. Added to this is the slight abdominal hemorrhage, such as
would be the case if the cutting were done after death

[Robert]

I see that the word 'ooze' is now undergoing selective reinterpretation.

[Fisherman]

Batman:

All the accounts at the time suggest that Nichols was murdered on the spot within minutes of being found, if not seconds.

This also means someone has blood on their hands, literally.

Jason Payne-James, forensic pathologist, from the documentary: "I donīt think that the killer must have had much or indeed any blood on his person".

Many others have said the exact same. There was no blood spurt, going by the signs on the spot, pointing to Nichols being dead as he cut. So the blood would not leap out of the body, it would ooze or run away from it. No innards were taken, there were a number of "probing" cuts to the stomach. So if the killer never got around to reaching into her, then why would he have blood on him? Would the blood have lept up and distributed itself over him? From a dead body?

I don't believe Lechmere could have been surprised by someone passing by quick enough to do a clean up job, especially if he put his hand on someone else at the time and had policemen standing around him questioning him.

Policemen? It was just the one - and he did not question him, he let him go. And it was dark. And he may well have worn clothes that were stained from his occupation.

I am anything but impressed by the "he must have been bloodied" suggestion - he must nothing of the sort.

What's more likely is JtR will keep going until he completes his fantasy or... and is sometimes the case... get's disturbed.

*Nichols - Probably disturbed in the process.
Chapman - Doesn't seem to have been disturbed.
*Stride - Disturbed.
Eddowes - Doesn't seem to have been disturbed but more than likely could see police torch beams coming.
Kelly - Wasn't disturbed.

Being nearly caught 2 out of 5 times tells us that there is a 40% chance that while JtR commits his crimes he is doing so in a place where a witness will stumble upon him or close to him. In Chapman's case he was boxed in... as with Kelly. Heck during Kelly someone was actually going to go down there and tell her to shut up with the singing and may been there when the assault was just about to take place.

Yes. And? This killer was an immense risktaker. If it was Lechmere, we should expect having a psychopath on our hands.

The best,
Fisherman

[Batman]

All the accounts at the time suggest that Nichols was murdered on the spot within minutes of being found, if not seconds.

This also means someone has blood on their hands, literally.

I don't believe Lechmere could have been surprised by someone passing by quick enough to do a clean up job, especially if he put his hand on someone else at the time and had policemen standing around him questioning him.

What's more likely is JtR will keep going until he completes his fantasy or... and is sometimes the case... get's disturbed.

*Nichols - Probably disturbed in the process.
Chapman - Doesn't seem to have been disturbed.
*Stride - Disturbed.
Eddowes - Doesn't seem to have been disturbed but more than likely could see police torch beams coming.
Kelly - Wasn't disturbed.

Being nearly caught 2 out of 5 times tells us that there is a 40% chance that while JtR commits his crimes he is doing so in a place where a witness will stumble upon him or close to him. In Chapman's case he was boxed in... as with Kelly. Heck during Kelly someone was actually going to go down there and tell her to shut up with the singing and may been there when the assault was just about to take place.

[Fisherman]

Pcdunn: As I stated a few pages earlier, it may be a matter of interpretation:

"I am inclined to think that "running" in the context of the inquest testimony means more "in the direction of" than a reference to how fresh or flowing the blood is. The authorities would be interested in information about a blood trail, as that might be a clue to where she had been killed (there was some discussion about it at first, before they settled on the location where she had been found), so the policemen would be trained to offer observations like the direction of blood trails.

Remember, PC Neil got there shortly before Mizen responded, and Neil said the body "oozed blood"; perhaps Mizen said "bleeding" when he observed the same thing, but his vocabulary wasn't as good as Neil's.

So now itīs Mizens vocabulary that is amiss? Interesting! Not only was he the stupidest PC on the force, misunderstanding what Lechmere told him, he was also unable to word himself intelligibily.

But what about this:

Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman. Witness asked him what was the matter, and Cross replied, "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there." Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance.
The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter.
(Echo, 3 September)

Does Mizen sound like a man with grave troubles expressing himself? I donīt think so.

And what is it he says about that blood? Oh yes, here it is: The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.

Now, what YOU seemingly propose, and with no substantiation, is that Neils wording that the blood oozed from the wound would somehow mean that it was very little blood that came from the cut. You want to suggest that Neil said there was only a little blood whereas Mizen said there was a lot, and that this would somehow nullify Mizens suggestion. But neither man mentioned any volume" One said oozing, one said running, and we know that dead people will produce nothing but oozing or running blood.
And "ooze" can mean a lot of things. I have already pointed out that there are 800 plus examples of the wording "oozed profusely" on the net. Hereīs what the free dictionary says:

Ooze

1. To flow or leak out slowly, as through small openings.
2. To disappear or ebb slowly: His courage oozed away.
3. To progress slowly but steadily: "Over grass bleached colorless by strong outback sun, the herd oozes forward" (Geraldine Brooks).
4. To exude moisture.
5. To emit a particular essence or quality: The house oozed with charm.
v.tr.
1. To give off; exude.
2. To emit or radiate in abundance: She oozes confidence.

I earlier posted a sentence where a guy writes on the net that dead people do not bleed - they ooze. Generally speaking, that is a good explanation; blood with no pressure behind it will ooze out or run out. But that does not necessarily mean that the volume is small.

Neil said that she bled - and actually, in the Morning Advertiser, he is quoted as having used the word running about the blood - Thain said the blood was running towards the gutter and Mizen said that she was still bleeding and that the blood that was running from her neck appeared fresh.

There is nothing in what either man says that points to any differences in what they were describing or any difficulties in expressing themselves - the blood was running from the wound in Nicholīs neck, it was oozing out of that wound, and it appeared fresh to Mizen.

Finally, when the body is actually lifted and moved to the ambulance cart, it is possible that some of that "trapped blood" we read of elsewhere began to ooze or drip more rapidly, and did "run" into the gutter. Probably not much, as the doctor (and Thain as well, I think) mentioned "somewhat congealed" blood or "some clotting" by the time this was going on.

But Mizen spoke of the blood running into the gutter as he saw Nichols the FIRST TIME, when only Neil was in place. And Neil said that there was a pool under her neck as he saw her, whilst Llewellyn confirmed this by saying that there was a smallish pool that would contain no more than half a pint of blood.
It was Mizen who said that the blood was starting to congeal, and Mizen made his observation as he first saw Nichols. When he arived back from Bethnal Green police station, upwards of half an hour would have passed! Do you seriously think that the blood would only have started to congeal at that time? Blood starts to congeal half a minute after leaving the vessels. After three minutes we can see it happening before our eyes.

This is no news, and it was known to the Victorians too. From "The Western journal of the Medical and Physical Sciences" by the medical faculty of Cincinatti College. (1837):

Blood coagulates in about three minutes and a half; the coagulation is usually completed in seven minutes and in twelve minutes the mass becomes firm.

Mizen arrived back from Bethnal Green police station with that ambulance about twentyfive minutes to half an hour after Nichols was cut - IF Lechmere did the cutting. Otherwise, the time span was even larger. The blood would emphatically not have just started to coagulate at that stage!

Moreover, IF she was still bleeding as Mizen arrived back with the ambulance, then why does not Llewellyn say that she still bled as HE saw her? Llewellyn ordered the police to take the body to the mortuary: "Witness gave the police directions to take the body to the mortuary, where he would make another examination. ", and he would have been in place at 4.10-ish, which tallies well with when Mizen would have returned back with the ambulance.
Why is not Llewellyn telling us that miraculously, the blood was still running and had only just started to congeal at this time?
Strange, is it not?

The mention of the gutter tells me it was probably slightly lower than either the street or "walkway" where Polly was found, so gravity could have been a factor there. And the mention of the back being soaked in blood from neck to waist (often overlooked in this discussion) seems to me to explain why the witnesses didn't see or step in blood-- it had either run away to the gutter or was trapped under her body.

If it ran into the gutter, how is that an explanation for why it was not seen? Can you explain that to me? Isnīt that the exact sort of thing that should have made people see it or step in it? Or kneel in it?

Why are you trying to make things very odd and very dependant on your interpretations about how Mizen would have been bad at wording things?

What if Lechmere cut her?

Lechmere cut her, and passive blood will only run for as long as there are reasons of gravity for it. Trevors pathologist said that it would do so for the initital couple of minutes only.
Fits with Lechmere.

Paul saw no blood, and so she could have been very recently cut, so that there was still no running into the gutter as Paul knelt by her side.
Fits with Lechmere.

The blood had started to congeal as Mizen saw here, and that was five or six minutes after Lechmere would have cut her.
Fits with Lechmere.

Apart from the blinding desire to point to how it may not have been Lechmere, whatīs your problem with realizing that things actually point straight to him?

The best,
Fisherman

[Pcdunn]

As I stated a few pages earlier, it may be a matter of interpretation:

"I am inclined to think that "running" in the context of the inquest testimony means more "in the direction of" than a reference to how fresh or flowing the blood is. The authorities would be interested in information about a blood trail, as that might be a clue to where she had been killed (there was some discussion about it at first, before they settled on the location where she had been found), so the policemen would be trained to offer observations like the direction of blood trails.

Remember, PC Neil got there shortly before Mizen responded, and Neil said the body "oozed blood"; perhaps Mizen said "bleeding" when he observed the same thing, but his vocabulary wasn't as good as Neil's.

Finally, when the body is actually lifted and moved to the ambulance cart, it is possible that some of that "trapped blood" we read of elsewhere began to ooze or drip more rapidly, and did "run" into the gutter. Probably not much, as the doctor (and Thain as well, I think) mentioned "somewhat congealed" blood or "some clotting" by the time this was going on.

The mention of the gutter tells me it was probably slightly lower than either the street or "walkway" where Polly was found, so gravity could have been a factor there. And the mention of the back being soaked in blood from neck to waist (often overlooked in this discussion) seems to me to explain why the witnesses didn't see or step in blood-- it had either run away to the gutter or was trapped under her body."

[Fisherman]

No, not really.

Since the rest out here are merely jesting by now, I think you are the only one who has asked a question worth bothering about. Why is it that you dont think the Echo article proves at what remove in time Mizen saw Nichols bleeding?

To me, I think it is amazing how well the blood evidence fits the bill with Lechmere as the killer. I am fully aware that there will always be exceptions, and I know that the blood will not prove things conclusively. I think other pathologists may have other things to say than Trevors man, but overall, with that smallish pool of blood, eventually allowing for a stream of blood flowing down towards the gutter that Paul should perhaps have seen if he was there, I think we have a number of indicators that Lechmere did the cutting. Nichols still bled as Neil saw her, as Thain saw her and as Mizen saw her, reasonably meaning that she had been cut just minutes before. And the pool had started to congeal as Mizen took a look, pointing out that the proposed five, six minutes elapsed seemingly fits perfectly too.

Taken together it points to Lechmere having been in place at a point in time that tallies perfectly well with him having been the cutter. The different elements are in place, and so, even those who dislike the theory vehemently ( and perhaps me even more ) should realize that the carman is an extremely viable bid for having killed Nichols. Remove the killer five minutes before Lechmere, and we have very serious trouble making the blood evidence fit.

Why anybody with a genuine interest in the case should jest about this and try to wawe it away, is something I don' t understand. The only intellectually tenable stance on the issue - as far as I can see - is to acknowledge that Lechmere is the top contender for the Nichols murder, the prime suspect and the probable killer. After that, if people want to keep the door open for somebody else having killed Nichols very close in time to when the carman was there, fine. But why would we turn a blind eye to the realities?

The best,
Fisherman

[Scott Nelson]

I just presented definitive proof that Mizen saw the blood running from Nichols neck at the first instance he saw her...

No, not really.

[Dane_F]

Fish,

I think the ultimate sacrifice for your theory needs to be made.

What are the biggest protests people make? How long a person bleeds and how long before it congeals. I propose that for you to finally prove beyond a shadow of doubt the timeframe she had to be killed in that you travel back to the scene of the murder, in similar conditions, and allow someone to rip you. Then we will be able to lay all of these pointless arguments by the wayside by having a full, tangible timeline.

All the best,
Dane