Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Tom_Wescott]

I believe that statements such as 'the blood was running from the neck to the gutter' is simply Mizen's way of describing what he saw, i.e. 'this is the direction the blood had run', versus 'the blood was actively running'. In other words, the emphasis is on 'neck' and 'gutter' and not on 'running'. The fact that the blood was congealing supports this. It's sort of like saying 'the stagnant water ran the length of the treeline'. You wouldn't interpret this to mean the water was moving, but take out the word 'stagnant' and you would do so.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Robert]

Never thought of that, Mike. Blood reaching from the throat to the gutter.

Fish doesn't seem to interpret it like this, e.g. post #1051 : "But the main thing is that we KNOW that he canīt be taken out of the picture: He WAS there alone with Nichols, she DID bleed as Mizen saw her"

And then there's post #930 : "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."

I haven't the will to go through the inquest reports again, but it seems that Mizen was reported as saying that Nichols was still bleeding when he first saw the body, and then there is the remark about the blood running from the neck to the gutter after he'd got the ambulance. It's odd that he should mention it twice. Very confusing!

[The Good Michael]

Hi all

The thing is, if the blood was still running after Mizen returned with the ambulance, then this knocks on the head Fish's timing of 5,6, 7 or 8 minutes for the blood to still be running. There is a possibility, though, that Mizen noticed the running blood in the process of moving Nichols, i.e. when they started moving her, some more blood came out.

Robert,

It's all about how we translate words and terms (by one's side as an example). If the blood was 'somewhat congealed' then 'running' would mean (I believe), something more akin to 'spanning' and not flowing. But it's these little things that this case is built upon, and these little things are quite fragile.

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi all

The thing is, if the blood was still running after Mizen returned with the ambulance, then this knocks on the head Fish's timing of 5,6, 7 or 8 minutes for the blood to still be running. There is a possibility, though, that Mizen noticed the running blood in the process of moving Nichols, i.e. when they started moving her, some more blood came out.

BTW I notice in the same article under Crossmere's testimony: 'THE OTHER MAN


left witness at the corner of Hanbury-street, and went down Corbett's-court. '

This might seem to allow Fish a few seconds for Crossmere to be alone with Mizen and whisper to him that he was wanted by a policeman, but I'm not convinced. Fish is adamant that Crossmere and Paul were not together the whole time that Crossmere was speaking to Mizen. He has to argue this, otherwise it would mean that Crossmere lied to Mizen in front of Paul.

I posted this in reply to David Orams post on another thread it is important to this thread also

See below an extract from your post re the inquest testimony of Dr LLewelyn and below an extract from my experts opinion.

Inquest

"The doctor, too, has been closely questioned upon this point, and has stated that though he should have expected to find more blood upon the clothes and ground, it was possible that the greater part had run into the loose tissues of the body, the fact that she was lying upon her back contributing to this"

Expert

“In terms of time, there would be an initial rush of blood, but the victim’s blood pressure would rapidly subside (in a matter of seconds if the blood loss is particularly profuse) so that the rate of flow would become considerably less relatively soon after injury. After the circulation has stopped, it will be down to gravity to continue the blood loss, and clearly this will depend on position / angle and so on. Sometimes a wound will be ‘propped open’ by the position of the body, whereas in other cases the wound may be ‘squeezed shut’ by the weight of the body. Things like vessel spasm and rapid clotting can be surprisingly good at staunching the flow of blood from even very catastrophic injuries. Even if a person is lying such that their injury is gaping open and is ‘down’ in terms of gravitational direction, this does not necessarily mean that blood will continue to flow out until the body is ‘empty’. Things like collapsing vessels and valve effects can prevent this passive flow, and there are lots of ‘corners’ for the blood to go around (it is spread around lots of long thin tubes, not sitting in a large container) before it finds its way out of the injury… so it might end up ‘trapped’ within the body. I have certainly seen cases with multiple large knife wounds and copious blood at the scene, where a significant proportion of the victim’s blood has remained within the vessels to allow me to obtain good samples for toxicological analysis later in the mortuary”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Robert]

Hi all

The thing is, if the blood was still running after Mizen returned with the ambulance, then this knocks on the head Fish's timing of 5,6, 7 or 8 minutes for the blood to still be running. There is a possibility, though, that Mizen noticed the running blood in the process of moving Nichols, i.e. when they started moving her, some more blood came out.

BTW I notice in the same article under Crossmere's testimony: 'THE OTHER MAN


left witness at the corner of Hanbury-street, and went down Corbett's-court. '

This might seem to allow Fish a few seconds for Crossmere to be alone with Mizen and whisper to him that he was wanted by a policeman, but I'm not convinced. Fish is adamant that Crossmere and Paul were not together the whole time that Crossmere was speaking to Mizen. He has to argue this, otherwise it would mean that Crossmere lied to Mizen in front of Paul.

[The Good Michael]

Tom, Harry,

This is what David was talking about from The Star, September the 3rd:

A man passing said to him, "You're wanted round in Buck's-row." That man was Carman Cross (who came into the Court-room in a coarse sacking apron), and he had come from Buck's-row. He said a woman had been found there. Witness went to the spot, found Policeman Neil there, and by his instruction witness went for the ambulance. He assisted in removing the body. He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed. Cross, when he spoke to witness about the affair, was accompanied by another man. Both went down Hanbury-street. The witness at the time was in the act of knocking a man up. Cross told him a policeman wanted him. He did not say anything about murder or suicide. It was not true that before he went to Buck's-row, witness continued "knocking people up." He went there immediately.

So Mizen noticed the blood after he had gone for an ambulance, and then was the blood congealed. My guess would be 20-30 minutes after Neil sent him off, so this could be minimum 40 minutes after Cross and Paul met Mizen. Is that enough time for blood to somewhat congeal?

Here Mizen is also denying knocking up people as Paul claimed and does say that Paul accompanied Cross, meaning, they were together, so it's doubtful Cross lied.

Mike

[harry]

Going over some of the information,I see that a reference to congealed blood being noticed,was made as the body of Nicholls was placed on the wheelcart in preparation tor transport to the mortuary,and this would have been quite some time after the body was discovered.Not sure though this is the only reference.

[The Good Michael]

Hi Mike. I actually don't know what his answer will be. I would assume he doesn't agree with what's published in the Star. I would imagine he has an argument for it.

And if you have to cheat and hide evidence in order to build a case, then what's the point of building the case in the first place?

the first part is what I meant. The second part, I agree that would be cheating of sorts, but creating excuses that dismiss things outright is also a form of cheating. I guess that comes from a place that I've never been with respect to Ripperology (that I know of) in which you believe in a suspect so strongly that other logic, no matter how logical, is dismissed. But that is kind of how faith in anything works.

Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

You know that's rhetorical. We all know exactly what the dishonest answer will be. I don't even need to bother one brain cell for what's to come.

Mike

Hi Mike. I actually don't know what his answer will be. I would assume he doesn't agree with what's published in the Star. I would imagine he has an argument for it. I can respect that. What I don't respect is that he didn't give me that information, or his explanation for it. Instead, he quoted sources that could be used to bolster the answer he WANTS, which is that Nichols was murdered seconds before Paul arrived. Fisherman's been on about Lechmere for years now and the documentary with all it's talk of blood has been out a month, so why am I hearing about it being 'congealed' for the first time from David Orsam, a relatively new member to this site? I won't buy that David's a better researcher (he might be overall, but when it comes to the Nichols murder Fish and Ed have seen damn near everything).

I'm not nitpicking here and I don't expect Fish's argument to be spot-on perfect, but since he says this blood evidence is one of only two or three pillars on which his case rests, I would expect full disclosure on the matter. I'm ready and willing to apologize in the event that I've made a mistake in my interpretation of the situation, but at the moment it seems a bit like cheating to me. And if you have to cheat and hide evidence in order to build a case, then what's the point of building the case in the first place?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[The Good Michael]

The question this raises is why didn't Fisherman bring the Star article to our attention instead of Orsam?

You know that's rhetorical. We all know exactly what the dishonest answer will be. I don't even need to bother one brain cell for what's to come.

Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

With all the bandwidth wasting quoting of 10 paragraphs only to reply with 10 words, to say nothing of the repetition, I thought I'd draw attention to something David Orsam posted on here recently that well and truly puts the brakes on the current version of the Lechmere theory. Most of us agree that the only reason found yet to suspect Lech is that he was found by Paul to be standing a few yards from Nichols' body. However, Fisherman states that the blood evidence is an even better reason and to support this he quotes newspapers showing Thain and Mizen to be stating the blood was still running at the time they came to the body. I interpreted Thain's words to be something different, but couldn't put the kabosh on Fish's interpretation.

But then Orsam posted another article from the Star that has Mizen referring to the blood as 'congealed' at the time he arrived. This means that Nichols had indeed been dead for a good amount of time and was not still dying when Mizen got on the scene. Pretty powerful stuff! In short, it means she was likely murdered well before Cross came on the scene.

The question this raises is why didn't Fisherman bring the Star article to our attention instead of Orsam? Fish and Ed have been ALL OVER the Nichols reports for years. They couldn't have missed it. What else are they hiding from us that might be exculpatory, I wonder?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[harry]

Fisherman,
In ans wer to your post 1063.
There is no parallel that you speak of,in the case of Nicholls killing.There w as never a nine or so minute,on the way to work period,in which a serial killing took place,be it Sutcliffe or any other.You are getting irrational and ridiculous in your comparisons...Either Cross set out from home with an intent to find and kill a victim,or the idea came to him after he had left home that morning.Which was it?It's your theory.Clealy there was intent,on the part of someone.

[pinkmoon]

Well get this, and look at it another way, in a nutshell you cannot prove Cross killed Nicholls you have not one scrap of tangible evidence to support this. Yes, you put him at the crime scene he found the body so what, someone had to find the body did they not?

Furthermore you cannot disprove the fact that Cross was not the killer and that perhaps he disturbed the real killer.

You experts were undoubtedly misled by what was presented to them. As a result of what they did say, you have got carried away with this theory, to the point you have become blinkered to all others things that relate to this, important things which you are not prepared to accept, things which go along way to negate your theory.

You also seem to rely heavily on press reports which we know can also be unreliable.

And the main smokescreen you have put up is with regards to the body bleeding.You keep being told that the evidence from the witnesses about what blood they did see or didn't see is unreliable yet you seem to want to interpret all of this in your own way to suit your own theory.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,I think you have just summed up this whole situation an idea has just turned into case solved without any evidence I think the police would have looked at this at the time and quickly decided Mr cross wasn't the man they were looking for.Let's face it lack of evidence has never stoped anyone for proposing someone for the crown of jack the ripper before.

[Robert]

Donīt be daft, Robert - you know full well that I am quite aware that no such scenario could be presented out here without people protesting vehemently - and correctly to an extent.

Well, you have presented that scenario, Fish, and I have protested vehemently, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in. With respect, Fish, if this is not what you mean, then stop saying it.

Not everyone reading these threads has been into the matter as deeply as you or Ed. Some will be newcomers. I think it behoves us to try and describe these things neutrally. Phrases become established in Ripperology, and once established they can be difficult to shake off. "In close proximity to" would be fine.

And that name was NOT his real name. Lechmere was. And you KNOW that he used Lechmere in his contacts with authorities. If he never used his stepfathers surname otherwise, it is just as big a lie to say Cross as it would have been to say Holmgren. It would be using a name he otherwise NEVER used.

It is certainly not a lie to use one's stepfather's name. But if you think there was anything sinister in it, please present proof. Please show me the evidence that Crossmere was never known as 'Cross,' and that he did not mention the name 'Lechmere' when he gave his police statement.


I am pointing out to you, Robert, that you produce the one simplistic "truth" after the other (if your boys stay at home, then you are a good father, if you earn money by being industrial, then you are a good guy). That wonīt do

No, it won't - so it's just as well that I never said it. As I recall, we were discussing Mizen (he of the good grade) and I said that we were entitled to take Crossmere's character into account too, so far as we knew it - just as you had taken Mizen's character into account, as far as you knew it.

Now then, Fish, I wish you a Happy Christmas.

Can I have that exact distance after the holidays?

You must check your stocking, Fish, for Santa may give it to you as a gift - provided he is a cyborg.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: Does it matter who the body was it could have been Aunt Ethel the cisrcumatance would still be the same and the opinion given would still be the same.

Thatīs where you will be wrong, Trevor. If the pathologist had commented on Nichols, he would have said so. He did in his former post, when he said that the bleeding would be over in the initial couple of minutes.

The question was again

You stated that a body could continue to bleed for up to 20 minutes after death. Is that the max time or could it be dependent on other factors?

What he says is

"I think that, though it might seem unlikely for a significant quantity of blood to be flowing out of a body several minutes after death, it would certainly be possible for blood still to be dripping / oozing out of a body 20 mins later. This is likely to be minimal (almost negligible) in nature, as the majority of the blood that was able to come out would have done so much sooner"

Yes, thatīs what the man says. He is NOT speaking of Nichols here, but instead of a generalized view, comprising his whole experience.

Now

Pc Neil --Blood oozing

Blood running, according to the Morning Advertiser, that quotes ad verbatim. My own belief is that BOTH running and oozing may have been mentioned, and I have pointed out various times that oozing need not mean that only a little blood flows - oozing points to the speed of the blood coming out, and it comes out slowly from a dead body.
On the net, you will find more than 800 exaples of the wording "oozed profusely", which should tell you that "ooze" relates primarily to the speed of the flow, and not to the amount.
If we want to disbelieve the Morning Advertiser, then we can turn to Mizen, who said that the blood was still running and appeared fresh. As he saw the body AFTER Neil, it could hardly had bled less when Neil saw the body, could it?

Dr Llewellyn -- Very Little blood around the neck

Llewellyn was there around fifteen to twenty minutes after Mizen. What did you expect?

Cross Notice no blood
Paul -Notices no blood

In neither case does it mean that it was not there, Trevor, We actually KNOW that it would have bee. - but it is interesting that Paul does not see the stream of blood running from the pool under Nicholsī neck down to the gutter.
Could it be that it had not yet flowed over when Paul was there? I find that a very useful suggestion.

So who is right I guess by the way you want your theory to pan out it must be Mizen.

NO, NO, NO, NO ,NO!!! My theory pans out eminently whether Mizen saw the blood running or not - we would STILL have Neil seeing it happen, and we would still know that she had in all probability been cut very close in time. Of course, Mizenīs testimony isolated Lechmere as the probable killer even further, but the crash and burn of my theory you seem to spend your nights dreaming about, would not happen even if Mizen had been blind, Trevor.

But of course even if your times are spot on, what you cant calculate for, which no one seems to have mentioned is the fact that Cross could have unintentionally disturbed the real killer. If that be the case no matter how much you champion your times as being correct you still cant prove Cross was the killer and still cannot dismiss the above alternative scenario.

There is always the possibility of a freak scenario, yes. Even if Nichols bled for an unexpectedly long time, as implied by Mizens words, she COULD always have bled three minutes longer. There are always these possibilitites. But why should we look for a freak possibility when we have a man like Lechmere in the frame, a man who lied about his name, who seemingly lied his way past the police, who had geographical and chronological ties to all the murders, who Andy Griffiths said had a lot of things pointing towards him and who Scobie said acted suspiciously, even saying that what we have on him would warrant a modern day trial?

Why on earth would we predispose that something freakish is to prefer to a man with this kind of pointers surrounding his appearance in the Ripper saga?

You keep saying that it must not have been him, Trevor. But why do you so utterly desperately not WANT it to have been him? Whatīs the lure? Why try and exonerate him at any cost?

I donīt get it.

The best,
Fisherman

Well get this, and look at it another way, in a nutshell you cannot prove Cross killed Nicholls you have not one scrap of tangible evidence to support this. Yes, you put him at the crime scene he found the body so what, someone had to find the body did they not?

Furthermore you cannot disprove the fact that Cross was not the killer and that perhaps he disturbed the real killer.

You experts were undoubtedly misled by what was presented to them. As a result of what they did say, you have got carried away with this theory, to the point you have become blinkered to all others things that relate to this, important things which you are not prepared to accept, things which go along way to negate your theory.

You also seem to rely heavily on press reports which we know can also be unreliable.

And the main smokescreen you have put up is with regards to the body bleeding.You keep being told that the evidence from the witnesses about what blood they did see or didn't see is unreliable yet you seem to want to interpret all of this in your own way to suit your own theory.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk