Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[martin wilson]

Lee Jackson's Victorian Dictionary has a piece on Pickfords, each cart was weighed prior to going out on delivery and the cart number, name of the driver and destination were dutifully recorded. I wonder if the delivery books are still around, they would make very interesting reading!
All the best.

[harry]

Fisherman,
I obviously,as do many others,believe that Cross merely intended to go to work that morning.That he did not at any time have a desire to kill. As it is your theory he murdered,the onus is on you to show there was an intent to kill Nicholls.What I find ridiculous,is the theory that Cross set out from home that morning,either with the intent to find and kill a victim,or upon sighting Nicholls developed an intent at her appearance.What cannot be reasonably stated,is that there was no intent shown.

[Pcdunn]

Hi Pat

Actually some of that Paul stuff has already been thought of by Ed - not that Ed thinks Paul was the killer, but that Crossmere tried to frame Paul for the Hanbury St murder and by extension for the Nichols murder, i.e. Crossmere hoped that the police would think that Paul circled round etc.

Well, there's "nothing new under the sun", I suppose. I am reading through this thread in an effort to catch up, and the more I read, the less convinced I am of the teamster's connection.
I really thought Alan Moore had exaggerated Ripperology in his "The Dance of the Gull-catchers", but it doesn't seem as if he has done so. Sigh...

Pat D.

[Trevor Marriott]

Then you would be woefully wrong. Not that it would necessarily be unusual as such, but nevertheless.

Now, please ask the pathologist the pertinent SPECIFIC questions next time, Trevor! Or do you think that Nichols only had a few minor vessels in her neck severed...?

The best,
Fisherman

I am not going to waste his valuable time anymore. I am happy with what he is saying and unlike you I understand what he is saying.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

So much text, and so little of consequence.

Your pathologist simply says - again - that a body CAN bleed for 20 minutes. But what he gives is a generalized picture. He is NOT speaking of Nichols.

Here is what he says:

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.

"A" body. Not THE body - Nichols´body.

He exemplifies what he means with this passage: "However, I have dealt with cases where ‘vessels in the neck’ have been ‘cut’… where actually only minor vessels and other structures have been cut and, on closer inspection, the truly ‘large’ vessels have been spared."

So here he suggests one reason for a prolonged bleeding: The main vessels may not be cut. For if they ARE, then the bleeding is quickly over.

Further on: "What is important to realize is that much of the myth and legend that has become ‘fact’ over the decades might be based upon testimony such as this… and therefore is open to question."

Yes, ABSOLUTELY true: If it was only a myth that Nichols had all her vessels cut open, then she would perhaps have bled for a lot longer time.

But we KNOW that she DID have the vessels cut off, Trevor!

This is where the thrust of the message can be picked up:

"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."

This is in accordance with the pathologists earlier post: Yes, a body CAN bleed for many minutes. But in a case with a lot of damage done to the neck, it will bleed out in the initial couple of minutes, just as we have been told in the former post. If, however, the damage is less significant, if the body is awkwardly posed, if there is some sort of obstacle in play, THEN there can be a minimal (almost negligible!) trickle of blood for a longer time, and that time may be many minutes.

In the end, it will all hinge on gravity (something that you seemingly have misunderstood totally, judging by your former post!).

This is what Neil said, according to the Morning Advertiser, quoting ad verbatim:

The Coroner - Did you notice any blood where she was found?

Witness - There was a pool of blood just where her neck was lying. The blood was then running from the wound in her neck.

This is Mizen:

The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.

Is this the "almost negligible" dripping your man speaks of? I would not think so. Moreover, I don´t think your pathologist would suggest that a woman cut the way Nichols was cut would bleed for twenty minutes.
So far, what he has answered is the question whether a victim CAN bleed for twenty minutes, and yes, a victim CAN do that.

Whether Nichols could do it, is another story, best answered by his former post: She should have bled out in the initial couple of minutes with that kind of damage.

This is the question you should have asked the pathologist:

Make the assumption that the victim in the case at hand had had all the vessels in the neck cut totally open, and that the knife had left the spine only unsevered. Make the further assumption that the victim was lying flat on her back on a relatively even ground, motionlessly. Add to your knowledge that the victim had had around ten other deep wounds added to her abdomen.
We do not know for sure whether the victim was dead as she was cut, but she may well have been, in which case death would arguably have occurred a minute or two before she was cut.

In a case like this, would what blood that would leave her, leave in a matter of minutes only, or could she go on bleeding for up to twenty minutes? If so, what would be the cause of the long period of bleeding, if there were no external obstacles to the bleeding and if the vessels in the neck were all severed and open?

We realize that there may be variations, but what is your best guess?

THAT is the exact question we need an answer to. We need no more answers to the generalized question: Can a victim with a cut neck bleed for a long time?

If your pathologist could answer this specific question, and if we could have more than one pathologist offering his/her views, it should get us closer to the truth.

The best,
Fisherman

So now you are an expert in forensic pathology and in a position to disagree with an expert

The question you keep seeking an answer to is an unanswerable question you have been told this. So go find another forensic pathologist and ask him the same questions, get him to comment on this pathologists answers.

Your theory is dead in the water for many reasons and it is obvious you are not going to admit it, you are going to stick it out till the bitter end. so there really is no point in continuing with this.

You cannot specifically tie the time of death down to the time you say Cross murdered Nicholls. An expert has in as many words told you this.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

I would suggest that it is your assessment and evaluation of the misplaced evidence and testimony you seek to rely on that is a mess.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Then you would be woefully wrong. Not that it would necessarily be unusual as such, but nevertheless.

Now, please ask the pathologist the pertinent SPECIFIC questions next time, Trevor! Or do you think that Nichols only had a few minor vessels in her neck severed...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Pcdunn: How did he avoid getting blood on his hand or anywhere else? Did he have bloody gloves as well a knife concealed on his person in his pockets?

Jason Payne-James, the forensic pathologist in the documentary clearly says that he would not necessarily expect the killer to have much, or indeed any, blood on his person.
As for stashing the knife, he wore a large sacking apron in his work.

Where is the proof of his employment at Pickford?

In his own evidence.

The name he worked under while there?

We know that he signed himself Lechmere during the time he worked at Pickfords.

His routes and schedules?

Unknown - but his logical working treks are not.

An example of his handwriting to compare against any of the hundreds of letters from "Jack the Ripper"?

You can find his handwriting, as used in his signatures, on many threads out here. But why would we assume that the letters were written by the killer? Most people agree that they were not.

The best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: I have been going back and analyzing the evidence you seek to rely on in your attempt to prove Cross killed Nicholls. As I understand what you suggest is that he had up to 13 minutes in which to meet Nicholls and kill her Based on leaving home at approx 3.20am and arriving in Bucks Row at 3.27am and Paul coming along at about 3.40am

None of this is how I envisage things, Trevor. I suggest that he left home at 3.20 or 3.30, 3.30 being the more likely thing, that Paul came into Buck´s Row at 3.45 and thathe reached the body at around 3.46, leaving Lechmere around nine minutes to meet and kill Nichols.
But these are all estimations (apart from Pauls exact timing of 3.45), and it is impossible to determine what applied exactly. All we can say is that it SEEMS from what we have been told, that there would have been time to kill Nichols.

Most of your case is built around timings for as has been suggested if any of the timings are out then it shatters your case because for him to have been the killer your timings have to be almost exact with very little room for maneuverability.

There is learoom for varying times to some extent. But the main thing is that we KNOW that he can´t be taken out of the picture: He WAS there alone with Nichols, she DID bleed as Mizen saw her, and so on. SO speaking about shattering the theory is something that cannot be done, Trevor. You seem to have misunderstood this totally.
He IS in the picture, and he can´t be taken out of it by the timings.

Now based on that, he would either have had to meet NIcholls in Bucks Row or somewhere else on his route to work if the latter then that would have used up more valuable time in getting to Bucks Row because you only allow him 7 minutes from house to Bucks Row.

I have posted this before but I think it is so important and something you clearly have no thought out and allowed for when going public with your theory.

Lets look at the witness timings again.

Pc Neil
first pass in Bucks Row should have been 3.15am approx
second pass should have been 3.27approx (12 minute round beat)
third pass 3.39am approx which is when he finds body.

No. Neil was there AFTER Paul, and Paul was there at 3.45. SO it does not pan out. Moreover, it is entirely uninteresting: Lechmere WAS in place, he WAS alone with the victim and she DID bleed as Mizen saw her. THAT is what matters, nothing else.

Monty kindly informed us that the beats were 30 minute beats so the 12 minute beat could be a mistake. If that is the case then the murder could have taken place between 3.15am and 3.27am, some 12 minutes before Cross got there. This is reliant on Pc Neils movements and time being correct. If they were not, and he was not in Bucks Row at 3.15am then her murder could have occurred some time before that and long before Cross finds the body. Pc Neil then says he found the body at 3.39am

No, the murder could emphatically not have taken place between 3.15 and 3.27.

Now according to the evidence, by 3.39am Cross and Paul had already found the body and gone off to find a policeman, deduct 3-4 minutes for that so that brings the time down to 3.35am approx when Cross and Paul left the scene. Now take of the time allowed for Cross to be seen standing in the road as Paul approached, and time they spent with the body and that takes it down even more.

No time for Cross to kill Nichols

Lets look at other factors which weaken your theory

1. The exact time of death cannot be firmly established
(on this aspect you rely on Dr Llewellyn stating death had occurred at
about 3.45am) As we now know this was guesswork

2. The time of death cannot be established through looking at a wound.

3. The time of death cannot be established through blood loss

4. The witness timings are all over the place and are un-reliable,

I have purposely ignored the smokescreen about walking to work through the murder locations and visiting relatives in the murder locations thats not even worth considering in the grand scheme of things

I have also ignored the giving of a false name I think that has been explored and evem Scobie says it is insignificant

Taking all of these facts together do you reall still think you now have a case which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Cross killed Nicholls?

I think you have it totally wrong, and I know that the case for Lechmere is a very strong one. Luckily, it hinges not on your inability to understand it. I´m sorry, Trevor, but this post of yours is a mess.

The best,
Fisherman

I would suggest that it is your assessment and evaluation of the misplaced evidence and testimony you seek to rely on that is a mess.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

As promised I said I would go back to the expert and ask one question which I did i also took the opportunity of providing him with a copy of Dr Llewlenys inquest testimony he is his full reply to both

I hope we can all now put this issue to bed even Fish ?

Q. 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?

A. I don’t think it would be appropriate or reliable to state a ‘max’ time for an individual case.

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. 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.)

As for the extract from the inquest testimony:

There is actually very little detail of use in this text. Rather than actually naming the anatomical structures injured, there are repeated mentions of ‘tissues’ being severed. This is vague, and does not allow inferences to be drawn with confidence. There is a description of the ‘large vessels’ on both sides of the neck being cut. If this is true then there is certainly scope for profuse haemorrhage from the neck, as well as ongoing leakage of blood from the neck after death. However, I have dealt with cases where ‘vessels in the neck’ have been ‘cut’… where actually only minor vessels and other structures have been cut and, on closer inspection, the truly ‘large’ vessels have been spared.

Much of the description is vague and potentially ambiguous. Repeated use of ‘about’ implies estimations rather than measurements of wounds, and the assumption that a long-bladed knife must have been used is not valid: a short or medium(!) blade could have been used to inflict such injuries. (I’m not saying that I think a particular blade was or was not used, I’m just saying it is not possible to be certain from the description and ‘measurements’ in this case. As with much of what went on ‘back in the day’, learned medical men would assert things without backup and this would be taken as fact without challenge.

By way of example, it is not possible to say that all injuries were caused by the same instrument, comment on the blade’s sharpness or suggest that the injuries were caused with ‘great violence’. This is just somebody giving their opinion as though it were fact, and giving it in such a way that it is virtually meaningless. Saying that the wounds were made ‘downwards’ means nothing without a frame of reference.

Stating that the wounds were made ‘from left to right’ is not as clear as it might at first seem, and of course cannot be relied upon. The witness states that the injuries ‘might have been done by a left-handed person’. But equally, they could have been done by a right-handed person. Or a one-handed person!

I could go on, but I don’t want to sound overly harsh when the witness was just doing what was the norm back then. What is important to realize is that much of the myth and legend that has become ‘fact’ over the decades might be based upon testimony such as this… and therefore is open to question. All that can be taken with ‘certainty’(!) from that paragraph is that there were apparent sharp force wounds to the neck and abdomen. Many other things seem to have been ‘assumed’. The weapon was ‘probably’ a knife, but there is no guarantee of this (and the size / shape / sharpness / etc. cannot be guessed from the description of the wounds). There could have been more than one weapon. The assailant could have been right or left handed… Death might have been caused by blood loss from the wounds… but could also have arisen from a different mechanism (such as a cardiac air embolus or a tension pneumothorax). Some (or all) of the injuries could have been inflicted after death. Has the possibility of self-inflicted injury been satisfactorily excluded, or just dismissed? Etc.

Much of what is ‘known’ appears to be little more than subjective opinion / assumption / guesswork. Even if we can accept all of the ‘objective’ record as fact, there is so little of this available now that it becomes difficult to draw any firm conclusions this far down the line.

I’m not trying to be negative or contrary, I’m just trying to be realistic about what I can honestly say based upon what I can trust as genuine. As that remains scanty, there is very little I can say with confidence about these cases. However, as just about anything that can be imagined is probably possible, most things can probably be argued one way or the other!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So much text, and so little of consequence.

Your pathologist simply says - again - that a body CAN bleed for 20 minutes. But what he gives is a generalized picture. He is NOT speaking of Nichols.

Here is what he says:

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.

"A" body. Not THE body - Nichols´body.

He exemplifies what he means with this passage: "However, I have dealt with cases where ‘vessels in the neck’ have been ‘cut’… where actually only minor vessels and other structures have been cut and, on closer inspection, the truly ‘large’ vessels have been spared."

So here he suggests one reason for a prolonged bleeding: The main vessels may not be cut. For if they ARE, then the bleeding is quickly over.

Further on: "What is important to realize is that much of the myth and legend that has become ‘fact’ over the decades might be based upon testimony such as this… and therefore is open to question."

Yes, ABSOLUTELY true: If it was only a myth that Nichols had all her vessels cut open, then she would perhaps have bled for a lot longer time.

But we KNOW that she DID have the vessels cut off, Trevor!

This is where the thrust of the message can be picked up:

"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."

This is in accordance with the pathologists earlier post: Yes, a body CAN bleed for many minutes. But in a case with a lot of damage done to the neck, it will bleed out in the initial couple of minutes, just as we have been told in the former post. If, however, the damage is less significant, if the body is awkwardly posed, if there is some sort of obstacle in play, THEN there can be a minimal (almost negligible!) trickle of blood for a longer time, and that time may be many minutes.

In the end, it will all hinge on gravity (something that you seemingly have misunderstood totally, judging by your former post!).

This is what Neil said, according to the Morning Advertiser, quoting ad verbatim:

The Coroner - Did you notice any blood where she was found?

Witness - There was a pool of blood just where her neck was lying. The blood was then running from the wound in her neck.

This is Mizen:

The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.

Is this the "almost negligible" dripping your man speaks of? I would not think so. Moreover, I don´t think your pathologist would suggest that a woman cut the way Nichols was cut would bleed for twenty minutes.
So far, what he has answered is the question whether a victim CAN bleed for twenty minutes, and yes, a victim CAN do that.

Whether Nichols could do it, is another story, best answered by his former post: She should have bled out in the initial couple of minutes with that kind of damage.

This is the question you should have asked the pathologist:

Make the assumption that the victim in the case at hand had had all the vessels in the neck cut totally open, and that the knife had left the spine only unsevered. Make the further assumption that the victim was lying flat on her back on a relatively even ground, motionlessly. Add to your knowledge that the victim had had around ten other deep wounds added to her abdomen.
We do not know for sure whether the victim was dead as she was cut, but she may well have been, in which case death would arguably have occurred a minute or two before she was cut.

In a case like this, would what blood that would leave her, leave in a matter of minutes only, or could she go on bleeding for up to twenty minutes? If so, what would be the cause of the long period of bleeding, if there were no external obstacles to the bleeding and if the vessels in the neck were all severed and open?

We realize that there may be variations, but what is your best guess?

THAT is the exact question we need an answer to. We need no more answers to the generalized question: Can a victim with a cut neck bleed for a long time?

If your pathologist could answer this specific question, and if we could have more than one pathologist offering his/her views, it should get us closer to the truth.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: I have been going back and analyzing the evidence you seek to rely on in your attempt to prove Cross killed Nicholls. As I understand what you suggest is that he had up to 13 minutes in which to meet Nicholls and kill her Based on leaving home at approx 3.20am and arriving in Bucks Row at 3.27am and Paul coming along at about 3.40am

None of this is how I envisage things, Trevor. I suggest that he left home at 3.20 or 3.30, 3.30 being the more likely thing, that Paul came into Buck´s Row at 3.45 and thathe reached the body at around 3.46, leaving Lechmere around nine minutes to meet and kill Nichols.
But these are all estimations (apart from Pauls exact timing of 3.45), and it is impossible to determine what applied exactly. All we can say is that it SEEMS from what we have been told, that there would have been time to kill Nichols.

Most of your case is built around timings for as has been suggested if any of the timings are out then it shatters your case because for him to have been the killer your timings have to be almost exact with very little room for maneuverability.

There is learoom for varying times to some extent. But the main thing is that we KNOW that he can´t be taken out of the picture: He WAS there alone with Nichols, she DID bleed as Mizen saw her, and so on. SO speaking about shattering the theory is something that cannot be done, Trevor. You seem to have misunderstood this totally.
He IS in the picture, and he can´t be taken out of it by the timings.

Now based on that, he would either have had to meet NIcholls in Bucks Row or somewhere else on his route to work if the latter then that would have used up more valuable time in getting to Bucks Row because you only allow him 7 minutes from house to Bucks Row.

I have posted this before but I think it is so important and something you clearly have no thought out and allowed for when going public with your theory.

Lets look at the witness timings again.

Pc Neil
first pass in Bucks Row should have been 3.15am approx
second pass should have been 3.27approx (12 minute round beat)
third pass 3.39am approx which is when he finds body.

No. Neil was there AFTER Paul, and Paul was there at 3.45. SO it does not pan out. Moreover, it is entirely uninteresting: Lechmere WAS in place, he WAS alone with the victim and she DID bleed as Mizen saw her. THAT is what matters, nothing else.

Monty kindly informed us that the beats were 30 minute beats so the 12 minute beat could be a mistake. If that is the case then the murder could have taken place between 3.15am and 3.27am, some 12 minutes before Cross got there. This is reliant on Pc Neils movements and time being correct. If they were not, and he was not in Bucks Row at 3.15am then her murder could have occurred some time before that and long before Cross finds the body. Pc Neil then says he found the body at 3.39am

No, the murder could emphatically not have taken place between 3.15 and 3.27.

Now according to the evidence, by 3.39am Cross and Paul had already found the body and gone off to find a policeman, deduct 3-4 minutes for that so that brings the time down to 3.35am approx when Cross and Paul left the scene. Now take of the time allowed for Cross to be seen standing in the road as Paul approached, and time they spent with the body and that takes it down even more.

No time for Cross to kill Nichols

Lets look at other factors which weaken your theory

1. The exact time of death cannot be firmly established
(on this aspect you rely on Dr Llewellyn stating death had occurred at
about 3.45am) As we now know this was guesswork

2. The time of death cannot be established through looking at a wound.

3. The time of death cannot be established through blood loss

4. The witness timings are all over the place and are un-reliable,

I have purposely ignored the smokescreen about walking to work through the murder locations and visiting relatives in the murder locations thats not even worth considering in the grand scheme of things

I have also ignored the giving of a false name I think that has been explored and evem Scobie says it is insignificant

Taking all of these facts together do you reall still think you now have a case which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Cross killed Nicholls?

I think you have it totally wrong, and I know that the case for Lechmere is a very strong one. Luckily, it hinges not on your inability to understand it. I´m sorry, Trevor, but this post of yours is a mess.

The best,
Fisherman

[RockySullivan]

Lechmere lied about his name and that a copper was on the scene but he never changed his story. Richardson changed his story twice, first he doesn't go into the yard, then he's sitting on the steps in the spot where if chapman was there she'd be at his feet (according to his own testimony ),he cuts the leather from his boot, then he's sitting at the steps but he changes his story again and he can't the cut leather. He places himself at the murder scene with a knife & the would be body at his feet, he admits there with a knife out on the steps, which he would only do if he was actually there with a knife and worried someone saw him. He's a million times more suspicious than Lechmere, and his story doesn't jive. He's far more likely to be a killer than a cross since he himself admits he's got a knife out and he's not cutting his boot! Not to mention he has the means to wash up.....Whose more suspicious the man who finds a body or the man who admits he's sitting with a knife out where a body should be?

[Robert]

Thanks for that, Trevor.

[Robert]

Hi Pat

Actually some of that Paul stuff has already been thought of by Ed - not that Ed thinks Paul was the killer, but that Crossmere tried to frame Paul for the Hanbury St murder and by extension for the Nichols murder, i.e. Crossmere hoped that the police would think that Paul circled round etc.

[Pcdunn]

Not converted just yet...

Pcdunn:

JtR seems to have been profiled as a "disorganized killer", yet to accept Lechmere as calm enough to bluff his way through questioning by the police, (possibly with the weapon concealed about his person)-- we have to see him as a sociopath, and an incredibly cool one at that. That doesn't fit in with a "disorganized" killer at all.

Different people make different assessments of him. There are traits that can be interpreted both ways. Let´s just say that disorganized killers are very prone to leave clues behind themselves, to be noisy and sloppy, to have no plan for how to escape undetected etcetera.
The two things that may be interpreted as disorganized are
A/ The eviscerations - many eviscerators are disorganized. But Arthur Shawcross, for example, was highly organized, as was Chikatilo and a heap of other guys who were into eviscerations.
B/ Killing out in the open street may seem disorganized. But arriving at the scene and leaving it unnoticed does not.

This is a working man, who had been at the same company for 20 years, a family man whose wife and children never suspected him of anything anti-social. He doesn't seem to ever have done anything eccentric, let alone insane or violent. He lives to an advanced age, sometimes unusual in that era, and attesting to his native strength and good health. He walked the same streets as JTR, but so did a great many other men.

Gary Ridgway? John Eric Armstrong? Robert Hansen? Peter Kürten? Family men, who held down their jobs for many years. I can´t remember the name, but there was one serialist who buried a victim under his and his wife´s bedroom window.

It is not nice when we cannot see throught these men. It is unnerving. But there you are. In fact, what makes many of them hard to catch is that they are seemingly very normal and not intimidating at all.

And I´m afraid we can´t say that Lechmere never did anything eccentric. We do not have his actions and his demeanor on record. He could have been extremely eccentric.
Or he could have seemed totally normal - as so many serialists do.

It is true some "family men" have been sociopaths and serial killers and have hidden it from their loved ones, but they usually get found out, sooner or later. There is usually some slip made.

There are hundreds of unsolved serial killer cases, PcDunn. Do you ever think about HOW they stay unsolved? I would propose that in most of these cases, the killer was not ever suspected because he or she seemed totally normal. That would have been a key factor in these people not having been caught.
There will also be numerous cases where the police never had a clue that a number of murders were interconnected, and therefore failed to notice that they were dealing with a serialist.
The ones you look at are the ones that actually WERE caught.

It seems to be pure conjecture about Mr. Lechmere's mental state and his actions, as far as the other murders are concerned.

His logical working treks, his decades in St Georges, his mothers address and the correlations in method within the murders are not conjecture.

Yes, we could say he killed Polly, and referring to her body as "a man's tarpaulin" in all of his inquest testimony is an indication of his callousness toward his victim. But, just as easily, we could say he was an innocent passerby who paused to look at something unusual on his route to work.

... and who gave the wrong name to the police, and who had logical working treks that took him past the murder sites, and who seems to have misled Mizen, and who was not seen or heard by Robert Paul, and ...

Mr. Paul said he saw Lechmere in the middle of the road, and that he was wary about this, due to his fear of robbers (given the time and place, very understandable). Lechmere may have decided to attract Paul's attention to the dying or dead woman and play the role of an innocent witness -- or he may have been an innocent witness.

Yep, that is pretty much it - other alternatives are hard to find.

I don't think we have enough evidence, other than the two names, and both seem to be attached to him. I doubt many people in Whitechapel gave their right name to the police, but Lechmere did give his correct address. Couldn't that be a simple slip of the tongue?
Of course, we still lack any information on who killed Polly, if Lechmere did not. Maybe the fellow escaped through the stables, for all we or anyone else knows.

The door was locked, PcDunn, so no, he did not disappear through the stables. And none of the PC:s around the site said anything about having seen somebody to attract attention at the time, nor did any of the watchmen.

Plus Polly was still bleeding a good many minutes after Lechmere left her.

So there´s your killer for you. Why won´t you accept him?

The best,
Fisherman

Thank you for taking the time to respond, Fisherman. I think you have worked out quite the theory, based on the handful of facts in the written testimony that we do have about Lechmere, aka Cross. But... Much of the rest of it is conjecture.

Why on earth did the supposed killer touch Paul on the shoulder shortly after slashing Polly's throat? How did he avoid getting blood on his hand or anywhere else? Did he have bloody gloves as well a knife concealed on his person in his pockets?
Where is the proof of his employment at Pickford? The name he worked under while there? His routes and schedules? An example of his handwriting to compare against any of the hundreds of letters from "Jack the Ripper"?

I could offer a theory against Paul as the killer, conjecture get that he lied about being late for work, he had killed Polly, was leaving by a different route and had circled around to get behind Cross/Lechmere (or maybe stood still in the shadows till Cross/Lechmere had passed, then stepped out behind him), that he cleverly gave the subtle impression during his testimony that the man in the street was somehow a menacing character, and so on and so forth... But this is my imagination at work. I'd be asked, quite rightly, to provide evidence, and my case would suffer for lacking it.

Pat D.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, I read that at the time and have taken it into consideration. But (1) that does not answer the question of what is the maximum amount of time that such oozing is physically possible bearing in mind the nature of blood, the amount of blood in a human body, and the laws of physics (2) it is not clear if the 'piece of string' reference is a mention to the various different scenarios that your expert has referred to (such as clamping v non clamping etc.) so that while certain time ranges can (?) be stated for certain scenarios, the expert was saying that one time does not fit all and (3) despite the 'piece of string' reference, your expert nevertheless did provide us with a time for which blood can flow, of twenty minutes, and I am hoping he can clarify what he meant by that - whether that is the maximum or whether it can go on for (much) longer - and whether the caveats he also mentioned would tend to reduce the time that such flow is possible.

As promised I said I would go back to the expert and ask one question which I did i also took the opportunity of providing him with a copy of Dr Llewlenys inquest testimony he is his full reply to both

I hope we can all now put this issue to bed even Fish ?

Q. 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?

A. I don’t think it would be appropriate or reliable to state a ‘max’ time for an individual case.

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. 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.)

As for the extract from the inquest testimony:

There is actually very little detail of use in this text. Rather than actually naming the anatomical structures injured, there are repeated mentions of ‘tissues’ being severed. This is vague, and does not allow inferences to be drawn with confidence. There is a description of the ‘large vessels’ on both sides of the neck being cut. If this is true then there is certainly scope for profuse haemorrhage from the neck, as well as ongoing leakage of blood from the neck after death. However, I have dealt with cases where ‘vessels in the neck’ have been ‘cut’… where actually only minor vessels and other structures have been cut and, on closer inspection, the truly ‘large’ vessels have been spared.

Much of the description is vague and potentially ambiguous. Repeated use of ‘about’ implies estimations rather than measurements of wounds, and the assumption that a long-bladed knife must have been used is not valid: a short or medium(!) blade could have been used to inflict such injuries. (I’m not saying that I think a particular blade was or was not used, I’m just saying it is not possible to be certain from the description and ‘measurements’ in this case. As with much of what went on ‘back in the day’, learned medical men would assert things without backup and this would be taken as fact without challenge.

By way of example, it is not possible to say that all injuries were caused by the same instrument, comment on the blade’s sharpness or suggest that the injuries were caused with ‘great violence’. This is just somebody giving their opinion as though it were fact, and giving it in such a way that it is virtually meaningless. Saying that the wounds were made ‘downwards’ means nothing without a frame of reference.

Stating that the wounds were made ‘from left to right’ is not as clear as it might at first seem, and of course cannot be relied upon. The witness states that the injuries ‘might have been done by a left-handed person’. But equally, they could have been done by a right-handed person. Or a one-handed person!

I could go on, but I don’t want to sound overly harsh when the witness was just doing what was the norm back then. What is important to realize is that much of the myth and legend that has become ‘fact’ over the decades might be based upon testimony such as this… and therefore is open to question. All that can be taken with ‘certainty’(!) from that paragraph is that there were apparent sharp force wounds to the neck and abdomen. Many other things seem to have been ‘assumed’. The weapon was ‘probably’ a knife, but there is no guarantee of this (and the size / shape / sharpness / etc. cannot be guessed from the description of the wounds). There could have been more than one weapon. The assailant could have been right or left handed… Death might have been caused by blood loss from the wounds… but could also have arisen from a different mechanism (such as a cardiac air embolus or a tension pneumothorax). Some (or all) of the injuries could have been inflicted after death. Has the possibility of self-inflicted injury been satisfactorily excluded, or just dismissed? Etc.

Much of what is ‘known’ appears to be little more than subjective opinion / assumption / guesswork. Even if we can accept all of the ‘objective’ record as fact, there is so little of this available now that it becomes difficult to draw any firm conclusions this far down the line.

I’m not trying to be negative or contrary, I’m just trying to be realistic about what I can honestly say based upon what I can trust as genuine. As that remains scanty, there is very little I can say with confidence about these cases. However, as just about anything that can be imagined is probably possible, most things can probably be argued one way or the other!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk