Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[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]

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]

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

[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]

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

[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.

[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”

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[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

[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!

[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

[Pcdunn]

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!

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.
Pat D.

[Fisherman]

Aha.

So now I am dishonest.

That went quickly.

Mike cannot be arsed to hear my version of things, because he already knows that I am dishonest – thanks for that! - and Tom asks why I have been keeping information from him, information that seems to defuse any argument about the blood evidence being important in the Lechmere case. Some poster – I frankly forgot who – says that he cannot muster the energy to check the sources.

No, why would we check the sources, when it is so much simpler to just dub me dishonest and be done with it? Why look at the sources and see what applies? The best case scenario is that I am revealed as dishonest, and the worst case scenario is that I am not disclosed as a fraudster – and who wantīs that?

So itīs the same as always. I will present very clear evidence that I am NOT dishonest and that I have presented a clear and viable version of events.

And then nobody will say ”Oh, apologies, I was wrong, I should not have called you dishonest” afterwards.

So whatīs new...?

Okay, here we go – here are the quotations that adher to what Mizen said about the blood, from a number of papers. Letīs begin with the Star, once again:

Policeman George Myzen said that at a quarter to four on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row. 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.
(The Star, 3 September)

In this text, it seems as if Mizen saw the blood running AFTER he had fetched the ambulance. The round trip to Bethnal Green police station would, however, take no less than twenty minutes, so if Nichols bled as the ambulance was rolled up beside her body, then she would have bled for AT LEAST twentyfive minutes.
To me, this suggestion borders on the very ridiculous. But apparently, others think it totally viable...?
The phrasing being what it is, I can of course see how people may think that Nichols bled at this late stage. It is an unlucky phrasing.

The next text is from the Evening Standard:


Police constable George Maizen, 55H, said - On Friday morning, at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when some one who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row). The man appeared to be a carman. (The man, whose name is George Cross, was brought in and the witness identified him as the man who spoke to him on the morning in question.) I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station, and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.
(Evening Standard, 4 September)

Itīs much the same here, with an addition. Twentyfive minutes after Nichols was cut – at the very least – the blood still appeared to be fresh, IF we accept that Mizen spoke of having checked as he arrived with the ambulance.

Now, the Morning Advertiser:

Police constable George Maizen (sic), 55 H, said - On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row). The man appeared to be a carman. (The man, whose name is George Cross, was brought in and witness identified him as the man who spoke to him on the morning in question). I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.
(Morning Advertiser, 4 September)

Itīs still the same: it seems Mizen opens up for having seen the blood run freshly from Nichols neck on approaching the half hour. With a totally severed neck. With no obstacles for the blood, seemingly.

Could it be that this actually was what happened? Mizen says nothing about whether there was any blood running from the neck as he first arrived, but instead speaks of the event twenty to twentyfive minutes later – and at that stage, in spite of having lain flat on the ground with a totally opened up neck, Nichols is STILL bleeding?
Why did Mizen not speak of the all-important initial glimpse he got of Nichols? Did he rush of in such a speed, so as not getting a chance to have a look at the body?

Well, hereīs the good news: those who make the effort to go through the material will eventually find that there IS an article that very firmly establishes exactly when it was Mizen looked at the body!
Furthermore, this source exonerates me from having been dishonest about the errand, which should make all of you very pleased, right?

Right?

Somebody?

This is what the Echo reported from the inquest:

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)

So there we are: The time at which Jonas Mizen saw blood running from Nichols neck towards the gutter was when he INITIALLY arrived at the murder site. At that stage, there was nobody but Neil in place, just as Mizen says. And we know that there were several people in place as Mizen returned back with the ambulance.

This of course clears the whole thing up. We can also see how the other papers managed to get the blood bit AFTER the ambulance bit - because that was the order in which Mizen told the story. It all becomes very evident, all of a sudden.

And anybody who actually had wished to clear it up could have done their homework and checked BEFORE calling me dishonest. It would have been the prudent thing to do, would it not?

Letīs also seal this deal before any more disinformation surfaces. The clotting of the blood, what about that? Does that not tell us that Mizen saw the pool after having fetched the ambulance? Surely blood will not clot that quickly? Maybe The Echo got it wrong?

So letīs look at that point too while we are at it!

To begin with, did the Victorians know anything about blood congealing? Yes, they did. Charles Scudamor wrote his ”An essay on the blood” as early as 1824, revealing how long it takes for blood to coagulate. But letīs not go into that, since we are going to need more fresh, relevant and up-to-date information!

What we need to know is what science speaks of as ”Prothrombin time” - that is what tells us when blod clots. Here is an initial piece, speaking of when the process begins:

”Prothrombin is another protein produced in your liver. The prothrombin time (PT) test measures how well and how long it takes your blood to clot. It normally takes about 25 to 30 seconds. It may take longer if you take blood thinners. Other reasons for abnormal results include hemophilia, liver disease, and malabsorption.”

Wow – 25-30 seconds, and the starting gun goes off!

But when do we see the results? Hereīs the next snippet:

When blood is exposed to air then it starts to congeal within about 3 minutes, so when it's in a syringe it should take longer but not much longer. Within about 5 minutes the blood will start to congeal, especially when air gets in the syringe.

U-huh. So, three minutes, justaboutish.

Can we have any confirmation of this?

Yes, we can, reading ”Physiology of the blood” (http://gira.cadouarn.pagesperso-oran...hematology.htm)

If there is a wound in the wall of the blood vessel the blood will coagulate, (just as in a living person), in the minutes immediately after death. If there is no wound in the walls of the blood vessel, the blood will remain liquid for several days, after which it starts to decompose.
In the case of a cut or rupture of the blood vessel wall, the escaping blood comes into contact with collagen (contained in the tissues which surround the blood vessel). This contact triggers off the coagulation process. Initially this is a series of complex chemical reactions, lasting about three minutes, and involving trace protein and tissue factors.*

So, three minutes is what it takes for the blood to start congealing. And by the way, cold circumstances will make it happen quicker.

Mizen was in place about five or six minutes after the time Lechmere would have cut Nichols, if Lechmere was the killer. So what we should expect - once again, if the carman was the killer - would be a pool of blood that had started congealing from the sides. If Nichols had been cut ten minutes or so before Mizen saw her, we would have reason to expect a more completely congealed mass of blood.

So as I understand things, the fact that Mizen saw Nichols bleed into a pool that had only just started to congeal very much points to her having been cut only a few minutes before.

If you want to know who this points to as having done the cutting, I will gladly expand on that too, if you want to hear more about that particular issue from a dishonest poster like me.

Then again, why would you? When you make up a so much better story without my help?

All the very best,
Fisherman

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Nothing is less dignified in this universe than flogging a dead horse.

Happy New Year.

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

Hi All,

Nothing is less dignified in this universe than flogging a dead horse.

Happy New Year.

Regards,

Simon

Actually, not even being able to tell a dead horse from a living one is a lot less dignified.

An even happier and more clearsighted new year to you, Simon.

Fisherman

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fish,

I fear you are the modern Sisyphus, compelled to roll an immense boulder up a hill, only to watch it roll back down, and to repeat this action forever.

I'll check back in about five years to see how you're getting on.

In the meantime I still wish you a Happy New Year.

Regards,

Simon