Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Fisherman]

Robert: Fish, the good news is that your last example was a good one. The bad news is, no we can't put it behind us.

This is an eccentric use of language, in my opinion, possibly explicable by the 1780 date. Language changes.

Aha, not satisified, huh? "Language changes". Dear me.

More generally, just because a list of synonyms is given, does not mean that you can use all those words interchangeably in any sentence in which they occur. For example, a woman might be pleased to hear from a fortune teller that she is going to meet a tall dark stranger (maybe Enrique Iglesias?). She would be less pleased to hear that she is going to meet a tall dim stranger (definitely Basil Fawlty).

Itīs not me using those synonyms interchangably, itīs your source, Robert. They SPECIFICALLY used the expression about that scratch in the forehead oozing blood, and then they listed synonyms for "oozed" IN THAT SPECIFIC CONTEXT! Right?

To use an example from your own links : blood may flow from a gaping wound. It may also flow from a scratch on the forehead. Blood may ooze from a scratch on the forehead, but can it ooze from a gaping wound? I would say no, not unless the wound has already done most of its bleeding and the blood is now coming out very slowly. The idea of blood oozing profusely from a gaping wound, is a nonsense.

Aha. Well, then thereīs the Preston Guardian (spiffingly British!), that reported in the 1870:s about an accident in a zoo. The event can be read about in the book "Exhibiting animals in Nineteenth Century Britain", by the very British author Helen Cowie, published this year. The snippet of interest is about a labourer who extends his hand to a lion in a cage, as if to shake hands with it:

"...the lion acceded rather too readily to this request, greeting the man more roughly than he had expected. Soon blood oozed profusely from the hand of the labourer, who was only saved by the timely intervention of a keeper.

There are also various examples of novels where it is written about gaping wounds with blood oozing profusely from them. If you want me to post them, just say so.

But of course, this is just example after example of people who you have not had the opportunity to correct! Once you tell them off, Iīm sure they will never misuse the beautiful British language anymore!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

What? None of that addresses my question at all. You ask us to suspend our belief and accept that Lechmere was a pathological liar but in the very next breath you try and use Lechmere as witness as "proof" he would have heard someone going down the street.

The truth is he only thought he would have heard someone going down the street. This however is not proof that he would have. Saying, "Yes there was time for a killer to flee before Lechmere" but then "No it wouldn't happen because Lechmere thought he would hear them" is not proof a killer did no such thing. Actually, you're entire theory is based off of someone noticing a person coming down the street before they noticed him and could see what he was doing. To try and negate this possibility from happening to Lechmere but possible for the very next individual is very selective.

We don't even know what Lechmere was basing this on. Was he assuming the other person had wooden soled shoes? What happens if the person had rubber soles? What if he had enough time to slip his shoes off? There's literally no way to guarantee he would have heard another person.

So here is the question. Was there enough time for another person to flee the scene before Lechmere got there? It's quiet simple, either it's Yes or No.

The question is a complex one since we - in my opinion - must rely on a lying killer to tell the truth about the matter of a thought-up killer outside Browns.
Lechmere nevertheless pressed the point that there would have been no chance for a man to leave from Browns without him noticing it. And personally, I think thatīs very true. Rubber souls were as rare as henīs teeth, the street was totally quiet and Lechmere very confident:

"Witness did not hear any sounds of a vehicle, and believed that had any one left the body after he got into Buck's-row he must have heard him."

At any rate, we must add significant time to an alternative killerīs actions. If he WAS there and fled, then he fled as Cross entered Bucks Row. Thatīs a stiff m inute before Lechmere arrives at the body. Then we must add the time for covering up the body and we must parhaps weigh in that the killer added the abdominal wounds last - if so, there goes another minute or two after the neck was cut.

And with every minute we add, the harder the only commencing congealing of the blood becomes to explain.

It may be hard to digest, but there you are.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Can someone go into more detail about this? Is there something to be said for this or a false account or what? If it's true blood was found elsewhere this would directly indicate the killer had blood on himself or at least his weapon, no?

This certainly doesn't fit with a person hiding the weapon on his body correct?

There were slaughterers working nearby. It was reported in the papers that the blood droplets came from another row between a man and his wife. It has been speculated that the drops fell from the ambulance as Mizen wheeled Nichols away. There are many alternative explanations, and nothing is said about the freshness of the drops.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Batman: A vector is a medium that can trasmit a unit from one place to another. It takes on more specific meanings in specialized areas. The heart is a pump, but the pump is not the only means by which blood can move naturally, for example, gravitational forces. Also there are biochemical pathways in which blood movement involves chemical interaction. Air can also be a vector for blood as pointed out by the contamination examples. Then there is the kinetic energy of instruments in blood. Pressure from gases can also cause blood to also move. Muscle movement and spasms from the wounds post-mortem. There are many more ways to get blood on oneself from stab wounds than not.

I think that will be hard to prove! But of course, blood CAN be transferred. Itīs just that there is no reason to accept that it would have been in the Nichols case.

Your choosing not, according to the evidence. I say I would think it unlikely given the violence involved.

But would you not find it equally improbable that Nichols did not have one small speck of blood on her chest? How do you explain that, with all that violence?

I don't think the ripper was at all slow. I think he was very fast but spent a large portion of time on organs for removal (not with Nichols though). I don't think his MO is Jack the slow coach. Sorry I think he is known as a slasher, not a stabber right? While Tabram was stabbed, JtRs other victims had slashes and nichols seems no different. The neck was slashed, not stabbed too.

And not a speck of blood on her chest, nor on the clothes over the chest? So the killer was showered with blood droplets, but not a single one of them hit Nicholsī chest? And the ground around her was clean? How did he do that?

Yes, there is a lack of blood in places on her but I think what the evidence is trying to suggest is not that there is something really odd about the lack of blood on her front, but that the blood that pooled around her neck suggests she was lying down. I think that is all they are trying to demonstrate. That she wasn't killed standing up.

There was a scarcity of blood overall. It would seem that much of it soaked into her clothes, but the blood visible was very scarce.

None to my knowledge. I have never heard the suggestion before. Purely my own take on things.

Thatīs fine. Just so I know.

The mass of congealed blood works in explaining where most of the blood went. The throat wound where most of it came from. Hence the focus on no blood on her front. However do the other wounds suggest no blood came out?

They suggest that no blood went up into the air. Thatīs otherwise how you get blood specks on your person when killing with a knife - the retracted blade has blood on it, and that blood is flunk into the air by the force of the retracted blade. With Nichols, all blood seems to have flown downwards - and THAT means that the knife work was NOT very quick or violent, plus it tells me that the killer may well have stayed bloodless on his exterior.

"There were no injuries about the body till just about the lower part of the abdomen. Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. It was a very deep wound, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. On the right side there were also three or four similar cuts running downwards. All these had been caused by a knife, which had been used violently and been used downwards."

It doesn't say anything about blood and we know most of it congealed but the image invoked doesn't make for a very clean attacker I think. Which is basically my point and I think it works in the witnesses favour. I don't think this is as strong a point though as the fact witnesses turned up close to JtRs murders and this guy is one of many.

This guy is one of a kind, believe me....

By the way, there was not any "mass of congealed blood"; the blood had only just started to congeal as Mizen saw her, the blood flowing from her neck appeared fresh to the PC, and blood starts to congeal visibly at around three minutes. After seven minutes it is all congealed, more or less.

So Mizen saw her perhaps five or six minutes after she was cut - and Lechmere had been with her around five or six minutes before Mizen saw her.

One of a kind!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

... and Iīm off.

Zzzzzzzz....!

Fisherman

[Robert]

Itīs not me using those synonyms interchangably, itīs your source, Robert. They SPECIFICALLY used the expression about that scratch in the forehead oozing blood, and then they listed synonyms for "oozed" IN THAT SPECIFIC CONTEXT! Right?

Wrong!

Do you think that 'blood percolated from a long scratch on his forehead' or
'blood drained from a long scratch on his forehead' or 'blood leached from a long scratch on his forehead' make sense?

As for the episode of the lion, I stand by what I said : the idea of blood oozing profusely, is a nonsense.

[Dane_F]

The question is a complex one since we - in my opinion - must rely on a lying killer to tell the truth about the matter of a thought-up killer outside Browns.
Lechmere nevertheless pressed the point that there would have been no chance for a man to leave from Browns without him noticing it. And personally, I think thatīs very true. Rubber souls were as rare as henīs teeth, the street was totally quiet and Lechmere very confident:

"Witness did not hear any sounds of a vehicle, and believed that had any one left the body after he got into Buck's-row he must have heard him."

At any rate, we must add significant time to an alternative killerīs actions. If he WAS there and fled, then he fled as Cross entered Bucks Row. Thatīs a stiff m inute before Lechmere arrives at the body. Then we must add the time for covering up the body and we must parhaps weigh in that the killer added the abdominal wounds last - if so, there goes another minute or two after the neck was cut.

And with every minute we add, the harder the only commencing congealing of the blood becomes to explain.

It may be hard to digest, but there you are.

The best,
Fisherman

So the answer is yes there was enough time. That's all that needed to be said.

The blood evidence for you is significant and one of the key pillars of your case for Lechmere. However it is not something I believe is accurate and it is far more subjective what the police actually saw and when. I understand your belief in needing it to fit exactly so. Suffice to say it proves nothing to me and I have no desire to discuss semantics of what was actually meant.

I subscribe to a much simpler theory. The blood was there when Lechmere and Paul looked at her but they could not see it in the darkness or did they get close enough. Fresh blood continued to flow out over the top of the already slowly congealing blood and we have PCs with limited educations using the words they knew to describe what they saw. (Would many common beat cops even know the word congeal?)

At best, best, you can possibly make the case of Lechmere as the killer of this one person. There is however absolutely zero evidence for him committing any of the other murders. So now we are left with an even more puzzling case of why did he kill this one person and then go on to lead a normal life where he was able to keep this hidden from his family while keeping his job and not only that but running a successful business and bettering the lives for all of his children. I'm sorry but on the scale of him either being an innocent passer-by or Jack the Ripper I have to lean heavily toward him being a passer-by.

Keep in mind, I have no other person I suspect instead of him. I have no pet theory that I put ahead of Lechmere and I don't even have a list of killers I'd put ahead of others. I'm simply reading and discussing Lechmere because it's the most active thread and trying to use logic and reason on each suspect as they are discussed. I'd be perfectly willing to accept Lechmere as JTR because I think it would be cool to know who the killer was. Sadly, the evidence just doesn't stack up in my mind.

[Dane_F]

There were slaughterers working nearby. It was reported in the papers that the blood droplets came from another row between a man and his wife. It has been speculated that the drops fell from the ambulance as Mizen wheeled Nichols away. There are many alternative explanations, and nothing is said about the freshness of the drops.

The best,
Fisherman

Thanks. I'm willing to accept that as a possible explanation.

[Scott Nelson]

The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter.[/I]
(Echo, 3 September)

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

Ok. I take it back Christer. Mizen did observe blood still running from Nichol's neck. Therefore she was cut VERY recently.

[Batman]

Even the coroner didn't think splatter would be everywhere just blood on the hands. I doubt anyone could have stood up hands clean after it.

[The Good Michael]

[QUOTE=Robert;324905

As for the episode of the lion, I stand by what I said : the idea of blood oozing profusely, is a nonsense.[/QUOTE]

Like 'gushing trickle' and 'light downpour'?

Mike

[The Good Michael]

From Illustrated Police News:The night was very dark. Witness and the other man left the woman, and in Baker's-row they saw Police-constable Mizen. They told him that a woman was lying in Buck's-row, witness adding, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk." The other man observed, "I think she's dead." The policeman replied, "All right." The other man, who appeared to be a carman, left witness soon afterwards.

Here we can see that Paul and Cross split up after they'd spoken, together, with Mizen. Cross goes on to say that he did not say a policeman wanted Mizen. That's unimportant anyway. Mizen was mistaken. This shows that Cross had a corroborating witness to what he just told the inquest. Difficult to lie here.

Mike

[Rosella]

I'm a poster on the Lizzie Borden Forum. Andrew Borden was murdered, admittedly by hatchet and not knife, at about 11am on August 4th 1892.

The testimony of the Medical Examiner for Fall River, Mass., Dr Dolan, was that he arrived at the Borden house at 11:45 am, some 45 minutes after Andrew's murder. He examined his head wounds and observed 'bright red blood' oozing (his words) from them. He also stated that blood was 'dripping' from the couch on which the body was found onto the carpet underneath. Andrew Borden's blood had not clotted in that time, though his wife's, killed at approx 9:30am, had.

On another detail, weren't there alleyways nearby in Bucks Row leading through Winthrop St to Whitechapel High St, past Brown Bros, the Ripper could have used to escape?

[Batman]

Ooze is just a term to signify that the remaining presure is too low to force the blood out quickly with low pressure gravitational forces responsible for the movement of blood out of the body.

[Fisherman]

Itīs not me using those synonyms interchangably, itīs your source, Robert. They SPECIFICALLY used the expression about that scratch in the forehead oozing blood, and then they listed synonyms for "oozed" IN THAT SPECIFIC CONTEXT! Right?

Wrong!

Do you think that 'blood percolated from a long scratch on his forehead' or
'blood drained from a long scratch on his forehead' or 'blood leached from a long scratch on his forehead' make sense?

As for the episode of the lion, I stand by what I said : the idea of blood oozing profusely, is a nonsense.

Iīm afraid that the only intelligible reaction to having it proven to you that you have missed out on an expression is to admit that this happened. "Blood oozed profusely" has more than 800 hits on Google (!), some of them from the 18:th century, some from the 19:th and so on, following through right up til today. So itīs a used expression and one that is very hard to misunderstand. You can find "blood oozed heavily" (80 + hits) and "blood oozed in abundance", "blood oozed unstoppably" etcetera too.

To ooze is NOT just about small amounts, Robert. "Ooze" is not as much about the volume as it is about the speed of the flow.

As for your unwillingness to take on board the synonyms I posted, this is what I did:

I looked at the link you provided, telling me that it described what oozing was about. On the link, there were three links to synonyms to "ooze":

US English dictionary
English synonyms
US English synonyms

I chose "English synonyms", since you are so fond of British matters and quality.

Clicking on that link, I got:

Synonyms of ooze in English:

VERB
1 blood oozed from a long scratch on his forehead

seep, discharge, flow, exude, trickle, drip, dribble, issue, filter, percolate, escape, leak, drain, empty, bleed, sweat, well, leach;

Medicine extravasate
rare filtrate, transude, exudate

2 she was positively oozing charm
exude, gush, drip, pour forth, give out, send out, emit, breathe, let loose, display, exhibit, demonstrate, manifest

As far as I can tell, the sentence "blood oozed from a long scratch on his forehead" is used as an example of how the verb "oozed" can be used, and then a number of synonyms are listed. Iīm sure that some will be more and some less frequently used in combination with describing forehead scratches, but the fact of the matter is that the synonyms are listed in this exact context.

Whether I can rely on you or not to be the judge of things is somewhat unclear, since you repeatedly deny that the expression "blood oozed profusely" is anything but a contradiction in terms. Well, to be fair, you moved the goalposts and said that it could at least never be used when speaking about gaping wounds.
That was whan I produced that lion, and you started to go into denial again.

"Ooze" is a description of the speed of a flow, and the underlying pressure behind it. If there is no pressure, the flow will be of an oozing character. Just like I quoted from the net earlier, there was a guy who wrote that dead people do not bleed - they ooze blood.
That will be hitting the head of the nail, Robert.

The best,
Fisherman