Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Fisherman]

I don't think a working man on his way to work every day accosted and killed a street woman, helped to report it, went on his way to work,etc.-- and managed to do the same four more times. I just don't.

Well, to begin with, he did not do the same thing four times - he only "helped to report" his crimes one time, for example, so your comparison is lacking.

Myself, I find it hard to believe that Gary Ridgway pulled HIS stunt fifty (50) times and h´got away with it And compared to Pedro Lopez he was a mere newbie - Lopez killed around 300 young girls.

Surely, PCDunn, that MUST be wrong? Surely THAT could never have happened? I mean, if Lechmere could never have killed four times and gotten away with it...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

How can anyone speak specifically about the body of Nicholls 126 years later when they did not see it. The expert gave his views on Dr Llewellyns report, he gave valuable info about estimating times of death and the fact that time of death cannot be established by looking at a wound, or by blood flowing/oozing from an open wound.

But none of that sits well with you does it, so you keep constantly muddying the waters.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I am not muddying any waters, Trevor. I quote your pathologist ad verbatim, and I hope you don´t think HE is muddying any waters?

You, on the other hand, chose to pick a generalized statement by your guy - which equals muddying the waters when you represent it as if it was his view of the Nichols case.

Now you choose to try and further blur the picture by claiming that nobody who did not see Nichols´ body could possibly comment on it!
And yet, this is exactly what your pathologist did, specifically pointing out this by speaking of "the specific case in question".
Any ideas which case that may have been, Trevor? The Black Dahlia case? The Kingsbury Run case? Or any other case? Could it perhaps have been the Nichols case that he spoke of as "the specific case in question"?

Perhaps that question is veiled to your mind, but it is not to mine. Here is the exact quote where your man has the audacity to comment on a case you claim he cannot comment on since he never saw the body:

Getting back to the specific case in question, if the body were lying motionless on the ground with significant open neck wounds then I would imagine that at least a few hundred millilitres (and probably considerably more) could flow out passively, and that this would happen within the initial couple of minutes.

Now, Trevor, you will undoubtedly notice that once your pathologist does NOT speak generally about crimes of this category, but insted SPECIFICALLY about the Nichols case, he does not for a split second suggest that she would have bled for twenty minutes. He instead says that the bleeding "would happen within the initial couple of minutes".

Explain to me, if you will, how it can be muddying the waters to point to the where your pathologist - by his own admission - speaks of the Polly Nichols case? And how can it be to muddy the waters to point out that YOU choose to ignore this passage, instead opting for a generalized phrasing about bodies with damage to the neck?

I am suggesting that the only muddying around her is courtesy of your own good self, Trevor.

Me, I am not doing anything but quoting. And it´s your man I am quoting.

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Fish, yes, some people do use the word incorrectly, but I don't think we're entitled to assume that Neil did too.

[Dane_F]

I am not sure that I understand what you mean with free flowing here? If the blood exits the wound with no obstacles, and flows out of it, then why would it not be free flowing..?
Anyways, I concur that Neil and Mizen saw and described the same thing, and that´s what matters.

The best,
Fisherman

It's not free flowing because I do not interpret it as such. I believe it was oozing. When does oozing not mean oozing?

[The Good Michael]

It's not free flowing because I do not interpret it as such. I believe it was oozing. When does oozing not mean oozing?

Oozing would be free-flowing based on gravity and would be slow. I think.

Mike

[Dane_F]

Oozing would be free-flowing based on gravity and would be slow. I think.

Mike

Yes that is another way to look at it which I would accept. Oozing blood is free flowing.

[Fisherman]

Fish, yes, some people do use the word incorrectly, but I don't think we're entitled to assume that Neil did too.

But that is YOUR interpretation of what is "correct" and "incorrect", Robert, not mine. Others have interepreted and used the word in other contexts than the one you promote, medicos and physicians being amongst them.
You may appreciate that a free flowing of blood, based on gravity and therefore slowish, is what people on the thread are right now agreeing about. And that is exactamundo what I am saying: "oozing", "flowing" and "running" can all describe the exact same phenomenon. And since Neil and Mizen saw the same woman, it is far, far more credible that her blood was running when BOTH men saw her, than it is to believe that Neil only saw a miniscule trickling of blood whereas Mizen was totally wrong. The only reasonable and by far the simplest explanation is that Neil desribed the blood flowing from Nichols´ neck as oozing, but we DO have the Morning Advertiser, in which Neil is quoted as having said that the blood was running. Maybe he used both expressions, or maybe the reporter of the Morning Advertiser simply had a context that we don´t have that told him that the blood was running. We weill never know, I´m sure. But we DO know that Mizen said the blood was running and Thain said the exact same thing, so if Neil also siad that it was running, we should be non too surprised.

The only reason I can think of to refuse to accept this and to steadfastly claim that the blood MUST have been only trickling very slowly and in miniscule volumes is if we are dead set on denying that Lechmere fits with the killers´role in this context. Is that what you are up to, Robert? I should hope not.

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Fish, I am not trying to decide whether Neil said the blood was oozing when he should have said it was running, or Mizen said the blood was running when he should have said it was oozing. I am merely pointing out to you that the normal meaning of 'oozing' is to seep out slowly. You may find people who use the word incorrectly, but such things happen. There isn't a word of English or any other language that hasn't been used incorrectly by someone, somewhere.

[Fisherman]

Fish, I am not trying to decide whether Neil said the blood was oozing when he should have said it was running, or Mizen said the blood was running when he should have said it was oozing. I am merely pointing out to you that the normal meaning of 'oozing' is to seep out slowly. You may find people who use the word incorrectly, but such things happen. There isn't a word of English or any other language that hasn't been used incorrectly by someone, somewhere.

I´m still not buying your assertion that you are the only one who is entitled to say how the word "ooze" is correctly or incorrectly used, Robert.

I trade in language, being a journalist. I am very aware that language is a "floating" (or perhaps oozing?) commodity, that changes over time. What we say is misspellings today is tomorrows rule. When we say "but it does not mean that" today, we may have to eat humble pie tomorrow.

Exactly how the word oozed was used in 1888 generally and by Neil specifically, we cannot know. We CAN however, quickly see that we have a woman who bled, and that the PC:s who watched her bleed used different expressions describing it. That should not lead us to think that they all saw different things or that there is somewhere an implication hidden that they were wrong to a smaller or larger extent.

The only credible thing to accept is that Nichols was bleeding as Neil saw her and still bleeding as Mizen saw her. It therefore stands to reason to suggest that if there was any difference in blood flow volume, then it would have entailed Mizen seeing lesser blood flow than Neil saw. And Mizen still chose to word himself that blood was running from the wound in her throat, and that this blood appeared fresh.
Logically, blood was running from the wound in Nichols neck when Neil saw her too, and equally logically, that blood would have appeared fresh then too.

Maybe you will object to this, I don´t know. There can be no logically based objection, so I don´t care much, to be perfectly frank. Blood flowed, and that blood had started to congeal as Mizen looked at it. That puts Lechmere smack, bang alacazam in the middle of things, like it or not.

The blood COULD have flowed longer in Nichols´ case than what is normally the case. There must be room reserved for a killer that had escaped when Lechmere arrived.

The blood COULD have congealed at a slower pace than what is normally the case. There must be room reserved for a killer that had escaped when Lechmere arrived.

But overall, the picture given by the PC:s observing the blood, including how it flowed towards the gutter as Thain saw her, all speaks of a very clear possibility that Lechmere was the killer. If he was NOT, then these parameters are seemingly deviating from the normal behaviour - which they CAN have done, which they MUST NOT have done, and which they more PROBABLY NOT did.

Lechmere is therefore the most probable killer of Polly Nichols, albeit we cannot say that he MUST have been the murderer.

That is what I see here. If you have any other objections to that reasoning other than "not all blood reacts in the same way" or "there may well have been time for another killer", I´d like to hear them. I am no medico myself, and I am sure that many people are better equipped to deduct from the material than I am.

What I am also sure of, however, is that Charles Allen Lechmere simply must be the prime suspect in the Nichols case.

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Fish, of course Crossmere could have been the killer. But I doubt it.

Re your linguistic point : yes, language does evolve, and not always for the better. I am not steeped in late Victorian literature, but even if I were, such knowledge would only give an indication of how words were used in literature. There is also everyday conversation to consider. I imagine that dictionary compilers lag behind everyday conversation, and words can gradually change their meanings in a subterranean manner, as it were. Eventually the old use of a word becomes an old-fashioned use, and a new use becomes dominant, and this is finally acknowledged in the dictionaries.

Anyway, if you want to download the following, you can check on the 1888 state of play of the word 'ooze.' I don't know what an RAR file or a Torrent is, but if you know, then be my guest.

http://www.theabsolute.net/dictionaries/oxford_english_dictionary_1888.html

[Trevor Marriott]

I´m still not buying your assertion that you are the only one who is entitled to say how the word "ooze" is correctly or incorrectly used, Robert.

I trade in language, being a journalist. I am very aware that language is a "floating" (or perhaps oozing?) commodity, that changes over time. What we say is misspellings today is tomorrows rule. When we say "but it does not mean that" today, we may have to eat humble pie tomorrow.

Exactly how the word oozed was used in 1888 generally and by Neil specifically, we cannot know. We CAN however, quickly see that we have a woman who bled, and that the PC:s who watched her bleed used different expressions describing it. That should not lead us to think that they all saw different things or that there is somewhere an implication hidden that they were wrong to a smaller or larger extent.

The only credible thing to accept is that Nichols was bleeding as Neil saw her and still bleeding as Mizen saw her. It therefore stands to reason to suggest that if there was any difference in blood flow volume, then it would have entailed Mizen seeing lesser blood flow than Neil saw. And Mizen still chose to word himself that blood was running from the wound in her throat, and that this blood appeared fresh.
Logically, blood was running from the wound in Nichols neck when Neil saw her too, and equally logically, that blood would have appeared fresh then too.

Maybe you will object to this, I don´t know. There can be no logically based objection, so I don´t care much, to be perfectly frank. Blood flowed, and that blood had started to congeal as Mizen looked at it. That puts Lechmere smack, bang alacazam in the middle of things, like it or not.

The blood COULD have flowed longer in Nichols´ case than what is normally the case. There must be room reserved for a killer that had escaped when Lechmere arrived.

The blood COULD have congealed at a slower pace than what is normally the case. There must be room reserved for a killer that had escaped when Lechmere arrived.

But overall, the picture given by the PC:s observing the blood, including how it flowed towards the gutter as Thain saw her, all speaks of a very clear possibility that Lechmere was the killer. If he was NOT, then these parameters are seemingly deviating from the normal behaviour - which they CAN have done, which they MUST NOT have done, and which they more PROBABLY NOT did.

Lechmere is therefore the most probable killer of Polly Nichols, albeit we cannot say that he MUST have been the murderer.

That is what I see here. If you have any other objections to that reasoning other than "not all blood reacts in the same way" or "there may well have been time for another killer", I´d like to hear them. I am no medico myself, and I am sure that many people are better equipped to deduct from the material than I am.

What I am also sure of, however, is that Charles Allen Lechmere simply must be the prime suspect in the Nichols case.

The best,
Fisherman

Over the xmas period I asked the following questions of the expert relative to Nicholls murder.

Question

You have the Doctors inquest testimony. Is it possible to determine how the throat wounds were inflicted. i.e was the killer standing behind her, or could she have been on the ground perhaps having been strangled first?

There doesn't appear to be an evidence of arterial spray.

Reply

"I did an autopsy last week, were the body had been transported a great distance to the mortuary and death had occurred almost 24 hours prior to my examination… and yet the injuries continued to ‘bleed’ relatively profusely for quite some time. So much so that we struggled to get a ‘clean’ photograph as the blood flooded back as quickly as we could wipe it away! This is why I have been so cautious about commenting on ‘maximum’ timings and quantities of blood loss.

Anyway, in answer to your question, it is really not possible to say with certainty how the wounds were inflicted in terms of ‘reconstructing’ events from the appearance of wounds. This is something that used to be quite ‘popular’ even up until relatively late on in the 20th century, with pathologists stating confidently that a left-handed dwarf with a limp inflicted the injury from behind using a specific knife, etc. Nowadays it is accepted that there is so much variation that in such cases, apart from a few ‘extreme’ scenarios that can be more-or-less excluded, just about anything is possible.

So in other words, the killer could have been behind the victim (with them both standing), or he (or she!) could have been ‘above’ the victim (kneeling, squatting, crouched, lying, stooping…) whilst she lay on the ground (+/- prior strangling).

Or it could have happened during a highly dynamic struggle, with all manner of grappling, twisting and fortuitous slashing going on. Only persons present at the time really know what went on (and we can’t ask them!), and nobody can be certain about a ‘reconstruction’ now based on photos / medical records. If a number of envisaged scenarios are actually ‘possible’ then nobody can really argue in favour of a particular one any more than another.

The lack of documented arterial blood pattern is not surprising as, despite being common in textbooks, arterial spurting is actually quite uncommon ‘in the wild’. Arteries, even large ones, usually go into acute spasm when cut, providing very effective control of bleeding (at least initially). The large arteries in the neck are quite well ‘hidden’ behind muscles and other structures, so they can be missed by even very extensive cuts to the neck. Also, even if cut, the initial ‘spray’ is blocked by the surrounding structures such that blood either remains inside the body or simply gushes / flows / drips out of the external skin hole rather than spurting.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[The Good Michael]

Ooze: 1.
(of a fluid) slowly trickle or seep out of something.
"blood was oozing from a wound in his scalp"

Not running at all. Crawling maybe.

[Fisherman]

Fish, of course Crossmere could have been the killer. But I doubt it.

Re your linguistic point : yes, language does evolve, and not always for the better. I am not steeped in late Victorian literature, but even if I were, such knowledge would only give an indication of how words were used in literature. There is also everyday conversation to consider. I imagine that dictionary compilers lag behind everyday conversation, and words can gradually change their meanings in a subterranean manner, as it were. Eventually the old use of a word becomes an old-fashioned use, and a new use becomes dominant, and this is finally acknowledged in the dictionaries.

Anyway, if you want to download the following, you can check on the 1888 state of play of the word 'ooze.' I don't know what an RAR file or a Torrent is, but if you know, then be my guest.

http://www.theabsolute.net/dictionar...nary_1888.html

I don´t need to download that file, Robert. When push comes to shove, all we have is Neil saying oozed in some sources and running in at least one other source, plus Mizen saying running and appearing fresh, and Thain spaking about blood running towards the gutter. That´s fine by me. I see no reason at all to get tangled up in any semantic quarrels over it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ooze: 1.
(of a fluid) slowly trickle or seep out of something.
"blood was oozing from a wound in his scalp"

Not running at all. Crawling maybe.

Yes, that´s what I am speaking of too - a slow passage of blood, as opposed to one with underlying pressure of the heart. Running was what Mizen said, and what Neil said too - at least according to the Morning Advertiser, so running it is. But you can run slow and you can run fast. As for me, once blood is leaving a wound and travelling downwards along the skin, it is running.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Over the xmas period I asked the following questions of the expert relative to Nicholls murder.

Question

You have the Doctors inquest testimony. Is it possible to determine how the throat wounds were inflicted. i.e was the killer standing behind her, or could she have been on the ground perhaps having been strangled first?

There doesn't appear to be an evidence of arterial spray.

Reply

"I did an autopsy last week, were the body had been transported a great distance to the mortuary and death had occurred almost 24 hours prior to my examination… and yet the injuries continued to ‘bleed’ relatively profusely for quite some time. So much so that we struggled to get a ‘clean’ photograph as the blood flooded back as quickly as we could wipe it away! This is why I have been so cautious about commenting on ‘maximum’ timings and quantities of blood loss.

Anyway, in answer to your question, it is really not possible to say with certainty how the wounds were inflicted in terms of ‘reconstructing’ events from the appearance of wounds. This is something that used to be quite ‘popular’ even up until relatively late on in the 20th century, with pathologists stating confidently that a left-handed dwarf with a limp inflicted the injury from behind using a specific knife, etc. Nowadays it is accepted that there is so much variation that in such cases, apart from a few ‘extreme’ scenarios that can be more-or-less excluded, just about anything is possible.

So in other words, the killer could have been behind the victim (with them both standing), or he (or she!) could have been ‘above’ the victim (kneeling, squatting, crouched, lying, stooping…) whilst she lay on the ground (+/- prior strangling).

Or it could have happened during a highly dynamic struggle, with all manner of grappling, twisting and fortuitous slashing going on. Only persons present at the time really know what went on (and we can’t ask them!), and nobody can be certain about a ‘reconstruction’ now based on photos / medical records. If a number of envisaged scenarios are actually ‘possible’ then nobody can really argue in favour of a particular one any more than another.

The lack of documented arterial blood pattern is not surprising as, despite being common in textbooks, arterial spurting is actually quite uncommon ‘in the wild’. Arteries, even large ones, usually go into acute spasm when cut, providing very effective control of bleeding (at least initially). The large arteries in the neck are quite well ‘hidden’ behind muscles and other structures, so they can be missed by even very extensive cuts to the neck. Also, even if cut, the initial ‘spray’ is blocked by the surrounding structures such that blood either remains inside the body or simply gushes / flows / drips out of the external skin hole rather than spurting.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hmmm, Trevor - I think it is a pity that you did not ask the question I forwarded to you. And exactly why did you ask about HOW she was cut? I really don´t see how that is relevant to the discussion about the blood evidence...?

But let´s look at what you got, anyway! Apparently, your expert did not answer the question you asked only, but instead, for some peculiar reason, he answered a number of other things too.

1. The first example is about a body that had been transported for a long time to an autopsy and that continued to "bleed" nearly 24 hours afterwards.

What do we learn that we did not know before? Nothing, I´m afraid. I have myself pointed out that blood within a body with no injuries to it, will stay fluent for days. It will eventually break down, but for many days, if we open up such a body, blood will flow.

In the case at hand, your expert says nothing about what kind of injuries the victim had sustained. Was there any external damage at all? What kind of vessels had been damaged and to what extent? Was the bleeding the result of moving the body?

There are numerous questions left unanswered here, and there is no way that we can compare to the Nichols murder before we know more. Quite likely, it will remain useless afterwards too.

Plus, of course, why does the pathologist speak of "bleeding" rather than bleeding? Is it blood serum we are being told about?

2. On the whole "how-was-she-cut"-business, I will pass. I find it is unconnected to what we are dealing with here. We know the extent of the damage done to Nichols´ neck, and we know in what exact position she was found, and we really don´t need to know any much more.

3. The last portion of your post is what I find by far the most interesting one:

The lack of documented arterial blood pattern is not surprising as, despite being common in textbooks, arterial spurting is actually quite uncommon ‘in the wild’. Arteries, even large ones, usually go into acute spasm when cut, providing very effective control of bleeding (at least initially). The large arteries in the neck are quite well ‘hidden’ behind muscles and other structures, so they can be missed by even very extensive cuts to the neck. Also, even if cut, the initial ‘spray’ is blocked by the surrounding structures such that blood either remains inside the body or simply gushes / flows / drips out of the external skin hole rather than spurting.

"Arterial spurting is quite uncommon in the wild", your pathologist says, and this would be on account of how arteries usually go into spasm when cut. Unfortunately, I think that your man is perhaps speaking of other arteries than the large neck arteries here, since he moves on to say that these large arteries are hidden and often missed by even very extensive cuts.

So the picture that is painted here is one where the main arteries are left intact, while the other ones are cut to a large extent, but go into spasms, thereby inititally prohibiting too much bleeding. Of course, as the victim dies, the spams will loose their grip and a free flow will follow. In such a case, the blood flow could be sparse to an extent.

But this is not what we have in the Nichols case! In that case, we know perfectly well that BOTH the carotid arteries were cut clean off. And in such a case, arterial spray could well occur, as in the Chapman case, for example, where we have it on the fence by the side of the body.
Your man says that the surrounding structures of the neck could hinder that spray to a smaller or larger extent, and I find that plausible. But it would very much hinge on how much damage was done to the neck, and in Nichols´ case, we know that the neck was cut clean off, but for the spine. So much as the blood could have spurted against the surfaces of the opened up neck rather than out into the street, we would still have a case where the blood would not have been in any way hindered to flow out of the body at maximum speed, if you like.

A kind of comparison can be made with a hose with a diameter of, say, ten inches. If we provide a three-inch cut to that hose, the structure of the hose will nevertheless hold together to a large extent and hinder a maximum outflow.

But if we cut through it all the way down to the ground, only leaving an undamaged three inches, then the structure will fall apart, and there will be a maximum outflow of the hose.

What we need to do is to look at the exact circumstances we KNOW were there in the Nichols case, and not - as I have pointed out frequently - at examples of other cases that we do not know to what extent they are related to the Nichols ditto. Neither are we very much served by generalized observations, other than in a general information respect.

All the best,
Fisherman