Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Trevor Marriott]

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

With all due respect you are trying to read into something which isn't there as far as this murder is concerned.

In a nutshell she had her throat cut by an unknown assailant
The exact time of death has not been established and will never be established 126 years later.

You have no direct evidence to take those facts any further you are not a medical expert. Even modern day experts cannot come up with all the answers, so accept it an move on.

If you feel so strong about this blood flow and oozing go find another forensic expert and see what they have to say and then post the results on here.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

But we DO know that Mizen said the blood was running and Thain said the exact same thing

Fisherman, can you please provide the evidential basis for this claim in respect of PC Thain?

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott:

With all due respect you are trying to read into something which isn't there as far as this murder is concerned.

I am not reading anything in, other than the very clear possibility that Lechmere killed Nichols.

In a nutshell she had her throat cut by an unknown assailant
The exact time of death has not been established and will never be established 126 years later.

Spot on, Trevor, absolutely spot on. What luck I never said that I CAN establish her exact time of death! As for the "unknown assailant", there is a very clear chance that he was not unknown at all. It´s either Lechmere or somebody else VERY close in time.

You have no direct evidence to take those facts any further you are not a medical expert. Even modern day experts cannot come up with all the answers, so accept it an move on.

Ah - you picked up on my telling you that I am no medical expert - good! What you mean by "direct" evidence, I don´t know. I DO know that what I have against Lechmere is circumstantial evidence. And I DO know that I ave said so for three, four years now, so it´s not exactly any news.

If you feel so strong about this blood flow and oozing go find another forensic expert and see what they have to say and then post the results on here.

They will probably all differ to some little extent. And they will all say that Lechmere is very much in the picture, but it COULD have been somebody else. There is nothing more they CAN say, I suspect.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Fisherman, can you please provide the evidential basis for this claim in respect of PC Thain?

Morning Advertiser, September 18:

The Coroner: Was there a very large quantity on the flags?
Witness: There was a large clot near the wall, and blood was running into the gutter.

It applies, though, that Thains wording may be reflecting the time when he helped to put Nichols on the ambulance. Especially since he says that there was a large "clot" near the wall - that would be the pool Neil spoke of, reasonably.
It is hard to decide what is right or wrong here, at any rate - a clot will not produce running blood, will it?

So maybe we should not use Thain, but instead only Neil and Mizen - the two corroborate each other, at least.
As for the blood running into the gutter, I think Neil said that this was under development as he saw the body. He said, if I remember correctly, that the blood at this stage was running "towards the gutter". But that needs to be checked if you want the exact wording.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Let´s add the Echo to the discussion:

"He went down Buck's row, and found Police constable Neal (sic) who was alone with the body of the murdered woman. He fetched Dr. Llewellyn. There was a large quantity of congealed blood on the pavement, near the woman's neck; and when witness lifted up the body the back appeared to be saturated with blood as far as the waist."
(The Echo, 17:th of September)


This seemingly bolsters the take that Thain spoke of the instance when he arrived back from having fetched Llewellyn. It says that at this time (around 4.10), the blood on the pavement was congealed. When Mizen saw the pool, however, it was still in the process of congealing.

The best,
Fisherman

[David Orsam]

Thains wording may be reflecting the time when he helped to put Nichols on the ambulance.

He's talking about the time when the blood was washed away. Hence the full extract is:

"The Coroner: You were there when the blood was removed? -- Witness: Yes.

The Coroner: Was there a very large quantity on the flags? -- Witness: There was a large clot near the wall, and blood was running into the gutter."

We see it clearly in the Times report of the same evidence:

"He was present when the spots of blood were washed away. On the spot where the deceased had been lying was a mass of congealed blood. He should say it was about 6 in. in diameter, and had run towards the gutter. It appeared to him to be a large quantity of blood."

Even if you disagree with me about the timing - and I can't see how you can - he clearly said nothing about seeing blood flowing from the victim's wounds.

So that's Thain out of the equation. Now I am going to explain in a separate post why you have misunderstood and/or misinterpreted Mizen's evidence.

[Fisherman]

He's talking about the time when the blood was washed away. Hence the full extract is:

"The Coroner: You were there when the blood was removed? -- Witness: Yes.

The Coroner: Was there a very large quantity on the flags? -- Witness: There was a large clot near the wall, and blood was running into the gutter."

We see it clearly in the Times report of the same evidence:

"He was present when the spots of blood were washed away. On the spot where the deceased had been lying was a mass of congealed blood. He should say it was about 6 in. in diameter, and had run towards the gutter. It appeared to him to be a large quantity of blood."

Even if you disagree with me about the timing - and I can't see how you can - he clearly said nothing about seeing blood flowing from the victim's wounds.

So that's Thain out of the equation. Now I am going to explain in a separate post why you have misunderstood and/or misinterpreted Mizen's evidence.

Yes, the Times looks like a clincher.
I don´t disagree, as I have spelt out in a couple of posts.
And no, I have not misunderstood Mizen. But I will take a look at what you have to say!

The best,
Fisherman

[David Orsam]

Let´s add the Echo to the discussion:

"He went down Buck's row, and found Police constable Neal (sic) who was alone with the body of the murdered woman. He fetched Dr. Llewellyn. There was a large quantity of congealed blood on the pavement, near the woman's neck; and when witness lifted up the body the back appeared to be saturated with blood as far as the waist."
(The Echo, 17:th of September)


This seemingly bolsters the take that Thain spoke of the instance when he arrived back from having fetched Llewellyn. It says that at this time (around 4.10), the blood on the pavement was congealed. When Mizen saw the pool, however, it was still in the process of congealing.

It doesn't bolster anything Fisherman because that edited summary in the Echo makes no mention of the blood being washed away and that was the context in which Thain was talking about the blood. The simple fact that the sentence about the blood in the Echo follows the sentence about Dr Llewellyn means nothing in the context of a condensed summary - and you have basically imagined that the report was saying "at this time".

[David Orsam]

Yes, the Times looks like a clincher.
I don´t disagree, as I have spelt out in a couple of posts.

Good, now we are getting somewhere! I think you will actually end up agreeing with me about Mizen too but we shall see. Post to follow very shortly.

[Pcdunn]

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

I don't have a problem with believing men or women have done terrible deeds as murderers or serial killers, we all know humans are capable of doing awful things to other humans. Why do you use 20th-century killers as your examples, though? They lived in a time and place far removed from Whitechapel of the late 1880s, were able to move about more quickly, etc.

Imagine the serial killers of the 19th century, such as Neil Cream and the American H. H. Holmes. They tended to be con men as well as killers, and Holmes was undoubtedly a sociopath, who had more resources with which to make a safe place in which to carry out his deeds.

Now think of the daily life of the working man in the East End of London, especially one with a large family to support, working six days out of seven, doing physical labor, struggling against poverty and schedules-- is he really likely to work in murders as well? Honestly?

[Fisherman]

It doesn't bolster anything Fisherman because that edited summary in the Echo makes no mention of the blood being washed away and that was the context in which Thain was talking about the blood. The simple fact that the sentence about the blood in the Echo follows the sentence about Dr Llewellyn means nothing in the context of a condensed summary - and you have basically imagined that the report was saying "at this time".

Ptrooo, David - slow down a little, will you? As long as there are no other articles saying that Thain saw the blood the fist time over, an article like this DOES bolster the take that it happened at the later stages. And the congealed blood puddle reinforces that take.

Otherwise, yes, condensed articles CAN cause people to get it wrong - you should know after having seen what the Echo said about Mizen, as opposed to the condensed articles in other papers...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Pcdunn: I don't have a problem with believing men or women have done terrible deeds as murderers or serial killers, we all know humans are capable of doing awful things to other humans. Why do you use 20th-century killers as your examples, though? They lived in a time and place far removed from Whitechapel of the late 1880s, were able to move about more quickly, etc.

Okay, say Frits Haarmann and Peter Kürten, then! It´s around 1920, so the difference will be small.

Imagine the serial killers of the 19th century, such as Neil Cream and the American H. H. Holmes. They tended to be con men as well as killers, and Holmes was undoubtedly a sociopath, who had more resources with which to make a safe place in which to carry out his deeds.

Now think of the daily life of the working man in the East End of London, especially one with a large family to support, working six days out of seven, doing physical labor, struggling against poverty and schedules-- is he really likely to work in murders as well? Honestly?

Honestly? Honestly, that has nothing to do with whether he would kill or not. Otherwise, we would get a class perspective on the serial killers of olden days. I don´t believe in such a thing at all. I think every man is as likely as the next man to develop an urge to kill, regardless of class, and I don´t think being economically deprived would do away with that urge. Nor would hard physical labour.

Do you think it would? Really?

It´s the first time that I have heard this suggestion, I´ll give you that - that Lechmere would have been to poor and too tired to kill ...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Good, now we are getting somewhere! I think you will actually end up agreeing with me about Mizen too but we shall see. Post to follow very shortly.

You have my full attention, David...

The best,
Fisherman

[David Orsam]

Mizen and the blood

In post #1107 in this thread, Fisherman claimed to demonstrate conclusively that "The time at which Jonas Mizen saw blood running from Nichols neck towards the gutter was when he INITIALLY arrived at the murder site". I am going to demonstrate that this claim is seriously flawed.

Firstly, to put Mizen's evidence into context, let us briefly consider the evidence of PC Neil in respect of what happened when Mizen arrived on the scene.

You can take whatever newspaper you like because they are all basically the same but, according to the Times report:

"Seeing another constable in Baker's-row, witness despatched him for the ambulance".

Or, if you prefer, the Evening Post:

"Another constable passed along Baker’s-row, the next street and witness called to him to fetch the ambulance".

So, on the face of it and taken literally, Mizen doesn't even get to look at the dead body at this stage. And there wasn't any particular reason why he should have done.

When we consider Mizen's evidence - before questioning - we see the same thing. Let's take the Times for example:

"In going to the spot he saw Constable Neil, and by the direction of the latter he went for the ambulance."

Again, taken literally and at face value, he is immediately sent for an ambulance and nothing is said about him examining the deceased and seeing any blood.

Now, Fisherman's big point is that the report of the Echo shows that Mizen DID see blood flowing from Nichols' throat at the time he first arrived on the scene. But, in fact, it does no such thing. Let me quote the entire report from the Echo:

"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.

By the Coroner - There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness. The other man, who went down Hanbury-street, appeared to be working with Cross.

By the Jury - Witness went to the spot directly Cross told him, and did not stop to knock any one up."

I have quoted this in full for a reason which I will explain in a moment but Fisherman zooms in on part of the report as follows:

"The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter."

As Fisherman correctly states, the "then" referred to by the Coroner is the time when Neil sent Mizen for an ambulance. But does this mean that Mizen saw that the blood was running from the throat to the gutter at this time? The answer is an emphatic "no". And here is why:

Even a moment's consideration reveals that there is something distinctly odd about the question and answer in the Echo. The coroner asks Mizen if anyone else was there when he arrived on the scene and, having answered this question, Mizen, unprompted, starts telling the coroner about the blood! Why would he do such a strange thing? The answer, of course, is that he wouldn't, and he didn't.

All that has happened with the Echo's report is that it has been edited and condensed - or rather, it is an incomplete summary of the evidence - and it now seems that Mizen is giving an answer to a question about what he saw at the time he arrived on the scene which, in fact, he was not being asked.

How do I know this?

Simple. By looking at what has been omitted from the Echo's report. This is why I have included the entire report above.

You can see that the Echo's report of Mizen's evidence says absolutely nothing about Mizen moving the body onto the ambulance. Yet, he clearly mentioned this in his evidence. We know this from reports in other newspapers. Hence:

The Star:

"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 Standard/Morning Advertiser/Morning Post:

"I at once went to the station, and returned with it [ambulance]. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman."

It will be noted that both of the above references to Mizen assisting in removing the body immediately precede his evidence about the running blood.

And now, from the Daily News of 4 Sept, a very big clue:

"Police constable Mizen said that about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, when a carman passing by in company with another man said, "You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there." The witness went to Buck's row, where Police constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body. On returning with the ambulance he helped to put the deceased upon it."

You see how we have here Mizen's answer to the Coroner's question as printed in the Echo (i.e. "Was there anyone else there then?" "No one at all, sir.") which the Daily News summarises as, "At that time nobody but Neil was with the body", but then that is NOT followed by Mizen talking about the blood. Instead, it is followed by Mizen talking about how he helped to put Nichols on the ambulance. In other words a completely different time period.

And now surely the clincher.

From the Evening Post of 3 Sept:

"Police-constable Mizen said that on Friday morning, about a quarter to four, he was in Baker’s-row, at the corner of Hanbury-street. A man passed, who looked like a carman, and said “You are wanted round in Buck’s-row”. A carman was brought in court, and witness said he was the man. He went round and found Police-constable Neil with the deceased. At Neil’s suggestion he went for the ambulance, and afterwards assisted to remove the body. Blood was running from her neck."

So the actual chronology of events is not, it seems, as reported in the Echo. The sight of blood is actually mentioned after Mizen mentions the removal of the body into the ambulance.

So, in summary, what clearly happened is that the coroner asked Mizen if anyone was with Neil when he first arrived on the scene. Mizen said no. Mizen then said, either in answer to a question or off his own bat, that he helped to move the body into the ambulance. Then he said that he saw blood running from the neck.

Now, I am not attempting to argue here that this proves that Mizen saw the blood at the time the body was put into an ambulance. As I said way back in post #1003, the evidence from the newspapers is ambiguous as to timing.

We seem to have contradictory accounts here too. The star reports Mizen as saying that the blood was "someone congealed", a word that no other newspaper has Mizen using, whereas the reporter for the Evening Standard/Morning Advertiser/Morning Post reports Mizen saying that the blood "appeared fresh" and was "still running", something that no-one else reports.

I note that in his post #1107, Fisherman discounts the idea that Mizen could have seen blood flowing from the throat when he put the body onto the ambulance because too much time had elapsed but that is pure assumption and we have not had any forensic evidence stating such a thing is impossible.

I repeat that I do not claim to know when Mizen saw the blood but that, as I said in post #1003, the position is not clear. In contrast to this, we know that PC Neil definitely saw blood oozing from the throat when he first saw the body.

[Fisherman]

In post #1107 in this thread, Fisherman claimed to demonstrate conclusively that "The time at which Jonas Mizen saw blood running from Nichols neck towards the gutter was when he INITIALLY arrived at the murder site". I am going to demonstrate that this claim is seriously flawed.

Firstly, to put Mizen's evidence into context, let us briefly consider the evidence of PC Neil in respect of what happened when Mizen arrived on the scene.

You can take whatever newspaper you like because they are all basically the same but, according to the Times report:

"Seeing another constable in Baker's-row, witness despatched him for the ambulance".

Or, if you prefer, the Evening Post:

"Another constable passed along Baker’s-row, the next street and witness called to him to fetch the ambulance".

So, on the face of it and taken literally, Mizen doesn't even get to look at the dead body at this stage. And there wasn't any particular reason why he should have done.

When we consider Mizen's evidence - before questioning - we see the same thing. Let's take the Times for example:

"In going to the spot he saw Constable Neil, and by the direction of the latter he went for the ambulance."

Again, taken literally and at face value, he is immediately sent for an ambulance and nothing is said about him examining the deceased and seeing any blood.

Now, Fisherman's big point is that the report of the Echo shows that Mizen DID see blood flowing from Nichols' throat at the time he first arrived on the scene. But, in fact, it does no such thing. Let me quote the entire report from the Echo:

"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.

By the Coroner - There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness. The other man, who went down Hanbury-street, appeared to be working with Cross.

By the Jury - Witness went to the spot directly Cross told him, and did not stop to knock any one up."

I have quoted this in full for a reason which I will explain in a moment but Fisherman zooms in on part of the report as follows:

"The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter."

As Fisherman correctly states, the "then" referred to by the Coroner is the time when Neil sent Mizen for an ambulance. But does this mean that Mizen saw that the blood was running from the throat to the gutter at this time? The answer is an emphatic "no". And here is why:

Even a moment's consideration reveals that there is something distinctly odd about the question and answer in the Echo. The coroner asks Mizen if anyone else was there when he arrived on the scene and, having answered this question, Mizen, unprompted, starts telling the coroner about the blood! Why would he do such a strange thing? The answer, of course, is that he wouldn't, and he didn't.

All that has happened with the Echo's report is that it has been edited and condensed - or rather, it is an incomplete summary of the evidence - and it now seems that Mizen is giving an answer to a question about what he saw at the time he arrived on the scene which, in fact, he was not being asked.

How do I know this?

Simple. By looking at what has been omitted from the Echo's report. This is why I have included the entire report above.

You can see that the Echo's report of Mizen's evidence says absolutely nothing about Mizen moving the body onto the ambulance. Yet, he clearly mentioned this in his evidence. We know this from reports in other newspapers. Hence:

The Star:

"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 Standard/Morning Advertiser/Morning Post:

"I at once went to the station, and returned with it [ambulance]. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman."

It will be noted that both of the above references to Mizen assisting in removing the body immediately precede his evidence about the running blood.

And now, from the Daily News of 4 Sept, a very big clue:

"Police constable Mizen said that about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, when a carman passing by in company with another man said, "You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there." The witness went to Buck's row, where Police constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body. On returning with the ambulance he helped to put the deceased upon it."

You see how we have here Mizen's answer to the Coroner's question as printed in the Echo (i.e. "Was there anyone else there then?" "No one at all, sir.") which the Daily News summarises as, "At that time nobody but Neil was with the body", but then that is NOT followed by Mizen talking about the blood. Instead, it is followed by Mizen talking about how he helped to put Nichols on the ambulance. In other words a completely different time period.

And now surely the clincher.

From the Evening Post of 3 Sept:

"Police-constable Mizen said that on Friday morning, about a quarter to four, he was in Baker’s-row, at the corner of Hanbury-street. A man passed, who looked like a carman, and said “You are wanted round in Buck’s-row”. A carman was brought in court, and witness said he was the man. He went round and found Police-constable Neil with the deceased. At Neil’s suggestion he went for the ambulance, and afterwards assisted to remove the body. Blood was running from her neck."

So the actual chronology of events is not, it seems, as reported in the Echo. The sight of blood is actually mentioned after Mizen mentions the removal of the body into the ambulance.

So, in summary, what clearly happened is that the coroner asked Mizen if anyone was with Neil when he first arrived on the scene. Mizen said no. Mizen then said, either in answer to a question or off his own bat, that he helped to move the body into the ambulance. Then he said that he saw blood running from the neck.

Now, I am not attempting to argue here that this proves that Mizen saw the blood at the time the body was put into an ambulance. As I said way back in post #1003, the evidence from the newspapers is ambiguous as to timing.

We seem to have contradictory accounts here too. The star reports Mizen as saying that the blood was "someone congealed", a word that no other newspaper has Mizen using, whereas the reporter for the Evening Standard/Morning Advertiser/Morning Post reports Mizen saying that the blood "appeared fresh" and was "still running", something that no-one else reports.

I note that in his post #1107, Fisherman discounts the idea that Mizen could have seen blood flowing from the throat when he put the body onto the ambulance because too much time had elapsed but that is pure assumption and we have not had any forensic evidence stating such a thing is impossible.

I repeat that I do not claim to know when Mizen saw the blood but that, as I said in post #1003, the position is not clear. In contrast to this, we know that PC Neil definitely saw blood oozing from the throat when he first saw the body.

Nope, David, sorry - I do not think you are on the money at all here.
To begin with, there is absolutely nothing that would have hindered Mizen to look at the state of the blood as he first arrived at the murder scene. In fact, I would think that any policeman had a duty to try and assess the situation as best as he could in a case like this. And Nichols was dead, so there was no hurry whatsoever to fetch the ambulance!

As for the efforts you make to prove your sequence of events, you qoute a couple of papers. Let´s look at what you say - and show you why you are wrong, step by step:

And now, from the Daily News of 4 Sept, a very big clue:

"Police constable Mizen said that about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, when a carman passing by in company with another man said, "You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there." [B]The witness went to Buck's row, where Police constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body. On returning with the ambulance he helped to put the deceased upon it."

You see how we have here Mizen's answer to the Coroner's question as printed in the Echo (i.e. "Was there anyone else there then?" "No one at all, sir.") which the Daily News summarises as, "At that time nobody but Neil was with the body", but then that is NOT followed by Mizen talking about the blood. Instead, it is followed by Mizen talking about how he helped to put Nichols on the ambulance. In other words a completely different time period.

I see nothing at all here of interest. The blood is not mentioned, and that makes it impossible to fit it in, as far as I can tell.

And now surely the clincher.

From the Evening Post of 3 Sept:

"Police-constable Mizen said that on Friday morning, about a quarter to four, he was in Baker’s-row, at the corner of Hanbury-street. A man passed, who looked like a carman, and said “You are wanted round in Buck’s-row”. A carman was brought in court, and witness said he was the man. He went round and found Police-constable Neil with the deceased. At Neil’s suggestion he went for the ambulance, and afterwards assisted to remove the body. Blood was running from her neck."

So the actual chronology of events is not, it seems, as reported in the Echo. The sight of blood is actually mentioned after Mizen mentions the removal of the body into the ambulance.

Here it is, yes. And in other papers too, as has already been discussed at lenght. Why and how the Evening Post would nullify the Echo is however something I find hard to understand.

So, in summary, what clearly happened is that the coroner asked Mizen if anyone was with Neil when he first arrived on the scene. Mizen said no. Mizen then said, either in answer to a question or off his own bat, that he helped to move the body into the ambulance. Then he said that he saw blood running from the neck.


The Evening Post seems to suggest this. But it has been suggested before. And the Echo has it the other way around, so all we can say is that either they or the Evening Post got it wrong:

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.
(The Echo)

Now, I am not attempting to argue here that this proves that Mizen saw the blood at the time the body was put into an ambulance. As I said way back in post #1003, the evidence from the newspapers is ambiguous as to timing.

Yes, they are. But there are other things that explain who got it right. The blood, and it´s status. Let´s look at how you describe this:

We seem to have contradictory accounts here too. The star reports Mizen as saying that the blood was "someone congealed", a word that no other newspaper has Mizen using, whereas the reporter for the Evening Standard/Morning Advertiser/Morning Post reports Mizen saying that the blood "appeared fresh" and was "still running", something that no-one else reports.

Don´t treat these accounts as if they were contradictory. They are not. The blood Mizen saw running from the wound appeared fresh, and it ran down into a pool of blood that had started to show signs of congealing - but was NOT fully congealed. When Thain described the blood, he described it as a large clot of blood. That is totally incomparable to the description Mizen gave! Fresh blood, running from a wound, does not run into a fully congealed clot of blood. It will instead form a liquid pool that will start to congeal, but the full congealing will not be there until the blood has stopped running into it.

I note that in his post #1107, Fisherman discounts the idea that Mizen could have seen blood flowing from the throat when he put the body onto the ambulance because too much time had elapsed but that is pure assumption and we have not had any forensic evidence stating such a thing is impossible.

It is anything but "pure assumption" - it is the suggestion of Trevor´s pathologist, who clearly said that the blood would flow from the neck in a case like Nichols´ for an initial couple of minutes.
What you envisage here is freshly flowing blood. coming from Nichols´ neck - and a fully congealed pool underneath it. That´s in dire need of a touch of logic.

I repeat that I do not claim to know when Mizen saw the blood but that, as I said in post #1003, the position is not clear. In contrast to this, we know that PC Neil definitely saw blood oozing from the throat when he first saw the body.

Well, I claim to know when Mizen saw the blood - as he first arrived at Browns Stable Yard. The sequence is completely logical in that way and in no other way:

Neil sees the blood flowing into a pool under Nichols.
Mizen arrives a few minutes afterwards, and sees that the blood, appearing fresh, is still flowing into the pool, but by now that pool has started to show signs of congealing.
Thain mentions the pool from the stage when the body was put on the ambulance, at perhaps around 4.15 - and now the bloodpool was "a large quantity of congealed blood" and not any pool any longer (the Echo) or, as per the Times, "a mass of congealed blood", or as per the Morning Advertiser, " a large clot near the wall".

In your suggestion, Neil sees the blood flowing. Then nobody looks at the blood for twenty minutes. Thereafter, that blood has turned into a congealed mass on the pavement - but it is still flowing freshly from the wound!

What you have produced is yet another interesting example of how we can read things backwards if we want to. I see no reason at all to buy into it, I´m afraid.

The best,
Fisherman
off to bed ( you may need to sleep on things too, by the way ... )