Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Fisherman]

Thanks for the help, Fish. I never saw such a helpful chap as you.

I'm still a bit confused as to why gravity works perfectly well when it comes to getting the blood out of Nichols, but as soon as the blood emerges gravity goes on a tea break, allowing the blood to build up a six inch pool, before reluctantly finishing its tea break and letting the slope in the pavement take the newly emerging blood down to the gutter.

The blood built up a six inch pool before gravity kicked in. Why could not the blood go on building up so as to have an eight inch or ten inch pool? Or why did the blood not flow down to the gutter when the pool was only four inches, or two?

What you must work from is the assertion that there was just the one six-inch pool. Therefore, there must be an explanation as to why this was so.

However, we will not be able to find an exact answer to these questions. And that is because we are not allowed to see exactly how the ground was shaped underneath Nichols, the exact angling of the slope towards the gutter, etcetera.

Not that I think that this is much of a problem. The solution to the relative lack of blood in the street lies in a combination of the volume of boood that was spilt from the neck, the amount of time that she bled and the fact that much of the blood was soaked into her ulster.

If a huge amount of blood had exited her neck in a short time, the the pool would have been large. It was not. It therefore applies that either A/ Only a smallish amount of blood exited her via the neck, or B/ The ulster was quite effective in soaking the blood up, or C/ a combination of the two did the trick.

What is of interest here is the obesravtions made of the PC:s. I have one such observation lined up especiaaly for you, Robert, from the Illustrated Police News, Neil speaking:

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

Running! Ouch! NOT "oozing". So we have two articles speaking of running, both quoting ad verbatim!

Anyhow, this is what Neil saw. A pool of blood - and that would be the six-incher we are speaking about - directly under her neck. And the blood was "then" running from the wound of her neck, a wording implicating that this bleeding later seized.

The Times concur with the Ilustrated Police News about where the pool was: There was a pool of blood where the neck of deceased was lying in Buck's-row.

So the pool was underneath Nicholsī neck, and nowhere else.

Further: There was blood soaked into Nicholsī ulster. Thain says that it was bloodied as far as down to the waist. This presents us with a riddle: from where did the blood in the ulster come? Did it come from the neck wounds or from the abdominal cuts? It seems that it came from the neck wound; this is proposed by Thain in the Times: He helped to put the body on the ambulance, and the back appeared to be covered with blood, which, he thought, had run from the neck as far as the waist.

This may have been what happened, of course. But it carries with it a small aber: If the blood was soaked into the ulster, then where did the blood come in contact with that garment?

If it had been via the pool under her neck, then why was not all of the blood soaked into the ulster? Why was there a six inch pool if the ulster soaked the blood up?

This is unanswerable. There was massive damage to the neck, and the wound may well have been in contact with the ulster in some area, allowing it to soak up a lot of the blood. Then the blood in the pool could have come from another vessel, not being in contact with the ulster, instead allowing the blood to flow into a the pool.

There is also the possibility that the blood in the ulster came from the abdominal wounds. Maybe these were inflicted first, as per Llewellyn. He may well have concluded that the blood amounts under her neck ruled that the neck damage must have been inflicted at as a late stage in the process, so as to prevent that much blood escaped that way.

These things we will not find a conclusive answer to. But we can see that there are potential explanations for the smallish pool of blood under her neck! There is no need at all to predispose that the pool must have received amounts of blood large enough to produce another pool down in the gutter.

Letīs also take a look at another detail: Llewellyn estimated that there was a wine glass and a half of blood in the pool. The pool was six inches in diameter.

If we pour out a six inch pool of water onto a completely flat and level surface, the amounts of water will arguably not be enough to fill a wineglass and a half. So maybe we should conclude that there was some sort of concave surface under Nichols neck, holding this amount with a surface of only six inches in diameter.

So this is the probable solution to your question - the ground was not perfectly even where she lay. Liquid will flow down, and on a perfectly flat surface, the blood would have floated down towards the gutter, forming no pool at all. The fact that there WAS a pool also tells us that there were the topographic conditions that allowed for it. And those conditions allowed for a six inch pool forming before the blood ran over the brim.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

No, instead this clown ran the risk of ripping women in the shadows while someone was walking down the street and spotting him. I'm sorry Fish. The answer you surmise does not accurately answer the question.

You present him as a man lying in the face of PCs, ripping women on the way to work, using false names, and taking the opportunity of visiting family as a time to get some killing in, yet he was afraid of a PC calling his bluff? Isn't this exactly what you theorize happened at a later instance with him?

No I'm sorry. If we are to follow the logic that is laid out it would have made far more sense for the killer to throw suspicion elsewhere ESPECIALLY if he was caught with the body as you theorize.

Neither of us will understand the logic of a psychopath serialist, Dane. And being bold in one situation will not prevent him being careful in the next. Staying uncaught would have been a priority of his, I think we can conclude that much.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

One point that I think needs to be clearly made is about the use of the term "blood evidence". As much as someone would like to say there is "blood evidence" to help support their theory, there simply isn't. Without having the inquest reports there is no blood evidence that can be used. All we have are newspaper reports possibly ABOUT blood evidence. Without the full inquest reports, to know the complete context of questions and statements, the "logical" leaps being made are simply too far and in my opinion too illogical to be made in the first place. Especially when the sources we do have are inaccurate and sometimes conflicting.

The paper reports belong to the evidence, Dane. They contain sometimes conflicting evidence, but it is evidence nevertheless. It is up to us to understand and make sense of it. I propose, for example, that saying that a PC that reported about running blood and a pool of blood that was only somewhat congealed, could have been in place for his observations half an hour after the victim was cut, is NOT making sense of the evidence.

The best,
Fisherman

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

There is no way I think anyone can draw that depth of a conclusion without forensic science having specimens and samples to work with. The fluid dynamics of blood is heavy biochemistry. I wouldn't wish it on anyone who has had the misfortune to study it.

I think TV series like Dexter and CSI give people the impression that forensics is so skilled it can account for everything about every drop at each moment in time. I doubt that. We talk minimally about what we can be sure about. Even in the 21st century we can only make generalized inferences that match previous models. That's it.

Environmental factors will also play a role in variations of these models. A person's physical health and properties will also play a role. There are what we call "confounding variables" present that can only be removed by experimental controls.

When it comes to historical bleeding, such as in the case of the Ripper victims you can only really give a very minimalist interpretation given the minimal data you have and lack of access to experimental techniques.

You can say where the blood came from, how it moved (including spray), where it went and its texture on inspection. That's about it. Particulate analysis and description isn't happening from a police report.

BTW - Blood type wasn't even identified until 1901 and took from the late 30s to the mid 40s to understand it.

All true to a smaller or lesser degree. If it had been an exact science, we would be able to nail Lechmere for the Nichols murder. It is not, and we canīt.

Nor am I saying that we can.

But I AM saying that the evidence is in line with Lechmere being the killer, if we accept that all parameters were normal, so to speak.

Have a look at Trevor Marriott, for example - he concludes that the blood evidence would somehow exonerate Lechmere! That is completely ludicrous, as you may realize.

Nichols is comparable to an opened up bottle lying down. The liquid inside WILL exit both vessels in a limited period of time. We can normally notice how blood will be somewhat coagulated after three, four minutes. After seven minutes or eight, it will be completely coagulated if unstirred and if it is not enough blood to fill a smallish bucket. In our case, ther was a small, shallow pool of it.

So the signs are there, pointing to Lechmere, and assuring us that if it was NOT him, then it was somebody extremely close in time. We even have the PC:S saying that that the blood flowed into the gutter from the pool, and the suggestion that this small river had not yet emerged as Paul saw Nichols is a rather compelling one to my mind.

IN terms of blood evidence, not a iot points away from the man that we already know has a good many other things pointing in his direction.

It seems I am a lot finer with this than most other people.

We cannot convict on it as conclusive evidence. We can only add it to the pile of circcumstantial evidence speaking for a carman killer. And in that respect, if fills the role I have for a long time now believed all forthcoming evidence would fill - none of it goes to exonerate Lechmere, but instead to tally perfectly with a suggestion of guilt.

The best,

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I don't entirely agree with this. It's certainly not ideal but when they are read as a whole - and especially where reports by different reporters corroborate each other - we can certainly rely on at least some of the newspaper accounts. For example, I don't think there is any doubt that PC Neil saw the blood oozing from the victim's throat when he arrived on the scene. We only get this from the newspapers but we can be reasonably certain that he said it.

Or running.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: I guess I need to respond to this congealing point before dealing with the substantive issue.

If you look at why I even mentioned the word "congealed" in the first place Fisherman, it was only a passing reference to the report in the Star where I thought I was making a wholly uncontroversial and mundane comment that this was in contrast (and in contradiction) to the report in the Standard where the word was not attributed to Mizen but, instead, he was reported as saying the blood was "fresh". I have never claimed that Mizen could not have used both words in his evidence, nor that he could not have seen both blood that was fresh and blood that was congealed at the crime scene, only that the newspapers gave differing accounts. As far as I am concerned, fresh blood is, by definition, not congealed while congealed blood is, by definition, not fresh. That's why I did not think I was saying anything controversial. But, frankly, if you are so upset by the word "contradictory" I'm happy to withdraw it and replace it with "different". The two newspapers provided different reports which gave their readers different impressions of the blood at the crime scene. Are you happy with that?

Actually, no, not entirely. I can see how people may get that picture, though. I think the papers were being unfortunately incomplete. The Star tells us that A/ blood was flowing from the neck wound, and B/ that the pool of blood was only somewhat congealed. This is as close as we are going to get to the truth. And I have explained why - the blood flwoing from an opened vessel IS fresh, and it WILL congeal after leaving the vessel. This report totally is in line with Mizen saying about the blood from the neck that it appeared fresh. When he speaks of fresh blood, he speaks of the blood coming out of the neck wounds, and not of the blood in the pool (that was of course ALSO fresh, but with onsetting signs of congealing).

Now, as a preliminary comment to my next post, I am not comfortable relying on a single newspaper report of the word "congealed" but it would be odd if the reporter imagined Mizen using it, so - as you seem happy with it - I will base my arguments on the premise that Mizen did use that word. As to that, I have some difficulty in working out why it assists your case against Cross in any way. If Mizen saw that the blood was congealing when he first arrived on scene (at shall we say 3:50? or 3:55 if you prefer?) surely it potentially pushes the time the murder was committed back to before 3:37, when you suggest Cross arrived on scene.

No, it does nothing of the sort! I earlier presented the train order of congealing:

1: Blood leaves a vessel through an opening in that vessel. As it does so, it comes in contact with substances on the outside of the vessel, meant to make the blood congeal over time.

2. After around half a minute, the process has started, but it is not visible to us. The blood will still look fresh.

3. After around three minutes in room temperature, we will see the signs of onsetting coagulation.

4. During the next four minutes, the blood will coagulate and thicken more and more.

5. After around seven minutes, the coagulation process will be complete, and the blood will have set into a non-flowing state.

As you appreciate, the blood will only be "somewhat" congealed inbetween the third and the seventh minute, approximately, in the process. My contention is that Mizen was in place five or six minutes after Lechmere left the body. This is why I think the evidence speaks for Lechmere as the killer. If Nichols had been cut at around 3.37 and if Mizen was in place 8-13 minutes afterwards, as you propose, the blood should have been fully congealed a that stage.

And yes, these are approximations, but they are the approximations suggested by what medicos know about blood congealing.

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not saying Cross couldn't have killed her at 3:37 in these circumstances, only that, if Mizen saw fresh blood (but not congealed blood), it would suggest that the murder had been committed sooner rather than later, thus making it more likely to have been Cross.

Exactly so. To be complately honest, from what I have read, I am a bit baffled that the blood was still running from the wound five or six minutes after Lechmere left. It is a longish period, as far as I understand. But if Mizen says it bled, then it bled. And of course, she could perhaps have bled even longer than so, but with every second we move backwards, we end up with a less viable suggestion. As far as I can see, Lechmere and Lechmere only makes for a good bid based on how blood normally behaves.

Further, we have the evidence of PC Neil that the blood was oozing from the throat of Nichols when he discovered the body so how does it help you to say that Mizen saw the blood running from the throat at or about the same time?

If you can answer those questions concisely it would assist my understanding of this issue.


I think Neilīs and Mizenīs observations are a few minutes apart, perhaps two or three minutes. I would not have been surprised if Neil had said that the blood was running, and if Mizen had said that it had stopped running and that the pool of blood was somewhat congealed. However, Mizen ALSO saw running blood, so I accept that this was so. Trevors pathologist said that in the case at hand, he would expect the blood to run for an initial couple of minutes, and I accept that he could have been talking about five or six minutes.

A possible scenario suggested from what we have could be described like this, if we work from the presumption that Lechmere cut Nicholsī neck at precisely 3.45:

Lechmere and Nichols enter Buckīs Row and end up outside Browns Stable Yard at 3.41. Nichols thinks that Lechmere is a punter, and Lechmere wants her to think just that.

He overpowers Nichols, perhaps stunning her by hitting her on the chin, and then he grabs hold of her neck and strangles her, either lowering her to the ground or as she is already on it.

Once he is satisfied that she is dead, he pulls her knife out, throws her clothing up over her belly, and stabs and cuts her. There is little pressure in the blood vessels as she has been strangled and the heart has stopped beating, and what little pressure there is tapers of in seconds. The blood from his work thus floats down towards the ground inside Nicholsī abdominal cavity for a number of minutes, emptying out a good deal of her blood from the vessels. Somwehere along the line, he makes up his mind to try and procure one or two organs from her adbomen, and adds a longer cut, preparing to procure whatever he wants. This whole proces has taken four minutes, and has brought us to 3.45.

Snapping out of his bubble, Lechmere suddenly hears that another man is coming down Bucks Row. He quickly decides not to run, since he thinks the body will be found and the alarm raised. Instead he decides to try and bludd the newcomer, if possible. If it works, fine, if it doesnīt , he will kill the newcomer. But time is of the essence!

Not relying on Nichols being dead, he makes sure that she cannot survive and that she cannot say a word by cutting the neck with itīs arteries and the windpipe, draws the clothing down over her abdomen and uses the collar of her ulster to cover the neck wounds.

Then he steps out into the street to wait for the oncomer. It is now 3.45.30.

At 3.46, the newcomer emerges out of the darkness, and the charade is on. The two men leave and fetch Mizen, the time now having arrived at 3.49. Mizen sets off for Bucks Row, and finds Neil in place. The time is now 3.51, and five and a half minutes have passed since Lechmere cut the neck of Nichols.

Neil has been in place since 3.48, and at at that stage, he noticed that the woman had been cut and that the wound was bleeding into a pool on the ground beneath her.

Whan Paul arrived to the scene, Nicholsī ulster was covering the wounds to her neck - and the blood from the wounds flowed directly into the ulster, soaking it with the initial, more voluminous flowing. As Paul left, he pulled the dress down to the knees. When doing so, the ulster was pulled away from the neck wounds, but since Paul was now by her feet, he did not see this in the darkness.

Now the reaminder of the blood was left to flow down from her neck onto the ground and form a pool there. There was not very much blood in the pool, since a good deal had leaked into her abdominal cavity as a result of the stabbing and cutting to the belly.

When Neil first saw the blood, two and a half minutes had passed since she was cut. The blood flowed from the neck, and the pool had not started to visibly congeal.

When Mizen saw her, there wsa still fresh blood running from the neck wounds, but at this stage, it was obvious that the congealing process was underway, and the pool was somewhat congealed.

This is of course an approximation. There must be a number of gives and takes along the way. But overall, this is how I think the Nichols murder went down.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Here is the nub of where we disagree. You assume that the blood was a "congealed mass" when Mizen returned to the scene. I am saying that there is no clear evidence for this. I know you are referring to Thain's evidence but the problem with Thain is that, like Mizen, we don't know what period of time he was describing.

Here is Thain's evidence from the Morning Advertiser:

"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."

And here is how it was reported in the Times:

"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."

In both reports, Thain is speaking in the context of what happened when the blood was washed away. In other words, it is possible that he was essentially being asked what he saw when he was standing in Buck's Row just before the blood was washed away by Green. And Thain is saying that just before the blood was washed away there was a mass of congealed blood on the spot where Nichols had been lying.

When was the blood washed away? We don't have a precise time but it seems to have been just before Inspector Spratling appeared on the scene. Thus, the Times reports him as saying that when he arrived:

"At that time the blood was being washed away..."

So when did Spratling arrive?

According to the Evening Post:

"Inspector Spratling, of the J division, said that about half-past four on Friday morning he heard of the murder whilst in the Hackney-road. He went to the police-station to ascertain further particulars, but not hearing any he proceeded to the spot."

So he has to get from Hackney Road at 4:30am to the (Bethnal Green?) Police Station and from there to Buck's Row. It must have been approaching 5:00am before he arrived at the scene. Therefore, this could be the time Thain was describing that he saw the mass of congealed blood.

Now, let's assume that Mizen saw his "somewhat congealed" blood after he lifted Nichols onto the ambulance. My Concise Oxford Dictionary defines "somewhat" as "in some degree". I think that relates to how people use the word. So, Mizen saw a pool blood that was in some degree congealed.

If he saw the blood as the body was removed then it would presumably have been some time between about 4:20 and 4:30am. At that time it was in some degree congealed but when Thain saw the blood it was fully congealed.

So potentially that explains that.



Sorry Fisherman, didn't we have a forensic expert quoted on here who said a body can continue bleeding for hours? So that's a real non-point. And of course the doctor was going to feel for warmth under all circumstances. He would have been negligent not to have done.



As I have pointed out above, there might have been a considerable time gap between the removal of the body and the washing away of the blood. But I am pleased that we agree that Thain was talking about the period when Green washed the blood away.



According to one uncorroborated newspaper report he did.



In saying that, at the time Dr Llwellyn arrived, "the blood has not set into that clot", you are going further than the evidence allows. All he said about the blood at the inquest was that "There was very little blood around the neck". In his statement on 31 August he said: "There was a very small pool of blood in the pathway, which had trickled from the wound in the throat, not more than would fill two wine glasses, or half a pint at the outside". No mention there of clotting nor indeed of the small pool of blood being somewhat congealed, which it should have been if Mizen had seen it prior to the his arrival. If you have evidence to support your statement please post it.

Note also that in my post #1265, I wrote "yes, Dr Llewellyn doesn't say anything about seeing blood flowing but someone queried earlier in this thread whether blood would start flowing again if a body was moved and I certainly never saw an answer. For that reason, we cannot rule out that Mizen was referring to this time period. (It is also not entirely impossible that Mizen was talking about a blood trail running from the neck to the gutter but for the purposes of this post I will ignore that possibility.)"

So there we are, my argument - which I don't think is ' completely nuts' - as to why I don't agree that you have proved that Mizen's evidence about the blood relates to the time when he first appeared on the scene - and I repeat the point that he appears to have been asked about the blood at the inquest immediately after he has spoken about putting the body of Nichols onto the ambulance.

Let me begin by saying that when you write "In saying that, at the time Dr Llwellyn arrived, "the blood has not set into that clot", you are going further than the evidence allows", you are totally misquoting me - what I said was that it HAD set into a clot as Llewelly arrived.

You also state that Thain could have spoken of the blood condition in relation to when Spratling arrived, at around 5 AM.

But we know that Mrs Green testified that "She saw her son go out, directly the body was removed, with a pail of water to wash the stains of blood away."

So was the body removed at 5 AM? Llewellyn made a brief examination at around 4.10 that would have taken the fewest of minutes, and then he ordered the body to be taken to the mortuary.

What makes you think that Kirby, Neil and Mizen postponed the transport for another fifty minutes? And what Makes you think that James Green, who went out to wash the blood away "directly the body was removed", failed to do so until 5 AM? Did he stand around with his bucket of water, waiting for perhaps three quarters of an hour before getting down to work...?

I donīt think a position like this is defendable. It swears against the given evidence. But Iīve seen it done before, by many a poster. If it is because they are not familiar with the evidence, because they genuinely read the evidence in a manner that is totally reversed to how I do it, or because they like to raise hell is something that I have never been able to fully understand. I guess it is often a case of different posters having different reasons.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Let me get this right then, Fish.

1) Lechmere makes sure he gets Mizen alone, out of Paul's earshot, so Paul won't hear the lies Lechmere needs to tell, in order not to be detained further.

2) Paul later speaks to the papers, managing to make up from whole cloth a conversation he never had with Mizen, never heard Lechmere having either, but one he nevertheless imagines may have taken place.

3) Lechmere, on the other hand, speaks to the Illustrated Police News, pretending he and Paul had both taken part in the conversation - not apparently caring any more that Paul and Mizen would instantly know, on seeing this article, that he was lying through his teeth.

It's a wonder Mizen had enough brain cells to keep his helmet on. Why did he never ask himself why these two carmen were making a monkey out of him?

Love,

Caz
X

WHat makes you think he didnīt? Mizen testified BEFORE Lechmere, and may well have had grave doubts about the carman. But if he was dissed by his superiors, what could he do about it? Go to the press? Do a Bruce Willis?

By the way, when did Lechmere give The Illlustrated Police News an exclusive interview? I must have missed out on that!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Well that post ought to have put an end to the "oozing/running" arguments and their apparent significance. There is no significance if dead bodies can still 'bleed' relatively profusely after almost 24 hours. But I'll continue to catch up with this thread and find out.

Love,

Caz
X

Can you tell a generalized example from one relating to an actual case, Caz? Did you read the initial post from the same man? The one in which he says that IN THE CASE AT HAND, he expected the bleeding to be over within a matter of a couple of initial minutes?

Can you see the difference? If not, let me know.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

caz:

But it amounts to the same thing, because you were relying on Lechmere not hearing anything or anyone stirring, and therefore telling the truth in this instance.

No, I was not necessarily relying on anything. I said that this was what Lechmere SAID, nothing else. You claimed that I had said something else. I very much dislike when people misrepresent me, and even more so when thet claim afterwrads that they are entitled to do so.

Fine, but telling the truth and confirming that 'nobody else was there' could have resulted in those PCs and watchmen looking far more closely at the one person who was there, who dishonestly gave his name as Charles Allen Cross and gave himself a generous 9 minutes in which to commit a murder while 'nobody else was there'.

Could have - did not.

What do you mean: 'if' his wife knew when he left? For his incredibly accurate and honest account of his departure time to work for your theory and not against it, his wife not only had to know when he left; she had to know that he knew. With any other scenario he could at the very least have claimed to be unsure, as Paul was.

We will never know, Caz. We only know that you demand Lechmere to be a genius level. I donīt.

And you conveniently ignore what I said about him having lied about his surname to stop his wife learning about his association with the murdered prostitute. If the police had asked her what time he left, it would mean his use of the name Cross had already come out, putting him in even more trouble with the police, his wife or both - if he normally only used the name Lechmere.

This is so garbled I donīt even see what you are asking about. Can you rephrase? Do you think that the police having asked him when he left home would be a clincher to their understanding that they had been fed the wrong name...? If so, you must take the time to explain how that works!

How convoluted must this all become before even you see the flaws in it as a theory?

It has to be convoluted in the first place. To me. Not to you. You seem to be relying on your own misconceptions. So if I rely on MY conceptions, that should not amaze you all that much should it?

The best,
Fisherman

[Batman]

Where is the bloody knife?

How would lechmere hide a knife covered in blood so quickly and remain clean handed?

[Sally]

Where is the bloody knife?

I'm still looking for the hook...

[Fisherman]

Where is the bloody knife?

How would lechmere hide a knife covered in blood so quickly and remain clean handed?

Exactly how bloodied was it? And why? Do you know?

How do we know that Lechmere WAS totally clean handed?

would you think he hid the knife quickly if he could hear Paul approaching for a full minute?

The knife would have been hidden on his person. A carman would agruably have a knife at hand to be able to cut the harnesses in the event of an accident, so he could have had the knife sheathed in a belt. He could likewise keep it in his apron or he could carry it in a pocket.

I really donīt see the problem. If Lechmere had been searched and if his hands had been closely looked at, then maybe blood would have been found to some extent. The whole point I am making, though, is that he was NEVER searched or scrutinized. And he was moving through a dark night.

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Hi Fish

Well, I am one of those who believe that the throat was cut first, before the abdominal mutilations.

Be that as it may, perhaps she was totally or partially strangled, and left lying with her eyes facing the wall. The majority of the throat blood would then have come from the left side of her neck. Then, either Paul or Neil slightly rolled her head when they examined her, and blood started flowing more freely from the right side of her neck.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish

Well, I am one of those who believe that the throat was cut first, before the abdominal mutilations.

Be that as it may, perhaps she was totally or partially strangled, and left lying with her eyes facing the wall. The majority of the throat blood would then have come from the left side of her neck. Then, either Paul or Neil slightly rolled her head when they examined her, and blood started flowing more freely from the right side of her neck.

Before we make our calls about what was inflicted first, the throat wounds or the abdominal ones, I think we should lend an ear to Llewellyn. Some posters have him down as an outright idiot, but thatīs always the case out here - if somebody disagrees, then he/she is a nitwit.

I donīt think any of the medicos in the case were nitwits.

Anyway, as Llewellyn left Nichols lying in Bucks Row that early morning and went home for a cuppa, he had no idea that she had been cut to the abdomen. He thought that the neck was the only blood outlet there was.
What he DID know, however, was that there was seemingly very little blood on the murder site.

Then along came Spratling, and suddenly Llewellyn found himself in company of Nichols again, only to realize that she had been ripped open, and that she had sustained very serious damage to her inner organs.

Then, after that, he concluded that the abdominal wounds came first.

Arguably, he would have based his conclusion on the amount of blood beneath Nicholsī neck. Now he had an explanation to why there was so little of it - IF the abdomen was cut first, and much of the blood was emptied into the abdominal cavity (which was Llewellyns contention).

I am not a medico myself, so I donīt argue with him over this. I instead think that we can see a perfectly rational progression when looking at Tabram ("frenzied" stabbing, finished off by a coupe de grace to kill her off for sure), over Nichols (frenzied ripping/stabbing, finished off by making sure that Nichols was dead by cutting her neck. The added advantage was that this method ensured silence, since the windpipe was cut) to Chapman, where he began with the silencing/ ensuring business.

I donīt argue with Phillips either - Chapman had been dead at least two hours, probably more, when found.

Nor do I quibble with Killeen - he could reasonably tell the difference inbetween two blades when he saw it, and he was not exactly wawering.

As for Paul or Neil moving Nichols, I donīt think they did. Either man - or indeed both - may certainly have touched the face to feel for warmth, and that may have caused the head to move to some little extent. But you must not forget the kind of damage that had been done to Nichols - her head hung on by the spine only. So no matter if these men touched her forehead, they could not have opened up more for bleeding than what was already the case. If you have a fire hose that has been cut through down to the ground, leaving just a little bit of the cloth it is made of, putting your finger on it and pushing ever so gently will not release any new water - what was in the hose ran out of it when it was cut.

It is not the exact same thing with a human being, since the blood exists in myriads of vessels. Blood will be contained in these vessels to some extent, for reasons of gravity. But to release that blood in a case like ours, you would more or less need to grab the victim by the waist and lift it, the head staying on the ground.

So no, neither Neil nor Paul would have had any impact on why Mizen saw blood running. That would predispose that they moved Nichols so that three minutes of bleeding was added that would otherwise not be there. If they added a second by touching the face, Iīd be surprised. The same goes for Pauls pulling down the fress, that would arguably have meant more of an impact. But when the neck is totally opened up, it will make no difference anyway. By the way, I donīt see how they could have "slightly rolled" the head anyway. It would return to itīs positionfor reasons of gravity, or they would have rolled it over 180 degrees - in which case they would have known what had happened to her.

So itīs a no, Robert, and I think that you are rational enough to realize that too.

Why are you so opposed to Lechmere as the killer? Have you ever answered that question?

The best,
Fisherman