Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Robert]

Fish, it's not that I don't want it to be Crossmere. If you and Ed were to say that there is some record which you can't find which could settle the matter, I'd be all in favour of finding it. Facts are facts, and if Crossmere was the killer then I want to know about it.

However, I doubt that he was the killer because :

He doesn't behave the way a guilty man would behave
and
The reasons adduced to cast suspicion on him, I find less than convincing (e.g. his alleged lie to Mizen and his giving the name 'Cross')

That's not to say that Crossmere can be thrown in the bin. If. for instance, you and Ed were to find evidence of his having attacked a woman pre or post 1888, that would be a big boost for your theory. But as it stands, I cannot go along with it.

[caz]

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?

Look Fishy, all Mizen had to do was report to his superiors that Paul and Lechmere had both been overtly untruthful (either as reported in the newspapers or at the inquest) when describing who had said what to whom. Indeed it would have been his absolute duty to do so, and the duty of his superiors to then talk to both carmen again to try and ascertain who was lying and why, or whether it was merely a case of faulty recollection by one or more of the parties involved. The only credible explanation for this not happening would be if Mizen did not want to draw attention to the discrepancies for some reason, or was just not a very good or observant copper. A possibility is that the discrepancies were looked into, and Mizen admitted he could have misremembered the finer details.

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

Apologies. I didn't mean to imply that, merely that The Illustrated Police News quoted Lechmere's own words, as you posted here to David:

...from Illustrated Police News:

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

Now, I have mentioned this a thousand times before, but apparently, I have to do so again:

THIS IS CHARLES ALLEN LECHMERE SPEAKING!!!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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

This is quite simple. If Trevor's source described a dead person (a specific, not generalised example) whose 'injuries' were still bleeding 'profusely' after almost 24 hours (one assumes against normal expectation, or why mention it?) then what he might have 'expected' in the case of Polly Nichols is neither here nor there, is it? He wasn't actually there to observe anything so he could only say what he would normally have 'expected' given the little information he had.

How do you know Nichols's injuries didn't begin bleeding afresh, like the example given, when her body was touched or moved, and this was what Mizen observed, because he was there?

Love,

Caz
X

[Dane_F]

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

It seems Caz was right.

Does this make an ounce of sense, without resorting to the tired old argument that a serial killer acts irrationally, and may therefore think like a genius and a complete idiot at the same time?

This answer really disappoints me Fisher.

[caz]

caz:

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 don´t 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!

It looks garbled because it's based on your own reasoning concerning Lechmere's reasoning! You argued that he had to tell the truth about his departure time in case the police checked with his wife (implying that she must have known the exact time and also knew that he did).

But if the police had checked with his wife, asking when Charles Allen Cross had left home, he'd have been found out - according to you - by both the police and his wife for giving a false name in a murder case.

Got it now?

Love,

Caz
X

[Dane_F]

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

Yes. It should at best be called as you called it, Paper Evidence, and it should be treated as such. There is no blood evidence.

As far as the comment about bleeding half an hour later this has been addressed multiple times by multiple other people. My argument would be there is NO blood evidence to reconcile. We only have paper evidence which does not give the full account and does not even all agree. Therefor to try and draw any definitive conclusion from it is a point of futility.

If that isn't an agreeable answer then I would say: Who are we to know exactly how a body will act in every situation? If we cannot know the mind of a serial killer or even attempt to assume how he would respond, then we simply cannot assume the body was not moved and started bleeding fresh again after it has started to congeal.

[David Orsam]

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 are right. A rogue "not" slipped into my post which was not intended, as can be seen from the context. For the avoidance of doubt, your exact words in #1302 were: "The blood is NOT still running as Llewellyn sees her! At that stage, the blood has set into that clot."

So I will repeat the post without the word "not":

In saying that, at the time Dr Llewellyn arrived, "the blood has 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.

Furthermore, I now note you do the same thing in going further than the evidence allows in your post #1326 with Neil where you say: "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".

Please provide the evidence showing that the blood had not started to congeal when seen by (a) Neil and (b) Llewellyn.

I would add that in timings you have yourself posted, you seem to suggest that: "After around seven minutes, the coagulation process will be complete". So unless Llewellyn examined the body within seven minutes after her death perhaps you can explain to the board how come the blood had not congealed, or is the seven minutes figure you have cited misleading?

[David Orsam]

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 don´t think a position like this is defendable. It swears against the given evidence. But I´ve 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.

Hilariously pompous last paragraph there. As it happens Fisherman, my timings come directly from the evidence. You know, that bit of the evidence you have ignored.

From the inquest testimony of Henry Tomkins in the Times (but the same in all other papers):

"On Friday morning he left off work at 20 minutes past 4 and went for a walk….... Witness and Mumford first went and saw the deceased, and then Brittan followed. At that time a doctor and three or four constables were there, and witness remained there until the body was taken away."

So, contrary to your impression that the doctor was only there for a few minutes from 4:10am, the evidence shows that he was there at some point after 4:20am.

Then we have the evidence of Inspector Spratling that I have quoted but you seem to have overlooked. I shall repeat it:

"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 that's pretty clear isn't it? It must take a good 10 minutes to walk from any point in the Hackney Road to Bethnal Green police-station. Then he ascertains further particulars and does the 7-8 minute walk to Buck's Row. We are talking about a good 20 minutes here. If he hears of the murder at 4:30 then he doesn't arrive at the scene until 4:50. Why is that of any relevance? Because he also says, per the Times, that when he arrived:

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

Which means that the blood was being washed away as he arrived in Buck's Row.

According to you there is a contradiction here because Mrs Green says: "She saw her son go out, directly the body was removed, with a pail of water to wash the stains of blood away." But it is not necessarily inconsistent because we have no idea from the evidence when the body was removed. You ask me: "What makes you think that Kirby, Neil and Mizen postponed the transport for another fifty minutes?" The above evidence I have quoted is the answer. The fact is that we simply do not know how long it took for the ambulance to arrive in Buck's Row. If the totality of the evidence is to be believed, it must have taken some considerable time.

[David Orsam]

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

Oh, Mary Ann Nichols was killed in room temperature was she?

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.

You have really messed this argument up Fisherman. It is perfectly obvious why the blood seen by Mizen could not have been "fully congealed". The reason for this is that he also saw blood running from the neck. I think your mistake is to have in your mind that Mizen said that the blood was "starting" to congeal. He didn't say that. If you have fresh blood running into a pool of blood that has already congealed you will have a pool of blood that is somewhat congealed, i.e. to some degree congealed, i.e. some of it will be fresh and some of it will be congealed. In order to start the clock to calculate when the blood is fully congealed it has to have stopped flowing from the body first. That is such a basic point that I can hardly believe I have needed to make it.

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.

Might it not simply be that your understanding is wrong, and that, as the expert on this board told us, blood can run from a corpse for some hours?

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

Having been over this with you before, it's hard to begin to discuss a scenario whereby Nichols is being murdered at about the time that Neil is stumbling across her dead body, some moments after she has been discovered by Paul and Cross, but, that aside, nothing you have said leads me to understand how any of the blood evidence makes it more likely for Cross to have been the murderer than someone else (over and above the evidence of Neil about the "oozing", or "running" if you prefer, which itself does not get us very far).

[David Orsam]

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.

Fisherman, that is an impressive piece of work for which I must congratulate you. From searching on the internet alone, you have managed to re-write the forensic pathology text books by establishing, single-handed, that if a dead body is found with blood running from it, and a pool of blood only somewhat congealed, this means that the time of death MUST have been within half-an-hour of the body having been discovered. Even Trevor's forensic expert did not have enough forensic knowledge, experience or ability to be able to say this, so you really have made a major scientific breakthrough here about which the world needs to know.

[David Orsam]

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?

That is without doubt the worst misrepresentation of a posting I have seen from you Fisherman. You are quite utterly wrong. At no time did Trevor's expert say that in the case at hand he expected the bleeding to be over "within a matter of a couple of initial minutes".

Here is what Trevor's expert actually said, with some highlighting in bold and underlining:

"I don’t think it would be appropriate or reliable to state a ‘max’ time for an individual case.

I think that, though it might seem unlikely for a significant quantity of blood to be flowing out of a body several minutes after death, it would certainly be possible for blood still to be dripping / oozing out of a body 20 mins later. This is likely to be minimal (almost negligible) in nature, as the majority of the blood that was able to come out would have done so much sooner. If a witness discovered a body that was still bleeding relatively profusely then the injuries are likely to have been inflicted more recently than 20 mins previously… but if the 20 min period is critical in ruling out / in certain suspects then I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility of some continued blood loss at this time, as I think it would be possible. (I base this on my own observations of seeing blood leak out of bodies when I have been present at murder scenes some hours after death. This is why I am open to many things being ‘possible’, even though I can’t state categorically what ‘would’ or ‘would not’ have happened in an individual case.)"

It's kind of the opposite of what you said in that he cannot say anything about the specific case and he cannot rule out blood oozing from a body after 20 minutes or longer, even hours. All he essentially said is that the blood would not be flowing profusely after the initial few minutes. And there is no evidence from anyone on the scene that they saw blood flowing profusely from the body of Nichols.

[Batman]

I have a better solution. John Davis, Louis Diemschutz, Edward Watkins and Thomas Bowyer were all part of the pact to do the JtR murders. Lechmere is the fifth man!

[curious]

All he essentially said is that the blood would not be flowing profusely after the initial few minutes. And there is no evidence from anyone on the scene that they saw blood flowing profusely from the body of Nichols.

Not even Paul and IF he had interrupted Lechmere, should not the blood have been flowing profusely still when the two stepped over to look at her?

curious

[David Orsam]

Not even Paul and IF he had interrupted Lechmere, should not the blood have been flowing profusely still when the two stepped over to look at her?

It might have been but the evidence is that it was too dark to see any blood without a lamp.

[Robert]

....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)

I think that once someone is dead, Fish, silence sort of follows, so to mention the added advantage of cutting the windpipe is unnecessary.

So you are saying that Crossmere heard Paul coming, and cut Nichols's throat to make sure that she was quite dead. This seems to me to be - if you'll forgive the word - overkill. What chance was there that Nichols would survive to give evidence against him? On the other hand, he cuts her neck and then has to hide it by pulling her coat up round her neck, while hoping that Paul won't notice the bleeding. This just doesn't ring true.