Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[curious]

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

But we're expected to believe that Lechmere would take that chance and invite someone pver to look at a badly bleeding body


The man who is supppsed to be a master manipulator suggestrd a look see instead of counseling "let her sleep it off" and walking off, bloody hands in pockets, with an "I'm ate to work."

Paul would have fallen right in . . .

[Fisherman]

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

I didn´t know that there was a manual for how guilty men will behave. Nor do I see anything in Lechmere´s behavior that swears against how a guilty man can behave. Surely some guilty men lie about their names? And surely some guilty men will claim that the police have it wrong while they have it right themselves? In that respect, he looks VERY much like a guilty man to me.
If you are referring to the fact that he approached the police, I think you must admit that viable reasons have been presented. If we accept that he was the killer, we can easily see just why he did this.

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')

Why is the Mizen scam less than convincing? A PC with a good service record tells us that it happened. And Lechmere´s actions afterwards are in line with having been told this exact lie. So I don´t see the problem.

That's not to say that Crossmere can be thrown in the bin.

I already know that, thank you. The mere suggestion would be ludicrous.

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.

You are aware, I take it, that very many serialists that have been apprehended, have not been shown to have been violent towards people before their getting nicked by the police? Then again, I´m not objecting to what you are saying - it would of course more or less seal the deal if such a case could be found.

Then again, both you and me know that there is no Cross or Lechmere figuring in any such case on record, so the task as such is insurmountable, unless some private information comes to light in this respect. SO I prefer to go with what we have instead of what you would want.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

caz:

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.

We will never know what happened in this respect, end of. We have the discrepancy, and we know that the inquest satisifed itself with Lechmere´s assertion that there had been no PC in Bucks Row. We further have no records at all or any hints about Lechmere being further questioned or suspected. And that´s another end of.
However much we´d like to think that this was investigated, the existing evidence tells another story. If suspicions had been there on account of the police, the carman would not have gone down as Cross. So he got away with the scam, by the looks of things. And yes, that would to a large part depend on poor police work. It happens now, and it certainly happened back then.
Basically, I think Lechmere was the wrong type altogether, as far as the police were concerned. And I don´t exclude that Mizen may have been part of that thinking too; he may well have thought "Nah, couldn´t be him" if his superiors thought along the same lines - which I believe they did.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

caz:

This is quite simple.

It is! But not the way you seem to think...

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?

Sorry, but it´s the other way around - it is all-important that he made an assessment based on the Nichols case and what we know of it. That´s a safe way to conclude that Nichols would NOT have bled for 24 hours.

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.

Yes, that is true - but we need to add that he did NOT have little information: He knew the extent of the damages to the neck very intimately, just as we all do, and he knew that Nichols was found stretched out on her back. Basically, that is quite enough to make the outcome he expected a very informed guess and one that will in all probability not be far off the mark.

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?

To begin with: I don´t know for sure that Mr Gibbonbottom of Rotten Row was not there, practicing wrestling grips on Nichols´ body inbetween Lechmere and Neil. We can always play that card, Caz.
Then again, what we have is what we have. And the time period in which an unknown character could have entered and left the scene between Lechmere and Neil is absolutely miniscule, and nobody saw or heard anybody being in place in that window of time - that may not even have existed if Neil was very close in time to Lechmere.

So the only people we can suggest could have touched or moved Nichols so as to start a blood flow that had alread stopped were Paul, Lechmere, Neil and Thain.

If Paul or Lechmere started the bloodflow afresh - as you so eloquently describe it - then they did so with a woman that was lying flat on her back as the came and as they went. Therefore, she was subjected to the laws of gravity throughout the process - her neck was always close to the ground, and there was always a free outflow of blood. Nothing stopped it.

If we reason that the bloodflow had stopped as the carmen arrived, and that they started it again, we must ask ourselves WHY it had stopped. The answer is simple enough: Because no more blood would float out due as a result of gravity. She would already have been emptied.

The only way to start that bleeding again, would be to elevate some part of the body to a position where blood in that part started to go downwards and eventually leak out through the neck.

But we know from how Neil found her that there was no elevated body part. So no, that does not work.

Could Neil have done it? No, he could not for the same reasons. Could Thain? No, and for the same reasons once more.

In order to start a bloodflow afresh from a person that has stopped bleeding, you need to elevate some part of the body to a position where more blood could exit it. This never happened.

So it´s like you say, Caz - it´s totally simple. If Nichols had been found in a position that was somehow complex, with an arm over the chest, with her legs raised, sitting against a wall, slumped over a wall etcetera, you would have made a viable point. But with the position she had and the damage done to her neck, no elements are there that need to worry us in any way - she wouls start bleeding as soon as she was cut to the neck, and she would not stop bleeding until gravity caused that stop. After that, she would NOT start bleeding again unless some body part was elevated up into the air.

So if we can prove - or have reason to believe - that Neil and/or Thain lifted an arm or a leg of hers and held it upright for some time just before Mizen arrived, then we should consider what you say. Otherwise, it´s game over.

The best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

To begin with: I don´t know for sure that Mr Gibbonbottom of Rotten Row was not there, practicing wrestling grips on Nichols´ body inbetween Lechmere and Neil. We can always play that card, Caz.

Now that bits funny.

[Fisherman]

caz:

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).

To be much more exact, I argued that this MAY have been a reason for him giving the time he gave. Once again, do try to get it factually correct. I do not wish to be locked onto something because you are not discerning in your manner of reading.

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?

Yes, you managed to be a bit clearer this time, thank you! Not that it makes any much difference - the risk that he would have been exposed as having used the wrong name was always going to be there, and it would have been a calculated risk. I have said this hundreds of times; this is why he gave the CORRECT address and the CORRECT working place - because he KNEW that he could get checked out. And it is also why he chose the name Cross - because he knew that he could get checked out. If that happened, he could point to a viable reason for using the name Cross, and he could claim that he sometimes/always/on Mondays used that particular name. He could NOT get away with a totally false name - but he could perhaps get away with Cross.

So a calculated risk, Caz - let´s hope they don´t check me out, but IF they do...

The issue with the timings is the exact same: He could not be sure that they would not check him out. And if they did, yes, they WOULD find out that he had used the wrong name, but he hoped to be able to talk himself out of that. But if a false timing, as testified by his wife, was added, it would do him no good whatsoever. Instead, having told the truth in all other aspects that could be checked out, would do him a world of good.

To quote yourself: Get it now?

The best,
Fisherman

[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.

I think you will be well served by reading my answers to Caz, Dane.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: 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.

Thain. Evidence. Congealed mass. Around 4.10.

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.

Please read the passage again, and read all of it. You will eventually arrive at a place where I boldened the text "suggested".

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?

Did I say that the blood had not congealed when Llewellyn saw it? I think not. Was not the first issue of this post - where you realized that you had added a "not" - about how I said that the blood WAS congealed when Llewellyn arrived?

Really, David!

The best,
Fisherman

[Batman]

There is a huge difference between observation and measurement.

None of the people present except for the doctor can give an expert opinion which is what one needs when it comes to forensics.

Everyone else except for the doctor are amateur observers at night and their observations also influenced by adrenaline and the shock of finding a gruesome murder.

Even the autopsy reports don't allow for a particulate analysis. You need expert measurements and samples. Not observation accounts.

There can be no statement made on blood movement because it requires combining different amateur observations.

[Fisherman]

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.

Let´s look at a few alternatives before we make up our minds, shall we?

To begin with, you say that the blood was being washed away as Spratling arrived, at 4.50. And yes, there IS that statement in The Star:

One of them pointed out the spot where the woman was found. The blood was then being washed away, but he noticed stains between the stones.

(The Star)

However, the Star would be wrong. Other papers gave another picture altogether:

Witness proceeded to the spot directly, and there saw Police constable 96 (Thain), who pointed to where the body had been found. Witness noticed stains of blood and water between the stones.

(Morning Advertiser)

Not a word of the washing away being carried out. Instead all Spratling sees in washing water and some little remaining blood.

Inspector John Spratling of the J Division, deposed that about half past four on Friday morning he was in the Hackney-road, when he received information of the murder. He went to Buck's-row and saw Constable Thain. The body had been then removed. Thain pointed to the spot where the deceased had been found. The blood had been washed away.

(The Echo)

Past tense! HAD been washed away! Not WAS washed away - HAD BEEN washed away.

He went to Buck's row, where he saw Police Constable Thain, who pointed out the spot where the deceased had been found. The witness there noticed a slight stain of blood on the footpath.

(Daily News)

Not a sign of Greene and the bucket, is there?

So, we have the Star saying that the blood was in the process of being washed away as Spratling came along at around 4.50. The other say something quite different - that the blood had been washed away earlier, and all there was to see was some blood and a little water.

A conundrum, thus! We can be pretty damn sure that one or more of the sources got it wrong. Incidentally, it was the Star that failed, but what I posted here does not prove the point - it merely points to this.

So we have to delve further into all of this.

You say that Tomkins left his work at 4.20, and went to the murder place. After this, he hung around until the body was removed. And since you have the Star telling us that the mopping up was done as Spratling arrived, you make the case that this would have happened at shortly before 4.50, is that correct?
You say that I am wrong in stating that Llewelyn made a shortish affair of the examination, and that he would instead have been there for a lengthy time, examining away for perhaps as much as 30-40 minutes. Would that be correct? And you say that "all" the papers tell us that Tomkins left off at 4.20.

How about this, from the Morning Advertiser:

Henry Tomkins, 112 Coventry street, Bethnal green, a horse slaughterer, said - I am employed by Messrs. Barber, and was working all night on Thursday. I started at eight o'clock at the slaughter house, Winthorpe (sic) street, and finished about quarter past four.

The Coroner - Where did you go then?

Witness - we generally go for a walk.

Where did you go that morning? - I went to look at the murdered woman, which a policeman had told us of a few minutes before. He said there had been a women murdered in Buck's row.

(Morning Advertiser)

Oh. It seems that not all the papers have the same timings.

Let´s assume that Tomkins left off at 4.15, and went to the scene (which would take him all of a minute). When would Llewellyn have arrived? That depends somewhat. We know that Thain supposedly left Bucks Row shortly after 3.45, according to Neil, perhaps at around 3.47-3.48. We also know that he arrived at Llewellyns practice at around 3.55-4.00. Most papers say 4.00, but let´s be generous and put it in the middle, at 3.57-3.58. That means that it took Thain ten minutes to get there.
After that, we must have Thain knocking the doctor up, we must have him telling Llewellyn what was going on, and we have to have Llewellyn getting dressed and finding his Gladstone bag before he can set off for Bucks Row. Which means that he may well have arrived around 4.15 - and then Tomkins arrived at 4.16, justabout. We may have to give and take a minute here or there, but basically, it is a viable suggestion that the two arrived close in time to the murder site.

After this, we come to the long examination Llewellyn carried out, according to you. Let´s look at what the Daily News has to say about this! It is Rees Ralph Llewellyn speaking about how it went down:

Police constable Neil told me that the body had not been touched. The throat was cut from ear to ear, and the woman was quite dead. On feeling the extremities of the body, I found that they were still warm, showing that death had not long ensued. A crowd was now gathering, and as it was undesirable to make a further examination in the street, I ordered the removal of the body to the mortuary, telling the police to send for me again if anything of importance transpired.

(Daily News)

So the moment a crowd was gathering, Llewellyn gave orders to have the body wheeled away. Now, who would have been part of that crowd? Ah yes, here we have your quote from the Times to help us, speaking about what Tomkins said:
It was their rule to go home when they did so, but they did not do so that morning. A constable told them of the finding of the murdered woman, and they went to look at her.

So here we are: When Tomkins et al arrive at the spot - and that could have been at 4.16 - Llewellyn has seen all he needs to see, and he orders the PC:s in place to lift the body onto the ambulance and to wheel Nichols to the mortuary. So she could well have been gone at 4.17-4.18. And directly after that, as witnessed about by his own mother, James Green goes out to the murder site, bucket of water in hand, and he washes away the blood.

Then - HALF AN HOUR LATER! - Spratling arrives to Bucks Row, and he is shown where the body was lying. This is what is said in the reports. Do you think that somebody needed to show him the place if James Greene was scrubbing away at the blood at that stage?

But let´s not loose sight of the matter at hand! Whan DID Thain see that the blood was a congealed mass? Close in time to 4.20, it would seem. And when would Mizen have arrived back in Bucks Row with the ambulance? Not very much earlier than that time. Some say that it was a ten minute trek to Bethnal Green police station, some say it was a fifteen minute trek. Then he had to return, doubling the time. And he had to find himself the ambulance at the station.
The different bids make it reasonable to assume that Jonas Mizen arrived back with the ambulance at somewhere between 4.10 and 4.20.

Your post was an interesting one, David. It pointed to a parellel universe with some skill. But it did not hold up to scrutiny, did it?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I will not comment any further on your following posts, David, since they are as badly informed as the ones I have answered. I´m sorry, but there has been quite enough muddling as it is. When you atart to once again - like others do - compare the Nichols case with what the pathologist said about the overall and general picture, establishing what can happen under different circumstances, then you are leaving sense behind.

Sorry.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

....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.

How would Lechmere be certain that she WAS dead? And if he was wrong, what should be his priority when waiting for Paul to arrive?

What is it you think rings untrue with covering the neck? The abdominal wounds were hidden, seemingly. If the killer would do that, why would he NOT hide the neck wounds...?

Once again, your logic escapes me.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

There is a huge difference between observation and measurement.

None of the people present except for the doctor can give an expert opinion which is what one needs when it comes to forensics.

Everyone else except for the doctor are amateur observers at night and their observations also influenced by adrenaline and the shock of finding a gruesome murder.

Even the autopsy reports don't allow for a particulate analysis. You need expert measurements and samples. Not observation accounts.

There can be no statement made on blood movement because it requires combining different amateur observations.

What we have is what we have. We should not throw it out. It is evidence, and important evidence at that.

Moreover, what the different "amateurs" (seasoned PC:s all of them) said about the blood is perfectly in line.

The best,
Fisherman

[Batman]

It doesn't get thrown out but linking observations from amateurs to create a scenario that Lechmere killed her is going beyond the evidence.

All that can be said is that the victim died close to the time she was found. We get this from the expert analysis of the doctors accounts and pathology examination.

Blood movement/amounts/flow rate/ground topography/atmospheric conditions/her health/ etc., all the factors need measurements to be able to talk about the blood significantly. Adjusting these factors even minimally can alter the outcome.

All one can say is the minimal. She died close to the time her body was discovered. The data simply isn't there to say he did it. Could he have done it?

Fluid dynamics won't answer that question here I'm afraid.

I like the question put to you why he didn't run away given you said he had a full minute to put away his knife when he saw the other witness coming.

That's 60 seconds if walking away. A nice head start if you ask me.

[Batman]

In fact I believe that argument to be devastating to the Lechmere as murderer hypothesis.

According to your story Lechmere has a full minute to do what the killer actually did. To walk away because someone was coming and would arrive in 1 minute.

You have Lechmere hanging around as the murderer when he has every reason to leave and none to stay.