Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[David Orsam]

Now, Fisherman, regarding the timing of the blood being washed away, and Spratling arriving on the scene, you might have forgotten why I was even posting about it. It was because you claimed that my scenario was not "defendable" and "swears against the given evidence". I have proved that the scenario of events I put forward is, in fact, an evidence based scenario. That evidence about Spratling arriving while the blood was being washed away came from the report in the Times and, as you have shown, was corroborated by the report in the Star. But I'm not attempting to make a positive case as to when the body was removed or the blood was washed away. I am saying, as I have been doing for some time, that a lot of the evidence as to the timing of events that morning is ambiguous and uncertain. We can argue on both sides - there are indeed two parallel universes - and that's the point. It's not clear.

Regarding Mizen's evidence, I would conclude on this point by saying (or repeating) that there is no evidence at all that the Mizen looked at the body when he first arrived at the scene. He obviously did see the body, however, when he was moving it on to the ambulance and it was in this context, or at least following his evidence about moving the body, that he gave his evidence as to the state of the blood.

Finally, I believe you place too much meaning on the word "somewhat". Mizen is hardly likely to have closely examined this blood and was doing his best to summarise what he saw. And "somewhat" - whatever the dictionary meaning - is one of those ambiguous words in the English language. For example, if I were to say "it was somewhat cold today" what do I mean by that? It could be anything from "it was absolutely freezing" to "it was a little bit chilly". And we will never know exactly what Mizen meant.

[David Orsam]

One more thing....

One more thing Fisherman. Am I right in saying that your belief in the importance of Mizen's use of the word "congealed" (i.e. that is a factor in the case against Cross) only emerged after I posted on 19th December (#1003) that he used this word in his evidence?

I mean, earlier that same day you posted (#981):

"What I am working from is Neils, Thains and Mizens assertions that she was bleeding as they saw her."

This was presumably based on an assumption that all three were describing the same time period, something about which I corrected you in respect of Thain (and, thankfully, you seem to have accepted).

But until then you had never, as far as I know, made a positive point about Mizen having seen congealed blood to advance the case against Cross. I'm just wondering if it was a sudden revelation.

And, as to the point itself, does it not fall at the very first hurdle because we have no evidence as to whether or not any of the blood was congealed when Neil first saw the body?

[Fisherman]

Fish, imagine you have just ripped up a woman and have pulled out part of her intestines. You hear a man coming. "Goodness Gracious," you think to yourself. "I've strangled her, and I've mutilated her abdomen. But how do I know she's dead? And now there's some fellow coming along. He mustn't see these wounds. I'll pull the skirt down. And I'll cut her throat to make sure she's dead. There! Oops. That's a big hole, and - yes - there's blood coming out. I know : I'll pull up her coat round her neck. Then I'll just sidle to the middle of the road, and wait for this fellow to arrive. He won't spot a thing. Good job I have a high IQ."

Actually, Robert, having tried to be that funny guy again, I donīt think you are very far off the mark.

Amazing.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Iīll just do the one bit with you, Batman (Bitman...?):

JtR fled plenty of times.

Did he now? And you KNOW this how? After having had you tell me that I should not go further than the evidence allows, letīs see you handle this question.

For all I know, he may have walked quietly away each and every time.

The best
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ausgirl:

Psychopaths can indeed stay cool as a cucumber under pressure, and even enjoy the situation since it offers them an opportunity to feel superior.

Not only CAN they stay cool - they typically WILL do so. But you make a good point!

What I'm less clear about is how Lechmere was not, as far as I can see, covered in blood if he indeed cut Polly up and played Cool Hand Luke with a surprise passerby rather than striking out or bolting away. Not a lot of time to clean himself up, eh?

Jason Payne-James, the pathologist in the documentary on Lechmere, said that he saw no reason to surmise that Lechmere had much, or indeed any blood on his person.

The best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

Iīll just do the one bit with you, Batman (Bitman...?):

JtR fled plenty of times.

Did he now? And you KNOW this how? After having had you tell me that I should not go further than the evidence allows, letīs see you handle this question.

For all I know, he may have walked quietly away each and every time.

The best
Fisherman

And walking quietly away wasn't an option this tme?

If stopped by Paul "Oh I didn't notice the tarp". or the body if you prefer or in fact anything at all, "I was in a hurry to get to work".

[Fisherman]

Your post # 1333

You proposed that full minute to give Lechmere time to do something with the bloody knife while Paul approached.

He COULD have had as much as a minute to stash the knife. He COULD have had more. He COULD have had less.

How much do you think he would have needed? Half an hour? What problem is it you identify here? That he would cut himself if he used only forty seconds?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Iīm sorry, David, but I have given up on you by now. You donīt seem to have a clue about how the affair went down, and you are not willing to learn about it either.

The Times has Llewellyn saing that "He made a hasty examination and then discovered that, besides the gash across the throat, the woman had terrible wounds in the abdomen. The police ambulance from the Bethnal-green Station having arrived, the body was removed there."

The Daily News has it "Dr. Llewellyn, of Whitechapel road, whose surgery is not more than 300 yards from the spot where the woman lay, was aroused, and proceeded at once to the scene. He hastily inspected the body where it lay and pronounced the woman dead. The police ambulance from the Bethnal green station having arrived, the body was removed there."

But why do I post these things? You have made your mind up that Nichols was left lying in the street until nearly 4.50, and that Llewellyn made a loooongish examination. The fact that the evidence is totally contradictory to your musings is of no consequence to you, apparently.

Another interesting/amusing point is how you write:

[B]"No one passed except the policeman at 4.15"

I could go on as all the other newspapers of which I am aware say exactly the same thing.

So, Thain came to the slaughterhouse to collect his cape at about 4:15, then left, and Tomkins and his colleague Mumford, no doubt having first spoken to each other about the shocking news, decided to go for a walk to Buck's Row at about 4:20.[/B]

So you are here proposing that Thain either asked Llewellyn to wait as he popped in and got his cape, having turned into Winthrop Street with the good doctor instead of into Buckīs Row, or that he absconded after having delivered Llewellyn at the murder scene, in order to get his cape and have a chat with the slaughterers.

Which option it is you suggest as a completely likely one, I cannot be sure.

But to quote one of the most well-known lines in movie history: Frankly, my dear, I donīt give a damn.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

GUT: And walking quietly away wasn't an option this tme?

There are always options. Different people will make different choices. Psychopaths will make choices that seem decidedly odd to the rest of us.

If stopped by Paul "Oh I didn't notice the tarp". or the body if you prefer or in fact anything at all, "I was in a hurry to get to work".

Standing still by the body would have given away that he HAD seen something, to begin with. But if he chose to say "I didnīt notice the tarp", what difference would it make? How would that put him in a better position...? Please explain!

Besides, we were not there. Maybe it was pretty damn obvious that it WAS a woman, and it would have been outright silly of Lechmere to propose a tarp.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jeff Leahy]

Frankly I've never heard so much tosh…139 pages about a witness who discovers a body…

Yet at no time can anyone connect him to any other murder scene, provide a sensible motive, provide any evidence that at any other time in his life Cross/lechmere was anything other than a pillar of the community. Provide any real evidence that serial killers operate like this and suddenly stop killing.

It's all based on what Lechmere said.. on one occasion

Frankly the case for Hutchenson , Barnet and Flemming is far more compelling…

It was great you guys got a TV feature out of this (a miracle which shows what perseverance can do..hats off), but until someone has something solid….shouldnt everyone sit back and wait..just push it into touch for now..

I mean 139 pages…on what? This has to go down as one of the worst ripperologist fashions of all time

Come up with something..or be quiet..please

Yours Jef

[Batman]

Not wanting to step in anything here... but if we're talking psychopaths and chutzpah, there's plenty of modern examples of killers who have done some incredibly bald-faced things at the risk of being caught. Some for the sake of remaining uncaught, some for the helluvit.

Dahmer, when a drugged and tortured, naked victim got away and ran to police for help, went to reclaim the poor kid, telling the cops the boy was his lover, and drunk - and persuaded them to let him take the victim 'home'.

Kemper hung out in a cop bar, chatting regularly with cops who'd tell him how badly they wanted to get the Co-Ed Killer, while buying the Co-Ed Killer a beer.

Psychopaths can indeed stay cool as a cucumber under pressure, and even enjoy the situation since it offers them an opportunity to feel superior. Some have participated in searches for their victims, alongside cops and family members. I can't think of any who've done exactly what is being proposed here, off the top of my head - but I'm sure could I find one or two, given time.

What I'm less clear about is how Lechmere was not, as far as I can see, covered in blood if he indeed cut Polly up and played Cool Hand Luke with a surprise passerby rather than striking out or bolting away. Not a lot of time to clean himself up, eh?

Those are well noted and in fact discussed awhile back in connection to serial killer claiming to be witnesses and I don't think they meet the definition.

What we need is a serial killer who took on the role of witness.

I don't think there is any precident for such a thing.

I don't want to come across like I am just arguing for arguing sake, but have a look at this post I made only a few days prior to yours. http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...mer#post326194

We actually discussed a precident for a serial killer playing witness. I can't come up with any and nobody else seemed to know either.

So I don't think there is any precident for serial killers playing the witness.

[David Orsam]

You have made your mind up that Nichols was left lying in the street until nearly 4.50

That is simply not true. I have never said that the body of Nichols was lying in the street until nearly 4.50. It is something you have made up. I said quite clearly in post #1312:

"If he [Mizen] saw the blood as the body was removed then it would presumably have been some time between about 4:20 and 4:30am".

My own guess would be that the body was removed at about 4:30. It's not necessarily that there was a long examination, but the doctor might have been making notes which took some time. There might have been conversation between him and the officers - some relating to what was going to happen with the body and perhaps some social chit chat. It happens. It takes a few minutes. And we have the evidence of Tomkins that 12 people came along in the time between his arrival on the scene (at 4:20) and the removal of the body.

What I was saying might have happened at 4:50, based on the evidence, was the arrival on the scene of Spratling - and it is Spratling's reported evidence that he arrived when the blood was being washed away. I'm just following what the evidence was - or was reported to be.

It is only because you are focussed on the claim that James Green washed up the blood "immediately" after the body was removed that you seem to think I am attributing another time to this incident.

But please don't misinterpret my postings and then criticise me for your own misinterpretations.

[David Orsam]

So you are here proposing that Thain either asked Llewellyn to wait as he popped in and got his cape, having turned into Winthrop Street with the good doctor instead of into Buckīs Row, or that he absconded after having delivered Llewellyn at the murder scene, in order to get his cape and have a chat with the slaughterers.

Of course Thain didn't ask Llewellyn to wait in Winthorp Street as he popped in and got his cape. What has evidently happened, based on the evidence, is that, while Llewellyn was examining the body, at 4:15, Thain took the opportunity to collect his cape. Then he went straight back to Buck's Row while the doctor was still there. What is so difficult to accept about that scenario? I mean, we know he definitely went to collect his cape and the evidence of Tomkins is that it was at 4:15. I even started a thread about this in Police Officials and Procedures called "PC Thain's Cape".

As I posted in the OP of that thread back on 18 December:

"So it would appear straightforward that, having returned to Buck's Row with the doctor at about 4:10pm, Thain slipped away for his cape and mentioned the murder to Tomkins. Thain returned to the scene, followed shortly thereafter by Tomkins and his colleagues".

If you disagree with anything about that you can do it there.

[GUT]

GUT: And walking quietly away wasn't an option this tme?

There are always options. Different people will make different choices. Psychopaths will make choices that seem decidedly odd to the rest of us.

If stopped by Paul "Oh I didn't notice the tarp". or the body if you prefer or in fact anything at all, "I was in a hurry to get to work".

Standing still by the body would have given away that he HAD seen something, to begin with. But if he chose to say "I didnīt notice the tarp", what difference would it make? How would that put him in a better position...? Please explain!

Besides, we were not there. Maybe it was pretty damn obvious that it WAS a woman, and it would have been outright silly of Lechmere to propose a tarp.

The best,
Fisherman

But if Cross isn't the killer, where is a solitary piece of proof that he was a psychopath.

But he did propose it was a tarp if it was so obvious that it was a woman, why when he gave evidence that he approached because he thought he'd found a tarp why wasn't that jumped on, if by no one else by Paul, who according to some wanted his minute of fame, thus his interview about Mizen.

[pinkmoon]

Ok if cross is our killer why did he stop