Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[David Orsam]

I understand this, and this is not evidence against anyone. This is evidence given to determine probable cause of death. It is not evidence against Cross or Mizen unless some case is pursued. Surely you would have to agree.

I'm sorry Mike, I don't follow. Are you saying that if Mizen had provided a sworn and signed written deposition at the coroner's inquiry that he saw the man he knew as Cross cutting Polly Nichols' throat, I would not be entitled to describe this as evidence against Cross?

[David Orsam]

"... Paul claimed that it was exactly 3.45, and that is not information that has a sensationalist value to it, so it would not have been the reporters invention."

Actually that's exactly what it was, a sensationalist statement.

It specifically and provocatively challenged the police version of events. The precise 3:45 timing, taken taken in consideration of the thrust of Paul's condemnation of the police in the rest of the article shouldn't be ignored.

The fact that "Xmere"rites continually cherry pick sections that suit rather than look at all the evidence is, for me, the biggest stumbling block to taking the theory seriously.

This is a very good point - and probably better than my own explanation that Paul was saying that 3:45 was the time he started work.

As early as the Friday evening, the Star newspaper was reporting that PC Neil had discovered the body at about 3:45am so the police had obviously provided this information to the press during the day. Consequently, I can see the LWN reporter's conversation with Paul going something like this:

Paul: Hey Mr Reporter, do you know that it was me and another man that found the body?
Reporter: Well hold on, the police are saying that PC Neil found it at 3:45am.
Paul: No, that was exactly the time I was in Buck's Row and saw it.
Reporter:Wow!

I can well see that Paul's use of the word "exactly" here would be hyperbole, of the type many people are prone to, intended to emphasise the fact that he and Cross, not PC Neil (who, he probably thought, was the constable they had informed of the discovery), had been the first to find the dead body.

The reporter thought he had a scoop, especially after PC Neil told his story of finding the body at the inquest on Saturday.

I think the key here is that when it came to actually having to testify on oath at the inquest, Paul did not say he was in Buck's Row at exactly 3:45. Far from it, all he could say was that he left his house at some unknown time shortly before 3:45 that morning (and the phrase "just before" that he was reported to have used has been assigned way too much significance here).

So yes, drstrange169 has it - the time of 3:45 clearly did have sensationalist value, both on the Friday (when I assume Paul spoke to the reporter) and then more so on the Sunday morning when the story was published.

[The Good Michael]

I'm sorry Mike, I don't follow. Are you saying that if Mizen had provided a sworn and signed written deposition at the coroner's inquiry that he saw the man he knew as Cross cutting Polly Nichols' throat, I would not be entitled to describe this as evidence against Cross?

Sigh.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Another pointer to discredit Mizen then?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You can do a lot better than that, Trevor. Scores of papers reported from the inquest. Mizen only gave ONE estimation, and all the other papers heard it as 3.45, whereas the Times reported 4.15.

Gather your intellectual faculties and guess who should be discredited: Mizen - or the Times reporter.

I sometimes wonder why I even bother with things like these.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sir. One simple question that gets Lechmere off the hook.

Why did Lechmere stop?

All other credible suspects, died soon after, threw themselves into the Thames, were imprisoned, put in mad houses or locked away in monasteries. Your suspect is the only one who simply stopped killing. Wouldn’t this make your suspect the only known serial killer to do so? With odds like this, at many thousands to one, Lechmere must be in fact the least likely and most imperfect suspect.

I have answered this question a thousand times. But is still keeps popping up.

Hereīs effort 1001:

A/ Who says he stopped killing? What if he went on? MacKenzie dies in the summer of 1889, killed Ripper-style. Why would she not be a victim of his? There are numerous murders that have stayed unsolved in London in the years following the Ripper deeds. Why would they not be his? Some of them are knife killings - but why must he kill by knife? Peter Kürten used a knife, a hammer, strangulation, a pair of scissors...

B/ You are factually wrong when you say that Lechmere is the only suspect who would have stopped killing (if he DID stop killing). Many other suspects are the same in this respect, like Joe Barnett for example.

C/ I posted this on another thread (that was question nr 1000). Itīs what the FBI has tyo say about the notion that serial killers never stop. You can find their input on

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/pu.../serial-murder

...and here is an excerpt from the site. They list a number of myths - yes, MYTHS! - and one of those myths is that serial killers will never stop. Please read and digest!

Myth: Serial killers cannot stop killing.

It has been widely believed that once serial killers start killing, they cannot stop. There are, however, some serial killers who stop murdering altogether before being caught. In these instances, there are events or circumstances in offenders’ lives that inhibit them from pursuing more victims. These can include increased participation in family activities, sexual substitution, and other diversions.

• BTK killer, Dennis Rader, murdered ten victims from 1974 to 1991. He did not kill any other victims prior to being captured in 2005. During interviews conducted by law enforcement, Rader admitted to engaging in auto-erotic activities as a substitute for his killings.

• Jeffrey Gorton killed his first victim in 1986 and his next victim in 1991. He did not kill another victim and was captured in 2002. Gorton engaged in cross-dressing and masturbatory activities, as well as consensual sex with his wife in the interim.

I really, really, really hope that there will be no question nr 1002.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Fish,

I don't quite understand the harping over Scobie. The producers did a good and normal thing, which was get apparently independent people who are experts in their field to give opinions favorable to the premise of the documentary. It's understood by us that these witnesses were provided in paper form the argument for Cross as Ripper. Why wouldn't they be? The idea that they sifted through reams of raw data to independently arrive at the idea of Cross as Ripper is rather laughable but some of your posts seem to try and suggest that.
The fact is that if these same witnesses were provided a written argument favoring Le Grand as Ripper, or Kosminski, maybe even Druitt, they likely would have reached the same conclusions as they did with Cross. All this really means is that your theory is not farfetched or ridiculous, which it isn't. But you can't count these opinions as actual evidence towards the guilt of Cross, only as evidence that you and Ed were able to put together a compelling theory. Be proud of that, but try not to pretend it's more than it is. It was good for the documentary, but has little use here because many if not most of the people posting at Casebook are more informed on the Ripper crimes than are your experts.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Yes, Scobie is confirmation that we have a very good and compelling theory, but no, he would not have said that it would be possible to take Kosminski, Druitt and Le Grand to trial on what we have on these guys.

You will be aware that there is not a shred of evidence against the former two, so letīs not get ridiculous here. What would the prosecutor say in court? "I think this man may have done it, but I canīt provide any evidence"?

Or would he say what Scobie said:

"The timings really have him"?

Or:

"The coincidences mount up in his case"?

Please note that I leave Le Grands particulars out of my reasoning. Thatīs because I am sure that you will be able to present a shitload of evidence tying him to the case once you get your book out.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David Orsam:

Fisherman - to make things easier I will reply to all your posts in one go.

The fewest make things easy, David.

Inspector Abberline's report is the most authoritative account of the time of discovery of the body but all this 3:40 or 3:45 business is frankly irrelevant because your 9 minute gap hinges entirely on Lechmere having left his house at exactly 3:30am for which there is precisely no evidence and not even a dodgy newspaper report to support it. All Lechmere said was that he left at "about 3:30am" which might not even have been true but, if it was, as even you have conceded, this could have been 3:35am so that your "major 9 minute gap" is like the dust in the desert. I have consistently made the point that you do not need this 9 minute gap because Lechmere could have left his house at 3:25, 3:20 or anytime. It could have been 3:00am, it could have been 2:00am or 1:00am - he could have been prowling around Whitechapel all night. I'm not against the idea that Cross could have been the killer at all but I am against an argument so bad that it is embarrassing.

What is embarrasing is your denial to accept that the more senior man (Swanson) actually discarded the 3.40 suggestion in a latter report than Abberlines.

As for the timings. I am in no way suggesting that there MUST have been exactly a nine minute gap. If you had read all my other posts on this matter - and they are MANY - you would know that I have frequently said that Lechmere may have left at other times than 3.30.

But I have also siad that what we have is what we have - and that is Lechmereīs assertion that he left home at 3.30. And if he did, then the estimation made in the documentary speaks for a nine minute gap.

It really is no more complicated than so.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott:

As you know I hotly dispute the accuracy of the time of death as given by the Doctor. And you know that should that time proved to be wrong then I am afraid your theory is blown out of the water.

I prepared a set of questions which I sent to an independent forensic pathologist I know. I have set out below those question plus the answers that were forthcoming.

Could you give me one good reason, Trevor, why I should not treat you like you treat me, and say that I think that you are not telling me all this expert of yours said? Why would I not imply that you are not being truthful about the whole thing? You donīt even give me a name of your expert, so why would I accpet that he or she even exists? Are you sure that you have not made this up on your own? Or that the person you refer to really donīt have the credibility to make the calls that are made?

I will tell you why I wonīt go about things like that: Because it is not a decent thing to do, thatīs why. Thatīs why I will comment on the post and accept that you are truthfully reiterating what your expert said, without sifting the material or tilting it to suit your own purposes.
And that is in spite of your previous contributions from experts of yours to the boards, contributions that have been laughed at by most posters ...

I can only hope that you will follow suit and accept Scobie and Griffiths as having been adequately informed and presented too!

1. How long does blood keep flowing/seeping from a wound where a victim has had their throat cut, which has resulted in death?

This is one of those ‘piece of string’ questions. Cases where the blood mostly stays internal tend to be ‘stab’ type wounds, but if there has been a wide ‘slash’ then it is far easier for blood to pour out (of a bigger hole). If arteries are cut then there may be some initial spurting of blood under pressure whilst the heart is still beating. In many cases the majority of the blood at the scene may have seeped out of the veins. This can happen under the influence of gravity, and therefore is not dependent on a beating heart (i.e. blood can continue to seep out for quite some time after death). As long as there is still blood in the body it can theoretically still leak out under gravity, so there could be a period of several minutes where blood continues to flow after an injury (including after death… it is not unusual for a body that has been dead for some time to ‘bleed’ from a knife wound when you start moving it).

It is here spoken of many types of injuries. That is unneccessary, since we know that Nichols was nigh on decapitated. it was a "maximum" damage, if you will, and that would minimize the time it took for the blood to leave the body. Observe how your expert says that As long as there is still blood in the body it can theoretically still leak out under gravity, so there could be a period of several minutes where blood continues to flow after an injury , without specifying the extent of such an injury. It nevertheless is spoken only of minutes here!
The issue of moving the body does not enter our issue, since Nichols was not moved by Neil, at least not prior to his seeing that her blood was flowing. Likewise, there is not an issue of the center of gravity in the body getting changed.
We are therefore dealing with a time amount of minutes only until she had bled out completely. And those minutes would have been few.
As I have pointed out, the initial discussion was about whether she could have been cut at 3.30 and bled for more than twenty minutes. She could not have, quite simply.

2. Would any visible blood flow from the neck wound be of any help in determining time of death?

There is nothing about blood flow from a wound that will help estimate the time of death. Dried blood on the skin can give an indication of the position of the body relative to the direction of gravity, but that’s about it.

There is not a single physical matter that can determine the TOS other than as an approximation, Trevor. The blood is exactly the same. But it CAN help to estimate things. If you find three bodies, all of themīwith the same type of damage, and if one is still bleeding, the second has stopped bleeding and the blood has clotted, and the third has dried up blood on it, then there can only be one logical deduction to draw from that as regards the order in which the three were killed. It is not rocket science.

3. We have a victim who was found dead in the street at 3.45am approx. The victims clothes were pulled up above her waist and she had been subjected to abdominal wounds. The witness pulls her dress down for decency sake. The doctor arrives at around 4.15am. he states that the hands were cold but the lower extremities were warm and estimates that death had occurred within the past 30 mins the same time the witness found the body !

This is very similar to a question I was asked just today in relation to a crown court homicide! Being ‘cold to the touch’ really isn’t helpful as even live people can feel cold to the touch. Body temperature doesn’t start to drop straight away as soon as a person dies, but there is a plateau or ‘lag’ phase that can last a few hours. In other words, somebody could have been dead for a couple of hours but still have an essentially ‘normal’ body temperature, whereas a live person can feel stone cold. In the olden days, doctors used to state a confident and precise ‘time of death’ based on subjective observations, but this was little more than guesswork. Nowadays we recognise that it is subjective and highly variable. In fact, the official guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator is that pathologists shouldn’t even attempt to estimate the post mortem interval! Even with a measured temperature you couldn’t estimate a time since death to within less than a few hours. Suggesting that death happened 30 mins previously based on subjective observations would be laughed out of court these days… but in 1888 people believed just about anything a doctor said.


We all know that estimations of TOD are approximations. I only just said that. But we ALSO know that blood will not flow for more than a matter of minutes after somebody has her neck completely severed, and Nichols was still bleeding as Neil saw her and as Mizen saw her. Therefore she had been killed very close in time to when Lechmere was in place.

4. If death had in fact occurred before 3.45am then would the pulling down of the clothes and leaving them down for almost 30 mins cloud the doctors estimate as to time of death. He also failed to notice the abdominal wounds at the crime scene and these were only found when the body was taken to the mortuary.

It is possible that death could have occurred even a few hours before the time of body discovery, and the observations made by the doctor would have been the same. Clothing state can affect the time of death calculations, but in reality it would make very little difference in the scenario you describe. I think the doctor’s estimation of the time of death should be taken with a pinch of salt, and in fact it could have been far earlier. This is not a criticism: back then that was the sort of thing that was said and done. We just know more now, and therefore can’t be so ‘certain’. As an aside, I can see how the doctor might have not looked carefully enough to notice the wounds at the scene. Nowadays we spend a lot more time with bodies at scenes, and have bright lights to help us… and we still find ‘extra’ injuries once we get back to the mortuary and clean off the dirt and blood. If a ‘thorough examination’ was done then it seems bizarre that such significant injuries could be overlooked, but if a ‘cursory look in the dark without invading decency’ were all that was carried out then I think it is understandable

This however, does not take the flowing blood into account! It is emphatically NOT possible that Nichols had been dead for a couple of hours before Llewellyn saw her for that reason.

So where does this leave your theroy now.

Exactly where it was before, actually.

What I notice is that you failed to ask your expert the all-important question:
There was blood flowing from the completely severed neck of Nichols at least 5-7 minutes after she was cut. Is it reasonable to expect that blood flow to go on for much longer than so?

In fact, that is the only pertinent question to answer here, and I wish you had asked it.

If we go back to your experts and in particular Scobie. Now he, as you keep telling us in an experienced defense QC, who would have no doubt been involved in murders throughout his career so I would have expected him to know all about what the pathologist has stated about estimating times of death.

He did not ground his take on the pathologists view only - far from it.

What concerns me about his 45 minute interview is the fact that only 30 seconds was shown. Now when I spoke to him. He went to great lengths to tell me that he raised concerns with Blink, and in as many words pointed out potential flaws in what was being presented to him. Was this one of those flaws he pointed out. and it got edited out. For to have had him say what the pathologist is now telling us as being common knowledge would be so damaging would it not?

No, it would not be in the slightest. Scobie will be very well informed about matters like these, and his verdict will not have been grounded on Llewellyns estimation.

As to Griffiths again I would have expected him to be aware of the same issues regarding estimating time of death, with regards to your specific times you rely on.

I can now see why all of your witnesses your have used concur with your theory because you have presented it to them in the form of a jigsaw with all the pieces nicely fitting together.

Your witness timings are all over the shop and far from being accurate as we have seen, and cannot in any event be relied upon as being conclusive and your star witness testimony of the doctor is flawed.

See, thatīwas what I meant about being decent - you are now accusing Blink and us of outright tampering and very nearly lying. And the sad thing is that you donīt seem to even understand what Scobie and Griffiths based their views on.

Now, get back to your expert and ask him - or her - how long it will take for the blood to leave a body that has been decapitated, if that body is lying motionless on the ground!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

"... Paul claimed that it was exactly 3.45, and that is not information that has a sensationalist value to it, so it would not have been the reporters invention."

Actually that's exactly what it was, a sensationalist statement.

It specifically and provocatively challenged the police version of events. The precise 3:45 timing, taken taken in consideration of the thrust of Paul's condemnation of the police in the rest of the article shouldn't be ignored.

I fail to see what you mean here. Paul gave his interview on the 1:st, presumably, as it was in the papers on the 2:nd. Most papers had said nothing about when Neil claimed to have found the body. It is only the Times, I think, that say on the 1:st that it was at a quarter to four. And it is not said that this time was exact. Anybody must realize that there must be learoom for a minuteīs difference or two, so the challenge that you seem to see here seems a very lame one.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

Stride’s body was discovered at approximately one o’ clock. The throat wound was still seeping blood upon Dr Blackwell’s arrival at 1:16am. Since Blackwell estimated that death had taken place twenty or thirty minutes earlier, he was effectively confirming the possibility that a victim could bleed out for twenty or thirty minutes.

This is interesting - Johnston, who was in place three minutes or so BEFORE Blackwell said that it had stopped bleeding, that the blood had run away and was clotted. Did she start to bleed again as Blackwell arrived...?
I am not sure that I have seen any confirmation of this before, so I would appreciate a source.

Now! Letīs have a look at the damage done to Stride as compared to that done to Nichols.
Nichols had all of her vessels in the neck cut off.
Stride suffered a cut to the left side of the neck, that opened up a hole in her left artery but did not sever it.

I think it would be reasonable to say that Nichols had around three or four times as many vessels cut off as Stride had.

Fill two ballons with water, Gary. Then prick a hole in one with a needle and shoot a fine calibre bullet through the other one.

Then check which ballon is emptied first.

Can you see what I am after here? The larger the hole you make in a vessel containing liquid, the faster the liquid will leave that vessel.

Can you appreciate the difference this mechanism would have had in the errand we are discussing?

The problem with Nichols is that she was seemingly dead as she had her head cut off, more or less. Otherwise, we could compare to guillotined people, who loose all their blood in a matter of two minutes or so. But they have an initial heartbeat to help the blood on itīs way. Nichols may not have had that, and therefore we should add some little time to the process. What woud it take? Four, five minutes? Six? Would that be it?

Or should we allow for seven to nine minutes, allowing another killer time to get on stage and do the deed?

Should we reason that she could have been bleeding for twenty, twentyfive minutes, allowing for Tom Wescott to have it right?

Would the ballon you pricked with a needle leak water for twenty, twentyfive minutes? I donīt think so. And blood coagulates. Water doesnīt.

The best of Christmases to you too, Gary, and a happy and prosperous New Year!

The best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott:

As you know I hotly dispute the accuracy of the time of death as given by the Doctor. And you know that should that time proved to be wrong then I am afraid your theory is blown out of the water.

I prepared a set of questions which I sent to an independent forensic pathologist I know. I have set out below those question plus the answers that were forthcoming.

Could you give me one good reason, Trevor, why I should not treat you like you treat me, and say that I think that you are not telling me all this expert of yours said? Why would I not imply that you are not being truthful about the whole thing? You donīt even give me a name of your expert, so why would I accpet that he or she even exists? Are you sure that you have not made this up on your own? Or that the person you refer to really donīt have the credibility to make the calls that are made?

I will tell you why I wonīt go about things like that: Because it is not a decent thing to do, thatīs why. Thatīs why I will comment on the post and accept that you are truthfully reiterating what your expert said, without sifting the material or tilting it to suit your own purposes.
And that is in spite of your previous contributions from experts of yours to the boards, contributions that have been laughed at by most posters ...

I can only hope that you will follow suit and accept Scobie and Griffiths as having been adequately informed and presented too!

1. How long does blood keep flowing/seeping from a wound where a victim has had their throat cut, which has resulted in death?

This is one of those ‘piece of string’ questions. Cases where the blood mostly stays internal tend to be ‘stab’ type wounds, but if there has been a wide ‘slash’ then it is far easier for blood to pour out (of a bigger hole). If arteries are cut then there may be some initial spurting of blood under pressure whilst the heart is still beating. In many cases the majority of the blood at the scene may have seeped out of the veins. This can happen under the influence of gravity, and therefore is not dependent on a beating heart (i.e. blood can continue to seep out for quite some time after death). As long as there is still blood in the body it can theoretically still leak out under gravity, so there could be a period of several minutes where blood continues to flow after an injury (including after death… it is not unusual for a body that has been dead for some time to ‘bleed’ from a knife wound when you start moving it).

It is here spoken of many types of injuries. That is unneccessary, since we know that Nichols was nigh on decapitated. it was a "maximum" damage, if you will, and that would minimize the time it took for the blood to leave the body. Observe how your expert says that As long as there is still blood in the body it can theoretically still leak out under gravity, so there could be a period of several minutes where blood continues to flow after an injury , without specifying the extent of such an injury. It nevertheless is spoken only of minutes here!
The issue of moving the body does not enter our issue, since Nichols was not moved by Neil, at least not prior to his seeing that her blood was flowing. Likewise, there is not an issue of the center of gravity in the body getting changed.
We are therefore dealing with a time amount of minutes only until she had bled out completely. And those minutes would have been few.
As I have pointed out, the initial discussion was about whether she could have been cut at 3.30 and bled for more than twenty minutes. She could not have, quite simply.

2. Would any visible blood flow from the neck wound be of any help in determining time of death?

There is nothing about blood flow from a wound that will help estimate the time of death. Dried blood on the skin can give an indication of the position of the body relative to the direction of gravity, but that’s about it.

There is not a single physical matter that can determine the TOS other than as an approximation, Trevor. The blood is exactly the same. But it CAN help to estimate things. If you find three bodies, all of themīwith the same type of damage, and if one is still bleeding, the second has stopped bleeding and the blood has clotted, and the third has dried up blood on it, then there can only be one logical deduction to draw from that as regards the order in which the three were killed. It is not rocket science.

3. We have a victim who was found dead in the street at 3.45am approx. The victims clothes were pulled up above her waist and she had been subjected to abdominal wounds. The witness pulls her dress down for decency sake. The doctor arrives at around 4.15am. he states that the hands were cold but the lower extremities were warm and estimates that death had occurred within the past 30 mins the same time the witness found the body !

This is very similar to a question I was asked just today in relation to a crown court homicide! Being ‘cold to the touch’ really isn’t helpful as even live people can feel cold to the touch. Body temperature doesn’t start to drop straight away as soon as a person dies, but there is a plateau or ‘lag’ phase that can last a few hours. In other words, somebody could have been dead for a couple of hours but still have an essentially ‘normal’ body temperature, whereas a live person can feel stone cold. In the olden days, doctors used to state a confident and precise ‘time of death’ based on subjective observations, but this was little more than guesswork. Nowadays we recognise that it is subjective and highly variable. In fact, the official guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator is that pathologists shouldn’t even attempt to estimate the post mortem interval! Even with a measured temperature you couldn’t estimate a time since death to within less than a few hours. Suggesting that death happened 30 mins previously based on subjective observations would be laughed out of court these days… but in 1888 people believed just about anything a doctor said.


We all know that estimations of TOD are approximations. I only just said that. But we ALSO know that blood will not flow for more than a matter of minutes after somebody has her neck completely severed, and Nichols was still bleeding as Neil saw her and as Mizen saw her. Therefore she had been killed very close in time to when Lechmere was in place.

4. If death had in fact occurred before 3.45am then would the pulling down of the clothes and leaving them down for almost 30 mins cloud the doctors estimate as to time of death. He also failed to notice the abdominal wounds at the crime scene and these were only found when the body was taken to the mortuary.

It is possible that death could have occurred even a few hours before the time of body discovery, and the observations made by the doctor would have been the same. Clothing state can affect the time of death calculations, but in reality it would make very little difference in the scenario you describe. I think the doctor’s estimation of the time of death should be taken with a pinch of salt, and in fact it could have been far earlier. This is not a criticism: back then that was the sort of thing that was said and done. We just know more now, and therefore can’t be so ‘certain’. As an aside, I can see how the doctor might have not looked carefully enough to notice the wounds at the scene. Nowadays we spend a lot more time with bodies at scenes, and have bright lights to help us… and we still find ‘extra’ injuries once we get back to the mortuary and clean off the dirt and blood. If a ‘thorough examination’ was done then it seems bizarre that such significant injuries could be overlooked, but if a ‘cursory look in the dark without invading decency’ were all that was carried out then I think it is understandable

This however, does not take the flowing blood into account! It is emphatically NOT possible that Nichols had been dead for a couple of hours before Llewellyn saw her for that reason.

So where does this leave your theroy now.

Exactly where it was before, actually.

What I notice is that you failed to ask your expert the all-important question:
There was blood flowing from the completely severed neck of Nichols at least 5-7 minutes after she was cut. Is it reasonable to expect that blood flow to go on for much longer than so?

In fact, that is the only pertinent question to answer here, and I wish you had asked it.

If we go back to your experts and in particular Scobie. Now he, as you keep telling us in an experienced defense QC, who would have no doubt been involved in murders throughout his career so I would have expected him to know all about what the pathologist has stated about estimating times of death.

He did not ground his take on the pathologists view only - far from it.

What concerns me about his 45 minute interview is the fact that only 30 seconds was shown. Now when I spoke to him. He went to great lengths to tell me that he raised concerns with Blink, and in as many words pointed out potential flaws in what was being presented to him. Was this one of those flaws he pointed out. and it got edited out. For to have had him say what the pathologist is now telling us as being common knowledge would be so damaging would it not?

No, it would not be in the slightest. Scobie will be very well informed about matters like these, and his verdict will not have been grounded on Llewellyns estimation.

As to Griffiths again I would have expected him to be aware of the same issues regarding estimating time of death, with regards to your specific times you rely on.

I can now see why all of your witnesses your have used concur with your theory because you have presented it to them in the form of a jigsaw with all the pieces nicely fitting together.

Your witness timings are all over the shop and far from being accurate as we have seen, and cannot in any event be relied upon as being conclusive and your star witness testimony of the doctor is flawed.

See, thatīwas what I meant about being decent - you are now accusing Blink and us of outright tampering and very nearly lying. And the sad thing is that you donīt seem to even understand what Scobie and Griffiths based their views on.

Now, get back to your expert and ask him - or her - how long it will take for the blood to leave a body that has been decapitated, if that body is lying motionless on the ground!

The best,
Fisherman

Fish
Its time you took the blinkers off and woke up to reality as far as this is concerned.

The answers from the forensic pathologist are genuine not made up not edited. The reason i have not named him is that he doesnt want to be bombarded with e mails.

Dr Llewellyns estimated time of death as far as you are concerned is crucial to your theory because if death occurred before the time Cross arrived at the murder scene then you are dead in the water.

You are forgetting I had a lengthy conversation with Scobie so i do know more about what went on with regards to his participation, and I am sure he would say that if the excat time of death could not be proved then there would be no case to answer as far as Cross is concerned.

Just for your information I will go back to the pathologist and put your question to him and present him with the fact that she was not decapitated but the throat was cut to the point of decapitation a big difference

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott:

Fish
Its time you took the blinkers off and woke up to reality as far as this is concerned.

The answers from the forensic pathologist are genuine not made up not edited. The reason i have not named him is that he doesnt want to be bombarded with e mails.

Thatīs fair enough - but why do you predispose that the answers from Scobie and Griffiths were not kosher? Why do you not extend me the courtesy you seem to want from others?

Dr Llewellyns estimated time of death as far as you are concerned is crucial to your theory because if death occurred before the time Cross arrived at the murder scene then you are dead in the water.

Yes, but how on earth are you going to prove that death occurred before Lechmere arrived, Trevor? And as long as you cannot do that, I am anything but dead in the water.
As an aside, you are confusing matters wildly here - I am not saying that I exclude that another person killed Nichols. I am saying that Llewellyns estimation tallies quite well with Lechmere being the killer, and I am saying that I believe that a body with the kind of damage that was done to Nichols would not bleed for a very extensive period of time. It would bleed out comparatively quickly.
However, I donīt think that the blood issue will settle the question beyond doubt, since with a different killer, the cutting of Nichols neck could have been made a mere two minutes before Lechmere reached the body. It will therefore come down to her being cut either by Lechmere, in which case she demonstrably bled for five or six minutes afterwards. Or she was cut by somebody else, but if that is the case, we must extend the period of time in which she bled to seven to eight minutes - at the very least.
The difference in timings is not a very large one in this case, and so I think that we must perhaps always accept the possibility that somebody else cut her. The aim of my reasoning was, however, to explain that it would be very odd if she bled for three times as long a period, as suggested by Tom Wescott.

Incidentally, there is no way that Lechmere is ruled out even if she bled for half a day, Trevor. Lechmere stays in the picture anyway. The only difference is that other persons may enter the picture with more credibility the more time we add to the bleeding period.

You are forgetting I had a lengthy conversation with Scobie so i do know more about what went on with regards to his participation, and I am sure he would say that if the excat time of death could not be proved then there would be no case to answer as far as Cross is concerned.

You are sure? You didnīt ask, you mean? And you think that Scobie is not aware of the built-in difficulties to assess a TOD, whereas everybody out here is, more or less? Plus you think that his saying that the coincidences mounting up in his case had nothing to do with his verdict? You donīt think that his saying that Lechmere acted in a suspicious manner was part of it?

Just for your information I will go back to the pathologist and put your question to him and present him with the fact that she was not decapitated but the throat was cut to the point of decapitation a big difference

I welcome that very much! I have asked for it more than once, since it is crucial to our understanding.
As for the "big difference" inbetween decapitation and all vessels cut off, it is not a very big difference in terms of opened up blood channels, Trevor. It is a very small difference.

If I may, I would like to add a few points that you can ask your pathologist:

Taking into account that Nichols was probably strangled a minute or two before she was cut, how long would it take for a body laying on itīs back on the ground and with all the vessels in the neck severed to bleed out?

To what extent would the poition of the neck have an impact?

Would the temperature surrounding the murder side mean anything in terms of time?

Could a body with this kind of damage bleed from the neck wound for more than twenty minutes?

Would the severe wounds to the stomach that Nichols had in any way have an impact on how long it took for her to bleed out?

Will some people bleed out quicker than others under circumstances like these, perhaps owing to blood composition, or is it basically just a question of emptying a vessel of liquid?

If you can ask all of these questions, I would be grateful.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

While we wait for your pathologist to ponder the question, I found another pathologist on the net, who answered a question about whether people would bleed out quicker from a severed femoral artery than from a severed carotid artery. Here is what was said:

As a forensic pathologist, I get asked these kinds of questions fairly often. As for this one, just off the top of my head (so to speak) the way that I would approach it is: About 20-25% of cardiac output (CO, or blood leaving the heart for any given time period) goes to the brain. Most of that goes through the carotids, with smaller amounts going through other vessels. Since there are 2 carotids, lets say about 10% of CO goes through one carotid. By contrast, the skeletal muscles at rest get about 15% of CO at most, and that's all of the muscles. (That % will go up a lot with activity, whereas the % to the brain stays pretty much constant) The legs, fed by the femoral arteries, have a lot of muscle, so to estimate let's say about 3/4 of the blood to muscle goes to the legs, and since there are two of them let's say in total 1/2 of 3/4 of 15% of CO goes to each leg (while at relative rest). So that comes out to......5-6%.

So, roughly, a femoral artery passes about half as much blood per unit time as a carotid artery.

As for how long it would take to "bleed to death"? The comparative short answer of course is it would take about half as long with the severed carotid than a severed femoral, and about the same amount of time with one severed carotid or two severed femorals.

But as for an estimated time: CO at rest is about 5 liters/min. That goes up substantially with activity and stress, and I think it's probably underestimating to double it, but that would give us a conservative estimate as well as the number 10 to work with, which is always easier. So a person would lose about 10 % of 10 liters (= 1 liter) of blood per minute through a severed carotid, and about half that much through a severed femoral. A person has about 70mL of blood per kg body weight, and so for a 100 kg person ( about 220 pounds), that comes out to 7 liters of blood. Well before 50% blood loss, it's lights out, but using 50% of 7, that's 3.5, and at 1 liter per min with the severed carotid, that's 3.5 mins. About 7 mins for the femoral.

I repeat these are rough estimates and they don't take into accounts things like efforts to stop the bleeding.

There are a number of things that should be added here:

- this estimation speaks of a person where the heart is pumping when he or she dies. That means that we should expect a slower rate for Nichols.

- this estimation has only ONE carotid severed. Nichols had BOTH carotids severed - plus all the other vessels in the neck.

-this estimation works from an assumption of a 100 kg person, with 7 liters of blood. Nichols would have been more like half that weight, and therefore around 3.5 liters of blood only.

In the example above, all the blood left the body in 3,5 minutes, with just the one artery cut. Is it really feasible that Nichols could have bled for, say, twenty minutes?

I will be interested to hear from your expert, Trevor.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

The use of 'experts' and 'counter experts' in full effect.

Outstanding.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

The use of 'experts' and 'counter experts' in full effect.

Outstanding.

Monty

Yes he is getting desperate now to keep his theory intact !