Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Trevor Marriott]

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

If the body did bleed for 3-5 minutes you still cant prove actual time of death

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

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

I am? And you were the man who designed it?

My, am I in a fix!

Or not.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

If the body did bleed for 3-5 minutes you still cant prove actual time of death

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It did not say 3-5 minutes, Trevor - it said 3,5 minutes.

Of course, if she was killed an unspecified amount of time before she was cut, then it would not be possible to establish the time of death. But if she bled for 3-5 minutes after she was cut, then we could rule out any other cutter than Lechmere or Paul, unless somebody else entered the stage and cut her AFTER the carmen left the body.

So maybe we have somebody strangling her and leaving, whereupon Lechmere surfaces and cuts her. Is that your suggestion?

Or did somebody strangle her, whereupon Lechmere surfaces and tries to help her, and then, when Lechmere leaves, somebody else comes along and cuts her?

You are confusing things rather badly, are you not?

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Just a small point, Fish : Paul spoke to the Lloyd's journalist on Friday.

And a not so small point : Nichols was not decapitated. I know that you know that, but I'm just trying to stop Nichols's head ending up in the middle of the road.

[caz]

There is also the possibility that Lechmere actualy told Paul "Hey, when we come up to that PC, I´ll tell him that there´s another PC waiting for him in Buck´s Row - that way, he won´t detain us, and we´ll be in time for work".

Paul would perhaps have been none to keen to divulge having approved of that later.

You se, Robert - all of your naysaying does not get you very far, does it?

Answer me this: IF Lechmere DID lie consciously about his name and if he lied about the other PC and if he played down the seriousness of the errand - where would that put you? If you knew this to be true, what would your reasoning about it be?

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fishy,

Just catching up...

My own reasoning might be that Lechmere (as well as Paul) genuinely didn't want Mizen to detain them and make them late for work, on the strength of a woman who may only have passed out drunk. You've pissed on your own cornflakes by coming up with this innocent explanation if he told Mizen there was already a copper at the scene - and especially if the innocent Paul was likely to approve of it. Not such a dastardly lie then, is it?

We've been through the name thing a million times, but if this is a man who does not want to be detained and made late for work, regardless of whether a woman be drunk, in need of immediate aid or foully murdered, he is arguably also a man who would have preferred his name not to be associated with that woman. So a Lechmere calling himself Cross in that context, when coming forward later, is not so surprising. Unwise perhaps, but not suspicious. And still we don't know that he didn't go by the name of Cross at work, and therefore used it quite naturally when describing his eventful journey there that morning.

Love,

Caz
X

[Tom_Wescott]

Just a small point, Fish : Paul spoke to the Lloyd's journalist on Friday.

And a not so small point : Nichols was not decapitated. I know that you know that, but I'm just trying to stop Nichols's head ending up in the middle of the road.

Because the next thing you know, the head would be kneeling over the body.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[caz]

I forgot to ask, Fishy: how do you imagine Paul came up with his press story, in which he was the star who informed Mizen about Nichols, if he never said a word to him and was also too far away to hear what conversation passed between the policeman and Lechmere?

Paul must have had a better developed imagination than yours, Fishy.

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris]

Paul must have had a better developed imagination than yours, Fishy.

Impossible.

[Fisherman]

Just a small point, Fish : Paul spoke to the Lloyd's journalist on Friday.
Nichols was not decapitated. I know that you know that, but I'm just trying to stop Nichols's head ending up in the middle of the road.

It was by her side, Robert.

The point I am trying to make is that it matters little to the bloodflow if you are fully decapitated or if the head hangs on to the body by the spine. A failure to understand that is equally headless.

As for the Paul interview, you are right. It says in the paper, and I had forgotten about that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Caz:

Hi Fishy,

Just catching up...

I wish you were.

My own reasoning might be that Lechmere (as well as Paul) genuinely didn't want Mizen to detain them and make them late for work, on the strength of a woman who may only have passed out drunk. You've pissed on your own cornflakes by coming up with this innocent explanation if he told Mizen there was already a copper at the scene - and especially if the innocent Paul was likely to approve of it. Not such a dastardly lie then, is it?

No, it is not. And I anticipated it from the outset. I do, however, think that the elaborate trimmings that came with that meal - the played down inportance of the errand and the sly lie about both Lechmere and Paul speaking to Mizen - seals the fact that it was a complex lie, and not something that was quickly concocted.

There is one more thing that needs to be weighed in and that you don´t touch upon in your post: Lechmere would have made himself guilty of obstructing police work. Keep in mind that he was supposedly going to pass Mizen´s beat the very next day too. If he had lied to the PC just to get him off his back (as you suggest), then Mizen could well have hauled him in and raked him over the coals for it the next day. And what seemed a win could easily turn into a serious loss.

So logic militates against the suggestion. So does all the other known facts, such as the false name, the pulled down dress etcetera. It only all fits in one context, and that context is NOT a story of a man that had the worst luck in the world when it came to coincidences pointing his way in a murder case.

We've been through the name thing a million times, but if this is a man who does not want to be detained and made late for work, regardless of whether a woman be drunk, in need of immediate aid or foully murdered, he is arguably also a man who would have preferred his name not to be associated with that woman. So a Lechmere calling himself Cross in that context, when coming forward later, is not so surprising. Unwise perhaps, but not suspicious. And still we don't know that he didn't go by the name of Cross at work, and therefore used it quite naturally when describing his eventful journey there that morning.


To begin with: find out before you speculate in it.

To carry on: At the stage when the inquests second day played out, Lechmere knew quite well that the woman in Bucks Row had been savagely murdered. He also knew that he had been alone with the body. He also knew that the police were privy to that information.

It would not have been "unwise" to lie about his name, thus - it would have been suicidal.

Hey, Caz, by the way - do you remember how you used to say that we had no case when it comes to Lechmere? And when we said we had a good case, you said that we could never take it to court, and that was what you had meant....?

Things sometimes DO change quickly, don´t they?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Because the next thing you know, the head would be kneeling over the body.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Some heads are firmly placed under the arms of their owners. But do I blame them (the owners, not the heads) for that?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Impossible.

I would not say that - making up the story about the faithful family man who had the bad fortune to stumble over a Ripper victim, looking away from the pulled down clothing, looking away from the geographical correlations, looking away from the accoustic evidence, looking away from the false name, looking away from the lie to Mizen, looking away from the strange approcah to Paul, looking away from the unwillingness to help prop Nichols up etcetera, etcetera would have taken a LOT on manouvering through la-la-land, so I am quite willing to accept having lost that particular battle.

The best,
Fisherman

[David Orsam]

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.

No, as I mentioned in my post #842, the Star reported this time during the Friday evening (31 August):

"As Constable John Neil was walking down Buck's-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four o'clock this morning, he discovered a woman lying at the side of the street"

Then you also have this in the Morning Advertiser of Saturday, 1 Sept:

"At a quarter to four o'clock Police constable Neill, 97 J, when in Buck's row, Whitechapel, came upon the body of a woman lying on a part of the footway"

And the Times said the same thing on the Saturday morning. Clearly the police were briefing the press on the Friday morning or afternoon. Then you have Neil's evidence at the inquest reported in the Saturday evening papers. So by Sunday morning it was basically the official time that the body had been found (although I personally believe Paul was spoken to by the reporter on the Friday when the reporter was in the area speaking to the local residents).

[David Orsam]

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.

It's not embarrassing at all because I have explained why Swanson's timings cannot be taken literally and provided examples of other imprecise timings in Swanson's reports of the same day. It is noticeable that, while you are usually very good in responding to all points made against you, you haven't even begun to grapple with this one and tell me why Swanson was so precise with his timings in the Nichols case but not in the Chapman case. In any event, unless you can show why Abberline apparently went bonkers in his report to the AC, and included a time of 3:40 that did not match the evidence, I don't think you are ever going to persuade anyone that the body was discovered by Cross and Paul at exactly 3:45 which thus puts an end to the 9 minute "major gap" in timings (although it is really 3:45 less 3:37 which equals 8 minutes) that you thought you had identified. At the same time, I'm glad to note that you now seem to be saying that perhaps this major gap did not actually exist at all.

[David Orsam]

But I have also siad that what we have is what we have - and that is Lechmere´s assertion that he left home at 3.30.

Whoa! We do not have Lechmere's "assertion" that he left his home at 3.30. As you know, we have his evidence that he left his home at about 3.30 which is rather different. It means that there is simply no point in trying to work out whether there is a gap or not in the timings because we don't have enough precise information. As you say, if Lechmere left his house at exactly 3.30 and if Paul arrived in Buck's Row at exactly 3:45 then that would certainly raise the question of why it took Lechmere 14 minutes (assuming he arrived at Buck's Row 60 seconds before Paul) to do what should have been no more than a 10 minute walk (by my timing!). But that calculation involves two uncertain hypotheticals and is thus of little or no value.