Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[David Orsam]

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

But hold on Trevor, if PC Neil saw blood still oozing from the throat wound (as he said he did in his evidence at the inquest), doesn't that mean that the actual time of death was no more than about five minutes before he discovered the body? And as, on any view of the evidence, Cross discovered the body about five minutes before Neil, doesn't that put Cross right bang in the frame????

[Tom_Wescott]

Blood can 'ooze' for a long time. That's not the same as saying the heart was still pumping blood.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

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).

My bad, David - ALL papers said a quarter to four. I should have written a quarter PAST four, since THAT was what the Times did.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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.

I don´t think we should drag other cases in. Swanson clearly agreed to 3.40 in September, but had changed his mind in October. From that stage on, 3.45 was what prevailed. And that is what we need to respect and work from.

I am not saying now that the time gap may be wrong - I have said it for as long as I can remember. Of course it can be wrong. It can be smaller or larger. But as long as we have Lechmere saying 3.30 or 3.20, it is what we need to respect and work from.

It is all extremely simple.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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.

With the risk of becoming tedious: What we have is what we have, and it needs to be respected. If somebody says "around" 3.30, we must accept that is CAN be a faulty time, but it nevertheless is the time Lechmere gave. Until we see reason to discard it, it stands. The alternative, by the way, is 3.20, not 3.40. And 3.20 opens up a 19 minute gap.

The times Lechmere mentioned seemingly allow for him to have been the killer. Effectively end of story.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

But hold on Trevor, if PC Neil saw blood still oozing from the throat wound (as he said he did in his evidence at the inquest), doesn't that mean that the actual time of death was no more than about five minutes before he discovered the body? And as, on any view of the evidence, Cross discovered the body about five minutes before Neil, doesn't that put Cross right bang in the frame????

Trevor missed out on this, David. I don´t think he meant to, but he did nevertheless.

It´s not the strongest argument he has presented as he has "thrashed" my theory, mind you

Come to think of it, none of his arguments are strong.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Blood can 'ooze' for a long time. That's not the same as saying the heart was still pumping blood.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

So? Just how long can it ooze for, then?

As an aside, "ooze" does not necessarily mean "trickle out slowly". Try "oozed profusely" on Google and enjoy the more than 800 examples you will get!
What you need to weigh in before settling for Neil version, is that Mizen arrived a lot later and said that the blood "looked fresh" and was still RUNNING.

For how long will the blood run from the totally severed neck of a woman, Tom? It would seem you know these matters?

Logically, the blood will run for as long there is blood in the body that is caused to leave it through an opening closer to the ground than where the blood is. It´s called gravity.

Once there is no blood over the level of the lowest body opening, the blood will seize flowing. Coagulation may help stopping the bloodflow.

Basically, it is a bit like placing a bottle full of blood on the ground and then cutting the neck off. Some blood will stay in the bottle since the neck opening is over street level, and the rest will run out of it.

How long will it take, Tom? Will it take us back to Harriet Lilley country?

The best,
Fisherman

[David Orsam]

My bad, David - ALL papers said a quarter to four. I should have written a quarter PAST four, since THAT was what the Times did.

Yes, but that was the Times' report of the inquest on 3 September. On 1 September, the Times said this:

"At a quarter to 4 o'clock Police-constable Neill, 97J, when in Buck's-row, Whitechapel, came upon the body of a woman lying on a part of the footway"

My point being that the police had clearly been briefing the press on the Friday afternoon (or possibly morning) that Neil had discovered the body at 3:45.

[David Orsam]

But as long as we have Lechmere saying 3.30 or 3.20

No, now you are seriously confusing the issue. As I've demonstrated in another thread, six out of the eight identified court reporters heard him say "about 3.30" and that must be what he said. BUT that was his own account and if he was the killer he could have left his house at absolutely any time and surely that is the point you need to focus on.

[David Orsam]

The times Lechmere mentioned seemingly allow for him to have been the killer.

And, in a way, you have identified the flaw in your theory. There was no need for Lechmere to have incriminated himself in such a way - it would make far more sense for him to have given a false time of departure to the inquest, so your focus on using his evidence against him (when that evidence is so vague) is particularly bizarre.

[Tom_Wescott]

And, in a way, you have identified the flaw in your theory. There was no need for Lechmere to have incriminated himself in such a way - it would make far more sense for him to have given a false time of departure to the inquest, so your focus on using his evidence against him (when that evidence is so vague) is particularly bizarre.

It would have made more sense for him to run when he heard Paul. That might have been what the real Ripper did when he heard Cross approaching.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DRoy]

And, in a way, you have identified the flaw in your theory. There was no need for Lechmere to have incriminated himself in such a way - it would make far more sense for him to have given a false time of departure to the inquest, so your focus on using his evidence against him (when that evidence is so vague) is particularly bizarre.

David,

I've said the same thing many times to no avail. If Lech being the killer is partially based on his lies, how can it then be argued he is telling the truth in some cases which makes the 'Mizen Scam' theory work? Good luck convincing some though...

Cheers
DRoy

[David Orsam]

Blood can 'ooze' for a long time. That's not the same as saying the heart was still pumping blood.

Help me out here Trevor. What do you mean by a long time? Your own expert said this:

"there could be a period of several minutes where blood continues to flow after an injury (including after death)".

To me, "several minutes" does not sound like a particularly long time, although I appreciate the answer provided includes reference to discussing the length of a piece of string. Is there any chance of going to back to your expert to ask for a maximum amount of time that blood can ooze from a wound in the circumstances of a severed carotid artery? In particular, the expert that Fisherman quotes mentions a time of three and a half minutes for bleeding to death but, to my mind, it is not entirely clear from this if blood continues to flow after death and, if so, for how long. I mean, is there a maximum time? And when you yourself refer to "a long time" what is that actually based on? I mean, does that come from an expert?

[Fisherman]

Yes, but that was the Times' report of the inquest on 3 September. On 1 September, the Times said this:

"At a quarter to 4 o'clock Police-constable Neill, 97J, when in Buck's-row, Whitechapel, came upon the body of a woman lying on a part of the footway"

My point being that the police had clearly been briefing the press on the Friday afternoon (or possibly morning) that Neil had discovered the body at 3:45.

I know - but seemingly only the Times gave the time. And it would have been an approximation, so it would not have had any sensationalist value when Paul named the exact hour 3.45. It is not a very good argument, I find.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi David. I agree, Trevor should be taken to task for that post you quoted. He'd better have a good answer!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott