Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[David Orsam]

1) If he said he left later, no 'time gap'.

Agreed!

2) He could have ran then stopped just to get further from Paul who would have taken time to walk to the body anyway. Then he could continue walking normally. Plus, just because Lech chose to check out the 'tarp', why assume Paul would?

I don't entirely disagree with you but I would still say that both running or walking away involved an element of danger and risk of being caught (and hung). The thing he would surely have wanted was to ensure that the approaching stranger did not raise the alarm and the only way to guarantee this was to speak to him and thus control him.

3) Lech and Paul approached Mizen only knowing that some woman was on the ground. They didn't say carved up or head almost cut off, just two guys walking to work who saw the same thing. There is no reason to suspect either one if they both just said what they saw.

I'm almost entirely in agreement with you and don't really see anything suspicious in the way Lechmere behaved that morning but I do nevertheless appreciate the force of the point that the evidence of Mizen is that Lechmere lied to him. As I've said consistently on this board, that must make Lechmere a person of interest or a suspect - someone worthy of investigation - but that is a very long way from saying that he committed the murder. I mean, if you are investigating a murder you are looking for anyone who does anything slightly odd (which, if Mizen was right, Lechmere did) and the person who discovers the body is in any case almost always someone who will be considered a suspect in any proper investigation, questioned and (usually) eliminated from the investigation.

[Tom_Wescott]

So, is Lechmere 'off the hook' yet?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DRoy]

I don't entirely disagree with you but I would still say that both running or walking away involved an element of danger and risk of being caught (and hung). The thing he would surely have wanted was to ensure that the approaching stranger did not raise the alarm and the only way to guarantee this was to speak to him and thus control him.

David,

There is danger in walking or running away but by running for even seconds just to get further away from the scene gets him closer to turning down other streets and perhaps better hiding places. This again though assumes Paul would have found her, approached her, and could see in the dark that she had been murdered (although we know through their testimony they couldn't even see her wounds).

I'm almost entirely in agreement with you and don't really see anything suspicious in the way Lechmere behaved that morning but I do nevertheless appreciate the force of the point that the evidence of Mizen is that Lechmere lied to him. As I've said consistently on this board, that must make Lechmere a person of interest or a suspect - someone worthy of investigation - but that is a very long way from saying that he committed the murder. I mean, if you are investigating a murder you are looking for anyone who does anything slightly odd (which, if Mizen was right, Lechmere did) and the person who discovers the body is in any case almost always someone who will be considered a suspect in any proper investigation, questioned and (usually) eliminated from the investigation.

I don't disagree with that. I believe he was looked at, questioned and then eliminated.

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

So, is Lechmere 'off the hook' yet?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom,

Only until Fish wakes up.

Cheers
DRoy

[Trevor Marriott]

"My" expert was speaking of the time it would take for all seven liters of blood to leave the body through a cut carotid artery, Trevor. It is a very theoretic construction, since that would predispose that the body was posed in a way that allowed for all the blood to leave.

The more pertinent thing is that the maths were done using the suggestion that the heart was pumping blood throughout. In the Nichols case, there is reason to believe that no heart pumping put the blood vessels under pressure, and it would therefore be a slower process to bleed her out.
But the fact remains that she did not only have one artery cut - she had tow cut, plus all the other vessels in the neck. That should speed up things.
She would also have had a lot less blood than seven liters in her body - thre and a half is a better guess, owing to her small size. That would also speed up the process.
There is also the fact to consider that not all of the three and a half literes would leave the body. Some would stay in the body, due to reasons of gravity. That too would speed up the process.

What end reslut we should expect, however, is very hard to say. There will luckily not be many other victims to compare with, who had their blood let after they were killed by means of cutting off all the blood vessels in the neck.

Maybe somebody has checked the process with for example dead pigs, I don´t know. I would be grateful for any input that we can get, so I welcome whatever your pathologist has to say.

The best,
Fisherman

As per your request to me earlier today to put a number of questions to my forensic pathologist, which I said I would do in the interest of clarity.

He has now replied, and his replies are set out below

The first question I asked

Q. The victim had her throat cut to the point of decapitation. How long would it take for the blood to leave the body, if the body was lying motionless on the ground, and given the wound mentioned how much is likely to be lost.

Now I know you previously mentioned gravity as being a deciding factor with regards to blood loss. Is it possible to be more specific?

A The short answer is that ‘a lot’ of blood would be lost from neck wounds such as this… but the exact volume could vary greatly depending on individual circumstances.

In terms of time, there would be an initial rush of blood, but the victim’s blood pressure would rapidly subside (in a matter of seconds if the blood loss is particularly profuse) so that the rate of flow would become considerably less relatively soon after injury. After the circulation has stopped, it will be down to gravity to continue the blood loss, and clearly this will depend on position / angle and so on. Sometimes a wound will be ‘propped open’ by the position of the body, whereas in other cases the wound may be ‘squeezed shut’ by the weight of the body. Things like vessel spasm and rapid clotting can be surprisingly good at staunching the flow of blood from even very catastrophic injuries. Even if a person is lying such that their injury is gaping open and is ‘down’ in terms of gravitational direction, this does not necessarily mean that blood will continue to flow out until the body is ‘empty’. Things like collapsing vessels and valve effects can prevent this passive flow, and there are lots of ‘corners’ for the blood to go around (it is spread around lots of long thin tubes, not sitting in a large container) before it finds its way out of the injury… so it might end up ‘trapped’ within the body. I have certainly seen cases with multiple large knife wounds and copious blood at the scene, where a significant proportion of the victim’s blood has remained within the vessels to allow me to obtain good samples for toxicological analysis later in the mortuary.

Getting back to the specific case in question, if the body were lying motionless on the ground with significant open neck wounds then I would imagine that at least a few hundred millilitres (and probably considerably more) could flow out passively, and that this would happen within the initial couple of minutes. If this doesn’t sound like a lot, remember that a little bit of blood can look like an awful lot when it is spilled onto the pavement. For the reasons mentioned above, it would be possible that a lot less blood would be apparent at the scene. It is also possible that a continued slow trickle could go on for many minutes after death if the wound / gravity conditions were right, ending up with even a few litres of blood being present in extreme circumstances.

In simple terms, nasty neck wounds can bleed a lot (but don’t always). Blood can leak out after death (and for quite some time). You can’t tell anything about time of injury / death by assessing the blood loss at the scene.

I then asked 3 more questions as set out below to which he gave a collective reply part of which overlaps his firs answer as above

Q.To what extent would the position of the neck have an impact on bleeding for such a wound?

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

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

A. The position of the neck could potentially influence the rate of flow of blood in that it could either ‘hold open’ or ‘squeeze shut’ various vascular injuries. In practice, if the neck was injured almost to the point of decapitation, then there might be little in the way of a ‘clamping’ effect possible no matter how the neck is angled.

I think it is certainly possible that ‘bleeding’ could go on for a period of twenty minutes, although I would make a distinction between ‘post mortem leakage of blood from the body’ and actual ‘bleeding’ that occurred during life. The flow of blood is likely to have slowed to a trickle by this time as pressure inside the vessels would have dissipated and the volume of blood remaining available to leak out would have become very little.

Severe abdominal wounds would ‘contribute’ to the rapidity of bleeding to death, but this effect could range from almost negligible (if the neck wounds were so bad that death would have been very quick, and the abdominal wounds didn’t hit anything major) to very great (if the neck wounds miraculously missed all the major vessels and the abdominal wounds pranged something big).

As always, I am unable to say very much of definite value as things are so variable that drawing firm conclusions in individual cases based on scanty witness accounts is fraught with unreliability.


So where does this leave us now? clearly we know Nichols was found laying on her back. We do not know which side the head was facing. This is relevant as if her head was facing away from the cut to the throat then the wound would have been more open than if she had been facing inwards thereby stemming the blood flow somewhat as has been pointed out by the pathologist. Perhaps her face was positioned facing up at no angle.

We can almost assume that death was instantaneous.

What we don't know, and this is important to your theory is the interpretation of the blood flow from the witnesses who saw the body. We have to take into account it was dark. The throat had been cut so we would expect to see blood emanating from this wound, irrespective of the time of death whether it be 5 mins or 25 mins before there would have been blood coming from this neck wound.

The following shows flaws in what you seek to rely on

Pc Neil says their was blood oozing from the neck

Cross says he didn't notice any blood and makes no reference to the neck wound because it was dark

Paul didn't notice any blood because it was dark

Dr Llewellyn says there was very little blood on the neck. How reliable is he? the same doctor who didn't even notice the abdominal wounds at the crime scene so he isn't the best to rely on is he?

The pathologist states that it would be possible for a body to still be bleeding some 20 minute after death.

And of course we get back to Dr Llewellyns estimated time of death which was nothing more than guesswork.

So I am sorry to say the pieces to your jigsaw do not fit as you believe they do and Cross could not have been the killer

[drstrange169]

Sorry Fish, you're obviously having a bad day:

>> ... Paul gave his interview on the 1:st, presumably, as it was in the papers on the 2:nd.

According to Lloyds,
"On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative..."



>>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. <<

"The facts are that Constable John Neil was walking down Buck's-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four on Friday morning..."
East London Advertiser
1 Sept

"At a quarter to four o'clock Police constable Neill, 97 J, when in Buck's row..."
Daily News
1 Sept

"At a quarter to four ..."
Evening News
1 Sept


"At a quarter to four ..."
Morning Advertiser
1 Sept


Finally,


"At a quarter to 4 o'clock Police-constable Neill, 97J..."
The Times 1 Sept



>>And it is not said that this time was exact. <<

See the above.

By the time the "Lloyds representative" spoke to Paul on Friday night it was common knowledge that PC Neil had discovered the body at a claimed time of 3:45. Even the stupidest reporter would have been aware of the significance of Paul claiming the same time. Particularly so, given Paul's vehement accusations against both Neil and Mizen.


"He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead."

" If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see."

[Fisherman]

I'm afraid I don't remember, Fish, but good night. I hope you have no difficulty reaching your bedside table, despite its doubtless being several feet from the bed.

No probs, Robert - it´s just two yards away, right by my side.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Fish,

Wouldn't he be making his life easier if he said he left his house at 3:35 instead of around 3:30 so there would be no 'time gap'? Wouldn't he be making his life easier if he didn't make a comment to Mizen about a policeman wanting him in Buck's Row? Wouldn't he be making his life easier if he just ran or and hid instead of bringing Paul over to the body? Wouldn't he make his life easier by not killing someone so close to his work time?

I could go on but I think you get my point. Sure, if he was the killer, I guess you're right, he got away with it! However, he sure made a lot of decisions that did make his life harder.

Cheers
DRoy

He made no decisions at all that made his life harder. Nobody questioned his story, and he was let go, remember?

Overall, if he was the killer, he made a remarkable set of decisions that took him clean past both the police and any responsibility. There may well be the odd decision that could have been questionable, but you have to realize that he ended up at an inquest where he could not make any decisions about what was going to be asked of him. Some things would be obvious, and he could prepare for them, but once he was asked something he had not pondered, he had to make his call in a split second, otherwise he would be toast.

Let´s look at your examples!

If he normally left home at 3.30, and if he was unprepared for the question, then he needed to adjust things to fit snugly with the events. But did he know what time it was when he killed Nichols? Did he know how much time he should add? Was his wife with him when he left home, posing a threat if he lied? Could he not just say that he left home at around 3.30, and then amend it if the coroner saw anything suspicious about it, by perhaps saying that he had to stop to take a leak, fix his shoes or something?

If he didn´t con Mizen about the other PC, and if he was hoest about the woman perhaps being dead, he could count on Mizen detaining him. WIth the weapon concealed on his person. Let´s not forget that. It would be a far more perilous situation to be in. Even if there had been no PC in Bucks Row when Mizen arrived there, he would still have had the time to get rid of the weapon, to clean up and to think things over.
Basically, what he would need to to would be to lie: No, I didn´t say anything about a PC in Bucks Row.
... and he did that anyway, did he not? So why would the inquest out less trust in him if there had NOT been a PC in place, than they did WITH the PC in place? It was the exact same lie.

Wouldn´t it have been better to run? Where? Down to Baker´s Row, into the arms of Mizen, while Paul was yelling blue murder in Buck´s Row?
No, it would not have been better to run. It would have been extremely risky, and he would have been identified as the killer if caught. If the bluff with Paul did not pan out, he could kill him and make off. As it happens, his favoured scenario worked.
But seriously, once he killed Nichols, do you really think that there was a way out of it that involved NO danger?

Was it a daft thing to kill en route to work? That´s a practical question, and if he had no other opportunity, then that sealed the deal. Plus, if I am correct and he was the killer, then he was undoubtedly a psychopath and a risktaker who may very well have welcomed the risks and the danger. He may actively have chosen to kill out in the open street for the thrill, and he may equally have proceeded to Pickfords for the hell of it.

Regardless of who the killer was, DRoy - do you think he did what he did to facilitate his life?

I don´t.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sorry Fish, you're obviously having a bad day:

>> ... Paul gave his interview on the 1:st, presumably, as it was in the papers on the 2:nd.

According to Lloyds,
"On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative..."



>>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. <<

"The facts are that Constable John Neil was walking down Buck's-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four on Friday morning..."
East London Advertiser
1 Sept

"At a quarter to four o'clock Police constable Neill, 97 J, when in Buck's row..."
Daily News
1 Sept

"At a quarter to four ..."
Evening News
1 Sept


"At a quarter to four ..."
Morning Advertiser
1 Sept


Finally,


"At a quarter to 4 o'clock Police-constable Neill, 97J..."
The Times 1 Sept



>>And it is not said that this time was exact. <<

See the above.

By the time the "Lloyds representative" spoke to Paul on Friday night it was common knowledge that PC Neil had discovered the body at a claimed time of 3:45. Even the stupidest reporter would have been aware of the significance of Paul claiming the same time. Particularly so, given Paul's vehement accusations against both Neil and Mizen.


"He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead."

" If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see."

You may have noticed that this issue has already been answered in a post of mine to David.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

As per your request to me earlier today to put a number of questions to my forensic pathologist, which I said I would do in the interest of clarity.

He has now replied, and his replies are set out below

The first question I asked

Q. The victim had her throat cut to the point of decapitation. How long would it take for the blood to leave the body, if the body was lying motionless on the ground, and given the wound mentioned how much is likely to be lost.

Now I know you previously mentioned gravity as being a deciding factor with regards to blood loss. Is it possible to be more specific?

A The short answer is that ‘a lot’ of blood would be lost from neck wounds such as this… but the exact volume could vary greatly depending on individual circumstances.

In terms of time, there would be an initial rush of blood, but the victim’s blood pressure would rapidly subside (in a matter of seconds if the blood loss is particularly profuse) so that the rate of flow would become considerably less relatively soon after injury. After the circulation has stopped, it will be down to gravity to continue the blood loss, and clearly this will depend on position / angle and so on. Sometimes a wound will be ‘propped open’ by the position of the body, whereas in other cases the wound may be ‘squeezed shut’ by the weight of the body. Things like vessel spasm and rapid clotting can be surprisingly good at staunching the flow of blood from even very catastrophic injuries. Even if a person is lying such that their injury is gaping open and is ‘down’ in terms of gravitational direction, this does not necessarily mean that blood will continue to flow out until the body is ‘empty’. Things like collapsing vessels and valve effects can prevent this passive flow, and there are lots of ‘corners’ for the blood to go around (it is spread around lots of long thin tubes, not sitting in a large container) before it finds its way out of the injury… so it might end up ‘trapped’ within the body. I have certainly seen cases with multiple large knife wounds and copious blood at the scene, where a significant proportion of the victim’s blood has remained within the vessels to allow me to obtain good samples for toxicological analysis later in the mortuary.

Getting back to the specific case in question, if the body were lying motionless on the ground with significant open neck wounds then I would imagine that at least a few hundred millilitres (and probably considerably more) could flow out passively, and that this would happen within the initial couple of minutes. If this doesn’t sound like a lot, remember that a little bit of blood can look like an awful lot when it is spilled onto the pavement. For the reasons mentioned above, it would be possible that a lot less blood would be apparent at the scene. It is also possible that a continued slow trickle could go on for many minutes after death if the wound / gravity conditions were right, ending up with even a few litres of blood being present in extreme circumstances.

In simple terms, nasty neck wounds can bleed a lot (but don’t always). Blood can leak out after death (and for quite some time). You can’t tell anything about time of injury / death by assessing the blood loss at the scene.

I then asked 3 more questions as set out below to which he gave a collective reply part of which overlaps his firs answer as above

Q.To what extent would the position of the neck have an impact on bleeding for such a wound?

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

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

A. The position of the neck could potentially influence the rate of flow of blood in that it could either ‘hold open’ or ‘squeeze shut’ various vascular injuries. In practice, if the neck was injured almost to the point of decapitation, then there might be little in the way of a ‘clamping’ effect possible no matter how the neck is angled.

I think it is certainly possible that ‘bleeding’ could go on for a period of twenty minutes, although I would make a distinction between ‘post mortem leakage of blood from the body’ and actual ‘bleeding’ that occurred during life. The flow of blood is likely to have slowed to a trickle by this time as pressure inside the vessels would have dissipated and the volume of blood remaining available to leak out would have become very little.

Severe abdominal wounds would ‘contribute’ to the rapidity of bleeding to death, but this effect could range from almost negligible (if the neck wounds were so bad that death would have been very quick, and the abdominal wounds didn’t hit anything major) to very great (if the neck wounds miraculously missed all the major vessels and the abdominal wounds pranged something big).

As always, I am unable to say very much of definite value as things are so variable that drawing firm conclusions in individual cases based on scanty witness accounts is fraught with unreliability.


So where does this leave us now? clearly we know Nichols was found laying on her back. We do not know which side the head was facing. This is relevant as if her head was facing away from the cut to the throat then the wound would have been more open than if she had been facing inwards thereby stemming the blood flow somewhat as has been pointed out by the pathologist. Perhaps her face was positioned facing up at no angle.

We can almost assume that death was instantaneous.

What we don't know, and this is important to your theory is the interpretation of the blood flow from the witnesses who saw the body. We have to take into account it was dark. The throat had been cut so we would expect to see blood emanating from this wound, irrespective of the time of death whether it be 5 mins or 25 mins before there would have been blood coming from this neck wound.

The following shows flaws in what you seek to rely on

Pc Neil says their was blood oozing from the neck

Cross says he didn't notice any blood and makes no reference to the neck wound because it was dark

Paul didn't notice any blood because it was dark

Dr Llewellyn says there was very little blood on the neck. How reliable is he? the same doctor who didn't even notice the abdominal wounds at the crime scene so he isn't the best to rely on is he?

The pathologist states that it would be possible for a body to still be bleeding some 20 minute after death.

And of course we get back to Dr Llewellyns estimated time of death which was nothing more than guesswork.

So I am sorry to say the pieces to your jigsaw do not fit as you believe they do and Cross could not have been the killer

Let´s begin from the end, Trevor. You say that Lechmere could not have been the killer.
That is incredibly ill informed. You seem to have no clue at all what the case is about.

I will allow you the opportunity to expand on your suggestion by adding a "because"; Lechmere could not have been the killer because ...?

After that, let´s look at some of the points made by the pathologist that you have obviously misinterpreted rather badly.

Let´s begin with the position of the neck, shall we? You speak of how it would have an impact in which direction her face was. You add that "This is relevant as if her head was facing away from the cut to the throat then the wound would have been more open than if she had been facing inwards thereby stemming the blood flow somewhat as has been pointed out by the pathologist". But what the pathologist clearly says is "The position of the neck could potentially influence the rate of flow of blood in that it could either ‘hold open’ or ‘squeeze shut’ various vascular injuries. In practice, if the neck was injured almost to the point of decapitation, then there might be little in the way of a ‘clamping’ effect possible no matter how the neck is angled."

And we do know that the neck was cut to the point of near decapitation, Trevor. So this point of yours is no point at all - there would have been a free and unhampered flow of blood.

What more does the pathologist say? Well, he says that "After the circulation has stopped, it will be down to gravity to continue the blood loss, and clearly this will depend on position / angle and so on."

That was however just a general observation, and as we have had it established that a totally severed neck, down to the point of decapitation, will provide a free outflow of the blood, which is why positions and angles are something that we need not concern ourselves with. Gravitation and gravitation only would have ruled the time it took to bleed out.

Furthermore, "Things like vessel spasm and rapid clotting can be surprisingly good at staunching the flow of blood from even very catastrophic injuries. Even if a person is lying such that their injury is gaping open and is ‘down’ in terms of gravitational direction, this does not necessarily mean that blood will continue to flow out until the body is ‘empty’."

This is a mechanism that could have stopped the bleeding before all the blood that would otherwise have left the body on grounds of gravitation. It could have shortened the process, therefore.

Now, Trevor, we get to the main point: "Getting back to the specific case in question, if the body were lying motionless on the ground with significant open neck wounds then I would imagine that at least a few hundred millilitres (and probably considerably more) could flow out passively, and that this would happen within the initial couple of minutes."

There we are: If the body is motionless on the ground - and Nichols was - and if the body has "significant open neck wounds" - and it had a lot more than that! - then the blood that would leave the body in a passive flow (not being driven by a pumping heart, that is) would run away within the initial couple of minutes!

And this is exactly what I have been proposing.

Next: "For the reasons mentioned above, it would be possible that a lot less blood would be apparent at the scene. It is also possible that a continued slow trickle could go on for many minutes after death if the wound / gravity conditions were right."

Here, the pathologist suddenly says that the bloodflow could go on for many minutes. But didn´t he just say that it would all run away withing the initial couple of minutes?
Yes, he did. But that was with a motionless body with "significant open neck wounds". And let´s NOT loose sight of how this is the exact description of Nichols!
So what about the "many minutes" thing? Well, THAT relates to, as the pathologist promptly points out, "the reasons mentioned above" - if the bloodflow was obstructed by being "squeezed shut" by positioning of the body and/or bodyweight. But we know that this could not be the case with Nichols, since she was stretched out on her back, and since her nack was cut to the point of decapitation, meaning that "if the neck was injured almost to the point of decapitation, then there might be little in the way of a ‘clamping’ effect possible no matter how the neck is angled."

Now for a shortish issue: "You can’t tell anything about time of injury / death by assessing the blood loss at the scene." This is made very clear by the pathologist when he says that regardless of the severity of the wound, the blood can stop running in the vessels for many reasons, like spasms in the vessels and clotting within them. This will mean that we cannot make heads or tails of the blood amounts. What we CAN say, however, is that the general impression that there was very little blood on the crime spot, speaks very much in favour of how some of the blood that should have left Nichols on account of gravity, actually may never have done so. This could - and arguably would - well be on account of clotting vessels and vessel spasms.

Now to the point that you must have felt spoke in favour of your own guesswork: "I think it is certainly possible that ‘bleeding’ could go on for a period of twenty minutes, although I would make a distinction between ‘post mortem leakage of blood from the body’ and actual ‘bleeding’ that occurred during life."

This is a generalized answer, Trevor, and I hope you understand that. The pathologist have already stated what we need to know, and basically, it reads like this:

-A dead person who has her neck cut, will bleed. How long that person will bleed depends on a number of things.

-The ones that will bleed for the longest time are those who do nut suffer much bloodclotting or spasms within their vessels, who have not suffered too extensive traumas to their necks and who end up in a position where the angling of the body in combination with weight pressure exerted on the damaged area, thus "squeezing shut" the vessels. The pathologist does not exclude that such a person can bleed for twenty minutes.

-The ones who will bleed for the shortest time are the ones who do suffer extensive clotting and spasms of their vessels, who have had their necks cut totally open so that no angling of the body can "squeeze shut" the vessels, and who are lying motionless in a position that does not hamper the bloodflow. In such a case, the blood will flow out passively and it will happen (quoting the pathologist) "within the initial couple of minutes".

This is what your pathologist says, Trevor. And instead of taking Lechmere out of the picture, he is very nearly nailed by the verdict. In Nichols´ case, we should expect the blood to flow out "within the initial couple of minutes".

How long a period of time is that? The initial couple of minutes, I mean? Four? Five? That would sound about true to me. I don´t think that we can stretch it to eight or ten - to me that would be beyond the initial couple of minutes. A couple of minutes is not ten minutes.

If your pathologist is worth his salt, then he just fingered Charles Allen Lechmere for the murder of Polly Nichols, Trevor.

One more point, just to show that the reasoning is very generalized. When the pathologist speaks of the abdominal wounds, towards the end of the text, he says "Severe abdominal wounds would ‘contribute’ to the rapidity of bleeding to death, but this effect could range from almost negligible (if the neck wounds were so bad that death would have been very quick, and the abdominal wounds didn’t hit anything major) to very great (if the neck wounds miraculously missed all the major vessels and the abdominal wounds pranged something big)."

This is very academic, since we know that the major vessels in the neck were NOT "miraculously missed". And that is how your man has - discerningly and commendably - answered throughout. He wisely ends by saying "As always, I am unable to say very much of definite value as things are so variable that drawing firm conclusions in individual cases based on scanty witness accounts is fraught with unreliability."

This means that we are left with the question of how reliable the witness reports were concerning how Nichols lay on the ground and how complete the severing of the neck was.

If Nichols was positioned in a way that hampered the bloodflow, and if she was superficially cut, then she could have bled for twenty minutes.

If she was stretched out and lying motionless, and if her neck was so severly cut that no squeezing shut of the vessels was possible, then she would only bleed for the initial couple of minutes after she was cut.

PC Neil arguably saw Nichols´ neck oozing blood around two or three minutes after Lechmere left her. As for Mizen, he would have noted that fresh blood was running from the wound some four or five minutes after the carman´s departure from outside the doors of Browns Stable Yard.

As far as pathologist evidence goes, I really don´t think that I could have asked for more than this.

Without wishing to sound smug, I would like to thank you for having posed these questions to your pathologist, Trevor.

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Well done, Fish, for you have just 'proved' that Neil murdered Nichols.

[Trevor Marriott]

Let´s begin from the end, Trevor. You say that Lechmere could not have been the killer.
That is incredibly ill informed. You seem to have no clue at all what the case is about.

I will allow you the opportunity to expand on your suggestion by adding a "because"; Lechmere could not have been the killer because ...?

After that, let´s look at some of the points made by the pathologist that you have obviously misinterpreted rather badly.

Let´s begin with the position of the neck, shall we? You speak of how it would have an impact in which direction her face was. You add that "This is relevant as if her head was facing away from the cut to the throat then the wound would have been more open than if she had been facing inwards thereby stemming the blood flow somewhat as has been pointed out by the pathologist". But what the pathologist clearly says is "The position of the neck could potentially influence the rate of flow of blood in that it could either ‘hold open’ or ‘squeeze shut’ various vascular injuries. In practice, if the neck was injured almost to the point of decapitation, then there might be little in the way of a ‘clamping’ effect possible no matter how the neck is angled."

And we do know that the neck was cut to the point of near decapitation, Trevor. So this point of yours is no point at all - there would have been a free and unhampered flow of blood.

What more does the pathologist say? Well, he says that "After the circulation has stopped, it will be down to gravity to continue the blood loss, and clearly this will depend on position / angle and so on."

That was however just a general observation, and as we have had it established that a totally severed neck, down to the point of decapitation, will provide a free outflow of the blood, which is why positions and angles are something that we need not concern ourselves with. Gravitation and gravitation only would have ruled the time it took to bleed out.

Furthermore, "Things like vessel spasm and rapid clotting can be surprisingly good at staunching the flow of blood from even very catastrophic injuries. Even if a person is lying such that their injury is gaping open and is ‘down’ in terms of gravitational direction, this does not necessarily mean that blood will continue to flow out until the body is ‘empty’."

This is a mechanism that could have stopped the bleeding before all the blood that would otherwise have left the body on grounds of gravitation. It could have shortened the process, therefore.

Now, Trevor, we get to the main point: "Getting back to the specific case in question, if the body were lying motionless on the ground with significant open neck wounds then I would imagine that at least a few hundred millilitres (and probably considerably more) could flow out passively, and that this would happen within the initial couple of minutes."

Conjecture on your part

There we are: If the body is motionless on the ground - and Nichols was - and if the body has "significant open neck wounds" - and it had a lot more than that! - then the blood that would leave the body in a passive flow (not being driven by a pumping heart, that is) would run away within the initial couple of minutes!

And this is exactly what I have been proposing.

Conjecture on your part again you are not a pathologist

Next: "For the reasons mentioned above, it would be possible that a lot less blood would be apparent at the scene. It is also possible that a continued slow trickle could go on for many minutes after death if the wound / gravity conditions were right."

Here, the pathologist suddenly says that the bloodflow could go on for many minutes. But didn´t he just say that it would all run away withing the initial couple of minutes?

Yes, he did. But that was with a motionless body with "significant open neck wounds". And let´s NOT loose sight of how this is the exact description of Nichols!
So what about the "many minutes" thing? Well, THAT relates to, as the pathologist promptly points out, "the reasons mentioned above" - if the bloodflow was obstructed by being "squeezed shut" by positioning of the body and/or bodyweight. But we know that this could not be the case with Nichols, since she was stretched out on her back, and since her nack was cut to the point of decapitation, meaning that "if the neck was injured almost to the point of decapitation, then there might be little in the way of a ‘clamping’ effect possible no matter how the neck is angled."

Again conjecture on your part

Now for a shortish issue: "You can’t tell anything about time of injury / death by assessing the blood loss at the scene." This is made very clear by the pathologist when he says that regardless of the severity of the wound, the blood can stop running in the vessels for many reasons, like spasms in the vessels and clotting within them. This will mean that we cannot make heads or tails of the blood amounts. What we CAN say, however, is that the general impression that there was very little blood on the crime spot, speaks very much in favour of how some of the blood that should have left Nichols on account of gravity, actually may never have done so. This could - and arguably would - well be on account of clotting vessels and vessel spasms.

Exactly how much blood was at the scene cant be proven conclusively

Now to the point that you must have felt spoke in favour of your own guesswork: "I think it is certainly possible that ‘bleeding’ could go on for a period of twenty minutes, although I would make a distinction between ‘post mortem leakage of blood from the body’ and actual ‘bleeding’ that occurred during life."

This is a generalized answer, Trevor, and I hope you understand that. The pathologist have already stated what we need to know, and basically, it reads like this:

-A dead person who has her neck cut, will bleed. How long that person will bleed depends on a number of things.

-The ones that will bleed for the longest time are those who do nut suffer much bloodclotting or spasms within their vessels, who have not suffered too extensive traumas to their necks and who end up in a position where the angling of the body in combination with weight pressure exerted on the damaged area, thus "squeezing shut" the vessels. The pathologist does not exclude that such a person can bleed for twenty minutes.

-The ones who will bleed for the shortest time are the ones who do suffer extensive clotting and spasms of their vessels, who have had their necks cut totally open so that no angling of the body can "squeeze shut" the vessels, and who are lying motionless in a position that does not hamper the bloodflow. In such a case, the blood will flow out passively and it will happen (quoting the pathologist) "within the initial couple of minutes".

But you cant prove either you cherry picking wjich one suits you theory

This is what your pathologist says, Trevor. And instead of taking Lechmere out of the picture, he is very nearly nailed by the verdict. In Nichols´ case, we should expect the blood to flow out "within the initial couple of minutes".

How long a period of time is that? The initial couple of minutes, I mean? Four? Five? That would sound about true to me. I don´t think that we can stretch it to eight or ten - to me that would be beyond the initial couple of minutes. A couple of minutes is not ten minutes.

If your pathologist is worth his salt, then he just fingered Charles Allen Lechmere for the murder of Polly Nichols, Trevor.

You are deluded

One more point, just to show that the reasoning is very generalized. When the pathologist speaks of the abdominal wounds, towards the end of the text, he says "Severe abdominal wounds would ‘contribute’ to the rapidity of bleeding to death, but this effect could range from almost negligible (if the neck wounds were so bad that death would have been very quick, and the abdominal wounds didn’t hit anything major) to very great (if the neck wounds miraculously missed all the major vessels and the abdominal wounds pranged something big)."

This is very academic, since we know that the major vessels in the neck were NOT "miraculously missed". And that is how your man has - discerningly and commendably - answered throughout. He wisely ends by saying "As always, I am unable to say very much of definite value as things are so variable that drawing firm conclusions in individual cases based on scanty witness accounts is fraught with unreliability."

This means that we are left with the question of how reliable the witness reports were concerning how Nichols lay on the ground and how complete the severing of the neck was.

If Nichols was positioned in a way that hampered the bloodflow, and if she was superficially cut, then she could have bled for twenty minutes.

If she was stretched out and lying motionless, and if her neck was so severly cut that no squeezing shut of the vessels was possible, then she would only bleed for the initial couple of minutes after she was cut.

PC Neil arguably saw Nichols´ neck oozing blood around two or three minutes after Lechmere left her. As for Mizen, he would have noted that fresh blood was running from the wound some four or five minutes after the carman´s departure from outside the doors of Browns Stable Yard.

As far as pathologist evidence goes, I really don´t think that I could have asked for more than this.

Without wishing to sound smug, I would like to thank you for having posed these questions to your pathologist, Trevor.

The best,
Fisherman

Fish
I am not going to keep arguing with you because it is clear that you are fixated with this theory and that nothing anyone says to you, or what is put before you is going to change your mind.

Despite the biased way you interpret the pathologists comments, you fail to accept that your theory falls down for the following reasons

1. The exact time of death cannot be firmly established
(on this aspect you rely on Dr Llewellyn stating death had occurred at
about 3.45am) As we now know this was guesswork

2. The time of death cannot be established through looking at a wound.
(Again another factor you seek to rely on)

3. The time of death cannot be established through blood loss
(Again another factor you seek to rely on)

4. The witness timings are all over the place and are un reliable, and
therefore this has a direct bearing on your theory because your theory is
based on the timings being correct

What are the pathologists last words " I am unable to say very much of definite value as things are so variable that drawing firm conclusions in individual cases based on scanty witness accounts is fraught with unreliability.

Despite that you seem to think that the witnesses are 100% reliable and you are drawing firm conclusions !

Taking into all that I have stated above I personally am still happy to say that Cross was not the killer.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Well done, Fish, for you have just 'proved' that Neil murdered Nichols.

Well at least we have at last eliminated Cross

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

Well done, Fish, for you have just 'proved' that Neil murdered Nichols.

The give away is PC Neil`s carroty moustache ... !!

[Fisherman]

Well done, Fish, for you have just 'proved' that Neil murdered Nichols.

Yes, that would be what you would post, would it not, Robert?

Firstly, I did not prove anything at all - it was Trevors pathologist who laid down the facts.

He basically says that with the kind of damage Nichols had, and provided that she was lying motionless on the ground, she would bleed out "within the initial couple of minutes".

So according to that, Lechmere is the only plausible killer. He as alone with the victim, and if we are to believe what everybody out here seems to think, the cuts to the throat were delivered first. Then he would have taken a min ut to cut the abdomen. That´s the first minute ticking away.
After that, Paul arrives - another minute goes as he approaches. That´s two.
Then they examine the body, and go to find Mizen, and Paul says that from his meeting Lechmere to finding Mizen, it took four minutes. That´s six minutes gone after the cutting of the neck.
Then Mizen goes down to Bucks Row - add two minutes. We have eight minutes now. And Nichols still bleeds as he gets there.

Maybe he cut the abdomen first, like Llewellyn suggested? It´s back to seven. Maybe it did go a little quicer? That´s still six.

"Within the initial couple of minutes".

We can apparently dismiss Lilley. She did not overhear the murder. And after six minutes, we will have covered the initital couple of minutes. There will be no time left.

You just go ahead and joke, Robert. That´s what you do, right?

But when you´ve done jesting, have a look at the facts. And then tell me that it would not have been Lechmere. Because here is the next thing you have to look away from, the next matter you need to dispell, the next pointer to guilt on Lechmere´s behalf.

Nichols´neck would have been like an open bottle. I cannot think of any possible obstacle for that blood to have left her quickly. It seems that Trevors pathologist has come through for Team Lechmere.

The best,
Fisherman