Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[David Orsam]

If the murder took place 20 mins before the body was found then by the time it was found the wound could have been trickling could it not thus ruling Cross out

I feel I should point out that your attempts at using the expert forensic evidence to eliminate Cross as the killer are not at all convincing and you are handing an easy 'win' to Fisherman each time.

[David Orsam]

As a general comment, I don't really understand all the continued discussion in this thread about the two surnames. I mean, he could just as easily have been hung as Charles Cross as Charles Lechmere. So it's a complete non-point.

[Richard Patterson]

Leaving aside the circumstances of the discovery of Polly Nichol's body for a minute, what proof is there that Lechmere/Cross was ever involved in the deaths of any other Ripper victims?

I have posed a similar question to Fisherman myself on this thread. I asked him how did his suspect know how to cut out Mary Kelly's heart. He didn't respond. I would be very happy if he responds to you.

[Robert]

McKenzie bled for over 20 minutes. However, her neck wounds weren't as severe as those of Nichols.

[curious]

Now, your expert seemed to suggest that we can narrow it down to a maximum of about 20 minutes. (If he did not mean to say this then he probably should not have mentioned such a time).

David,
The expert did NOT narrow the time to 20 minutes -- not ever.

When asked the first question, he stated: It is also possible that a continued slow trickle could go on for many minutes after death . . .

and "Blood can leak out after death (and for quite some time)."

ONLY AFTER being asked the next set of questions, which included 20 minutes exactly, did he say yes 20 minutes was in the realm of possibility for blood to continue flowing from such a wound.

The questions was:
Q.Could a body with this kind of damage bleed from the neck wound for more than twenty minutes?
To which his partial reply was: "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 ONLY REASON THE EXPERT EVEN MENTIONED 20 MINUTES WAS BECAUSE HE WAS ASKED A VERY SPECIFIC QUESTION that mentioned 20 minutes.

curious

[David Orsam]

McKenzie bled for over 20 minutes. However, her neck wounds weren't as severe as those of Nichols.

This looks to be true although, it seems, not much more than 20 minutes before the blood clotted.

[David Orsam]

David,
The expert did NOT narrow the time to 20 minutes -- not ever.

When asked the first question, he stated: It is also possible that a continued slow trickle could go on for many minutes after death . . .

and "Blood can leak out after death (and for quite some time)."

ONLY AFTER being asked the next set of questions, which included 20 minutes exactly, did he say yes 20 minutes was in the realm of possibility for blood to continue flowing from such a wound.

The questions was:
Q.Could a body with this kind of damage bleed from the neck wound for more than twenty minutes?
To which his partial reply was: "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 ONLY REASON THE EXPERT EVEN MENTIONED 20 MINUTES WAS BECAUSE HE WAS ASKED A VERY SPECIFIC QUESTION that mentioned 20 minutes.

curious

I hesitate to respond to this for fear of suddenly being told you are not going to continue to discuss this with me at any moment as you shake your head.
But taking my life into my hands, my response is this:

When the question is:

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

and the answer is:

"I think it is certainly possible that ‘bleeding’ could go on for a period of twenty minutes"

then what it looks like to me, as an interpretation of plain English, is that the expert is saying "NO! It could not really go on for a period of MORE than twenty minutes but it could certainly go on FOR a period of twenty minutes". In other words, twenty minutes is the maximum.

Now, it may be that the expert was careless in his phrasing and/or was not intending to say this. That is why I am suggesting it would be helpful to have some clarification.

AND

I also note that the expert qualified his reply because he continued by saying:

"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.".

I don't really know what the qualification means vis a vis the 20 minutes. I also don't understand whether the clamping vs non-clamping point means that the blood will flow for less than 20 minutes under one of those scenarios.

So all I'm asking for is some clarification of the expert's own words to try and clear up the confusion.

[Richard Patterson]

Newsflash! The Ripper killed more than one person.

Isn’t this thread about getting Lechmere/Cross of the hook? I’m sure in truth Fisherman loves to argue about the timings of the 1st murder, because the argument can go on forever, while onlookers fall asleep.

[DarkPassenger]

This whole debate is stifled for two reasons;

One, the true details of the murders are often clouded by history - particularly, who was and wasn't a victim (eg., Stride was almost certainly not a Ripper victim, except to those who are in love and married to the idea of a Canonical Five).

Two, everyone has a vested interest in the Ripper - their own personal suspects and theories which they defend to the hilt, even ad absurdium.

[David Orsam]

This whole debate is stifled for two reasons;

One, the true details of the murders are often clouded by history - particularly, who was and wasn't a victim (eg., Stride was almost certainly not a Ripper victim, except to those who are in love and married to the idea of a Canonical Five). .

As far as I'm concerned, this debate has been all about who killed Mary Ann Nichols.

Two, everyone has a vested interest in the Ripper - their own personal suspects and theories which they defend to the hilt, even ad absurdium.

Not entirely true. I don't.

[Tom_Wescott]

What does everyone else make of Fish's blood evidence, that blood was still coming from Nichols' neck by the time Thain got to the scene?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[curious]

scenarios.

So all I'm asking for is some clarification of the expert's own words to try and clear up the confusion.

Clarification is always good. I'd personally like to know if the outflowing blood or the dying body would have made any sounds that Paul should have been able to hear if indeed he interrupted Lechmere.

Hope everyone here has a great weekend.

curious

[David Orsam]

What does everyone else make of Fish's blood evidence, that blood was still coming from Nichols' neck by the time Thain got to the scene?

I don't understand what he means or where he has got this from and think he is mistaken to the extent that it derives from Thain's evidence (unless I've missed something). He seems to have a better point in respect of Mizen. The problem is that different newspapers provide slightly different summaries of Mizen's evidence and it's not clear if he was talking about what he saw when he first arrived on the scene, when he returned from arranging an ambulance or when he helped to move the body into the ambulance.

For example, the Star gives this account:

"He assisted in removing the body. He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed".

From that one would think that all Mizen is saying is that, when he helped to remove the body, he saw the trail of blood from the neck to the gutter but his use of the word "running" is not to be taken to mean the blood was flowing.

However, the Echo of the same day summarises the same evidence as follows:

"Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance.

The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter."

This makes it sound rather more like Mizen actually saw the blood flowing to the gutter when he first arrived on the scene.

Then the Morning Advertiser makes it seem like this was when the body was moved:

"I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman"

How do you interpret it all Tom?

[Trevor Marriott]

I feel I should point out that your attempts at using the expert forensic evidence to eliminate Cross as the killer are not at all convincing and you are handing an easy 'win' to Fisherman each time.

First of all with regards to the experts they can only give opinions those opinions are not set in stone.

In this case the expert can only scratch the surface and give an opinion from afar, because he did not attend the crime scene he did not see the body in situ, and did not carry out the post mortem. His answers are of a general nature

What he does say must be considered but not taken literally. Fish has continued to create smoke screens with regard to trying to keep his theory alive.

With regards to this blood loss, as I keep saying the expert has indicated what could happen with regards to blood loss by explaining different scenarios which might effect blood loss or cause excessive blood loss.

When we look at them all in relation to what Fish is using i.e that because according to a witness blood was still oozing from the wound so that means the victim was freshly killed, that cannot be proved by what has been said by the expert, in fact as I previously posted he said that blood could still flow up to 20 mins in some cases and then be reduced to a trickle.

What we dont know is whether or not Nicholls was strangled first, if that were the case then that would change the whole blood loss scenario from Fish`s perspective. We cannot rule this out, having regard for the fact that other victims may have also been strangled first.

Now for me I have no hidden agenda in all of this. The object of the exercise is to prove or disprove what Fish is suggesting. To do that we have to look at the overall picture and that include the witnesses, their timings and their actions as well as what Cross said and did.

The outcome of that is that is

1. The timings of the witnesses are unreliable
2. The various conversations between witnesses are unreliable
3. The timings, and movements of Cross are unreliable
4. The evidence of the doctor at the crime scene is unreliable
5. The time of death is unreliable as given by the doctor
6. The time of death cannot be established by looking at a wound
7. What the witnesses saw at the crime scene is unreliable and conflicting

Now if all these inconsistencies had been presented to Scobie and Griffiths there is no way on this earth they would have said what the said in the program, and where would that leave Fish, for without the experts to prop his theory up he has sweet FA and Cross becomes nothing more that another member of the public stumbling upon a murdered victim.

If you or anyone else are not happy with the forensic experts opinion feel free to seek out another one

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

David,
The expert did NOT narrow the time to 20 minutes -- not ever.

When asked the first question, he stated: It is also possible that a continued slow trickle could go on for many minutes after death . . .

and "Blood can leak out after death (and for quite some time)."

ONLY AFTER being asked the next set of questions, which included 20 minutes exactly, did he say yes 20 minutes was in the realm of possibility for blood to continue flowing from such a wound.

The questions was:
Q.Could a body with this kind of damage bleed from the neck wound for more than twenty minutes?
To which his partial reply was: "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 ONLY REASON THE EXPERT EVEN MENTIONED 20 MINUTES WAS BECAUSE HE WAS ASKED A VERY SPECIFIC QUESTION that mentioned 20 minutes.

curious

and that was a question Fish asked me to put to the expert !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk