Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Trevor Marriott]

This paragraph is incomprehensible to me. If the expert says that blood can only flow from the neck wound of a motionless corpse for up to 20 minutes - and we know it was still flowing at 3:45 when PC Neil observed it doing so (or "oozing") - then how can you possibly say that the murder could have taken place 40 minutes before the body was found????? It doesn't make any sense to me, unless you are separating the time between strangulation and the cutting of the throat which seems unlikely in the extreme. I mean, this is the entire issue that I am trying to establish - can the blood run from a neck wound in these circumstances for 40 minutes?

But we dont know it was still "flowing" for sure at 3.45am all we have to go on are various descriptions of what the witnesses saw. Much of which conflicts with each other.

I am not supporting the strangulation theory I am keeping all options open but this must be considered as must the fact that she simply had her throat cut and that was the cause of death

As has been pointed out to you there is a big difference between flowing and oozing.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

As has been pointed out to you there is a big difference between flowing and oozing.

When was this pointed out to me?

Chambers Dictionary

Ooze - to flow gently, to percolate, as a liquid through pores or small openings, to leak.

Collins English Dictionary

Ooze - to flow or leak our slowly.

Oxford Dictionary of English

Ooze - slowly trickle or seep out of something.

Concise Oxford English Dictionary

Ooze - (of a fluid) slowly trickle or seep out.

Right, so now we all now what ooze means, we need to find out how long blood can ooze out of a neck wound in the circumstances described. And yes, fine, let's find out the difference between blood oozing out of a throat wound which causes death and one made after death (i.e. through strangulation). We can argue about which one applies to Nichols at our heart's content later but we need to know the science first.

[Trevor Marriott]

When was this pointed out to me?

Chambers Dictionary

Ooze - to flow gently, to percolate, as a liquid through pores or small openings, to leak.

Collins English Dictionary

Ooze - to flow or leak our slowly.

Oxford Dictionary of English

Ooze - slowly trickle or seep out of something.

Concise Oxford English Dictionary

Ooze - (of a fluid) slowly trickle or seep out.

Right, so now we all now what ooze means, we need to find out how long blood can ooze out of a neck wound in the circumstances described. And yes, fine, let's find out the difference between blood oozing out of a throat wound which causes death and one made after death (i.e. through strangulation). We can argue about which one applies to Nichols at our heart's content later but we need to know the science first.

We are never going to be able to conclusively prove that. This was a question I first put to the expert

1. How long does blood keep flowing/seeping from a wound where a victim had their throat cut, which has resulted in death? I know previously you did say that sometimes the blood flow would be internal however this is a different scenario.

Here is the firs part of that reply which has already been posted in full previous

First part of reply

" This is one of those ‘piece of string’ questions"

Maybe now this issue can be put to bed !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

" This is one of those ‘piece of string’ questions"

Yes, I read that at the time and have taken it into consideration. But (1) that does not answer the question of what is the maximum amount of time that such oozing is physically possible bearing in mind the nature of blood, the amount of blood in a human body, and the laws of physics (2) it is not clear if the 'piece of string' reference is a mention to the various different scenarios that your expert has referred to (such as clamping v non clamping etc.) so that while certain time ranges can (?) be stated for certain scenarios, the expert was saying that one time does not fit all and (3) despite the 'piece of string' reference, your expert nevertheless did provide us with a time for which blood can flow, of twenty minutes, and I am hoping he can clarify what he meant by that - whether that is the maximum or whether it can go on for (much) longer - and whether the caveats he also mentioned would tend to reduce the time that such flow is possible.

[martin wilson]

Hi David

You may have to settle for being right that TOD can be established by the evidence given certain conditions.
And accept that Trevor is right that TOD cannot be established from THIS evidence.
All the best.

[David Orsam]

Hi David

You may have to settle for being right that TOD can be established by the evidence given certain conditions.
And accept that Trevor is right that TOD cannot be established from THIS evidence.
All the best.

Hi Martin,

Read my posts again. I'm not trying to establish time of death!!!

[martin wilson]

Hi David

Then you will have to forgive me because I'm not quite sure what it is you are getting at.
I don't see any cherry picking in Trevor's posts, he has simply pointed out the variables involved, we, and the experts were not there.
All the best.

[David Orsam]

Hi David

Then you will have to forgive me because I'm not quite sure what it is you are getting at.

Well, for example, as I wrote in my post #1014:

"I'm not actually expecting to establish a precise time of death here for Nichols. What I'm wondering is if it is possible for a forensic pathologist to give a "not before" time of death based on continuing blood flow. In other words, if, at midnight, a forensic pathologist examines a dead body from which blood is still flowing from a neck wound, can that forensic pathologist tell the police "this person was definitely killed (or at least had their throat cut) after 11pm"?. Or can he/she do better and say after 11:30pm, or after 11:40pm? Can the police with confidence then focus only on suspects who don't have an alibi for this time period."

I don't see any cherry picking in Trevor's posts, he has simply pointed out the variables involved, we, and the experts were not there.

Did I accuse Trevor of cherry picking? I thought my point was very simple. We need more information from the expert to clarify his own words. I assume that the expert knows what he was trying to say. The problem is that I don't (and, from what I have read in this thread, no-one else is certain either). So it doesn't matter whether the expert was there or not because I am not asking anything now about the actual murder of Mary Ann Nichols. I know there are variables involved because the expert has said so, but the expert has not explained the practical effect of those variables, i.e. whether they will shorten or increase the duration of the blood flow.

[Fisherman]

When was this pointed out to me?

Chambers Dictionary

Ooze - to flow gently, to percolate, as a liquid through pores or small openings, to leak.

Collins English Dictionary

Ooze - to flow or leak our slowly.

Oxford Dictionary of English

Ooze - slowly trickle or seep out of something.

Concise Oxford English Dictionary

Ooze - (of a fluid) slowly trickle or seep out.

Right, so now we all now what ooze means, we need to find out how long blood can ooze out of a neck wound in the circumstances described. And yes, fine, let's find out the difference between blood oozing out of a throat wound which causes death and one made after death (i.e. through strangulation). We can argue about which one applies to Nichols at our heart's content later but we need to know the science first.

I found this sentence on the net:

I guess that one could say that dead bodies don’t bleed so much as they ooze.

Makes sense to me.

As for the difference inbetween bleeding from a cut artery in a living person as opposed to in a dead person, the simple answer is that the blood will leave a living person at a quicker rate, due to the pressure in the veins.

Returning to the initial post by Trevors pathologist, he said that "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."

Here he obviously refers to the specific Nichols case, relating how the body was situated (lying motionless on the ground) and the extent of the damage done to the neck (significant open neck wounds). He then adds that in such a case (and this relates to a case such as the Nichols case) he would imagine that an amount of at least a few hundred millilitres of blood - and probably considerably more - could flow out passively.
So here he tells us that the amount of blood that could flow out passively (as in after death and with no pressure from a beating heart) could range in amount from a few hundred millilitres up to "considerably more", the latter amount not being specified.
Regardless of the amount, though, he says that "this would happen within the initial couple of minutes".

If he had said no more than this, we would not be having any discussion over the matter, for it would be totally clear that he said "In a case like the Polly Nichols case, whatever amount of blood left the body passively afterwards, would leave it in the initial couple of minutes.

However, the pathologist says a few more things, that veil this issue to some extent.

For example, he says that "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."

Does this passage relate to the Nichols murder, or is it a general observation? Does he think that Nichols, specifically, could have bled for many minutes on account of the "wound/gravity conditions" being right?

The interesting thing is that the pathologist KNEW the wound/gravity conditions in Nichols case. He just established them: She was lying motionless on the ground (correct) and had significant open neck wounds (correct). And he clearly said that with these parameters in place, he would imagine the bleeding to be overwith within the initial couple of minutes.

The question about what sort of wound/gravity conditions would enable a slow trickle of blood to go on is an interesting one. I would suggest that the wound conditions that could slow the process down would be of two types:
1. A situation where the blood outflow was in any way hampered by some sort of obstacle. And we know that this was not in play, just as we know that the pathologist suggested that Nichols position (lying motionless flat on the ground) would be a parameter that made him expect a quick bleeding out in her particular case.
2. A positioning of the body that meant that a greater amount of blood would leave it than the position lying flat down on the ground. The more vertical the position of the body, the more blood would leave it, predisposing that the wound through which the blood leaked out was positioned as near to the coere of the earth as possible, while the exact reverse applies if that wound was as far away from the core of the earth as possible.
If we decapitate a body (thereīs that decapitation again, Trevor!) and hang it feet up, the exsanguination will be very full. Almost every drop of blood will leave the body, and that will take some time.
If we position that decapitated body with the neck up, very little blood will leave the body, and it will happen in a very short time.
So this is where gravitation comes in.

It is interesting information, and it belongs to the discussion, but it does not apply to the Nichols case. In that case, the pathologist made his call by saying "Getting back to the specific case (Nichols, my remark) in question, if the body were lying motionless on the ground with significant open neck wounds (and it was, my remark) 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."

So what the pathologist says is "watch out - there can be factors to weigh in that may have an impact, and that I could have missed since I never saw the body". Wise enough - but as far as we can tell, he made a one hundred per cent correct description of it.

The same thing applies when he speaks of the twenty minute bleeding, as far as I can tell. He canīt first say "In a case like Nicholsī case, I would expect the bleeding to be over within the initial couple of minutes", and then say "Iīm sure she could have bled for twenty minutes" in the next breath. For her to have bled for twenty minutes we need to have another gravity influx than the one we know we had, and/or other circumstances attaching to the wound than we know we had.

In a sense, the discussion is beginning to resemble the discussion about what Phillips said about Chapmans TOD, where people suggest that the doctor would first say that she had been dead at least two hours, only to then disqualify his own judgement in the next second, without anybody having challenged him, and allowing for just one hour.
He would, according to these merry speculators, have gone into an inquest after having made a very thorough investigation, after having weighed the matter carefully, and said "I have taken a good look at this and with the aid of my professional experience, I have come to the conclusion that this woman could not have been dead for any less than two hours. I personally think that she actually has been dead for a significantly longer time, but I am willing to accept that it COULD have been for just two hours.
But hey, maybe she has just been dead for an hour or less."

Trevors pathologist gives us a lesson about what factors will be important, and points out that in cases involving deathly violence to the neck, depending on the circumstances, the victims can bleed for very varying amounts of time after having suffered their neck damages.

But he ALSO telles us, that in the specific case of Nichols, if she was lying motionless, flat on the ground and if her neck damages were significant and with open blood vessels, then he "would imagine" that she would bleed out in the initial couple of minutes.

I fail to see how he could have been any clearer on that particular score.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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 donīt remember having seen that question, Richard. I can only assume, however, that you think that the removal of the heart proves that the killer had anatomical training or something such, is that correct?

Have you heard of the Ed Gingerich case? Gingerich was an amishman, who - as far as I know - had no anatomical training at all. When he killed his wife, this is what happened, as quoted from CrimeLibrary:

"After a few minutes, Ed dropped to his knees and undressed Katies body. Once all of her clothes were removed, he took a steak knife from the kitchen drawer and used it to make a seven-inch incision in her lower abdomen. Through the incision, Ed reached his hand up inside Katies body cavity, and removed her lungs, kidneys, stomach, liver, spleen, bladder, uterus and heart. He stacked all of her organs in a pile next to her body, and stuck the knife into the top of them."

Most people who read that, and who are of the meaning that cutting the heart out from a dead victim proves some sort of previously aquired anatomical skill, tend to change their minds.

I hope that answers your question.

The best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

I found this sentence on the net:

I guess that one could say that dead bodies don’t bleed so much as they ooze.

Makes sense to me.

As for the difference inbetween bleeding from a cut artery in a living person as opposed to in a dead person, the simple answer is that the blood will leave a living person at a quicker rate, due to the pressure in the veins.

Returning to the initial post by Trevors pathologist, he said that "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."

Here he obviously refers to the specific Nichols case, relating how the body was situated (lying motionless on the ground) and the extent of the damage done to the neck (significant open neck wounds). He then adds that in such a case (and this relates to a case such as the Nichols case) he would imagine that an amount of at least a few hundred millilitres of blood - and probably considerably more - could flow out passively.
So here he tells us that the amount of blood that could flow out passively (as in after death and with no pressure from a beating heart) could range in amount from a few hundred millilitres up to "considerably more", the latter amount not being specified.
Regardless of the amount, though, he says that "this would happen within the initial couple of minutes".

If he had said no more than this, we would not be having any discussion over the matter, for it would be totally clear that he said "In a case like the Polly Nichols case, whatever amount of blood left the body passively afterwards, would leave it in the initial couple of minutes.

However, the pathologist says a few more things, that veil this issue to some extent.

For example, he says that "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."

Does this passage relate to the Nichols murder, or is it a general observation? Does he think that Nichols, specifically, could have bled for many minutes on account of the "wound/gravity conditions" being right?

The interesting thing is that the pathologist KNEW the wound/gravity conditions in Nichols case. He just established them: She was lying motionless on the ground (correct) and had significant open neck wounds (correct). And he clearly said that with these parameters in place, he would imagine the bleeding to be overwith within the initial couple of minutes.

The question about what sort of wound/gravity conditions would enable a slow trickle of blood to go on is an interesting one. I would suggest that the wound conditions that could slow the process down would be of two types:
1. A situation where the blood outflow was in any way hampered by some sort of obstacle. And we know that this was not in play, just as we know that the pathologist suggested that Nichols position (lying motionless flat on the ground) would be a parameter that made him expect a quick bleeding out in her particular case.
2. A positioning of the body that meant that a greater amount of blood would leave it than the position lying flat down on the ground. The more vertical the position of the body, the more blood would leave it, predisposing that the wound through which the blood leaked out was positioned as near to the coere of the earth as possible, while the exact reverse applies if that wound was as far away from the core of the earth as possible.
If we decapitate a body (thereīs that decapitation again, Trevor!) and hang it feet up, the exsanguination will be very full. Almost every drop of blood will leave the body, and that will take some time.
If we position that decapitated body with the neck up, very little blood will leave the body, and it will happen in a very short time.
So this is where gravitation comes in.

It is interesting information, and it belongs to the discussion, but it does not apply to the Nichols case. In that case, the pathologist made his call by saying "Getting back to the specific case (Nichols, my remark) in question, if the body were lying motionless on the ground with significant open neck wounds (and it was, my remark) 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."

So what the pathologist says is "watch out - there can be factors to weigh in that may have an impact, and that I could have missed since I never saw the body". Wise enough - but as far as we can tell, he made a one hundred per cent correct description of it.

The same thing applies when he speaks of the twenty minute bleeding, as far as I can tell. He canīt first say "In a case like Nicholsī case, I would expect the bleeding to be over within the initial couple of minutes", and then say "Iīm sure she could have bled for twenty minutes" in the next breath. For her to have bled for twenty minutes we need to have another gravity influx than the one we know we had, and/or other circumstances attaching to the wound than we know we had.

In a sense, the discussion is beginning to resemble the discussion about what Phillips said about Chapmans TOD, where people suggest that the doctor would first say that she had been dead at least two hours, only to then disqualify his own judgement in the next second, without anybody having challenged him, and allowing for just one hour.
He would, according to these merry speculators, have gone into an inquest after having made a very thorough investigation, after having weighed the matter carefully, and said "I have taken a good look at this and with the aid of my professional experience, I have come to the conclusion that this woman could not have been dead for any less than two hours. I personally think that she actually has been dead for a significantly longer time, but I am willing to accept that it COULD have been for just two hours.
But hey, maybe she has just been dead for an hour or less."

Trevors pathologist gives us a lesson about what factors will be important, and points out that in cases involving deathly violence to the neck, depending on the circumstances, the victims can bleed for very varying amounts of time after having suffered their neck damages.

But he ALSO telles us, that in the specific case of Nichols, if she was lying motionless, flat on the ground and if her neck damages were significant and with open blood vessels, then he "would imagine" that she would bleed out in the initial couple of minutes.

I fail to see how he could have been any clearer on that particular score.

The best,
Fisherman

Just to point out that although the witnesses states than when the body of Nicholls was found she was lying on her back. There is no reference as to how the head was positioned. So you cannot comment on gravitation in relation to how open or closed the wounds were, because you already accept that which ever way the neck was positioned would determine how open or closed he wounds were and this would then have a dircet bearing on blood flow and blood loss.

My understanding is that a body will never fully bleed out, after the initial heavy bleeding from such a throat wound the blood could continue to ooze/seep for at least 20 mins irrespective of the gravity or the position of the body as long as there still is blood in the veins. Now to me this sounds quite logical.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

So we get no information as to when the throat was cut.After 3 .30 if we accept the only reasonable witness statement,but how long after?Five minutes.Not unlikely,but before Cross arrives at the scene obviously.
Now to intent.Surely that is clear.There was an intent to kill Nicholls.If we assess Cross as the killer when did that intent enter his mind.Did he wake from sleep with that intent,or did it suddenly spring to mind on meeting Nicholls.Did he spend a sleepless night planning to kill a victim on his way to work.?What was the reason.Think along those lines and then like me you will see how ridiculous the notion is that Cross w as the killer of Nicholls.
In theory it was physically possible,but possibilities by themselves do not convict,and that is all that we have on which to make judgement.

[Pcdunn]

Well, my opinion...

A thread in which I would like for people to state what speaks against Lechmere as being the Whitechapel killer.

Here is the perfect opportunity to overwhelm me with good hard evidence that he could not have dun it, inklings why he would be innocent, cleverly thought-out scenarios that must exclude Charles the carman, convictions, expertise, experience - anything that tells us why Charles Allen Lechmere could or would not have been the Ripper.

Once it begins dropping in, I aim to process and list it, and at some stage, I will post the outcome.

Itīs a one-in-a-lifetime chance - who would have thought that I would present a thread by such a mouthwatering name...? Go for it and go hard!

Good luck and all the best,
Fisherman

Hello. I have finished reading the long thread about the "Missing Evidence" episode about Lechmere being Jack the Ripper.
The interesting thing to me was that I could see both sides of the debate as being plausible, as far as Nichols' murder is concerned, but I'm not sure about all of the rest of the McNaughten Five being committed by Mr. Lechmere, aka Cross.

JtR seems to have been profiled as a "disorganized killer", yet to accept Lechmere as calm enough to bluff his way through questioning by the police, (possibly with the weapon concealed about his person)-- we have to see him as a sociopath, and an incredibly cool one at that. That doesn't fit in with a "disorganized" killer at all.

This is a working man, who had been at the same company for 20 years, a family man whose wife and children never suspected him of anything anti-social. He doesn't seem to ever have done anything eccentric, let alone insane or violent. He lives to an advanced age, sometimes unusual in that era, and attesting to his native strength and good health. He walked the same streets as JTR, but so did a great many other men.

It is true some "family men" have been sociopaths and serial killers and have hidden it from their loved ones, but they usually get found out, sooner or later. There is usually some slip made.
It seems to be pure conjecture about Mr. Lechmere's mental state and his actions, as far as the other murders are concerned.

Yes, we could say he killed Polly, and referring to her body as "a man's tarpaulin" in all of his inquest testimony is an indication of his callousness toward his victim. But, just as easily, we could say he was an innocent passerby who paused to look at something unusual on his route to work.
Mr. Paul said he saw Lechmere in the middle of the road, and that he was wary about this, due to his fear of robbers (given the time and place, very understandable). Lechmere may have decided to attract Paul's attention to the dying or dead woman and play the role of an innocent witness -- or he may have been an innocent witness.
I don't think we have enough evidence, other than the two names, and both seem to be attached to him. I doubt many people in Whitechapel gave their right name to the police, but Lechmere did give his correct address. Couldn't that be a simple slip of the tongue?
Of course, we still lack any information on who killed Polly, if Lechmere did not. Maybe the fellow escaped through the stables, for all we or anyone else knows.

[drstrange169]

Hello Pcdunn,

Xmere mistook the body for a tarpaulin until he saw what it actually was, he wasn't being callous.

"It looked like a tarpaulin sheet, but walking to the middle of the road he saw it was the figure of a woman."

Daily News

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott:

Just to point out that although the witnesses states than when the body of Nicholls was found she was lying on her back. There is no reference as to how the head was positioned. So you cannot comment on gravitation in relation to how open or closed the wounds were, because you already accept that which ever way the neck was positioned would determine how open or closed he wounds were and this would then have a dircet bearing on blood flow and blood loss.

Your pathologist: "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."

No matter how the neck is angled, Trevor.

My understanding is that a body will never fully bleed out, after the initial heavy bleeding from such a throat wound the blood could continue to ooze/seep for at least 20 mins irrespective of the gravity or the position of the body as long as there still is blood in the veins. Now to me this sounds quite logical.

When you put a glass of water on a table, will the water start running over the brim, and go o to do so for at least twenty minutes, Trevor?
Nope, it wonīt.
And why? Because gravity prevents the water from climbing up along the wall og the glass.
A dead body is quite similar in many ways. The blood in it will flow out of it, as long as there are reasons of gravity for it.
But if there are not, then the blood will not flow out.

What strange, magical power is it that you envisage, that would make the blood ooze or seep out of the body irrespective of gravity or the position of the body?

The only thing that can accomplish this is pressure in the veins. And the pressure in the veins goes away when you die. A small part of it remains as long as the viens are not opened up, but when this happens, that smallish pressure goes away in seconds, and the pressure inside the veins and outside them becomes the same, meaning that ONLY gravity and the position of the body will govern how much blood runs out.

Much as I am no physiologist, I think you have actually got this totally backwards.

The best,
Fisherman