Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: I have been going back and analyzing the evidence you seek to rely on in your attempt to prove Cross killed Nicholls. As I understand what you suggest is that he had up to 13 minutes in which to meet Nicholls and kill her Based on leaving home at approx 3.20am and arriving in Bucks Row at 3.27am and Paul coming along at about 3.40am

None of this is how I envisage things, Trevor. I suggest that he left home at 3.20 or 3.30, 3.30 being the more likely thing, that Paul came into Buck´s Row at 3.45 and thathe reached the body at around 3.46, leaving Lechmere around nine minutes to meet and kill Nichols.
But these are all estimations (apart from Pauls exact timing of 3.45), and it is impossible to determine what applied exactly. All we can say is that it SEEMS from what we have been told, that there would have been time to kill Nichols.

Most of your case is built around timings for as has been suggested if any of the timings are out then it shatters your case because for him to have been the killer your timings have to be almost exact with very little room for maneuverability.

There is learoom for varying times to some extent. But the main thing is that we KNOW that he can´t be taken out of the picture: He WAS there alone with Nichols, she DID bleed as Mizen saw her, and so on. SO speaking about shattering the theory is something that cannot be done, Trevor. You seem to have misunderstood this totally.
He IS in the picture, and he can´t be taken out of it by the timings.

Now based on that, he would either have had to meet NIcholls in Bucks Row or somewhere else on his route to work if the latter then that would have used up more valuable time in getting to Bucks Row because you only allow him 7 minutes from house to Bucks Row.

I have posted this before but I think it is so important and something you clearly have no thought out and allowed for when going public with your theory.

Lets look at the witness timings again.

Pc Neil
first pass in Bucks Row should have been 3.15am approx
second pass should have been 3.27approx (12 minute round beat)
third pass 3.39am approx which is when he finds body.

No. Neil was there AFTER Paul, and Paul was there at 3.45. SO it does not pan out. Moreover, it is entirely uninteresting: Lechmere WAS in place, he WAS alone with the victim and she DID bleed as Mizen saw her. THAT is what matters, nothing else.

Monty kindly informed us that the beats were 30 minute beats so the 12 minute beat could be a mistake. If that is the case then the murder could have taken place between 3.15am and 3.27am, some 12 minutes before Cross got there. This is reliant on Pc Neils movements and time being correct. If they were not, and he was not in Bucks Row at 3.15am then her murder could have occurred some time before that and long before Cross finds the body. Pc Neil then says he found the body at 3.39am

No, the murder could emphatically not have taken place between 3.15 and 3.27.

Now according to the evidence, by 3.39am Cross and Paul had already found the body and gone off to find a policeman, deduct 3-4 minutes for that so that brings the time down to 3.35am approx when Cross and Paul left the scene. Now take of the time allowed for Cross to be seen standing in the road as Paul approached, and time they spent with the body and that takes it down even more.

No time for Cross to kill Nichols

Lets look at other factors which weaken your theory

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.

3. The time of death cannot be established through blood loss

4. The witness timings are all over the place and are un-reliable,

I have purposely ignored the smokescreen about walking to work through the murder locations and visiting relatives in the murder locations thats not even worth considering in the grand scheme of things

I have also ignored the giving of a false name I think that has been explored and evem Scobie says it is insignificant

Taking all of these facts together do you reall still think you now have a case which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Cross killed Nicholls?

I think you have it totally wrong, and I know that the case for Lechmere is a very strong one. Luckily, it hinges not on your inability to understand it. I´m sorry, Trevor, but this post of yours is a mess.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

As promised I said I would go back to the expert and ask one question which I did i also took the opportunity of providing him with a copy of Dr Llewlenys inquest testimony he is his full reply to both

I hope we can all now put this issue to bed even Fish ?

Q. You stated that a body could continue to bleed for up to 20 minutes after death. Is that the max time or could it be dependent on other factors?

A. I don’t think it would be appropriate or reliable to state a ‘max’ time for an individual case.

I think that, though it might seem unlikely for a significant quantity of blood to be flowing out of a body several minutes after death, it would certainly be possible for blood still to be dripping / oozing out of a body 20 mins later. This is likely to be minimal (almost negligible) in nature, as the majority of the blood that was able to come out would have done so much sooner. If a witness discovered a body that was still bleeding relatively profusely then the injuries are likely to have been inflicted more recently than 20 mins previously… but if the 20 min period is critical in ruling out / in certain suspects then I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility of some continued blood loss at this time, as I think it would be possible. (I base this on my own observations of seeing blood leak out of bodies when I have been present at murder scenes some hours after death. This is why I am open to many things being ‘possible’, even though I can’t state categorically what ‘would’ or ‘would not’ have happened in an individual case.)

As for the extract from the inquest testimony:

There is actually very little detail of use in this text. Rather than actually naming the anatomical structures injured, there are repeated mentions of ‘tissues’ being severed. This is vague, and does not allow inferences to be drawn with confidence. There is a description of the ‘large vessels’ on both sides of the neck being cut. If this is true then there is certainly scope for profuse haemorrhage from the neck, as well as ongoing leakage of blood from the neck after death. However, I have dealt with cases where ‘vessels in the neck’ have been ‘cut’… where actually only minor vessels and other structures have been cut and, on closer inspection, the truly ‘large’ vessels have been spared.

Much of the description is vague and potentially ambiguous. Repeated use of ‘about’ implies estimations rather than measurements of wounds, and the assumption that a long-bladed knife must have been used is not valid: a short or medium(!) blade could have been used to inflict such injuries. (I’m not saying that I think a particular blade was or was not used, I’m just saying it is not possible to be certain from the description and ‘measurements’ in this case. As with much of what went on ‘back in the day’, learned medical men would assert things without backup and this would be taken as fact without challenge.

By way of example, it is not possible to say that all injuries were caused by the same instrument, comment on the blade’s sharpness or suggest that the injuries were caused with ‘great violence’. This is just somebody giving their opinion as though it were fact, and giving it in such a way that it is virtually meaningless. Saying that the wounds were made ‘downwards’ means nothing without a frame of reference.

Stating that the wounds were made ‘from left to right’ is not as clear as it might at first seem, and of course cannot be relied upon. The witness states that the injuries ‘might have been done by a left-handed person’. But equally, they could have been done by a right-handed person. Or a one-handed person!

I could go on, but I don’t want to sound overly harsh when the witness was just doing what was the norm back then. What is important to realize is that much of the myth and legend that has become ‘fact’ over the decades might be based upon testimony such as this… and therefore is open to question. All that can be taken with ‘certainty’(!) from that paragraph is that there were apparent sharp force wounds to the neck and abdomen. Many other things seem to have been ‘assumed’. The weapon was ‘probably’ a knife, but there is no guarantee of this (and the size / shape / sharpness / etc. cannot be guessed from the description of the wounds). There could have been more than one weapon. The assailant could have been right or left handed… Death might have been caused by blood loss from the wounds… but could also have arisen from a different mechanism (such as a cardiac air embolus or a tension pneumothorax). Some (or all) of the injuries could have been inflicted after death. Has the possibility of self-inflicted injury been satisfactorily excluded, or just dismissed? Etc.

Much of what is ‘known’ appears to be little more than subjective opinion / assumption / guesswork. Even if we can accept all of the ‘objective’ record as fact, there is so little of this available now that it becomes difficult to draw any firm conclusions this far down the line.

I’m not trying to be negative or contrary, I’m just trying to be realistic about what I can honestly say based upon what I can trust as genuine. As that remains scanty, there is very little I can say with confidence about these cases. However, as just about anything that can be imagined is probably possible, most things can probably be argued one way or the other!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So much text, and so little of consequence.

Your pathologist simply says - again - that a body CAN bleed for 20 minutes. But what he gives is a generalized picture. He is NOT speaking of Nichols.

Here is what he says:

I think that, though it might seem unlikely for a significant quantity of blood to be flowing out of a body several minutes after death, it would certainly be possible for blood still to be dripping / oozing out of a body 20 mins later.

"A" body. Not THE body - Nichols´body.

He exemplifies what he means with this passage: "However, I have dealt with cases where ‘vessels in the neck’ have been ‘cut’… where actually only minor vessels and other structures have been cut and, on closer inspection, the truly ‘large’ vessels have been spared."

So here he suggests one reason for a prolonged bleeding: The main vessels may not be cut. For if they ARE, then the bleeding is quickly over.

Further on: "What is important to realize is that much of the myth and legend that has become ‘fact’ over the decades might be based upon testimony such as this… and therefore is open to question."

Yes, ABSOLUTELY true: If it was only a myth that Nichols had all her vessels cut open, then she would perhaps have bled for a lot longer time.

But we KNOW that she DID have the vessels cut off, Trevor!

This is where the thrust of the message can be picked up:

"I think that, though it might seem unlikely for a significant quantity of blood to be flowing out of a body several minutes after death, it would certainly be possible for blood still to be dripping / oozing out of a body 20 mins later. This is likely to be minimal (almost negligible) in nature, as the majority of the blood that was able to come out would have done so much sooner."

This is in accordance with the pathologists earlier post: Yes, a body CAN bleed for many minutes. But in a case with a lot of damage done to the neck, it will bleed out in the initial couple of minutes, just as we have been told in the former post. If, however, the damage is less significant, if the body is awkwardly posed, if there is some sort of obstacle in play, THEN there can be a minimal (almost negligible!) trickle of blood for a longer time, and that time may be many minutes.

In the end, it will all hinge on gravity (something that you seemingly have misunderstood totally, judging by your former post!).

This is what Neil said, according to the Morning Advertiser, quoting ad verbatim:

The Coroner - Did you notice any blood where she was found?

Witness - There was a pool of blood just where her neck was lying. The blood was then running from the wound in her neck.

This is Mizen:

The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.

Is this the "almost negligible" dripping your man speaks of? I would not think so. Moreover, I don´t think your pathologist would suggest that a woman cut the way Nichols was cut would bleed for twenty minutes.
So far, what he has answered is the question whether a victim CAN bleed for twenty minutes, and yes, a victim CAN do that.

Whether Nichols could do it, is another story, best answered by his former post: She should have bled out in the initial couple of minutes with that kind of damage.

This is the question you should have asked the pathologist:

Make the assumption that the victim in the case at hand had had all the vessels in the neck cut totally open, and that the knife had left the spine only unsevered. Make the further assumption that the victim was lying flat on her back on a relatively even ground, motionlessly. Add to your knowledge that the victim had had around ten other deep wounds added to her abdomen.
We do not know for sure whether the victim was dead as she was cut, but she may well have been, in which case death would arguably have occurred a minute or two before she was cut.

In a case like this, would what blood that would leave her, leave in a matter of minutes only, or could she go on bleeding for up to twenty minutes? If so, what would be the cause of the long period of bleeding, if there were no external obstacles to the bleeding and if the vessels in the neck were all severed and open?

We realize that there may be variations, but what is your best guess?

THAT is the exact question we need an answer to. We need no more answers to the generalized question: Can a victim with a cut neck bleed for a long time?

If your pathologist could answer this specific question, and if we could have more than one pathologist offering his/her views, it should get us closer to the truth.

The best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: I have been going back and analyzing the evidence you seek to rely on in your attempt to prove Cross killed Nicholls. As I understand what you suggest is that he had up to 13 minutes in which to meet Nicholls and kill her Based on leaving home at approx 3.20am and arriving in Bucks Row at 3.27am and Paul coming along at about 3.40am

None of this is how I envisage things, Trevor. I suggest that he left home at 3.20 or 3.30, 3.30 being the more likely thing, that Paul came into Buck´s Row at 3.45 and thathe reached the body at around 3.46, leaving Lechmere around nine minutes to meet and kill Nichols.
But these are all estimations (apart from Pauls exact timing of 3.45), and it is impossible to determine what applied exactly. All we can say is that it SEEMS from what we have been told, that there would have been time to kill Nichols.

Most of your case is built around timings for as has been suggested if any of the timings are out then it shatters your case because for him to have been the killer your timings have to be almost exact with very little room for maneuverability.

There is learoom for varying times to some extent. But the main thing is that we KNOW that he can´t be taken out of the picture: He WAS there alone with Nichols, she DID bleed as Mizen saw her, and so on. SO speaking about shattering the theory is something that cannot be done, Trevor. You seem to have misunderstood this totally.
He IS in the picture, and he can´t be taken out of it by the timings.

Now based on that, he would either have had to meet NIcholls in Bucks Row or somewhere else on his route to work if the latter then that would have used up more valuable time in getting to Bucks Row because you only allow him 7 minutes from house to Bucks Row.

I have posted this before but I think it is so important and something you clearly have no thought out and allowed for when going public with your theory.

Lets look at the witness timings again.

Pc Neil
first pass in Bucks Row should have been 3.15am approx
second pass should have been 3.27approx (12 minute round beat)
third pass 3.39am approx which is when he finds body.

No. Neil was there AFTER Paul, and Paul was there at 3.45. SO it does not pan out. Moreover, it is entirely uninteresting: Lechmere WAS in place, he WAS alone with the victim and she DID bleed as Mizen saw her. THAT is what matters, nothing else.

Monty kindly informed us that the beats were 30 minute beats so the 12 minute beat could be a mistake. If that is the case then the murder could have taken place between 3.15am and 3.27am, some 12 minutes before Cross got there. This is reliant on Pc Neils movements and time being correct. If they were not, and he was not in Bucks Row at 3.15am then her murder could have occurred some time before that and long before Cross finds the body. Pc Neil then says he found the body at 3.39am

No, the murder could emphatically not have taken place between 3.15 and 3.27.

Now according to the evidence, by 3.39am Cross and Paul had already found the body and gone off to find a policeman, deduct 3-4 minutes for that so that brings the time down to 3.35am approx when Cross and Paul left the scene. Now take of the time allowed for Cross to be seen standing in the road as Paul approached, and time they spent with the body and that takes it down even more.

No time for Cross to kill Nichols

Lets look at other factors which weaken your theory

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.

3. The time of death cannot be established through blood loss

4. The witness timings are all over the place and are un-reliable,

I have purposely ignored the smokescreen about walking to work through the murder locations and visiting relatives in the murder locations thats not even worth considering in the grand scheme of things

I have also ignored the giving of a false name I think that has been explored and evem Scobie says it is insignificant

Taking all of these facts together do you reall still think you now have a case which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Cross killed Nicholls?

I think you have it totally wrong, and I know that the case for Lechmere is a very strong one. Luckily, it hinges not on your inability to understand it. I´m sorry, Trevor, but this post of yours is a mess.

The best,
Fisherman

I would suggest that it is your assessment and evaluation of the misplaced evidence and testimony you seek to rely on that is a mess.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Pcdunn: How did he avoid getting blood on his hand or anywhere else? Did he have bloody gloves as well a knife concealed on his person in his pockets?

Jason Payne-James, the forensic pathologist in the documentary clearly says that he would not necessarily expect the killer to have much, or indeed any, blood on his person.
As for stashing the knife, he wore a large sacking apron in his work.

Where is the proof of his employment at Pickford?

In his own evidence.

The name he worked under while there?

We know that he signed himself Lechmere during the time he worked at Pickfords.

His routes and schedules?

Unknown - but his logical working treks are not.

An example of his handwriting to compare against any of the hundreds of letters from "Jack the Ripper"?

You can find his handwriting, as used in his signatures, on many threads out here. But why would we assume that the letters were written by the killer? Most people agree that they were not.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I would suggest that it is your assessment and evaluation of the misplaced evidence and testimony you seek to rely on that is a mess.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Then you would be woefully wrong. Not that it would necessarily be unusual as such, but nevertheless.

Now, please ask the pathologist the pertinent SPECIFIC questions next time, Trevor! Or do you think that Nichols only had a few minor vessels in her neck severed...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

So much text, and so little of consequence.

Your pathologist simply says - again - that a body CAN bleed for 20 minutes. But what he gives is a generalized picture. He is NOT speaking of Nichols.

Here is what he says:

I think that, though it might seem unlikely for a significant quantity of blood to be flowing out of a body several minutes after death, it would certainly be possible for blood still to be dripping / oozing out of a body 20 mins later.

"A" body. Not THE body - Nichols´body.

He exemplifies what he means with this passage: "However, I have dealt with cases where ‘vessels in the neck’ have been ‘cut’… where actually only minor vessels and other structures have been cut and, on closer inspection, the truly ‘large’ vessels have been spared."

So here he suggests one reason for a prolonged bleeding: The main vessels may not be cut. For if they ARE, then the bleeding is quickly over.

Further on: "What is important to realize is that much of the myth and legend that has become ‘fact’ over the decades might be based upon testimony such as this… and therefore is open to question."

Yes, ABSOLUTELY true: If it was only a myth that Nichols had all her vessels cut open, then she would perhaps have bled for a lot longer time.

But we KNOW that she DID have the vessels cut off, Trevor!

This is where the thrust of the message can be picked up:

"I think that, though it might seem unlikely for a significant quantity of blood to be flowing out of a body several minutes after death, it would certainly be possible for blood still to be dripping / oozing out of a body 20 mins later. This is likely to be minimal (almost negligible) in nature, as the majority of the blood that was able to come out would have done so much sooner."

This is in accordance with the pathologists earlier post: Yes, a body CAN bleed for many minutes. But in a case with a lot of damage done to the neck, it will bleed out in the initial couple of minutes, just as we have been told in the former post. If, however, the damage is less significant, if the body is awkwardly posed, if there is some sort of obstacle in play, THEN there can be a minimal (almost negligible!) trickle of blood for a longer time, and that time may be many minutes.

In the end, it will all hinge on gravity (something that you seemingly have misunderstood totally, judging by your former post!).

This is what Neil said, according to the Morning Advertiser, quoting ad verbatim:

The Coroner - Did you notice any blood where she was found?

Witness - There was a pool of blood just where her neck was lying. The blood was then running from the wound in her neck.

This is Mizen:

The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.

Is this the "almost negligible" dripping your man speaks of? I would not think so. Moreover, I don´t think your pathologist would suggest that a woman cut the way Nichols was cut would bleed for twenty minutes.
So far, what he has answered is the question whether a victim CAN bleed for twenty minutes, and yes, a victim CAN do that.

Whether Nichols could do it, is another story, best answered by his former post: She should have bled out in the initial couple of minutes with that kind of damage.

This is the question you should have asked the pathologist:

Make the assumption that the victim in the case at hand had had all the vessels in the neck cut totally open, and that the knife had left the spine only unsevered. Make the further assumption that the victim was lying flat on her back on a relatively even ground, motionlessly. Add to your knowledge that the victim had had around ten other deep wounds added to her abdomen.
We do not know for sure whether the victim was dead as she was cut, but she may well have been, in which case death would arguably have occurred a minute or two before she was cut.

In a case like this, would what blood that would leave her, leave in a matter of minutes only, or could she go on bleeding for up to twenty minutes? If so, what would be the cause of the long period of bleeding, if there were no external obstacles to the bleeding and if the vessels in the neck were all severed and open?

We realize that there may be variations, but what is your best guess?

THAT is the exact question we need an answer to. We need no more answers to the generalized question: Can a victim with a cut neck bleed for a long time?

If your pathologist could answer this specific question, and if we could have more than one pathologist offering his/her views, it should get us closer to the truth.

The best,
Fisherman

So now you are an expert in forensic pathology and in a position to disagree with an expert

The question you keep seeking an answer to is an unanswerable question you have been told this. So go find another forensic pathologist and ask him the same questions, get him to comment on this pathologists answers.

Your theory is dead in the water for many reasons and it is obvious you are not going to admit it, you are going to stick it out till the bitter end. so there really is no point in continuing with this.

You cannot specifically tie the time of death down to the time you say Cross murdered Nicholls. An expert has in as many words told you this.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Then you would be woefully wrong. Not that it would necessarily be unusual as such, but nevertheless.

Now, please ask the pathologist the pertinent SPECIFIC questions next time, Trevor! Or do you think that Nichols only had a few minor vessels in her neck severed...?

The best,
Fisherman

I am not going to waste his valuable time anymore. I am happy with what he is saying and unlike you I understand what he is saying.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Pcdunn]

Hi Pat

Actually some of that Paul stuff has already been thought of by Ed - not that Ed thinks Paul was the killer, but that Crossmere tried to frame Paul for the Hanbury St murder and by extension for the Nichols murder, i.e. Crossmere hoped that the police would think that Paul circled round etc.

Well, there's "nothing new under the sun", I suppose. I am reading through this thread in an effort to catch up, and the more I read, the less convinced I am of the teamster's connection.
I really thought Alan Moore had exaggerated Ripperology in his "The Dance of the Gull-catchers", but it doesn't seem as if he has done so. Sigh...

Pat D.

[harry]

Fisherman,
I obviously,as do many others,believe that Cross merely intended to go to work that morning.That he did not at any time have a desire to kill. As it is your theory he murdered,the onus is on you to show there was an intent to kill Nicholls.What I find ridiculous,is the theory that Cross set out from home that morning,either with the intent to find and kill a victim,or upon sighting Nicholls developed an intent at her appearance.What cannot be reasonably stated,is that there was no intent shown.

[martin wilson]

Lee Jackson's Victorian Dictionary has a piece on Pickfords, each cart was weighed prior to going out on delivery and the cart number, name of the driver and destination were dutifully recorded. I wonder if the delivery books are still around, they would make very interesting reading!
All the best.

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott:

So now you are an expert in forensic pathology and in a position to disagree with an expert

No, I am not an expert in forensic pathology, and no, I am not in a position to disagree over matters of forensic pathology with a forensic pathology expert.

Nor do I do so. I actually agree with what your pathologist says.

I guess that one could say that if I am an expert in anything, it would be in writing and understanding texts. That is what a journalist does.

And you are an ex-policeman, right?

The question you keep seeking an answer to is an unanswerable question you have been told this. So go find another forensic pathologist and ask him the same questions, get him to comment on this pathologists answers.

No, the question I seek an answer to is perfectly answerable. I do not ask "at what exact time...", etcetera. I ask "In your opinion, how log do you think it would take..."

And anybody can have an opinion. What differs is that the opinions will be more or less well informed.

Your theory is dead in the water for many reasons and it is obvious you are not going to admit it, you are going to stick it out till the bitter end. so there really is no point in continuing with this.

You really like these expressions, don´t you - "dead in the water", "shattered". Sadly, all they go to show in your case, is that you have misunderstood the whole case and/or my theory. The latter is anything but dead in the water. As I have told you, the theory cannot be challenged on the grounds that you try to use, with the "if you are wrong..." suggestions. You suggest that if I am wrong about the times, then my theory is worthless. To some degree there is a grain of truth in that - but just how do you aspire to prove that I am wrong...?
Because you think so?

If the blood had dried as Lechmere arrived at the body, THEN my theory would be challengable. But as long as the blood was actually RUNNING, even as Neil and Mizen saw the body, my theory is actually much strengthened by the efforts of your pathologist. He says, in no uncertain terms, that in NO case with this general type of damage, would he expect the blood to run or flow profusely for several minutes, but he adds that there can - if the circumstances allow for it - be a very smallish dripping or trickling, a MINIMAL one, an ALMOST NEGLIGIBLE one for a prolonged period of time. The majority of the blood, the quickly flowing blood, will have run out of the body MUCH SOONER, though.
And we know from what Neil said that "The blood was then running from the wound in her neck."
Not slowly dripping or trickling, Trevor - running. Not almost negligible - the blood was running from the wound in her neck.
Very far from clearing Lechmere, this is instead a safe indicator that he must be the prime suspect for having cut Nichols.

You cannot specifically tie the time of death down to the time you say Cross murdered Nicholls. An expert has in as many words told you this.

No, Trevor, an expert has told me a lot of things, but the one you hoped for was not among them. Show me where your pathologist says that I cannot specifically tie the time of death down to the time I say Lechmere murdered Nichols, if you please!

You can´t, can you?

And why?

Because this wording of yours was never used by your pathologist, who spoke in a generalized meaning of "a" body, and not specifically about Nichols´ body in his post.

And I had already said that yes, a body can bleed for long periods of time IF THE CONDITIONS ALLOW FOR IT. In Nichols case, there is nothing even hinting at any of the conditions required for a long time bleeding being present.

I don´t exclude that your pathologist would answer the question you forgot to ask him with a maybe - I am not the expert. But as it stands, and given the parameters he HAS mentioned, the odds are that he would simply reiterate what he has already said: With very extensive damage, and with no hindrance of the bloodflow, the bleeding will normally be over within the initial couple of minutes.

Since you have it in black and white yourself, Trevor, why do you think the pathologist expressed himself like this if he didn´t mean it?

Reading. Understanding what you read. Being able to scrutinize a text and extract the important matters. That is what journalism is about, apart from the writing bit.

Apparently, you have very little insight into that particular field.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I am not going to waste his valuable time anymore. I am happy with what he is saying and unlike you I understand what he is saying.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You are happy with your own interpretation of what he said, Trevor.

And I am happy to say that I can fully understand why you would never go anywhere near asking your pathologist the question I formulated.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
What I find ridiculous,is the theory that Cross set out from home that morning,either with the intent to find and kill a victim,or upon sighting Nicholls developed an intent at her appearance.What cannot be reasonably stated,is that there was no intent shown.

Don´t you think that Sutcliffe at some stage decided to kill? Either as he got up, or as he saw somebody he liked for the victim´s role?

Sutcliffe attacked out in the open - as did the Ripper.

He also attacked a prostitute in her home, if I remember correctly - as did the Ripper.

He tore people open - as did the Ripper.

It is extremely obvious that Sutcliffe at some time must have developed an intent to kill, unless you reason that he left his home, pen-hammer in his pocket, with no intention at all to kill.

So here we have a perfect parallel to what Lechmere could have been like if he was the killer.

But while you perfectly well know that this was what Sutcliffe did: developed an intent to kill and armed himself and got out on the streets, you for some reason find it "ridiculous" that Charles Lechmere could have done the exact same thing...?

Please explain why what one man has been proven to do, is ridiculus when it is suggested for another man, Harry. I am quite curious to learn the distinction you use to arrive at this rather radical conclusion.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Lee Jackson's Victorian Dictionary has a piece on Pickfords, each cart was weighed prior to going out on delivery and the cart number, name of the driver and destination were dutifully recorded. I wonder if the delivery books are still around, they would make very interesting reading!
All the best.

Sadly, they are not. Edward was invited to the Pickfords archive last year, but the records do not go as far back as the late 19:th century.

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Reading. Understanding what you read. Being able to scrutinize a text and extract the important matters.

Sadly, that includes understanding such words as 'side,' 'together,' 'we' and 'couple.'