Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Most ff the questions i have asked have been at your asking. I fail to see what you are looking to achieve ? But when you get answers you are not happy with them and want to ask more.

Tell me what you are looking to prove ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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, donīt 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 canīt, 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 Nicholsī 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 donīt 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 didnīt 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

Does it matter who the body was it could have been Aunt Ethel the cisrcumatance would still be the same and the opinion given would still be the same.

The question was again

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?

What he says is

"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"

Now

Pc Neil --Blood oozing
Dr Llewellyn -- Very Little blood around the neck
Cross Notice no blood
Paul -Notices no blood

So who is right I guess by the way you want your theory to pan out it must be Mizen.

But of course even if your times are spot on, what you cant calculate for, which no one seems to have mentioned is the fact that Cross could have unintentionally disturbed the real killer. If that be the case no matter how much you champion your times as being correct you still cant prove Cross was the killer and still cannot dismiss the above alternative scenario.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Tom_Wescott]

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.'

Are you suggesting Fisherman should listen to the Carpenter's Greatest Hits?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[caz]

Fisherman - to make things easier I will reply to all your posts in one go.

Inspector Abberline's report is the most authoritative account of the time of discovery of the body but all this 3:40 or 3:45 business is frankly irrelevant because your 9 minute gap hinges entirely on Lechmere having left his house at exactly 3:30am for which there is precisely no evidence and not even a dodgy newspaper report to support it. All Lechmere said was that he left at "about 3:30am" which might not even have been true but, if it was, as even you have conceded, this could have been 3:35am so that your "major 9 minute gap" is like the dust in the desert. I have consistently made the point that you do not need this 9 minute gap because Lechmere could have left his house at 3:25, 3:20 or anytime. It could have been 3:00am, it could have been 2:00am or 1:00am - he could have been prowling around Whitechapel all night. I'm not against the idea that Cross could have been the killer at all but I am against an argument so bad that it is embarrassing.

Hi David,

On this we agree. It was my original point that the documentary appeared to be relying far too much on this supposed 9 minute gap to make a strong case out of a weak one. The irony seemed to be lost that it was Lechmere himself, and only Lechmere, who provided the authorities with the time he left home. In short, the theory requires the wretched man to have told the truth, presumably with the aid of an accurate timepiece, thereby incriminating himself. He really can't win, can he?

Love,

Caz
X

[Robert]

Hi Tom

I'm sure when Fish hears 'Close To You' he imagines two Siamese twins singing to each other.

[caz]

...when it came to actually having to testify on oath at the inquest, Paul did not say he was in Buck's Row at exactly 3:45. Far from it, all he could say was that he left his house at some unknown time shortly before 3:45 that morning...

And if Lechmere was the killer, he could just as easily have said he 'left his house at some unknown time shortly before 3:45 that morning', leaving modern theorists without the 9 minute gap used to hang him.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

To begin with: find out before you speculate in it.

Hi Fishy,

If you mean that I should find out before I speculate that Lechmere could have been known as Cross at work, that works both ways. Perhaps you ought to have found out which name he was known by at work before you relied on it being Lechmere.

To carry on: At the stage when the inquests second day played out, Lechmere knew quite well that the woman in Bucks Row had been savagely murdered. He also knew that he had been alone with the body. He also knew that the police were privy to that information.

It would not have been "unwise" to lie about his name, thus - it would have been suicidal.

And yet you think this is precisely what he did, and he got away with it? Why would it have been 'suicidal' for an innocent man, but not for a guilty one? Or are you suggesting he was a killer of very little brain, while the police presumably had none at all? Of course, it would not have been remotely suicidal if you were to discover he was known as Charles Cross at work. Well, only suicidal for that part of your case.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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

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

The best,
Fisherman

But if he was telling the truth he was being honest (as 'suicidal' for a killer as telling transparent lies). Would he really have fallen into the trap of giving himself enough time to waylay and kill Nichols if that is exactly what he did during those spare minutes? The real killer would surely have had the sense to lie about his departure time in such a scenario, effectively giving himself an alibi which would have been nigh on impossible to disprove.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

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.'

Sadly for you, yes. I am still lacking the exact description of the distance inbetween two people that constitutes "by the side of", Robert.

I wonder why?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Most ff the questions i have asked have been at your asking. I fail to see what you are looking to achieve ? But when you get answers you are not happy with them and want to ask more.

Tell me what you are looking to prove ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I am VERY happy with the answers, Trevor. If it had not been for what I think is a number of misinterpretations of them on behalf of others, I would not need to ask anything more at all.

You have been told - by your own guy - that if the damage to the neck is really severe, and if there are no obstacles, then we should expect the amount of blood that will run out, to do so in the initial couple of minutes.

That is a very clearly phrased thing.

Then you have tangled things up by throwing in things that your pathologist offered to broaden our understanding of the wide variety of different damages and different positions of the body, including obstacles for the blood.

If you had refrained from that, the argument would have been over long ago.

As such, I find it utterly interesting how nobody seems to work along the lines of "Hey, could it be that this is something of a clincher?", instead putting the sunshades on and saying "it has to be wrong".

The exact same thing happened when I wrote about the Mizen scam. In the choice between a highly appraised policeman and a carman who we know gave the police the wrong name, almost nobody said "Lechmere probably lied". Instead, people tripped over each other as they willingly joined the naysaying brigade.

It is obviouls that nobody wants the case solved. People are even willing to suggest that the documentary was made on an illegitimate basis, with the experts being lied to or fed tilted information. You were one of the more vociferous proponents in this, Iīm afraid.

Itīs a downright rot if you ask me, and it makes a mockery of logical thinking and an evidencebased approach.

But every little detail goes to show something out here, so on the whole, I believe things will be just fine in the end.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: Does it matter who the body was it could have been Aunt Ethel the cisrcumatance would still be the same and the opinion given would still be the same.

Thatīs where you will be wrong, Trevor. If the pathologist had commented on Nichols, he would have said so. He did in his former post, when he said that the bleeding would be over in the initial couple of minutes.

The question was again

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?

What he says is

"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"

Yes, thatīs what the man says. He is NOT speaking of Nichols here, but instead of a generalized view, comprising his whole experience.

Now

Pc Neil --Blood oozing

Blood running, according to the Morning Advertiser, that quotes ad verbatim. My own belief is that BOTH running and oozing may have been mentioned, and I have pointed out various times that oozing need not mean that only a little blood flows - oozing points to the speed of the blood coming out, and it comes out slowly from a dead body.
On the net, you will find more than 800 exaples of the wording "oozed profusely", which should tell you that "ooze" relates primarily to the speed of the flow, and not to the amount.
If we want to disbelieve the Morning Advertiser, then we can turn to Mizen, who said that the blood was still running and appeared fresh. As he saw the body AFTER Neil, it could hardly had bled less when Neil saw the body, could it?

Dr Llewellyn -- Very Little blood around the neck

Llewellyn was there around fifteen to twenty minutes after Mizen. What did you expect?

Cross Notice no blood
Paul -Notices no blood

In neither case does it mean that it was not there, Trevor, We actually KNOW that it would have bee. - but it is interesting that Paul does not see the stream of blood running from the pool under Nicholsī neck down to the gutter.
Could it be that it had not yet flowed over when Paul was there? I find that a very useful suggestion.

So who is right I guess by the way you want your theory to pan out it must be Mizen.

NO, NO, NO, NO ,NO!!! My theory pans out eminently whether Mizen saw the blood running or not - we would STILL have Neil seeing it happen, and we would still know that she had in all probability been cut very close in time. Of course, Mizenīs testimony isolated Lechmere as the probable killer even further, but the crash and burn of my theory you seem to spend your nights dreaming about, would not happen even if Mizen had been blind, Trevor.

But of course even if your times are spot on, what you cant calculate for, which no one seems to have mentioned is the fact that Cross could have unintentionally disturbed the real killer. If that be the case no matter how much you champion your times as being correct you still cant prove Cross was the killer and still cannot dismiss the above alternative scenario.

There is always the possibility of a freak scenario, yes. Even if Nichols bled for an unexpectedly long time, as implied by Mizens words, she COULD always have bled three minutes longer. There are always these possibilitites. But why should we look for a freak possibility when we have a man like Lechmere in the frame, a man who lied about his name, who seemingly lied his way past the police, who had geographical and chronological ties to all the murders, who Andy Griffiths said had a lot of things pointing towards him and who Scobie said acted suspiciously, even saying that what we have on him would warrant a modern day trial?

Why on earth would we predispose that something freakish is to prefer to a man with this kind of pointers surrounding his appearance in the Ripper saga?

You keep saying that it must not have been him, Trevor. But why do you so utterly desperately not WANT it to have been him? Whatīs the lure? Why try and exonerate him at any cost?

I donīt get it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Tom

I'm sure when Fish hears 'Close To You' he imagines two Siamese twins singing to each other.

Nope. Whenever I hear "Oops, I did it again", I do tend to think of a number of posters out here, but otherwise, very little of what is said is music to my ears.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

And if Lechmere was the killer, he could just as easily have said he 'left his house at some unknown time shortly before 3:45 that morning', leaving modern theorists without the 9 minute gap used to hang him.

Love,

Caz
X

But he didnīt, Caz, did he? He could just as easily have said, "Alright, Iīm the man you are looking for", and you would look silly. But he didnīt do that either.

So letīs stick with what he said, shall we?

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Fish, the correct use of the phrase 'by the side of' in the English language will depend on context and common sense. I recommend both to you.

BTW, I noticed your 'Paul stumbling over Cross outside Brown's yard' remark on the other thread. Naughty, Fish.

[Fisherman]

Caz: Hi Fishy,

If you mean that I should find out before I speculate that Lechmere could have been known as Cross at work, that works both ways. Perhaps you ought to have found out which name he was known by at work before you relied on it being Lechmere.

It emphatically does NOT work both ways. As long as we know perfectly well that he signed himself Lechmere, you are at a great disadvantage trying to argue that he was known as Cross at his job. I can substantiate that he DID use the name Lechmere, whereas you cannot come even close to substantiating that he ever used Cross. Moreover, we all know that he said or signed "Lechmere" every single time he dealt with any form of authority, and we also know that the police is a form of authority, wherefore we have a glaring anomaly on our hands.

So in this case, I HAVE proof that he used the name Lechmere, and I HAVE proof that you have no evidence at all that he called himself Cross at work. So you are the one that will have to do the substantiating.

And yet you think this is precisely what he did, and he got away with it?

I donīt just think he got away with it - I have evidence that this was what happened.

Why would it have been 'suicidal' for an innocent man, but not for a guilty one?

Did I say that? I donīt think so. Would I say it? No.

Or are you suggesting he was a killer of very little brain, while the police presumably had none at all?

I am suggesting that he was very resourceful, quick in thought and actions. I certainly think that he was a good bit smarter and quicker than the average policeman, but therein lies no shame. As it happens, I think he would have been smarter and quicker than both me and you too.

Of course, it would not have been remotely suicidal if you were to discover he was known as Charles Cross at work. Well, only suicidal for that part of your case.

I wonīt discover that, I think, Caz - I will leave that scoop to you. Good luck with it - and good luck with any other suggestion along the same lines. You can - for example - suggest that he couldnīt stand the sight of blood. Of course, it would lack every form of substantiation - but then again, so does the suggestion that he was called Cross at Pickfords.

Apparently, such trifles donīt stop you?

The best,
Fisherman