Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[eighty-eighter]

Well get this, and look at it another way, in a nutshell you cannot prove Cross killed Nicholls you have not one scrap of tangible evidence to support this. Yes, you put him at the crime scene he found the body so what, someone had to find the body did they not?

Furthermore you cannot disprove the fact that Cross was not the killer and that perhaps he disturbed the real killer.

You experts were undoubtedly misled by what was presented to them. As a result of what they did say, you have got carried away with this theory, to the point you have become blinkered to all others things that relate to this, important things which you are not prepared to accept, things which go along way to negate your theory.

You also seem to rely heavily on press reports which we know can also be unreliable.

And the main smokescreen you have put up is with regards to the body bleeding.You keep being told that the evidence from the witnesses about what blood they did see or didn't see is unreliable yet you seem to want to interpret all of this in your own way to suit your own theory.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Must admit this made me smile a bit, has any book author or ripperologist got tangible evidence that their pet suspect was JtR? No of course not, it's simply too long after the event. To my mind just about every "case solved" book I've read thus far could be pulled apart much easier still on these forums. Most have far less going for them than the Lechmere theory. At least this character can actually be physically placed at the scene of one of the murders very soon to it being committed, he lived and worked in the area and had no known alibi's, plus of course he seemed to have a problem telling the truth. To my mind that puts him higher than 90% of suggested suspects thus far. Like it or not that's a fact. I haven't made up my mind yet based on the fact that I can't work out a motive or a connection to the other murders, but that doesn't mean he's in the clear - you can't clear someone because of what you DON'T know about him can you?
I'm waiting for the book and hoping Christer can find a bit more background on this character.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

I fear you are the modern Sisyphus, compelled to roll an immense boulder up a hill, only to watch it roll back down, and to repeat this action forever.

I'll check back in about five years to see how you're getting on.

In the meantime I still wish you a Happy New Year.

Regards,

Simon

Oh, I will never get that boulder up Casebook Mountain, Simon. But that is not because my theory is a dead horse being flogged. It is because Casebook is a conglomeration consisting of a number of totally biased people with their own (often VERY) personal takes on who the Ripper was.

I very much suspect that you will be familiar with the mechanism I am speaking about. After all, you have tried to flog the idea that there was no Ripper at all for much more than five years by now. Good luck rolling THAT boulder up the Casebook hill!

And by all means, yes, letīs check and see which theory will make advances in years to come! I will be ever so careful rolling my boulder, I promise you that much - I would not want to loose my grip on it, and have it crushing you way down at the foot of the hill, would I?

Happy New Year, Simon!

Fisherman

[Harry D]

Why lie about your name but not your address?

Stuff like this is why Crossmere falls at the first fence as a suspect.

[Fisherman]

Why lie about your name but not your address?

Stuff like this is why Crossmere falls at the first fence as a suspect.

For you, yes. Others have him falling because he killed en route to work, because he touched Paul on the shoulder, because Paul would have heard what he said, because he was a family man, because he upheld a steady job etcetera.

Far from thinking that Lechmer falls as a suspect, however, Scobie and Griffiths both recognized him as a prime suspect, apparently. Interesting, that! So itīs you or them - hmmmm ...?

Of course, an explanation to why he would lie about his name but not about his address has been given.
The credible explanations as to why he would say Cross to the police but Lechmere to every other authority in Britain have however not exactly graced the market.

It all boils down to whether we want to believe in the only practically functioning suspect ever to have been presented in the case, or if we prefer to go looking for things we can disbelieve, as if no serial killer has ever had any anomaly at all attaching to his person.

I just presented definitive proof that Mizen saw the blood running from Nichols neck at the first instance he saw her, thereby dispelling a lot of strange notions about how I would be dishonest. My post was led on by sheer ignorance or lazyness with some posters who should have known better. But this nobody seems to want to discuss. Instead sweeping generalizations pinpointing nothing at all of interest is what is delivered.

And me oh my, am I surprised...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

BTW I notice in the same article under Crossmere's testimony: 'THE OTHER MAN left witness at the corner of Hanbury-street, and went down Corbett's-court. '

This might seem to allow Fish a few seconds for Crossmere to be alone with Mizen and whisper to him that he was wanted by a policeman, but I'm not convinced.

Nor should you be. This is not pointing to how Paul left Lechmere up at Bakerīs Row/Hanbury Street. It simply points out how Paul left Lechmere at the corner of Corbettīs Court/Hanbury Street - or at least that is what I have always taken it to mean.

The best,
Fisherman

[Simon Wood]

Hi Robert,

Cross and Paul, fellow carmen, walked together along the length of Hanbury Street, parting a Corbett's Court, didn't introduce themselves to one another and never thought to discuss the woman discovered in Bucks Row.

Regards,

Simon

[Robert]

That's what I think too, Simon. However Fish is sure that Paul left Crossmere while Crossmere was talking to Mizen. It's the only way Fish can have Crossmere lying to Mizen without his having to do it in front of Paul.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Robert,

Yes, it's one of those annoying Ripperological facts that Corbett's Court was at the Commercial Street end of Hanbury Street.

Unless, of course, Mizen was knocking up a widow in an off-beat fashion.

Regards,

Simon

[The Good Michael]

Paul: Listen, I haven't got time to talk to the police. I've been late to work 2 days in a row.

Cross: Tell me about it. Every time I stop and kill someone, I end up being late too, what with washing off the blood and taking a uterus or something.

Paul: Oh... I see your point. Still we have to do something, I mean, someone could have seen us looking at her there and have suspicions.

Cross: We used to play this game when I was a kid with my stepfather called: Confuse-a-cop.

Paul: What's that?

Cross: We feed him false information so he leaves us alone, and then when he remembers, he can't tell if it's misremembering or if we lied to him. It worked with my dad every time.

Paul: How about if I put my fingers in my ears while you talk to him and say, "na na na na"?

Cross: Oh that's a good one...it will distract him and make the confusion greater.

Paul: Momma didn't raise no fool.

Cross: Was that a double-negative? I might be able to use that sometime.

Paul: Be my guest.

[Trevor Marriott]

For you, yes. Others have him falling because he killed en route to work, because he touched Paul on the shoulder, because Paul would have heard what he said, because he was a family man, because he upheld a steady job etcetera.

Far from thinking that Lechmer falls as a suspect, however, Scobie and Griffiths both recognized him as a prime suspect, apparently. Interesting, that! So itīs you or them - hmmmm ...?

Of course, an explanation to why he would lie about his name but not about his address has been given.
The credible explanations as to why he would say Cross to the police but Lechmere to every other authority in Britain have however not exactly graced the market.

It all boils down to whether we want to believe in the only practically functioning suspect ever to have been presented in the case, or if we prefer to go looking for things we can disbelieve, as if no serial killer has ever had any anomaly at all attaching to his person.

I just presented definitive proof that Mizen saw the blood running from Nichols neck at the first instance he saw her, thereby dispelling a lot of strange notions about how I would be dishonest. My post was led on by sheer ignorance or lazyness with some posters who should have known better. But this nobody seems to want to discuss. Instead sweeping generalizations pinpointing nothing at all of interest is what is delivered.

And me oh my, am I surprised...!

The best,
Fisherman

Fish
You keep going on about your experts because they are the only ones who prop up your theory.

Andy Griffiths only says that based on what he was provided with Cross/Lechmere is a person of interest, that's far from saying he is a prime suspect.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Dane_F]

Fish,

I think the ultimate sacrifice for your theory needs to be made.

What are the biggest protests people make? How long a person bleeds and how long before it congeals. I propose that for you to finally prove beyond a shadow of doubt the timeframe she had to be killed in that you travel back to the scene of the murder, in similar conditions, and allow someone to rip you. Then we will be able to lay all of these pointless arguments by the wayside by having a full, tangible timeline.

All the best,
Dane

[Scott Nelson]

I just presented definitive proof that Mizen saw the blood running from Nichols neck at the first instance he saw her...

No, not really.

[Fisherman]

No, not really.

Since the rest out here are merely jesting by now, I think you are the only one who has asked a question worth bothering about. Why is it that you dont think the Echo article proves at what remove in time Mizen saw Nichols bleeding?

To me, I think it is amazing how well the blood evidence fits the bill with Lechmere as the killer. I am fully aware that there will always be exceptions, and I know that the blood will not prove things conclusively. I think other pathologists may have other things to say than Trevors man, but overall, with that smallish pool of blood, eventually allowing for a stream of blood flowing down towards the gutter that Paul should perhaps have seen if he was there, I think we have a number of indicators that Lechmere did the cutting. Nichols still bled as Neil saw her, as Thain saw her and as Mizen saw her, reasonably meaning that she had been cut just minutes before. And the pool had started to congeal as Mizen took a look, pointing out that the proposed five, six minutes elapsed seemingly fits perfectly too.

Taken together it points to Lechmere having been in place at a point in time that tallies perfectly well with him having been the cutter. The different elements are in place, and so, even those who dislike the theory vehemently ( and perhaps me even more ) should realize that the carman is an extremely viable bid for having killed Nichols. Remove the killer five minutes before Lechmere, and we have very serious trouble making the blood evidence fit.

Why anybody with a genuine interest in the case should jest about this and try to wawe it away, is something I don' t understand. The only intellectually tenable stance on the issue - as far as I can see - is to acknowledge that Lechmere is the top contender for the Nichols murder, the prime suspect and the probable killer. After that, if people want to keep the door open for somebody else having killed Nichols very close in time to when the carman was there, fine. But why would we turn a blind eye to the realities?

The best,
Fisherman

[Pcdunn]

As I stated a few pages earlier, it may be a matter of interpretation:

"I am inclined to think that "running" in the context of the inquest testimony means more "in the direction of" than a reference to how fresh or flowing the blood is. The authorities would be interested in information about a blood trail, as that might be a clue to where she had been killed (there was some discussion about it at first, before they settled on the location where she had been found), so the policemen would be trained to offer observations like the direction of blood trails.

Remember, PC Neil got there shortly before Mizen responded, and Neil said the body "oozed blood"; perhaps Mizen said "bleeding" when he observed the same thing, but his vocabulary wasn't as good as Neil's.

Finally, when the body is actually lifted and moved to the ambulance cart, it is possible that some of that "trapped blood" we read of elsewhere began to ooze or drip more rapidly, and did "run" into the gutter. Probably not much, as the doctor (and Thain as well, I think) mentioned "somewhat congealed" blood or "some clotting" by the time this was going on.

The mention of the gutter tells me it was probably slightly lower than either the street or "walkway" where Polly was found, so gravity could have been a factor there. And the mention of the back being soaked in blood from neck to waist (often overlooked in this discussion) seems to me to explain why the witnesses didn't see or step in blood-- it had either run away to the gutter or was trapped under her body."

[Fisherman]

Pcdunn: As I stated a few pages earlier, it may be a matter of interpretation:

"I am inclined to think that "running" in the context of the inquest testimony means more "in the direction of" than a reference to how fresh or flowing the blood is. The authorities would be interested in information about a blood trail, as that might be a clue to where she had been killed (there was some discussion about it at first, before they settled on the location where she had been found), so the policemen would be trained to offer observations like the direction of blood trails.

Remember, PC Neil got there shortly before Mizen responded, and Neil said the body "oozed blood"; perhaps Mizen said "bleeding" when he observed the same thing, but his vocabulary wasn't as good as Neil's.

So now itīs Mizens vocabulary that is amiss? Interesting! Not only was he the stupidest PC on the force, misunderstanding what Lechmere told him, he was also unable to word himself intelligibily.

But what about this:

Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman. Witness asked him what was the matter, and Cross replied, "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there." 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.
(Echo, 3 September)

Does Mizen sound like a man with grave troubles expressing himself? I donīt think so.

And what is it he says about that blood? Oh yes, here it is: The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.

Now, what YOU seemingly propose, and with no substantiation, is that Neils wording that the blood oozed from the wound would somehow mean that it was very little blood that came from the cut. You want to suggest that Neil said there was only a little blood whereas Mizen said there was a lot, and that this would somehow nullify Mizens suggestion. But neither man mentioned any volume" One said oozing, one said running, and we know that dead people will produce nothing but oozing or running blood.
And "ooze" can mean a lot of things. I have already pointed out that there are 800 plus examples of the wording "oozed profusely" on the net. Hereīs what the free dictionary says:

Ooze

1. To flow or leak out slowly, as through small openings.
2. To disappear or ebb slowly: His courage oozed away.
3. To progress slowly but steadily: "Over grass bleached colorless by strong outback sun, the herd oozes forward" (Geraldine Brooks).
4. To exude moisture.
5. To emit a particular essence or quality: The house oozed with charm.
v.tr.
1. To give off; exude.
2. To emit or radiate in abundance: She oozes confidence.

I earlier posted a sentence where a guy writes on the net that dead people do not bleed - they ooze. Generally speaking, that is a good explanation; blood with no pressure behind it will ooze out or run out. But that does not necessarily mean that the volume is small.

Neil said that she bled - and actually, in the Morning Advertiser, he is quoted as having used the word running about the blood - Thain said the blood was running towards the gutter and Mizen said that she was still bleeding and that the blood that was running from her neck appeared fresh.

There is nothing in what either man says that points to any differences in what they were describing or any difficulties in expressing themselves - the blood was running from the wound in Nicholīs neck, it was oozing out of that wound, and it appeared fresh to Mizen.

Finally, when the body is actually lifted and moved to the ambulance cart, it is possible that some of that "trapped blood" we read of elsewhere began to ooze or drip more rapidly, and did "run" into the gutter. Probably not much, as the doctor (and Thain as well, I think) mentioned "somewhat congealed" blood or "some clotting" by the time this was going on.

But Mizen spoke of the blood running into the gutter as he saw Nichols the FIRST TIME, when only Neil was in place. And Neil said that there was a pool under her neck as he saw her, whilst Llewellyn confirmed this by saying that there was a smallish pool that would contain no more than half a pint of blood.
It was Mizen who said that the blood was starting to congeal, and Mizen made his observation as he first saw Nichols. When he arived back from Bethnal Green police station, upwards of half an hour would have passed! Do you seriously think that the blood would only have started to congeal at that time? Blood starts to congeal half a minute after leaving the vessels. After three minutes we can see it happening before our eyes.

This is no news, and it was known to the Victorians too. From "The Western journal of the Medical and Physical Sciences" by the medical faculty of Cincinatti College. (1837):

Blood coagulates in about three minutes and a half; the coagulation is usually completed in seven minutes and in twelve minutes the mass becomes firm.

Mizen arrived back from Bethnal Green police station with that ambulance about twentyfive minutes to half an hour after Nichols was cut - IF Lechmere did the cutting. Otherwise, the time span was even larger. The blood would emphatically not have just started to coagulate at that stage!

Moreover, IF she was still bleeding as Mizen arrived back with the ambulance, then why does not Llewellyn say that she still bled as HE saw her? Llewellyn ordered the police to take the body to the mortuary: "Witness gave the police directions to take the body to the mortuary, where he would make another examination. ", and he would have been in place at 4.10-ish, which tallies well with when Mizen would have returned back with the ambulance.
Why is not Llewellyn telling us that miraculously, the blood was still running and had only just started to congeal at this time?
Strange, is it not?

The mention of the gutter tells me it was probably slightly lower than either the street or "walkway" where Polly was found, so gravity could have been a factor there. And the mention of the back being soaked in blood from neck to waist (often overlooked in this discussion) seems to me to explain why the witnesses didn't see or step in blood-- it had either run away to the gutter or was trapped under her body.

If it ran into the gutter, how is that an explanation for why it was not seen? Can you explain that to me? Isnīt that the exact sort of thing that should have made people see it or step in it? Or kneel in it?

Why are you trying to make things very odd and very dependant on your interpretations about how Mizen would have been bad at wording things?

What if Lechmere cut her?

Lechmere cut her, and passive blood will only run for as long as there are reasons of gravity for it. Trevors pathologist said that it would do so for the initital couple of minutes only.
Fits with Lechmere.

Paul saw no blood, and so she could have been very recently cut, so that there was still no running into the gutter as Paul knelt by her side.
Fits with Lechmere.

The blood had started to congeal as Mizen saw here, and that was five or six minutes after Lechmere would have cut her.
Fits with Lechmere.

Apart from the blinding desire to point to how it may not have been Lechmere, whatīs your problem with realizing that things actually point straight to him?

The best,
Fisherman