Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Fisherman]

Batman:

Okay I will deal with this technicality first and then back to the Coroner capacity issues.

Deal away, Batman!

Blood moves because the heart pumps it.

Yes.

Without the heart blood will move because of gravitational forces.

Yes.

However just because the heart isn't pumping doesn't mean that interaction with the body with a tool be it a knife or a surgical instrument doesn't cause the blood to still move because of physics.

True.

Basically there are other vectors other than the heart.

Hmmm. "Vectors"? the heart and the heart only makes the blood go through the veins. A slightly raised pressure will inititally be there even some little time after the heart has finished pumping, but that is it.

That's why even when working on small toxic blood samples respirators and surgical masks are a must and they are not slashing anything but carefully inserting syringes etc.

Well, if there is a contamination risk, thatīs understandable. People donīt want to catch ebola on their day off, do they?
That does not mean that there WILL be blood distributed, only that there CAN be - by accicdent.

You might say thats just aerosol composition where the blood amount is too small to see, but this is just a degree of disturbance, and she was violently slashed elsewhere. I don't think the coroner's inquest used lack of blood in places as evidence for the murderer having no blood on them, but simply that the corpse lacked the look of being stabbed while vertical or while defending themselves.

She was violently slashed, you say? Then why can we read that "No blood was found on the breast, either of the body or the clothes"? Why did not violent stabbing and retractions of the knife send blood swirling through the air, dotting and smearing her all over? Why was she spotless on the breast?
Maybe, Batman, the killer was not at all as violent in his moves as you seem to envisage? Maybe he was more methodical, doing things in a more calm manner? Sure Llewellyn speaks of violence, but it seems not to have been portrayed in the bloodspill.
There were no blood dots reported around the body either. It was a surprisingly bloodless deed, if we are to believe what was said: A smallish pool of blood under her neck, a brooke of blood running towards the gutter, some blood where her legs had been, and thatīs it.

So excuse me for asking once again, but just how was the blood that did not find itīs way onto Nichols breast supposed to have climbed up to the killers hands and body?

Now, having said that, I am off the opinion in other threads that the raising of JtRs victims legs is done deliberately to add gravitational forces to the heart pumping blood out of the neck, so it is not just a sexual signature but very much a practical one. However this doesn't mean he will have no blood on him, just less blood.

Aha. Well, we are all different. The suggestion has an odd ring to my ear. Are there any comparisons? Anybody who has ever done this and mentioned it afterwards?

For example, JtR has experience before Eddowes, yet Eddowes apron is blood stained in a fashion suggesting cleaning up.

He stuck his hands into Eddowes. And Chapman. And Kelly. He never did that with Stride and Nichols or Tabram. It makes a world of difference.

Wynne E. Baxter while occupying a judicial place doesn't have medical experience as you say, but if he is mistaken, why is that mistake not highlighted by others in the contemporary? Like why didn't they tell him he was wrong?

Many people thought Baxter was wrong - and on many matters! What Baxter aimed to do was to make the bits and pieces fit, and to that end, he had to shoehorn things into place at times. Besides, Payne-James, for example, is not saying that the killer could not have had blood on his person after killing Nichols - he is saying that he must not necessarily have had.

At any rate, Baxter did not reiterate any view of Llewellyn as far as we know - the doctor said nothing about whether the killer would have had blood on his person as far as I know. If he did, then that did not happen at the inquest.

The best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

If the police decided to check him out and he had claimed to be Harry Hollingsworth of 16 Gower Street, working for the City council, he would have been in deep trouble.

Only if they caught him though, surely, Fish?

You ask for examples of people who have broken the law and tried to lie their way out of it. "There are loads of examples sadly". How many examples are there of people who have given their correct forenames, correct address and correct employer, but only an alias surname? Never mind "loads of", can you name just one (other than Charles Allen Lechmere)?

[Robert]

Thanks for those links, Fish. I couldn't help noticing that all the items appear to have been written by people whose first language isn't English. I think this supports my point. Here is my idea of what is meant by 'ooze' :

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/ooze

[Fisherman]

Interesting as all this is, I don't see how recent infliction of the fatal injuries necessitates their being attributed to Lechmere rather than to a killer who had left the scene within the previous 5 minutes. How long would it take to walk from the Browns Yard gateway around the corner and out of sight onto Winthrop Street? Has anyone timed it? My guess would be less than a minute.

Read my post to Jon Guy! Blood starts to congeal in three minutes - and faster in chilly conditions. It is fully congealed in around seven minutes, and in twelve minutes it has become firm.
The blood Mizen saw had started to congeal. Arguably, that means that he saw it four, five or six minutes after the murder.
And how long after Lechmere left would Mizen have seen the victim? Yes, thatīs correct - five or six minutes afterwards.
Move the strike five minutes away and we end up close to the stage where the blood has gone firm.

It FITS for Lechmere, Colin, like it or not. The blood was still running and looking fresh when Mizen saw it, but for the congealing that had set in around the pool edges. That too fits with the murder having been carried out just a few minutes away.

The gist of the matter is that even if we allow for another killer that was there a minute or two before Lechmere, we should still have had fully congealed blood in that pool!

I know very well that these things can and will differ, and so we must allow for another man to have done the deed. But the fact of the matter is that the evidence seemingly points straight to Lechmere! And no matter how we make our calls, Lechmere was THERE, while "the other man" is so far only a figment of our imagination.

It therefore applies that Lechmere was very probably the killer of Polly Nichols and at any rate, he must be the prime suspect in that case.

After that, all the anomalies attaching to the carman does nothing to help his case. He DID give the wrong name, he DID disagree with Mizen, Mizen DID suggest that Lehcmere had fed him a lie that would have been perfectly shaped to take him past the police, Lechmere DID seemingly have geographical ties to all the killings and so on.

It all falls in place, therefore, and for me, there is no reason to look any further. I agree with Andy Griffiths who said that until we could clear Lechmere, there is no need to look at any other suspects. "He is of tremendeous interest" was what Andy said.

I agree. Do you?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Thanks for those links, Fish. I couldn't help noticing that all the items appear to have been written by people whose first language isn't English. I think this supports my point. Here is my idea of what is meant by 'ooze' :

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de...n/english/ooze

Thanks! Did you notice how your version had a link to synonyms for "ooze"? Here they are. I used the "English synonyms" compartment only.

blood oozed from a long scratch on his forehead

Synonyms for "oozed": seep, discharge, flow, exude, trickle, drip, dribble, issue, filter, percolate, escape, leak, drain, empty, bleed, sweat, well, leach;

I took the liberty to bolden a few suggestions.

I trust your link was British speaking?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

Only if they caught him though, surely, Fish?

Absolutely. And the risk would have been there for our carman.

You ask for examples of people who have broken the law and tried to lie their way out of it.

No, I donīt. I encouraged another poster to look at such examples.

"There are loads of examples sadly". How many examples are there of people who have given their correct forenames, correct address and correct employer, but only an alias surname? Never mind "loads of", can you name just one (other than Charles Allen Lechmere)?

No. But my understanding is that the Ripper was just the one man. And I do think that there are lots of individual traits with many serialists. I canīt find any other serialist than Heirens that communicated with the police with a lipstick, I canīt find any other serialist that cut the eyes out than the Texas eyeball killer, I only know of Keith Whatshisname (Jasperson?) to have used a Smiley, I can think of no other killer than Bittaker that used a pair of pliers on his victims.

Some things will be individual. And they are useless when trying to form a pattern. Other things will be common traits. And they are VERY useful forming a pattern.

Now, you skipped over my question to you as a former policeman: Is Lechmere the prime suspect for the Nichols killing given what we know? Or is somebody else? Or donīt we have a prime suspect?

I hope you will cast your vote and defend it intellectually, Colin.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Thanks for those links, Fish. I couldn't help noticing that all the items appear to have been written by people whose first language isn't English.

Just for you, Robert, hereīs the Scot Andrew Duncan, from his ”Medical Commentaries” from 1780, well before the Victorian times. He was a teacher of medicine in Edinburgh, so I hope he will pass as well as a medically qualified man and - of course! - as a true and genuine Brit to your mind:

”My reason for doing so was the half divided vessels, from which the blood oozed profusely, both of the pericranium and teguments...”

https://books.google.se/books?id=XRkUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA440&lpg=PA440&dq=%22blood+oozed+profusely%22&source=bl&ots=op-Es0lwZ6&sig=QJq45ctz9eqyI34oirF8HRxvhlY&hl=sv&sa=X&ei=T62hVPjpKcbcywOF3oCQCw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22blood%20oozed%20profusely%22&f=false

A contradiction in terms, ehrm ...

Now, can we lay this behind us?

The best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

Read my post to Jon Guy! Blood starts to congeal in three minutes - and faster in chilly conditions. It is fully congealed in around seven minutes, and in twelve minutes it has become firm.
The blood Mizen saw had started to congeal. Arguably, that means that he saw it four, five or six minutes after the murder.
And how long after Lechmere left would Mizen have seen the victim? Yes, thatīs correct - five or six minutes afterwards.
Move the strike five minutes away and we end up close to the stage where the blood has gone firm.

It FITS for Lechmere, Colin, like it or not. The blood was still running and looking fresh when Mizen saw it, but for the congealing that had set in around the pool edges. That too fits with the murder having been carried out just a few minutes away.

The gist of the matter is that even if we allow for another killer that was there a minute or two before Lechmere, we should still have had fully congealed blood in that pool!

I know very well that these things can ad will differ, and so we must allow for another man to have done the deed. But the fact of the matter is that the evidence seemingly points straight to Lechmere! And no matter how we make our calls, Lechmere was THERE, while "the other man" is so far only a figment of our imagination.

So it fits for Lechmere but not for someone who had struck, say, two minutes earlier. Is that what you're saying?

Lechmere was THERE, while "the other man" is so far only a figment of our imagination.

The kliier was there. Lechmere was there. They may or may not be one and the same.

Mizen DID suggest that Lechmere had fed him a lie that would have been perfectly shaped to take him past the police

But Lechmere didn't attempt to get "past the police". He and Paul actively sought out a police officer at the risk of being late for work. Your claim that Mizen "suggested that Lechmere had fed him a lie" only works if Mizen recalled the conversation accurately and was not lying himself to justify his failure to attend the scene immediately as he should have done.

It all falls in place, therefore, and for me, there is no reason to look any further. I agree with Andy Griffiths who said that until we could clear Lechmere, there is no need to look at any other suspects. "He is of tremendous interest" was what Andy said.

I agree. Do you?

I agree that, had he been involved in the original enquiry, Andy Griffiths, like any capable detective, would have eliminated Lechmere before moving on to other suspects. It is possible to speculate that the detectives in 1888 were so unbelievably incompetent that they failed to do this but it is also possible, and in my view reasonable, to speculate that they did so.

[Fisherman]

Bridewell: So it fits for Lechmere but not for someone who had struck, say, two minutes earlier. Is that what you're saying?

It fits less well with every minute we move backwards, since we will inevitably arrive at congealed blood and blood that has stopped flowing. If Lechmere was not the killer, we have a very small window of opportunity to work with, thatīs what I am saying.

The killer was there. Lechmere was there. They may or may not be one and the same.

But you have no evidence at all of any other men than Lechmere and Paul having been in place, do you? Instead, you have PC:s and watchmen who say that it was a very quiet night, and that they saw nobody leaving or entering Bucks Row to evoke suspicion. Lechmere is a real person. The alternative killer is an invention so far. And there is absolutely no need to invent any other killer than Lechmere, since he fits the blood evidence and since he has a lot of anomalies around his person.

But Lechmere didn't attempt to get "past the police". He and Paul actively sought out a police officer at the risk of being late for work. Your claim that Mizen "suggested that Lechmere had fed him a lie" only works if Mizen recalled the conversation accurately and was not lying himself to justify his failure to attend the scene immediately as he should have done.

Mizen acted as if had been told this exact lie. He never told his superiors that Neil was wrong. And he DID try to get past the police if he lied in the way Mizen suggests.

I agree that, had he been involved in the original enquiry, Andy Griffiths, like any capable detective, would have eliminated Lechmere before moving on to other suspects. It is possible to speculate that the detectives in 1888 were so unbelievably incompetent that they failed to do this but it is also possible, and in my view reasonable, to speculate that they did so.

And the litmus paper is the name issue - it speak in favour of the cops having goofed up, Iīm afraid.

But my question is not whether you think the police would have gotten it right or wrong - it is whether you agree that on account of the blood evidence, the name swop, the Mizen scam, the covered-up wounds, the failure of Paul to notice Lechmere before he arrived at Brownīs - and a few more things - Lechmere must be regarded as the prime suspect for the Nichols murder? Or are you so sure that the police cleared him but failed to use his real name in their own protocols, that you think he could not have done the deed?

The best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

Now, you skipped over my question to you as a former policeman: Is Lechmere the prime suspect for the Nichols killing given what we know? Or is somebody else? Or donīt we have a prime suspect?

I hope you will cast your vote and defend it intellectually, Colin.

Apologies if I failed to address this question on an earlier occasion. I don't get on Casebook as often as once I did and I try not to subscribe to too many threads as I end up doing nothing else.

Lechmere is the prime suspect if he was not eliminated at the time - something which we don't know and probably never will. As you said yourself in your original Ripperologist article, Lechmere's actions are open to guilty and innocent interpretation.

Defend it intellectually? If Nichols was killed by someone else who fled on Lechmere's approach then he was an innocent passer-by; if not then Lechmere was the killer. The only certainty is that Lechmere either was the killer or came closer than anyone to catching the person who was. That's as close as I can go to agreeing with you.

[Robert]

Fish, the good news is that your last example was a good one. The bad news is, no we can't put it behind us.

This is an eccentric use of language, in my opinion, possibly explicable by the 1780 date. Language changes.

More generally, just because a list of synonyms is given, does not mean that you can use all those words interchangeably in any sentence in which they occur. For example, a woman might be pleased to hear from a fortune teller that she is going to meet a tall dark stranger (maybe Enrique Iglesias?). She would be less pleased to hear that she is going to meet a tall dim stranger (definitely Basil Fawlty).

To use an example from your own links : blood may flow from a gaping wound. It may also flow from a scratch on the forehead. Blood may ooze from a scratch on the forehead, but can it ooze from a gaping wound? I would say no, not unless the wound has already done most of its bleeding and the blood is now coming out very slowly. The idea of blood oozing profusely from a gaping wound, is a nonsense.

[Fisherman]

Apologies if I failed to address this question on an earlier occasion. I don't get on Casebook as often as once I did and I try not to subscribe to too many threads as I end up doing nothing else.

Lechmere is the prime suspect if he was not eliminated at the time - something which we don't know and probably never will. As you said yourself in your original Ripperologist article, Lechmere's actions are open to guilty and innocent interpretation.

Defend it intellectually? If Nichols was killed by someone else who fled on Lechmere's approach then he was an innocent passer-by; if not then Lechmere was the killer. The only certainty is that Lechmere either was the killer or came closer than anyone to catching the person who was. That's as close as I can go to agreeing with you.

Thatīs just fine, Colin. Thanks for elaborating. I have had a number of experiences of people who would never go anywhere near saying as much as you do, come hell or high water, and that has had me baffled. Or worried, to ber more precise.

Personally, I think that the blood evidence is the next piece of the puzzle that falls into place. And, of course, I regard the name issue as a clear indicator that Lechmere was never thoroughly examined. I fail to see any viable explanation as to why the police would not name him in their own reports if they knew his true name. And I have never been presented with any even half useful explanation to that enigma.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Dane_F]

Find yourself a man that has broken the law and afterwards tried to lie his way out of it. There are loads of examples, sadly.
Then look at HOW he shapes his lies.
Basically, it all boils down to coming as close as possible to the truth without giving yourself away.

Have a look, if you will, at how Lechmere told the police that he was Charles Cross of 22 Doveton Street, working at Pickfords.

If he did not want to go public via the press, this is the perfect example of what Iīm saying. If the police decided to check him out and he had claimed to be Harry Hollingsworth of 16 Gower Street, working for the City council, he would have been in deep trouble.
He took the chance that he would be able to get away with using Cross. Using that name, and zipping up about the address before the inquest, was as best as he could have done in this department. It is a perfect weighing of lying, telling the truth and saying nothing.

The best,
Fisherman

What? None of that addresses my question at all. You ask us to suspend our belief and accept that Lechmere was a pathological liar but in the very next breath you try and use Lechmere as witness as "proof" he would have heard someone going down the street.

The truth is he only thought he would have heard someone going down the street. This however is not proof that he would have. Saying, "Yes there was time for a killer to flee before Lechmere" but then "No it wouldn't happen because Lechmere thought he would hear them" is not proof a killer did no such thing. Actually, you're entire theory is based off of someone noticing a person coming down the street before they noticed him and could see what he was doing. To try and negate this possibility from happening to Lechmere but possible for the very next individual is very selective.

We don't even know what Lechmere was basing this on. Was he assuming the other person had wooden soled shoes? What happens if the person had rubber soles? What if he had enough time to slip his shoes off? There's literally no way to guarantee he would have heard another person.

So here is the question. Was there enough time for another person to flee the scene before Lechmere got there? It's quiet simple, either it's Yes or No.

[Dane_F]

The Star
Largest Circulation of Any Evening Paper in the Kingdom.
LONDON. WEDNESDAY, 5 SEPTEMBER, 1888.


THE TWO LARGE DROPS OF BLOOD,
clear and undeniable, which were visible on the Buck's*row pavement, 25 and 35 feet above the place
where the body lay, were made by fresh thick blood, and were probably caused by something in the
hands of the murderer as he walked away. Added to this is the slight abdominal hemorrhage, such as
would be the case if the cutting were done after death

Can someone go into more detail about this? Is there something to be said for this or a false account or what? If it's true blood was found elsewhere this would directly indicate the killer had blood on himself or at least his weapon, no?

This certainly doesn't fit with a person hiding the weapon on his body correct?

[Batman]

Batman:

Hmmm. "Vectors"? the heart and the heart only makes the blood go through the veins. A slightly raised pressure will inititally be there even some little time after the heart has finished pumping, but that is it.

A vector is a medium that can trasmit a unit from one place to another. It takes on more specific meanings in specialized areas. The heart is a pump, but the pump is not the only means by which blood can move naturally, for example, gravitational forces. Also there are biochemical pathways in which blood movement involves chemical interaction. Air can also be a vector for blood as pointed out by the contamination examples. Then there is the kinetic energy of instruments in blood. Pressure from gases can also cause blood to also move. Muscle movement and spasms from the wounds post-mortem. There are many more ways to get blood on oneself from stab wounds than not.

Your choosing not, according to the evidence. I say I would think it unlikely given the violence involved.

She was violently slashed, you say? Then why can we read that "No blood was found on the breast, either of the body or the clothes"? Why did not violent stabbing and retractions of the knife send blood swirling through the air, dotting and smearing her all over? Why was she spotless on the breast?

I don't think the ripper was at all slow. I think he was very fast but spent a large portion of time on organs for removal (not with Nichols though). I don't think his MO is Jack the slow coach. Sorry I think he is known as a slasher, not a stabber right? While Tabram was stabbed, JtRs other victims had slashes and nichols seems no different. The neck was slashed, not stabbed too.

Yes, there is a lack of blood in places on her but I think what the evidence is trying to suggest is not that there is something really odd about the lack of blood on her front, but that the blood that pooled around her neck suggests she was lying down. I think that is all they are trying to demonstrate. That she wasn't killed standing up.

Now, having said that, I am off the opinion in other threads that the raising of JtRs victims legs is done deliberately to add gravitational forces to the heart pumping blood out of the neck, so it is not just a sexual signature but very much a practical one. However this doesn't mean he will have no blood on him, just less blood.


Aha. Well, we are all different. The suggestion has an odd ring to my ear. Are there any comparisons? Anybody who has ever done this and mentioned it afterwards?

None to my knowledge. I have never heard the suggestion before. Purely my own take on things.

The mass of congealed blood works in explaining where most of the blood went. The throat wound where most of it came from. Hence the focus on no blood on her front. However do the other wounds suggest no blood came out?

"There were no injuries about the body till just about the lower part of the abdomen. Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. It was a very deep wound, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. On the right side there were also three or four similar cuts running downwards. All these had been caused by a knife, which had been used violently and been used downwards."

It doesn't say anything about blood and we know most of it congealed but the image invoked doesn't make for a very clean attacker I think. Which is basically my point and I think it works in the witnesses favour. I don't think this is as strong a point though as the fact witnesses turned up close to JtRs murders and this guy is one of many.