Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Fisherman]

Ooze is just a term to signify that the remaining presure is too low to force the blood out quickly with low pressure gravitational forces responsible for the movement of blood out of the body.

Bingo!

... but try to tell Robert that...!

Fisherman

[Rosella]

Whether it was oozing or not oozing Andrew Borden's blood was still bright red and unclotted 45 minutes after his murder.

[Fisherman]

Ok. I take it back Christer. Mizen did observe blood still running from Nichol's neck. Therefore she was cut VERY recently.

U-huh. Well, when you wrote that it was not correct to say that it was a proven thing that Mizen saw the blood on occasion number one and not after having fetched the ambulance, I actually thought that you were unhappy with the source. So thatīs why I asked.

As such, you are welcome to post any criticism of my thoughts, I actually welcome it and find it both necessary and useful. I am not quite the pitbull some think I am, and I am not quite as locked on target as some will have it. I think your description is the only way we can put the matter: Mizenīs observations establishes that the only reasonable suggestion is that Nichols had been cut very recently.
After that, I donīt doubt that there will be pathologists pointing out the wisdom in never saying never, both as regards the period of time for which the blood will have run from Nicholsī neck and as regards the time it would take for the blood to congeal (some people have less of a propensity to have their blood congealed; there are things like bleeding disease and blood-thinning substances).

Iīm fine with that, as long as we donīt loose sight of the fact that all things considered, a "normal" outcome of the bleeding time and the congealing of the blood seems to put Lechmere smack bang in the middle of the frame.

... and that is only the blood evidence, mind you!

So just keep it coming, Scott - so far, I have seen nothing but well grounded criticism from your part, regardless of who or what it is you have criticized.

I spend most of my time telling people that "ooze" can involve a significant stream of blood, that Lechmere actually can be described as having been found by the side of Polly Nichols and that giving a false namne but a real address must not point to bottomless stupidity, so you make for a very welcome change.
If the debate was not totally polarized and focused on uninteresting matters the way things have been, it would be a lot better.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

From Illustrated Police News:The night was very dark. Witness and the other man left the woman, and in Baker's-row they saw Police-constable Mizen. They told him that a woman was lying in Buck's-row, witness adding, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk." The other man observed, "I think she's dead." The policeman replied, "All right." The other man, who appeared to be a carman, left witness soon afterwards.

Here we can see that Paul and Cross split up after they'd spoken, together, with Mizen. Cross goes on to say that he did not say a policeman wanted Mizen. That's unimportant anyway. Mizen was mistaken. This shows that Cross had a corroborating witness to what he just told the inquest. Difficult to lie here.

Mike

If it does not show that Paul was within earshot as Lechmere spoke to Mizen, then we canīt dub Paul a corroborating witness to that particular part...

...which is all that matters.

As for the equally uncorroborated "Mizen was mistaken"-nonsense, I have spent time enough on it already.

But thanks for not calling me dishonest again. Thatīs always something!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I'm a poster on the Lizzie Borden Forum. Andrew Borden was murdered, admittedly by hatchet and not knife, at about 11am on August 4th 1892.

The testimony of the Medical Examiner for Fall River, Mass., Dr Dolan, was that he arrived at the Borden house at 11:45 am, some 45 minutes after Andrew's murder. He examined his head wounds and observed 'bright red blood' oozing (his words) from them. He also stated that blood was 'dripping' from the couch on which the body was found onto the carpet underneath. Andrew Borden's blood had not clotted in that time, though his wife's, killed at approx 9:30am, had.

On another detail, weren't there alleyways nearby in Bucks Row leading through Winthrop St to Whitechapel High St, past Brown Bros, the Ripper could have used to escape?

I am not any specialist on the Borden case. Nor do I wish to read up extensively on it.

I took a brief look, and noticed that the doctor said, about Andrew Borden that "I do not think he could have been dead over half an hour".
So maybe we should not say 45 minutes? 30 minutes - or less - seemingly fits the bill better.

Anyway, Borden was still warm and still bleeding as the doctor arrived, and so we should perhaps take into account that his main arteries were not severed as they were in Nicholsīcase. Would that be correct?

The blood the doctor described was running fresh over the side of Bordens head, and it would proceed from there down onto the sofa in which he lay and into his clothes. And it would clot there.

I donīt know if the doctor described THAT blood?

... but I do know that in any normal case, the blood that leaves a vessel will come into contact with substances on the outer side of that vessel that will start the coagulation. And blood WILL coagulate in few minutes - under normal circumstances.

Of course, there will always be exceptions, just as I said in my post to Scott. But we can only work from the presumption that Nichols was physically normal, and indeed the clotting of the blood in her case, taken together with itīs still running five or six minutes after Nichols had been cut, paints a picture of a normal case to my ears.

Otherwise, I am perfectly fine with keeping a door open for things not having panned out the expected way in the Nichols case, when it comes to the blood. But I equally think that we must accept that if things did go down alongside the protocol of normality, then Lechmere ends up as the prime suspect, while there are no other suspects.

By the way, for blood to stay unclotted for 45 minutes, it will have to lack the chemical substances that ensure clotting, or it must be contained within the body with no wounds exposing it to air. In the latter case, blood can stay fluent for days even, although a breaking down process will set in eventually.

I donīt know if there is a tradition of blood food where you come from? There is where I come from - when the christmas pig was slaughtered in the olden days, itīs blood was let from the neck veins, and collected in a bucket. The blood was then used for blood bread, blood sausage and such things.

The important thing about this culinary excursion, however, is to point out what happened after the bucket was filled with blood: The blood was whipped frenetically and unceasingly, because otherwise it would clot and become useless for food production. That whipping started the second after the blood got into the bucket.

Blood clotting is a fast process and it sets in very quickly too.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

If it does not show that Paul was within earshot as Lechmere spoke to Mizen, then we canīt dub Paul a corroborating witness to that particular part...

If they were having a conversation, they were within earshot of each other. A conversation requires such things.

Mike

[Fisherman]

If they were having a conversation, they were within earshot of each other. A conversation requires such things.

Mike

... but only for those who actually converse with each other. The rest may well be the ones who have gone down Hanbury Street - as per the Echo.

So, yes, you are epically correct: If Paul conversed with Mizen, all three should have heard each other.

If he did not, however, then there is no reason to think that Paul overheard what Lechmere said.

... and how many people does Mizen say spoke to him? One, en, uno, yxi, un, ein.

And you know what? My money is on Mizen having mentioned that two men spoke to him if two men spoke to him.

And guess what more? We have gone over this a thousand times before, and I am getting seeeeeeriously bored with it.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

.

And you know what? My money is on Mizen having mentioned that two men spoke to him if two men spoke to him.

he did, in this article I quoted. He didn't say, "First one came up to me, and then after he was finished, the other came up to me." He says that one spoke and the other and then the other left. This means they were together in this article. It can mean nothing else. Now, that doesn't mean this is the only article, but it's a sensible one.

Mike

[Batman]

If Cross was the murderer then why did he kill only on weekends/holidays if his route was a normal weekly work route?

[Fisherman]

he did, in this article I quoted. He didn't say, "First one came up to me, and then after he was finished, the other came up to me." He says that one spoke and the other and then the other left. This means they were together in this article. It can mean nothing else. Now, that doesn't mean this is the only article, but it's a sensible one.

Mike

Maybe we just define "sensible" differently? I find it distinctly unsensible to permanently look away from the fact that Mizen never said "There were these two guys who spoke to me..."

I really, really wonder why he would not just say that and be done with it? It would have been so sensible.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

If Cross was the murderer then why did he kill only on weekends/holidays if his route was a normal weekly work route?

This is a great signal for me to call it a day - this is one of the reoccurring questions that has got it all wrong.

Martha Tabram was killed on a working day, the 7:th of August, the day after Bank Holiday Monday on the 6:th of August.

Polly Nichols was killed on a working day, Friday the 31:st of August.

Annie Chapman was killed on a working day, Saturday the 8:th of August. Sundays were the only days off for a working man in these years.

Liz Stride was killed on the night between Saturday and Sunday - NOT along his working treks, and much earlier than the working day victims.

Kate Eddowes - same thing.

Mary Kelly was killed on Lord Mayors day, Friday the 9:th of November, and Lord Mayors day was a day when working people would be expected to work, as I understand things.

So as you can see, you are not exactly spot on here!

The best,
Fisherman
off for now

[Robert]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Batman View Post
Ooze is just a term to signify that the remaining presure is too low to force the blood out quickly with low pressure gravitational forces responsible for the movement of blood out of the body.

Bingo!

... but try to tell Robert that...!

Fisherman

Fisherman, that is the very thing I'm saying!

Oh, now wait a minute, Fish, for you appear to be slipping back again :

I spend most of my time telling people that "ooze" can involve a significant stream of blood,

No it can't, Fish.

[The Good Michael]

Maybe we just define "sensible" differently? I find it distinctly unsensible to permanently look away from the fact that Mizen never said "There were these two guys who spoke to me..."

I really, really wonder why he would not just say that and be done with it? It would have been so sensible.

he said it in this article. He spoke with two men and they were together. He even mentions that they parted after he spoke with them. How sensible would it have been to say, "I spoke to one while the other one waited out of earshot, and then I called him forward."? The article is absolutely clear that the two men were together. If you choose to disregard this because it doesn't match other articles, that's your choice. If you try and manipulate the words to suit your arguments, then we are back to dishonesty or delusion and neither choice is a good one. If you dare say that this article does not suggest the men were together, then I'm done with you and will be happy to block you.

Cheers,

Mike

[Batman]

Okay so you object to the idea JtR is a weekend/holiday murderer. That idea does fly in the face of Lechmere 'randomly' offing people on his way to and from work though doesn't it?

Let's see what the Contemporary papers had to say (given they understood working weeks etc. because they LIVED it.).

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_telegraph/dt881110.html

The Daily Telegraph
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1888

From the sketch map of the locality given it will be seen that the sites of all the seven murders, five of which are, without any hesitation or doubt, ascribed by the police to one man, are contained within a limited area. A comparison of the dates reveals remarkable coincidences.

The murderer has invariably chosen the latter part of the week, and when the deed has not been committed on the last day of the month it has taken place as near the 7th or 8th as can be. The Berner-street and Mitre-square murders occurred early on Sunday, Sept. 30, and the interval of about five weeks has been unusual, but was probably to be explained by the extraordinary activity of the police after the double event, or due, as some have it, to the temporary absence of the perpetrator from the country. It was on the morning of Saturday, Sept. 8, that Annie Chapman was killed in Hanbury-street, and it was on the last day of August (a Friday) that the Buck's-row tragedy took place. The two earlier murders - the one in George-yard and the other in Osborne-street - are not believed to have been the work of the miscreant who is still at large; but it is a peculiar fact, taken in conjunction with the coincidence of dates already remarked, that the murder of Mrs. Turner, in George-yard, occurred on the 7th day of August.


Okay, I tell you what, you can have that I used the word 'work' instead of 'latter part of the week'. To me its just semantics.

What you have to do though is explain why Lechmere struck at those times if his daily route to work was a 6 day affair as you propose.

The most obvious explanation is that JtR wasn't working on those days and had time to murder. Your suspect does work those days. This means he doesn't fit that part of the MO/signature at all. The 'random' selection of victims isn't random at all.

So yeah, do call it quits for awhile, take a rest and then come back when you have time to read again this contemporary view of the working men who seem to disagree with you.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Christer

Lechmere very clearly said that he would have noticed if anybody stirred up at Browns Stable yard as he got into Bucks Row.

Yet, he didn`t notice the "tarp" until he was on the opposite side of the road?

And before that, the killer had spent time covering up the wounds - for whatever reason.

"Covering up the wounds" is one your "facts".
For all we know he held up the dress and worked underneath, just letting it drop when finished.

And if we are to believe people out here (But why should we? Good point!),

I`m not sure what you are referring to here ?

the killer FIRST cut Nicholsī neck, and THEN he cut the abdomen. So there goes another minute or two!.

That`s the order I`d go with. A minute at best, I`d say.

And that takes us to seven to nine minutes before Mizen saw her, if Lechmere didnīt cut her. And look what should have happened with the blood, Jon:
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.

Wow. But the mass was not firm, was it? It was still in the process of congealing as Mizen saw it.!.

It was still in the process of congealing :-) !!
Mizen, Neil and Thain were not qualified to report on the blood, they could only report on what they thought they saw.
Did Mizen note this when he first went over to Neil or when he returned ?

Now, who do you think fits the frame best? Your conjured up killer, or the real Charles Lechmere? The man who gave the wrong name to the police, the man who seemingly fed Mizen the lie of the century? .!.

I think it was the man who sneaked off in the shadows just before Cross reached the body. You know, the man who had just killed and mutilated someone and scarpered, not Charles Cross, who hung around and asked for help.

Have you yet proved he was know as Charles Lechmere at Pickfords ?
That`s what you need to do to make your name thing work.
And the Mizen scam ? Just men mumbling at each other at 4 in the morning.
A simple misunderstanding, that even taken at it`s most sinister level comes to nothing.

Why are you so keen on protecting him, Jon? Tell me, Iīm intrigued by the farce put on out here by numerous posters..!.

Well, I`d lay into him along with you and Ed if we had something to justify it.