Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Trevor Marriott]

Itīs not as if I have not answered all of this before, Trevor.

And it is not as if you are right about things here.

You are not.

But I wonīt once more go over why with a man who apparently thinks that the blood evidence somehow CLEARS Lechmere. Itīs too tough a hill to climb.

The best,
Fisherman

Well it dam sure doesn't convict him !

https://www.trevormarriott

[Fisherman]

Well it dam sure doesn't convict him !


www.trevormarriott

Who said it did, Trevor?

Canīt you PLEASE follow the discussion?

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Hi Fish

And a Happy New Year to you, my friend.

I have watched your videos. None of these things were oozing, since they were travelling too fast (except, the blood thing which I found incomprehensible).

I could probably give you an example of oozing by making the cake myself. This is because there would doubtless be defects in the cake and oozing would occur. However, I would probably not even reach that stage. Cookery is not a strong point of mine.

[Robert]

In any case, Fish, since you insist that the blood was still running when Mizen saw Nichols - which I think you reckoned as being about 8 minutes after Crossmere's cutting her throat - I have to ask whether you believe that the blood continued to run after Mizen went for the ambulance. After all, it would be a remarkable coincidence if Nichols's wounds stopped running the moment Mizen saw her. This is, after all, PC Mizen and although he had been graded as 'good' he was no Rasputin when it came to staunching blood flows.

[Trevor Marriott]

Who said it did, Trevor?

Canīt you PLEASE follow the discussion?

The best,
Fisherman

Well you are suggesting that the blood flow evidence suggests that Nicholls was recently killed, and that killing took place within the time frame Cross could have had if he had been the killer.

But you cant tie the time of death down to that precise period of time you seek to rely on.

Doctors estimated time of death --Guesswork

Mizens description and other witnesses of blood/flowing/oozing open to interpretation

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Robert]

More likely re-interpretation.

[Jon Guy]

And anyone leaving the scene for a sinister reason would make the effort not to make noise.

Mmm - but COULD you, with hard-soled shoes and a totally quiet street? Lechmere banked on that being impossible. And at any rate, it would be harder the nearer the carman drew.

Yes, I can see it been quite easy to tip toe out of there, in the shadow of the wall running to the Board School.
It was quiet, but there was also a railway running under the murder spot.

Ok, 2 mins.

Thank you kindly, Sir. Now add that to the five or six minutes that had passed since Lechmere left and look what should have happened coagulationwise. And ask yourself "Would the blood still run after seven, eight minutes?".

Five or six minutes ? Where did you get that from ?
Neil would have found the body within 1 min of Lechmere leaving it, and Mizen joined him a minute or so later.

Now that is desperate.

How so? Wasnīt Lechmere there? Do his timings not work with a scenario where he is the killer? Is not another killer a figment of our imagination until we can prove his presence?

Paul noted that she felt like she`d already been dead for a short while when he first investigated with Cross.

There was one indication that he used the name Cross in 1888.

Only and merely in combination with an inquest where he had been alone with a body. As you well know, Lechmere habitually signed himself LEchmere when dealing with the authoritites. He certaily used the name when speaking to the authoritites THIS time - which is why we must ask ourselves why he did so, when he apparently did not otherwise, speaking to the authorities.?".

He would have initially given the name as a witness when he presented himself at the Police station. This name would have been carried forward by the authorities to the inquest.
All the samples of the name Lechmere are official ones where you have to use your official title (like the odd occasions I have to use the name Jonathan instead of John or the document becomes void). If I was a witness to an accident, chances are I would use the name John if giving a statement to the police.

I would, if there was something to justify it.

Maybe if you could see that something, Jon. Or would. But you wonīt. What do you think Scobie and Griffiths saw? Or were they conned by us and the film team? Is that why Andy says that Lechmere is of tremendeous interest to the investigation? Is that why he says that no other suspect needs to be looked into until the carman can be cleared?

I don`t know what Scobie and Griffiths saw. They know it`s all showbiz.
But it was an excellent programme, Christer. It really was. You especially !!!
I really hoped it would be you the same time a week later on Channel 5 standing on the ramparts of Castle Urquhart investigating Nessie.

Anyway, Happy New Year to you, Christer
Speak to you in the New Year.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish

And a Happy New Year to you, my friend.

I have watched your videos. None of these things were oozing, since they were travelling too fast (except, the blood thing which I found incomprehensible).

I could probably give you an example of oozing by making the cake myself. This is because there would doubtless be defects in the cake and oozing would occur. However, I would probably not even reach that stage. Cookery is not a strong point of mine.

Robert, to the minds of the ones who posted these videos, they were ALL oozing!
You may have an interpretation of your own, and thatīs just fine. But do not believe that this will make you right - as with any expression like this one, there WILL be many interpretations, and none of them will be the only right one. Nor will any of them be totally wrong.

You know by now that medicos and physicians in the 19:th centure used the expression "oozed profusely", and that is all that matters. Whether you think they were in their right to do so or not is neither here nor there in this question.

Itīs much the same as when we speak of how dark Bucks Row was. SOme will have it that the darkness was impenetrable, others say that it is apparent that there was quite enough light to use for orientation and for seeing clothing items etcetera.

Actually, your raving on about what oozing can or cannot mean has somwehat made me forget what it is you are arguing. Could you refresh me in that department?
Are you basically saying that since Neil must have confessed to the same interpretation of "oozed" as you do, the blood can only have been seeping very slowly as he saw the body, and that this means that Mizen must have been wrong when he said that the blood was running fresh three, four minutes afterwards?

Is that it?

Because if it is, then itīs time to end the discussion. We have seen proof that many people regard oozing as something totally different from a slow and miniscule seeping, and Neil may well have belonged to these people. We DO know that both PC:s speak of an ongoing bloodshed, and it would be very odd to think it was there when Neil saw it but not when Mizen did, especially since the latter expresses himself very clearly: The blood appeared fresh and was still running from the wound in the neck".

So what is there to discuss, Robert? And to what extent does it exonerate Lechmere?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: Well you are suggesting that the blood flow evidence suggests that Nicholls was recently killed, and that killing took place within the time frame Cross could have had if he had been the killer.

I am saying that Lechmere fits the frame. I am not saying heīs convicted, as you suggest. He is the prime suspect, and rightly so.

But you cant tie the time of death down to that precise period of time you seek to rely on.

What I CAN do is to point to what your pathologist said about how long the wound would bleed, and I can also point to how long it takes for blood to start coagulating. And Lechmere fits the frame.

Doctors estimated time of death --Guesswork

It is not guesswork that there is only so much blood in a person, and that that blood WILL leave the body. Nor is it guesswork that blood coagulates and that it starts showing after three minutes, justaboutish. Bitter though that pill seem to be to swallow on your behalf.

Mizens description and other witnesses of blood/flowing/oozing open to interpretation.

Or re-interpretation, just like Robert says - maybe Mizen was wrong, maybe the blood was not starting to clot, maybe it was raspberry syrup, spilled on the ground.

Once more: what we have is what we have. If we dislike it, we can start conjuring up our own truths. You are as welcome to do so as anybody else. But it will not change what Mizen and Neil said - and itīs implications.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

In any case, Fish, since you insist that the blood was still running when Mizen saw Nichols - which I think you reckoned as being about 8 minutes after Crossmere's cutting her throat - I have to ask whether you believe that the blood continued to run after Mizen went for the ambulance. After all, it would be a remarkable coincidence if Nichols's wounds stopped running the moment Mizen saw her. This is, after all, PC Mizen and although he had been graded as 'good' he was no Rasputin when it came to staunching blood flows.

I said that it COULD be as much as eight minutes - but my estimation lands on five or six.

Did the blood continue to flow after Mizen went for the ambulance?

What kind of question is that?

It stopped flowing somewhere in time after Mizen saw her, thatīs all anybody can say. Since Trevors Pathologist said that it would bleed for an initital couple of minutes only, and since we KNOW that the blood still flowed five minutes (and I think that is a minimum bid) after Lechmere left Nichols, I think the more intelligent guesses would be that it did not bleed for much more than five or six minutes - and that Lechmere therfore was the probable killer.

If the blood could have run for seven, eight minutes and if it would have waited coagulating for longer than normal, then somebody else could (only just) have found a window of time to killer her. If we move the strike further back in time, it becomes increasingly ridiculous with every minute we add.

It is extremely simple and very basic in that way.

The best,
Fisherman

[Batman]

Batman:

What? Itīs "just semantics"?

If he killed en route to work, then it would require for the victims to have fallen prey on working days. They did, with the exceptions of Stride and Eddowes, who did not die along his working routes anyway.

Yes, this is just semantics to conflate the need to find words like 'work day' and 'holiday' if the context of the statement is straight-forward.

Look, let's try your view.

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.

What is the remarkable coincidence? Your explanation is that the remarkable coincidence is that they were killed on 'working days'. Does your view make any sense there? It doesn't.

Let's look at my view, which is the contemporary view at the time. The remarkable coincidence is that they were killed on holidays or days when someone had the weekend off from work.

Are you claiming nobody in whitechapel had the weekend off from work and holidays?

Your suspect doesn't fit that pattern because for your hypothesis to work Lechmere needs to kill randomly without respect to weekends off and holidays. Yet the MO/Signature is different.

I think your view that JtR killed on work days is a modern view not contemporary.

[Robert]

Fish, the point is a semantic one. Neil said the blood was oozing. You may be able to find examples of people misusing the word, or using it eccentrically, but the common meaning of 'ooze' - the term's centre of gravity, if you like - is to seep slowly.

My main aim was to stop you running with this ball, because before long you would have the blood spurting or gushing, in the same way that the middle of the road is beside Nichols, intercepting someone is being found by the person you've intercepted, two people together turns into a dinner party with one spokesman, and 'we' refers to one person.

[Robert]

I said that it COULD be as much as eight minutes - but my estimation lands on five or six.

I seem to remember you had it at 7 or 8 minutes plus - and then shaved off two minutes for no apparent reason.

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy: Yes, I can see it been quite easy to tip toe out of there, in the shadow of the wall running to the Board School.
It was quiet, but there was also a railway running under the murder spot.

With no trains on it, what does that matter? Lechmere said that no vehicle was heard, even.

Five or six minutes ? Where did you get that from ?
Neil would have found the body within 1 min of Lechmere leaving it, and Mizen joined him a minute or so later.

The distance from the murder spot to where the carmen met Mizen was around double the distance from Brady Street down to the murder spot.

The distance from Brady Street to the murder spot was around 125 yards. Here is part of a study of how long it takes people to cross streets on green light:

"The average walking speed for older pedestrians was 4.11 feet per second, compared with 4.95 for younger pedestrians."

Letīs say that Lechmere was a young pedestrian. That would mean that it took him 75 seconds to go from the corner of Brady Street down to the murder spot. From the murder spot up to Mizen, it was twice the distance, taking 150 seconds, or two and a half minutes to walk.

Coming into Bucks Row from Thomas Street, Neil would have had 150 yards left to the murder spot, approximately. That would have taken him around two minutes to cover if he walked at average policeman speed, which was a slowish speed.

So if Neil had found Nichols a minute after Lechmere left her, he would actually first have met the carmen at the outlet of Court Street into Bucks Row.

But Neil never saw the carmen. So they must have passed Thomas Street and turned the corner up at Bakers Row before Neil got into Bucks Row. Therfore, we can say with ablsoute certainty that two minutes is the absolute minimum of time that would have passed after Lechmere left the body and until Neil saw it.

There is also no way that Mizen could have reached the body in a minute. He spoke for some time to one of the carmen (tick-tack, tick-tack...), proceeded to finish of a knocking up errand (tick-tack, tick-tack...) and then he WALKED down to the murder spot.

So, doing the maths, when Neil turns into the empty Bucks Row, he has two minutes to walk before he gets to the body, and the carmen will have walked a stretch from Browns Stable Yard down to the corner of Bakers Row and turned it, something that would have taken them two minutes. After that, they have a 20-30 second stretch up to Mizen. So they will reach Mizen two and a half minutes after they left the body. And then Mizen has a two minute walk down there - if he walked quickly.
That adds up to four and a half minutes. To this we must add the time after which Nichols was cut and before Paul arrived at Browns Stable yard, unless we suppose that Lechmere cut the neck and jumped out in the middle of the street in a split second. If we add a very mizely 30 seconds, we end up with five minutes, if we add more, we draw closer to six minutes.

Your proposition is an uninformed one, therefore.

Paul noted that she felt like she`d already been dead for a short while when he first investigated with Cross.

And that she moved as he felt her breast, the way dead people do, eh? Who do you think you are fooling, Jon?

He would have initially given the name as a witness when he presented himself at the Police station. This name would have been carried forward by the authorities to the inquest.

Thatīs the first true thing you have managed in this post! Yes, that is exactly what will have happened.

All the samples of the name Lechmere are official ones where you have to use your official title (like the odd occasions I have to use the name Jonathan instead of John or the document becomes void). If I was a witness to an accident, chances are I would use the name John if giving a statement to the police.

But he was not an immediate witness, was he? The police did not stand by his side, asking him for his name, did they? Instead, he had days to ponder what he was going to say - and what he was going to call himself.
Giving a statment to the police in that capacity is as authority-related as it gets, Jon. We need to make a very odd leap of faith before we can suggest that he would probably have called himself Cross.

Censustakers knocked at his door and asked him for his name, giving him no time at all to think it over. He said Lechmere to them, didnīt he?

Why wonīt you admit that there is a very obvious chance that he actively chose to lie about his name when it is so very obvious?

The name business is and remains a pointer to a lie on his behalf, up until the time that we can prove that he called himself Cross otherwise.

I don`t know what Scobie and Griffiths saw. They know it`s all showbiz.

Are you implying that the would be less discerning on account of that? That they would not apply their knowledge to the case, thinking that they were cast in a musical?

But it was an excellent programme, Christer. It really was. You especially !!!
I really hoped it would be you the same time a week later on Channel 5 standing on the ramparts of Castle Urquhart investigating Nessie.

Brilliant hint there, Jon. But if it HAD been me, I would have gone with the facts in that case too and said that it was in all probability bollocks.

Anyway, Happy New Year to you, Christer
Speak to you in the New Year.

And to you too, Jon!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I said that it COULD be as much as eight minutes - but my estimation lands on five or six.

I seem to remember you had it at 7 or 8 minutes plus - and then shaved off two minutes for no apparent reason.

I said that it COULD well be as much as seven or eight minutes, Robert. Read my post to Jon, and you will see how I look at it - apparent reasons and all. Incidentally, Jon thinks Mizen was in place outside Browns Stable Yard two minutes after Lechmere left the body...

Sigh.

The best,
Fisherman