Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Fisherman]

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.

There IS no very "common" meaning of the expression, Robert. Most people will probably say that seeping is a useful synonym,. but many, many others will accpet that oozing can involve much more than that - as shown in myriads of examples by now.

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.

Why would I say that the blood was gushing or spurting when it very apparently never did? The blood NEVER gushed or spurted, something that is totally evident when looking at the murder site. It ran - or oozed! - down into a pool under the neck of Nichols, so her heart had stopped beating as the wounds to the neck were dealt.

The fact that you cannot bring yourself to accept any other interpreatations of expressions than your own does not allow you to make accusations like these. It´s groundless, uninformed and not very nice. You really should learn to accept defeat with a bit more grace.

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

There's an example of what I mean, Fish. I point out to you the normal meaning of 'ooze' and you seem to take it as my defeat.

Have a look at the pumpkin clip again, Fish. Does that really look like oozing to you? It looks more like someone throwing up.

Re the timings : this is from your post #930 :

So according to that, Lechmere is the only plausible killer. He as alone with the victim, and if we are to believe what everybody out here seems to think, the cuts to the throat were delivered first. Then he would have taken a min ut to cut the abdomen. That´s the first minute ticking away.
After that, Paul arrives - another minute goes as he approaches. That´s two.
Then they examine the body, and go to find Mizen, and Paul says that from his meeting Lechmere to finding Mizen, it took four minutes. That´s six minutes gone after the cutting of the neck.
Then Mizen goes down to Bucks Row - add two minutes. We have eight minutes now. And Nichols still bleeds as he gets there.

Maybe he cut the abdomen first, like Llewellyn suggested? It´s back to seven. Maybe it did go a little quicer? That´s still six.

[Dane_F]

Instead of arguing over the word oozing, I'd like to argue the word flow. In my interpretation that word means oozing. Which means they both said the same thing. The blood wasn't free flowing like some assume he meant. It was oozing with some clotting already appearing.

[Bridewell]

How long would it take the putative escaping killer to run from the entrance to Brown's Yard around the corner onto Winthrop Street? Thirty seconds perhaps? So do the claims made for the coagulation rates of blood, which vary from one individual to another anyway, prove that Lechmere killed Nichols? I don't see how they can - or ever could. These times are estimates yet treated here as though they were accurate to the second.

As Fisherman will rightly point out, there is no evidence for the existence of the putative escaping killer, but that is not the point. A good defence barrister would postulate the existence of such an individual which the prosecution would have to disprove. Introduce the inaccuracy of Victorian timepieces, the time estimates of witnesses, the accuracy of recall, variations in temperature etc and the "blood starts to coagulate in an average time of about 3 minutes" argument dissolves into irrelevance.

[Bridewell]

There IS no very "common" meaning of the expression, Robert.

Yes there is. In the English language the verb 'ooze' necessitates slow movement. It a substance is moving other than slowly it isn't oozing.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

There IS no very "common" meaning of the expression, Robert. Most people will probably say that seeping is a useful synonym,. but many, many others will accpet that oozing can involve much more than that - as shown in myriads of examples by now.

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.

Why would I say that the blood was gushing or spurting when it very apparently never did? The blood NEVER gushed or spurted, something that is totally evident when looking at the murder site. It ran - or oozed! - down into a pool under the neck of Nichols, so her heart had stopped beating as the wounds to the neck were dealt.

The fact that you cannot bring yourself to accept any other interpreatations of expressions than your own does not allow you to make accusations like these. It´s groundless, uninformed and not very nice. You really should learn to accept defeat with a bit more grace.

The best,
Fisherman

Fish
Let me remind you and others what the expert stated

"If a witness discovered a body that was still bleeding relatively profusely then the injuries are likely to have been inflicted more recently than 20 mins previously… but if the 20 min period is critical in ruling out / in certain suspects then I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility of some continued blood loss at this time, as I think it would be possible. (I base this on my own observations of seeing blood leak out of bodies when I have been present at murder scenes some hours after death. This is why I am open to many things being ‘possible’, even though I can’t state categorically what ‘would’ or ‘would not’ have happened in an individual case.)"

[The Good Michael]

After 123 pages, the thread has finally shown me that no matter what, Lechmere is not the man to be let off the hook. This thread was an attempt to just keep conversation going about a lame non-suspect in order to keep interest alive for some future publication. The interest may be alive for newbies, but for the rest of it, it's deader than a door nail. If it took this long for me to come to that realization, I'm a sucker.

Mike

[Pcdunn]

After 123 pages, the thread has finally shown me that no matter what, Lechmere is not the man to be let off the hook. This thread was an attempt to just keep conversation going about a lame non-suspect in order to keep interest alive for some future publication. The interest may be alive for newbies, but for the rest of it, it's deader than a door nail. If it took this long for me to come to that realization, I'm a sucker.

Mike

I thought the thread was supposed to collect and list evidence for why we didn't believe Lechmere could have done the Ripper murders. I went in with no preconceived idea of a suspect, interested in this case because it is one of the newest suspects, dutifully reading everything I could find about Lechmere and his involvement in the Nichols case, and then watching as most observations by others were contested and opposed... I really don't see the premise, sorry. I don't think a working man on his way to work every day accosted and killed a street woman, helped to report it, went on his way to work,etc.-- and managed to do the same four more times. I just don't.

[Fisherman]

Robert:

Have a look at the pumpkin clip again, Fish. Does that really look like oozing to you? It looks more like someone throwing up.

I have two answers for you, and I believe that you are going to like the first one:

No, the pumpkin clip is not a representation of oozing that I would have used myself.

The next answer: That does not belong to the issue. I did not say that I was going to post what I think oozing looks like. I specifically said that I went to Youtube to see what people will sometimes think represents oozing!

As for the pumpkin clip, I myself think that the initital shots, where the gooey stuff is pressed out of the pumpkin, is not oozing. There is far too much underlying pressure behind it, and it explodes out of the holes in the pumpkin. However, as the pressure tapers off, the pressureless welling of the stuff could well be said to be oozing. I think it much resembles the clip with the lava that wells up, and that to me works much better as oozing.

If you can spare the time, then look at how many Yotube clips with pumpkins there are that are said to represent oozing! It goes to show how people look at and describe the word ooze at times, and THAT is what I wanted to press home.

[I]Re the timings : this is from your post #930 :

So according to that, Lechmere is the only plausible killer. He as alone with the victim, and if we are to believe what everybody out here seems to think, the cuts to the throat were delivered first. Then he would have taken a min ut to cut the abdomen. That´s the first minute ticking away.
After that, Paul arrives - another minute goes as he approaches. That´s two.
Then they examine the body, and go to find Mizen, and Paul says that from his meeting Lechmere to finding Mizen, it took four minutes. That´s six minutes gone after the cutting of the neck.
Then Mizen goes down to Bucks Row - add two minutes. We have eight minutes now. And Nichols still bleeds as he gets there.

Maybe he cut the abdomen first, like Llewellyn suggested? It´s back to seven. Maybe it did go a little quicer? That´s still six.

I think it MAY have been seven or eight minutes. I think it can have been five. If I was to choose, I´d go for five or six.

I really don´t know if I can be any clearer.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Instead of arguing over the word oozing, I'd like to argue the word flow. In my interpretation that word means oozing. Which means they both said the same thing. The blood wasn't free flowing like some assume he meant. It was oozing with some clotting already appearing.

I am not sure that I understand what you mean with free flowing here? If the blood exits the wound with no obstacles, and flows out of it, then why would it not be free flowing..?
Anyways, I concur that Neil and Mizen saw and described the same thing, and that´s what matters.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

How long would it take the putative escaping killer to run from the entrance to Brown's Yard around the corner onto Winthrop Street? Thirty seconds perhaps? So do the claims made for the coagulation rates of blood, which vary from one individual to another anyway, prove that Lechmere killed Nichols? I don't see how they can - or ever could. These times are estimates yet treated here as though they were accurate to the second.

No, Colin, they are not. I have written very clearly that these matters are NOT enough to convict on, since there may well be deviations. The interesting thing about them is that they point to a very clear possibility that Lechmere was the killer, and we can see that the timings have him in the very meddle of the frame. That is about it.

As Fisherman will rightly point out, there is no evidence for the existence of the putative escaping killer, but that is not the point. A good defence barrister would postulate the existence of such an individual which the prosecution would have to disprove.

Exactly! And therefore, there would be doubt enough to stop a conviction of Lechmere. Just like I say, we cannot hang Lechmere, but we can see that there is a very good reason to regard him as the prime suspect. Given the rest of the material surrounding Lechmere, I think many policemen woud have regarded the case as one of the cases where they thought they had the name of the killer, but were forced to let him go for legal reasons.

Introduce the inaccuracy of Victorian timepieces, the time estimates of witnesses, the accuracy of recall, variations in temperature etc and the "blood starts to coagulate in an average time of about 3 minutes" argument dissolves into irrelevance.

It never can be irrelevant, Colin. It should be looked upon with caution, but never with scepticism. Surely you realize that?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Bridewell: In the English language the verb 'ooze' necessitates slow movement. It a substance is moving other than slowly it isn't oozing.

Absolutely true - as far as I am concerned! And this is exactly what I have been saying for days on end - oozing is not primarily a description of the volumes that escape, but instead of the speed at which it does so! You are very much on the money therefore.

Neil said that the blood oozed according to most papers. In at least one of them, the Morning Advertiser, the word "running" was used instead, if memory serves me. And that is the exact word that Mizen used.

And just like oozing does not have to point to only the odd drop of blood, running does not have to mean that it ran like tap water. BOTH expressions could well describe the exact same slowish flowing of blood - and indeed, there is no reason whatsoever to suspect they don´t.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Fish
Let me remind you and others what the expert stated

"If a witness discovered a body that was still bleeding relatively profusely then the injuries are likely to have been inflicted more recently than 20 mins previously… but if the 20 min period is critical in ruling out / in certain suspects then I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility of some continued blood loss at this time, as I think it would be possible. (I base this on my own observations of seeing blood leak out of bodies when I have been present at murder scenes some hours after death. This is why I am open to many things being ‘possible’, even though I can’t state categorically what ‘would’ or ‘would not’ have happened in an individual case.)"

... and let ME remind YOU that we should look at not one cherrypicked item but instead at ALL the things he said. In part, he made generalized statements, speaking not of the body and wounds of nichols, but instead of "a" body.

Like here, for example.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

After 123 pages, the thread has finally shown me that no matter what, Lechmere is not the man to be let off the hook. This thread was an attempt to just keep conversation going about a lame non-suspect in order to keep interest alive for some future publication. The interest may be alive for newbies, but for the rest of it, it's deader than a door nail. If it took this long for me to come to that realization, I'm a sucker.

Mike

So what is it you are saying? That you would prefer if Lechmere was not discussed at all?

I see.

But why is it then that you have contributed with such heat? You have called me dishonest, you call Lechmere a lame non-suspect and if you could forbid the discussion about him, Pol Pot-style, you obviously would.

Some would say that you seem woefully desperate, Mike.

The best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

... and let ME remind YOU that we should look at not one cherrypicked item but instead at ALL the things he said. In part, he made generalized statements, speaking not of the body and wounds of nichols, but instead of "a" body.

Like here, for example.

The best,
Fisherman

How can anyone speak specifically about the body of Nicholls 126 years later when they did not see it. The expert gave his views on Dr Llewellyns report, he gave valuable info about estimating times of death and the fact that time of death cannot be established by looking at a wound, or by blood flowing/oozing from an open wound.

But none of that sits well with you does it, so you keep constantly muddying the waters.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk