Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[David Orsam]

Fisherman, you are obviously in denial. All your arguments about when you think the blood must have been running are irrelevant. You haven't got to grips with the central point of my post which is simply that the report in the Echo does not, as you claimed, conclusively demonstrate that Mizen saw the blood running at the time he arrived on the scene. I've accepted that he might have seen it running then (or he might not have done) but the point is that the report in the Echo clearly does not do what you said it did. If I was wrong about that, your response would have been very different.

[caz]

Caz...

...And yet you think this is precisely what he did, and he got away with it?

I donīt just think he got away with it - I have evidence that this was what happened.

Why would it have been 'suicidal' for an innocent man, but not for a guilty one?

Did I say that? I donīt think so. Would I say it? No.

Or are you suggesting he was a killer of very little brain, while the police presumably had none at all?

I am suggesting that he was very resourceful, quick in thought and actions. I certainly think that he was a good bit smarter and quicker than the average policeman, but therein lies no shame. As it happens, I think he would have been smarter and quicker than both me and you too.

Hi Fishy,

I don't understand any of this. You said it wasn't merely "unwise" to give his name as Cross, if he normally only went by his real name, Lechmere. You described it as 'suicidal' in the context of his testifying at the inquest, knowing that Nichols had been violently murdered and the police had him down as the first man found at the scene.

What did you mean by that? How does 'suicidal' fit with 'resourceful', 'smart' and 'quick' and all the rest of it?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

David Orsam:

Fisherman, you are obviously in denial.

If you mean that I deny that you are right about the order of things, then yes - then I am in denial. Fervently so, even. But it sounds terribly boring, does it not? I mean, I could say that YOU are in denial when it comes to the very clear evidence about what Mizen said, and it would sound just as boring. So why not just say that I disagree with you - and for a reason.

All your arguments about when you think the blood must have been running are irrelevant.

Iīm afraid I canīt let you be the judge of that, David. I think it is far from irrelevant. You are proposing that Mizen and Thain looked at the blood more or less simultaneously, whereupon one PC concluded that "he saw a quantity of blood all congealed" (St James Gazette), a "mass of congealed blood" (The Times), "a clot" (Morning Advertiser), whereas the other PC saw fresh blood running from the wound in Nicholsī throat, ending up in a pool of blood that was only somewhat congealed. That is distinctly illogical.

There is also the small matter of Llewellyn, who said absolutely nothing about any running blood.

It is perfectly evident that Mizen and Thain did NOT look at the blood at the same occasion.

You haven't got to grips with the central point of my post which is simply that the report in the Echo does not, as you claimed, conclusively demonstrate that Mizen saw the blood running at the time he arrived on the scene.

The semantic construction of the articles - that you buy into with gusto - is NOT the clincher in this respect. The descriptions of the state of the blood is what does the trick. There are two, not just one, descriptions of the blood made by Mizen ("appeared fresh" and "somewhat congealed") and that puts it beyond doubt that the interpretation that Mizen saw the blood at the first occasion becomes the only viable one.

I have no problems as such to see what you are pointing to in the Evening Post article, David. If it had not been for the Echo, Iīm sure that there would have been suggestions made to try and establish that "somewhat congealed" could be a slightly jesting description of the congealed mass Thain spoke of, just as I think people would have perhaps spoken of how Mizen could have mistaken some sort of blood serum for fresh blood.
Luckily, we DO have the Echo (often a very useful source, by the way, without which we would for example still not know whether Mizen took the carmens names or not), and I do not concur at all that Mizen would not have spoken about the blood after having said that Neil and himself were the only men at the spot. He could have stated it on his own account, and he could have stated it after having been led by the coroner or a juryman, we just donīt know.

What you do, is to try and establish the order in which things went down, and thatīs fine - we can always do that, but we can never guarantee that we get it right IF WE DONīT HAVE ANYTHING TO CORROBORATE OUR TAKE WITH.

Hereīs the Echo again:

"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.

By the Coroner - There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness. The other man, who went down Hanbury-street, appeared to be working with Cross.

By the Jury - Witness went to the spot directly Cross told him, and did not stop to knock any one up."

Please observe how, for example, the knocking up business finishes off the quotation. Is it because it came last? No, it is because it was asked by a member of the jury at that stage. But that is left out in the quotation; the question is not there, just the answer.

If we look at how the Illustrated Police News end their reproduction of what was said, we can see this: -In reply to a juryman, witness said that when the carman spoke to him he was engaged in knocking people up, and he finished knocking at the one place where he was at the time, giving two or three knocks, and then went directly to Buck's-row, not wanting to knock up anyone else.

So what we are dealing with, is a story that is told, NOT in sequence, but instead to some extent in reply to questions asked on matters that have seemed unclear to members of the jury or to the coroner.

Now for the Evening Post "clincher":

"Police-constable Mizen said that on Friday morning, about a quarter to four, he was in Baker’s-row, at the corner of Hanbury-street. A man passed, who looked like a carman, and said “You are wanted round in Buck’s-row”. A carman was brought in court, and witness said he was the man. He went round and found Police-constable Neil with the deceased. At Neil’s suggestion he went for the ambulance, and afterwards assisted to remove the body. Blood was running from her neck."

What we lack here is the question asked by the coroner about whether Mizen found anybody else than Neil as he arrived at the murder spot. Clearly, you suggest that this question must have been asked after Mizen had informed the inquest that he found Neil with the deceased. But why would that be any certainty?
If we once again look at The Illustrated Police News, we can see that they reported it as follows:
"The witness then went to Buck's-row, and Police-constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. Nobody but Neil was with the body at that time."

So here we have a sequence where the arrival in Bucks Row and Neils sending Mizen for the ambulance is put together and reported BEFORE it is established that Neil was alone with the body as Mizen arrived.

So why and how could and would we discount that this was what said:

Mizen: After having spoken to the carman, I left and went down to Buckīs Row, where I found PC Neil. He told me to go and fetch an ambulance, which I did, and when I came back, I assisted to lift the deceased onto it.
Coroner: When you first arrived in Buckīs Row, was there anybody else there but for PC Neil?
Mizen: No, it was just the two of us. I noticed that the womans blood was still running from her neck and that ther was a pool of it underneath her that was somewhat congealed.
Juryman: Is it true that you did not go immediately to Bucks Row, but instead proceeded to knock people up?
Mizen: I only just finished an errand that I had started, and it only took a second or two, but otherwise I immediately set off for Bucks Row.

What I am saying, David, is that much as we can suggest different time tables, what we must keep an eye on is whether these time tables are in accordance with the evidence.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Fishy,

I don't understand any of this. You said it wasn't merely "unwise" to give his name as Cross, if he normally only went by his real name, Lechmere. You described it as 'suicidal' in the context of his testifying at the inquest, knowing that Nichols had been violently murdered and the police had him down as the first man found at the scene.

What did you mean by that? How does 'suicidal' fit with 'resourceful', 'smart' and 'quick' and all the rest of it?

Love,

Caz
X

In itself, it is dangerous to kill people. It can be suggested that no intelligent man would do it - and how lovely if that was true.
But then we have guys like Rodney Alcala, with an IQ that makes people like you and me look very stupid in comparison.
Yet, we are the ones who act responsibly and answer up to the norms. We are the ones who do not put ourselves at risk.
Alcala did, however, and he got nailed for it.

So how could such an intelligent man take risks that were completely suicidal?

Any answers, Caz?

The best,
Fisherman

[David Orsam]

Fisherman, your argument has gone off on a bit of a tangent and barely touches on the central point I was making.

Let me clarify.

In #1107 you said, "those who make the effort to go through the material will eventually find that there IS an article that very firmly establishes exactly when it was Mizen looked at the body!"

This was a reference to the Echo's report - specifically to the following supposed Q&A:

"The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter."

and, after quoting this, an exchange, you said:

"This of course clears the whole thing up".

Further, in #1123 you asked:

"Why is it that you dont think the Echo article proves at what remove in time Mizen saw Nichols bleeding?"

So you were very clearly saying that the Echo article proves that Mizen saw the blood when he first arrived at the scene. The whole point of my post was to say that it does no such thing, and that it is, in fact, ambiguous as to when he saw the blood.

If you really were so sure that the Echo "proved" anything you wouldn't need to be discussing anything else - such as Dr Llewellyn's evidence - and putting forward other arguments as to when Mizen saw the blood.

My only point is that the newspaper reports, including the Echo, are ambiguous or unclear. That is all. And the way you have responded with such long arguments entirely vindicates what I have said. If you were right, you would simply have shown me why the Echo report is so clear and unambiguous and easily put me in my place.

Just to repeat. I don't put forward any positive case as to when Mizen saw that blood. Instead, I am simply trying to explain that there is more than one possibility.

Let me set out the three possibilities that we have, one of which you don't even consider:

(1) Mizen saw the blood running when he first arrived on the scene.

(2) Mizen saw the blood running at the point when the returned to the scene after having summoned the ambulance.

(3) Mizen saw the blood running when he assisted in removing the body onto the ambulance.

As for (1), it is notable that Mizen never says he went over to look at the body when he turned up in Buck's Row and, from the way the evidence is given by both him and Neil, it seems on its face that as soon as the two constables were within speaking distance Neil sent Mizen off to fetch the ambulance. There was no need for Mizen to view the body at this stage, it would have just wasted time. He might have done - I can't say he didn't - but that isn't the evidence as we have it.

As for (2), we don't actually know when Mizen returned to the scene after carrying out his mission and it was possibly before Dr Llewellyn arrived. At this point, if he did beat the doctor back to Buck's Row, he would have had an opportunity to have examined the body and seen any blood flowing. We can't just ignore this possibility.

Regarding (3), yes, Dr Llewellyn doesn't say anything about seeing blood flowing but someone queried earlier in this thread whether blood would start flowing again if a body was moved and I certainly never saw an answer. For that reason, we cannot rule out that Mizen was referring to this time period. (It is also not entirely impossible that Mizen was talking about a blood trail running from the neck to the gutter but for the purposes of this post I will ignore that possibility.)

Now, as for your reconstruction of the questions and answers, you have evidently put this together without giving it much thought. Your reconstruction of the key Q&A is that it went like this:

"Coroner: When you first arrived in Buckīs Row, was there anybody else there but for PC Neil?
Mizen: No, it was just the two of us. I noticed that the womans blood was still running from her neck and that there was a pool of it underneath her that was somewhat congealed."

Well, the first thing I notice is that you have forgotten about the Evening Standard report that the blood appeared "fresh. So you must be saying the reporter imagined that word. At the same time, you have completely imagined that Mizen was referring to a pool "underneath" the neck because the Star reporter does not use that word (he simply reported the evidence as being "He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed.") But above all, your reconstruction is ridiculous (a) because the coroner in your own reconstruction is only asking whether there was any other person than PC Neil with the body when he arrived, yet you have invented Mizen starting to blabber on in response about the blood for no reason, not having been asked about it, and (b) because you have invented a fictional chronological sequence in which Mizen refers to removing the body onto the ambulance before he is asked by the coroner whether any other person was with Neil, something which is not supported by any newspaper report.

It clearly did not happen as you imagine it. A far more credible scenario - in which I am deliberately going to ignore the contradictory reports from the Star and the Standard about the congealed/fresh blood issue - is as follows:

Coroner: Was there anyone else there then [when you first arrived]?
Mizen: No one at all, Sir.
Coroner: After you returned to Bucks Row (having summoned the ambulance) did you have any other involvement in events?
Mizen: I assisted to remove the body.
Coroner: Did you see any blood running from the neck?
Mizen: Yes, there was blood running from the throat to the gutter.

In other words, it is perfectly possible that the third question (which might equally have been asked by a juryman) was ambiguous and did not make clear the time period being spoken of, hence the reporters didn't fully know themselves.

That is how I see it. It certainly matches the sequence in which the evidence was reported in the newspapers. I don't know quite know what to make of the congealed/fresh blood issue. I'm not saying Mizen couldn't have seen both fresh and congealed blood but it is odd that the report mentioning "congealed" blood makes no mention of "fresh" blood and vice-versa - and no other reports mention either word.

I conclude by saying that the very fact that we are having this discussion actually proves the point I was making, which is that the Echo's report has not ended the debate because the debate is continuing. That's all I wanted to say. I'm afraid you were wrong in telling us the Echo's account "firmly establishes exactly when it was Mizen looked at the body" because it patently does no such thing.

[Dane_F]

It puts it beyond doubt in your mind Fisher. That is the point you are missing. To what appears to be everyone else in this thread it does no such thing. Your interpretation of the evidence is just that. Your interpretation. As much as you would like there to be some convencing, conclusive proof to your theory suggested there simply isn't. As has been shown newspaper articles are so mistake ridden and contradictory that having your entire theory based around them is like building on the sand.

I respect the passion for which you attack this subject with however.

[GUT]

In itself, it is dangerous to kill people. It can be suggested that no intelligent man would do it - and how lovely if that was true.
But then we have guys like Rodney Alcala, with an IQ that makes people like you and me look very stupid in comparison.
Yet, we are the ones who act responsibly and answer up to the norms. We are the ones who do not put ourselves at risk.
Alcala did, however, and he got nailed for it.

So how could such an intelligent man take risks that were completely suicidal?

Any answers, Caz?

The best,
Fisherman

G'day Fisherman

A couple of minor points

1. I have never seen any tests on Alcala's IQ rather, merely claims, by himelf it seems, to have a near Genius level IQ.

2. I suspect that there are posters here who have IQ's in the same league [indeed I know it for a fact].

3. People with high IQ's are also capable of doing some seriously stupid things.

[Robert]

I was wondering why Mizen should describe the blood as fresh-looking, and had assumed he was referring to the colour - perhaps it was bright red? However, if he meant that it was uncongealed that might explain it - except, what is the point of saying that uncongealed blood was running? If blood is running then of course it's uncongealed (or 'fresh').

[Fisherman]

G'day Fisherman

A couple of minor points

1. I have never seen any tests on Alcala's IQ rather, merely claims, by himelf it seems, to have a near Genius level IQ.

2. I suspect that there are posters here who have IQ's in the same league [indeed I know it for a fact].

3. People with high IQ's are also capable of doing some seriously stupid things.

I have seen an IQ of 170 mentioned, but I wonīt bother to go looking for it, since it is of little interest. We all know that a number of serialists have scored high IQ:s, like Kemper, for example.

It is interesting that you say that there are posters who score "in the same league" when you first have stated that no league has been established for Alcala.

Be that as it may, the more interesting thing is that you say that people with high IQ:s are capable of doing stupid things. Thanks for that - that was the exact point I was making to Caz, who seems to think that this could never happen. However, in the Lechmer example, I would warn about confusing "stupid" with "reckless" and "dangerous".

All the best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

It is interesting that you say that there are posters who score "in the same league" when you first have stated that no league has been established for Alcala.

No I said he had, so far as I know never been tested but CLAIMS a near genius IQ, that's the league is it not.

[GUT]

Be that as it may, the more interesting thing is that you say that people with high IQ:s are capable of doing stupid things. Thanks for that - that was the exact point I was making to Caz,

Aren't I allowed to agree with you sometimes.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman, your argument has gone off on a bit of a tangent and barely touches on the central point I was making.

Let me clarify.

In #1107 you said, "those who make the effort to go through the material will eventually find that there IS an article that very firmly establishes exactly when it was Mizen looked at the body!"

This was a reference to the Echo's report - specifically to the following supposed Q&A:

"The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter."

and, after quoting this, an exchange, you said:

"This of course clears the whole thing up".

Further, in #1123 you asked:

"Why is it that you dont think the Echo article proves at what remove in time Mizen saw Nichols bleeding?"

So you were very clearly saying that the Echo article proves that Mizen saw the blood when he first arrived at the scene. The whole point of my post was to say that it does no such thing, and that it is, in fact, ambiguous as to when he saw the blood.

If you really were so sure that the Echo "proved" anything you wouldn't need to be discussing anything else - such as Dr Llewellyn's evidence - and putting forward other arguments as to when Mizen saw the blood.

My only point is that the newspaper reports, including the Echo, are ambiguous or unclear. That is all. And the way you have responded with such long arguments entirely vindicates what I have said. If you were right, you would simply have shown me why the Echo report is so clear and unambiguous and easily put me in my place.

Just to repeat. I don't put forward any positive case as to when Mizen saw that blood. Instead, I am simply trying to explain that there is more than one possibility.

Let me set out the three possibilities that we have, one of which you don't even consider:

(1) Mizen saw the blood running when he first arrived on the scene.

(2) Mizen saw the blood running at the point when the returned to the scene after having summoned the ambulance.

(3) Mizen saw the blood running when he assisted in removing the body onto the ambulance.

As for (1), it is notable that Mizen never says he went over to look at the body when he turned up in Buck's Row and, from the way the evidence is given by both him and Neil, it seems on its face that as soon as the two constables were within speaking distance Neil sent Mizen off to fetch the ambulance. There was no need for Mizen to view the body at this stage, it would have just wasted time. He might have done - I can't say he didn't - but that isn't the evidence as we have it.

As for (2), we don't actually know when Mizen returned to the scene after carrying out his mission and it was possibly before Dr Llewellyn arrived. At this point, if he did beat the doctor back to Buck's Row, he would have had an opportunity to have examined the body and seen any blood flowing. We can't just ignore this possibility.

Regarding (3), yes, Dr Llewellyn doesn't say anything about seeing blood flowing but someone queried earlier in this thread whether blood would start flowing again if a body was moved and I certainly never saw an answer. For that reason, we cannot rule out that Mizen was referring to this time period. (It is also not entirely impossible that Mizen was talking about a blood trail running from the neck to the gutter but for the purposes of this post I will ignore that possibility.)

Now, as for your reconstruction of the questions and answers, you have evidently put this together without giving it much thought. Your reconstruction of the key Q&A is that it went like this:

"Coroner: When you first arrived in Buckīs Row, was there anybody else there but for PC Neil?
Mizen: No, it was just the two of us. I noticed that the womans blood was still running from her neck and that there was a pool of it underneath her that was somewhat congealed."

Well, the first thing I notice is that you have forgotten about the Evening Standard report that the blood appeared "fresh. So you must be saying the reporter imagined that word. At the same time, you have completely imagined that Mizen was referring to a pool "underneath" the neck because the Star reporter does not use that word (he simply reported the evidence as being "He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed.") But above all, your reconstruction is ridiculous (a) because the coroner in your own reconstruction is only asking whether there was any other person than PC Neil with the body when he arrived, yet you have invented Mizen starting to blabber on in response about the blood for no reason, not having been asked about it, and (b) because you have invented a fictional chronological sequence in which Mizen refers to removing the body onto the ambulance before he is asked by the coroner whether any other person was with Neil, something which is not supported by any newspaper report.

It clearly did not happen as you imagine it. A far more credible scenario - in which I am deliberately going to ignore the contradictory reports from the Star and the Standard about the congealed/fresh blood issue - is as follows:

Coroner: Was there anyone else there then [when you first arrived]?
Mizen: No one at all, Sir.
Coroner: After you returned to Bucks Row (having summoned the ambulance) did you have any other involvement in events?
Mizen: I assisted to remove the body.
Coroner: Did you see any blood running from the neck?
Mizen: Yes, there was blood running from the throat to the gutter.

In other words, it is perfectly possible that the third question (which might equally have been asked by a juryman) was ambiguous and did not make clear the time period being spoken of, hence the reporters didn't fully know themselves.

That is how I see it. It certainly matches the sequence in which the evidence was reported in the newspapers. I don't know quite know what to make of the congealed/fresh blood issue. I'm not saying Mizen couldn't have seen both fresh and congealed blood but it is odd that the report mentioning "congealed" blood makes no mention of "fresh" blood and vice-versa - and no other reports mention either word.

I conclude by saying that the very fact that we are having this discussion actually proves the point I was making, which is that the Echo's report has not ended the debate because the debate is continuing. That's all I wanted to say. I'm afraid you were wrong in telling us the Echo's account "firmly establishes exactly when it was Mizen looked at the body" because it patently does no such thing.

You are missing my point again, David. I am perfectly capable of reading, and I know exactly what you are saying.
However, what you fail to do is to take ALL of the evidence into account. And it is not until we do so that we can see that the Echo article provides the solution to what happened.

If we accept that fresh blood can be running into a completely congealed mass of blood, then you have a great point. In such a case, it could have been that Mizen saw the blood at the later stages of the drama.

Sadly, these things do not happen in the real world. In the real world, fresh blood running into a pool of blood will not magically turn into a mass of congealed blood the second it hits the pool surface.

Therefore, we can be very certain that Mizen was speaking of the first occasion he saw the victim.

You are taking a lot upon yourself trying to prove that it could have been the other way around, Iīm afraid. And pointing to outright ridiculous "possibilitites" like this one is anything but productive. Before we can attach any value at all to your suggestion, we must look away from the laws of nature, and I for one am not willing to do so.

You write that "I'm not saying Mizen couldn't have seen both fresh and congealed blood but it is odd that the report mentioning "congealed" blood makes no mention of "fresh" blood and vice-versa - and no other reports mention either word."

Firstly, it is wise of you not to claim that Mizen could not have seen fresh and congealed blood, since that is in no way anything strange at all: once the blood has left the body, it WILL congeal, and it will do so quickly. But the blood that is still in the process of exiting the body will NOT start to congeal until some little time after it leaves the blood vessels. It will therefore be and look quite fresh as it runs out of the wound - which was exactly how Mizen described it. Then it will end up in a pool and that pool will start congealing within seconds, the congealing as such becoming visible in few minutes.
Secondly, it is not odd at all that one article speaks of fresh blood and the other of congealed blood for this exact reason - there is no contradiction built in to it!

The Star writes:
"He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed." You may rest assured that the blood that ran from the throat looked and was fresh. Plus, of course, we do have another article that tells us this exact thing.

There is only one explanation available when we weigh in all of the material, thatīs what I am saying. If we want another explanation, we must accept that the papers got it wrong, and that we need to discard the evidence we donīt like.
Or we can go with "Mizen got it wrong" - thereīs a long standing tradition of that practice ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

No I said he had, so far as I know never been tested but CLAIMS a near genius IQ, that's the league is it not.

Point taken!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Aren't I allowed to agree with you sometimes.

You are supposed to ask first. Itīs all very confusing otherwise ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I was wondering why Mizen should describe the blood as fresh-looking, and had assumed he was referring to the colour - perhaps it was bright red? However, if he meant that it was uncongealed that might explain it - except, what is the point of saying that uncongealed blood was running? If blood is running then of course it's uncongealed (or 'fresh').

Fresh blood will be bright red and not too thin, methinks - in some cases, thinnish, less coloured blood serum will flow after the initial bloodflow. A trained, experienced PC will in all probability be able to tell the difference. This may be what Mizen spoke of.

He would never have seen congealed blood running, I concur with that.

The best,
Fisherman