Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Dane_F]

"The clown" would have been acutely aware that the streets were patrolled by PC:s and watchmen. Thus "the clown" may have chosen not to run the risk that a PC or a watchmen said "No, the guy is lying - I was just around the corner and nobody else was there!"

So much for clowns.

No, instead this clown ran the risk of ripping women in the shadows while someone was walking down the street and spotting him. I'm sorry Fish. The answer you surmise does not accurately answer the question.

You present him as a man lying in the face of PCs, ripping women on the way to work, using false names, and taking the opportunity of visiting family as a time to get some killing in, yet he was afraid of a PC calling his bluff? Isn't this exactly what you theorize happened at a later instance with him?

No I'm sorry. If we are to follow the logic that is laid out it would have made far more sense for the killer to throw suspicion elsewhere ESPECIALLY if he was caught with the body as you theorize.

[Batman]

If we know this level of detail what blood type was she then?

"But when the first signs of "coagulation" are seen, there will be solidifying small contingents of the eggs in a sea of what appears to be freshly flowing egg liquid. I trust you HAVE made scrambled eggs?

This is what Mizen describes, and that was what he saw: the blood in the pool was no longer thin and free flowing, it had started to coagulate - it was SOMEWHAT congealed. There were elemens in the floating blood that bore witness to how it was in the process of congealing.

It is very different from the solidified clot, the blood mass, that Thain witnessed about. And it is EXTREMELY important to understanding the case as such, as you may appreaciate!"

There is no way I think anyone can draw that depth of a conclusion without forensic science having specimens and samples to work with. The fluid dynamics of blood is heavy biochemistry. I wouldn't wish it on anyone who has had the misfortune to study it.

I think TV series like Dexter and CSI give people the impression that forensics is so skilled it can account for everything about every drop at each moment in time. I doubt that. We talk minimally about what we can be sure about. Even in the 21st century we can only make generalized inferences that match previous models. That's it.

Environmental factors will also play a role in variations of these models. A person's physical health and properties will also play a role. There are what we call "confounding variables" present that can only be removed by experimental controls.

When it comes to historical bleeding, such as in the case of the Ripper victims you can only really give a very minimalist interpretation given the minimal data you have and lack of access to experimental techniques.

You can say where the blood came from, how it moved (including spray), where it went and its texture on inspection. That's about it. Particulate analysis and description isn't happening from a police report.

BTW - Blood type wasn't even identified until 1901 and took from the late 30s to the mid 40s to understand it.

[David Orsam]

One point that I think needs to be clearly made is about the use of the term "blood evidence". As much as someone would like to say there is "blood evidence" to help support their theory, there simply isn't. Without having the inquest reports there is no blood evidence that can be used. All we have are newspaper reports possibly ABOUT blood evidence. Without the full inquest reports, to know the complete context of questions and statements, the "logical" leaps being made are simply too far and in my opinion too illogical to be made in the first place. Especially when the sources we do have are inaccurate and sometimes conflicting.

I don't entirely agree with this. It's certainly not ideal but when they are read as a whole - and especially where reports by different reporters corroborate each other - we can certainly rely on at least some of the newspaper accounts. For example, I don't think there is any doubt that PC Neil saw the blood oozing from the victim's throat when he arrived on the scene. We only get this from the newspapers but we can be reasonably certain that he said it.

[David Orsam]

If I worded myself "If we read the Echo article, we need no other information to understand the blood evidence", I would have been slightly rash. And maybe I did say just that, I cannot even remember any longer.

In fairness, I continually quoted your exact words and, of course, I wasn't claiming that you said we need no other evidence than the Echo to understand "the blood evidence"; it was only the time that Mizen saw the blood that was at issue. However, to the extent that you are conceding the point about the Echo and now relying on other evidence to demonstrate that it is "totally impossible" for Mizen to have been saying that he saw the blood after he returned to the body, I am happy to discuss this with you (and will do so).

[David Orsam]

Dear me! How hard can it be to understand, David? The blood in the pool under Nichols had BOTH fresh and congealing blood in it when Mizen saw it! Yes, that CAN be the case, and it undoubtedly WAS the case here.

I guess I need to respond to this congealing point before dealing with the substantive issue.

If you look at why I even mentioned the word "congealed" in the first place Fisherman, it was only a passing reference to the report in the Star where I thought I was making a wholly uncontroversial and mundane comment that this was in contrast (and in contradiction) to the report in the Standard where the word was not attributed to Mizen but, instead, he was reported as saying the blood was "fresh". I have never claimed that Mizen could not have used both words in his evidence, nor that he could not have seen both blood that was fresh and blood that was congealed at the crime scene, only that the newspapers gave differing accounts. As far as I am concerned, fresh blood is, by definition, not congealed while congealed blood is, by definition, not fresh. That's why I did not think I was saying anything controversial. But, frankly, if you are so upset by the word "contradictory" I'm happy to withdraw it and replace it with "different". The two newspapers provided different reports which gave their readers different impressions of the blood at the crime scene. Are you happy with that?

Now, as a preliminary comment to my next post, I am not comfortable relying on a single newspaper report of the word "congealed" but it would be odd if the reporter imagined Mizen using it, so - as you seem happy with it - I will base my arguments on the premise that Mizen did use that word. As to that, I have some difficulty in working out why it assists your case against Cross in any way. If Mizen saw that the blood was congealing when he first arrived on scene (at shall we say 3:50? or 3:55 if you prefer?) surely it potentially pushes the time the murder was committed back to before 3:37, when you suggest Cross arrived on scene. For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not saying Cross couldn't have killed her at 3:37 in these circumstances, only that, if Mizen saw fresh blood (but not congealed blood), it would suggest that the murder had been committed sooner rather than later, thus making it more likely to have been Cross. Further, we have the evidence of PC Neil that the blood was oozing from the throat of Nichols when he discovered the body so how does it help you to say that Mizen saw the blood running from the throat at or about the same time?

If you can answer those questions concisely it would assist my understanding of this issue.

[Dane_F]

I don't entirely agree with this. It's certainly not ideal but when they are read as a whole - and especially where reports by different reporters corroborate each other - we can certainly rely on at least some of the newspaper accounts. For example, I don't think there is any doubt that PC Neil saw the blood oozing from the victim's throat when he arrived on the scene. We only get this from the newspapers but we can be reasonably certain that he said it.

I'm not saying that no conclusions should or can be drawn at all. What we have are condensed newspaper reports though. To try and establish exact times off of this and call it "blood evidence" I think misrepresents what we actually have. Especially when what we have available also contains errors and contradictions.

It's certainly better than nothing but I don't think any "beyond doubt" or "proof" can ever be established using these few articles as a pillar of a theory.

[David Orsam]

[I] So while I am happy about you recognizing that Mizen "may" (ha!) have seen the blood in moment one, I am much less happy that you have not yeat discarded that he could have seen it in moment two. He could not - the blood was a congealed mass by then.

Here is the nub of where we disagree. You assume that the blood was a "congealed mass" when Mizen returned to the scene. I am saying that there is no clear evidence for this. I know you are referring to Thain's evidence but the problem with Thain is that, like Mizen, we don't know what period of time he was describing.

Here is Thain's evidence from the Morning Advertiser:

"The Coroner: You were there when the blood was removed? -- Witness: Yes.
The Coroner: Was there a very large quantity on the flags? -- Witness: There was a large clot near the wall, and blood was running into the gutter."

And here is how it was reported in the Times:

"He was present when the spots of blood were washed away. On the spot where the deceased had been lying was a mass of congealed blood. He should say it was about 6 in. in diameter, and had run towards the gutter. It appeared to him to be a large quantity of blood."

In both reports, Thain is speaking in the context of what happened when the blood was washed away. In other words, it is possible that he was essentially being asked what he saw when he was standing in Buck's Row just before the blood was washed away by Green. And Thain is saying that just before the blood was washed away there was a mass of congealed blood on the spot where Nichols had been lying.

When was the blood washed away? We don't have a precise time but it seems to have been just before Inspector Spratling appeared on the scene. Thus, the Times reports him as saying that when he arrived:

"At that time the blood was being washed away..."

So when did Spratling arrive?

According to the Evening Post:

"Inspector Spratling, of the J division, said that about half-past four on Friday morning he heard of the murder whilst in the Hackney-road. He went to the police-station to ascertain further particulars, but not hearing any he proceeded to the spot."

So he has to get from Hackney Road at 4:30am to the (Bethnal Green?) Police Station and from there to Buck's Row. It must have been approaching 5:00am before he arrived at the scene. Therefore, this could be the time Thain was describing that he saw the mass of congealed blood.

Now, let's assume that Mizen saw his "somewhat congealed" blood after he lifted Nichols onto the ambulance. My Concise Oxford Dictionary defines "somewhat" as "in some degree". I think that relates to how people use the word. So, Mizen saw a pool blood that was in some degree congealed.

If he saw the blood as the body was removed then it would presumably have been some time between about 4:20 and 4:30am. At that time it was in some degree congealed but when Thain saw the blood it was fully congealed.

So potentially that explains that.

(Question: If she had been still bleeding when Llewellyn saw her, would he have any reason at all to feel her for warmth in sucha case? No, he would not - he would know that she was very recently dead in such a case, it would have been a matter of minutes only.)

Sorry Fisherman, didn't we have a forensic expert quoted on here who said a body can continue bleeding for hours? So that's a real non-point. And of course the doctor was going to feel for warmth under all circumstances. He would have been negligent not to have done.

It is one flowing sequence. And as Green started to clean the blood away, it was a congealed mass. And that remove in time would be very close to the remove in time in which Mizen arrived with the ambulance.

As I have pointed out above, there might have been a considerable time gap between the removal of the body and the washing away of the blood. But I am pleased that we agree that Thain was talking about the period when Green washed the blood away.

And, more importantly, Mizen said that the blood was still running from her neck and appeared fresh!

According to one uncorroborated newspaper report he did.

The blood is NOT still running as Llewellyn sees her! At that stage, the blood has set into that clot.

In saying that, at the time Dr Llwellyn arrived, "the blood has not set into that clot", you are going further than the evidence allows. All he said about the blood at the inquest was that "There was very little blood around the neck". In his statement on 31 August he said: "There was a very small pool of blood in the pathway, which had trickled from the wound in the throat, not more than would fill two wine glasses, or half a pint at the outside". No mention there of clotting nor indeed of the small pool of blood being somewhat congealed, which it should have been if Mizen had seen it prior to the his arrival. If you have evidence to support your statement please post it.

Note also that in my post #1265, I wrote "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.)"

So there we are, my argument - which I don't think is ' completely nuts' - as to why I don't agree that you have proved that Mizen's evidence about the blood relates to the time when he first appeared on the scene - and I repeat the point that he appears to have been asked about the blood at the inquest immediately after he has spoken about putting the body of Nichols onto the ambulance.

[caz]

Hereīs the article... 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.

Now, I have mentioned this a thousand times before, but apparently, I have to do so again:

THIS IS CHARLES ALLEN LECHMERE SPEAKING!!!

...I am proposing that Charles Allen Lechmere was a killer and a liar. If we want to find out what really happened, who said what and who was together with whom, we may have to use other sources too, and not only the carman who would have had a reason to lie about all of this if he was the killer, as proposed...

...Of course the article suggests that the two carmen were together - I have hundreds of times pointed out that this was an impression that Lechmere would have been eager to give!
And that - if I am correct - is why this article, just like any other article quoting Lechmere, suggests that the carmen were together.

What we need to do to understand the process, is to not only listen to Lechmere, but instead look at what Mizen said, check if there are discrepancies and then try and explain them.

Jonas Mizen does not on any occasion say that two men spoke to him!
Jonas Mizen does not on any occasion say that he was told that the errand was potentionally grave.
Jonas Mizen says that the carman (singularis, NOT carmen!) told him that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row.

These are the facts.

Let me get this right then, Fish.

1) Lechmere makes sure he gets Mizen alone, out of Paul's earshot, so Paul won't hear the lies Lechmere needs to tell, in order not to be detained further.

2) Paul later speaks to the papers, managing to make up from whole cloth a conversation he never had with Mizen, never heard Lechmere having either, but one he nevertheless imagines may have taken place.

3) Lechmere, on the other hand, speaks to the Illustrated Police News, pretending he and Paul had both taken part in the conversation - not apparently caring any more that Paul and Mizen would instantly know, on seeing this article, that he was lying through his teeth.

It's a wonder Mizen had enough brain cells to keep his helmet on. Why did he never ask himself why these two carmen were making a monkey out of him?

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

Hello Caz,

Your posts are always a breath of fresh air. Nice to see you posting again.

c.d.

[caz]

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.

Good post, Bridewell.

The injuries to Nichols in a ripper context have implied that her killer would have done more if he hadn't become aware that someone was approaching. So if Paul is meant to have queered Lechmere's pitch in this way, why couldn't Lechmere have queered someone else's just seconds earlier - someone who got clean away without the need for risky games of bluff and double bluff, and on-the-spot decisions on when to lie and not to lie. Someone who could kill again locally within days because nobody had seen him with his previous victim(s).

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Over the xmas period I asked the following questions of the expert relative to Nicholls murder.

Question

You have the Doctors inquest testimony. Is it possible to determine how the throat wounds were inflicted. i.e was the killer standing behind her, or could she have been on the ground perhaps having been strangled first?

There doesn't appear to be an evidence of arterial spray.

Reply

"I did an autopsy last week, were the body had been transported a great distance to the mortuary and death had occurred almost 24 hours prior to my examination… and yet the injuries continued to ‘bleed’ relatively profusely for quite some time. So much so that we struggled to get a ‘clean’ photograph as the blood flooded back as quickly as we could wipe it away! This is why I have been so cautious about commenting on ‘maximum’ timings and quantities of blood loss...

Well that post ought to have put an end to the "oozing/running" arguments and their apparent significance. There is no significance if dead bodies can still 'bleed' relatively profusely after almost 24 hours. But I'll continue to catch up with this thread and find out.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hello Caz,

Your posts are always a breath of fresh air. Nice to see you posting again.

c.d.

Thank you c.d! Nice to see you too.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Morning Advertiser, September 18:

The Coroner: Was there a very large quantity on the flags?
Witness: There was a large clot near the wall, and blood was running into the gutter.

It applies, though, that Thains wording may be reflecting the time when he helped to put Nichols on the ambulance. Especially since he says that there was a large "clot" near the wall - that would be the pool Neil spoke of, reasonably.

No - the large clot would be PC Mizen, surely.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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').

In view of Trevor's post, quoting a case where a dead body bled profusely after almost 24 hours, and the distinct possibility that Mizen's observations about the blood were made after he returned with the ambulance, I'm wondering if fresh, uncongealed blood began running again as the body was moved/jolted onto the ambulance, and should not be confused with the pool of congealed blood from the original wounds. After all, the body must still have contained plenty of liquid blood for many hours after death, assuming Nichols didn't lose all eight pints during the attack.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

caz:

Once again, Fishy, you have your murderer 'very clearly' telling the truth when it suits you, even though it would have suited his own purpose far better to tell an easy lie.

Did anybody see what Caz did here? Exactly - she claimed that I had said that Lechmere was teeling the truth. Which I never did. I said that he cleary SAID that he would have heard if anything stirred down at the stable door.

If anybody around here is sceptical towards Lechmere, itīs me, Caz. Do try not to misrepresent me!

Hi Fishy,

But it amounts to the same thing, because you were relying on Lechmere not hearing anything or anyone stirring, and therefore telling the truth in this instance. Indeed you go on to give a reason for his refreshing honesty:

"The clown" would have been acutely aware that the streets were patrolled by PC:s and watchmen. Thus "the clown" may have chosen not to run the risk that a PC or a watchmen said "No, the guy is lying - I was just around the corner and nobody else was there!"

Fine, but telling the truth and confirming that 'nobody else was there' could have resulted in those PCs and watchmen looking far more closely at the one person who was there, who dishonestly gave his name as Charles Allen Cross and gave himself a generous 9 minutes in which to commit a murder while 'nobody else was there'.

One other thing - the only reason you can come up with for him telling the truth about his departure time from home, giving himself an incriminating 9 minute killing window in the process, is that in the event his wife - his illiterate wife - had somehow got to hear that he had been a bit hazy or vague about the time, or put it any later than the magic 3.30, she'd have known it was a blatant lie and become suspicious.

Nope. If his wife knew when he left and the police asked about it and got a time that deviated from what he had said, heīd be in trouble. So itīs more about the police than his wife getting suspicious.

What do you mean: 'if' his wife knew when he left? For his incredibly accurate and honest account of his departure time to work for your theory and not against it, his wife not only had to know when he left; she had to know that he knew. With any other scenario he could at the very least have claimed to be unsure, as Paul was.

And you conveniently ignore what I said about him having lied about his surname to stop his wife learning about his association with the murdered prostitute. If the police had asked her what time he left, it would mean his use of the name Cross had already come out, putting him in even more trouble with the police, his wife or both - if he normally only used the name Lechmere.

How convoluted must this all become before even you see the flaws in it as a theory?

Love,

Caz
X