Charles Cross?

[caz]

As always caz you are the voice of common sense.xxxxxxxxxxxx

Why thank you, pinky.

And I know you won't take on when I call you that. It's meant with genuine affection, in the same way I used to play with Christer's chosen nickname.

I won't be doing that again, because he got the right hump about it, but I love it when he calls me Toots.

Love,

Toots
X

[caz]

The physical status of the finder would have an influence. Otherwise, if the person was physically capable of murder, then the police would need to clear the finder, or have the luck of finding the real killer - if that killer was somebody else.
Of course, most people would be reluctant to accuse an eighty year old lady, but as long as she was physically capable and as long as no other killer was found, even such a person would need to be cleared.

This is not just murder though, is it, Fisherman? Assuming you would argue that the man who killed Nichols went on to kill Chapman and Eddowes (at the very least), the murderer had to know and execute every technique that was in evidence when the corpses were examined.

In short, you have no idea, and certainly no evidence, that Lechmere would have been any more capable of these murders than your eighty year old lady, do you? Maybe not back then, but I am willing to guess there have been many eighty year old ladies since, with the required knowledge and experience of human female dissection, if not the physical strength, while Lechmere is a non-starter if he only had the latter.

You see it really isn't enough to argue that his behaviour could have been that of a psychopath.

Love,

Caz
X

[Patrick S]

understood and appreciated. i'm looking forward to learning more.

You may want to consider starting a new thread when you post. It may help us to keep the discussion focused. I would love to participate in a somewhat organized and respectful hearing of your work on this.

[Patrick S]

I´m onto it, Patrick, and I hope to compile a list this evening or tomorrow. I´m a freelance journalist and I have a few other things to tend to also!

understood and appreciated. i'm looking forward to learning more.

[Fisherman]

That's fine. I'd love to see this infromation pulled together in a format that can be edited, commented upon, etc. I'm working on a document myself that I'll post here for amendments by you, if you're agreeable. We can then see what looks strange, what's unexplained, what seems sinister, what is innocent and easily explained. There is no suspect page for Cross. Thus, it's difficult to digest information that resides here and there.

I´m onto it, Patrick, and I hope to compile a list this evening or tomorrow. I´m a freelance journalist and I have a few other things to tend to also!

[Fisherman]

We know she was an alcoholic and that would effect the time window of the blood evidence. Clotting and congealing is a fairly individualized thing, the usual window is between 3 to 15 minutes. The alcoholism likely thinned her blood considerably. We are talking about it adding up to a possible 5 extra minutes to the window being worked from, unless I read the post on the timing incorrectly. Other factors could open it even wider by few minutes too.
I am just not convinced that the average for a healthy adult is the right frame to work from. It doesn't remove him or really effect the theory but it does open up the possibility of another killer to me.

If you´d care, Shaggyrand, please read this:

High levels of coagulation factors, especially fibrinogen, have been implicated as risk factors for thrombosis. Some studies have shown that ethanol induces a decrease in fibrinogen, vWF, and factor VII levels. A smaller group of studies have shown no effect of ethanol on these factors. Alcohol consumption also affects the fibrinolytic system. Moderate ethanol intake causes an increase in the tPA level with no change in the PAI-1 concentration, which increases fibrinolysis. High ethanol intake, on the other hand, apparently leads to a decrease in fibrinolysis by increasing the PAI-1 concentration, which elevates the risk for a thrombotic event.

(Effects of Alcohol on Hemostasis Raneem O. Salem, PhD, and Michael Laposata, MD, PhD)

and this...

Light-to-moderate alcohol intake is associated with a reduced incidence of ischaemic cardiovascular events, whilst heavy alcohol intake can predispose individuals to stroke.

(The effects of alcohol on coagulation and fibrinolytic factors: a controlled trial.
Dimmitt SB1,*Rakic V,*Puddey IB,*Baker R,*Oostryck R,*Adams MJ,*Chesterman CN,*Burke V,*Beilin LJ.)

and this...

Conclusions—*Light-to-moderate alcohol consumption is associated with lower levels of coagulatory factors, but higher intake is associated with impaired fibrinolytic potential. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that a balance between hemostatic and fibrinolytic activity may contribute to the complex relation of alcohol use with coronary heart disease.

(Alcohol Consumption and Hemostatic Factors
Analysis of the Framingham Offspring Cohort
1. Kenneth J. Mukamal, MD, MPH,MA;*
2. Praveen P. Jadhav, MD;*
3. Ralph B. D’Agostino, PhD;*
4. Joseph M. Massaro, PhD;*
5. Murray A. Mittleman, MD, DrPH;
6. Izabella Lipinska, PhD;*
7. Patrice A. Sutherland, BS;*
8. Travis Matheney, MLA;
9. Daniel Levy, MD;*
10. Peter W.F. Wilson, MD;*
11. R. Curtis Ellison, MD;*
12. Halit Silbershatz, PhD;*
13. James E. Muller, MD;*
14. Geoffrey H. Tofler, MD)

It would seem like you are right to say that alcohol makes the blood thinner and the coagulation process slower. But excessice drinking - alcoholism - has rather the exact opposite effect.

I have been looking into this for some time now, and there are differing voices telling different tories. But it seems people agree that alcoholism INCREASES the risk of bloodclotting instead of diminishing it.
In the Nichols case, there is not just the coagulation to consider - there is also the fact that she bled from the neck for around five, six minutes. I have been tld by a pathologist that one should not expect wounds like the ones Nichols sustained to bleed for any more time than so.

Weighing it all together, everything spekas for Lechmere being the person who best answers up to the murder schedule suggested by the blood evidence. But as always, we must take care not to be too sure.

My level of certainty is fuelled by not only the blood evidence but also the many odd coincidences and what seems to be the carman lying not once but twice to the police.

[Patrick S]

I´ll find rhe time to answer that later. The list you have is wrong to some extent.

That's fine. I'd love to see this infromation pulled together in a format that can be edited, commented upon, etc. I'm working on a document myself that I'll post here for amendments by you, if you're agreeable. We can then see what looks strange, what's unexplained, what seems sinister, what is innocent and easily explained. There is no suspect page for Cross. Thus, it's difficult to digest information that resides here and there.

[Fisherman]

As always caz you are the voice of common sense.xxxxxxxxxxxx

Let me guess - you agree with her?

[Fisherman]

Okay. Here's what I have, from memory:

- Found the body
- Walked near several murder sites on his way to/from work
- Gave a 'false' name
- Wife not buried next to him
- Descendents recall 'dark stories' about him
- Could have killed Chapman while his cart was being unloaded nearby

What other coincidences are we dealing with here?

I´ll find rhe time to answer that later. The list you have is wrong to some extent.

[Shaggyrand]

We know she was an alcoholic and that would effect the time window of the blood evidence. Clotting and congealing is a fairly individualized thing, the usual window is between 3 to 15 minutes. The alcoholism likely thinned her blood considerably. We are talking about it adding up to a possible 5 extra minutes to the window being worked from, unless I read the post on the timing incorrectly. Other factors could open it even wider by few minutes too.
I am just not convinced that the average for a healthy adult is the right frame to work from. It doesn't remove him or really effect the theory but it does open up the possibility of another killer to me.

[pinkmoon]

Two wrongs don't make a right, Fisherman.

That is exactly how one should proceed, by testing every aspect of their case against a suspect and trying to disprove it.

I still believe the Maybrick diary is an old hoax, for instance. But I have not stopped testing this belief and trying to find sound evidence that it was faked in the late 20th century.

Aren't the police supposed to try and eliminate potential suspects until they are presented with one who resists all their efforts to do so, and is then duly charged on sufficient evidence to expect a conviction?

Love,

Caz
X

As always caz you are the voice of common sense.xxxxxxxxxxxx

[Patrick S]

Patrick S: We agree. You concede that there is no evidence.

No, Patrick, we do not agree at all. My stance is that there is RECORDED blood evidence.
You seem to think that when Neil and Mizen spoke of the blood at the inquest, they presented inadmissible evidence? Since the blood was washed away? That is totally wrong. It would equal disallowing Llewellyn to say that the blood was collected in the loose tissues since he had no photo of it and no blood to show for it.

We have a written account of the 'evidence' being washed away. The evidence was not perserved photographically. Thus, it either exists or it does not. One cannot expect a good result if one says to a judge at a murder trial, "We lost the evidence. There no photographs or video. But, we recorded it!"

I think this is getting slightly silly now, to be frank, Patrick. It is not a line that can be pursued.

So, you say this Scobie said there is a prima faciae case impliying that he was the killer before the 'blood evidence' was presented. Based on what?

Based on the circumstantial evidence.

The fact that he found the body? Someone had to.

While the blood was still flowing and five or six minutes before it was in a somewhat congealed state? Nobody "has to", all alone, find a body in that state. And if they do, they are on the suspect list until they can be cleared. Simple as.

Stand to reason it would be someone out and about, at that time of day, likely on their way to work. Would the evidence point the person that found body, regardless of who it was?

No, it would not. The physical status of the finder would have an influence. Otherwise, if the person was physically capable of murder, then the police would need to clear the finder, or have the luck of finding the real killer - if that killer was somebody else.
Of course, most people would be reluctant to accuse an eighty year old lady, but as long as she was physically capable and as long as no other killer was found, even such a person would need to be cleared.

Okay. Here's what I have, from memory:

- Found the body
- Walked near several murder sites on his way to/from work
- Gave a 'false' name
- Wife not buried next to him
- Descendents recall 'dark stories' about him
- Could have killed Chapman while his cart was being unloaded nearby

What other coincidences are we dealing with here?

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: We agree. You concede that there is no evidence.

No, Patrick, we do not agree at all. My stance is that there is RECORDED blood evidence.
You seem to think that when Neil and Mizen spoke of the blood at the inquest, they presented inadmissible evidence? Since the blood was washed away? That is totally wrong. It would equal disallowing Llewellyn to say that the blood was collected in the loose tissues since he had no photo of it and no blood to show for it.

We have a written account of the 'evidence' being washed away. The evidence was not perserved photographically. Thus, it either exists or it does not. One cannot expect a good result if one says to a judge at a murder trial, "We lost the evidence. There no photographs or video. But, we recorded it!"

I think this is getting slightly silly now, to be frank, Patrick. It is not a line that can be pursued.

So, you say this Scobie said there is a prima faciae case impliying that he was the killer before the 'blood evidence' was presented. Based on what?

Based on the circumstantial evidence.

The fact that he found the body? Someone had to.

While the blood was still flowing and five or six minutes before it was in a somewhat congealed state? Nobody "has to", all alone, find a body in that state. And if they do, they are on the suspect list until they can be cleared. Simple as.

Stand to reason it would be someone out and about, at that time of day, likely on their way to work. Would the evidence point the person that found body, regardless of who it was?

No, it would not. The physical status of the finder would have an influence. Otherwise, if the person was physically capable of murder, then the police would need to clear the finder, or have the luck of finding the real killer - if that killer was somebody else.
Of course, most people would be reluctant to accuse an eighty year old lady, but as long as she was physically capable and as long as no other killer was found, even such a person would need to be cleared.

[Patrick S]

Patrick S: Yes. The blood has all dried up. It does not 'date' from when it was fresh. It does not exist. There IS no blood evidence. THAT is the point. Is this impossible for you to understand?

Watch your step, Patrick. Keep it civil. Just saying.

The blood evidence was RECORDED back in 1888. Both Neil and Mizen saw running blood and Mizen said it was somewhat coagulated. That speaks of an acute observation with forensic insights.

The fact that the blood no onger exists is neither here nor there - we have it on record.

To another less than stellar point you make, of course the blood, at some point, coagulated. It's ultimate coagulation is not the point. You have made the time it takes to coagulate a cornerstone of your 'case'. You ARE aware that there are many internal factors (i.e. present within the body) as well as external factors affecting blood coagulation time. Yet we have prima faciae case impliying that he was the killer. After 127 years. With no access to the blood 'evidence'. No pictures of the blood 'evidence'. No idea about Nichols' blood clotting factors. No firm grasp of the actual time elapsed save what appeared in print 127 years ago.

The prima faciae case was stated by Scobie BEFORE the blood evidence was looked into. And yes, it is and should be a cornerstone of the case. Both Neil and Mizen saw the blood running - that is called corroboration. And Mizen had an excellent record, and apparently checked the state of coagulation.

After that, we can only work form a normal coagulation schedue whilst allowing for it to have deviated to some extent. It either excludes an alternative killer or allows ver little time for him - end of story.

I'm not opposed to the Crossmee idea. It's interesting. Yet, it's still implausible. You overstating every detail - real or imagined - isn't helping things along.

How good then that I don´t overstate things. I use the existing evidence and normal time schedules. It is not me but you who want deviations.

We agree. You concede that there is no evidence. We have a written account of the 'evidence' being washed away. The evidence was not perserved photographically. Thus, it either exists or it does not. One cannot expect a good result if one says to a judge at a murder trial, "We lost the evidence. There no photogaphs or video. But, we recorded it!"

So, you say this Scobie said there is a prima faciae case impliying that he was the killer before the 'blood evidence' was presented. Based on what? The fact that he found the body? Someone had to. Stand to reason it would be someone out and about, at that time of day, likely on their way to work. Would the evidence point the person that found body, regardless of who it was?

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: Yes. The blood has all dried up. It does not 'date' from when it was fresh. It does not exist. There IS no blood evidence. THAT is the point. Is this impossible for you to understand?

Watch your step, Patrick. Keep it civil. Just saying.

The blood evidence was RECORDED back in 1888. Both Neil and Mizen saw running blood and Mizen said it was somewhat coagulated. That speaks of an acute observation with forensic insights.

The fact that the blood no onger exists is neither here nor there - we have it on record.

To another less than stellar point you make, of course the blood, at some point, coagulated. It's ultimate coagulation is not the point. You have made the time it takes to coagulate a cornerstone of your 'case'. You ARE aware that there are many internal factors (i.e. present within the body) as well as external factors affecting blood coagulation time. Yet we have prima faciae case impliying that he was the killer. After 127 years. With no access to the blood 'evidence'. No pictures of the blood 'evidence'. No idea about Nichols' blood clotting factors. No firm grasp of the actual time elapsed save what appeared in print 127 years ago.

The prima faciae case was stated by Scobie BEFORE the blood evidence was looked into. And yes, it is and should be a cornerstone of the case. Both Neil and Mizen saw the blood running - that is called corroboration. And Mizen had an excellent record, and apparently checked the state of coagulation.

After that, we can only work form a normal coagulation schedue whilst allowing for it to have deviated to some extent. It either excludes an alternative killer or allows ver little time for him - end of story.

I'm not opposed to the Crossmee idea. It's interesting. Yet, it's still implausible. You overstating every detail - real or imagined - isn't helping things along.

How good then that I don´t overstate things. I use the existing evidence and normal time schedules. It is not me but you who want deviations.