The Lechmere trail - so far

[Fisherman]

Very nice summary, Fish.

Is there another suspect with that much circumstantial evidence stacked against him? I don't think it would be easy to generate a list comparable in quality.

Many thanks, Barnaby!

No, there is no other suspect who comes anywhere even close to this amount of circumstantial evidence - in combination with blood evidence, even.

[Trevor Marriott]

Many thanks, Barnaby!

No, there is no other suspect who comes anywhere even close to this amount of circumstantial evidence - in combination with blood evidence, even.

Fish
This thread is titled The Lechmere Trail, and now it is time for that trail to stop.

For the benefit of researchers on this site who may not use JTR forums I will reiterate where I am with your theory that Lechmere could have killed Nichols.

The back bone of your theory is based on what you term as blood evidence. This comes entirely from Pc Mizen. That evidence being that he saw blood still flowing from the throat wounds coupled with the pool of blood on the pavement having not yet congealed. Both of these factors you suggest are consistent with Nichols having been recently killed and that suggests that Lechmere was the killer or if not then he must have disturbed the killer.

As you know I am one of many who do not subscribe to this theory and contest the timings you seek to rely on to prove him as the likely killer. We have been sabre rattling for some time now on this issue, and up until now you have stood your ground admirably relying on your own research into both of the main issues.

You will also know that I am in close contact with Dr Briggs a modern day practicing Home office forensic pathologist who is used to attending and examining bodies at crime scenes. To date he has been very helpful in giving his opinions on much of the medical evidence connected to the Ripper murders which has really now brought into question much of what researchers have sought to rely on.

He has previoulsly given us his expert knowledge into the question of how long blood would flow from wounds etc. But to date he has not been asked about the coagulation of blood. Now you say coagulation should start to take place within a matter of minutes, thus adding corroboration to your theory that Nichols was recently killed and pointing the finger at Lechmere.

I have now questioned Dr Briggs on this issue of coagulation and I know you have already seen his replies on JTR but as yet you have not passed any comment. So for the benefit of reader on this site I will post it again.

Dr Briggs states.

"Coagulation is a very peculiar thing indeed. I can say with certainty that it is not possible to establish an elapsed time interval based on degree of coagulation.

When blood spills onto the pavement it may coagulate, or it may not. If it does, it may do so quickly or slowly. To confuse matters, it may dry up, giving the appearance of being coagulated, without actually ‘clotting’. The short answer is, you can’t tell.

In practice, there is usually a mixture of clotted and liquid blood in these situations. I have certainly been to many crime scenes where a large quantity of blood has been shed onto the floor and, even many hours after death, there is a liquid component as well as a clotted component.

In terms of the theory being put forward: the description of the blood not being coagulated does not reliably indicate a very recent death, nor does it exclude a longer time period. So the theory is certainly plausible, but certainly isn’t proved by this observation"

So the blood evidence which you seek to suggest is your ace in the hole is clearly now very much questionable. So it is quite clear that Nichols could have been killed some considerable time before Lechmere arrived at the scene which is what i and others have been saying for some time. Perhaps you will now agree that their are major flaws in your theory with regards to the blood evidence.

For those who want to read what Dr Briggs say in relation to not only the Whietchapel Murders but the Thames Torso Mysteries it can be found in the revised edition of Jack the Ripper-The Secret police Files.

amzn.to/1tGNEb0

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Harry D]

Why would Lechmere run away if he was innocent, Fish? Surely that's the LAST thing he'd do if he was worried about being fitted up for the murders. He makes a wrong turn and bam, he runs straight into a copper. Now Paul's found the body and we have a man caught fleeing from the scene of the crime. Innocent or guilty, this would've been a bad move on Lechmere's part.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: Why would Lechmere run away if he was innocent, Fish? Surely that's the LAST thing he'd do if he was worried about being fitted up for the murders.

If he wanted no invlvement at all and did not want to run the risk that the oncoming stranger would make the assumption that he was the killer, then it would be totaly logical to try and distance himself from the scene. That would disenable anybody to couple him to the body.

He makes a wrong turn and bam, he runs straight into a copper. Now Paul's found the body and we have a man caught fleeing from the scene of the crime. Innocent or guilty, this would've been a bad move on Lechmere's part.

Very many people - maybe you was one of them? - have had major difficulties seeing how this would have applied if Lechmere was the killer. It is interesting that you should suggest the idea for an innocent Lechmere.

The factor that is different in the two scenarios is panic.

A psychopath killer will not panic. It is physically impossible for him. Therefore, such a man would be quite likely to stay put. He would also - owing to how his judgment would not be clouded by any panic - be able to weigh the options and to make asound judgment of the risk represented by patrolling PC:s.

A non-psychopath, terrified by the possibility that he would be implicated as the possible killer of a person he has found lying in the street, will very probably panic. In doing so, his judgment will be clouded and the panic will disenable him to think rationally (that belongs to the very definition of what a panic is). He will run scared, forgetting the risks involved with patrolling PC:s.

So there ´s why, Harry. And don´t forget that I listed a number of other points that swear against you suggested scenario.

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott:
This thread is titled The Lechmere Trail, and now it is time for that trail to stop.

I would never trust you to make that kind of a call, Trevor. You may well be the last person on the boards I would put that kind of trust in. I do not think that you are well enough read up to understand what you are talking about.

For the benefit of researchers on this site who may not use JTR forums I will reiterate where I am with your theory that Lechmere could have killed Nichols.

Sounds terrifying. And for all the wrong reasons.

The back bone of your theory is based on what you term as blood evidence.

Wrong. It is but one factor of many.

This comes entirely from Pc Mizen.

Wrong. It comes from Neil and Thain too.

That evidence being that he saw blood still flowing from the throat wounds coupled with the pool of blood on the pavement having not yet congealed. Both of these factors you suggest are consistent with Nichols having been recently killed and that suggests that Lechmere was the killer or if not then he must have disturbed the killer.

That is - unexpectedly - correct.

As you know I am one of many who do not subscribe to this theory and contest the timings you seek to rely on to prove him as the likely killer. We have been sabre rattling for some time now on this issue, and up until now you have stood your ground admirably relying on your own research into both of the main issues.

Thanks for the kind words. To be honest, though, it was not very hard.

You will also know that I am in close contact with Dr Briggs a modern day practicing Home office forensic pathologist who is used to attending and examining bodies at crime scenes.

Yes, I do. And I am familiar with how you say that even modern day medicos are relying on guesswork only, and that since they did not exist in 1888, they cannot offer any conclusive thoughts.

To date he has been very helpful in giving his opinions on much of the medical evidence connected to the Ripper murders which has really now brought into question much of what researchers have sought to rely on.

He has! And he sounds like a discerning and reliable man to my ears. The problem is that he always seem to speak in very general terms - like discerning medicos so often do. So in a way, it IS no problem. It only becomes so when you try to use his generalized words to apply specifically to the Nichols case.

He has previoulsly given us his expert knowledge into the question of how long blood would flow from wounds etc. But to date he has not been asked about the coagulation of blood. Now you say coagulation should start to take place within a matter of minutes, thus adding corroboration to your theory that Nichols was recently killed and pointing the finger at Lechmere.

Nope. Wrong again. The coagulation starts IMMEDIATELY. When the blood passes the cut area, it comes in contact with substances (collagenes, I believe)that starts the congealing. So the secod the blood starts to exit the wound, the congealing starts.

I have now questioned Dr Briggs on this issue of coagulation and I know you have already seen his replies on JTR but as yet you have not passed any comment. So for the benefit of reader on this site I will post it again.

Maybe I did not think it worth any comment. I really cannot remember. But we´ll see!

Dr Briggs states.

"Coagulation is a very peculiar thing indeed. I can say with certainty that it is not possible to establish an elapsed time interval based on degree of coagulation.

When blood spills onto the pavement it may coagulate, or it may not. If it does, it may do so quickly or slowly. To confuse matters, it may dry up, giving the appearance of being coagulated, without actually ‘clotting’. The short answer is, you can’t tell.

In practice, there is usually a mixture of clotted and liquid blood in these situations. I have certainly been to many crime scenes where a large quantity of blood has been shed onto the floor and, even many hours after death, there is a liquid component as well as a clotted component.

In terms of the theory being put forward: the description of the blood not being coagulated does not reliably indicate a very recent death, nor does it exclude a longer time period. So the theory is certainly plausible, but certainly isn’t proved by this observation"

Of course no exact time can be established from the degree of coagulation. We will be dealing with rough estimates. But there IS a "normal" schedule of coagulation, and we must work from the assumption that it applies, since we do not want to predispose that a deviating schedule was at work.

There is no interest in saying that "when blood spills on a pavement it may or may not congeal". That is more of the generalised Briggsianisms, and thought it will be true, we actually KNOW that the blood congealed on the pavement of Bucks Row!
The same goes for the "drying up" thing - we do not have to be wary of risking to confuse dried up blood with coagulated blood, since the blood in the pool under Nichols was in a liquid state. It was nowhere near being dried up.

Then - heureka! - Briggs says something that is of great interest to the specific case we have on hand: "In practice, there is usually a mixture of clotted and liquid blood in these situations."

Yes! "Usually" here means that the normal outcome is that there will be liquid blood AND lumping, coagulating blood in a pool of blood under a victim. And that is the exact thing that Mizen reported: The blood was running from the wounds in the neck, down into the pool under Nichols. This blood would have been in contact with collagenes, and it would have begun to congeal, but that congealing would not be visible as yet. But the blood that had exited the neck three, four, five and six minutes earlier - DURING PARTS OF WHICH PERIOD LECHMERE WAS ALONE WITH THE BODY! - would have started to form lumps in the floating blood of the pool. So the pool would have looked "somewhat congealed" to Mizen.

Here we have Briggs speaking of the exact state of coagulation in which Mizen found the pool! Then he goes on to say that some of the blood may stay liquid for hours - and we are back in generalization land again. We do not have to ask ourselves if that happened with Nichols´ blood, since that blood lumped and coagulated into a "congealed mass" in around half an hour.

And there are more generalizations: "In terms of the theory being put forward: the description of the blood not being coagulated does not reliably indicate a very recent death, nor does it exclude a longer time period."

Of course, nobody says that the blood was uncoagulated. It was partly coagulated and it went on to become a congealed mass in half an hour´s time. The signs are all in line with a nirmal coagulation process. And the fact that Nichols was an alcoholic tends to strengthen the suggestion that the coagulation should be anything but slow, since alcoholism seemingly helps the congealing go quicker.

I like Briggs final words:

"So the theory is certainly plausible, but certainly isn’t proved by this observation"

That is exactly what I say myself. The theory is completely plausible, but it cannot be used as binding proof since deviations MAY have been there. There are no signs of such deviations, but we cannot exclude them anyway.

Incidentally, Jason Payne-James, with whom I have spoken about the case, basically divided his answer to my question about the congealing into three parts:

1. We can be absolutely certain that there is no way that the blood evidence can clear Lechmere. He was there at a point in time that is entirely consistent with him having been the killer.

2. There may have been time for another killer too, since we cannot be certain of the exactitude of the timings. Nor can we know whether any deviations from the normal schemes occurred.

3. The window of time open to another killer is diminished with every minute we distance him.

So the blood evidence which you seek to suggest is your ace in the hole is clearly now very much questionable.

Eh - no.

So it is quite clear that Nichols could have been killed some considerable time before Lechmere arrived at the scene which is what i and others have been saying for some time. Perhaps you will now agree that their are major flaws in your theory with regards to the blood evidence.

Eh - no.

If you think that another killer could have done the deed "some considerable time" before Lechmere arrived, you are quite simply way off. It only adds to how you are not sufficiently read up on the case.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Oh, dear! You are absolutely CORRECT, Robert. It seems I may have totally MISLED those who read the boards. I REALLY should get smacked across the bum for it, it is UNFORGIVEABLE!

The East London Advertiser writes "Charles A. Cross, a carman, who appeared in court with a rough sack apron on, said...", thereby implying that this was not something that was to be expected. And there is nowhere any hint at anybody else appearing in working clothes.

But what if John Neil appeared in police uniform? And Thain? And Mizen? If so, then I have made a point that is totally wrongful, and I have tried to tried to gain confidence from it, even. Brrrrrr!!!!!

It is a good thing that you are so observant, Robert. Really!

Of course, the deviation Lechmere represented from the normal - to go to an inquest in more formal clothing - is erased from all interest if any of the PCs wore uniform. Of course!!

I bow humbly to your keen eye, Robert. What an accomplishment - and so, so useful!

Creeping in awe before you,

Fisherman

Can I suggest that you reduce your daily caffeine intake by half.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott:
This thread is titled The Lechmere Trail, and now it is time for that trail to stop.

I would never trust you to make that kind of a call, Trevor. You may well be the last person on the boards I would put that kind of trust in. I do not think that you are well enough read up to understand what you are talking about.

For the benefit of researchers on this site who may not use JTR forums I will reiterate where I am with your theory that Lechmere could have killed Nichols.

Sounds terrifying. And for all the wrong reasons.

The back bone of your theory is based on what you term as blood evidence.

Wrong. It is but one factor of many.

This comes entirely from Pc Mizen.

Wrong. It comes from Neil and Thain too.

That evidence being that he saw blood still flowing from the throat wounds coupled with the pool of blood on the pavement having not yet congealed. Both of these factors you suggest are consistent with Nichols having been recently killed and that suggests that Lechmere was the killer or if not then he must have disturbed the killer.

That is - unexpectedly - correct.

As you know I am one of many who do not subscribe to this theory and contest the timings you seek to rely on to prove him as the likely killer. We have been sabre rattling for some time now on this issue, and up until now you have stood your ground admirably relying on your own research into both of the main issues.

Thanks for the kind words. To be honest, though, it was not very hard.

You will also know that I am in close contact with Dr Briggs a modern day practicing Home office forensic pathologist who is used to attending and examining bodies at crime scenes.

Yes, I do. And I am familiar with how you say that even modern day medicos are relying on guesswork only, and that since they did not exist in 1888, they cannot offer any conclusive thoughts.

To date he has been very helpful in giving his opinions on much of the medical evidence connected to the Ripper murders which has really now brought into question much of what researchers have sought to rely on.

He has! And he sounds like a discerning and reliable man to my ears. The problem is that he always seem to speak in very general terms - like discerning medicos so often do. So in a way, it IS no problem. It only becomes so when you try to use his generalized words to apply specifically to the Nichols case.

He has previoulsly given us his expert knowledge into the question of how long blood would flow from wounds etc. But to date he has not been asked about the coagulation of blood. Now you say coagulation should start to take place within a matter of minutes, thus adding corroboration to your theory that Nichols was recently killed and pointing the finger at Lechmere.

Nope. Wrong again. The coagulation starts IMMEDIATELY. When the blood passes the cut area, it comes in contact with substances (collagenes, I believe)that starts the congealing. So the secod the blood starts to exit the wound, the congealing starts.

I have now questioned Dr Briggs on this issue of coagulation and I know you have already seen his replies on JTR but as yet you have not passed any comment. So for the benefit of reader on this site I will post it again.

Maybe I did not think it worth any comment. I really cannot remember. But we´ll see!

Dr Briggs states.

"Coagulation is a very peculiar thing indeed. I can say with certainty that it is not possible to establish an elapsed time interval based on degree of coagulation.

When blood spills onto the pavement it may coagulate, or it may not. If it does, it may do so quickly or slowly. To confuse matters, it may dry up, giving the appearance of being coagulated, without actually ‘clotting’. The short answer is, you can’t tell.

In practice, there is usually a mixture of clotted and liquid blood in these situations. I have certainly been to many crime scenes where a large quantity of blood has been shed onto the floor and, even many hours after death, there is a liquid component as well as a clotted component.

In terms of the theory being put forward: the description of the blood not being coagulated does not reliably indicate a very recent death, nor does it exclude a longer time period. So the theory is certainly plausible, but certainly isn’t proved by this observation"

Of course no exact time can be established from the degree of coagulation. We will be dealing with rough estimates. But there IS a "normal" schedule of coagulation, and we must work from the assumption that it applies, since we do not want to predispose that a deviating schedule was at work.

There is no interest in saying that "when blood spills on a pavement it may or may not congeal". That is more of the generalised Briggsianisms, and thought it will be true, we actually KNOW that the blood congealed on the pavement of Bucks Row!
The same goes for the "drying up" thing - we do not have to be wary of risking to confuse dried up blood with coagulated blood, since the blood in the pool under Nichols was in a liquid state. It was nowhere near being dried up.

Then - heureka! - Briggs says something that is of great interest to the specific case we have on hand: "In practice, there is usually a mixture of clotted and liquid blood in these situations."

Yes! "Usually" here means that the normal outcome is that there will be liquid blood AND lumping, coagulating blood in a pool of blood under a victim. And that is the exact thing that Mizen reported: The blood was running from the wounds in the neck, down into the pool under Nichols. This blood would have been in contact with collagenes, and it would have begun to congeal, but that congealing would not be visible as yet. But the blood that had exited the neck three, four, five and six minutes earlier - DURING PARTS OF WHICH PERIOD LECHMERE WAS ALONE WITH THE BODY! - would have started to form lumps in the floating blood of the pool. So the pool would have looked "somewhat congealed" to Mizen.

Here we have Briggs speaking of the exact state of coagulation in which Mizen found the pool! Then he goes on to say that some of the blood may stay liquid for hours - and we are back in generalization land again. We do not have to ask ourselves if that happened with Nichols´ blood, since that blood lumped and coagulated into a "congealed mass" in around half an hour.

And there are more generalizations: "In terms of the theory being put forward: the description of the blood not being coagulated does not reliably indicate a very recent death, nor does it exclude a longer time period."

Of course, nobody says that the blood was uncoagulated. It was partly coagulated and it went on to become a congealed mass in half an hour´s time. The signs are all in line with a nirmal coagulation process. And the fact that Nichols was an alcoholic tends to strengthen the suggestion that the coagulation should be anything but slow, since alcoholism seemingly helps the congealing go quicker.

I like Briggs final words:

"So the theory is certainly plausible, but certainly isn’t proved by this observation"

That is exactly what I say myself. The theory is completely plausible, but it cannot be used as binding proof since deviations MAY have been there. There are no signs of such deviations, but we cannot exclude them anyway.

Incidentally, Jason Payne-James, with whom I have spoken about the case, basically divided his answer to my question about the congealing into three parts:

1. We can be absolutely certain that there is no way that the blood evidence can clear Lechmere. He was there at a point in time that is entirely consistent with him having been the killer.

2. There may have been time for another killer too, since we cannot be certain of the exactitude of the timings. Nor can we know whether any deviations from the normal schemes occurred.

3. The window of time open to another killer is diminished with every minute we distance him.

So the blood evidence which you seek to suggest is your ace in the hole is clearly now very much questionable.

Eh - no.

So it is quite clear that Nichols could have been killed some considerable time before Lechmere arrived at the scene which is what i and others have been saying for some time. Perhaps you will now agree that their are major flaws in your theory with regards to the blood evidence.

Eh - no.

If you think that another killer could have done the deed "some considerable time" before Lechmere arrived, you are quite simply way off. It only adds to how you are not sufficiently read up on the case.

Fish
I do not intend to discuss these issue at any time in the future with you and I would urge others to do the same. You are clearly totally obsessed with this theory to the point that you have clearly become deluded, and discussing these issues with you in the future would be a pointless exercise and a waste of everyone's valuable time.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Can I suggest that you reduce your daily caffeine intake by half.

You can suggest a good many other things - but NOT that!

[GUT]

Can I suggest that you reduce your daily caffeine intake by half.

You can suggest a good many other things - but NOT that!

Sounds like cruel and unusual punishment that.

[Fisherman]

Fish
I do not intend to discuss these issue at any time in the future with you and I would urge others to do the same. You are clearly totally obsessed with this theory to the point that you have clearly become deluded, and discussing these issues with you in the future would be a pointless exercise and a waste of everyone's valuable time.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Not everyones time, Trevor. You may have noticed that there are a number of posters who freely admit that the Lechmere is an excellent contender for the Nichols murder - and rightly so.

Out here, very many posters are totally entrenched in their old thinking, and not willing to have their ideas diluted by the presence of a better suspect. One who can be tied to the a Ripper murder technically, based on REAL evidence instead of ramblings from ambitious police officers back in the late nineteenth century. That makes for a refreshing change - one that has never before been presented in Ripperology (nor is it likley to ever happen again).
There is one killer only - find him and you will have the difficulty to find evidence against other suspects explained.

By the way, I saw a long documentary on Youtube yesterday, where you walked the East End streets, trying to solve the murder. Brrrrr! A link for flagellants: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yci4ngFAKPs

The representation of the Nichols murder included Charles Cross finding Nichols body - whereupon the carman nearly vomits due to how badly he is affected by seeing that she is cut up. He then proceeds running down Bucks Row, screaming "Help! Police! Murder!" at the top of his voice. Robert Paul is nowhere to be seen. Maybe actors are expensive?

I managed ten minutes, but then I had had quite enough. Which is strange, since almost everything presented in the docu was totally new to me.

Having seen - at least part of - this masterpiece, I find it odd that I should find you on a thread encouraging posters to take your advice and keep away from discussing the only factually viable suspect who has ever come to light in the Ripper hunt.

[Fisherman]

Sounds like cruel and unusual punishment that.

You have no idea, Gut... hands off my coffee!

[GUT]

You have no idea, Gut... hands off my coffee!

'm not a coffee man I drink mine cold, Pepsi Max and Diet Coke but caffeine all the same. And in massive quantities.

[Fisherman]

'm not a coffee man I drink mine cold, Pepsi Max and Diet Coke but caffeine all the same. And in massive quantities.

Oh, I drink Pepsi and Coke too. Plus my middle son is a barista. I am not one to take any chances.

[Jonathan H]

An aspect that leaves me distant from the Lechmere theory is that relies on various contemporaneous sources for the most minute, join-the-dot details, as if they are absolutely gospel about comings and goings, about why certain things were, and were not asked, and observations about various things, like blood, all in the dark.

This would not be such a limitation if some kind of evidence, demonstrably unknown to the police of the day, that was very, or at least somewhat incriminating against this fringe figure.

[Fisherman]

An aspect that leaves me distant from the Lechmere theory is that relies on various contemporaneous sources for the most minute, join-the-dot details, as if they are absolutely gospel about comings and goings, about why certain things were, and were not asked, and observations about various things, like blood, all in the dark.

This would not be such a limitation if some kind of evidence, demonstrably unknown to the police of the day, that was very, or at least somewhat incriminating against this fringe figure.

The fact that timelines can be presented concerning Lechmere is an advantage, not a disadvantage, Jonathan. We can come close to him. That tells him apart and makes him a much better suspect to research than the men where we can do no such thing.
These other so called suspects have one great advantage only - they are universally apliccable in many a way. If we want to suggest that they were in Kew Gardens on August the 9:th 1888, we can do so. If we want to suggest that they were in Mitre Square on the night of the double event - same thing. Those of whom we know nothing can conveniently never be excluded.

Lechmere, however, can be scrutinized in the Nichols case. And that makes him a very much tougher suspect to discuss, since we cannot put him anywhere, make him say or do anything, without the recorded events allowing for it. And that is why it is so compelling that they do.

Your passus about how I need to have information that the police had not has been answered before. The name is a good beginning.

If the police had known that he had supplied them with the wrong name, you can be reasonably certain that they would have launched a serious investigation, targetting him as a possible killer.

There are other matters too, that the contemporary police would have been unaware of. The information would have been readily available, but they would not have looked for it.