The Lechmere trail - so far

[Jon Guy]

The wordings have been listed before, and the outcome is that the wounds were covered.

If they had NOT been covered, how is it that the carmen could see the hat, but not seven deep bloodfilled gashes on white skin?

Hi Christer

Robert Paul stooped right over Nichol`s head to look at her, and he didn`t notice the two gashes in her throat either.

Also, although, the dress was found at about the groin (so no way would any of the abdominal injuries show) what makes you think the killer covered her ?

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy: Hi Christer

Robert Paul stooped right over Nichol`s head to look at her, and he didn`t notice the two gashes in her throat either.

A/ They would have been shadowed by her chin.
B/ They may well have been covered too. I suspect they were, and that the covering crept down as Paul pulled her dress down.
It would be odd, would it not, if the killer hid the abdominal wounds but not the cuts to the neck!

Also, although, the dress was found at about the groin (so no way would any of the abdominal injuries show) what makes you think the killer covered her ?

The fact that the clothes were over the wounds makes me think it. The clothes would be unlikely to slide down by themselves. And the ulster was said to be of a heavy type.
The fact that all other victims were displayed with all the damage done to them also makes me think it.
The fact that Lechmere said that the clothes were down to over her knees makes me think it.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Christer

It would be odd, would it not, if the killer hid the abdominal wounds but not the cuts to the neck!

There`s nothing to prove the killer hid either the neck wound or the abdominal wounds.

The fact that the clothes were over the wounds makes me think it. The clothes would be unlikely to slide down by themselves. And the ulster was said to be of a heavy type!

Knife in right hand and left hand holding up clothes, and when finished he just let the material drop from his left hand.

The fact that all other victims were displayed with all the damage done to them also makes me think it. !

The abdominal damage inflicted on the other victims was different to Nichols injuries. In Nichols case, as you know, she was slashed about seven times from below her breast downwards and across her abdomen. There was no organ removal.

Of course it`s your right to surmise that the killer hid Nichols wounds, but we can`t make this one a fact ;-)

The fact that Lechmere said that the clothes were down to over her knees makes me think it.[/B]

Some accounts say groin, and they then pulled the dress down to her knees

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Jon Guy;354450]Hi Christer

There`s nothing to prove the killer hid either the neck wound or the abdominal wounds.

True. What there IS, is evidence that the clothing was down to over the knees/at the groin region before Paul pulled them further down. And there is evidence that Paul must have been quite close to the neck wounds - but did not see them, in spite of seeing things like for example the hat.

Knife in right hand and left hand holding up clothes, and when finished he just let the material drop from his left hand.

That is a possibility. But we also need to look at the other victims and compare - and in no other case did the killer employ such tactics. Another thing to consider is that it can be suggested that this killer had some sort of fixation with then abdominal cavity and wanted to cut it open and extract organs. You donīt do that with just the one hand.

The abdominal damage inflicted on the other victims was different to Nichols injuries. In Nichols case, as you know, she was slashed about seven times from below her breast downwards and across her abdomen. There was no organ removal.

Yes, and that will - if I am guessing right - be quite significant. But if we reason like most people do, we are only faced with a killer who was disturbed and who fled accordingly.
If we reason in my fashion, though, then yes, the killer (Lechmere) WAS disturbed (by Paul). But there is no need to accept that he was after any inner organs, at least not from the outset of the cutting. It does not take six trial rounds before you can cut a belly open.
I therefore think that the objective of most cuts was either just to cut into the stomach or to combine that with inflicting lethal damage. My hunch is that the large gash, from the breastbone down, and from where some intestines protruded, was the last inflicted wound. If there was any desire to take out any innards, then this was the kind of cut he needed to produce in order to reach that goal.

I think that Tabram preceded Nichols, and that it mirrored the Nichols deed to a large extent - first came strangulation, but not until death (Tabrams hands were clenched). Then followed a series of cuts/stabs to the trunk. Then, when the killer was either disturbed or satisfied with what he had achieved, he dealt the coup de grace.
With Tabram, it came in the shape of a stab through the heart, with Nichols he cut the neck.
That is why there was so little blood under the neck. Llewellyn was quite correct in stating, as per Baxter, that the abdominal wounds came first.

Many have seen this as impossible, and have argued that Baxter was wrong or misunderstood Llewellyn, who was quoted as having said that the neck would have come first, at least in the initital stages of the investigation. I have now found another source, confirming what Baxter said. It is (slightly ironically for Dr Strange) in the famed 19:th of September report signed by Swanson and Abberline, preceding Baxter by half a week:

"...Dr Llewellyn who afterwards made a more minute examination and found that the wounds in the abdomen were in themselves sufficient to cause instant death, and expressed an opinion that they were inflicted before the throat was cut. The body was not then identified..."

So there we are, from beginning to end it seems that Llewellyn was of the meaning that the abdominal wounds came first! I am beginning to think that the gentlemen of the police tried to sway Llewellyn on this, but to little avail. We may also see how Baxter dislikes the idea.
They were at this stage thinking that they had the working scheme in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street, but I think we are looking at a progression, the birth of a MO.

What does this mean here? It means that the suggestion of the killer lifting the clothes with one hand and cutting with the other becomes a better one. But in the end, since Paul never saw the cuts to the neck - and they had produced a two-inch wide gap, according to the press! - I remain of the meaning that the killer had hidden them. I think they became visible again when Paul pulled the dress down. I also think that the blood would before that have soaked into the clothing, on account of the cloth being in close contact with the cuts. When the dress was pulled down, the blood instead started to trickle down into that pool under the neck, filling it up between Neils and Mizens respective arrivals.
As for the covering of the abdominal wounds, it may have been produced the way you propose, but if so, Lechmere would have taken advantage of it. And added to it, at the neck.

Of course it`s your right to surmise that the killer hid Nichols wounds, but we can`t make this one a fact ;-)

True again. What we CAN treat as fact is that the wounds to the abdomen WERE hidden before Paul did any pulling. Whether by accident or by design is another matter. And it is also a fact that the other victimsī damages were anything but hidden!

Some accounts say groin, and they then pulled the dress down to her knees.

Yes, the information varies. Which is why neither of us should use any of the extremes. I think that a salomonical solution tells us that both abdomen and private parts were hidden, and that the clothes covered the first few inches of the thighs. Deal?

[Jon Guy]

What there IS, is evidence that the clothing was down to over the knees/at the groin region before Paul pulled them further down. And there is evidence that Paul must have been quite close to the neck wounds - but did not see them, in spite of seeing things like for example the hat.]

They admitted at the inquest that it was too dark to notice any blood.
PC Neil only noticed when he shone his lamp on her.

Regarding the hat, either Cross or Paul moved it, as Neil found it by her left side.

That is a possibility. But we also need to look at the other victims and compare

Should we compare ? Each murder was different. , but if you want to compare we find it happening .

and in no other case did the killer employ such tactics.

This is exactly what happened in the case of Alice McKenzie

Another thing to consider is that it can be suggested that this killer had some sort of fixation with then abdominal cavity and wanted to cut it open and extract organs. You donīt do that with just the one hand.

I agree about the abdominal fixation, but at this early point in the series were any of Nichols organs extracted ?
In fact, the wounds seem to indicate someone just slashing furiously, the pit of the abdomen been the only surface where the knife could go in deep.

Yes, and that will - if I am guessing right - be quite significant. But if we reason like most people do, we are only faced with a killer who was disturbed and who fled accordingly

Not only Christer.
It also happened in McKenzie`s case too, which was a lot later in the series.
Is there eveidence that McKenzies`s killer was disturbed ?

But yes, it does look Nichols killer was disturbed (by Cross)

I therefore think that the objective of most cuts was either just to cut into the stomach or to combine that with inflicting lethal damage. My hunch is that the large gash, from the breastbone down, and from where some intestines protruded, was the last inflicted wound.

Yes, very likely but I thought you went with the throat cut been the last wound inflicted. Do you still stand by that ?

If there was any desire to take out any innards, then this was the kind of cut he needed to produce in order to reach that goal.

True, but this long cut occurred with Nichols, Eddowes and McKenzie, and only Eddowes had organs removed. So the cut may not be indicative of attempted organ removal. It could just have been a nice cut to make for a knife wielding nutter

I think that Tabram preceded Nichols, and that it mirrored the Nichols deed to a large extent - first came strangulation, but not until death (Tabrams hands were clenched). Then followed a series of cuts/stabs to the trunk. Then, when the killer was either disturbed or satisfied with what he had achieved, he dealt the coup de grace.
With Tabram, it came in the shape of a stab through the heart, with Nichols he cut the neck.
That is why there was so little blood under the neck. Llewellyn was quite correct in stating, as per Baxter, that the abdominal wounds came first
.

Oh no :-(
Not here again. Most of the blood from the throat wound soaked into the back of coat. We even have the police involved confirming this.

Many have seen this as impossible, and have argued that Baxter was wrong or misunderstood Llewellyn, who was quoted as having said that the neck would have come first, at least in the initital stages of the investigation. I have now found another source, confirming what Baxter said. It is (slightly ironically for Dr Strange) in the famed 19:th of September report signed by Swanson and Abberline, preceding Baxter by half a week:[/B]

"...Dr Llewellyn who afterwards made a more minute examination and found that the wounds in the abdomen were in themselves sufficient to cause instant death, and expressed an opinion that they were inflicted before the throat was cut. The body was not then identified..."
.

Swanson is using the early mistaken reports in his summary.
He even says that at this time "the body was not the identified"
Swanson knew her name on Sept 19th - so why did he write this ?

What does this mean here? It means that the suggestion of the killer lifting the clothes with one hand and cutting with the other becomes a better one. But in the end, since Paul never saw the cuts to the neck - and they had produced a two-inch wide gap, according to the press! - I remain of the meaning that the killer had hidden them. ].

... or it was dark, as Paul said at the inquest

[/B]
Of course it`s your right to surmise that the killer hid Nichols wounds, but we can`t make this one a fact ;-)

True again. What we CAN treat as fact is that the wounds to the abdomen WERE hidden before Paul did any pulling. Whether by accident or by design is another matter. And it is also a fact that the other victimsī damages were anything but hidden!
].

I agree, the abdominal wounds seem to have been hidden from view by her dress. The neck wounds were hidden by the lack of available light.
This is a big difference to the killer hiding the wounds.

Some accounts say groin, and they then pulled the dress down to her knees.
Yes, the information varies. Which is why neither of us should use any of the extremes.

Surely, the sensible reasoning here, taking into account all sources, is that the dress was at the groin area and they pulled it down (with difficulty) to her knees.

I think that a salomonical solution tells us that both abdomen and private parts were hidden, and that the clothes covered the first few inches of the thighs. Deal?

You have a deal !! :-)
Let`s finish this one on this positive note (I need to lie down now, and I get to have the last word ... ;-)

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy: They admitted at the inquest that it was too dark to notice any blood.
PC Neil only noticed when he shone his lamp on her.

"The woman was easy enough to see". That was what Paul said at the inquest. And what you see in darkness is contrast. Bloodred wounds against white skin is the ultimate contrast. So they should have seen it if it was on display, no doubt about that.

Regarding the hat, either Cross or Paul moved it, as Neil found it by her left side.

Eh...? Hats will not fall to the left...? Or?

Should we compare ? Each murder was different. , but if you want to compare we find it happening .

Of course we should compare.

This is exactly what happened in the case of Alice McKenzie

Who was slain by...?

I agree about the abdominal fixation, but at this early point in the series were any of Nichols organs extracted ?
In fact, the wounds seem to indicate someone just slashing furiously, the pit of the abdomen been the only surface where the knife could go in deep.

Yep - you will have seen that we agree here to a large extent.

Not only Christer.
It also happened in McKenzie`s case too, which was a lot later in the series.
Is there evidence that McKenzies`s killer was disturbed ?

Is there any evidence that he was the Ripper? He may have been, but we would have a very mild form of Ripperism on our hands, so there is a lot of change going on no matter how we see it.

But yes, it does look Nichols killer was disturbed (by Cross)

By Paul, much more likely. Look at the blood and the timings, Jon.

Yes, very likely but I thought you went with the throat cut been the last wound inflicted. Do you still stand by that ?

Ah! I meant that the large abdominal gash was last of the abdominal cuts. Sorry for not being clearer. And yes, then neck came last!

True, but this long cut occurred with Nichols, Eddowes and McKenzie, and only Eddowes had organs removed. So the cut may not be indicative of attempted organ removal. It could just have been a nice cut to make for a knife wielding nutter

Absolutely! Both possibilities apply - we are in the beginning of a learning curve here. And I donīt mean learning to extract organs - I mean the killer was learning what he wanted to do and feel.

Oh no :-(
Not here again. Most of the blood from the throat wound soaked into the back of coat. We even have the police involved confirming this.

And Llewellyn denying it. How do you suppose the police told the blood from the neck from the blood from the abdomen once it was in the ulster...? Plus if the neck came first and she was alive, then the pavement would have looked radically different. It would have been sprayed with blood.

Swanson is using the early mistaken reports in his summary.
He even says that at this time "the body was not the identified"
Swanson knew her name on Sept 19th - so why did he write this ?

What Swanson says is that as Llewellyn concluded that the abdomen came first while Nichols was not yet identified, Jon. Meaning that Llewellyn did not reach his conclusion very late in the process - he formed that opinion BEFORE Nichols was ID:d, and he stood by it on the last day of the inquest.

... or it was dark, as Paul said at the inquest

Not that dark, no. Dark blood against white skin, Jon. Is would be like standing on a white carpet with dark red ten-inch diameter round spots on it. It is impossible to miss, unless it is so dark that nothing at all can be seen.

I agree, the abdominal wounds seem to have been hidden from view by her dress. The neck wounds were hidden by the lack of available light.
This is a big difference to the killer hiding the wounds.

There was a gash of two inches in the neck. That means that the head was leaning backwards. There is no way the darkness could have hidden that. Sorry.

Surely, the sensible reasoning here, taking into account all sources, is that the dress was at the groin area and they pulled it down (with difficulty) to her knees.

It was slightly further down, and Paul (not "they") pulled it down, but it would not go further than to just below the knees.

You have a deal !! :-)
Let`s finish this one on this positive note (I need to lie down now, and I get to have the last word ... ;-)

Share and share alike: Yes, you get to lie down, but no, you donīt get to have the last word.

[curious4]

Do we have any explanation as to who the man was
who passed the watchman, saying "I say Watchman old man..... "
And why didn't he come forward at the inquest?
C4

[Patrick S]

Do we have any explanation as to who the man was
who passed the watchman, saying "I say Watchman old man..... "
And why didn't he come forward at the inquest?
C4

I'm betting Christer will say it was Lechmere himself! All part of the plan....a diversion to throw the hounds off the scent by calling more attention to the dead woman......or maybe it was just some guy.

[curious4]

I'm betting Christer will say it was Lechmere himself! All part of the plan....a diversion to throw the hounds off the scent by calling more attention to the dead woman......or maybe it was just some guy.

Nope, not a working-class man. They would address each other with "mate". (Had this kind of discussion before - Mitre Square: "For God's sake, mate, come to my assistance.")

"Old man" is definitely middle class upwards.

C4

[Ben]

"Old man" is definitely middle class upwards.

Nope, definitely not true, C4.

"Old man" was a popular slang term in the late Victorian and Edwardian era, and was used very regularly on the North Atlantic run as a term of address between working class wireless operators. It was not a class-specific term at all.

[curious4]

Wireless operators were middle class, possibly lower middle class. Not so much to do with working, more what you worked with.
Wireless operators were so-called white collar workers and therefore middleclass or lower middle class. The difference is that they didn't get their hands dirty (except perhaps with ink, but that was ok).

C4

[Ben]

Not so much to do with working, more what you worked with...The difference is that they didn't get their hands dirty (except perhaps with ink, but that was ok).

I'm struggling to see how the material or objects used in person's work has any bearing on the type of slang that person might use, at least not without straying into some rather iffy generalisations. If we've decided that ink and wireless apparatus are "old man" type of products, then I suppose a barrister's wig puts a worker firmly in "I say, Cuthbert" territory!

[drstrange169]

"blood beat up"




>>That would be an outright lie to claim. Because there is NO such paper report saying any such thing at all.<<

You got me Christer, Caught me lying my teeth off. The Evening Post lied just like me apparently.

"At Neil’s suggestion he went for the ambulance, and afterwards assisted to remove the body. Blood was running from her neck."

The Standard/Morning Advertiser/Morning Post told porkies too,

"I at once went to the station, and returned with it (the ambulance). I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman."

And how about the Pinnochio nosed Star?

"... witness went for the ambulance. He assisted in removing the body. He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed."


>> Letīs look at how things are REALLY worded, Dust! We begin with the Daily News:The witness went to Buck's row, where Police constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body. On returning with the ambulance he helped to put the deceased upon it. Here is the train order:<<

>>1. Mizen says that he went to Bucks Row.<<

Spot on!

>>2. He says that as he arrived, he was sent for the ambulance.<<

Correct!

>>3. He says that AT THAT STAGE, nobody else than Neil was in place with the body.<<

Precisely, correct order of sequence.

>>4. He says that when he returned with the ambulance, he helped to put Nichols on it.<<

Perfect!

And number five you conveniently forgot to mention,

5. Mizen sees the blood flow from the neck to the gutter as Mrs. Nichols was lifted onto the ambulance.

A fact confirmed by Thain, The Star, The Standard, Morning Post, Morning Advertiser and Evening Post.

But of course they all must have lied too.

Even the Echo confirms points 1,2,4, and my addition of number 5.

Through editing it places #3 as a non sequitur. We know this was a non sequitur because YOUR choice of newspaper quote, The Daily News, places the sequence in the correct order as does Lloyd's Weekly, The Daily News and the Daily Telegraph.

But of course they must all be liars too;-)


>>... ask ourselves "Is it reasonable that the blood would still be running at around 4.10?"<<

As a result of Mrs. Nichols being lifted? Entirely reasonable. Show me credible medical evidence that say it could not happen under those circumstances.

>>... ask ourselves "Is it reasonable that the blood would look fresh half an hour after she was cut?"<<

Leaking out of a body? Yes.


>>This has been overlooked all these years.<<

Overlooked? No, dismissed for the nonsense it appears to be, there's a difference.

But what speaks far more eloquently is not what you included in your post, but rather what you deliberately left out.

Baxter's official summation,

" ... not a trace of blood anywhere, except at the spot where the neck was lying."

So apparently Baxter was lying too.

And lying Llewellyn got into in the act too, he specifically pointed out the lack of blood anywhere except around the neck. Even his assistant Seacome got infected with the lying epidemic, he backed up his boss's observation.

Yes I must have lied Christer, but damn, I'm in great company, everybody concerned in situ saw it my way too.

Having comprehensively demolished the "blood evidence" I think I'll change the phrase to "blood beat up" from now on.

Pending new posters or fresh evidence, I'm done with the blood beat up.

[Fisherman]

drstrange169:

That would be an outright lie to claim. Because there is NO such paper report saying any such thing at all.

You got me Christer, Caught me lying my teeth off. The Evening Post lied just like me apparently.

At Neil’s suggestion he went for the ambulance, and afterwards assisted to remove the body. Blood was running from her neck

The Standard/Morning Advertiser/Morning Post told porkies too,
"I at once went to the station, and returned with it (the ambulance). I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.

And how about the Pinnochio nosed Star?

"... witness went for the ambulance. He assisted in removing the body. He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed."

You will have seen, Dust, that I have posted this material too. Nobody is claiming that no paper produced articles where the blood is mentioned chronographically after the mentioning of the fetching of the ambulance.

That was never the issue. What I objected to was how you phrased it, perhaps all in good faith, but nevertheless grossly misleading:

"...I've already quoted the papers that SPECIFICALLY said Mizen's comments were made AFTER he returned with the ambulance..."

No paper wrote "PC Mizens comments were made after he returned back with the ambulance." That makes it sound as if the papers knew the exact sequence of events, and that they specifically pressed the point that Jonas Mizen already had arrived back with the ambulance before he said "Look, the blood is still running. How fresh it looks! And it seems somewhat congealed."

To claim THAT would be an outright lie, that is what I am saying. And that is also why I said that I would not want to make the point that "We have it in black on white that Mizen placed his observations of the blood in time at a remove when he first arrived at Browns Stable Yard". We actually DO have that in black on white, as per the Echo - but I fully recognize that there are contradictory sources! And THAT is how the homework must be done!

After that, we must look at which source/s is/are the more logical one/s, and in this case, it is the Echo.
-Mizen says that the blood looked fresh, and it would be more likely to look fresh six minutes after the cutting than half an hour afterwards. There can be no contesting that.
-Mizen said that the blood was "still" running, meaning that he spoke about an unbroken sequence of bleeding, and it is unlikely in the extreme that the bleeding would have gone on for half an hour!
-Mizen said that the blood was somewhat congealed, and that means that it was not totally uncongealed, nor was it fully congealed. And the ordinary congealing schedule tells us that blood is normally "somewhat" congealed between, roughly, minutes three and six. It is a limited period of time. Of course, since the blood was still running, there was uncongealed blood added all the time, but that does not change the fact that some of the blood had exited the wound three to six minutes earlier. The idea that there would be running blood, some of it congealed, half an hour after she was cut is ludicrous, quite frankly.

So we have the information from Mizen, laying down the information about the blood, and we have the Echo, where a fuller version of what happened than any of the other papers provide, telling us that Mizen saw the blood on his first visit to Browns.

That identifies the probable sequence of events. And therefore it must be the prevailing suggestion, whereas the others need to step aside until any more evidence surfaces.

As for papers lying, the suggestion is not a good one - you overdramatize rather heavily. They got it wrong, simple as that, and itīs therefore a good thing that the Echo can be found among the many unwillingly misleading voices.
I have probably only myself to blame for having used the word in combination with your suggestion about how the papers would specifically have spoken about how Mizen made his commentaries after having returned back with the ambulance. As I say, you may well have had no nefarious intents. In fact, your repetition of what the papers wrote seemingly bears witness to a mistake on your behalf made in good faith.

Many others have made the mistake you are making, Dust. Many are hanging on to it for dear life. It is a mistake that has helped Lechmere over the years, like so many other mistakes. The carman has been shielded throughout, and that is one of the main reasons that it has taken far too long to net him as the probable Whitechapel killer.

You - and hopefully others - may be interested to see how you to some extent stand on the same side as the great Philip Sugden. hereīs an extract from his book:
"Dr Llewellyn, in a statement issued to the press later in the day, spoke of a small pool of blood on the footway, not more than would fill two wine glasses or half a pint at the outside. And constables Neil, Thain and Mizen subsequently told the inquest of a patch of congealed blood about six inches in diameter, some of which had run towards the gutter."

Observe how things are moulded together here, to form the impression that the PC:s all said the same thing. But Mizen never spoke of a congealed patch of blood - he spoke of fresh blood running into the pool, where some of it had started to congeal! And Neil said nothing about any blood running towards the gutter.

It is not until we untangle these things that we can reach deeper and see further. It is more than understnadable that Sugden could not delve down into every single small matter in every small case, so he is not to blame for anything. But it is nevertheless interesting to see how lechmere has been helped by the lack of knowledge and the shallowness of the examination made.

Paralelly, we can also observe how the Mizen scam - or more correctly, the disagreements on what was said between Mizen and Lechmere, is not mentioned in the book.

There is work to do! And there is more to discover...

[Fisherman]

Do we have any explanation as to who the man was
who passed the watchman, saying "I say Watchman old man..... "
And why didn't he come forward at the inquest?
C4

Quick answer: no. A fair guess would perhaps be one of the butchers.