The Lechmere trail - so far

[Dane_F]

Amazing. I have only seen what he looked like in 1912. On what do you base your observation, Dane?

Because I haven't seen you attempt to try and pin one of the descriptions on him. I'd assume if there was one that'd be point No. 32.

Or do I have it wrong and you have found a description you are trying to say might match Lechmere?

Don't get me wrong however Fish. I'm very happy you have this thread. Hopefully it will keep all the Lechmere stuff here.

[Hercule Poirot]

Well, Hercule, I don´t think it is a viable suggestion that the police would be happy with any name. There would have been a formal question asked at the inquest to state name, address and occupation, and before that, Lechmere would have been interviewed by the police who would have wanted his real name - and who apparently thought they got it.

Why did the police not delve deeper into the carmen?

In Pauls case, he was provided with a sterling alibi by Lechmere. But Lechmere himself had no such thing.

I think that two things governed why he was never more intensely questioned:

1. He would not have fit the preconceived notions the police would have had about what the killer would have been like. To boot, there was a "scientific" underpinning that would have not only allowed for prejudice on behalf of the police, but in fact also encouraged it: criminal anthropology.

2. Lechmere sought out the police on not only one but actually on two separate occasions. He seemingly came forward out of his own free will both times. That would have safeguarded him too.

In his book 'Capturing Jack The Ripper', Neil R. A. Bell mentions that the normal procedure had not been respected twice on the crime scene. The first one being not blocking the scene from the growing crowd moving around and risking to contaminate the scene and the second with Dr Llewellyn ordering officers to move the body to the mortuary before the duty inspector arrived.

This lends me to believe the the procedure could also have been screwed up when the time came for the police to check Lechmere's ID.

[harry]

Fisherman,
Your post 78,what a queer remark you make.Íf you want to clear him'.I didn't know he has to be cleared.He was never accused of a crime,certainly not the murder of Nichols,and at this point in time,no incriminating evidence has been presented.If,from the first he had given a name of Lechmere,would it have altered the facts of his involvement? Not one bit,he would still be a person at the scene of a crime.and his story of why he was there the same,and still considered innocent until proven guilty.
But if you insist,yes he was cleared,in 1888.

[The Good Michael]

yes he was cleared,in 1888.

And his life thereafter keeps him in the clear.

Mike

[Fisherman]

No fish. Scientist disagree on what effect alcoholics have on blood congealing.

Take for example this study conducted in '98 specifically involving Alcoholics http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9607117

Which states, "Comparing combined low and usual alcohol periods, an increase in mean weekly alcohol intake from 92 to 410 ml (mean daily intake from 13 to 58 ml) was associated with a decrease in plasma fibrinogen (by 11%, P < 0.001) and platelet count (3%, P < 0.05), but increases in factor VII (7%, P = 0.001), tissue plasminogen activator (tPA; 16%, P = 0.01) and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1; 21%, P < 0.001). The ratio, tPA/PAI-1, fell from 0.50 to 0.44 (P = 0.02) confirming the relatively greater increase in PAI-1 with alcohol consumption. Two lipid-associated natural anticoagulants, tissue factor pathway inhibitor and beta 2-glycoprotein-I, did not change. The substantial reduction in plasma fibrinogen with alcohol intake may well contribute to the apparent protection alcohol confers against ischaemic coronary and cerebral events."

It further states, "The balance of anticoagulant and procoagulant and fibrinolytic effects in any individual may vary depending on quantity and type of alcoholic beverage ingested, as well as on genetic and other variables, all of which merit further study."

Or maybe we should believe this article written

http://alcoholism.about.com/od/health/a/blacer051015.htm

Which states, 'This study uses data collected from 3,798 of those participants, examined between April 1, 1991 and March 1, 1994 (the fifth examination cycle), eventually analyzing data provided by a total of 1,037 participants (460 men and 577 women) for platelet activation and 2,013 participants (879 men and 1,134 women) for platelet aggregation.
"We found that among both men and women, an intake of three to six drinks per week or more was linked to lower levels of stickiness measured by aggregability," said Mukamal. "Among the men, we also found that alcohol intake was linked to lower levels of platelet activation. Together, these findings … identify moderate drinking as a potential blood thinner." Mukamal added that the minor differences found between the men and women were more likely due to statistical issues than to any clear gender differences.'

This is yet another example of you trying to present something as definitive to strengthen your case when the truth is far more complex. The TRUTH is any assessment of how much the blood "should" be congealed and trying to base a suspect and timings of death on this are disingenuous and could be seen as disingenuous on your part.

We simply DO NOT KNOW how Nichols' body would react in this situation. The one thing we DO know is this situation was NOT the norm and ANY attempt to try and base a "blood evidence" case around what normally happens is irrelevant here.

"Low and usual alcoholic intake."

"Three to six drinks per week or more."

That, you interpret as alcoholism?

I was hoping that I would not need to go through my posts again in order to counter your faulty reasoning. Bay that didn´t work, did it?

Okay. Here you are:

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)


That last underlining describes your "find", Dane . "Light to moderate" alcohol intake prolongs congealing. And "light to moderate" translates into "low and usual" - or three to six drinks per week, for that matter.

So there you are: You were wrong, and you were told so, but chose not to accept it. So you came back with material speaking of how light to moderate alcohol intake can prolong congealing. And you were hit over the head with three scientific papers, all saying "Yes, Dane, you are correct - light to moderate alcohol intake prolongs congealing. But no, Dane, you were wrong - alcoholism shortens the process".

And there this discussion ends - unless you have anyting to add?

[Fisherman]

Harry: Fisherman,
Your post 78,what a queer remark you make.Íf you want to clear him'.I didn't know he has to be cleared.

No? He has been pointed out as the probable killer of Nichols. So now you know.

He was never accused of a crime,certainly not the murder of Nichols,

Yes he was - not officially, but then neither was Hutchinson for example. I believe you think he was the killer of Kelly, no?

and at this point in time,no incriminating evidence has been presented.

Yes, it has. And it has been recognized by men with a lot more authority that poster Harry.

If,from the first he had given a name of Lechmere,would it have altered the facts of his involvement?

Of course it had, Any alteration ALWAYS has a bearing. That´s how it works.

Not one bit,he would still be a person at the scene of a crime.and his story of why he was there the same

Yes, and indeed he would still be under much suspicion, but there would have been some little tipping of the scales anyway

and still considered innocent until proven guilty.

He was never under suspicion in 1888, so he was never proclaimed innocent. It follows that the police had no reason to regard him as suspicious, but that is something that often comes with no examination. Sutcliffe, Ridgway, Bundy - they all enjoyed periods when they had killed many women but were still regrded as innocent until proven guilty. Your argument is lacking in that way.

But if you insist,yes he was cleared,in 1888.

He was? So the was scrutinized? And the police missed out on his name?

You see, Harry, since the never got his name, I can safely say that even IF he was scrutinized, that process would have been one of lacking quality.

[Fisherman]

And his life thereafter keeps him in the clear.

Mike

Nope. You, Mike, is WAY better than that. I happen to know that you are a thinking, logical, rational and normally discerning poster. You will therefore be acutely aware of how we know very little about Lechmere´s life after 1888. You will also know that when we don´t know, we don´t judge. We can speculate, but we must admit when we do so, and we need a lot of material to produce viable speculation.

Intelligence comes with a few demands, you know. You need to own up to that.

[Patrick S]

I'm still struggling with the blood evidence. Mainly because I still don't believe that we have blood evidence.

Fisherman, you keep referencing the blood "evidence". I've been through a lot of material in the past few days and I'm not seeing anything that I'd term "evidence". For the purposes of this discussion, I'll remain agnostic with respect to what the blood "evidence" indicates. I'd simply like to see a list of what we're being asked to view as "evidence" along with it's source. Let's go from there.

I'm asking this because I do think it's a compelling point and not one I think should be dismissed out-of-hand.

[Patrick S]

A further point regarding blood, going to back a few posts to discuss blood spurt, splatter, etc. There was good discussion there and I think in the interests of moving forward a few concessions have to be made.

1. Even though it's not a provable fact that Nichols heart was not beating at the time her throat was cut, let's suppose that she was DEAD, no heartbeat.

2. Fisherman posted Dr. Llewellyn quote stating that Nichols had NO blood on the front of her clothing. Let's accept that as true.

3. Let's assume that Nichols' killer was NOT sprayed by blood as he cut her throat and that ALL of the blood from the veins and arteries of the neck were under very low or NO pressure, and affected by gravity.

So, even conceding all this, I do not believe that:

A. The killer had no blood on his person. The throat was cut. Abdominal mutilations were made. This occured in the dark. It would have been very difficult if not impossible to have SEEN the blood in order to have avoid it.

B. Even if the killer HAD successfully avoided getting blood on his person, he would have not have KNOWN that he'd avoided getting blood on is person. Therefore, I think it's highly unlikely that the killer would have approached Robert Paul (who had not to that point even noticed the body) in the street, placed his HAND on him (Paul did not testify that he found blood on his clothing where Cross had touched him - or anywhere for that matter: thus, we know that - SECONDS after the murder - Charles Cross' hand(s) were free of blood), and gone looking for a policeman (who carried with him a latern).

C. Clearly a murder weapon was used. It was not found with the victim. It was not found at he scene. If Charles Cross was the killer than we can assume with almost total certainty that he carried the murder weapon on his person as he dealt with Paul and Mizen. Fisherman, you state that Cross did not run as he heard Paul 30-40 yards off, as he entered Buck's Row. Instead, he decided, to play innocent bystander and APPROACH Paul. It follows, then, that he did not THROW the knife. Paul would have certainly heard a metal knife hitting the pavement or a building and the police would most certainly have found the knife during their subsequent searches. He had now time to scurry into a corner a hide it. If that's the case then he had to have heard Paul, hurried some distance from the body (a few feet or yards), hid the knife (quietly), returned to the body, then approached Paul. I think a rational person can conclude that Cross - if we assume he killed Nichols - hid the weapon on his person. I think we can assume then that the KNIFE was bloody. Thus, Cross hid the knife, perhaps cleaning it first with a rag he ALSO had stowed on his person, without getting blood on his hands or clothing. And he's so confident - after all this - that he did not get blood on himself (in total darkness) that he approaches - TOUCHES - Paul and seeks out a PC with a lantern.

[Dane_F]

"Low and usual alcoholic intake."

"Three to six drinks per week or more."

That, you interpret as alcoholism?

I was hoping that I would not need to go through my posts again in order to counter your faulty reasoning. Bay that didn´t work, did it?

Okay. Here you are:

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)


That last underlining describes your "find", Dane . "Light to moderate" alcohol intake prolongs congealing. And "light to moderate" translates into "low and usual" - or three to six drinks per week, for that matter.

So there you are: You were wrong, and you were told so, but chose not to accept it. So you came back with material speaking of how light to moderate alcohol intake can prolong congealing. And you were hit over the head with three scientific papers, all saying "Yes, Dane, you are correct - light to moderate alcohol intake prolongs congealing. But no, Dane, you were wrong - alcoholism shortens the process".

And there this discussion ends - unless you have anyting to add?

No Fish. As has been stated multiple times Scientist are unsure of which effects would outweigh which. My post very clearly states just this, which I quoted for you. There are simply too many factors that have not been looked into on an individual basis.

You CHOOSE to accept the results that support your theory because you want your theory to be true. The truth, which I have clearly stated is WE DO NOT KNOW how Nichols body would have responded. Could she have clotted more? Yes. Could she have clotted less? Yes.

This was my point. We do not know how her body would have responded and therefor no blood "evidence" can be determined. You are being outright false to people in pretending that this so called blood "evidence" matches your theory and pretending it can only match your theory. It is at its core, far too inconclusive to match anything.

Not that I believe you will accept any of this. You have too much invested in Lechmere. This will be my last time speaking with you in this thread. I am happy you have a place to keep your ramblings on the subject Fish. Good day.

[caz]

I do not hold the documents - Edward does. I could ask him. I´m sure you´d be ever so pleased to rule the cross name out! especilly since it is such a good suggestion that he used Lechmere was a householders head name only!!

No call for sarcasm, Fisherman. All I asked was whether any of the documents are not related in one way or another to him as the head of the Lechmere household, the husband of Mrs Lechmere or the father of all the little Lechmeres. If you don't know, you might want to ask Ed and I'm sure you would be ever so pleased to report back if even one of the many Lechmere documents was strictly work-related, or of a more personal or informal nature, such as a club membership or trade association, or perhaps a letter to or from a friend. And I would be ever so pleased not to be asking this same question again. If I don't hear anything further, may I presume there was nothing to report?

Love,

Toots
X

[caz]

I would definitely take your word on what anybody said. You have never given me reason not to.

So what DID he say it took?

Annie Chapman was sickly and tired and getting on agewise (at least her age meant that she was getting on back then). Eddowes was a thin, smallish woman, equally aging.

I am intrigued to hear why Prosector thinks they would have been hard to kill silently. Do tell!

Nothing to do with being hard to kill, Fisherman. Did I even hint at such a thing? You must think Prosector is a right chump. Or do you not know what a prosector actually is and that Prosector is aptly named as he specialises in the field?

If you are so interested in the blood evidence, you should be equally interested in the evidence left by the wounds inflicted on Chapman and in particular Eddowes, and what this demonstrates to Prosector about certain learned techniques used by the killer, which he would have had to pick up by observation if not hands-on experience. The way the umbilicus was avoided and the kidney extracted are examples that don't lend themselves to a smash and grab artist, slicing and dicing by trial and error.

You can look up all Prosector's posts on the subject right here on casebook if you really want to known exactly what he said. I'm only the messenger, but he makes a whole lot of sense to me.

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

Nothing to do with being hard to kill, Fisherman. Did I even hint at such a thing? You must think Prosector is a right chump. Or do you not know what a prosector actually is and that Prosector is aptly named as he specialises in the field?

If you are so interested in the blood evidence, you should be equally interested in the evidence left by the wounds inflicted on Chapman and in particular Eddowes, and what this demonstrates to Prosector about certain learned techniques used by the killer, which he would have had to pick up by observation if not hands-on experience. The way the umbilicus was avoided and the kidney extracted are examples that don't lend themselves to a smash and grab artist, slicing and dicing by trial and error.

You can look up all Prosector's posts on the subject right here on casebook if you really want to known exactly what he said. I'm only the messenger, but he makes a whole lot of sense to me.

Love,

Caz
X

Caz
I am with you on some of the points you raised and I dont think for one minute Cross was a killer. A one line extract from one of my medical experts on this topic "There needed to be not only knowledge of anatomy, but experience in applying it"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Nothing to do with being hard to kill, Fisherman. Did I even hint at such a thing? You must think Prosector is a right chump. Or do you not know what a prosector actually is and that Prosector is aptly named as he specialises in the field?

If you are so interested in the blood evidence, you should be equally interested in the evidence left by the wounds inflicted on Chapman and in particular Eddowes, and what this demonstrates to Prosector about certain learned techniques used by the killer, which he would have had to pick up by observation if not hands-on experience. The way the umbilicus was avoided and the kidney extracted are examples that don't lend themselves to a smash and grab artist, slicing and dicing by trial and error.

You can look up all Prosector's posts on the subject right here on casebook if you really want to known exactly what he said. I'm only the messenger, but he makes a whole lot of sense to me.

Love,

Caz
X

Caz, Fish
you two are talking about two different things.

Caz is talking about the surgical skill demonstrated
Fish is talking about how easy it would be to kill the victims.

[Bridewell]

It is not a theory without merit.

But some issues are so week they should, in my opinion, be dropped. To be told over and over again that the name change is a black mark when there are about 1000 innocent explanations AND he gave his address and workplace in all honesty is a turn off.

Totally agree. The name thing is counter-productive. My take is that Fisherman has shown that Lechmere could have killed Nichols. I see no evidence that he actually did so though, and none that he killed anybody else.