The Lechmere trail - so far

[Fisherman]

>>There is not a shred of evidence that he ever used the name Cross. not a iot. Nothing.<<

Not even when he talked the police? I guess the official police records don't count.

Not even when he attended the inquest? I guess the newspaper reports don't count.

He was in the census as Cross, but of course technically he didn't call himself Cross, his guardian did.

Not a shred?
Not a jot?
Nothing?

I don't think so.

You are right.

They donīt count.

They are the very reason we are discussing the issue.

I wouldnīt have thought that anybody would make a point like this. Kafka would never have dreamt it up.

But such is the quality of your arguments!

[Fisherman]

Hello Fleetwood Mac,

>>what you say in points 5 and 6 is interesting ... Were this true, then this is a point to be discussed because it's the only evidence being presented worth hearing.<<

Sadly it's not true.

There is no evidence to support the claim. To make it, Fisherman has "interpreted" a unclear statement in one newspaper and ignored the doctor's testimony, the Coroner's summation, all the other policemen's testimonies and ALL the other newspaper reports.

All you need to justify that post is to present one single paper where it was said that she did NOT bleed from the neck as Mizen saw her and one single paper where it said that the blood was NOT in the process of congealing when Mizen looked at it.

Tell me that I am wrong on any of these matters:

1. Mizen could not have reached Browns stable yard any quicker than five or six minutes after Lechmere was found by Paul.

2. In the papers, we have Mizen saying that there was blood running from the neck of Nichols as he saw her.

3. In the papers, we have Mizen saying that the blood was somewhat congealed in the pool as he looked at it.

4. There is not a paper denying either of these points.

[drstrange169]

>>You may also see how Mizen is not criticized for any breach of protocol during the inquest.<<

Of course not, Xmere and Paul convinced Baxter that they gave Mizen the true facts, which was a serious enough reason for Mizen to go.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,

I have read the Cross/Lechmere threads and by and large what you say is in no way, shape or form approaching evidence; and it certainly would not get as far as a court of law.

But, what you say in points 5 and 6 is interesting. I think your point is that because of the times when people arrived at the scene and the blood congealing when it did, this makes it likely that there was no other killer bjut Cross/Lechmere.

Were this true, then this is a point to be discussed because it's the only evidence being presented worth hearing. Who lived where is immaterial but science is useful.

You are correct - the blood evidence is actual physical evidence, and as such very important.

You are also correct in saying that the implications are that it is likely that the killer was Lechmere.

[Fisherman]

Before anybody else comes to think of it, I may just as well do it myself:

Maybe Jonas Mizen believed that he had done a lousy job as a PC, and so he wanted to impress upon the inquest that he had actually gone to Bucks Row VERY quickly.

And in order to make them believe this, he INVENTED the running blood and he LIED about the coagulation.

How is that? Useful, is it not?

I have been waiting for some time for somebody to deliver this suggestion, but for some reason, there has not been ingenuity enough...?

Of course, as Mizen looked at the blood, Neil was also present, and so his fellow PC would have been able to confirm or deny what Mizen said in this context.

But is that really enough for the Lechmere deniers not to accept a truly juicy proposition like this?

Letīs see!

[drstrange169]

>>All you need to justify that post is to present one single paper where it was said that she did NOT bleed from the neck as Mizen saw her and one single paper where it said that the blood was NOT in the process of congealing when Mizen looked at it.<<

Mrs. Nichols DID bled from the neck, the blood DID run to the gutter and the blood DID congeal. I've never suggested otherwise, why would I? Both Mizen and Thain described this happening when the body was lifted. This would have been sometime after 4 a.m.


>>1. Mizen could not have reached Browns stable yard any quicker than five or six minutes after Lechmere was found by Paul.<<

It's nice when we agree;-)

>>2. In the papers, we have Mizen saying that there was blood running from the neck of Nichols as he saw her.<<

I think we are on a roll here.

>>3. In the papers, we have Mizen saying that the blood was somewhat congealed in the pool as he looked at it.<<

We could end up married at this rate.

[drstrange169]

What you need to supply, Christer, is proof that Mizen was commenting on the blood when he first saw the body. As yet you've failed to do that, you've just interpreted one vague comment as being what you would like it to be to fit in with your preconceived theory.

As I've already quoted the papers that SPECIFICALLY said Mizen's comments were made AFTER he returned with the ambulance I need not re-post them.

I've already posted Baxter's official version about the blood being solely confined to the neck area.

I've already posted Dr. Llewellyn's comments that the blood was solely confined to the neck area when he arrived.

It is surely indisputable that Mizen could not have seen blood running to the gutter PRIOR to these statements.

Mizen may or may not have had a good look at Mrs.Nichols when he arrived, we simply don't know because there is no surviving evidence about it.

What we do know is what the newspapers, Baxter and Dr. Llewellyn tell us and they firmly place Mizen's comments along with Thain's about seeing blood run from the neck, run to the gutter and that there was a pool of congealed blood when the body was lifted onto the ambulance.

Those are the verifiable facts.

[Fisherman]

>>All you need to justify that post is to present one single paper where it was said that she did NOT bleed from the neck as Mizen saw her and one single paper where it said that the blood was NOT in the process of congealing when Mizen looked at it.<<

Mrs. Nichols DID bled from the neck, the blood DID run to the gutter and the blood DID congeal. I've never suggested otherwise, why would I? Both Mizen and Thain described this happening when the body was lifted. This would have been sometime after 4 a.m.


>>1. Mizen could not have reached Browns stable yard any quicker than five or six minutes after Lechmere was found by Paul.<<

It's nice when we agree;-)

>>2. In the papers, we have Mizen saying that there was blood running from the neck of Nichols as he saw her.<<

I think we are on a roll here.

>>3. In the papers, we have Mizen saying that the blood was somewhat congealed in the pool as he looked at it.<<

We could end up married at this rate.

So, basically, what you say is that I am correct on all scores - but that Mizen saw the blood running and congealing after 4 AM.

Iīve seen that proposed before.

But the truth of the matter is that the blood would not run from the neck at that stage, other than perhaps in combination with moving the body.

Would such a thing make Mizen say that "He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter"? I donīt think so. Saying "I noticed how there was blood running from the throat to the gutter" is indicative of an ongoing process. If he had said "When we lifted her onto the ambulance, blood seeped out from the neck wound", it would be something else.

Plus we also have the ONGOING coagulation to make sense of. Was the blood still congealing at 4.10? Almost half an hour after she was cut? No, it was not - the congealing process was done aqnd overwith at that stage, and the blood had turned into a congealed mass. Not a congealing mass - a congealed mass.

There are press reports that have Mizen qouted as if he sepaks of the blood running after he had fetched the ambulance. And there are reports that point to him speaking about the time he arrived at Browns on the first occasion.

Only one of these two occasions are in sync with his observations of running blood and somewhat congealed blood.

So that is how we lay the puzzle.

[Fisherman]

drstrange169:

As I've already quoted the papers that SPECIFICALLY said Mizen's comments were made AFTER he returned with the ambulance I need not re-post them.

Did they? Did they say "Mizens comments were made after he returned with the ambulance"?

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

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.
2. He says that as he arrived, he was sent for the ambulance.
3. He says that AT THAT STAGE, nobody else than Neil was in place with the body.
4. He says that when he returned with the ambulance, he helped to put Nichols on it.

Bang. One, two, three, four.

Now letīs take on of the papers you want to use, the Morning Advertiser:

I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.

Here the sentence worded " The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman" appears AFTER the sentence " I assisted to remove the body".
Nota bene that it does NOT say that "Mizens comments were made after he arrived back with the ambulance", the somewhat slippery way you suggest.

What should we - as responsible researchers and seekers of the truth - ask ourselves when reading this?
We should ask ourselves "Is it reasonable that the blood would still be running at around 4.10?"
And we should ask ourselves "Is it reasonable that the blood would look fresh half an hour after she was cut?"

Both these questions, we need to answer with a "No" - it is not reasonable that this would be so.

Take good care to notice how Mizen does not say that blood was running - he says the blood was STILL running at this stage. So he would predispose that there had been no hiatus, as there WOULD have been if the blood emerged as the result of lifting Nichols onto the ambulance.

Now, letīs take a look at the paper that got it right! The Echo:
"Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman. Witness asked him what was the matter, and Cross replied, "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there." Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance.
The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter."

So there we are: Mizen spoke about the blood running after having pointed to how there was only Neil in place as he arrived at Browns.

1. Constable Neil sent him to the station for the ambulance.
2. There was nobody else there at the stage when Neil told Mizen to go for the ambulance.
3. And there was blood running from the throat towards the gutter.

Bang. One, two, three.

This has been overlooked all these years.

The decider is how the coroner takes Mizen back in time as he speaks about how he fetched the ambulance, asking whether there was anybly else in place as Mizen ORIGINALLY arrived, and it is only then, when Mizen says that Neil was alone that he offers his view on the blood.

Now go back to the Morning Advertiser and look for the question whether Neil was alone or not. You will find that it is not there

The Star - same thing: "Witness went to the spot, found Policeman Neil there, and by his instruction witness went for the ambulance. He assisted in removing the body. He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter."

The coroners question is left out.

Other papers, like Lloyds Weekly, The Daily News and the Daily Telegraph do have the answer to the coroners question, but instead leave out the blood:

"When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body."

One paper only has the whole thing, the full context - and the probable solution to who Jack the Ripper was. And that is the Echo.

I've already posted Baxter's official version about the blood being solely confined to the neck area.

I've already posted Dr. Llewellyn's comments that the blood was solely confined to the neck area when he arrived.

It is surely indisputable that Mizen could not have seen blood running to the gutter PRIOR to these statements.

No, it is not. The blood in the stream towards the gutter belonged to the neck area blood. What is inconceivable is that the blood would start running towards the gutter half an hour after she was cut.

Mizen may or may not have had a good look at Mrs.Nichols when he arrived, we simply don't know because there is no surviving evidence about it.

Wrong. There is clear evidence that he looked at the body.

What we do know is what the newspapers, Baxter and Dr. Llewellyn tell us and they firmly place Mizen's comments along with Thain's about seeing blood run from the neck, run to the gutter and that there was a pool of congealed blood when the body was lifted onto the ambulance.

Those are the verifiable facts.

They place the sentence about the running blood after the sentence about Mizen being sent for the ambulance. In order to accept that this also involved a chronology that could not be altered, we must accept that no witness have ever backtracked in time while giving evidence.
It has never happened that somebody who said "She was dead at that stage" and then added "she looked very frightened when she realized that she was in danger" was backtracking, is that about correct? Instead, people saying such a thing are referring to how a dead woman looked distressed and realized that she was in danger. Correct?

What you are doing when writing "the papers that SPECIFICALLY said Mizen's comments were made AFTER he returned with the ambulance" is not a commendable thing to do.

If I was to counter this in the same way, I would say that we have it on print that Mizen specifically said that he saw the blood running and congealing as he arrived at Browns.

It would be dishonest and intellectually corrupt to do such a thing.

What we DO have is a situation where the papers said different things. And we have one paper only covering all aspects of the issue. And we have one remove in time only that logically answers up to what Mizen was reported to have said:

The blood was STILL running.
The blood looked fresh.
The blood was somewhat congealed. Not fully congealed.

This is all we can say, at least if we aspire to stick with the truth.

But do we?

[Patrick S]

Enough to warrant a trial. Enough for a seasoned murder squad leader to conclude that Lechmere needs to be cleared before any other suspect should be looked into.

But of course, these were people with no attachments to Ripperology - just highly qualified professionals with no interests to guard.

What other suspect do you feel comes close to warrant a trial, Harry...?

Incorrect. Enough for a 'seasoned murder squad leader' to assert this, for the TV cameras based on the information YOU gave him, or didn't give him! Does he know about the 'Robert Paul: Police Hating Liar' component? Does he know exactly how you have Lechmere behaving in Buck's Row, Baker's Row, supposedly after just cutting a woman's throat? Does he know you base all this on press accounts which - more often than not - represent names, facts, pretty much whatever you have, incorrectly? Does he have a full understanding of Mizen's actions? Of Neil's testimony that he and he alone found the body, with Mizen correcting this testimony only AFTER Paul told a very different tale in Lloyd's? Is he aware that Lechmere came forward (supposedly because he had no choice, as you represent to him in the documentary) even though the police had no name, occupation, addresss, employer, description of any kind? Did anyone ever ask the questions: Based on the information we have who was more likely bending the truth - Mizen or Lechmere? We have Paul (who must now be a liar for your "theory" to work) describing a nonchalant Mizen, not reacting to the news of a 'woman lying' in Buck's Row. Paul (who must now be liar) saying that he told Mizen she was likely dead, yet he "continued calling up, which I thought was a great shame". Apologies to the seasoned squad leader, but if his conclusion is that a PC who clearly had reason to misrepresent what he was told in order to avoid embarrassment for himself and the police is telling the truth and a man who acted with no consciousness of guilt and came forward freely to tell his tale was lying because he was Jack the Ripper......well...then I wouldn't let him inspect my plumbing. Alas, we BOTH know he said what he said for the same of the program, which is all fine and good. But, I wonder...does he know you are tossing around his reputation on these boards? Perhaps he should if he does not.

Shall we debate this? I'd like to act out Lechmere's alleged actions AS the killer of Nichols for an audience. I'd like them to see how far 40 yards is, especially in the dark. I'd like them to see a physical representation of a man committing murder, hearing footsteps 40 yards off, walking a few steps toward the footsteps, stopping, turning around to face the woman he just killed, waiting for the man to come upon him, then approaching him - even as the man tried to avoid him - touching him on the shoulder - and saying, "Come see this!"

I predict howls of laughter. YOU?

[Patrick S]

Harry D: Who are these people?

What information were they provided with?

If their point of reference comes from Lechmerians, then, as with most 'experts' recruitment by suspect-based Ripperologists, they've probably been led to that conclusion.

I never read the compilation of the case that James Scobie was provided with. I did, however, see that Andy Griffiths was given the exact same compilation that I got myself from the film team. And that one had all the many relevant paper articles in it, together with the police reports. The material was chronologically listed.

Since Griffiths got this type of relevant and unbiased material - which he was very well read up on - I tend to think that Scobie too was provided with the relevant material in a relevant manner.

I also think that speculating that either man was mislead or lied to with the purpose of trying to get comments from them that were in line with one view of the case only is way out of what anyone should allow himself, no matter how biased against Lechmere one is.

Finally, I am certain that if a tilted material was fed to Scobie and Griffiths, then that would leave the whole production open to being severely compromized. The disclosure of either man saying "But they never told me that" or "But they said it was the other way around" would result in the proposal of Lechmere as the killer would suffering a devastating blow.

It is another thing that neither man could possibly be asked to read everything there is to read on the case - it would mean that the documentary would be put up until the autumn of 2096.
Paul Begg commented on this when the debate started and a not very well read up ex-copper implied that Scobie had perhaps not been given all the material that militated against Lechmere as the killer. Begg said that such a thing could never be demanded, and that since Scobe was asked to weigh the evidence for Lechmere being the killer, then that evidence was what he needed to see.
If there had been something that meant that Lechmere could not be the killer, he would have needed to see that too - but we all know that there is no such beast. And Scobie would himself be able to realize that Lechmere may have had alternative reasons for using the name Cross when speaking to the police, that he may have not have walked Old Montague Street when Tabram died, etcetera - after all, the manīs job is to assess the evidence value of different matters!

I think the whole discussion would move considerably forward if people were decent enough not to throw these kinds of accusations around them before they had conclusive evidence to back it up. Or circumstantial evidence. Or any evidence at all.
The exact same thing is demanded of me - it is so often said that I need to really back up my suspicions against Lechmere with facts and evidence, and that is what I have spent many years doing.

So why would you be free to loftily suggest that Scobie and Griffiths were lied to when you have nothing at all to show for it, Harry? Exactly how would that work?

Please answer this question. It is by far one of the most inportant questions we have to deal with.

Can I take a crack at the question, Christer? I don't think anyone is saying that anyone was lied to. I think that we suspect that they weren't given all the information and/or provided the conclusion desired by the production team. I mean, it would have been a pretty big bummer had they said, "This makes no sense", which they likely would have had they been given a change to do some real analysis.

Let's try this, post the information that you and they were given on this shiny new suspect thread and let us see what conclusion we reach based ONLY on that information. They...we shall debate. In person. Deal?

[Patrick S]

No, it does not. You are cherrypicking. There are many different wordings about it, and the other extreme says that the dress was down to over the knees.

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?

Letīs not loose it altogether.

Did you say something about CHERRYPICKING, Christer? And...what is this exactly?

[Patrick S]

All you need to justify that post is to present one single paper where it was said that she did NOT bleed from the neck as Mizen saw her and one single paper where it said that the blood was NOT in the process of congealing when Mizen looked at it.

Tell me that I am wrong on any of these matters:

1. Mizen could not have reached Browns stable yard any quicker than five or six minutes after Lechmere was found by Paul.

2. In the papers, we have Mizen saying that there was blood running from the neck of Nichols as he saw her.

3. In the papers, we have Mizen saying that the blood was somewhat congealed in the pool as he looked at it.

4. There is not a paper denying either of these points.

After 127 years? Based on one word: oozing..... Give that a go.

[Patrick S]

Before anybody else comes to think of it, I may just as well do it myself:

Maybe Jonas Mizen believed that he had done a lousy job as a PC, and so he wanted to impress upon the inquest that he had actually gone to Bucks Row VERY quickly.

And in order to make them believe this, he INVENTED the running blood and he LIED about the coagulation.

How is that? Useful, is it not?

I have been waiting for some time for somebody to deliver this suggestion, but for some reason, there has not been ingenuity enough...?

Of course, as Mizen looked at the blood, Neil was also present, and so his fellow PC would have been able to confirm or deny what Mizen said in this context.

But is that really enough for the Lechmere deniers not to accept a truly juicy proposition like this?

Letīs see!

Lechmere deniers? Oh, dear......First 'Mizen Scam', now this.

[Patrick S]

drstrange169:

As I've already quoted the papers that SPECIFICALLY said Mizen's comments were made AFTER he returned with the ambulance I need not re-post them.

Did they? Did they say "Mizens comments were made after he returned with the ambulance"?

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

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.
2. He says that as he arrived, he was sent for the ambulance.
3. He says that AT THAT STAGE, nobody else than Neil was in place with the body.
4. He says that when he returned with the ambulance, he helped to put Nichols on it.

Bang. One, two, three, four.

Now letīs take on of the papers you want to use, the Morning Advertiser:

I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.

Here the sentence worded " The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman" appears AFTER the sentence " I assisted to remove the body".
Nota bene that it does NOT say that "Mizens comments were made after he arrived back with the ambulance", the somewhat slippery way you suggest.

What should we - as responsible researchers and seekers of the truth - ask ourselves when reading this?
We should ask ourselves "Is it reasonable that the blood would still be running at around 4.10?"
And we should ask ourselves "Is it reasonable that the blood would look fresh half an hour after she was cut?"

Both these questions, we need to answer with a "No" - it is not reasonable that this would be so.

Take good care to notice how Mizen does not say that blood was running - he says the blood was STILL running at this stage. So he would predispose that there had been no hiatus, as there WOULD have been if the blood emerged as the result of lifting Nichols onto the ambulance.

Now, letīs take a look at the paper that got it right! The Echo:
"Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman. Witness asked him what was the matter, and Cross replied, "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there." Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance.
The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter."

So there we are: Mizen spoke about the blood running after having pointed to how there was only Neil in place as he arrived at Browns.

1. Constable Neil sent him to the station for the ambulance.
2. There was nobody else there at the stage when Neil told Mizen to go for the ambulance.
3. And there was blood running from the throat towards the gutter.

Bang. One, two, three.

This has been overlooked all these years.

The decider is how the coroner takes Mizen back in time as he speaks about how he fetched the ambulance, asking whether there was anybly else in place as Mizen ORIGINALLY arrived, and it is only then, when Mizen says that Neil was alone that he offers his view on the blood.

Now go back to the Morning Advertiser and look for the question whether Neil was alone or not. You will find that it is not there

The Star - same thing: "Witness went to the spot, found Policeman Neil there, and by his instruction witness went for the ambulance. He assisted in removing the body. He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter."

The coroners question is left out.

Other papers, like Lloyds Weekly, The Daily News and the Daily Telegraph do have the answer to the coroners question, but instead leave out the blood:

"When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body."

One paper only has the whole thing, the full context - and the probable solution to who Jack the Ripper was. And that is the Echo.

I've already posted Baxter's official version about the blood being solely confined to the neck area.

I've already posted Dr. Llewellyn's comments that the blood was solely confined to the neck area when he arrived.

It is surely indisputable that Mizen could not have seen blood running to the gutter PRIOR to these statements.

No, it is not. The blood in the stream towards the gutter belonged to the neck area blood. What is inconceivable is that the blood would start running towards the gutter half an hour after she was cut.

Mizen may or may not have had a good look at Mrs.Nichols when he arrived, we simply don't know because there is no surviving evidence about it.

Wrong. There is clear evidence that he looked at the body.

What we do know is what the newspapers, Baxter and Dr. Llewellyn tell us and they firmly place Mizen's comments along with Thain's about seeing blood run from the neck, run to the gutter and that there was a pool of congealed blood when the body was lifted onto the ambulance.

Those are the verifiable facts.

They place the sentence about the running blood after the sentence about Mizen being sent for the ambulance. In order to accept that this also involved a chronology that could not be altered, we must accept that no witness have ever backtracked in time while giving evidence.
It has never happened that somebody who said "She was dead at that stage" and then added "she looked very frightened when she realized that she was in danger" was backtracking, is that about correct? Instead, people saying such a thing are referring to how a dead woman looked distressed and realized that she was in danger. Correct?

What you are doing when writing "the papers that SPECIFICALLY said Mizen's comments were made AFTER he returned with the ambulance" is not a commendable thing to do.

If I was to counter this in the same way, I would say that we have it on print that Mizen specifically said that he saw the blood running and congealing as he arrived at Browns.

It would be dishonest and intellectually corrupt to do such a thing.

What we DO have is a situation where the papers said different things. And we have one paper only covering all aspects of the issue. And we have one remove in time only that logically answers up to what Mizen was reported to have said:

The blood was STILL running.
The blood looked fresh.
The blood was somewhat congealed. Not fully congealed.

This is all we can say, at least if we aspire to stick with the truth.

But do we?

Fresh blood, still running.... Tomkins has Thain collecting his cape at 4:15. Thain then went to fectch Llewellyn. Llewllyn likely then dressed, went to Buck's Row, examined Nichols, then they loaded her into the amulance. What time is it then? Fresh blood? Still running? 45 minutes...and hour after your man cut her throat? Sounds to me as if you had better find away to put Lechmere BACK in Buck's Row after 4am. Or maybe we cannot base our "BLOOD EVIDENCE" on adjectives chosen by a man 127 years ago...espeicially a man like Mizen, who we know was dishonest that night...and we know WHY he was dishonest.