The Lechmere trail - so far

[drstrange169]

Hello FrankO,

I wouldn't worry too much about the distance, as the blood beat up is just that,
something manufactured, albeit in good faith by Fish, but manufactured nonetheless. To believe it, anyone must ignore the doctor's evidence, his assistants comments and Baxter's official summation. But then, what would they know? They were only there;-)

[drstrange169]

>You may be interested to hear that in the report of the 19:th of September, signed Your Holyness Frederick Abberline, it is stated that Llewellyn even before Nichols was ID:d was of the meaning that the abdomoinal wounds preceded the neck cuts. I take it that this settles the matter once and for all, since Abberline signed the report? And Abberline is never wrong?<<


I see where the bulk of problems are coming from, Fish, you don't understand what you are reading.

Firstly, as I have already told you elsewhere, I have no problem with the order the wounds were inflicted, you are confusing me with someone else.

Secondly, as I pointed out in my post, I hold Abberline's reports in no higher or lesser regard than Swanson's.

As also pointed out in my post, but you apparently again missed. I cross check to see if the information can be verified by other sources. If it can verify it, I take it to be probably correct. If I can't, I label it as unverified.

[Patrick S]

With repsect to the "blood evidence", and I've said this repeatedly, it simpy does not exist, hard as that is for Christer to believe. There simpy is no forensic evidence, there wasn't so much as a photgraph taken of Nichols' body as it lay in Buck's Row. Further, the case files do not exist (or at least they haven't - as yet - been found). Therefore, we are left to rely upon 127 years old newspaper accounts. On it's own, that's a slippery slope, made more so in this case as - and I'm hardly the first to make this observation - the newspapers were notoriously inaccurate in their reporting in general, and of the Whitechapel murders in particular. Further, Christer treats adjectives chosen by people (trained, experienced PCs or no) who didn't intend for those adjectives to inform a forensic theory, in that forensics - as it's employed in the analyis of modern blood evidence - simply did not exist.

To have any confience in Christer's conclusion one must - as Christer does - pick and choose whom to believe, which newspapers were accurate, who to believe, and who to discount as a liar.

I'll grant you that this is all old hat in 'Ripperology'. If Christer presented all this and suggested that it's 'possible' that Lechmere was the killer or that these aspects the story are 'suspicous' then I think that many of us would become far less, uh, exercised...in our responses. Alas, wishing a thing and repeating it to the universe (and posters on this board!) will not make it true. Facts are facts....and there are precious few of those available to us.

I think that Christer's issue is that he simply cannot understand the difference between theory and conclusion. He's convicted Lechmere. He has - in my view - conned others into buying into his conclusion by including deatail that supports it, and omitting or minimizing the importance of those that do not.

[FrankO]

I can only take this to mean that with every added minute, the chances that she would go on bleeding were reduced.
Seven minutes would be unexpected, but possible. Reasonably, 7,5 to 8 minutes would be even more unexpected and a little less possible.

No offence, Fish, but I'd hoped that you'd actually put the question I asked to Mr. Payne-James.

I don´t think that we must be looking at 7,5 to 8 minutes, but I certainly do not exclude it.

What must we at least be looking at then, in your view, and how do you arrive at that amount of time?

[Fisherman]

FrankO:
No offence, Fish, but I'd hoped that you'd actually put the question I asked to Mr. Payne-James.

I don´t see what he could say other than what I said myself. He said that three or five minutes were more credible than seven and that forms a logical line that is easy enough to understand: The more time we add, the more unexpected it would be.
Are you thinking that he could say something else? I do not want to impose too much on his time, and he has already been very helpful, so I would need a good reason to contact him. Not sure that this is it.

What must we at least be looking at then, in your view, and how do you arrive at that amount of time?

I think it would be a bit presumptous to try and estblish an absolute minimum, Frank. But we both know that Paul said "no more than four minutes", meaning that it could perhaps have been three, three and a half, and we both know that the speed at which they actors travelled would have an impact and so on.
That is not to say that I don´t see how you could be correct - but the gist of the matter is that the more time we add, the smaller the chance of another killer. I hope you can see how I think that works!

[FrankO]

Are you thinking that he could say something else?

Mr. Payne-James informed you that 3 or 5 minutes were more likely estimations than 7 and that 7 minutes was not very realistic. Since 7.5 to 8 minutes is even longer (regardless of whether it’s a realistic option), I'm wondering: if Nichols was still bleeding after 7.5 to 8 minutes, would he still think she bled according to the ‘normal bleeding schedule’? Or would he rather see this as a deviation from the ‘normal scheme’?

I think it would be a bit presumptous to try and estblish an absolute minimum, Frank.

Sorry if I was unclear, Fish, but I was just asking what you would see as a fair and feasible suggestion. You've done the math in earlier posts, I was really asking you to do that sort of thing again, based on the approximate 285 m.

I hope you can see how I think that works!

You're quite transparant, Fish.

[Fisherman]

FrankO: Mr. Payne-James informed you that 3 or 5 minutes were more likely estimations than 7 and that 7 minutes was not very realistic. Since 7.5 to 8 minutes is even longer (regardless of whether it’s a realistic option), I'm wondering: if Nichols was still bleeding after 7.5 to 8 minutes, would he still think she bled according to the ‘normal bleeding schedule’? Or would he rather see this as a deviation from the ‘normal scheme’?

It would be an unexpectedly long bleeding time, quite simply. But Payne-James also takes great care to say that exceptions occur. He was clear on saying that both the bleeding and coagulation placed Lechmere in the danger zone but could not totally exclude another killer.

Sorry if I was unclear, Fish, but I was just asking what you would see as a fair and feasible suggestion. You've done the math in earlier posts, I was really asking you to do that sort of thing again, based on the approximate 285 m.

Hmm. I think it would be a bit moot. we can never reach any certainty. I am sure your estimation is a fair one, but it equally applies that it can be argued that a minute or two can be either added or detracted.

No matter what, more meters mean less chance of an alternative killer, that much is indisputable.

[Fisherman]

I will here reproduce a post of mine made on an adjacent thread. I would like to have your comments on it, since I think it is very interesting. Here it is:

"It is reasoned by some of those who do not favour Lechmere as the killer, that PC Mizen was the liar. Some will even say it is a thing beyond discussion.

These posters say that the reason Mizen told the jury that he had been informed that another PC was already in place in Bucks Row, was that he was tardy himself in going down to Browns stable yard. And so, it is said, he invented that other PC, so that he could point to how he would not have had any real need to rush - the other PC would already have had the matter in hand!

However, notice how Mizen also says that he was only informed that there was a woman lying flat on her back in Bucks Row. From what Mizen tells us, he was NOT informed about how grave the errand - potentially - was.
This too is picked up on by the so called naysayers - they say that not only did Mizen invent that other PC, he also played down that he had been told that it was a serious errand. The scoundrel!

But consider this:

Why did not Mizen ONLY say that he was told that there was a drunken woman lying in the street? Going by what Lechmere said, PC Mizen was told that the woman was either drunk or dead. How easy it would have been, then, to ONLY acknowledge that he had heard the drunken part!

It would corroborate what the carman said (and what Mizen would have known he was going to say), and it would not have him entangled in an elaborate lie that he KNEW the carmen would both deny. And it would be quite enough to explain why he did not rush - if we are to believe that he didn´t.

If he DID invent the "other PC" lie, he stood to BOTH be faced with both of the carmens denials, blowing him out of the water, plus having a PC in place that had specifically requested his help without defining why,and that would be a very compelling reason to make haste. It could potentially be very pressing.

No matter how we turn these matters inside out, the lies do not fit with Mizen trying to make an excuse - but they DO fit eminently with the carman lying his way past Mizen."

The question has been asked why I do not discuss whether the "other policeman" issue could have been a mishearing on behalf of Mizen.
Technically, it could have.
But we must keep in mind that there were three things involved in the discussion between Mizen and Lechmere where they disagreed:
1. The other PC
2. The seriousness of the errand
3. The question whether one or two carmen spoke to Mizen

Each of these matters would have been important to the possibilitites of Lechmere to be able to pass by Mizen and to avoid being disclosed afterwards.

If Mizen misheard one thing, it would be odd but understandable.

To suggest that he misheard all three is taking it way too long.

I would primarily want comments from people who have so far not commented on the issue.

[Pierre]

"Nichols bled from the wounds in the neck as Mizen saw her, around five, six minutes after Lechmere had left the body. A pathologist has told me that stretching the bleeding time beyond five minutes is not to be expected. If that is correct, then we are left with very little or no time for an alternative killer."

Yes, there is time as you say for an alternative killer. He could have been the policeman that Lechmere told Mizen he saw at the murder site.

[Pierre]

"The wounds to the abdomen were covered, whereas this does not apply in the other Ripper cases. Was that a coincidence, or did it serve the practical purpose of hiding from Paul what had really happened? "

It could have served the practical purpose of hiding from Lechmere what had really happened when Lechmere arrived at the murder scene and saw an unknown policeman there.

[Pierre]

"The blood in the pool under her neck was ”somewhat congealed” according to Mizen. Normally, blood congeals fully around minute seven whereas the congealing starts to show after three or four minutes.
A logical timing suggests that Mizen reached the body some six minutes after Lechmere had left it. This means that if the normal coagulation scheme applied, then it is very hard to see that anybody else than Lechmere could have been the killer."

It is very hard to see that anybody else than the policeman Lechmere saw could have been the killer.

[Pierre]

"Lechmere called Paul to the body, as if he wanted to see what they could do for the woman. But when Paul proposed that they should prop her up, Lechmere suddenly refused to do so.
It can be argued that much as Lechmere wanted to look as a helpful man trying to do what he could for the woman, he also knew that propping her up would immediately give away that she had had her neck cut to the bone."

It can also be argued that since Lechmere´s stepfather was a policeman and Lechmere knew things about police work he would have known better than to move a body on a crime scene.

[Pierre]

"Lechmere arrived to the inquest in working clothes, thereby deviating from all other witnesses.
Our suggestion is that he used a false name and avoided to give his adress before the inquest in order to avoid having it known amongst his family and aquaintances that he had been a witness in the Nichols case. If this emerged, then he may have reasoned that there was a risk that his family and aquaintances would be more wary of any future connections to the coming murders. For example, as long as his family and aquaintances did not know about his involvement in the Nichols case, they would not react very much about the Chapman case a week later. But if they had been alerted to his role in the Nichols murder, then it may have seemed odd to them that the next victim should fall along his working route.
In light of this, he may have decided to go to the inquest in working clothes, so that he could give his wife the impression that he was instead headed for work."

My suggestion is that he used a false name before the inquest in order to avoid having it published in the newspapers so the killer could find him and his family.

And in light of this he may have decided to go to the inquest in working clothes so he would not alarm his wife and family about having become a murder witness.

[Pierre]

"Charles Lechmere gave the name Cross to the police, instead of using his real name. There are around 110 instances where we can follow the carman´s contacts with different authorities. In all of them but one, he used the name Lechmere.
Is it another coincidence that he should swop to Cross when contacting the police in a murder errand?"

No coincidence. Being a witness to the killer, one would be very scared. Lechmere saw it as his duty to protect his family.

[Pierre]

"Charles Lechmere did not raise any alarm at the Nichols murder site. He waited until Paul tried to pass him, and only then placed his hand on his fellow carmans shoulder, saying ”Come and look over here ...”
He did not call out to Paul as the latter approached, and neither man contacted any of the dwellers in Bucks Row. They instead left Nichols lying and set out to work, professing to wanting to find a PC on their way."

If Lechmere was uncertain of what he should think about the policeman he saw at the murder site he would not have called out to Paul or contacted the dwellings in Buck´s Row given that the policeman could be somewhere nearby.