Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Newbie View Post

    In the Loyd's weekly interview, after briefly examining the body he thought "she was outraged and died in the struggle."
    He also says that he told Mizen he thought Polly Nichols was dead.

    In his inquest testimony, he said that he "detected a slight movement (in her chest) as of breathing, but very faint."

    To my purpose, whether he thought her dead, or almost dead, it doesn't matter; the only important thing is that he didn't imagine the cause
    of her problems being inebriation.
    Thing is, by the Lloyd's interview he knows she's dead, and that she was horribly murdered. And his descriptions of things are very different from his sworn testimony. We don't know if he was bigging himself up or if the reporter was presenting his interview in the most sellable way. His actions at the time do not reflect one who knows she is dead as they are similar to Cross/Lechmere's actions. But again, if Cross/Lechmere's actions are reflective of one who knows she is dead but covering up because he's the Ripper, then Paul too knows she is dead and is covering up because he's the Ripper too. But if Paul is the Ripper than Cross/Lechmere cannot be, and if Cross/Lechmere is the Ripper than Paul cannot be. So both are simultaneously the Ripper, making neither of them possibly the Ripper. The solution to the paradox, of course, is that their actions are similar because indeed they are similar in that neither is the Ripper.

    - Jeff
    Last edited by JeffHamm; 08-01-2023, 06:26 AM.

    Comment


    • May I add two points that I think may be of relevance....

      Am incorrect I'm assuming alcohol increases blood pressure?

      Would that imply that Nichols 'bleed out' time would be reduced because she was intoxicated?


      Also, in terms of said 'bleed out' time...would having additional wounds act as a counterbalance to her neck wound?
      Imagine making a single hole in a compressed pipe, the blood would have one place to exit and therefore be channeled and come out quicker, but if you have multiple holes in multiple places, wouldn't that reduce the 'pressure' of the blood because it's distributed more evenly?

      In other words, could having multiple wounds in her abdomen have actually slowed the pressure and time for blood loss from her neck?

      Thoughts please

      TRD
      Last edited by The Rookie Detective; 08-01-2023, 07:07 AM.
      "Great minds, don't think alike"

      Comment


      • The McKenzie case Is interesting because it bears similarities to Nichols.

        Based on the evidence it would suggest that McKenzie bled out from her neck wound for up to 20 minutes.

        That is very Atypical but not clinically impossible.

        Although 20 minutes pushes the boundaries of time from a significant bleed from one of the major arteries/veins from the neck.

        In a way, McKenzies case helps to strengthen the case for Lechmere being innocent because it demonstrates that it CAN take longer to bleed out than would be expected.

        That said, the 'average' time would be anywhere between 2 to 8 minutes.

        It of course depends on the exact degree and severity of the wound and other factors like body position, pulse, depth of wound, length of wound, blood pressure, weather conditions etc...etc... All of these make a difference to the time it takes for the bleeding to start and stop.

        I would say that any time over 8 minutes really is pushing the boundaries though and even though it's not impossible, it would be highly improbable for Nichols to have been bleeding out for more than 8 minutes considering the severity of her wounds.

        I believe the killer would NOT have stayed more than 5 minutes with any of his victims (excluding MJK) and that includes time to escape the scene. Therefore the time from initial attack of strangulation to the point he leaves would not have exceeded 4 minutes.

        I believe he entered Bucks Row at 3.28am and then"attacked" her at 3.30am and by 3.33am he left, meaning he cleared the street by 3.35am at the very latest.
        If he left any later than 3.35am, then Lechmere would either heard OR seen him leave. It would take around a minute to clear the street from the location of the attack.

        These timings fit with the evidence of Mrs Lilley who heard moans, whispers of VOICES and a train pass at approximately 3.30am.

        Now seeing as trains are ALWAYS late, then we could push the attack time to 3.32am, BUT IF Lechmere is innocent then the ripper had to have left the body no later than 3.35am based on Lechmeres arrival time.

        If Lechmere was running late for work, his pace would have been slightly quicker.
        ​​​​​​
        The only issue being that IF the killer was interrupted by Lechmere, then why didn't Lechnere see or hear anyone?
        If Lechmere is innocent then I find it highly improbable that he disturbed the killer.

        The real killer must have been interrupted by something or someone else from a house etc...

        I think the chances of someone else physically on the street BETWEEN the killer and Lechmere is practically impossible because judging by her bleed out time and compared to the McKenzie case, she couldn't have received those neck wounds BEFORE 3.25am.

        ​​​​​The train passing by and which was heard by Mrs Lilley around the same time she hears voices and moans is crucial evidence because of all the many different factors to consider, there's one thing we can be CERTAIN of...

        TRAINS NEVER RUN EARLY!

        So we take the estimated train time, add it to the evidence of Mrs Lilley, Lechmere and Co...and then the 3.30am attack time fits perfectly.

        However, if Lechmere would have left on time, he would have witnessed the murder or at least have seen the killer and Nichols.

        If the wounds to her neck are inflicted AFTER 3.35am, then either Lechmere and/or Paul, or PC Neil are the killer.

        That's why bleed out time is crucial to get right.




        Last edited by The Rookie Detective; 08-01-2023, 07:49 AM.
        "Great minds, don't think alike"

        Comment


        • I think that the frequent and sometimes heated debates about bleed out time are not really necessary. Quite simply, if Nichols was murdered at about 3. 30 am, as per Harriet Lilley, for example, then bleeding would probably have stopped by about 3. 40 am, and some time had elapsed for congealing to start to happen as per reports. Then, when Lechmere and Paul arrive they examine her hands, stating them to be cold, but by lifting them up a few inches from the ground to do so, they cause a little fresh blood to ooze from the neck wound, this being lower than the raised hands. Then about 3 -5 minutes later, PC Neil arrives, and checks her hands and the temperature of her skin just under the clothing covering her arms. He again lifts her hands a few inches and initiates a little oozing of blood from the neck wound. I don't see any issue here.

          In a suggestion that this is not correct, it has been pointed out that PC Neil claimed that he didn't move the body, but I am quite sure that he only meant that he didn't alter the position in which the body was lying, because he surely didn't examine her hands and arms without lifting them slightly off the ground.

          Comment


          • Post deleted.
            Last edited by Fisherman; 08-01-2023, 08:51 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post
              I think that the frequent and sometimes heated debates about bleed out time are not really necessary. Quite simply, if Nichols was murdered at about 3. 30 am, as per Harriet Lilley, for example, then bleeding would probably have stopped by about 3. 40 am, and some time had elapsed for congealing to start to happen as per reports. Then, when Lechmere and Paul arrive they examine her hands, stating them to be cold, but by lifting them up a few inches from the ground to do so, they cause a little fresh blood to ooze from the neck wound, this being lower than the raised hands. Then about 3 -5 minutes later, PC Neil arrives, and checks her hands and the temperature of her skin just under the clothing covering her arms. He again lifts her hands a few inches and initiates a little oozing of blood from the neck wound. I don't see any issue here.

              In a suggestion that this is not correct, it has been pointed out that PC Neil claimed that he didn't move the body, but I am quite sure that he only meant that he didn't alter the position in which the body was lying, because he surely didn't examine her hands and arms without lifting them slightly off the ground.
              That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I think the 3.30am time is the closest to being accurate.
              ​​​
              Sometimes, the simplest explanations...
              "Great minds, don't think alike"

              Comment


              • Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
                The McKenzie case Is interesting because it bears similarities to Nichols.

                Based on the evidence it would suggest that McKenzie bleed out from her neck wound for up to 20 minutes.

                That is very Atypical but not clinically impossible.
                I'm not aware that such times are well studied, but I could be wrong of course. But for all I know, 20-25 minutes could be highly typical, so I'm curious upon what information you've decided it was atypical.

                Although 20 minutes pushes the boundaries of time froma significant bleed from one of the major arteries/veins from the neck.
                Again, where does this informational claim come from? Is it from medical research? I'm only asking as in all the years that this has been discussed, I've only ever seen opinions from some medical professional who also state they have little to no data to really work from (which does raise a caution flag; when experts say they don't have data they may still give an expert guess, but nevertheless it is still a guess).
                In a way, McKenzies case helps to strengthen the case for Lechmere being innocent because it demonstrates that it CAN take longer to bleed out than would be expected.
                McKenzie appears to bleed for 20 or so minutes. Edward Spooner, in the Stride case, was standing along Fairclough with his sweetheart, when men from the club came running along looking for police. So, this is after Deimshitz finds the body (which he testifies was at 1 o'clock; Spooner also indicates that the men came running up Fairclough around 1 o'clock, which fits with the body being found, Deimshitz alerting the club members, and then the search commencing. Spooner joins the men as they return to Berner Street, as they did not find a PC. So, we're probably somewhere around 4 minutes after Diemshitz finds her and the blood is described as still flowing. We don't know how long she has been dead, though, after Diemshitz went inside and came back out with a candle he does say he could see the blood before the body, so she's been bleeding long enough for the blood to run towards the club door.

                Spooner, who arrives at the scene roughly 4 minutes after her discovery states in his testimony:

                [Coroner] Was any blood coming from the throat? - Yes; it was still flowing. I noticed that she had a piece of paper doubled up in her right hand, and some red and white flowers pinned on her breast. I did not feel the body, nor did I alter the position of the head. I am sure of that. Her face was turned towards the club wall.
                [Coroner] Did you notice whether the blood was still moving on the ground? - It was running down the gutter. I stood by the side of the body for four or five minutes, until the last witness arrived.

                ​So again, blood still flowing at that point.

                PC Lamb arrives a couple minutes later, and he wasn't sure if there was still blood flow from the wound "I can hardly say whether any was still flowing from the throat." He also mentions that blood nearest her was slightly congealed, so at around 6 minutes post discovery, we're starting to get statements that suggest the flow is slowing, and may be close to more or less done, and we're seeing signs of clot formation in the blood on the ground.

                Dr. Blackwell arrives at 1:16 (by his watch, which he checked and recorded at the time). And he describes "The blood was running down the gutter into the drain in the opposite direction from the feet. There was about 1lb of clotted blood close by the body, and a stream all the way from there to the back door of the club."

                So the blood on the ground is still running down the gutter, but there is now a large amount of clot near the body.

                Depending upon how long she was killed prior to discovery, adds to what appears to be roughly 6 minutes for the bleeding to appear to have stopped. So, if she was killed 5 minutes before discovery, that's 11 minutes of bleeding, if killed just before discovery, then 6-7 minutes of bleeding, if killed at 12:45, then we're up to roughly 21 minutes of bleeding. From the recreations I've done, I suggest the murder could occur between 1:48 and 1:59, which means adding somewhere between 1 and 12 minutes (so between 7 and 18 minutes of bleeding, with 12.5 minutes being the mid-point of that range). The 18, while the upper end, seems awfully similar to the McKenzie case though. (that places the murder around 12:48ish, which is around the time Schwartz said he saw Stride and Broad Shoulders - he states 12:45 of course, but with a recreation built from such confusing and conflicting information, that looks pretty good to me (although, to be fair, 1:50 or 1:55 is probably acceptable for a "real time" if a witness states things happened around 12:45 after all).

                That said, the 'average' time would be anywhere between 2 to 8 minutes.
                That would fall at the short end for the Stride range, but again, I was unaware we actually had data on these sorts of times in order to calculate averages from. I would be very interested, particularly if you have an article you could send me as I like to have a look at the numbers in order to see if I can extract anything useful from them for our purposes.
                If of course depends on the exact degree and severity of the wound and other factors like body position, pulse, depth of wound, length of wound, blood pressure, weather conditions etc...etc... All of these make a difference to the time it takes for the bleeding to start and stop.

                I would say that any time over 8 minutes really is pushing the boundaries though and even though it's not impossible, it would be highly improbable for Nichols to have been bleeding out for more than 8 minutes considering the severity of her wounds.
                Why? McKenzie bled for over 20 minutes. From discovery until Stride's bleeding stops appears to be about 6 minutes, and so we have to add to that the unknown additional time from murder until discovery. From what we know, that could be anywhere between 1 and 18 minutes, most of those are well over 8 minutes. To me, it's looking more like 8 minutes is probably closer to a minimum amount of time we might expect, rather than an upper limit, and with McKenzie (the one we have the best information on), it would be very unlucky if she were some great anomaly. With the Stride case we get an average estimate of 12.5 minutes, though I would recommend that be viewed with some caution.

                However, going out on a limb, one might want to consider something like Nichols was murdered between 12.5 and 20 minutes prior to the point when the bleeding stopped. I can't recall what time that is supposed to be though?

                I believe the killer would bit have stayed more than 5 minutes with any of his victims (excluding MJK) and that includes time to escape the scene. Therefore the time from initial attack of strangulation to the point he leaves would not have exceeded 4 minutes.

                I believe he entered Bucks Row at 3.28am and then"attacked" her at 3.30am and by 3.33am he left, meaning he cleared the street by 3.35am at the very latest.
                If he left any later than 3.35am, then Lechmere would either heard OR seen him leave. It would take around a minute to clear the street from the location of he attack.

                Theses timings fit with the evidence of Mrs Lilley who heard moans, whispers of VOICES and a train pass at approximately 3.30am.

                Now seeing as trains are ALWAYS late, then we could push the attack time to 3.32am, BUT IF Lechmere is innocent then the ripper had to have left the body no later than 3.35am based on Lechmeres arrival time.

                If Lechmere was running late for work, his pace would have been slightly quicker.
                ​​​​​​
                The only issue being that IF the killer was interrupted by Lechmere, then why didn't Lechnere see or hear anyone?
                If Lechmere is innocent then I find it highly improbable that he disturbed the killer.

                The real killer must have been interrupted by something or someone else from a house etc...

                I think the chances of someone else physically on the street BETWEEN the killer and Lechmere is practically impossible because judging by her bleed out time and compared to the McKenzie case, she couldn't have received those neck wounds BEFORE 3.25am.

                ​​​​​The train passing by and which heard by Mrs Lilley around the same time she hears voices and moans is crucial evidence because of all the many different factors to consider, there's one thing we can be CERTAIN of...

                TRAINS NEVER RUN EARLY!

                So we take the estimates train time, add it to the evidence of Mrs Lilley, Lechmere and Co...and then the 3.30am attack time fits perfectly.

                However, if Lechmere would have left on time, he would have witnessed the murder or at least have seen the killer and Nichols.

                If the wounds to her neck are inflicted AFTER 3.35am, then either Lechmere and/or Paul, or PC Neil are the killer.

                That's why bleed out time is crucial to get right.
                The times you suggest could work, and you're not the first to suggest a murder around the 3:30 train. As for getting bleed out times right, I wouldn't hold your breath. Medical data is hugely variable from case to case. I rather suspect that if such data did exist, it would not surprise me in the least if it would mean we have to suggest she could have been murdered over a 30 or 40 minute wide time window. Basically, one wide enough that it wouldn't really help us that much at all.

                - Jeff

                Comment


                • Seeing as Paul changed his story as to whether he thought Nichols was dead or alive

                  What if Paul never touched Nichols?

                  That would explain why he never noticed her head was almost severed.

                  If he examined her very briefly for signs of life and thought she may be still alive but then changed his story to thinking she was dead,; what if in reality NEITHER Lechmere OR Paul touched the body and just assumed she was passed out through being drunk.

                  ​​​​​​I don't believe that BOTH men would have missed noticing at least one of her wounds.
                  Using the darkness as an excuse just doesn't work for me.

                  I believe the reason why they just went off to work and on the way spoke to a policeman is because they saw a woman who looked passed out through drink and thought she wasnt worth investigating and just moved on with the intention of telling a policeman IF they found one.

                  ​​​​​​I think they covered for each other and even though neither was the killer, I think they fabricated what actually transpired.

                  However, Paul said he thought she had been outraged. But how would he know that if he touched her and yet FAILED to notice any significant injuries?

                  Human nature would dictate that the primary place to look in order to determine a person's life signs, would be their face, including mouth and eyes.

                  I simply can't believe that 2 men, one who claims to have touched her, fail to notice a woman with her head almost severed.

                  That's nonsense

                  Paul changed his story because he was backtracking to cover for the fact that neither him or Lechmere did enough to help her in the moment.
                  ​​​​​​
                  IF they hadn't of bumped into Mizen, then they would never have come forward as witnesses. That would explain why Lechmere didn't come forward initially.

                  Paul saw an opportunity to play up to the press and changes his story accordingly and Lechmere was spooked and didn't really want to get involved at all
                  ​​
                  The reason why Mizen didnt run to the scene with any urgency is because both Paul and Lechmere played it down so wouldn't have to be held for questioning at the scene.

                  The were late for work and it was inconvenient for both of them.
                  Last edited by The Rookie Detective; 08-01-2023, 09:04 AM.
                  "Great minds, don't think alike"

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Newbie View Post

                    Young John McEnroe was throwing an irrational temper tantrum at the time, because things weren't going his way - no?

                    Point #1: So clearly almost the second that he realised that it was a woman and not a tarpaulin he heard Paul approaching so he waits for him to arrive. Absolutely nothing suspicious or strange about that. And why didn’t he fly into an immediate panic? Because until he and Paul approached the body together Lechmere had no idea that this woman was dead. She could have been drunk or injured or sleeping.

                    Yes, we are aware of Lech's testimony: why do you treat it as the gospel truth Herlock?
                    P.C. O'Neil heard PC Thain's footsteps on Brady Street - the acoustics were fantastic on that narrow street, lined with uninterrupted stone buildings, up to the murder location.

                    Are you maintaining that Lech shouldn't have heard Paul, or Paul Lech? Or, are you maintaining that there exists still some small probability that each wouldn't have heard the other on that dangerous dark street? You just seem to ignore the entire thing and merrily accept Lech's testimony at face value.

                    I could ask you Herlock to give some accounting, based on physical principles, as to why Lech suddenly heard footsteps in the middle of the street. Just before, when first noticing the body, he slowed down, stopped and looked at the body - why not hear footsteps there? Why not sooner?

                    He came from the body, positioned himself in the middle of the street, and then shaped his narrative to accommodate that event. How about that?

                    I don’t just accept at face value Newbie but some certainly take the position of assuming that everything must be a lie when we have no evidence for it. There is simply no reason to believe that he wasn’t telling the truth. You make the point about acoustics but this point works against Lechmere’s guilt rather than for it. If Paul had been even further away when Lech heard him approaching (due to the acoustics) then that makes it even less likely that he would have stood around waiting for a complete stranger to arrive who, for all that he knew, might have stood yelling “police, murder!” as soon as he arrived.​

                    Another point that you ignore is that Lechmere couldn’t have known what Paul saw as he approached. How could he have known, if Paul had caught him unawares, that Paul hadn’t seen him move away from the body to the middle of the road? How could Lechmere then have said that he hadn’t been near the body?

                    If you look at every issue from a starting point of Lechmere’s guilt then a scenario can always be created but we need evidence for it and not just “it’s not impossible that….” How do we know that Robert Paul didn’t kill Nichols, circle back to the top of Bucks Row and hide in some doorway until Lech passed, then follow him along the street for the thrill of being there when the body was found? What makes that impossible? How far do we go?


                    Point #2: You do yourself or the subject no favours by this kind of twisting of the evidence Newbie. You add dubious statements like “ignores the body” simply to make it sound suspicious when Lechmere simply waited for Paul to get there. Totally consistent with an innocent man.​

                    Nothing at all dubious about characterizing stopping and waiting for Paul as ignoring the prostrate woman (not corpse). Most people would not do it that way; most would gauge how far away the newcomer is (40 yards), check up on the fallen woman, and then deal with the newcomer. You'd stand and wait for 30 seconds? Okay!

                    No, it’s not ok. It’s nowhere near ok. Not everyone is the same so we can’t assume some kind of general behaviour that everyone would have conformed to. Lechmere heard Paul approaching as soon as he realised that it was a woman. He didn’t know that the woman was dead. She might have been beaten up and Lechmere might have worried that Paul might have thought him responsible and punched him. Many people are nervous around dead bodies (or possibly dead bodies) The fact that he wasn’t willing to prop up the body tends to support this. His behaviour just wasn’t suspicious.

                    There is a slew of attempts to normalize odd behaviors on Lech's part- things most wouldn't do:

                    - most would attend to the fallen woman first, before addressing Paul

                    Simply an assumption based on your own desire to view everything in terms of a guilty Lechmere I’m afraid.

                    - most would use the name that appears on their marriage certificate at the inquest

                    You really should check your facts and look at the research that has been done which showed example after example after example of people using alternative names….even in court. Nothing remotely strange about this. And of course you ignore the fact that he gave his correct forenames and address. If he was seeking to obfuscate he’d have used a completely made up name and address.

                    - most would come to the inquest dressed in their best clothing - as if attending church (trying to avoid the circus with that?)

                    Absolute nonsense. Where are you getting this from Newbie? How do you know what people wore at inquests? These were different times but you don’t appear to appreciate that. It totally understandable that he might have hoped that he could have given his testimony early and then gone back to work. Money was tight and his employer wouldn’t have payed him for being at an inquest.

                    Also, this wasn’t a court appearance where Lechmere was keen to impress a jury by making a good impression. I’d be very interested to know why you think that him appearing in his work clothes is somehow a point in favour of guilt?



                    - most would have the incident passed down among the family lore

                    I’m sorry Newbie but I can’t respond to such silliness. Why would it? Are you claiming that every event, remotely of note, always survives through family lore?

                    - most, if innocent, would be clear and precise when addressing a police officer about discovering the body:
                    "you are wanted (by the police)" would not be the unclear language (& i'm being charitable here) most would use.

                    But you’re assuming that he wasn’t. If you accuse me of making an assumption about the validity of Lechmere’s testimony then I have to ask why you ‘assume’ Mizen to have been correct….a man who was busy knocking up when they spoke to him? All across this case and others these things happen. They are a fact of life.

                    If you could explain what type of motivation could lead an innocent man to these collective actions, that would go a long ways towards convincing me. But you never do. These facts are not actual facts is the argument - something is being twisted here; and after all, he's innocent.

                    Ive just explained everything to you but they have been explained before and by others but it makes no difference. You are viewing everything in terms of a guilty Lechmere. You have the Lechmere Goggles on. Every single thing that Lechmere did in Bucks Row is entirely in keeping with the actions of a normal, innocent man who discovered a body on his way to work along a street that he passed along 6 days a week.

                    If we had asked in retrospect….where should Charles Lechmere have been at 3.40am on August 31st….then that spot would have been within the expected range.


                    Point #3: Yet again in ripperology we see suspectology run rampant in some quarters. Lechmere was with the body which would absolutely make him a person of interest and the first person that the police would look at. There should be no issue with someone asking “could he have been the killer?” Naturally the fact that neither Robert Paul or the police saw anything remotely suspicious in Lechmere is glossed over but it appears to be a fact. So we then have ‘Operation Frame Lechmere,’ where the starting position is that Lechmere was guilty and so everything is shaped to that end.

                    More of the same here. Starting point? It probably was by not using his family name, and then giving a PC the false impression that some authority wanted him on Buck's row. It was carefully constructed language, with the patina of deniability - he after all, didn't mention any PC waiting there. That puts it in the same category as using Cross. The police thought he was innocent, no doubt. They were primarily looking for jews, foreigners, and the violently insane. Victorian England justified their Empire by believing in the moral superiority of Englishman. An English bloke, with steady employment and a family, being a psychotic murderer was beyond their comprehension.
                    But we now know some serial killers are like that. As for Paul, he never conveyed what his private suspicions were .... nor was he asked that question at the inquest.

                    Listen to yourself Newbie. He sounded plausible…so he was guilty. He was outwardly respectable….so he was guilty.

                    Point #4: The name thing is constantly used in the face of the research that’s been done by people like David Orsam and Roger Palmer showing that there was absolutely nothing unusual about any of this. When the obvious is stated, that Lechmere clearly gained no advantage from using the name Cross.

                    We are in agreement that using Cross offered him no advantage, if innocent. If found out, it would open him up to some suspicion - so why go there? Further, he would disadvantage himself of not being able to use his wife to support his departure time - what did Pickford's know about when he left home? I can't think of any compelling reason for using it, if innocent. If all there was is the barely arriving first to the body, before Paul, and the use of Cross .... I would think nothing of Lech.

                    YOU can’t think of a reason why he would have used Cross. Does that prove that there wasn’t one? A stepfather that he treated as his real father perhaps?

                    Using Cross offered him no advantage if he was guilty Newbie. It’s as simple as that. The name thing is a red herring.

                    I wasted reading through 89 pages of the Lechmere/Cross controversy: David Orsam offered nothing there of value, imho, resolving anything.

                    There is no better or more meticulous researcher in the entire field than David. If you dismiss his work it’s just clear that your preconceptions took over.

                    Point #5: Then we have the inconvenient fact that despite having ample opportunity to flee Lechmere acts exactly like a man who has simply found a body. And yet we get attempts to make even this a sign of guilt. What next? If we found evidence that Lechmere was in Scotland on November 9th I’d fully expect someone to say “well that proves he was guilty in that he would go to such lengths to set up an alibi!” Where does it end?

                    Its a sign that he first found the body, which traditionally cast some suspicion on anyone. If you ignore the inquest testimony and auditory science, you can believe that he found the body practically simultaneously with Paul. Then, one can ignore Lech's imprecise language that gives a PC a false impression of what happened .... I do it all the time.

                    Can you provide this ‘auditory science’ please Newbie. I was under the impression that you were simply giving your own layman’s opinion based on nothing. We have no way of assessing the acoustics of a London street in 1888 at 3.40 am. If you can would it be possible for me to have a go in your TARDIS please?

                    Again, if he just got there before Paul, case closed. I don't believe this for reasons I previously stated. It's a waste of time arguing if we can't come to agreement on this. You believe his testimony, I don't. I find it more likely that Lech got there well ahead of Paul, then that JtR would flee.

                    The underlined sentence makes no sense….I’m assuming a typo so perhaps you can re-type it.

                    If Lechmere got their earlier….why weren’t the mutilations more extensive, why was he still there?

                    Point #5: Finally a question Newbie. You appear to favour Lechmere as the ripper? What would you say makes him a likelier suspect than this man?:

                    Grew up without a father.
                    Mother committed to an asylum when he was just one and died there when he was five.
                    His older sister died while he was a baby.
                    In his early life he was dismissed from a job for theft.
                    He arrived in London in October 1887.
                    Wife possibly a prostitute.
                    Described as a violent drunk.
                    Threatened to cut his wife’s throat after five days of marriage.
                    Resided in nearby Bow at the time of the murders.
                    Suggestion as having an STD by his employer.
                    Was regularly violent toward his wife whilst spending her money.
                    Left London for Dundee in January of 1889 (important if Kelly was the final victim)
                    Murdered and mutilated his wife.
                    Two chalk messages mentioning JTR found at his flat.
                    Abberline questioned people that knew him.
                    Suggested that two officers went to question him in Dundee.​


                    I considered Bury to be a very good suspect - you hit all the high water marks.

                    If I was arguing against him, using the mode of argumentation employed here against a suspect, I would say that most orphans of the era
                    do not have a pleasant past - and were put to work in the most abysmal conditions at a very young age. Yet, very, very few turn
                    into serial killers. I don't like this mode of argumentation - it would eliminate everyone quite easily.

                    My actual problem with Bury is that he was suspected by the police at the time: they sent people to interview witnesses associated with Bury. There is also an indication that Scotland yard interviewed Bury directly.

                    But generally, I think JtR was someone never suspected at the time .... so that rules out the most well considered suspects: violently insane Jews. I think the police investigators were highly competent, but hamstrung by certain biases and the lack of modern technologies.
                    So you dismiss him on your preconception that you don’t think that the killer wasn’t suspected at the time? You make the point that the police were wrong in that they didn’t see Lechmere as the type to have been the killer and yet you can’t see them being wrong in dismissing Bury.

                    The fact that a man, walking to work exactly as normal, finds a body, then goes looking for a Constable with another man and doesn’t behave suspiciously in any way is considered a better suspect than a violent, drunken, wife-beating, woman murdering and mutilating bloke who left London a few weeks after the Kelly murder simply beggars belief Newbie and is a perfect illustration of Lechmania.

                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                    “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Newbie View Post

                      The killer would have probably made it out; but it wasn't risk free. Not just constables (they were around), but more prostitutes, Johns, vagrants - you don't know who you will encounter fleeing, when going around a corner.

                      Yes, he probably would have gotten away just fleeing .... no argument there.

                      There’s just no completion. A guilty man would have fled.

                      As for the blood, he was a carman - not an IBM executive, and it was dark. A spot or two of blood ....phfft!
                      That is blood from handling animal meat.

                      The wife washed clothing maybe once a week? Maybe, less often?
                      Reading a description of the typical London street, it was filthy place.

                      Im no expert in blood but I’m confident that a man wearing the clothes that he’d worn to work the previous day wouldn’t have had wet blood on him.

                      You are missing one option, the first person to find the body stays behind and Paul goes ahead and fetches help.
                      The idea that coming 10 - 15 minutes late to work, after helping the police with a distressed woman will get a long time employee in trouble with his employer is absurd. Not now, not then.

                      Then you’ve never read anything about employers in the 19th century Im afraid. If you criticise Lechmere for his actions then you have to criticise Paul too because he did exactly the same. Was Paul also the killer?

                      Provided that he hadn't a bloody knife in a coat pocket, and Paul was a reliable witness to the just arriving there together story.

                      I don’t understand the last point. Perhaps a typing error. If guilty Lech would undoubtedly have had the knife on him. Why would he take even the slightest chance of being searched when he could easily have avoided it. You’re not making sense on these points Newbie.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                      “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                        Thank you for reacting, Steve. You are correct in saying that we have debated the matters before. There were, however, inclusions in my post that have not been given consideration by you before.

                        What I find more concerning is the fact that you will not comment on the passages in your book that I pointed to, and that misrepresent the Lechmere theory. You refer to the sources quoted by you, but once I look for them, I get the source ”Casebook.org” only, meaning that I need to read it from start to finish to find the material you supposedly worked from. Anybody knows that it is not possible to do so.

                        If we for clarities sake were to go by one of the matters only, as I said, you have read and reviewed my book, and you are therefore quite aware that in it, I suggest that PC Neil would have arrived at the murder site around six minutes after Lechmere claimed he got there. And the book must of course be the best source for how the theory should be read and understood.

                        Sourcing this claim of yours as ”Casebook.org” without naming who you are supposedly quoting and what was supposedly said out on Casebook and when it was said, and then choosing it over what must be regarded as an official source, namely Cutting Point, is a very dubious thing to do. Standing by the method when it is questioned is even worse, the way I look upon it.

                        It would be better, although quite unorthodox, if you were to publish the material you are working from alongside the true claim of the theory, so that your readers are not deprived of what I actually say, instead of only being served what I am not saying at all. If the kind of claim on our behalf has ever been made and published on Casebook - and I am not saying that it hasnīt, I cannot do so since I cannot take part of the material through your sourcing - then you must be aware that it is not the real view of the Lechmere theory. So far as I can tell, it could be anything from an unintentionally misworded post to some sort of experimental thinking or anything else like that - regardless, it is NOT what the Lechmere theory suggests. And given that you know what the theory suggests as per Cutting Point, I think it must rest on you as the author of Inside Bucks Row to try and be as fair as possible when describing your counterparts views of the case. In this, you have failed very badly, and I think it would serve both os us if these kinds of things were corrected.

                        I will await any reaction of yours, preferably one where you disclose the material you were working from when you claimed that the Lechmere theory has John Neil arriving at the site at a time we both know he could not have arrived without running into the carmen. If there is no reaction today or tomorrow, I will move on to the next poster.
                        Purely for information, it would appear that you have not used the links to sources as intended.

                        The book as you know is an interactive Ebook.


                        in the footnotes the link may say casebook.org or Jtrforums.com Or Amazon.

                        These link names are given, rather than long full web addresses, but the actual link will take you to the relevant thread, often the pricise post.

                        However all the reader needs to do is to click the link to be taken to the relevant comment.

                        In the main body of the text where several comments relate to a particular source, the post numbers of the relevant comments are given.


                        There are many who post proposing the Lechmere theory in various places, not all agree or say the same thing.


                        In the case of Neil's arrival, it's clearly been said many times, by many people, in many places that Neil arrived within a couple of minutes of the carmen leaving.


                        That you assume any comment made in Inside Bucks Row must refer to your work alone is rather amusing.
                        Last edited by Elamarna; 08-01-2023, 10:02 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                          Purely for information, it would appear that you have not used the links to sources as intended.

                          The book as you know is an interactive Ebook.


                          in the footnotes the link may say casebook.org or Jtrforums.com Or Amazon.
                          These link names are given, rather than long full web addresses, but the actual link will take you to the relevant thread, often the pricise post.

                          However all the reader needs to do is to click the link to be taken to the relevant comment.

                          In the main body of the text where several comments relate to a particular source, the post numbers of the relevant comments are clearly given.
                          Thank you, I will give it a try.

                          ... which I did, resulting in me finding this passage:

                          3. There are several issues here, firstly given that bleeding under pressure will stop from the cutting of

                          both Carotid's, as per Nichols, in about 3.5 minutes, and it takes 4 minutes according to Paul to get to

                          Mizen, it is highly improbable to put it mildly that he could see blood flowing under pressure, the

                          likely arrival times for Mizen are shown in Appendix 1 Table 12.

                          In addition, the majority of the witness statements from Mizen make it very clear he reports on the

                          blood after returning with the ambulance, not when he first arrives. Appendix 2: Mizen, reports 1,4,5

                          & 7. report 3, leaves out returning with the ambulance, and can be read to say the blood was seen when

                          he first arrived at Brown’s Yard.


                          Sadly, it seems not to contain the source behind your claim that the Lechmere theory suggests that John Neil arrived at the murder site two minutes after Lechmere had left the body and maybe as little as 3 minutes after the attack commenced. I would very much like to know where that information comes from - and the thinking process behind why you declined to use the timings I suggest in Cutting Point. Of course, if you could help out and provide the source, it would be very helpful.

                          There was also a point 4 on the page, but it was not clickable, and only led to press reports about Neil.
                          Last edited by Fisherman; 08-01-2023, 10:12 AM.

                          Comment


                          • What do we know about PS Kirby in relation to the murder of Nichols?

                            All l can seem to ascertain is that he passed through Bucks Row around the same time as PC Neil.

                            3.15am

                            But that's it

                            So did PC Neil testify to PS Kirby passing through Bucks Row at the same time as he did?

                            What if PS Kirby passed by AFTER Neil?

                            Where did PS Kirby go after he passed through Bucks Row?
                            Did Thain or Mizen see him?

                            Why wasn't he called up as witness when he was in Bucks Row shortly before the murder occurred?

                            Why does no one seem to talk about him?

                            Could PS Kirby have been the killer?
                            "Great minds, don't think alike"

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                              Hi Steve,



                              Wow! That's quite a bit longer than I would have guessed, thanks for that, I think I may have to revise my thinking on this.
                              That's based on.a combined blood for rate of initially 740 ml per minute total from both carotids.
                              Heart failure starts at between 40-50% total loss.

                              About 5 litres of blood is a good estimate for total.

                              The victim would however lose concesnous very fast, in a few seconds as blood flow to the brain stops.



                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
                                May I add two points that I think may be of relevance....

                                Am incorrect I'm assuming alcohol increases blood pressure?

                                Would that imply that Nichols 'bleed out' time would be reduced because she was intoxicated?
                                High blood pressure indeed means she MIGHT bleed faster.


                                Also, in terms of said 'bleed out' time...would having additional wounds act as a counterbalance to her neck wound?
                                Imagine making a single hole in a compressed pipe, the blood would have one place to exit and therefore be channeled and come out quicker, but if you have multiple holes in multiple places, wouldn't that reduce the 'pressure' of the blood because it's distributed more evenly?

                                In other words, could having multiple wounds in her abdomen have actually slowed the pressure and time for blood loss from her neck?
                                It would depend on when the wounds were made in relation to each other.

                                Indeed the rate from the neck wounds slows slightly as the blood volume reduces.

                                Addition cuts to other areas is likely to reduce the rate from the neck wounds more, but the loss from these other wounds would in all probability reduce the overall bleed out time

                                Steve



                                Thoughts please

                                TRD[/QUOTE]

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X