Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Mark J D]

"Ooze" means to trickle or dribble

From my point of view -- speaking as a Brit with excellent native ruling class UK English acquired in the 1960s -- the above is not only false, but ludicrous.

A man standing with his Whatsit at a urinal may trickle or dribble; but if he oozes he would be well advised to see a doctor. Trickle, dribble and ooze are different things.

(The moral panic provoked by Lechmere's candidacy gets more and more corrosive, doesn't it?)

M.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Since we are debating at present, Doctored Whatsit, let me dissect this post of yours:

There’s no ‘debate.’ You are carefully selecting what you want to talk about.

You should also factor in what I always say when people tell me that the police would have been over Lechmere like a rash, since it so very evident that a man found a lone close by a victim and with no verifiable alibi, at a time that is at least roughly consistent and possibly perfectly consistent with her death: Lechmere did not become a suspect until more than a hundred years had passed, and none of the armchair detectives who looked at the case under all the many years picked up on how he has an armada of red flags lining to his person. Any claim that the police would never have gotten it wrong is therefore possibly very seriously flawed.

There isn’t a single red flag against Cross. Manipulations - yes. Deliberate mangling of the English language - certainly. Conscious omissions - absolutely.

Let us not try and decide the case on claims that we are not only unable to prove,

STAGGERING!! From the man who tried to manufacture a suspicions gap by wilfully manipulating the times!


but where we also have a counter part who believes otherwise and who can make a case for that belief on the existing evidence. It will never - and of course, should never - work outside an isolated ring of friends.

Whatever that means.

The case against Charles Cross hangs in tatters and has been exposed for the utter hatchet job that it is. It’s way past time that this utter nonsense was put to bed. Ripperology made a laughing stock yet again.

[Fiver]

As I have pointed out, being less proficient in the British language than. the Brits themselves, I took help from Richard Jones. I suspected, after having read heaps of examples on the net, that "oozing" may well depict a rich flow of blood, but a flow without any underlying pressure. Richard Jones was able to verify this: oozing does not have to mean only a very slow or trickling flow at all.

You're using the definition of some random guy. Everyone else is using the dictionary.

Ooze - to move slowly or imperceptibly - Merriam Webster Dictionary

Ooze - to flow out slowly - Brittanica

Ooze - to flow slowly out of something through a small opening, or to slowly produce a thick sticky liquid - Cambridge Dictionary

So once again, you are trying to alter the facts to fit your theories instead of altering your theories to fit the facts.

[Fiver]

So your misgivings are not in sync with the truth, I'm afraid. As for the uncannily silent night, it was not only Neil who witnessed about that...

Uncannily does not mean the same thing as unusually. Your first misuse could be excused due to English being a second language. But you were shown that PC Neil said unusually, not uncannily. You even repeat the quote.

So why do you continue to act like two words mean the same thing> There are plenty of English dictionaries online that can explain to you what "Uncanny" and "Unusual" and "Tottering" and "Oozing" mean.

[Doctored Whatsit]

From my point of view -- speaking as a Brit with excellent native ruling class UK English acquired in the 1960s -- the above is not only false, but ludicrous.

A man standing with his Whatsit at a urinal may trickle or dribble; but if he oozes he would be well advised to see a doctor. Trickle, dribble and ooze are different things.

(The moral panic provoked by Lechmere's candidacy gets more and more corrosive, doesn't it?)

M.

Sorry, but I have no idea why we have introduced a man's performance at a urinal into this debate.

I have taken "trickle" and "dribble" from a dictionary, additional alternatives are "sluggish flow", and "pass slowly". Take your pick.

[rjpalmer]

Sorry, but I have no idea why we have introduced a man's performance at a urinal into this debate.

I don't consider it a performance, so much as a solitary monologue.

[Elamarna]

This is actually very simple, despite attempting to define oozing be it profusely or not as indicating bleeding under pressure science and medicine say Neil could not have seen what some believe he saw.

The flow rates from various blood vessels are very well documented in medical literature.

The rates are given in Inside Bucks Row.

The flow from a single carotid Artery is approx 370 ml per minute.

Ackroyd et al in the Journal of Vascular Surgery suggest 371ml plus or minus 62ml
plus or minus, but 370 is a easier figure to work with.

But let's look at all the figures using those quoted in the article

So at low a single carotid loses 309 ml per minute.

At mid point Its 371 ml per minute

At the high it's 433 ml per minute


Both carotids are completely severed, therefore the total lose of blood per minute is

Low 618 , mid 742, high 866.per minute

The average Human body contain just under 5 litres, women slightly less ( unless pregnant)

Heart failure can start when more than 40% volume is lost, the exact figure varies between individuals. It's normally accepted that 50% is when a heart beat becomes difficult to detect, the heart close to failing.

So let's use 50%

Christer suggests Neil arrives 6 minutes after the carmen.

So at 6 minutes how much blood will be lost?

Basic maths

Low 618 × 6 = 3708ml
Mid 742 × 6 = 4452ml
High 866 × 6 = 5196ml

This I think clearly shows that the probality of Neil seeing Bleeding under pressure is EXTREMELY unlikely.

Let's now use the 50% loss , approx 2500ml

And see how long it would take to reach the 50% figure.


Low approx 4 minutes

Mid approx 3.-4 minutes

High approx 3 minutes.

While the blood volume is assumed to be 5000ml for these calculations, it must be stress that this figure is used for convince, and it will vary slightly.

However, it does clearly show just how unlikely Neil is to see bleeding under pressure if he arrives 6 minutes after the discovery of the body.
And of course it may be that one needs to allow another 30-60 seconds for the Actual cut , if Lechmere is indeed the killer.

It also clearly show that for Mizen arriving say 3 minutes after Neil, seeing Bleeding under pressure is all but impossible.

One further point, Mary Ann also had other wounds, which would undoubtly have increased the rate of bloof loss.

Steve

[Fiver]

The sound of hobnailed boots would certainly have been common. What would not be common is if a PC on an unusually quiet night failed to notice that sound, a very short stretch from himself in a street that was shaped like an accoustic tunnel.

Again, you refute a position no one took. No one is claiming that PC Neil was in Bucks Row at the same time as Robert Paul and Charles Lechmere.

OTOH, this is another example of you presenting speculation as fact.

Hobnailed boots are designed to provide better traction on soft or rocky ground or snow, but they slip on hard flat surfaces like pavement. Hobnailed boots would have been a poor choice for Robert Paul and Charles Lechmere and there is no evidence they were wearing hobnailed boots that day.

You also have presented no evidence that Buck's Row was an "acoustic tunnel" nor explained what you mean by an "accoustic tunnel". Hopefully, your definition is better than your definition of "oozing".

[Herlock Sholmes]

The only thing ‘corrosive’ about the Cross candidacy is the blatant dishonesty that some people stoop to in trying to keep it going. A non-stop tissue of deceit. How many times do we have to read about the meaning of words being altered to suit? How many times do we have to hear of times which are provably unknown narrowed down simply create a case? How many times are we expected to believe the sheer lunacy that a serial killer kills 15 minutes or so before clocking in to work? Or the even greater lunacy of a killer (knife in picket) loitering around until a spectator arrives? How many embarrassing efforts do we have to endure (totally contrary to the evidence) to make something suspicious about Cross using the name Cross even though we KNOW that he gained no advantage from it? How much time do we have to listen to all of the desperate geographic stuff?

Desperate stuff. Way past its sell by date.

[FrankO]

2) Robert Paul saw Charles Lechmere standing in the middle of the road. If Lechmere was the Ripper, he would have had to move from a kneeling position, facing west, on the pavement on the south side of the street; to a standing position, facing east, in the middle of the road. He would have had to do that without being seen or heard by Robert Paul.

Robert Paul was on the alert - he knew people had been mugged on Bucks Row. It's extremely unlikely that Lechmere could have moved from the body to the middle of the street without being seen or heard by Robert Paul.

Ripper-Lechmere not know if Robert Paul had seen or heard him move. He would have to watch Paul's reactions. Paul was clearly frightened of Lechmere and trying to avoid him. Any guilty man smarter than a cobblestone would conclude that Paul had seen through his attempted ruse and either attacked Paul or fled.

Exactly, Fiver. This is the key to me. The closer Paul’s supposed to be to a guilty Lechmere when the latter heard the former for the first time, the bigger the chance that Paul would have been able to see and especially hear Lechmere move. All the while Lechmere still had to be quite certain that Paul wouldn’t see or hear him. And, obviously, the further Paul’s supposed to be from a guilty Lechmere, the more time Lechmere would have had to get away.

If, for instance, Lechmere would have heard Paul the moment he entered Buck’s Row, he would have had more than 100 yards/meters to get away before Paul would ever reach the body. And then he still had to see it, examine it, raise an alarm and policemen would still have had to hear it and react to it.

And if, for instance, he would only have heard Paul when the latter was some 60 yards away from him, then he still had some 60 yards to get away with the corner of the board school about 40 yards away. However, every hobnailed clapping step Paul took would be a little louder than the former, so how did a guilty Lechmere manage NOT to hear Paul until he had clapped his hobnailed feet some 90 or 100 times?

Something doesn’t add up either way – to me, anyway.

[Fiver]

The evidence suggesting a scam amounts to three matters, not just the one as you claim.

1. Lechmere evidently never told Mizen that he himself was the finder of the body.

2. According to Mizen, Lechmere instead said that there was a PC in place.

3. According to Mizen, Lechmere never spoke of any murder or suicide. What Mizen seems to have been told is instead only that there was a woman flat on her back in Bucks Row.

It is important to present the whole picture when you are going to try and compare two sides of a matter.

You don't present the whole picture. You ignore Robert Paul, whose testimony supports Charles Lechmere.

Both Paul and Lechmere told PC Mizen that the woman might be dead. Neither mentioned murder or suicide - after all, they did not know how she had died. Both said that PC Mizen initially continued knocking people up after they told him about the possibly dead woman.

[Fiver]

This does not mean that we know for a fact that "the other man" said she was dead, Doctored. It only means that Charles Lechmere claimed it on behalf of Paul, who was not present in the inquest room as that claim was made. And that claim becomes highly questionable once we hear that Paul himself actually thought that she was not dead - he felt her chest moving. So why would a man who felt the chest move claim that the person with that moving chest was dead?

You ignoring evidence does not make that evidence go away.

"I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead." Robert Paul, 2 September Lloyd's Weekly News.

Charles Lechmere testified after Robert Paul said that. This isn't Lechmere's unsupported claim, this is Lechmere supporting a claim that Paul already made.

And when he did testify, Robert Paul confirmed that he had said the woman was dead.

"Witness felt her hands and face, and they were cold. He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not, and he thought she was dead....Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen." - Robert Paul, 18 September Times

"Her clothes were disarranged, and she appeared to be dead." - Robert Paul, 18 September Pall Mall Gazette

"He then saw the body of a woman lying across the gateway, dead." - Robert Paul, 22 September Illustrated Police News

[Darryl Kenyon]

The yardage is one of the problems I have always had with the Lech theory . Robert Paul does seem to be a reluctant, maybe nervous individual who didn't want to get involved . But how was Lech supposed to know that ? For all he knew the person approaching him could have been a policeman, an off duty policeman or someone who used to be a constable. Or perhaps even just someone of a suspicious nature . Any of those could ask awkward questions for him.
.
Lech says himself - He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from.
So he knew which directions the footsteps were coming from and he probably could surmise that no one was coming in the other direction, if indeed Bucks row was some form of acoustic tunnel.

Now someone walking at an average speed of 3 mph from forty yards away would reach Lech in 30 secs . Of course there is the argument that Paul could have been walking quickly to work, but at the same time it was very dark in Bucks row so he could have been treading more carefully as he went along.
So lets say Lech as between 20 and 40 secs secs to move off in the other direction in badly lit conditions where there is a fair chance a good description of him would not be obtained . Or he could stick around with perhaps blood on him or on his clothes or with the bloodied knife more than likely to be on his person [ since none was found in the area ], with fresh blood on it or on his hands. Not dried blood which he may have been able to explain away.

Which would you choose ?

Regards Darryl

[Herlock Sholmes]

The yardage is one of the problems I have always had with the Lech theory . Robert Paul does seem to be a reluctant, maybe nervous individual who didn't want to get involved . But how was Lech supposed to know that ? For all he knew the person approaching him could have been a policeman, an off duty policeman or someone who used to be a constable. Or perhaps even just someone of a suspicious nature . Any of those could ask awkward questions for him.
.
Lech says himself - He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from.
So he knew which directions the footsteps were coming from and he probably could surmise that no one was coming in the other direction, if indeed Bucks row was some form of acoustic tunnel.

Now someone walking at an average speed of 3 mph from forty yards away would reach Lech in 30 secs . Of course there is the argument that Paul could have been walking quickly to work, but at the same time it was very dark in Bucks row so he could have been treading more carefully as he went along.
So lets say Lech as between 20 and 40 secs secs to move off in the other direction in badly lit conditions where there is a fair chance a good description of him would not be obtained . Or he could stick around with perhaps blood on him or on his clothes or with the bloodied knife more than likely to be on his person [ since none was found in the area ], with fresh blood on it or on his hands. Not dried blood which he may have been able to explain away.

Which would you choose ?

Regards Darryl

It’s a no brainer Darryl,

A guilty man would have been gone and under those conditions there’s just no way that Paul could have somehow got so close to a guilty Cross that escape became impossible and he was forced to stick around. There’s also the fact that Cross couldn’t have known what Paul had or hadn’t been able to see as he’d approached. So how could he have claimed to have seen the body from the middle of the road if there was a chance that Paul might have seen him returning from the body. And it can’t be said “well he might have moved when Paul was a longer distance away” because that just makes it more and more likely that Cross would have gone.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sorry, but I have no idea why we have introduced a man's performance at a urinal into this debate.

I have taken "trickle" and "dribble" from a dictionary, additional alternatives are "sluggish flow", and "pass slowly". Take your pick.

The Church of Lechmere uses its very own dictionary Doc.