Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Nice. This got me thinking and I was wondering if we might be able to tailor the above more specifically to the Nichols' case.
Nichols was a bit smaller compared to the average female today (she was only 5' 2" tall, and apparently the average height for adult females in the UK today is 5'4"). Also, the average person will include males, who tend to be larger.

I did a quick search to see if there was any way to convert a person's weight to an estimate of blood volume. Apparently, according to Wikipedia, the source of all truth and knowledge, "The blood volume is 70 ml/kg body weight in adult males, 65 ml/kg in adult females and 70-75 ml/kg in children (1 year old and over)."

So I thought I would grab Nichols' weight from her description on the Victim's page, but (and there's always a but) unfortunately, I can't find any record of her weight, only her height (5' 2"). So next I went looking at a way to estimate weight based upon height.

That led me to this though, which lists ranges for weight for women of various heights presuming a healthy BMI. It could be argued that Nichols might, due to her poverty, be below a healthy BMI, and she is described on the victim's page as having "small delicate features", but I've got with these values to be conservative. The table would suggest a weight between 104 and 131lbs, or 47 to 59.5 kg. That page also provides a link to height-weight ranges for under weight, overweight, and obese ranges too.

I stuck with a healthy range to start, and that would suggest that her blood volume is likely to have been much less than the 5000ml average, and would likely be in the range of 3073 ml to 3870 ml.

And using the low medium and high rates of blood loss you mentioned, those give us 50% loss times of (when the heart stops beating, so no more loss under pressure):

.........................slow........med........fa st
104lbs (47kg) .. 2m 29s | 2m 04s | 1m 46s
131lbs (59.5kg) 3m 07s | 2m 36s | 2m 14s

all of which are under 3 minutes, apart from the 3m 7s for slow rate and upper end of the chosen weights.

Obviously, if she was lighter than I've included the times get shorter, and if she was heavier they would get longer.
The "overweight" range on the table is listed as 136 to 158 lbs (61.8-71.8kgs), and doing the same thing with those we are still under 4 minutes to reach the 50% blood loss even under the well over weight and slow rate of loss.

.........................slow........med........fa st
136lbs (61.8kg) 3m 15s | 2m 42s | 2m 19s
158lbs (71.8kg) 3m 46s | 3m 08s | 2m 41s

As a result, it is rather improbable that any of the police saw "bleeding under pressure", and any bleeding would be passive flow. We know it's going to take between 3 and 4 minutes for the carmen to reach Mizen, and he in turn will require another 3-4 minutes to get to the crime scene, so at the very least we're talking 6 minutes, in which case we're well beyond any of these times. Given PC Neil seems to arrive about the time the carmen reach PC Mizen, and their journey looks to require over 3 minutes, that means PC Neil appears to arrive between 3 & 4 minutes after the carmen left (and of course, she's also bleeding the whole time Cross/Lechmere has to wait for Paul to come up, then for them to examine her, etc), which just makes it even less and less probable that she would be bleeding under pressure by the time PC Neil arrives, let alone Mizen.

Now, if JtR was interrupted by Cross/Lechmere entering Buck's Row, it would take him roughly 1m 30s to get to the crime scene, but he waits for Paul, who has to walk another 120 feet, so another 25seconds. The murder, starting at the point of the first throat cut, probably only required a couple minutes, let's say 2 since all he has to do is cut the throat twice, lift the dress, and make a number of stabs and cuts. Maybe 2 minutes is overly generous and I should say 1 to avoid cherry picking. So from the time of the first throat cut in this situation, she's been bleeding under pressure for something like 2m 55s by the time the carmen reach her body.

As such, under those circumstances, there is the slightest possibility that Paul could have detected the last signs of life, although that tends to require her to be near the upper end of the healthy weight and to have bled on the slow end of the range. Given her wounds, and her life style, I'm thinking that's a hard position to defend, but it is there to consider.

Anyway, I think there's some useful information here that can be used. Obviously, there are assumptions one has to make, but by working with the upper and lower limits (the margins of error introduced due to our having to make assumptions), I think we can still use that to guide our understanding.

- Jeff

Good work Jeff,
Nice examples of body weight v Blood volume.

I would tend to suggest she was larger than you think BMI wise, she is described as being well built, some even suggest stout.

Sadly as you have found we have no real data.
Therefore you assumptions are a valid range.

Your post takes mine a step further, adding to the arguments against either officer seeing Bleeding under pressure.

Very Good and informative post.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Hi Jeff,

This is from the Chapman inquest:

The Foreman: Is there anything to indicate that the crime in the case of the woman Nicholls was perpetrated with the same object as this?
The Coroner: There is a difference in this respect, at all events, that the medical expert is of opinion that, in the case of Nicholls, the mutilations were made first.

Of course it is only an opinion by the medical expert, but it could also be an explanation as to why Lechmere didn't just leave. If this were his first murder and the throat cutting was not yet part of his ritual, he may have been about to depart when Polly showed signs of regaining consciousness. By the time he decide to cut her throat, and did so, to eliminate her identifying him, Paul may have been too close for him to scarper.

I'm no expert on the matter, but it is my understanding that the Ripper strangled the victims before cutting their throats, so there would be very little blood pressure involved. Isn't that why the medical opinion was that there would not necessarily be blood on the perpetrator?

Best regards, George

Hi George,
This is one of those issues which is hard to resolve, which wounds came first.

But for Llewellyn, we would I suggest all reject the abdomen wounds as first.

In his summing up, in the Daily News and others 24th September Baxter says the following which appears to challenge the view of Llewellyn, I submit that if Llewellyn was 100% certain, and Provided solid evidence for his opinion Baxter would not say this .

"Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were first, and caused instantaneous death; but, if so, it seems difficult to understand the object of such desperate injuries to the throat, or how it comes about that there was so little bleeding from the several arteries, that the clothing on the upper surface was not stained, and, indeed, very much less bleeding from the abdomen than from the neck. Surely it may well be that, as in the case of Chapman, the dreadful wounds to the throat were inflicted first and the others afterwards."

Inside Bucks Row devotes a whole chapter to this question, and I reach no conclusive decision, but on balance go with throat first.

Steve

[Elamarna]

We know the beats of the PC's but if he doesn't have a specific beat then surely that makes him more questionable?

Just a thought

Hi RD, actually we don't know the exact, pricise, beats of the police in J Division .
No official records remain.

We do have a press report in the Echo, 21st September, which gives the beats for some of the J Division beats, but it's far from conclusive and is a little vague.

Steve

[Elamarna]

My reply here is to both RD and Herlock, seemed easier to do as a single reply.

Herlock, you're undoubtedly brilliant and one of the very best minds working this case, but I would just like to counter your timings slightly...

Lechmere would have arrived in Bucks Row around 3.37am and so based on your own version of the times (based as you say on the evidence) it appears to inadvertently play into the hands of those who believe Lechmere responsible for slaying Nichols.

Again this demonstrates the issue of using absolute times.

We CANNOT say what time Lechmere would arrive in Bucks Row, there are too many variables.
His departure time is a vague "about"
His route and walking speed are unknown.

A time for the walk comes out in the range of 6.5 minutes to 8 minutes.

Taking the bottom of 6.5 , and using Herlock's 3.33, we have Lech arriving at between 3.39 and 3.40.

I say this because if based on your timings the real killer enters Bucks Row at 3.39am, Lechmere would have been there and that just doesn't work.

Bearing in mind I believe Lechmere to be INNOCENT, I feel the only way he can be innocent is if the real killer has left Bucks Row BEFORE 3.36am.


If he's there any later then Lechmere would have seen, heard or seen Nichol's and the killer enter Bucks Row themselves.

The killer only needs to have left before Lechmere reaches the point at which he notices the body.

Trying to asign an absolute time to it, only sets inaccurate limits

The one witness who is always overlooked is Mrs Lilley who heard moans, voices outside the window and the train passing by.

This occured around 3.30am and fits perfectly for Lechmere arriving just a couple of minutes AFTER the killer left.

We cannot be sure of what time the train passed, it gives a range rather than an exact time.

By stating that the killer arrived at 3.39am, it makes Lechmere the killer.

I of course dont like using these absolute timings, however, even using them and the time given by Herlock of arrival by Lechmere at 3.41, that still leaves a 2 minute window for the killer, it's tight but by no means impossible for the another killer to be involved.

Now the later killing time you suggest DOES work perfectly with the blood and both Pc Neil AND Pc Mizen, but something doesn't add up.

The mystery is that the murder couldn't have taken place after 3.35am, unless Lechmere left later than 3.30am and Mrs Lilley made it all up or was mistaken about her timings.
She recalls the train passing by and that's not something that a person who invents a story would be likely to mention.

I fail to understand why you think the murder cannot have occurred after 3.35.

Why is Lechmere leaving home after 3.30 an issue?
He says about? Not at.
Harriet lilley, does NOT give a time, only that she heard a train pass, the exact time the train passed is unknown, nor is it clear from her press report, if the other noises she heard occurred as the train passed or after it had passed.
It gives us a possible window, that is all.

Why can't the murder have occured between 3.28 and 3.35am?
The only thing that challenged that is the blood loss reported by 2 separate policeman.

If they were correct about their observations then the murder is likely to have occurred later...which makes Lechmere much more of a suspect.

It certainly could have occurred at that time.

Again I must repeat, the statements of Neil and Mizen do NOT challenge this.
They DO NOT report bleeding under pressure, that is simply an interpretation of some who wish to see it as such.

Respectfully I feel your listed timings have played into the hands of those who favour Lechmere.

Thought please?

I will say they are too pricise for me personally, I would prefer a range myself.
However, having said that, I submit that unless you accept the interpretation that Neil and Mizen see bleeding under pressure, one which for me is just wishful thinking, they do not favour Lechmere in anyway.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,

"Ooze" means to trickle or dribble, and "running", used as it was, means moving as opposed to stationary. As Herlock points out adding "profusely" totally changes the meaning, and is therefore not remotely relevant.

You ignored the fact that I mentioned "surprise" and "suspicion" in the same sentence. No-one expressed any surprise, concern or suspicion about the oozing blood. Indeed, as you are well aware, the Coroner, Abberline and Swanson, having read the relevant statements, evidence which we don't have, were entirely satisfied with Lechmere and Paul's accounts.

People talk of no "unusual sound", for example - they are thinking of out of the ordinary or suspicious noises. Men walking to work are not in that category. A police officer pounding his beat is on the look-out for suspicious characters hanging around, drunks, fighting and the like. Something routine like men walking to work would attract no attention.

You are right to mention that the many people who did comment said that it was an unusually quiet night, that is relevant. It is why the evidence of Harriet Lilley, and the sounds she heard when a train was passing becomes so potentially relevant.

As for the "Mizen scam", if the entire Metropolitan Police officially accept the Paul and Lechmere version of events and not those of a police officer, then I am with the Met. They had the very necessary opportunity to talk to Mizen about the alternative evidence, and they accepted that Paul and Lechmere were correct. I refuse to accept that they were all so stupid that they accepted a version of events that contradicted a police officer, unless the evidence was very strong indeed.

I´m afraid I think it is relevant in the extreme that we can see that "oozing" can be described as a profusion of blood. That is the exact thing my example proved, just as Richard Jones agreed with me about it. if we were to disallow coupling the term with any adjective and then say that oozing can only be a slow trickling, we would disallow any other alternative than the one you prefer. And that is not a sound way to go about things.

It is true that nobody expressed any surprise or suspicion as far as we can tell. But as I have said, we have two prominent forensic medicos saying that they favor 3-5 minutes as the likely bleeding time, but neither man excluded seven or nine minutes either. So what would there be any surprise, Doctored? It of course also applies that the victorians were less knowledgeable about medical and forensic matters than we are today, so I seen bo reason at all for them to be surprised. Even Mizens observation fits into what Thiblin and Payne James said, although it started to nibble away at the less likely timings.

I think we must accept that Neil was asked if he was aware of any other person being about as he turned into Bucks Row, and it also applies that on an unusually quiet night, he must have heard Lechmere and Paul. If you feel he could somehow have missed out on them or failed to remember them, then that is a stance you are of course allowed to. I can only say that I disagree totally with it, because what Neil said was that there was noone about and the night was unusually quiet. If a seasoned PC says that, I prefer to go with it as the likely truth.

When it comes to Harriet Lilley, I remain where I always was. She heard a train passing at 3.30 (it was supposedly bang on time) and she coupled that even to hearing voices under her window. If that was the murder she heard, then it applies that the victim still bled at around 3.54, 24 minutes after the cutting had been done. Ingemar Thiblin tells me that 10-15 minutes of bleeding would be the extreme option and so adding a further nine minutes does not sound anywhere near viable to me. I know that many like Lilleys testimony, but I am not one of them. It also applies that it seems I share that sentiment with the police of the time and the coroner of the inquest, neither of whom seem to have taken any interest in Lilley. So for me, the indications are very clear that she was ruled out.

On the Mizen scam, you basically repeat your belief that the police would not have gotten things wrong. Criminal history tells us that such a suggestion is not in sync with reality. There are tons of examples where the police have looked stupid and/or incompetent, and I think you are aware of that yourself. Therefore, I think that refusing to believe that has so many times been a recorded part of history is not a useful attitude. And - again - we both know that it took more than a hundred years before anybody noted the potential explosive power built into this matter. So history itself turns against you on the point - what you call self evident was overlooked for a century. We need to take that into account. Plus of course, scores of people have read my suggestion and have no problems accepting it, people like Richard Jones and Tom Wescott amongst them. It is your own choice if you want to call them stupid for it, but keep in mind that people who disagree with us sometimes do so for eminent reasons.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Interesting that yet again Fish calls on criminal history to make a point. Therefore I’ll ask the questions again. From criminal history……

Can any example be provided of a serial killer who killed on the way to work and when he was 15/20 minutes away?

Can any example be provided of a serial killer who killed someone in the street and pretended to have found the body?

Can any example be provided of a serial killer who, after killing his victim, stood around waiting for a member of the public to turn up?

[Fisherman]

Since I see it out here, I would like to take the opportunity to point out that I or Edward Stow - who basically are the ones responsible for the Lechmere theory discussed out here, are not suggesting that the blood PCs Neil and Mizen saw was emitted under pressure. We both believe it was a passive bleeding, in both cases. So do doctors Payne James and Thiblin.

The idea that the theory would have suggested that the bleeding was under pressure may have come from Steve Blomers book Inside Bucks Row, where lots of examples of what the theory suggests are listed, one of them being that the blood Neil saw was under pressure.
That is not what I and Edward say and it is not what Payne James and Thiblin says, so it is unfortunate in the extreme that Steve Blomer should have claimed it as a general belief within the Lechmere theory.

This was always going to be a risk when somebody makes claims that are not true when it comes to the originators of the theory. This was why I pointed it out in my answer to Steve Blomer earlier.

It of course follows that any calculations about the blood flow, based on the idea of pressurized blood, is not applicable to the Lechmere theory the way I and Edward Stow present it. Therefore, it does not belong to any serious discussion.

A passive bleeding would, according to the two forensic specialists, be most likely to go on for 3-5 minutes, whereas neither man excluded up to 9 minutes as being impossible in any way. Ingemar Thiblin stated that he believed 10-15 minutes of bleeding would be the extreme, meaning that neither Neils nor Mizens observations of the blood would be impossible. Indeed, it would also allow for the suggestion of a preceding killer, although such a man would have had to work in the time window of 10-15 minutes that Thiblin called an unlikely - but possible - extreme.

[Elamarna]

That Fisherman, continues to argue over the meaning of "oozing" while at the same time saying that he is talking of passive bleeding is amazing.

Claiming that some experts say passive bleeding will most likely go on for 3-5 minutes, and that 10 or 15 minutes is an extreme possibility is contrary to known medical science.
Such demonstrates that either there is no real understanding of what those experts said in reply to the questions asked them, questions that it must be said showed a lack of basic physiology or that the continuing claim is a genuine attempt to mislead.

To suggest that figures based on bleeding under pressure are irrelevant to the case and have no place in a serious debate, simply show that such data cannot be denied , so an attempt is made to remove such data from the debate.

This truly is both shameful and disingenuous. No wonder few in academia take this subject seriously.

If I upset people by saying this does not matter, but it needs to be said.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The issue is a simple one. How long had Cross been there by the time that Robert Paul arrived. Fish suggests that there was a gap of time and that we should have Cross arriving in Bucks Row around 3.37. So….

As we know that the murder and mutilations could only have taken a minute or two then we have to ask what was Cross doing? Even the most zealous Cross supporter couldn’t claim that he’d stood around on the off-chance of a victim appearing providing him with just enough time to kill and mutilate before clocking in. And surely they can’t assume that Cross and Nichols stood around chatting so that he was left to kill her stupidly close to the time when he had to be at work? Equally it can’t be suggested that the woman who’d told Emily Holland that she’d soon get her doss money required a few minutes of cajoling before she gave in to him?

And even if he had arrived at 3.37 and Paul had arrived at around 3.45 then more glaringly obvious questions arise. Like why the relatively minimal level of mutilations? Did he kill her and then loiter around for 5 minutes to see if someone else turned up?

So realistically, guilty or innocent (and he was clearly innocent), Cross couldn’t have been with Nichols more than a couple of minutes before Paul got there. So he told the truth when he said that he’d left the house ‘around 3.30,’ (which was likely to have been around 3.33)

It all points to Cross being entirely innocent. There can be almost no doubt about this. Despite the stitch up.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That Fisherman, continues to argue over the meaning of "oozing" while at the same time saying that he is talking of passive bleeding is amazing.

Claiming that some experts say passive bleeding will most likely go on for 3-5 minutes, and that 10 or 15 minutes is an extreme possibility is contrary to known medical science.
Such demonstrates that either there is no real understanding of what those experts said in reply to the questions asked them, questions that it must be said showed a lack of basic physiology or that the continuing claim is a genuine attempt to mislead.

To suggest that figures based on bleeding under pressure are irrelevant to the case and have no place in a serious debate, simply show that such data cannot be denied , so an attempt is made to remove such data from the debate.

This truly is both shameful and disingenuous. No wonder few in academia take this subject seriously.

If I upset people by saying this does not matter, but it needs to be said.

Well said Steve. There is far to much pussyfooting about on this subject. The level to which some stoop on this subject is embarrassing.

[Fisherman]

That Fisherman, continues to argue over the meaning of "oozing" while at the same time saying that he is talking of passive bleeding is amazing.

Claiming that some experts say passive bleeding will most likely go on for 3-5 minutes, and that 10 or 15 minutes is an extreme possibility is contrary to known medical science.
Such demonstrates that either there is no real understanding of what those experts said in reply to the questions asked them, questions that it must be said showed a lack of basic physiology or that the continuing claim is a genuine attempt to mislead.

To suggest that figures based on bleeding under pressure are irrelevant to the case and have no place in a serious debate, simply show that such data cannot be denied , so an attempt is made to remove such data from the debate.

This truly is both shameful and disingenuous. No wonder few in academia take this subject seriously.

If I upset people by saying this does not matter, but it needs to be said.

Since I have already debated with you, let's answer this. But I do not intend to have the whole hoard of naysayers to deal with simultaneously, one at the time is my aim.

- I have already said many, many times that I understand "oozing" in this case as welling out but with no underlying heartbeat pressure. There is therefore no need to be amazed.

- If what I quot from Jason Payne James and Ingemar Thiblin is opposed to known medical science, then Jason Payne James and Ingemar Thiblin, two renowned medical forensics, are themselves opposed to known medical science. I don't think they are.

Here is an excerpt from my conversation with Payne James, regarding criticism Trevor Marriott offered. It may be of interest.

Me: When I have discussed this with you, you said that you were of the meaning that Nichols probably bled out in a few minutes, more likely three or five minutes than seven. And you said that Lechmere seemingly fit the pattern of coagulation too. And then you took great care to point out that there could be deviations, wherefore your opinion in no way should be looked upon as conclusive.

Basically, I understood this as meaning that Lechmere seemed to fit the pattern, but it could be that somebody else was the culprit. However, the larger the time gap, the less likely that there WAS another killer - if we needed to predispose that Nichols bled for very many minutes to fit another killer in, then that would be a less likely alternative than Lechmere.

I am thankful for any help that you may offer. If you could state that you are happy about how your view was depicted by Blink Films and that you don´t feel you were misrepresented (which Marriott claims) it would be a great start. If you could confirm that my picture that you would not expected Nichols to have bled for any more than a few minutes, it would be even better.

J P J:Hi Christer,

Yes, bit surprised by the comments particularly as I emphasised that I was not in anyway placing myself in the position of determining who the Ripper was, merely responding as best I could to the reasonable questions put to me. That's why I am always reluctant to get involved in turf wars with those who have an agenda. That's also a point I made. Ho hum!

And this is from my conversation with Jason Payne James regarding how he is quoted in Cutting Point:

Me: I am sending you the chapter from my upcoming book on Charles Lechmere/Jack the Ripper/The Thames Torso killer, so that you can have a look at it and tell me if you are alright with the wording. The parts where you are concerned are in bold.

Here are the bold parts:

In a conversation with professor Jason Payne-James, a specialist in forensic and legal medicine and consultant forensic physician and the forensic expert taking part in the documentary ”The Missing Evidence - Jack the Ripper”, I inquired about how long time a woman with the damage that Nichols had would bleed from the neck before the blood had been emptied out and stopped running. I asked whether it could be a matter of perhaps three, five or seven minutes. Professor Payne James´ response was that all three suggestions could per se be correct, but he personally favored three or five minutes as the likelier answer. It should be noted that professor Payne-James was well acquainted with the total damage done to the body of Polly Nichols.

My own estimation of the timings is that many minutes would have passed after Nichols was cut and before Mizen could possibly have reached the murder spot. Coupling that with Payne-James´ view, the outcome of the equation is obvious; it was in all probability Lechmere who cut the throat of Nichols. If it was somebody who preceded Lechmere, it would push the time into a less credible stretch.

and

And there we have it. Two professors in forensic medicine, renowned specialists in the field, agree that as we arrive at the seven minute mark of continued bleeding, we have entered a time span where they are both are inclined to think it likely that the bleeding should have stopped. What we have on record is instead likely a nine minute bleeding time if Lechmere was the killer. Worse still, if we want to find another killer, we need to add a further minute or two, at the very least, ending up at a time span that is even further removed from what should be realistically expected.

Since there are no cases to compare from and since every case is unique, neither professor excludes the possibility that Nichols could have bled for a period of time that could perhaps have allowed for another killer. The message from these specialists is nevertheless loud and clear: Charles Lechmere is very much likelier to have been the cutter than another killer preceding him in Bucks Row.

In short: If the bleeding time followed the expectations of the forensic medical experts, then there is only one candidate for the killers role.

J P J: Hi Christer,

That's fine. All very best, Jason

I of course have what Thiblin said too, but it is in Swedish, and so it is something you will be unable to read and understand, I take it. But Payne James´ replies should be enough, I would hope. So this is the man you consider as being "in conflict with known medical science". If you would be so kind as to provide us with the names of those who have a picture that nullifies Payne James´ ditto, I would be interested to hear them. Until that happens and until Jason Payne James changes his opinion, I will go with my conviction that he is an eminent source. That means that I rate his opinion as more likely to be true than your own opinion, based on anonymous discussions with who knows. Knowledgeable people, one would hope - but more qualified than Jason Payne James...?

- I did not complain about any discussion of bleeding under pressure. What I complained about was how you in your book, contrary to the truth, claim that the Lechmere theory suggests that Neil saw bleeding under pressure. And that we think that Neil arrived to see that pressurized bleeding two minutes after Lechmere was in place!
You are welcome to discuss pressurized bleeding as much as you like to, but it remains that I believe that it is irrelevant to the case at hand, with the possible exception of the initial bleeding in somebody who has been recently killed and lost the heartbeat. In such persons, there will remain a lessened pressure in the vessels for some little time, and that may well have been the case for Nichols. In that respect, low pressure bleeding will perhaps initially have played some small role, but it seems to me by way of Llewellyns remarks that it would have taken place at the abdomen and not at the throat.

- As for your remarks about intentional misleadings and shameful or/and disingenuous posting on my behalf, I will leave that part uncommented on since I do not think it belongs to a serious discussion.

With this I hope to be allowed to return to my discussion with Doctored Whatsit.

[Ms Diddles]

Hi Herlock,

Interesting that yet again Fish calls on criminal history to make a point. Therefore I’ll ask the questions again. From criminal history……

Can any example be provided of a serial killer who killed on the way to work and when he was 15/20 minutes away.

No, but I did read recently that Peter Kurten murdered one of his victims whilst on his lunch break, which struck me as potentially relevant to your first question.

You got me on the other two though!

[Doctored Whatsit]

I´m afraid I think it is relevant in the extreme that we can see that "oozing" can be described as a profusion of blood. That is the exact thing my example proved, just as Richard Jones agreed with me about it. if we were to disallow coupling the term with any adjective and then say that oozing can only be a slow trickling, we would disallow any other alternative than the one you prefer. And that is not a sound way to go about things.

It is true that nobody expressed any surprise or suspicion as far as we can tell. But as I have said, we have two prominent forensic medicos saying that they favor 3-5 minutes as the likely bleeding time, but neither man excluded seven or nine minutes either. So what would there be any surprise, Doctored? It of course also applies that the victorians were less knowledgeable about medical and forensic matters than we are today, so I seen bo reason at all for them to be surprised. Even Mizens observation fits into what Thiblin and Payne James said, although it started to nibble away at the less likely timings.

I think we must accept that Neil was asked if he was aware of any other person being about as he turned into Bucks Row, and it also applies that on an unusually quiet night, he must have heard Lechmere and Paul. If you feel he could somehow have missed out on them or failed to remember them, then that is a stance you are of course allowed to. I can only say that I disagree totally with it, because what Neil said was that there was noone about and the night was unusually quiet. If a seasoned PC says that, I prefer to go with it as the likely truth.

When it comes to Harriet Lilley, I remain where I always was. She heard a train passing at 3.30 (it was supposedly bang on time) and she coupled that even to hearing voices under her window. If that was the murder she heard, then it applies that the victim still bled at around 3.54, 24 minutes after the cutting had been done. Ingemar Thiblin tells me that 10-15 minutes of bleeding would be the extreme option and so adding a further nine minutes does not sound anywhere near viable to me. I know that many like Lilleys testimony, but I am not one of them. It also applies that it seems I share that sentiment with the police of the time and the coroner of the inquest, neither of whom seem to have taken any interest in Lilley. So for me, the indications are very clear that she was ruled out.

On the Mizen scam, you basically repeat your belief that the police would not have gotten things wrong. Criminal history tells us that such a suggestion is not in sync with reality. There are tons of examples where the police have looked stupid and/or incompetent, and I think you are aware of that yourself. Therefore, I think that refusing to believe that has so many times been a recorded part of history is not a useful attitude. And - again - we both know that it took more than a hundred years before anybody noted the potential explosive power built into this matter. So history itself turns against you on the point - what you call self evident was overlooked for a century. We need to take that into account. Plus of course, scores of people have read my suggestion and have no problems accepting it, people like Richard Jones and Tom Wescott amongst them. It is your own choice if you want to call them stupid for it, but keep in mind that people who disagree with us sometimes do so for eminent reasons.

This is totally pointless Christer, as we are both continually repeating the same things. I will restate my main points for the last time, because they haven't changed, and unless someone provides fresh convincing information, they won't change.

Nichols was killed, very likely at about 3. 30 - 3. 35 am, being heard only by Harriet Lilley, despite others being awake and nearby, the sounds being muffled by the noise of a passing train. Lechmere arrived, probably about 3.40 am or shortly after, and drew the attention of Paul to the body. They checked her hands and face, and found them cold. By lifting her hands off the ground to check the temperature, and maybe to look for a pulse, and maybe also to attempt to rouse her, believing her to be possibly drunk, they inevitably started the blood to ooze gently from the neck wound - if it had actually stopped oozing, which it might not have done.

They went off, probably in a bit of a hurry, because they were concerned about not being late for work, and about 300 yards away, thet met PC Mizen, and advised him of the body. This was at about 3. 45 am, and at appx the same time PC Neil found the body. He noticed blood oozing from the wound, and also checked the temperature of her hands, and her arms under her clothes, and in so doing raised her hands a little off the ground, restarted the blood oozing from the throat, if it had stopped, which is why Mizen reported some blood oozing a few minutes later.

The doctor looked at the body and decided that death had occurred up to about 30 minutes before. He didn't seem to be the slightest bit concerned about a little bit of oozing blood, and neither were the police or the Coroner.

As for the alleged "Mizen scam", I repeat that the police had plenty of time to talk to Paul, Lechmere and Mizen and establish the truth. Clearly Paul's statement must have matched Lechmere's or the Coroner, Abberline and Swanson could not have concluded that the two of them spoke to Mizen and told him what they had seen. They must have both said that was what happened, because the Met officially decided that Mizen was mistaken. It is ludicrous to suggest that the police would easily dismiss the claim of a police officer that a witness was lying. They would have been suspicious of Lechmere, and needed evidence to clear him. Frankly, they had all of the appropriate evidence, and the opportunity to discuss further with all three if there were discrepancies. We have none of this evidence. So the idea that we know they were wrong is based on nothing whatever, and flies in the face of what was decided at the time by those who collected all of the information they needed to make the decision.

[Fisherman]

Hi Herlock,



No, but I did read recently that Peter Kurten murdered one of his victims whilst on his lunch break, which struck me as potentially relevant to your first question.

You got me on the other two though!

Since I was not planning on debating with you, Ms Diddles (but I would be happy to try and answer any questions you may have some way down the line), I can perhaps help out with the part about killing right before work, putting you at risk to be late. This is a snippet about the killer duo of Lawrence Bittaker and Roy Norris, killing women in a van they used, calling it "Murder Mack", my underlining:

Bittaker and Norris made their third foray on Labor Day, September 3. Cruising through Hermosa Beach, they spotted two girls seated on the bench at a bus stop, where Pier Avenue met Pacific Coast Highway. Fifteen-year-old Jackie Gilliam and 13-year-old Leah Lamp weren’t waiting for the bus, but they seemed happy to accept a ride with no special destination in mind. Bittaker and Norris later told police the girls were also glad to accept Larry’s offer to smoke a joint.
Lighting up, he passed the joint around and told his passengers that he was heading for the beach. Jackie and Leah challenged him moments later, as Bittaker turned away from the ocean and started driving northward, but he stalled them with excuses, claiming he merely wanted to find a safe place to park while they got high. The girls protested when Bittaker parked near a suburban tennis court. Leah started to open the door, but Norris was faster, swinging a sawed-off baseball bat against her skull.
A fierce struggle ensued. Bittaker waded in to help Norris, finally subduing the teenagers and trussing them with duct tape. Only when they were secured and silenced did he notice several tennis players watching from the nearby courts. Worried that someone might call the police, Bittaker gunned the van and sped away toward his hideout in the San Gabriel Mountains. But no one called the police. The witnesses returned to their tennis games, dismissing the strange incident.
Bittaker and Norris kept their latest hostages alive for nearly two days. They kept an audiotape of their rape and torture. Among other things, the tape captured Norris raping Jackie Gilliam, demanding that she play the role of a cousin who was the object of some of his sexual fantasies.
Tired of the game and running dangerously late for work, Bittaker repeated his trick with the ice pick, stabbing Gilliam in both ears. As with Andrea Hall, it made her scream but failed to kill her, so the rapists took turns strangling Jackie to death. Afterward, they turned on Lamp, Bittaker squeezing her throat while Norris pounded her head seven times with a sledgehammer. They pitched their victims off a cliff, with the ice pick still imbedded in Jackie Gilliam’s skull.

I only just found this, so I need to look more into it. But it seems we here have somebody who killed right before going to his job and who took the risk of being late for work. Otherwise, it actually applies that everything that ever happened in a serial killer case must always have happened a first time at some stage. And every year, things that have never happened before in murder cases take place for the first time. Therefore, I do not think the argument that something has not happened before (and it seems that may be wrong anyway, as per the Bittaker story) means that it will never happen in the future either.

[Fisherman]

This is totally pointless Christer, as we are both continually repeating the same things. I will restate my main points for the last time, because they haven't changed, and unless someone provides fresh convincing information, they won't change.

Yes, debates where nobody changes his mind are basically pointless. As for how your views havent changed, I believe they must have when it comes to your supposition that Neil set the blood running in Nichols by lifting her hand? That was a very important find, and I would perhaps not have found it but for you, so thank you.

Anyway, I will move on to the next debater, but it will have to wait until tomorrow.

Good night, Doctored Whatsit.