What happened to Lechmere......

[Fisherman]

Caz: Aren't you forgetting something, Christer? Mizen wasn't told that the woman was certainly dead; there was no suggestion of murder or suicide; at most the carmen 'thought' she was probably dead. All Mizen saw fit to say at the inquest was that he was told 'a woman had been found' - not a corpse. In short, Neil was the first to find a 'body', as far as Mizen, or Neil, or anyone but the killer could have sworn to.

That may be the worst argument I have suffered hearing so far. They all knew in retrospect that Nichols was killed. Get a grip.

Indeed. But then why would he have said this to Mizen as an afterthought, as you suggest? Wouldn't Mizen have asked himself why Cross had waited for Paul to be out of earshot before delivering the crucial part of the message, that he was to leave his post on the orders of a fellow officer? You make Mizen come across like a gullible buffoon.

No, that was never my department - it is yours. I have no idea what you mean by afterthought here, by the way. Do you have any idea what you are on about?

[Fisherman]

And you are apparently denying life as experienced in the real world. I am somewhat less than impressed.

Clark, do not let me persuade you into something you cannot believe in. Take my advice and seek out the nearest police station. Go in there and ask the desk sergeant what importance they ascribe to people being found at murder spots, with freshly slain victims.

I think that is all I can do for you.

[Fisherman]

caz: I know this wasn't addressed to me, Christer, but I'd like to offer a couple of observations relating to the Nichols case.

"A couple of observations"... Wow. Sounds ambitious!

Firstly, the only person on the planet who knew Lechmere had been close to the victim was Robert Paul. He believed her to be dead but didn't know at that time the cause - that she had been very recently attacked with a knife and murdered. In fact, he claimed in the newspaper that she was so cold she must have been dead for some time, which was about as far from claiming she was ‘freshly slain’ as it was possible to take it. That would have been music to the ears of a killer who had already pulled the wool over the eyes of Paul and Mizen.

Eh...? The police never believed Pauls assertions about a cold body, Caz. They knew it was warm.

Secondly, had Lechmere not come forward, because he was the killer, and had successfully conned his way past witness and policeman, without being identified, suspected, questioned, searched, you name it, Paul would have remained the only person on the planet to claim someone else had come across this cold dead body before he had.

Yep. And ironically, it seems the police were ready to dump poor old Paul. But how would Lechmere know this? To him, it was bacon-saving time once the interview surfaced.

Thirdly, Paul lied in his press interview if it was Lechmere who alerted Mizen and if nothing was said to him about the woman being dead. If and when they tracked Paul down, and if and when Mizen realised it was the other man who had alerted him, Paul would be exposed as the liar, and anything he claimed about who was at the scene first could not have been relied upon as evidence. All Lechmere had to do was sit tight and wait. Even if Paul and Mizen were able and willing to track him down between them, and positively identify him, which is unlikely in the extreme, he had precious little to fear from a lying Paul's totally unsupported word. Mizen had no idea who was first at the scene if not Neil, and Paul’s word couldn’t be trusted.

Hum-de-dum-dum... Same answer - how was Lechmere to know that they would disbelieve Paul? And how could he "sit tight" when he would have known that with every passing second, the risk that he was declared the prime suspect grew? That was of course wrong, but how was he to know that?

Lastly, Lechmere came forward to provide the only support for it. He freely admitted he had been the first to see the woman lying there: before Paul, before Neil, before anyone on the planet. What possible incentive did he have to do that, if he killed Nichols and saw that everyone involved was dancing so perfectly to his tune? If it ain’t broke…

Yeah, smashing idea - he should have said that PAUL was the finder, and then he would be off the hook, and the police would go looking for Paul instead. Absolutely ******* brilliant, Caz!
Any idea how he should tackle things when Paul was hauled in? Just stick with his story, although Paul vehemently protested? You donīt think that would have caused any further investigations or anything like that? Into both men, for example - revealing Lechmeres real name to begin with...?
I really, really donīt think Lechmere would have wanted any commotion at all - and the best way to go about that would be to stay as close to the truth as possible.

So it's not just a case of naturally investigating the person who first 'discovered' a freshly slain victim; it’s also a question of how many killers have – or ever would - come forward to claim to be that person, when the only witness with the very slight potential to place him near the victim doesn't know him from Adam and has just lied in a newspaper account about their respective roles?

He did NOT lie about that man who stood feet away from Nichols, alone with the freshly slain corpse, however, and Lechmere knew that quite well. And - once again, Caz - he will not have liked that a bit if he was the killer. It would take some action on his behalf to clear the risk away.
And he DID clear the risk away at the inquest, with as little fuss as possible. What you are doing now is to propose that he should/would/could have done it in ways that you personally think would be better suited to handle the business. But all in all, if he was the killer, Iīd say that staying undetected for a century is not half bad.

You may have to wait for the next Ripper to dance to your pipe, Caz - this once danced to his own.

[caz]

That is rather an academic question, and as such inapplicable to the issue at hand. If it had been applicable, I would have answered that if the evidence had ruled out any other killer than Lechmere back in 1888, and if Lechmere had known this, he would be a complete idiot to come forward.

Thank you, you made the point for me. Your contention is that the 'blood evidence' makes it very difficult for an alternative killer to have done the deed and escaped before Lechmere arrived.

Lechmere presumably, like the medical men at the time, did not feel the same way, or the former would not have risked coming forward, only to become the obvious prime suspect. But how would Lechmere have known that the medical men would not see the blood evidence even more clearly than you do today, and that it would not tell them what it tells you - that he was by far the most likely killer? You seem to have fallen on your own sword here, because if you are right about your blood evidence, Lechmere was a complete idiot to come forward, not knowing that the medical men wouldn't see it too.

Oh dear - you DO think that you have a point here!! Amazing! I am anything but sure that he was aware of the contemporary insights into bleeding times and coagulation times, but since a shitload of people out here even today argue that these matters are of absolutely no consequence, you may want to invest as little enthusiasm as possible in this line of reasoning, Caz... Not least since staying away from the police and inquest could have made him the prime suspect - and THAT much I think he was able to suss out.
Gesundheit!

Exactly! Lechmere would not have been aware of what insights they had, making it risky to come forward as Paul's 'finder' if there was even a remote possibility of the medical men seeing the blood evidence as you do. Ironic, what?

And as I have argued, while staying away could have made him a person of interest, they'd have needed to find him first and they only had a cop-hating liar to help them. For all Mizen, or anyone else knew, Paul had been there first and was using the other man to cover his tracks. Your blood evidence, in the absence of a sporting Lechmere coming forward to clear Paul, would have fit just as well with Paul being the killer. The irony gets more delightful the deeper we go, doesn't it?

Love,

Caz
X

[Pcdunn]

I think that the police did place importance on anyone found in the vicinity of a body (fresh or otherwise) is shown by how they tracked down Robert Paul, after his interview had appeared in the paper.
Presumably part of this is because this fellow claimed to have found the body first, yet didn't show up at either the police station or the inquest. The police needed to find out why, and what did he know (if he did know anything, and wasn't merely a glory-seeker with a complaint against the police).

I'd say the police considered Paul at least a "person of interest", if not something more.

[Fisherman]

caz: Thank you, you made the point for me.

God forbid!

Your contention is that the 'blood evidence' makes it very difficult for an alternative killer to have done the deed and escaped before Lechmere arrived.

My contention is that the blood evidence makes another killer less likely, to be exact. Then again, who wants to be exact...? Why make the effort, when points are easier made with a little spice?

Lechmere presumably, like the medical men at the time, did not feel the same way, or the former would not have risked coming forward, only to become the obvious prime suspect. But how would Lechmere have known that the medical men would not see the blood evidence even more clearly than you do today, and that it would not tell them what it tells you - that he was by far the most likely killer? You seem to have fallen on your own sword here, because if you are right about your blood evidence, Lechmere was a complete idiot to come forward, not knowing that the medical men wouldn't see it too.

Donīt you read what I write, Caz? I think that Lechmere would be no expert on blood behaviour and coagulation schedules - but that he would be able to see that he would in all probability become the prime suspect if he did NOT report in.

Exactly! Lechmere would not have been aware of what insights they had, making it risky to come forward as Paul's 'finder' if there was even a remote possibility of the medical men seeing the blood evidence as you do. Ironic, what?

Yes, you are probably correct - a man willing to kill people in the open street would arguably be adverse to risks. A person killing in a fashion that witnessed about a clear-cut psychopathology would never take any risks at all. Thanks for showing me the light, Caz. Is it paraffin?

And as I have argued, while staying away could have made him a person of interest, they'd have needed to find him first and they only had a cop-hating liar to help them. For all Mizen, or anyone else knew, Paul had been there first and was using the other man to cover his tracks.

So you think that staying away would perchance have made a man found alone by a freshly slain victim "a person of interest"...?

Blimey. It IS paraffin. And it seems you may have gotten it in your eyes too. "Paul could be covering his tracks", dear me. Cover yours before it is too late, Caz.

[Fisherman]

I think that the police did place importance on anyone found in the vicinity of a body (fresh or otherwise) is shown by how they tracked down Robert Paul, after his interview had appeared in the paper.
Presumably part of this is because this fellow claimed to have found the body first, yet didn't show up at either the police station or the inquest. The police needed to find out why, and what did he know (if he did know anything, and wasn't merely a glory-seeker with a complaint against the police).

I'd say the police considered Paul at least a "person of interest", if not something more.

Holy ****! A thinking person!!! Where have you been all my life?

[Fisherman]

For Clark, in a friendly effort to explain the basiscs once more:

You are correct in saying that Lechmere was more likely than not to be innocent, since statistcally, most people found on crime scenes are not the criminals.

Nevertheless, in spite of being more likely to be innocent than guilty (all other matters unconsidered), he is NEVERTHELESS more likely to be the killer than those who were NOT found at the murder site.

So statistically unlikely to be the killer, but based on his presence on the murder site nevertheless MORE likely than the rest of the population.

This last effort empties out not only my knowledge about these things, but also a little bit of my will to live. I will therefore not go into it anymore.

[caz]

So you think that staying away would perchance have made a man found alone by a freshly slain victim "a person of interest"...?

Blimey. It IS paraffin. And it seems you may have gotten it in your eyes too. "Paul could be covering his tracks", dear me. Cover yours before it is too late, Caz.

But he wasn't found alone by a freshly slain victim, according to the one man who could have said anything resembling this. Paul claimed she was so cold she must have been dead for some time. He did not know she had been slain at that time. What is there not to grasp about the significance of this?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

But he wasn't found alone by a freshly slain victim, according to the one man who could have said anything resembling this. Paul claimed she was so cold she must have been dead for some time. He did not know she had been slain at that time. What is there not to grasp about the significance of this?

Love,

Caz
X

If-he-was-the-killer-then-he-KNEW-that-Nichols-was-very-freshly-slain-and-he-would-realize-that-the-police-would-have-been-aware-of-that-too.

There. Do I make mysef clear?

[John G]

I would just note that being "cold to the touch" is no indication of time of death. As Dr Biggs points out, "Being 'cold to the touch' really isn't helpful as even live people can feel cold to the touch. Body temperature doesn't start to drop straight away as soon as a person dies, but there is a plateau or 'lag' phase that can last a few hours. In other words, somebody could have been dead a couple of hours but still have an essentially 'normal' body temperature, whereas a live person can feel stone cold." (Marriott, 2015)

[Fisherman]

I would just note that being "cold to the touch" is no indication of time of death. As Dr Biggs points out, "Being 'cold to the touch' really isn't helpful as even live people can feel cold to the touch. Body temperature doesn't start to drop straight away as soon as a person dies, but there is a plateau or 'lag' phase that can last a few hours. In other words, somebody could have been dead a couple of hours but still have an essentially 'normal' body temperature, whereas a live person can feel stone cold." (Marriott, 2015)

Ehrm - yes. But as I keep saying, the "cold to the touch" business we are discussing here is the coldness that is often there on the skin of the hands, face and so on.
In the Ripper cases, the doctors could actually establish what warmth there was INSIDE the victims in all cases but one. And in the Nichols case, under discussion here, we also know that blood was flowing for at the very least five minutes after Lechmere left the body. And that puts it beyond reasonable doubt that Nichols was quite freshly slain when Lechmere was there.

I would also recommend caution whenever you see the name "Marriott" attaching to something - what he has failed to see, is that dr Biggs never commented on the Ripper cases per se, instead opting for speaking in general terms only. And that is all good and well, as long as we know what we are dealing with. However, once Biggs ī comments were served up as relating specifically to the different Ripper cases, it all went terribly wrong.

[John G]

Ehrm - yes. But as I keep saying, the "cold to the touch" business we are discussing here is the coldness that is often there on the skin of the hands, face and so on.
In the Ripper cases, the doctors could actually establish what warmth there was INSIDE the victims in all cases but one. And in the Nichols case, under discussion here, we also know that blood was flowing for at the very least five minutes after Lechmere left the body. And that puts it beyond reasonable doubt that Nichols was quite freshly slain when Lechmere was there.

I would also recommend caution whenever you see the name "Marriott" attaching to something - what he has failed to see, is that dr Biggs never commented on the Ripper cases per se, instead opting for speaking in general terms only. And that is all good and well, as long as we know what we are dealing with. However, once Biggs ī comments were served up as relating specifically to the different Ripper cases, it all went terribly wrong.

Hi Fisherman,

Yes, I agree that Nichols had been killed very close to the time Lechemere "discovered" the body. Dr Biggs' also pointed out, "In terms of time, there would be an initial rush of blood, but the victims blood pressure would rapidly subside...so the rate of flow would become considerably less relatively soon after injury." (Marriott, 2015)

After the circulation as stopped, it's then down to gravity to continue blood loss, and that can go on for some time.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

Yes, I agree that Nichols had been killed very close to the time Lechemere "discovered" the body. Dr Biggs' also pointed out, "In terms of time, there would be an initial rush of blood, but the victims blood pressure would rapidly subside...so the rate of flow would become considerably less relatively soon after injury." (Marriott, 2015)

After the circulation as stopped, it's then down to gravity to continue blood loss, and that can go on for some time.

According to Jason Payne-James, who DID comment on the specific case with itīs specific wounds, that bleeding would likely be overwith within five minutes. He said that the time could be longer than that, but it was less likely. As far as I can tell, that is the qualitatively best and most detailed estimation we have.

[Clark]

You are correct in saying that Lechmere was more likely than not to be innocent, since statistcally, most people found on crime scenes are not the criminals.

Nevertheless, in spite of being more likely to be innocent than guilty (all other matters unconsidered), he is NEVERTHELESS more likely to be the killer than those who were NOT found at the murder site.

So statistically unlikely to be the killer, but based on his presence on the murder site nevertheless MORE likely than the rest of the population.

This last effort empties out not only my knowledge about these things, but also a little bit of my will to live. I will therefore not go into it anymore.

Fine with me. If you can't see the contradictions within your second paragraph (as I've quoted it above), then I doubt that I can explain it to you.

Best wishes.