Blood on Charles Lechmere

[caz]

To begin with, there need not have been even the smallest speck of blood on him. And even if there was, this was a carman working for a goods depot that freighted meat on an everyday basis. Realistically, each and every one of the carmen had some blood on their clothes. They would have had other matters to speak about, methinks.

I must have missed the evidence for this, Christer. Could you please provide the sources for:

a) Lechmere working at this particular depot

b) This particular depot freighting unpackaged fresh meat on an everyday basis in the second half of 1888

c) Each and every carman at this depot routinely handling unpackaged fresh meat and therefore 'realistically' having some blood on their clothing

Thank you.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

There is every chance there was blood on Charles Lechmere - some little spot of it, at least. But it was dark, and Paul even examined Nichols without noticing any blood. Why would he see a little blood on Lechmere, if it was there?

Hi Christer,

But Lechmere didn't know who Paul would turn out to be. This stranger could very easily have been PC Neil, treading his beat, and he had a lantern to shine all over Nichols and Lechmere. Even if the blood didn't appear to extend from the wounds on Nichols to Lechmere himself, he'd have struggled to explain away the bloody knife still on his person.

"Oh that, officer! Yes, I merely used my work knife to loosen the poor dear's clothing and see what the matter was."

"You're a good man and no mistake. Off you go to work and I'll deal with this now."

Lucky Lechmere.

Love,

Caz
X

[Rosella]

To begin with, there need not have been even the smallest speck of blood on him. And even if there was, this was a carman working for a goods depot that freighted meat on an everyday basis. Realistically, each and every one of the carmen had some blood on their clothes. They would have had other matters to speak about, methinks.

I did say in my post, Fisherman, what if Lechmere had speckles of blood when he first arrived at work, before he started hauling the meat around (if that is indeed what he did.)

[Bridewell]

They are of course perfectly logical and exactly what you’d expect from a guy who found a woman lying on her back in a dark alley as he walked to work.

Quite. The irony is that, had he done what you might expect a guilty man to do and run off into the distance, no-one would ever have heard of Charles Allen Lechmere, let alone suspected him.

[Bridewell]

From the first time that I read of the case, I was amazed that the constable just took names and addresses, and sent them on their way. The past is a very different place.

In fairness to Mizen (and I'm not his biggest fan) there wasn't much else he could do. He had no reason to arrest them and they were on their way to work in an era when late arrival could result in instant dismissal.

[Fisherman]

yes i take your point fisherman,but surely it would be cast iron if he had a witness that said he saw cross touch/move the body of Polly.

Paul did say that Lechmere touched the body - but Lechmere refused to help prop it up. If he was the killer, it would be understandable, since such a thing would give away that Nichols had had her neck cut off down to the bone.

So even if he was tempted...

[dixon9]

yes i take your point fisherman,but surely it would be cast iron if he had a witness that said he saw cross touch/move the body of Polly.

[Patrick S]

From the first time that I read of the case, I was amazed that the constable just took names and addresses, and sent them on their way. The past is a very different place.

Ginger,

"Fisherman" didn't point this out so I will. Mizen DID NOT take names or addresses. He didn't ask the men (Paul and Cross/Lechmere) to identify themselves in ANY WAY. Both Paul and Lechmere left Baker's Row anonymously. This - of course - makes Lechmere's behavior after the night in questions even more puzzling (if that's possible). That is to say, he was not identified in ANY WAY, by ANYONE. He was not described to any extent beyond being called - by Paul in Lloyd's Weekly - "a man". And this "BOMBSHELL" drove him to report to inquest the next day? Please.....

[Fisherman]

lol fisherman,fair play to you with having it on his toes joke

i thought cross never as such touched the body when paul asked him to move the body.If i were cross i would have jumped at the chance to get polly's blood on me(if i was guilty),as an alibi it would have been pretty helpful

Lechmere did touch the body - but not when Paul asked him to help prop Nichols up. So the alibi would have been there.

[Patrick S]

Charles Lechmere was either one of two things:

1. Either he was a man who discovered a body on his way to work, or;
2. He was a serial killer with access to a crystal ball.

Of course, anyone not willing to suspend disbelief realizes that only one of these two options is possible.
Let us ask again: Did Lechmere have any of Nichols' blood on his person? Well, we know he didn't because it's plainly obvious that he didn't kill her. Alas, let's pretend - ridiculous as the idea plainly is - that he did kill her. First, let's deal with facts:

1. Nichols' throat was cut.
2. Nichols’ abdomen was mutilated to some degree.
3. It was very dark in Buck's Row.
4. Nichols' injuries were inflicted with a knife.
5. The knife was not found at the scene (or otherwise, for that matter).

So, based on the above facts, what can we infer? Well, I think it is reasonable to assume that if Lechmere was Nichols’ killer that he had the murder weapon hidden on his person when approached Paul (conveniently, "Fisherman" - in his "theory" has Lechmere doing just that – so no need for disagreement on this point). So, we have Lechmere killing Nichols. Doing a bit of nasty work to her abdomen. And stowing the knife on his person. And we know that it was quite dark in Buck’s Row. So, we should ask another question: Would it have been reasonable for Lechmere to assume that he DID NOT have blood on his person? Clearly he WAS somewhat certain that he did NOT have blood on his person in that he approached Robert Paul, TOUCHED his shoulder (with the same hand he just used to hide a bloody knife in his coat), and asked him to ‘COME SEE THIS WOMAN’.
Now, let’s talk more about what Lechmere could not have known without the benefit of the aforementioned crystal ball. As we know, he could not have been known that there was no blood on his clothing, or on the hand he’d used to touch Paul’s shoulder and get attention as he asked him to come see the woman he’d just butchered (even as Paul attempted to avoid him and continue on his way to work). What else could Lechmere not have known about how this encounter with Paul would go? Let’s start with the fact the he didn’t know Robert Paul. Thus, he didn’t know that Paul was – like Lechmere himself – a carman on his way to work. He didn’t know that Paul was not Nichols’ husband, her best friend, her pimp, her brother, son, father. He didn’t know what this man’s reaction would be, did he? What if Paul had been a watchman (and retired PC) like George Morris? As we know, Morris carried with him a whistle, and upon shining his lantern on the Eddowes’ body in Mitre Square, he blew that whistle. Alas, somehow Lechmere knew that this man walking alone in the dark would not blow a whistle, he would not produce a lantern or a match, he would not discover Nichols’ wounds, or blood on Lechmere, or suspect him any way at all, even as he (Lechmere) had the murder knife ON HIM. For, as we know, a bit of light would have revealed Nichols’ wounds. Yet, Lechmere knew better didn’t he? He knew that Paul had no whistle. He had no match. He knew not to touch the body, even as that would give him a perfect explanation for any blood he may have had on his person. Instead his actions are inexplicable. That is to say they are inexplicable only he had KILLED Nichols. They are of course perfectly logical and exactly what you’d expect from a guy who found a woman lying on her back in a dark alley as he walked to work.

[dixon9]

lol fisherman,fair play to you with having it on his toes joke

i thought cross never as such touched the body when paul asked him to move the body.If i were cross i would have jumped at the chance to get polly's blood on me(if i was guilty),as an alibi it would have been pretty helpful

[Errata]

Yes, if the killer did get any blood on himself, it would probably be in the shape of droplets.
But that is a big if - Jason Payne-James, the criminal pathologist from the documentary, very clearly stated that the killer need not have had much, or even any, blood on his person.
Edward Stow has suggested that the killer may have straddled Nichols, pullig the skirt up and using it as a shield from any blood spatter.

There are elements that are not easily determined, Errata.

No they aren't. And there is also impact splatter which a bystander might get and is different from blood spurting, but not to a casual observer. One would also expect a killer to get blood under his cuffs where it is unlikely that anyone touching the body would get that. But it's all subtle things. There are a 100 tiny minute differences that are used to determine how blood got where it is that was not available then. And to the best of my knowledge there is no detailed description of the blood that Lechmere did get on him. So cops back then didn't have the benefit of detailed blood spatter analysis, and we can't use what we know to try and make a determination because no description exists.

Not easily determined? Impossible more like.

[Fisherman]

The killer would be spattered with blood, while a would be rescuer would only be smeared with it. The difference between the type of blood movement from a living person and the lack of movement from contact with the dead.

Yes, if the killer did get any blood on himself, it would probably be in the shape of droplets.
But that is a big if - Jason Payne-James, the criminal pathologist from the documentary, very clearly stated that the killer need not have had much, or even any, blood on his person.
Edward Stow has suggested that the killer may have straddled Nichols, pullig the skirt up and using it as a shield from any blood spatter.

There are elements that are not easily determined, Errata.

[Errata]

The killer would be spattered with blood, while a would be rescuer would only be smeared with it. The difference between the type of blood movement from a living person and the lack of movement from contact with the dead.

[Fisherman]

if Cross did kill Polly(which i think is what is being talked about,sorry if i have got wrong end of stick) Surely

(a) Cross would have had it on his toes when Paul came along
(b) would have moved the body,as suggested by Paul,so he would have had an excuse why he had blood on him


again sorry if i have got wrong end of the stick,as to what this thread is about

It´s the right end of the stick, Dixon, so no need to apologize! But I would like to know why you think he had blood on his toes (if that is your suggestion).Plus, why would it not suffice to examine the woman the way they did, to get an excuse for any blood on his person?