Blood on Charles Lechmere

[Fisherman]

What about when Lechmere arrived at work, (before he started hauling meat around, if he did?) If his fellow workers had spotted a splattering of blood on clothing and then realised later that Lechmere would have taken a route to work very near to the dead Nichols, wouldn't they (or one or two of them) have started talking in subsequent days? It doesn't seem likely he told any of his workmates of his discovery on Bucks Row.

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.

[dixon9]

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

[Rosella]

What about when Lechmere arrived at work, (before he started hauling meat around, if he did?) If his fellow workers had spotted a splattering of blood on clothing and then realised later that Lechmere would have taken a route to work very near to the dead Nichols, wouldn't they (or one or two of them) have started talking in subsequent days? It doesn't seem likely he told any of his workmates of his discovery on Bucks Row.

[Fisherman]

Mind you, Ginger, we are a 128 years removed from the Whitechapel murders. If you stray 128 years BACK in time from them, you end up at an age when people were still accused of being witches and brought to trial for it in parts of Europe.

That says something about how we need to look at the Ripper case...

[Fisherman]

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.

That is indeed one of the lessons I´ve learnt along the way!

[Fisherman]

If the constable you are talking about is PC Thain...

...or Jonas Mizen.

[drstrange169]

Hello Ginger,

If the constable you are talking about is PC Thain, then he didn't take their names either.


Hello Pierre,

We know Mizen saw Xmere (and presumably Paul) in a light good enough for him to i.d. Xmere when he was brought into the inquest.

The question of how much blood the killer, who ever they might have been, would have on them is very difficult to say at this late remove, but little to none is quite feasible.

[Ginger]

Why would the killer have risked hanging around with a police officer if he did not know if he'd picked up any blood stains? They could have been asked to give statements at the police station there and then, in which case the killer (if he was one of them... and we haven't yet ruled out Paul) risked being in a well-lit space, frequented by police officers, for God-knows how long.

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.

[Fisherman]

Didn't Cross/Lechmere touch her face and arm or hand? If so, there is a possibility of blood transfer from that. Wouldn't that be an excuse for having blood on himself then, if he ever were questioned?

Police: Why the blood on your hands, Mr. Cross?
Cross: Well, I did happen to touch her to see if she were alive.

I applied this same scenario when PC Andrews had touched the face and abdomen of Alice McKenzie.

Yes, and that point has been presented a zillion times out here.

Do people pick up on it? Not a chance.

[jerryd]

Didn't Cross/Lechmere touch her face and arm or hand? If so, there is a possibility of blood transfer from that. Wouldn't that be an excuse for having blood on himself then, if he ever were questioned?

Police: Why the blood on your hands, Mr. Cross?
Cross: Well, I did happen to touch her to see if she were alive.

I applied this same scenario when PC Andrews had touched the face and abdomen of Alice McKenzie.

[Sam Flynn]

That entirely depends on where they were in relation to the lamp/s. And why would Mizen have shone his lamp on the carmen...?

Why would the killer have risked hanging around with a police officer if he did not know if he'd picked up any blood stains? They could have been asked to give statements at the police station there and then, in which case the killer (if he was one of them... and we haven't yet ruled out Paul) risked being in a well-lit space, frequented by police officers, for God-knows how long.

[Fisherman]

Pierre:

Thanks for the quick answer! OK, so the hypothesis is that there was a little blood on Lechmere and that it was dark, so dark it was hard to see any blood at all. And these things are not proven. [/B]

There is no fixed hypothesis. I agree with Jason Payne-James in the docu, who said that the killer may have had very little or no blood at all on his person.

But wouldn´t there be more light where Lechmere met Mizen through additional light sources like a lamp/lamps or a bullseye?

That entirely depends on where they were in relation to the lamp/s. And why would Mizen have shone his lamp on the carmen...?

How do you believe that hypothesis could be understood from the perspective of the wounds on the other victims? Do you think the killer did not touch them? If you think he did, why the differences between them and Polly Nichols?

Pierre, we actually KNOW that he put his hands inside Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. There is poroof of it. There is no such proof at all with Nichols. He took no innards from her, ergo he need not have had his hands inside her.

It is clear that you believe this, but it is not clear what the reasons for believing it could be. I would appreciate motivations, if you are serious, which I think you consider yourself to be.

Which YOU think (!) I "consider myself to be"? Haha!

Goodnight.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;372813]

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?

Thanks for the quick answer! OK, so the hypothesis is that there was a little blood on Lechmere and that it was dark, so dark it was hard to see any blood at all. And these things are not proven.

But wouldn´t there be more light where Lechmere met Mizen through additional light sources like a lamp/lamps or a bullseye?

Next point: I believe there is a major chance that the abdominal wounds came first, and therefore there was not any blood spurting around. No such thing happened when the neck was cut either. And there is no evidence that the killer must have used his hands to touch Nichols body - he may well have had the knife between himself and Nichols´ body throughout.

How do you believe that hypothesis could be understood from the perspective of the wounds on the other victims? Do you think the killer did not touch them? If you think he did, why the differences between them and Polly Nichols?

So no blood splatter, no reason why the killer would have rummaged around inside Nichols with his hands, and no reason why a few specks of blood would have been noticed in the darkness of the night, either by Paul or by Mizen.

Is that clear and stringent enough?

It is clear that you believe this, but it is not clear what the reasons for believing it could be. I would appreciate motivations, if you are serious, which I think you consider yourself to be.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Sam Flynn]

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.

Indeed, Paul might have inadvertently got specks of blood on himself.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

Could you please explain to me why there was no blood on Charles Lechmere when he met Robert Paul, if Charles Lechmere had just murdered Polly Nichols?

I am sure you have discussing the matter before but I have never seen a clear and stringent explanation.

Thank you.

Kind regards, Pierre

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?

Next point: I believe there is a major chance that the abdominal wounds came first, and therefore there was not any blood spurting around. No such thing happened when the neck was cut either. And there is no evidence that the killer must have used his hands to touch Nichols body - he may well have had the knife between himself and Nichols´ body throughout.

So no blood splatter, no reason why the killer would have rummaged around inside Nichols with his hands, and no reason why a few specks of blood would have been noticed in the darkness of the night, either by Paul or by Mizen.

Is that clear and stringent enough?