Lechmere Continuation Thread

[Pierre]

There is only one item of evidence that can implicate Cross in the murder of Nichols,and I'll repeat it.Cross must be placed in the company of Nichols while she was alive.Cross was a witness whos testimony places him(Cross) at the place of death after she had been killed.Nothing that has been claimed alters that fact,He cannot,under English law,be considered a suspect,and he never was.There is no Prima Facia evidence of guilt whatsoever.It should be left at that.

The biggest problem is that if Lechmere had not found Polly Nichols, Robert Paul would have found her. And of course blood would then have been "oozing" and Robert Paul would have been found "alone with a freshly killed victim" by PC Neil.

[Pierre]

David Orsam: But Fisherman that just takes us back to the point about whether blood can ooze or run out of a body after, say, 10 minutes (or whatever cut-off point Payne-James has pronounced as the maximum amount of time).

And thatīs where it should take us. And the blood would not "ooze" the way you think oozing looks like - but Neil also said it was running, which is probably the better word. And there is nu maximum time, it is all about likelihoods. The blood would not be likely to run for ten minutes.

Neil saw the oozing when he examined the body which, if Mizen was talking about blood when he first arrived in Bucks Row, would have been pretty much the exact same time as Neil was referring to.

Yes, and the main difference - both say that the blood was running - is that Mizen says that it had started to tun down in the gutter. All very logical, since that is a later stage than forming the pool.

So the question remains: how long can blood ooze or run out of a body after death?

That depends on many factors, David - I have told you that, so you should be aquainted with it. Blood can run, trickle, ooze for a very long time if the circumstances allow for it, but wonīt do so if the circumstances do not allow for it.

Isn't that right? And if that's the question, Mizen doesn't add anything to what Neil has told us. Isn't that also right?

No, as I said, Mizen mentions how the blood runs into the gutter, and he says that it looked fresh, and he says that it was somewhat coagulated in the pool. Mizen adds a lot to what Neil says.

(Or, if anything, he tells us it was a less recent murder than one would understand from Neil's evidence alone because some of the blood had already congealed).

Well, to be fair, the congealing starts on second one when the blood leaves a wound. All blod that has left the body is in a state on congealing throughout. But normally, it only becomes visible after three to four minutes, so there is a possibility that Neil looked at the blood when it was still not visibly congealed.

Forget whether you agree with me or not, I just want to understand the basics of what you are saying.

Itīs kind of hard to forget, seeing as you have taken it upon yourself to declare what I agree with and think - but I think you may see what I am saying even if I donīt manage to look away from that.

The biggest problem is that if Lechmere had not found Polly Nichols, Robert Paul would have found her. And of course blood would then have been "oozing" and Robert Paul would have been found "alone with a freshly killed victim" by PC Neil.

[David Orsam]

The biggest problem is that if Lechmere had not found Polly Nichols, Robert Paul would have found her. And of course blood would then have been "oozing" and Robert Paul would have been found "alone with a freshly killed victim" by PC Neil.

Pierre, that's not responsive to the post of Fisherman's you quoted but now you've got that out of your system (twice) I hope you feel better.

[Mr Lucky]

with The Echo:

Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman. Witness asked him what was the matter, and Cross replied, "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there." Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance.
The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter.
By the Coroner - There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness. The other man, who went down Hanbury-street, appeared to be working with Cross.
By the Jury - Witness went to the spot directly Cross told him, and did not stop to knock any one up.

That, to me, looks like a more comprehensive and accurate account of what took place at the Inquest during Mizen's testimony that day.
I think it is important to take into account all the newspapers and try to put together a single account of the Inquest statements.

The inquests concern is with the death of Nichols and so in this case what the inquest is trying to establish here is that the women was dead when Mizen arrived on the scene – when Neil was alone, which Mizen demonstrates by referencing the blood flowing from the wound in her throat. In this way Mizen corroborates what Neil had said on the first day and additionally refutes what Robert Paul had said in his remarkable statement published in Lloyds (Sunday 2/9/88) about the 'woman must have been there for some time'

There would be no reason to ask Mizen whether she was dead when putting her on the ambulance as the doctor had already declared her dead by that point.

[David Orsam]

The inquests concern is with the death of Nichols and so in this case what the inquest is trying to establish here is that the women was dead when Mizen arrived on the scene – when Neil was alone, which Mizen demonstrates by referencing the blood flowing from the wound in her throat.

How does blood flowing from a throat wound indicate that someone is dead?

[David Orsam]

The inquests concern is with the death of Nichols
...There would be no reason to ask Mizen whether she was dead when putting her on the ambulance as the doctor had already declared her dead by that point.

If the inquest's only concern is with the death of Nichols (by which you appear to mean time of death) why was Mizen bothering to give evidence about moving the body onto the ambulance?

[Mr Lucky]

There is only one item of evidence that can implicate Cross in the murder of Nichols,and I'll repeat it.Cross must be placed in the company of Nichols while she was alive.Cross was a witness whos testimony places him(Cross) at the place of death after she had been killed.Nothing that has been claimed alters that fact,He cannot,under English law,be considered a suspect,and he never was.There is no Prima Facia evidence of guilt whatsoever.It should be left at that.

What is a "suspect" under English law ? what are you babbling about.

If these womens murders were a genuine mystery then you ripperologist wouldn't have to manufacture this endless stream of utter nonsense.

[Billiou]

Hello, Billiou,

Many moons ago I posted in another thread on Lechmere and police evidence about the blood seen at the Nichols murder scene that it was entirely possible the term "running" was meant to indicate the direction in which the blood had flowed from her body, not necessarily how quickly it moved, nor how "fresh" it was. I still believe this, though some disagreed with me.

Agree!

[harry]

Fisherman,
Yes James Scobie does appear a novice,pleased you said so,but he has the chance to correct that impression by writing to these threads and explaining.Funny that when youré asked a reasonable question on evidence,you put forward his name.I have moved on,I am quite confident Cross came upon a body,that of Nichols,while youré still struggling,without a hope,to convince otherwise.

[harry]

Mr Lucky,
What is a suspect? Do you not know? Under what English law? Do you not know?
Cross was never a suspect.Fact. Only the police of that time could nominate Cross as a suspect in the Nichol's murder.They never did,unless you have knowledge to the contrary.Neither did the press,and neither Fisherman or you can change that. So where is the utter nonsense.Seems to be on your side of the fence.

[Columbo]

Mr Lucky,
What is a suspect? Do you not know? Under what English law? Do you not know?
Cross was never a suspect.Fact. Only the police of that time could nominate Cross as a suspect in the Nichol's murder.They never did,unless you have knowledge to the contrary.Neither did the press,and neither Fisherman or you can change that. So where is the utter nonsense.Seems to be on your side of the fence.

That's true to a certain extent. Lechmere was not an official suspect by the police then and is not one now. But he could be considered Fisherman's suspect of choice. He can be someone's suspect. He's never been an official suspect.

We have a lot of those in this mystery.

Columbo

[drstrange169]

>Baxter very clearly said that "It seems astonishing at first thought that the culprit should have escaped detection", so how I would be lying by pointing this out is beyond me.<<

Your post speaks far better than I ever could to your moral code.
Thank you.


>>And you fail to give me an explanation as to why cutting away how Mizen said that there was another man present when he was spoken to by Lechmere would have any effect at all on the blood issue.<<

Actually I've done it twice now, again this speaks volumes.

>>That is a much more serious matter, since it involves an accusation against me that you cannot defend. You have a perfectly good opportunity to present it, but I am saying that you will not do so because it is utter balderdash and you know it.<<

???

Obviously you are seeking to add hypocrisy to your C.V.

I should remind you that this thread was an amicible discussion until you came in making snide remarks and accusations.

Like all trolls, when challenged to back up your claims you ran a mile from them and have tried to change the subject each time they are raised.

And so still waiting for some show of backbone from you with regards to them.

[drstrange169]

>You (Billiou)were supposed to say "Excuse me for interfering, Iīll just quietly lie down and shut up", but you would not do that. You had the audacity to persist - bravo! It is a sour pill to swallow for some, and rest assured they will not do so willingly.<<

Nobody has told Billiou to do any such thing. You might to reflect on why that is.

[Billiou]

>>So? Blood stains on the ground and blood flow from the body are two different things.<<

One indisputably causes the other unless you are suggesting the blood was there before the murder took place?

The question here is when one caused the other not whether one caused the other.

"There was very little blood around the neck."
Dr Llewellyn

Dr. Llewellyn makes no mention of a pool of blood by the wall or running to the gutter. In fact, it was Llewellyn's comment on the very lack of blood that gave raise the story that she must have been killed elsewhere.

If there was a large pool of blood by the wall and blood running to the gutter when he arrived, presumably Dr. Llewellyn would not have made the observation he did.

There is a cumulative amount of information that points in one direction and as you quite rightly pointed out, it is cumulatively information we need to form a coherent picture.

I was making the point that we have eyewitness descriptions of the blood flow from the neck when she was on the ground, but no witness mentioned blood coming from her neck when she was moved. Of course it could have happened, it is just that no one described it.

Why ask "One indisputably causes the other unless you are suggesting the blood was there before the murder took place?"? Of course not. A description of the blood on the ground it not a description of the blood flow from the neck.
If you don't see the difference then I can't help you.

[drstrange169]

Hello Pat,

>Many moons ago I posted in another thread on Lechmere and police evidence about the blood seen at the Nichols murder scene that it was entirely possible the term "running" was meant to indicate the direction in which the blood had flowed from her body, not necessarily how quickly it moved, nor how "fresh" it was. I still believe this, though some disagreed with me.<<

Spot on. We have an example of a medical professional using the term "running"
about blood he believed to be "running" at least 35 minutes after a throat was cut in 1888.

"The blood was running down the gutter into the drain in the opposite direction from the feet."
(Dr Blackwell talking about Mrs. Stride murder )

Presumably, Blackwell used the term to describe where the blood had ran rather than still running.

So we should not assume that "running" actually means fresh blood running.