Lechmere Continuation Thread

[John G]

Or it could be the papers chose to dress it up a bit for shock value. These are the kind of things from the press that we need to be careful with. The Star was very good at shocking things up during the murders.

Columbo

Yes, press reports were not necessarily completely accurate. However, if the Star was correct I think this has important implications. Thus, if Dr Llewellyn is to be accepted then four to five minutes would have been required for the mutilations. If we add, say, one or two minutes for a killer to leave the scene so as not to be seen or heard by Cross-and I don't think he would have been running as that would have attracted too much attention-then we can surmise that the throat must have been cut at least 5 or 6 minutes before the body was discovered. However, would the the throat still be bleeding profusely after this time?

[drstrange169]

Hello Columbo,

>> ... it could be the papers chose to dress it up a bit for shock value. These are the kind of things from the press that we need to be careful with. <<


A murder excelling in atrocity any that has disgraced even the East-end was discovered on Friday in a street off Whitechapel-road. Between three and four in the morning the body of a murdered woman was found lying in the gutter in Buck's-row. It presented a horrible spectacle. The throat had been cut right open from ear to ear, the instrument with which the deed was done tracing the throat from left to right. The wound was about two inches wide, and blood was flowing profusely.


I think you'll agree, the descriptions I marked in bold tell us this was sensationalism rather than a straight report.

[John G]

Hello John,

>>So was the blood oozing profusely... <<

Can something "ooze profusely"?

Well, it does seem to be a term that's in common usage. Here's an example from a medical dictionary published in 1900: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...fusely&f=false

[drstrange169]

Hello John,

>>If we add, say, one or two minutes for a killer to leave the scene so as not to be seen or heard by Cross-and I don't think he would have been running as that would have attracted too much attention-then we can surmise that the throat must have been cut at least 5 or 6 minutes before the body was discovered. However, would the the throat still be bleeding profusely after this time?<<

Keep in mind this was not Broad daylight. To escape, a killer need only to retreat to the nearest shadow and creep away at leisure. It is possible the killer may have been in the street at the same time as Xmere and as close as several feet.

[drstrange169]

>>Well, it does seem to be a term that's in common usage. Here's an example from a medical dictionary published in 1900<<

Thanks for that, I've learnt something new.

Of course, in this specific case P.C. Neil was not a medical man and he was not reported at the inquest as saying "profusely".

[Fisherman]

Or it could be the papers chose to dress it up a bit for shock value. These are the kind of things from the press that we need to be careful with. The Star was very good at shocking things up during the murders.

Columbo

If the papers were looking for shock value, I find it strange that the ones that described the bloodflow should all have decided to use the term flowed profusely. To me, it seems more like the papers were collectively informed abut this, and my best guess is that the source was the police.

[Fisherman]

No one was seen fleeing from the scene of any of the killings.In Nichols killing,doesn't prove anything.Would only have needed a matter of seconds for the killer to leave before Cross arrived.Fifty seconds would give a hundred paces.Did another person need that even?

What it proves is that there was not a large bulk of people out on the streets nearby who could all have been the killer. Just as there was not an endless stream of carmen walking west along Bucks Row. As some will have it.

[David Orsam]

Llewellyn would have been in place at around 4.10, so his timing seems to be spot on. According to the doctor, Nichols died at around 3.40 or thereafter. Meaning that this too is a point where the naysayers have to try and dissolve the professional bid in order to clear Lechmere.

I suppose a naysayer could accept the half an hour estimate but argue that Dr Llewellyn commenced his examination of the body at around 4:00am.

In a statement to the press published on 31 August, Dr Llewellyn said: "I was called to Buck's row about five minutes to four this morning".

If, by that, he meant that he was knocked up by Thain at about 3.55 (which could easily encompass anything up to 3.50), then bearing in mind it only takes a few minutes to walk from 152 Whitechapel Road to where the body lay (two minutes at a brisk pace), he could have arrived in Bucks Row at 4:00am. Perhaps this is what he meant in his evidence at the inquest when he said that he was called to Bucks Row at 4:00am, the time indicating the time of arrival rather than the knocking up, something which at least makes sense of his evidence about Nichols having been killed no more than half an hour earlier, otherwise there is no starting point.

In which case the murder was committed, according to Llewellyn's estimate, at around 3:30am or thereafter, thus potentially clearing Lechmere.

[Fisherman]

Neil would not have covered the intersection of Bakers Row and Hanbury Street - his beat would have entailed the parts of Bakers Row and Thomas Street WEST of the Bucks Row entrance.

Do you have legitimate references to support that claim?

You state the opposite - where are YOUR "legitimate references"...?

Neil took a right into Bucks Row from Thomas Street (or possibly Bakers Row), walking clockwise. How would the rest of these streets fit into a beat of his? The suggestion is kind of daft.

So the police were left with Mizen only.

The last sentence you edited out of your quote, is a Rosetta stone to understanding what might have happened, but I suspect you might already know that;-)

It is YOU who edit important matters out of quotes, not me, Dusty.

On the morning of Sept 1st, PC Neil took the stand and told the inquest that he was alone in the street with the body. The first people to arrive, he told Baxter, were PC Thain and PC Mizen. He also stated both men came because he believed he summoned them.

Slightly poorly worded, but correct in essence.

He did not send anyone with a message to summon them.

No, he did not.

From that moment onwards PC Mizen could and should have known that the two men he saw were not sent by a policeman in Buck’s Row. If Mizen genuinely believed Xmere and Paul told him they were sent by Neil, alarm bells should have been ringing by Saturday afternoon, and he should have informed the investigators immediately.

The story was published in all the evening newspapers, it was repeated in the Sunday papers. Clearly, something was amiss in relation to Mizen.

You really do not understand what you are speaking of, do you? You are genuinely unable to do the maths here, Dusty. Let me spell it out to you!

Scenario number one: Lechmere and Paul both spoke to Mizen, and Lechmere told Mizen the truth: That a woman, dead, dying or drunk, was lying in Bucks Row and that he and his fellow carman were the ones who founbd her there.

What Mizen will have thought when he heard Neils testimony: "Blimey, John Neil thinks HE was the finder, but he was not - my carmen were! And in that paper interview he even said that he was not directed to the body by two men. I´d better inform my superiors!!"

Scenario number two: Lechmere speaks to Mizen, and lies. He says that a woman is lying in the street in Bucks Row, and that a fellow PC is in place, requesting help from Mizen. He therefore makes Mizen think that the fellow PC was the finder of the body.

What Mizen wil have thought when he heard Neils testimony: "Yes, that is what happened - Neil was the finder of the body. And in that paper interview he said that he was not directed to the body by two men, and that is of course perfectly true - he found the body himself, and then the carmen arrived and he directed them to me!"

So, as you can see, if Lechmere was telling the truth at the inquest, then Mizen should have alerted his superiors to the carmens existence and cleared things up.
It is only if Lechmere lied that Mizen would have felt no need to come forward, since if Lechmere lied, all Mizen had heard and seen woud fit.

We may therefore regard it as a given thing that the carman lied to Jonas Mizen, or that Mizen misheard him dramatically, inventing the extra PC himself as a result of the mishearing.


If by “late Sunday” the police were claiming there was not two men in Buck’s Row, then there are one of three reasons for that, I can see:

1: Mizen lied or withheld information.

2: The police lied or withheld information during the Sunday interview.

3: For whatever reason, Mizen had not yet told his story to the people involved in Sunday's interview.

You can forget about number one and two. And number three is not correct either, but it is nevertheless the version that applies. But we need to amend your poor wording and understanding, Dusty!
Mizen HAD "told his story" - he simply must have as he will have handed his report in. It therefore applies that either:
1. The report was not read (more of a theoretical construction, since it WILL have been read)
or
2. The report did not mention the carmen. It will simply have said "3.45 - was summoned to Bucks Row by a fellow PC."

And lo and behold - the pieces fall in place, and the investigators would have had corroboration of what Neil said - he summoned Mizen to the murder spot. Of course, Neil only THOUGHT that he was the summoner, flashing down Mizen with his lantern, whereas Mizen was originally summoned by the carmen.



As for "editing out" the passage you mention, you know quite well that it is not I but you who edit out relevant parts of quotations.

Self-evidently you do edit out relevant parts of quotations, because you have, as all here can read for themselves in your post #23. Would you like me cite other examples?

Yes, please do! And then we shall compare them all to YOUR whopper from the olden days. And we will all see who acts deceptively.


In this case, I have explained a hundred times that it is the part "to attract attention" that explains Mizens answer.

Ask your TV show companion, Andy Griffiths, if, in his opinion, two men leaving a murder scene is worthy of attention to any policeman anywhere anytime and let us know his answer.

The question was whether Mizen had seen anybody leaving the scene to attract attention.
So to begin with, it´s not entering and leaving the scene undramatically. It is only leaving it, and in a fashion that would attract attention.
In essence, the question asked is whether Mizen and his colleagues had seen anybody fleeing the murder spot. They had not. And Andy Griffiths knew this too.

Compound that with the question being asked of Neil in this specific instance;
"Were there two men in Buck’s Row when PC Neil was there?"

I think the question was whether he had been directed to the body by two men, Dusty. Can you see the miniscule difference?

Compound it further by the fact that PC Neil’s testimony at the inquest had spread across the world (literally) by “late Sunday”.

...and it would only have Mizen at ease if Lechmere had lied to him. Can you see the relevance of this, Dusty? If Lechmere had NOT lied, Mizen would KNOW that Neil misinformed the inquest.

[Fisherman]

>>... since numerous independent sources tell us that Lechmere said that there was another PC awaiting Mizen in Bucks Row, we may treat it as an established fact that the carman actually said this.<<

Since numerous independent sources said Lechmere denied saying that, should we follow the above logic and treat it as an established fact that he did not?

Obviously, this is a flawed approach.

What source denied that Lechmere had said this, apart from himself? Are you trying to say that the papers who left it out actually DENIED it by leaving it out?

[Fisherman]

Hello John,

>>So was the blood oozing profusely... <<

Can something "ooze profusely"?

Google the term "oozing profusely" (2180 hits) or "oozed profusely" (854 hits) and you will have the answer to what people think about that.

A number of the examples are medical ones, like this: Eruption covering the scalp like a cap; oozing profusely and smelling badly; cervical glands swollen.

[Fisherman]

>>Well, it does seem to be a term that's in common usage. Here's an example from a medical dictionary published in 1900<<

Thanks for that, I've learnt something new.

Of course, in this specific case P.C. Neil was not a medical man and he was not reported at the inquest as saying "profusely".

No, "profusely" was worded before the inquest, in many different papers with different reporters writing the same thing, that it bled "profusely".

So what we need to do is to realize that coupled with the extensive use of the phrase "ooze profusely", we may well have a case where Nichols bled profusely as Neil saw her.

It is a complicated exercise, since we need to keep track of more than one detail, but it is by no means impossible to do.

Incidentally, since blood was running from the wound a couple of minutes AFTER Neil saw the body - as established by Mizen - it stands to reason that the blood will have flowed broader and quicker as Neil took a look.

But then again, why use common sense?

[Fisherman]

I suppose a naysayer could accept the half an hour estimate but argue that Dr Llewellyn commenced his examination of the body at around 4:00am.

In a statement to the press published on 31 August, Dr Llewellyn said: "I was called to Buck's row about five minutes to four this morning".

If, by that, he meant that he was knocked up by Thain at about 3.55 (which could easily encompass anything up to 3.50), then bearing in mind it only takes a few minutes to walk from 152 Whitechapel Road to where the body lay (two minutes at a brisk pace), he could have arrived in Bucks Row at 4:00am. Perhaps this is what he meant in his evidence at the inquest when he said that he was called to Bucks Row at 4:00am, the time indicating the time of arrival rather than the knocking up, something which at least makes sense of his evidence about Nichols having been killed no more than half an hour earlier, otherwise there is no starting point.

In which case the murder was committed, according to Llewellyn's estimate, at around 3:30am or thereafter, thus potentially clearing Lechmere.

Yes, a naysayer could -and would! - say anything, no matter how stupid. And such a naysayer would probably avoid the context:
"On Friday morning I was called to Buck's row at about four o'clock. The constable told me what I was wanted for. On reaching Buck's row I found the deceased woman lying flat on her back in the pathway, her legs extended."

So Llewellyn divides things into two parts: When he was summoned (about four o clock) and the PC told him what is was about, and when he arrived in Bucks Row. Probably dressed. Which takes a fair few minutes too.

But there´s naysayers for you, David - unhealthy beasts.

[Fisherman]

Come to think of it, one would expect any suspect brought forward to be somebody who could be suggested with some slight alterations:

If the victim cooled of quicker than normally, that X could have done it.

If the blood did not congeal along the ordinary schedule, then X could be guilty.

With Lechmere, it is the other way around. He fits the evidence to a tee, all the timings are in place and he seemingly lied to the police. Here, instead, we must open up for the reverse argumentation:

Yes, he fits the blood evidence, but the blood may have run for longer than usual, it may have coagulated along a schedule that was not normal, the police may have lied, not him, he may have called himself Cross although there is absolutely no evidence that he did etcetera.

It is a mirror image logic using the backside of the mirror.

[harry]

No one has to clear Cross,he was never a suspect.The onus is on anyone who argues he was the killer,and they have to prove Cross was with the victim while she was alive,or prove the impossibility of anyone else but Cross being in her company when she was killed.It can't be done,and no amount of might have been will change those conditions.