Lechmere Continuation Thread

[John G]

Was there ever a decapitation that resulted in twenty minutes of bleeding? Nope, there was not, and the reason is a simple one - when all the vessels in the neck are severed, the blood will leave the body in around a minute´s time or less. This, at least, is what I have been told by Jason Payne-James.

Polly Nichols was also "decapitated", at least when it comes to the vessels - each and every one of the major vessels of the neck were severed. After that, she ended up in a position where the gaping wound would be very close to the lowest part of the body. In all probablity, the heart had stopped beating as the neck was cut - there were no signs of any blood jet, as there should have been otherwise.
This means that the blood left the body with little or no underlying pressure. I am quite convinced that neither Neil nor Mizen saw blood running out under heart pressure.
When the neck of a dead person is cut, there will be a little pressure left, but that pressure will have left Nichols via the damage done to the blood vessels in the abdomen. So basically, the blood poured out the way it would poor out of an open bottle. And Jason Payne-James says that it would be a matter of a few minutes only, three or five minutes being a better suggestion than seven.

There is no reason at all why this process would be prolonged.

Biggs´ participation in the discussion was always an unlucky one, since Trevor seems to have fed him all the wrong questions agains a backdrop of lacking information. Biggs spoke of how he had seen car crash victims bleed long after they died, but that is not all that strange - it will be goverend mainly by the appearance and size of the wounds and the position the body ends up in.
Imagine a crash where the victim dies as a result of severe trauma to the head, where the body ends in a sitting position and where the only open wound is on the lower leg, and where that wound is pressed closed by wreckage parts. In such a situation, very little blood will seep out over a very long time. If the wound had been to the neck, much less blood would have seeped out, owing to gravity.

Biggs also spoke of vessel contractionas a possible hindrance to the blood, and that sounded interesting - until I spke to Paune-James who asserted me tnat there can be no such cntraction when both the outer and inner artery is cut. Once again, if there could, we would have decapitations where the victims did not bleed. We don´t.

This is the kind of thing Biggs spoke of, and much as it is true, it has no bearing at all on Nichols, who was basically - like I said - like an opened up bottle.

Hi Fisherman,

Thanks, this is very interesting. Dr Biggs points out that, in the case of a virtual decapitation, blood pressure would "rapidly subside", perhaps in a matter of seconds, so the "rate of flow would become considerably less soon after injury." (Marriott, 2013)

Further blood loss would then be down to gravity and, in this respect, the angle of the body would be significant: so a wound might be "propped open" due to the angle of the body or "squeezed shut" by the weight of the body. (Ibid)

He also points out that factors such as "collapsing vessels" and "valve effects" can prevent passive flow, and there are lots of corners for blood to go around as "it is spread around lots of thin tubes" therefore blood could get trapped in the body.(Ibid) Until, of course, the body's moved.

[David Orsam]

When I leave a thread, I open an opportunity for people to have their say without me stepping in and questioning their suggestions.

Such an opportunity should not be misused in favour of lying about me.

I might add Fisherman that I never take the slightest bit of notice of your claims to have "left" a thread, bearing in mind that you always seem to come back, sometimes within minutes of saying you have left, and perhaps you might want to read the story of the boy who cried wolf.

[Fisherman]

You are obviously not familiar with your own arguments Fisherman.

You have told us that Dr Llewellyn examined the body of Nichols at 4:10am and pronounced that death had taken place no more than 30 minutes prior to this, i.e. that the murder occurred no earlier than 3:40am.

Equally you have stated that Cross left his house at 3:30am and would have taken 7 minutes to reach Bucks Row so that he must have arrived at Bucks Row at 3:37.

Well, if Lechmere was in Bucks Row at 3.37 and Nichols was murdered at or after 3.40 either Lechmere was the murderer or he witnessed the murder take place. As he clearly did not witness the murder then, by your own argument, he must have been the murderer and there is no possibility of anyone else having murdered Nichols.

That is why I carefully stated that "Fisherman is really trying to argue on the basis of Dr Llewellyn's evidence that ONLY Lechmere could have done it."

That statement is patently true.

But perhaps you now want to amend some of your claims about the timings set out above?

Once again you are wrong, David. I am saying that if Llewellyns timings are spot on, then Lechmere is caught in the middle of the frame. But I am not excluding that somebody else could be the killer, since there is a small time frame for it.

If somebody else killed Nichols leading up to 3.40-3.43, and if the carman spoke the truth, then he need not be the killer if Paul was correct on the timings. In such a case, Lechmere would have entered Bucks Row at around 3.44, the killer already having left the area. (Why he would have covered the wounds in such case is another question...)

And I am patently not saying that Lechmere MUST have been in Bucks Row at 3.37, I am saying that if he left his home at 3.30, he SHOULD have been.

So your statement is and remains an outright lie.

After that, it of course applies that Llewellyn could have been mistaken on the time, but in this theoretical discussion, we can look away from that.

[Fisherman]

John G: Hi Fisherman,

Thanks, this is very interesting. Dr Biggs points out that, in the case of a virtual decapitation, blood pressure would "rapidly subside", perhaps in a matter of seconds, so the "rate of flow would become considerably less soon after injury." (Marriott, 2013)

That is due to the heart stopping pumping, John. And it never pumped at all as Neil and Mizen saw the body, if I am correct.

Further blood loss would then be down to gravity and, in this respect, the angle of the body would be significant: so a wound might be "propped open" due to the angle of the body or "squeezed shut" by the weight of the body. (Ibid)

And in this case, the wound was not squeezed shut - it was a wide gap, two inces wide as per the papers, and that sounds totally logical given the position of the body.

He also points out that factors such as "collapsing vessels" and "valve effects" can prevent passive flow, and there are lots of corners for blood to go around as "it is spread around lots of thin tubes" therefore blood could get trapped in the body.(Ibid) Until, of course, the body's moved.

Yes, but if you cut the head of a pig and leave it hanging, neck down, I think you will find that it stops bleeding in a matter of a minute or two. That´s gravity for you.

[Fisherman]

I might add Fisherman that I never take the slightest bit of notice of your claims to have "left" a thread, bearing in mind that you always seem to come back, sometimes within minutes of saying you have left, and perhaps you might want to read the story of the boy who cried wolf.

I always come back if somebody lies about me or misrepresents me, that is true. I don´t think that is what people should use my absense for, since I think it is a cowardly thing to do.
Just as I find it cowardly not to admit to it afterwards.

[John G]

John G: Hi Fisherman,

Thanks, this is very interesting. Dr Biggs points out that, in the case of a virtual decapitation, blood pressure would "rapidly subside", perhaps in a matter of seconds, so the "rate of flow would become considerably less soon after injury." (Marriott, 2013)

That is due to the heart stopping pumping, John. And it never pumped at all as Neil and Mizen saw the body, if I am correct.

Further blood loss would then be down to gravity and, in this respect, the angle of the body would be significant: so a wound might be "propped open" due to the angle of the body or "squeezed shut" by the weight of the body. (Ibid)

And in this case, the wound was not squeezed shut - it was a wide gap, two inces wide as per the papers, and that sounds totally logical given the position of the body.

He also points out that factors such as "collapsing vessels" and "valve effects" can prevent passive flow, and there are lots of corners for blood to go around as "it is spread around lots of thin tubes" therefore blood could get trapped in the body.(Ibid) Until, of course, the body's moved.

Yes, but if you cut the head of a pig and leave it hanging, neck down, I think you will find that it stops bleeding in a matter of a minute or two. That´s gravity for you.

Hi Fisherman,

I think this is a very fair response, which clearly strengthens your argument. Although Dr Biggs makes some very useful observations it should be borne in mind that he was largely commenting generally, rather than tailoring his response to the facts of a particular case, based upon a detailed analysis of the facts, i.e. position of the body, severance of the neck vessels, size of the opened wound, whereas conversely, I assume Payne James' opinion took in to account all of the cogent medical evidence of the specific case.

[David Orsam]

Once again you are wrong, David. I am saying that if Llewellyns timings are spot on, then Lechmere is caught in the middle of the frame. But I am not excluding that somebody else could be the killer, since there is a small time frame for it.

If somebody else killed Nichols leading up to 3.40-3.43, and if the carman spoke the truth, then he need not be the killer if Paul was correct on the timings. In such a case, Lechmere would have entered Bucks Row at around 3.44, the killer already having left the area. (Why he would have covered the wounds in such case is another question...)

And I am patently not saying that Lechmere MUST have been in Bucks Row at 3.37, I am saying that if he left his home at 3.30, he SHOULD have been.

So your statement is and remains an outright lie.

After that, it of course applies that Llewellyn could have been mistaken on the time, but in this theoretical discussion, we can look away from that.

Fisherman this statement of yours is ridiculous: "I am patently not saying that Lechmere MUST have been in Bucks Row at 3.37, I am saying that if he left his home at 3.30, he SHOULD have been." There's no difference!

Your timing is 7 minutes from his house to Bucks Row so what's the difference here between "must" and "should"? If he leaves at 3.30 and it's a 7 minute walk to Bucks Row he arrives at Bucks Row at 3.37 doesn't he?

If Nichols isn't murdered until 3:40 - according to Dr Llewellyn - and Lechmere is "found" by Paul in Bucks Row at 3:45 (as you claim) then there is no other possibility: Lechmere has murdered Nichols. No-one else could have done it between 3:40 and 3:43 as you now seem to be suggesting because Lechmere was already in Bucks Row on your case.

So I am confident that my statement - about what you have been really trying to say - is perfectly true, it's just that you refuse to admit what you are really trying to do.

It doesn't matter what exact words are used though. On the basis of Dr Llewellyn's estimate you clearly believe that the evidence points to Lechmere. That's why I was trying to explain to Columbo - in a discussion I was having with Columbo - why the timing of Dr Llewellyn's estimate affects the Lechmere theory. Your rude intervention has been utterly pointless and your daft claims that I am somehow lying in offering my own interpretation of your views is ludicrous.

[Observer]

Fisherman this statement of yours is ridiculous: "I am patently not saying that Lechmere MUST have been in Bucks Row at 3.37, I am saying that if he left his home at 3.30, he SHOULD have been." There's no difference!

Your timing is 7 minutes from his house to Bucks Row so what's the difference here between "must" and "should"? If he leaves at 3.30 and it's a 7 minute walk to Bucks Row he arrives at Bucks Row at 3.37 doesn't he?

If Nichols isn't murdered until 3:40 - according to Dr Llewellyn - and Lechmere is "found" by Paul in Bucks Row at 3:45 (as you claim) then there is no other possibility: Lechmere has murdered Nichols. No-one else could have done it between 3:40 and 3:43 as you now seem to be suggesting because Lechmere was already in Bucks Row on your case.

So I am confident that my statement - about what you have been really trying to say - is perfectly true, it's just that you refuse to admit what you are really trying to do.

It doesn't matter what exact words are used though. On the basis of Dr Llewellyn's estimate you clearly believe that the evidence points to Lechmere. That's why I was trying to explain to Columbo - in a discussion I was having with Columbo - why the timing of Dr Llewellyn's estimate affects the Lechmere theory. Your rude intervention has been utterly pointless and your daft claims that I am somehow lying in offering my own interpretation of your views is ludicrous.

Talk about digging a hole for oneself.

[Observer]

That is why I carefully stated that "Fisherman is really trying to argue on the basis of Dr Llewellyn's evidence that ONLY Lechmere could have done it."

That statement is patently true.

But perhaps you now want to amend some of your claims about the timings set out above?

How can Fisherman argue that only Lechmere could have killed Polly Nichols when he's on record as saying that it's possible she could have been killed by another hand?

[Observer]

That's why I was trying to explain to Columbo - in a discussion I was having with Columbo - why the timing of Dr Llewellyn's estimate affects the Lechmere theory. Your rude intervention has been utterly pointless and your daft claims that I am somehow lying in offering my own interpretation of your views is ludicrous.

Upon reflection, perhaps I should retract my two posts above. Orsam it seems resents posters butting in, when he's having a private conversation here in a public forum.

[David Orsam]

Talk about digging a hole for oneself.

Yes, that's exactly what Fisherman is doing.

[David Orsam]

How can Fisherman argue that only Lechmere could have killed Polly Nichols when he's on record as saying that it's possible she could have been killed by another hand?

No wonder you want to retract this post.

What I actually wrote was "What Fisherman is really trying to say...."

By definition that means it's not what he's actually saying but what he is getting at.

The reason I can say this when Fisherman "is on record" as saying that Nichols could have been killed by another hand is because he has introduced a new argument into the equation in this thread, namely that, if Llewellyn is correct, Nichols cannot have been murdered before 3.40.

That, as far as I'm aware, is a new addition to the Fisherman canon.

And if Nichols cannot have been murdered before 3.40 then, in Fisherman's World, the murderer cannot be anyone other than Lechmere because he also tells us that Lechmere left his house at 3.30 and it would have taken him 7 minutes to reach Bucks Row (going through the modern Sainsbury's development but that's another matter), thus arriving in Bucks Row no later than 3.37.

So you tell me Observer. If Lechmere would have arrived in Bucks Row at 3.37 and Nichols was not murdered before 3.40, how could the murderer have been anyone other than Lechmere?

I'd love to hear the answer.

[David Orsam]

Orsam it seems resents posters butting in, when he's having a private conversation here in a public forum.

No, Observer, what I happen to resent is someone wrongly calling me a liar, and accusing me of lying about them in circumstances when they are apparently unable to respond (for some bizarre reason which Fisherman hasn't revealed), especially in circumstances where I was doing no more than explaining something to another poster in order for that poster to understand the point I was making.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

I think this is a very fair response, which clearly strengthens your argument. Although Dr Biggs makes some very useful observations it should be borne in mind that he was largely commenting generally, rather than tailoring his response to the facts of a particular case, based upon a detailed analysis of the facts, i.e. position of the body, severance of the neck vessels, size of the opened wound, whereas conversely, I assume Payne James' opinion took in to account all of the cogent medical evidence of the specific case.

It did, yes - a file was compiled for him with the medical evidence available. He was very well read up on the case.

[David Orsam]

It did, yes - a file was compiled for him with the medical evidence available.

Basically that she was lying flat on her back with her neck cut deeply. Because that's all the relevant evidence that can be extracted from the newspaper reports of the inquest isn't it?

I mean, no notes of the post-mortem, no medical report of the doctor.

As I asked earlier, how did the information he was given enable him to disapply Biggs' claim that oozing can continue for up to at least 20 minutes after death?