Lechmere Continuation Thread

[Columbo]

The Morning Advertiser, 3:rd of September 1888, Neil speaking to the coroner:

The Coroner - Did you notice any blood where she was found?

Witness - There was a pool of blood just where her neck was lying. The blood was then running from the wound in her neck.

Out of the neck, onto the ground.

I hope people don't get the impression this was a clean incision with a little blood coming out of the arteries. This would've been a big, bloody mess with dripping from top to bottom on both ends of the wounds. Theoretically this dripping from the separated neck could contribute to the flow of the blood and probably made it look "oozy".

Columbo

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;387804]The post that you were responding to was addressed to Observer so I have no idea why you replied to it.

And, of course, it is the last refuge of the internet scoundrel to say to one's debating opponent that they should "get help".

Just stand back for a moment Fisherman. You are the person who, day after day, is accusing a potentially innocent man on an open internet forum of a string of horrendous murders with barely any evidence at all.

So which one of us really needs to get help?

I think this was one of the best posts I have seen here.

Regards, Pierre

[Abby Normal]

I hope people don't get the impression this was a clean incision with a little blood coming out of the arteries. This would've been a big, bloody mess with dripping from top to bottom on both ends of the wounds. Theoretically this dripping from the separated neck could contribute to the flow of the blood and probably made it look "oozy".

Columbo

I think we need to consult the Wizard of Ooz to clear this up.

[Columbo]

I think we need to consult the Wizard of Ooz to clear this up.

Very nice

[harry]

Blood after twenty minutes? In the Haw Bridge mystery,in England 1938 I believe,a fair quantity of blood was discovered on the bridge.It was first thought to be animal blood.Then the trunk of a male person was found in the river Severn some time later.The head was never found.The murder and dismemberment had taken place somewhere else,so quite a time elapsed before the body was on the bridge.So why the blood on the bridge.If what has been claimed on these threads,there shouldn't have been any.

[Columbo]

Blood after twenty minutes? In the Haw Bridge mystery,in England 1938 I believe,a fair quantity of blood was discovered on the bridge.It was first thought to be animal blood.Then the trunk of a male person was found in the river Severn some time later.The head was never found.The murder and dismemberment had taken place somewhere else,so quite a time elapsed before the body was on the bridge.So why the blood on the bridge.If what has been claimed on these threads,there shouldn't have been any.

Hi Harry,
What hasn't been discussed is the blood in the rest of the body. Our internal body is soaked in blood, so it makes it highly improbable you could drain every ounce out of a body. There will be residual somewhere unless the victim is dressed out like a slaughtered deer. It will settle at the lowest point in the body after death.

Columbo

[drstrange169]

>>Just as you point out, there are papers reporting the blood Mizen saw as coming from the neck when he helped lifting her. I believe this is a misreporting on behalf of a number of papers, and that the one paper who gave the full picture - the Echo - is the only one that got it right: "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."<<

Once again Christer snips out the next sentence.
And, once again, with good reason as it negates his accuracy claim.

“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 Echo edited the coroner’s question and Mizen’s reply, making it appear that Baxter had made a statement and not asked a question.

If we only had The Echo version of events we all would have a completely false idea of what actually at the inquest.

The Morning Advertiser tells the FULL story,

"The Coroner - There was another man in company with Cross?
The Witness - Yes. I think he was also a carman."

The Morning Addy gets it right and guess where they placed Mizen's "blood" observation ...?

"I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman. "

The Echo article changes the meanings of what was actually said and this is the article Christer asks us to trust as the most accurate, above all the others!

As the Echo version is at odds with all the other reports so we need to look for some clue for guidance.

The Echo report stated Mizen as saying,

“There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter."

We have Dr. Llewellyn’s description,

"There was a very small pool of blood on the pathway, which had trickled from the wound in the throat, not more than would fill two wineglasses, or half a pint at the outside. This fact, and the way in which the deceased was lying, made me think at the time that it was at least probable that the murder was committed elsewhere, and the body conveyed to Buck's-row."
(Evening News Sept 1)

And at the inquest,

"There was very little blood round the neck."
(Lloyds Sept 2)

We also have Helson's description of the blood being directed under the clothing.

So, we can place the time of Mizen’s description of blood running to the gutter after Llewellyn’s arrival, which, in turn, takes us back to all the other newspaper reports stating Mizen was describing what he saw after he returned with the ambulance.

When we try to marry what actually happened with Christer concocted version the reports only work one way.

"He went round and found Police-constable Neil with the deceased. At Neil’s suggestion he went for the ambulance, The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. and afterwards assisted to remove the body. Blood was running from her neck."
Evening Post

“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. I assisted to remove the body. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter."
The Echo

"Witness went to the spot, found Policeman Neil there, and by his instruction witness went for the ambulance. The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, He assisted in removing the body. He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed."
The Star

"He said, "Go for an ambulance," The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.
Morning Advertiser

"Police-constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. Nobody but Neil was with the body at that time. He assisted in removing the body. He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed."
Illustrated Police News

"When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body. He assisted in removing the body. He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed."
Telegraph

"The witness went to Buck's row, where Police constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body. The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir On returning with the ambulance he helped to put the deceased upon it."
Daily News

The rest Christer's reply is simply another example of his quote doctoring.

He takes the Echo report which mentions nothing about the blood being congealed and claims it is accurate. If it is accurate then why does he need to doctor it with another quote from a newspaper that he says is inaccurate?

He takes the word congealed out of context from the Star report and marries the two together to create something that was never said.

He then passes it off as actual evidence, building a whole case around the timing of when blood congeals when nobody at the inquest stated any such thing.

[drstrange169]

>>That is the first thing I think you may have missed out on.<<

Billiou didn’t miss it because it was never there until you created it.



>>The other one is Helsonīs assertion that most of the blood had seeped into the clothing. It had not - it had, as per Llewellyn, instead seeped into the abdominal cavity. Some of it would have been soaked up by the ulster, as shown by how Thain got his hands bloodied when lifting Nichols onto the ambulance, but the bulk of it was inside the abdomen, for the simple reason that it was cut first. The blood in the ulster would - as far as I am concerned - have come from the abdominal cuts.This is why there was not an almighty pool of blood under her neck. It had a two-inch wide cut in it, and there was nothing to stop the flow, so there should have been such a pool if the neck was cut first. Many observers commented on the baffling lack of blood. But there was a reason!<<


By now it should come as no surprised that Christer has cherry-picked some words from Baxter summation that he likes and ignored what Baxter was actually saying.


“Dr. Llewellyn seemed to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were inflicted first, and caused instantaneous death; but, if so, it seemed difficult to understand the object of such desperate injuries to the throat, or how it came about there was so little bleeding from the several arteries, that the clothing on the upper surface was not stained and the legs not soiled, and that there was very much less bleeding from the abdomen than from the neck”.

[drstrange169]

>>I always come back if somebody lies about me or misrepresents me, that is true. I donīt 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.<<

I have called you a lair, deceitful and deceptive and still do. It gives me no pleasure, but given your above statement and the fact you have not replied, I assume you acknowledge your dishonesty.


I think to accuse someone and then refuse to back up your claims and run away from them is cowardice.

[Fisherman]

I have only time for this for the moment being, Dr Stranges interesting little passage here.

Once again Christer snips out the next sentence.
And, once again, with good reason as it negates his accuracy claim.

“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 Echo edited the coroner’s question and Mizen’s reply, making it appear that Baxter had made a statement and not asked a question.


This you have not understood, Iīm afraid. And worse still - what you have not understood, you use to try and accuse me of editing out evidence to make a point.

I would be a complete idiot to do so, since the material is at our respective hands, and I would not stand a chance of succeeding with such a thing. You, if anyone, should be painfully aware of that.

The coroners question about another man in company with Lechmere was asked later than the first question about whether Neil was alone or not as Mizen first saw him. The two questions have nothing to do with each other. So I can "cut it out" as much as I like to, since it has absolutely no bearing on the issue we are discussing. Indeed, I should cut it out for that very reason,
Your passage, by the way, makes it look like Mizen offered the information about Paul himself, but he had to be asked about it, as per the Morning Advertiser:

"I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.

The Coroner - There was another man in company with Cross?

The Witness - Yes. I think he was also a carman."



The question about whether Neil was alone - the relevant question, as it were - is not mentioned in the Morning Advertiser, as it was in the Echo. If we are to fit it in with the answer, it would end up like this:

"I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body.

Was there anybody else with PC Neil at that time?
No, there was not.The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.

The Coroner - There was another man in company with Cross?

The Witness - Yes. I think he was also a carman."



The general way of reporting the question about Neil and if anybody was with him when Mizen first saw him is found in for example the Daily Telegraph:

Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body.


Here, we can see that the coroners question is once again missing. What happened was that Mizen got as far as to the ambulance part before the coroner asked the question, backing Mizen up to the moment when he first arrived by Neils side, and Mizen then says that there was blood running from the neck AT THAT STAGE.

Note how Mizen is quoted in the Morning Advertiser:

"The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman."

Mizen tells us here that there was no period when the blood did not run between his and Neils respective sightings. He is not speaking of how the blood began to run again as he lifted her, he is effectively saying that the blood was STILL running as he saw her the first time. He is also saying - as you kindly have quoted - that "He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed."


How is there all of a sudden blood running into a pool and from there to the gutter, blood that has only started to congeal, at this stage? Thain tells us that the blood was a large clot at this stage, not that it was still flowing and only somewhat congealed?

You see, the old saying that ****-eating is recommendable since a billion flies engage in it is sometimes useful. Making the assumption that the bulk of the papers must have gotten it righ and the Echo must have gotten it wrong becomes a precarious thing to do when the evidence speaks against it. The bulk of the papers missed out on the coroners question, simple as that.

And claiming that I have cut away important material becomes ridiculous when you havent even understood that there were TWO questions asked by the coroner that had nothing to do with each other.

As for the rest of your posts, they are of the same deplorable quality.
By the way, liar is spelt liar, not lair. If you are to throw faulty accusations around you, you should at least spell them correctly, or you will look quite the fool...

[drstrange169]

Was that it?

854 words and not a single question answered.

More twaddle and a couple of insults?

I am a hopeless speller and a worse typer so mistakes are always going to happen with me, but here's a bit of advice, if you are going to try and take a cheap shot at someone for spelling, best you don't make spelling mistakes when you're doing it and helps to uses apostrophes;-)

Waiting ...

[John Wheat]

Lechmere as a Ripper suspect is frankly a joke.

[Fisherman]

Was that it?

854 words and not a single question answered.

More twaddle and a couple of insults?

I am a hopeless speller and a worse typer so mistakes are always going to happen with me, but here's a bit of advice, if you are going to try and take a cheap shot at someone for spelling, best you don't make spelling mistakes when you're doing it and helps to uses apostrophes;-)

Waiting ...

You will inevitably catch me misspelling - here, I will halp you oot, and we have that sorted. It was just a bit funny to have you calling me a liar (or lair) in the first place, so the spelling mistake just added to the fun.

I am no liar and I never was. If you disagree, you need to prove that point. Can you?

Now, it is apparent that you have not been able to understand what I am saying. So letīs turn the tables: explain to me why I should not have left out the passage where Mizen is asked by the coroner if there was another man present as Lechmere spoke to him! How does that passage have any bearing at all on the question about whether the blood was flowing when Mizen first saw Neil?

Iīm off on a job now, but I will be curious to see what answer you can provide on that one.

[Columbo]

Lechmere as a Ripper suspect is frankly a joke.

Hi John,

What's your objection of him as a suspect? I'm interested in your opinion.

Columbo

[Columbo]

[B]>>
He takes the Echo report which mentions nothing about the blood being congealed and claims it is accurate. If it is accurate then why does he need to doctor it with another quote from a newspaper that he says is inaccurate?

He takes the word congealed out of context from the Star report and marries the two together to create something that was never said.

He then passes it off as actual evidence, building a whole case around the timing of when blood congeals when nobody at the inquest stated any such thing.

Well if what you're saying is correct, then yes I would object to mixing and matching statements from newspaper reports. I will have to go back and verify for myself since i'm not as schooled with the newspapers.

As Fisherman pointed out it would be foolish to do so since we have the information at hand but nonetheless it'll be educational to read.

Columbo