Lechmere Continuation Thread

[Columbo]

We actually do know that this was what Llewellyn suggested - he believed that he damage to the abdomen came forst, and was enough to kill.
As such, we should expect that the blood coming from the neck wound would be a small amount of blood, if Nichols had been killed by the abdominal damage. There would be no jet of blood from the neck in such a case, and the blood would not pump out or gush out from the neck wound. It would instead run rather peacefully for as long as there was any blood left that had a reason of gravity to leave the body. The blood collected in the abdominal cavity would reasonably stay there if it was closer to the ground than the arch of her neck.The body would therefore not be drained of blood, but the examining medico would find a lot of it in the abdominal cavity. The blood leaking out via the neck wound woulf predominantly come from the chest area, I believe.

That would've been brutal if he did that first. I do remember discussing this before.

Columbo

[David Orsam]

David Orsam: Sorry Fisherman but this doesn't make any sense at all.

So you are sorry? How touching! Thank you!

If there was blood running from Nichols into a pool, as Mizen says, that pool could not possibly be completely congealed could it? It doesn't matter how long Nichols had been dead.

True. But according to Payne-James, there would not be any running blood for half an hour or so, which would be requried to move Mizens observation to the stage when Nichols was put on the ambulance and carried off. And at that stage, when Mrs Greens son washes the blood away, it had turned onto a large clot of blood. It was not a wet pool with some little congealed blood in it.

The whole issue at stake is how long blood can run or ooze from a dead body.

No, the whole issue is how long blood can run or ooze (Neil said both, by the way) from different bodies with different levels of damage.

But we haven't properly resolved this.

We? Jason Payne-James said that three or five minutes were better suggestions than seven. He also said that a decapitated person will bleed out completely in a minute or less.
Once again, we are speaking of probabilitites. And once again, that offers a perfect possibility for you to do your defense lawyer thing again. There is little I can do about that. I am not saying that she could not bleed for 20-30 minutes. But I am saying that it would be completely unexpected if the blood could flow freely from the neck, and as far as we know, it could. The much better suggestion is therefore that she would not bleed for 20-30 minutes.
Instead of trying to show off verbally out here, I would recommend that you delved into the issue and spoke to specialists, the way I have done.

If it's 20 minutes or half an hour then the fact that blood congeals completely after seven minutes is irrelevant bearing in mind that it was still coming out of the body (and therefore must have been fresh) when Mizen saw it.

The blood must not be fresh when running, I´m afraid. There was blood coming from a severed surface of the Pinchin Street torso, presumably when it was moved. That blood was not fresh, it would have been smelly and dark. And if you think it proves that you can actively bleed for days on end, no, you cannot. But stale blood can be left in a liquid (but NOT fresh) state for a very long time if the surrounding conditions allow for it.

So we have fresh blood running into a pool which at the time Mizen saw it would be mixture fresh, partly and fully congealed blood making that pool "somewhat congealed". Isn't that right?

Yes, that is right. And it was when he first met Neil he saw it. Twenty minutes later, even if we suggest that blood had been running all the time, the pool would have been heavily congealed, not somewhat congealed. And with thirty minutes of bleeding, why would there only be a very small pool of blood?

Again I'm sorry, Fisherman, but the only thing that made sense to me in that post was your one word response of "True".

That seemed to deal with it, the rest seemed irrelevant.

It doesn't matter if Mizen was talking about seeing a pool of congealed blood 8 minutes after the murder or 30 minutes after the murder because he is also telling us that blood was running from the body into that pool of blood. If blood was running from the body then whether you want to call that "fresh" blood or not it was certainly not congealed. So that uncongealed blood would be running into a pool of blood, some of which would have congealed. So that pool of blood could be described as "somewhat congealed" could it not?

Perhaps I'm missing something but Mizen's evidence doesn't seem to get us anywhere at all.

[Fisherman]

Again I'm sorry, Fisherman, but the only thing that made sense to me in that post was your one word response of "True".

That seemed to deal with it, the rest seemed irrelevant.

It doesn't matter if Mizen was talking about seeing a pool of congealed blood 8 minutes after the murder or 30 minutes after the murder because he is also telling us that blood was running from the body into that pool of blood. If blood was running from the body then whether you want to call that "fresh" blood or not it was certainly not congealed. So that uncongealed blood would be running into a pool of blood, some of which would have congealed. So that pool of blood could be described as "somewhat congealed" could it not?

Perhaps I'm missing something but Mizen's evidence doesn't seem to get us anywhere at all.

Us, David? It has gotten me a very long way.

And it does matter a whole lot if Mizen spoke of a "somewhat congealed" (not congealed) pool 8 minutes (very exact, being you, but possibly a bit too much) or 30 minutes after the murder.

If the latter applies, Nichols was a very odd exception to the rule, according to Jason Payne-James. If the former, everything is in place, medically speaking, and she follows the ordinary pattern.

You must excuse me for not always replying the way you want me to. It´s because I don´t agree with you.

[Fisherman]

That would've been brutal if he did that first. I do remember discussing this before.

Columbo

The signs are very clearly there.

[David Orsam]

And it does matter a whole lot if Mizen spoke of a "somewhat congealed" (not congealed) pool 8 minutes (very exact, being you, but possibly a bit too much) or 30 minutes after the murder.

If the latter applies, Nichols was a very odd exception to the rule, according to Jason Payne-James. If the former, everything is in place, medically speaking, and she follows the ordinary pattern.

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).

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.

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

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?

(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).

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

[John G]

This is an interesting, and well referenced, site on blood analysis: http://science.howstuffworks.com/blo...-analysis1.htm

Apparently, "clotting begins within 3 to 15 minures, but actual times vary by amount, surface type and environment."

[Columbo]

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).

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.

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

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?

(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).

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

There is no way blood is going to run out at a consistent rate for 4 or 8 or 10 minutes from a body that is lying flat on the ground. That's basic physics people.

Columbo

[Errata]

Wasn't the clot on the ground under her body? Because clothing absorbing the liquid components of blood that has started to separate could in theory rapidly accelerate the amount of time it takes for clot to appear.

Plus, everybody stops bleeding once the level of their blood goes below the level of the wound. Like poking a hole near the top of the milk carton, it's not going to empty the carton, just leak out to level of the hole. Now in this case her throat was badly damaged and she could lose a lot. But not more than a couple of liters. Which is significant. Lethal even. But she was never going to drain dry.

There are millions of tiny factors that could have affected her blood loss, from her internal temperature before her death to the size of her breasts. So i think trying to nail that down may be futile at this point. But she would bleed faster while still alive than dead, so an estimate of how much blood she actually lost is probably going to be the best way to estimate (with a lot of wiggle room) how long she bled.

[Billiou]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;387870
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.[/QUOTE]

After looking at all the newspaper reports of Mizen's statement, I think anyone should reasonably be in agreement with Fisherman's position.
This, to me, is a reasonable reconstruction of what was said during Mizen's Inquest evidence:

Policeman George Mizen said that at a quarter to four on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row. A man passing said to him, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row). That man was Carman Cross (who came into the Court-room in a coarse sacking apron).
The Coroner - There was another man in company with Cross?
The Witness - Yes. I think he was also a carman.
Witness asked him what was the matter, and Cross simply said he was wanted by a policeman, and did not say anything about a murder having been committed. 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, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed.
On returning with the ambulance, he helped to put the deceased upon it.
A Juryman: Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted?
Witness: No; I only finished knocking up one person.

I agree with Fish that the Coroner's question "was there anyone else there then" was directed towards when Mizen first met Neil, not when he returned with the ambulance. And I also agree that there is no other mention by anyone of the flow of blood from the body when it was moved, and this is because some newspapers re-ordered the sequence of the statement, the questions and the answers of Mizen, giving a false impression. People can presume things, but there is no evidence of this. It is easy to get wrong - I did - but if you look logically at the reports you can make sense of it.
BTW This is why when I first came onto the site I proposed (in my naivety) that one version of all the newspaper accounts would make things more clear and may help prevent people from misreading and misconstruing things in future. But seemingly wiser heads seemed to think otherwise.

[drstrange169]

Hello John,


>>Lechmere as a Ripper suspect is frankly a joke.<<

The irony is I actually think Xmere is a person of interest and well worth some research.


What I dislike, is the attempts to frame him that people like Christer keep muddying the waters with. It impedes serious research.


Do I think he is a likely suspect? No, using the kind of criteria cited to judge Xmere by, I’d place Deimshitz higher in that category which, incidentally, is not very high, but still worth a look, when it's done properly.

[drstrange169]

>>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 wonder exactly how many other people thought it was funny?

I know some do derive humour from denigrating others, but I’ve never seen the attraction myself.

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

Unlike you, I don’t make unfounded accusations. Each time I’ve made one I’ve cited why I did. The fact that you keep avoiding them leads me to believe they are correct.

The problem with you is not finding incidences of where you have been deceptive, but rather, through their sheer volume, finding the time to catalogue them all.

Want yet another one?

How about 6 or so minutes into your TV show where you lied to a worldwide audience about Baxter’s summation claiming,

“The Coroner said it was nothing less than astonishing that the killer had managed to escape given the circumstances.”

A claim you’ve repeated on these boards as well.
In fact, Baxter said the polar opposite, that it understandable how the killer could have got away undetected. Of course, that doesn’t help the myth you need to create to justify the fact that Xmere stayed instead of running.

For those who don’t know what Baxter was reported as actually saying,

“It seems astonishing at first thought that the culprit should escape detection for there must surely have been marks of blood about his person. The blood, however, might be principally on his hands, and the presence of so many slaughter houses in the neighbourhood would make the frequenters of this spot familiar with bloodstained clothes and hands, and his appearance might in that way have failed to attract attention while he passed from Buck's row in the twilight into Whitechapel road, and was last sight of in the morning's market traffic.”
Daily News 24 Sept

>>Now, it is apparent that you have not been able to understand what I am saying.<<

As the point of most of your post is to muddy the waters, it’s not to surprising, but as David keeps pointing out to you, it seems to be you who doesn’t understand what you are writing.

>>So let´s turn the tables:<<

That’s the general the aim of your posts, to deflect attention away from the questions you won’t answer. And the list is mounting every day.


>>… 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? I´m off on a job now, but I will be curious to see what answer you can provide on that one.<<

I hope the job went well, however you need not have been curious before you left as I have already answered that question in my post. As I previously said I don’t make allegations with backing them up with my reasoning. You and anyone else is perfectly entitled to disagree with my conclusions, but they are not entitled to deny I have made them.

Now how about those answers?

Waiting …

[drstrange169]

Hello Columbo,


>> 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.<<

Not just foolish, but bizarre and yet he still does, go figure?

[drstrange169]

Hello Billiou,

>>I agree with Fish that the Coroner's question "was there anyone else there then" was directed towards when Mizen first met Neil, not when he returned with the ambulance. <<

That is neither here nor there.

The issue is Christer is claiming the Echo report is the most accurate and therefore is to be believed more than multiple newspapers different account.

The significance of the “next sentence” is that it shows the Echo account to heavily edited and misleading, therefore NOT a good source to build a theory on disputuing the accuratacy of the other newspaper reports.

This is what we see Christer constantly doing. Same deal, when he placed a higher priority on a single unsourced sensationalistic claim about blood flowing profusely from the wound against actual witness testimony. Then trying to claim someone said the blood “oozed profusely”.

>>And I also agree that there is no other mention by anyone of the flow of blood from the body when it was moved …<<

“The Coroner: Was there a very large quantity on the flags? – Witness (PC Thain): There was a large clot near the wall, and blood was running into the gutter. When I picked deceased up, her back, as far as the waist, was covered with blood.”
Morning Advertiser


“He (Thain) helped to put the body on the ambulance, and the back appeared to be covered with blood, which, he thought, had run from the neck as far as the waist. He got blood on to his hands”
The Times

[Billiou]

>>And I also agree that there is no other mention by anyone of the flow of blood from the body when it was moved …<<

“The Coroner: Was there a very large quantity on the flags? – Witness (PC Thain): There was a large clot near the wall, and blood was running into the gutter. When I picked deceased up, her back, as far as the waist, was covered with blood.”
Morning Advertiser


“He (Thain) helped to put the body on the ambulance, and the back appeared to be covered with blood, which, he thought, had run from the neck as far as the waist. He got blood on to his hands”
The Times

Yep, there was blood on the ground, no mention of any flow from the body when they moved it. Thanks for pointing that out.

[GUT]

Hello John,


>>Lechmere as a Ripper suspect is frankly a joke.<<

The irony is I actually think Xmere is a person of interest and well worth some research.


What I dislike, is the attempts to frame him that people like Christer keep muddying the waters with. It impedes serious research.


Do I think he is a likely suspect? No, using the kind of criteria cited to judge Xmere by, I’d place Deimshitz higher in that category which, incidentally, is not very high, but still worth a look, when it's done properly.

And to be fair it is common someone gets a person worth looking at, over egg the pudding to the degree they simply turn you off.