Lechmere Continuation Thread

[Fisherman]

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 that´s 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 won´t 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.

It´s 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 don´t manage to look away from that.

[Fisherman]

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."

The blood normally visibly starts to clot after three to four minutes, and the congealing process will be completed in about seven minutes under normal circumstances.

[Fisherman]

>>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 …

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.
He did qualify his statement, but he could see his way through to accepting that even a bloodstained man could escape.
That does not mean that Baxter did not think that on the surface of things, it was an astonishing feat anyway.
Moreover, this thinking is in line with Swanson who said that the mystery was most complete.

So you failed again, Dusty.

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.

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.

[Fisherman]

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

Point one: The position of the blood is different (at odds) with descriptions given by P.C. Neil and Dr. Llewellyn ergo Thain is describing blood movement that occurred post their description.

Point two: P.C. Thain is the only other person to mention the blood had started to coagulate.

I can't remember where, but I also recall some reporting about blood stains being left on the pavement from the body being moved.

I´ll help you out - there were three stains of blood found in the street and it was subsequently found out that those would have come from another event where blood was shed earlier.
As I remember things, of course. I am not to be trusted, mind you.

[Fisherman]

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.

Odd, then, that a novice like James Scobie should say that there is a prima faciae case against him.

Harry, you need to move on. You are trying to dam a flow that has already passed by.

[Joshua Rogan]

It therefore seems to me that "running" implies that the blood was existing the wound at a much faster rate than a "slow trickle", which would seem to suggest the victim had only very recently been killed.

Not necessarily, John.... A row of houses can run down a street, it doesn't mean they are moving at all, let alone faster than an ooze.

[Fisherman]

Billiou, thanks for saying the same thing that I do. It is always easier to maintain a line of investigation when you get corroboration from others.

Otherwise, it is soooo easy to say "Fisherman is a liar, Fisherman offers only twaddle" and so on.

The truth of the matter is that the Echo report seems to be by far and away the best one, and I applaud the reporter. It was he who also laid down that it was only at the inquest that Mizen had had confirmation that "Cross" was really a carman, and that he had been given the carmans name. So that reporter is a more ambitious and informative reporter than the rest, the way I see it.

You were supposed to say "Excuse me for interfering, I´ll 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.

Ripperology - you just got to love it!

[Fisherman]

Not necessarily, John.... A row of houses can run down a street, it doesn't mean they are moving at all, let alone faster than an ooze.

Glass is actually a liquid. Our windows run as we post, and a very old window will therefore be thicker at the bottom and thinner at the top.

I don´t think we can say that "oozing" must have meant running very slowly and I don´t think we can say "running" must have meant running very quickly. Neil and Mizens observations will have been perhaps two, three minutes apart, and it stands to reason that the blood will have run more quickly when Neil took a look. And we know that there was not very much blood in the pool, so there was no Niagara at any stage. That´s about all we can say.

[David Orsam]

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.

I'm none the wiser I'm afraid Fisherman. When you say that Mizen "adds a lot", what is the actual significance?

You've listed three things.

1. The blood ran into the gutter. To which I say: big deal. What does that tell us?

2. The blood looked fresh. Well big deal again. Doesn't all blood that is running out from a body (dead or alive) look "fresh"?

3. He says it was somewhat coagulated. And I repeat that the only addition to Neil's evidence is that, if anything, this pushes back the time since the murder. Or, alternatively, if you want to be silly and stress that blood congeals the second it leaves the body then it tells us nothing at all.

So we are simply back to Neil's evidence that he saw blood oozing from the neck.

I do love, incidentally, the way you say that Neil did not choose the best word in "oozing" and a better word would have been "running". But he said oozing! Oozing incorporates some form of (slow) trickling or seeping, i.e. movement, and that can also be said to be running or flowing but slowly. So it's perfectly clear to me that when he said oozing he meant oozing but feel free to "improve" any evidence you don't like.

[Fisherman]

I am leaving this thread!!!


... for a week. Promise.

I am going to Hallands Väderö, a small island off the southern Swedish coast where there is no electricity and no internet. It´s all about sunsoaked stone cliffs, seals basking in the sun and taking things VERY easy. There are twenty of us making that effort, so there is every chance we will succeed.

When (or if, the seals can be aggressive at times) I return, I will check out what has happened.

My prediction is that Dusty´s teeth will have been completely ground down, that David has seen the sense in what I am saying about Mizen, that Billou has been elected president of the site on account of his clearsightedness and courage and that Pierre has ... has... no, I´ll be damned if I can understand where he´s going. And that Columbo is pretty cool with that.

Au revoir,

/Fisherman

[Joshua Rogan]

Glass is actually a liquid. Our windows run as we post, and a very old window will therefore be thicker at the bottom and thinner at the top.

I don't think that's actually true. Glass was originally made by spinning a molten blob on the end of a rod until it formed a disk, which meant that it would inevitably be thinner at the edges and thicker in the middle. The panes were cut from this disk, and the thicker side was always put at the bottom, thus giving rise to the misconception about glass flowing over time.

I don´t think we can say that "oozing" must have meant running very slowly and I don´t think we can say "running" must have meant running very quickly. Neil and Mizens observations will have been perhaps two, three minutes apart, and it stands to reason that the blood will have run more quickly when Neil took a look. And we know that there was not very much blood in the pool, so there was no Niagara at any stage. That´s about all we can say.

The point of my last post was that I'm not sure it's possible to use dictionary definitions to discern the exact conditions of the blood. But if you do want to do that, then "running" can mean various things, but "oozing" can only mean slowly, or gently. Or "percolating, as a liquid through pores or small openings". Thus my earlier suggestion that Neil was describing the blood coming from the cut surfaces of the wound.

[David Orsam]

My prediction is that Dusty´s teeth will have been completely ground down, that David has seen the sense in what I am saying about Mizen, :

Well you've waved goodbye to the thread without actually explaining what you are saying about Mizen, so it's going to be impossible for me to see the sense in it, if there is any.

It's pretty obvious to me that Mizen's evidence about the blood (even if he was referring to the earliest possible time when he could have seen the body) adds absolutely nothing to the case against Lechmere over and above Neil's evidence that he saw blood oozing (or running) from Nichols' body, showing that the murder was relatively recent but exactly how recent is impossible to say.

[Robert]

When (or if, the seals can be aggressive at times) I return

They certainly will be if you start talking to them about Lechmere.

[Pcdunn]

&quot;Running&quot; as a indication of direction

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

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.

[David Orsam]

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.

It's not a comprehensive account though Billiou. It omits any mention of Mizen's testimony about assisting in moving the body into the ambulance. This is absolutely crucial because other newspaper accounts suggest that he spoke of this immediately before talking about the blood.

Take the Evening Post report for example:

"Police-constable Mizen said that on Friday morning, about a quarter to four, he was in Baker’s-row, at the corner of Hanbury-street. A man passed, who looked like a carman, and said “You are wanted round in Buck’s-row”. A carman was brought in court, and witness said he was the man. He went round and found Police-constable Neil with the deceased. At Neil’s suggestion he went for the ambulance, and afterwards assisted to remove the body. Blood was running from her neck ."

From other accounts we can see that when Mizen said "At that time nobody but Neil was with the body" he certainly WAS talking about the time Neil asked him to fetch the ambulance. But other newspapers record that he then spoke of moving the body onto the ambulance and THEN seeing the blood.

Consequently, what it looks like is that the Echo has edited and condensed Mizen's evidence FROM:

"The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. When I returned with the ambulance I helped to put deceased on it. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter."

TO:

"The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter."

The conclusion, therefore, from all the newspaper reports has to be that it is ambiguous as to which time period Mizen was talking about in respect of the blood running towards the gutter. The problem is that we don't know what the question was which prompted him to talk about the blood. But given the context of his answers it is at least possible that he was talking about a period after he had come back with the ambulance.