The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Lechmere]

Errr no pick 2 unbiased members of the pubic.

Trevor
No one has suggested that Lechmere as with the body at Bucks Row for 9 minutes
You keep saying this like a dog returning to his vomit

To get a grip of the timings you need to read more than one newspaper report, so I suggest you read over this case more thoroughly before commenting further.

Chris
If you read the various accounts it is clear that the blood became more apparent as time went on.
Paul failed to mention any blood being on his person despite his touching the body quite extensively.
It seems that neither Lechmere nor Paul had any blood easily visible on them either.
Hence the absence of any comment about visible blood – or in Paul’s case subsequent comment about blood on his person – is evidence that he had no blood on him.
As I said in this case the absence of evidence – comment about blood – is evidence that it was absent. And ties in nicely with the evidence of increasing amounts of blood becoming visible at the crime scene.
Pedantically worrying over whether or not there is a specific reference to Lechmere being bloodless is an exercise in irrelevance.

Abby
The rate of seepage of blood is illustrative that the murder was very freshly committed when Lechmere and Paul touched the body.

[GUT]

Errr no pick 2 unbiased members of the pubic.

Why not 12 like a real jury?

[Chris]

As I said in this case the absence of evidence – comment about blood – is evidence that it was absent.

So - to be clear - are you saying that there is only an absence of evidence about whether the men had any blood on them?

[Chris]

And the issue of prima facie case is very much a part of a criminal trial.

My point was that the stuff Fisherman posted in reply to Trevor Marriott was about civil cases, not criminal cases, and therefore irrelevant.

[Bitsie]

Lets hypothesize, by what you say Cross had 9 mins with the body. The expert says it would have taken no more than two mins to do what was done to her, that leaves 7 mins, more than enough time to murder mutilate and to remove organs if he is connected to the Eddowes murder that's approx all the time the killer had there.

What if he had done to Nicholls what was done to Eddowes and removed organs and then heard Paul coming would he have still stayed and not run? Or would he have dumped them on the pavement and suggested that they were part of the crime scene.

Paul in fact said he left home at 3.45am so in effect if Cross had left home at 3.20am he would have had 15 mins with the body before the arrival of Paul

In fact Pc Neil doesnt mention any time in his testimony, and the only time Pc Mizen mentions is 4.15 am. What a fiasco with the times. Times which you heavily rely on

I'm possibly being painfully dim here, but isn't the extra time taken up BEFORE the killing (time taken up by meeting Nicholls etc), the main point being exactly that, as you say, there was absolutely no time to spend with the body as immediately after inflicting injuries on her he was interrupted by Paul - which is why there was not yet blood at the scene for Paul to step in or get on his hands and clothes? Yet minutes later when Mizen arrived there was blood flowing into the gutter - which implies the wounds had been freshly inflicted.

Have I understood that correctly? That that's the theory at least?

[GUT]

Something I haven't seen mentioned anywhere here is that Paul believed she was still alive, boy was Lechmere taking a stupid risk, if so, to take a third party to his victim, who may not have yet been dead and risk her gasping something out.

[Bitsie]

Something I haven't seen mentioned anywhere here is that Paul believed she was still alive, boy was Lechmere taking a stupid risk, if so, to take a third party to his victim, who may not have yet been dead and risk her gasping something out.

With her throat cut to the bone?

[GUT]

With her throat cut to the bone?

So was Paul telling fibs or just mistaken, or was air just still escaping that made Paul [Baul] believe she was breathing.

[Bitsie]

So was Paul telling fibs or just mistaken, or was air just still escaping that made Paul [Baul] believe she was breathing.

I'm not sure how anyone can breathe with a severed neck, though a doctor I am not

[Bitsie]

Although if the spinal chord is in tact the body can attempt to breathe?...

I still think speaking is highly unlikely.

[GUT]

Although if the spinal chord is in tact the body can attempt to breathe?...

I still think speaking is highly unlikely.

We now that, but if she was still breathing [or attempting to] would Cross/Lechmere have known that.

[Lechmere]

She had been strangled, he had deeply cut her throat twice and mutilated her abdomen.
I doubt Lechmere had much cause for concern - do you?
He was probably relieved that Paul thought she might be alive.

[Hakeswill]

My understanding is that it can be hard to determine if an injured body is breathing even in ideal circumstances for the layperson. For a carman in the dark, who didn't sound too keen to be there...I don't think you can put too much store by Paul's statement. If he was correct it makes things more interesting, of course.

[GUT]

Two of the points made against Cross are

He gave a name he wasn't known by, and

He didn't give his home address.

How then did the papers get his home address?

It has been claimed that the paper got hold of some police, or inquest documents.

But isn't there an explanation that makes even more sense, ie a reported trotted off the Pickford's and said what can you tell me about Charlie Cross, if so it shows Pickford's knew him as Cross.

Are we also expected to believe that the press didn't even, once they got his address visit his home.

[Bitsie]

We now that, but if she was still breathing [or attempting to] would Cross/Lechmere have known that.

I've no idea, either way he probably knew that she wasn't going to pipe up with a witness statement.