The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Sally]

Yesd. Thatīs the movie where the same frickin people surface day after day after day, never having picked up on the fact that the world moves on, isnīt it? They seem totally oblivious of any development, just like some people out here.

All the best,
Fisherman

At least people 'out here' get to take a hiatus in the real world, eh?

[Fisherman]

At least people 'out here' get to take a hiatus in the real world, eh?

Some do, others donīt. Hiatus, detox; call it what you want. Itīs useful.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Yes, Robert. Lechmere was standing by Nichols side. I have pointed that out to you on numerous occasions. Paul said that he was standing where the body was, and that he was out in the middle of the road.

So if he was out in the road and up where the victim was, then he was quite close to her, in other words by her side.

In English, 'by someone's side' means that you are able to hold hands. That's not even close to 'middle of the road'. That doesn't mean a guy couldn't kill someone and then take 3 or 4 steps into the middle of the road.
According to Cross, he hadn't been by the side of the body or else he would have known she was dead, if he wasn't lying that is.

Mike

[Fisherman]

In English, 'by someone's side' means that you are able to hold hands. That's not even close to 'middle of the road'. That doesn't mean a guy couldn't kill someone and then take 3 or 4 steps into the middle of the road.
According to Cross, he hadn't been by the side of the body or else he would have known she was dead, if he wasn't lying that is.

Mike

Yes, if he wasnīt lying, Mike. And guess what...?

You also refer to the carman as Cross, and that would have been his real name - if he wasnīt lying, that is.

And he never told Mizen about that other PC - if he wasnīt lying.

Oh, and in English, I have heard the expression "Iīm here, right by your side" expressed by people who could not reach out and hold hands with the ones they said it to. In fact, I would say that claiming that being able to join hand is the definition of "by the side of" is not a universally applying thing. I think by the side of means "in close proximity to" on a more general level.

... but in the end, I donīt care a rats behind about people getting annoyed by the expression. I am ready and willing to change it for "In a close enough proximity to allow for having killed Nichols before Paul arrived" any day in the week.

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Then please do so, Fish, and stick to it.

[Fisherman]

Then please do so, Fish, and stick to it.

Do what? And stick to what?

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

"... but in the end, I donīt care a rats behind about people getting annoyed by the expression. I am ready and willing to change it for "In a close enough proximity to allow for having killed Nichols before Paul arrived" any day in the week."

[Fisherman]

"... but in the end, I donīt care a rats behind about people getting annoyed by the expression. I am ready and willing to change it for "In a close enough proximity to allow for having killed Nichols before Paul arrived" any day in the week."

Oh - that! You know, Robert, I have a feeling that nobody is going to like that presentation either. I swears against Lechmereīs genuinely friendly family man character.

But Iīll give it a shot anyway.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Question for Tom Wescott:

If Nichols was cut and killed at 3.30 - why is she still bleeding from the neck as Mizen sees her, around twenty minutes afterwards?

Comparison: Stride.

Stride was cut between 00.45 and 1.00. She was much more superficially cut than Nichols was, and she had no cuts to the abdomen. Her left carotid artery had an opening in it, but was not severed.

Nichols had ALL her blood vessels in the neck completely severed. And she had her belly slashed and cut severely.

When Johnston arrived in Dutfields Yard, he was some time ahead of Blackwell, who got there exactly 1.16. Letīs say that Johnston was there at 1.13.

That would mean that Stride had been cut 13-28 minutes earlier. And all her blood had run away, from a punctured artery, and had even clotted at that stage! So she had not bled for some time as Johnston saw her, bringin the maximum time of 28 minutes further down.

But Nichols, who was more opened up than a balloon subjected to a guillotine would bleed for twenty minutes or more?

Harriet Lilley did not overhear the Nichols murder. And this is why. Nichols was cut very close in time to when Lechmere "found" her body. And then she bled for a few minutes. And Mizen was there around four or five minutes after she was cut - not twenty minutes afterwards.

All the best,
Fisherman
obsessed

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Fish. Nichols wasn't still bleeding when Mizen got there.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish. Nichols wasn't still bleeding when Mizen got there.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Yawn ... Donīt even go there, Tom:

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.
(Morning Advertiser)

...plus, of course, Neil anyhow saw the blood running 17-18 minutes after Nichols was cut (according to you, that is).

But maybe he did not see any running blood either? I really canīt know ītil I checked with you, Tom, can I?

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Harriet Lilley did not overhear the Nichols murder.

Whose murder did she hear?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Oh, and I forgot - Thain says the same thing:

"There was a large clot near the wall, and blood was running into the gutter."

"Running". Not "had run"

Lilley heard whispering voices and gasps. Are all whispering voices and gasps murders? Could an ordinary encounter between a punter and a prostitute sound like whipsers and gasps?

Answer: Yes, it could.

So could Lilley - who had just left the arms of Morpheus, by the way - have overheard a sex affair with somebody else, ten or twelve minutes before Nichols was killed?

Answer: Yes, she could.

What evidence do we have that the Nichols murder was not what Lilley heard?

Well, thereīs the blood evidence, as stated by Neil, Thain and Mizen, telling us that Nichols still bled around 3.45-3.50.

So does that mean that we can ditch Lilley?

Answer: In all probability, yes.

But do you think that Tom will see the sense in this?

Answer: Yes, I do.

Aha. But will he admit it?

Answer: Iīm a lot less certain of that, sadly.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Fish. Everyone knows that light glistening off blood can give the impression of movement. Also, if the constables moved the body at all or even touched it I would expect some leakage. As for Lilley, you think she heard a sexual encounter? It's interesting how you discard the one witness who might have actually heard something and then pick and choose from the police statements.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish. Everyone knows that light glistening off blood can give the impression of movement. Also, if the constables moved the body at all or even touched it I would expect some leakage. As for Lilley, you think she heard a sexual encounter? It's interesting how you discard the one witness who might have actually heard something and then pick and choose from the police statements.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Three (3) PC:s said that the blood was still running as they saw Nichols.

You claim that she was not bleeding as Mizen saw her.

That flies in the face of the recorded evidence.

We should not ask ourselves how three men could all have gotten it wrong when there is absolutely no reason to think so. Unless, of course, you predispose that Lilley MUST have heard the killing of Nichols.

Do you?

Nice little touch about me "picking and choosing" whilst discarding the one witness who may have heard the killing!

Of course, the picking and choosing that is going on here seems to be that of a poster choosing to disbelieve three PC:s who all testified that blood was oozing/running from the wound in Nichols neck at around 3.45-3.50. Incidentally, not a single one of them speaks of moving Nichols.

Once we admit that these three PC:s would be very good judges of what oozing/running blood looks like, we can safely dismiss Lilley as not having overheard the murder.

But you will have it the other way? A drowsy lady, half awake, half sleeping who heard whispering voices and gasps MUST have overheard the Nichols murder. Whereas three PC:s MUST have been mistaken about the blood.

Lilley is a better and more reliable witness than Neil, Thain and Mizen, thus.

Yeah, right!

Thanks for the input, Tom.

The best,
Fisherman