Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Ben 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Ben 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Ben 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Ben 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Ben 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Ben 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - (11 posts)
Torso Killings: torso maps - (9 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (7 posts)
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - (5 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Mitre square, very upsetting! - (1 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Lechmere/Cross, Charles

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #991  
Old 12-19-2014, 12:25 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
If the murder took place 20 mins before the body was found then by the time it was found the wound could have been trickling could it not thus ruling Cross out
I feel I should point out that your attempts at using the expert forensic evidence to eliminate Cross as the killer are not at all convincing and you are handing an easy 'win' to Fisherman each time.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #992  
Old 12-19-2014, 12:29 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

As a general comment, I don't really understand all the continued discussion in this thread about the two surnames. I mean, he could just as easily have been hung as Charles Cross as Charles Lechmere. So it's a complete non-point.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #993  
Old 12-19-2014, 01:01 PM
Richard Patterson Richard Patterson is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 530
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosella View Post
Leaving aside the circumstances of the discovery of Polly Nichol's body for a minute, what proof is there that Lechmere/Cross was ever involved in the deaths of any other Ripper victims?
I have posed a similar question to Fisherman myself on this thread. I asked him how did his suspect know how to cut out Mary Kelly's heart. He didn't respond. I would be very happy if he responds to you.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #994  
Old 12-19-2014, 01:14 PM
Robert Robert is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,828
Default

McKenzie bled for over 20 minutes. However, her neck wounds weren't as severe as those of Nichols.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #995  
Old 12-19-2014, 01:58 PM
curious curious is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,560
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Now, your expert seemed to suggest that we can narrow it down to a maximum of about 20 minutes. (If he did not mean to say this then he probably should not have mentioned such a time).
David,
The expert did NOT narrow the time to 20 minutes -- not ever.

When asked the first question, he stated: It is also possible that a continued slow trickle could go on for many minutes after death . . .

and "Blood can leak out after death (and for quite some time)."

ONLY AFTER being asked the next set of questions, which included 20 minutes exactly, did he say yes 20 minutes was in the realm of possibility for blood to continue flowing from such a wound.

The questions was:
Q.Could a body with this kind of damage bleed from the neck wound for more than twenty minutes?
To which his partial reply was: "I think it is certainly possible that ‘bleeding’ could go on for a period of twenty minutes, although I would make a distinction between ‘post mortem leakage of blood from the body’ and actual ‘bleeding’ that occurred during life."

THE ONLY REASON THE EXPERT EVEN MENTIONED 20 MINUTES WAS BECAUSE HE WAS ASKED A VERY SPECIFIC QUESTION that mentioned 20 minutes.

curious
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #996  
Old 12-19-2014, 02:10 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert View Post
McKenzie bled for over 20 minutes. However, her neck wounds weren't as severe as those of Nichols.
This looks to be true although, it seems, not much more than 20 minutes before the blood clotted.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #997  
Old 12-19-2014, 02:17 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curious View Post
David,
The expert did NOT narrow the time to 20 minutes -- not ever.

When asked the first question, he stated: It is also possible that a continued slow trickle could go on for many minutes after death . . .

and "Blood can leak out after death (and for quite some time)."

ONLY AFTER being asked the next set of questions, which included 20 minutes exactly, did he say yes 20 minutes was in the realm of possibility for blood to continue flowing from such a wound.

The questions was:
Q.Could a body with this kind of damage bleed from the neck wound for more than twenty minutes?
To which his partial reply was: "I think it is certainly possible that ‘bleeding’ could go on for a period of twenty minutes, although I would make a distinction between ‘post mortem leakage of blood from the body’ and actual ‘bleeding’ that occurred during life."

THE ONLY REASON THE EXPERT EVEN MENTIONED 20 MINUTES WAS BECAUSE HE WAS ASKED A VERY SPECIFIC QUESTION that mentioned 20 minutes.

curious
I hesitate to respond to this for fear of suddenly being told you are not going to continue to discuss this with me at any moment as you shake your head.
But taking my life into my hands, my response is this:

When the question is:

"Could a body with this kind of damage bleed from the neck wound for more than twenty minutes?"

and the answer is:

"I think it is certainly possible that ‘bleeding’ could go on for a period of twenty minutes"

then what it looks like to me, as an interpretation of plain English, is that the expert is saying "NO! It could not really go on for a period of MORE than twenty minutes but it could certainly go on FOR a period of twenty minutes". In other words, twenty minutes is the maximum.

Now, it may be that the expert was careless in his phrasing and/or was not intending to say this. That is why I am suggesting it would be helpful to have some clarification.

AND

I also note that the expert qualified his reply because he continued by saying:

"although I would make a distinction between ‘post mortem leakage of blood from the body’ and actual ‘bleeding’ that occurred during life. The flow of blood is likely to have slowed to a trickle by this time as pressure inside the vessels would have dissipated and the volume of blood remaining available to leak out would have become very little.".

I don't really know what the qualification means vis a vis the 20 minutes. I also don't understand whether the clamping vs non-clamping point means that the blood will flow for less than 20 minutes under one of those scenarios.

So all I'm asking for is some clarification of the expert's own words to try and clear up the confusion.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #998  
Old 12-19-2014, 02:33 PM
Richard Patterson Richard Patterson is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 530
Default Newsflash! The Ripper killed more than one person.

Isn’t this thread about getting Lechmere/Cross of the hook? I’m sure in truth Fisherman loves to argue about the timings of the 1st murder, because the argument can go on forever, while onlookers fall asleep.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #999  
Old 12-19-2014, 02:37 PM
DarkPassenger DarkPassenger is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 358
Default

This whole debate is stifled for two reasons;

One, the true details of the murders are often clouded by history - particularly, who was and wasn't a victim (eg., Stride was almost certainly not a Ripper victim, except to those who are in love and married to the idea of a Canonical Five).

Two, everyone has a vested interest in the Ripper - their own personal suspects and theories which they defend to the hilt, even ad absurdium.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1000  
Old 12-19-2014, 02:56 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkPassenger View Post
This whole debate is stifled for two reasons;

One, the true details of the murders are often clouded by history - particularly, who was and wasn't a victim (eg., Stride was almost certainly not a Ripper victim, except to those who are in love and married to the idea of a Canonical Five). .
As far as I'm concerned, this debate has been all about who killed Mary Ann Nichols.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkPassenger View Post
Two, everyone has a vested interest in the Ripper - their own personal suspects and theories which they defend to the hilt, even ad absurdium.
Not entirely true. I don't.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.