Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

Patrick - thank you for #595.

It has always been my belief that the "carman" gave the name Cross for a reason that day. He may have used Cross at work. Maybe his step-father had a hand in him obtaining the position and introduced Charles as "Cross". And that was the name he continued to use at work.

When questioned by Mizen he gave the name Cross expecting that if the police needed further information from him later that day, they would track him down to his place of work where he was known, and always had been, by the name Cross.

Now we don't know for sure that was the case as Pickford's records have long been destroyed, but would this not be a more than reasonable explanation for him using Cross when speaking with Mizen?

Everything is a more "reasonable" explanation than having killed a person in a ghastly manner and wanting to get away with it.

And nevertheless, these things happen.

[Elamarna]

So! It seems we have left the worst behind, and we may move on to a bit more interesting matters. Good.

Letīs begin with Steve, who lays down - if I understand it correctly - that dead people with abdominal wounds severe enough to kill and with the neck cut to the bone can still breathe for several minutes.

Have I got you right on this point, Steve? Or are you saying that dead people can breathe for several minutes, no damage defined?

I am saying that the ability to breath will depend on the severity of other wounds. The time until breathing stops will be defined by the failure of the heart or until a blockage prevents breathing or there is other damage that directly effects the breathing process.

To put it simply it not set in stone, there no magic number of minutes.

In Nichols case she will either stop breathing around the time the heart fails, or sooner if the airway is completely blocked, it may have well been, or there was damage to the diapham.


The debate over if the abdominal wounds were first or serve enough as not be settled either way.
Kjab3112's post suggests that bleeding from all but the Aorta is unlikely to be a cause of death over the wounds to the Neck.

The only way I can see that the abdomen wounds could cause death before the Neck is if a branch of the aorta had been cut, for which there is no evidence, however even if there was death would in that case almost certainly be counted in seconds not minutes and it's unlikey improbably,not impossible that breathing would have ceased before Paul examined her.

So breathing could I believe continue for a variable period after the attack, my point was that just severing the windpipe would not on its own stop breathing, which was the point being suggested.

I hope that is clear.


Steve

[Fisherman]

One more for Steve: You said somewhere that the two men Thain saw just before being called by Neil were probably Lechmere and Paul.

I really donīt think so. In the Times, we have this passage from the inquest, Thain being quoted:

"Shortly before he was called by Constable Neil he saw one or two men going to work in the direction of Whitechapel-road. When he was signalled by Neil he was coming up Brady-street, from the direction of Whitechapel-road."

Nota bene - one OR two men. So we donīt know.

Plus we get the information that as Thain saw these two men/one man, he was walking south to north himself, from Whitechapel Road up towards the junction Bucks Row/Brady Street. That means that if he saw the men/man on the same beat round as when he was called by Neil, they/he were/was on their way down towards Whitechapel road, and did obviously not turn into Bucks Row. My own guess is that he saw him/them in the distance (which is why he could not tell if it was one or two men) in Brady Street, and that they therefore passed by the junction Bucks Row/Brady Street after Thain had turned the corner into Bucks Row. If so, they/he could not be Lechmere and Paul.
The other possibility is that Thain saw them on his earlier round, but that would put the carmen in Brady Street at around 3.15-3.20 - and that is not correct either.
Taken all together, I think that we are dealing with somebody else than our carmen in this instance.

[Elamarna]

One more for Steve - no, I have not stated that Paul discerned any breathing. I am not sure that he discerned anything at all, but if he did, I would not rule out that it was some sort of a twitch or something. Either way, if he DID feel something, it goes to tell us that death was not far distant.

I agree.
Unfortunately such cannot be used to set a Time of attack. I would suggest under 5 minutes but that give scope for anyone be it the "phantom" or Lechmere.


Steve

[Rainbow]

It was me who said that, and I said directly whoever they were , they are not important , because we were discussing the time when the phantom killer run away before this sight took place there were not a soul.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: I am saying that the ability to breath will depend on the severity of other wounds.

And Nicholsī wounds were as bad as can be, more or less.

The time until breathing stops will be defined by the failure of the heart or until a blockage prevents breathing or there is other damage that directly effects the breathing process.

To put it simply it not set in stone, there no magic number of minutes.

Not set in stone? No, Iīd agree with that. But could Nichols have breathed for several minutes, given her damage? I find that hard to believe. Of course, it is kind of a useless question, since we donīt know if Paul did detect any breathing at all. But useless questions are what we ask many a time out here.

In Nichols case she will either stop breathing around the time the heart fails, or sooner if the airway is completely blocked, it may have well been, or there was damage to the diapham.

I noticed that Henry Flower opted for the brain steering the breathing process. But you seem to say that it is connected to the heart? So which is it? Will the braindead or the heartdead breathe go on breathing longer?

The debate over if the abdominal wounds were first or serve enough as not be settled either way.
Kjab3112's post suggests that bleeding from all but the Aorta is unlikely to be a cause of death over the wounds to the Neck.

And she may have had the aorta severed, Steve. There is nothing contradicting it. We should also acknowledge that there is a time factor involved - if many large vessels are severed in the abdomen, then the brain WILL be deprived of oxygen at some time.

The only way I can see that the abdomen wounds could cause death before the Neck is if a branch of the aorta had been cut, for which there is no evidence, however even if there was death would in that case almost certainly be counted in seconds not minutes and it's unlikey improbably,not impossible that breathing would have ceased before Paul examined her.

There is no evidence for any of the organs in the abdomen being cut, Steve, so I find the argument that the aorta was not mentioned a bit superfluous. It was said that "all vital organs" or something such (I donīt remember the exact wording) were struck, and that says something about how the abdomen suffered very severe damage.

So breathing could I believe continue for a variable period after the attack, my point was that just severing the windpipe would not on its own stop breathing, which was the point being suggested.

I hope that is clear.

Yes, that is very clear - cutting the windpipe does not rule out breathing. But cutting the neck to the bone and all the vital organs of the abdomen does rule it out. And my hunch - a very unmedical one - is that we are looking at a very short perio of time.
Once more, feel free to agree, īcause it is coupled to no risk. I do not think it in any way established that Nichols was breathing as Paul felt her chest.

[Fisherman]

I agree.
Unfortunately such cannot be used to set a Time of attack. I would suggest under 5 minutes but that give scope for anyone be it the "phantom" or Lechmere.


Steve

Under five minutes what? Would she bleed for under five minutes? Or are you saying that she had not been dead for more than five minutes as Lechmere first saw her? Or as Paul first saw her? Please clarify!

[Elamarna]

Abby - I very much agree that none of the material that has been presented here does in any way detract from how Lechmere fits the bill timewise.

Steve - you mumble about how it seems true that Lechmere was close by as Nichols died, but maybe not as close as "some" will have it.

Do you have anything that in any way indicates that Lechmere was NOT close enough to be the killer?

It's not mumbling Fish.
If we accept his timing for leaving home as 3.30 or about 3.30, I believe the times do not fit.
I could equally argue do you have something to place him there? I do not think you do.
However such gets us nowhere as I am sure you agree.
Hopefully one of the hypothesis in part 3 will allow us both to debate the issue in real depth, rather than as a sideshow so to speak. Who knows we may end up agreeing on part of it.

Steve

[Fisherman]

It was me who said that, and I said directly whoever they were , they are not important , because we were discussing the time when the phantom killer run away before this sight took place there were not a soul.

There may have been a phantom killer, Rainbow. It cannot be ruled out.

But since this elusive phantom is not in evidence in any shape or form, while Lechmere is very much so, it remains that the latter is by far the better bid of the two.

It really is that simple. A suggested, conjured up man can only be a better suggestion if it can be shown that Lechmere does not fit the physical evidence timewise, but he does.

This is an extremely hard pill to swallow for the naysayers, of course, and so we should not expect them to accept this fact. Thatīs how it goes out here, but it is nothing much to be annoyed about. Itīs more of a laugh.

[Elamarna]

One more for Steve: You said somewhere that the two men Thain saw just before being called by Neil were probably Lechmere and Paul.

I really donīt think so. In the Times, we have this passage from the inquest, Thain being quoted:

"Shortly before he was called by Constable Neil he saw one or two men going to work in the direction of Whitechapel-road. When he was signalled by Neil he was coming up Brady-street, from the direction of Whitechapel-road."

Nota bene - one OR two men. So we donīt know.

Plus we get the information that as Thain saw these two men/one man, he was walking south to north himself, from Whitechapel Road up towards the junction Bucks Row/Brady Street. That means that if he saw the men/man on the same beat round as when he was called by Neil, they/he were/was on their way down towards Whitechapel road, and did obviously not turn into Bucks Row. My own guess is that he saw him/them in the distance (which is why he could not tell if it was one or two men) in Brady Street, and that they therefore passed by the junction Bucks Row/Brady Street after Thain had turned the corner into Bucks Row. If so, they/he could not be Lechmere and Paul.
The other possibility is that Thain saw them on his earlier round, but that would put the carmen in Brady Street at around 3.15-3.20 - and that is not correct either.
Taken all together, I think that we are dealing with somebody else than our carmen in this instance.

I think you have misread. It was Rainbow suggesting this unlikely possibility. I was arguing against. Making my the same points as you.

Steve

[Henry Flower]

Fisherman:

I noticed that Henry Flower opted for the brain steering the breathing process. But you seem to say that it is connected to the heart? So which is it? Will the braindead or the heartdead breathe go on breathing longer?

It's fairly simple, basic stuff, and the the way this question is posed strikes me as displaying either a remarkable lack of basic physiological knowledge or else a needless desire to score points in an argument.

The breathing is the result of the brain and CNS regulating muscles of the ribs and the diaphragm. But If the body loses too much blood the heart fails, and soon after, the brain and CNS will die due to oxygen starvation. However, even this is subject to variables. The mechanism and timing of brain death after heart failure is also not set in stone.

There was clearly no conflict between what I said and what Steve said, Christer. I feel you're being willfully cheeky

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: It's not mumbling Fish.

Sorry about that, Steve - since it was not spelt out, I used that expression. No harm intended.

If we accept his timing for leaving home as 3.30 or about 3.30, I believe the times do not fit.

How so? If you mean that he should have been past Bucks Row at both 3.40 AND 3.45, I agree. But that is kind of uninteresting as we know that he was not.

I could equally argue do you have something to place him there? I do not think you do.

To place him where?

However such gets us nowhere as I am sure you agree.

Letīs have your clarification first, and I may well do so.

Hopefully one of the hypothesis in part 3 will allow us both to debate the issue in real depth, rather than as a sideshow so to speak. Who knows we may end up agreeing on part of it.

Itīs good to hear that you open up for coming around to my side of the matter, Steve. Nah, just kidding. Letīs see what happens.

[ohrocky]

Everything is a more "reasonable" explanation than having killed a person in a ghastly manner and wanting to get away with it.

And nevertheless, these things happen.

But I still fail to see how giving Mizen the name of Cross would help if he had been the killer and wanted to get away with it.

I have read nearly all posts on just about every thread on Lechmere, and watched your most intriguing documentary. You have made a case that is significantly stronger than others (the wide-boy, his dodgy DNA "expert" and the piece of cloth, Cornwall's Sickert nonsense, dear Dale and Vincent, and above all, Pierre's "I have found him but I'm not going to tell you" rubbish), but I am not persuaded.

If the "carman" was the killer and wanted to get away with it he would not IMO have used a name by which he was (or at least had been) known, that was used in at least one census, and was the surname of his stepfather.

Why not "my name is <insert false name> and I live at <insert false address>..........and be on his way?

I just couldn't put the noose around Crossmere's neck on the basis that he used a name by which he was known!

[Rainbow]

Saying that the heart is the organ that controls breathing and that she will continue to breath till the heart stop is out of any science or knowledge.

and the suggestion was not that she will stop breathing because the windpipe was cut. She suffered a monstrous abdominal injury and the head was almost severed from the body, and she can't continue to breath for more than a minute or two.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Henry Flower;419387]

It's fairly simple, basic stuff, and the the way this question is posed strikes me as displaying either a remarkable lack of basic physiological knowledge...

Canīt be ruled out!

... or else a needless desire to score points in an argument.

THAT would be a first!

The breathing is the result of the brain and CNS regulating muscles of the ribs and the diaphragm. But If the body loses too much blood the heart fails, and soon after, the brain and CNS will die due to oxygen starvation. However, even this is subject to variables. The mechanism and timing of brain death after heart failure is also not set in stone.

There was clearly no conflict between what I said and what Steve said, Christer. I feel you're being willfully cheeky

Me? Nah. What I was thinking of was how muscles are divided up into two categories - those we regulate by will and those we cannot regulate by will. Like the breathing muscles, for example; we cannot commit suicide by holding out breath. So I was kind of curious what applied. And my gut instinct tells me that nobody with the kind of damage Nichols had can breathe for a couple of minutes. But I am happy to stand corrected on that score if that gut feeling is wrong.