Lechmere Continuation Thread

[drstrange169]

>>I want you to explain how Mizen would have had no obvious reason to suppose that Neil could not have been the first to discover the body even if the two carmen did not mention another PC.<<

It’s more than a tad disingenuous to pretend I haven’t answered or that I'm trying to avoid a question when you have accumulated such a long list of unanswered questions.

Why would you need me to explain a question that you already know the answer to?
We’ve had this debate many times here and over at Jtrforums just look my answers up there. Or perhaps you could just read my explanation on page 26 of Ripperologist 142.

Why is it that so much of what you post has such a dishonest bent to it.?


>>Should be simple and straightforward enough, one would think?<<

Very straight forward, you don’t even have to go the trouble of looking up my last to examples. You could have just browsed this very thread to see Caligo O and Gut give you the same explanation.

But as aways, it’s not about the facts it’s about covering your mistakes and perceived point scoring.


>>No matter if you feel that I initiated the discussion or not, I want my answer.<<

As is now painfully obvious, you always had the answer, you are just posturing.


>>ME: “I did not, and as back as I can remember, I have never claimed Xmere and Paul told Mizen they found the body.”

YOU: Nor did I say that you have, did I?<<

No you didn’t “say” it you wrote it.

“… you inititated a discussion about how Mizen could have been told by the carmen that they found the body and STILL entertain an idea that Neil could have found it before them …”

So yes you did write it. And now you are pretending you didn't.


>>But how can it be less serious research to know what you are talking about? And how is your not being familar with the facts serious research? It is "Alice in Wonderland" all over again.
And how is accusing me of having misled you when I told you that Emily was already dead serious research? Is it not true that I did not have to mislead you at all - that you had managed to do so on your very own?<<

Interesting response, you managed to move the conversation completely away from the subject matter you claim to be replying to.

To remind you, was the quote of yours I use as a sign off.
Now, since you hold such store about getting replies, are you read to answer some of the long list that is accumulating on this thread and have so far run away from? There not just mine.

[drstrange169]

Hello Columbo,

>>Correct, and as Fisherman pointed out, he didn't have final say on the documentary's content.<<

I'm afraid this is a bit more of Christer's spin.

Ed Stow told me the production company knew the graphic was wrong but went ahead with it anyway, for continuity reasons. They wanted it to match Christer and Andy Grittihs renactment, which was on the wrong side of the road and next to where they placed the cardboard cutout of Nrs Nichols body.

If Ed is correct and I've never known him to lie, the problem arose because of Christer.

[Fisherman]

Hello Columbo,

>>Correct, and as Fisherman pointed out, he didn't have final say on the documentary's content.<<

I'm afraid this is a bit more of Christer's spin.

Ed Stow told me the production company knew the graphic was wrong but went ahead with it anyway, for continuity reasons. They wanted it to match Christer and Andy Grittihs renactment, which was on the wrong side of the road and next to where they placed the cardboard cutout of Nrs Nichols body.

If Ed is correct and I've never known him to lie, the problem arose because of Christer.

The problem Edward was talking about was how we could not use the northern side of Bucks Row in the re-enactment, since it was shut off due to construction work. That meant that we had to use the southern pavement only, which was of course not historically correct.

If you think that was a problem that arose because of me, you are overestimating my influence on the construction sites of London.

Columbo is 100 per cent correct in saying that I had no final say about the contents of the docu. Both me and Edward were asked about numerous matters since the team wanted to get everything as correct as possible, and we sometimes offered advice on our own account, but after that, it was out of our hands.

You seem to be saying that I lay behind how there was a graphic depiction of Lechmere crouching over Nichols. If that is what you think, you are emphatically wrong. And speaking of a spin on my behalf is as unsavoury as it is ridiculous.

[Fisherman]

I want you to explain how Mizen would have had no obvious reason to suppose that Neil could not have been the first to discover the body even if the two carmen did not mention another PC.

It’s more than a tad disingenuous to pretend I haven’t answered or that I'm trying to avoid a question when you have accumulated such a long list of unanswered questions.

Why would you need me to explain a question that you already know the answer to?
We’ve had this debate many times here and over at Jtrforums just look my answers up there. Or perhaps you could just read my explanation on page 26 of Ripperologist 142.

Why is it that so much of what you post has such a dishonest bent to it.?

So no answer. But just as informative, of course!


Should be simple and straightforward enough, one would think?

Very straight forward, you don’t even have to go the trouble of looking up my last to examples. You could have just browsed this very thread to see Caligo O and Gut give you the same explanation.

I am not looking at what others say to establish what you mean. And you are not explaining yourself. I can only surmise that is because you have no explanation to give.

But as aways, it’s not about the facts it’s about covering your mistakes and perceived point scoring.

Exemplify away, Dusty! Otherwise, it will be all smoke and no facts. That is how it works - put up or shut up.

No matter if you feel that I initiated the discussion or not, I want my answer.

As is now painfully obvious, you always had the answer, you are just posturing.

Then just answer me and be done with it! If you are truthful, that should eb a piece of cake. Instead you call me dishonest - and refuse to answer. How hard can it be?


>>ME: “I did not, and as back as I can remember, I have never claimed Xmere and Paul told Mizen they found the body.”

YOU: Nor did I say that you have, did I?<<

No you didn’t “say” it you wrote it.

“… you inititated a discussion about how Mizen could have been told by the carmen that they found the body and STILL entertain an idea that Neil could have found it before them …”

So yes you did write it. And now you are pretending you didn't.

Those are two DIFFERENT matters:

1. The matter whether Lechmere and Paul told Mizen that they had found the body or not.

2. The question whether Mizen could have been told by the carmen that they were the finders and still entertain the idea tht Neil could have been the original finder.

Either you are totally unable to read and write comprehensibly, or you are not being truthful.
Which is it?

But how can it be less serious research to know what you are talking about? And how is your not being familar with the facts serious research? It is "Alice in Wonderland" all over again.
And how is accusing me of having misled you when I told you that Emily was already dead serious research? Is it not true that I did not have to mislead you at all - that you had managed to do so on your very own?

Interesting response, you managed to move the conversation completely away from the subject matter you claim to be replying to.

No, I am spot on. Ever since you disclosed your ignorance on the matter, you have repeatedly claimed that the problem is that you were deceived by me. You were no such thing - you had yourself managed to avoid reading up on Emily Lechmere, and there is absolutely no way that such a thing can be my problem.

To remind you, was the quote of yours I use as a sign off.
Now, since you hold such store about getting replies, are you read to answer some of the long list that is accumulating on this thread and have so far run away from? There not just mine.

Why would I for a second accept to answer anything asked by a poster who calls me dishonest instead of quite simply replying to what he is asked? What use would it be to lay out the text for somebody who is seemingly too illiterate to understand the difference between a question about whether the carmen claimed to have been the finders of the body and a question whether PC Mizen would have entertained the belief that Neil was the finder of it if he was not told that the carmen were the finders?
If you cannot tell the difference between these totally different questions, one has to wonder what you would make of any answer I give to any question you ask, regardless of the topic.

[GUT]

Anyone else have as much trouble as I do following these posts in different fonts and colours that you're supposed to understand by some form of osmis what was said by who???

[John G]

Anyone else have as much trouble as I do following these posts in different fonts and colours that you're supposed to understand by some form of osmis what was said by who???

Yes, I assumed it was just me though!

[GUT]

Yes, I assumed it was just me though!

That's a relief, because I thought it was me.

[drstrange169]

>>The problem Edward was talking about was how we could not use the northern side of Bucks Row in the re-enactment, since it was shut off due to construction work.<<

As this still from the programme clearly shows, there was plenty of room a more accurate sequence.

[drstrange169]

>>Anyone else have as much trouble as I do following these posts in different fonts and colours that you're supposed to understand by some form of osmis what was said by who???<<

Don't worry he hasn't actaully put any relevent content in them.

[drstrange169]

>>Then just answer me and be done with it! If you are truthful, that should eb a piece of cake. Instead you call me dishonest - and refuse to answer. How hard can it be?<<

Are you claiming the answer is available in those places I noted?
Are you denying you have read them already?
Good luck with that.


>>Why would I for a second accept to answer anything asked by a poster who calls me dishonest instead of quite simply replying to what he is asked?<<

Since some of the questions have come from others and you still dodged them, you will have to come up with a better excuse.

[Fisherman]

I think question 15 is an interesting one. For instance, Dr Phillips seemed to think Chapman's killer may have been a medical expert. And Dr Brown thought Eddowes killer was possibly a medical student.

However, caution is required. For instance, one of the victim's of the Australian serial killer, William MacDonald, had his genitals removed in such an expert manner that the police believed, wrongly, the perpetrator could have been a deranged expert surgeon, with years of surgical expetience.

And, of course, other doctors, most notably Dr Bond, did not believe JtR exhibited any surgical expertise.

This is an interesting question indeed! And the answer to it is no less interesting.

Let´s take a look at what it was Phillips said. I am quoting from the Lancet article of September 29, and I am underlining a few crucial passages and wordings:

Mr. Wynne Baxter did not withhold any of the information which came to him from an unexpected source on the day of the publication ofMr. Phillips' evidence respecting the mutilations of the body. It will be remembered that at his first examination, Mr. Phillips did not enter into these details. He acted on his own responsibility in stating only such facts as should enable the coroner's jury to arrive at a correct conclusion as to the cause of death; whilst he took care to inform the police authorities of all those facts which might give them any clue as to the object the murderer had in view, and thus lead to his detection. However, when the coroner insisted upon Mr. Phillips being recalled to add these further facts to his previous evidence, he stated that the mutilation of the body was of such a character as could only have been effected by a practised hand. It was appears that the abdomen had been entirely laid open; that the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body, and placed on the shoulder of the corpse; whilst from the pelvis the uterus and its appendages, with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two-thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found, and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert--of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of a knife, which must therefore, as Mr. Phillips pointed out, have been at least five inches long.


So what is Philips REALLY saying here, and to what exact property of the killer does Phillips´ admiration owe?
The part that has always been lifted out as the one speaking of a surgeon potentially having been responsible is the one about the "one sweep of the knife" excision of the pelvic organs - if nothing else, the killer was at least posessed knowledge enough to cut them out with one sweep of the knife.
The problem here has always been that no surgeon has ever performed an operation that took out the uterus together with the upper part of the vagina and the posterior two-thirds of the bladder. Quite rightly, this has always made those who criticize Phillips say that such a thing, far from confirming any medical skill, instead tells us that the killer did what a surgeon would never do. Therefore, the killer was no surgeon.

We may, however, rest assured that Phillips was quite aware that no surgeon would cut out the organs and parts of organs that were removed from the pelvis! What Phillips was impressed by, was not which parts were taken out, but instead HOW they were taken out. They were taken out with one sweep of the knife, a totally confident masterpiece of cutting skills.
Such a thing could, according to Phillips, only have been achieved by a "practised hand".
But "practised" how? The decisions made about what to cut out from then pelvis was not in line with any decision ever taken by a medico - the operation would kill anybody subjected to it, it left parts of the organs in the body whilst other parts were taken out and there is no instruction manual anywhere that recommends the kind of cutting Chapman was subjected to.

So was spoke of a practised hand was one thing only: the bold, confident and unhesitating sweeping knifework. It was added that the incisions were cleanly cut, meaning that there was no fraying, no sloppiness, no mess, just quick, clean cuts that witnessed about earlier cutting experience a plenty.

He was not a surgeon, but he was so good with the knife that it made Phillips think of a surgeons skills and exactitude with the blade.

This brings us over to what one of Phillips colleagues had said the year before Chapman was killed. This time, we are speaking about Dr Edward Galloway, who examined the Rainham victim in the Torso series.

Here is part of what he said at the inquest, and once again I underline a few bits and bobs:
"The trunk had been sawn through perfectly straight by a very sharp saw, the integuments surrounding the vertebrae being cut by a keen-edged knife, which had also passed through and separated the abdominal wall. The upper half of the bust, the head, arms, legs and thighs were missing, the latter having been taken clean out of the sockets of the pelvis, the muscles of the thighs being cut obliquely from the inside to the outside. These were also quite clean cut, and must have been done with a very fine sharp-edged instrument. There was no jaggedness about any of the incisions, showing that they had been done by an expert ... I am certain that whoever cut up this body had a thorough knowledge of surgery, for not only had the cutting-up been performed in an exceedingly skilfull manner, but the operation had been carried out on that art of the spine offering the least resistence to separating, and that would only be done by a person having a very intimate knowledge of anatomy."

When the inquest drew to a close and was summed up, Dr Galloway had to a significant degree changed his mind, and stated that the body had been divided by somebody who knew the structure of the human frame, but "not necessarily a skilled anatomist".
It has been suggested that this change of mind owed to how Galloway had been put under pressure by fellow medicos who did not want their reputation tarnished, but I think the reason may well have been another one, putting the errand quite on par with the Chapman errand. Galloway simply realized that although the cutting was exceedingly skillfully performed, with no frayed cuts and no jaggedness, it was nevertheless a kind of cutting in which no surgeon would engage. Cutting up bodies and sawing them in half do not belong to their everyday job.
So what thoroughly impressed Galloway was not that a surgeons job had been done, but instead that he had seen a lot of confident, unhesitating and clean knifework, and since he had only seen surgeons who could be compared skillwise, they were what entered his mind when he first lay eyes on the cuts performed on the Rainham torso.

This is how the bits of the puzzle fit together. This is why a lot of talking about anatomical and surgical skill surfaced when skilled medicos examined the Ripper victims and the Torso victims.

The same propensity to make people believe that the killer could be a surgeon. The same uncanny skill with the knife. The same unhesitating, clean cuts and incisions, the same lack of jaggedness.

The same man.

[Fisherman]

>>Then just answer me and be done with it! If you are truthful, that should eb a piece of cake. Instead you call me dishonest - and refuse to answer. How hard can it be?<<

Are you claiming the answer is available in those places I noted?
Are you denying you have read them already?
Good luck with that.


>>Why would I for a second accept to answer anything asked by a poster who calls me dishonest instead of quite simply replying to what he is asked?<<

Since some of the questions have come from others and you still dodged them, you will have to come up with a better excuse.

I am claiming that you have proven yourself unable to make a semantical distinction between two very separate errands, and that you are therefore not to be relied upon in a discussion like this.

[Fisherman]

>>The problem Edward was talking about was how we could not use the northern side of Bucks Row in the re-enactment, since it was shut off due to construction work.<<

As this still from the programme clearly shows, there was plenty of room a more accurate sequence.

One of the pavements was closed off and impossible to use up at the place where the murder had occurred. Therefore, it was not possible to re-enact the scene correctly.
If it had been open, what makes you think that we would not have used it?

Your reasoning is as baffling as ever.

[drstrange169]

Which pavement are you claiming was closed off, they both are clearly open in the picture?

[drstrange169]

>>I am claiming that you have proven yourself unable to make a semantical distinction between two very separate errands, and that you are therefore not to be relied upon in a discussion like this.<<

And this related to my post in anyway, how exactly?

Come to think of it, you just wrote you wouldn't respond any of my questions.
I guess i'm finally hitting home.