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:
General Suspect Discussion: Kosminski/Kaminsky - please debunk - by RockySullivan 1 hour and 26 minutes ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: Caught!? Long Island Serial Killer suspect - by RockySullivan 2 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Kosminski/Kaminsky - please debunk - by John Wheat 3 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Kosminski/Kaminsky - please debunk - by Abby Normal 5 hours ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: Caught!? Long Island Serial Killer suspect - by Abby Normal 5 hours ago.
Levy, Jacob: Jacob Levy - by Abby Normal 6 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - (11 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Kosminski/Kaminsky - please debunk - (7 posts)
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - (5 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Caught!? Long Island Serial Killer suspect - (5 posts)
Non-Fiction: Elizabeth Stride and Jack the Ripper: The Life and Death of the Reputed Third Victim. - (3 posts)
Levy, Jacob: Jacob Levy - (2 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 > Scene of the Crimes

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #371  
Old 05-16-2017, 02:23 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
I speak Swedish, mainly. And Danish, German, French and English, plus I get by with some little Italian and Spanish. If that is not enough for you, I really do apologize.

I know that oozing can be running, but I also know that it need not be. It can refer to a minimal leakage that is so small that it does not even run, but stays on the surface.

Do YOU realize that the blood will have run more freely as Neil looked than it did when Mizen did? Do YOU realize that there may have been a steady stream of blood running from the wound, and that this may have been enough for Neil to say that it ran rather profusely?

Or is it too hard for you, David? I mean, if yiu set out to hint at lacking gifts of understanding on my behalf, then surely you wonīt object to me doing the same for you?

Can you answer in Swedish please? Or are your language gifts too limited for that?
You may well speak a lot of languages but Swedish, Danish, German, French, Italian and Spanish don't help at all if you mess up the English.

I don't criticize you as a Swede for not speaking English well but it means that your arguments are not going to work if you misunderstand the language.

So I don't know why you think that oozing "can refer to a minimal leakage that is so small that it does not even run". In which dictionary do you find this meaning of the word ooze? Every one I have consulted refers to some kind of movement or flow.

So please don't try your sophistry with me

And Neil did not say the blood "ran rather profusely". He simply didn't say it. He said it was oozing.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #372  
Old 05-16-2017, 04:05 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,017
Default

Fisherman you still haven't explained what you think desanguination means.

Are you going to do it?
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #373  
Old 05-16-2017, 04:08 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,017
Default Question revised

Fisherman,

If it makes it easier for you, I'm happy to rephrase my question as follows:

If we assume that PC Neil saw blood oozing from the throat wound of Nichols then, in that case, would you accept she could quite easily, and very possibly, have been murdered 20 minutes before the time he saw this oozing?

So I'm not even putting it that he did see blood oozing, and you can treat it as a hypothetical question if you wish.

I only ask that whatever answer you give you supply your reasoning.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk

Last edited by David Orsam : 05-16-2017 at 04:24 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #374  
Old 05-16-2017, 04:12 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
The arteries and veins of the abdominal area are actually part of a closed blood circuit. When they are emptied, it is due to the system not refilling them.


Maybe because of lose somewhere else?



And yes, the clothing issue is how one looks at it. Like how the police looked at it, stating that there was blood only at the upper parts.
No they did not. That is how you chose to interperate some of the reports.
While you ignore those that do not back your view.

Live with that fact my friend

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #375  
Old 05-16-2017, 04:24 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
It even answers questions I never asked.

Thanks for verifying that there can be postmortem spray from the venous system.

As for the abdominal damage done to Nichols, it was very severe, and it was said something like "all the vital organs were struck", so I think that there is a very fair possiblity that the large vessels were heavily affected. Indeed, Llewellyn stated that most of the blood had leaked out of arteries and veins and sunk into the abdominal cavity.
Truly wonderful how you seek to portray Paul's response as supporting your views.
The trouble is it actually does not.
However the argument is so damaged that you grab at anything, like the article earlier which you clearly did not understand. The same applies here.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #376  
Old 05-16-2017, 04:44 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Elamarna: It is extended under the upper body, therefore of course it can be partially hidden from Llewellyn.

You are fabulating, Steve - we donīt even know that it did extend under the upper body. The blood in the cloth could have come from above, from the wound itself.
Not at all. The reports of Helston do not suggest that at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
No it need not be directly under, it could be to the side, the description does not give enough information to say where it actually was.

Ah - so the blood could have run not straight down, but to the side, when flowing from the neck?
Read what is written and understand. I do not say it could not. I say it may not have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
I see your interpretation, no problem; but you really should say “I believe the pool will not,” rather than “the pool will not”.

Itīs not me saying it, itīs the police.
It is certainly not the police. It is you. This approach that only one intepretation is acceptable is that of a truly closed mind.
However the comment yesterday that there is only one logical bid demonstrated that clearly so I am not surprised.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Not at all there was one pool, its exact location and how far it went in any direction are certainly not fixed by the sources

Not down to the millimeter, no - but it did not reach the waist, for example, by a long way. It may not even have stretched a single millimeter in under the body. The blood in the cloth could have soaked into it from above.
Your own intepretation, ignoring much in the sources. Which you just ignore as they do not fit your view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
You have a very strange interpretation of the word extension my friend, to me it means, an extra part to the original but still part of the original, not a separate entity.
So that was not what I wrote, it was not poorly worded, you just have an odd view of the word extension.

You spoke of a second pool that was an extension of the first one. 1+1 makes 2. It came across as an idea that the first pool leaked into another pool.
If you cannot see and acknowledge that, I donīt really care - not all people recognize what they say, and some donīt want to. In the end, what metters is that we are agreed that there was just the one pool.
No I spoke of one pool that extended under the body.
Read what is written not what you wish was written.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
But you did Fish, I never mentioned two pools. But I accept you misunderstood.
I was misinformed. I understood what was said. But as I say, itīs two waters under the bridge.
How could you have been misinformed? Who by other than yourself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
I am afraid not.

No? So exactly what do you disagree with?
Simply that I believe there was blood hidden under the body and that the clothing was blooded over a larger area than you suggest.

Steve

Last edited by Elamarna : 05-16-2017 at 04:48 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #377  
Old 05-16-2017, 05:00 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post

And when we have two reports, one where it is included that the collar and the upper part of the dress at the shoulders only was bloodied, and where this information is left out in the next, that points to an equal chance that it was ALL bloodied.

Actually no reports specifically say only one area was bloodied. Some only include the collar and shoulders and say the skirts were not bloodied but do not mention the area between.
Some say the area towards the neck and shoulders but are not specific.

Others again say the back is saturated with blood.

And of course we have the odd one which says the skirts were blooded and the rest not.

None of those fit what you describe here. And that failure to correctly engage in this part of the debate is sad.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #378  
Old 05-16-2017, 05:36 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,715
Default

The issue over the lack or not of blood spray is truly fascinating.

Fisherman is intent on proving that there was none and thus this proves that the abdomenial wounds were first and the cause of death.
This is despite one expert Dr Biggs saying that spray is not always present.
And it now seems he does not wish to accept his own experts view on the issue.
In the documentary Payne-James said he believed she was strangled and that:

"Although we know the carotid arteries were cut, it would seem that that was after death so it may just leak out, and dribble out, or drain out, around the contours of the neck in this case, over a period of minutes."[/quote]

But no . Such does not fit the theory and so the experts, both of the medical ones may be wrong and the layman correct.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #379  
Old 05-16-2017, 10:46 PM
John G John G is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
It even answers questions I never asked.

Thanks for verifying that there can be postmortem spray from the venous system.

As for the abdominal damage done to Nichols, it was very severe, and it was said something like "all the vital organs were struck", so I think that there is a very fair possiblity that the large vessels were heavily affected. Indeed, Llewellyn stated that most of the blood had leaked out of arteries and veins and sunk into the abdominal cavity.
Where does Dr Llewellyn say that?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #380  
Old 05-16-2017, 10:58 PM
John G John G is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
The issue over the lack or not of blood spray is truly fascinating.

Fisherman is intent on proving that there was none and thus this proves that the abdomenial wounds were first and the cause of death.
This is despite one expert Dr Biggs saying that spray is not always present.
And it now seems he does not wish to accept his own experts view on the issue.
In the documentary Payne-James said he believed she was strangled and that:

"Although we know the carotid arteries were cut, it would seem that that was after death so it may just leak out, and dribble out, or drain out, around the contours of the neck in this case, over a period of minutes."
But no . Such does not fit the theory and so the experts, both of the medical ones may be wrong and the layman correct.

Steve[/QUOTE

Hi Steve,

Yes, it's very peculiar, he seems to have abandoned his own expert, preferring instead his own layman's opinion. Of course, it makes no sense that the abdomen was attacked first as that would have meant a full-frontal confrontation, giving Nichols the opportunity to resist and call for help.

Moreover, if he did indeed strangle Nichols why would he then target the abdomen before returning to the neck? I mean, that would mean he strangles the victim until she's expired (as per Payne-James), then decides to target the abdomen, before suddenly realizing that he forgot to cut the throat, so he returns to the neck and commences a major throat/neck cut, even though by this point she's probably been dead for several minutes!
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 12:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.