Not to be trusted

[Fisherman]

Ally:

See what I mean? My opinion is irrelevant, because I supposedly have such a clouded judgment that I am unfit to plead.
That is the whole crux of the matter, Ally. That is a preconception if ever I saw one.

Well I can't say whether your opinion is clouded on Lechmere but I can say your opinion is clouded on this argument because you are so busy having the argument you THINK we're having that you aren't actually arguing the points I am making. I have merely replied to your exact words on this exact thread. What you, YOURSELF have stated. You stated you put in Lechmere whereever you think he fits and of course, because you think he was Jack the Ripper, I imagine you think he fits in quite a lot of places don't you? That's against the rules of the board and that's what I said. You asked about Kosminski as an example. I gave an example of how the rules would be interpreted.

Surely it canīt be against the rules of the board to think that a suspect fits in a lot of places? Does that not only apply when this is not true? If so, it makes a lot more sense, and I would welcome any actual examples - if there are any - of where I have overstepped that line.

Yes, just like you say, I do believe that Charles Lechmere was the Ripper. But that does not mean that I "put him in wherever I think he fits". It means that I may put him into discussions where I think information relating to him can be offered that is of use to the overall case understanding.

I noticed your example and it is easy enough to understand. What I want to know is whether there are any examples of me doing that to present so that I may have a chance to look at it.

And your choice of the word "introduce" is typical of people who want to "introduce" me to their Lord and Savior.

Thereīs that religion thing again. I have introduced and been introduced to thousands of people over the years, none of whom walked on water.

You see it as a positive thing. Others see it as intrusive and unwelcome. It's about perspective. Not everyone wants to be saved. And please just don't draw comparisons of your situation to Galileo, because that amount of ego, I just can't...no...

I have spoken about Galileo before, and for much the same reason. It does not mean that I compare myself to him - only that we may be dealing with a similar situation.
Itīs quite enough that you draw comparisons with religious brooders, there is no need to speak of illusions of grandeur too.

As for me always being intrusive and unwelcome when bringing up Lechmere, I disagree again - in the normal case, most people see the relevance of it and are happy to discuss with me, Lechmere included. There are others who see red when they hear the name, some of them resorting to a VERY low level of discussion in that context.

But of course, if I am that religious brooder you envisage, and seeing myself as the equal of Galilei, then it may of course be that I cannot understand these things, and that my mind is long since gone due to overindulging in Charles Lechmere.

Itīs really kind of either or.

[Ally]

See what I mean? My opinion is irrelevant, because I supposedly have such a clouded judgment that I am unfit to plead.
That is the whole crux of the matter, Ally. That is a preconception if ever I saw one.

Well I can't say whether your opinion is clouded on Lechmere but I can say your opinion is clouded on this argument because you are so busy having the argument you THINK we're having that you aren't actually arguing the points I am making. I have merely replied to your exact words on this exact thread. What you, YOURSELF have stated. You stated you put in Lechmere whereever you think he fits and of course, because you think he was Jack the Ripper, I imagine you think he fits in quite a lot of places don't you? That's against the rules of the board and that's what I said. You asked about Kosminski as an example. I gave an example of how the rules would be interpreted.

And I donīt "wedge" Lechmere in on threads, I introduce him. The wording "wedge" is typical of how people who argue a case use dramatic, negative wordings so as to strengthen their case. Whether an opinion that is not in line with the rules of the board is irrelevant is another matter, Galileo was not in line with the rules of his day, but I donīt think what he had to say was irrelevant..

And your choice of the word "introduce" is typical of people who want to "introduce" me to their Lord and Savior. You see it as a positive thing. Others see it as intrusive and unwelcome. It's about perspective. Not everyone wants to be saved. And please just don't draw comparisons of your situation to Galileo, because that amount of ego, I just can't...no...

[Fisherman]

Ally: You are 100 percent wrong. You can only claim you don't have an agenda if you can state unequivocally that you have no interest or intention of convincing anyone that Lechmere was the Ripper. Do you have no interest whatsoever in convincing anyone Lechmere was the Ripper?

You seem to think that having an agenda is only a negative thing and can only be achieved by nefarious means. That's not true. You have an agenda. Period. It's to promote your suspect.

I can only disagree. I know quite well that having an agenda is not necessarily a bad thing, but conversely when we speak of people having agendas, we more often than not mean something less than flattering. No doubt, you will realize this. And that is why I say that I have a conviction - that Lechmere was probably the killer.

If I have an agenda, then that is pointing to how too little research has been put into the Lechmere case over the years, and to change that. If others agree that I have a good case, then so much the better.

I have spent my whole professional life as a journalist, fourteen of those years as a newspaper researcher. I am probably a lot more aware of how to evaluate sources than most people out here, and I have never once been criticized in my job for having misused sources.
That does not mean that I cannot have lost my touch entirely and gone ballistic over the Lechmere issue, but I somehow doubt it. And - as I have repeatedly said - anybody who can prove the reverse is welcome to try and do so. I was a decent boxer in my youth, but I dislike fighting shadows - get the cards on the table and give me a fair chance to have my say.

See what I mean? My opinion is irrelevant, because I supposedly have such a clouded judgment that I am unfit to plead.
That is the whole crux of the matter, Ally. That is a preconception if ever I saw one.

No, your opinion is irrelevant in this matter, because your opinion doesn't override the rules of the board which state that just because YOU think your suspect has value and ought to be discussed on every thread you can wedge him in on, everyone else ought to agree and follow along.

But thatīs factually wrong again. I never expected people out here to agree, far from it. And I donīt "wedge" Lechmere in on threads, I introduce him. The wording "wedge" is typical of how people who argue a case use dramatic, negative wordings so as to strengthen their case. Whether an opinion that is not in line with the rules of the board is irrelevant is another matter, Galileo was not in line with the rules of his day, but I donīt think what he had to say was irrelevant...

IT depends on context. If four people are happily having a discussion on Hyams on a Hyams thread and a Kosminiski-suspect pusher comes in and says Kosminski fits much better and one person and he starts arguing and derails the entire conversation for everyone else, then they've hijacked the thread, which is why the rule has been made. Because just because someone feels like their suspect can be wedged in to every given topic in any given circumstance doesn't mean they ought to be. Derailing other threads to push your suspect is hijacking. It's annoying to the other people who were having the conversation about Hyams and don't want to have another blasted pointless conversation about Kosminski and yet have to suffer through another interminable argument because of some zealot who has to stick his two cents in about his suspect every time he sees an opportunity. That's why there's a rule against it.

Of course, that is once again painting me in the worst light possible - and again, I would like to see any examples of me doing this before there can be a verdict of guilty on my behalf. It may be of interest in this context that I have consistently told posters who have brought Lechmere up on the torso/Ripper threads that I do not wish to discuss Lechmere on that score, but instead just look at how the Ripper and the torso man compare. That kind of swears against the assertions that I "wedge" Lechmere in wherever and whenever I can.

Is this going to be a trial without evidence? Or will somebody exemplify my supposedly vile behaviour?

I guess you can ask yourself, how many times does someone show up on a Lechmere thread trying to push an alternate suspect vs how many times you show up on an alternate thread to push Lechmere to answer that question?

I did not know that this was quantified, actually. Is it? And how?

[Sam Flynn]

Trevor, I was responding specifically to illustrative points made by Fisherman, in a discussion about how we approach the evidence. This discussion is about "methodology" in general, not about the murders themselves, nor about any specific suspect, or suspects as the case may be.

Ally summed it up perfectly in her post immediately above.

[Trevor Marriott]

No actually it is a perfect example of hijacking because: This thread is not about minutia of cuts or medical slicings. It was only mentioned as an example in a broader topic. Gareth was only giving a medical example as part of an illustration of an overall point of a broader topic that has nothing at all to do with who or how anything was sliced and diced. You seized on one small part of an argument to shove in and promote something that's near and dear to your pet theory: the ridiculous idea of rogue morgue attendants or students or whatever carving up the victims after the fact.

Hijacking a thread because of theory bias. Seeing one small part, where you could wedge in with your pet theory.

Thank you, for this fine illustrative opportunity.

#

Anything that will go to prove, or disprove, any previously accepted theory is a valuable asset no matter where, or how, or by whom it is introduced.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Ally]

No actually it is a perfect example of hijacking because: This thread is not about minutia of cuts or medical slicings. It was only mentioned as an example in a broader topic. Gareth was only giving a medical example as part of an illustration of an overall point of a broader topic that has nothing at all to do with who or how anything was sliced and diced. You seized on one small part of an argument to shove in and promote something that's near and dear to your pet theory: the ridiculous idea of rogue morgue attendants or students or whatever carving up the victims after the fact.

Hijacking a thread because of theory bias. Seeing one small part, where you could wedge in with your pet theory.

Thank you, for this fine illustrative opportunity.

[Jon Guy]

I am going to interject here and say that the hysterectomies performed on both Chapman and Eddowes were performed in two different ways using two different methods.

.. and both performed in different conditions

[Trevor Marriott]

And a perfect example of theory bias hijacking.

I hope that post was not directed at me? Because if it was I totally disagree, as I am entitled to do so, and the content of my post is relevant to what was being discussed in Sams post which I referred to.

In fact it was not theory based. I was stating a medical fact which cannot be ignored and what can be deduced from that fact.

Its a fact that some will choose to ignore because it goes against what they believe, but it is something that cannot be ignored.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Ally]

Off topic, Trevor.

And a perfect example of theory bias hijacking.

[Ally]

As I said, I donīt have an agenda.

You are 100 percent wrong. You can only claim you don't have an agenda if you can state unequivocally that you have no interest or intention of convincing anyone that Lechmere was the Ripper. Do you have no interest whatsoever in convincing anyone Lechmere was the Ripper?

You seem to think that having an agenda is only a negative thing and can only be achieved by nefarious means. That's not true. You have an agenda. Period. It's to promote your suspect.



See what I mean? My opinion is irrelevant, because I supposedly have such a clouded judgment that I am unfit to plead.
That is the whole crux of the matter, Ally. That is a preconception if ever I saw one.

No, your opinion is irrelevant in this matter, because your opinion doesn't override the rules of the board which state that just because YOU think your suspect has value and ought to be discussed on every thread you can wedge him in on, everyone else ought to agree and follow along.

[B]Does the same apply to any other suspect? Is it off limits to speak of Kosminski when somebody discusses mental incapacity on behalf of Hyams?

IT depends on context. If four people are happily having a discussion on Hyams on a Hyams thread and a Kosminiski-suspect pusher comes in and says Kosminski fits much better and one person and he starts arguing and derails the entire conversation for everyone else, then they've hijacked the thread, which is why the rule has been made. Because just because someone feels like their suspect can be wedged in to every given topic in any given circumstance doesn't mean they ought to be. Derailing other threads to push your suspect is hijacking. It's annoying to the other people who were having the conversation about Hyams and don't want to have another blasted pointless conversation about Kosminski and yet have to suffer through another interminable argument because of some zealot who has to stick his two cents in about his suspect every time he sees an opportunity. That's why there's a rule against it.

[B]How does that differ from them ramming THEIR versions down MY throat?

I guess you can ask yourself, how many times does someone show up on a Lechmere thread trying to push an alternate suspect vs how many times you show up on an alternate thread to push Lechmere to answer that question?

[Sam Flynn]

Off topic, Trevor.

[Fisherman]

I am going to interject here and say that the hysterectomies performed on both Chapman and Eddowes were performed in two different ways using two different methods. This is a medical fact and is irrefutable, and is confirmed by a modern day consultant gynaecologist.

So what can be deduced from that ?

1. Two different persons, none being the killer removed the organs from the
two victims?

2. Two different killers, both removing organs independent of each other?

3. One killer who was a medical expert in female anatomy?

4. If one killer can we eliminate a butcher or slaughter-man, If they had any
knowledge what chance is there that there were able to remove the uteri
from both in two different ways.

To my mind this throws a whole new light on the murders and the removal of the organs.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The faces of Eddowes and Kelly were also cut in different ways, Trevor.

[Fisherman]

Although this is a Vendetta thread Id like to chime in Fisherman. Far too often we see a cart before the horse usually based on little more than availability and a dysfunctional mind. I would hope that you would agree that any argument you might make here has an end game attached to it because youre trying to lead the evidence, not being led by it. That's why you often feel against the current, and frankly, defensive.

I happen to disagree with some basic premises you have about these murders, I have my own prejudice's too. But I do think when debating these ideas that you have to step back from a feeling of ownership and consider once again that in reality there is no evidence trail leading to anyone here.

Ive spoken with you, and with Gareth, for many years now. Back to around 2005 I believe. And I know civility is an important component in any conversation to both of you, and the rest of us.....my own past indiscretions left there for the moment , and for this point. No-one is, or should be, berating anyone else for whatever position they wish to defend, as long as the quality of the information being used is as close to impeccable as possible. Just recognize that any preconceived final line taints ones objectivity.

I try to see if the evidence dovetails with Lechmere. That is not the same as leading the evidence. The chronology of the matter is one that I cannot do much about - whatever matter surfaces, I take a look at it and I see if it dovetails. I can promise you that anybody with a suspect does the same thing, and there is nothng wrong with it. Itīs the way the police works too. Once they suspect somebody, they look at how the evidence relates to that somebody.

Admittedly, if they are wrong and lock themselves to somebody, they are at risk. But I am aware of this, Michael! And I do look at all alternatives. If something should crop up that dispells the theory, I will accept that and move on. But as long as there is no such thing, and as long as there is a lot of circumstantial evidence speaking for him as the killer, I will go on doing it my way.

I would like to add, as I have done before, that I am many times actively choosing a report over another when it - SHAME ON ME! - fits with Lechmere as the killer. This is because I realize that if the sources had all unanimously given away Lechmere as the Ripper, then we would not still be looking for the killer.
I believe that if we can suss out who the killer was with the help of the sources, then the truth will be so very well hidden so as to be nearly invisible. And overlooked passages (like the Mizen scam) and fringe sources may hold the conclusive puzzle bits.
It is a perilous path to wander, but if the bits and pieces can form a walkable path, then itīs worth the effort.
One example is how I rely on the Morning Advertiser telling us that the blood was still running from Nichols and appeared fresh when Mizen saw her. Other papers seem to contradict this, implying that Mizen was talking about the point in time when the body was lifted onto the ambulance, and these sources outnumber the one I use. The thing is, these bits and pieces are every bit as relevant as the others, and together they DO form that path. This means that Lechmere does dovetail with the evidence - when chosen, or cherrypicked, or however you want to phrase it.

We either pursue this path, or we say that it is an impossible one, given how singular sources are sometimes favoured over multiple contradicting ones.

The all-important matter of this, as regards the ongoing discussion on this thread, is that I am fully and very much aware of ALL the sources, I am aware of the numbers of them and what they say, respectively. My mind is in no way clouded, but instead very much focused on looking at whether Lechmere is a possibility that finds support in the sources or not.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Or course you're interpreting in that instance, every much as I am, if not more so.

No, I am not. The material at hand said that the abdomens were cut away in large flaps, and a number of posters, including Debra and Gary have shown you exactly how they perceive these flaps looked. They were of irregular shape - as was stated - they were large - as was stated - and they were narrow along parts of the flaps - allowing for the term "slips".
I actually donīt postulate that they MUST have looked like this. I say that they were described as large in BOTH the Jackson case and the Kelly case, and I leave it there. No interpretation at all is made by me, and no agenda at all is introduced by me.

You, on the other hand, deny that they could have been anything at all but narrow slips. That is where and how we differ. I make no call, you make a call.

You interpret. I donīt.

The reason I've suggested that there was a different reason at work in the case of Jackson is that she was carrying a baby, and the fact that the (two slips of) flesh that were cut from her abdomen might indicate that the killer's aim was to gain access to her gravid uterus so that the baby might be removed. That is an entirely reasonable "interpretation", which is fully congruent with the facts of the Jackson case.

Yes, it is an interpretation - or suggestion - that can be made. But that is not the matter here. The matter is that you DO make an interpretation, whereas I donīt.

Both Chapman and Jackson had their uteri cut out from their abdomens. That is a fact. It is the raw, the naked fact. It is the unprocessed, uninterpreted fact.

It is not until we start to introduce musings and ideas of our own that the waters are getting murky.

Indeed, it's not entirely clear that her womb was removed at all but, even if it were, we can't escape the fact that her baby had been taken out and disposed of.

How is it not clear that her womb was removed at all? It was found inside the abdominal flaps of her belly, floating down the Thames along with the placenta and chord. Did these pieces pack themselves up or were they cut out and removed? Did they accientally fall out of her?

This is another demonstrable difference between this (single) Torso murder and the Ripper series, for which the bland statement that "uteri were cut out in both series" would appear to be a generalisation designed to minimise the discrepancies to the extent that it might appear more likely that the same suspect was responsible for both.

No, Gareth, it does not work in that direction. Presenting the raw, established facts can never be an attempt to twist the evidence. it is when we take it upon ourselves to present more or less clever interpretations that we put ourselves at risk, and hugely so in this case.
The idea that the reproductive organs may not have been cut out from Jackson should never be entertained, since it defies any logic. But there is luckily a notation from Hebbert that dispells the idea: "The cord measured 8 in., and the distal ends showed a clean cut".

Cut out, therefore.

[Trevor Marriott]

Or course you're interpreting in that instance, every much as I am, if not more so.

I've pointed out - correctly - that Hebbert uses the word "slips of flesh" and that the dictionary shows that "slips" is a synonym for "strips". I've also pointed out - correctly - that, whereas Hebbert describes two such slips being removed from the torso victim, there were three flaps of flesh removed from the abdomens of both Chapman and Kelly. I've also pointed out - again, correctly - that in the latter case the three flaps removed were so huge that they completely laid open Kelly's abdomen, which is evident from both Bond's report and the Miller's Court photographs. This was demonstrably not the case with Elizabeth Jackson.

My interpretation, therefore, is that the wounds described in the case of the torso victim were demonstrably lesser than those inflicted upon Mary Kelly. I'd submit that my interpretation is closer to the facts than your interpretation, which seeks to minimise the difference between the Ripper and Torso cases, and to "big-up" certain aspects of the latter so that they more closely resemble the Ripper murders than a dispassionate reading of the evidence permits.No, again you're interpreting as much as I am, if not more so.

The reason I've suggested that there was a different reason at work in the case of Jackson is that she was carrying a baby, and the fact that the (two slips of) flesh that were cut from her abdomen might indicate that the killer's aim was to gain access to her gravid uterus so that the baby might be removed. That is an entirely reasonable "interpretation", which is fully congruent with the facts of the Jackson case.

Indeed, it's not entirely clear that her womb was removed at all but, even if it were, we can't escape the fact that her baby had been taken out and disposed of. This is another demonstrable difference between this (single) Torso murder and the Ripper series, for which the bland statement that "uteri were cut out in both series" would appear to be a generalisation designed to minimise the discrepancies to the extent that it might appear more likely that the same suspect was responsible for both.

I am going to interject here and say that the hysterectomies performed on both Chapman and Eddowes were performed in two different ways using two different methods. This is a medical fact and is irrefutable, and is confirmed by a modern day consultant gynaecologist.

So what can be deduced from that ?

1. Two different persons, none being the killer removed the organs from the
two victims?

2. Two different killers, both removing organs independent of each other?

3. One killer who was a medical expert in female anatomy?

4. If one killer can we eliminate a butcher or slaughter-man, If they had any
knowledge what chance is there that there were able to remove the uteri
from both in two different ways.

To my mind this throws a whole new light on the murders and the removal of the organs.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk