Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

Christer
That's actually an assumption, possibly correct, based on poor reports, lack of recorded observations and the failure of Kirby to follow procedure and allow the body to be removed before and inspector arrived, and to allow the blood to be washed away before Spratling arrived and while still not fully light.
There is insufficient information to be sure there was no spurt at all.

It's very possibly correct as I say, but there is no way such can be stated as an established historical fact.

I will go further and say probably correct.
Just being pedantic, sorry

Steve

"There is no recorded bloodspurt at all in the Nichols case, clearly implicating that such a thing was never found, while their is a very evident bloodspurt in the Chapman case. The fact that it was originally reasoned that Nichols had been killed elsewhere also seems to bear out that no bloodspurt whatsoever was found on the Bucks Row site."

How about that? Better?

[Sam Flynn]

Just a quick one as im on the way out. I may be wrong (and i usually am according to you) i cant recall you mentioning ‘neck cutting’ on the Lechmere threads? Why here?

It's evidently a device to blur the boundaries between the facts of the torso cases and those of the Ripper series. It's just another example of the logical and lexical gerrymandering that characterises his approach.

[Elamarna]

"There is no recorded bloodspurt at all in the Nichols case, clearly implicating that such a thing was never found, while their is a very evident bloodspurt in the Chapman case. The fact that it was originally reasoned that Nichols had been killed elsewhere also seems to bear out that no bloodspurt whatsoever was found on the Bucks Row site."

How about that? Better?

Yes, but still lacking the relevant info that a proper search before the blood was removed was not carried out.
Personally I would prefer " there is no record of any arterial spurt and the probability must be there was none, however the failure to carry out a full search of the area before the blood was washed away, means the possability that there was spurt cannot be ruled out completely"


STEVE

[Fisherman]

Just a quick one as im on the way out. I may be wrong (and i usually am according to you) i cant recall you mentioning ‘neck cutting’ on the Lechmere threads? Why here

Oh, I think you are VERY wrong there, Herlock. Do you think you can recall how I worded myself in these thousands of posts?

I am more or less certain that I always used the term neck in this context, more or less, not least because in Swedish we say "skära halsen av" - cut the neck. Cutting of the throat would translate into "strupskärning", and that is a term we mainly use about cleaning fish.

But since you are here implicating that I am not being truthful - that´s what it adds up to when you infer that I only recently started to speak about neck cutting - I urge you to go and look for it.

Actually, it would have helped a whole deal if you had done so BEFORE inferring things. It is the decent thing to do.

Now, off you go, and I promise you for every example you may or may not find of me taliking about cutting the throat, I will find you two examples of me writing about cutting the neck.

[Fisherman]

Yes, but still lacking the relevant info that a proper search before the blood was removed was not carried out.
Personally I would prefer " there is no record of any arterial spurt and the probability must be there was none, however the failure to carry out a full search of the area before the blood was washed away, means the possability that there was spurt cannot be ruled out completely"


STEVE

Exactly how thorough WAS the search, Steve? What source are you using? Do we know for sure that the police was not up to tassk on this? Every time I say that they were slack, I am told that I do so only because I have a theory, so be careful out there.

I stand by what I said - no arterial bloodspurt in Bucks Row is something we may be reasonably certain of.

[Elamarna]

Exactly how thorough WAS the search, Steve? What source are you using? Do we know for sure that the police was not up to tassk on this? Every time I say that they were slack, I am told that I do so only because I have a theory, so be careful out there.

I stand by what I said - no arterial bloodspurt in Bucks Row is something we may be reasonably certain of.

Using the police themselves as my sources.
Kirby certainly failed on several points of procedure, he was the senior officer present until the body was removed. That in itself was a failure to follow correct procedure.
My view is there was no search worthy of the term carried out UNTIL AFTER Spratling attended the mortuary.

I agree with you they were slack




Steve

[Fisherman]

It's evidently a device to blur the boundaries between the facts of the torso cases and those of the Ripper series. It's just another example of the logical and lexical gerrymandering that characterises his approach.

Your approach involved the arteries being part of the throat, remember?

Maybe that is not the best of vantage points from where to start a smearing campaign about me?

I don´t have to try and change any facts about the cases, and I have never done so.

The Ripper´s victims were cut down to the bone in three cases. That means that these victims had not only their throats cut, but all of their necks with the exception of the spine. Or as Thomas Bond put it "The neck was cut through the skin & other tissues right down to the vertebrae the 5th & 6th being deeply notched. The skin cuts in the front of the neck showed distinct ecchymosis."

You may remember that you made the point earlier that the front of the neck was called the throat, but here Bond explicitly speaks of cuts to the front of the neck and how the neck (not the throat) was cut to the bone.

It would seem that I have medical expertise on my side, therefore.

But back to the issue! As stated above, ALL of the neck was cut in three (60 per cent) Ripper cases.

We know that all of the neck was severed - including the bone - in the torso cases.

It is therefore quite evident that the victims may have sufered the exact same thing. Indeed, the medicos suggested the severing of the neck as a likely cause of death in both series.

So when I say that there is an evident possibility that it was a question of the same type of cutting in both series - and that is what I am saying, nothong else - I am on the money 100 per cent.

Contrary to this, inferring or implying or in any way suggesting that the Ripper victims were only subjected to violence that severed the throat and NOT the neck would be grossly misleading - the very thing you are warning against.

You seemingly make the point that I am not being honest and truthful and that my take on things is designed to con people into thinking that the series were related while they may not have been.

Let´s try the same tecnique on your reasoning. You seem to me to try and establish that there is cause to think that the cutting was NOT of the same type in the two series. On what do you base that? On how you say that the Ripper targetted throats and NOT necks.

It seems to me that you cannot bolster this suggestion of yours. No medico says that the killers only intention was to cut the throat, while he was not intersted in cutting the neck. Instead, it is very evident that he DID cut the neck, and it takes a much different effort to do that, so evidently there was an intention to do so.

Now, if no medico says that the killers only intention was to sever the throat, and if you cannot prove that thesis in any way, and if we know that the killer severed all of the throat save the spine - why would we make the assumption that there must have been different incitements for the torso mans cutting as opposed to the Rippers?

What tells us that the Torso killer did not start out by cutting the neck to the bone, bleeding his victims out, only to thereafter move on to the mutilations and dismemberment?

Nothing, Gareth. Absolutely nothing.

I am asking you politely not to infer that I am not honest. It is a level of debate we should not entertain, and you are the only person who can stop it. You may join Herlock and look for how I have worded myself previously, if you promise to learn from that.

[Fisherman]

Here is a post of mine from two years back on Lechmere, by the way:

"When John Neil saw Nichols, she was still bleeding from the wound in her neck. Since Neil did not see or hear the carmen in Bucks Row, and since the examination Lechmere and Paul did of the body would have taken around a minute (given that Paul said that the time elapsed from when he first saw the body to when the carmen reached Mizen was no more than four minutes at most), we are looking at a time of at the very least three minutes, and probably four, that had passed since Lechmere cut her neck - if he was the killer.
To this time, we must add a minimum of two minutes, and probably three, before Mizen arrived at Browns. And when she did, Nichols was "still bleeding" from the neck wound.
Adding this together, we find that Mizen arrived at the very earliest five minutes after Nichols was cut by Lechmere - if he was the killer - and more likely as much as around seven minutes after that time.
Jason Payne-James says that Nichols would reasonably have bled for minutes only after the neck was cut, and he favours a time of three to five minutes over a suggestion of seven minutes, which he finds a possibility, but thinks sounds too long a time to be likely."

If you want more examples, Herlock and Gareth, just ask away. Don´t be shy.

[Fisherman]

This one´s from 2013, by me:

"But if the victim was killed by somebody who did not like what he saw in the original killings, but who realized that copying what the original killer did could keep himself out of trouble, then I think that we could end up with smaller mutilations. The simple reason for this is that most people are opposed to mutilating on the whole, and find the prospect appalling and distasteful. Therefore, such a killer could perhaps hope that cutting a neck and tentatively opening up the stomach would be enough to do the trick."

This is great fun. I´ll continue!

[Fisherman]

This is from 2015, by yours truly:

"3.45 is the very latest time (in this scenario) when Lechmere himself could have cut the neck. There is a chance that he could have done so, thereafter quickly and silently sneaking out into the middle of the street. The more probable thing is that we should add at least half a minute more, though, taking the time between the cutting of the neck and Mizens arrival to six minutes.

But if it was another killer, we must add at least a minute more, allowing for the killer to have made the neck cut as his last measure and sneaking away unheard by Lechmere.

Then we have an absolute minimum of seven minutes. Which is exactly the amount of time where Payne-James says that we have entered an unlikely amount of time. And even then, we must accept that the alternative killer made the neck cut as his absolutely last contribution."

Are we done? Please let me know!

To think that you could have forgotten this, Herlock...

By the way, have you dug up any examples where I speak of throat-cutting?

No.

It seems I have many hundreds if not thousands of times have spoken, year out and year in, about NECK-cutting.

The strange thing is that nobody seems to have reacted and told me off a single time, or complained about how I have continuously mislead the posters and readers...? It was comme il faut for half a decade, and now it is devious and deliberate misleading?

I think that suggestion just took a wrecking ball right in solar plexus.

[Fisherman]

Using the police themselves as my sources.
Kirby certainly failed on several points of procedure, he was the senior officer present until the body was removed. That in itself was a failure to follow correct procedure.
My view is there was no search worthy of the term carried out UNTIL AFTER Spratling attended the mortuary.

I agree with you they were slack
Steve

But does the police themselves say that the search was inadequate and that a bloodspurt may have been overlooked? I don´t think this could have happened since we are aware that the same police initially believed the body had been carried to Bucks Row after death. That effectively means that no spray was found, and they did look under the body just as they looked on the clothing. And it was said that all the blood there was on the ground was the pool under the neck, plus there is a mentioning of some little blood on the ground under the groin. Nothing much remains to be said. We can always say that the search was or may have been slack, and there is accordingly a possibility that the arterial spray was missed, but it is stretching things a lot I think.

[Trevor Marriott]

But does the police themselves say that the search was inadequate and that a bloodspurt may have been overlooked? I don´t think this could have happened since we are aware that the same police initially believed the body had been carried to Bucks Row after death. That effectively means that no spray was found, and they did look under the body just as they looked on the clothing. And it was said that all the blood there was on the ground was the pool under the neck, plus there is a mentioning of some little blood on the ground under the groin. Nothing much remains to be said. We can always say that the search was or may have been slack, and there is accordingly a possibility that the arterial spray was missed, but it is stretching things a lot I think.

Just to remind one and all what Dr Biggs say on the issue of arterial spray

Q. Evidence from the crime scenes seems to show a distinct lack of arterial blood spray. Now given the throats were cut, and in some cases the carotid arteries were severed is there any explanation for the absence of arterial spray?

A. Blood loss could have been great if major neck vessels were severed. It is possible for much of the bleeding to remain within the body, though, so it would not necessarily result in a large volume of blood being visible externally. The lack of documented arterial blood pattern is not surprising as, despite being common in textbooks; arterial spurting is actually quite uncommon ‘in the wild’. Arteries, even large ones, usually go into acute spasm when cut, providing very effective control of bleeding (at least initially). The large arteries in the neck are quite well ‘hidden’ behind muscles and other structures, so they can be missed by even very extensive cuts to the neck. Also, even if cut, the initial ‘spray’ is blocked by the surrounding structures such that blood either remains inside the body or simply gushes / flows / drips out of the external skin hole rather than spurting.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Since I am certain that you remember exactly what Jason Payne-James said on this errand, I feel I don´t have to publish it again.

[Abby Normal]

Cut neck, cu throat. What difference does it make. Both killers cut the neck visciously and violently. The ripper cut down to the bone, and almost took their heads off, Chapman’s at the least.

And that’s the problem with these silly worthless semantic games. You lose the big picture in this nonsense.

[Sam Flynn]

And that’s the problem with these silly worthless semantic games. You lose the big picture in this nonsense.

They are NOT silly or worthless - far from it. Can't you see that there is a very important point at stake here? Fisherman is insistent on using very non-specific language so that he can say, "oh, look! the torso victims had their necks cut... and the Ripper victims had their necks cut, too!". Well, he's not going to get away with such loose terminology and sloppy reasoning on my watch.

The Ripper victims' throats were cut, pure and simple. That's how it was described at the time, and how that's how everybody has talked about the victims ever since, because it's both accurate and true. Then, all of a sudden, Christer "cut neck" Holmgren starts using his usual trick of using slippery wording to make things seem to fit his hard-wired conclusions.

Fisherman is the one who is playing semantic games, by using loose, less precise, definitions in order to force the evidence to fit his theories. This is tantamount to twisting the evidence, and it should be pointed out and criticised wherever it occurs.