Bucks Row Project

[Elamarna]

It´s interesting that I fail to see what...?

I for one have never seen you "easily dispose of it". Maybe you settled it all neatly in my absense? If so, then maybe you can point me to it?

I don´t always have the patience to wait for your revelations, and so you may have caught me sleeping. If you could boil things down and present them to me, I would be grateful.

For that my friend you will need to wait until I publish the work.
All the information is freely available and most if not all has been posted on this site.

Bye for now

Steve

[Fisherman]

For that my friend you will need to wait until I publish the work.
All the information is freely available and most if not all has been posted on this site.

Bye for now

Steve

Hold your horses, Steve!

I am not very enticed by the offer to wade through all of this thread to look for this information.

That´s why I am kindly asking you to make a succinctive post in which you shortly and neatly present at the very least one or two of the points that makes you think that you have debunked the blood evidence factor. Who knows, maybe you have - if so, it would be good to know just how that came about.

So far, I have seen no such thing on the boards. I can vaguely remember how you said something about how "running" blood could be nothing but a pointer to direction, in the process forgetting about how the Morning Advertiser wrote about Mizen saying the blood was STILL runnning and looking fresh.
To my mind that kind of takes the wind out of the sails of your vessel. Plus a few planks from down below, sinking it effectively.

But your reasoning has expanded over so much space that it has become impossible to take it in and process it over a reasonable span of time. So I was hoping that there may be some sort of point involved, some kind of point of the arrow, so to speak?

I would like to hear that, if it´s possible.

If you cannot bring yourself to do it, then maybe somebody else who has been able to take in all you have written could provide me with what they think may have been your point. It seems to me that you have thought up a number of suggested times and now use them as facts, but I may of course be wrong.

[Fisherman]

Just had a look at the material you posted to amend a mistake, some posts back.

I found that you have a span of 2-4 minuts from the attack before Paul arrives. And that you have 1 min 30 seconds for the exchange between Mizen and Lechmere and the ensuing knock-up.

That came as no surprise. I do hope you are not leaning against these kinds of things for your "debunking" of the blood evidence?

[Elamarna]

Hold your horses, Steve!

I am not very enticed by the offer to wade through all of this thread to look for this information.
.

That´s why I am kindly asking you to make a succinctive post in which you shortly and neatly present at the very least one or two of the points that makes you think that you have debunked the blood evidence factor. Who knows, maybe you have - if so, it would be good to know just how that came about.



So far, I have seen no such thing on the boards. I can vaguely remember how you said something about how "running" blood could be nothing but a pointer to direction, in the process forgetting about how the Morning Advertiser wrote about Mizen saying the blood was STILL runnning and looking fresh.
To my mind that kind of takes the wind out of the sails of your vessel. Plus a few planks from down below, sinking it effectively.


But your reasoning has expanded over so much space that it has become impossible to take it in and process it over a reasonable span of time. So I was hoping that there may be some sort of point involved, some kind of point of the arrow, so to speak?

I would like to hear that, if it´s possible.

If you cannot bring yourself to do it, then maybe somebody else who has been able to take in all you have written could provide me with what they think may have been your point. It seems to me that you have thought up a number of suggested times and now use them as facts, but I may of course be wrong.

Hi Christer,

Yes the work has certainly expanded, far more than I ever anticipate.
I do apologise for it take so long, but better to take ones time than rush and make mistakes.
The salient points are all over the forum, not just this thread, which only offers background suggestions. Such are not facts, however they are not plucked out of fresh air and are based on the avaible information to form a series of hypothesis.
If one wishes to counter those suggestions one needs to test them and show where they fail.

The post which appears to have taken your attention, was simply a correction of the totals involved in a 5 month old post., the internal figures were not changed, nor was the text other than to amend those totals.

You say you can see very little, seems you are basing that on both parts so far posted, which are nothing more than appendices in the overall work. Obviously you would like me to publish now, before the whole work is complete, sorry it's not going to happen, but I do understand.

I hope you understand my position, given the stand you take on information from the '73 Torso case, which you say links to the Ripper, however you are not ready to give details at this stage, like myself.

Cheers

Steve

[Elamarna]

Just had a look at the material you posted to amend a mistake, some posts back.

I found that you have a span of 2-4 minuts from the attack before Paul arrives. And that you have 1 min 30 seconds for the exchange between Mizen and Lechmere and the ensuing knock-up.

That came as no surprise. I do hope you are not leaning against these kinds of things for your "debunking" of the blood evidence?

That's a range of 2-4 minutes from the start of the attack, which at the lower end fits with the statements of Payne-James. The higher range is suggested given our new view on the abdomenial injuries which Payne-James did not consider.


The exchange and knock up could reasonably be anything between 30 seconds and two minutes . The point of the table is that those times can easily be changed, if one decided to go for 30 seconds, we are back where we were before the correction.

The argument against the blood evidence is far more than mere timings.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: That's a range of 2-4 minutes from the start of the attack, which at the lower end fits with the statements of Payne-James.

Yes, I realize that it is a range from the start of the attack. However, I don´t think it is necessarily a correct estimation. The abdomina injuries as well as the cuts to the neck can have taken a very short time to inflict, and so two minutes may well be way too much.
Basically, I don´t even think we can exclude the possibility that the cutting can have been performed during the time Paul was in Bucks Row! Please don´t go quoting me as having said that I believe this to be a fact, though.
I think that the neck came last, as you know, and I also think a fiar case can be made for how it came so late that very little blood was able to escape before Paul arrived.
It is not as if we lay down facts when we theorize about these things, Steve. Keep that in mind.

The higher range is suggested given our new view on the abdomenial injuries which Payne-James did not consider.

Our new view? That a flap had formed but not been entirely cut away? That may or may not be collateral damage, and it need have taken all of a few seconds to inflict.

The exchange and knock up could reasonably be anything between 30 seconds and two minutes . The point of the table is that those times can easily be changed, if one decided to go for 30 seconds, we are back where we were before the correction.

"Correction"? A correction is something that renders something correct, is it not? I would propse the term "change" or "alteration" instead. It may very well be anything BUT a correction. To my mind, it could have gone down in less than 30 seconds. COULD, that is.

The argument against the blood evidence is far more than mere timings.

I should hope so. It must be, to work. But what is it, Steve?

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: That's a range of 2-4 minutes from the start of the attack, which at the lower end fits with the statements of Payne-James.

Yes, I realize that it is a range from the start of the attack. However, I don´t think it is necessarily a correct estimation. The abdomina injuries as well as the cuts to the neck can have taken a very short time to inflict, and so two minutes may well be way too much.
Basically, I don´t even think we can exclude the possibility that the cutting can have been performed during the time Paul was in Bucks Row! Please don´t go quoting me as having said that I believe this to be a fact, though.
I think that the neck came last, as you know, and I also think a fiar case can be made for how it came so late that very little blood was able to escape before Paul arrived.
It is not as if we lay down facts when we theorize about these things, Steve. Keep that in mind.

It may be, who can say for sure, an estimation must however be made if one is going to either propose or counter the "blood evidence".
Payne-James certainly suggest up to 2 minutes for the attack, and I am allowing for Lechmere to move away from the body to where he is seen by Paul. In those circumstances 2 minutes looks perfectly reasonable.

If the abdomen is first and if that attack is the cause of death, that has very significant implications for the "blood evidence" theory.

The higher range is suggested given our new view on the abdomenial injuries which Payne-James did not consider.

Our new view? That a flap had formed but not been entirely cut away? That may or may not be collateral damage, and it need have taken all of a few seconds to inflict.

We spent some time in April I beleive debating the extent of the wounds, the view we all agreed on was the wounds were far more extensive than were normally suggested and more thanMr Payne-James suggested in the Documentary and therefore his estimation may need to be reassesd.

The exchange and knock up could reasonably be anything between 30 seconds and two minutes . The point of the table is that those times can easily be changed, if one decided to go for 30 seconds, we are back where we were before the correction.

"Correction"? A correction is something that renders something correct, is it not? I would propse the term "change" or "alteration" instead. It may very well be anything BUT a correction. To my mind, it could have gone down in less than 30 seconds. COULD, that is.

No correction is the right word, I was correcting a piece of addition that was previously incorrect..
If I were changing say the exchange that would be a change not a correction.

Could be less than 30 seconds, I would respectfully suggest such is extremely unlikely.

The argument against the blood evidence is far more than mere timings.

I should hope so. It must be, to work. But what is it, Steve?

It's not an "it" but a "they", various issues not singular, any of which call the theory into serious question.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Dear Christer,

I have no wish to misquote you at some stage in the future, so I wonder if you could briefly explain what you beleive the "blood evidence " suggests and how that works as an hypothesis?


Thanks in advance


Steve

[Fisherman]

Dear Christer,

I have no wish to misquote you at some stage in the future, so I wonder if you could briefly explain what you beleive the "blood evidence " suggests and how that works as an hypothesis?


Thanks in advance


Steve

Merrily. Once I have the material I have been asking for, but which has so far illuded me - a short, comprehensive post detailing how the blood evidence - as you understand it - is easily debunked.

[Elamarna]

Merrily. Once I have the material I have been asking for, but which has so far illuded me - a short, comprehensive post detailing how the blood evidence - as you understand it - is easily debunked.

Then I will just have to go back and search to find your view. Your refusal to sum up something you have already stated is noted, and says much.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Then I will just have to go back and search to find your view. Your refusal to sum up something you have already stated is noted, and says much.


Steve

As far as I can tell, it only says that I am perfectly happy to exchange thoughts. But it takes two to tango, Steve. I asked YOU to sum up what you have already stated, but so far I have had nothing for it. Which means that I am left to go back and check, page by page, to find it. Sound familiar?

That, however, does not make me go "it is noted and says much".

To me, it only says that you have so far not gotten around to doing it.

PS. That last post of yours was the first for quite some time where you did not call me "dear Christer" or "my friend". What happened?

[Sam Flynn]

I asked YOU to sum up what you have already stated, but so far I have had nothing for it. Which means that I am left to go back and check, page by page, to find it.

So far, the thread only takes up 15 pages, Fish. Some of your individual posts are longer

[Herlock Sholmes]

It may be, who can say for sure, an estimation must however be made if one is going to either propose or counter the "blood evidence".
Payne-James certainly suggest up to 2 minutes for the attack, and I am allowing for Lechmere to move away from the body to where he is seen by Paul. In those circumstances 2 minutes looks perfectly reasonable.

If the abdomen is first and if that attack is the cause of death, that has very significant implications for the "blood evidence" theory.





We spent some time in April I beleive debating the extent of the wounds, the view we all agreed on was the wounds were far more extensive than were normally suggested and more thanMr Payne-James suggested in the Documentary and therefore his estimation may need to be reassesd.




No correction is the right word, I was correcting a piece of addition that was previously incorrect..
If I were changing say the exchange that would be a change not a correction.

Could be less than 30 seconds, I would respectfully suggest such is extremely unlikely.





It's not an "it" but a "they", various issues not singular, any of which call the theory into serious question.


Steve

Hi Steve,

Apologies for behind behind (as ever) but can you remind me where the suggestion comes from that the injuries to the body were committed first and so were the cause of death . I can’t see it in Llewelyn’s Inquest testimony. I’ve always felt strongly that this is surely unlikely

[drstrange169]

>Apologies for behind behind (as ever) but can you remind me where the suggestion comes from that the injuries to the body were committed first and so were the cause of death .<<

A comments in Baxter's summation and comments in the police files.

[Elamarna]

As far as I can tell, it only says that I am perfectly happy to exchange thoughts. But it takes two to tango, Steve. I asked YOU to sum up what you have already stated, but so far I have had nothing for it. Which means that I am left to go back and check, page by page, to find it. Sound familiar?

Christer

I asked because you have Been known to say you have been misquoted, therefore all I wanted was a short summation of the position you have already posted before. That is not the same as asking me to publish my research and results before I am ready to do so.


When this project was begun it was made very clear no details would be given, other than that provided in the posts with regards to the results of the research until.the work was completed and that remains the case.

However clarification is indeed available.

The various issues, not the results, are in the numerous posts and threads there have been on the "blood evidence" on this site.
The issues involve, inquest testimony, and how such is interpreted, general press reports and the interpretation of those, medical knowledge and anaylise and more.
You see, like all of the work I have been doing, it is not based on a single approach or source, but on many.

That, however, does not make me go "it is noted and says much".

To me, it only says that you have so far not gotten around to doing it.

No it says that repeating for the sake of clarity, so not to offend by misquoting a previously published position, is entirely different from asking for unpublished research and results.

You have said you have "information " which suggests links between the '73 Torso and the Ripper series, you say you cannot say what that is, so I at least do not continue to ask , I respect your position my friend.

PS. That last post of yours was the first for quite some time where you did not call me "dear Christer" or "my friend". What happened?

I tend to write the body of the text, before tidying up and adding the pleasantries.
I just forgot to add a greeting at the Start and did not realise. Sorry .



Steve