Bucks Row Project

[Elamarna]

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

Herlock

It comes indirectly from Llewellyn via Mr Baxter and later police reports.
Llewellyn offers no real evidence, or at least none surives. He make some comments in his testimony which are open to various interpretation. Needless to say the opinion is very divided on the subject.
I will however be coming both possabilties in Part 3, and the significance each may have on other theories around the murder.

Steve

Sorry I see Dusty had already replied.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Christer

Sod it. No more "Dear Christer", apparently.

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.

Of course it is not the same. They are two questions about different matters, where each of us ask the other one to sum something up.

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.

Well, my take on the blood evidence is not based on a single source either. Which is why I think it is odd that my "refusal" to give you a short succinct version of it should be in any way more damning than your unwillingness to give ME a short and succinct version of your attempt at debunking it - something you say has been published to a large degree already out here.

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sake of clarity, so not to offend by misquoting a previously published position, is entirely different from asking for unpublished research and results.

I am asking for the published matters that you yourself admit are out here. The short, short, SHORT version of it.

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.

"My friend"! Every cloud has a silver lining!

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 .

Never mind my clamouring for comfort, Steve. I really should not burden you with too much...

PS. If there is some point you are uncertain of when it comes to my stance, why not just ask for that particular point? It would facilitate things greatly for me, and perhaps it will be enough to serve your purposes too?

[Herlock Sholmes]

>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.

Thanks for that Dusty

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock

It comes indirectly from Llewellyn via Mr Baxter and later police reports.
Llewellyn offers no real evidence, or at least none surives. He make some comments in his testimony which are open to various interpretation. Needless to say the opinion is very divided on the subject.
I will however be coming both possabilties in Part 3, and the significance each may have on other theories around the murder.

Steve

Sorry I see Dusty had already replied.

Cheers Steve. I recalled the point being made but I couldn’t recall the circumstances.

Just from my own point of view this is surely unlikely? The killers plan was silence-kill-mutilate. A hand over the mouth helps toward the first goal but would silence completely so the ‘obvious’ next move would be throat cutting. Silencing and killing. Abdomen first makes no sense at all to me.

[Elamarna]

Dear Christer, feel better now.

Elamarna: Christer

Sod it. No more "Dear Christer", apparently.

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.

Of course it is not the same. They are two questions about different matters, where each of us ask the other one to sum something up.

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.

Well, my take on the blood evidence is not based on a single source either. Which is why I think it is odd that my "refusal" to give you a short succinct version of it should be in any way more damning than your unwillingness to give ME a short and succinct version of your attempt at debunking it - something you say has been published to a large degree already out here.

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.

I am asking for the published matters that you yourself admit are out here. The short, short, SHORT version of it.


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.

"My friend"! Every cloud has a silver lining!

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 .

Never mind my clamouring for comfort, Steve. I really should not burden you with too much...

What a shame you have no idea what I am doing, the posts are not a burden, rather they are light relief.

PS. If there is some point you are uncertain of when it comes to my stance, why not just ask for that particular point? It would facilitate things greatly for me, and perhaps it will be enough to serve your purposes too?

Your post nicely sidesteps the major issue here, that while your view of the "blood evidence" is in the public domain my response in the form of my research is not at this point.

My sole reason for asking for your take on the subkect was so that when I discuss it YOU do not say you are being misrepresented. And despite your "PS." it still appears you are unwilling to provide such. Its not really a problem.

I do however find it interesting that you while rightly not disclosing details of your work on the Torsos, you appear to beleive the same should not apply to the research of others.

I have supplied the areas I have been working on, those areas are where arguments have been made and information supplied and which you have taken part in. It appears that is not enough and you would like actual details of my research.

In the world of research one does not disclose ones data or conclusions until the work is complete; if we were collaborating on research that would be different; however we are not.

I do however thank you for raising the profile of this thread once again.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Cheers Steve. I recalled the point being made but I couldn’t recall the circumstances.

Just from my own point of view this is surely unlikely? The killers plan was silence-kill-mutilate. A hand over the mouth helps toward the first goal but would silence completely so the ‘obvious’ next move would be throat cutting. Silencing and killing. Abdomen first makes no sense at all to me.

Christer for one sees it differently, I feel it's unlikely but am happy to work with both possabilties and see where they point.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Dear Christer, feel better now.

Good!

Your post nicely sidesteps the major issue here, that while your view of the "blood evidence" is in the public domain my response in the form of my research is not at this point.

I was working from your information that a lot/some of the things you think may debunk the blood evidence issue WAS published. And that information is what I was asking for. Hopefully in condensed form.

My sole reason for asking for your take on the subkect was so that when I discuss it YOU do not say you are being misrepresented. And despite your "PS." it still appears you are unwilling to provide such. Its not really a problem.

I am guessing that you yourself is a lot better aquainted with which parameters you feel uncertain about, and so I offered to look at whatever questions you could have on these items. Instead, that is, of going through the rather tedious and lenghty exercise to condense all of my thinking on the errand into one post.
That offer stands.

I do however find it interesting that you while rightly not disclosing details of your work on the Torsos, you appear to beleive the same should not apply to the research of others.

I believe that it is everybodys right to ask, and every respondents right to say "no".

I have supplied the areas I have been working on, those areas are where arguments have been made and information supplied and which you have taken part in. It appears that is not enough and you would like actual details of my research.

Nope. Not a single bit of it. I am prepared to wait til´hell freezes over, and it bothers me not. As I have repeatedly stated, there are dozens and dozens of time schedules and such things on the boards where you suggest different things. And there is a lot of reasoning from your side. I believe that you would be able to say "Out of all ot these things, what I regard as most debunking for the blood evidence theory is this: ??????".

In the world of research one does not disclose ones data or conclusions until the work is complete; if we were collaborating on research that would be different; however we are not.

Indeed we are not.

I do however thank you for raising the profile of this thread once again.

The pleasure will be all mine - once you post that summary.

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: Dear Christer, feel better now.

Good!

Your post nicely sidesteps the major issue here, that while your view of the "blood evidence" is in the public domain my response in the form of my research is not at this point.

I was working from your information that a lot/some of the things you think may debunk the blood evidence issue WAS published. And that information is what I was asking for. Hopefully in condensed form.

My sole reason for asking for your take on the subkect was so that when I discuss it YOU do not say you are being misrepresented. And despite your "PS." it still appears you are unwilling to provide such. Its not really a problem.

I am guessing that you yourself is a lot better aquainted with which parameters you feel uncertain about, and so I offered to look at whatever questions you could have on these items. Instead, that is, of going through the rather tedious and lenghty exercise to condense all of my thinking on the errand into one post.
That offer stands.

I do however find it interesting that you while rightly not disclosing details of your work on the Torsos, you appear to beleive the same should not apply to the research of others.

I believe that it is everybodys right to ask, and every respondents right to say "no".

I have supplied the areas I have been working on, those areas are where arguments have been made and information supplied and which you have taken part in. It appears that is not enough and you would like actual details of my research.

Nope. Not a single bit of it. I am prepared to wait til´hell freezes over, and it bothers me not. As I have repeatedly stated, there are dozens and dozens of time schedules and such things on the boards where you suggest different things. And there is a lot of reasoning from your side. I believe that you would be able to say "Out of all ot these things, what I regard as most debunking for the blood evidence theory is this: ??????".

In the world of research one does not disclose ones data or conclusions until the work is complete; if we were collaborating on research that would be different; however we are not.

Indeed we are not.

I do however thank you for raising the profile of this thread once again.

The pleasure will be all mine - once you post that summary.

There are no areas I am uncertain about my dear friend, but thank you for the offer.

The approach to the whole project is to compare and contrast the various issues involved
and to then see if they agree on possible outcomes and interpretation.It appears the results are all positive.

You see it's not as simple as a single piece where I can say "this is it" there are many bits of data which on their own suggest the theory fails, taken togeather the argument is I feel overwhelming.


Time will reveal all.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: There are no areas I am uncertain about my dear friend, but thank you for the offer.

Then I don´t understand why you needed me to give my view of the blood evidence in the first place. If you are certain about how I see it, you won´t misrepresent me - unless you are wrong.

The approach to the whole project is to compare and contrast the various issues involved and to then see if they agree on possible outcomes and interpretation.It appears the results are all positive.

You see it's not as simple as a single piece where I can say "this is it" there are many bits of data which on their own suggest the theory fails, taken togeather the argument is I feel overwhelming.

It seems you are speaking about your work on the blood evidence. The offer I made was to clarify my own stance on the different bits of pieces.

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: There are no areas I am uncertain about my dear friend, but thank you for the offer.

Then I don´t understand why you needed me to give my view of the blood evidence in the first place. If you are certain about how I see it, you won´t misrepresent me - unless you are wrong.

.
The approach to the whole project is to compare and contrast the various issues involved and to then see if they agree on possible outcomes and interpretation.It appears the results are all positive.

You see it's not as simple as a single piece where I can say "this is it" there are many bits of data which on their own suggest the theory fails, taken togeather the argument is I feel overwhelming.

It seems you are speaking about your work on the blood evidence. The offer I made was to clarify my own stance on the different bits of pieces.

The question was to avoid any potential misunderstanding. However it's easy enough to quote what was said before, if not as upto date.


In that particular instance yes, I was responding to your point:

" I believe that you would be able to say "Out of all ot these things, what I regard as most debunking for the blood evidence theory is this: ??????"."

However the same applies to all the areas of Bucks Row.

Bye for now my friend


Steve

[Fisherman]

The question was to avoid any potential misunderstanding. However it's easy enough to quote what was said before, if not as upto date.


In that particular instance yes, I was responding to your point:

" I believe that you would be able to say "Out of all ot these things, what I regard as most debunking for the blood evidence theory is this: ??????"."

However the same applies to all the areas of Bucks Row.

Bye for now my friend


Steve

It seems to me you were doing anything BUT responding...

[Elamarna]

It seems to me you were doing anything BUT responding...

Christer, my friend

I actual stated the reasons why one could not simply respond to question the way you wanted.

That you do not like the response is an issue for you.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Christer, my friend

I actual stated the reasons why one could not simply respond to question the way you wanted.

That you do not like the response is an issue for you.


Steve

Actually no.

I have no issue with it whatsoever.

[Elamarna]

Actually no.

I have no issue with it whatsoever.

It obviously is.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Fisherman:

Actually no.

I have no issue with it whatsoever.

Your answer:

It obviously is.

Steve

I´m sorry, but your answer makes no grammatical sense. Were you trying to say "You obviously have"? Are you in such a case unwilling to trust me on what I am saying?