Bucks Row Project

[The Station Cat]

Actual murder sites aside Steve there's enough of the 'old' East End still around to give a good taste of what the area used to look like.

I agree there's loads of other places in the area, that you can walk round and be transported back to the day, if you have a mind too!!!

[Elamarna]

major mistake found!!

Hi All,

i have found a major mistake in Part 1 Post 9(thread post #21) i have added up the figures incorrectly, please find the amended below



We end up with a range of 10 minutes 35 seconds – 15 minutes 14seconds ( I would however discount this figure and used 14 minutes 31 seconds instead, as I can see no possibility of Mizen walking at 2.5 mph)


This is somewhat longer than the range that Payne-James suggested was believable above.


However this is not the end of the story; Mizen is reported as seeing flowing blood, however at least one report says this was after he returned with the ambulance.
Has we have already seen, the fastest possible time to get the ambulance would be at least 14 minutes plus some exchange at the police station. Even if we cut this exchange to a few seconds,
we are left with a combined shortest time for Mizen’s report of 10 minutes 35 seconds to reach Bucks Row + 14 minutes minimum to go for and return with the ambulance that gives a total minimum time from killer cut to viewing of 24 minutes 35 seconds,


It seems clear that Mizen could not see free flowing blood, the idea is completely unviable and certainly not realistic when compared to the actual hypothesis.


He may however have seen blood run, when the body was moved and wounds may have reopened to an extent, that is a different thing which we shall look at in Part 3.

[The Station Cat]

Unfortunately the building work is still going on. I'm unsure what the spot will look like when it's finished as I don't know if the work affects it.

Went to Durwood Street a few hours ago and I can confirm the building work is still going on, the irony being that it's RIGHT on the stop were Nichols was murdered!!

[Fisherman]

We end up with a range of 10 minutes 35 seconds – 15 minutes 14seconds ( I would however discount figure and used 14 minutes 31 seconds instead, as I can see no possibility of Mizen walking at 2.5 mph)

This is somewhat longer than the range that Payne-James suggested was believable above.

Which span of time are you saying Jason Payne-James suggested was believable, Steve?

[Elamarna]

Which span of time are you saying Jason Payne-James suggested was believable, Steve?

Hi Fish,

It refers back to the exchange between yourself and Payne-James, which you posted and I quoted in the original post of which this the correction. And of course he didn't give any hard figures, just answers to your suggestions. These figures would at first sight appear to be more than he was prepared to commit to, and IF indeed the figures are correct it calls the whole question of usefulness of "blood evidence" as relating to Mizen into doubt.

I will give a full discussion on the that particular subject when I publish later in the year.
I am really looking forward to your response on that


The issue here was I added up incorrectly and the figures were all less than they should be by about 1 minute.
Nothing has changed from the original post apart from that


Steve

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

It refers back to the exchange between yourself and Payne-James, which you posted and I quoted in the original post of which this the correction. And of course he didn't give any hard figures, just answers to your suggestions. These figures would at first sight appear to be more than he was prepared to commit to, and IF indeed the figures are correct it calls the whole question of usefulness of "blood evidence" as relating to Mizen into doubt.

I will give a full discussion on the that particular subject when I publish later in the year.
I am really looking forward to your response on that


The issue here was I added up incorrectly and the figures were all less than they should be by about 1 minute.
Nothing has changed from the original post apart from that


Steve

Jason Payne James said that although he could not rule out any of the three periods of time suggested, he thought that three or five minutes were more likely suggestions than seven.

Iīm afraid that does not mean that he ruled out the longer period of time in any way. To his mind, it was less likely, thatīs all.

[Elamarna]

Jason Payne James said that although he could not rule out any of the three periods of time suggested, he thought that three or five minutes were more likely suggestions than seven.

Iīm afraid that does not mean that he ruled out the longer period of time in any way. To his mind, it was less likely, thatīs all.

Yes I fully understand that, but we are not talking about 7 or even 9 minutes here are we, but a far longer time
You appear to be missing the actual issue.
No problem I will explain it later.

Bye for now.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Yes I fully understand that, but we are not talking about 7 or even 9 minutes here are we, but a far longer time
You appear to be missing the actual issue.
No problem I will explain it later.

Bye for now.

Steve

The issue for me was that you wrote "This is somewhat longer than the range that Payne-James suggested was believable above", whilst the way I see it, Jason Payne James never suggested any span at al that was "believable" (thereby rendering whatever times landed outside this span "unbelievable", presumably.

It is conjuring up information on Payne Jamesībehalf that he never offered, Iīm afraid.

[Elamarna]

The issue for me was that you wrote "This is somewhat longer than the range that Payne-James suggested was believable above", whilst the way I see it, Jason Payne James never suggested any span at al that was "believable" (thereby rendering whatever times landed outside this span "unbelievable", presumably.

It is conjuring up information on Payne Jamesībehalf that he never offered, Iīm afraid.

Fish,

Please my friend, here is the exchange. Payne-James in bold



"Do you know of any examples?

No

Is it possible for such a person to bleed out completely and stop bleeding in three minutes? In five? In seven?

I guess blood may continue to flow for up to this amount of time, but the shorter periods are more likely to be more realistic.:"

So he says blood may continue to flow "I guess" for UPTO the times you mentioned.

And the lower times are "more realistic".

Therefore times which are up to double the time you specified are far more "unrealstic" that is unbelievable, than those you mention.



If you really cannot see the obvious flaws in the hypothesis expossed by this last post, I am trully astounded., Guess you will need to wait to understand the failings, if you really cannot see them.


Steve


.

[Elamarna]

Christer,

Can I just clarify, are you saying that Payne-James says the following range is possible when applied to the "blood evidence"

"We end up with a range of 10 minutes 35 seconds – 15 minutes 14seconds ( I would however discount this figure and used 14 minutes 31 seconds instead, as I can see no possibility of Mizen walking at 2.5 mph)"


Your comments would be appreciated.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Christer,

Can I just clarify, are you saying that Payne-James says the following range is possible when applied to the "blood evidence"

"We end up with a range of 10 minutes 35 seconds – 15 minutes 14seconds ( I would however discount this figure and used 14 minutes 31 seconds instead, as I can see no possibility of Mizen walking at 2.5 mph)"


Your comments would be appreciated.


Steve

Letīs first of all establish that I am in no position to make any statements about what Jason Payne James thinks.

All I can do is to share what he said to me. And that was that he was never likely to rule anything out, other than by saying that some suggestions entered into the absurd.

In line with that, he said when I asked him whether 3, 5 or 7 minutes would be what to expect in terms of bleeding in the Nichols case, that much as he thought that all three suggestions were plausible as such, the two shorter times were to his mind more likely to be correct on the mark than the longer one.

Make of that what you... No, wait!

PS. Much of course hinges on how you reached the very precise time 10 min 35 sec...?!

[Elamarna]

Letīs first of all establish that I am in no position to make any statements about what Jason Payne James thinks.

All I can do is to share what he said to me. And that was that he was never likely to rule anything out, other than by saying that some suggestions entered into the absurd.

In line with that, he said when I asked him whether 3, 5 or 7 minutes would be what to expect in terms of bleeding in the Nichols case, that much as he thought that all three suggestions were plausible as such, the two shorter times were to his mind more likely to be correct on the mark than the longer one.

Make of that what you... No, wait!

PS. Much of course hinges on how you reached the very precise time 10 min 35 sec...?!

The reasoning for the time range, not a single as you portray, is clearly laid out in the post.
And of course you give the only answer you can, if you do not wish to display the flaws in the "blood evidence" theory.

Why not wait, rather than attempt to debate, before a full debate based on the sources is available?



Steve

H

[Fisherman]

The reasoning for the time range, not a single as you portray, is clearly laid out in the post.
And of course you give the only answer you can, if you do not wish to display the flaws in the "blood evidence" theory.

Why not wait, rather than attempt to debate, before a full debate based on the sources is available?



Steve

H

I am not "attempting to debate", Steve. And I am confident that I know exactly what Jason Payne-James spoke of, since we discussed it in depth.

If you are going to try and use your comparatively uniformed take on things (sorry, but there you are) to point to "flaws" in the blood evidence part, however, then you WILL find yourself engaged in a debate you are not likely to emerge winning from.

But I can wait. I always could.

[Elamarna]

I am not "attempting to debate", Steve. And I am confident that I know exactly what Jason Payne-James spoke of, since we discussed it in depth.

If you are going to try and use your comparatively uniformed take on things (sorry, but there you are) to point to "flaws" in the blood evidence part, however, then you WILL find yourself engaged in a debate you are not likely to emerge winning from.

But I can wait. I always could.

Sorry my dear friend, I have already have the argument and facts which show the "blood evidence" hypothesis does not work.

You may not like such, however the theory fails on virtually every point when tested.
That you fail to see this is interesting, but one has to say not surprising considering how it has been used.


Of all the points used in an attempt to support Lechmere, the " blood evidence" is the most flawed and equally the most easily disposed of.

I look forward to your realisation of such.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Sorry my dear friend, I have already have the argument and facts which show the "blood evidence" hypothesis does not work.

You may not like such, however the theory fails on virtually every point when tested.
That you fail to see this is interesting, but one has to say not surprising considering how it has been used.


Of all the points used in an attempt to support Lechmere, the " blood evidence" is the most flawed and equally the most easily disposed of.

I look forward to your realisation of such.


Steve

Itīs 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 donīt 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.