Blood oozing

[Elamarna]

I seem to remember that you have somewhere presented the view that the blood could not have been running as Mizen arrived at the scene...? Oh well, all good things to he who waits!

That is putting it rather too simply, the arguments are far more complicated and compelling than that Christer; Yes good things certainly do!

Steve

[Fisherman]

That is putting it rather too simply, the arguments are far more complicated and compelling than that Christer; Yes good things certainly do!

Steve

"Compelling" is a word that is interpreted very differently by different posters. There is very compelling evidence pointing to Lechmere as the killer if you ask me, for example.
We´ll see just how compelling your thinking is when it arrives - so far, I can honestly say that I am far from impressed by what you have posted. Maybe it will change, though!

[Elamarna]

"Compelling" is a word that is interpreted very differently by different posters. There is very compelling evidence pointing to Lechmere as the killer if you ask me, for example.
We´ll see just how compelling your thinking is when it arrives - so far, I can honestly say that I am far from impressed by what you have posted. Maybe it will change, though!

Fisherman

Considering that the only thing posted so far have been tables full of figures, being unimpressed does not really concern me, if you feel that any of the distance are very far out, or the range of speeds given is inadequate please say so in that thread, and provided the details to depute the figures provided.

You may of course disagree with the commentary provided, but that is my opinion, the figures are however not and are accurate as far as I can see.


And as for the initial comments on Mizen, made some time back in the thread "The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"", in post 1052, 1057, 1061 1069 to name just a few. This was before all the information had been collected and studied and yet your own response was simply to requote Payne-James again, as if his is the only professional opinion worth taking note of, and then you decided to abandon the thread and not attempt to answer or respond to the points raised.

You are unimpressed? That really is of no concern to me, the research is not for you, let others decided when the full details are posted, for which you will have to wait.

Bye for now


Steve

[Patrick S]

Put up or shut up. Sorry to be so frank, but you give me no other option.

Well said.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman

Considering that the only thing posted so far have been tables full of figures, being unimpressed does not really concern me, if you feel that any of the distance are very far out, or the range of speeds given is inadequate please say so in that thread, and provided the details to depute the figures provided.

You may of course disagree with the commentary provided, but that is my opinion, the figures are however not and are accurate as far as I can see.


And as for the initial comments on Mizen, made some time back in the thread "The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"", in post 1052, 1057, 1061 1069 to name just a few. This was before all the information had been collected and studied and yet your own response was simply to requote Payne-James again, as if his is the only professional opinion worth taking note of, and then you decided to abandon the thread and not attempt to answer or respond to the points raised.

You are unimpressed? That really is of no concern to me, the research is not for you, let others decided when the full details are posted, for which you will have to wait.

Bye for now


Steve

Let OTHERS decide? You are kidding, right?

Nah, I think I had better stick around, otherwise we will have a quick witch process and it will all be over. Somebody has to represent sense and measure too.

Am I being ironic? Yes. Am I joking? No.

I am largely unimpressed, yes - not by our tenacity and the work you have put in, but by the results of it. Pointing out that the participants of the drama may have walked at varying speeds and stating that more than one path could have been used is - if you forgive me - pointing to the very obvious. I don´t think I was put to shame by it, it was more like being put to sleep, which is the reason I have not commented much on it. If there had been something fresh and new and if the revelations hade rained down thick and fast, you can be certain that I would have been much more active - either opposing it or taking it on board. But there was very little to oppose - people CAN walk at different speeds and people CAN walk more than one path - and similarly, there was precious little to cheer about, since we all knew that before.

It sounds like you are going to try coming out with your guns blazing the next time you present your work, and to be frank, it sounds a lot more mouthwatering. I am looking forward to it.

[Elamarna]

Let OTHERS decide? You are kidding, right?

Nah, I think I had better stick around, otherwise we will have a quick witch process and it will all be over. Somebody has to represent sense and measure too.

Am I being ironic? Yes. Am I joking? No.


Sorry it is for others to decide what they believe is viable and true; not one individual or a small group of such.



I am largely unimpressed, yes - not by our tenacity and the work you have put in, but by the results of it. Pointing out that the participants of the drama may have walked at varying speeds and stating that more than one path could have been used is - if you forgive me - pointing to the very obvious. I don´t think I was put to shame by it, it was more like being put to sleep, which is the reason I have not commented much on it. If there had been something fresh and new and if the revelations hade rained down thick and fast, you can be certain that I would have been much more active - either opposing it or taking it on board. But there was very little to oppose - people CAN walk at different speeds and people CAN walk more than one path - and similarly, there was precious little to cheer about, since we all knew that before.


Of course much of it may be boring, but that is how research in the real world works. You need baselines to work to.
Of course there is little to oppose, it is a list of possibilities, all of which are based on known sources.
To summarize the work as just being about what routes may have been used, ignores much of what is contained.



It sounds like you are going to try coming out with your guns blazing the next time you present your work, and to be frank, it sounds a lot more mouthwatering. I am looking forward to it.

Only slightly in part 2, it is again source based evidence, just witness statements, with some commentary, probably too boring for you.

The real interesting stuff is after that. However no guns blazing, no need to, the case presented will speak for itself. (you should realize by now, I don't do all guns blazing)


Steve

[Patrick S]

"Compelling" is a word that is interpreted very differently by different posters. There is very compelling evidence pointing to Lechmere as the killer if you ask me, for example.
We´ll see just how compelling your thinking is when it arrives - so far, I can honestly say that I am far from impressed by what you have posted. Maybe it will change, though!

The word that jumps out here, for me at least, isn't "compelling"....it's "evidence". I have a hard time seeing anything that's been presented "against" Cross/Lechmere as "evidence". Theory? Ok. Conjecture? Sure. There is no real evidence at all because everything we know about Buck's Row, Nichols, Cross/Lechmere, Paul, Mizen, Thain, Neil, et al, leads to literally dozens of possibilities, because - in the end - we don't know enough to fill in the blanks. And - in my view - it's the least probable of the possibilities, at literally every stop on the Lechmere the Ripper Express, that points to him as Nichols' killer.

Just looking at this one word: Oozing. John Neil said this at the inquest: "I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat." He noticed this oozing right around 3:45am.

We know that Paul and Cross had been with the body between, what, two and five minutes before Neil showed up? We know that Robert Paul (leaving Cross out of it) noticed no wounds, no blood. Now, I could suggest here that Paul saw no evidence of foul play because neither he nor Cross had a lamp and Neil did. But, I could also suggest that he saw no wounds, no blood...because none was visible. Remember, Llewellyn thought that the abdominal wounds had been inflicted before the neck wound. Who are we to disagree? He was there, right? We weren't. If I put together what I'm hearing from Neil and from Llewellyn, I can reach a conclusion and shout from the rooftops that it's obvious and conclusive: Nichols was choked into unconsciousness or to death, the killer began mutilating her abdomen, heard Cross, then Paul, hid close by (perhaps in his rooms directly above the scene if we'd like to point the finger and James Green, for instance), only to return to perform the near decapitation of Nichols, again fleeing to the safety of his home when he heard the rather conspicuous footfalls of Neil entering Bucks Row.

Is this not possible? Is there not every bit as much "evidence" for this scenario? In fact, isn't there more? Doesn't this fit the "blood evidence" more precisely? Also, this Jack need not have behaved so inexplicably for a man who just committed blood murder. This killer IS concerned about not being caught, if only to continue to indulge his blood lust, perversion, illness, whatever we wish to call it. This killer DOES remove himself from sight, rather than remain there, waiting for a man to come to where he committed his crime, and calling his attention to his victim. This killer DOES NOT go with Robert Paul to find a PC to tell about the woman he'd just killed. This killer DOES NOT appear at the inquest 48 hours later even though he'd not been asked his name or identified to any extent at all.

[Fisherman]

The word that jumps out here, for me at least, isn't "compelling"....it's "evidence". I have a hard time seeing anything that's been presented "against" Cross/Lechmere as "evidence". Theory? Ok. Conjecture? Sure. There is no real evidence at all because everything we know about Buck's Row, Nichols, Cross/Lechmere, Paul, Mizen, Thain, Neil, et al, leads to literally dozens of possibilities, because - in the end - we don't know enough to fill in the blanks. And - in my view - it's the least probable of the possibilities, at literally every stop on the Lechmere the Ripper Express, that points to him as Nichols' killer.

Just looking at this one word: Oozing. John Neil said this at the inquest: "I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat." He noticed this oozing right around 3:45am.

We know that Paul and Cross had been with the body between, what, two and five minutes before Neil showed up? We know that Robert Paul (leaving Cross out of it) noticed no wounds, no blood. Now, I could suggest here that Paul saw no evidence of foul play because neither he nor Cross had a lamp and Neil did. But, I could also suggest that he saw no wounds, no blood...because none was visible. Remember, Llewellyn thought that the abdominal wounds had been inflicted before the neck wound. Who are we to disagree? He was there, right? We weren't. If I put together what I'm hearing from Neil and from Llewellyn, I can reach a conclusion and shout from the rooftops that it's obvious and conclusive: Nichols was choked into unconsciousness or to death, the killer began mutilating her abdomen, heard Cross, then Paul, hid close by (perhaps in his rooms directly above the scene if we'd like to point the finger and James Green, for instance), only to return to perform the near decapitation of Nichols, again fleeing to the safety of his home when he heard the rather conspicuous footfalls of Neil entering Bucks Row.

Is this not possible? Is there not every bit as much "evidence" for this scenario? In fact, isn't there more? Doesn't this fit the "blood evidence" more precisely? Also, this Jack need not have behaved so inexplicably for a man who just committed blood murder. This killer IS concerned about not being caught, if only to continue to indulge his blood lust, perversion, illness, whatever we wish to call it. This killer DOES remove himself from sight, rather than remain there, waiting for a man to come to where he committed his crime, and calling his attention to his victim. This killer DOES NOT go with Robert Paul to find a PC to tell about the woman he'd just killed. This killer DOES NOT appear at the inquest 48 hours later even though he'd not been asked his name or identified to any extent at all.

You are speaking of the Phantom killer, Patrick. I know him quite well, we´ve been introduced to each other hundreds of times.

There are a number of reasons why I don´t believe in him. One set of reasons lie in the fact that there are many anomalies pointing to Lechmere, that I would not have expected to be there if he was not the killer; the name swap, the disagreement with Mizen, the odd coincidence that he fits the blood evidence, the covered-up wounds etcetera.

There is also the fact that the Phantom killer was never seen or heard, the fact that Bucks Row did not offer very many places to hide close to the body, the fact that a Phantom killer would have been very much faced with the risk that the carmen saw what had happened and raised the alarm in the street, the fact that it seems that this killer was more likely to leave a victim uneviscerated if he was disturbed - as per Stride...

A few things I agree with you over is when you say that it is not impossible - it isn´t. And yes, it seemingly fits the blood evidence just as well or better than Lechmere does.

But I am overall quite reluctant to skip over a very relevant suspect in favour of a Phantom killer. I think maybe we should call him a surplus killer instead - we don´t need him. We really don´t.

[Fisherman]

Only slightly in part 2, it is again source based evidence, just witness statements, with some commentary, probably too boring for you.

The real interesting stuff is after that. However no guns blazing, no need to, the case presented will speak for itself. (you should realize by now, I don't do all guns blazing)


Steve

I´m sorry to hear that - it would have been invigorating, or so I would have thought.

But I think the time has come for me to wait and see. So that´s what I´ll do.

[Elamarna]

I´m sorry to hear that - it would have been invigorating, or so I would have thought.

But I think the time has come for me to wait and see. So that´s what I´ll do.

I did say from the start, back in October how this was going to progress, data to be presented and take on board comments from others, followed eventually by the conclusions.
The forum is in reality part of the evidence gathering process, hence some bits are still undecided in my mind, others such as the blood have basically already been resolved, but could change if presented with some groundbreaking research.

Steve

[Patrick S]

there are many anomalies pointing to Lechmere, that I would not have expected to be there if he was not the killer; the name swap, the disagreement with Mizen, the odd coincidence that he fits the blood evidence, the covered-up wounds etcetera.

As I've said before, all you have is the "name swap". It's interesting. But, Cross is Lechmere is not Jack the Ripper is not the Tors Killer...... The "disagreement" with Mizen WAS a scam, pulled by Mizen. Not because he was the a bad cop, but because he (and likely the Met) weren't thrilled with the tale Paul told in Lloyd's. This simply does more to embolden the point, Christer. You throw out the Mizen Scam as some anomaly pointing to Lechmere. Yet in order for Mizen to be the one doing the scamming we must view Paul a Lechmere's unwitting dupe, a publicity hungry liar, or (as I've heard him described in the past ), someone with a grudge against the police. None of that's required with the Phantom. I don't believe in him either. But, he's more likely a killer than Charles Lechmere.

There is also the fact that the Phantom killer was never seen or heard, the fact that Bucks Row did not offer very many places to hide close to the body, the fact that a Phantom killer would have been very much faced with the risk that the carmen saw what had happened and raised the alarm in the street, the fact that it seems that this killer was more likely to leave a victim uneviscerated if he was disturbed - as per Stride...

I'm not advocating a Phantom because one isn't needed. Common sense tells us that Nichols was dead when Cross came upon her. The killer had simply done for her and walked on, probably before her heard or saw Cross enter Bucks Row. Paul came upon Cross mere seconds later. They went and found Mizen who assumed the woman was drunk and he therefore continued calling up and didn't say if he'd go to Bucks Row or not, upsetting Paul who said so in the papers. About this "raising the alarm" foolishness. Why didn't Paul (you know...the OTHER "carman"..the liar...the publicity hound?) "raise the alarm"? In your fantasy, there cannot be another killer because he risked being exposed by "the carman" (Cross) "raising the alarm" upon seeing him in Buck's Row with a "freshly murdered" Nichols. Yet, your fantasy HAS "the carman" (Paul) entering Bucks Row while YOUR killer (Cross) is with the body.....but he DID NOT raise the alarm. In fact, he tried to walk on. Why? Well, probably because it was REALLY dark. We know that Paul saw no injuries or blood from a foot or two away. But we are to believe that Cross were he NOT the killer would have turned into Bucks Row, instantly recognized what was happening from some 40 yards off, "raised the alarm", shouted MURDER, scaring our poor Phantom Jack to death...even as Paul did EXACTLY that as Nichols laid on the ground with Cross in the road....and did no such thing.



But I am overall quite reluctant to skip over a very relevant suspect in favour of a Phantom killer. I think maybe we should call him a surplus killer instead - we don´t need him. We really don´t.

Taken on his merits, a phantom killer is more plausible than your man.

[Fisherman]

Taken on his merits, a phantom killer is more plausible than your man.

Fair point. More able, sort of.

[David Orsam]

What I dislike very much is any whacky - yes, that IS the word - suggestion that Payne-James would be dealing in guesswork only.

Well I didn't say or suggest that did I? But in respect of one particular answer he began by saying "I guess...". English is his first language isn't it? So in ordinary English that means he was guessing doesn't it?

And I mean, let's think about it. How much personal experience can he possibly have of seeing a bleeding neck wound of an individual who has died a sudden death (as a result of that wound) within 15 or 20 minutes of their death? In virtually all cases, unless by some miracle he was very close by at the time of death, it's going to have taken him at least an hour to get to the body isn't it? So what can his actual personal experience of this subject be?

If it's not personal experience but based on written papers of others, what are the references?

[Pierre]

There is very compelling evidence pointing to Lechmere as the killer if you ask me, for example.

Fisherman,

Now I ask you:

What is the very compelling evidence pointing to Lechmere as the killer of Annie Chapman?

What is the very compelling evidence pointing to Lechmere as the killer of Catherine Eddowes?

What is the very compelling evidence pointing to Lechmere as the killer of Elizabeth Stride?

What is the very compelling evidence pointing to Lechmere as the killer of the Whitehall victim?

What is the very compelling evidence pointing to Lechmere as the killer of Mary Jane Kelly?

What is the very compelling evidence pointing to Lechmere as the killer of Alice MacKenzie?

What is the very compelling evidence pointing to Lechmere as the killer in the Pinchin Street case?

Do tell us all, since you say "if you ask me". I do ask you. Behold the list above and tell us.

Pierre

[Sam Flynn]

In virtually all cases, unless by some miracle he was very close by at the time of death, it's going to have taken him at least an hour to get to the body isn't it? So what can his actual personal experience of this subject be?

Perhaps Payne-James is a very clumsy shaver.