Blood oozing

[Fisherman]

I think the time has come to point out a few things about how I look at the case, and how I reason.

The general approach out here is to say "No, it need not have been like that, it could have been like this instead".

Actually, I know that quite well.

The neck MAY have been cut first.

The blood MAY have left Nichols at a speed that is consistent with the general meaning of oozing when Neil saw her.

There MAY have been time for another killer.

And so on. In eternity.

What I am doing, is to try and see if the surrounding circumstances fit with Lechmere as the killer. I do this because I think that there are just too many anomalies involved for him not to be a very viable bid. And so, much as things MAY have been the other way around when it comes to the details, that is of inferior interest to me in my work to see if the details may fit Lechmere in the killerīs role.

It is suggested out here that Nichols MAY have been cut twenty minutes before Neil saw her, putting it in the vicinity of 3.25. It is claimed that it would be very odd if the neck was not cut first, and that this therefore MAY and probably WAS the case. It is said that there was an extension of the 15 centimeter pool of blood, reaching in under Nicholsī body, and that Llewellyn MAY have been blissfully unaware of this, although he would probably have been in place as the body was lifted onto the ambulance.
All sorts of things are suggested as alternative possibilities.

Fine. But you must be prepared to have these alternative suggestions challenged. And in the end, when it al has boiled down, we are left with how Neil said that the blood was running as he saw the body, how Mizen said that the blod was still running into the pool under the neck as he arrived, and that Llewellyn opted for a time of death no further removed in time than 30 minutes. And he saw the body att approximately 4.10, leaving us with 3.40 being the earliest possible cutting time as per Llewellyn.

Does that mean that Lechmere can be exonerated? No.

Does it in any way detract from the suggestion that he was the killer? No.

Are we left with any more probable killer, the Phantom killer included? No.

That is all there is to the matter, in the end:

Although it MAY be that Lechmere was not the killer, he is certainly the one and only man that is pointed out by the blood evidence.

Think Iīm done here now.

[Elamarna]

This you do not take into account, because your aim is not to get to the root of things - it is to try and defend you own poppycock, and to try and tarnish me as best as you can.

And look how you fared.

Any examination of my posts on this forum will show that when I make a mistake I put my hands up and say so.
I have no investment to protect as such and am far too long in the tooth to worry making such mistakes. For some such a course of action seems to be near impossible

Your claim is unfounded. And while a tad annoying that is all it is.

Tarnish you? The challenges are to what you post, not an attack on you. The two are not the same.

And one is allowed to challenge ideas.




Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Any examination of my posts on this forum will show that when I make a mistake I put my hands up and say so.
I have no investment to protect as such and am far too long in the tooth to worry making such mistakes. For some such a course of action seems to be near impossible.

But why always say "for some"? If you are really that mature, then why not come straight out at say that it is me you wish to accuse of being immature and unwilling to accept that I can be wrong? Whatīs the problem?

Your claim is unfounded. And while a tad annoying that is all it is.

I find my claim is very well founded - but that you are less inclined to admit being wrong than you would have it. If you had written "that blood was an extension of the pool" instead of "that pool was an extension of the pool", for example, you would not have me pointing to you presenting things wrongfully. But to you, that was a very useful way of presenting it.

Tarnish you? The challenges are to what you post, not an attack on you. The two are not the same.

So speaking about how "some" are not as good as you are, is "challenging my posts" only? I see.

And one is allowed to challenge ideas.

Yes! Absolutely! Has anybody claimed anything different?

[Elamarna]

I think the time has come to point out a few things about how I look at the case, and how I reason.

The general approach out here is to say "No, it need not have been like that, it could have been like this instead".

Actually, I know that quite well.

The neck MAY have been cut first.

The blood MAY have left Nichols at a speed that is consistent with the general meaning of oozing when Neil saw her.

There MAY have been time for another killer.

And so on. In eternity.

What I am doing, is to try and see if the surrounding circumstances fit with Lechmere as the killer. I do this because I think that there are just too many anomalies involved for him not to be a very viable bid. And so, much as things MAY have been the other way around when it comes to the details, that is of inferior interest to me in my work to see if the details may fit Lechmere in the killerīs role.

It is suggested out here that Nichols MAY have been cut twenty minutes before Neil saw her, putting it in the vicinity of 3.25. It is claimed that it would be very odd if the neck was not cut first, and that this therefore MAY and probably WAS the case. It is said that there was an extension of the 15 centimeter pool of blood, reaching in under Nicholsī body, and that Llewellyn MAY have been blissfully unaware of this, although he would probably have been in place as the body was lifted onto the ambulance.

Could you please say which source you are suggesting not only says he may have, but he in all probability was on site at that stage?



All sorts of things are suggested as alternative possibilities.

Fine. But you must be prepared to have these alternative suggestions challenged. And in the end, when it al has boiled down, we are left with how Neil said that the blood was running as he saw the body, how Mizen said that the blod was still running into the pool under the neck as he arrived, and that Llewellyn opted for a time of death no further removed in time than 30 minutes. And he saw the body att approximately 4.10, leaving us with 3.40 being the earliest possible cutting time as per Llewellyn.

That approx 4.10 may very well be nearer to 4 to 4.05. Such small difference make large alterations to what is possible.
And of course the 30 minutes was and is a guess as experts will tell you.

Does that mean that Lechmere can be exonerated? No.

Agreed

Does it in any way detract from the suggestion that he was the killer? No.

Are we left with any more probable killer, the Phantom killer included? No.


Actually we May be if we use your Phantom to represent the possability.

That is all there is to the matter, in the end:

Although it MAY be that Lechmere was not the killer, he is certainly the one and only man that is pointed out by the blood evidence.

Think Iīm done here now.

Sorry that may not be the case at all.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Sorry that may not be the case at all.


Steve

Thatīs todays funniest post, Steve! "May not be the case! Priceless!!

You ask why I think Llewellyn was in place as the body was removed to the mortuary. This is the Daily News:

"She was lying on her back with her legs out straight, as though she had been laid down. Police constable Neil told me that the body had not been touched. The throat was cut from ear to ear, and the woman was quite dead. On feeling the extremities of the body, I found that they were still warm, showing that death had not long ensued. A crowd was now gathering, and as it was undesirable to make a further examination in the street, I ordered the removal of the body to the mortuary, telling the police to send for me again if anything of importance transpired. There was a very small pool of blood in the pathway which had trickled from the wound in the throat, not more than would fill two wine glasses, or half a pint at the outside. This fact, and the way which the deceased was lying, made me think at the time that it was probable that the murder was committed elsewhere, and the body conveyed to Buck's row."

Llewellyn says FIRST that he ordered the removal of the body. He THEN says that there was a very small pool of blood in the pathway, and he goes on to state that this was why he thought that the murder was committed elsewhere.

Are you suggesting that he forgot to check UNDER the body before he made that assumption? That he saw part of the miniscule pool under the neck, and worked from the idea that there could not possibly be more blood under the body, hidden from sight?

I guess you will employ the route you always take: There is no direct phrasing where Llewellyn says that he saw the site after the body was removed. The fact that he made his call will not be enough for you. You will probably call that a discerning approach, even. Thatīs your kind of Ripperology, and I have grown accustomed to it.

Itīs not very productive.

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: Any examination of my posts on this forum will show that when I make a mistake I put my hands up and say so.
I have no investment to protect as such and am far too long in the tooth to worry making such mistakes. For some such a course of action seems to be near impossible.

But why always say "for some"? If you are really that mature, then why not come straight out at say that it is me you wish to accuse of being immature and unwilling to accept that I can be wrong? Whatīs the problem?


It is my style. I don't do rude or insults.


Your claim is unfounded. And while a tad annoying that is all it is.

[B]I find my claim is very well founded - but that you are less inclined to admit being wrong than you would have it. If you had written "that blood was an extension of the pool" instead of "that pool was an extension of the pool", for example, you would not have me pointing to you presenting things wrongfully. But to you, that was a very useful way of presenting

My use of extension was fully in keeping with its meaning. There was no mistake.


Tarnish you? The challenges are to what you post, not an attack on you. The two are not the same.

So speaking about how "some" are not as good as you are, is "challenging my posts" only? I see. .



If you are going to say I cannot admit mistakes, which was the point i was responding to and which my record shows I can and do; one should expect some sort of response along the lines of that which was given If one does not oneself often admit mistakes.

The comment about tarnishing you was on a completely different matter as you are well aware.


To clarify I do not in general make comments of a personal nature; but from time to time such are needed, much to my regret.
However even then I do not resort to calling people idiots of such like.




And one is allowed to challenge ideas.

Yes! Absolutely! Has anybody claimed anything different?

I will let others comment.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Thatīs your style? No insults?

So if I say that "some" cannot produce a single useful thought if they have a gun pointed at them, then that is somehow no insult?

Which planet do you live on, Steve?

[Elamarna]

Thatīs todays funniest post, Steve! "May not be the case! Priceless!!

You ask why I think Llewellyn was in place as the body was removed to the mortuary. This is the Daily News:

"She was lying on her back with her legs out straight, as though she had been laid down. Police constable Neil told me that the body had not been touched. The throat was cut from ear to ear, and the woman was quite dead. On feeling the extremities of the body, I found that they were still warm, showing that death had not long ensued. A crowd was now gathering, and as it was undesirable to make a further examination in the street, I ordered the removal of the body to the mortuary, telling the police to send for me again if anything of importance transpired. There was a very small pool of blood in the pathway which had trickled from the wound in the throat, not more than would fill two wine glasses, or half a pint at the outside. This fact, and the way which the deceased was lying, made me think at the time that it was probable that the murder was committed elsewhere, and the body conveyed to Buck's row."

Llewellyn says FIRST that he ordered the removal of the body. He THEN says that there was a very small pool of blood in the pathway, and he goes on to state that this was why he thought that the murder was committed elsewhere.


I see nothing to suggest he was in place when the body was moved, nor do I see any attempt to argue such in your reply.

Are you suggesting that he forgot to check UNDER the body before he made that assumption? That he saw part of the miniscule pool under the neck, and worked from the idea that there could not possibly be more blood under the body, hidden from sight?


How many time do I need to say this, YES.
Based on the sources it seems a very real possability that is what happened. I see nothing in those sources to counter that view.


I guess you will employ the route you always take: There is no direct phrasing where Llewellyn says that he saw the site after the body was removed. The fact that he made his call will not be enough for you. You will probably call that a discerning approach, even. Thatīs your kind of Ripperology, and I have grown accustomed to it.

Itīs not very productive.

Results based on wishful thinking are not productive; just the opposite in fact.
They can seriously mislead and waste time.

I will not accept something I see no backing for by the sources. And nor do I expect you too. So we are left to disagree.

As I said I can keep this up as long as you want but it is really just wasteful.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Thatīs your style? No insults?

So if I say that "some" cannot produce a single useful thought if they have a gun pointed at them, then that is somehow no insult?

Which planet do you live on, Steve?

And why do you my friend cherry pick from a post leaving out the full response given.
Such an approach Can give a false impression if not given in the right context.

To say some find it hard to admit mistakes is not an insult it is an observation based on what is posted.


Steve

[Fisherman]

All as I predicted therefore. Llewellyn said that he ordered the body removed, and he subsequently said that there was a small pool of blood only, and that this fact, taken together with the position of the body, led him to conclude that the murder was committed elsewhere and the body placed at the spot afterwards.

So he had taken in the picture about how much blood there was, otherwise he would not be able to speak of a scarcity of it - there could have been litres of the stuff under the body, and it was not until he checked that he would be able to make his call.

But you reason that he may have made the call anyway, and that he may have forgotten to check the amounts of blood on the spot.

This is why you should not be given too much attention - you are not able to take in what is said.

Or should I say that "some" are not able to. More stylishly, sort of? Of course, the problem is that anybody reading it will know who I am referring to. That is how we function - well, most of us, at least.

Some donīt.

[Fisherman]

And why do you my friend cherry pick from a post leaving out the full response given.
Such an approach Can give a false impression if not given in the right context.

To say some find it hard to admit mistakes is not an insult it is an observation based on what is posted.


Steve

Do you want me to dig out more posts from you, using "some" in order to point to me? Really?

Are you saying that you never had me in mind when using "some" in this kind of context? Really?

[Elamarna]

All as I predicted therefore. Llewellyn said that he ordered the body removed, and he subsequently said that there was a small pool of blood only, and that this fact, taken together with the position of the body, led him to conclude that the murder was committed elsewhere and the body placed at the spot afterwards.

So he had taken in the picture about how much blood there was, otherwise he would not be able to speak of a scarcity of it - there could have been litres of the stuff under the body, and it was not until he checked that he would be able to make his call.

But you reason that he may have made the call anyway, and that he may have forgotten to check the amounts of blood on the spot.

This is why you should not be given too much attention - you are not able to take in what is said.

Or should I say that "some" are not able to. More stylishly, sort of? Of course, the problem is that anybody reading it will know who I am referring to. That is how we function - well, most of us, at least.

Some donīt.

I see you have still not given any evidence or argument as to why Llewellyn was probably still on site when the body was loaded onto the ambulance.

If my arguments, not me as a person, is not worth the attention why do you spend so much of yours trying to counter those arguments.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Do you want me to dig out more posts from you, using "some" in order to point to me? Really?

Are you saying that you never had me in mind when using "some" in this kind of context? Really?

Not at all.
It is clear who the comment was aimed at.

You said I would mot admit mistakes, I said that was true of you.

That is not an insult, it's an observation.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Just noticed this:

Me: Are we left with any more probable killer, the Phantom killer included? No.

You: Actually we May be if we use your Phantom to represent the possability.

Has it dawned on you that there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of a Phantom killer? So I ask you: how can a Phantom killer be more probable than Lechmere as the murderer, when we know that Lechmere was in place and fits with the physical evidence at the site?

The appeal of the Phantom killer is that he can be adjusted to doing things the exact way we would have wanted him to do it. He can be given any name and shape. Thatīs attractive, of course.

But it does not make him in any way a proven existence and contender. Lechmere are both, though.

[Fisherman]

Not at all.
It is clear who the comment was aimed at.

You said I would mot admit mistakes, I said that was true of you.

That is not an insult, it's an observation.


Steve

Given that it is wrong, it IS an insult. To rational thinking, that is.