Minutiae in Buckīs Row.

[Fisherman]

You most certainly CAN word those thoughts and you most certainly ARE biased! As am I! I admit it. And I think it's fantastic.

I am biased against Lechmere the Ripper because I haven't been presented information that causes me to suspect him and because all of the research I've done about the man and his family leads AWAY from suspicion. You are biased in believing that Mizen was honest and true in that backs up your theory. It's semantics, really. I think my sons are good looking kids! But I'm biased.

Bias - or whatever more applicable or politically correct term you apply - makes this topic much more fun to discuss, after all. And much more satisfying when such 'biases' are overcome (as if that ever actually happens).

Yes, bias has itīs advantages.

... but I do not believe that Mizen was truthful because it backs up my theory. I do so because I find the facts in favour of that interpretation - and I am very happy to have David Orsam backing me up on the point.

[Fisherman]

Okay. Okay. We've been 'round and 'round on this. I am certain I'll never cause you to doubt for one moment your opinions regarding Lechmere. On the other hand, I'll admit to being open to changing mine if I'm presented with information that requires me to change my thinking.

We have been 'round and 'round, again and again. I'll admit this: Lechmere has been the most enjoyable and interesting topic of conversation on these boards the past several years.

Thatīs something I guess.

But I would like to press the point that I do think that I am just as prepared as anybody else to change my mid - if there is reason for it. Itīs way too simplistic to write me off as a blinkered zealot. I am not saying that you claim that I am - or that you are not claiming it - but I think it is a view that is groundless.

[kjab3112]

I've had a look into the blood flow through the common carotid artery with a thought extension onto time to exsanguination and how this would effect timings.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2940377

Reports an average blood flow of 371ml/min through normal female subjects common carotid arteries (obviously per artery).

Average human blood volume is 5000ml, which the heart is pumping every minute.

Blood pressure doesn't drop until 30-40% blood loss.

So theoretically, by the time Paul thinks he can feel a faint heart beat (but we assume no pulse), there is at least 1500-2000ml of blood loss.

If we then assume that all the blood loss is through the carotid artery (ie the neck injury) AND the population means are appropriate, there is a minimum time of four minutes of bleeding time (and likely longer).

NB I've assumed rate of blood loss is maintained (likely to start to fall once blood pressure drops but perhaps not before) and that abdominal wound blood loss can be ignored (likely to be less than drop in blood loss as blood pressure drops) and that there was the minimum drop in blood loss to cause a drop in blood pressure (likely an under estimate).

Might alter some of the above timings

Paul

[Patrick S]

Patrick S:

"Itīs about probabilitites and likelihoods. For example the likelihood that a man who seemingly but not certainly gave the wrong name...

But it wasn't the "wrong" name. You yourself have moved away from referring to it as a "false" name and taken to calling it an "alternate" name.

Actually, I consider all other names given to the authorities than the ones you are registered by as false names.

We know that his mother married a man called Cross and we know that Charles was known as Cross for at least some part of his life. We don't know that the people who knew him didn't simply call him "Cross". We don't know if the police remembered him as "Cross" in that his stepfather Thomas was a policeman. We don't know if he used the name Cross (with or without approval from the Met) because he was afraid of the killer. We don't know that he gave ONLY the name "Cross" at the inquest as the reportage - as we have seen again and again - was wildly inaccurate and/or lazy (Did Robert "Baul" give a false name, as well? Did "Cross" attempt to further deceive by giving the name "George"? What of PC "Thail"?) We don't know a great deal. Thus, it defies logic to call any of this "coincidence" as we simply don't have enough information to understand the circumstances.

So what information DO we have? We have the information that in 109 out of 110 instances when dealing with authorities, the carman called himself/signed himself Lechmere. And we have the information that apart from the murder business, there is not a iot of evidence that he ever used the name Cross himself.
It is not conclusive, but it is a very clear indication.

and who seemingly but not certainly lied about what he had told the police would

[B]Mizen lied. That's clear in any objective interpretation.

No, it is not. David Orsam, who certainly is not in favour of Lechmere, posted on it earlier, and he reached the conclusion that Lechmere is the likelier liar. Have you read the post - and answered it?

He lied for simple, understandable reasons: to protect his career at the Met, his reputation. I believe he lied with at least the tacit approval of his superiors at the Met in order to protect them from further savaging in the press for their lack of success in resolving Millwood, Wilson, Smith, Tabram. Paul painted at very unflattering picture of Mizen in Baker's Row. Mizen's statement clearly was intended to blunt the criticism directed at him by either his superiors or the press, likely both. It had the added benefit, as well, of reflecting rather more positively on the Met as a whole. This one, for me, is much more cut and dried. We know a great deal. And it's Mizen who comes out the worse for wear. Not Lechmere.

I donīt agree. The implications knit to the ensuing actions are very clear - Lechmere misinformed Mizen.

ALSO fit the geographical pattern.

The geographical pattern is very simple: The murders took place over a small geographical area. Close to one (as Lechmere would have to be in order to have encountered a victim's body) means close to all. Of course, you are required to invent MORE supposition when have events do not quite fit into the geographic pattern (i.e. Lechmere was visiting his mother when Stride and Eddowes occurred).

The carman had reason to pass through the killing fields at the relevant hours, simple as that. He had reason to visit the Stride murder site, simple as. Whether one, two or ninetyfive other men had the same reason is immaterial, since only Lechmere was found with the body and it is therefore only him we need to scrutinize on the point.

Scobie, again: "When the coincidences add up, mount up - and they DO in his case, it becomes one coincidence too many".

Scobie has heard all the excuses, and he knows when itīs time to call a halt to it all."

It really is too bad that we nonbelievers cannot discuss this directly with Scobie. I'd be interested to know how he would respond to just a few of these points of contention.

I can only echo how material was left out where Scobie elaborated further on how he thinks it ridiculous to speak of coincidences in the amount that is needed to absolve Lechmere. I agree very much - it is the exact same thing that has me opting for Lechmere - there is way too much in it not to do so.

Okay. Okay. We've been 'round and 'round on this. I am certain I'll never cause you to doubt for one moment your opinions regarding Lechmere. On the other hand, I'll admit to being open to changing mine if I'm presented with information that requires me to change my thinking.

We have been 'round and 'round, again and again. I'll admit this: Lechmere has been the most enjoyable and interesting topic of conversation on these boards the past several years.

[Patrick S]

On a separate note, it is weird that I cannot word the same thoughts as David without being accused of being biased. Thatīs another discussion, but it IS annoying and it is oversimplifying matters.

You most certainly CAN word those thoughts and you most certainly ARE biased! As am I! I admit it. And I think it's fantastic.

I am biased against Lechmere the Ripper because I haven't been presented information that causes me to suspect him and because all of the research I've done about the man and his family leads AWAY from suspicion. You are biased in believing that Mizen was honest and true in that backs up your theory. It's semantics, really. I think my sons are good looking kids! But I'm biased.

Bias - or whatever more applicable or politically correct term you apply - makes this topic much more fun to discuss, after all. And much more satisfying when such 'biases' are overcome (as if that ever actually happens).

[Patrick S]

Ah, okay, it was actually in response to yours in the PC Jonas Mizen thread #17:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...939#post401939

I'll take a look. I've fallen behind, it seems. Be advised, though, that I'm not wed to any particular theory or reasoning and that you may present a more convincing scenario that I have. I'm even open to Lechmere as the Ripper. I just haven't read anything that nudges me - even ever so slightly - toward that suspicion.

[Fisherman]

On a separate note, it is weird that I cannot word the same thoughts as David without being accused of being biased. Thatīs another discussion, but it IS annoying and it is oversimplifying matters.

[David Orsam]

I will admit that I'm unfamiliar with your recent post.

Ah, okay, it was actually in response to yours in the PC Jonas Mizen thread #17:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=401939#post401939

[Fisherman]

Patrick S:

"Itīs about probabilitites and likelihoods. For example the likelihood that a man who seemingly but not certainly gave the wrong name...

But it wasn't the "wrong" name. You yourself have moved away from referring to it as a "false" name and taken to calling it an "alternate" name.

Actually, I consider all other names given to the authorities than the ones you are registered by as false names.

We know that his mother married a man called Cross and we know that Charles was known as Cross for at least some part of his life. We don't know that the people who knew him didn't simply call him "Cross". We don't know if the police remembered him as "Cross" in that his stepfather Thomas was a policeman. We don't know if he used the name Cross (with or without approval from the Met) because he was afraid of the killer. We don't know that he gave ONLY the name "Cross" at the inquest as the reportage - as we have seen again and again - was wildly inaccurate and/or lazy (Did Robert "Baul" give a false name, as well? Did "Cross" attempt to further deceive by giving the name "George"? What of PC "Thail"?) We don't know a great deal. Thus, it defies logic to call any of this "coincidence" as we simply don't have enough information to understand the circumstances.

So what information DO we have? We have the information that in 109 out of 110 instances when dealing with authorities, the carman called himself/signed himself Lechmere. And we have the information that apart from the murder business, there is not a iot of evidence that he ever used the name Cross himself.
It is not conclusive, but it is a very clear indication.

and who seemingly but not certainly lied about what he had told the police would

[B]Mizen lied. That's clear in any objective interpretation.

No, it is not. David Orsam, who certainly is not in favour of Lechmere, posted on it earlier, and he reached the conclusion that Lechmere is the likelier liar. Have you read the post - and answered it?

He lied for simple, understandable reasons: to protect his career at the Met, his reputation. I believe he lied with at least the tacit approval of his superiors at the Met in order to protect them from further savaging in the press for their lack of success in resolving Millwood, Wilson, Smith, Tabram. Paul painted at very unflattering picture of Mizen in Baker's Row. Mizen's statement clearly was intended to blunt the criticism directed at him by either his superiors or the press, likely both. It had the added benefit, as well, of reflecting rather more positively on the Met as a whole. This one, for me, is much more cut and dried. We know a great deal. And it's Mizen who comes out the worse for wear. Not Lechmere.

I donīt agree. The implications knit to the ensuing actions are very clear - Lechmere misinformed Mizen.

ALSO fit the geographical pattern.

The geographical pattern is very simple: The murders took place over a small geographical area. Close to one (as Lechmere would have to be in order to have encountered a victim's body) means close to all. Of course, you are required to invent MORE supposition when have events do not quite fit into the geographic pattern (i.e. Lechmere was visiting his mother when Stride and Eddowes occurred).

The carman had reason to pass through the killing fields at the relevant hours, simple as that. He had reason to visit the Stride murder site, simple as. Whether one, two or ninetyfive other men had the same reason is immaterial, since only Lechmere was found with the body and it is therefore only him we need to scrutinize on the point.

Scobie, again: "When the coincidences add up, mount up - and they DO in his case, it becomes one coincidence too many".

Scobie has heard all the excuses, and he knows when itīs time to call a halt to it all."

It really is too bad that we nonbelievers cannot discuss this directly with Scobie. I'd be interested to know how he would respond to just a few of these points of contention.

I can only echo how material was left out where Scobie elaborated further on how he thinks it ridiculous to speak of coincidences in the amount that is needed to absolve Lechmere. I agree very much - it is the exact same thing that has me opting for Lechmere - there is way too much in it not to do so.

[Abby Normal]

I like to think that my own interpretation is objective and, for the reasons I gave in a recent post, I don't think it is "clear" at all that Mizen lied.

agree. at worst I think he was confused and misremembered, because when he arrived, there was a policeman there.

but of course he could have been absolutely correct and lech lied.

[Patrick S]

I like to think that my own interpretation is objective and, for the reasons I gave in a recent post, I don't think it is "clear" at all that Mizen lied.

Disagreement is not uncommon on these pages. I will admit that I'm unfamiliar with your recent post.

[David Orsam]

Mizen lied. That's clear in any objective interpretation.

I like to think that my own interpretation is objective and, for the reasons I gave in a recent post, I don't think it is "clear" at all that Mizen lied.

[Patrick S]

"Itīs about probabilitites and likelihoods. For example the likelihood that a man who seemingly but not certainly gave the wrong name...

But it wasn't the "wrong" name. You yourself have moved away from referring to it as a "false" name and taken to calling it an "alternate" name. We know that his mother married a man called Cross and we know that Charles was known as Cross for at least some part of his life. We don't know that the people who knew him didn't simply call him "Cross". We don't know if the police remembered him as "Cross" in that his stepfather Thomas was a policeman. We don't know if he used the name Cross (with or without approval from the Met) because he was afraid of the killer. We don't know that he gave ONLY the name "Cross" at the inquest as the reportage - as we have seen again and again - was wildly inaccurate and/or lazy (Did Robert "Baul" give a false name, as well? Did "Cross" attempt to further deceive by giving the name "George"? What of PC "Thail"?) We don't know a great deal. Thus, it defies logic to call any of this "coincidence" as we simply don't have enough information to understand the circumstances.

and who seemingly but not certainly lied about what he had told the police would

Mizen lied. That's clear in any objective interpretation. He lied for simple, understandable reasons: to protect his career at the Met, his reputation. I believe he lied with at least the tacit approval of his superiors at the Met in order to protect them from further savaging in the press for their lack of success in resolving Millwood, Wilson, Smith, Tabram. Paul painted at very unflattering picture of Mizen in Baker's Row. Mizen's statement clearly was intended to blunt the criticism directed at him by either his superiors or the press, likely both. It had the added benefit, as well, of reflecting rather more positively on the Met as a whole. This one, for me, is much more cut and dried. We know a great deal. And it's Mizen who comes out the worse for wear. Not Lechmere.

ALSO fit the geographical pattern.

The geographical pattern is very simple: The murders took place over a small geographical area. Close to one (as Lechmere would have to be in order to have encountered a victim's body) means close to all. Of course, you are required to invent MORE supposition when have events do not quite fit into the geographic pattern (i.e. Lechmere was visiting his mother when Stride and Eddowes occurred).

Scobie, again: "When the coincidences add up, mount up - and they DO in his case, it becomes one coincidence too many".

Scobie has heard all the excuses, and he knows when itīs time to call a halt to it all."

It really is too bad that we nonbelievers cannot discuss this directly with Scobie. I'd be interested to know how he would respond to just a few of these points of contention.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: You certainly were not Fish, I was purely responding to Pierre, however the subject does mean I will of course touch on ground you are close too.

I donīt waste any time on Pierre myself. I leave it up to others to decide if they should do so, but I recommend the opposite.


With all due respect, Neil was not present at 3:25-3:35 and therefore any comments he makes about Buck's Row at that time are somewhat irrelevant.
His views of his previous beat and when he found the body of course are not, those reflect what he saw and heard.

With regards to the Purkisses, one has to be very careful with what was actually said by any such witness that night, or if any witness was actually awake, all we can be reasonable sure of is that no unusually noise or disturbance was heard.

No, we should not be "very careful" at all - we should accept that numerous withesses said the exact same thing, and that it is therefore a realistic picture. Walter Purkiss said that it was an unusually quiet night, Emma Green said the exact same thing, Neil said that it was totally quiet, and Tomkins said the same. When everybody concurs, it is a lot more unhealthy NOT to take stock of it. t is and reamins testimony to how the streets around the murder site were deserted and quiet, generally speaking. It means that there was not a large heap of contenders for the Ripper title queuing in the streets, there were no hards of carmen passing, "just as likely" to be the killer as Lechmere - and the Phantom killer becomes a bit less likely too. Not impossible though - heaven forbid!

Indeed no one seems to have noticed Paul or Lechmere walking down the street, other than themselves.

Unless Harriett Lilley did - she heard soft voices and she may have been wrong on the timings. Otherwise, you are correct. Lechmere, Paul, The Phantom and Nichols seem all to have walked into the street unnoticed.

I am working on this particular issue at present, and will report back later on it, eventually, sorry it is taking long.

Take your time; the fewest do.

Surely if one is arguing for Lechmere not to be the killer, a later time helps his case, however the timing suggested certainly puts him in the frame; if not the actual "eye of the storm".

Jason Payne-James thought so, and I agree. If his schedule is on the money, then Lechmere was in place when Nichols was cut. That is in the eye of the storm.


No not really, the Phantom, as you like to call him, could easily come and go without being seen, just as Nichols did as you rightly point out. And indeed as did Lechmere and Paul.

Easily? That hinges on the circumstances. But yes, as I keep saying, there COULD have been another killer. The problem is that there is not a trace of him whatsoever. The exact opposite adhers to Lechmere. He WAS there, he WAS alone with the victim, he DID offer another name than his real one, he DID disagree with a PC over what he said, he DID have time to kill going on his own timings, he DID have reason to be at all the murder sites.

Thatīs part of what I have on Lechmere. What do you have on the Phantom?

I allow for the possibility.

So do I - as a secondary one, unsupported by any evidence and less likely.

From an analysis of the wounds I feel it is clear that the killer, who ever he was, Lechmere or another, was disturbed by someone approaching.

I agree - but I am sure somebody wonīt think it is "clear" at all.

That was either Lechmere or Paul, if Lechmere had time to pull down the dress so did someone else.

But Lechmere STAYED, and he therefore had a better reason to cover the wounds.

The killer may not have known if he had been seen, and so to pull the dress down would buy a few seconds before the full extent of the crime could be observed, if it indeed was, which of course was not the case.

It would equally sell out a few seconds, so whereīs the overall gain...? Yes, Mr Phantom may have reasoned "Iīll hide the wounds and buy some flight time", but it is an inferior suggestion to the one of a killer staying put wanting to hide the wounds.

Its much the same argument if Lechmere did it, unless Paul pulled the dress up time was bought, the killer walked away.

Unless, yes. But if? There was no guarantee at all, whereas Lechmere was in place and could monitor the actions taken. He stopped Pauls intentions to prop her up, for example.

The time one assumes is small, a matter of a few seconds.

And it works both ways.


I allow up to 22 minutes, and then I all but completely dismiss it in my post, the only reason not to do so conclusively is the same reasoning Payne-James uses; not to rule out any thing that is not impossible.

I do think that Payne-James would have deemed 22 minutes impossible, but I take your point. Quibbling about minutes is fruitless.

I would suggest that 22 minutes is very close to such a position, however a lack of specific medical data on Nichols, means its not quite that, probably but not 100% certain.

It probably only amounts to 99, 6784 per cent, so I agree.

I was attempting to offer all possibilities as suggested by various interpretations of the testimony, and then compare such to the science.

Makes two of us, then.


Again, you are with all respect not fully understanding what I am posting.
I give a top figure of 15 minutes yes, this is the most it could be based purely on the testimony of those involved, with no science applied at all.

I finish the line about "15minutes" by saying it could be a matter of seconds.

I also say 15 minutes is highly unlikely, once one applies the science(actually I don't say that, but that is what it means)

Not even a real "suggestion" from me as such, just what the testimony on its own means could be possible.

Again I would say all but impossible given the science. So have not raised it with anyone, as i do not consider it a viable option.

I have spent a number of years in the company of people who would never bat an eye about the indecency to use a thing like this to the full - THEIR full, which translates into "fifteen minutes is just as probable as three or five!".
Thatīs why I am unhappy about these propositions.
I am quite happy to discuss it with you against the backdrop of sense you offer - but I thoroughly dislike those who cannot handle a discussion in the same way, and instead opt for changing black into white.

So I would not say that I am not understanding what you say - I am. And in a perfect world, it would be free of risks to say it. In the whacky world of Ripperology, it is not, however.

I had to think about that for along time, and the answer is dependent to when you feel Mizen arrived and what he actually saw.

Of course it is.

To me it seems that if blood is still flowing freely when he does arrive, it probably means it is less than 7-8 minutes since the "death cut" and in that case the argument against another killer is strong.

I can relate to that...

If however the flow is not as you interpret it when Mizen arrives, and is less than free flowing, the time increases to maybe 10 minutes or so and the probability of another killer increases

The blood was still running from the wound in the neck into the pool under her, and it looked fresh. Thatīs free flowing, alright. What are you proposing is the alternative interpretation of those words?

I am not sure why you suggest a longer time frame speaks in favour of Lechmere, the opposite seems to be the case to me.

Me too. I wrote that "...another killer becomes less likely with every passing minute outside the seven minute mark", and I meant that Mr Phantom is less likely to have been the killer in such a case. Somebody is misunderstanding or miswording it, but we are at least in agreement, it seems.


Fisherman, with all respect you have not been able to place him at the scene at the exact time to indicate guilt, close to I readily accept and agree, but not exactly.

Payne-Jamesī estimation puts him there at the correct time, of course. But we know that his three to five minute barrier was breached, and he admits that it is hard to draw a conslusive line. Plus I have always said that there IS a possibility of another killer. And I did not say that he was there at the murder time, I said he was there, Steve.

May I add that one of the issues here, but not the only one, is the less than unambiguous terms used by the police officers; which make you case difficult to prove.


The name issue we have all been over many times before, yourself and others have one view on its implications, and as far as I am aware there are at least 2 other scenario’s apart from yours which can work, that is not to say they do.

If you had been able to establish this, we would not be discussing it now.

Itīs about probabilitites and likelihoods. For example the likelihood that a man who seemingly but not certainly gave the wrong name and who seemingly but not certainly lied about what he had told the police would ALSO fit the geographical pattern. Scobie, again: "When the coincidences add up, mount up - and they DO in his case, it becomes one coincidence too many".
Scobie has heard all the excuses, and he knows when itīs time to call a halt to it all.


Agreed by whom Fish?

The majority of the posters out here and preferably everybody. It would be flattering for their abilities of deduction.

Certainly not the majority of those involved in this field, a sizable minority certainly believe it, but not all.

More believe in it than it would seem, I am quite convinced about that. Some people yell "bullshit" at the tops of their voices, not because they consider it bullsghit, but because they do not want to admit the viability of th proposition.
My guess is that you know this too, just as yo know that it is impossible to prove. Luckily, it is just as impossible to disprove.
A good deal of the branches of the ripperological tree are rotten through and through, and need to be sawed off.


Yes it is.

I know you think others are wrong, so keep up the efforts to convince people, you are not there yet.

Then explain to me how Lechmere could NOT be the best bid? He was there at a time that is consistent with being the killer, he gave the wrong name, he disagreed with the police, he had reason to pass the murder sites at the correct times etcetera, etcetera. He fits the Ressler profile.
That begs a very pertinent question:

WHAT SPEAKS AGAINST HIM? What is it that makes him second in line after Mr Phantom? Or anybody else, in terms of evidence available?
And if nothing speaks against him, whereas more speaks for somebody else, who would that somebody else be? Itīs not Mr Phantom, I can see that, but who?
Could you clearly and comprehensively explain that to me? Where does Lechmere falter as a suspect?


He is certainly a viable killer for Nichols and by wound analysis only, very probably for Chapman, Eddowes, probably also for Kelly.
Less probably but still more than possible for Mackenkie and possibly Stride.

Old ground, Steve. I know that and have known if for many a year.

I gave a post arguing that viewpoint as possible some time ago did I not?

Same answer.

I will say that my view has developed from reviewing all the wounds of Nichols, and I believe there is a case that the killer of Nichols, can be linked purely by wounds to those above to the degree I suggest.

However this thread, at least my post was about a time line, other arguments for and against Lechmere are for later.

Okay. Welcome back, then!

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Problem solved? Not quite.

The problem as you posed it, Simon, has indeed been solved because you were talking about "official testimony." Can I remind you that you said in your earlier post to Pierre (with my bold highlighting):

What your minutiae fails to explain is how, according to official testimony, at 3.45 am we find Robert Paul walking up Buck’s Row on his way to work; Charles Cross standing by Polly’s body…

Having solved the problem of supposed inconsistencies in official testimony you now want to change the goalposts and bring in a newspaper report – one which contains known and obvious inaccuracies to boot.

It should be obvious to you that Paul (if he was even accurately quoted) was speaking in the context of being angered by reports that a police constable was claiming to have discovered the body at 3.45am, whereas Paul knew that he and Cross had found the body.

So now we have the perfect answer to your original question as to how "everyone" contrived to agree upon 3.45. The press initially reported that Neil found the body at 3.45 and this influenced Paul to say to a reporter that, no, he found it at 3.45.

In the context of there being "no watches or accurate public clocks at their disposal" everything is easily explained. No problem. Nothing to see here. Job done.