Minutiae in Buck´s Row.

[kjab3112]

We do not have a minimum bleeding time of four minutes in the Nichols case. All the vessels in the neck were severed, not only the arteries.
And with respect, I do thing that cutting the neck artery can cause a much quicker bleeding out than so at any rate.
There are problems involved that are hard to assess fully - which cut came first, which vessels were severed in the abdomen etcetera. We are not familiar with the heartbeat rate - if there was one.
Any which way, Jason Payne-James said that anything over three or five minutes was not to be expected - whether he would accept much LESS I cannot say. But you must realize that ALL the large vessels in the neck were cut - and in that respect, it resembles a full decapitation, where all the blood can leave the body in less than a minute.

Fisherman, I offer my apologies on number of vessels cut, but I disagree on your less than one minute statement as that is only possible with a free rupture of the aorta (and even then unlikely as stroke volume drops as venous return falls). Given a non-stemmed flow of both common carotid arteries, the maximum flow rate is around 750ml per minute, so pulses would likely be present until three minutes post incision, again assuming linear rate of blood loss. Even this would be an underestimate as the arterial muscular walls would spasm thereby reducing flow rate and hence blood loss.

I apologise for not at hand being able to calculate the likely reduced cerebral blood flow (through the carotid arteries) as blood volume drops. Even then as a back of an envelope calculation, I believe Pierre's initial timeline gives a time of incision a few minutes too late.

Paul

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;402541]

Pierre both points you make, are based on the presumption that the timings given by the police officers are 100% accurate.

Correct.

While we have no reason to suspect that these are grossly inaccurate,

No historical reason, i.e. no sources for such an hypothesis, no.

we must allow for the less than modern reliability of time pieces in LVP, and more importantly, how these were synchronized between various witnesses.

It is not a question of modern reliability. It is a matter of historical reliability. Since there is no reason, i.e. no sources, showing us that the three sworn policemen were wrong, we can´t do anything about it. As soon as we start guessing and laborate with the sources it is all lost. There is one fixed point in time given. We have a formal duty to use it.

I am not ignoring the sworn testimony, as all the times stated by the police witnesses are covered, I am just allowing for probably minor variations.

I am not a conservative historian at all. But there are no better sources on which we can establish history than the ones with the sworn testimonies of three policemen.

Correct, but it does fit with the sworn testimony of Lechmere.

Lechmere was one single person. The policemen were three. Why do you use one instead of three? Why do you use a carman instead of policemen? What exactly is your methodological reason for doing that?

I have therefore produced almost a generic Time Line, which while not including the claimed communication, certainly allows for it.

The same approach is taken over Lechmere being the killer, while it is not in the time line; it could be!

The Time Line is flexible enough to allow for both his being the killer or him communicating with the killer.

If we construct a timeline that is flexible enough, we may even be able to put Queen Victoria in it (Ripperology, not history).

The timing for the arrival at the body is reasonably firm, I allow for a small variation.

However Pierre the timing for the "death cut" is not fixed by the three officers, their testimony depending on the interpretation of several words allows one to construct several possible timelines for the "death cut", no more.

One must work backwards from 3:45.

The Time Line looks at all possibilities:

22 minutes at one extreme being almost impossible given the testimony and the science.

Around 7 minutes, certainly possible according to the testimony and the science, and that is accepting only one interpretation of the testimony of the police officers.

I have also said it could be much shorter if Lechmere is the killer.

The timings are arrived at by assessing the testimony and the science involved.

No, it is arrived at by ignoring the most valid statemens.

I use the word likelihood purely because nothing is impossible as Payne-James rightly states with the blood flow issue, just some things are more improbable than others.

If you look at my Minutiae you will be able to see what is likely and what is not likely.

Yes Pierre, agreed, and the Time Line allows for the smallest possible period but also gives longer, agreed improbable, alternatives.

So why construct a timeline that gives us garbage in, garbage out.

While my personal current preference is 2-3 minutes( based on the science, a different interpretation of the police evidence to that used by Fisherman, and other research I am currently working on); I certainly do not exclude the possibility of the timing being a few seconds.

And please note I am talking about the "death cut", not the entire attack.

The determining of the time of the death cut must be done from the most reliable point in time.

Pierre, I am working from the presumption that all of those quoted are almost right with there timings.

Well, I am working from data. Inductive historical work is what I do, not deductive.

Pierre, that entirely depends on how you wish to view what is said in the testimony.

No. One does not have a "wish" to view sources in particular ways. One follows the historical methodological rules.

You are taking as given that all 3 officers had accurate synchronized time pieces. Given that such was highly unusually until relatively recently, such an assumption cannot be taken to be a 100% probability.

I don´t. But they still give us 03:45 and there is no other better source.

If we do not make that assumption, we are left with another probability, that while all times are honestly given they are only close approximations.

But there is no better source to build that assumption on.

We simply do not know that those timings by the 3 Police are synchronized with each other.

So what you do now is only to demonstrate the problem of Fisherman´s theory about Lechmere being Jack the Ripper.

The alternative Time Line merely sought to allow for these probably variations, and I do not see that the timings suggest are at odds with the sworn testimony.

I do however question your statement that the killer was waiting in Buck's Row at 3:33 exactly, what source are you using for this statement?

He was there when Polly Nichols arrived. He did not arrive after her.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

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.

We obviously disagree on the interpretation of what was actually said by people, hopefully we will be able to debate this much better once I have finished my current work.


However the fact remains that Neil’s comments at 3:15 and 3:45, do not apply to the situation at 3.30 approx.

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.

And that is why I am taking my time.
Half baked, poorly researched ideas advance us nowhere, and at the end of the day we are better working together rather than fighting.

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.

I have no problem at all with what Payne-James says as medical fact. Where we may disagree (you and I that is) is how we apply the data from the night to his view, at worst we are a couple of minutes different in this, and at best we are very close indeed.

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.

That´s part of what I have on Lechmere. What do you have on the Phantom?

I was going to post "same old" but that is disparaging and does not really convey what I mean.

Let me try to be concise:

You have made your arguments, and made a good case on many levels.

However you have not been able to convince the majority.

I believe a new approach is required, however I am the first to admit I do not know how you would do this.

Just feel you need something more.

I allow for the possibility.

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

Yes I know you do.

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 won´t think it is "clear" at all.

I agree, we can never expect to convince all, but a majority would be nice.

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.

That all depends on how one views things, the view that Lechmere STAYED may not be accurate, it suggested he inspected the scene before Paul arrived, that is pure superstition.

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 where´s the overall gain...? Yes, Mr Phantom may have reasoned "I´ll 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.

I disagree.

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.

Fisherman, we are going over the details of the attack and the substance of your theory, this was not what I intended when replying to Pierre, it was purely to amend what exact timings seen by Pierre as being set.

My time line was not devised to preclude any theories, all can be worked into it with little or no change to the timings.

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.

Good.

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.

And again

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!".

That´s why I am unhappy about these propositions.

Ok I can understand that, let me say here that the extremes of 22 and 15 minutes I mentioned were hypothetical ideas which I evaluated and rejected as being either highly unlikely or simply impossible or as close to as makes no difference.

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.

Good, once I make a decision to exclude, it will take hard evidence to allow me to change my mind.

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. That´s free flowing, alright. What are you proposing is the alternative interpretation of those words?

Fish, that will have to wait for another day, at least until I have completed the first stage of my research, which will be mainly factual, based on the official documents we have, and the newspaper reports, some initial observations will be made.

I intend to release it in stages, open for all to tear apart and correct, once completed on all sections I will reach a considered conclusion.

For interest the sections will be under headings such as :

Street Environment.
Wounds.
Blood Evidence.

While that is not a complete list and the titles will obviously be different, it should allow you to see what I am doing.

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.

That makes more sense, was a little confused.

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-James´ 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.

Yes I know

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.

It´s 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 it´s time to call a halt to it all.

Well we both know my view on lone experts, I will always argue we need more than one.

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.

I think you will find while many believe it is possible, many are still far from convinced by the considerable arguments you and others have made.

Those who argue by shouting such on both sides of the debate do no good at all, and lets be fair there are those on both sides, the pro and anti Lechmere camps if you will.

I personally feel it is a great shame that such arguments, and often personal attacks, divert from research.

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.

I agree with you on that.

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?
Could you clearly and comprehensively explain that to me? Where does he falter as a suspect?

I may do when I have finished with my project, however it is possible that I may move more to your thinking, having not completed the work yet, I am not in a position to give a full answer.

To give an answer now would be premature and my position and or arguments may change considerably

Hope you understand why I am conducting this project in this particular way, I wish to have full input from those who really understand the case.

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.

You may have done, others may not have.
May even have a new view on your flaps, but am not sure yet if ideas will hold up or not?

One of the problems with Ripperology is that too many half thought through ideas are put forward as fact and people take intrenched positions,No advance is made.



Steve

[Pierre]

Yes, bias has it´s 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.

Mizen did not lie. Lechmere lied.

He lied about his name. But he also told the truth about his name.

What made him want to tell the police the truth about his name?

Lechmere also lied about having seen a policeman at the murder site.

Did he?

Why?

[Fisherman]

Fisherman, I offer my apologies on number of vessels cut, but I disagree on your less than one minute statement as that is only possible with a free rupture of the aorta (and even then unlikely as stroke volume drops as venous return falls). Given a non-stemmed flow of both common carotid arteries, the maximum flow rate is around 750ml per minute, so pulses would likely be present until three minutes post incision, again assuming linear rate of blood loss. Even this would be an underestimate as the arterial muscular walls would spasm thereby reducing flow rate and hence blood loss.

I apologise for not at hand being able to calculate the likely reduced cerebral blood flow (through the carotid arteries) as blood volume drops. Even then as a back of an envelope calculation, I believe Pierre's initial timeline gives a time of incision a few minutes too late.

Paul

I can only repeat that Jason Payne-James - a top authority - is of the opinion that he would expect three to fove minutes being a likelier assessment than seven. Frankly, he should know.

He was also the one to say that a complete decapitation could be over in a minute or less, bleedingwise. I tend to believe him on that matter too.

[Fisherman]

We obviously disagree on the interpretation of what was actually said by people, hopefully we will be able to debate this much better once I have finished my current work.


However the fact remains that Neil’s comments at 3:15 and 3:45, do not apply to the situation at 3.30 approx.






And that is why I am taking my time.
Half baked, poorly researched ideas advance us nowhere, and at the end of the day we are better working together rather than fighting.








I have no problem at all with what Payne-James says as medical fact. Where we may disagree (you and I that is) is how we apply the data from the night to his view, at worst we are a couple of minutes different in this, and at best we are very close indeed.






I was going to post "same old" but that is disparaging and does not really convey what I mean.

Let me try to be concise:

You have made your arguments, and made a good case on many levels.

However you have not been able to convince the majority.

I believe a new approach is required, however I am the first to admit I do not know how you would do this.

Just feel you need something more.







Yes I know you do.







I agree, we can never expect to convince all, but a majority would be nice.



That all depends on how one views things, the view that Lechmere STAYED may not be accurate, it suggested he inspected the scene before Paul arrived, that is pure superstition.






I disagree.






Fisherman, we are going over the details of the attack and the substance of your theory, this was not what I intended when replying to Pierre, it was purely to amend what exact timings seen by Pierre as being set.

My time line was not devised to preclude any theories, all can be worked into it with little or no change to the timings.




Good.




And again






Ok I can understand that, let me say here that the extremes of 22 and 15 minutes I mentioned were hypothetical ideas which I evaluated and rejected as being either highly unlikely or simply impossible or as close to as makes no difference.





Good, once I make a decision to exclude, it will take hard evidence to allow me to change my mind.





Fish, that will have to wait for another day, at least until I have completed the first stage of my research, which will be mainly factual, based on the official documents we have, and the newspaper reports, some initial observations will be made.

I intend to release it in stages, open for all to tear apart and correct, once completed on all sections I will reach a considered conclusion.

For interest the sections will be under headings such as :

Street Environment.
Wounds.
Blood Evidence.

While that is not a complete list and the titles will obviously be different, it should allow you to see what I am doing.





That makes more sense, was a little confused.





Yes I know





Well we both know my view on lone experts, I will always argue we need more than one.






I think you will find while many believe it is possible, many are still far from convinced by the considerable arguments you and others have made.

Those who argue by shouting such on both sides of the debate do no good at all, and lets be fair there are those on both sides, the pro and anti Lechmere camps if you will.

I personally feel it is a great shame that such arguments, and often personal attacks, divert from research.





I agree with you on that.







I may do when I have finished with my project, however it is possible that I may move more to your thinking, having not completed the work yet, I am not in a position to give a full answer.

To give an answer now would be premature and my position and or arguments may change considerably

Hope you understand why I am conducting this project in this particular way, I wish to have full input from those who really understand the case.





You may have done, others may not have.
May even have a new view on your flaps, but am not sure yet if ideas will hold up or not?

One of the problems with Ripperology is that too many half thought through ideas are put forward as fact and people take intrenched positions,No advance is made.



Steve

Jesus, Steve, I have novels that are shorter than this post!

Tomorrow, at the earliest. Goodnight to you now.

[kjab3112]

I can only repeat that Jason Payne-James - a top authority - is of the opinion that he would expect three to fove minutes being a likelier assessment than seven. Frankly, he should know.

He was also the one to say that a complete decapitation could be over in a minute or less, bleedingwise. I tend to believe him on that matter too.

Complete decapitation (eg Anne Boleyn or allegedly James Dean) would result in death through asphyxiation first. I do accept though the three to four minute calculation (although I would question whether this was time to inevitable death or time to clinical death). If the latter, given Cross/Lechmere was already present and your other timings then we have a prime suspect (as per your theory). If inevitable death, there may be a little more time in the window. My feeling from trauma experience is the former (but I am experienced in trauma not forensic medicine).

Of interest a complete severance of both the femoral artery and vein can result in exsanguination in approximately 90 seconds.

Best wishes

Paul

[Elamarna]

It is not a question of modern reliability. It is a matter of historical reliability. Since there is no reason, i.e. no sources, showing us that the three sworn policemen were wrong, we can´t do anything about it. As soon as we start guessing and laborate with the sources it is all lost. There is one fixed point in time given. We have a formal duty to use it.

Pierre, that is just closing ones mind to the reality that time keeping as changed since 1888- historical fact.


Synchronization is the key issue here, and such in 1888 was extremely difficult, there being no common reliable source that could be used.

Today with all the modern technology I have 2 mobile phones:

One showing 18:23, the other 18:24 and the laptop 18.:25

I am not a conservative historian at all. But there are no better sources on which we can establish history than the ones with the sworn testimonies of three policemen.

I agree, and am not ignoring their testimony with regards to timings, their timings are incorporated into the time line.

However I do choose to discard Mizens comments about a waiting Police officer from the time line, just as you chose to ignore the details with regards to Warren and his letter of resignation.

I have two sworn statements on this issue, they differ from each and therefore I chose to go with the accepted version, while still allowing for the version put forward by Mizen.

Lechmere was one single person. The policemen were three. Why do you use one instead of three? Why do you use a carman instead of policemen? What exactly is your methodological reason for doing that?

The only issue where Lechmere is at odds with the police is the issue of the waiting officer claimed by Mizen.

That is not 3 against 1 is it?

To judge the testimony of one individual over another based on profession is a decision based only on personal opinion/bias.

If we construct a timeline that is flexible enough, we may even be able to put Queen Victoria in it (Ripperology, not history).

That really is gross exaggeration, I have merely extended the times given by the officers by a few minutes, incorporating there testimony times.

The suggestion is unworthy of you.

One must work backwards from 3:45.

No, if one is going to use a fixed point. why not use the timing given by Llewellyn, surely it is as reliable as that of the police officers. And a medic surely gives better estimations on TOD than a police officer.

You use 3.45 because it suites your theory.

No, it is arrived at by ignoring the most valid statements.

I ignore NO statements about timing, all the timings by the 3 officers are incorporated into the time line.


I do discard the comments by Mizen, but I do not ignore them, far from it I point out they can be fitted into the time line, with no problem from the timing point of view.

Please specify which statements you believe are IGNORED.

If you look at my Minutiae you will be able to see what is likely and what is not likely.

Pierre, must I remind you no individual sets the rules and says what is acceptable and what is not.

Where do you get the exact time Lechmere leaves home at?
Where do you get the time of the actual murder from?

Please give the scientific data which leads you to this conclusion.

So why construct a timeline that gives us garbage in, garbage out.

How interesting that when you do not agree with something, you resort to insults.

It is not garbage in, it uses the inquest testimonies times. these are retained.

It is not garbage out, its timings are only slightly different from the time line you proposed.


Your main objection appears to be it does not include your unproven hypothesis regarding a police officer in Buck's Row.
The same is applied to Fisherman's equally unproven hypothesis.

However the time line was constructed to allow both of these theories to be Incorporated with no effect on the timings.

The determining of the time of the death cut must be done from the most reliable point in time.

Two issues here:

How do you determine the time of death from any set point?

What medical/scientific tests are you using to determine this time?

What are you using as data?



Secondly which point are you using as the most reliable?

Mizens time of arrival must certainly be open to some debate.

It is he whom Fisherman uses for his bleeding time theory.

Or do you use Llewellyn? If not why not?

Well, I am working from data. Inductive historical work is what I do, not deductive.

Yes I know you do, but that is not the only viable approach, nor are you guaranteed to be correct.

No. One does not have a "wish" to view sources in particular ways. One follows the historical methodological rules.

Pierre, you are not a machine, you make choices.

I don´t. But they still give us 03:45 and there is no other better source.

Agreed, but you ignore the historical facts about time keeping.

But there is no better source to build that assumption on.

see all the above

So what you do now is only to demonstrate the problem of Fisherman´s theory about Lechmere being Jack the Ripper.

Not at all.


I present a time line which is broadly in line with the one you present, it differs only by a few minutes on possibilities.

It just does not include your hypothesis that is all.

He was there when Polly Nichols arrived. He did not arrive after her.

Was he?

Your source for this please?

Your source for they did not arrive together?

Your source that he did not arrive after?


Steve

[Elamarna]

Jesus, Steve, I have novels that are shorter than this post!

Tomorrow, at the earliest. Goodnight to you now.

Fish,

point taken.

however its under 800 words, about 1 side of a4.

it just looks long, its the layout.

MUST improve that.

steve

[Fisherman]

Complete decapitation (eg Anne Boleyn or allegedly James Dean) would result in death through asphyxiation first. I do accept though the three to four minute calculation (although I would question whether this was time to inevitable death or time to clinical death). If the latter, given Cross/Lechmere was already present and your other timings then we have a prime suspect (as per your theory). If inevitable death, there may be a little more time in the window. My feeling from trauma experience is the former (but I am experienced in trauma not forensic medicine).

Of interest a complete severance of both the femoral artery and vein can result in exsanguination in approximately 90 seconds.

Best wishes

Paul

What was discussed between me and Jason P-J was the bleeding out time. That was where Jason said that when looking at the three suggestions three, five or seven minutes, the two shorter periods of time were the better suggestions, going by his experience. He did not exclude seven minutes, he simply believed it less likely.

Going from that, I am suggesting that with each passing minute, another killer becomes less and less likely. If Nichols was cut 3.44, and if Lechmere arrived at the body at 3.45, it would seem that Mizen in his turn arrived some six minutes later, at the very earliest. That makes the time 3.51, seven minutes after the cut to the neck.

If an alternative killer was really in existance, then if he instead cut the neck at either 3.43, 3.40 or 3.35, then the wound would have bled for eight, eleven or sixteen minutes, respectively, and these propositions become less and less viable with every added minute if we compare them to the suggestions of Payne-James.

So to me, the window of time is impossible to establish, but the viability of any window is lessened by the addition of further time between the suggested cutting of the Phantom killer and the arrival of Lechmere.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;402620]

Pierre, that is just closing ones mind to the reality that time keeping as changed since 1888- historical fact.

Synchronization is the key issue here, and such in 1888 was extremely difficult, there being no common reliable source that could be used.

Today with all the modern technology I have 2 mobile phones:

One showing 18:23, the other 18:24 and the laptop 18.:25

I agree, and am not ignoring their testimony with regards to timings, their timings are incorporated into the time line.

However I do choose to discard Mizens comments about a waiting Police officer from the time line, just as you chose to ignore the details with regards to Warren and his letter of resignation.

I have two sworn statements on this issue, they differ from each and therefore I chose to go with the accepted version, while still allowing for the version put forward by Mizen.

The only issue where Lechmere is at odds with the police is the issue of the waiting officer claimed by Mizen.

That is not 3 against 1 is it?

To judge the testimony of one individual over another based on profession is a decision based only on personal opinion/bias.

That really is gross exaggeration, I have merely extended the times given by the officers by a few minutes, incorporating there testimony times.

The suggestion is unworthy of you.

It is just the principle I am pointing to. That is why I use a hyperbole. The principle is that if we start to ignore the sources, we can put anyone in a time frame based on ignoring the sources. There are cases when sources shall not be believed, but then we have to have other and better sources that must be considered more reliable and more significant.

No, if one is going to use a fixed point. why not use the timing given by Llewellyn, surely it is as reliable as that of the police officers. And a medic surely gives better estimations on TOD than a police officer.

Says the medic.

You use 3.45 because it suites your theory.

No, I do not. I have no interest in the silly timeline. It is enough to analyze the testimony of Mizen and Lechmere.

I ignore NO statements about timing, all the timings by the 3 officers are incorporated into the time line.

You ignore the testimony of PC Mizen.

I do discard the comments by Mizen, but I do not ignore them, far from it I point out they can be fitted into the time line, with no problem from the timing point of view.

Please specify which statements you believe are IGNORED.

"3:38-3:42 PC Mizen is told about the woman and the PC in Buck´s
Row"

Pierre, must I remind you no individual sets the rules and says what is acceptable and what is not.

Where do you get the exact time Lechmere leaves home at?
Where do you get the time of the actual murder from?

It is easy. Use the three testimonies of the police constables and work backwards. Lechmere needs 7-8 minutes to reach Buck´s Row. The blood must still flow when Neil reaches Buck´s Row. Neil must be at the murder site just after the carmen left. Paul must see Lechmere standing in the middle of the road. He can not see Lechmere on the ground. (He did not). Lechmere must interrupt the killer. It is all there.

Please give the scientific data which leads you to this conclusion.

Above.

How interesting that when you do not agree with something, you resort to insults.

It is not garbage in, it uses the inquest testimonies times. these are retained.

It is not garbage out, its timings are only slightly different from the time line you proposed.

I see, you did not know that expression. It is used in statistics. It is not an insult but a description of the power of the model when irrelevant variables are included.

Your main objection appears to be it does not include your unproven hypothesis regarding a police officer in Buck's Row.
The same is applied to Fisherman's equally unproven hypothesis.

I would not say what I say if I had no reason.

However the time line was constructed to allow both of these theories to be Incorporated with no effect on the timings.

Good, at least you are honest! It was constructed "to..." - i.e. you had a motive. Your motive was to construct a special box. It was constructed to contain specific things.

But the box is not constructed from the best data from the past. You ignored Mizen. So the box is too big.

Two issues here:

How do you determine the time of death from any set point?

What medical/scientific tests are you using to determine this time?

What are you using as data?

The three testimonies of the police constables. Working backwards from the police statements to the blood flowing to Lechmere leaving home.

Secondly which point are you using as the most reliable?

The intersection of three lines = the three police testimonies. They meet. That is the point.

Mizens time of arrival must certainly be open to some debate.

It is he whom Fisherman uses for his bleeding time theory.

Or do you use Llewellyn? If not why not?

Neil saw the blood "oozing". Thain saw his lantern 3:45. Neil therefore must have seen the victim 3:44 to make the signal.

Yes I know you do, but that is not the only viable approach, nor are you guaranteed to be correct.

Pierre, you are not a machine, you make choices.

Sometimes I must be like a machine. My own choices are bad for history. I let the sources decide. They tell us how things happened.

Agreed, but you ignore the historical facts about time keeping.

see all the above

Not at all.

I present a time line which is broadly in line with the one you present, it differs only by a few minutes on possibilities.

It just does not include your hypothesis that is all.

Was he?

Your source for this please?

Your source for they did not arrive together?

Your source that he did not arrive after?

You do not "arrive together" in a long street. It is a high risk place and the construciton of the murder site, a long street, is showing that it was a blitz attack on a woman walking alone in the street.

He would not take the risk of being seen by the policemen together with the woman. And there are no sources showing us that he was.

He did not mind taking a risk generally. And he did. He was seen and interrupted. That is what the sources with Mizen and Lechmere show us.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

It is just the principle I am pointing to. That is why I use a hyperbole. The principle is that if we start to ignore the sources, we can put anyone in a time frame based on ignoring the sources. There are cases when sources shall not be believed, but then we have to have other and better sources that must be considered more reliable and more significant.

Once again I am not ignoring the sources they are incorporated.

Says the medic.

No says a professional.

One expects a medic to be more reliable in estimating time of death, just as one expects a stock broker to be better at the markets than a medic or a lawyer to be more expert on legal matters than a stock broker.

No, I do not. I have no interest in the silly timeline. It is enough to analyze the testimony of Mizen and Lechmere.

Mine allows one to do the same, it does not include the police officer, which you seem to object to.

You ignore the testimony of PC Mizen.

No, I am not ignoring it, it is there to be fitted into the time line if one wants too,

"3:38-3:42 PC Mizen is told about the woman and the PC in Buck´s
Row"

That is indeed different from your view, however it is certainly within the margin of error i am working with, which I have explained previously.

I have no issue however with moving it to 3.38-3:45, it has no effect on the time line, or its possible implications re Mizen and Lechmere.

It is easy. Use the three testimonies of the police constables and work backwards. Lechmere needs 7-8 minutes to reach Buck´s Row. The blood must still flow when Neil reaches Buck´s Row. Neil must be at the murder site just after the carmen left. Paul must see Lechmere standing in the middle of the road. He can not see Lechmere on the ground. (He did not). Lechmere must interrupt the killer. It is all there.

I have no problem with that, it can all be fitted into either time line with no real problem, and does not in my view effect any conclusions one wishes to draw on bleeding.

Above.

I see no medical data or scientific data there.

I see, you did not know that expression. It is used in statistics. It is not an insult but a description of the power of the model when irrelevant variables are included.

I have heard it before and my issue is that they are not irrelevant variables as the ones you use, are used here too.

I would not say what I say if I had no reason.

Pierre, that is the problem is it not, you claim you have reasons, but will not talk about them, it makes constructive debate difficult.

Good, at least you are honest! It was constructed "to..." - i.e. you had a motive. Your motive was to construct a special box. It was constructed to contain specific things.

I always try to be.

It was constructed because I believed your time line was too exact, for reasons I have already given.

But the box is not constructed from the best data from the past. You ignored Mizen. So the box is too big.

No I did not ignore Mizen, I chose to disregard him, as you disregard the testimony on Lechmere, there is no difference.

However I have already agreed to change one of the timings by 3 minutes above, does it make a difference to the time line? No it does not!

The three testimonies of the police constables. Working backwards from the police statements to the blood flowing to Lechmere leaving home.

That cannot establish a TOD Pierre.

Yes, we can make a!n educated guess based on known bleeding data, and descriptions of the actual blood flow seen. IT is however AN EDUCATED GUESS !


And this only works to a limited degree if the descriptions are accurate and reliable.


Fisherman will argue they are, others will argue against, I am as yet undecided on this particular issue.
It could eliminate or include any particular suspect, BUT it does not allow a precise timing.


However, even if the reports are all correct and have been interpreted correctly, they cannot provide an exact time of death as you do!

It is not how the science works,, there are many variables, and an exact time is not possible, Tt will give you a window , no more, no less.


This just exposes a lack of knowledge of such issues; however please do not take my word for it, ask any expert Pierre.,

The intersection of three lines = the three police testimonies. They meet. That is the point.

However those times may, indeed probably are not synchronized and so one mans 3:45 could be anthers 3:44 or 3:46.
In that case there is no intersection, that is my whole issue with your exact timings!!

Neil saw the blood "oozing". Thain saw his lantern 3:45. Neil therefore must have seen the victim 3:44 to make the signal.

But has I have said many times 3:45 for Thain may not be 3:45 for Neil, so you cannot place Neil at 3.44.
No record was taken at the time to compare times that I am aware of, are you?

Sometimes I must be like a machine. My own choices are bad for history. I let the sources decide. They tell us how things happened.

Pierre you make choices here, which source do you accept for instance, Lechmere or Mizen, that is a choice YOU make.

You do not "arrive together" in a long street. It is a high risk place and the construciton of the murder site, a long street, is showing that it was a blitz attack on a woman walking alone in the street.

No it does not show it was a blitz attack, it is superposition on your part,
indeed the wounds hint to the opposite view.

Actually it is less high risk than several other sites, there are many routes of escape.


Of course they could arrive together.

How can one know that they did not meet on Whitechapel high street and walk to Buck's row?

Of course one cannot,

To say otherwise is not based on science.

Or are you claiming you have a source which confirms this?

He would not take the risk of being seen by the policemen together with the woman. And there are no sources showing us that he was.

Again this is not based on data, just your opinion or do you have a source supporting this view?

He did not mind taking a risk generally. And he did. He was seen and interrupted. That is what the sources with Mizen and Lechmere show us.

We agree he was interrupted, however I prefer the physical evidence to support this, rather than a currently unproven hypotheses.



Really Pierre, so much effort expanded, purely because your Police man is not explicitly mentioned in a time line.

He is not excluded, the possibility of putting him into the time line is there; but I will not include an hypothesis for which I have no sources, other than the debate over Mizen/Lechmere.

However back to my main issue,

Times given at an inquest in 1888, cannot be viewed as being absolute.


Steve