Some questions re. Lechmere

[Fisherman]

Unless they were kneeling in the street you were wasting your time.

I have told you so before, David: I try never to waste my time. The closest I get to it is regularly when I debate with you.

You need to type in "kneel" on Google and check the pics, and you will see that there are pictures of people kneeling on many places, streets, forests and fields included.

My, they must have become so grimy!

Now I am hoping to return to the discussion on the Torso killer - it is infinitely more interesting.

[Columbo]

Well, there is always the entertainment value to consider...

Well there is that of course.

[MrBarnett]

Is it seriously being suggested that kneeling doesn't involve supporting oneself on one or more knees?

[Fisherman]

Is it seriously being suggested that kneeling doesn't involve supporting oneself on one or more knees?

Indeed it is - it is even suggested that crouching with one leg lifted represents kneeling, as far as I understand.
I would love to see a Monty Python sketch involving that one:
- Kneel, Sir Galahad!
- Eh, okay ... (pant, pant!)

[David Orsam]

I have told you so before, David: I try never to waste my time. The closest I get to it is regularly when I debate with you.

Well you didn't waste your time at all Fisherman - you successfully diverted this conversation from the points I actually made in my post in this thread which was:

1. The documentary never mentioned any of the evidence that it was dark where the body of Nichols was lying (nor did it mention that Neil had a lantern)

and

2. That the documentary only said that Paul was "leaning over" the body of Nichols as if he should thus have been covered in blood by doing so.

The documentary did not refer to Paul kneeling so your point about it is really irrelevant to the point I was making which was about the documentary. I assume you must feel that the documentary made a huge error by omitting such a key part of the evidence?

The kneeling actually gets you nowhere because even if Paul's knee touched the ground it doesn't mean it must have touched an area of the ground where there was blood so it's just a complete non-point.

[Fisherman]

Well you didn't waste your time at all Fisherman - you successfully diverted this conversation from the points I actually made in my post in this thread which was:

1. The documentary never mentioned any of the evidence that it was dark where the body of Nichols was lying (nor did it mention that Neil had a lantern)

and

2. That the documentary only said that Paul was "leaning over" the body of Nichols as if he should thus have been covered in blood by doing so.

The documentary did not refer to Paul kneeling so your point about it is really irrelevant to the point I was making which was about the documentary. I assume you must feel that the documentary made a huge error by omitting such a key part of the evidence?

The kneeling actually gets you nowhere because even if Paul's knee touched the ground it doesn't mean it must have touched an area of the ground where there was blood so it's just a complete non-point.

It´s good to see that you realize that I am reluctant to waste time. That should facilitate for you to see why I am done debating this with you. Of course, we must provide you with the possibility to say that I cannot answer your questions - it´s tradition!
I am even ready to go as far as to dub you the knight of unanswered questions - Crouch, sir David!

[David Orsam]

Is it seriously being suggested that kneeling doesn't involve supporting oneself on one or more knees?

No that is not being suggested. It is suggested that it involves supporting oneself on bended knees. Within five seconds I find on the first page of Google Images, five images of people described as "kneeling" where their knees are not touching the ground.

http://depositphotos.com/18818975/stock-photo-cute-guy-kneeling-on-a.html

http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/photo/studio-shot-of-man-kneeling-royalty-free-image/78526533

http://www.polyvore.com/clipart_photo_clipart_kneeling_man/thing?id=1778655

http://www.dreamstime.com/photos-images/kneeling-soldier.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/s/woman+kneeling/search.html

[David Orsam]

It´s good to see that you realize that I am reluctant to waste time. That should facilitate for you to see why I am done debating this with you. Of course, we must provide you with the possibility to say that I cannot answer your questions - it´s tradition!
I am even ready to go as far as to dub you the knight of unanswered questions - Crouch, sir David!

Do concentrate Fisherman. I wasn't asking you any questions on this occasion. Because THAT would be a waste of time. I was saying that you simply avoided the issues I raised in my post.

[Columbo]

As you may observe, both dictionaries tell us that it is first and foremost about falling on your knees. That is why there are two terms, I think, kneeling and crouching.
David astutely observes that a carman would not go down on his knees in his shining white uniform, since that may put the first stain on his hitherto spotless working clothes, and I can´t argue with that.
I can argue that it is much harder to check for breath by crouching than by kneeling, though.

Over and out.

Could it also be possible his clothes were not shining white and probably faded and stained to begin with? Would he have been wearing an apron of sorts that covered up his pants? I also tend to believe he probably crouched so he could move about checking arms, chest etc.

He also would have lean over the body depending on what hand he checked or maybe he was at her head.

This also brings up a point about lightning. There were need to be at least a secondary light source from somewhere to see the frost of breath coming from her mouth, unless he used his hand.

And lastly could he not have braced himself on the gate and crouched or leaned over her?

Just ramblings, but who knows?

Columbo

[Columbo]

No that is not being suggested. It is suggested that it involves supporting oneself on bended knees. Within five seconds I find on the first page of Google Images, five images of people described as "kneeling" where their knees are not touching the ground.

http://depositphotos.com/18818975/stock-photo-cute-guy-kneeling-on-a.html

http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/photo/studio-shot-of-man-kneeling-royalty-free-image/78526533

http://www.polyvore.com/clipart_photo_clipart_kneeling_man/thing?id=1778655

http://www.dreamstime.com/photos-images/kneeling-soldier.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/s/woman+...ng/search.html

Most of these people are not kneeling, they're crouching. The words are often mistakenly used interchangeably.

Columbo

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;381038]

My point, however, is that if a jury rightly convicted an individual of the murder of Nichols then, based on the premise that all the C5 were murdered by JTR (which, using your superior analytical skills, you have told us is the case), that individual must have been JTR so that there wouldn't even be a need for a trial on the other four victims for us to know we have found him.

"Based on the premise" is not a valid situation in a court room, David. If you are accused for having murdered X1 and the judge says that you also will be convicted for murdering X2, X3, X4 and X5 without trial for each of these murders, you would not accept that, and you would ask why. If they would tell you "this is our premise", you could certainly not accept that. And this is naturally not how the legal system works.

[David Orsam]

This also brings up a point about lightning. There were need to be at least a secondary light source from somewhere to see the frost of breath coming from her mouth, unless he used his hand.

Who said Paul was looking to see "the frost of breath" coming from Nichols' mouth? The Times said that he knelt down to try and hear her breathe.

[Columbo]

Who said Paul was looking to see "the frost of breath" coming from Nichols' mouth? The Times said that he knelt down to try and hear her breathe.

oops

[David Orsam]

"Based on the premise" is not a valid situation in a court room, David. If you are accused for having murdered X1 and the judge says that you also will be convicted for murdering X2, X3, X4 and X5 without trial for each of these murders, you would not accept that, and you would ask why. And then they would tell you "this is our premise". You would certainly not accept that. And this is not how the legal system works.

We are not in a court room Pierre.

As you have said yourself many times on this forum.

If one is trying to establish who Jack the Ripper was, this is not going to be established in a criminal trial due to the death of all the suspects. It will be established, after hearing the arguments in favour, by experts on the subject who are familiar with the facts of the case. People known as Ripperologists.

And those arguments - those historical arguments - can be, perhaps must be, based on a premise or two. That is how historians work Pierre.

[Fisherman]

Do concentrate Fisherman. I wasn't asking you any questions on this occasion. Because THAT would be a waste of time. I was saying that you simply avoided the issues I raised in my post.

Sorry about that. I mistakenly thought that "I assume you must feel that the documentary made a huge error by omitting such a key part of the evidence?" was a question.

Goodnight now, Sir David.