Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Batman View Post
    They most certainly can and one function of the Coroner is to legally recognize the need to amend previous findings when new information arrives.

    This can happen in a series of events, such as with disease, epidemics or a series of violent homicides.

    It is exactly this sort of series in which a serial offender is at large that can undergo such amendments the more we learn.

    A meta-review can and does revise/amend the content it is reviewing.

    This most certainly applies the most to historical situations.
    No, the medical implications can never change. What can change is how we interpret them.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
      The cry of lipski and GSG for example.
      ...are both inconclusive.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
        ...are both inconclusive.
        Yes they are but more inclonclusive is the idea the killer cut throats because he was a jew and it was part of some ritual. While interesting take on it, its really just one step away from the poster whos being lambasted on here for his black magic/venus theory.

        The crazy jew theory is pretty lame to begin with.
        "Is all that we see or seem
        but a dream within a dream?"

        -Edgar Allan Poe


        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

        -Frederick G. Abberline

        Comment


        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
          You state that Baxter was correct. The fact that he was not infallible seems relevant to me. As does the fact that you have made several factual blunders on here recently.
          I really wouldn't be trying to push the position that JtR is reversing his MO and Signature and after Nichols, but if you want to do that, have at it.

          However, that's going to be completely your choice.

          I make mistakes. I don't claim to be infallible. Do you? I can even show posts where I go, aha, made a mistake. I wonder if you can?

          Anyway, it seems you have a choice to make at this juncture.

          Do you press on with this MO and Signature swapping claim or do you walk away from it and leave Fisherman to the consequences of his own making?
          Bona fide canonical and then some.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            No, the medical implications can never change. What can change is how we interpret them.
            That's not medical science, nor science and completely omits the function of Coroner to just a man sitting on chair wagging his mouth.
            Bona fide canonical and then some.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              Don´t be any dafter than you have to, Harry. If this was the case, then no experts´verdict would be in any way useful unless we all were served with a complete list of everything he or she knew about the case and the exact information he or she had access to as they offered their view.

              You are only searching for a way out, nothing else. But there is no such way out. Griffiths was well informed and read up and he had access to the exact same material I was given, a very full and comprehensive compilation of newspaper articles and police reports. Plus I and Edward spoke with him a lot during the shooting of the docu, and so it became obvious that he was somebody who took a genuine interest in the case, was well informed and asked if there was something that needed clarification.

              And just like any other expert who comments on anything in docus, books and articles, his word counts for a whole lot. That is how it was yesterday, how it is today and how it will be tomorrow. In that respect, it does not differ materially from the existence of those who need to disbelieve what experts say on account of how they are disagreed with - they too are a constant occurrence.
              When I'm working on legal cases I often consult our resident solicitor/barrister for the benefit of his expertise. However, I can only afford to summarise the case to him, and the slightest omission or misrepresentation of the facts can skew his opinion. I'm also aware that experts can often differ in their conclusions, which is why I always suggest clients seek a second opinion.

              Professionals in law and criminology have supported other suspects and theories that contradict your findings that Lechmere is the best suspect. There is no one single authority in this case. We should be careful about relying uncritically on experts, as you are doing.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Batman View Post
                That's not medical science, nor science and completely omits the function of Coroner to just a man sitting on chair wagging his mouth.
                Wrong on all counts.

                The medical implications are there from the outset. They do not change. A wound does not become smaller or larger because that fits with subsequent acts on behalf of the killer. Llewellyn didn´t change his mind. He believed that the neck was cut after the abdomen was attacked, and he did so on account of the implications on the crime scene. altering those implications is not possible.

                It is possible, however, to question implications and to reinterpret them. And when we see that the cutting of the necks was a primary matter in the following cases, it is only natural to look at the option that it was the same in the Nichols case.

                But the signs that should have been there are not. There is no blood splatter, there is no large pool under her body and Llewellyn actually found the blood that was lacking on the street in her abdominal cavity. And so the signs are pretty much in line with the abdomen coming first in the Nichols case. And that is not something that should be regarded as very odd - if the killer did for Tabram, the neck was never cut at all.

                As for Baxter, he was never a man to sit quietly and listen to things. He was a very active coroner, offering his own thinking on several occasions. And that is precisely because we can all offer our own interpretations. When a coronor with no medical qualifications whatsoever takes it upon himself to distrust what an experienced and highly qualified medico says, we may have trouble on our hands.

                You want us to believe Baxter over Llewellyn. Does that belief stretch to how we must also believe that Baxter was right about how the deeds were the outcome of an american doctors will to pay for specimens taken from the human body?

                Or are you cherrypicking?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                  Did Baxter never make a mistake? Was his judgement always sound?
                  What about Andy Griffiths? Does the same go for him?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                    When I'm working on legal cases I often consult our resident solicitor/barrister for the benefit of his expertise. However, I can only afford to summarise the case to him, and the slightest omission or misrepresentation of the facts can skew his opinion. I'm also aware that experts can often differ in their conclusions, which is why I always suggest clients seek a second opinion.

                    Professionals in law and criminology have supported other suspects and theories that contradict your findings that Lechmere is the best suspect. There is no one single authority in this case. We should be careful about relying uncritically on experts, as you are doing.
                    More twaddle.

                    Who says I am relying uncritically on experts? I am saying that Griffiths thoughts are in line with my own thinking, and so it is him who agrees with me, it´s not the other way around.

                    Yes, professionals have supported other suspects, but on what grounds? The FBI supported Kosminski because they liked him as a type, not because he could be put on any of the spots or be shown to have any sort of connection with any of the victims.

                    Griffiths may well have agreed that Kosminski is an interesting character, what do I know? But that would not detract from his input on Lechmere, because the two do not move in the same circles. Kosminski is a suggestion that lacks any form of practical link to the murders, while Lechmere is firmly tied to the case, who makes a very good fit geographically and who has anomalies en masse attaching to his person, anomalies with a direct and exact bearing on the case as such.

                    Kosminski is about conjecture, while Lechmere is about facts. Some say that I make the wrong interpretation of the facts (and that Griffiths agreeing with me is because the poor sod was grossly underinformed and misled, surprise, surprise), but it remains that I HAVE facts to interpret, while there are no such facts relating to just about any of the other suspects.

                    The whole idea of how Griffiths would perhaps have changed his mind if he was told about the other suspects (which he WAS to a degree by discussing the case with me and Edward) is ludicruous. "Oh, so there was this man called Levy who was not sound and who lived in the area - then Lechmere cannot be as good a suspect as I originally thought!"

                    As if that was going to happen.

                    Policemen love to get their hands on REAL evidence, caserelated true material, timelines, proven opportunities and such - all of the kind of things Lechmere has going for him.
                    They hate rumours and hearsay, like what Kosminski, Druitt, Levy, Bury, Chapman and so on and so on and so on, have going for them.

                    And that´s for a reason.
                    Last edited by Fisherman; 11-19-2018, 03:05 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      And when we see that the cutting of the necks was a primary matter in the following cases
                      Let's be precise: the throats were cut.
                      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                        What about Andy Griffiths? Does the same go for him?
                        Griffiths judgment was shaped from working with murder, consorting with murderers, discussing cases with other specialists, reading up on an academic level and so on - that is what makes you an expert.

                        If you have problems with that, please define them.

                        If you think it has been said that experts cannot be mistaken, please show me where that happened.

                        Griffiths and Scobie are experts of the criminal and law field, and they are accordingly very well suited to comment on matters of criminality and law. What they say is likely to be grounded in their experience, and as such also likely to be valuable and insightful.

                        Whatever problems you have with that, please let me know.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                          Let's be precise: the throats were cut.
                          More than the throats were cut. Do you consider the muscles in the back of your neck part of your throat? These parts were cut on Nichols, Chapman and Kelly.

                          If we say that the throats only were cut, we discard some of the evidence in favour of pleasing your wish not to allow for any comparison with the torso murders - where throat and neck was cut. Just as throat and neck was cut in the majority of the C5 cases.

                          It was not said that Chapmans and Kellys throats were nearly severed. It was said that their _ _ _ _ _ were (fill in the correct term. Clue: it starts with an "N".

                          See? It bounced back again.
                          Last edited by Fisherman; 11-19-2018, 03:02 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                            Llewellyn actually found the blood that was lacking on the street in her abdominal cavity
                            I can't recall where this is reported; can you point me in the right direction, Fish?
                            And so the signs are pretty much in line with the abdomen coming first in the Nichols case
                            Because only the abdominal wall had been cut, surely that would not entail any great blood loss into the abdomen? Not as much as would have been occasioned by such a severe and extensive throat wound, at any rate.
                            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                              I can't recall where this is reported; can you point me in the right direction, Fish?
                              Daily News 3 Sept;
                              "At first the small quantity of blood found on the spot suggested that the woman was murdered in a neighbouring house. Dr. Llewellyn, however, is understood to have satisfied himself that the great quantity of blood which must have followed the gashes in the abdomen flowed into the abdominal cavity, but he maintains his opinion that the first wounds were those in the throat, and they would have effectually prevented any screaming."

                              Morning Advertiser 1 Sept
                              "Dr. Llewellyn, who was formerly a house surgeon of the London Hospital, has given his opinion as to the manner in which the murder was committed. He said that the woman was killed by the cuts on the throat - there are two, and the throat is divided back to the vertebrae."

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                                I can't recall where this is reported; can you point me in the right direction, Fish?

                                Because only the abdominal wall had been cut, surely that would not entail any great blood loss into the abdomen? Not as much as would have been occasioned by such a severe and extensive throat wound, at any rate.
                                There is the possibility that the killer cut the aorta open,in which case we would have imminent death, more or less.

                                I take it that you are aware that the abdominal wounds is not disclosed in the material left to us, we only know that Llewellyn said that they came first, they were enough to kill and they had blood flowing into the abdominal cavity. This opens up for the possibility that the aorta can have been cut, but there are many large vessels in the abdomen, for example the ones that supply the liver with blood. It is not my area of expertise - but it was Llewellyns.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X