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
    A coroner's legal decision legally overrules that of a doctor. It is a jury that returns verdicts, not doctors. Baxter is considering ALL of the medical evidence and not just some of it because he is not suspect driven and new information has come forward.




    There is nothing weird about Bond's claims. Only some people who see a chamise when in fact what they are seeing are bed sheets. MJK is indeed naked.

    Bond's meta-analysis is the best analysis at the time of the C5 murders and helped produce a profile which indicated JtR isn't going to look like the ghoul some were depicting him as. Bond as a doctor has more information and data than anyone had at the time, besides Anderson and the other lead investigators.



    You are the one who thinks Cross is JtR, not I. I noted I get plenty of things wrong, but admit them, and can show evidence on here where I do.



    Calling me a liar is not going to help you when you are embattled trying to sell people this newfangled idea that Cross switched his MO and Signaturing after Nichols.



    That's what Bond did. You reject that.



    Bond is saying neck first for Nichols. This is with more data than Llewellyn had.




    That's not the claim and you know it.

    You rejected the following, remember...



    You said...


    Saying No to that tells me you rejected it.

    All this because you think blood can be seen in the dark.
    A rot. As expected. Clever stuff like: "A coroner's legal decision legally overrules that of a doctor."

    As if the coroners legal implications somehow gives him superior medical insights.

    That´s just stupid.

    You bang on about how it is impossible for a killer to change MO and signature - without being able to prove that the neck cutting was a signature at all. So what you are left with is a change of MO - and all out here are well aware that killers can change their MO:s.
    You should listen to that guy who made the claim that a killer can go from eviscerating to poisoning! Now THAT is why I call an open mind - so open that it may have spilled out a siginificant amount of sense...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
      I have made no such claims. I just voiced my opinions about Baxter.
      You are suggesting Baxter got it wrong when he revised that Llewellyn had probably gotten it wrong. The Coroner suggested that the way Chapman had been murdered, neck first, was the better explanation for Nichols.

      So that's your opinion, which is aligned with Fisherman's MO/Signature swapping serial killer.

      It seems to me you are now backing out of this rapidly. I don't blame you for not following Fisherman down that path. It is obviously going to be catastrophic for his claims because it's an MO/Signature swapping serial killer who... get this... hangs around for witnesses to show up so he can call them over to look at his work.

      Now perhaps you can explain how you can give advice about using the latest peer reviewed data when you yourself cut and paste from years old Casebook pages.
      Why do you call it peer-reviewed? It isn't. So what if I got some things using this website? Doesn't change the fact that it collapses this idea that a coroner's decision is immutable given coroners themselves can order exhumations which can and do change such decisions. As is the case with Chapman's wives.
      Last edited by Batman; 11-19-2018, 07:36 AM.
      Bona fide canonical and then some.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        You bang on about how it is impossible for a killer to change MO and signature - without being able to prove that the neck cutting was a signature at all.
        Throat cutting. I'm not going to let you get away with spreading the overgeneralised, and Torso-Ripper-friendly, meme of "neck cutting", whether you're doing it on purpose or not.
        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

        Comment


        • caz: He was only in Buck's Row because he was on his way to work, Fish. In fact, your entire geographical argument is based on this very point - his legitimate reason for being there at all and seeing the woman lying tarpaulin-like in the street! How is that not work-related? If he had not been going to work that morning, he'd have been scratching around for a sound reason for walking along Buck's Row, wouldn't he?

          Is thinking about going to work work-related? Is laying out your working clothes the evening before work work-related?
          The whole concept of somebody presenting himself the to the police as Cross when speaking about "work-related" matters but as Lechmere when discussing private matters sound bonkers to me. No matter where we place his working trek.


          Maybe my point didn't 'come out very well' because you replied before absorbing it. How was it less of a risk for a killer to adopt a surname while posing as a witness at his own crime scene, which he never used in any other context? How would that have gone down with the cops, had they used the other details he volunteered to check if he was who he said he was? Like a bucket of cold sick I'd have thought. At the very least they would have demanded a very good explanation for wasting their time and resources in this way, looking for a non-existent Charles Cross. That would have been enough to wonder what else he had tried to conceal about himself. Not very smart.

          This is the one question we need to ask ourselves:

          If Charles Lechmere wanted to stay incognito to as many readers of the papers as possible, but at the same time feared that the police may pay him a visit to check him out, how could he optimize this?

          Could he for example give a false address and working place to the police? A name that he had no connection to?

          Once he had spoken to the police, that would decide how much of an effort he could make at the inquest to stay incognito.

          How much was that? What could he say without having the coppers go "A-HAH!"?

          Give it some afterthought, Caz. If you cannot work it out, don´t be shy to ask.

          It is THIS that governs how "smart" he could be, what kind of learoom he had. Once you understand this, you may also understand who was the smart one back then, and who is the dumb one today.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
            Throat cutting. I'm not going to let you get away with spreading the overgeneralised, and Torso-Ripper-friendly, meme of "neck cutting", whether you're doing it on purpose or not.
            Seeing as I am not going to let you try to sweep the similarity with the torso deeds under the carpet, it seems we may be here for quite some time:

            Neck cutting.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              A rot. As expected. Clever stuff like: "A coroner's legal decision legally overrules that of a doctor."

              As if the coroners legal implications somehow gives him superior medical insights.

              That´s just stupid.
              That's because you don't understand what you are talking about. A coroner is a legal body, not a scientific one, that legally rules over a cause of death, by considering ALL the evidence and NOT just some of it. That means taking science, witness testimony, and the facts before him. If an inquest is held, then a jury then decides on the final verdict.

              You are conflating scientific findings (medical examinations) with the court's overall decisions for which there are mechanisms, legally, to challenge such decisions, which the coroner can even do themselves, when new facts come to light. They might be slow to do this or quick or legal matters mean it never happens. Science is different. Science always considers new data and new facts and amends accordingly. Baxter caught up with the science after Chapman and revised Nichols, which was supported by Bond.

              You bang on about how it is impossible for a killer to change MO and signature - without being able to prove that the neck cutting was a signature at all.
              Neck cutting is not a JtR signature and never was. It is MO. A means to an end. Signature is what gets them the emotional satisfaction.

              Case in hand. Neck was cut with Stride but emotional satisfaction not achieved. No signature.

              What you are claiming is that Nichols MO was to be stabbed and mutilated around her lower abdomen and the signature was her neck slit. This was then reversed for all the others.

              So what you are left with is a change of MO - and all out here are well aware that killers can change their MO:s.
              You should listen to that guy who made the claim that a killer can go from eviscerating to poisoning! Now THAT is why I call an open mind - so open that it may have spilled out a siginificant amount of sense...
              No, you have this very wrong. This isn't about changing MO and signature. That can happen and does with experimentation.

              You have swapping MO and Signature. A very different thing.
              Last edited by Batman; 11-19-2018, 07:38 AM.
              Bona fide canonical and then some.

              Comment


              • Throat cutting, please, Batman. Don't swallow Fisherman's bait
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Batman View Post
                  You are suggesting Baxter got it wrong when he revised that Llewellyn had probably gotten it wrong. The Coroner suggested that the way Chapman had been murdered, neck first, was the better explanation for Nichols.

                  So that's your opinion, which is aligned with Fisherman's MO/Signature swapping serial killer.

                  It seems to me you are now backing out of this rapidly. I don't blame you for following Fisherman down that path. It is obviously going to be catastrophic for his claims because it's an MO/Signature swapping serial killer who... get this... hangs around for witnesses to show up so he can call them over to look at his work.



                  Why do you call you peer-reviewed? It isn't. So what if I got some things using this website? Doesn't change the fact that it collapses this idea that a coroner's decision is immutable given coroners themselves can order exhumations which can and do change such decisions. As is the case with Chapman's wives.
                  My opinion is about Baxter, it is not aligned to anything or anyone else.

                  So the findings of an inquest can be ‘overruled’ without a second inquest? Is an amended death certificate then issued? What is your main source for Chapman?

                  What does ‘Why do you call you peer-reviewed’ mean?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                    on a technicality? LOL! more like the bloviating of a prejudiced blow hard who even Churchill recognized as a braggart. and many years after the fact trying to make himself appear better at that.
                    Ad hominem, Abby.

                    Put your own personal prejudices aside. Both Anderson & Swanson named Kosminski as the suspect identified by a witness who refused to testify. That's a damn sight more going for him than Lechmere.

                    Comment


                    • Bats,

                      You gave us the following instructive little lecture:


                      We see this in pseudo-scientific presentations a lot. Finding the earliest peer-reviewed papers on the matter and disregarding subsequent publications that amend or even change the findings of the earlier ones.


                      Have you been cutting and pasting from the most up to date Chapman data do you think?

                      Pot calling kettle black?

                      MrB

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                        Hi Caz
                        well if hes more commonly used lechmere in his daily life and with the people who knew him its possible he was trying to do that. or if not guilty to just keep the more common name out of it. God knows if i had a different name I could have used all the time Ive gotten in trouble I would have used it. lol.
                        Or perhaps there were those who knew him by his name but knew little or nothing else about him?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                          My opinion is about Baxter, it is not aligned to anything or anyone else.

                          So the findings of an inquest can be ‘overruled’ without a second inquest? Is an amended death certificate then issued? What is your main source for Chapman?

                          What does ‘Why do you call you peer-reviewed’ mean?
                          Good for you for not going with Fisherman on this one.

                          Homicide by persons unknown or something like that is the conclusion of these inquests. It's what the jury agreed on.

                          The details of Nichols death got revised for Chapman's inquest.
                          Bona fide canonical and then some.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                            Hi Caz
                            well if hes more commonly used lechmere in his daily life and with the people who knew him its possible he was trying to do that. or if not guilty to just keep the more common name out of it. God knows if i had a different name I could have used all the time Ive gotten in trouble I would have used it. lol.
                            But would you have used your real first and middle names and given not one, but two addresses where you could be found? Or would that be more like something a child of six might do?

                            How much more trouble would you have been in with whoever paid you a call [as in visited either address] and found you had lied to them about your surname, but stupidly not about the rest?

                            Fish's argument that Lechmere would not have been trying to fool the police in this way [because it wouldn't have worked had they checked - obviously] doesn't wash, because the police would not have known this, and he could hardly have explained who he was trying to fool and why:

                            "Oh sorry, officers, I never intended to deceive you, or to put you to any trouble working out who the hell I was, when Pickfords denied employing anyone called Cross. I used that name to deceive the missus/my relatives/my friends/my workmates, so they wouldn't associate me with the murder and suspect I had something to do with it."

                            "Right you are then, Mr Lechmere. It's our turn to apologise, because as a result of our enquiries at the addresses you provided, your missus and your workmates now know all about it, and they also know you gave us a false name. Would you like to fill out this compensation claim form?"

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X
                            Last edited by caz; 11-19-2018, 08:05 AM.
                            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                              Bats,

                              You gave us the following instructive little lecture:


                              We see this in pseudo-scientific presentations a lot. Finding the earliest peer-reviewed papers on the matter and disregarding subsequent publications that amend or even change the findings of the earlier ones.


                              Have you been cutting and pasting from the most up to date Chapman data do you think?

                              Pot calling kettle black?

                              MrB
                              I have no problem being corrected with the right information and facts at all. It's when people are presented with such and then being in denial over it, that it's a problem... for them.

                              The issue here is Fisherman not wanting to accept revised findings by the Coroner on Nichols because it doesn't match his suspect driven orientation on the murders. That's why there is so much historical revisionism trying to paint Cross a 'suspect'.

                              Do you accept the revision? Or do you think JtR has swapped his MO and Signature after Nichols?
                              Bona fide canonical and then some.

                              Comment


                              • Batman, before this goes any further, it's only fair to tell you Fisherman had his own TV show, too.

                                Paddy

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X