So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wonīt kill in Whitechapel?

[Fisherman]

Latest reports seem to be saying that, although both girls were horrifically killed, only one was beheaded. It doesn't diminish the tragedy in any way, of course, but it does illustrate how having more accurate detail allows one to distinguish between one type of wound and another. I don't propose to discuss this case further, out of respect to the girls, their families and friends; there are other Cross threads where you can discuss terminology in general, if you like, without capitalising on the awful events in Morocco.

As to this thread, let's get back to "If you live in Bethnal Green, you won't kill in Whitechapel?", please.

I think the thread premise has already been discussed and effectively disproven.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer


Neither, it was in response to this: Saying that is denying the wealth of facts that is connected to the case.

IMHO the facts you list are not really facts. You are taking a fact, such as Lechmere used the name Cross (which is a fact) as some sort of subteruge, or indicator of his guilt, (this is not a fact).

That wonīt work, though. I VERY clearly stated the two facts listed above as examples of FURTHER facts in the case, whereas YOU said that the ONLY fact is that Lechmere helped a woman lying in the street. And then you VERY clearly returned with the question "Cīmon, Christer - facts?" No other facts were mentioned than the two I listed.

Can we at least agree that it is totally wrong to say that him "helping" Nichols is the only fact of the case? That there are plenty more facts, like the ones I listed? If you are willing to take it a step further, we may perhaps even agree that the facts I pointed to are ABSOLUTE facts, whereas it is not a fact at all that there was any real will on Lechmereīs behalf to help out. But I realize that may be taking it a step too far...

If I may, I would also like to say that I have NEVER said that it is a fact that using the name Cross points to guilt. I have said that it is a POSSIBLE indicator of guilt.

Fairīs fair, Jon.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Christer

A question - when you said "Cīmon , Christer - facts?", what was it you thought you had seen:

1. Me saying that the blood proved that Lechmere was the killer and that the disagreement between Lechmere and Mizen meant that the carman must have lied.
or
2. Me saying that Nichols was still bleeding as Lechmere was with her and that Lechmere and Mizen disagreed.

Neither, it was in response to this: Saying that is denying the wealth of facts that is connected to the case.

IMHO the facts you list are not really facts. You are taking a fact, such as Lechmere used the name Cross (which is a fact) as some sort of subteruge, or indicator of his guilt, (this is not a fact).

[Sam Flynn]

Inaccuracy and/or vagueness in early reports is quite a different matter. Now that it's been revealed that they were beheaded...

Latest reports seem to be saying that, although both girls were horrifically killed, only one was beheaded. It doesn't diminish the tragedy in any way, of course, but it does illustrate how having more accurate detail allows one to distinguish between one type of wound and another. I don't propose to discuss this case further, out of respect to the girls, their families and friends; there are other Cross threads where you can discuss terminology in general, if you like, without capitalising on the awful events in Morocco.

As to this thread, let's get back to "If you live in Bethnal Green, you won't kill in Whitechapel?", please.

[Fisherman]

The accurate categorisation of the wounds is completely necessary.

Indeed! It should be as accurate and full as possible, NOT missing out on the very real possibility of how the victims could all have been subjected to the exact same type of cuts to the soft tissues.

[Sam Flynn]

Sorry to necro this thread, but those Danish girls who just got butchered in Morocco by muslims, keep having their deaths reported as "neck wounds caused by knives" when they actually had their heads chopped off.

Of course, the inaccurate misrepresentation of the facts here might be entirely a political matter.

Inaccuracy and/or vagueness in early reports is quite a different matter. Now that it's been revealed that they were beheaded, nobody in their right minds would water down the facts to mere "neck wounds" again. I note with interest that nobody thought of describing them as "throat wounds", however. That would be be not only inaccurate, but euphemistic in the extreme.

[Sam Flynn]

The accurate categorisation of the wounds is completely necessary.

[Fisherman]

Sorry to necro this thread, but those Danish girls who just got butchered in Morocco by muslims, keep having their deaths reported as "neck wounds caused by knives" when they actually had their heads chopped off.

Of course, the inaccurate misrepresentation of the facts here might be entirely a political matter.

The whole discussion as such is more than a bit ridiculous. I think Garethīs mission is one of trying to divide the two series up in unreconcilable categories and make it seem as if the cutting - that may well have been the exact same in all cases, but for the added severing of the spine in the torso cases - was wildly different.
To a degree, the reason that I personally speak about cut necks could well lie in how this is what we say in Sweden; those who are subjected to this kind of violence have their "hals" (neck) cut. The Swedish word for throat is "strupe", but we donīt normally speak of people having it cut. When we speak of the "strupe" being cut, we generally speak of cut animals where there is no neck to be seen, like for example fish.
Anyway, I think it is important to note that deep cuts to the part between the shoulders and the head were made in both series, and that IS a similarity whichever way we choose to look at it.

Being the charitable and flexible fellow that I am, I am otherwise prepared to speak of deeply cut throats in the Ripper case - and completely severed throats in the torso cases...

[Harry D]

To describe throat-cutting and beheading as a "cut neck" is inaccurate and misleading - in both cases. With particular reference to the torso murders, you wouldn't describe the removal of an entire limb as a "cut leg" or "cut arm", would you?

Sorry to necro this thread, but those Danish girls who just got butchered in Morocco by muslims, keep having their deaths reported as "neck wounds caused by knives" when they actually had their heads chopped off.

Of course, the inaccurate misrepresentation of the facts here might be entirely a political matter.

[Jon Guy]

Ah yes, I see how you mean. A tad late for that, though!

A question - when you said "Cīmon , Christer - facts?", what was it you thought you had seen:

1. Me saying that the blood proved that Lechmere was the killer and that the disagreement between Lechmere and Mizen meant that the carman must have lied.

or

2. Me saying that Nichols was still bleeding as Lechmere was with her and that Lechmere and Mizen disagreed.

I will have to get back to you on the above.
I`m off christmas shopping now... got to get myself a satsuma and a walnut and then I`m all done.

[Fisherman]

I know ... that`s why I was trying to encourage him to delete it ;-)

Ah yes, I see how you mean. A tad late for that, though!

A question - when you said "Cīmon , Christer - facts?", what was it you thought you had seen:

1. Me saying that the blood proved that Lechmere was the killer and that the disagreement between Lechmere and Mizen meant that the carman must have lied.

or

2. Me saying that Nichols was still bleeding as Lechmere was with her and that Lechmere and Mizen disagreed.

[Abby Normal]

And did they tell Mizen about the severity of the errand?

Did they even tell him that Lechmere was the finder?

Not if we are to believe the PC - which of course is why people choose not to believe him...

yup. compare him to someone who was a good person-mary Kelly. showing empathy to friends-letting them stay at her place-to the point where it harmed her relationship with her man. warning others not to do as she did. remaining freindly to barnett eventhough he couldnt offer any money any more. Hutch lingering around, at the very least probably looking for a place to crash, maybe taking advantage of her kind nature.


her good heart probably contributed to her getting killed-and by someone not like her.. someone like Lech. even his name sucks.

Not if we are to believe the PC - which of course is why people choose not to believe him..

yup-lechs actions are why I tend to believe Mizen, or at least not believe he lied. if anyone lied it was lech.

[Jon Guy]

. And there is nothing in his post that I find outrageous in any way - contrary to that, I agree with him on many a point.

I know ... that`s why I was trying to encourage him to delete it ;-)

[Fisherman]

Sutcliff went to the asylum after he was busted. its a common ploy by murderes to act crazy. he wasnt schizophrenic.


napper, like chase and mullins probably was-and they get caught as do most bat **** crazy serial killers pretty quickly.


the ripper was not schizophrenic-no overtly insane person could get away with what the ripper did-convincing women at the height of the ripper scare to go with him no less, maintaining composure and ruses-and remain uncaught if they were scizo IMHO.

... and a very sensible opinion it is, Abby!

[Fisherman]

its not like they just thought she was drunk-they could tell it was worse than that.

And did they tell Mizen about the severity of the errand?

Did they even tell him that Lechmere was the finder?

Not if we are to believe the PC - which of course is why people choose not to believe him...