Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Every minute counts

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

  • Before the semantical onslaught gets underway, I would like to add that I am not saying that I must be correct about the interpretations. I never have, although I of course believe that I am correct. Others may think the same about other interpretations, of course. What is of the essence when presenting a suspect is mainly that there IS a logical path to follow and that there ARE interpretations/options/facts/indications that are in line with the suspicions, whereas there is nothing that factually nullifies them.

    Some will say - as Fiver did before - that if an interpretation is more represented in the papers than another, then that first interpretation should be accepted as the likelier one. But that only works if we look away from the content of the articles. Five articles claiming that a pig flew by is not going to trump one article that says it walked by. And so we will be left with the inevitable ripperological quibbles about what we may conclude from the word "ooze" and so on, and rational reasoning in a friendly tone will be as common as hen´s teeth.

    There is a logical chain linked to Lechmere´s role as a suspect, and it is one that is much more detailed than what is the case for any other suspect. He is unique in this respect. As I point out in the book, to claim innocence on his behalf, a large heap of coincidences and flukes must be given innocent alternative explanations. My take on things is that the heap is far too big to make it a god suggestion to go looking for those alternative explanations. They are too many and too damning to actually allow for innocence, the way I see things. And that has meant that people - like R J Palmer on the Framing Charles thread - persist in isolating one matter, suggesting that if it is provided with an alternative innocent explanation, the problem goes away.

    It actually does no such thing. I, however, will go away for some little time now.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 04-04-2021, 07:00 PM.

    Comment


    • Sorry, entirely meant for humor and I couldn't resist. It is not really meant as a counter-argument the point Fisherman is making.

      - Jeff

      Click image for larger version  Name:	Pink-Floyd-Oli-Scarff.jpg Views:	0 Size:	112.7 KB ID:	754989
      Last edited by JeffHamm; 04-04-2021, 10:56 PM.

      Comment


      • Since Christer has ‘made his excuses and left’, perhaps we should leave the last word to his medical expert, Professor Thibling, who apparently said that establishing how long a victim such as Nichols would have continued bleeding is difficult because there is not much empirical data to go on.

        And even though Prof. T. apparently said that such bleeding could continue for up to ten to fifteen minutes (not sure why the ‘ten’ makes an appearance) we are told that he favours a seven minute cessation.

        Isn’t this all about as vague as vague can get?



        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

          No, like it is the straw grasped for by those who desperately want to rid themselves of evidence of some kind.

          Do journalists make things up? Yes, it happens. Is it the general rule. No, it is not. The general rule is that they report as faithfully as they can.

          And so, much more likely than not, Neil spoke of how Nichols was bleeding profusely in the initial reports.
          If it were not the general rule, then we should find hardly any difference in the wording of the press reports of court cases.

          You are the one grasping at straws. Others seem to be urging caution.


          Comment


          • The ‘blood evidence’ really is pretty weak. It tells us what is fairly obvious, that CAL arrived at the crime scene shortly after Nichols was killed.

            Comment


            • >>Neil spoke of how Nichols was bleeding profusely in the initial reports.<<

              'Fraid not Christer.

              It's those pesky facts again. Neil like all his fellow policeman was forbidden from talking to the press, it's in their police code book and he would have suffered punitive measures if he did and, in turn, those punishments would have been recorded in police orders. There is no record of him being fined or demoted, so we can be sure he did NOT speak to a journalist as you try to claim.

              As to the journalists being accurate in early reports, take the time to read their initial reports, they full of errors.

              Those are the facts.

              Here's an example of early reporting:

              It seems that on Friday morning Police-constable Neale [Neil], 97 J, was on his beat at about half-past four, in the neighbourhood of Buck's-row. It was then just after half-past four, and, in the early light of day he discovered lying on the pavement just outside the high brick wall which surrounds the Essex Wharf, the form of a woman. She was lying on her back, with hands that were tightly clenched, and presenting altogether the appearance of one who had died in the greatest agony. She was wearing a little black straw bonnet, battered almost out of recognition, and placed at the back of her head. Around her was a cloak - a threadbare garment that had once been red, but was now a dull, dirty colour. It was open in front, and the black bodice of her dress was thrown slightly open, revealing a horrible gash more than an inch in diameter, extending from one ear to the other, and completely severing the windpipe, which protruded from the deep wound. Constable Neale at once called for assistance, and with the help of some scavengers who were cleaning the roads at the time, managed to carry the body to the mortuary, which is situated in the Pavilion Yard close by. Mr. Edmunds, the keeper of the mortuary, was in attendance, and assisted by the officer and the scavengers, undressed the poor creature and placed her in one of the black coffins lying about the mortuary.

              Another report writes about Neil lifting her up!

              And the one you bizarrely believe was a first hand account from Neil made these errors:

              The wound was about two inches wide and blood was flowing profusely. She was immediately conveyed to the Whitechapel mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open and the bowels were protruding. The wound extends nearly to her breast, and must have been effected with a large knife. As the corpse lies in the mortuary, it presents a ghastly sight. The victim seems to be between 35 and 40 years of age, and measures 5ft. 2in. in height. The hands are bruised, and bear evidence of having engaged in A SEVERE STRUGGLE. There is the impression of a ring having been worn on one of deceased's fingers, but there is nothing to show that it had been wrenched from her in a struggle. Some of the front teeth have also been knocked out, and the face is bruised on both cheeks and very much discoloured. Deceased wore a rough brown ulster, with large buttons in front. Her clothes are torn and cut up in several places, bearing evidence of the ferocity with which the murder was committed.


              If Mrs Nichols was bleeding profusely Neil would said as such at the inquest, instead he chose a word that means the opposite. Let's just stick the facts, if Cross's case is so strong, why do you feel the need to constantly invent things?
              dustymiller
              aka drstrange

              Comment


              • >>So, from one layman to another, avoiding the input from the real experts? Yes, you do that, Dusty.<<

                It's not me who is avoiding Dr Biggs's first hand experience.

                It's not me avoiding the medicos I quoted in the Old Bailey files.

                It's not me asking Payne James about pre-mortem bleeding and then pretending he spoke of post-mortem bleeding.

                It's not me avoiding that your Swedish expert saying the data isn't there to make a qualified judgment.

                It's not me pretending your blood theory has any medical credibilty.
                dustymiller
                aka drstrange

                Comment


                • >>Nichols' clothing was pulled down over the wounds, and that was something the killer never did otherwise. But all in all, one must perhaps accept that the killer chose to do it in Bucks Row but nowhere else. Illogical? Absolutely. But possible? Yes.<<

                  Assuming for the sake of this debate there was only one killer, there is is nothing illogical about the killer attempting to pull down Mrs Nichols clothes. The killer seems to have been interrupted twice and on both occasions the body was not posed. Covering the wounds, if that's what actually happened, would give a killer interrupted by Cross time to escape before any alarm would be raised. Nothing could be more logical, whether the killer was Lechmere or anybody else.


                  >>... decapitated people can bleed out in a minute only.<<

                  What medical evidence are you basing that on?

                  The completely decapitated Pinchin Street torso bled 24 hours later, ergo it did not bled out. Yes, it would require movement to do so and that's could well be what happened with Mrs Nichols, as we know Cross and Paul touched the body and Neil may well have too.


                  >>Instead of asking "how long could Nichols bleed?" we should ask "how long is it likely that she bled?"<<

                  Which is like asking, "how long is a piece of string?". There are so many forensic variables that we could make case for anything we like.


                  >>When I asked Jason Payne-James that question, I gave him thee alternatives. I asked whether it was likely that she would have bled three, five or seven minutes. His answer was that all these three times were possible, but he personally thought that three or five minutes were the likelier propositions.<<

                  We all due respect, that is a nonsense question. To answer he would need to know:
                  Was she strangled first?
                  Was it a partial strangulation or a terminal one?
                  Did the body mutilation happen first?
                  Was the head higher than the body at any stage to compress the arteries?
                  Was the body interfered with at any stage?
                  Which accounts about blood flow/leakage were accurate?
                  So on and so an.


                  >> Jason Payne-James would personally have expected Nichols to stop bleeding within the 3-5 minute interval, although he did not rule out 7 minutes as a possibility.<<

                  According to what you told us, that answer was based on pre-mortem bleeding. Payne James noted that he had no actual experience of the sceanario and that his answer was guesswork.


                  >>When I spoke to professor Ingemar Thiblin, he concurred with Jason Payne-James in this respect<<

                  According to your book, he said there was insufficient data to accurately answer.


                  >> I quickly realized that I had missed out on a very important factor that can be worded like this: every minute of bleeding that was added onto Nichols overall bleeding time was one where that bleeding was less expected than it was the minute before.<<

                  Expected by what data? Thiblin said there was insufficient data. Again, you do not factor in the variables like the body being moved by some unknown degree.


                  >>As Mizen arrived at the murder site, he said that the blood was still running from the neck, and that it had at this stage started to run into the gutter. He said the blood looked fresh and that it was partly coagulated in the pool. <<

                  None of the above can be said to be factually accurate as it assumes timings that are strongly debated and contains cherry-picked words from varying reports.


                  >>this nevertheless leaves us with the implication that Lechmere is by far the LIKELIEST cutter!<<

                  Given that the difference between Cross being the killer or someone he disturbed could be as little as one or two minutes, the above claim is nonsense.

                  To this day, modern forensics cannot be that specfic about the time of death. Given the sheer volume of forensic evidence we don't have and the minimal time between the two possible killers, it is impossible to say which is the more likely killer. I would love for Payne James and Niblin to read this and publicly agree you are right and I am wrong.


                  >>If another killer than Lechmere did for Nichols, then he must have slipped away before Lechmere arrived, and Lechmere said he would have noticed if anyone was in place at the murder site as he himself approached it. So we must add at the very least a minute.<<

                  Show us the newspaper quote where Cross says,"he would have noticed if anyone was in place at the murder site as he himself approached it." !!!

                  Here is the accurate version of events as described in the newspapers.

                  1: A reporter paraphrased evidence,

                  "(Cross) ... had any one left the body after he got into Buck's-row he must have heard him".

                  So in other words, Cross was NOT looking. A silent killer could could have easily escaped.

                  And this is a direct quote, seemingly not paraphrased by a reporter,

                  "I don't think I met anybody after I left my house till I got to the body."

                  So Cross actually had no idea whether anyone was around or not.

                  That is a VERY different from the scenario you crafted.


                  >>Charles Lechmere is therefore by far the likeliest killer of Polly Nichols. The blood evidence puts it beyond doubt.<<

                  Sadly, the "blood evidence" doesn't exist, it never did.

                  It was cobbled together from dubious newspaper accounts of timing, altered accounts about what Cross said, cherry-picked words of Mizen's from differing newspapers bundled together to give the appearance of one sentence and zero serious reliable forensic data.
                  Last edited by drstrange169; 04-07-2021, 10:32 AM.
                  dustymiller
                  aka drstrange

                  Comment


                  • I would suggest that if anyone wants to look at real figures for "bleeding" whatever that may mean, that they look at the 2 chapters on that subject in "Inside Bucks Row".

                    There you will find real blood flow rates, taken from actual medical literature, not the vague numbers mentioned here.

                    To be brief, given the nature of the wounds, its highly unlikely that Neil could have physically seen blood flowing under pressure when he arrived.
                    With regard to Mizen its medically impossible for him to have seen blood flowing under pressure, blood flowing under gravity is all he, and probably Neil, saw.

                    If the blood flow seen by either or both Policemen was not under pressure, then i am very much afraid that all talk of the relevance of bleeding times is completely pointless, given that bleeding under gravity and clotting does not conform to a consistent pattern, and any movement can induce "bleeding" to restart.

                    Those are the medical/scientific facts.


                    steve

                    Last edited by Elamarna; 04-07-2021, 11:00 AM.

                    Comment


                    • The advantage of Steve's book is that he gives all the available evidence, whereas Christer's book selects and edits the evidence he gives his reader. Not that that is unique to Christer, the bulk of suspect books do exactly the same thing.
                      dustymiller
                      aka drstrange

                      Comment


                      • One more major problem with Christer's "blood evidence". Dr Llewellyn mentions nothing about the blood running into the gutter.

                        "There was a very small pool of blood in the pathway ..."

                        The only time blood running to the gutter is mentioned, is when the body was moved.
                        dustymiller
                        aka drstrange

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          The thing is, if we work from the assumption that Paul reached the body at 3.46, then the nine minute scenario has Thain leaving for Llewellyn in the correct time, justaboutish, and so that seems to make for at least some corroboration.
                          Why should we assume that Paul reached the body at 3.46?

                          PC Neil said he saw Nichols body "at a quarter to four o'clock".

                          PC Mizen said that Lechmere and Paul contacted him at "about a quarter to four o'clock".

                          Those times, which are estimates mean that Paul probably reached the body around 3:40. That 3:40 estimate also fits with both Lechmere's and Paul's estimates of when they left home.



                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                            As Mizen arrived at the murder site, he said that the blood was still running from the neck, and that it had at this stage started to run into the gutter. He said the blood looked fresh and that it was partly coagulated in the pool. Coagulation begins at around the four minute mark and so it all makes sense.

                            The immediate fact that leaps out is that the estimation of a likely bleeding time of 3-5 minutes as per Payne-James and Thiblin does not cover the actual bleeding process. If I am correct on the nine minute timing, then Nichols will have bled for a substantially longer time, almost twice as long as the pathologists both expected.
                            However, neither of them ruled out as such that the bleeding time could be longer. Thiblin actually said that he believed that we could be looking at a maximum of 10-15 minutes, and 9 minutes is of course well within that scope.

                            But this nevertheless leaves us with the implication that Lechmere is by far the LIKELIEST cutter! Not only does he occupy the 3-5 minute period judged as the likeliest outcome by the pathologists - he occupies a four minute scope BEYOND that time, all the way up to nine minutes.
                            If we go by your assumptions about bleed times and what you claim Mizen observed, then it rules Lechmere out as a suspect and means that Nichols was killed sometime after Lechmere and Paul left her and before PC Mizen reached Nichols' body.

                            As Baron noted:

                            Originally posted by The Baron View Post
                            PC Neil makes for a better suspect than Lechmere!

                            Paul thought he detected a faint breath, she could have been still alive when they examined here.

                            Both Paul and Lechmere didn't notice any Blood.
                            So the most logical suspect for having killed Nochols, using Fisherman's blood evidence would be PC Neil. If Lechemere had killed her, the blood would have almost no chance of still looking fresh or still flowing 9 minutes later. While a "likely bleeding time of 3-5 minutes" before PC Mizen arrived matches PC Neil's arrival on the scene.
                            Last edited by Fiver; 04-08-2021, 08:33 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                              its clear that the fact that nichols was still bleeding puts lech clearly in tje frame for her murder because we all agree at some point bleeding stops. she clearly wasnt murdered a half hour before lech arrived.
                              Surgeon Clark saw the headless Pinchin Street torso at least half an hour after it was discovered. Clark testified that "On moving the body I found that there was a little blood underneath where the neck had lain. It was small in quantity and not clotted. The blood had oozed from the cut surface of the neck."

                              Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                              paul dosnt see or hear him walking in front of him.
                              "he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Paul) stepped in the roadway to pass him." - Robert Paul testimony

                              Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                              by lechs own admission on when he left his house he has time to commit the murder.
                              This is incorrect. Lechmere said he left for work "About half-past three" and gave no time estimate for his discovery of the body.

                              Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                              there is no other evidence of anyone else around.
                              Emma Green "heard no unusual sound during the night." Walter Purkiss "had heard no sound, neither had his wife." Alfred Mulshaw "heard no cries or noise." Green, Purkiss, and Malshaw didn't hear Lechmere, Paul, PC Neil, PC Thain, PC Mizen, or Dr Lllewellyn; but they were all there.



                              Comment


                              • >>Why should we assume that Paul reached the body at 3.46?<<

                                Because the whole theory falls apart if Christer doesn't take the most unreliable time (Paul's Lloyds story).
                                Last edited by drstrange169; 04-08-2021, 10:40 PM.
                                dustymiller
                                aka drstrange

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X