Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Every minute counts

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

  • >>PC Mizen from the inquest, as quoted by The Star, 3rd of September 1888:
    He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed.
    This quotation establishes that the blood had not fully congealed, and so it was running as in moving. PC Mizen from the inquest, as quoted by The Morning Advertiser, 4th of September 1888:
    The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.
    This quotation establishes the same thing as the quotation above, since the blood is described as "still" running we can be sure that Mizen speaks of an ongoing process.<<


    It should be noted that whenever Christer quotes these passages he edits out pertinant information that alters their meaning.

    Here are the two quotes in full:

    " ... by his instruction (Neil's) witness went for the ambulance. "I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman."

    and

    "He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman."

    So, Christer is misleading everyone each time he quotes these passages.

    To justify this, he sometimes quotes the Echo:

    "The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter."

    Note the sentence is a non sequitur, it makes sense if we insert the line the Echo missed out:

    "The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all. On returning I assisted to remove the body... There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter."


    This becomes clear when we read the other newspaper reports:

    "The witness went to Buck's-row, when Police-constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body. On returning with the ambulance, he helped to put the deceased upon it."

    E.L.O.

    "The witness went to Buck's row, where Police constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body. On returning with the ambulance he helped to put the deceased upon it"

    Daily News

    "When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body."

    Telegraph

    "The witness then went to Buck's-row, and Police-constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. Nobody but Neil was with the body at that time"

    I.P.N.

    "Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body."

    Lloyds

    "He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman."

    Morning News

    Question:
    Were Payne James and Thilblin told this information?

    If they were, what did they say?

    If they weren't told of an alternative and more accurate timing for Mizen's sighting, how are their statements in anyway relevant?

    I've been pointing this out for about 10 years, so it's not as if Christer vis not aware of this alternative, so can it be called deliberately deceptive if the experts were not told all the facts?
    Last edited by drstrange169; 04-10-2021, 12:22 AM.
    dustymiller
    aka drstrange

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
      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
      pigs fly? lol

      Comment


      • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
        >>PC Mizen from the inquest, as quoted by The Star, 3rd of September 1888:
        He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed.
        This quotation establishes that the blood had not fully congealed, and so it was running as in moving. PC Mizen from the inquest, as quoted by The Morning Advertiser, 4th of September 1888:
        The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.
        This quotation establishes the same thing as the quotation above, since the blood is described as "still" running we can be sure that Mizen speaks of an ongoing process.<<


        It should be noted that whenever Christer quotes these passages he edits out pertinant information that alters their meaning.

        Here are the two quotes in full:

        " ... by his instruction (Neil's) witness went for the ambulance. "I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman."

        and

        "He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman."

        So, Christer is misleading everyone each time he quotes these passages.

        To justify this, he sometimes quotes the Echo:

        "The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter."

        Note the sentence is a non sequitur, it makes sense if we insert the line the Echo missed out:

        "The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all. On returning I assisted to remove the body... There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter."


        This becomes clear when we read the other newspaper reports:

        "The witness went to Buck's-row, when Police-constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body. On returning with the ambulance, he helped to put the deceased upon it."

        E.L.O.

        "The witness went to Buck's row, where Police constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body. On returning with the ambulance he helped to put the deceased upon it"

        Daily News

        "When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body."

        Telegraph

        "The witness then went to Buck's-row, and Police-constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. Nobody but Neil was with the body at that time"

        I.P.N.

        "Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body."

        Lloyds

        "He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman."

        Morning News

        Question:
        Were Payne James and Thilblin told this information?

        If they were, what did they say?

        If they weren't told of an alternative and more accurate timing for Mizen's sighting, how are their statements in anyway relevant?

        I've been pointing this out for about 10 years, so it's not as if Christer vis not aware of this alternative, so can it be called deliberately deceptive if the experts were not told all the facts?
        you have the most intersting take on the quote function

        Comment


        • I'm computer dyslexic.
          dustymiller
          aka drstrange

          Comment


          • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
            I'm computer dyslexic.
            too me

            Comment


            • Normal Abby

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                Most papers say that Mizen did not continue his knocking up, and only one establishes that he actually did. The single paper will be the one that is correct. Many papers condensed things and when they did, single papers can expose the real facts.
                That is an incorrect summary on your part. None of the newspapers established whether or nor not PC Mizen continued knocking up, they recorded whether he denied continuing knocking up.

                The Illustrated Police News said that "when the carman spoke to him he was engaged in knocking people up, and he finished knocking at the one place where he was at the time, giving two or three knocks, and then went directly to Buck's-row, not wanting to knock up anyone else." The Illustrated Police News was a tabloid known for sensationalism. Its account is more detailed, but it is also a summary.

                According the Daily News, East London Observer, Echo, Star, Times, and the Walthamstow and Leyton Guardian; PC Mizen denied that he continued knocking up. Every one of those papers had a better reputation than the Illustrated Police News. The Daily News and the East London Ovserver quoted PC Mizen as saying "No. I only finished knocking up one person." The Echo summarized Mizen as saying "Witness went to the spot directly Cross told him, and did not stop to knock any one up." The Star summarized as "It was not true that before he went to Buck's-row, witness continued "knocking people up." The Times and the Walthamstow and Leyton Guardian summarized as "He denied that before he went to Buck's-row he continued knocking people up."

                The subject was not mentioned by the Daily Telegraph, Evening Standard, Lloyds Weekly Register, or the Morning Advertiser.

                So if we go with the unsupported, least reliable source, then PC Mizen finished the house he was at by "giving two or three knocks", which would have delayed him only a few seconds. If we go with the majority of sources, PC Mizen did not delay even those few seconds. Either way, it does not justify the 9 to 10 minutes that you estimate in the OP between discovery of the body and PC Mizen reaching it.

                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                Mizen said the blood was STILL running (and looking fresh, to boot), meaning that there was an ongoing process where blood flowed. There is no way around it.
                Blood is not mentioned in the Daily News, Daily Telegraph, East London Observer, Illustrated Police News, Lloyds Weekly Register, Times, or Walthamstow and Leyton Guardian accounts of PC Mizen's testimony.

                "There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter." - the Echo

                "
                He assisted in removing the body. He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed." the Star

                "I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman." - the Evening Standard and the Morning Advertiser.The Standard appears to have gotten its account directly from the Advertiser, including spelling the name "Maizen". So there is one account that says there was "fresh" blood that was "still" running. That account might be correct, but it is far from certain that it is. The account is also unclear if the blood was running when PC Mizen arrived, or if it restarted when the body was moved.











                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  And I am saying that the Ripper and the Torso killer were doubtlessly the same.
                  The Torso Killer and the Ripper were clearly different serial killers with different MOs.
                  The Ripper left the bodies where they lay. The Torso Killer transported them distances of several miles.
                  The Ripper mutilated bodies in a way that shows it was his goal. The Torso Killer dissected bodies for easier transportation.
                  The Ripper took trophy organs. There is no sign that the Torso killer did so.
                  The Torso Killer made sure that the heads were never found, probably to hide the identities of the dead. The Ripper made no attempt to conceal the identities of his victims.
                  The Ripper posed his victims. The Torso Killer just dumped them.


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    Five articles claiming that a pig flew by is not going to trump one article that says it walked by.
                    While true, this has nothing to do with any of the points being discussed in this thread.

                    Comment


                    • What the witnesses said about what Mizen did when told about Mrs Nichols.


                      "I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead."

                      Robert Paul, Lloyds Weekly

                      " The policeman said, "All right."... After​​​​​​​ Mizen had been told there was a woman lying in Buck's-row he went out and knocked at a door. He did not go towards Buck's-row to do this."

                      Charles Cross, The Star

                      dustymiller
                      aka drstrange

                      Comment


                      • Someone just posted a picture on Facebook that I had forgotten about. It's interesting to the discussion here because it highlights the fact that blood "oozing" or "running" from the neck to the gutter is only a matter of inches (centimetres). It would be something a person would have to study closely to note, not something that would stick out to a casual observer.Click image for larger version

Name:	175137702_4249097508446249_4030358998649764596_n.jpg
Views:	224
Size:	185.3 KB
ID:	755865
                        dustymiller
                        aka drstrange

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                          The Torso Killer and the Ripper were clearly different serial killers with different MOs.
                          The Ripper left the bodies where they lay. The Torso Killer transported them distances of several miles.
                          The Ripper mutilated bodies in a way that shows it was his goal. The Torso Killer dissected bodies for easier transportation.
                          The Ripper took trophy organs. There is no sign that the Torso killer did so.
                          The Torso Killer made sure that the heads were never found, probably to hide the identities of the dead. The Ripper made no attempt to conceal the identities of his victims.
                          The Ripper posed his victims. The Torso Killer just dumped them.

                          Fundamental issues, and decidedly different approaches and results. Thats why no contemporary investigator included Torso murders with the killer known as Jack the Ripper, and why some victims were likely not killed by either.
                          Michael Richards

                          Comment


                          • >>Thats why no contemporary investigator included Torso murders with the killer known as Jack the Ripper ...<<

                            Not just fail to include, but actively dismiss the notion.

                            dustymiller
                            aka drstrange

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                              >>Thats why no contemporary investigator included Torso murders with the killer known as Jack the Ripper ...<<

                              Not just fail to include, but actively dismiss the notion.
                              well thats changing, and considering all the similarities between the two series, probably not a bad idea. at least something to consider.
                              Last edited by Abby Normal; 04-21-2021, 01:56 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                                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?



                                Itīs Thiblin, not Thibling. And no, it is not as vague as vague can get. It can get a whole lot vaguer. But it is a fact that when dealing with issues like these, there can be no definitive answers and exact timings. That is due to how different people follow differing paths, at least to a degree. This, however, does not mean that general guidelines cannot be given. Even if somebody bleeds for a month after having been decapitated, that does not detract from how people generally do not.

                                So letīs look at how Thiblin presents these general guidelines!

                                He did not say that people could bleed for ten to fifteen minutes with the kind of damage Nichols had. He said that there is very little material to compare from, but that his own personal take on it was that the bleeding would likely go on for up to somewhere around ten to fifteen minutes (that is where the ten comes in; he allowed for fifteen minutes perhaps being too long a period and so it could be that ten was the better suggestion. He did not know as such, but his estimation, grounded on his experience, suggested to him that this was the span within which Nicholsī bleeding would - at a maximum stretch - be able to go on.

                                As always, when we give a maximum time, that time is not the time we actually think applies. If we say that a person is maximally able to keep his breath under water for 10-15 minutes, that does not mean that everyone is able to be submerged without oxygen for that long a time. We are fully aware that most people will drown well before that stage.

                                This, of course, is where the three to five minute span comes into the picture; although Thiblin said that the bleeding COULD have gone on for ten or perhaps up to fifteen minutes, the LIKELY thing in his view was that it would seize at around the 3-5 minute mark.

                                If you want to call this vague, go ahead. it is nevertheless the informed reasoning by a very experienced forensic pathologist. The "vagueness" you refer to is in fact his professional carefulness - he was never going to say "The exact maximum is seventeen and a half minutes and in Nicholsī case, she will have bled for three minutes and fifty-two seconds.

                                It would have been less vague, admittedly - but you would (and should) have shredded such a thing to pieces, and rightfully so. So maybe we should give credit to professionals who are discerning?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X