Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Every minute counts

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

  • 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.
    The police dismissed the notion that Christie was a killer, but bought the idea that Evans was.

    So maybe they are wrong at times?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
      >>A brilliant writer like Sugden even garnished the picture with how the two carmen "gingerly" approached the body on the pavement together!<<


      I just checked, Sugden seems pretty good at accurately amalgamating the newspaper reports and police files.




      Click image for larger version  Name:	IMG_1537.jpeg Views:	0 Size:	188.2 KB ID:	756992
      Im afraid that we must weigh in more views than yours, Dusty. And Sugdens.

      You are welcome to stick with any timing you like, just as you were always welcome to stick with any distance between Lechmere and Nichols - as long a you realize that others disagree at times. And once again, I am the one who needs a possibility, you are the one who needs absolute proof to dismiss the Lechmere theory.

      We work from different angles, therefore, and I do not envy you since you are destined to fail. All you can do is to claim "it can be looked upon differently".

      That really isnt all that worrying. Annoying at times, but not worrying.

      Comment


      • >>That last line is correct: the ones giving the blood theory medical credibility are the professors Payne James and Thiblin.<<

        Sorry, but you'll have to justify that.

        The account you have given us of what exchanged between yourself and Payne James, was not clear as to exactly what he was responding to, as I've already outlined. As to Thiblin, we have no idea what was said. Medical evidence requires exactitude and, to date, you have not offered us any.


        >>Once again, these matters are matters where - if we want to - we can interpret away to our hearts delight. <<

        Agreed. Courts are full of medical experts disputing each other.



        >>Like for example how you claim that I am refuting Biggs.<<

        Back to facts. I didn't claim you were refuting Biggs I wrote, "avoiding Dr Biggs" (post 217).



        >> if we interpret what he said into something we like and then ban any other expert from saying something that is perhaps in conflict with what Biggs said, we are not doing ourselves any favours.<<

        Did the other experts specifically say Biggs was wrong? How can they be in conflict if they were asked different questions?


        dustymiller
        aka drstrange

        Comment


        • >>You really should not pass your own interpretations off as the truth, Dusty. Here it is:<<

          Here what is?

          There is nothing in your post (#246) about Llewelyn, which is what I was specifically writing about. Why should the medical expert be disregarded in favour of your interpretation of something you believe Mizen might have said? Weren't your previous posts just extolling the virtues of medical experts?
          dustymiller
          aka drstrange

          Comment


          • >> And who are the "casual observers" here? The PC:s? Llewellyn?<<

            Mizen would certainly fit the category of casual observer.
            dustymiller
            aka drstrange

            Comment


            • >>The police dismissed the notion that Christie was a killer, but bought the idea that Evans was. So maybe they are wrong at times?<<

              No argument from me on that score.
              dustymiller
              aka drstrange

              Comment


              • >>Im afraid that we must weigh in more views than yours, Dusty. And Sugdens.<<

                You seem confused. What Sugden wrote is a summation of the known facts not views. Views are the field you dig in.
                dustymiller
                aka drstrange

                Comment


                • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                  >>Im afraid that we must weigh in more views than yours, Dusty. And Sugdens.<<

                  You seem confused. What Sugden wrote is a summation of the known facts not views. Views are the field you dig in.
                  Swanson opted for 3.45 and Baxter said on the 22:nd of September that 3.45 was the likely time since so many independent factors pointed to it. Maybe these men were also presenting light-hearted views only? Whereas you - and Sugden - sit on the facts?

                  Once again, the idea that I would lean aginst views and misrepresentations whereas you are a beacon of light may not be correct. Maybe it boils down to interpretation, Dusty? And - again - I need a path, supplied here by Swanson and Baxter (and the overall schedule as such), whereas you need proof that it was 3.40.

                  If you have it, present it.
                  Last edited by Fisherman; 05-03-2021, 08:36 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                    >>That last line is correct: the ones giving the blood theory medical credibility are the professors Payne James and Thiblin.<<

                    Sorry, but you'll have to justify that.

                    The account you have given us of what exchanged between yourself and Payne James, was not clear as to exactly what he was responding to, as I've already outlined. As to Thiblin, we have no idea what was said. Medical evidence requires exactitude and, to date, you have not offered us any.

                    That old canard again. Sorry, but I have. Disagree if you want to.


                    >>Once again, these matters are matters where - if we want to - we can interpret away to our hearts delight. <<

                    Agreed. Courts are full of medical experts disputing each other.



                    >>Like for example how you claim that I am refuting Biggs.<<

                    Back to facts. I didn't claim you were refuting Biggs I wrote, "avoiding Dr Biggs" (post 217).

                    Exemplify, please.

                    >> if we interpret what he said into something we like and then ban any other expert from saying something that is perhaps in conflict with what Biggs said, we are not doing ourselves any favours.<<

                    Did the other experts specifically say Biggs was wrong? How can they be in conflict if they were asked different questions?
                    If they offer other conclusions and suggestions than Biggs, they not only CAN but WILL be in conflict with him.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                      >>You really should not pass your own interpretations off as the truth, Dusty. Here it is:<<

                      Here what is?

                      There is nothing in your post (#246) about Llewelyn, which is what I was specifically writing about. Why should the medical expert be disregarded in favour of your interpretation of something you believe Mizen might have said? Weren't your previous posts just extolling the virtues of medical experts?
                      If Llewellyn had siad "the blood did not run towards the gutter", he would have been disregarded. But he never did, did he? Nor is it a prerequisite for a medico to extensively stablish the exact shape and form of the blood on a crime spot. So the problem you see is an invention only.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                        >> And who are the "casual observers" here? The PC:s? Llewellyn?<<

                        Mizen would certainly fit the category of casual observer.
                        Then we differ a whole deal. Mizen was a PC, and had a profesional reason to establish all he could about the blood. And indeed, he was the one person who made the fullest description of it, establishing the degree of coagulation, saying that it was still running as he saw it, pointing out how it ran towards the gutter, stating that it looked fresh and so on. He is a professional witness, not a casual observer, in my world. But I can see how it is of the essence to you to play down his importance and what he said.

                        Comment


                        • >>If Llewellyn had siad "the blood did not run towards the gutter", he would have been disregarded. But he never did, did he? So the problem you see is an invention only.<<

                          You might want to re-read what you wrote.

                          "Nor is it a prerequisite for a medico to extensively stablish the exact shape and form of the blood on a crime spot."

                          Actually it is.
                          dustymiller
                          aka drstrange

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                            >>If Llewellyn had siad "the blood did not run towards the gutter", he would have been disregarded. But he never did, did he? So the problem you see is an invention only.<<

                            You might want to re-read what you wrote.

                            "Nor is it a prerequisite for a medico to extensively stablish the exact shape and form of the blood on a crime spot."

                            Actually it is.
                            Have a look at Phillips testimony at the Chapman inquest, then:

                            "There was a large quantity of blood, with a part of the stomach above the left shoulder."

                            Where was the blood? On which parts of the body? Was there blood on the ground? In what shape? Had it run in any direction? How much was it?

                            If the doctors are called upon to make exact descriptions of the blood, I think Phillips missed out on it. Right?

                            Once again, there would be nothing strange if Llewellyn did not mention that the blood had run over the brim and towards the gutter. So lets not think it is a dealbreaker in any way, shall we?

                            Now I have had enough of the hospitality out here for a while, and so I will leave it until later. The last time I said so, I contracted an infection that took some time to fight off (no, not covid, so far), and so I was away for longer than I anticipated. I hope to rejoin sooner this time.

                            Comment


                            • >>Then we differ a whole deal. Mizen was a PC, and had a profesional reason to establish all he could about the blood.<<

                              And yet you insist Llewellyn didn't have a "profession reason to establish all he could about the blood"? It's a weird world your mind inhabits.
                              dustymiller
                              aka drstrange

                              Comment


                              • >>Have a look at Phillips testimony at the Chapman inquest, then:<<

                                Let's look at Chandlers ... which way do you want to play this?
                                dustymiller
                                aka drstrange

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X