Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Every minute counts

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

  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
    >>Iīm 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    >>Iīm 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    >>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.

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    >> And who are the "casual observers" here? The PC:s? Llewellyn?<<

    Mizen would certainly fit the category of casual observer.

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    >>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?

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    >>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?


    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    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
    Iīm 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 isnīt all that worrying. Annoying at times, but not worrying.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
    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:	246
Size:	185.3 KB
ID:	755865
    And who are the "casual observers" here? The PC:s? Llewellyn?

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    >>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:	99
Size:	188.2 KB
ID:	756992

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Fiver View Post

    While true, this has nothing to do with any of the points being discussed in this thread.
    I beg to differ. The blood evidence is a prime example of the mechanism.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    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.

    They both

    -cut from ribs to pubes
    -cut away the abdominal wall
    -killed prostitutes
    -took out organs of both a sexual and a non-sexual character
    -took rings from their victims fingers
    -were active in the same city
    -were active in overlapping time spans
    -left victims dead in St Georges
    -cut victims in a way that bled them out
    -killed in a fashion that was consistent with having visited anatomical wax figure displays

    These points are way beyonf what is needed to accept a common originator. The points you make are very dubious. How do we know that the Ripper took "trophy organs"??? And how do we know that the Torso killer didnīt???

    Kellys heart was seemingly missing from the scene. Liz Jacksons heart was "removed".

    Just how do you reach the conclusion that these two hearts were not removed owing to the exact same urge?????

    The rest of your points are equally dubious, but I think this example says it all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Fiver View Post

    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.



    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.










    It is on record that Mizen proceeded to knock up by way of finishing an errand he had started before Lechmere arrived. How long it took is impossible to say. It is equally impossibe to say how long it took for Lechmere to inform Mizen. Wjat I beleive is a fair estimation is that if it took four minutes for the carmen to examine the body and walk to Mizen, then four minutes seems a likely time for Lechmere to inform Mizen, for Mizen to finish his knocking up and to walk to the murder site. Of course, these timings are not written in stone and I say as much in my book. However, the three-five minutes of likely bleeding time, as suggested by the pathologists, will have been passed with a broad margin however we look upon things.

    The blood issue you speak of has been commented upon in another post.

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    >>The facts are that several papers spoke of how Neil had described the wound to Nicholsīneck as bleeding profusely.<<

    "The facts are" that no paper spoke of Neil describing the wound to Mrs Nichols neck as bleeding profusely.

    Also, the facts are,

    "Police must not on any account give information whatever to gentlemen connected with the press ..."

    Sir Howard Vincent's Police Code



    >>The fact is that you are, letīs call it "less than truthful", when you say that I am inventing things.<<

    The facts are, that's easily settled.

    All you have to do is show us where Neil "spoke" of "bleeding profusely".

    Until then I'm afraid you're guilty as charged M'lud.



    >>These matters will always boild down to interpretation in many a way. I donīt think that we should use our own interpretations to clain that the ones who disagree with us are inventing things. It will only serve to inflame things.<<

    Precisely!

    So if you could refrain from claiming things that are incorrect, we can all live in wonderful, peace and harmony.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    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?
    This has already been commented upon in an earlier post.

    The stuff about being "deliberatively deceptive" does not belong to a sound discussion, and so I will leave it uncommented upon.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X