Every minute counts

[drstrange169]

>>The alternative is that it was made up by journalists...<<

Like that's never happened!

[drstrange169]

>>What cannot be suggested is that the pathologists in my book were unaware of how bleeding processes go down, or that they would not be able to make a fair assessment of those matters. Iīm sure you have heard it before, but you are no medico - they are. <<

I'll leave that to David Orsam's analysis of the matter, which covers the problems with the medicos comments.

[MrBarnett]

For Gary:

I took a look at that last post of yours on the horseflesh thread last evening, and it seems to me that it is more of the material posted on JTR. Itīs abpout how there were laws and practices against people who were unlinked to the legal trade, and who were nevertheless cutting up horseflesh. But as was said many times on that JTR thread, legislation is about stating an aim and about passing verdicts upon those who donīt comply, itīs not about eradicating crime a such. Murder is forbidden too, but it nevertheless occurs.

That said, I think it is time for me to say that we must not think that the case against Lechmere stands and falls with Ma Lechmere having a bone saw in Cable Street. It is not as if bone saws could not be aquired if you wanted to.

I am saying that there are far too many things pointing to Charles Lechmere for him not to be the killer of Nichols.

And I am saying that the man who killed Nichols was the Ripper.

And I am saying that the Ripper and the Torso killer were doubtlessly the same.

My conclusion is therefore not that Ma Lechmere must have had a bonesaw. It is instead that Charles Lechmere had access to one.

And he had access to that bonesaw as early as 1873, if I am correct, presumably way before Ma Lechmere took up horseflesh and moved to Cable Street.

I nevertheless stand by how I believe that there is an intriguing possibility that the Pinchin Street woman was cut up in the Cable Street flat and that there was a bonesaw in place there.

Then again, maybe he brought his own.

Stunning!

Nothing I posted was about people illegally cutting up horse flesh. Where on earth did you get that from?

Since you mention it, what evidence do you have that Joseph Forsdike was in hospital at the time CAL was carving up the Pinchin Street victim? And if there is any, what makes you think that Victorian hospitals encouraged patients’ family members to sit by their besides for any length of time?

[MrBarnett]

>> ... there are many examples where is says, for instance, "blood and froth was oozing from the mouth".<<


Checking within my timeframe, I could find only one hit for your italicised phrase: Joseph Feltham 18th Oct 1882 Manslaughter.

It can be found here:

https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=def1-951-18821016&div=t18821016-951#highlight

And it's another lock, stock and two smoking barrels!

Here's what James Thorton Gilbert the attending medical man said,

"I think she had been dead from four to five hours- she was perfectly cold;rigor mortis had set in ... blood and froth was oozing from the mouth and nose ..."

So, we have another case of blood oozing a significant time after death, this time over four hours after death!

As I keep repeating, the blood evidence theory had been terminated with extreme predudice.

I suppose the good doctor may have misspoken and said ‘was oozing’ when he meant ‘had oozed’.

[MrBarnett]

I have read the thread and seen all the fors and againsts, just as I have read all the stuff about whether there were illicit horse meat businesses or not. It was another example of ripperology at its finest in many ways. What it all boiled down to (excuse the pun) was that nothing much could be proven either way.

Being personally convinced of something does not come with any guarantees of everybody agreeing with you. Trust me, I know. I am not opposed to the idea that Maria Louisa was a lowly cats meat woman to aggravate you, you have my word on that. I actually do think her horse chunks were much bigger and bonier.

But just like you I cannot prove my point, so I have to settle for knowing that she was in the horse flesh business and accepting that as such, that does no harm at all to the Lechmere theory.

Perhaps you can explain why you think her chunks were much bigger and bonier.

Neither of us can prove our point, but I can provide endless examples that support mine. Do you have any examples to support yours?

[drstrange169]

>> I suppose the good doctor may have misspoken and said ‘was oozing’ when he meant ‘had oozed’. <<

Misspokeness is a one way street, I'm afraid Gary. Neil could, and therefore must have, misspoke about the meaning of ooze, Mizen couldn't possibliy have misspoken about anything.

[MrBarnett]

Nichols was dead, Gary. Was there a rush to try and get the ambulance in place after 29 and a half minutes instead of 30 minutes?
Who says that Mizen was "immediately sent off to fetch the ambulance"? More than you, that is?
What Neil said at the inquest was that he sent Mizen for the ambulance. End of, I beleive, although I have not checked all the papers (I can only bring myself to so much...) He does not say that he did so "immediately" and he mentions not that he saw to it that Mizen did not take a look at the victim before scarpering off, does he? Mizen himself does say that he at once went for the ambulance, but that does not mean that he could not have had a look before Neil told him to do so.

We cannot invent things like these and try to elevate them to something that exonerates the carman, Iīm afraid.

Moreover, the blood Mizen described was STILL running, it looked FRESH and it was SOMEWHAT coagulated. Once again, that fits 100 per cent with him looking at the blood as he arrived in Bucks Row the first time and very poorly with his second arrival half an hour later.

If you choose the illogical solution over the logical one, it is your choice and prerogative. Just donīt claim things as facts that cannot be claimed as facts, please.

Can you explain the quantitative difference between ‘at once’ and ‘immediately’? In terms of seconds preferably. To me the two terms carry the same meaning.

Perhaps you are in receipt of expert opinion that ‘at once’ allows for sufficient delay for someone to inspect a body and check on blood flow.

“I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. 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.”

[MrBarnett]

I use the word ‘immediately’ instead of ‘at once’ and am slated for ‘claim[ing]things as facts that cannot be claimed as facts...’

Christer presents us with Mizen saying ‘There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter’ and turns it into ‘it had run over the brim and started to pour into the gutter’.

[MrBarnett]

Perhaps you can explain why you think her chunks were much bigger and bonier.

Neither of us can prove our point, but I can provide endless examples that support mine. Do you have any examples to support yours?

This for me is a key question.

I can think of two obvious answers:

1. I have evidence to prove/suggest that my belief is reasonable.

2. Although I have no evidence, and there is much evidence to suggest the opposite, I prefer to believe that because it supports my theory.

Christer is a man of high principals who takes a very dim view of someone even using close synonyms when describing the events in Buck’s Row, so option 2. cannot be the correct one. In the past when querying this, I’ve been told of anecdotal evidence that the Lechmere family had boiled horse flesh in their back yard in the 1920s/30s. Perhaps that’s why he believes old Ma Lechmere processed large chunks of bone-in meat in the middle of the Ratcliff Highway.

[Fisherman]

>>The alternative is that it was made up by journalists...<<

Like that's never happened!

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.

[Fisherman]

>>What cannot be suggested is that the pathologists in my book were unaware of how bleeding processes go down, or that they would not be able to make a fair assessment of those matters. Iīm sure you have heard it before, but you are no medico - they are. <<

I'll leave that to David Orsam's analysis of the matter, which covers the problems with the medicos comments.

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

[Fisherman]

Stunning!

Nothing I posted was about people illegally cutting up horse flesh. Where on earth did you get that from?

From the discussion on JTR Forums, where the matter is referred to many times.

Since you mention it, what evidence do you have that Joseph Forsdike was in hospital at the time CAL was carving up the Pinchin Street victim? And if there is any, what makes you think that Victorian hospitals encouraged patients’ family members to sit by their besides for any length of time?

That really does not matter, since it is the same kind of stuff as the bonesaw business. It is idle chatter, leading nowhere. And I donīt want the more important bits to get bogged down in an ocean of such chatter.

[Fisherman]

Can you explain the quantitative difference between ‘at once’ and ‘immediately’? In terms of seconds preferably. To me the two terms carry the same meaning.

To me too, actually. But I was not the one who said that Mizen was "sent immediately for the ambulance". That means that Mizen was sent away the moment he reached Neil. But what Mizen instead says is that he was told to fetch the ambulance and went to do so at once - arguably meaning that he went as soon as he was told to do it. That however leaves the opportunity that he was NOT told immediately to get the ambulance, but instead had the time to look at the blood - which he apparently did.
Tell me now - can you see how these things make for different possibilities?

Perhaps you are in receipt of expert opinion that ‘at once’ allows for sufficient delay for someone to inspect a body and check on blood flow.

See the above. Furthermore, we know that Mizen answered the question whether it was true that he continued knocking people up before he went to Bucks Row with the words "No; I only finished knocking up one person." This effectively means that he gave the impression that he went directly, whereas he actually did not do so. Apply that to the ambulance business, and you get the possible outcome: "Is it true that you examined Nichols before you went to get the ambulance? - No, I only took a look at the blood and then left immediately".
Food for thought, perhaps?

Finally, if, as you suggested, Neil actually HAD said that he immediately sent Mizen for an ambulance, that actually does not necessarily mean that Mizen immediately went away for it. With that kind of semantic construction (that was never there), it could still apply that Mizen did not immediately follow Neils bid, but instead took a look at the bleeding before he went away.

And would that not be a very good thing? It secures evidence that is vital. It was only because Mizen DID look at the blood that he was able to provide the inquest with that vital information. Without his alertness, we would be much less informed.

“I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. 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.”

See the above. And a few more papers.

[Fisherman]

I use the word ‘immediately’ instead of ‘at once’ and am slated for ‘claim[ing]things as facts that cannot be claimed as facts...’

Christer presents us with Mizen saying ‘There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter’ and turns it into ‘it had run over the brim and started to pour into the gutter’.

You are welcome to any take on the semantic matters, Gary. As am I. And anybody else. It is how people as a whole weigh things up that results in what most people find likely.
The fact is that Neil did not speak of any blood entering the gutter whereas Mizen did. Those who pooh-pooh it as evidence are likely to be pooh-poohed themselves. Sorting away things we think speaks against out views is never very becoming. And the logical weighing up of Neils and Mizens testimony does not produce a picture of blood that did not run, it provides one of a pool of partially coagulated blood that is slowly filling and rinning over the brim.

Do we have to like that? No. Does our disliking it make it go away? Same answer.

[Fisherman]

This for me is a key question.

I can think of two obvious answers:

1. I have evidence to prove/suggest that my belief is reasonable.

2. Although I have no evidence, and there is much evidence to suggest the opposite, I prefer to believe that because it supports my theory.

Christer is a man of high principals who takes a very dim view of someone even using close synonyms when describing the events in Buck’s Row, so option 2. cannot be the correct one. In the past when querying this, I’ve been told of anecdotal evidence that the Lechmere family had boiled horse flesh in their back yard in the 1920s/30s. Perhaps that’s why he believes old Ma Lechmere processed large chunks of bone-in meat in the middle of the Ratcliff Highway.

I donīt think it would be wise to continue this discussion much further. Principals (!) and all. I have already said that there was no ban on owning bone saws, and so the issue is in essence a non-issue. Once we start speaking of dim views, it is time to put an end to the matter.