Every minute counts

[Fisherman]

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.

The general rule means "more than 50 per cent". Is that the case here, do we have more than 50 per cent misreportings?

Or donīt we?

There is always the risk of the press getting things wrong, and we know full well that they did so in the Ripper case. Many times. But it is not and it never was a general rule that they would get it wrong.

[Fisherman]

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.

No, it does not tell us that in any shape or form. If we were to accept that as gospel, then Lechmere could not possibly be the killer, having arrived after Nichols was killed.

This is a kind of desinformation that is very dangerous and potentially grotesquely misleading. What the blood evidence tells us is that Charles Lechmere was in place in Bucks Row at a time that is consistent with him having been the killer. It definitely does NOT tell us that he arrived after Nichols was killed.

Your suggestion is the kind of information that has dominated the Ripper literature over the years. A brilliant writer like Sugden even garnished the picture with how the two carmen "gingerly" approached the body on the pavement together!

It is a nice picture of how Charles Lechmereīs testimony has regularly and naively been accepted, hook, line and sinker.

That has all changed now.

[Fisherman]

>>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?

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

The facts are that Neil spoke of how the blood was oozing/running at the inquest.

The fact is that I have offered many examples of how people used the word oozing when speaking of a substantial bloodflow.

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

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.

[Fisherman]

>>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.

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

If it was you making comments about it, Iīd be less inclined to listen.

Once again, these matters are matters where - if we want to - we can interpret away to our hearts delight. Like for example how you claim that I am refuting Biggs. I am not, of course - but 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.

[Fisherman]

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

Once again, the numbers are "vague" because they must be. We cannot establish any exact numbers. Any book that claims to be able to do so is wrong, regardless of who wrote it.

I agree that what Neil saw was blood flowing due to gravity, not to pressure. That is the exact reason why he said that the blood was oozing, as far as I am concerned. It was not pumping out, it was running out - and Neil uses this exact wording too.

The relevance of the blood timings is as follows:

Two top authorities agree that the bleeding was more likely to go on for about three to five minutes only as opposed to the suggestion of seven minutes. Neither authority ruled out that the bleeding COULD go on for seven mimutes or longer - but the LIKELIER thing would be that it stopped after three to five minutes.

Since around some six minutes would have passed when Neil saw the body bleeding, this means that the likeliest cutter is Charles Lechmere. We cannot rule out that somebody else did the cutting, but if so, that would require stretching towards the ten minut mark.

This is nothing strange, it is as straightforward as it can possibly get. There may have been another cutter, but if there WAS, then he would have cut Nichols at a time that is not consistent with the suggestions made by Thiblin and Payne James, far from it; it DOUBLES the time frame they suggested as the likely one.

Could there have been another killer? Yes.

Is it likely that there was another killer? No.

Were there any observations made of another man escaping Bucks Row at the relevant time? No.

Does that mean that there cannot have been such a man, who managed to escape unseen? No.

Would it be logical for such another man, if he was disturbed and decided to flee, to cover the body up? Not if we look at the other sites, where it was evident that the killer had no qualms about displaying what he had done.

Is there any genuine reaon why we must replace Lechmere in the killers role with somebody else? No.

Could it be that people who promote other suspects or no suspect at all are unwilling to accept how Lechmere is the likely killer for those reasons? Yes.

Surely these points are not vague, Steve?

[Fisherman]

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.

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

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)

Now, you forgot abouyt that pool, did you not? Mizen describes it as "somewhat congealed". If the blood running into the gutter exited Nichols and immediately ran down the gutter as she was lifted onto theb stretcher, then why would Mizen speak about how the blood in the pool was congealed? Blood exiting a body is NOT congealed, it takes around four minutes for it to start congealing visibly.

Did the blood exit Nichols and run into the gutter, and then Mizen sat down on the pavement and waited four minutes so that he could see how it started to congeal in the pool before he took off?

The Star is your choice, of course, but we can see that it does not help you, does it?

And what happens when we look at the Echo?

Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance.

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

Lo and behold, here Mizen speaks of the time when he first arrived and in that exact context, he says that there was blood running from the throat towards the gutter.

So what we are left with is you using an interpretation based on a careful choice of sources, to try and rule out Mizenīs claim. And you then try to seal the deal by implying that Llewellyn must have said that the blood ran into the gutter if this was so when he looked at the body.

Of course, there is no need to accept that Llewellynmust have spoken of how the blood ran into the gutter. Moreover, what Mizen says is that it ran TOWARDS the gutter (the Echo) or to the gutter (the Star). Apparently, it is not a given that in ran all the way into the gutter, although the possibility is there.

At any rate, Dusty, once we allow for other interpretations than the ones we favour, we get another result. And in a sense, I am the fortunate one here. What I need to do is to point to how the suggestion of Lechmere as the killer CAN be supported by the material, and it can be in this case.

What you need to do to thrown Lechmere out is to decisively PROVE that your interpretation is the only possible one.

And letīs be frank - you cannot do that by a country mile.

[Fisherman]

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.

But not with the overall schedule and the time Thain was sent to Llewellyn, for example. I personally find that 3.46 makes for the likeliest bid, and we know that the last report we have from Swanson had accepted this timing, just as coroner Baxter said in his summing up of the case on September 22, when things had had time to sink in, that "the time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data."

We must all make out own weighings, but these are the reasons that I make it the way I do. And regardless of when Paul arrived at the site, the time intervals remain the same. The time she bled is not shortened or lengthened, for example.

[Fisherman]

>>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).

Really? How does that work?

[Fisherman]

>>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.

[drstrange169]

>>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.

[Fisherman]

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.

[Fisherman]

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.

[Fisherman]

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.

[drstrange169]

>>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.

[Fisherman]

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.

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