Every minute counts

[drstrange169]

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

Wrong, it would be in Phillips notes, because that was his job.


>> ... there would be nothing strange if Llewellyn did not mention that the blood had run over the brim and towards the gutter.<<

Since you constantly try to point out that blood evidence is crucial for timing, yes, it would be very strange of him not to mention it if it was there. Phillips believed Mrs Chapman was long dead when he examined her, clearly you don't understand the medical difference.


>>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.<<

Sorry to hear that, take care, I hope it's all gone. I am off to watch the last episode of Line Of Duty, so sleep well!

[drstrange169]

>>If they offer other conclusions and suggestions than Biggs, they not only CAN but WILL be in conflict with him.<<

Since they were asked different questions how can you say they are in conflict?

All need to be asked the same questions to determine whether they disagree, the fact you don't understand that says a lot about how you research things.

[Fiver]

They both

-cut from ribs to pubes
-cut away the abdominal wall

The Torso Killer bisected torsos to make for smaller, more easily transported sections. The Ripper mutilated. You ignoring those clear differences does not make them go away.

-killed prostitutes

Only one of the Torso Killer's was ever identified. She was a prostitute, but declaring that all of the Torso Killer's victims were prostitutes is an assumption, not a fact.

-took out organs of both a sexual and a non-sexual character

The heart and lungs of one Torso victim were never found. That's the closest thing we have to the Torso Killer taking organs and they were not sexual organs.

-took rings from their victims fingers

We know the Riper did this once. We don't know if any of the Torso victims were wearing rings.

-
-were active in the same city
-were active in overlapping time spans
-left victims dead in St Georges

Based on this reasoning Edmund Kemper, Herbert Mullin, and John Frazier in Santa Cruz, California were the same man. London, Ontario also suffered from three serial killers operating at the same time. So did Los Angeles. And Long Island. Two serial killers were active at the same time in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. And Phoenix, Arizona. And Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

The Ripper killed over a period of a couple months. The Torso Killer over a period of several years. You ignoring those clear differences by saying the timespan overlaps does not make those differences go away.

The Ripper Killed in Whitechapel. The Torso Killer depositied his victims remain over a 20 mile stretch of the Thames. You ignoring those clear differences by saying the area overlaps does not make those differences go away.

-

-cut victims in a way that bled them out

We have no idea how the Torso Killer killed his victims, but he does appear to have drained the bodies of blood afterwards. The Ripper appears to have strangled his victims to unconsciousness or death, then slit their throats. The Ripper never bled out his victims. You ignoring those clear differences does not make them go away.

-
-killed in a fashion that was consistent with having visited anatomical wax figure displays

Pull the other one, will you? Feel free to show evidence that either the Torso Killer "killed in a fashion that was consistent with having visited anatomical wax figure displays".

None of my points are in anyway dubious and you make no attempt to refute any of them.

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.

[Fisherman]

>>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.

Don´t try to avoid the real point here, please. The point is that you say that Mizen was a casual observer only. A PC at a murder site, a casual observer...?

So much for weird worlds.

[Fisherman]

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

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

Phillips did not give any extensive information at the inquest about the appearance of the blood and where it was. You say that a medico MUST do so, but actually, what duty there is for a medico to do so is tied to hos report, and not to what he says at the inquest. And so Phillis was NOT called upon to describe where all the blood was at that stage, just as Llewellyn was not called upon to do so at the Nichols inquest. And, believe it or not, this is why neither man does so.

If the coroner wanted to have more extensive information, it could be gotten from the report, but at an inquest, it is not about how many millimeters of blood there was and in which direction it was most outspread unbless it was specifically asked about.

That is the way it should be read and understood. And so there was never any duty on Llewlellyns (Or Phillips) behalf to describe the exact apparition of the blood at the inquest, just as I pointed out.

[Fisherman]

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

Wrong, it would be in Phillips notes, because that was his job.


>> ... there would be nothing strange if Llewellyn did not mention that the blood had run over the brim and towards the gutter.<<

Since you constantly try to point out that blood evidence is crucial for timing, yes, it would be very strange of him not to mention it if it was there. Phillips believed Mrs Chapman was long dead when he examined her, clearly you don't understand the medical difference.


>>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.<<

Sorry to hear that, take care, I hope it's all gone. I am off to watch the last episode of Line Of Duty, so sleep well!

Thanks, Dusty - the indications are that I am free from the damn thing, and I could not be happier about that. Answers to the rest of your post have been given above.

[Fisherman]

>>If they offer other conclusions and suggestions than Biggs, they not only CAN but WILL be in conflict with him.<<

Since they were asked different questions how can you say they are in conflict?

Oh, come on! I am saying that if they arrive at different conclusions, they will be in conflict with Biggs. Obviously, I am not speaking about any conclusions, but conclusions on the same matters.

All need to be asked the same questions to determine whether they disagree, the fact you don't understand that says a lot about how you research things.

I could easily say that if you do not understand that I am VERY OBVIOUSLY speaking about conclusions on the same matter (regardless if the parties are aware of each others reasoning), then you are not fit to understand even the simplest of matters.

But I am not saying that. I am saying that you ARE fit to understand not only simple matters but even complicated matters. And I wish you would have the courtesy to extend the same trust to me, and conduct a more respectful and - not least - useful discussion!

I know you can do it. So why don´t you? I genuinely think that it serves your overall credibility very poorly to call me stupid, lying, intentionally misleading, ignorant or anything along those lines. Furthermiore, those out here who are read up on the case will see through it very quickly and so you are only left with disciples who are willing to take on board any kind of crap without questioning it.

You don´t want that kind of audience, do you?

You know the case, and I sure as hell do too. Let´s accept that and try and debate matters in a sober manner.

[SuperShodan]

The question that must be asked, Gary: If Nichols still bled as Mizen arrived at the murder site - do you agree that such a thing would implicate Lechmere as the likeliest killer?

I think this is an important point. It’s another factor that puts Lechmere in the frame. If somebody else had killed Polly Nichols and run off as Lechmere approached its more time for Nichols to bleed out before Mizen arrived. If she’s still bleeding when Mizen gets there then it’s puts Lechmere at the murder scene right at the time of death. I think it’s clear that Lechmere was there as she died.

[Geddy2112]

Apologies for dragging an old thread up. I was here looking for some 'blood evidence' for a different discussion. However whilst I'm here I've a couple of questions.

1) How can anyone consider if expert one says '10 to 15 minutes' and expert two says '3 to 5 minutes' that the conclusion is they 'ultimately agree?' How is 10 to 15 the same as 3 to 5?

2) If we just for a moment ignore Charles Cross' guilt/innocence. Does Christer's blood evidence completely rule out, and I mean completely rule out someone who was at the murder site a minute or two prior to Cross getting there?

Again apologies...

[John Wheat]

Apologies for dragging an old thread up. I was here looking for some 'blood evidence' for a different discussion. However whilst I'm here I've a couple of questions.

1) How can anyone consider if expert one says '10 to 15 minutes' and expert two says '3 to 5 minutes' that the conclusion is they 'ultimately agree?' How is 10 to 15 the same as 3 to 5?

2) If we just for a moment ignore Charles Cross' guilt/innocence. Does Christer's blood evidence completely rule out, and I mean completely rule out someone who was at the murder site a minute or two prior to Cross getting there?

Again apologies...

Hi Geddy

3 to 5 minutes is not the same as 10 to 15 minutes. Its not unlikely someone was at the murder site two minutes before Cross.

Cheers John

[Geddy2112]

3 to 5 minutes is not the same as 10 to 15 minutes. Its not unlikely someone was at the murder site two minutes before Cross.

Hi John, I agree and that is my point. Why is it often repeated these two experts claimed the same thing (even though one mentioned having no data to make his opinion on and the other used 'I guess') when it's clear they did not.

I'm of the opinion that Christer's blood evidence does not rule out another killer being in situ a couple of minutes before Cross arrives on the scene. How could it?

[The Rookie Detective]

It was stated initially in the press that Nichols had been murdered elsewhere and then placed where she was found.
This appears to have been shortlived due to the fact that NO carriage wheel marks were found and there was no evidence to suggest that Nichols had died elsewhere.

However, what if they were wrong?


What if Nichols had been strangled and made unconscious inside one of the houses or yards within close proximity and then carried to where she was found?

But there was no carriage marks found.

Well there is more than one way to skin a dead cat (i think that's the expression?!)

Could Nichols have been carried there?

Just like the Pinchin Street torso had been carried to be placed deliberately at the entrance/exit to the stone yard under the arch.

Could the killer have taken Nichols to the place she was found, and then just as the killer hears Lechcross approaching, he quickly cuts her throat for good measure and then flees before being seen.

A broad shouldered man could carry an unconscious Nichols, if they were used to carrying sacks or heavy goods at the docks.

A dock worker could carry Nichols relatively easily.

And if not...


Well if only there were 2 men at the murder site who could have worked together to carry her a short distance to the place she was found.

The sound of whispering that was heard by a witness, perhaps being the 2 men discussing their options.

At least it couldn't have been Lechcross and Paul, because they didn't behave oddly by leaving a woman to die without raising the alarm immediately.

They also didn't claim to be behind time and leave their respective houses later than normal, because then there would have missing time for the 2 men to have coordinated moving Nichols to the deposition site.

There's nothing remotely suspicious about Paul or Crossmere as individuals... but as a pair...


Can you flipping imagine?


*cue the frothing at the mouth of all the ultra pro and ultra anti Lech...er...Cross... fans/haters.


Just for jolly of course

[Geddy2112]

It was stated initially in the press that Nichols had been murdered elsewhere and then placed where she was found.
This appears to have been shortlived due to the fact that NO carriage wheel marks were found and there was no evidence to suggest that Nichols had died elsewhere.

Something has often bothered me about the 'no carriage wheel marks.' What marks would carriage wheels make on a cobbled street? I presume we are to think the streets were covered in horse muck or the likes but surely all roads can't have been like that or enough anyway to allow cart tracks to be visible.

[Elamarna]

Apologies for dragging an old thread up. I was here looking for some 'blood evidence' for a different discussion. However whilst I'm here I've a couple of questions.

1) How can anyone consider if expert one says '10 to 15 minutes' and expert two says '3 to 5 minutes' that the conclusion is they 'ultimately agree?' How is 10 to 15 the same as 3 to 5?

2) If we just for a moment ignore Charles Cross' guilt/innocence. Does Christer's blood evidence completely rule out, and I mean completely rule out someone who was at the murder site a minute or two prior to Cross getting there?

Again apologies...

Nope, it doesnt.

Takes up 3 chapters in a certain book, there is a thread here where Jeff and I discussed it in some detail, and old ones pre 2018 as well.

But the "Blood evidence" is not evidence at all in that there are so many variables, not just medical, but disagrernents over oozing or flowing under presdure , that it points at nothing at all that is in anyway conclusive .

Steve