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
    >>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 donīt 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 donīt want that kind of audience, do you?

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


    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    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.

    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    -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.

    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    -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.

    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    -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.

    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    -
    -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.

    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    -

    -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.

    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    -
    -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.

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    >>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.

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    >>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!

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    >>Have a look at Phillips testimony at the Chapman inquest, then:<<

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

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    >>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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    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 letīs 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    >>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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • 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:

Working...
X