Originally posted by Fisherman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Every minute counts
Collapse
X
-
-
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.
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:
-
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!
Leave a comment:
-
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?
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:
-
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.
So much for weird worlds.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
They both
-cut from ribs to pubes
-cut away the abdominal wall
Originally posted by Fisherman View Post-killed prostitutes
Originally posted by Fisherman View Post-took out organs of both a sexual and a non-sexual character
Originally posted by Fisherman View Post-took rings from their victims fingers
Originally posted by Fisherman View Post-
-were active in the same city
-were active in overlapping time spans
-left victims dead in St Georges
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
Originally posted by Fisherman View Post-
-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:
-
>>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.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
>>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:
-
>>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:
-
>>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:
-
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.
"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:
-
>>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:
-
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.
Leave a comment:
-
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?
Leave a comment:
-
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?
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: