How sure was Paul?

[Fisherman]

The facts are there, it's either 3 PC's vs 1 (Lewellyn). No amount of manipulation could change the odds. The PC's were under oath.

So was Paul. And guys like Swanson and Baxter were the ones who imposed the demand of an oath on people. Therefore, Iīd say letīs not care too much about whether people were under oath under not, because we have only just proven that such an oath is no guarantee that the truth is established. Okay?

If he said that the body was found at 3.45 but actually thought it was found at 3.40, he lied.

Baxter did not say the body was found at 3:45 am , he said "not far from 3:45 am" which included 3:40 sh.

So youīve hopped on the Steve Blomer train now, have you? Well, then I suggest that the body was found in 1889, which is directly adjacent to 1888.

Unless you disagree, any murder like that of Nichols will demand that the ones investigating it erect a timetable that comes as close to the truth as possible. As we have seen, this was so in the Nichols case too. And since the PC:s all said that they were called into action at 3.45 whereas Baxter saif that this was instead the approximate time at which the body was found, he effectively DENIED that the timings of the PC:s were likely to be correct.
If Baxter had believed the PC:s, he would have said that the body was found at approximately 3.40. He didnīt. And he had no reason to, since he knew after having listened to Thain that 3.45 was the likely time.

So he said it honestly. If Lechmere said the exact time he saw the body Baxter would have, yet Lechmere did not so Baxter has to approximate.

Yes. And he has to get it as right as possible. Which was not very hard.

You are manipulating things.

And you need to rinse your mouth out with soap. Before you get a grip on what actually happened, it is not for you to make such accusations.

You even say Baxter is a liar for your theory even though he did not. I get it

I did no such thing. What I said is that IF Baxter THOUGHT the body was found at 3.40 but SAID that it was found at 3.45, THEN he would be a liar. But he said what he thought was the truth.
Please read and understand before you make silly comments.

This horse has been flogged to death now, and there is no reason to discuss it further. We know that you refuse to admit that the PC:s could have been off in the timings, thank you very much, and that is really all you have to show for your take on things - a misapprehension.

[caz]

Something strange is going on in people's heads when what we get over and over again, in thread after thread, are attempts to see 'What can we discover about Lechmere?' drowned out by verbally inflated screams of 'Stop thinking about Lechmere! Stop it! Stop it! Stop it!'

I really, really don't get it.

M.

Now that has to be one of the strangest posts I have ever read on these message boards, Mark.

If Christer is allowed to bang on, in thread after thread after thread, about how guilty Lechmere looks, then by Christ others must be allowed to point out that there is at least a possibility of someone else being the killer, and Lechmere just the unfortunate devil who happened along next, at his usual time, and saw a tarpaulin from a distance, that wasn't a tarpaulin up close.

It's called debating.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fiver]

You really should not waste any time on this, Abby. Clothes raised "almost up to the stomach" are NOT raised up to the stomach, and that is all that needs saying. Of course, if we look at all the sources, we find other wordings, like the one in the Morning Advertiser, where Lechmere is quoted as saying " When I found her clothes were up above her knees..."

More dodging of the facts on your part.

"There were no injuries about the body till just about the lower part of the abdomen. Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. It was a very deep wound, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. On the right side there were also three or four similar cuts running downwards. All these had been caused by a knife, which had been used violently and been used downwards." - Dr Llewellyn

"Witness went with him, and saw a woman lying right across the gateway. Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach. Witness felt her hands and face, and they were cold. He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not, and he thought she was dead. It was very dark, and he did not notice any blood." - Robert Paul

Nichol's killer did not cover up her wounds.

In no source does it say that any part of the abdomen was exposed, not a millimeter of it, and of course, if the abdomen HAD been exposed, there is no realistic way the carmen could have missed the large gash in it.

So having ignored Robert Paul's testimony about Nichol's clothing being pulled up, you now ignore PC Neil's testimony about how easy it was to see the wounds?

It is obvious from Robert Paul's testimony that the Polly Nichols clothes were raised high enough to expose the area Dr Llewellyn delicately refers to as "the lower part of the abdomen".

[Fiver]

If it was very unexpected for Nichols to bleed for nine minutes, then it was EVEN MORE unexpected for her to bleed for ten or more minutes. Therefore, a phantom killer is more unexpected than Lechmere being the killer.

It wasn't unexpected to Ingemar Thiblin, who said "ten to fifteen minutes" was possible.

You asked some vague questions of Jason Payne James and Ingemar Thiblin, and interpreted them the way you wanted to.

For Jason Payne James:
Q. Just how quickly CAN a person with the kind of damage that Nichols had bleed out, if we have nothing that hinders the bloodflow, and if the victim is flat on level ground? Can a total desanguination take place in very few minutes in such a case.
A. Yes
Q. Do you know of any examples?
A. No
Q. Is it possible for such a person to bleed out completely and stop bleeding in three minutes? In five? In seven?
A. I guess blood may continue to flow for up to this amount of time, but the shorter periods are more likely to be more realistic.

You appear to have made up the word "desanguination". You don't even appear to understand that to "bleed out completely' and to "stop bleeding" are not the same thing.

For Ingemar Thiblin you claim that Thiblin told you that there is "not much empirical data to go on"' as to how long "a seeping bleeding" could last, but that "ten to fifteen minutes'" possible.

So Thiblin stated that he had very little data and estimated 10 to 15 minutes.

James stated he had no data at all and estimated 3 to 7 minutes, based on you suggesting those numbers.

The two pathologists disagree on time and admitted they had little or no information to base their estimates on.

[Varqm]

I did no such thing. What I said is that IF Baxter THOUGHT the body was found at 3.40 but SAID that it was found at 3.45, THEN he would be a liar. But he said what he thought was the truth.
Please read and understand before you make silly comments.

This horse has been flogged to death now, and there is no reason to discuss it further. We know that you refuse to admit that the PC:s could have been off in the timings, thank you very much, and that is really all you have to show for your take on things - a misapprehension.

Yes just dismiss the 3 PC's. Sure, also dismiss Watkin's discovery of Eddowes at 1:44 and Thompson discovery of Coles at very near 2:15.


Baxter is using approximation, you are putting spins on it.

But many minutes after Mrs. Long passed the man and woman cannot have elapsed before the deceased became a mutilated corpse in the yard of 29, Hanbury-street, close by where she was last seen by any witness.

-But if witness said the time, unlike Lechmere's discovery. Diemschutz:

At 40 minutes past 12, one of the members of the club, named Morris Eagle, passed the spot where the deceased drew her last breath, passing through the gateway to the back door, which opened into the yard. At 1 o'clock the body was found by the manager of the club.

[Dickere]

It wasn't unexpected to Ingemar Thiblin, who said "ten to fifteen minutes" was possible.

You asked some vague questions of Jason Payne James and Ingemar Thiblin, and interpreted them the way you wanted to.

For Jason Payne James:
Q. Just how quickly CAN a person with the kind of damage that Nichols had bleed out, if we have nothing that hinders the bloodflow, and if the victim is flat on level ground? Can a total desanguination take place in very few minutes in such a case.
A. Yes
Q. Do you know of any examples?
A. No
Q. Is it possible for such a person to bleed out completely and stop bleeding in three minutes? In five? In seven?
A. I guess blood may continue to flow for up to this amount of time, but the shorter periods are more likely to be more realistic.

You appear to have made up the word "desanguination". You don't even appear to understand that to "bleed out completely' and to "stop bleeding" are not the same thing.

For Ingemar Thiblin you claim that Thiblin told you that there is "not much empirical data to go on"' as to how long "a seeping bleeding" could last, but that "ten to fifteen minutes'" possible.

So Thiblin stated that he had very little data and estimated 10 to 15 minutes.

James stated he had no data at all and estimated 3 to 7 minutes, based on you suggesting those numbers.

The two pathologists disagree on time and admitted they had little or no information to base their estimates on.

Desanguination is not a neologism, or 'made up' if you prefer.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/desanguinate#:~:text=to%20deprive%20of%20blood%3B%20to%20remove%20the%20blood%20from

[Fisherman]

Yes just dismiss the 3 PC's. Sure, also dismiss Watkin's discovery of Eddowes at 1:44 and Thompson discovery of Coles at very near 2:15.

What we are discussing is the Nichols case, not the Eddowes and Coles cases. And I did not dismiss the PC:s, Paul, Baxter and Swanson did it for me.

Baxter is using approximation, you are putting spins on it.

No, YOU are trying to put an almighty spin on it by claiming that Baxter did not rule against the PC:s. He very clearly did.

But many minutes after Mrs. Long passed the man and woman cannot have elapsed before the deceased became a mutilated corpse in the yard of 29, Hanbury-street, close by where she was last seen by any witness.

Has nothing to do with the Nichols case.

-But if witness said the time, unlike Lechmere's discovery. Diemschutz:

At 40 minutes past 12, one of the members of the club, named Morris Eagle, passed the spot where the deceased drew her last breath, passing through the gateway to the back door, which opened into the yard. At 1 o'clock the body was found by the manager of the club.

Has nothing to do with the Nichols case. Once again (is it the 97th or 98th time?), the PCs were wrong and it is reflected in the official records. Once more: Why do you think THain was aksed about whether or not he went to the knackers to get his cape before he fetched Llewellyn? Why was this point pressed? Do you have any idea whatsoever? What can it be that made Baxter ask about it?

[Fiver]

Desanguination is not a neologism, or 'made up' if you prefer.
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/des...20blood%20from

Anyone can edit Wiktionary. There are no sources and that entry is less than a year old.

Merriam-Webster has never heard of "desanguinate".

Dictionary.com has never heard of "desanguinate".

Cambridge Dictionary has never heard of "desanguinate".

Collins has never heard of "desanguinate".

MacMillan has never heard of "desanguinate".

"desanguinate" is a made up word.

[Mark J D]

"desanguinate" is a made up word.

https://www.google.com/search?q=desanguinate&newwindow=1&client=firefox-b-d&tbm=bks&sxsrf=AOaemvJBxYyB0f6b0uFs38SslxZcr8h92g:1631213672689&ei=aFg6YZrUKciChbIPraW6oA0&start=0&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwiaqI28yPLyAhVIQUEAHa2SDtQ4ChDy0wN6BAgBEDw&biw=1366&bih=615&dpr=1

M.

[Geddy2112]

Professor Thiblin is employed at Uppsala University. Dr. Thiblin is an expert in epidemiology, the study of patterns, causes, and effects in health conditions, a complex field that emphasizes assessment and analysis of the known facts. His main papers seem to be around fractures and conditions in infants. Unfortunately his opinion was discredited in a tribunal hearing in 2016.

In a triumph for circularity, the tribunal rejected his testimony with this explanation:
It was clear that Professor Thiblin did not believe in the concept of shaken baby syndrome, and his view of the literature was coloured by that. He was critical of the methodology of all the research literature in relation to the subject because of its perceived circularity bias. The tribunal considered that his expert opinion on non-accidental head injury lacked credibility

That leaves one of two possibilities - either Professor Thiblin knows very little about agonal breathing or you did not accurately summarize what he said. In either case, Robert Paul might have felt agonal breathing from Nichols, but you haven't proved that it was the most likely explanation.

You are not going to believe this but it appears BOTH possibilities you state are correct. Christer has given up (in Swedish) the apparent conversation. Now I'm not being cynical here and suggest they could have been edited but here we go...

Christer's question to Thiblin...

My question is: For how long a time after the throat is cut can the body perform something that can be interpreted as breathing movements? I am aware that there is something called agonal breathing, but I am uncertain whether or not it can be a question of agonal breathing in this case. Nichols had her throat severed at least half a minute or a minute before Robert Paul was sure that he felt movement as of breathing. Can it be that such movement remained at this stage, or could Paul have felt something else, a weak heart beat or a chemical/electrical reaction of sorts?

- Christer's own translation.

My question is: How long after having the throat cut can the body possibly do something that can be interpreted as breathing movements? I know there is such a thing as agonal breathing, but am not sure if it could be that type of breathing in this case. Nichols had his throat cut at least half a minute or a minute before Robert Paul was sure he felt breathing movements. Could it be true that such movements persisted at that point, or could it have been something else he felt, a faint heartbeat or a chemical/electrical reaction of some kind?

Thiblin's answer...

If it is correct that oxygen deprivation in the brain at a heart stop causes agonal breathing, it is also reasonable that oxygen depletion following on bleeding out also causes it. It is fully conceivable that a shallow breathing could be felt a couple of minutes after the bleeding out, which in its turn could have taken some minutes after the damage was inflicted. Other explanations, such as weak heart beats or an electrical reaction, I would regard as highly unlikely.

- Christer's own translation

If it is correct that lack of oxygen in the brain during cardiac arrest causes agonal breathing, it is reasonable that lack of oxygen as a result of haemorrhage also does so. So it is entirely conceivable that shallow breathing was felt a few minutes after bleeding, which in turn may have taken a few minutes after the infliction of the injury. Other explanations such as weak heartbeats, electrical reaction I perceive as very unlikely.

Now the alarming thing for me here is the fist few words of the answer. For all intents and purposes it seems our friendly Professor is not sure what actually causes agonal breathing. 'It is also reasonable' also does not sound like the words of a convinced expert. Professor Thiblin also does not seem to mention the severed windpipe. I'm rather suspicious at this point. Was this later added in by Christer because the current debate has been regarding the windpipe?

When we breath normally we exhale approx 80% of our lung capacity. Obviously up through the windpipe and out of our nose or mouth. This leaves 20% residual air in our lungs. If one's windpipe has been totally severed there is no possibility of the lungs re-inflating thus all that is left is the 20%. Again if the diaphragm is unable to move the lungs then they can't inflate or deflate. Where is this air then coming from to allow all this breathing to take place? My suggestion would be similar to what Trevor Marriott mentioned earlier in this thread that when Paul leaned across the body he managed to squeeze out the remaining 20% or so of air. However if I'm being truthful I do not even think this happened at all. I'd go with Paul's initial newspaper story that he thought she was very dead and had been a long time. I think Paul only changed his story after reading Lechmere's account in the newspapers from his testimony.

I must admit I'm rather suspicious of Paul. It's odd his story of events was completely different to Lechmere's until Lechmere appeared at the inquest they they seem to marry up, marry up far to well for my liking. Anyhoo...

[Kattrup]

Unfortunately his opinion was discredited in a tribunal hearing in 2016.

Hello Geddy

I think you’ve misread the opinion piece you quote from. It actually ridicules the hearing for dismissing Thiblin’s opinion, essentially dismissing his expert opinion because it differed from what they wanted to hear.

As for Fisherman’s translation, it’s entirely correct, while Fisherman is often overly creative in his arguments, I don’t see why you would have an issue with it?

The windpipe being severed is immaterial in this case, as the argument concerns “agonal” breathing which is not breathing but muscle spasms etc that appear like breathing, thought to be caused by a lack of oxygen.

Fisherman’s argument is, I think, that his expert, Thiblin, thinks agonal breathing the likeliest explanation for the slight movement that Paul felt.

[Geddy2112]

Hello Geddy

I think you’ve misread the opinion piece you quote from. It actually ridicules the hearing for dismissing Thiblin’s opinion, essentially dismissing his expert opinion because it differed from what they wanted to hear.

As for Fisherman’s translation, it’s entirely correct, while Fisherman is often overly creative in his arguments, I don’t see why you would have an issue with it?

The windpipe being severed is immaterial in this case, as the argument concerns “agonal” breathing which is not breathing but muscle spasms etc that appear like breathing, thought to be caused by a lack of oxygen.

Fisherman’s argument is, I think, that his expert, Thiblin, thinks agonal breathing the likeliest explanation for the slight movement that Paul felt.

Thanks, I've re-read the opinion I've quoted now a few times and still come to the same conclusions. 'The tribunal rejected his testimony.' However I could be wrong, according to the missus I am often and not due to be correct again until the middle of Sept 2024.

I agree Christer's translation seem to be entirely correct. However I do not see the Prof as being sure of his answer, as highlighted. The Prof does not mention the windpipe and for the reasons explained I do consider it vital. I do take on board your point of the muscle spasms but again how are the lungs refilled? The problem is does we consider Paul to have actually felt 'air' escaping or did he feel 'movement.' Like I said his comments on the event seem to vary a lot.

Thanks for your post

[rjpalmer]

I realize it was pitch black in Buck's Row, or nearly so, but Robert Paul didn't describe agonal breathing--which is also called gasping respiration. He didn't describe gasping or labored inhalations from the victim's mouth.

He described a slight movement of the breast or chest--so nearly imperceptible that he wasn't sure it even happened.

I can't help thinking that something was lost in translation in giving Paul's account to Thiblin.

[Geddy2112]

I realize it was pitch black in Buck's Row, or nearly so, but Robert Paul didn't describe agonal breathing--which is also called gasping respiration. He didn't describe gasping or labored inhalations from the victim's mouth.

He described a slight movement of the breast or chest--so nearly imperceptible that he wasn't sure it even happened.

I can't help thinking that something was lost in translation in giving Paul's account to Thiblin.

To be fair I have seen agonal breathing being described as slight, only one source though and it was Christer. Not sure where he dug it up from as the ten or so sources I've found refer it to gasping, laboured, heavy etc. Agonal as in agony.
As per your translation point we know Christer misquoted Payne-James and from where I'm sitting he has misrepresented Thiblin as well. Or as I say Thiblin has not really answered the question in a definite manner that we have been led to believe.

[Kattrup]

Thanks, I've re-read the opinion I've quoted now a few times and still come to the same conclusions. 'The tribunal rejected his testimony.'

Ok, that's fine - what I meant was, you quoted a section from someone pointing out that it was ridiculous for the tribunal til reject Thiblin's testimony. So in that sense I just thought it was contradictory and was unsure if you'd read it correctly. But yes, the tribunal did reject his testimony in that specific instance (which was not, as I understand it, a court case or even a criminal case).