Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How sure was Paul?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Varqm View Post

    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, I´d say let´s 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 you´ve 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 didn´t. 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.


    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

      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
      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        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.

        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        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".

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
          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.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

            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.
            Last edited by Varqm; 09-09-2021, 05:00 AM.
            Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
            M. Pacana

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

              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/des...20blood%20from

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Varqm View Post

                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?



                Comment


                • Originally posted by Dickere View Post
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                    "desanguinate" is a made up word.
                    https://www.google.com/search?q=desa...&bih=615&dpr=1

                    M.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X