Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[GUT]

You are supposed to ask first. Itīs all very confusing otherwise ...

The best,
Fisherman

I'll try and remember.

happy New Year by the way.

[Fisherman]

On Alcalas IQ, this article can perhaps be helpful:

http://www.examiner.com/article/22-serial-killers-with-high-iqs

I donīt know if it is correctly sourced, but it claims that Alcala has tested 160, and it names a good many other serialists with high IQ:s.

The best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

On Alcalas IQ, this article can perhaps be helpful:

http://www.examiner.com/article/22-serial-killers-with-high-iqs

I donīt know if it is correctly sourced, but it claims that Alcala has tested 160, and it names a good many other serialists with high IQ:s.

The best,
Fisherman

I think Bundy was actually tested but from what I have been able to find Alcalas wasn't [but I may be wrong].

No doubts that lots of SKs have high IQ's a part of me thinks it would assist them.

But I also know some people with high IQ's that would have enough sens to put the umbrella up when it rains.

[Trevor Marriott]

There is only one explanation available when we weigh in all of the material, thatīs what I am saying. If we want another explanation, we must accept that the papers got it wrong, and that we need to discard the evidence we donīt like.

You have now hit the nail firmly on the head. The use of newspaper articles in Ripperolgy is an issue all on its own.

Many know that the newspaper articles are not to be totally relied on as being accurate, or truthful for that matter. Despite what some may say they are secondary sources of evidence. However in Ripperology newspaper articles are constantly used to prop up theories, and suspects, and conversely they are used in attempts to negate the same.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GUT]

You have now hit the nail firmly on the head. The use of newspaper articles in Ripperolgy is an issue all on its own.

Many know that the newspaper articles are not to be totally relied on as being accurate, or truthful for that matter. Despite what some may say they are secondary sources of evidence. However in Ripperology newspaper articles are constantly used to prop up theories, and suspects, and conversely they are used in attempts to negate the same.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But of course on many issues they are the ONLY evidence that we've got and I for one would rather rely on even a suspect newspaper report than some of the ideas that float around here with nothing to support them at all.

Wouldn't you?

[Trevor Marriott]

But of course on many issues they are the ONLY evidence that we've got and I for one would rather rely on even a suspect newspaper report than some of the ideas that float around here with nothing to support them at all.

Wouldn't you?

The question is how much reliability do you put on whatever article is being used. There are some that swear by the newspaper articles. The norm seems to be when it suits use them, when it doesn't reject them.

[Robert]

From Fish's post #1272 :

The Star writes:
"He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed."

From David's post #1251 :

He's talking about the time when the blood was washed away. Hence the full extract is:

"The Coroner: You were there when the blood was removed? -- Witness: Yes.

The Coroner: Was there a very large quantity on the flags? -- Witness: There was a large clot near the wall, and blood was running into the gutter."

We see it clearly in the Times report of the same evidence:

"He was present when the spots of blood were washed away. On the spot where the deceased had been lying was a mass of congealed blood. He should say it was about 6 in. in diameter, and had run towards the gutter. It appeared to him to be a large quantity of blood."


So, there was only one pool (the congealed pool) and it was both near the wall and in the gutter?

[caz]

Lechmere very clearly said that he would have noticed if anybody stirred up at Browns Stable yard as he got into Bucks Row. So there was nobody there for that one minute plus walk.

Once again, Fishy, you have your murderer 'very clearly' telling the truth when it suits you, even though it would have suited his own purpose far better to tell an easy lie. What was stopping him claiming to have heard or seen someone else who could have been with Nichols and left her shortly before he arrived himself? That would have been the obvious thing to say, to get the police looking for this person and any unwanted attention off himself. But no, the clown says 'very clearly' that he would have noticed anybody moving about but didn't.

One other thing - the only reason you can come up with for him telling the truth about his departure time from home, giving himself an incriminating 9 minute killing window in the process, is that in the event his wife - his illiterate wife - had somehow got to hear that he had been a bit hazy or vague about the time, or put it any later than the magic 3.30, she'd have known it was a blatant lie and become suspicious.

Yet in this scenario she would first have had to recognise Charles Allen Cross, the man describing his eventful walk to work, as her husband - in which case she'd have caught him out in a blatant lie anyway - according to you - concerning his surname!

Does this make an ounce of sense, without resorting to the tired old argument that a serial killer acts irrationally, and may therefore think like a genius and a complete idiot at the same time?

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

If we accept that fresh blood can be running into a completely congealed mass of blood, then you have a great point.

I don't even know what that above sentence means! I'm not making any point about the congealed blood!!! Are you quite sure you have understood me Fisherman? The focus in your response on the congealed blood I find baffling. My mention of the Star's report, which referred to the congealed blood, was no more than a passing one in the first place and I only mentioned it in my last post because you seemed to be having difficulty understanding what I described as the contradictory nature of the Star and Standard reports.

To clarify that: if you were a reader of the Star in September 1888 you would have believed that Mizen said the blood he saw was "somewhat congealed" whereas if you were a reader of the Standard you would have believed he said it "appeared fresh". In other words, two separate accounts which, on their face, are contradictory even if it is possible to reconcile them. While that was all I was saying about that - and I regard it as wholly uncontroversial - I cannot resist adding that no newspaper report stated that Mizen said that the blood he saw was both "fresh" AND "congealed" and, rather amusingly, your own reconstruction of Mizen's evidence did NOT have him saying that either, so clearly you had a difficulty in reconciling both observations in a sensible way - but let's not worry about that because I repeat I am not making any point relating to the congealed nature of the blood and nothing I have said rests on it.

That out of the way I will now respond to the relevant part of your post (which wasn't much of it!)

[David Orsam]

There is only one explanation available when we weigh in all of the material, thatīs what I am saying.

And that quote makes my point for me perfectly!!! It shows you have dramatically changed your tune. Previously you were saying that the report in the Echo "proves" the time Mizen saw Nichols bleeding. In fact, you previously said "there IS an article that very firmly establishes exactly when it was Mizen looked at the body!" You couldn't have been clearer. There was one single article which cleared up the whole business. That was the Echo.

Now you are saying we have to weigh in "all of the material". Well that wasn't what you were saying before - and that is my ONLY point.

I know from our previous exchanges that you are a very intelligent man and I can tell from the way you have written your last 3 posts that you have appreciated the problem with relying on the Echo and the weakness of its account.

To summarise the position, you have asked us to believe that Mizen said the words: "No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter" in response to the question "Was there anyone else there then?" asked by the coroner.

Just from reading it one can see that it is HIGHLY unlikely that Mizen would have answered the coroner's question in this way - describing something he has not been asked about - but when one realises that it is inconsistent with the evidence as summarised in other newspaper reports, it becomes untenable and thus fairly described as 'ridiculous'.

Unless you are able to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that the Echo report ALONE proves when Mizen saw the blood then that itself proves the point I have been making over the last couple of days. If you put forward a strong case that Mizen saw the blood when he first arrived on the scene, it's not enough because you said you had proved the point. If you do actually prove that Mizen saw the blood when he first arrived on the scene but do so using evidence other than the Echo report then that is still not enough because you said you had proved it from the Echo report! You see my point now?

I end by asking you whether in all honesty and in good faith - having considered the points I have made - you still maintain that the Echo report on its own proves the time when Mizen saw the blood and has cleared the whole thing up. If you can't say that - and, frankly, I know you can't - then this particular line of debate closed.

[Fisherman]

I'll try and remember.

happy New Year by the way.

Thanks, GUT - and the same to you!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

You have now hit the nail firmly on the head. The use of newspaper articles in Ripperolgy is an issue all on its own.

Many know that the newspaper articles are not to be totally relied on as being accurate, or truthful for that matter. Despite what some may say they are secondary sources of evidence. However in Ripperology newspaper articles are constantly used to prop up theories, and suspects, and conversely they are used in attempts to negate the same.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Eh, Trevor ... we actually do not have the original inquest reports. That is why we have to make do with the reports in the papers. Without them, we would have next to nothing to go on.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

From Fish's post #1272 :

The Star writes:
"He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed."

From David's post #1251 :

He's talking about the time when the blood was washed away. Hence the full extract is:

"The Coroner: You were there when the blood was removed? -- Witness: Yes.

The Coroner: Was there a very large quantity on the flags? -- Witness: There was a large clot near the wall, and blood was running into the gutter."

We see it clearly in the Times report of the same evidence:

"He was present when the spots of blood were washed away. On the spot where the deceased had been lying was a mass of congealed blood. He should say it was about 6 in. in diameter, and had run towards the gutter. It appeared to him to be a large quantity of blood."


So, there was only one pool (the congealed pool) and it was both near the wall and in the gutter?

Not really, no. The pavement was a narrow one, but not THAT narrow.

The pool of blood had formed underneath Nichols neck, and blood from it ran towards and into the gutter.

Semantically, it may seem in the last quotation as if it is said that the congealed mass of blood had run towards the gutter, but I think we must accept that what had run for the gutter was a stream of blood coming from the pool - when it was NOT in a fully congealed state. In other words, when Mizen saw it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

caz:

Once again, Fishy, you have your murderer 'very clearly' telling the truth when it suits you, even though it would have suited his own purpose far better to tell an easy lie.

Did anybody see what Caz did here? Exactly - she claimed that I had said that Lechmere was teeling the truth. Which I never did. I said that he cleary SAID that he would have heard if anything stirred down at the stable door.

If anybody around here is sceptical towards Lechmere, itīs me, Caz. Do try not to misrepresent me!

What was stopping him claiming to have heard or seen someone else who could have been with Nichols and left her shortly before he arrived himself? That would have been the obvious thing to say, to get the police looking for this person and any unwanted attention off himself. But no, the clown says 'very clearly' that he would have noticed anybody moving about but didn't.

"The clown" would have been acutely aware that the streets were patrolled by PC:s and watchmen. Thus "the clown" may have chosen not to run the risk that a PC or a watchmen said "No, the guy is lying - I was just around the corner and nobody else was there!"

So much for clowns.

One other thing - the only reason you can come up with for him telling the truth about his departure time from home, giving himself an incriminating 9 minute killing window in the process, is that in the event his wife - his illiterate wife - had somehow got to hear that he had been a bit hazy or vague about the time, or put it any later than the magic 3.30, she'd have known it was a blatant lie and become suspicious.

Nope. If his wife knew when he left and the police asked about it and got a time that deviated from what he had said, heīd be in trouble. So itīs more about the police than his wife getting suspicious.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David Orsam:

I don't even know what that above sentence means! I'm not making any point about the congealed blood!!! Are you quite sure you have understood me Fisherman?

Yes, I am. And I am equally quite sure that you fail to see the crucial point I am making. If you donīt know what I mean (and I think that is the case), do not despair - an explanation is on itīs way!

The focus in your response on the congealed blood I find baffling. My mention of the Star's report, which referred to the congealed blood, was no more than a passing one in the first place and I only mentioned it in my last post because you seemed to be having difficulty understanding what I described as the contradictory nature of the Star and Standard reports.

The Standard? Was it not the Post? Anyway, rest assured that I see what you are speaking of. My problem is that you will not take on board that no matter how much and how long you speak of these matters, it will do nobody no good since no certainty can be reached until we bring the blood evidence into the discussion.

To clarify that: if you were a reader of the Star in September 1888 you would have believed that Mizen said the blood he saw was "somewhat congealed" whereas if you were a reader of the Standard you would have believed he said it "appeared fresh".

And if you were a medico, you would not bat an eyebrow, since BOTH things can and will coincide in time, to the second.

In other words, two separate accounts which, on their face, are contradictory even if it is possible to reconcile them.

No, they are not contradictory at all, David! Not in the least, in fact.

While that was all I was saying about that - and I regard it as wholly uncontroversial - I cannot resist adding that no newspaper report stated that Mizen said that the blood he saw was both "fresh" AND "congealed" and, rather amusingly, your own reconstruction of Mizen's evidence did NOT have him saying that either, so clearly you had a difficulty in reconciling both observations in a sensible way - but let's not worry about that because I repeat I am not making any point relating to the congealed nature of the blood and nothing I have said rests on it.

I have no trouble at all reconciling the two statements - but you apparently fail to see this? I have explained if more than one time, but here goes again:

Your body is a smart construction, David. It "knows" that you run the risk of having it punctured, and it has therefore come up with a solution to the problem of the blood that will leave your body unless something is done about it. The solution os coagulation - when a vessel is opened up, the blood that leaves that vessel will come in contact with coagulants on the outside of the vessel. This contact will in seconds start a coagulation, with the ultimate aim to "close the door" to your body.

This is EXACTLY what lies behind what you see as an anomaly in Mizenīs case: As longs as there was blood in her vessels and a reason of gravity for that blood to exit these vessels, fresh blood (as per Jonas M) will have flowed out of the opened-up vessels.

When that blood exited the vessels, though, it came in contact with the coagulants on the outer side of the vessels, and as the blood ended up in the pool unerneath Nichols, an inevitable process of coagulation had started in all the blood of that pool. So the pool would start to coagulate! It would not, however, turn into a "congealed mass" (as per John T) before the bloodflow was over! Instead, it would visibly start to congel within around three minutes, and then that process would increase over time. But the blood that flowed out of the neck wound would NOT be congealed, since it had only just passed the openings in the vessels - that blood would need the same three minutes to congeal as the blood that had exited her neck earlier.

So as long as you have blood running into a blood pool, that pool will remain uncongealed to an extent until no more blood is added. After the last drop of blood has ended up in the pool, it will settle and congeal, the process taking around seven minutes to get fully congealed, and after that the blood will more and more solidify, and if it is left untouched it will dry up totally.

So when Mizen saw the pool, it was "somewhat congealed", meaning that around three minutes or more had passed since the first blood exited Nichols neck and ended up on the pavement, whereas when Thain saw the pool, the blood had long since stopped flowing, and the pool had been left to first fully coagulate, and then to solidify into a congealed mass.

The best,
Fisherman