Tweet
Mike, you'll find that the 'out of earshot' business is like trying to pull teeth - in a profuse manner!
-
-
FishOriginally posted by Fisherman View PostU-huh. Well, when you wrote that it was not correct to say that it was a proven thing that Mizen saw the blood on occasion number one and not after having fetched the ambulance, I actually thought that you were unhappy with the source. So that´s why I asked.
As such, you are welcome to post any criticism of my thoughts, I actually welcome it and find it both necessary and useful. I am not quite the pitbull some think I am, and I am not quite as locked on target as some will have it. I think your description is the only way we can put the matter: Mizen´s observations establishes that the only reasonable suggestion is that Nichols had been cut very recently.
After that, I don´t doubt that there will be pathologists pointing out the wisdom in never saying never, both as regards the period of time for which the blood will have run from Nichols´ neck and as regards the time it would take for the blood to congeal (some people have less of a propensity to have their blood congealed; there are things like bleeding disease and blood-thinning substances).
I´m fine with that, as long as we don´t loose sight of the fact that all things considered, a "normal" outcome of the bleeding time and the congealing of the blood seems to put Lechmere smack bang in the middle of the frame.
... and that is only the blood evidence, mind you!
So just keep it coming, Scott - so far, I have seen nothing but well grounded criticism from your part, regardless of who or what it is you have criticized.
I spend most of my time telling people that "ooze" can involve a significant stream of blood, that Lechmere actually can be described as having been found by the side of Polly Nichols and that giving a false namne but a real address must not point to bottomless stupidity, so you make for a very welcome change.
If the debate was not totally polarized and focused on uninteresting matters the way things have been, it would be a lot better.
The best,
Fisherman
Please take a reality check on this
No matter which way you look at it, no matter which way you look at the conflicting evidence, and newspaper reports, and no matter how much you keep trying to convince yourself that when the body was viewed at the scene there is clear evidence to show that Nichols had recently been killed, because there isn't that evidence.
All these issues about blood flowing, and blood oozing and blood congealing does not assist us, because as you have been told there are several different scenarios regarding blood loss and the blood oozing or flowing from modern day experts. But even they cannot be sure because they were not there they did not see the body etc etc.
I notice you didnt reply to a post i made some day ago which again goes some way to support one on the blood loss scenarios here it is again
Inquest testimony of Dr LLewelyn and below an extract from my experts opinion.
Coroner
"The doctor, too, has been closely questioned upon this point, and has stated that though he should have expected to find more blood upon the clothes and ground, it was possible that the greater part had run into the loose tissues of the body, the fact that she was lying upon her back contributing to this"
Expert
“In terms of time, there would be an initial rush of blood, but the victim’s blood pressure would rapidly subside (in a matter of seconds if the blood loss is particularly profuse) so that the rate of flow would become considerably less relatively soon after injury. After the circulation has stopped, it will be down to gravity to continue the blood loss, and clearly this will depend on position / angle and so on. Sometimes a wound will be ‘propped open’ by the position of the body, whereas in other cases the wound may be ‘squeezed shut’ by the weight of the body. Things like vessel spasm and rapid clotting can be surprisingly good at staunching the flow of blood from even very catastrophic injuries. Even if a person is lying such that their injury is gaping open and is ‘down’ in terms of gravitational direction, this does not necessarily mean that blood will continue to flow out until the body is ‘empty’. Things like collapsing vessels and valve effects can prevent this passive flow, and there are lots of ‘corners’ for the blood to go around (it is spread around lots of long thin tubes, not sitting in a large container) before it finds its way out of the injury… so it might end up ‘trapped’ within the body. I have certainly seen cases with multiple large knife wounds and copious blood at the scene, where a significant proportion of the victim’s blood has remained within the vessels to allow me to obtain good samples for toxicological analysis later in the mortuary”
Comment
-
Dear me!Originally posted by The Good Michael View Post
Here´s the article you proudly presented, from Illustrated Police News:
The night was very dark. Witness and the other man left the woman, and in Baker's-row they saw Police-constable Mizen. They told him that a woman was lying in Buck's-row, witness adding, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk." The other man observed, "I think she's dead." The policeman replied, "All right." The other man, who appeared to be a carman, left witness soon afterwards.
Now, I have mentioned this a thousand times before, but apparently, I have to do so again:
THIS IS CHARLES ALLEN LECHMERE SPEAKING!!!
You may have missed out on this, but I am proposing that Charles Allen Lechmere was a killer and a liar. If we want to find out what really happened, who said what and who was together with whom, we may have to use other sources too, and not only the carman who would have had a reason to lie about all of this if he was the killer, as proposed.
You write "If you dare say that this article does not suggest the men were together, then I'm done with you and will be happy to block you", and that´s just pathetic.
Of course the article suggests that the two carmen were together - I have hundreds of times pointed out that this was an impression that Lechmere would have been eager to give!
And that - if I am correct - is why this article, just like any other article quoting Lechmere, suggests that the carmen were together.
What we need to do to understand the process, is to not only listen to Lechmere, but instead look at what Mizen said, check if there are discrepancies and then try and explain them.
Jonas Mizen does not on any occasion say that two men spoke to him!
Jonas Mizen does not on any occasion say that he was told that the errand was potentionally grave.
Jonas Mizen says that the carman (singularis, NOT carmen!) told him that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row.
These are the facts.
You also charmingly write "If you try and manipulate the words to suit your arguments, then we are back to dishonesty..."
Whether you deal in dishonesty yourself is your business. "We" certainly don´t, since that would include me. I don´t "manipulate" your words or any other words, thank you very much.
If that is the picture you have, you are going to have to produce proof of it, since anything else would be gravely immoral. You are welcome to provide it.
Whether you choose to block me or not, is also your choice and your choice only. Whether you think it would deprive me of the words of a truthful and omnipotent poster, I don´t know. I can only say that given what you are posting right now, I see no reason at all to expect that I would miss your input in any way.
To try and settle the question about how many of the carmen spoke to Mizen by quoting Lechmere himself is just one example. It is intellectual rock bottom, and I can do without it. What do you think would have happened if we listened to Sutcliffes version of events only and cared nothing about what the police said? I can´t believe that you are even trying to pull a stunt like this, while in the same post speaking about dishonesty on MY behalf!
We have only just gone over the articles that seemingly spoke of Mizen as having seen the blood running and beginning to coagulate only after having fetched the ambulance. I said that this was not so, and you said I was dishonest.
I then produced the Echo article that cleared all of the nonsense up, very obviously pointing not only to how Mizen would have seen the blood running and coagulating five or six minutes after Lechmere had left Nichols - EXACTLY as I said, and was challenged about by you and Tom - but also how the papers had boiled down the wordings so as to become hard to interpret. Had it not been for the Echo, we would in all probability still have people arguing that Nichols bled half an hour after she had her head nearly cut off! And that the blood had almost not coagulated during that half hour!
I think it is fairly obvious that the papers have used the coroners question "there was another man in company with Cross as you spoke to him?" to write that the two carmen WERE in company, whereas it is equally obvious that Mizen left Paul out of his presentation about what had happened, up until when the coroner asked him about Paul. It was thus the CORONER that gave birth to the description "in company with", and although it seems a fair bet that Paul was not closely involved, this has been taken as evidence that the carmen sat on each others shoulders, more or less, when approaching Mizen.
I could have said that this is to "manipulate" the papers so as to fit your reasoning, and I could have gone on to say that it was not honest and I could have said that I would block you if you did not agree with me. But I don´t, do I? And the reason for this is that I would regard such a thing underinformed, immature and detrimental to a sound discussion. We are out here to try and make sense of the case, and you may rest assured that this is exactly my aim. This is, for example, why I don´t yell that Trevors pathologist have put it beyond doubt that Lechmere was the killer, although I could have done so. I instead say that even if we can take it as a truth that the pathologist says that the bleeding would only go on for an initial couple of minutes, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE EXCEPTIONS TO A RULE, and this should make us keep the door ajar. That´s how we must reason, even if we want to close the case. Lechmere remains smack, bang in the middle of things, he IS the prime suspect for Nichols, but we do not have any definitive proof that it was him. I feel it was, but I don´t object to those who think it may not have been. Those who say it would not have been are on much looser ground. Those who say it could not have been are deluding themselves. And that´s that.
You have produced some pretty good thinking over the years, and it has more often than not been a pleasure to debate with you. I would be sad to see that go.
What you have been posting the last weeks however, does not honour your former standards.
All the best,
FishermanLast edited by Fisherman; 12-31-2014, 05:18 AM.Comment
-
Yes, Robert, and yes again. As long as the blood does not travel at considerable speed, as if pushed by the heart, this is exactly what oozing is about. Or oozing profusely, for that matter. Ot oozing abundantly.Originally posted by Robert View Post
This is what Batman is telling you - regardless of the amount of blood coming out of a dead body, it will ooze out since there is no underlying pressure.
There is no further need for any discussion of that topic. You have had it exemplified to you from numerous sources - most of them British, even!
The best,
FishermanComment
-
Fish, oozing profusely or abundantly is a contradiction in terms!Comment
-
Batman:
Okay so you object to the idea JtR is a weekend/holiday murderer.
It is not me objecting to it, it is the reality of things. These women wer killed on working days, end of story.
Let's see what the Contemporary papers had to say (given they understood working weeks etc. because they LIVED it.).
http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../dt881110.html
There´s nothing here speaking of holidays or weekends, is there? You are welcome to tell me what it is that caught your eye.
The Daily Telegraph
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1888
From the sketch map of the locality given it will be seen that the sites of all the seven murders, five of which are, without any hesitation or doubt, ascribed by the police to one man, are contained within a limited area. A comparison of the dates reveals remarkable coincidences.
The murderer has invariably chosen the latter part of the week, and when the deed has not been committed on the last day of the month it has taken place as near the 7th or 8th as can be. The Berner-street and Mitre-square murders occurred early on Sunday, Sept. 30, and the interval of about five weeks has been unusual, but was probably to be explained by the extraordinary activity of the police after the double event, or due, as some have it, to the temporary absence of the perpetrator from the country. It was on the morning of Saturday, Sept. 8, that Annie Chapman was killed in Hanbury-street, and it was on the last day of August (a Friday) that the Buck's-row tragedy took place. The two earlier murders - the one in George-yard and the other in Osborne-street - are not believed to have been the work of the miscreant who is still at large; but it is a peculiar fact, taken in conjunction with the coincidence of dates already remarked, that the murder of Mrs. Turner, in George-yard, occurred on the 7th day of August.
???? How does this in any way prove that the victims were not killed on working days?
Okay, I tell you what, you can have that I used the word 'work' instead of 'latter part of the week'. To me its just semantics.
What? It´s "just semantics"?
If he killed en route to work, then it would require for the victims to have fallen prey on working days. They did, with the exceptions of Stride and Eddowes, who did not die along his working routes anyway.
What you have to do though is explain why Lechmere struck at those times if his daily route to work was a 6 day affair as you propose.
I just did - he was en route to work and that was his window of opportunity. I totally fail to see your point. Are you saying that Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly were not killed on days when he would have gone to work? Or what?
The most obvious explanation is that JtR wasn't working on those days and had time to murder. Your suspect does work those days. This means he doesn't fit that part of the MO/signature at all. The 'random' selection of victims isn't random at all.
So yeah, do call it quits for awhile, take a rest and then come back when you have time to read again this contemporary view of the working men who seem to disagree with you.
Nope. I look and I read and I still fail to see what you are speaking of. In what way do you think that people disagree with the victims having been killed on Lechmere´s workdays?
And why would Lechmere not have had time to murder? Do you know when he left home at the murder days?
The best,
FishermanComment
-
Liquid under the influence of gravity. Volume doesn't count, according to you, Fish. So I give you Niagara Falls oozing profusely :
Comment
-
Jon Guy: Hi Christer
Yet, he didn`t notice the "tarp" until he was on the opposite side of the road?
It was dark, Jon. He would have HEARD anybody stirring, he would not have seen them.
"Covering up the wounds" is one your "facts".
For all we know he held up the dress and worked underneath, just letting it drop when finished.
And for all we know, that would set this murder totally apart from the others.
That`s the order I`d go with. A minute at best, I`d say.
And then add the minute plus it took for Lechmere to get to the stable yard door. That´s two. At least.
It was still in the process of congealing :-) !!
Mizen, Neil and Thain were not qualified to report on the blood, they could only report on what they thought they saw.
Not qualified as medicos, but certainly as professionals who were accustomed to congealing blood. Mizen looked at the blood, and he saw it had started to congeal, and that´s it. He knew that blood would congeal, and he knew it happened in stages and he recognized an early stage. He added that the blood coming from the wound appeared fresh, so he knew his business.
Let´s not get desperate here, evidence is evidence.
Did Mizen note this when he first went over to Neil or when he returned ?
Go back and read the thread, Jon. The "perhaps-it-happend-half-an-hour-later" nonsense if off. And soundly too - we do not bleed for half an hour with a severed head (but for the spine, this was what Nichols had suffered) and blood does not start to congeal after half an hour.
I think it was the man who sneaked off in the shadows just before Cross reached the body. You know, the man who had just killed and mutilated someone and scarpered, not Charles Cross, who hung around and asked for help.
There is no such man recorded.He is a figment of your imagination only. And the suggestion fits poorly with the blood evidence. Why would we not point a finger at Lechmere, who WAS there, who HAS anomalies attaching to him, and who DOES tally with the blood evidence?
Have you yet proved he was know as Charles Lechmere at Pickfords ?
Have you? I´m not even trying.
That`s what you need to do to make your name thing work.
Not at all. All I need is evidence that he used the name Lechmere on a regular basis and that there are no indications that he ever used any other name. It works eminently after that.
And the Mizen scam ? Just men mumbling at each other at 4 in the morning.
A simple misunderstanding, that even taken at it`s most sinister level comes to nothing.
It´s WHAT was "mumbled" that counts. Mizen had no problems hearing the "mumbling", did he? And his actions are in line with having been lied to.
Well, I`d lay into him along with you and Ed if we had something to justify it.
No, you wouldn´t. Obviously not.
The best,
FishermanComment
-
Ah, the funniest guy on the boards strikes again! By comparing the enormous amounts of liquid in the Niagara Falls to a bleeding wound, we are to laugh at how silly the comparison is.Originally posted by Robert View Post
And I do. It is a VERY silly comparison. So far, you´ve done the job.
However, you may remember that I said that a living body bleeds while a dead one oozes blood? Does that ring a bell?
The difference is that there is an underlying pressure in the veins when we are alive, and the blood is pressed out with every heartbeat.
I don´t know how much of a hydrologist you are, but actually, there IS pressure in the rivers that transport the water to Niagara Falls. If you don´t believe me, just step out into the river ten yards before the falls and check it out for yourself.
If you don´t live to admit I´m right, I think we will all understand that this is so anyway.
But hey, there are other ways you can be funny about this and still make some sort of a point! Let´s theorize that the Hoover dam is dynamited! Would that produce a profuse oozing of water?
No, it would not. What would happen is that water would cascade down the hillside. To suggest that it would ooze is ridiculous.
Then again, the pressure inside the dam is enormous. So the sheer weight of that water volume would make in incomparable to a dead body and it´s small volume of blood.
Bugger! Then how can we make Fisherman look ridiculous? Well, how about suggesting that we fill a baloon with five litres of water and then we chop the end of with an axe? How´s that?
Well, we are getting closer! Of course, we are simultaneously moving away from the Niagara Falls and the Hoover dam and the really ridiculing comparisons, but anyway! Surely the balloon would not ooze out the water?
No, it would not!
Ah! So NOW have we made Fisherman look ridiculous? Yes?
No, sorry. The water would leave the balloon in a split second. That´s because of two things that tell it apart from Nichols dead body:
The water was 1/ contained in one large compartment only, and not within hundreds of yards of pipes of different sizes with much smaller pressure, and 2/ the opening produced was a very large one.
So how to compare it to Nichols, then?
Well, we actually can´t. The closest thing we could do, would be to prick a hundred holes with a needle in the balloon, but the water would piss out of these holes anyway, due to the underlying pressure - it is much greater with a large volume than it is in hundreds of yards of small pipes.
Sod it! Then what CAN we use for a comparison?
Well, how about a long waterfilled hose, lying on the ground, with the water turned off, leaving very little pressure? If we pricked holes in it THAT with a number of nails, then maybe the water would not piss out?
No, it probably wouldn´t. It would probably run out of the holes and run down the sides of the hose.
In other words, Robert: It would ooze out.
Now, I suggest that you don´t resort to any more jesting. I will catch you out each and every time, and you will be the one laughed at.
The blood that left Polly Nichols body as Neil saw her was not spurting out. It ran out of the wounds to her neck, it flowed along the sides of the neck, and then it ran down into the pool under her neck, and into the clothes she wore as it came into contact with them. The volume of blood running would have been rather sparse, given that she was cut a couple of minutes before Neil saw her, but it would easily have counted as oozing. As Mizen saw her, the blood STILL oozed out of the wounds, probably in significantly smaller volumes but still enough to allow for Mizen to say that the blood was still running.
It is anything but rocket science, as you may appreciate, Robert, and it does not require for you to speak of semantics or of the Niagara Falls. In fact, I would strongly advice against it, since it muddles the picture and has nothing to do with the case as such.
The best,
FishermanLast edited by Fisherman; 12-31-2014, 06:26 AM.Comment
-
It´s not as if I have not answered all of this before, Trevor.Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
And it is not as if you are right about things here.
You are not.
But I won´t once more go over why with a man who apparently thinks that the blood evidence somehow CLEARS Lechmere. It´s too tough a hill to climb.
The best,
FishermanComment
-
And anyone leaving the scene for a sinister reason would make the effort not to make noise.Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
Ok, 2 mins.That`s the order I`d go with. A minute at best, I`d say.
And then add the minute plus it took for Lechmere to get to the stable yard door. That´s two. At least..
Yes, that`s what I wrote. He was a policeman and reported what he saw.Not qualified as medicos, but certainly as professionals who were accustomed to congealing blood. Mizen looked at the blood, and he saw it had started to congeal, and that´s it. He knew that blood would congeal, and he knew it happened in stages and he recognized an early stage. He added that the blood coming from the wound appeared fresh, so he knew his business
I`m not sure how accustomed Mizen was to congealed blood. Did he deal with many serious crimes that would have involved congealing blood ?
But anyway, I don`t have a problem with his observations.
Now that is desperate.I think it was the man who sneaked off in the shadows just before Cross reached the body. You know, the man who had just killed and mutilated someone and scarpered, not Charles Cross, who hung around and asked for help.
There is no such man recorded.He is a figment of your imagination only. And the suggestion fits poorly with the blood evidence. Why would we not point a finger at Lechmere, who WAS there, who HAS anomalies attaching to him, and who DOES tally with the blood evidence?.
Ok, fair enough, it`s your own bid. I`m working on my own stuff.Have you yet proved he was know as Charles Lechmere at Pickfords ?
Have you? I´m not even trying.?.
There was one indication that he used the name Cross in 1888.That`s what you need to do to make your name thing work.
Not at all. All I need is evidence that he used the name Lechmere on a regular basis and that there are no indications that he ever used any other name. It works eminently after that.?.
I would, if there was something to justify it.Well, I`d lay into him along with you and Ed if we had something to justify it.
No, you wouldn´t. Obviously not..?.Comment
-
Robert!
Your Youtubing gave me an idea - what do people think is oozing in videos?
oozing pumpkins:
oozing blood:
oozing lava:
oozing chocolate:
oozing water:
oozing cream:
Strange, is it not? This is absolutely not how you describe oozing, is it? And still, people seem to think that these are oozing things...?
Maybe I am correct, Robert? Maybe it´s about the speed at which the liquid or mass it travelling?
The best,
Fisherman
PS. Happy New Year - let the champagne ooze over the brim of your glass!Comment
-
Don't worry, Fish. I have no intention of stepping into the river. Heraclitus used to say that you cannot step into the same river twice. I will not step into this one even once.
I am aware that there is pressure in the river, Fish. It is due to gravity. If it wasn't for gravity, rivers would not flow. So we are back to a volume of water under the influence of gravity, which is what I originally said.
Bugger! Then how can we make Fisherman look ridiculous?
I leave that in your capable hands, Fish.
Now Fish, with uncanny intuition you have put your finger on the reasons that Niagara Falls cannot be said to be oozing. It is to do with the speed and the volume. You may think that Neil should not have used the word 'ooze.' You may think that a better description would be that the blood was running. But Neil used the word 'ooze' and your attempts to re-interpret the meaning of the word 'ooze' are pointless. An ooze is an ooze, Fish.Comment
-
Jon Guy:
And anyone leaving the scene for a sinister reason would make the effort not to make noise.
Mmm - but COULD you, with hard-soled shoes and a totally quiet street? Lechmere banked on that being impossible. And at any rate, it would be harder the nearer the carman drew.
Ok, 2 mins.
Thank you kindly, Sir. Now add that to the five or six minutes that had passed since Lechmere left and look what should have happened coagulationwise. And ask yourself "Would the blood still run after seven, eight minutes?"
Yes, that`s what I wrote. He was a policeman and reported what he saw.
I`m not sure how accustomed Mizen was to congealed blood. Did he deal with many serious crimes that would have involved congealing blood ?
But anyway, I don`t have a problem with his observations.
Nor do I - I take them to represent what he said.
Now that is desperate.
How so? Wasn´t Lechmere there? Do his timings not work with a scenario where he is the killer? Is not another killer a figment of our imagination until we can prove his presence?
There was one indication that he used the name Cross in 1888.
Only and merely in combination with an inquest where he had been alone with a body. As you well know, Lechmere habitually signed himself LEchmere when dealing with the authoritites. He certaily used the name when speaking to the authoritites THIS time - which is why we must ask ourselves why he did so, when he apparently did not otherwise, speaking to the authorities.
The anomaly is absolutely glaring, and it happens at the worst of times - just when it can give rise to a suspicion that he was a killer.
I would, if there was something to justify it.
Maybe if you could see that something, Jon. Or would. But you won´t. What do you think Scobie and Griffiths saw? Or were they conned by us and the film team? Is that why Andy says that Lechmere is of tremendeous interest to the investigation? Is that why he says that no other suspect needs to be looked into until the carman can be cleared?
The best,
FishermanComment
-
I just posted WHAT an ooze is, according to Youtube. You really should watch.Originally posted by Robert View Post
We cannot compare the underlying pressure of the Niagara Falls to that of human blood, Robert. Let´s try and be fair, shall we? Explosive outlets of water will never be described as oozing. What Neil and Mizen saw was anything but explosive, since there was no underlying pressure from the heart and extremely low pressure due to gravity.
After all of this, you can answer this question: Is it possible that what Neil described as oozing could be what Mizen described as running three or four minutes later?
The best,
FishermanLast edited by Fisherman; 12-31-2014, 07:05 AM.Comment
Comment