Blood on Charles Lechmere

[MrBarnett]

A typical page from Ingram's book The Story of Pickfords, which is actually a history of their motorised fleet.

[GUT]

No doubt about that, as and Errata pointed out, fresh blood makes horses afraid, while old blood just makes them alert.

I know my Quarter-horse was upset when domestic rabbits were slaughtered mere feet from his shelter and corral. He stood watching, whinnied anxiously, and basically was nervous during the process. Death isn't something a herbivore is easy with, especially fresh death.

Spot on, and death will spook them way more than just blood.

[MrBarnett]

But Fish, Ingram does not claim to be an expert on Pickfords entire history, only on their motorised transport. His publishers tell us this. Should we disbelieve them?

[Fisherman]

But the pony was in harness, drawing a cart, which means it probably had blinkers on, the leather pieces at the sides of the bridle which prevent it from being startled by things seen off to the sides. All harness horses and ponies wear them.
As Stride's body was near the wall, she was off to the side already, and it's unlikely the blinkered pony would have seen her, anyway.

That pony went from probably blinkered to blinkered in quite a hurry...
We cannot know if it wore blinkers, but we DO know that it only takes turning the head to see to the sides anyway.

But this is all getting very odd. We are trying to decide the equipment and psychological disposition of a horse, and that wonīt work.

Horses are flight animals. They shy away from many things, and are often scared by things deviation from the normal.

Thatīs what we have to work with, nothing else.

[Fisherman]

>> Whenever an expert says something that bolsters the Lechmere theory, it is not my task to disprove him, it is yours. It would be a very odd thing for me to do to first have an expert supporting me, and then try to prove that he is right.
Surely you realize this?<<

Wow!
For the first time in all the years we’ve been debating, you’ve surprised me.
We REALLY do have different approaches to research.


>>If you can only cut in one direction, then yes. <<

Thank you.


>>Ah! So when Paul said they both examined her<<

Where did Paul say they both examined her?
Those are the Daily News’s words not Robert Paul’s.
None of the newspapers that quoted Paul mentioned him saying that.
What part of “Paul specifically said” are you failing to understand?


>>By the way, I think the full name of the picture you speak of is "The Marriage of Giovanni Arnolfini". Try not to leave important bits out, will you? <<

Oh dear, oh dear, there’s nothing more embarrassing than trying to make a smart-arse remark and getting it wrong;-)
The painting is untitled. People use various descriptive names for convenience. Are you beginning to understand the value of cross checking facts before claiming them as true?


>>… once he rounded the School building, surprise, surprise, he knew not who he would run into.<<

???
The killer had no idea whether someone would look out of New Cottage.
The killer had no idea whether the watchmen would look out of Essex Wharf or the Wool Warehouse.
The killer had no idea whether someone would appear around the corner of the Board School.
The Killer had no idea whether a policeman would come from either direction.

A little bit of reality here.


>>Itīs for YOU to disprove what an expert says, Dusty, itīs not for me to prove it. I think I made that point already?<<

You certainly have and I’m so astounded by it I’ve made it my new signature quote.


>>So please present the facts, and prove him wrong, so we can be done with him! If you donīt have these facts, you are flat out lying.<<

Already done on threads here, jtrforums and in my article.
(Or should I declare myself an expert and then I wouldn’t have to prove anything, that would be up to you apparently.
Show me I’m wrong.)

What a load of tosh! You are embarrasing yourself, Dusty. There is nothing of this that I need to answer. There IS however, a failing answer from you: You have not produced the "facts" to show that Arthur Ingram was wrong. There has been a lot of smoke, of course, desperately hinting at him having been wrong, but the facts have never been there.

I`ll just work from the presumption that you were misleading, then. And anybody who is surprised about that can put his hand up into the air.

As for your ravings about how declaring yourself an expert (thatīll be the day) would put me in a position where I needed to overthrow your statement, you actually have a point. I am of the meaning that if an expert says something about his field of research, then that something is likely to be correct. That is why he is called an expert from the outset: he is supposedly read up and knowledgeable. Therefore, it will take some disproving to overthrow what he has said.
In this case, an expert on Pickfords has commented on Pickfords, and what he says is something that seemingly strenghtens the Lechmere theory. And lo and behold, what happens? You claim that I should try and disprove him!!

That is a whole new approach to research. I am not surprised that it came from you. You are truly inventive in some respects, be that conjuring up new entrances to goods depots, cutting away important parts of witness testimony or fresh thinking about how we should all try and dismantle anything an expert says that seems to be in accordance with what we ourselves think.

[Pcdunn]

But I'll be my boots he smelt her.

No doubt about that, as and Errata pointed out, fresh blood makes horses afraid, while old blood just makes them alert.

I know my Quarter-horse was upset when domestic rabbits were slaughtered mere feet from his shelter and corral. He stood watching, whinnied anxiously, and basically was nervous during the process. Death isn't something a herbivore is easy with, especially fresh death.

[GUT]

But the pony was in harness, drawing a cart, which means it probably had blinkers on, the leather pieces at the sides of the bridle which prevent it from being startled by things seen off to the sides. All harness horses and ponies wear them.
As Stride's body was near the wall, she was off to the side already, and it's unlikely the blinkered pony would have seen her, anyway.

But I'll be my boots he smelt her.

[Pcdunn]

Many horses shy away from objects they cannot determine and that were not there earlier. Every year, in the stable where my kids and wife ride, christmas trees are put out into the paddock corners. And every year, that scares a large number of the horses.
I think the pony saw a dark shape that was not there before, and shied away from that.

But the pony was in harness, drawing a cart, which means it probably had blinkers on, the leather pieces at the sides of the bridle which prevent it from being startled by things seen off to the sides. All harness horses and ponies wear them.
As Stride's body was near the wall, she was off to the side already, and it's unlikely the blinkered pony would have seen her, anyway.

[GUT]

[B][I]
Already done on threads here, jtrforums and in my article.
(Or should I declare myself an expert and then I wouldn’t have to prove anything, that would be up to you apparently.
Show me I’m wrong.)

only if your expert opinions bolster the Lechmere theory.

[Errata]

Many horses shy away from objects they cannot determine and that were not there earlier. Every year, in the stable where my kids and wife ride, christmas trees are put out into the paddock corners. And every year, that scares a large number of the horses.
I think the pony saw a dark shape that was not there before, and shied away from that.

This I have not seen, but given I see horses about the same way I see the average Hooters waitress (very pretty, hair instead of wit), I believe you.

I don't think a man popped up under the horse's nose. I've done that to just about every horse I ever had to work near, and the reaction is always the same. Rearing and lashing. But I've also never known a horse to shy and then freeze. Usually one or the other. And I also happen to know horses have terrible night vision, which makes them nervous, but probably also means the horse didn't "see" Stride at all. Not if his owner didn't.

I think it's weird. Probably meaningless, but weird.

[drstrange169]

>> Whenever an expert says something that bolsters the Lechmere theory, it is not my task to disprove him, it is yours. It would be a very odd thing for me to do to first have an expert supporting me, and then try to prove that he is right.
Surely you realize this?<<

Wow!
For the first time in all the years we’ve been debating, you’ve surprised me.
We REALLY do have different approaches to research.


>>If you can only cut in one direction, then yes. <<

Thank you.


>>Ah! So when Paul said they both examined her<<

Where did Paul say they both examined her?
Those are the Daily News’s words not Robert Paul’s.
None of the newspapers that quoted Paul mentioned him saying that.
What part of “Paul specifically said” are you failing to understand?


>>By the way, I think the full name of the picture you speak of is "The Marriage of Giovanni Arnolfini". Try not to leave important bits out, will you? <<

Oh dear, oh dear, there’s nothing more embarrassing than trying to make a smart-arse remark and getting it wrong;-)
The painting is untitled. People use various descriptive names for convenience. Are you beginning to understand the value of cross checking facts before claiming them as true?


>>… once he rounded the School building, surprise, surprise, he knew not who he would run into.<<

???
The killer had no idea whether someone would look out of New Cottage.
The killer had no idea whether the watchmen would look out of Essex Wharf or the Wool Warehouse.
The killer had no idea whether someone would appear around the corner of the Board School.
The Killer had no idea whether a policeman would come from either direction.

A little bit of reality here.


>>Itīs for YOU to disprove what an expert says, Dusty, itīs not for me to prove it. I think I made that point already?<<

You certainly have and I’m so astounded by it I’ve made it my new signature quote.


>>So please present the facts, and prove him wrong, so we can be done with him! If you donīt have these facts, you are flat out lying.<<

Already done on threads here, jtrforums and in my article.
(Or should I declare myself an expert and then I wouldn’t have to prove anything, that would be up to you apparently.
Show me I’m wrong.)

[Fisherman]

And I totally agree with you. Which is why I think it odd that horse pulled up.I think practically speaking that horse should not have given a damn about a corpse in the street as long as he wasn't going to step on it. And given Strides' position, it seems likely the horse wasn't gong to step on her. So why did the horse freeze up? I'm betting that was not the horses first body in the road, drunk or dead. So why refuse to go forward? To me that's the real odd part of all of this. I can't explain every part of Stride's murder, but none of it seems odd except for the horse refusing to move. Which as you know they only do when they perceive either threat of violence or threat to body. A smart horse won't walk on bad road. A smart horse also won't walk past a predator. So less than 100 feet from the promise of a warm stall and dinner, the horse stops short. I'd like to know why. Because I've been dragged by horses for the promise of less.

Many horses shy away from objects they cannot determine and that were not there earlier. Every year, in the stable where my kids and wife ride, christmas trees are put out into the paddock corners. And every year, that scares a large number of the horses.
I think the pony saw a dark shape that was not there before, and shied away from that.

[Fisherman]

What if they're only accustomed to the smell of meat and furniture?

Then the smell of meat and furniture wonīt bother them.

[Errata]

The point I am making, Errata, is that horses can grow accustomed to smells, sounds etcetera, and learn to tolerate things they were originally upset by. Horses accustomed to the smell of blood will not be worried about it. This is why war horses master the art of staying calm in gunfire and among wounded and dead, very much bleeding, people.

Otherwise, horses are very sensitive animals, I know that full well having spent the last fifteen years together with them.

And I totally agree with you. Which is why I think it odd that horse pulled up.I think practically speaking that horse should not have given a damn about a corpse in the street as long as he wasn't going to step on it. And given Strides' position, it seems likely the horse wasn't gong to step on her. So why did the horse freeze up? I'm betting that was not the horses first body in the road, drunk or dead. So why refuse to go forward? To me that's the real odd part of all of this. I can't explain every part of Stride's murder, but none of it seems odd except for the horse refusing to move. Which as you know they only do when they perceive either threat of violence or threat to body. A smart horse won't walk on bad road. A smart horse also won't walk past a predator. So less than 100 feet from the promise of a warm stall and dinner, the horse stops short. I'd like to know why. Because I've been dragged by horses for the promise of less.

[Sam Flynn]

Horses accustomed to the smell of blood will not be worried about it.

What if they're only accustomed to the smell of meat and furniture?