Lechmere Continuation Thread

[Fisherman]

There you go. Answered my recent post.

Columbo

And settles the errand. Discussion over, therefore.

[Fisherman]

That's a nice shot from video.

Columbo

But it does not depict the stretch where Nichols was found. It does show, however, the gate into the biklding site, made by fencing. Everything but the southern pavement was out of bounds up there - which is where the murder spot lay.

[Fisherman]

I didn't know that, but then again that kind of proves my point. The production company knew the graphic was wrong but proceeded anyway. They did it to make Cross look more ominous and guilty.

Now if Edward had told you that Christer knew the graphic was wrong but insisted the production company use it anyways that would be a problem with Christer's credibility, but since he wasn't involved with the post production or have say on the final cut, He shouldn't be blamed for it.

On the location in Bucks row, in retrospect it would've been more accurate but again the director on-site I'm sure was looking for the best shot and chose (rightly or wrongly) to shoot in a different location then the original murder site. Christer could shed some light on that. They could've filmed anywhere in Buck's Row at this point as the only thing that is original is the length of Buck's Row. The murder site no longer exists, so as long as they timed thier walk to the original site and reported that accurately, it wouldn't really matter where they filmed the cardboard cutout.

Columbo

Actually, the murder site was very much there when we shot the docu, right close to the wall of the schoolhouse. The cardboard figure was laid out more or less exactly where Nichols was found. And there was no access to the other side of the street there, it was fenced off, leaving us with the southern pavement only, as is very clear from the docu.

As for the decisions about how to depict things, it was not something I had any influence over, although the team was very receptive and took great care to get as much of the details correct as possible.

Dustyīs posts on the errand are ill-informed, and he is doing himself no favours whatsoever by misrepresenting the facts. The fence was there, it is caught on camera, and that is all there is to it.

[Columbo]

The pavement on the side opposite to the murder site, the northern one.

I do not care about the picture you have put up. I was there, I walked down the street, and I saw the closing off.

You were not. And you are willing to imply that I lie about it.

Look at the docu between 17.25 and 17.32, and you will see how the pavement is closed off and unaccessible.

Look at the passage where Andy and I arrive at the scene, between 18.42 and 18.45, where it is very clear that we are walking alongside a fencing off that allows us use of the southern pavement only.

How do you suppose that the re-enactment should be done? By leaping over the fence? We asked if we could take it away for a brief moment, but were denied that.

Itīs good to be able to show you just how wrong you are. I will engage no furthern in this particular errand, though, save to remind you in days to come how you got that wrong too.

Otherwise, I prefer not to stoop to your amoeba level of debate - you are so much more at home there that I run the risk of loosing when there is not picture evidence readily at hand.

There you go. Answered my recent post.

Columbo

[Columbo]

>>The problem Edward was talking about was how we could not use the northern side of Bucks Row in the re-enactment, since it was shut off due to construction work.<<

As this still from the programme clearly shows, there was plenty of room a more accurate sequence.

That's a nice shot from video.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Yes, I assumed it was just me though!

Sometimes I have trouble following the thread in general.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Hello Columbo,

>>Correct, and as Fisherman pointed out, he didn't have final say on the documentary's content.<<

I'm afraid this is a bit more of Christer's spin.

Ed Stow told me the production company knew the graphic was wrong but went ahead with it anyway, for continuity reasons. They wanted it to match Christer and Andy Grittihs renactment, which was on the wrong side of the road and next to where they placed the cardboard cutout of Nrs Nichols body.

If Ed is correct and I've never known him to lie, the problem arose because of Christer.

I didn't know that, but then again that kind of proves my point. The production company knew the graphic was wrong but proceeded anyway. They did it to make Cross look more ominous and guilty.

Now if Edward had told you that Christer knew the graphic was wrong but insisted the production company use it anyways that would be a problem with Christer's credibility, but since he wasn't involved with the post production or have say on the final cut, He shouldn't be blamed for it.

On the location in Bucks row, in retrospect it would've been more accurate but again the director on-site I'm sure was looking for the best shot and chose (rightly or wrongly) to shoot in a different location then the original murder site. Christer could shed some light on that. They could've filmed anywhere in Buck's Row at this point as the only thing that is original is the length of Buck's Row. The murder site no longer exists, so as long as they timed thier walk to the original site and reported that accurately, it wouldn't really matter where they filmed the cardboard cutout.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

>>I am claiming that you have proven yourself unable to make a semantical distinction between two very separate errands, and that you are therefore not to be relied upon in a discussion like this.<<

And this related to my post in anyway, how exactly?

Come to think of it, you just wrote you wouldn't respond any of my questions.
I guess i'm finally hitting home.

It is all very easy - if you cannot distinguish between very separate errands, mistaking them for the same (and you did exactly that) - I am in no shape or form willing to discuss with you. If you say "black" and your opponent says that you said "white", itīs time to call it a day and offer no further debate. It would be throwing pearls for pigs as the old saying goes.

[Fisherman]

Which pavement are you claiming was closed off they both are clearly open in the picture?

The pavement on the side opposite to the murder site, the northern one.

I do not care about the picture you have put up. I was there, I walked down the street, and I saw the closing off.

You were not. And you are willing to imply that I lie about it.

Look at the docu between 17.25 and 17.32, and you will see how the pavement is closed off and unaccessible.

Look at the passage where Andy and I arrive at the scene, between 18.42 and 18.45, where it is very clear that we are walking alongside a fencing off that allows us use of the southern pavement only.

How do you suppose that the re-enactment should be done? By leaping over the fence? We asked if we could take it away for a brief moment, but were denied that.

Itīs good to be able to show you just how wrong you are. I will engage no furthern in this particular errand, though, save to remind you in days to come how you got that wrong too.

Otherwise, I prefer not to stoop to your amoeba level of debate - you are so much more at home there that I run the risk of loosing when there is not picture evidence readily at hand.

[drstrange169]

>>I am claiming that you have proven yourself unable to make a semantical distinction between two very separate errands, and that you are therefore not to be relied upon in a discussion like this.<<

And this related to my post in anyway, how exactly?

Come to think of it, you just wrote you wouldn't respond any of my questions.
I guess i'm finally hitting home.

[drstrange169]

Which pavement are you claiming was closed off, they both are clearly open in the picture?

[Fisherman]

>>The problem Edward was talking about was how we could not use the northern side of Bucks Row in the re-enactment, since it was shut off due to construction work.<<

As this still from the programme clearly shows, there was plenty of room a more accurate sequence.

One of the pavements was closed off and impossible to use up at the place where the murder had occurred. Therefore, it was not possible to re-enact the scene correctly.
If it had been open, what makes you think that we would not have used it?

Your reasoning is as baffling as ever.

[Fisherman]

>>Then just answer me and be done with it! If you are truthful, that should eb a piece of cake. Instead you call me dishonest - and refuse to answer. How hard can it be?<<

Are you claiming the answer is available in those places I noted?
Are you denying you have read them already?
Good luck with that.


>>Why would I for a second accept to answer anything asked by a poster who calls me dishonest instead of quite simply replying to what he is asked?<<

Since some of the questions have come from others and you still dodged them, you will have to come up with a better excuse.

I am claiming that you have proven yourself unable to make a semantical distinction between two very separate errands, and that you are therefore not to be relied upon in a discussion like this.

[Fisherman]

I think question 15 is an interesting one. For instance, Dr Phillips seemed to think Chapman's killer may have been a medical expert. And Dr Brown thought Eddowes killer was possibly a medical student.

However, caution is required. For instance, one of the victim's of the Australian serial killer, William MacDonald, had his genitals removed in such an expert manner that the police believed, wrongly, the perpetrator could have been a deranged expert surgeon, with years of surgical expetience.

And, of course, other doctors, most notably Dr Bond, did not believe JtR exhibited any surgical expertise.

This is an interesting question indeed! And the answer to it is no less interesting.

Letīs take a look at what it was Phillips said. I am quoting from the Lancet article of September 29, and I am underlining a few crucial passages and wordings:

Mr. Wynne Baxter did not withhold any of the information which came to him from an unexpected source on the day of the publication ofMr. Phillips' evidence respecting the mutilations of the body. It will be remembered that at his first examination, Mr. Phillips did not enter into these details. He acted on his own responsibility in stating only such facts as should enable the coroner's jury to arrive at a correct conclusion as to the cause of death; whilst he took care to inform the police authorities of all those facts which might give them any clue as to the object the murderer had in view, and thus lead to his detection. However, when the coroner insisted upon Mr. Phillips being recalled to add these further facts to his previous evidence, he stated that the mutilation of the body was of such a character as could only have been effected by a practised hand. It was appears that the abdomen had been entirely laid open; that the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body, and placed on the shoulder of the corpse; whilst from the pelvis the uterus and its appendages, with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two-thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found, and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert--of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of a knife, which must therefore, as Mr. Phillips pointed out, have been at least five inches long.


So what is Philips REALLY saying here, and to what exact property of the killer does Phillipsī admiration owe?
The part that has always been lifted out as the one speaking of a surgeon potentially having been responsible is the one about the "one sweep of the knife" excision of the pelvic organs - if nothing else, the killer was at least posessed knowledge enough to cut them out with one sweep of the knife.
The problem here has always been that no surgeon has ever performed an operation that took out the uterus together with the upper part of the vagina and the posterior two-thirds of the bladder. Quite rightly, this has always made those who criticize Phillips say that such a thing, far from confirming any medical skill, instead tells us that the killer did what a surgeon would never do. Therefore, the killer was no surgeon.

We may, however, rest assured that Phillips was quite aware that no surgeon would cut out the organs and parts of organs that were removed from the pelvis! What Phillips was impressed by, was not which parts were taken out, but instead HOW they were taken out. They were taken out with one sweep of the knife, a totally confident masterpiece of cutting skills.
Such a thing could, according to Phillips, only have been achieved by a "practised hand".
But "practised" how? The decisions made about what to cut out from then pelvis was not in line with any decision ever taken by a medico - the operation would kill anybody subjected to it, it left parts of the organs in the body whilst other parts were taken out and there is no instruction manual anywhere that recommends the kind of cutting Chapman was subjected to.

So was spoke of a practised hand was one thing only: the bold, confident and unhesitating sweeping knifework. It was added that the incisions were cleanly cut, meaning that there was no fraying, no sloppiness, no mess, just quick, clean cuts that witnessed about earlier cutting experience a plenty.

He was not a surgeon, but he was so good with the knife that it made Phillips think of a surgeons skills and exactitude with the blade.

This brings us over to what one of Phillips colleagues had said the year before Chapman was killed. This time, we are speaking about Dr Edward Galloway, who examined the Rainham victim in the Torso series.

Here is part of what he said at the inquest, and once again I underline a few bits and bobs:
"The trunk had been sawn through perfectly straight by a very sharp saw, the integuments surrounding the vertebrae being cut by a keen-edged knife, which had also passed through and separated the abdominal wall. The upper half of the bust, the head, arms, legs and thighs were missing, the latter having been taken clean out of the sockets of the pelvis, the muscles of the thighs being cut obliquely from the inside to the outside. These were also quite clean cut, and must have been done with a very fine sharp-edged instrument. There was no jaggedness about any of the incisions, showing that they had been done by an expert ... I am certain that whoever cut up this body had a thorough knowledge of surgery, for not only had the cutting-up been performed in an exceedingly skilfull manner, but the operation had been carried out on that art of the spine offering the least resistence to separating, and that would only be done by a person having a very intimate knowledge of anatomy."

When the inquest drew to a close and was summed up, Dr Galloway had to a significant degree changed his mind, and stated that the body had been divided by somebody who knew the structure of the human frame, but "not necessarily a skilled anatomist".
It has been suggested that this change of mind owed to how Galloway had been put under pressure by fellow medicos who did not want their reputation tarnished, but I think the reason may well have been another one, putting the errand quite on par with the Chapman errand. Galloway simply realized that although the cutting was exceedingly skillfully performed, with no frayed cuts and no jaggedness, it was nevertheless a kind of cutting in which no surgeon would engage. Cutting up bodies and sawing them in half do not belong to their everyday job.
So what thoroughly impressed Galloway was not that a surgeons job had been done, but instead that he had seen a lot of confident, unhesitating and clean knifework, and since he had only seen surgeons who could be compared skillwise, they were what entered his mind when he first lay eyes on the cuts performed on the Rainham torso.

This is how the bits of the puzzle fit together. This is why a lot of talking about anatomical and surgical skill surfaced when skilled medicos examined the Ripper victims and the Torso victims.

The same propensity to make people believe that the killer could be a surgeon. The same uncanny skill with the knife. The same unhesitating, clean cuts and incisions, the same lack of jaggedness.

The same man.

[drstrange169]

>>Then just answer me and be done with it! If you are truthful, that should eb a piece of cake. Instead you call me dishonest - and refuse to answer. How hard can it be?<<

Are you claiming the answer is available in those places I noted?
Are you denying you have read them already?
Good luck with that.


>>Why would I for a second accept to answer anything asked by a poster who calls me dishonest instead of quite simply replying to what he is asked?<<

Since some of the questions have come from others and you still dodged them, you will have to come up with a better excuse.