Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
    Before commenting, i see you are once again not able to accept responsibility for the items you post




    The problem of course is that you posted the statement, which is untruthful and i agree you are not stupid.

    What is sad is that you are not able to admit that you posted that the two papers included bleeding in the accounts, when in Black and white and by your own hand you clearly did.
    Even sadder is the inability to accept responsibility for the mistake, claim that you have not posted the comment, and are being somehow misrepresented.


    Steve
    Now I see what you are on about - I wrote that point 2 was the one with the blood involved.

    And you therefore now say that I have claimed that the Daily Telegraph and the Daily News both agreed with me about the blood.

    Point 2 is for me where it in both papers is said that "At that time nobody but Neil was with the body."

    That should be apparent since that phrase is in both papers and since that is the sequence in which I think the blood was noticed by Mizen.

    The real problem with you calling me "untruthful" is tht I quoted both papers in extenso, and so anybody could easily see that no blood was mentioned. I withhold nothing, and I point to the exact passages where the papers handle the issue, quoting their efforts in full the subject. It should be quite enough.

    But you choose to call me untruthful.

    That is the main problem of the debate by now. You have realized that Lechmere cannot be cleared (not even by inventing the "fact" that Paul could not have been out of earshot from three articles formulating the single word "yes" into longish texts, based on something we do not know how it was worded), and so you opt for the classic political method: If you canno smear the message, then smear the messenger. If it becomes accepted that I am so biased that I am inable to think clearly, that any effort on my behalf to be honest is "self deception, that what I say is twisted and untruthful, then by extension, the theory is very likely to be wrong too.

    That is the underbelly of Ripperology, and not something that is very flattering for those who resort to it.

    The real litmus paper when it comes to when Mizen saw the blood lies not in your interpretation of which paper was the more reliable or how many papers agree with us. It lies in the two statments from the Echo and the Star, respectively. The Echo says that Mizen claimed that the blood was "still running" (as in an unbroken sequence) and appearing "fresh". No police of sound mind would say that about blood that was more than half an hour old.
    Likewise, in the Star we learn that Mizen aid that the blood was flowing into the pool underneath Nichols and partially congealed. Now, if you say that the blood was partially congealed, you are not talking about the blood that is running from the neck - that blood is NOT congealed - but instead of the blood in the pool. THAT blood was partially congelaed, and THAT is in line with the process of congealing. Half an hour after the bleeding has stopped, a shallow pool of blood is not partially congealed, it is FULLY congealed. If there was blood running from the neck as Nichols was lifted, how likely is it that this blood would run into the pool only, and that Mizen would speak about that? How much more likley is it not that he would say that "As we lifted the deceased, blood flowed from the wound in the neck onto the street"? And why, oh why, would a PC say that this blood (that as far as I´m concerened never flowed from the neck at that stage at all) looked FRESH?

    If you can manage to change tracks, and instead of trying to make me out as a liar and a charlatan, try to debate the real issues, it would be nice. If you CAN, I promise not to tell people what it is that is going on - but only as long as a fair debate rules the day.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      Now I see what you are on about - I wrote that point 2 was the one with the blood involved.

      And you therefore now say that I have claimed that the Daily Telegraph and the Daily News both agreed with me about the blood.
      I do not claim, that is what was posted.

      Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      Point 2 is for me where it in both papers is said that "At that time nobody but Neil was with the body."
      That should be apparent since that phrase is in both papers and since that is the sequence in which I think the blood was noticed by Mizen.
      That is not what the post said, YOU were very clean, point 2 was:

      "2. Mizen sees that there is blood flowing, appearing fresh."


      Very sorry to tell you this, but it is not apparent that is what you meant; your post was very clear indeed. Not at all lacking in an sense.

      Attempting to move the goal posts after the game is over, always fails as it does here.

      Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      The real problem with you calling me "untruthful" is tht I quoted both papers in extenso, and so anybody could easily see that no blood was mentioned. I withhold nothing, and I point to the exact passages where the papers handle the issue, quoting their efforts in full the subject. It should be quite enough.
      The fact that you gave quotes does not negate the basic issue that the post contained two statements that were untrue.

      Your attempt to explain that you have been misunderstood, and that when you posted Your point 2, You actually meant something completely different is unconvincing.


      Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      But you choose to call me untruthful.
      No I called the post and the comments it contained untruthful. And there can be no doubt that is the case.

      Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

      That is the main problem of the debate by now. You have realized that Lechmere cannot be cleared (not even by inventing the "fact" that Paul could not have been out of earshot from three articles formulating the single word "yes" into longish texts, based on something we do not know how it was worded), and so you opt for the classic political method: If you canno smear the message, then smear the messenger. If it becomes accepted that I am so biased that I am inable to think clearly, that any effort on my behalf to be honest is "self deception, that what I say is twisted and untruthful, then by extension, the theory is very likely to be wrong too.
      I see an attempt to divert from the issue, obvious to all.

      It is not that Lechmere cannot be "cleared", rather it is there is Nothing which stands up to scrutiny which truly implicates him in any but the most minor and superficial manner.

      There is no invention of a fact that he was not out of earshot, the simply truth is that the sources we have give no indication at all that Paul was ever out of earshot,and strongly suggest the opposite to be the case. I t is you who as singularly failed to prove otherwise.

      There is no smearing of you or anyone for that matter, I question, rightly, information posted that is inaccurate or untruthful. That to me is the message.
      If to question the message is now to in some odd way be seen as attacking the messenger, where does debate go?
      There is no need to smear the messenger when the message is clearly faulty as portrayed.

      Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      That is the underbelly of Ripperology, and not something that is very flattering for those who resort to it.
      Pot, Kettle, black

      Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

      The real litmus paper when it comes to when Mizen saw the blood lies not in your interpretation of which paper was the more reliable or how many papers agree with us. It lies in the two statments from the Echo and the Star, respectively. The Echo says that Mizen claimed that the blood was "still running" (as in an unbroken sequence) and appearing "fresh". No police of sound mind would say that about blood that was more than half an hour old.
      If the body is moved, clotts may move and blood may run again, particularly if being manhandled into an ambulance. The difference may not be apparent to an untrained 19th Century Beat Bobby.

      Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

      Likewise, in the Star we learn that Mizen aid that the blood was flowing into the pool underneath Nichols and partially congealed. Now, if you say that the blood was partially congealed, you are not talking about the blood that is running from the neck - that blood is NOT congealed - but instead of the blood in the pool. THAT blood was partially congelaed, and THAT is in line with the process of congealing. Half an hour after the bleeding has stopped, a shallow pool of blood is not partially congealed, it is FULLY congealed. If there was blood running from the neck as Nichols was lifted, how likely is it that this blood would run into the pool only, and that Mizen would speak about that? How much more likley is it not that he would say that "As we lifted the deceased, blood flowed from the wound in the neck onto the street"? And why, oh why, would a PC say that this blood (that as far as I´m concerened never flowed from the neck at that stage at all) looked FRESH?
      Where do we start:

      1. The bleeding described by Mizen, may well be caused by secondary movement of the body(see above); it is in no way contradictory to a pool of partially congealed blood.

      2. Blood has started to congeal, that can occurr fairly quickly, there are no hard and fast rules. Your comments about fully congealed and partially congealed are meaningless, given the total inadequet descriptions avalible.

      3. He said it appeared fresh because he knew no better, given is likely arrival at the scene and extent of Nichols wounds it is highly improbable he would witness any flowing blood; however if we follow the route you have suggested that the abdomen wounds were fatal, that goes from higly improbably to just about unachievable.

      Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      If you can manage to change tracks, and instead of trying to make me out as a liar and a charlatan, try to debate the real issues, it would be nice. If you CAN, I promise not to tell people What it is that is going on - but only as long as a fair debate rules the day.
      Please explain and expand on what you think is going on?
      I for one would love to know.


      Steve
      Last edited by Elamarna; 06-25-2018, 07:05 AM.

      Comment


      • #33
        . That is the main problem of the debate by now. You have realized that Lechmere cannot be cleared
        As we already know that 99% of ‘suspects’ cannot be categorically cleared I think that the main problem is actually the fact that some appear to think that this is a major point in their suspects favour.
        Regards

        Herlock






        "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

        Comment


        • #34
          Excuse me for not joining the medical stuff but can I ask...

          If the blood appeared fresh....I’m not saying it did or didn’t.... why would this be surprising if CL had come upon Polly’s body a minute or two after the killer had fled the scene?

          And pleeeeeeeese don’t mention Phantom killers as it’s misleading and tiresome.
          Regards

          Herlock






          "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
            I do not claim, that is what was posted.



            That is not what the post said, YOU were very clean, point 2 was:

            "2. Mizen sees that there is blood flowing, appearing fresh."


            Very sorry to tell you this, but it is not apparent that is what you meant; your post was very clear indeed. Not at all lacking in an sense.

            Attempting to move the goal posts after the game is over, always fails as it does here.



            The fact that you gave quotes does not negate the basic issue that the post contained two statements that were untrue.

            Your attempt to explain that you have been misunderstood, and that when you posted Your point 2, You actually meant something completely different is unconvincing.




            No I called the post and the comments it contained untruthful. And there can be no doubt that is the case.



            I see an attempt to divert from the issue, obvious to all.

            It is not that Lechmere cannot be "cleared", rather it is there is Nothing which stands up to scrutiny which truly implicates him in any but the most minor and superficial manner.

            There is no invention of a fact that he was not out of earshot, the simply truth is that the sources we have give no indication at all that Paul was ever out of earshot,and strongly suggest the opposite to be the case. I t is you who as singularly failed to prove otherwise.

            There is no smearing of you or anyone for that matter, I question, rightly, information posted that is inaccurate or untruthful. That to me is the message.
            If to question the message is now to in some odd way be seen as attacking the messenger, where does debate go?
            There is no need to smear the messenger when the message is clearly faulty as portrayed.



            Pot, Kettle, black



            If the body is moved, clotts may move and blood may run again, particularly if being manhandled into an ambulance. The difference may not be apparent to an untrained 19th Century Beat Bobby.



            Where do we start:

            1. The bleeding described by Mizen, may well be caused by secondary movement of the body(see above); it is in no way contradictory to a pool of partially congealed blood.

            2. Blood has started to congeal, that can occurr fairly quickly, there are no hard and fast rules. Your comments about fully congealed and partially congealed are meaningless, given the total inadequet descriptions avalible.

            3. He said it appeared fresh because he knew no better, given is likely arrival at the scene and extent of Nichols wounds it is highly improbable he would witness any flowing blood; however if we follow the route you have suggested that the abdomen wounds were fatal, that goes from higly improbably to just about unachievable.



            Please explain and expand on what you think is going on?
            I for one would love to know.


            Steve
            I´ll be very short.

            What I perceive as smearing is when you write that I am untruthful.

            I am not. I am, and have always been, honest. That will not change.

            I published the whole texts from the papers, germane to understanding what I meant. I very clearly state that I am of the meaning that Mizens words about the blood were related to the instance when he met Neil. Therefore my point two represented this stage.

            However, I should A/ have written this more clearly and B/ I should have understood what you were on about at an earlier stage - but since I knew that I had not been in any way untruthful, I didn´t.

            You used these matters to shape an accusation of untruthfullness on my behalf, and since I was too lazy, very much aware that I am never untruthful, and absolutely certain that I had never written "The Daily News and The Daily Telegraph agree with me!", I left the door open for the accusations of untruthfullness.

            Thereby I left you with the choice of reasoning that I

            A/ referred back to the instance when Mizen met Neil for the first time, the latter being alone (which is the wording in the articles)

            or

            B/ was trying to pull off a scam of my own, designed to fool everybody out here.

            You ask me what I mean when I write about "what is going on here", and your choice is to a large degree descriptive of that matter: a far-reaching effort to make me out as a liar, a deceiver, a con artist and someone who is not fit to plead at all in the matter on account of reoccuring self-deceptions. An effort to shoot down the messenger instead of the message. I think it is deplorable.

            As fot the blood issues and your answers, I don´t think you have much going for you in that department. The body was put on the ambulance and taken away from the scene as Mizen arrived with the stretcher. At that stage, the blood was already clotted. It was described by Thain, who assisted in lifting the body:

            There was a large quantity of congealed blood on the pavement, near the woman's neck. (The Echo)

            There was a large clot near the wall(Morning Advertiser)

            This was not something Thain noticed long after the body was taken away, since the blood wass immediately removed thereafter, apparent from Emma Greens testimony:

            The Coroner: Do you know that your son went out to wash the blood away. -- Witness: Yes; I thought it had better be done directly the body was moved. A constable went into my yard with my son, and they returned with a broom and washed the stains away.(Morning Advertiser)

            So there was no pool of only partially congealed blood at that stage, it was fully congealed, a clot of blood as it was described. Therefore, the words of a partially congealed blood pool refer back to the first stage, and that makes it logical because the blood was described as fresh at that stage. And that stage is the only stage when the blood CAN have been fresh.

            Your take? It is "meaningless" to listen to what Mizen said about a partially congealed blood pool where blood was still running into it.

            We should discard that evidence.

            And Mizen only said that the blood appeared fresh because he "knew no better".

            So we should discard that evidence too.

            And when we have discarded that evidence, your version of the events stands a better chance to be true.

            You know what? It will not wash in a million years.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
              Excuse me for not joining the medical stuff but can I ask...

              If the blood appeared fresh....I’m not saying it did or didn’t.... why would this be surprising if CL had come upon Polly’s body a minute or two after the killer had fled the scene?

              And pleeeeeeeese don’t mention Phantom killers as it’s misleading and tiresome.
              It would not be surprising at all if either Lechmere or you-know-who had cut her - in such a case, the blood would have flowed for the shortest of time only and it would BE fresh.

              But what Steve suggests is that Mizen spoke of looking at Nichols AFTER having fetched the ambulance. And that means that he supposedly said that he took a look and the blood was still running and looking fresh, and that the blood ran into the pool under Nichols, and the pool had started to congeal and was partially congealed - HALF AN HOUR OR MORE AFTER SHE WAS CUT!

              It is like Steve Earle sings in "Snake Oil": "And if you believe THAT, we´re gonna get along just fine".

              Me, I agree with you: fresh blood has a tendency to run in the beginning, not in the end.

              Comment


              • #37
                "So there was no pool of only partially congealed blood at that stage, it was fully congealed, a clot of blood as it was described."

                How can you conclude that? The fact that "a" clot happened to be mentioned doesn't mean that ALL the blood was clotted.
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  fresh blood has a tendency to run in the beginning, not in the end.
                  It can appear to flow, or ooze, for some time and for various reasons.

                  Besides, it's perfectly possible to describe something as "flowing from A to B" even when there's no appreciable flow to speak of, or even no flow at all, e.g. "her hair flowed from her head to her waist", "the road ran from the church to the cemetery", "a river of solidified magma ran/flowed from the crater to the village below".
                  Last edited by Sam Flynn; 06-25-2018, 11:30 PM.
                  Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                  "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    And if Paul was right and she was still alive when he examined her??
                    G U T

                    There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                      "So there was no pool of only partially congealed blood at that stage, it was fully congealed, a clot of blood as it was described."

                      How can you conclude that? The fact that "a" clot happened to be mentioned doesn't mean that ALL the blood was clotted.
                      A "large" clot, Gareth. The clot and the "quantity of blood" spoken about was the pool under the neck. There was no other blood present on the street surface but (mentioned in one source) some little blood under her legs.

                      So all the blood in the pool was clotted, and indeed it should be at that stage.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        All we can say is that the clot was clotted. We can't say that all the blood was.
                        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                          It can appear to flow, or ooze, for some time and for various reasons.

                          Besides, it's perfectly possible to describe something as "flowing from A to B" even when there's no appreciable flow to speak of, or even no flow at all, e.g. "her hair flowed from her head to her waist", "the road ran from the church to the cemetery", "a river of solidified magma ran/flowed from the crater to the village below".
                          Yes, that´s correct - the Morning Advertiser said that the blood was congealed and running into the gutter, for example. But Mizen spoke of blood flowing from the neck down into the pool! That will always mean that it was running. And it looked fresh.

                          When Mizen arrived back with the ambulance he knew quite well that Nichols had been dead half an hour or more. Would he say "the blood was STILL running and looking fresh" at that stage? When he was 100 per cent sure that it could not be fresh?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                            All we can say is that the clot was clotted. We can't say that all the blood was.
                            Yes, the clot was clotted. Just as it should be, generally speaking. But Mizen said there was blood "still" running INTO THAT POOL, and that it was only partially clotted as he looked at it. And that means that he speaks of the first time he saw Nichols, not the time he arrived back with the ambulance, since the blood WAS clotted at that stage.
                            Last edited by Fisherman; 06-25-2018, 11:48 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by GUT View Post
                              And if Paul was right and she was still alive when he examined her??
                              Not sure what you are after here? The blood does not congeal because a person is dead, it congeals since it comes in contact with congealing substances when it leaves a wound.

                              If she was still alive when Paul examined her, then surely it is hard to fit another killer than Lechmere in?
                              Last edited by Fisherman; 06-25-2018, 11:47 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                One thing that is interesting here is that Mizen says (as per the Star) that blood was running from the neck wound and into the gutter. Neil says nothing about any blood running into the gutter, and Lechmere and Paul who got down beside the body says nothing about it either.

                                Did the stream of blood leading from the neck pool int the gutter exist as Lechmere, Paul and/or Neil took a look? Neil shone his flashlight on the scene but only mentions the pool under the neck, nothing about the stream towards the gutter. And could Lechmere and Paul have failed to see it - or even have come in contact with it?

                                The amount of blood in the pool was not a large one, and Neil used both "oozed" and "running" when he spoke of the blood, implying that there was no torrential flow, but instead probably a minor one only. So maybe fillling the pool to the brim was a longish process and then maybe the stream was just a small one. But I think there would have been every chance that Lechmere and Paul would have seen it and that Neil would have mentioned it - if he saw it.

                                No certainties here, just an overall feeling that the stream only came about between Neils and Mizens first looks.
                                Last edited by Fisherman; 06-26-2018, 01:05 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X