Minutiae in Buckīs Row.

[David Orsam]

Mizen lied. That's clear in any objective interpretation.

I like to think that my own interpretation is objective and, for the reasons I gave in a recent post, I don't think it is "clear" at all that Mizen lied.

[Patrick S]

I like to think that my own interpretation is objective and, for the reasons I gave in a recent post, I don't think it is "clear" at all that Mizen lied.

Disagreement is not uncommon on these pages. I will admit that I'm unfamiliar with your recent post.

[Abby Normal]

I like to think that my own interpretation is objective and, for the reasons I gave in a recent post, I don't think it is "clear" at all that Mizen lied.

agree. at worst I think he was confused and misremembered, because when he arrived, there was a policeman there.

but of course he could have been absolutely correct and lech lied.

[Fisherman]

Patrick S:

"Itīs about probabilitites and likelihoods. For example the likelihood that a man who seemingly but not certainly gave the wrong name...

But it wasn't the "wrong" name. You yourself have moved away from referring to it as a "false" name and taken to calling it an "alternate" name.

Actually, I consider all other names given to the authorities than the ones you are registered by as false names.

We know that his mother married a man called Cross and we know that Charles was known as Cross for at least some part of his life. We don't know that the people who knew him didn't simply call him "Cross". We don't know if the police remembered him as "Cross" in that his stepfather Thomas was a policeman. We don't know if he used the name Cross (with or without approval from the Met) because he was afraid of the killer. We don't know that he gave ONLY the name "Cross" at the inquest as the reportage - as we have seen again and again - was wildly inaccurate and/or lazy (Did Robert "Baul" give a false name, as well? Did "Cross" attempt to further deceive by giving the name "George"? What of PC "Thail"?) We don't know a great deal. Thus, it defies logic to call any of this "coincidence" as we simply don't have enough information to understand the circumstances.

So what information DO we have? We have the information that in 109 out of 110 instances when dealing with authorities, the carman called himself/signed himself Lechmere. And we have the information that apart from the murder business, there is not a iot of evidence that he ever used the name Cross himself.
It is not conclusive, but it is a very clear indication.

and who seemingly but not certainly lied about what he had told the police would

[B]Mizen lied. That's clear in any objective interpretation.

No, it is not. David Orsam, who certainly is not in favour of Lechmere, posted on it earlier, and he reached the conclusion that Lechmere is the likelier liar. Have you read the post - and answered it?

He lied for simple, understandable reasons: to protect his career at the Met, his reputation. I believe he lied with at least the tacit approval of his superiors at the Met in order to protect them from further savaging in the press for their lack of success in resolving Millwood, Wilson, Smith, Tabram. Paul painted at very unflattering picture of Mizen in Baker's Row. Mizen's statement clearly was intended to blunt the criticism directed at him by either his superiors or the press, likely both. It had the added benefit, as well, of reflecting rather more positively on the Met as a whole. This one, for me, is much more cut and dried. We know a great deal. And it's Mizen who comes out the worse for wear. Not Lechmere.

I donīt agree. The implications knit to the ensuing actions are very clear - Lechmere misinformed Mizen.

ALSO fit the geographical pattern.

The geographical pattern is very simple: The murders took place over a small geographical area. Close to one (as Lechmere would have to be in order to have encountered a victim's body) means close to all. Of course, you are required to invent MORE supposition when have events do not quite fit into the geographic pattern (i.e. Lechmere was visiting his mother when Stride and Eddowes occurred).

The carman had reason to pass through the killing fields at the relevant hours, simple as that. He had reason to visit the Stride murder site, simple as. Whether one, two or ninetyfive other men had the same reason is immaterial, since only Lechmere was found with the body and it is therefore only him we need to scrutinize on the point.

Scobie, again: "When the coincidences add up, mount up - and they DO in his case, it becomes one coincidence too many".

Scobie has heard all the excuses, and he knows when itīs time to call a halt to it all."

It really is too bad that we nonbelievers cannot discuss this directly with Scobie. I'd be interested to know how he would respond to just a few of these points of contention.

I can only echo how material was left out where Scobie elaborated further on how he thinks it ridiculous to speak of coincidences in the amount that is needed to absolve Lechmere. I agree very much - it is the exact same thing that has me opting for Lechmere - there is way too much in it not to do so.

[David Orsam]

I will admit that I'm unfamiliar with your recent post.

Ah, okay, it was actually in response to yours in the PC Jonas Mizen thread #17:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=401939#post401939

[Fisherman]

On a separate note, it is weird that I cannot word the same thoughts as David without being accused of being biased. Thatīs another discussion, but it IS annoying and it is oversimplifying matters.

[Patrick S]

Ah, okay, it was actually in response to yours in the PC Jonas Mizen thread #17:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...939#post401939

I'll take a look. I've fallen behind, it seems. Be advised, though, that I'm not wed to any particular theory or reasoning and that you may present a more convincing scenario that I have. I'm even open to Lechmere as the Ripper. I just haven't read anything that nudges me - even ever so slightly - toward that suspicion.

[Patrick S]

On a separate note, it is weird that I cannot word the same thoughts as David without being accused of being biased. Thatīs another discussion, but it IS annoying and it is oversimplifying matters.

You most certainly CAN word those thoughts and you most certainly ARE biased! As am I! I admit it. And I think it's fantastic.

I am biased against Lechmere the Ripper because I haven't been presented information that causes me to suspect him and because all of the research I've done about the man and his family leads AWAY from suspicion. You are biased in believing that Mizen was honest and true in that backs up your theory. It's semantics, really. I think my sons are good looking kids! But I'm biased.

Bias - or whatever more applicable or politically correct term you apply - makes this topic much more fun to discuss, after all. And much more satisfying when such 'biases' are overcome (as if that ever actually happens).

[Patrick S]

Patrick S:

"Itīs about probabilitites and likelihoods. For example the likelihood that a man who seemingly but not certainly gave the wrong name...

But it wasn't the "wrong" name. You yourself have moved away from referring to it as a "false" name and taken to calling it an "alternate" name.

Actually, I consider all other names given to the authorities than the ones you are registered by as false names.

We know that his mother married a man called Cross and we know that Charles was known as Cross for at least some part of his life. We don't know that the people who knew him didn't simply call him "Cross". We don't know if the police remembered him as "Cross" in that his stepfather Thomas was a policeman. We don't know if he used the name Cross (with or without approval from the Met) because he was afraid of the killer. We don't know that he gave ONLY the name "Cross" at the inquest as the reportage - as we have seen again and again - was wildly inaccurate and/or lazy (Did Robert "Baul" give a false name, as well? Did "Cross" attempt to further deceive by giving the name "George"? What of PC "Thail"?) We don't know a great deal. Thus, it defies logic to call any of this "coincidence" as we simply don't have enough information to understand the circumstances.

So what information DO we have? We have the information that in 109 out of 110 instances when dealing with authorities, the carman called himself/signed himself Lechmere. And we have the information that apart from the murder business, there is not a iot of evidence that he ever used the name Cross himself.
It is not conclusive, but it is a very clear indication.

and who seemingly but not certainly lied about what he had told the police would

[B]Mizen lied. That's clear in any objective interpretation.

No, it is not. David Orsam, who certainly is not in favour of Lechmere, posted on it earlier, and he reached the conclusion that Lechmere is the likelier liar. Have you read the post - and answered it?

He lied for simple, understandable reasons: to protect his career at the Met, his reputation. I believe he lied with at least the tacit approval of his superiors at the Met in order to protect them from further savaging in the press for their lack of success in resolving Millwood, Wilson, Smith, Tabram. Paul painted at very unflattering picture of Mizen in Baker's Row. Mizen's statement clearly was intended to blunt the criticism directed at him by either his superiors or the press, likely both. It had the added benefit, as well, of reflecting rather more positively on the Met as a whole. This one, for me, is much more cut and dried. We know a great deal. And it's Mizen who comes out the worse for wear. Not Lechmere.

I donīt agree. The implications knit to the ensuing actions are very clear - Lechmere misinformed Mizen.

ALSO fit the geographical pattern.

The geographical pattern is very simple: The murders took place over a small geographical area. Close to one (as Lechmere would have to be in order to have encountered a victim's body) means close to all. Of course, you are required to invent MORE supposition when have events do not quite fit into the geographic pattern (i.e. Lechmere was visiting his mother when Stride and Eddowes occurred).

The carman had reason to pass through the killing fields at the relevant hours, simple as that. He had reason to visit the Stride murder site, simple as. Whether one, two or ninetyfive other men had the same reason is immaterial, since only Lechmere was found with the body and it is therefore only him we need to scrutinize on the point.

Scobie, again: "When the coincidences add up, mount up - and they DO in his case, it becomes one coincidence too many".

Scobie has heard all the excuses, and he knows when itīs time to call a halt to it all."

It really is too bad that we nonbelievers cannot discuss this directly with Scobie. I'd be interested to know how he would respond to just a few of these points of contention.

I can only echo how material was left out where Scobie elaborated further on how he thinks it ridiculous to speak of coincidences in the amount that is needed to absolve Lechmere. I agree very much - it is the exact same thing that has me opting for Lechmere - there is way too much in it not to do so.

Okay. Okay. We've been 'round and 'round on this. I am certain I'll never cause you to doubt for one moment your opinions regarding Lechmere. On the other hand, I'll admit to being open to changing mine if I'm presented with information that requires me to change my thinking.

We have been 'round and 'round, again and again. I'll admit this: Lechmere has been the most enjoyable and interesting topic of conversation on these boards the past several years.

[kjab3112]

I've had a look into the blood flow through the common carotid artery with a thought extension onto time to exsanguination and how this would effect timings.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2940377

Reports an average blood flow of 371ml/min through normal female subjects common carotid arteries (obviously per artery).

Average human blood volume is 5000ml, which the heart is pumping every minute.

Blood pressure doesn't drop until 30-40% blood loss.

So theoretically, by the time Paul thinks he can feel a faint heart beat (but we assume no pulse), there is at least 1500-2000ml of blood loss.

If we then assume that all the blood loss is through the carotid artery (ie the neck injury) AND the population means are appropriate, there is a minimum time of four minutes of bleeding time (and likely longer).

NB I've assumed rate of blood loss is maintained (likely to start to fall once blood pressure drops but perhaps not before) and that abdominal wound blood loss can be ignored (likely to be less than drop in blood loss as blood pressure drops) and that there was the minimum drop in blood loss to cause a drop in blood pressure (likely an under estimate).

Might alter some of the above timings

Paul

[Fisherman]

Okay. Okay. We've been 'round and 'round on this. I am certain I'll never cause you to doubt for one moment your opinions regarding Lechmere. On the other hand, I'll admit to being open to changing mine if I'm presented with information that requires me to change my thinking.

We have been 'round and 'round, again and again. I'll admit this: Lechmere has been the most enjoyable and interesting topic of conversation on these boards the past several years.

Thatīs something I guess.

But I would like to press the point that I do think that I am just as prepared as anybody else to change my mid - if there is reason for it. Itīs way too simplistic to write me off as a blinkered zealot. I am not saying that you claim that I am - or that you are not claiming it - but I think it is a view that is groundless.

[Fisherman]

You most certainly CAN word those thoughts and you most certainly ARE biased! As am I! I admit it. And I think it's fantastic.

I am biased against Lechmere the Ripper because I haven't been presented information that causes me to suspect him and because all of the research I've done about the man and his family leads AWAY from suspicion. You are biased in believing that Mizen was honest and true in that backs up your theory. It's semantics, really. I think my sons are good looking kids! But I'm biased.

Bias - or whatever more applicable or politically correct term you apply - makes this topic much more fun to discuss, after all. And much more satisfying when such 'biases' are overcome (as if that ever actually happens).

Yes, bias has itīs advantages.

... but I do not believe that Mizen was truthful because it backs up my theory. I do so because I find the facts in favour of that interpretation - and I am very happy to have David Orsam backing me up on the point.

[Patrick S]

Thatīs something I guess.

But I would like to press the point that I do think that I am just as prepared as anybody else to change my mid - if there is reason for it. Itīs way too simplistic to write me off as a blinkered zealot. I am not saying that you claim that I am - or that you are not claiming it - but I think it is a view that is groundless.

I don't believe Lechmere was Jack the Ripper. I don't believe he killed anyone. You believe he WAS Jack the Ripper and that he killed many, many people. In the end, we know much more about a great many things because of your research and advocacy for Lechmere, blinkered zealot or not!

[Fisherman]

I've had a look into the blood flow through the common carotid artery with a thought extension onto time to exsanguination and how this would effect timings.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2940377

Reports an average blood flow of 371ml/min through normal female subjects common carotid arteries (obviously per artery).

Average human blood volume is 5000ml, which the heart is pumping every minute.

Blood pressure doesn't drop until 30-40% blood loss.

So theoretically, by the time Paul thinks he can feel a faint heart beat (but we assume no pulse), there is at least 1500-2000ml of blood loss.

If we then assume that all the blood loss is through the carotid artery (ie the neck injury) AND the population means are appropriate, there is a minimum time of four minutes of bleeding time (and likely longer).

NB I've assumed rate of blood loss is maintained (likely to start to fall once blood pressure drops but perhaps not before) and that abdominal wound blood loss can be ignored (likely to be less than drop in blood loss as blood pressure drops) and that there was the minimum drop in blood loss to cause a drop in blood pressure (likely an under estimate).

Might alter some of the above timings

Paul

We do not have a minimum bleeding time of four minutes in the Nichols case. All the vessels in the neck were severed, not only the arteries.
And with respect, I do thing that cutting the neck artery can cause a much quicker bleeding out than so at any rate.
There are problems involved that are hard to assess fully - which cut came first, which vessels were severed in the abdomen etcetera. We are not familiar with the heartbeat rate - if there was one.
Any which way, Jason Payne-James said that anything over three or five minutes was not to be expected - whether he would accept much LESS I cannot say. But you must realize that ALL the large vessels in the neck were cut - and in that respect, it resembles a full decapitation, where all the blood can leave the body in less than a minute.

[Fisherman]

I don't believe Lechmere was Jack the Ripper. I don't believe he killed anyone. You believe he WAS Jack the Ripper and that he killed many, many people. In the end, we know much more about a great many things because of your research and advocacy for Lechmere, blinkered zealot or not!

If I can choose just the one person to sway in the future, Patrick... After all, itīs X-mas coming up, and when you want something REALLY bad...

PS. Thanks, by the way!