Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by Sam Flynn 7 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by Sam Flynn 7 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by caz 11 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by caz 20 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by caz 22 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - by Abby Normal 23 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - (19 posts)
General Discussion: Collaboration on Mitre Square and GSG? - (11 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (10 posts)
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - (10 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (6 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Was Ernest Dowson Jack the Ripper? - (5 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Victims > Mary Ann Nichols

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #171  
Old 07-17-2017, 01:26 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,933
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
If your whole purpose in chasing me across threads is because you think I called these stories 'facts' you are most certainly wasting your time & mine too.
You flatter yourself if you think I am chasing you across threads. What happened is that I noticed you saying this:

"After a cursory (preliminary?) examination he determined she had died from a cut to the throat. That is all we know from Phillips's own mouth, isn't it?"


If there is one thing certain in this case, it's that the word "cursory" did not emanate from Dr Phillips' own mouth!
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 07-17-2017, 01:29 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,933
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
It's in the Irish Times too, and in other outlets. Didn't you tell me before in was in the Chronicle?
Why does that matter?
I didn't have time to dig out this quote from you last night (from the Mary Kelly thread #164):

"Yes, but keep in mind this is reported in the Irish Times, not, so far as I can see in the local London papers. The American press also got a number of detail wrong, so I mostly give preference to the London papers first. The only time I look further afield, but still in English press, is when articles are published that do not appear in the London press."


That's why I was surprised to see you quoting from the Western Mail if you knew it was in the (London) Daily Chronicle.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 07-17-2017, 01:30 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,933
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
It's in the Irish Times too, and in other outlets. Didn't you tell me before in was in the Chronicle?
Why does that matter?
I didn't have time to dig out this quote from you last night (from the Mary Kelly thread #164):

"Yes, but keep in mind this is reported in the Irish Times, not, so far as I can see in the local London papers. The American press also got a number of detail wrong, so I mostly give preference to the London papers first. The only time I look further afield, but still in English press, is when articles are published that do not appear in the London press."


That's why I was surprised to see you quoting from the Western Mail if you knew it was in the (London) Daily Chronicle.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 07-17-2017, 07:32 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,824
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
No, you are wrong. I haven't put any words into your mouth. I said "You continually treat it as established fact." And that is exactly what you keep doing.

In the other thread you said:

"Dr. Phillips did make a preliminary examination on entering the room at 1:30, after which the photographer appears to have been permitted to enter, prior to the post-mortem beginning at 2:00 pm."


That is treating it as an established fact. No source is mentioned. There is no form of qualification. I had to extract the source of this from you, being a newspaper. You don't know for certain what Dr Phillips did on entering the room.

Then again in this thread:

"After a cursory (preliminary?) examination he determined she had died from a cut to the throat. That is all we know from Phillips's own mouth, isn't it?"


Ironically, you question "preliminary" - which is fine - but not "cursory" which you suggest came from Phillips's own mouth. He never said it though!
Every single source requires a qualification, that is obvious.

No-one, not here nor anywhere else, is going to prefix every statement they make with a "according to", or "it was suggested by".

Even official sources cannot be relied upon to be factual. Medical evidence is not to be regarded as factual. Sworn testimony cannot be deemed to be factual.
So, everything we write is dependent upon the various sources we use.

The pedantic poster might try to pursue an argument because a qualifier was not used, but the well informed poster already knows the source is from the press. So why do they ask rhetorical questions?
Because they are more intent on arguing than debating.
Anyone come to mind???

- It is through an official source that we are informed Schwartz appeared at the inquest, it is thanks to the press that we know this did not happen.
- It is medical evidence that suggests Chapman was killed hours earlier, but it is through the press that we find evidence to the contrary.

No single source is more reliable than another, be it official, professional or sworn. All sources are subject to the same caveat so don't expect every comment made on the forum to be accompanied by a qualifier.

If you have a concern, just ask 'what is the source for that?'
Why do you think footnotes are used by authors?, because tying up every statement with a qualifier is time consuming and a waste of space.
The reader has to make an extra effort to find the source for that claim - so just maybe you could ask and you just might save hundreds of aimless posts by being up front with what you are querying.
For the most part in these exchanges I had no clue what the point was of your questions.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 07-17-2017, 07:37 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,824
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post

That's why I was surprised to see you quoting from the Western Mail if you knew it was in the (London) Daily Chronicle.
The Daily Chronicle is not available on BNA, or here in the Press Reports.
See how easy it is to get a simple answer.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 07-17-2017, 07:50 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,933
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
The Daily Chronicle is not available on BNA, or here in the Press Reports.
See how easy it is to get a simple answer.
Okay, I hadn't realised that meant it was impossible to access.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 07-17-2017, 07:52 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,824
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
I'm going to ignore your quirky distinction here between "post-mortem" and "autopsy" on the basis that the relevant doctors didn't do it in November 1888 and it's just confusing matters.
Any examination of a dead body is a post-mortem.
Some post-mortems are official (for an inquest) and must follow strict guidelines, while others are rudimentary, cursory, preliminary, and are not required to be formal. This is why the press refer to the Saturday morning 'official' post-mortem as "in chief".
Whereas I use "autopsy", just my preference.

Quote:
You simply haven't met the point I am challenging you with. You say "Of course the location changed". I agree. The normal course is for an examination to be made in situ at the crime scene (one could call it a "preliminary examination") and then a proper post-mortem (or autopsy - I regard the terms as interchangeable) takes place in a mortuary.
What was normal about Millers Court?

Quote:
So what I am asking you, Jon, is why didn't exactly the same thing happen with the Mary Kelly murder?

And before you answer, I'm challenging the assumption that the examination that took place in the room was a proper post-mortem examination as reported in the press. How do we know that the press got it right?
Most dead bodies do not need to be put back together before they are moved to the mortuary. That process seemed to involve several medical professionals who no doubt were interested in the how & why these organs were removed.

Why can't you think that through yourself?
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 07-17-2017, 07:56 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Any examination of a dead body is a post-mortem.
Some post-mortems are official (for an inquest) and must follow strict guidelines, while others are rudimentary, cursory, preliminary, and are not required to be formal. This is why the press refer to the Saturday morning 'official' post-mortem as "in chief".
Whereas I use "autopsy", just my preference.



What was normal about Millers Court?



Most dead bodies do not need to be put back together before they are moved to the mortuary. That process seemed to involve several medical professionals who no doubt were interested in the how & why these organs were removed.

Why can't you think that through yourself?
hi Wickerman
how does the autopsy taking place in Millers court help your well dressed man theory?
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 07-17-2017, 08:06 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,933
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Every single source requires a qualification, that is obvious.

No-one, not here nor anywhere else, is going to prefix every statement they make with a "according to", or "it was suggested by".

Even official sources cannot be relied upon to be factual. Medical evidence is not to be regarded as factual. Sworn testimony cannot be deemed to be factual.
So, everything we write is dependent upon the various sources we use.

The pedantic poster might try to pursue an argument because a qualifier was not used, but the well informed poster already knows the source is from the press. So why do they ask rhetorical questions?
Because they are more intent on arguing than debating.
Anyone come to mind???

- It is through an official source that we are informed Schwartz appeared at the inquest, it is thanks to the press that we know this did not happen.
- It is medical evidence that suggests Chapman was killed hours earlier, but it is through the press that we find evidence to the contrary.

No single source is more reliable than another, be it official, professional or sworn. All sources are subject to the same caveat so don't expect every comment made on the forum to be accompanied by a qualifier.

If you have a concern, just ask 'what is the source for that?'
Why do you think footnotes are used by authors?, because tying up every statement with a qualifier is time consuming and a waste of space.
The reader has to make an extra effort to find the source for that claim - so just maybe you could ask and you just might save hundreds of aimless posts by being up front with what you are querying.
For the most part in these exchanges I had no clue what the point was of your questions.
Well at least you now seem to understand what I have been saying the whole time.

You can't just swipe it away with your hand and say "time consuming". You do need to qualify your statements with "I think" or "I believe" or "according to" or whatever. Anything else is poor form. Of course, there are footnotes in books. But not in posts.

It can be very intimidating when someone makes unqualified statements as if they were established facts on the boards. If you think I was aware of the source of your statement about Phillips and the preliminary examination you are wrong. I don't have every fact at my fingertips. I rely on posters not to make overblown statements.

Your post about Phillips in the Kelly thread was in response to me saying (to another poster) that Phillips was most likely to have formed an estimate about time of death in the 2pm examination. I posted this to Simon Wood:

"I would also add that if you are going to calculate from the time of the examination then that probably began at 2pm. Phillips said he entered the room at 1.30pm but also refers to his 'subsequent examination' - it is Bond who says his own examination commenced at 2pm and presumably he started at the same time as Phillips."

In response, in a post addressed to me, you said this:

"Dr. Phillips did make a preliminary examination on entering the room at 1:30, after which the photographer appears to have been permitted to enter, prior to the post-mortem beginning at 2:00 pm."

So your point about people "more intent on arguing than debating" is ill conceived. You were the one arguing, unnecessarily. And I have been attempting to debate the whole time with you in this thread about the Bond report but you haven't really engaged.

Finally, and I hope this really is final, I note that in on 15 January 2016, on JTR Forums, after referring to the "legally bound autopsy" conducted on the Saturday morning, you posted this:

"However, there were two previous examinations, if we can trust the press."


I don't know how "if we can trust the press" has, in 17 months, become "we CAN trust the press". You got it right in JTR Forums so why not get in right in here?
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 07-17-2017, 08:11 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,933
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Any examination of a dead body is a post-mortem.
Some post-mortems are official (for an inquest) and must follow strict guidelines, while others are rudimentary, cursory, preliminary, and are not required to be formal. This is why the press refer to the Saturday morning 'official' post-mortem as "in chief".
Whereas I use "autopsy", just my preference.
But the press used various different terms to describe the examinations.

I think you are just playing semantics now. We agreed some time ago that a preliminary examination could be a visual one. You are not telling me that if Dr Phillips had spent a couple of minutes looking at the Kelly's body in the room before the photographs were taken that would have meant he had carried out a post-mortem are you?

That's just silly. I know what the words 'post-mortem' mean but A post-mortem is different from ANY examination.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.