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: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by Herlock Sholmes 19 minutes ago.
General Discussion: General Victoriana - by drstrange169 22 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by Sam Flynn 24 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by Mike J. G. 30 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by Sam Flynn 31 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by Mike J. G. 32 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - (41 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (36 posts)
General Discussion: General Victoriana - (6 posts)
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - (5 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: East End Photographs and Drawings - (1 posts)
Witnesses: Israel Schwartz - new information - (1 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
  #201  
Old 07-17-2017, 12:49 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,869
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
This is you playing semantics.
At what time does he say he conducted this subsequent examination?
He doesn't say but it means occurring later or after something.

As I've already asked you, why did he feel the need to use the word at all? Why not just refer to his "examination". Why was it a "subsequent" examination?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
"Think"? - 15 minutes?
Who said there were "six"?
Some were taken outside, so we are told.
We don't know how many photographs were taken so I was asking you on the basis of six. I can't help thinking it would have taken longer than 15 minutes in 1888. Closer to half an hour I would have thought. But I'm no expert.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 07-17-2017, 01:08 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
He doesn't say but it means occurring later or after something.
There is nothing ambiguous about the use of "subsequent", when he has just said he entered the room at 1:30 pm.

Quote:
As I've already asked you, why did he feel the need to use the word at all? Why not just refer to his "examination". Why was it a "subsequent" examination?
You are creating a mystery where none exists.
- He told the court he entered the room at 1:30.
- On entering the room he described what he saw:

"On the door being opened it knocked against a table, the table I found close to the left hand side of the bedstead and the bedstead was close up against the wooden partition, the mutilated remains of a female were lying two thirds over towards the edge of the bedstead nearest to the door of entry she had only her under linen garment on her"

No mention of blood or the location of certain wounds.
So now he looks over the body, maybe he moved the bed to get a better look. How else would he know about the large quantity of blood between the bed and the wall unless he moved the bed?

"....and from my subsequent examination I am sure the body had been removed subsequent to the injury which caused her death from that side of the bedstead which was nearest to the wooden partition, the large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the paliasse, pillow, sheet, at that top corner nearest the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery which was the immediate cause of her death was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head & neck in the top right hand corner."

It's all quite clear.
No mention of scattered organs. No mention of anything that might constitute a post-mortem. Simply a visual examination of the body.


Quote:
We don't know how many photographs were taken so I was asking you on the basis of six. I can't help thinking it would have taken longer than 15 minutes in 1888. Closer to half an hour I would have thought. But I'm no expert.
No point in asking the question then, I'm no photographic historian.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 07-17-2017, 01:13 PM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,288
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert St Devil View Post
I've been wondering about this point... ever since the post about the environment not being conducive for photography.
I think the post was saying roughly that the photographer left around 4-4:30pm when the light (and, indeed, the body) started to go. This was in a room with north facing windows in a north facing yard in November, so the light was never going to be great. But if he turned up and started snapping away at 1:30pm, that's about three hours of daylight, so roughly one photo every half hour.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 07-17-2017, 01:16 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,869
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
There is nothing ambiguous about the use of "subsequent", when he has just said he entered the room at 1:30 pm.
If you say that then perhaps you don't know what "subsequent" means. It means some time AFTER 1.30pm. So it could, in theory, be 1.31pm (although that would be odd) but it could be 2pm or 4pm or 8pm or any other time after 1.30. Of course it's ambiguous!
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 07-17-2017, 01:17 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Crikey not that again. I've already quoted the two examples twice in this very thread!
So you have not found me using the word "fact" then, obviously.
I knew I didn't, I intentionally avoid it for the numerous reason already explained to you.
It's just you making assumptions.

Phillips DID say he made an examination after entering the room.
Like it or not, he said it.
Is it a fact?, I have no idea.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 07-17-2017, 01:19 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,869
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
You are creating a mystery where none exists.
- He told the court he entered the room at 1:30.
- On entering the room he described what he saw:

"On the door being opened it knocked against a table, the table I found close to the left hand side of the bedstead and the bedstead was close up against the wooden partition, the mutilated remains of a female were lying two thirds over towards the edge of the bedstead nearest to the door of entry she had only her under linen garment on her"

No mention of blood or the location of certain wounds.
So now he looks over the body, maybe he moved the bed to get a better look. How else would he know about the large quantity of blood between the bed and the wall unless he moved the bed?

"....and from my subsequent examination I am sure the body had been removed subsequent to the injury which caused her death from that side of the bedstead which was nearest to the wooden partition, the large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the paliasse, pillow, sheet, at that top corner nearest the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery which was the immediate cause of her death was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head & neck in the top right hand corner."

It's all quite clear.
No mention of scattered organs. No mention of anything that might constitute a post-mortem. Simply a visual examination of the body.
But I've already dealt with this in a previous post. Are you actually reading what I'm writing?

In summary, Phillips was not telling a chronological story when he gave his evidence. He was doing two separate things: (1) Explaining what he saw when he entered the room and (2) Telling the jury the cause of death (on the basis of his examination).

You are seriously confused if you think he was setting out a chronological sequence of events, moving from the furniture to the medical examination before he was stopped by the coroner from telling the end of the story.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 07-17-2017, 01:21 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
I think the post was saying roughly that the photographer left around 4-4:30pm when the light (and, indeed, the body) started to go. This was in a room with north facing windows in a north facing yard in November, so the light was never going to be great. But if he turned up and started snapping away at 1:30pm, that's about three hours of daylight, so roughly one photo every half hour.
I think the wording was that he removed his equipment at 4:30. Which implies that the equipment was in the room all afternoon, him being invited in on his arrival after 1:30.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 07-17-2017, 01:25 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
If you say that then perhaps you don't know what "subsequent" means. It means some time AFTER 1.30pm. So it could, in theory, be 1.31pm (although that would be odd) but it could be 2pm or 4pm or 8pm or any other time after 1.30. Of course it's ambiguous!
Of course I know what subsequent means. Though why you have to stretch the meaning to justify your theory is I suppose, to be expected.
There is no reason to suppose his "subsequent" would mean at 2:00, or he could just as easily have said so.
The more likely interpretation is it meant shortly after his entrance, within a minute or two, which is why no time was given.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 07-17-2017, 01:32 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
But I've already dealt with this in a previous post. Are you actually reading what I'm writing?
You failed to detail it out clearly.

Quote:
In summary, Phillips was not telling a chronological story when he gave his evidence. He was doing two separate things: (1) Explaining what he saw when he entered the room and (2) Telling the jury the cause of death (on the basis of his examination).
Like I said before, he was able to determine the cause of death in his cursory examination, after entering the room. His reply to the Coroner would have been different if the eventual post-mortem had turned up another cause.
It's just that simple.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 07-17-2017, 01:34 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,869
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
There is no reason to suppose his "subsequent" would mean at 2:00, or he could just as easily have said so.
The more likely interpretation is it meant shortly after his entrance, within a minute or two, which is why no time was given.
Bearing in mind the meaning of the word "subsequent" I would have thought that yours is the least likely explanation. If it was only "a minute or two", there was no need to even use the word. That's why I personally concluded that the examination he was referring to was probably at 2pm.

That, for me, is consistent with the photographer getting his photos out of the way prior to the 2pm examination. But we've been all over this and round the houses on it. I have no idea why we are still discussing it.

(I think it's because you can't accept that I could possibly be right.)
__________________
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 04:40 PM.


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