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:
Audio -- Visual: A mannequin prop of Catherine Eddowes' corpse for a new play about Jack the Ripper. - by Pcdunn 10 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by StevenOwl 21 minutes ago.
General Discussion: General Victoriana - by Sam Flynn 39 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by John G 40 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by Sam Flynn 51 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by John G 60 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (93 posts)
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - (26 posts)
Feigenbaum, Carl: A Likely Suspect? - (13 posts)
Annie Chapman: Annie's scarf - (10 posts)
Witnesses: Israel Schwartz - new information - (5 posts)
Annie Chapman: Annie's memorial to be removed - (4 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 > Scene of the Crimes

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-14-2017, 01:59 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,364
Default Blood oozing

Hi all,

I have found that Fisherman´s hypothesis about the "blood evidence" is not possible to test and will now show you why.

There was a use of the expression “blood oozing” in Victorian times which prooves that this expression can not be interpreted as it is intepreted by Fisherman.

Therefore, the so called "blood evidence" can not be used as any evidence for Lechmere having murdered Polly Nichols.

In the Victorian era, “Blood oozing” was used, even by doctors, in a purely resultative way.

This means that the blood oozing had already happened when the observer
observed it.


Therefore, we see an ambigous use of the expression during this period, where we can not know what the expression meant.

There are many examples for the resultative use of the expression in the Victorian era. They can be found through a search on “blood oozing” in the British Newspaper Archive.

I will give three examples here.

They are from The Thanet Advertiser, August 30, 1973, The Lancaster Gazette, July 30, 1870 and South Wales Daily News, July 13, 1896, in that order as presented below.

In the first article the doctor himself states that the blood was oozing
both from the head and the ear although the person was dead and
cold.


In the second article a child is found dead in the morning after having
been suffocated, and there was “a little blood oozing from the mouth
and ear” although it is clear that the suffocation could have taken
place at any time during the night.

In the third article a man has been shot dead about 10 o´clock in the evening. The doctor states that he arrived at the spot of the shooting about
one and a half hour later, at 11.30, and then saw “blood oozing” and
even “flowing” from the man.


Conclusion:

In the Victorian era the expression “blood oozing” – and
even “flowing” – was used as an expression describing the result of a
process which was finished before the observation. It was used as
a resultative expression.


For Fisherman´s theory this means that:

1. There is no validity in his material used for the hypothesis
about “blood evidence” connected to Lechmere, since the
expression “blood oozing”, and even the expression
“flowing”, were used as descriptions for observations at a time after death when blood could no longer flow or ooze.

2. There is therefore no reliability in discussing an estimation of the
possible time length of blood flowing as described by Fisherman´s
expert on that matter, since the articles used for such a
discussion are not valid, i.e. there is no possibility to show
that they do not describe a finished process.


I.e. the expert is right about the lenght of time - but the expression "blood oozing" and "flowing" are not valid since we can not know if they are resultative or not.

3. The “blood evidence” hypothesis therefore is not a testable
hypothesis.


4. The idea of “blood evidence” is not a matter of seconds or
minutes, but a matter of semantics.


Kind regards, Pierre
Attached Images
 
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-14-2017, 02:29 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,364
Default

I invite Fisherman to comment on this.

Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-14-2017, 05:14 AM
John G John G is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,958
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Hi all,

I have found that Fisherman´s hypothesis about the "blood evidence" is not possible to test and will now show you why.

There was a use of the expression “blood oozing” in Victorian times which prooves that this expression can not be interpreted as it is intepreted by Fisherman.

Therefore, the so called "blood evidence" can not be used as any evidence for Lechmere having murdered Polly Nichols.

In the Victorian era, “Blood oozing” was used, even by doctors, in a purely resultative way.

This means that the blood oozing had already happened when the observer
observed it.


Therefore, we see an ambigous use of the expression during this period, where we can not know what the expression meant.

There are many examples for the resultative use of the expression in the Victorian era. They can be found through a search on “blood oozing” in the British Newspaper Archive.

I will give three examples here.

They are from The Thanet Advertiser, August 30, 1973, The Lancaster Gazette, July 30, 1870 and South Wales Daily News, July 13, 1896, in that order as presented below.

In the first article the doctor himself states that the blood was oozing
both from the head and the ear although the person was dead and
cold.


In the second article a child is found dead in the morning after having
been suffocated, and there was “a little blood oozing from the mouth
and ear” although it is clear that the suffocation could have taken
place at any time during the night.

In the third article a man has been shot dead about 10 o´clock in the evening. The doctor states that he arrived at the spot of the shooting about
one and a half hour later, at 11.30, and then saw “blood oozing” and
even “flowing” from the man.


Conclusion:

In the Victorian era the expression “blood oozing” – and
even “flowing” – was used as an expression describing the result of a
process which was finished before the observation. It was used as
a resultative expression.


For Fisherman´s theory this means that:

1. There is no validity in his material used for the hypothesis
about “blood evidence” connected to Lechmere, since the
expression “blood oozing”, and even the expression
“flowing”, were used as descriptions for observations at a time after death when blood could no longer flow or ooze.

2. There is therefore no reliability in discussing an estimation of the
possible time length of blood flowing as described by Fisherman´s
expert on that matter, since the articles used for such a
discussion are not valid, i.e. there is no possibility to show
that they do not describe a finished process.


I.e. the expert is right about the lenght of time - but the expression "blood oozing" and "flowing" are not valid since we can not know if they are resultative or not.

3. The “blood evidence” hypothesis therefore is not a testable
hypothesis.


4. The idea of “blood evidence” is not a matter of seconds or
minutes, but a matter of semantics.


Kind regards, Pierre
Hi Pierre,

Welcome back. However, I'm really struggling to understand your argument and conclusion. For instance, what do you mean by "resultative"? Are you seriously suggesting that the Victorian doctors described observations that they didn't actually observe? Because, if so, it would be an absurd use of language, akin to a witness stating that they saw A shoot B when, in actuality, they made no such observation as this event had already occurred, unseen by the "witness".

Moreover, your examples are not directly relevant to the scientific argument as they don't relate to neck injuries. Payne James, for example, explains how scalp injuries can continue to "ooze" after death: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=... ooze&f=false

The fundamental issue, as discussed in other threads, is the use of the word "ooze", a word that has wide-ranging definitions-from "flow" to "trickle", for example.

Last edited by John G : 04-14-2017 at 05:19 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-14-2017, 05:47 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,364
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Hi Pierre,

Welcome back. However, I'm really struggling to understand your argument and conclusion. For instance, what do you mean by "resultative"? Are you seriously suggesting that the Victorian doctors described observations that they didn't actually observe? Because, if so, it would be an absurd use of language, akin to a witness stating that they saw A shoot B when, in actuality, they made no such observation as this event had already occurred, unseen by the "witness".

Moreover, your examples are not directly relevant to the scientific argument as they don't relate to neck injuries. Payne James, for example, explains how scalp injuries can continue to "ooze" after death: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=... ooze&f=false

The fundamental issue, as discussed in other threads, is the use of the word "ooze", a word that has wide-ranging definitions-from "flow" to "trickle", for example.
Hi John,

Thanks.

You seem to have missed the points, read them again and you will see.

The book you refer do does not give any time specification.

There are different wounds described as having "blood oozing" in the articles.

Regards, Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-14-2017, 06:12 AM
John G John G is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,958
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Hi John,

Thanks.

You seem to have missed the points, read them again and you will see.

The book you refer do does not give any time specification.

There are different wounds described as having "blood oozing" in the articles.

Regards, Pierre
Hi Pierre,

I'm still struggling to understand your point. For instance, in one article Dr Arthur states, "I could see blood oozing from a hole at the back of his coat close to the shoulder blade..." By any common sense construction of the sentence he is clearly speaking in the present tense, not the part tense. However, you state "blood oozing" referred to "descriptions for time after death when blood could no longer flow and ooze", i.e. past tense.

And how do you know blood could no longer flow or ooze? Moreover, the fact that none of the articles you cite refers to a neck injury is clearly relevant.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-14-2017, 06:30 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,364
Default

[quote=John G;412147]Hi Pierre,

Quote:
I'm still struggling to understand your point. For instance, in one article Dr Arthur states, "I could see blood oozing from a hole at the back of his coat close to the shoulder blade..." By any common sense construction of the sentence he is clearly speaking in the present tense, not the part tense. However, you state "blood oozing" referred to "descriptions for time after death when blood could no longer flow and ooze", i.e. past tense.
Hi John,

He described "blood oozing" one and a half hour after death.

Quote:
And how do you know blood could no longer flow or ooze? Moreover, the fact that none of the articles you cite refers to a neck injury is clearly relevant.
Read the article about the dead and cold and you will see.

Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-14-2017, 08:18 AM
John G John G is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,958
Default

[quote=Pierre;412148]
Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Hi Pierre,



Hi John,

He described "blood oozing" one and a half hour after death.



Read the article about the dead and cold and you will see.

Pierre
Hi Pierre,

But you can't rely on newspaper articles, which provide a mere summary of events. For instance, Dr Arthur states, "I at once made an examination of the body." Now, what exactly does that mean? Might he have moved the body, which clearly would have made a significant difference? As Dr Biggs relates:

"I did an autopsy last week, where the body had been transported a great distance to the mortuary, and death had occurred almost 24 hours prior to my examination...and yet the injuries continued to 'bleed' relatively profusely for quite some time. So much so that we struggled to get a 'clean' photograph as the blood flooded back as quickly as we could wipe it away." (Marriott, 2013)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-14-2017, 08:39 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,364
Default

QUOTE=John G;412149]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre;412148

[QUOTE
Hi Pierre,

But you can't rely on newspaper articles, which provide a mere summary of events. For instance, Dr Arthur states, "I at once made an examination of the body." Now, what exactly does that mean? Might he have moved the body, which clearly would have made a significant difference?
Hi John,

Not relying on newspaper articles is a constant for an historian. And if you apply it, you can not rely on articles about the murder in Buck´s Row.

Quote:
As Dr Biggs relates:

"I did an autopsy last week, where the body had been transported a great distance to the mortuary, and death had occurred almost 24 hours prior to my examination...and yet the injuries continued to 'bleed' relatively profusely for quite some time. So much so that we struggled to get a 'clean' photograph as the blood flooded back as quickly as we could wipe it away." (Marriott, 2013)
The articles do not mention moving the victims.

The Biggs source is another source.

Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-14-2017, 08:55 AM
John G John G is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,958
Default

[quote=Pierre;412151]QUOTE=John G;412149][quote=Pierre;412148



Hi John,

Not relying on newspaper articles is a constant for an historian. And if you apply it, you can not rely on articles about the murder in Buck´s Row.



The articles do not mention moving the victims.

The Biggs source is another source.

Pierre[/QUOTE]

Hi Pierre,

The fact that the articles don't mention the victims being moved is incidental: they were clearly a mere summary of events, so we're certainly not entitled to conclude that the bodies were not moved as this information may have been omitted. In any event, as I've already noted the fact that Dr Arthur states that he examined the body may allow us to reasonably infer that the body was moved.

I agree the Biggs source is another source. Is there now some rule about relying on only one source?

Last edited by John G : 04-14-2017 at 09:00 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-14-2017, 09:01 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,364
Default

QUOTE=John G;412152][quote=Pierre;412151]QUOTE=John G;412149

Quote:
Hi Pierre,

The fact that the articles don't mention the victims being moved is incidental: they were clearly a mere summary of events, so we're certainly not entitled to conclude that the bodies were not moved as this information may have been omitted. In any event, as I've already noted the fact that Dr Arthur states that he examined the body may allow us to reasonably infer that the body was moved.

I agree the Biggs source is another source. Is there now some rule about relying on only one source?
Hi John,

Do you have extensive training in source criticism?

And another question: Do you believe in the Lechmere idea?

Pierre
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 11:56 AM.


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