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:
General Suspect Discussion: Was Ernest Dowson Jack the Ripper? - by SuspectZero 22 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 37 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by jerryd 47 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 1 hour and 19 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - by richardnunweek 2 hours ago.
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - by DirectorDave 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (10 posts)
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - (6 posts)
Elizabeth Stride: Elizabeth's murder and the double event - (4 posts)
General Discussion: Albert Backert - did he emigrate? - (3 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (2 posts)
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - (2 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
  #11  
Old 04-14-2017, 09:08 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,079
Default

[quote=Pierre;412153]QUOTE=John G;412152]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
QUOTE=John G;412149



Hi John,

Do you have extensive training in source criticism?

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

Pierre
No I don't believe Lechmere killed anyone. Do you need extensive training in source criticism in order to engage in a rational debate? Does this somehow give you a special status?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-14-2017, 11:31 AM
Varqm Varqm is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 357
Default

We know without pictures,etc,we cannot make a "proper determination".You can debate the semantics all day long without result.The suspect-based people, most, just choose scenarios which suit their needs, out of several possibilities, in almost all events/situations.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-14-2017, 02:14 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,269
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
Heeees baaack.
Actually the term cam be used in both contexts so your entire point is moot.
__________________
"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
  #14  
Old 04-14-2017, 04:12 PM
DJA DJA is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Some Australian Mountain Range.
Posts: 1,293
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Heeees baaack.
Actually the term cam be used in both contexts so your entire point is moot.
Ooze baaack!
__________________
My name is Dave.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-14-2017, 10:36 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,142
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Heeees baaack.
Actually the term cam be used in both contexts so your entire point is moot.
Not just back, but pretending to be a great historian again, I thought he might revert to one of his earlier persona.
__________________
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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-14-2017, 11:01 PM
John Wheat John Wheat is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post

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


Kind regards, Pierre
The case against Lechmere is based on semantics and bullshit.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-15-2017, 12:31 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,701
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Heeees baaack.
Actually the term cam be used in both contexts so your entire point is moot.
Abby
The issue is that not all people view it that way. Some do, but many don't which is why this is such a sticking point for some.

However I expect a large debate on such when I reach that point the project thread. I am sure all views will be forcefully put.


I am trying to keep out of this thread on the whole


Cheers for now


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-15-2017, 02:02 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post
Not just back, but pretending to be a great historian again, I thought he might revert to one of his earlier persona.
Hi GUT,

I explicitly ask you to stop attacking me personally. I find your comments rude and humiliating.

This is a thread about the case and not about me personally.

You have attacked me many times earlier in the same way, accusing me of "pretending". You have been using the pejorative "pretending to be a great historian" one time to many now.

I am a simple academic historian. I am not "pretending" and do not tolerate your accusation.

And do not call me a "persona". I am a person.

The next time you attack me personally I will contact admin.

Regards, Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-15-2017, 02:05 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Heeees baaack.
Actually the term cam be used in both contexts so your entire point is moot.
That is my point if you have read it: The expression is ambigous and therefore not valid. So my point is crucial for the so called "blood evidence".
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-15-2017, 02:17 AM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,142
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Hi GUT,

I explicitly ask you to stop attacking me personally. I find your comments rude and humiliating.

This is a thread about the case and not about me personally.

You have attacked me many times earlier in the same way, accusing me of "pretending". You have been using the pejorative "pretending to be a great historian" one time to many now.

I am a simple academic historian. I am not "pretending" and do not tolerate your accusation.

And do not call me a "persona". I am a person.

The next time you attack me personally I will contact admin.

Regards, Pierre

Can you provide any linkage to your qualifications?

By the way I remember well your attack on my wife who isn't even a member.

You also originally claimed to be a scientist and then a sociologist (or some such) as for being an historian I have also a number of times in the past caught you out not knowing the difference between a primary source and a secondary source, so I have good reason to doubt your criteria as an historian, as does everyone else here.
__________________
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.
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 04:10 PM.


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