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