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 Discussion: Vincent van Ripper!!!!!!!!! - by GUT 36 minutes ago.
General Discussion: Vincent van Ripper!!!!!!!!! - by miss marple 41 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - by richardnunweek 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - by Sam Flynn 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - by Varqm 5 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - by Varqm 6 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - (19 posts)
General Discussion: New claims Jack the Ripper was noted poet who studied as a priest in the North East - (11 posts)
General Discussion: Two Years of Articles - (4 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Joe Barnettīs alibi accepted lightly? - (4 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Is the first published suspect book overlooked? - (3 posts)
General Discussion: "Red Terror" - (3 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
  #21  
Old 04-15-2017, 02:33 AM
DJA DJA is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Some Australian Mountain Range.
Posts: 1,121
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
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".
Debaitable.Sic.
__________________
My name is Dave not Deb
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-15-2017, 07:22 AM
tji tji is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 519
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
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".
Just because you feel it is ambiguous doesn't make it invalid.

Tj
__________________
It's not about what you know....it's about what you can find out
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-15-2017, 07:58 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,756
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tji View Post
Just because you feel it is ambiguous doesn't make it invalid.

Tj
It is not a "feeling". It is a variation in the use of the expression "blood oozing" in the material from the time. This variation shows us that the expression is used for post-oozing.

Therefore the sources used for the "blood evidence" have low validity for confirming the hypothesis. We canīt know how what use is active in the sources.

Pierre

Last edited by Pierre : 04-15-2017 at 08:00 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-15-2017, 08:27 AM
tji tji is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 519
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
It is not a "feeling". It is a variation in the use of the expression "blood oozing" in the material from the time. This variation shows us that the expression is used for post-oozing.

Therefore the sources used for the "blood evidence" have low validity for confirming the hypothesis. We canīt know how what use is active in the sources.

Pierre

No it doesn't show that at all. You assume that.

Oozing is a word commonly used in the UK to suggest a slow, sluggish movement of 'fluid'

A body can still ooze blood hours after death, usually down to gravity, position of body and coagulation so Victorian Doctors may well likely have been witness to it, so you are incorrect with this assumption.


Tj


ps - the first article is dated 1973 so not really a Victorian doctor and yet they still are quite happy in using this method of observation - you have to ask yourself what that tells you.
__________________
It's not about what you know....it's about what you can find out
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-15-2017, 09:38 AM
John G John G is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
It is not a "feeling". It is a variation in the use of the expression "blood oozing" in the material from the time. This variation shows us that the expression is used for post-oozing.

Therefore the sources used for the "blood evidence" have low validity for confirming the hypothesis. We canīt know how what use is active in the sources.

Pierre
I strongly disagree with your "post oozing" conclusion, as the articles wouldn't make grammatical sense on that basis.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-15-2017, 11:03 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,756
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
I strongly disagree with your "post oozing" conclusion, as the articles wouldn't make grammatical sense on that basis.
I know that you disagree.

"Grammatical sense" is not an historical tool.

Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-16-2017, 12:44 AM
John G John G is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
I know that you disagree.

"Grammatical sense" is not an historical tool.

Pierre
I have no idea what this means. Nonetheless, if it makes no grammatical sense then it's essentially meaningless.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-16-2017, 05:46 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,756
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
I have no idea what this means. Nonetheless, if it makes no grammatical sense then it's essentially meaningless.
That is a problem on this site. People here do not speak the same language, since they do not come from the same scientific discipline. They do not think using the same type of scientific models.

The consequences are many. I, for instance, can no teach you my discipline and you can not teach me yours. And when we approach the JtR-case we have very different understanding of it. So even if I try to explain what it means that grammatical sence is not an historical tool, there is a small chance you will understand it.

But I can tell you one thing: Many sources from the past do not make any sense at all. The reason for this is that the past and history are not the same. The past is gone, and history is our own interpretation of the sources left to us from the past.

The interpretations we make is the foundation for establishing facts, and these facts are history.

Regards, Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-16-2017, 10:19 AM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,845
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
That is a problem on this site. People here do not speak the same language, since they do not come from the same scientific discipline. They do not think using the same type of scientific models.

The consequences are many. I, for instance, can no teach you my discipline and you can not teach me yours. And when we approach the JtR-case we have very different understanding of it. So even if I try to explain what it means that grammatical sence is not an historical tool, there is a small chance you will understand it.

But I can tell you one thing: Many sources from the past do not make any sense at all. The reason for this is that the past and history are not the same. The past is gone, and history is our own interpretation of the sources left to us from the past.

The interpretations we make is the foundation for establishing facts, and these facts are history.

Regards, Pierre
Please. The only person who seems to have trouble interpreting word meaning is you, consistently. Youve made baseless statements as if they are empirical, youve challenged statements without any contradictory evidence other than your opinion....which you somehow believe supercedes evidence, and youve made a mockery out of almost every thread you either create, or interject upon.

Stop telling people they dont get it. YOU dont get it...obviously. The fact that you believe your opinion more important than the written word or factual evidence says everything about YOU, and little about those of us who wish you would find another sandbox.
__________________
Michael Richards
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-16-2017, 11:42 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,756
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
Please. The only person who seems to have trouble interpreting word meaning is you, consistently. Youve made baseless statements as if they are empirical, youve challenged statements without any contradictory evidence other than your opinion....which you somehow believe supercedes evidence, and youve made a mockery out of almost every thread you either create, or interject upon.

Stop telling people they dont get it. YOU dont get it...obviously. The fact that you believe your opinion more important than the written word or factual evidence says everything about YOU, and little about those of us who wish you would find another sandbox.
"Written Word". "Factual Evidence".

You sound like one of the old churchfathers in Constantinople.
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 03:59 AM.


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