Bucks Row Project

[Elamarna]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Hi Steve,

You write:



There are two serious research problems here:

1. There is no valid data for the so called "blood evidence", operationalized as "blood oozing" or even "flowing", since the use of the expression in Victorian times often was resultative. "Blood oozing" was said by doctors and others to have been observed by them at times after death when blood had stopped coming out of the observed bodies.

2. Therefore, applying the non valid and non reliable hypothesis about a "blood evidence" against "realistic timings" is not generating scientific knowledge.

Best wishes, Pierre

Thank you for the input Pierre, that is the sort of thing I wish to put a hold on until part 3.
This first part was purely to produce figures that could be used in discussing it and to see
if the times are reasonable compared to the hypothesis.

That been done and it is for individuals to look at the data and see what part of the data works assuming the hypothesis to be GOOD.

I appreciate what you say and it will be discussed later when we discuss the hypothesis in detail and reach conclusions.

For that reason could I please ask you to hold fire from that discussion until we reach it in my timeline.


Steve

[Robert St Devil]

It sounds like you have your mind already made up on how it happened, steve. good luck.

[Elamarna]

Originally Posted by Robert St Devil

It sounds like you have your mind already made up on how it happened, steve. good luck.

Made up on what in particular Robert?

That I don't think we can pinpoint the time of death based on the reported feel of extremities then certainly yes.

On if Lechmere could be the killer certainly not, however that was not the point of the exercise.

Steve

[Robert St Devil]

don,t mind me. i woke up in a mode. wanna drink guinesses til im ready to go down and heckle the jtr tour guide. they do midnight tours, right?

[Elamarna]

Originally Posted by Robert St Devil

don,t mind me. i woke up in a mode. wanna drink guinesses til im ready to go down and heckle the jtr tour guide. they do midnight tours, right?

Not sure Robert. Probably 1 out there.

Steve

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Elamarna;412099

However this is not the end of the story; Mizen is reported as seeing flowing blood, however at least one report says this was after he returned with the ambulance.
Has we have already seen, the fastest possible time to get the ambulance would be at least 14 minutes plus some exchange at the police station. Even if we cut this exchange to a few seconds,
we are left with a combined shortest time for Mizen’s report of 9minutes 35 seconds to reach Bucks Row + 14 minutes minimum to go for and return with the ambulance that gives a total minimum time from killer cut to viewing of 23 minutes 35 seconds,

It seems clear that Mizen could not see free flowing blood, the idea is completely unviable and certainly not realistic when compared to the actual hypothesis.

He may however have seen blood run, when the body was moved and wounds may have reopened to an extent, that is a different thing which we shall look at in Part 3.

There ends PART 1

Hi Steve,

The approach you use with counting time and speed for the events given to us by the old sources has many advantages:

You highlight the episodic character of the events surrounding the Buck´s Row murder

People here are able to follow the events through a constructed time lens, for which you give clear figures

One can easily see how you have constructed the knowledge about the events

You construct a relationistic chain where you put the events together

Right now I am not sure about the reliability of the chain. When you hypothesize about minutes and seconds, and speed, in the past using rather problematic sources you tend to get problems with it. It is very difficult to know what the implications of your choices of minutes and seconds, as well as speed, are.

However, when you get a long time interval independently of speed and of how many minutes you hypothesize and that interval is too long for any observation of blood oozing, it should be established as a fact that the interval is too long for the possibility of such an observation.

Your own conclusion is, as you write, that:

"It seems clear that Mizen could not see free flowing blood, the idea is completely unviable and certainly not realistic when compared to the actual hypothesis."

You use the expression "could not".

It will be interesting to see if anyone can dispute this and how they will try to do it.

I think your own approach is interesting and will certainly follow this research.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Originally Posted by Pierre

QUOTE=Elamarna;412099



Hi Steve,

The approach you use with counting time and speed for the events given to us by the old sources has many advantages:

You highlight the episodic character of the events surrounding the Buck´s Row murder

People here are able to follow the events through a constructed time lens, for which you give clear figures

One can easily see how you have constructed the knowledge about the events

You construct a relationistic chain where you put the events together

Right now I am not sure about the reliability of the chain. When you hypothesize about minutes and seconds, and speed, in the past using rather problematic sources you tend to get problems with it. It is very difficult to know what the implications of your choices of minutes and seconds, as well as speed, are.

However, when you get a long time interval independently of speed and of how many minutes you hypothesize and that interval is too long for any observation of blood oozing, it should be established as a fact that the interval is too long for the possibility of such an observation.

Your own conclusion is, as you write, that:

"It seems clear that Mizen could not see free flowing blood, the idea is completely unviable and certainly not realistic when compared to the actual hypothesis."

You use the expression "could not".

It will be interesting to see if anyone can dispute this and how they will try to do it.

I think your own approach is interesting and will certainly follow this research.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre


Yes my preferred choice of speed is certainly open to debate, hence the need to present the alternatives.

In the case of Mizen I was prepared to comment because the timings seemed so at odds with the theory that blood would stop flowing after a few minutes, with the expert saying 7 was more unlikely than 3 or 5.
With mizen we are way past that. I therefore felt it was right to make the statement I did.

As you say it will be interesting to see the reasoning behind any disagreement on this particular point later in the process.

Steve

[Varqm]

"The approach you use with counting time and speed for the events given to us by the old sources has many advantages:

You highlight the episodic character of the events surrounding the Buck´s Row murder

People here are able to follow the events through a constructed time lens, for which you give clear figures

One can easily see how you have constructed the knowledge about the events

You construct a relationistic chain where you put the events together "


Can we just be practical here and not get bogged down by bookishness. Can we just take off the space suit for awhile.

[Robert St Devil]

i just find your research to be incredibly boring, steve
its a lot of this:.

[Elamarna]

Originally Posted by Robert St Devil

i just find your research to be incredibly boring, steve
its a lot of this:.

Robert

Sorry you find it boring, figures often are. And often research is.

Egyptology my main other interest has the big discoveries from time to time, which while exciting to the public, often tells the Egyptology community very little that is important

And I am sorry if you do not see the relavence of much of it to the Interpretation of the Bucks Row murder.

It's not blah it just lots of figures with commentary. If it was just charts it would be very hard to understand.

However you find it boring, no problem and I am sorry.

Steve