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:
Witnesses: Lechmere graves and tragedy - by MrBarnett 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - by Kattrup 3 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - by Joshua Rogan 3 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - by Damaso Marte 3 hours ago.
Witnesses: Lechmere graves and tragedy - by MrBarnett 4 hours ago.
General Police Discussion: Leaving one's beat - by Robert 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: And This Is Factual! - (28 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (15 posts)
Witnesses: Lechmere graves and tragedy - (13 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - (5 posts)
Maybrick, James: Too Sensible & Competent - (2 posts)
General Police Discussion: Leaving one's beat - (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 > Witnesses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #131  
Old 07-11-2016, 08:02 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,627
Default

David Orsam: Once again you use "around four o'clock" so clearly there is some kind of difference in your mind between "about" and "around", pushing the time closer to 4am.

Donīt-be-paranoid! I can change it to about if you wish; to me the expressions are totally interchangable in this context. You?

How you can take the evidence and fit exact timings down to the nearest five minutes is beyond me. How you think it is possible to say that the doctor's examination was at 4:10 and not 4:05 is baffling.

I guess it could have been 4.09 or 4.11 too. Maybe you need to realize that I am estimating a time from what we have...?

Then we get on to how you think the doctor could have narrowed down the time of death to no more than 30 minutes prior to his examination but not more than 35 minutes or 40 minutes. That is something I'd like to hear some medical explanation about.

Not from me, you wouldnīt.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 07-11-2016, 08:04 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,627
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Well there we have it.

As unreasonable as it's possible to be.

Only in Fisherman's World can a time of "about 4am" not very easily mean "ten minutes to 4am". Amazing!
Oh no - things can be a lot more unreasonable! And I happen to think that it is unreasonable to suggest that a doctor playing the role Llewellyn did, simply winged things very broadly.
But no matter if you think he DID, we STILL have him saying arou... sorry, ABOUT four AM. And that is what we work from, unless it is in conflict with the other facts. Which it isnīt.

How do you think we are doing? Are we making priceless contributions to Ripperology? Or is this debate complete crap? I know what I think!

Last edited by Fisherman : 07-11-2016 at 08:06 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 07-11-2016, 08:35 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,627
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
I would never, of course, listen to what Trevor says but he actually quoted the words of an expert on this matter. So I feel I must listen to what an expert says. Perhaps you feel you can ignore experts who don't support your opinion?
When they have been led astray by being asked the wrong questions, I would not be opposed to such a thing. Biggsī comments were unrelated to the Nichols case, whereas Jason Payne-Jamesī comments were directly relating to it.

For some reason, I think that was why the answers differed.

I have otherwise stated that I have full trust for Biggs - if he is only correctly, fully and adequately informed about the facts from the case he is supposed to comment on. Jason Payne-James of course knew all the medical factors involved.

Maybe such matters are unimportant to you? All experts are equal?

Do you feel we are getting anywhere, David? Moving forward?

Last edited by Fisherman : 07-11-2016 at 08:56 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 07-11-2016, 09:02 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,904
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
David Orsam: Clearly you don't understand what the word "about" means as opposed to the word "at".

I thought it was as opposed to "around"...?
No, you thought wrong. I said there was a subtle difference between "about" and "around", whereby the latter could be interpreted as being closer to time it is linked to. That's why I think you keep using it instead of the word that was used by the witness. There is a big difference between "about" and "at".
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 07-11-2016, 09:06 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,904
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
That, I suggest, would depend on the circumstances. When we have a practicing medico reporting his role at a murder inquest, the margins will be different from when we speak about a less pressing errand.
This is really the point I was making. Why would the doctor say that Nichols had not been murdered more than half an hour before a certain time without saying what that time was? It doesn't make much sense.

Not everyone is able to precisely estimate the time it would have taken him to get dressed Fisherman.

As the only time mentioned at the inquest was 4am, I'm suggesting that this was quite possibly the time he was saying he examined the body as opposed to the time he was called up. The latter time was irrelevant for medical purposes whereas the time he examined the body was rather more important.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 07-11-2016, 09:11 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,904
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
I simply say that if the timings given were correct, then Lechmere remains a very strong candidate for the Nichols murder.
And here's the nub of it. You ARE trying to use "the timings" to support your case that Lechmere murdered Nichols.

But really Fisherman: "if the timings given were correct". What timings????

Unless he examined the body at 4am, the doctor doesn't give a time for that examination. So we don't have a time other than your speculation for when he did so.

So please don't say "if the timings given are correct" when you really mean if your speculative timings are correct.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 07-11-2016, 09:13 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,904
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Shall we continue? Are we making progress, do you think?
Well we've now established that you don't know what the word "about" means when it comes to estimating times in the nineteenth century and we've established that you are trying to use a time of "about" 4am to prove that Lechmere was the murderer.

So we are making some progress and it's no wonder that you believe there is "a major timing gap" in this case if you think that times were being fixed with precision by the witnesses.

But this is all a funny way of not debating the topic with me any further.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 07-11-2016, 09:15 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,904
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
David Orsam: Once again you use "around four o'clock" so clearly there is some kind of difference in your mind between "about" and "around", pushing the time closer to 4am.

Donīt-be-paranoid! I can change it to about if you wish; to me the expressions are totally interchangable in this context. You?
I would say let's stick with the word reported to have been used by the witness.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 07-11-2016, 09:16 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,904
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
I guess it could have been 4.09 or 4.11 too. Maybe you need to realize that I am estimating a time from what we have...?
Right so we are making some progress.

Now let's get down to business.

Could it have been 4:05?
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 07-11-2016, 09:20 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,904
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Oh no - things can be a lot more unreasonable! And I happen to think that it is unreasonable to suggest that a doctor playing the role Llewellyn did, simply winged things very broadly.
But no matter if you think he DID, we STILL have him saying arou... sorry, ABOUT four AM. And that is what we work from, unless it is in conflict with the other facts. Which it isnīt.
No it isn't, and the other fact we have is that he issued a statement on 31 August in which he said "I was called to Buck's row about five minutes to four this morning".

Can we work from this Mr Fisherman?
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
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 07:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.