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:
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - by Wickerman 5 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Only one suspect can be shown to have carried a knife. - by Varqm 8 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Debra A 13 minutes ago.
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - by Wickerman 27 minutes ago.
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - by Wickerman 30 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Debra A 52 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (33 posts)
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - (9 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Only one suspect can be shown to have carried a knife. - (7 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: good riddance-have fun in Hell - (4 posts)
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - (4 posts)
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - (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
  #111  
Old 07-11-2016, 07:05 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
You know, you have quite an eccentric approach to these matters.

First you say "You are running, you scoundrel!"

Then, when I answer, you say "You promised not to answer, you scoundrel!"

It is a very odd approach, and one may easily get the idea that you are more after trying to paint me out as confused than to have any real discussion.
My approach is not eccentric or odd in the slightest. It's your approach that is the problem. You constantly say you are not going to reply further to me - without even knowing what I'm going to say - then you invariably DO reply a number of times before usually running away.

You also completely mischaracterise my response by having me say "You promised not to answer". I don't care whether you do or don't reply but it's madness for you to continually say you are not going to reply then reply.

Why not just not say anything about it? Reply if you want to and don't reply if you don't want to. How about THAT for a suggestion?
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 07-11-2016, 07:11 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,910
Default

ME: "Leaving aside that the Daily News report could well be nothing more than the reporter's own interpretation of the Q&A sequence that I set out earlier, what it says is entirely consistent with what I have been saying".

YOU: "No, it is not. It states very clearly that Llewellyn was waken up at around four in the morning by Thain. Any other "interpretation" is a distortion of the facts."

No, it doesn't say "around four" so that's your first fail. It says "about four". A very subtle difference but let's stick with the actual wording.

That could very easily have meant ten minutes to four. The only reason I've suggested closer to 3:55 is because of Dr Llwellyn's statement of 31 August.

So the evidence in the Daily News of him being called up at about four is perfectly consistent with him arriving at Bucks Row at either 4am or, alternatively, 4:05, giving him up to 15 minutes to get dressed and walk round there. Considering that you have only given him 10 minutes, from 4:00 to 4:10, that's very generous!
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 07-11-2016, 07:16 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Oh dear, David. You ARE itching, are you not?

Say that Thain knocked on Llewellyns door at 3.52. Say that the doc was a dressing whizz kid, and got that sorted double quick, arriving in Bucks Row at 3.57.

Llewellyn did effectively NOT say that Nichols died half an hour before he saw her. He said that she had been dead for no more than half an hour. Meaning that she died within that half hour before he arrived.
If he arrived at 4.10, then Nichols according to Llewellyn died between 3.40 and 3.45, since those five minutes are the only ones unaccounted for in the evidence. And that puts Lechmere in the frame.
If he arrived at 3.57, then Llewellyn would have her dead somewhere between 3.27 and 3.45, since we would get that unaccounted gap of time. And that puts Lechmere in the frame.
So there isn't really a point here because whatever estimate the doctor gave for time of death, Lechmere (the first to discover the body) was in the frame. That's basically what you are saying. That's fine but the doctor's estimate gets us no further forward.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 07-11-2016, 07:18 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
In the latter case, we are faced with the problem that Nichols would have bled from the neck wound for 18 minutes before Neil found her, if she was cut at 3.27. And Jason Payne-James tells us that 3-5 minutes are likelier than 7 minutes. What he would say about 18 minutes is anybody´s guess.
No, I'm afraid you are faced with the problem that Trevor's expert told us that Nichols could have bled from the neck wound for some hours after death.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 07-11-2016, 07:23 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Adjust away, David - and try to make it fit the blood evidence. It is really, really hard, I can tell you that much.

And perhaps at 3:35 Lechmere was just leaving his house.

Or maybe at 2.29?
Yes or maybe at 1:00am. But the point is that we can definitely place Lechmere in Bucks Row at some point between 3:40 and 3:45 which is obviously why you are so keen on Dr Llewellyn estimating a time of death of not more than 30 minutes prior to 4:10. There is less force in the point if it's up to 30 minutes prior to 4:00am because we have no evidence of Lechmere being in Bucks Row at 3:30.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 07-11-2016, 07:26 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
It is not meaningless at all. It fits the overall puzzle very nicely, and so it becomes another detail pointing in the carmans direction. And timelines can be built with at least some accuracy. Like it or not.
But the "overall puzzle" for you is that Lechmere murdered Nichols so if you create timings to fit that "overall puzzle" then of course you will come up with a detail pointing in the carman's direction. If the "overall puzzle" is that Lechmere is innocent (you know, the one that those "naysayers" were going on about) then a time of 4:00am or 4:05 am fits that "overall puzzle" very nicely and there is nothing more correct in the evidence about one over the other.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 07-11-2016, 07:29 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,372
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
My approach is not eccentric or odd in the slightest. It's your approach that is the problem. You constantly say you are not going to reply further to me - without even knowing what I'm going to say - then you invariably DO reply a number of times before usually running away.

You also completely mischaracterise my response by having me say "You promised not to answer". I don't care whether you do or don't reply but it's madness for you to continually say you are not going to reply then reply.

Why not just not say anything about it? Reply if you want to and don't reply if you don't want to. How about THAT for a suggestion?
Nah - it is important to me to point out to you that I dislike your debating methods, and I therefore make it a point to tell you that I prefer not to debate with you at all. Consequentially, I will withdraw from the discussion as fast as I can.

And - believe it or not - I prefer to do things my way, instead of taking your advice.

And it remains eccentric to mix the odd "You are running" with the odd "You responded in spite of saying that you would not". It makes you impossible to please. Not that it is any priority of mine, but ...
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 07-11-2016, 07:32 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Now, David, have I been nice to you since I did not run away, or have I been a naughty boy since I said I did not wish to discuss with you any more - and still did so? I find it increasingly hard to keep track of. Any which way, I really mean it when I say that I do not feel like discussing any further with you.
If you can bring yourself to realize that this is on account of how I think you are not a very qualitative debater, instead of any fear for you, I would be most grateful.
The delicious irony here is that while saying that you have not run away you then set the scene up for you to run away!

Just to repeat that I don't care whether you run away or not, or whether you post or not, so saying that you have been "nice" to me is a mistake.

What I don't understand is why you keep making these type of "drama queen" posts - especially when you don't usually stick with what you are saying.

And, by the way, I didn't miss the insult of you calling me "not a very qualitative debater" but I personally think the opposite is true and that you are very happy to debate all day long with people who you think you can easily show to be wrong but you don't like discussing with me because you never get anywhere.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 07-11-2016, 07:35 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Nah - it is important to me to point out to you that I dislike your debating methods, and I therefore make it a point to tell you that I prefer not to debate with you at all. Consequentially, I will withdraw from the discussion as fast as I can.

And - believe it or not - I prefer to do things my way, instead of taking your advice.

And it remains eccentric to mix the odd "You are running" with the odd "You responded in spite of saying that you would not". It makes you impossible to please. Not that it is any priority of mine, but ...
Here we go, not quite stopping yet then? Yes I'm sure you don't like my debating methods Fisherman because I focus on the evidence and point out to your discomfort where you have gone wrong.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 07-11-2016, 07:36 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,372
Default

David Orsam: ME: "Leaving aside that the Daily News report could well be nothing more than the reporter's own interpretation of the Q&A sequence that I set out earlier, what it says is entirely consistent with what I have been saying".

YOU: "No, it is not. It states very clearly that Llewellyn was waken up at around four in the morning by Thain. Any other "interpretation" is a distortion of the facts."

No, it doesn't say "around four" so that's your first fail. It says "about four". A very subtle difference but let's stick with the actual wording.

Eh - what is the actual "subtle difference" but for the spelling...?

That could very easily have meant ten minutes to four. The only reason I've suggested closer to 3:55 is because of Dr Llwellyn's statement of 31 August.

No, David, that could not very easily have meant ten minutes to four. The doctor was testifying in a murder inquest, and he would be anxious not to be too inexact.

So the evidence in the Daily News of him being called up at about four is perfectly consistent with him arriving at Bucks Row at either 4am or, alternatively, 4:05, giving him up to 15 minutes to get dressed and walk round there.

In your world only. With the champagne. In my world, it is desert time for you again. He was knocked up, undressed and in bed, at around four o´clock by Thain. That means that he was not in Bucks Row simultaneously or five minutes earlier. That only hapens in your parallel universe.
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 01:02 PM.


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