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:
Goulston Street Graffito: Can we profile the Ripper from the GSG? - by Herlock Sholmes 2 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Just my theory. - by Callmebill 6 minutes ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: Were Belle Elmore’s remains that proved she wasn’t related to her living relatives an - by jmenges 6 minutes ago.
General Police Discussion: Lost police records & documents............... - by Joshua Rogan 12 minutes ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: Can we profile the Ripper from the GSG? - by curious 35 minutes ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: Can we profile the Ripper from the GSG? - by Joshua Rogan 36 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - (35 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (34 posts)
Witnesses: Why Buck's Row? - (27 posts)
Goulston Street Graffito: Can we profile the Ripper from the GSG? - (25 posts)
General Police Discussion: Lost police records & documents............... - (22 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Was Annie Chapman a rotund woman? - (6 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 > Victims > Mary Ann Nichols

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #151  
Old 07-16-2017, 06:45 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,676
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
No-one is correct in everything they write, scientists, archaeologist, police official, doctor - journalist.
The task is to disseminate what we read, not dismiss it because they got a name wrong.
You are once again getting it all the wrong way round.

I'm not dismissing anything.

I'm asking you why you are accepting the newspaper report without corroboration and without qualification.

Do you see the difference?
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 07-16-2017, 06:47 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
I'm a little bit worried you are not reading my posts properly. Bond says that rigor-mortis was increasing after his visit at 2pm, at which time he was carrying out an examination, but not, expressly, after the start of a post-mortem examination. Please read my #138 carefully. Had you answered the question I asked you in the second paragraph, we might have been able to avoid this sort of confusion.
We need to be sure we are discussing the same sections.

"Rigor Mortis had set in, but increased during the progress of the examination"

Obviously, this is the Friday post-mortem at 2:00 pm. That is what I am saying.

His first line in this report which you previously quoted:
"I have also made a Post Mortem Examination of the mutilated remains of a woman found yesterday in a small room in Dorset Street".

As he took part in two post-mortems, this line could refer to either. Regardless, it does not help solve our debate.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 07-16-2017, 06:48 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,676
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
So, there is no value in press reports unless their reports are all first-hand accounts? Well, that's the end of the press as we know it.
Again you show that you haven't understood what I've been saying to you in about 100 posts.

I'm not saying there's no value in press reports in general and I'm not saying there is no value in this report.

What I'm saying is that the fact that it has been reported does not mean it is established fact. You continually treat it as established fact. You do not qualify or caveat the statement that there were these two examinations.

Do you understand? It's you I'm "attacking" Not the newspaper reports!
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 07-16-2017, 06:50 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,676
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
From what I see David, you are the one who "thinks" there was only one.
No, I've told you on countless occasions that I think that this is one possible interpretation of the evidence. For me the most probable one. I fully accept it is possible that there were two examinations but it is not certain. It is not an established fact. So you should stop saying it was!
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 07-16-2017, 06:54 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,676
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
We need to be sure we are discussing the same sections.

"Rigor Mortis had set in, but increased during the progress of the examination"

Obviously, this is the Friday post-mortem at 2:00 pm. That is what I am saying.
Well I entirely agree that it was an examination at 2.00pm but I'm questioning whether Dr Bond was referring to it as a "post-mortem" examination.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
His first line in this report which you previously quoted:
"I have also made a Post Mortem Examination of the mutilated remains of a woman found yesterday in a small room in Dorset Street".

As he took part in two post-mortems, this line could refer to either. Regardless, it does not help solve our debate.
No, I appreciate that, which is why I'm wondering why he headed a portion only of his 16 November "report" as "Postmortem Examination". Do you have an answer for this?
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 07-16-2017, 06:54 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,676
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Do you understand? It's you I'm "attacking" Not the newspaper reports!
Sorry to be so blunt by the way but I felt I needed to get the message across.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 07-16-2017, 06:55 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
I see, so if his "report" (to take your description) is entirely of the post-mortem examination, what is the purpose of the heading "Postmortem Examination" after the first five paragrahs?
You ask a lot of questions David.

It's convention.
First the victim & scene are described as found.
Then the examination is recorded in detail.

Take a look at Phillips's examination of McKenzie. Thankfully we have this prime example of how it should be done.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 07-16-2017, 07:03 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
But it's bang on the subject. Yes, every newspaper has both correct and incorrect information. So how do you know that the newspaper was correct on this occasion when it referred to a preliminary examination being carried out by Dr Duke, meaning Dr Phillips?
Because of other reports taken into account.


Quote:
I never said you should have mentioned Warren. What you should have done was indicate by the use of dots that you had omitted to reproduce a section of the report, as you must know.
Completely separate paragraph, separate heading, nothing to do with the subject at hand.

__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 07-16-2017, 07:04 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,676
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
You ask a lot of questions David.

It's convention.
First the victim & scene are described as found.
Then the examination is recorded in detail.

Take a look at Phillips's examination of McKenzie. Thankfully we have this prime example of how it should be done.
Sorry, Jon, doesn't Phillip's report of his McKenzie examination support exactly what I have been saying?

Firstly, as you say, Phillips describes the victim and scene as found but then there is a new heading:

"Exn of body at mortuary".

In other words, he is describing two completely separate examinations at two separate locations.

That is precisely what I am suggesting Dr Bond is doing in his 16 November "report". Firstly reporting what he saw during his examination in 13 Miller's Court. Then reporting the post-mortem examination at the mortuary.

Sorry to be a pain with my questions (let me know if they are too difficult for you) but why could not Dr Bond be doing the very same thing in his "report"?
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 07-16-2017, 07:08 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
You are once again getting it all the wrong way round.

I'm not dismissing anything.

I'm asking you why you are accepting the newspaper report without corroboration and without qualification.

Do you see the difference?
It's precisely because there are other press reports, even though some get specific details wrong, these details are correctly presented in other versions.
That is what collating is, obtaining an overview of the whole scenario and determining from what we have the apparent sequence of events.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
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 03:58 PM.


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