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:
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by Observer 3 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by Sam Flynn 7 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by Observer 25 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by Simon Wood 6 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by rjpalmer 7 hours ago.
Other: Ripper Novel? - by WastelandOfTheRipper 7 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
General Police Discussion: Kelly inquest/Smithkey - (32 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (20 posts)
Other: Ripper Novel? - (12 posts)
General Police Discussion: Leaving one's beat - (7 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Strictly personal ID - (6 posts)
Witnesses: Value of a lie - (4 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
  #161  
Old 07-16-2017, 07:09 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,635
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Because of other reports taken into account.
You mean in the Times? But how do we know the reporters didn't discuss what was going on between them? Perhaps there was a rumour floating around as to what was happening in the room.

It's no way good enough to mark it down as established fact is it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Completely separate paragraph, separate heading, nothing to do with the subject at hand.

As I'm sure you know, Jon, a series of dots, or ellipsis, should be used to indicate the existence of an intervening paragraph not quoted, separate subject or not.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 07-16-2017, 07:12 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,635
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
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.
Well it's funny but when I asked you to set out your sources originally you only produced the Times (and the same story in the Star). You've obviously found a new story but that clearly wasn't what you were basing your original conclusion on.

Problem is there are also reports which say something different.

And given that both reports - the one in the Western Mail and the one in the Times - might have come from the same source, all you are potentially doing is corroborating a mistake with the same mistake. It's not good enough Jon.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 07-16-2017, 07:14 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post

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!
See, you are putting words in my mouth now.

At no point have I ever referred to this subject as an established fact. I've never used the word 'fact', that is your assumption.
We've been over this before.
I posted press quotes, you saw them.
I get the impression you just enjoy wasting people's time going round and round in circles.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 07-16-2017, 07:23 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
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"?
Location has nothing to do with it for goodness sake's man, both reports describe two separate functions. The first an overview, the second the examination.
Phillips isn't going to examine McKenze on the sidewalk. Of course the location changed, besides Phillips then conducted an autopsy for the inquest.

At Millers court the doctors had to be sure all her parts were found before they packed her off to the mortuary. The location stayed the same, its a post-mortem, but not an autopsy.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 07-16-2017, 07:25 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post

As I'm sure you know, Jon, a series of dots, or ellipsis, should be used to indicate the existence of an intervening paragraph not quoted, separate subject or not.
That is when you are quoting from the same paragraph, not from the same page.
Are you drifting off topic again?
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 07-16-2017, 07:35 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Well it's funny but when I asked you to set out your sources originally you only produced the Times (and the same story in the Star). You've obviously found a new story but that clearly wasn't what you were basing your original conclusion on.

Problem is there are also reports which say something different.

And given that both reports - the one in the Western Mail and the one in the Times - might have come from the same source, all you are potentially doing is corroborating a mistake with the same mistake. It's not good enough Jon.
"Might"?
"potentially"?
There are no shortage of press reports on this, some carry errors. There is no official report to suggest any other sequence of events.
If your whole purpose in chasing me across threads is because you think I called these stories 'facts' you are most certainly wasting your time & mine too.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 07-17-2017, 01:09 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,635
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
See, you are putting words in my mouth now.

At no point have I ever referred to this subject as an established fact. I've never used the word 'fact', that is your assumption.
We've been over this before.
I posted press quotes, you saw them.
I get the impression you just enjoy wasting people's time going round and round in circles.
No, you are wrong. I haven't put any words into your mouth. I said "You continually treat it as established fact." And that is exactly what you keep doing.

In the other thread you said:

"Dr. Phillips did make a preliminary examination on entering the room at 1:30, after which the photographer appears to have been permitted to enter, prior to the post-mortem beginning at 2:00 pm."


That is treating it as an established fact. No source is mentioned. There is no form of qualification. I had to extract the source of this from you, being a newspaper. You don't know for certain what Dr Phillips did on entering the room.

Then again in this thread:

"After a cursory (preliminary?) examination he determined she had died from a cut to the throat. That is all we know from Phillips's own mouth, isn't it?"


Ironically, you question "preliminary" - which is fine - but not "cursory" which you suggest came from Phillips's own mouth. He never said it though!
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 07-17-2017, 01:16 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,635
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Location has nothing to do with it for goodness sake's man, both reports describe two separate functions. The first an overview, the second the examination.
Phillips isn't going to examine McKenze on the sidewalk. Of course the location changed, besides Phillips then conducted an autopsy for the inquest.

At Millers court the doctors had to be sure all her parts were found before they packed her off to the mortuary. The location stayed the same, its a post-mortem, but not an autopsy.
I'm going to ignore your quirky distinction here between "post-mortem" and "autopsy" on the basis that the relevant doctors didn't do it in November 1888 and it's just confusing matters.

You simply haven't met the point I am challenging you with. You say "Of course the location changed". I agree. The normal course is for an examination to be made in situ at the crime scene (one could call it a "preliminary examination") and then a proper post-mortem (or autopsy - I regard the terms as interchangeable) takes place in a mortuary.

So what I am asking you, Jon, is why didn't exactly the same thing happen with the Mary Kelly murder?

And before you answer, I'm challenging the assumption that the examination that took place in the room was a proper post-mortem examination as reported in the press. How do we know that the press got it right?
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 07-17-2017, 01:21 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,635
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
That is when you are quoting from the same paragraph, not from the same page.
No, that's not correct Jon. You wrapped up the entire quote within one set of quotation marks, suggesting no interruption in the text. Had I not had the Western Mail report, and not decided to check it, I would have been misled into thinking it was two consecutive paragraphs. Had you put in the dots I would have known there was something you hadn't quoted. Yet bang in the middle is the statement about Sir Charles arriving at Miller's Court, an error undermining the accuracy of the entire report.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 07-17-2017, 01:25 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,635
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
There is no official report to suggest any other sequence of events.
But that's twisted logic. Some newspapers suggest there was only one examination carried out in the room and there is no official report to suggest any other sequence of events than THAT either.

You can't possibly rely on the absence of supporting evidence for a newspaper story as an actual reason to say that the newspaper story is correct!! That way madness lies.
__________________
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 03:10 AM.


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