Blood oozing

[Pierre]

Hi all,

I have found that Fisherman´s hypothesis about the "blood evidence" is not possible to test and will now show you why.

There was a use of the expression “blood oozing” in Victorian times which prooves that this expression can not be interpreted as it is intepreted by Fisherman.

Therefore, the so called "blood evidence" can not be used as any evidence for Lechmere having murdered Polly Nichols.

In the Victorian era, “Blood oozing” was used, even by doctors, in a purely resultative way.

This means that the blood oozing had already happened when the observer
observed it.

Therefore, we see an ambigous use of the expression during this period, where we can not know what the expression meant.

There are many examples for the resultative use of the expression in the Victorian era. They can be found through a search on “blood oozing” in the British Newspaper Archive.

I will give three examples here.

They are from The Thanet Advertiser, August 30, 1973, The Lancaster Gazette, July 30, 1870 and South Wales Daily News, July 13, 1896, in that order as presented below.

In the first article the doctor himself states that the blood was oozing
both from the head and the ear although the person was dead and
cold.

In the second article a child is found dead in the morning after having
been suffocated, and there was “a little blood oozing from the mouth
and ear” although it is clear that the suffocation could have taken
place at any time during the night.

In the third article a man has been shot dead about 10 o´clock in the evening. The doctor states that he arrived at the spot of the shooting about
one and a half hour later, at 11.30, and then saw “blood oozing” and
even “flowing” from the man.

Conclusion:

In the Victorian era the expression “blood oozing” – and
even “flowing” – was used as an expression describing the result of a
process which was finished before the observation. It was used as
a resultative expression.

For Fisherman´s theory this means that:

1. There is no validity in his material used for the hypothesis
about “blood evidence” connected to Lechmere, since the
expression “blood oozing”, and even the expression
“flowing”, were used as descriptions for observations at a time after death when blood could no longer flow or ooze.

2. There is therefore no reliability in discussing an estimation of the
possible time length of blood flowing as described by Fisherman´s
expert on that matter, since the articles used for such a
discussion are not valid, i.e. there is no possibility to show
that they do not describe a finished process.

I.e. the expert is right about the lenght of time - but the expression "blood oozing" and "flowing" are not valid since we can not know if they are resultative or not.

3. The “blood evidence” hypothesis therefore is not a testable
hypothesis.

4. The idea of “blood evidence” is not a matter of seconds or
minutes, but a matter of semantics.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

I invite Fisherman to comment on this.

Pierre

[John G]

Hi all,

I have found that Fisherman´s hypothesis about the "blood evidence" is not possible to test and will now show you why.

There was a use of the expression “blood oozing” in Victorian times which prooves that this expression can not be interpreted as it is intepreted by Fisherman.

Therefore, the so called "blood evidence" can not be used as any evidence for Lechmere having murdered Polly Nichols.

In the Victorian era, “Blood oozing” was used, even by doctors, in a purely resultative way.

This means that the blood oozing had already happened when the observer
observed it.

Therefore, we see an ambigous use of the expression during this period, where we can not know what the expression meant.

There are many examples for the resultative use of the expression in the Victorian era. They can be found through a search on “blood oozing” in the British Newspaper Archive.

I will give three examples here.

They are from The Thanet Advertiser, August 30, 1973, The Lancaster Gazette, July 30, 1870 and South Wales Daily News, July 13, 1896, in that order as presented below.

In the first article the doctor himself states that the blood was oozing
both from the head and the ear although the person was dead and
cold.

In the second article a child is found dead in the morning after having
been suffocated, and there was “a little blood oozing from the mouth
and ear” although it is clear that the suffocation could have taken
place at any time during the night.

In the third article a man has been shot dead about 10 o´clock in the evening. The doctor states that he arrived at the spot of the shooting about
one and a half hour later, at 11.30, and then saw “blood oozing” and
even “flowing” from the man.

Conclusion:

In the Victorian era the expression “blood oozing” – and
even “flowing” – was used as an expression describing the result of a
process which was finished before the observation. It was used as
a resultative expression.

For Fisherman´s theory this means that:

1. There is no validity in his material used for the hypothesis
about “blood evidence” connected to Lechmere, since the
expression “blood oozing”, and even the expression
“flowing”, were used as descriptions for observations at a time after death when blood could no longer flow or ooze.

2. There is therefore no reliability in discussing an estimation of the
possible time length of blood flowing as described by Fisherman´s
expert on that matter, since the articles used for such a
discussion are not valid, i.e. there is no possibility to show
that they do not describe a finished process.

I.e. the expert is right about the lenght of time - but the expression "blood oozing" and "flowing" are not valid since we can not know if they are resultative or not.

3. The “blood evidence” hypothesis therefore is not a testable
hypothesis.

4. The idea of “blood evidence” is not a matter of seconds or
minutes, but a matter of semantics.

Kind regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

Welcome back. However, I'm really struggling to understand your argument and conclusion. For instance, what do you mean by "resultative"? Are you seriously suggesting that the Victorian doctors described observations that they didn't actually observe? Because, if so, it would be an absurd use of language, akin to a witness stating that they saw A shoot B when, in actuality, they made no such observation as this event had already occurred, unseen by the "witness".

Moreover, your examples are not directly relevant to the scientific argument as they don't relate to neck injuries. Payne James, for example, explains how scalp injuries can continue to "ooze" after death: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...20ooze&f=false

The fundamental issue, as discussed in other threads, is the use of the word "ooze", a word that has wide-ranging definitions-from "flow" to "trickle", for example.

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre,

Welcome back. However, I'm really struggling to understand your argument and conclusion. For instance, what do you mean by "resultative"? Are you seriously suggesting that the Victorian doctors described observations that they didn't actually observe? Because, if so, it would be an absurd use of language, akin to a witness stating that they saw A shoot B when, in actuality, they made no such observation as this event had already occurred, unseen by the "witness".

Moreover, your examples are not directly relevant to the scientific argument as they don't relate to neck injuries. Payne James, for example, explains how scalp injuries can continue to "ooze" after death: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...20ooze&f=false

The fundamental issue, as discussed in other threads, is the use of the word "ooze", a word that has wide-ranging definitions-from "flow" to "trickle", for example.

Hi John,

Thanks.

You seem to have missed the points, read them again and you will see.

The book you refer do does not give any time specification.

There are different wounds described as having "blood oozing" in the articles.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

Hi John,

Thanks.

You seem to have missed the points, read them again and you will see.

The book you refer do does not give any time specification.

There are different wounds described as having "blood oozing" in the articles.

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

I'm still struggling to understand your point. For instance, in one article Dr Arthur states, "I could see blood oozing from a hole at the back of his coat close to the shoulder blade..." By any common sense construction of the sentence he is clearly speaking in the present tense, not the part tense. However, you state "blood oozing" referred to "descriptions for time after death when blood could no longer flow and ooze", i.e. past tense.

And how do you know blood could no longer flow or ooze? Moreover, the fact that none of the articles you cite refers to a neck injury is clearly relevant.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;412147]Hi Pierre,

I'm still struggling to understand your point. For instance, in one article Dr Arthur states, "I could see blood oozing from a hole at the back of his coat close to the shoulder blade..." By any common sense construction of the sentence he is clearly speaking in the present tense, not the part tense. However, you state "blood oozing" referred to "descriptions for time after death when blood could no longer flow and ooze", i.e. past tense.

Hi John,

He described "blood oozing" one and a half hour after death.

And how do you know blood could no longer flow or ooze? Moreover, the fact that none of the articles you cite refers to a neck injury is clearly relevant.

Read the article about the dead and cold and you will see.

Pierre

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;412148]

Hi Pierre,



Hi John,

He described "blood oozing" one and a half hour after death.



Read the article about the dead and cold and you will see.

Pierre

Hi Pierre,

But you can't rely on newspaper articles, which provide a mere summary of events. For instance, Dr Arthur states, "I at once made an examination of the body." Now, what exactly does that mean? Might he have moved the body, which clearly would have made a significant difference? As Dr Biggs relates:

"I did an autopsy last week, where the body had been transported a great distance to the mortuary, and death had occurred almost 24 hours prior to my examination...and yet the injuries continued to 'bleed' relatively profusely for quite some time. So much so that we struggled to get a 'clean' photograph as the blood flooded back as quickly as we could wipe it away." (Marriott, 2013)

[Pierre]

QUOTE=John G;412149]

Hi Pierre,

But you can't rely on newspaper articles, which provide a mere summary of events. For instance, Dr Arthur states, "I at once made an examination of the body." Now, what exactly does that mean? Might he have moved the body, which clearly would have made a significant difference?

Hi John,

Not relying on newspaper articles is a constant for an historian. And if you apply it, you can not rely on articles about the murder in Buck´s Row.

As Dr Biggs relates:

"I did an autopsy last week, where the body had been transported a great distance to the mortuary, and death had occurred almost 24 hours prior to my examination...and yet the injuries continued to 'bleed' relatively profusely for quite some time. So much so that we struggled to get a 'clean' photograph as the blood flooded back as quickly as we could wipe it away." (Marriott, 2013)

The articles do not mention moving the victims.

The Biggs source is another source.

Pierre

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;412151]QUOTE=John G;412149][QUOTE=Pierre;412148



Hi John,

Not relying on newspaper articles is a constant for an historian. And if you apply it, you can not rely on articles about the murder in Buck´s Row.



The articles do not mention moving the victims.

The Biggs source is another source.

Pierre[/QUOTE]

Hi Pierre,

The fact that the articles don't mention the victims being moved is incidental: they were clearly a mere summary of events, so we're certainly not entitled to conclude that the bodies were not moved as this information may have been omitted. In any event, as I've already noted the fact that Dr Arthur states that he examined the body may allow us to reasonably infer that the body was moved.

I agree the Biggs source is another source. Is there now some rule about relying on only one source?

[Pierre]

QUOTE=John G;412152][QUOTE=Pierre;412151]QUOTE=John G;412149

Hi Pierre,

The fact that the articles don't mention the victims being moved is incidental: they were clearly a mere summary of events, so we're certainly not entitled to conclude that the bodies were not moved as this information may have been omitted. In any event, as I've already noted the fact that Dr Arthur states that he examined the body may allow us to reasonably infer that the body was moved.

I agree the Biggs source is another source. Is there now some rule about relying on only one source?

Hi John,

Do you have extensive training in source criticism?

And another question: Do you believe in the Lechmere idea?

Pierre

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;412153]QUOTE=John G;412152]

QUOTE=John G;412149



Hi John,

Do you have extensive training in source criticism?

And another question: Do you believe in the Lechmere idea?

Pierre

No I don't believe Lechmere killed anyone. Do you need extensive training in source criticism in order to engage in a rational debate? Does this somehow give you a special status?

[Varqm]

We know without pictures,etc,we cannot make a "proper determination".You can debate the semantics all day long without result.The suspect-based people, most, just choose scenarios which suit their needs, out of several possibilities, in almost all events/situations.

[Abby Normal]

Hi all,

I have found that Fisherman´s hypothesis about the "blood evidence" is not possible to test and will now show you why.

There was a use of the expression “blood oozing” in Victorian times which prooves that this expression can not be interpreted as it is intepreted by Fisherman.

Therefore, the so called "blood evidence" can not be used as any evidence for Lechmere having murdered Polly Nichols.

In the Victorian era, “Blood oozing” was used, even by doctors, in a purely resultative way.

This means that the blood oozing had already happened when the observer
observed it.

Therefore, we see an ambigous use of the expression during this period, where we can not know what the expression meant.

There are many examples for the resultative use of the expression in the Victorian era. They can be found through a search on “blood oozing” in the British Newspaper Archive.

I will give three examples here.

They are from The Thanet Advertiser, August 30, 1973, The Lancaster Gazette, July 30, 1870 and South Wales Daily News, July 13, 1896, in that order as presented below.

In the first article the doctor himself states that the blood was oozing
both from the head and the ear although the person was dead and
cold.

In the second article a child is found dead in the morning after having
been suffocated, and there was “a little blood oozing from the mouth
and ear” although it is clear that the suffocation could have taken
place at any time during the night.

In the third article a man has been shot dead about 10 o´clock in the evening. The doctor states that he arrived at the spot of the shooting about
one and a half hour later, at 11.30, and then saw “blood oozing” and
even “flowing” from the man.

Conclusion:

In the Victorian era the expression “blood oozing” – and
even “flowing” – was used as an expression describing the result of a
process which was finished before the observation. It was used as
a resultative expression.

For Fisherman´s theory this means that:

1. There is no validity in his material used for the hypothesis
about “blood evidence” connected to Lechmere, since the
expression “blood oozing”, and even the expression
“flowing”, were used as descriptions for observations at a time after death when blood could no longer flow or ooze.

2. There is therefore no reliability in discussing an estimation of the
possible time length of blood flowing as described by Fisherman´s
expert on that matter, since the articles used for such a
discussion are not valid, i.e. there is no possibility to show
that they do not describe a finished process.

I.e. the expert is right about the lenght of time - but the expression "blood oozing" and "flowing" are not valid since we can not know if they are resultative or not.

3. The “blood evidence” hypothesis therefore is not a testable
hypothesis.

4. The idea of “blood evidence” is not a matter of seconds or
minutes, but a matter of semantics.

Kind regards, Pierre

Heeees baaack.
Actually the term cam be used in both contexts so your entire point is moot.

[DJA]

Heeees baaack.
Actually the term cam be used in both contexts so your entire point is moot.

Ooze baaack!

[GUT]

Heeees baaack.
Actually the term cam be used in both contexts so your entire point is moot.

Not just back, but pretending to be a great historian again, I thought he might revert to one of his earlier persona.