The Darkness of Bakers Row

[Fiver]

Yes, I agree - as per my former post - that we are in all likelihood dealing with a news agency message. And a news agency message is not shaped to sell papers by "sexing them up". It is made to portray the facts as closely as possible. The agencies have contracts with the various papers, and if they were to relay false information and inventions, they will soon enough get found out and dismissed. So any suggestion that sexing it up was what it was about falls flat on its nose.

I am a journalist myself, and I have seen thousands and thousands of examples of news agency material. I have never, however, seen any example of agencies trying to sex things up to sell it to the papers they serve. It would be counter productive to their strivings. So it's perhaps not so much me not being cynical enough as you being cynical on false grounds...?

Have you have been living your entire life in a cave on Mars? News sources routinely "sex things up", at least on this planet.

It was at least as bad in the period of the Ripper Murders, when "yellow journalism" was in full swing. The Pall Mall Gazette, which your quote, was edited by W. T. Stead. Stead would later be described by a biographer - "He twisted facts, invented stories, lied, betrayed confidences, but always with a genuine desire to reform the world – and himself." Thomas Catling, the editor of Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper said a "murder mystery has always been of great service to every newspaper". The East London Advertiser was a tabloid. The Star "achieved early prominence and high circulation by sensationalising the Whitechapel murders" and one of their reporters is a top suspect in faking some of the more famous Ripper letters.

[Fiver]

Thank YOU, but I´m afraid there IS a need to respond. You write that I am quoting "from a newspaper article, and not Neils reported inquest evidence". As you should be aware, I have quoted the inquest evidence time and time again.

You have quote inquest testimony, but that is irrelevant, since none of the newspaper articles you quote in this context are of Neil's inquest testimony and the inquest testimony we have from PC Neil and Dr Llewellyn repeated contradicts the articles you quote.

This of course means that no case can be made for how the various papers all decided to "sex it up". If somebody "sexed it up", it must have been the news agency - and since when do news agencies sex up matters like these?

The actual inquest testimony clearly shows that the articles you quote "sexed it up", as the inquest testimony repeatedly contradicts those articles.

Anyone willing to look at the whole picture can see that.

[Fiver]

It is only a "misuse" if we accept that the dictionaries are always right and "elastic" enough to allow for the changes in language that are always going on. As you will be aware, there are wordings and expressions that are not "allowed for" by dictionaries, but they are nevertheless in common use. And what happens? Exactly, the dictionaries - not the language changes - will give way and allow for the new words and phrasings.

Of course, it's a misuse. You're telling us to ignore the dictionary in favor of a seldom used term that occurs in none of the witness testimony.

[Fiver]

But you seem to have missed my main point or are avoiding it. Which is fine; I'm merely stating my opinion. Whether Paul meant this departure time to be exact or to be an estimate, it is still reasonable to wonder why he is giving a time of departure that clashes with the times given by three independent witnesses: Mizen, Thain, and Neill.

I find it odd that you and Griffiths chose to accept the word of the most problematic witness of the bunch in conducting you stopwatch experiment.

It's not odd. Robert Paul's timing fits Fisherman's theory. Mizen, Thain. and Neil contradict his theory. And who wants to let facts get in the way of a perfectly good theory?

Thus Fisherman's repeated, deliberate ignoring of the three police officers' testimony and the conclusion reached by Inspector Abberline. If Fisherman were to give people the whole picture, they'd realize how poor his theories were.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Yes, I agree - as per my former post - that we are in all likelihood dealing with a news agency message. And a news agency message is not shaped to sell papers by "sexing them up". It is made to portray the facts as closely as possible. The agencies have contracts with the various papers, and if they were to relay false information and inventions, they will soon enough get found out and dismissed. So any suggestion that sexing it up was what it was about falls flat on its nose.

I am a journalist myself, and I have seen thousands and thousands of examples of news agency material. I have never, however, seen any example of agencies trying to sex things up to sell it to the papers they serve. It would be counter productive to their strivings. So it's perhaps not so much me not being cynical enough as you being cynical on false grounds...?

As for how blood can only flow profusely with an underlying heart beat, that is nonsense, I'm afraid. It can certainly flow MORE profusely with a heartbeat underneath it - but how are we going to define what "profusely" means? How many centiliters per second is a profusion of blood, coming from a cut throat?

Any idea?

Of course, I can in all likelihood provide examples of where people have spoken of blood flowing profusely from dead bodies, animals as well as humans. But then you will only say that your dictionaries reveal it as incorrect English. It must be nice to have such a simple life.

PS. I already had an example, from my former post: In three or four hours after his decease the fluids filled the chest and throat, and oozed copiously out of the ears, nose, and mouth."

For the reliability of journalists, see #323 above.

We seem to be moving towards a definition of what is meant by "profusely". Here we have a woman with extensive abdominal wounds and her throat cut, which must have caused profuse bleeding at first, and she certainly would have lost a lot of blood very quickly. Pc Thain referred to a "large quantity of blood" on the ground under the body, and her clothing being soaked in blood.

But as for the rest of the blood with no heartbeat, weren't you suggesting she would bleed for only 3 - 5 - 7 minutes or something similar? If Lechmere had killed Nichols shortly before Paul arrived, they checked the body, and then went to look for a policeman, finding Mizen in about four minutes. The general feeling is that they found Mizen at about the same time as Neil found the body, so if Lechmere killed Nichols, he did so perhaps 6 -7 minutes before Neil found her. Does your medical expert support the concept of profuse bleeding continuously for about 6 - 7 minutes after the murder with no heartbeat?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Finally, there is also an eminent reason to suggest that the blood was not merely trickling slowly as Neil saw her, by way of how he is on record as having used the expression "profusely" about the blood flow in the interviews made on the day before the first inquest day.

That is how it is relevant, Doctored Whatsit. And interesting. And potentially very helpful in determining who was the likely killer of Polly Nichols.

Catching you out on underhandedness is becoming a habit.

Way back in May of 2017 David Orsam proved that the word ‘profusely’ was added by a journalist. For some reason it won’t let me copy the exact post but this is the thread.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/scene-of-the-crimes/10592-blood-oozing/page32

The relevant post is number 469.

In post number 478 of that same thread you accepted David’s conclusion saying:

'That means that the probable thing is that the term profusely was added by a reporter...the term profusely should be regarded as having been added by a journalist....There is no rebuttal, because denying the obvious would be outright silly...There is,...personal belief on my behalf - personal belief that David is correct on this score.'


Now here we are, 6 years later, and you have conveniently reverted to using the word ‘profusely’ again to make a point.

[Fisherman]

I don't think that Neil said exactly the same thing to each of these papers, I think it must have been a news agency report for such strong similarities. I don't share your faith in Victorian news agencies reliability - they were trying to sell sensational stories.

Odd, isn't it, that Neil gave evidence under oath at the inquest that differed from the newspaper reports! Blood flows profusely when the heart is still beating, but not when it stops beating. So Neil is saying that Nichols was still alive when he saw her? Surely not!

Yes, I agree - as per my former post - that we are in all likelihood dealing with a news agency message. And a news agency message is not shaped to sell papers by "sexing them up". It is made to portray the facts as closely as possible. The agencies have contracts with the various papers, and if they were to relay false information and inventions, they will soon enough get found out and dismissed. So any suggestion that sexing it up was what it was about falls flat on its nose.

I am a journalist myself, and I have seen thousands and thousands of examples of news agency material. I have never, however, seen any example of agencies trying to sex things up to sell it to the papers they serve. It would be counter productive to their strivings. So it's perhaps not so much me not being cynical enough as you being cynical on false grounds...?

As for how blood can only flow profusely with an underlying heart beat, that is nonsense, I'm afraid. It can certainly flow MORE profusely with a heartbeat underneath it - but how are we going to define what "profusely" means? How many centiliters per second is a profusion of blood, coming from a cut throat?

Any idea?

Of course, I can in all likelihood provide examples of where people have spoken of blood flowing profusely from dead bodies, animals as well as humans. But then you will only say that your dictionaries reveal it as incorrect English. It must be nice to have such a simple life.

PS. I already had an example, from my former post: In three or four hours after his decease the fluids filled the chest and throat, and oozed copiously out of the ears, nose, and mouth."

[Doctored Whatsit]

Thank YOU, but I´m afraid there IS a need to respond. You write that I am quoting "from a newspaper article, and not Neils reported inquest evidence". As you should be aware, I have quoted the inquest evidence time and time again.

Moreover, I am not quoting from a newspaper article. I am quoting from numerous newspaper articles, a handful of them, where the wording differs a good deal. Take look:

The facts are that Constable John Neil was walking down Buck's-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four on Friday morning, when he discovered a woman between 35 and 40 years of age lying at the side of the street with her throat cut right open from ear to ear, the instrument with which the deed was done traversing the throat from left to right. The wound was about two inches wide, and blood was flowing profusely. She was discovered to be lying in a pool of blood. East London Advertiser

Between three and four in the morning the body of a murdered woman was found lying in the gutter in Buck's-row. It presented a horrible spectacle. The throat had been cut right open from ear to ear, the instrument with which the deed was done tracing the throat from left to right. The wound was about two inches wide, and blood was flowing profusely. She was immediately conveyed to the Whitechapel mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open with the bowels protruding. Lloyds Weekly

As Constable John Neil was walking down Buck's-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four o'clock this morning, he discovered a woman lying at the side of the street with her throat cut from ear to ear. The wound was about two inches wide and blood was flowing profusely. The Star

The facts are that as Constable John Neil was walking down Bucks-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four o'clock this morning, he discovered a woman between thirty-five and forty years of age lying at the side of the street with her throat cut right open from ear to ear, the instrument with which the deed was done tracing the throat from left to right. The wound was an inch wide, and blood was flowing profusely. Pall Mall Gazette

As you can see, these articles are not copies of each other. Rather, they seem to have been conceived either as a result of the journalists having heard Neil reiterate what happened, or, more likely, by way of having obtained the material from one or more news agencies. This of course means that no case can be made for how the various papers all decided to "sex it up". If somebody "sexed it up", it must have been the news agency - and since when do news agencies sex up matters like these? The likelihood that Neil actually said that the blood was flowing profusely is overwhelming - and it would not be in contradiction with the inquest material at all. That is the precise point I have been making for many posts now. It is in conflict with the recommendations of the dictionaries you refer to, but it is NOT in conflict with how people in general as well as trained medicos and academics use the expression "ooze profusely".

NOW there is no need for further responses, since I have clarified where you have gotten this wrong - and clung onto it.

I don't think that Neil said exactly the same thing to each of these papers, I think it must have been a news agency report for such strong similarities. I don't share your faith in Victorian news agencies reliability - they were trying to sell sensational stories.

Odd, isn't it, that Neil gave evidence under oath at the inquest that differed from the newspaper reports! Blood flows profusely when the heart is still beating, but not when it stops beating. So Neil is saying that Nichols was still alive when he saw her? Surely not!

[Fiver]

Ok, now at last we can all accept that some people misuse the word "ooze", which has never been in doubt. Good. What is the point of the repeated use of phrases like "oozing profusely"? Why is this important or even relevant?

It's completely irrelevant, no witness in the case used the term or anything resembling it.

[Fisherman]

Thank you. There is no need to respond. I wanted to know something, and you have now explained. You are quoting from a newspaper article, and not Neil's reported inquest evidence. I now understand. I don't use newspaper reports which contradict other information, as journalists like to "sex up" their reports, and they are often unreliable. Incidentally, "running" just means "moving" in this context. Running blood will obviously appear "fresh", because it is.

As for dictionaries, we must accept that they are right, or they serve no purpose. However, you are quite right that after a word has been misused for a long time, and the misuse becomes common, then the dictionaries will have to accept the new, and previously incorrest use.

Thank YOU, but I´m afraid there IS a need to respond. You write that I am quoting "from a newspaper article, and not Neils reported inquest evidence". As you should be aware, I have quoted the inquest evidence time and time again.

Moreover, I am not quoting from a newspaper article. I am quoting from numerous newspaper articles, a handful of them, where the wording differs a good deal. Take look:

The facts are that Constable John Neil was walking down Buck's-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four on Friday morning, when he discovered a woman between 35 and 40 years of age lying at the side of the street with her throat cut right open from ear to ear, the instrument with which the deed was done traversing the throat from left to right. The wound was about two inches wide, and blood was flowing profusely. She was discovered to be lying in a pool of blood. East London Advertiser

Between three and four in the morning the body of a murdered woman was found lying in the gutter in Buck's-row. It presented a horrible spectacle. The throat had been cut right open from ear to ear, the instrument with which the deed was done tracing the throat from left to right. The wound was about two inches wide, and blood was flowing profusely. She was immediately conveyed to the Whitechapel mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open with the bowels protruding. Lloyds Weekly

As Constable John Neil was walking down Buck's-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four o'clock this morning, he discovered a woman lying at the side of the street with her throat cut from ear to ear. The wound was about two inches wide and blood was flowing profusely. The Star

The facts are that as Constable John Neil was walking down Bucks-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four o'clock this morning, he discovered a woman between thirty-five and forty years of age lying at the side of the street with her throat cut right open from ear to ear, the instrument with which the deed was done tracing the throat from left to right. The wound was an inch wide, and blood was flowing profusely. Pall Mall Gazette

As you can see, these articles are not copies of each other. Rather, they seem to have been conceived either as a result of the journalists having heard Neil reiterate what happened, or, more likely, by way of having obtained the material from one or more news agencies. This of course means that no case can be made for how the various papers all decided to "sex it up". If somebody "sexed it up", it must have been the news agency - and since when do news agencies sex up matters like these? The likelihood that Neil actually said that the blood was flowing profusely is overwhelming - and it would not be in contradiction with the inquest material at all. That is the precise point I have been making for many posts now. It is in conflict with the recommendations of the dictionaries you refer to, but it is NOT in conflict with how people in general as well as trained medicos and academics use the expression "ooze profusely".

NOW there is no need for further responses, since I have clarified where you have gotten this wrong - and clung onto it.

[Doctored Whatsit]

It is only a "misuse" if we accept that the dictionaries are always right and "elastic" enough to allow for the changes in language that are always going on. As you will be aware, there are wordings and expressions that are not "allowed for" by dictionaries, but they are nevertheless in common use. And what happens? Exactly, the dictionaries - not the language changes - will give way and allow for the new words and phrasings.

That aside, you ask how is relevant to the issue we are discussing. Well, it is relevant because it may well be that when John Neil said that there was blood oozing from the neck wound to Polly Nichols, he actually meant that a fair amount of blood was exiting the wound, not just a smallish one, by way of a slow trickling.

And how is THAT relevant, you may ask. That is relevant because it would dovetail with how Jonas Mizen, arriving around three minutes after John Neil to the murder site, saw that the blood was "still running" at that time. If it had only been a very small and sluggish blood flow as Neil saw here, then arguably, it would have been likely to be no blood flow at all as Mizen arrived. But it did still run at that time.

And why is this relevant to the whole picture? Because there is a consistent picture of an ongoing bleeding to be observed once we look at the triangulation of Lechmere/Paul, Neil and Mizen. The carmen saw no blood at all (which may or may not be due to the prevailing darkness, but since they saw the hat on the ground, there will likely have been sufficient ambient lighting to disclose a pool of blood under Nichols - but no such pool was observed. It can be suggested that this was because the pool was only just forming, it was small and hidden under the neck. Then, when Neil arrived and shone his lantern on the body, he immediately saw the pool under the neck, and noticed that the blood was still running (he did use that word too, as per the inquest). And finally, as Mizen got to the site, the blood was "still running" and "looking fresh". And it had started running into the gutter, the way liquids escape from their holding vessels when running over the brim.
The sequence is therefore a very pedagogical one, following the exact pattern that should be expected.

Finally, there is also an eminent reason to suggest that the blood was not merely trickling slowly as Neil saw her, by way of how he is on record as having used the expression "profusely" about the blood flow in the interviews made on the day before the first inquest day.

That is how it is relevant, Doctored Whatsit. And interesting. And potentially very helpful in determining who was the likely killer of Polly Nichols.

Now I really will not answer any more of your posts on this thread, but I will be happy to do so on the Prototypical Life thread when the turn comes to you. As I said before, I am not ready to try and dam the avalanche of criticism and questions that regularly follows in the tracks of any Lechmere thread. This one, for example, was intended merely to show how Steven Blomers assertion that Jonas Mizen has been factually tied to Bakers Row when Neil first noticed him - which was not necessarily true, it turned out. And it was never even anywhere likely to be true, if you ask me. The relevance in that case lay in how the accusations of Mizen having been tardy and unwilling to go to the murder site crumbled and fell under close scrutiny - which is a common enough thing.

Thank you. There is no need to respond. I wanted to know something, and you have now explained. You are quoting from a newspaper article, and not Neil's reported inquest evidence. I now understand. I don't use newspaper reports which contradict other information, as journalists like to "sex up" their reports, and they are often unreliable. Incidentally, "running" just means "moving" in this context. Running blood will obviously appear "fresh", because it is.

As for dictionaries, we must accept that they are right, or they serve no purpose. However, you are quite right that after a word has been misused for a long time, and the misuse becomes common, then the dictionaries will have to accept the new, and previously incorrest use.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, keep trying to find a safespace. Try Facebook with Von Stow.

[Fisherman]

Ok, now at last we can all accept that some people misuse the word "ooze", which has never been in doubt. Good. What is the point of the repeated use of phrases like "oozing profusely"? Why is this important or even relevant?

It is only a "misuse" if we accept that the dictionaries are always right and "elastic" enough to allow for the changes in language that are always going on. As you will be aware, there are wordings and expressions that are not "allowed for" by dictionaries, but they are nevertheless in common use. And what happens? Exactly, the dictionaries - not the language changes - will give way and allow for the new words and phrasings.

That aside, you ask how is relevant to the issue we are discussing. Well, it is relevant because it may well be that when John Neil said that there was blood oozing from the neck wound to Polly Nichols, he actually meant that a fair amount of blood was exiting the wound, not just a smallish one, by way of a slow trickling.

And how is THAT relevant, you may ask. That is relevant because it would dovetail with how Jonas Mizen, arriving around three minutes after John Neil to the murder site, saw that the blood was "still running" at that time. If it had only been a very small and sluggish blood flow as Neil saw here, then arguably, it would have been likely to be no blood flow at all as Mizen arrived. But it did still run at that time.

And why is this relevant to the whole picture? Because there is a consistent picture of an ongoing bleeding to be observed once we look at the triangulation of Lechmere/Paul, Neil and Mizen. The carmen saw no blood at all (which may or may not be due to the prevailing darkness, but since they saw the hat on the ground, there will likely have been sufficient ambient lighting to disclose a pool of blood under Nichols - but no such pool was observed. It can be suggested that this was because the pool was only just forming, it was small and hidden under the neck. Then, when Neil arrived and shone his lantern on the body, he immediately saw the pool under the neck, and noticed that the blood was still running (he did use that word too, as per the inquest). And finally, as Mizen got to the site, the blood was "still running" and "looking fresh". And it had started running into the gutter, the way liquids escape from their holding vessels when running over the brim.
The sequence is therefore a very pedagogical one, following the exact pattern that should be expected.

Finally, there is also an eminent reason to suggest that the blood was not merely trickling slowly as Neil saw her, by way of how he is on record as having used the expression "profusely" about the blood flow in the interviews made on the day before the first inquest day.

That is how it is relevant, Doctored Whatsit. And interesting. And potentially very helpful in determining who was the likely killer of Polly Nichols.

Now I really will not answer any more of your posts on this thread, but I will be happy to do so on the Prototypical Life thread when the turn comes to you. As I said before, I am not ready to try and dam the avalanche of criticism and questions that regularly follows in the tracks of any Lechmere thread. This one, for example, was intended merely to show how Steven Blomers assertion that Jonas Mizen has been factually tied to Bakers Row when Neil first noticed him - which was not necessarily true, it turned out. And it was never even anywhere likely to be true, if you ask me. The relevance in that case lay in how the accusations of Mizen having been tardy and unwilling to go to the murder site crumbled and fell under close scrutiny - which is a common enough thing.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Just a shortie here: Who says that I am pushing for an acceptance of "oozing profusely" as correct English? That is not what I am doing at all. I am instead showing you that in spite of how the dictionaries you refer to claim that it is not correct English, it nevertheless applies that the phrasing "ooze profusely" is widely used.

What we are looking for, Doctored Whatsit, is not the rules of the book. We are looking for the rules people actually play by, and as I have proven, these two things are not the same at all in this case.

And now, Fiver, I leave this thread again. Again, my intention is not to return to it. I don't promise not to come back. It is up to me to decide whether or not to do so, you see.

Ok, now at last we can all accept that some people misuse the word "ooze", which has never been in doubt. Good. What is the point of the repeated use of phrases like "oozing profusely"? Why is this important or even relevant?

[Fisherman]

I'm not grasping in the least.

I think most reasonable people would know from personal experience that if asked what time they had left for worked some days earlier, or even earlier the same day, they would be inherently giving an estimate and not an exact time.

I suppose it is possible that Robert Paul could have been a rare obsessive/compulsive who religiously recorded the time of his every action throughout the day in a notebook, but this does not seem very likely.

But you seem to have missed my main point or are avoiding it. Which is fine; I'm merely stating my opinion. Whether Paul meant this departure time to be exact or to be an estimate, it is still reasonable to wonder why he is giving a time of departure that clashes with the times given by three independent witnesses: Mizen, Thain, and Neill.

I find it odd that you and Griffiths chose to accept the word of the most problematic witness of the bunch in conducting you stopwatch experiment.

But it's good that this conversation is coming to an end and look forward to our future discussion: Charles Allen Lechmere--the Evidence of Psychopathy. See you then.

I will make this post my first focus after having finished my debate with Fiver - but on the other thread. Then we can see who has missed what, R J!