The Darkness of Bakers Row

[Fisherman]

I'm sorry Christer, but you can't decide fot me what's useless or not. That's why I wrote "So, to me, the whole gap thing is useless.", meaning that I don't find it of use, either way.

The best,
Frank

And indeed, I am not deciding for you - it is my view I am giving, not yours. And just like you do, I disagree.

[FrankO]

Frank: So, to me the whole gap thing is useless.

Again, not so. It can be suggested that there may have been no gap, and it should be refuted if somebody got it into his head to claim that a gap is proven, but that does not alter how the timings approximated suggest one.

I'm sorry Christer, but you can't decide fot me what's useless or not. That's why I wrote "So, to me, the whole gap thing is useless.", meaning that I don't find it of use, either way.

The best,
Frank

[Doctored Whatsit]

So, lets round up my contribution to this thread before I leave it by pointing out a number of matters:


Doctored Whatsit: Of course "oozing" can describe blood exiting a body while not under heart pressure. As there is no heart pressure the blood trickles or dribbles relatively slowly, and is not "running profusely", which is precisely what we have been telling you.

And I have been telling you that ”oozed” is used in combination with ”profusely” in 1840 hits on Google. If you use ”blood used profusely”, you will get 667 hits. So if you want to tell all these people that they do not understand the British language, you have a hefty working day ahead. Plus, Neil is quoted as having said that the blood ran profusely on the day before the inquest.

[/B]

You can look for and tell us about as many incorrect uses of the word "ooze" as you wish, but it will not make any of them accurate. We have given you the correct dictionary meaning numerous times, and you ignore it, looking always for possible misuses to quote.

To "ooze" means to trickle, dribble or flow slowly. If "blood ran profusely" it wasn't oozing.

[Fisherman]

So, lets round up my contribution to this thread before I leave it by pointing out a number of matters:

Herlock: If the acolytes on social media avoid casebook it’s because on here they won’t be told what they like to hear - that everything that ever happened points to Cross’ guilt.

Nobody has said that everything points to guilt on the carmans behalf, that is an invention on your behalf, ranking alongside the many claims that have been made over the years that I would somehow hold Lechmere responsible for every murder ever committed in London. A good deal does point to the carman, not "everything". Please note the difference, led on by a poster who says that I am the exaggerating party here.

Herlock: Because now, you’re saying that it’s obvious that most said ‘about 3.30.’ Why wasn’t this obvious when you wrote the above?

It has always been obvious, and it was not intentionally omitted in my book. I hav e already explained a large number of times that there was no intention to mislead, and that I have the ”around” in a quotation from a paper plus that I urge people not to take timings as gospel. I also never say that SINCE he left at 3.30, he MUST have …, I say that IF he left at 3.30 and so on. So the only misleading there is, is if you call it an intentional effort to deceive.

Frank: So, to me the whole gap thing is useless.

Again, not so. It can be suggested that there may have been no gap, and it should be refuted if somebody got it into his head to claim that a gap is proven, but that does not alter how the timings approximated suggest one.

Doctored Whatsit: Of course "oozing" can describe blood exiting a body while not under heart pressure. As there is no heart pressure the blood trickles or dribbles relatively slowly, and is not "running profusely", which is precisely what we have been telling you.

And I have been telling you that ”oozed” is used in combination with ”profusely” in 1840 hits on Google. If you use ”blood used profusely”, you will get 667 hits. So if you want to tell all these people that they do not understand the British language, you have a hefty working day ahead. Plus, Neil is quoted as having said that the blood ran profusely on the day before the inquest.

Herlock: Cross as a suspect is a complete con job.

This from the man who says that I am exaggerating - but who seemingly cannot tell a lie from a disagreement himself?

Darryl Kenyon: Please can you explain to me how hiding/covering the abdominal wounds [ if indeed Lech did that ], but leaving the , possibly more severe neck wounds untouched, and fully on view, is conning anyone ?


My suggestion is that the wounds in the neck were covered over until Paul pulled the clothing down as he was about to leave.


R J Palmer presents a snippet from the docu to prove that I have said that a time gap is proven. But the docu has to stand for its own deductions. What I am saying is that I have never made the claim Palmer falsely ascribes to me. What I say in the docu is ” …then we got a discrepancy”, once again weighed against the claim that he left home at 3.30. And that is true: IF he left home at 3.30 and IF he walked the seven minute trek iwith no interruptions he SHOULD have arrived at 3.37. but that does not mean that I am saying that it is in any way proven that this happened! And anybody who knows me, should be extremely aware of how I don’t make that kind of claims.

And with that, I take my leave from this thread, resurfacing again in some little time on the "Prototypical life of a Serial Killer" thread, in order to have a chat with Fiver.

[Fiver]

On my screen, as I write this, I can see Fiver doing what he usually does, trying to make me look like somebody who does not know at all what I am talking about.

Why are you denying credit to Herlock, Lewis, AP, RJ, FrankO, John, Whatsit, Darryl, etenguy, Wickerman, etc? And the most essential person to showing that about you - Fisherman.

[Fiver]

Its Richard, not Robert. And the quote you use belongs to the stance Richard Jones took long before he read my book. After reading it, my impression is that he has not become a firm believer in Lechmeres guilt, but he has certainly gotten a better understanding of the theory - and he used the word "fantastic" when describing it.

You are correct that it's Richard.

Richard Jones's tour website says "As to whether Jack the Ripper has actually been “unmasked”, the honest answer to that question has to be a resounding no."

"It has to be said, that the concrete facts about Charles Lechmere’s involvement in the Jack the Ripper murders, end with his being present at the site of the murder of Mary Nichols as the discoverer of her body, and anything linking him to the other Whitechapel murders is nothing more than supposition and speculation."- Richard Jones, 4 December 2022.

"Attempts to depict him [Lechmere] as a psychopath, or to suggest that he had a domineering mother, or that he may have been a frequent user of prostitutes are nothing more than conjecture. If there is a case for him to answer, then it must be based on established facts and not on surmise." - Richard Jones, 4 December 2022.

Fantastic, adj. & n.: Existing only in imagination; proceeding merely from imagination; fabulous, imaginary, unreal (obs.) - Oxford English Dictionary

[Fiver]

What you forget - or supress - here is that a line drawn from the railway arch up to DovetonStreet passes EXACTLY over the church where the bloody rag was found. And that means that no matter how we try, we cannot get a more close fit with the suggestion of Lechmere being the rag dumper. It is impossible.

How can you accuse me of suppressing or forgetting when I plainly said -"The cone passes over hundreds of houses, one of which was Charles Lechmere's"

You are ignoring those hundreds of other houses. Even Jeff drawing a picture for you didn't overcome your repeated ignoring of the facts.

The bloody rag was found just inside the fence of St Phillips Church. We don't know where, so you have to draw a cone, not a Ley Line. Jeff Hamm has helpfully done this. (See the lines in blue).




The cone passes over hundreds of houses, one of which was Charles Lechmere's. It doesn't point at anyone's house.

There's no evidence that the bloody rag had anything to do with the Pinchin Street Torso.

Your Ley Line Theory continues to be utter nonsense.

[Fiver]

I did not say that ooze means running profusely. What Jones said was that he agreed with me that oozing can describe a lot of blood exiting a body, while not under heart pressure.
It also applies that Neil used "running" as well a "oozing" in his testimony, and that the paper reports from the day before the inquest describe him as saying that Nichols bled "profusely".
Of course, that wording is something that the naysayers argue that the papers made up all on their own. Because, don't you know, ooze can only mean to trickle very, very slowly.
It is called selective reading.

The one doing the selective reading is you, or in the case of dictionaries, ignoring altogether.

Lets start with the 31 August Sunderland Echo. It does say that "blood was flowing profusely".

But now lets compare that account to the inquest testimony.

"...she was discovered to be lying in a pool of blood." - Echo
"There was very little blood round the neck." - Dr Llewellyn, 3 September 1888 Daily Telegraph

"The hands are bruised and bear evidence of having engaged in a severe struggle." - Echo
"There were no marks of any struggle...." - Dr Llewellyn, 3 September 1888 Daily Telegraph

The journalist for the Sunderland Echo appears to embellished things a bit. But he did not use phrase "oozing profusely".

PC Neil does use the term "oozing". He never said "oozing profusely"

PC Neil also said "There was a pool of blood just where her neck was lying. It was running from the wound in her neck.".

And here's a refutation from 2017 of Fisherman's interpretation of "running.

The witness evidence from PC Neil is very clear that the blood was "oozing".

Fisherman doesn't like that. He notes a few obscure references in books to blood "oozing profusely". So by his logic perhaps THAT is what Neil was saying even though he did not actually say it.

You couldn't make this kind of thing up.

So now we have the blood oozing profusely and Fisherman thinks that when Neil said "There was a pool of blood just where her neck was lying. It was running from the wound in her neck" there must be some kind of special meaning to the word "running" which fits in with the blood "oozing profusely".

This is despite the fact that one's nose can be running and it can mean nothing more than running very slowly. It doesn't even need to mean that it was moving.

Let's also look at what Dr Llewellyn on the same day of the inquest:

"On the right side of the face there is a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw."

"there was an incision about four inches long and running from a point immediately below the ear"

"Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner."

"There were several incisions running across the abdomen"

"On the right side there were also three or four similar cuts running downwards."

PC Neil was describing a pool of blood at a point near where the neck was lying and he was saying that the blood was running from this point, Point A to Point B, the neck wound. It doesn't say anything about the speed or movement of the blood and certainly does not change the fact that he said nothing more than the fact that the blood was oozing.

[FrankO]

I just notice the “Thanks for Frank” in my original post. Either I missed out a word or I was celebrating your existence. I’ll be leaving out important words like ‘about’ next.

Thanks for Michael!

[Herlock Sholmes]

No worries, Mike, you had the basics right: that Dahmer felt his hand forced.

I just notice the “Thanks for Frank” in my original post. Either I missed out a word or I was celebrating your existence. I’ll be leaving out important words like ‘about’ next.

[FrankO]

Thanks for Frank. I hadn’t remembered the incident correctly I should have checked first. Cross had an easy choice of course. He did exactly what an innocent man would have done…..which for some is highly suspicious. Another rabbit hole easily avoided.

No worries, Mike, you had the basics right: that Dahmer felt his hand forced.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'd add, Mike, that Dahmer did'nt choose to engage with the police; when he returned from the liquor store, he saw the boy with 2 or 3 girls. He then tried to get the boy from the girls, but they didn't want to give him up and only then the police arrived. But you're right, in Dahmer's case he really had no choice, not with the girls but certainly not with the police.

Thanks for Frank. I hadn’t remembered the incident correctly I should have checked first. Cross had an easy choice of course. He did exactly what an innocent man would have done…..which for some is highly suspicious. Another rabbit hole easily avoided.

[Fiver]

I can't tell if we are supposed to think that Cross possessed the bravado of a WWE wrestler, the brains of a punched frog, or such levels of pure luck that would put the local bookies out of business had he been inclined to wager on the ponies.

The word you want is "and", not "or". Fisherman's version of Lechmere would need to be inhumanly brave, stunningly stupid, and incredibly lucky. And Fisherman attempts to explain this by saying that psychopaths don't think logically.

And then we're supposed to accept that an utter idiot who repeatedly took incredible, unnecessary risks would never be even be suspected.

[A P Tomlinson]

Hi Fisherman

I will start by saying that although I am not close to being convinced that Lechmere/Cross was JtR, I do recognise your good work in developing the case against him.

Regarding the use of the term ooze profusely (is it an oxymoron as seems to be the majority view?).

The Cambridge English dictionary defines the word ooze as:

The Cambridge English dictionary defines the word profusely as:


So ooze has to do with the speed of flow through a small wound (in this case) and has a suggestion of being languid, and profusely has to do with the quantity of flow. So I think there is an argument to say that a wound could be oozing a profuse amount of blood over time (ie a large quantity of blood formed from a slow flow) - but it would not be correct to suggest a wound is oozing a profuse amount of blood at the point it is leaving the wound - ie the blood could not be leaving the wound in large quantities and at speed if the word ooze accurately describes what was witnessed.

Yeah. It's another silly pedantic thing we are dealing with, but the two words don't go toether in medical terms.

Having discussed this with my ever patient wife who gave me the "You've been on one of those groups again haven't you" look... as she does whenever I approach her about something begnning with, "In your experiences in A&E..."
Me with my degree in English and her with her near 20 years as a trauma nurse came to the agreement that;
"Ooze Profusely" could possibly be an accceptable descritpion of something like an Oil Tanker leak, and even that would be served better by more precision, and the term is just, as you say an oxymoron when applied to a wound. Blood "Flows" profusely, it may spill, gush, spray profusely, it may BLEED profusely, it cannot OOZE profusely.

Other peoples' mileage may vary.

[etenguy]

I had said ”I did not say that ooze CAN mean running profusely”, he would have had a point. But the point I was making was that I have never said that when we hear the term ooze, it WILL mean running profusely. The fact of the matter is that ooze can be described as depicting many types of bleeding, and of course running profusely is not the only one of them. Therefore I would not say that running profusely is the definition of ooze. It is one of the possible definitions. And although the naysayers have falsely claimed that it is NOT a definition that can be used, Richard Jones was able to verify that it IS.

Hi Fisherman

I will start by saying that although I am not close to being convinced that Lechmere/Cross was JtR, I do recognise your good work in developing the case against him.

Regarding the use of the term ooze profusely (is it an oxymoron as seems to be the majority view?).

The Cambridge English dictionary defines the word ooze as:

to flow slowly out of something through a small opening, or to slowly produce a thick sticky liquid:

The Cambridge English dictionary defines the word profusely as:

in large amounts

So ooze has to do with the speed of flow through a small wound (in this case) and has a suggestion of being languid, and profusely has to do with the quantity of flow. So I think there is an argument to say that a wound could be oozing a profuse amount of blood over time (ie a large quantity of blood formed from a slow flow) - but it would not be correct to suggest a wound is oozing a profuse amount of blood at the point it is leaving the wound - ie the blood could not be leaving the wound in large quantities and at speed if the word ooze accurately describes what was witnessed.