Lechmere Continuation Thread

[Fisherman]

Well I can tell you Fisherman that if you think that the word "about" cannot easily incorporate a time difference of ten minutes then you really don't know more about language than I do.

It hinges on the circumstances. And I still say that I probably know more about the issue than you do. Sorry.

[David Orsam]

It's hard to think of a more important contribution to Ripperology than to establish if a timing issue does or does not strengthen the case against a suspect.

Is it? I can think of many things that are equally important.

Well then let's have a list of things more important to Ripperology than the issue of the strength of a case against a suspect believed to have committed the murders.

Go ahead, the floor is yours.

[Fisherman]

So, as usual you've ducked the difficult question.

I'll try again though.

Could the doctor have examined the body of Nichols at 4:05am?

That hinges on many factors, one of them being whether the timepieces involved were correct. I will say that I find it less likely but not entirely impossible. And no, I cannot establish the exact minute when it becomes entirely impossible.

Hereīs my question in return: If Llewellyn was knocked up at, say, 3.59, is it likely that he was examining Nichols at 4.05?

Both questions are purely theoretical and the answers will be shaped accordingly.

[David Orsam]

David Orsam: Biggs told us that he had personal experience of blood running from a corpse some hours after death. Therefore, the questions he was asked by Trevor were irrelevant if that is true.

No, it was not irrelevant. The actual circumstances under which a victim is found are always relevant. Compare with two liquid-filled basketballs, if you like, cut one in half and pierce the other with a sowing needle and see if the circumstances are of relevance or not.

What is it about the circumstances of how Nichols was found which affects the general point that blood can seep out of a body for some hours after death?

[Fisherman]

Well then let's have a list of things more important to Ripperology than the issue of the strength of a case against a suspect believed to have committed the murders.

Go ahead, the floor is yours.

I did not say more important. I said equally important.

Have we now established that you dont know the difference between "more" and "equally"...?

Is that not far worse than the around/about business?

Out of interest, David - when you take off your tea-pot helmet and lay down your wooden sword, what is it you hope to have achieved?

You see, you may need to prepare for disappointment in that department.

Now Iīve got a film to watch. It is a lot more funny than you are.

[David Orsam]

David Orsam:
I'm not aware of any response from Payne James about what Biggs said.

Then again, you did not speak to him, did you?

That's the type of answer which forms part of my complaint against you when it comes to information Fisherman.

If you are aware of a response from Payne-James about what Biggs said then please either post it or explain why you cannot do so.

If you are not aware of a response from Payne-James about what Biggs said then your answer borders on the mendacious.

[John G]

What is it about the circumstances of how Nichols was found which affects the general point that blood can seep out of a body for some hours after death?

But not bleeding "relatively profusely"! With respect, David, you are not comparing like with like.

[David Orsam]

He was informed about the temperature, the position in which Nichols was found and the approximate extent of the damages done to her. So there was a lot to comment on.

You are not saying he was given temperature readings are you? Presumably just approximations of "warm" or "cold" right?

What was it about her position and the damage done to her which meant that blood could not flow, ooze, run or seep from her body for more than 10 minutes?

[Elamarna]

Well I can tell you Fisherman that if you think that the word "about" cannot easily incorporate a time difference of ten minutes then you really don't know more about language than I do.

Fisherman and David.

I so hate to intrude into this discussion.

However as a native speaker of English, someone raised in the language and educated in such, I feel I may say the following:



To say some thing is "about" is a way of defining a set point, with a degree of reasonable latitude, be that, time, money or what every.

Therefore it would be reasonable to say in English:

The object costs about Ģ150= that would normally be interpreter as Ģ145-Ģ155, although it could be extended to 140-160.

One could say I will meet you at "about" 7.30.
That would normally be interpreted as not earlier than 7.15-7.20, and not later than 7.40-7.45.

If one said something weighted about 1kg, 900g-1100 would be perfectly acceptable.

To use the word "about" is to stress a non exact set point, it is compromise, used when one is not 100% sure, but to give an estimation.

In the discussion ongoing "about 4.00am", most would say that is at least 3.55-4.05, and indeed 3.50-4.10 would be acceptable.

Why this is leading to this debate I seriously do not understand, It is a very simple point to understand.

Regards

Steve

[David Orsam]

I did not say more important. I said equally important.

Have we now established that you dont know the difference between "more" and "equally"...?

You are the one who doesn't know the difference.

I said: "It's hard to think of a more important contribution to Ripperology than to establish if a timing issue does or does not strengthen the case against a suspect".

You replied: "Is it?"

So can I take it you now agree with me and can't think of a more important contribution?

[Fisherman]

But not bleeding "relatively profusely"! With respect, David, you are not comparing like with like.

Of course he isnīt! And he would not want to. Nicholsīposition was such as to ensure that the wound in the neck was kept wide open, and therefore the blood would escape easily through it. In another position, the wound could have been pressed almost closed, effectively slowing down this process.

But donīt tell David - he wants to be right...

And now, back to the movie!

[David Orsam]

I did not take it from "a" journalist. A large number of papers used the word profusely, and these papers would have been represented by a large number of journalists. Funny, is it not, that they should all have opted for the exact same term...?

So you DID take it from a journalist then. The one who wrote the word "profusely" in the newspaper.

A lot of newspapers used agency reports hence used the exact same words.

[David Orsam]

Hello David,

On what basis would you argue that blood exiting the neck at a "trickle", would be described as "oozing profusely"? (Marriott, 2013)

Why do you keep asking me about blood "oozing profusely"?

That is not the evidence in this case. So why would I be arguing anything about it?

[David Orsam]

But not bleeding "relatively profusely"! With respect, David, you are not comparing like with like.

Again, who said anything about Nichols bleeding "relatively profusely"?

[David Orsam]

Maybe he DID give the time, and not a paper took it down? Like with Lechmeres address...?

Well it come's to Lechmere's address we know that at least one paper DID take it down, namely the Star.