Lechmere Continuation Thread

[Columbo]

It's not just how "people" think Columbo, it's also what dictionaries say. For example, the Oxford Dictionary:

Ooze

verb

1 [no object, with adverbial of direction] (Of a fluid) slowly trickle or seep out of something:
‘blood was oozing from a wound in his scalp’
‘honey oozed out of the comb’

More example sentences-

A trickle of green blood oozed from the malachite-green hide, but it was little more than a pinprick.’
‘At one point we accidentally overturned a sledge and a trickle of brown liquid oozed out of the sledge onto the white snow.’
‘Blood oozed from the wound, trickling down his side to the towel beneath him.’

So there's nothing "strange" at all about applying the word to blood. In fact, it's perfectly normal.

Good examples but I was actually referring to myself in contrast to the testimony. I don't know if I personally would've used the word "ooze" but I might have if the wound looked like my impression of oozing. I think i would've used "seeping" as I associate that with bloody wounds, but I'm also not the most articulate speaker so I might have called it anything.

Columbo

[David Orsam]

Good examples but I was actually referring to myself in contrast to the testimony.

So when you said "Strange how people think isn't it?" you were asking the question about yourself?

I guess that's why it's useful to have dictionaries to consult at times so we can get some objectivity.

[Columbo]

So when you said "Strange how people think isn't it?" you were asking the question about yourself?

I guess that's why it's useful to have dictionaries to consult at times so we can get some objectivity.

Basically yeah I was saying how strange(not in a bad way)that one person like myself would use one word and someone else would use another in the same context. Nothing wrong with that. Maybe I should've used curious instead of strange.

I think for the most part, people know what other people mean even if they use the wrong word. It's only in situations such as this thread where people want more clarification. But others have to understand that words like "oozing" and "seeping" are descriptors and can be interchangeable.

Columbo

Columbo

[John G]

So when you said "Strange how people think isn't it?" you were asking the question about yourself?

I guess that's why it's useful to have dictionaries to consult at times so we can get some objectivity.

But surely it's not how a dictionary defines a word that's the salient factor here but what the witness understood the word to mean.

[David Orsam]

But surely it's not how a dictionary defines a word that's the salient factor here but what the witness understood the word to mean.

That's obviously true John but in this particular case what possible reason could there be for PC Neil to have used the word "ooze" in anything other than the dictionary definition (and indeed the normal everyday definition) of it?

[Columbo]

The post that you were responding to was addressed to Observer so I have no idea why you replied to it.

And, of course, it is the last refuge of the internet scoundrel to say to one's debating opponent that they should "get help".

Just stand back for a moment Fisherman. You are the person who, day after day, is accusing a potentially innocent man on an open internet forum of a string of horrendous murders with barely any evidence at all.

So which one of us really needs to get help?

I need help!

Not to be a stickler, but Lechmere is innocent at this point. What Edward put forth and what Fisherman is postulating do not make Lechmere anymore guilty then he was in 1888.

It's just as important as the timing. I think your statement needs to be heeded. People are accusing innocent people on this forum of murder yet none of them except for a small number were ever accused or questioned as a suspect in 1888.

I'm not saying Edward or Fisherman is right or wrong. At least from my interactions with Fisherman, I have the impression he's a fair minded person who strongly believes in this theory and Lechmere's guilt, and I also think he would be the first to exonerate Lechmere if the proof came forward.

And I'm also glad people like David question extensively these theories because we are talking about real people who can't be heard anymore.

I will say if I had to choose a suspect between all that we know, Lechmere would be in the top 5. Right behind Clarence

Columbo

[Columbo]

That's obviously true John but in this particular case what possible reason could there be for PC Neil to have used the word "ooze" in anything other than the dictionary definition (and indeed the normal everyday definition) of it?

Couldn't it be he was just using the word incorrectly from the dictionary definition and how he would use it in everyday life? Maybe his understanding of the word is different from the norm?

Columbo

[John G]

That's obviously true John but in this particular case what possible reason could there be for PC Neil to have used the word "ooze" in anything other than the dictionary definition (and indeed the normal everyday definition) of it?

Hello David,

Yes, you're most probably correct, however, as Columbo illustrates in post 292, I don't think we're entitled to assume that the witness would necessarily understand the literal meaning of the word, i.e. slowly trickle or seep out of something.

[David Orsam]

I don't think we're entitled to assume that the witness would necessarily understand the literal meaning of the word, i.e. slowly trickle or seep out of something.

I would have to disagree with you there. I think we are absolutely entitled to assume that the witness would understand the actual meaning of the word, the dictionary definition of the word and the normal every day meaning of the word.

[David Orsam]

Couldn't it be he was just using the word incorrectly from the dictionary definition and how he would use it in everyday life? Maybe his understanding of the word is different from the norm?

You are basically asking if he could have been using the word "ooze" wrongly?

Yes he could but I don't see for one second why we should draw this conclusion.

[Joshua Rogan]

Isn't it possible that when Neil said he "noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat" he was talking about it oozing from the cut surfaces of the neck, rather than out of the neck onto the ground. Since the wound went right down to the spine, that's quite a lot of surface to ooze.

[Columbo]

You are basically asking if he could have been using the word "ooze" wrongly?

Yes he could but I don't see for one second why we should draw this conclusion.

I'm sure you're correct. Just thought it should be asked.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Isn't it possible that when Neil said he "noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat" he was talking about it oozing from the cut surfaces of the neck, rather than out of the neck onto the ground. Since the wound went right down to the spine, that's quite a lot of surface to ooze.

that's a good point. That would be more of an oozing I think.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

Isn't it possible that when Neil said he "noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat" he was talking about it oozing from the cut surfaces of the neck, rather than out of the neck onto the ground. Since the wound went right down to the spine, that's quite a lot of surface to ooze.

The Morning Advertiser, 3:rd of September 1888, Neil speaking to the coroner:

The Coroner - Did you notice any blood where she was found?

Witness - There was a pool of blood just where her neck was lying. The blood was then running from the wound in her neck.

Out of the neck, onto the ground.

[Columbo]

The Morning Advertiser, 3:rd of September 1888, Neil speaking to the coroner:

The Coroner - Did you notice any blood where she was found?

Witness - There was a pool of blood just where her neck was lying. The blood was then running from the wound in her neck.

Out of the neck, onto the ground.

So was it oozing or running? Where's my theasuarus!!

Columbo