Time Of Death

[FISHY1118]

Ok thats good . So firstly in the case of Eddowes, Stride, and Nichols the doctors were asked to give their ''medical opinion'' as to how long had the deceased had been dead . The coroner did not ask them to back that up with ''medical evidence''.No doctor said that he made his estimate on the time of death because the police and other witnesses told him when they discovered the bodies . It was just their ''medical opinion'' and they were correct.

So when 3 doctors gave the estimates in the time of death in the Eddowes ,Stride and Nichols murders they were correct .

[Herlock Sholmes]

ill accept logic and reason when you accept the possibilities , facts, and evidence in direct relation to the murders .

I’ve explained about possibilities Fishy. Anything is possible if it’s not impossible but do we really have to give time and credence to every theory no matter how unlikely purely because it’s not impossible?

So my opinion is that we have a theory that the women where killed elsewhere and dumped which is unlikely in the extreme (and my opinion on this isn’t an extreme one. It’s one that 99% agree with.) Then we combine that with all the important errors in the story discovered by Simon. Then we have Joseph’s confession that it was a lie (yes of course he retracted the confession.)

This combination, to put it mildly, doesn’t inspire confidence does it?

Then we can look at the odds. An individual can be correct and the majority incorrect of course but it’s more likely that the majority are correct if the balance is so one sided as it is in this case. If say 10% or 15% believed that the women were killed elsewhere then we would stop and think but it’s not. I’d guess at significantly less than 1% of people who have looked into the case in depth.

Overall then a balanced view is that the women were killed by a serial killer, who became known as Jack the Ripper, where they were found.

[Elamarna]

By witnesses do you mean persons other than a medical man ?

Yes, mainly the Police.

If you beleive that the TODs are based on medical evidence and Knowledge, please expalin what knowledge and procedures allowed them to arrive at the timings, with say Eddowes, Stride and Nichols?

You see i worked in medical research and medical schools for some 35 years and would be fascinated to know what procedures they could have used to give timings to within 5 minutes? There are as far as I know NONE.


Steve

[FISHY1118]

By witnesses do you mean persons other than a medical man ?

[Elamarna]

ill accept logic and reason when you accept the possibilities , facts, and evidence in direct relation to the murders .

With all due respect you do not seem to accept that the cases where the TOD seems to be close are not based on medical evidence but on witness evidence.
If you believe they are based on Medical evidence, knowledge please tell me what evidence and what procedures were used to arrive at those times?

Steve

[FISHY1118]

ill accept logic and reason when you accept the possibilities , facts, and evidence in direct relation to the murders .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just childish of you herlock, behaving like a sook again , i was replying directly to that post, in the end who give a toss what number it was, its says 206 on my screen, so thats what it is . i thought we were debating T.O.D not post numbers . Once again you've spat the

It’s impossible to debate the time of death with someone that won’t accept logic or reason. If it doesn’t accord with Knight you dismiss it then waffle on about considering every scenario no matter how unbelievable. If something is unbelievable then I tend not to believe it.

[FISHY1118]

Just childish of you herlock, behaving like a sook again , i was replying directly to that post, in the end who give a toss what number it was, its says 206 on my screen, so thats what it is . i thought we were debating T.O.D not post numbers . Once again you've spat the

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you're using an "Ignore List" it seems that the numbering changes as unwanted posts are suppressed. Because of the current size of my "Ignore List", Steve's post #211 is post #120 from my POV.

I haven’t got anyone on ignore at the moment Sam (tempting though it is) I don't know if Fishy has anyone on ignore of course.

[Sam Flynn]

Exactly Steve,

The post that he’s quoting is #205 as we’ve both said.

Can you see this Fishy? I’m responding to Steve’s post #211


He gets everything else wrong Steve so why not the post numbers

If you're using an "Ignore List" it seems that the numbering changes as unwanted posts are suppressed. Because of the current size of my "Ignore List", Steve's post #211 is post #120 from my POV.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That is post #205 on my laptop and on my mobile phone, so not sure why you think its 206.
The post I am replying to is #210

Steve

Exactly Steve,

The post that he’s quoting is #205 as we’ve both said.

Can you see this Fishy? I’m responding to Steve’s post #211


He gets everything else wrong Steve so why not the post numbers

[Elamarna]

Yesterday, 08:03 PM#206
Yesterday, 08:03 PM
I’ll try and ignore Fishy’s viewpoint because he’s desperately looking for absolutely any angle that might provide a thumbs up (in his mind) for the laughable notion that Annie was killed elsewhere and dumped in the backyard. As we all know there are no absolutes here so, like everyone else, I’m looking at likelihood’s so this is how I look at things.

We have four witnesses who might have an input on Annie’s TOD. Dr Phillips, John Richardson, Albert Cadosch And Elizabeth Long. (John Davis too but there’s no contention there.)

Dr Phillips judged the TOD to have been 2 hours or more before he inspected the body at 6.20. So 4.20 or before. We know from modern forensic experts that TOD estimations at the time had the potential of being extremely inaccurate and so Phillips could have been wrong. Fishy gets annoyed about this but it’s a definite possibility. We cannot be certain he was wrong though.

There was some differences in Richardson’s testimony but this might have been misinterpretation by Chandler or to do with the fact that initially he didn’t want to mention being in the yard with a knife (for obvious reasons.) He testimony about what he did or didn’t see is pretty rock solid though imo. It would have taken a pretty special kind of idiot not to have realised if it was the case that a door might have obscured his view of the body. He was absolutely certain that he could see the entirety of the yard and that there was no body. He even said that he’d later seen the body in situ and so he’d have known its exact position and how much floor space it took up. So I think that the overwhelming likelihood is that he got it right and that Annie’s body wasn’t there at 4.45-4.50.

Cadosch was pretty cautious about which side the word no came from. He felt that it was 29 but admitted that he might have been mistaken. To me this doesn’t sound like a man seeking his fifteen minutes of fame. He could have told the police that he was absolutely certain and no one could have refuted him but he didn’t. He was much more confident about the sound of something falling against the fence though. After returning from the toilet he'd have been close to the fence of number 29 and so in a position to tell. It’s often been asked why the gap between the word no and the noise against the fence? This is an issue only if we assume that the noise was Annie’s body falling against the fence but it could easily have been say, the killer moving Annie’s arm which brushed the fence or the killer himself as he changed positions. Or even the killer leaning on the fence to get up? I think that it’s likely that Cadosch was telling the truth and as he saw the time just after he’d left the house I think it likely that Annie was killed around 5.25.

Long is less easy to judge. As Wick has said she might have just got her time wrong but I tend to think that she might simply have seen another couple. She had no reason to pay any great attention to the two that she saw. She regular saw people in the street at that time and we all know how even the most honest of eyewitnesses can be wrong. Maybe she just convinced herself when she saw Annie’s body that she was the woman that she’d seen.

So overall I favour Phillips and Long being mistaken. Richardson and Cadosch being correct. And Annie Chapman definitely killed where she was found by John Davis.
Regards

Herlock,,,,,....... 206 post according to my screen

That is post #205 on my laptop and on my mobile phone, so not sure why you think its 206.
The post I am replying to is #210

Steve

[FISHY1118]

Yesterday, 08:03 PM#206
Yesterday, 08:03 PM
I’ll try and ignore Fishy’s viewpoint because he’s desperately looking for absolutely any angle that might provide a thumbs up (in his mind) for the laughable notion that Annie was killed elsewhere and dumped in the backyard. As we all know there are no absolutes here so, like everyone else, I’m looking at likelihood’s so this is how I look at things.

We have four witnesses who might have an input on Annie’s TOD. Dr Phillips, John Richardson, Albert Cadosch And Elizabeth Long. (John Davis too but there’s no contention there.)

Dr Phillips judged the TOD to have been 2 hours or more before he inspected the body at 6.20. So 4.20 or before. We know from modern forensic experts that TOD estimations at the time had the potential of being extremely inaccurate and so Phillips could have been wrong. Fishy gets annoyed about this but it’s a definite possibility. We cannot be certain he was wrong though.

There was some differences in Richardson’s testimony but this might have been misinterpretation by Chandler or to do with the fact that initially he didn’t want to mention being in the yard with a knife (for obvious reasons.) He testimony about what he did or didn’t see is pretty rock solid though imo. It would have taken a pretty special kind of idiot not to have realised if it was the case that a door might have obscured his view of the body. He was absolutely certain that he could see the entirety of the yard and that there was no body. He even said that he’d later seen the body in situ and so he’d have known its exact position and how much floor space it took up. So I think that the overwhelming likelihood is that he got it right and that Annie’s body wasn’t there at 4.45-4.50.

Cadosch was pretty cautious about which side the word no came from. He felt that it was 29 but admitted that he might have been mistaken. To me this doesn’t sound like a man seeking his fifteen minutes of fame. He could have told the police that he was absolutely certain and no one could have refuted him but he didn’t. He was much more confident about the sound of something falling against the fence though. After returning from the toilet he'd have been close to the fence of number 29 and so in a position to tell. It’s often been asked why the gap between the word no and the noise against the fence? This is an issue only if we assume that the noise was Annie’s body falling against the fence but it could easily have been say, the killer moving Annie’s arm which brushed the fence or the killer himself as he changed positions. Or even the killer leaning on the fence to get up? I think that it’s likely that Cadosch was telling the truth and as he saw the time just after he’d left the house I think it likely that Annie was killed around 5.25.

Long is less easy to judge. As Wick has said she might have just got her time wrong but I tend to think that she might simply have seen another couple. She had no reason to pay any great attention to the two that she saw. She regular saw people in the street at that time and we all know how even the most honest of eyewitnesses can be wrong. Maybe she just convinced herself when she saw Annie’s body that she was the woman that she’d seen.

So overall I favour Phillips and Long being mistaken. Richardson and Cadosch being correct. And Annie Chapman definitely killed where she was found by John Davis.
Regards

Herlock,,,,,....... 206 post according to my screen

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another long winded post that doesn't really say anything that hasn't already been discussed before, like i said all along , WHERE THE EVIDENCE AND INQUEST TESTIMONIES ARE CONCERNED WE SHOULD ALWAYS BE ALLOWED TO LOOK AT DIFFERENT SCENARIOS WHERE THE MURDERS OF EDDOWES AND CHAPMAN ARE CONCERNED

.

A tad over dramatic and childish with this statement one would think

The problem is Aperno it that Herlock just doesn't except the fact that in the case of Eddowes and Chapman there may well be other alternatives as to how and when they were murdered .And to say that any scenario no matter how strange it may seem could not be possible is just narrow minded thinking. Wolf Vanderlinden makes a very good case which shouldn't be dismissed Its not hard to agree with his opinon based on the evidence / inquest testimony [ that parts for you herlock, remember its all about which way you want to interpret it] .

So when his 206 post is in essence the opposite to wolfs opinion, his effectively arguing with him not me, so im not fussed , it just goes to show what ive been saying all along ,that he refuses to let others have any different view of murders and how they were committed .

Proof again that you simply do not read posts. I told you that post number 206 was yours but you’ve repeated the same error.

Try reading.

Post number 206 was by you. Not by me. Unless you’re going to deny that too.

You are utterly desperate in clinging to ludicrous ideas with the waifer thin defence of - well, they’re not impossible.

[FISHY1118]

Another long winded post that doesn't really say anything that hasn't already been discussed before, like i said all along , WHERE THE EVIDENCE AND INQUEST TESTIMONIES ARE CONCERNED WE SHOULD ALWAYS BE ALLOWED TO LOOK AT DIFFERENT SCENARIOS WHERE THE MURDERS OF EDDOWES AND CHAPMAN ARE CONCERNED

Your point about me disagreeing with Wolf Vanderlinden rather than you is simply cowardly

.

A tad over dramatic and childish with this statement one would think

The problem is Aperno it that Herlock just doesn't except the fact that in the case of Eddowes and Chapman there may well be other alternatives as to how and when they were murdered .And to say that any scenario no matter how strange it may seem could not be possible is just narrow minded thinking. Wolf Vanderlinden makes a very good case which shouldn't be dismissed Its not hard to agree with his opinon based on the evidence / inquest testimony [ that parts for you herlock, remember its all about which way you want to interpret it] .

So when his 206 post is in essence the opposite to wolfs opinion, his effectively arguing with him not me, so im not fussed , it just goes to show what ive been saying all along ,that he refuses to let others have any different view of murders and how they were committed .