Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Time Of Death

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Claimed greater knowledge than the worldís forensic scientists.

    You'll forgive me if i dont take you seriously when you make stuff up like this ,

    Comment


    • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post


      You'll forgive me if i dont take you seriously when you make stuff up like this ,
      When I initially told you how TOD estimates could be seriously incorrect, and John G, Elemarna and I all backed this up with quotes from Forensic experts, you dismissed this fact by employing the childishly simplistic argument that because doctors had gotten TODís correct on 3 occasions then all those forensic experts must have been wrong. Youíve consistently opposed this suggestion despite a mountain of evidence. Even despite me being totally reasonable and saying that those facts donít mean that Phillips couldnít have been correct you still stuck to your rigid viewpoint.
      Regards

      Herlock






      "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

      Comment


      • OK I'll bite -- First off thanks you both for your help.

        I look at the picture of 29 Hanbury Street and I conclude there is no way Richardson could have missed the body, it is just too close, especially if he had sat down on the step. (BTW have you ever stopped and tried to imagine yourself sitting on the step and suddenly looking to your left, one hell of a thing to sit down next to in the dark; better to have seen it while still standing up.)

        The problem with the clock or clocks being wrong is that there is no time to get Annie off the street, into the back yard, and then mutilated, in just a few minutes. A discrepancy between clocks of even five minutes doesn't get the job done. They would have to be off from each other by at least ten minutes, wouldn't they? To be in the street healthy, then in the yard minus uterus, and an escape, needs at least ten minutes to unfold doesn't it?

        I am beginning to rethink Long, she says she heard the chime of the clock as she passed Annie and the man. I just decided I don't like that; we can play all kinds of time-space memory relationship games in our heads. She actually didn't note the time when she passed Annie; maybe she just later on decided she heard chimes.

        It now seems to me that the only person who actually noted the time, and only once that is, was Cadosch when he saw the 5:32 clock because he needed to confirm he wasn't late for work. That only applies to his 5:32 siting, not his 5:20 claim.

        It is funny, but today we would, in a heartbeat, dismiss any and all eyewitness/earwitness testimony if it contradicted the official medical TOD; today of course it is popular to disrespect eyewitness accounts, but I am of the mind that for 1888 we should go with the eyewitness over the doctor. So it was nice of Dr. Phillips to try to help out, but no thanks.

        I always like to blame Coroner Baxter (every chance I get, because I believe he is a major cause of the frenzy that overran Whitechapel) and here again is an opportunity.*** He was once again calling too many witnesses up for public inquest, that really should have been left to private interviews with CID; once put under the spotlight these witnesses felt obligated to answer every question (even when they weren't sure) because the world was watching them answer.

        All of these witnesses should have been interviewed in private not in front of a crowd. In private I believe the police could have better parsed the facts from imagination, from the imagination of witnesses who really wanted to help but couldn't actually remember. (I don't think any of them were lying.)



        BTW JR I understood your point about the milk and cereal, it really only matters that it be before a certain time, thank you.



        ***A coroner has two jobs, cause of death, identification of the victim. He didn't even need Phillips TOD testimony to arrive at "Wilful murder against some person or persons unknown." Dr. Phillips only needed to speak to CID not Baxter and the public. I know it might sound silly but Baxter didn't even need a doctor at this inquest, no way Annie slipped on a knife. Baxter was a pointless showboat, who in the end got in the way, and helped feed the fear and frenzy (and left us with conflicting testimonies, the bastard.)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by APerno View Post
          OK I'll bite -- First off thanks you both for your help.

          I look at the picture of 29 Hanbury Street and I conclude there is no way Richardson could have missed the body, it is just too close, especially if he had sat down on the step. (BTW have you ever stopped and tried to imagine yourself sitting on the step and suddenly looking to your left, one hell of a thing to sit down next to in the dark; better to have seen it while still standing up.)
          Yes he sat on the steps, but we read his feet were on the ground, the paving stones in the yard. Which would mean his left foot was beside her head. No way he could have missed a body had it been there. If it was light enough to trim some leather off his boot, it was light enough to see a head next to his foot.

          The problem with the clock or clocks being wrong is that there is no time to get Annie off the street, into the back yard, and then mutilated, in just a few minutes. A discrepancy between clocks of even five minutes doesn't get the job done. They would have to be off from each other by at least ten minutes, wouldn't they? To be in the street healthy, then in the yard minus uterus, and an escape, needs at least ten minutes to unfold doesn't it?
          Giving Long some benefit of the doubt, I prefer to think she mistook a 5:15 chime for the 5:30 chime, and she was in Brick Lane when she heard it (as per Daily Telegraph). Either that or she misidentified the woman she saw, it just wasn't Annie.

          It is funny, but today we would, in a heartbeat, dismiss any and all eyewitness/earwitness testimony if it contradicted the official medical TOD; today of course it is popular to disrespect eyewitness accounts, but I am of the mind that for 1888 we should go with the eyewitness over the doctor. So it was nice of Dr. Phillips to try to help out, but no thanks.
          But that was the preference then too. Which is why they grilled Richardson so intently, but he held firm, it was the doctor who backed down.


          ***A coroner has two jobs, cause of death, identification of the victim.
          By the 'book' he is required to find out the Who, When, Where & By What Means, the victim met their death.

          He didn't even need Phillips TOD testimony to arrive at "Wilful murder against some person or persons unknown." Dr. Phillips only needed to speak to CID not Baxter and the public. I know it might sound silly but Baxter didn't even need a doctor at this inquest, no way Annie slipped on a knife. Baxter was a pointless showboat, who in the end got in the way, and helped feed the fear and frenzy (and left us with conflicting testimonies, the bastard.)
          Bear in mind this is a Public Inquest, so it isn't the Coroner who decides the outcome, it is the Jury. Medical opinion is provided in order to assist the Jury reach their conclusion. Which means a doctor must be present in case the Jury have a load of questions that only a doctor is qualified to answer.
          Baxter was not a physician, but in the Kelly case Macdonald was a Physician, which makes me wonder if he hurried that inquest along because he knew more about the medical evidence than an ordinary coroner would.

          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • When I initially told you how TOD estimates could be seriously incorrect, and John G, Elemarna and I all backed this up with quotes from Forensic experts, you dismissed this fact by employing the childishly simplistic argument that because doctors had gotten TODís correct on 3 occasions then all those forensic experts must have been wrong. Youíve consistently opposed this suggestion despite a mountain of evidence. Even despite me being totally reasonable and saying that those facts donít mean that Phillips couldnít have been correct you still stuck to your rigid viewpoint.
            What rubbish , i said that the 3 doctors were correct in the t.o.d estimates in eddowes nichols and stride. WHICH THEY WERE, and it had nothing what so ever to do with modern medical expert being wrong or right . So again you like to make thing up to suit your narrative . Best you stick to the inquest testimonies when trying discuss jtr related issues.

            So will you be also agreeing with those same modern medical experts who opinion you hold with great accuracy , that eddowes could not have had her kidney and uterus removed with all the other inflicted injuries she sustained in 5 minutes in the dark ?..... No of course not, No doubt youll make something up for that also.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

              What rubbish , i said that the 3 doctors were correct in the t.o.d estimates in eddowes nichols and stride. WHICH THEY WERE, and it had nothing what so ever to do with modern medical expert being wrong or right . So again you like to make thing up to suit your narrative . Best you stick to the inquest testimonies when trying discuss jtr related issues.

              So will you be also agreeing with those same modern medical experts who opinion you hold with great accuracy , that eddowes could not have had her kidney and uterus removed with all the other inflicted injuries she sustained in 5 minutes in the dark ?..... No of course not, No doubt youll make something up for that also.
              Another dishonest post to add to the ever-growing list. You brought up the 3 TOD estimates in direct response to my point about the potential inaccuracies of TOD estimates in general. You were using those 3 to try and discredit the fact that TOD estimates could be inaccurate. The fact that later on in your post you make the mocking comment about modern medical experts simply confirms what I’ve just stated.

              Your comment about sticking to Inquest testimonies is a strange one. Are you implying that these are to be ignored or distrusted by default?

              As for your final point. How many medical men, out of all the medical men over the years (both at the time and since) have held this viewpoint? Is it two? Or three? Out of how many? And as I’ve repeatedly said that just because TOD estimates could have been wrong it does not mean that Phillips was definitely wrong only that he might have been perhaps we can fairly suggest that the doctors that you mention might have been wrong too?

              Of course when considering the opinions of those doctors that cast doubt on whether the ripper could have committed those mutilations we have to come up with an alternative if they might have been correct. Could the ripper have had more time if he was actually the man seen by the Lawende, Levy and Harris? If so then it couldn’t have been much but maybe a minute or so? Could the two people that Lawende and his friends saw have been unconnected to the murder? Not impossible. Perhaps the ripper was already at work when Lawende sighted them? The only other alternative of course is that (as you are keen to prove to prop up a thoroughly discredited theory) Eddowes was killed elsewhere and carried into Mitre Square by our Ripperological Abbott and Costello. This idea is nothing short of laughable. So could the ripper have done what he did with the time and conditions available to him? Apparently he could. Because he did.
              Regards

              Herlock






              "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

              Comment


              • Just another gibberish meaningless post by you yet again , your so confused as to the whole t.o.d subject you have resorted to making totally irreverent statements. for once just answer the question with out beating around the bush . Where Eddowes is concerned, you've really missed the whole point to what was certainly possible , so go back like i said, and stick to the evidence and inquest statements when discussion the Eddowes and Chapman murders .

                Comment


                • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                  Just another gibberish meaningless post by you yet again , your so confused as to the whole t.o.d subject you have resorted to making totally irreverent statements. for once just answer the question with out beating around the bush . Where Eddowes is concerned, you've really missed the whole point to what was certainly possible , so go back like i said, and stick to the evidence and inquest statements when discussion the Eddowes and Chapman murders .
                  What the hell are you talking about Fishy? Iím becoming convinced that you just press random keys on the keyboard. Iíve lost count of how many times I and others have mentioned the issues with TOD estimations and youíve regularly countered these by saying, in effect - the doctors got three TODís correct so TODís must always have been accurate. Basically rubbishing the knowledge of forensic experts. Something that youíve consistently done. I, on the other hand, have been reasonable on the subject. Iíve never said that Phillips couldnít have been correct only that he might have been wrong. And that the evidence of Richardson and Cadosch, if correct, point us in that direction.

                  As to Eddowes and evidence. How many doctors at the time and over the preceding years have looked at the evidence and what percentage of them have suggested that the mutilations couldnít have been achieved? If it was 2 out of 50 you would obviously focus on the two. Did the police at the time, with their medical experts available, consider that Eddowes had been killed elsewhere and dumped? No they didnít.

                  How can you possibly take exception to this?

                  Your Knight obsession is persistently blinding you to reason and logic.
                  Regards

                  Herlock






                  "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post


                    But that was the preference then too. Which is why they grilled Richardson so intently, but he held firm, it was the doctor who backed down.

                    It seems this observation is quite the contentious issue with some; if we could get Herlock and Fishy in the same room, physically, they might start hitting each other.

                    I need to go and look at the inquest debate regarding Richardson and Phillips (I am assuming the Dr. you mention is Phillips, or is it someone else?)

                    Besides the official Casebook inquest page, do you know if any of the newspapers picked up that particular questioning/narrative? I have noticed that the newspapers sometime give more inquest testimony than the ones recorded on Casebook, or if not more, sometimes different info.

                    Comment


                    • 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






                      "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                      Comment


                      • It seems this observation is quite the contentious issue with some; if we could get Herlock and Fishy in the same room, physically, they might start hitting each other.

                        I need to go and look at the inquest debate regarding Richardson and Phillips (I am assuming the Dr. you mention is Phillips, or is it someone else?)

                        Besides the official Casebook inquest page, do you know if any of the newspapers picked up that particular questioning/narrative? I have noticed that the newspapers sometime give more inquest testimony than the ones recorded on Casebook, or if not more, sometimes different info.
                        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 .

                        Did the police at the time, with their medical experts available, consider that Eddowes had been killed elsewhere and dumped? No they didnít.
                        your sure about that are you ?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                          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 .



                          your sure about that are you ?
                          Firstly, post 206 was your post not mine.

                          .And to say that any scenario no matter how strange it may seem could not be possible is just narrow minded thinking.
                          Its not impossible that Eddowes was killed by a group of 5 men. Itís not impossible that Albert Cadosch killed Annie Chapman or George Morris killed Catherine Eddowes. Itís not impossible that Eddowes was killed half an hour earlier but the police officers skipped a part of their beats and so missed seeing her body earlier.

                          None of these suggestions are remotely likely though. Just saying that some scenario should be considered seriously because it wouldnít have been completely impossible is a waste of time. Thereís nothing narrow-minded about this Fishy. If it was then you would have to call 99.9% of people interested in the case narrow-minded because theyíve all read the same evidence that you have and they all dismiss the Knight/Sickert theory. Itís simply a process of elimination based on likeliness.

                          Your point about me disagreeing with Wolf Vanderlinden rather than you is simply cowardly. If person A comes up with an idea and person B agrees and person C disagrees heís disagreeing with both A and B. Simple. Wolfís article is a very good one. He points out potential doubts. This doesnít mean that we cannot debate it though. But as you are consistently and purposely blind to what I actually post Iíll explain again.

                          Im not saying that Phillips was definitely wrong. Only that he might have been. And that imo Richardson and Cadosch were correct and telling the truth. Itís amazing that, in your post, you were whingeing about other scenarios being dismissed. You should try practicing what you preach.

                          Regards

                          Herlock






                          "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                          Comment


                          • 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 .
                            Last edited by FISHY1118; 07-23-2019, 11:30 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                              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 youíve repeated the same error.

                              Try reading.

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

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

                              Herlock






                              "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                              Comment


                              • Yesterday, 08:03 PM#206
                                Yesterday, 08:03 PM
                                Iíll try and ignore Fishyís viewpoint because heís 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, Iím looking at likelihoodís so this is how I look at things.

                                We have four witnesses who might have an input on Annieís TOD. Dr Phillips, John Richardson, Albert Cadosch And Elizabeth Long. (John Davis too but thereís 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 itís a definite possibility. We cannot be certain he was wrong though.

                                There was some differences in Richardsonís testimony but this might have been misinterpretation by Chandler or to do with the fact that initially he didnít want to mention being in the yard with a knife (for obvious reasons.) He testimony about what he did or didnít 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 heíd later seen the body in situ and so heíd 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 Annieís body wasnít 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 doesnít 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 didnít. 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. Itís 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 Annieís body falling against the fence but it could easily have been say, the killer moving Annieís 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 itís likely that Cadosch was telling the truth and as he saw the time just after heíd 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 Annieís body that she was the woman that sheíd 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

                                Last edited by FISHY1118; 07-23-2019, 02:19 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X