Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Time Of Death

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

  • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
    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

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

      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
      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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

        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.
        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

          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.
          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 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

            Comment


            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
              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.
              Regards

              Herlock






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

              Comment


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

                Comment


                • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                  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

                  Comment


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

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                      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

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                        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.
                        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 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 .


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                            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 .

                            I see you ignore the question I asked.

                            Let's try again, what leads you to believe that the TODs were based on anything other than the police reports of the bodies not being present a set time before?

                            If that is what the TODs are based on, rather than medical knowledge, and I await your proof that they are not; it follows that the TOD for Chapman, where there is no previous Police statement, cannot be viewed as being reliable.

                            That they appear to have been correct in 3 cases(based on the police reports) does not and cannot be seen as saying they would be correct in cases that did not have the police input of the other 3 . Do you really not understand that?

                            That you continue to argue this point is actually frustrating for those who understand how TODs were arrived at in 1888.
                            The fact that such times has given in 1888, would not be acceptable to modern forensic Pathologist is just ignore by you in pursuit of your theory.


                            There are No methods and were no methods that would allow a doctor to say death occurred 30, 35, or 40 minutes before, that is not my opinion, that is medical fact .

                            Steve





                            Last edited by Elamarna; 07-24-2019, 11:21 AM.

                            Comment


                            • What was the first Thing the doctors did upon arrival at the murder scene of Eddowes Stride and Nichols. 1, to pronounce life extinct, 2, to determine cause of death 3, to to try and give an estimate time of death . Would that be a fair assumption?.

                              So in all 3 cases i dont see any written evidence from any witnesses or police that any doctor needed their statements to help confirm those three things


                              It was their and their judgement alone based on their medical experience to determine a t.o d. and in all 3 cases they were right .

                              Now how they came to that conclusion you can debate that till the cows come homes ,im not interested in that as far as a scientific theory goes, that was never the question

                              Only that when asked about time of death they were right . Simple .




                              That you continue to argue this point is actually frustrating for those who understand how TODs were arrived at in 1888.
                              The fact that such times has given in 1888, would not be acceptable to modern forensic Pathologist is just ignore by you in pursuit of your theory.
                              The reason perhaps they're frustrated is they cant determine that theres two different scenarios being discuss .

                              The same modern medical experts also say that Eddowes could not have had her kidney and uterus removed as well as all the other mutilation done in 5 minutes in the dark?, are they also to be ignored in pursuit of the now common theory ?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                                What was the first Thing the doctors did upon arrival at the murder scene of Eddowes Stride and Nichols. 1, to pronounce life extinct, 2, to determine cause of death 3, to to try and give an estimate time of death . Would that be a fair assumption?.

                                So in all 3 cases i dont see any written evidence from any witnesses or police that any doctor needed their statements to help confirm those three things


                                It was their and their judgement alone based on their medical experience to determine a t.o d. and in all 3 cases they were right .

                                Now how they came to that conclusion you can debate that till the cows come homes ,im not interested in that as far as a scientific theory goes, that was never the question

                                Only that when asked about time of death they were right . Simple .

                                Still refusing to face up to the facts, how did they determine time of death? You can't just say "experience", lets them fix a time, medicine is not magic.
                                The procedures used are in fact more important than if they are right or wrong.
                                If the procedures are flawed then we are using guesswork, in this case supported by the police statements.

                                That you are either unable or unwilling to see that, shows clouded judgement, and a poor approach to research.

                                That you are not interested in how they reached their conclusions is no surprise, lets not lets facts stand in the way of a good story.

                                You say 3 TODs are correct, how do you know that?

                                The only evidence we, you have, are the police statement. You use them to confirm the TOD, just as the doctors must have.


                                I am sorry but that approach is simplistic, and cannot be taken seriously

                                Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                                The reason perhaps they're frustrated is they cant determine that theres two different scenarios being discuss .

                                The same modern medical experts also say that Eddowes could not have had her kidney and uterus removed as well as all the other mutilation done in 5 minutes in the dark?, are they also to be ignored in pursuit of the now common theory ?
                                Many modern experts say it is perfectly possible, indeed it was even said at the time.

                                But of course lets not listen to experts, lets go with any old nonsense, such is the way today sadly.

                                The degree of arrogance shown in the above post that maybe they can't determine that theres two different scenarios being discuss is truly astounding.


                                Steve



                                Last edited by Elamarna; 07-24-2019, 03:13 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X