Time Of Death

[Elamarna]

At Eddowes' inquest Dr Brown initially stated that the crime, "must Have been committed within half an hour" of the time when he saw the body. Which is odd, considering that the victim was discovered by PC Watkins at 1:44-36 minutes before Brown's arrival at 2:20. However, he then instantly corrects himself, by stating, somewhat contradictorily, "or certainly within forty minutes." I wonder why?

Because he got his timings wrong John.

There are no medical indicators which allow him to say 30 or 40 minutes.


Steve

[John G]

Because he got his timings wrong John.

There are no medical indicators which allow him to say 30 or 40 minutes.


Steve

Yes, you're absolutely right, Steve. But I think he quickly realized that he'd made a stupid blunder, i.e. upon recalling PC Watkins' earlier testimony, otherwise the two parts of the statement- must have been within 30 minutes/ certainly within 40 minutes-are self-contradictory, and therefore make no logical sense.

[Elamarna]

were back on the '' it was little more than guess work'' line are we


''The fact that three doctors got three decisions apparently correct''. full stop hooray thats it , youve got it, no more to be said .

and they did it without any cast iron pointers . go read what they said at the inquest they make no reference to witnesses or police information when asked about t.o.d by the coroner.

I find the approach incredible naive, it really is Absence of evidence IS evidence of Absence will you.

They made no ref to witness statements, they were not required to. You might as well ask why the doctors did not tell the inquest what procedure or knowledge allow them to reach their conclusion

"They do it without cast iron pointers" really? In which case it is guessing, nothing more.

Of course the pointers they have are the statements of the police.

Your view of the ability of Doctors in 1888, is unrealistic, taken to fit your theory, rather than the facts.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Yes, you're absolutely right, Steve. But I think he quickly realized that he'd made a stupid blunder, i.e. upon recalling PC Watkins' earlier testimony, otherwise the two parts of the statement- must have been within 30 minutes/ certainly within 40 minutes-are self-contradictory, and therefore make no logical sense.

Yes John, he counted back from his arrival time, to the discovery time incorrectly, a simple mistake, which he corrected

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

were back on the '' it was little more than guess work'' line are we


''The fact that three doctors got three decisions apparently correct''. full stop hooray thats it , youve got it, no more to be said .

and they did it without any cast iron pointers . go read what they said at the inquest they make no reference to witnesses or police information when asked about t.o.d by the coroner.

You are doing this intentionally. There’s a word for posters like you. It’s simply impossible, absolutely and utterly impossible that you cannot understand or accept what is being explained to you. No one could not understand this.

When Steve And John tell you that TOD estimates were little more that guesswork this is a fact. It’s not an opinion. It is attested to by scholarly texts, papers, books, the words of genuine experts in the field. Indisputable facts. The TOD’s of the other three are utterly irrelevant to the point that’s being made.

So it’s not a case of you not understanding it is yet another example of your proven dishonesty. Proven in post after post. Time and time again with you claiming to know things that you cannot know. Claiming to be able to prove things then ignoring all requests to do so. Blatantly responding to questions by answering other questions. And all of this for a one reason and one reason only. So that you can try and prove that Chapman was killed earlier in the morning in a coach and delivered to the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street by our Ripperological Laurel and Hardy.

Give it up Fishy. This is beyond a joke. You are lowering the tone of the entire Forum with your childish and illogical obsession.

[FISHY1118]

Stick to your own opinions herlock ill stick to mine , if you dont agree with what i post , and your tired of spitting the dummy then just move on, simple. but ill keep posting where the evidence allowed a different view of the murders .

[FISHY1118]

Dr. G. W. Sequeira'' Very few minutes - probably not more than a quarter of an hour.' that aslo means 1.40 am.

Where is Sequeira blunder?.


Eddowes was killed on the 30th sept . Dr Brown gave his inquest testimony on the 4th October. At what point do you think Dr Brown made up his mind as to his estimate time of death of Eddowes ? 1, On the night she was murdered, right after viewing the body? 2 After waiting 4 days so as to compare notes with police reports and witness statements ? 3 or on the night ''AFTER'' he conferred with police and witnesses at the crime scene ?

Now it has to be one of the 3 , so which is it .

I see nobody gave a thought to what brown might have done at the murder scene as per point number 1 . to think he waited four days to give an opinion on the time of death is pretty ridiculous .

so this closes this topic for me its getting boring going over the same ground, ive made my point , 3 doctors were correct in their statements in regards to time of death full stop. .time to start a new topic.

[APerno]

Herlock,

I am not sure why Annie Chapman's TOD has become a contested issue between you and Fishy. I may be missing something here and if so I would like you to explain it to me, but first let me make my point as to why I believe this entire argument is nugatory (for both of you).

Dr. Phillips put Annie's time of death between and 4:00 AM and 4:30 AM, but Richardson's testimony contradicted that possibility, forcing Annie's earliest appearance in the yard back to 4:50 AM. Let us accept Richardson as correct and Phillips wrong.

John Davis finds Annie's body at 6:00 AM. --- Fishy's (Knight's) conspiracy theory is based on Annie being slain elsewhere and then dumped at 29 Hanbury. There is an hour and ten minute gap between Richardson's non-sighting and Davis discovery, plenty of time for a parade of conspirators, Sickert, Netley, Anderson, Gull, even Prince Albert Victor himself, with entourage, to enter the yard and dump Annie's body.

So why the fuss?

Even if you accept Elizabeth Long's testimony, keeping Annie on the street as late as 5:30, there is still a 25 minute gap that allows for the body to be dumped.

I realize that this interferes with Cadosch's testimony but what does he really tell us, that he heard a "NO" which he couldn't confirm the origin of: "As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from." and that he heard something touch the fence:"While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly."**

That testimony really isn't enough to base a time of attack on. There are many possibilities as to what Cadosch could have heard. Let me offer some conjectures as examples:

In an old building like that, sounds get baffled and can echo, the "no" he heard while reentering the house could have come from anywhere, maybe even above him and he really wouldn't have been able to tell. The "bump" at the fence could have been rats scurrying off Annie's body as his presence in the yard panicked them. --- And on and on I could go, all conjecture, but nevertheless, as far as I can see there in nothing empirical that connects the "no" or the 'bump' directly to Annie's attack, it creates only a strong probability.***

So you and Fishy started this argument, I think two, maybe even three threads back, and the argument was whether or not Annie's body had been dumped or was found situ. Certainly that argument is important to Fishy's conspiracy theory, but I can't wrap my head around why either of you are arguing over Dr. Phillips' call on TOD.

In my opinion, you have to give Fishy a 4:50 to 6:00 dump window; post Richardson, before Davis. Or if you want to believe Elizabeth Long then at least a 25 minute window between 5:30 and 6:00 AM.

Long and Cadosch make good arguments for a later than 5:15 killing, situ, but can't be used to deny an earlier killing, nor is either strong enough evidence to deny Annie was dumped.

So what does it matter if Phillips was wrong? What am I missing?

Anthony



** Funny but I wonder when the phrase "bump the fence" got added into the Ripper lexicon, because almost everyone says that now, but he never said bumped?

*** I am actually of the same mind as you, Annie was likely killed around 5:15 to 5:30 and Cadosch heard the event, but right now that is irrelevant to the point I am trying to make: Why are you and Fishy arguing about the TOD?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock,

I am not sure why Annie Chapman's TOD has become a contested issue between you and Fishy. I may be missing something here and if so I would like you to explain it to me, but first let me make my point as to why I believe this entire argument is nugatory (for both of you).

Dr. Phillips put Annie's time of death between and 4:00 AM and 4:30 AM, but Richardson's testimony contradicted that possibility, forcing Annie's earliest appearance in the yard back to 4:50 AM. Let us accept Richardson as correct and Phillips wrong.

John Davis finds Annie's body at 6:00 AM. --- Fishy's (Knight's) conspiracy theory is based on Annie being slain elsewhere and then dumped at 29 Hanbury. There is an hour and ten minute gap between Richardson's non-sighting and Davis discovery, plenty of time for a parade of conspirators, Sickert, Netley, Anderson, Gull, even Prince Albert Victor himself, with entourage, to enter the yard and dump Annie's body.

So why the fuss?

Even if you accept Elizabeth Long's testimony, keeping Annie on the street as late as 5:30, there is still a 25 minute gap that allows for the body to be dumped.

I realize that this interferes with Cadosch's testimony but what does he really tell us, that he heard a "NO" which he couldn't confirm the origin of: "As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from." and that he heard something touch the fence:"While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly."**

That testimony really isn't enough to base a time of attack on. There are many possibilities as to what Cadosch could have heard. Let me offer some conjectures as examples:

In an old building like that, sounds get baffled and can echo, the "no" he heard while reentering the house could have come from anywhere, maybe even above him and he really wouldn't have been able to tell. The "bump" at the fence could have been rats scurrying off Annie's body as his presence in the yard panicked them. --- And on and on I could go, all conjecture, but nevertheless, as far as I can see there in nothing empirical that connects the "no" or the 'bump' directly to Annie's attack, it creates only a strong probability.***

So you and Fishy started this argument, I think two, maybe even three threads back, and the argument was whether or not Annie's body had been dumped or was found situ. Certainly that argument is important to Fishy's conspiracy theory, but I can't wrap my head around why either of you are arguing over Dr. Phillips' call on TOD.

In my opinion, you have to give Fishy a 4:50 to 6:00 dump window; post Richardson, before Davis. Or if you want to believe Elizabeth Long then at least a 25 minute window between 5:30 and 6:00 AM.

Long and Cadosch make good arguments for a later than 5:15 killing, situ, but can't be used to deny an earlier killing, nor is either strong enough evidence to deny Annie was dumped.

So what does it matter if Phillips was wrong? What am I missing?

Anthony



** Funny but I wonder when the phrase "bump the fence" got added into the Ripper lexicon, because almost everyone says that now, but he never said bumped?

*** I am actually of the same mind as you, Annie was likely killed around 5:15 to 5:30 and Cadosch heard the event, but right now that is irrelevant to the point I am trying to make: Why are you and Fishy arguing about the TOD?

Anthony,

The argument has dragged on, for too long I’ll admit (and I’ll admit my share of the blame on this - I should simply have ignored him but I don’t like dishonest posting) Fishy wants Phillips to have been correct so that he can say that when Richardson looked into the yard at 4.45 and saw no body that Annie was already dead in a carriage somewhere and then dumped in the backyard of number 29 - post Richardson. He also believes that it strengthens the case for two men carrying a mutilate corpse for it to have been dark at the time (hence the preference for an earlier TOD.)

Now I’ve stated in several posts that I’m not saying that Phillips was definitely wrong. He might have been; he might have been correct. The dishonest part of this particular argument is that I, and others who know far more about medical issues than I do (Elamarna and John G to name two) have explained to Fishy that TOD estimates could be massively inaccurate and have indeed been described by experts as little more than guesswork. This fact has been attested to in numerous papers and books by genuine experts on Forensic Science. You will not find a single Forensic Scientist that would dispute the fact that TOD estimates were unreliable. Fishy however discards this fact because it doesn’t suit the theory that he promotes. His claim, and it really beggars belief, is that because the doctors apparently got the TOD’s correct for Nichols, Eddowes and Kelly then all of those modern Forensic experts were wrong! They got 3 right so TOD’s must be accurate! Steve (Elemarna) who has a medical background has tried to explain this to Fishy. In my opinion it has gone beyond the point where we can put it down to misunderstanding. Fishy simply doesn’t want it to be true and so argues that black is white.

I, on my part have accepted that Phillips might have been correct. But Fishy just will not accept that he might have been wrong because it works against a theory that he appears to be on the point of obsession about. I don’t think that it’s unreasonable to expect a balanced, fair-minded poster to accept a fact that is accepted by the world’s of Forensic scientists without exception?!

So, for me, considering what we know about the potential inaccuracies of TOD estimates, I’d say that witnesses like Richardson, Cadosch and Long become even more relevant. And of course it’s up to the individual how they interpret those three. For Fishy they are all wrong because Phillips was definitely correct. A ludicrous statement imo.


Another reason that this debate has dragged on, and again I’ll admit my part in this, is the question of honesty. Fishy has made statements and claims that he refuses to back up and I’ve tried to push him on this. He has three main tactics. He either changes the subject, or he answers an entirely different question or he claims to have already answered the question (when he hasn’t and he won’t point to the post where his answer was supposed to have been made) The main claim that I’ve tried to get an answer on is when Fishy claimed to have been able to disprove Simon Wood’s research (in case you are unaware Simon discovered massive holes and falsehoods in the Knight/Sickert’s story. Essentially debunking it and leaving it sidelined for the last 40 years.) Simon provided sources for all of his research. Why will Fishy not provide his alleged proof? If you claim that someone’s research was incorrect the usual practice is to provide that contrary evidence with sources. Fishy has repeatedly refused to do this. Well, to be more accurate Anthony, he has ignored numerous requests.

These threads are to discuss and debate but it should be done honestly and openly, something that the vast majority of posters do. We can all make mistakes. I’ve made many but I’ll admit to them when they’re pointed out (unless it’s just a difference of opinion of course.) We can all interpret events differently but we have to stick to some basic rules. Don’t call something a fact if it’s only an opinion or an interpretation. Don’t make statements or dismissals then refuse to back them up. Dont claim to know something that you cannot possibly know for a fact. Don’t employ obvious logical fallacies (like 3 doctors were correct therefore all TOD estimates are correct) Don’t say that something is just too complex for a poster to understand as a method of avoiding an explanation. I’m afraid that Fishy employs all of the above tactics and then when I push him on them he calls me stupid and a moron. The phrase flogging a dead horse comes to mind where Fishy is concerned.

Apologies for the long reply Anthony but I really feel that the point is an important one. Honest differences are fine. But they should be honest and not just a tactic to prop up a theory.

[FISHY1118]

ill see if i can respond to that now that ive found where the fancy colors are too.

The argument has dragged on, for too long I’ll admit (and I’ll admit my share of the blame on this - I should simply have ignored him but I don’t like dishonest posting) Fishy wants Phillips to have been correct so that he can say that when Richardson looked into the yard at 4.45 and saw no body that Annie was already dead in a carriage somewhere and then dumped in the backyard of number 29 - post Richardson. He also believes that it strengthens the case for two men carrying a mutilate corpse for it to have been dark at the time (hence the preference for an earlier TOD.)

Now I’ve stated in several posts that I’m not saying that Phillips was definitely wrong. He might have been; he might have been correct. The dishonest part of this particular argument is that I, and others who know far more about medical issues than I do (Elamarna and John G to name two) have explained to Fishy that TOD estimates could be massively inaccurate and have indeed been described by experts as little more than guesswork. This fact has been attested to in numerous papers and books by genuine experts on Forensic Science. You will not find a single Forensic Scientist that would dispute the fact that TOD estimates were unreliable. Fishy however discards this fact because it doesn’t suit the theory that he promotes. His claim, and it really beggars belief, is that because the doctors apparently got the TOD’s correct for Nichols, Eddowes and Kelly then all of those modern Forensic experts were wrong! They got 3 right so TOD’s must be accurate! Steve (Elemarna) who has a medical background has tried to explain this to Fishy. In my opinion it has gone beyond the point where we can put it down to misunderstanding. Fishy simply doesn’t want it to be true and so argues that black is white.

I, on my part have accepted that Phillips might have been correct. But Fishy just will not accept that he might have been wrong because it works against a theory that he appears to be on the point of obsession about. I don’t think that it’s unreasonable to expect a balanced, fair-minded poster to accept a fact that is accepted by the world’s of Forensic scientists without exception?!

So, for me, considering what we know about the potential inaccuracies of TOD estimates, I’d say that witnesses like Richardson, Cadosch and Long become even more relevant. And of course it’s up to the individual how they interpret those three. For Fishy they are all wrong because Phillips was definitely correct. A ludicrous statement imo.


Another reason that this debate has dragged on, and again I’ll admit my part in this, is the question of honesty. Fishy has made statements and claims that he refuses to back up and I’ve tried to push him on this. He has three main tactics. He either changes the subject, or he answers an entirely different question or he claims to have already answered the question (when he hasn’t and he won’t point to the post where his answer was supposed to have been made) The main claim that I’ve tried to get an answer on is when Fishy claimed to have been able to disprove Simon Wood’s research (in case you are unaware Simon discovered massive holes and falsehoods in the Knight/Sickert’s story. Essentially debunking it and leaving it sidelined for the last 40 years.) Simon provided sources for all of his research. Why will Fishy not provide his alleged proof? If you claim that someone’s research was incorrect the usual practice is to provide that contrary evidence with sources. Fishy has repeatedly refused to do this. Well, to be more accurate Anthony, he has ignored numerous requests.

These threads are to discuss and debate but it should be done honestly and openly, something that the vast majority of posters do. We can all make mistakes. I’ve made many but I’ll admit to them when they’re pointed out (unless it’s just a difference of opinion of course.) We can all interpret events differently but we have to stick to some basic rules. Don’t call something a fact if it’s only an opinion or an interpretation. Don’t make statements or dismissals then refuse to back them up. Dont claim to know something that you cannot possibly know for a fact. Don’t employ obvious logical fallacies (like 3 doctors were correct therefore all TOD estimates are correct) Don’t say that something is just too complex for a poster to understand as a method of avoiding an explanation. I’m afraid that Fishy employs all of the above tactics and then when I push him on them he calls me stupid and a moron. The phrase flogging a dead horse comes to mind where Fishy is concerned.

Apologies for the long reply Anthony but I really feel that the point is an important one. Honest differences are fine. But they should be honest and not just a tactic to prop up a theory.

The only reason this debate has dragged on is because you Herlock refuse to accept that anyone can have an opinion whether right or wrong, or to explore all /other possibilities where the Whitechapel murders are concerned ,after all have you forgotten what a forum is for ?

So as not to go into a Longggggggggg drawn out post such as the one you just posted . just insert my above paragraph to all the remainder of your post . On more than one occasion i explained my theories to you in relation to more than one of the subjects you mentioned, but you chose or interpreted them as ridiculous ,and it was then when i ignored your responses. So thats where were at, but ill keep posting as ive said all along. Where the evidence and witness statements allow for interrupting all and the many different possibilities for the murders.

[Herlock Sholmes]

ill see if i can respond to that now that ive found where the fancy colors are too.


The only reason this debate has dragged on is because you Herlock refuse to accept that anyone can have an opinion whether right or wrong, or to explore all /other possibilities where the Whitechapel murders are concerned ,after all have you forgotten what a forum is for ?

So as not to go into a Longggggggggg drawn out post such as the one you just posted . just insert my above paragraph to all the remainder of your post . On more than one occasion i explained my theories to you in relation to more than one of the subjects you mentioned, but you chose or interpreted them as ridiculous ,and it was then when i ignored your responses. So thats where were at, but ill keep posting as ive said all along. Where the evidence and witness statements allow for interrupting all and the many different possibilities for the murders.

It went like this Fishy:

You mentioned the Knight/Sickert theory as the one that you support.

I pointed out the whopping errors that Simon had discovered when he did his research.

You said that you could show where Simon was in error. You even said - don’t make me prove that the hospital existed.

I asked you to provide the evidence so that I (and more importantly Simon) could assess it and respond. Simon even offered to do this in a pm (I’m assuming that you haven’t.)

You changed the subject.


These requests have been repeated all with the same outcome.

Also.....

When I pointed out what modern forensic experts said about TOD estimations you tried to claim (and have repeatedly done the same) that they were wrong simply because doctors got the TOD correct on 3 occasions. It’s impossible for anyone to have made that suggestion honestly. So I can only conclude that you refuse to accept the thinking of the entirety of forensic medical science on the grounds that it might disagree with Knight.

Also...

ive never said that Phillips was categorically wrong. Only that he might have been (and that the witness statements tend to add weight to this) But you appear to not even accept the possibility that he might have been wrong. Again this can only be because of your rigid adherence to Knight.

Also....

When I’ve provided lists of objections to the Knight/Sickert theory have you debated them? No.

To quote you Fishy:

. after all have you forgotten what a forum is for ?

No, but I think that you have

[Robert St Devil]

Anthony


*** I am actually of the same mind as you, Annie was likely killed around 5:15 to 5:30 and Cadosch heard the event, but right now that is irrelevant to the point I am trying to make: Why are you and Fishy arguing about the TOD?

I'm of the same opinion, Anthony. There's evidence that Jack the Ripper had sufficient lighting when he mutilated Annie Chapman, such as (avoiding her navel when he cut into her abdomen) and (specifically harvesting her uterus) and (identifying and placing her valuables near her body). One would have to wonder how much light would have been available to conduct such a series of events in a backyard under the gloom of fence palings if the rampage had actually occurred hours prior to the suspected ToD of 5:30ish.

[FISHY1118]

ill just post this again shall
or maybe Joseph Sickert was indeed Walter Sickert son , which if true poses a interesting question , Walter died in 1942 ,Joseph maintained he was told the story by he father Walter when he was 13/14 . Joseph being born in 1925 would make it 1938/9.

Now again, if this is true it means Joseph Sickert, a man nobody ever heard of who lived a life of a virtual recluse, who by Walters account was told an incredible story about who the whitechapel murderer was , then decided to wait 35 years to tell knight so they could both make a few bucks ?

Add to this Jean Overton Fullers mother Violet Fullers life long companion Florence Pash, who claimed Walter Sickert who she associated and spent time with and was a painter in her own right , told her the same story he told Joseph.

So another question beckons , why on earth would Jean Overton Fuller go to all the trouble of researching and publishing her 1991 book based on a story which by that time was being debunked as a made up fantasy by every ripperoligist on the planet ?. One wonders her motives as to why she would expose herself to the same ridicule that both joseph and knight came under....... just for a few bucks

Finally , lets take Joseph out of the picture altogether and go with the theory he lied and made the whole thing up. How then do we explain Florence Pashs exact same lie she told to violet fuller in 1948? according to Jean Overton Fuller.

So now, do we have two people who most likely never met, never knew the other existed ,who were told the same lie from the same source in Walter Sickert 50 years apart?

[FISHY1118]

When I pointed out what modern forensic experts said about TOD estimations you tried to claim (and have repeatedly done the same) that they were wrong simply because doctors got the TOD correct on 3 occasions.

1. This is an incorrect statement by you again. ive never said modern forensic expert were flat out wrong only that the doctors in 3 murders were correct when they gave their estimates in t.o.d when asked to do so .

[QUOTE]ive never said that Phillips was categorically wrong. Only that he might have been and that the witness statements tend to add weight to this)



2''wildly inaccurate and guesswork at best''[ thats what you said] And the same ambiguity with the witness statements could also add weight to him being correct

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=FISHY1118;n717428]

1. This is an incorrect statement by you again. ive never said modern forensic expert were flat out wrong only that the doctors in 3 murders were correct when they gave their estimates in t.o.d when asked to do so .

ive never said that Phillips was categorically wrong. Only that he might have been

and that the witness statements tend to add weight to this)



2''wildly inaccurate and guesswork at best''[ thats what you said] And the same ambiguity with the witness statements could also add weight to him being correct

How much wriggling can one poster do? I’m quite happy for anyone to read back and check what was said and the very obvious intention behind your comments. When it was mentioned by me that TOD’s could be wildly inaccurate you repeatedly quoted the 3 doctors. You were in effect saying - how could TOD estimates have been in doubt when doctors got three correct? There could be no other interpretation of your comments. You openly mocked the statement about TOD’s.

I don’t know why you stress the wildly inaccurate and guesswork comments? These have both been used in actual textbooks to describe TOD estimates. They are not my words.


My position, unlike yours is, is a reasoned one:

1. Phillips might have been right, he might have been wrong. We cannot know for certain. I do wish you would acknowledge that I’ve never said that Phillips was definitely wrong.

and so are there any other factors that might help to point us in the right direction? Yes, the witness statements.

2. We have 3 witnesses. Two can exist together with no issue - Richardson and Cadosch. But one witness, Long, conflicts with the other two. All three conflict with Phillips.

And so, to put it simply, I feel that Richardson and Cadosch are believable witnesses. I cannot be 100% certain of course. It’s my opinion based solely on my own assessment.