Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Time Of Death

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

  • #16
    These are the facts where jack the ripper t.o.d are concerned .
    Nichols killed between 3.30am and 3.45am when she was discovered dead Henry Llewellyn, surgeon ''On Friday morning I was called to Buck's-row about four o'clock, i believe she had not been dead more than half-an-hour'' makes it 3.35 am. ...Now he only job was to pronounce the victim deceased and give a time of death , he didnt ask any witnesses to confirm any times for him, he gave his expert medical opinion on that spot at that time lets have a show of hands was it a little bit of guess work ,was he wildly inaccurate ? . clearly he was not.

    Eddowes killed between 1.37.am and 1 44 am. when she was discovered dead.Dr. G. W. Sequeira, , surgeon, of No. 34, Jewry-street, Aldgate, deposed: On the morning of Sept. 30 I was called to Mitre-square, and I arrived at five minutes to two o'clock, being the first medical man on the scene of the murder.[Coroner] How long do you believe life had been extinct when you arrived? - Very few minutes - probably not more than a quarter of an hour. makes it 1.40am, show of hands was he guessing ?, was he wildly inaccurate?. clearly he was not.
    Stride killed between 12.45am and 1.00am when she was discovered dead.Dr Fredrick Blackwell of 100 Commercial Road was called; he arrived at 1.16am and pronounced Stride dead at the scene.[Coroner] Did you form any opinion as to how long the deceased had been dead? - From twenty minutes to half an hour when I arrived.....t.o.d. 12.50am ​​​​​​​ was he guessing ? was he wildly inaccurate ? hmmm theres a pattern here, clearly he was not. These are the testimonies at the official inquest, they are all we have to work from, lets not assume that their watches may or may not have been correct or the time they arrived at the murder may have varied in some way shape or form, thats totally irreverent, only the official times stated matters

    ​​​​​​​

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
      That TOD estimations were unreliable and could be wildly inaccurate?......... rubbish... my post already prove that 3 doctors were right with there time of death . subject closed move on . admit you were wrong .

      anyone else that would like to comment on long v cadoush feel free
      UNBELIEVABLE!

      You've just read a statement from an expert, Dr Biggs, and yet you still wonít accept it on the grounds that doctors might occasionally have gotten it right.

      People pick the right horse but it doesnít mean that theyíre psychic.

      No one said that Drís were always wrong. Only that there was a reasonable possibility and so we cannot use their testimony as proof.

      Please try to understand Fish. Itís becoming boring having to explain the obvious to you. Your arguing against the weight of medical science here!!!
      Regards

      Herlock






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

      Comment


      • #18
        HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA , you truly fantastic you know that, you just changed your whole narrative about the time of death, thats not what the discussion was about



        No one said that Drís were always wrong. Only that there was a reasonable possibility and so we cannot use their testimony as proof. hardly the same as guesswork at best and wildly inaccurate now is it , which is what you said .

        its got jack to do with medical science and more to do with what you claimed and what the doctors proved to be right . and in the 3 cases where they gave very accurate t.o.d they were neither guessing and were not wildly inaccurate, so you were clearly wrong . own it . move on nothing left to see here also .

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
          HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA , you truly fantastic you know that, you just changed your whole narrative about the time of death, thats not what the discussion was about



          No one said that Drís were always wrong. Only that there was a reasonable possibility and so we cannot use their testimony as proof. hardly the same as guesswork at best and wildly inaccurate now is it , which is what you said .

          its got jack to do with medical science and more to do with what you claimed and what the doctors proved to be right . and in the 3 cases where they gave very accurate t.o.d they were neither guessing and were not wildly inaccurate, so you were clearly wrong . own it . move on nothing left to see here also .
          Itís like playing chess with a baboon.

          MEDICAL SCIENCE, PEOPLE THAT HAVE DETAILED KNOWLEDGE ABOUT FORENSIC SCIENCE, ALL TELL USTHAT TOD ESTIMATES AT THAT TIME COULD BE WILDLY INACCURATE. OF COURSE THEY CAN BE CORRECT OCCASIONALLY. THIS STILL DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT.......IT IS A FACT FISHY. ITS NOT ME MAKING STUFF UP ITS THE OPINION OF EVERY MEDICAL EXPERT. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT YOU KNOW BETTER?

          WE KNOW WHY DONíT WE?

          ITS BECAUSE YOU ARE OBSESSED WITH SHOEHORNING EVERYTHING TO FIT A THOROUGHLY DISCREDITED THEORY.

          STOP CLAIMING THAT YOU KNOW MORE THAN MODERN FORENSIC SCIENTISTS. ITS LAUGHABLE EVEN BY YOUR OWN LOW STANDARDS.

          ​​​​​​Will this ever sink in Fishy? Please, just for once, take of those conspiracy goggles and have the basic integrity to accept something that is completely beyond argument.
          Regards

          Herlock






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

          Comment


          • #20
            And again ill just keep saying it right back to you , it not about the conspiracy , it not about the medical experts, its about what you said and what i said based on the facts of the case, thats the only thing im talking about . And again where the time of death was concerned in three murders the doctors were absolutely correct, they didn't guess and they were not wildly inaccurate. Even a baboon surly could understand that .

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
              The obvious may not seem that obvious when we look at the inquest testimonies of Mrs Long and Mr Albert Cadosch.''I got up about a quarter past five in the morning, and went into the yard. It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door.''

              Mrs. Elizabeth Long said: I live in Church-row, Whitechapel, and my husband, James Long, is a cart minder. On Saturday, Sept. 8, about half past five o'clock in the morning, I was passing down Hanbury-street, from home, on my way to Spitalfields Market. I knew the time, because I heard the brewer's clock strike half-past five just before I got to the street. I passed 29, Hanbury-street. On the right-hand side, the same side as the house, I saw a man and a woman standing on the pavement talking. The man's back was turned towards Brick-lane, and the woman's was towards the market. They were standing only a few yards nearer Brick-lane from 29, Hanbury-street. I saw the woman's face. Have seen the deceased in the mortuary, and I am sure the woman that I saw in Hanbury-street was the deceased.

              Long was sure the women she saw was Chapman and it was 5.30 when she entered handbury street , so it had to be at least 1 to 2 minutes before she passed Chapman and her companion. Then another minute for them to enter through the passage to the spot she supposedly said ''no'' which makes it 5.33 before shes on the murder spot.

              13 minutes after Cadosch heard someone say ''no''....... THAT ''NO'' wasn't Chapman if were to believe Mrs Longs account .


              Now im only going on what they both gave in evidents at the official inquest, thats all we can go on , saying or making excuse for their times being wrong or inaccurate for what ever reason would be to change the testmonie to suit another narrative .
              If you are trying to pick Longs sighting at 5:30 over Cadosches thud and "no" at 5:20, then why do you post that you believe the tod estimates that have Chapman dead long before either witness account?
              Michael Richards

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                And again ill just keep saying it right back to you , it not about the conspiracy , it not about the medical experts, its about what you said and what i said based on the facts of the case, thats the only thing im talking about . And again where the time of death was concerned in three murders the doctors were absolutely correct, they didn't guess and they were not wildly inaccurate. Even a baboon surly could understand that .
                And your saying that this shows that Philips must be correct on Chapmanís TOD. It shows nothing of the kind. If we want an idea of when Chapman was killed then we should look to the evidence/witness and not Philips.

                Everything you say is about conspiracy.
                Regards

                Herlock






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

                Comment


                • #23
                  Again for the second time, ive posted the inquest evidents nothing more . feel free to have an opinion on what the different in long v cadosch statements in regard to what each of them claimed. if thats too hard for you then fine, or you dont want to fine also.

                  Michael, in answer to your question , its a fact that the 3 doctors official inquest statements prove that their opinion in regards to t.o.d was correct and accurate . One cant be sure about dr philipps with the Chapman murder .

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Michael, in answer to your question , its a fact that the 3 doctors official inquest statements prove that their opinion in regards to t.o.d was correct and accurate . One cant be sure about dr philipps with the Chapman murder .
                    Regards

                    Herlock






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

                    Comment


                    • #25

                      Again for the second time, ive posted the inquest evidents nothing more . feel free to have an opinion on what the different in long v cadosch statements in regard to what each of them claimed. if thats too hard for you then fine, or you dont want to fine also.
                      No Fishy, you were claiming that Phillips was definitely accurate in his TOD estimation.
                      Regards

                      Herlock






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

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Where as in Chapman's case according to one doctor it was so far out, or was he ? Thoughts anyone .


                        No Fishy, you were claiming that Phillips was definitely accurate in his TOD estimation.


                        ''or was he'' means a choice of two possibilities it was so far out , ''or'' was he ?

                        Phillips was definitely accurate , the ''or'' makes the word ''definitely'' incorrect. but hey interpret it any way you like.


                        so for no other reason except for the the times that seem odd with lond v codoash, and yes i know we cant always go by peoples times [gods knows why] , and not wanting to bring anything else to the topic, do you at least have a comment to make about there testimonies ? . just a ''yes fishy it does seem a little odd'' will do

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                          Where as in Chapman's case according to one doctor it was so far out, or was he ? Thoughts anyone .


                          No Fishy, you were claiming that Phillips was definitely accurate in his TOD estimation.


                          ''or was he'' means a choice of two possibilities it was so far out , ''or'' was he ?

                          Phillips was definitely accurate , the ''or'' makes the word ''definitely'' incorrect. but hey interpret it any way you like.


                          so for no other reason except for the the times that seem odd with lond v codoash, and yes i know we cant always go by peoples times [gods knows why] , and not wanting to bring anything else to the topic, do you at least have a comment to make about there testimonies ? . just a ''yes fishy it does seem a little odd'' will do
                          I donít think Iíll be alone in saying that I find this post hard to understand. Please use the quote function Fishy - this is friendly advice. Itís difficult to decipher between what you say and what you are saying that other people have said.

                          Ok Fishy, the problem is that you havenít previously mentioned things like - or was he.

                          You simply refused to believe me when I explained to you that TOD estimates at that time were very u reliable and could be very inaccurate.

                          Next, you ask - god knows why - after saying that we canít always go be peopleís times.

                          The reason that we have to apply caution when considering people timings is that very, very few working class people owned a watch. They even relied on Constables to get them up for work in the mornings. Most of the time they were reliant on clocks on buildings (which werenít always in sight) or church bells (which, if you werenít specifically paying attention at the time you might have misinterpreted say, the quarter past bells for the half past bell)

                          As for Cadosch and Long. We cannot be certain that either of them was correct in their timings or even if they saw or heard what they did. Long might have seen someone that wasnít Annie. She might have seen Annie but got the time wrong. Cadosch might have gotten his timings wrong. The word no might not have been connected to the sound of someone falling against the fence. Obviously Mrs Long couldnít have seen Annie if Cadosch heard her fall against the fence 15 minutes earlier.

                          I tend toward Mrs Long getting her time wrong or seeing a woman that wasnít Annie. So we have Annie not in the yard at 4.45 (Richardson) and Cadosch probably heard her being murdered at around 5.15. Imo.

                          ​​​​​​​We have no way of being certain though. I certainly could be wrong.
                          Regards

                          Herlock






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

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Well i tend to lean towards long she was definite about the time being 5.30 , and yes she may have been wrong, but add to the fact she was sure it was Annie Chapman she also saw both alive and at the morgue or deceased.. same thing , but Cadosch was unsure about the 'No'' and the sound of the thud against the fence could also have something else, [ if long is correct ]Annie wasn't in the yard at that time . just saying i rather choose long than Codosch .


                            As for the god knows why , it was more tongue in cheek ,and more frustration, that every time people discuss the 5 murders time and witness statements its too easy for them to just say ''oh times could be wrong, people couldn't have seen this or seen that'' if we cant use the inquest testimony to prove a point, there s really not much use discussion it . is there .

                            Your reason for long not being right ,if you go down the road of her being incorrect in identifying Chapman , then can it also be said the same for Lawende with his sighting of Eddows after all he did not see her face ,only clothes that were similar to Eddows .


                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              I tend toward Mrs Long getting her time wrong or seeing a woman that wasnít Annie. So we have Annie not in the yard at 4.45 (Richardson) and Cadosch probably heard her being murdered at around 5.15. Imo.
                              I believe that the interpretation of the known evidence leads one to that conclusion as well Herlock. Cadosche is a far better witness if only due to his proximity, and its inconceivable that there was a dead woman there already when he heard the thud and "no". She was on her way to being dead, at that time.

                              In this case,... and in Pollys case, and in Strides case, and in Kates case, the victims are found shortly after the actual murder(s). In Marys case, not so much. So she is the only real question mark when TOD is being considered.

                              For myself, I believe the thrill of potentially getting caught over a victim is one reason we see some of these public displays, he makes a game of it. Much more dramatic. The Torso man worked for who knows how long on his victims, days..a couple of weeks...all in private, and likely while he was also maintaining some kind of regular life. But the killer dubbed JtR was a cat...pounce on the prey on the spot, and then like a large cat, rapidly dive into his winnings.
                              Last edited by Michael W Richards; 06-26-2019, 10:28 AM.
                              Michael Richards

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                                For myself, I believe the thrill of potentially getting caught over a victim is one reason we see some of these public displays, he makes a game of it. Much more dramatic. The Torso man worked for who knows how long on his victims, days..a couple of weeks...all in private, and likely while he was also maintaining some kind of regular life. But the killer dubbed JtR was a cat...pounce on the prey on the spot, and then like a large cat, rapidly dive into his winnings.
                                Interesting.
                                So maybe, after the double event, he finds it too difficult to work outside as every man and his dog are on the look out for him. So he goes inside with Kelly. But finds no thrill in working inside. So that's it. He just disappears.

                                These are not clues, Fred.
                                It is not yarn leading us to the dark heart of this place.
                                They are half-glimpsed imaginings, tangle of shadows.
                                And you and I floundering at them in the ever vainer hope that we might corral then into meaning when we will not.
                                We will not.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X