Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Time Of Death

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

  • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

    Your so vain , i love the way you make it sound like the whole forums watching our post . ohhhhh were all watching fishys post [ silly boy]. like i said t.o.d in relation to jtr escapes you . just a fact .
    I have followed this thread from the start because it involves Knight's tome that I have already admitted I fell for - hook, line & sinker! It was a long time ago now but when I think back, I'm actually embarrassed that I was taken in by such a (excuse me here) fishy tale. It appears that an impasse has been reached on two issues.

    Firstly you appear to have chosen to ignore the advice of experts in the field that accurate TOD cannot be established with absolute certainty today, let alone 130 years ago. A "best estimate" is really the closest you are likely to get. Things haven't changed much since 1888! The doctors then would have given their "best estimate" I'm sure, but you certainly cannot rely on it.

    Your second issue appears to be your reluctance to address the points raised by Simon Wood rebutting the assertions made by Knight / Sickert. Herlock has raised six specific points (latterly at #267). For anybody to even start to consider accepting your proposition you must first provide evidence that Mr Wood's rebuttal of the Knight / Sickert evidence is incorrect. To ignore this very important research undermines your credibility and damages, perhaps forever, your proposition and belief.

    I would like Mr Wood to be wrong on all six points so I wouldn't feel so bad about accepting Knight's conclusions. But I would wager large that he isn't!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ohrocky View Post

      I have followed this thread from the start because it involves Knight's tome that I have already admitted I fell for - hook, line & sinker! It was a long time ago now but when I think back, I'm actually embarrassed that I was taken in by such a (excuse me here) fishy tale. It appears that an impasse has been reached on two issues.

      Firstly you appear to have chosen to ignore the advice of experts in the field that accurate TOD cannot be established with absolute certainty today, let alone 130 years ago. A "best estimate" is really the closest you are likely to get. Things haven't changed much since 1888! The doctors then would have given their "best estimate" I'm sure, but you certainly cannot rely on it.

      Your second issue appears to be your reluctance to address the points raised by Simon Wood rebutting the assertions made by Knight / Sickert. Herlock has raised six specific points (latterly at #267). For anybody to even start to consider accepting your proposition you must first provide evidence that Mr Wood's rebuttal of the Knight / Sickert evidence is incorrect. To ignore this very important research undermines your credibility and damages, perhaps forever, your proposition and belief.

      I would like Mr Wood to be wrong on all six points so I wouldn't feel so bad about accepting Knight's conclusions. But I would wager large that he isn't!
      I fell for - hook, line & sinker!
      you fell for it-hook, line, and Sickert! ; )
      "Is all that we see or seem
      but a dream within a dream?"

      -Edgar Allan Poe


      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

      -Frederick G. Abberline

      Comment


      • Originally posted by ohrocky View Post

        I have followed this thread from the start because it involves Knight's tome that I have already admitted I fell for - hook, line & sinker! It was a long time ago now but when I think back, I'm actually embarrassed that I was taken in by such a (excuse me here) fishy tale. It appears that an impasse has been reached on two issues.

        Firstly you appear to have chosen to ignore the advice of experts in the field that accurate TOD cannot be established with absolute certainty today, let alone 130 years ago. A "best estimate" is really the closest you are likely to get. Things haven't changed much since 1888! The doctors then would have given their "best estimate" I'm sure, but you certainly cannot rely on it.

        Your second issue appears to be your reluctance to address the points raised by Simon Wood rebutting the assertions made by Knight / Sickert. Herlock has raised six specific points (latterly at #267). For anybody to even start to consider accepting your proposition you must first provide evidence that Mr Wood's rebuttal of the Knight / Sickert evidence is incorrect. To ignore this very important research undermines your credibility and damages, perhaps forever, your proposition and belief.

        I would like Mr Wood to be wrong on all six points so I wouldn't feel so bad about accepting Knight's conclusions. But I would wager large that he isn't!
        Exactly Rocky.

        As Iíve said repeatedly Iím not saying that Phillips was definitely wrong. We canít know that but we have to accept that itís a possibility based on what is known by real experts on the subject. Fishy appears to think that because the TODís were accurate in the case of Nichols, Stride and Eddowes then that somehow proves that forensic experts are wrong and that TOD estimates are by inference completely trustworthy. I accept that he might have been correct but Fishy appears to refuse to accept the possibility of the opposite.

        In Chapmanís case of course we have three witnesses to evaluate. Again Fishy is quite at liberty to have an opinion that Richardson, Cadosch and Long were all either mistaken or lying. He may be correct. Personally, and Iím very far from alone on this, I tend to disagree. Itís my opinion that Richardson and Cadosch were probably correct and that Mrs Long was mistaken (I tend to think it likeliest that she saw two people unconnected to the case.) Others disagree with this of course. Itís not black and white though. Wolf Vanderlindenís dissertation was very good and itís certainly worthwhile raising doubts and looking at potential other interpretations. The problem is that when Fishy read it he saw it as a kind of green light for the Knight/Sickert theory. He starts with a theory and then goes looking for things to fit rather than looking at the case as a whole. Fishy will probably respond by accusing me of not accepting the possibility of alternate explanations though. But as you can see I accept the possibility of Phillips being correct but have weighed things up and have arrived at how I interpret things (as we all do.) I donít see why this is an issue?

        Like you I felt that when I first read Knight I was reading the solution to the case. I still wish it was true. Experience leads us to be more cautious though. Or at least it should do. We have to accept that the facts are stacked overwhelmingly against it being true.

        When we give opinions or make sweeping statements we should all be prepared to back them up. Fishy has repeatedly refused this in the case of Simonís research. Simon even offered to discuss it with Fishy by pm. Fishy just refuses and he does this by ignoring questions, answering questions that werenít asked in the first place or simply by changing the subject. Thereís nothing wrong with disagreement but posters should be up front about their posts. 99% of posters do this whether they are agreed with or not. This is important but apparently not to Fishy.
        Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 07-31-2019, 02:54 PM.
        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 Abby Normal View Post


          you fell for it-hook, line, and Sickert! ; )


          According to Fishy though Abby Iím just too biased to see 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 be answering the above post after the weekend, ive got to move house.... yuck .

            Comment

            Working...
            X