Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Time Of Death

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

  • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

    Here is Philips full statement about time of death.

    "[Coroner] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood."

    Note how Philips hedged his estimate by noting the cold temperatures and blood loss could have made is estimate wrong.





    Exactly Fiver. We have Phillips himself accepting that he might have been wrong (Ie less than two hours or else he wouldn’t have made his caveat) so it’s difficult to see why some refuse to accept the possibility of him being 50-60 minutes out. All of the authorities on the subject confirm that Rigor and Algor are unreliable methods even for a competent Doctor especially when we can add two factors that he wouldn’t have been aware of as being relevant at the time - sudden haemorrhage and a wasting disease (TB) Of course this doesn’t tell us that Phillips must have been wrong but it’s also not the case that he must have been correct, only that we cannot rely on his estimation as accurate. And so we have to look elsewhere I.e. the witnesses and they point strongly towards a TOD around 5.25-5.30.

    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 FISHY1118 View Post
      'IF' we believe Annie was killed at around 5.30 ,she had 3.5 hours of wandering beforehand.That's a lot of wandering with no sightings in an area where people were coming and going through the night .If there was a 'case' for believing a ripper victim was not killed on the spot and transported there then surely Annie is the one...and what's the explanation for the blood at no.25?
      The Chapman inquest examined the possibility of the body having been moved.

      Inspector Joseph Chandler testified:
      "[Coroner] You have examined the adjoining yard? - Yes.
      [Coroner] Was there any staining as of blood on any of the palings? - Yes, near the body.
      [Coroner] Was it on any of the other yards? - No.
      [Coroner] Were there no other marks? - There were marks discovered on the wall of No. 25. They were noticed on Tuesday afternoon. They have been seen by Dr. Phillips.
      [Coroner] Were there any drops of blood outside the yard of No. 29? - No; every possible examination has been made, but we could find no trace of them. The blood-stains at No. 29 were in the immediate neighbourhood of the body only. There were also a few spots of blood on the back wall, near the head of the deceased, 2ft from the ground. The largest spot was of the size of a sixpence. They were all close together. I assisted in the preparation of the plan produced, which is correct."

      Surgeon George Baxter Philips testified:
      "On the back wall of the house, between the steps and the palings, on the left side, about 18in from the ground, there were about six patches of blood, varying in size from a sixpenny piece to a small point, and on the wooden fence there were smears of blood, corresponding to where the head of the deceased laid, and immediately above the part where the blood had mainly flowed from the neck, which was well clotted."

      and

      "[Coroner] In your opinion did she enter the yard alive? - I am positive of it. I made a thorough search of the passage, and I saw no trace of blood, which must have been visible had she been taken into the yard."

      and

      "[Coroner] You were shown some staining on the wall of No. 25, Hanbury-street? - Yes; that was yesterday morning. To the eye of a novice I have no doubt it looks like blood. I have not been able to trace any signs of it."

      So Surgeon Philips was positive that Chapman was killed on the spot and both his and Inspector Chandler's testimony about the quantity and locations of bloodstains support that conclusion.


      Comment


      • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
        Cadosh in no way proves without doubt that the murderer and Chapman were in the yard at 5.15 to 5.30 the'' no'' and the sound of the ''thud'' is not proof, the body was discovered at between 4.55 and 6.00 doesn't mean the murder happen between 5.15 and 5.30 . Try 4.55 to 5.15
        Herlock said "And so Chapman was killed between 4.50 and 5.55am." You are "correcting" a statement Herlock did not make.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
          3 netley and sickert cant be excluded
          Walter Sickert was on vacation in France at the time.





          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

            Walter Sickert was on vacation in France at the time.




            Not this again surely ?
            how far away do you think France is ?
            You can lead a horse to water.....

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

              The Chapman inquest examined the possibility of the body having been moved.

              Inspector Joseph Chandler testified:
              "[Coroner] You have examined the adjoining yard? - Yes.
              [Coroner] Was there any staining as of blood on any of the palings? - Yes, near the body.
              [Coroner] Was it on any of the other yards? - No.
              [Coroner] Were there no other marks? - There were marks discovered on the wall of No. 25. They were noticed on Tuesday afternoon. They have been seen by Dr. Phillips.
              [Coroner] Were there any drops of blood outside the yard of No. 29? - No; every possible examination has been made, but we could find no trace of them. The blood-stains at No. 29 were in the immediate neighbourhood of the body only. There were also a few spots of blood on the back wall, near the head of the deceased, 2ft from the ground. The largest spot was of the size of a sixpence. They were all close together. I assisted in the preparation of the plan produced, which is correct."

              Surgeon George Baxter Philips testified:
              "On the back wall of the house, between the steps and the palings, on the left side, about 18in from the ground, there were about six patches of blood, varying in size from a sixpenny piece to a small point, and on the wooden fence there were smears of blood, corresponding to where the head of the deceased laid, and immediately above the part where the blood had mainly flowed from the neck, which was well clotted."

              and

              "[Coroner] In your opinion did she enter the yard alive? - I am positive of it. I made a thorough search of the passage, and I saw no trace of blood, which must have been visible had she been taken into the yard."

              and

              "[Coroner] You were shown some staining on the wall of No. 25, Hanbury-street? - Yes; that was yesterday morning. To the eye of a novice I have no doubt it looks like blood. I have not been able to trace any signs of it."

              So Surgeon Philips was positive that Chapman was killed on the spot and both his and Inspector Chandler's testimony about the quantity and locations of bloodstains support that conclusion.


              There really can be no doubt that Chapman was killed where she was found. It’s noticeable that some place absolute faith in Phillips TOD estimate (despite the pitfalls, difficulties and doubts) and yet dismiss him when he states clearly that Chapman was killed where she was found after looking for evidence (a much simpler discipline after all)
              Regards

              Herlock






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

              Comment


              • Walter Sickert was on vacation in France at the time.

                Show me absolute proof of that please fiver

                Comment


                • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post


                  Show me absolute proof of that please fiver
                  If we had absolute proof of many things we'd have nothing to debate and a normal hobby.
                  Your evening of swing has been cancelled.

                  Comment


                  • How likely do we think that it could be for Walter Sickert to have passed on such a momentous a story to his son specifically mentioning a studio of his that didn’t exist? Let’s face it, if someone told any of us a story where five of the very basic facts are complete howlers how much credence would any of us give the story? In a story that’s based purely on fallible word of mouth and with no actual evidence? And one that involves an obviously forged diary too. What more do we need to dismiss this story? Of course we can’t say for certain how it came about but it did. I’d guess that it was simply a story created by Walter which possibly morphed over the years with re-telling. It even reads like a work of fiction.
                    Regards

                    Herlock






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

                    Comment



                    • How likely do we think that it could be for Walter Sickert to have passed on such a momentous a story to his son specifically mentioning a studio of his that didn’t exist?
                      a studio , not necessarily the studio, as Walter had many studios in London it could have been any of them .

                      Let’s face it, if someone told any of us a story where five of the very basic facts are complete howlers how much credence would any of us give the story
                      those facts you mentions haven't in no way proven howlers as you put it , you and others just haven't researched them properly.


                      In a story that’s based purely on fallible word of mouth and with no actual evidence? And one that involves an obviously forged diary too. What more do we need to dismiss this story? Of course we can’t say for certain how it came about but it did. I’d guess that it was simply a story created by Walter which possibly morphed over the years with re-telling. It even reads like a work of fiction.
                      What more do we need when Florence Pash who told the same story Joseph Sickert told fifty years before he did , i guess that blows the'' i made the whole thing up and it was a hoax theory out the windows '''' But iv always said, people haven't done their research properly, not even close .its amazing just how little some people know about Walter Sickert and who he knew and associated with .

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post


                        a studio , not necessarily the studio, as Walter had many studios in London it could have been any of them .



                        those facts you mentions haven't in no way proven howlers as you put it , you and others just haven't researched them properly.




                        What more do we need when Florence Pash who told the same story Joseph Sickert told fifty years before he did , i guess that blows the'' i made the whole thing up and it was a hoax theory out the windows '''' But iv always said, people haven't done their research properly, not even close .its amazing just how little some people know about Walter Sickert and who he knew and associated with .
                        A fascinating individual, with absolutely zero connection with any Ripper murder. I would have thought that this went out with the Cornwell bathwater.
                        Michael Richards

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post


                          a studio , not necessarily the studio, as Walter had many studios in London it could have been any of them .

                          No it couldn’t because he names a specific address, 15 Cleveland Street. He doesn’t just say.....a studio in London. So he names a specific address that didn’t exist.

                          those facts you mentions haven't in no way proven howlers as you put it , you and others just haven't researched them properly.

                          Simon used rate books and the PRO for example. Proper sources. The hospital didn’t exist. Annie Crook wasn’t living at 16 Cleveland Street and Annie Crook and Annie Cook were two different people. These are proven facts. The sources for Simon’s research are freely available and are listed in his book (he wasn’t just making this up) And so, if you feel that you can somehow disprove this (which you categorically cannot do) then you need to produce your evidence and sources and not just persist in the baseless accusation of faulty research by Simon. You seem to think that repeatedly saying that people haven’t researched enough to be some kind of proof. It isn’t. You need to show your proof but as I’ve been asking for this proof for months I hold out little hope of ever seeing any.


                          What more do we need when Florence Pash who told the same story Joseph Sickert told fifty years before he did , i guess that blows the'' i made the whole thing up and it was a hoax theory out the windows '''' But iv always said, people haven't done their research properly, not even close .its amazing just how little some people know about Walter Sickert and who he knew and associated with .

                          I don’t see how you can feel that this is evidence of genuineness? It just means that it’s an old story. Well we knew that. If Walter Sickert made up a story and he either told Pash or Pash heard it second hand this in no way proves that the story is true. Just that the story existed.
                          Will we finally get to see your rebuttal of Simon’s research? I doubt it to be honest.
                          Regards

                          Herlock






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

                          Comment


                          • Since this subject tends to infect everything, would it be worth starting a new thread: Provable faults in Stephen Knights book, why they are faults and the incontestable evidence.
                            That way, people can post such things as addresses not existing backed up with direct reference and or links to the sources. Likewise, if you've all just not researched properly, the same applies. Point people to the relevant sources that counter their claims. Seems fair?
                            Your evening of swing has been cancelled.

                            Comment


                            • New around here,aren't you
                              My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                              Comment


                              • There is such a thread Al but it’s virtually impossible to get a decent, honest answer on the subject and believe me I’ve tried. Put simply, Fishy claimed to be able to rebut Simon Wood’s published research showing the falsehoods in the story. I asked Fishy to present his rebuttals over a dozen times and not once did he answer a direct question or produce a shred of evidence. Simon Wood himself even offered to discuss the subject with Fishy via pm’s but unsurprisingly he didn’t take Simon up the the offer. It’s impossible to come up with a sensible suggestion apart from ignoring him and letting him post anything unchallenged which is probably the best idea.

                                And also ignoring the pointless, childish, content-free snipes from his supporter too.
                                Regards

                                Herlock






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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X