Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Time Of Death

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
    You know your about 100% per cent wrong there . why is it so hard for people to interrupt what cadosch said .Albert Cadosch [Cadoche] 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. 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''

    You realize what that means dont you , so again, if his not sure which side it came from, then we cant just say it was definitely number 29 can we ? so for all we know there might not have been anyone in the 29 hanbury st yard at 5.15 to 5.26 . maybe it was 25 where he heard the ''NO'' . obviously not nonsense.
    "Cadosch testified that on the morning of 8th September 1888, he got up at 5.15am and went into the yard, presumably to relieve himself. On going back to the house, he heard a voice say "No!" from behind the fence which divided the backyards of Nos.27 and
    29 Hanbury Street
    . A few minutes later, he needed to use the yard again, whereupon he heard something touch the fence from the other side. His suspicions were not aroused as he had occasionally heard people in the yard of No.29 at that time of the morning. He did not hear the rustling of clothes and he did not look to see what was causing the noises."

    "
    I live at 27, Hanbury-street, and am a carpenter. 27 is next door to 29, Hanbury-street. On Saturday, Sept. 8, 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. 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. I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards. 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.
    The Coroner: Did you look to see what it was? - No.
    [Coroner] Had you heard any noise while you were at the end of your yard? - No.
    [Coroner] Any rustling of clothes? - No. I then went into the house, and from there into the street to go to my work. It was about two minutes after half-past five as I passed Spitalfields Church.
    [Coroner] Do you ever hear people in these yards? - Now and then, but not often.
    By a Juryman: I informed the police the same night after I returned from my work.
    The Foreman: What height are the palings? - About 5 ft. 6 in. to 6 ft. high.
    [Coroner] And you had not the curiosity to look over? - No, I had not.
    [Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? - They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings. I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over.
    The Foreman of the Jury: It's a pity you did not.
    By the Coroner. - I did not see any man and woman in the street when I went out."

    Im sure that you will pass this by in favour of whatever you prefer, but It seems clear that he was testifying about what he heard based on an investigation into a body found in the backyard of 29, he even points out he is next door to that address.


    You seem frustrated that people don't interpret the data Cadosche provides the way you think it reads,... maybe its not us. You've continually posted comments that have no basis in fact on different threads, and you've espoused belief in a theory that has been dismissed by ardent research years ago....now you want to suggest that Cadosche wasn't addressing what he heard with respect to the murder in the backyard of 29, but the empty yard the other side, # 25.

    #25 doesn't factor into this investigation at all.
    Michael Richards

    Comment


    • #47
      same again, you just interrupter the inquest testimony to suit your own narrative, go right a head .




      But It seems clear that he was testifying about what he heard. full stop..... stop making suggestion as to what you think he was thinking about .




      Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
      You know your about 100% per cent wrong there . why is it so hard for people to interrupt what cadosch said .Albert Cadosch[Cadoche] 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. 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''

      You realize what that means dont you , so again, if his not sure which side it came from, then we cant just say it was definitely number 29 can we ? so for all we know there might not have been anyone in the 29 hanbury st yard at 5.15 to 5.26 . maybe it was 25 where he heard the ''NO'' . obviously not nonsense.

      Based on this testimony , jtr may or may not have been in the yard of 29 hanbury street at 5.15 to 5.26 no one can say 100 per cent either way ,thats just a fact .

      Comment


      • #48
        [QUOTE=FISHY1118;n714799][QUOTE]. 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 .

        thanks for posting my reply . 3 doctored were right in time of death .


        Another, ''times weren't set in stone'' line . No point even trying to discuss

        you've totally misinterpreted the question where this was discussed . like i said 3 doctors were right, and you came into the debate to late . moving on.
        I see,I misunderstand, i do not think so.

        I have asked you what methods you believe the doctors used to reach the TODs?
        You have not attempted to answer.

        I have pointed out that the TODs you are quoting were based on witness statements, not on medical evidence.
        It appears to slipped you by that those are not medical estimates of death, but of when the body appeared.

        It's interesting to see that you do not, or cannot counter any of the points raised, why is this?

        I have been discussing the TODs for many years so please do not presume to tell me I enter too late, we are only upto post 45 BTW!


        Just so you know, i spent 35 years working in a medical school and research facility, I think that I am well aware of what I am talking about


        You can move on as much as you like, it will not alter the fact that your views are deeply flawed.

        Steve
        Last edited by Elamarna; 06-27-2019, 04:10 PM.

        Comment


        • #49
          Fishy,

          I can say with 100% certainty that the Inquest had no interest in what may or may not have happened in #25, at least before the murder, so why call Cadosche at all? Because his statement is ONLY relevant with respect to the murder in backyard of 29.
          Why do you continue to try and make the irrelevant relevant is beyond me...and most other posters here...you don't go by the name Pierre at times do you?
          Last edited by Michael W Richards; 06-27-2019, 04:09 PM.
          Michael Richards

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by packers stem View Post
            All I will say is that although they were limited , comparing the findings of Phillips v Brown is the best we can do , accompanied by digestion and go with that .

            Phillips
            The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body.
            and
            Brown
            The body had been mutilated, and was quite warm - no rigor mortis. The crime must have been committed within half an hour, or certainly within forty minutes from the time when I saw the body.

            now , with the best will in the world , it's difficult to imagine how they could be so far apart .....
            one still warm, one only having a little internal heat , had they both been killed around 40 -60 minutes prior .Their findings should have been comparable
            Both bodies had lost a lot of blood , we're mutilated and left in a cold environment ,probably colder in Eddowes case .

            This suggests to me that Chapman was dead long before Cadosch or Long come into the equation , whether before Richardson and 4.45 it's not possible to say .

            What we do know though is that the digestion time of potato is very short, one of the quickest foods to digest , typically around an hour .
            Chapman was eating the potato at around 1.50

            Phillips
            The stomach contained a little food.

            So to accept a Cadosch time you have to accept Phillips as being wildly inaccurate with an almost totally cold body compared to the warm body of Eddowes .

            You have to fight the digestion

            and you also have to wonder why she was wandering around with her illnesses for four hours before finding a few pence for a bed .
            Nichols was apparently raking it in a week before and spending it all on booze .
            Do we think Chapman didn't know the best locations to solicit and that she just wandered ?
            Nick,
            you are presenting digestion as if it's a precise form of basing Death, its far from it,
            Philillips is very imprecise in what he says about the remaining food, to attempt to base TOD on that is simply unreliable.
            i would also add that although its highly unlikely that she ate anything later, we cannot know that for sure, what if she took some of the potato with her, and ate it later

            I wont even go into this subjective "cold" and "warm" thing, it's not science,
            There is no way that in 1888, he could differentiate between 1 hours after death and 2 hours, such was simply not medically possible.


            Steve

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
              no one made any mention of it at the official inquest ..
              how would you know, we only have the press reports, not the official transcript

              Comment


              • #52
                [QUOTE=Elamarna;n714845][QUOTE=FISHY1118;n714799]
                . 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 .

                I see,I misunderstand, i do not think so.

                I have asked you what methods you believe the doctors used to reach the TODs?
                You have not attempted to answer.

                I have pointed out that the TODs you are quoting were based on witness statements, not on medical evidence.
                It appears to slipped you by that those are estimates of death, but of when the body appeared.

                It's interesting to see that you do not, or cannot counter any of the points raised, why is this?

                I have been discussing the TODs for many years so please do not presume to tell me I enter too late, we are only upto post 45 BTW!


                Just so you know, i spent 35 years working in a medical school and research facility, I think that I am well aware of what I am talking about


                You can move on as much as you like, it will not alter the fact that your views are deeply flawed.

                Steve
                Steve,

                Check the posts on other threads and youll see why you don't get rebuttal...there are no facts to back anything that Aqua-bot says here.
                Michael Richards

                Comment


                • #53
                  [QUOTE=Michael W Richards;n714851][QUOTE=Elamarna;n714845]
                  Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                  Steve,

                  Check the posts on other threads and youll see why you don't get rebuttal...there are no facts to back anything that Aqua-bot says here.
                  I know, its sad that some just wont listen, assuming they have all the answers Michael.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                    Fishy,

                    I can say with 100% certainty that the Inquest had no interest in what may or may not have happened in #25, at least before the murder, so why call Cadosche at all? Because his statement is ONLY relevant with respect to the murder in backyard of 29.
                    Why do you continue to try and make the irrelevant relevant is beyond me...and most other posters here...you don't go by the name Pierre at times do you?
                    Regards

                    Herlock






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

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                      same again, you just interrupter the inquest testimony to suit your own narrative, go right a head .




                      But It seems clear that he was testifying about what he heard. full stop..... stop making suggestion as to what you think he was thinking about .




                      Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                      You know your about 100% per cent wrong there . why is it so hard for people to interrupt what cadosch said .Albert Cadosch[Cadoche] 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. 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''

                      You realize what that means dont you , so again, if his not sure which side it came from, then we cant just say it was definitely number 29 can we ? so for all we know there might not have been anyone in the 29 hanbury st yard at 5.15 to 5.26 . maybe it was 25 where he heard the ''NO'' . obviously not nonsense.

                      Based on this testimony , jtr may or may not have been in the yard of 29 hanbury street at 5.15 to 5.26 no one can say 100 per cent either way ,thats just a fact .
                      Do you ever wonder why your opinions get no respect Fishy? If you, just for a minute, stopped trying to shoehorn Knight’s conspiracy theory into every aspect of the crime you may advance your knowledge.

                      Lets put it at its most simple. If Cadosch heard someone say no then he heard something fall against the fence which is the likelier venue? The completely empty, innocuous number 25 or number 29 where a murdered woman was found?

                      Have a think about it Fishy but take the conspiracy goggles off whilst you’re doing 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


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                        Based on this testimony , jtr may or may not have been in the yard of 29 hanbury street at 5.15 to 5.26 no one can say 100 per cent either way ,thats just a fact .
                        But we can be pretty certain that he was never in the backyard of number 25.
                        Regards

                        Herlock






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

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                          Nick,
                          you are presenting digestion as if it's a precise form of basing Death, its far from it,
                          Philillips is very imprecise in what he says about the remaining food, to attempt to base TOD on that is simply unreliable.
                          i would also add that although its highly unlikely that she ate anything later, we cannot know that for sure, what if she took some of the potato with her, and ate it later

                          I wont even go into this subjective "cold" and "warm" thing, it's not science,
                          There is no way that in 1888, he could differentiate between 1 hours after death and 2 hours, such was simply not medically possible.


                          Steve
                          Steve
                          All I'm saying that there are three points that indicate a time of death much earlier than the 5.30 point
                          Yes ,you can argue each point individually , it's what happens in ripperology , it's why agreement is never reached .
                          But the three together make it a more than reasonable assumption that she was dead before 5.30
                          Whereas 5.30 and buying another potato between 3 and 5 am is , whilst possible , an unreasonable assumption

                          In the realms of probability , it's highly probable that the 1.45 potato would have digested quite happily by 3 -3.30 at the very latest
                          You can lead a horse to water.....

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by packers stem View Post

                            Steve
                            All I'm saying that there are three points that indicate a time of death much earlier than the 5.30 point
                            Yes ,you can argue each point individually , it's what happens in ripperology , it's why agreement is never reached .
                            But the three together make it a more than reasonable assumption that she was dead before 5.30
                            Whereas 5.30 and buying another potato between 3 and 5 am is , whilst possible , an unreasonable assumption

                            In the realms of probability , it's highly probable that the 1.45 potato would have digested quite happily by 3 -3.30 at the very latest
                            I didnt suggest that she bought another potato, given her lack of money, such is indeed unreasonable. i suggest that she may have taken some of the one she was eating at the doss house, with her.
                            Of course the real issue here is that Phillips like often is not exactly precise in reporting his findings

                            if only digestion was that simply Nick.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by packers stem View Post

                              Steve
                              All I'm saying that there are three points that indicate a time of death much earlier than the 5.30 point
                              Yes ,you can argue each point individually , it's what happens in ripperology , it's why agreement is never reached .
                              But the three together make it a more than reasonable assumption that she was dead before 5.30
                              Whereas 5.30 and buying another potato between 3 and 5 am is , whilst possible , an unreasonable assumption

                              In the realms of probability , it's highly probable that the 1.45 potato would have digested quite happily by 3 -3.30 at the very latest
                              I don't think this can be right. I'm afraid that gastric emptying is a very unreliable means of ascertaining time of death: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...ptying&f=false

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by John G View Post

                                I don't think this can be right. I'm afraid that gastric emptying is a very unreliable means of ascertaining time of death: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...ptying&f=false
                                Nice find John.
                                Yes it's not reliable, certainly not to tell if death occurred 60 or 120 minutes ago.


                                Steve

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X