Time Of Death

[FISHY1118]

It’s possible she was wearing enough clothing that the less than a gallon of blood she lost was mostly absorbed and otherwise beneath the body. Three layers and a coat I think?

Hmmm im not sure i go for that '' all the blood was soaked up with the clothing'' ,i dont see enough evidence of that in both Chapman and Eddowes cases.

[DJA]

There is no blood spray.

[Errata]

Yep ill go-with that ... the no blood on the bricks and pavements is a DEAD GIVE AWAY

It’s possible she was wearing enough clothing that the less than a gallon of blood she lost was mostly absorbed and otherwise beneath the body. Three layers and a coat I think?

[FISHY1118]

Given "there were no stains of blood on the bricks or pavement around" I reckon Eddowes was not killed on the spot,but strangled and moved after the first pass by Watkins.
Could start to explain her missing 30 minutes.
Unfortunately an autopsy was not conducted on her heart,as in Stride's case.

Yep ill go-with that ... the no blood on the bricks and pavements is a DEAD GIVE AWAY

[DJA]

Given "there were no stains of blood on the bricks or pavement around" I reckon Eddowes was not killed on the spot,but strangled and moved after the first pass by Watkins.
Could start to explain her missing 30 minutes.
Unfortunately an autopsy was not conducted on her heart,as in Stride's case.

[FISHY1118]

Trying to establish a time of death on the testimonies of Richardson and Codosch is is thwart with danger in my opinion. As ive already explained on many occasions.

[Michael W Richards]

The TOD is only a real issue when we look at Marys murder, because we know for a fact she wasn't found shortly after she was killed. Maybe also with Martha. But Polly is found shortly after her murder, Liz also is, and we know that Kate was killed sometime between Watkins passes, so we have the rough TOD present in 3 of Five Canonicals. In Annies case, we also have the rough TOD established by Richardson and Cadosche. Trying to assess the physicians ability to estimate the TOD is kind of a waste of time in the vast majority of these cases, its self evident...within an hour of them being found is generous but certainly established by the known evidence.

As I said, the only real challenge is the Kelly case.

[FISHY1118]

ill be answering the above post after the weekend, ive got to move house.... yuck .

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

According to Fishy though Abby I’m just too biased to see it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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 I’ve said repeatedly I’m not saying that Phillips was definitely wrong. We can’t know that but we have to accept that it’s a possibility based on what is known by real experts on the subject. Fishy appears to think that because the TOD’s 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 Chapman’s 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 I’m very far from alone on this, I tend to disagree. It’s 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. It’s not black and white though. Wolf Vanderlinden’s dissertation was very good and it’s 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 don’t 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 Simon’s research. Simon even offered to discuss it with Fishy by pm. Fishy just refuses and he does this by ignoring questions, answering questions that weren’t asked in the first place or simply by changing the subject. There’s 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.

[Abby Normal]

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! ; )

[ohrocky]

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!

[FISHY1118]

I can see why you get tired , . Anyway when it comes to Chapman and i know you dont agree thats ok, but ill reserve my right to agree with the the Wolf Vanderlinden post, if thats ok with you.

Now if you dont mind im off like a vomiting dog .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Any chance of hearing you’r proof that Simon was wrong on those 6 points?

I guess not.

[Herlock Sholmes]

People are of course free to go back and read all they like , i just hope they have a better understanding of how to interpret the evidence and witness statements and to explore more than just one possibility on how the murders were committed.

Save your explanation Herlock, and take a nap .

Every single poster on here has a better understanding of how to interpret evidence than you Fishy and this is why no one agrees with you on anything. You don’t even seem able to interpret the words - possibly, might or could from the words definitely or probably or did. You don’t respond to what I’ve actually said, you respond to what you believe that I’ve said.

Its boring.