Time Of Death

[FISHY1118]

I am not merely suggesting, I am informing you that the doctors would have taken those police reports into account, it is standard practice, then and now.
If you believe they relied on some other means of reaching their estimation, please say what that was.

You see how they reached their conclusion is what matters, not simply that it appears to be correct.

Eddowes was killed on the 30th sept . Dr Brown gave his inquest testimony on the 4th October. At what point do you think Dr Brown made up his mind as to his estimate time of death of Eddowes ? 1, On the night she was murdered, right after viewing the body? 2 After waiting 4 days so as to compare notes with police reports and witness statements ? 3 or on the night ''AFTER'' he conferred with police and witnesses at the crime scene ?

Now it has to be one of the 3 , so which is it .

[FISHY1118]

Cant you ever get this point? You are probably the only human being in the entire universe that can’t grasp the original premise!

TOD estimates were little more than guesswork at that time. They could be correct occasionally of course but they could also have been wildly wrong. Massively wrong. This is a fact Fishy. A fact attested to by book after book and medical paper after medical paper and modern forensic expert after modern forensic expert. It’s black and white. It’s beyond debate. It’s cast iron!

The fact that three doctors got three decisions apparently correct, even though they had cast iron pointers available to them, does not negate the entire history of forensic knowledge. It’s unbelievably childish and embarrassing (for you) to keep suggesting this.

Get a grip Fishy. There’s enough genuinely debatable stuff in this case without wasting time arguing lost causes.

were back on the '' it was little more than guess work'' line are we


''The fact that three doctors got three decisions apparently correct''. full stop hooray thats it , youve got it, no more to be said .

and they did it without any cast iron pointers . go read what they said at the inquest they make no reference to witnesses or police information when asked about t.o.d by the coroner.

[Elamarna]

Are you seriously suggesting that if the coroner had of asked Brown and Sequeira by what means they arrived at the time of death, that their response would have been because p.c. Watkins told us he found the body at 1.44 ?

I am not merely suggesting, I am informing you that the doctors would have taken those police reports into account, it is standard practice, then and now.
If you believe they relied on some other means of reaching their estimation, please say what that was.

You see how they reached their conclusion is what matters, not simply that it appears to be correct.

Above all of course it demonstrates that:

"No where does Watkins or anybody else suggest to Brown and Sequeira that the body was discovered at between 1.35 and 1.45 therefor you must report t.o.d as between these times [ this is the only evidence that would suggest that the doctors relied on someone else for t.o.d , and it doesn't exist."


Is incorrect.

Of course, it's not the time he found the body, 01.44, but the time he was in the square before, 01.30 which the Doctors would have used as the longest period.


steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Are you seriously suggesting that if the coroner had of asked Brown and Sequeira by what means they arrived at the time of death, that their response would have been because p.c. Watkins told us he found the body at 1.44 ?

Cant you ever get this point? You are probably the only human being in the entire universe that can’t grasp the original premise!

TOD estimates were little more than guesswork at that time. They could be correct occasionally of course but they could also have been wildly wrong. Massively wrong. This is a fact Fishy. A fact attested to by book after book and medical paper after medical paper and modern forensic expert after modern forensic expert. It’s black and white. It’s beyond debate. It’s cast iron!

The fact that three doctors got three decisions apparently correct, even though they had cast iron pointers available to them, does not negate the entire history of forensic knowledge. It’s unbelievably childish and embarrassing (for you) to keep suggesting this.

Get a grip Fishy. There’s enough genuinely debatable stuff in this case without wasting time arguing lost causes.

[FISHY1118]

Are you seriously suggesting that if the coroner had of asked Brown and Sequeira by what means they arrived at the time of death, that their response would have been because p.c. Watkins told us he found the body at 1.44 ?

[Elamarna]

Dr. Frederick Gordon 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. that means 1.40am in case you cant work it out.

[Coroner] How long do you believe life had been extinct when you arrived?

Dr. G. W. Sequeira'' Very few minutes - probably not more than a quarter of an hour.' that aslo means 1.40 am.

P.C Watkns discoverers Eddowes body at 1.44 am .

So two medical doctors were right weren't they, if Eddows was killed between 1.35 and 1.45 . Now heres the part you dont understand because your to busy thinking about modern medical pathologist and how wildly inaccurate doctors could be and that they were little more than guessing when it came to time of death in Eddowes case.

No where does Watkins or anybody else suggest to Brown and Sequeira that the body was discovered at between 1.35 and 1.45 therefor you must report t.o.d as between these times [ this is the only evidence that would suggest that the doctors relied on someone else for t.o.d , and it doesn't exist.

Watkins appeared before both Brown and Sequeria at the inquests. Sequeria not appearing until over a week after him, are you seriously suggesting that neither Brown or Sequeria were unaware of what Watkins said, or of the accounts that had appeared in the press?

Pity basic research is not carried out before making claims.



Steve

[FISHY1118]

You do not know what conversations took place between the police and the doctors, just because we have no record of a verbal exchange does not mean one did not take place

Neither do you. , and it does not mean it did,

It is all to do with medical science, that you say such is of no consequence displays a complete lack of understanding of the subject under discussion
There was and is no method for esatblishing a death 40 minutes previously based solely on medicine or science, therefore any time given is simply guess work, that it was close to being accurate was either luck or more probably based on the police accounts.

It has nothing to do with medical science at all , what i understand is this , that two doctors in Eddowes case, without any interaction that we know of with any witnesses or police accounts, got the time of death right .If it was luck they both got lucky on the same night ,with the same dead body , with the same estimate, what are the chances hmmm

Again i ask you what methods could the doctors have used to arrive at their conclusions, that is the ONLY question that matters, if scenice could not provide a method, the TOD cannot be seen as being reliablebased solely on medical evidence.

i think your a bit confused ,the method of determining t.o.d is not whats being discussed, only the fact is that the doctors where correct when they gave their time of death to the coroner when asked to do so. which was the original topic a longgggggg time ago now .

No I dont see what you mean at all?

You are not listening to the experts are you? Modern experts tell you this is simply not possible and you ignore it, claiming that it does not matter how they arrived at their estimations, and it is clear that You have no knowledge of how this is done..

You seem to believe that Doctors in 1888 could give Acurate TODs based on simply looking and touching.

the only joke is the stream of threads and posts under your name,

See now heres the problem with someone who just doesn't listen like yourself, you totally ignored what reference that was about

So ill tell you again, its all well and good for people to use modern medical doctors to prove a point , but when the same modern medical experts , now pay attention here , tell us that Eddowes [not talking time of death here notice that] couldn't have her kidney and uterus ripped out in the dark in 5 minutes you refuse to accept that .

SO the real joke is a cherry picker like you .

[Elamarna]

SEE WHAT I MEAN , YOU DID EXACTLY THAT WHICH I SAID YOU WOULD'' But of course lets not listen to experts,'' WHAT A JOKE

No I dont see what you mean at all?

You are not listening to the experts are you? Modern experts tell you this is simply not possible and you ignore it, claiming that it does not matter how they arrived at their estimations, and it is clear that You have no knowledge of how this is done..

You seem to believe that Doctors in 1888 could give Acurate TODs based on simply looking and touching.

the only joke is the stream of threads and posts under your name,

[Elamarna]

Dr. Frederick Gordon 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. that means 1.40am in case you cant work it out.

[Coroner] How long do you believe life had been extinct when you arrived?

Dr. G. W. Sequeira'' Very few minutes - probably not more than a quarter of an hour.' that aslo means 1.40 am.

P.C Watkns discoverers Eddowes body at 1.44 am .

So two medical doctors were right weren't they, if Eddows was killed between 1.35 and 1.45 . Now heres the part you dont understand because your to busy thinking about modern medical pathologist and how wildly inaccurate doctors could be and that they were little more than guessing when it came to time of death in Eddowes case.

No where does Watkins or anybody else suggest to Brown and Sequeira that the body was discovered at between 1.35 and 1.45 therefor you must report t.o.d as between these times [ this is the only evidence that would suggest that the doctors relied on someone else for t.o.d , and it doesn't exist.

So finally like ive said all along, its got nothing to do with modern medical opinion vs the doctors of 1888 , and everything to do with just this . when asked to give their medical opinion about t.o.d they were correct . simple ..... again

So you accept the reason we can give approximate TODs in those cases is because of the police statements.

You do not know what conversations took place between the police and the doctors, just because we have no record of a verbal exchange does not mean one did not take place. Its a might big assumption that the doctors were not aware of the time of the discovery of the body, you seriously think it was not mentioned to the doctors that they had just found a body? simply unbeliveble.


It is all to do with medical science, that you say such is of no consequence displays a complete lack of understanding of the subject under discussion
There was and is no method for esatblishing a death 40 minutes previously based solely on medicine or science, therefore any time given is simply guess work, that it was close to being accurate was either luck or more probably based on the police accounts.

Again i ask you what methods could the doctors have used to arrive at their conclusions, that is the ONLY question that matters, if scenice could not provide a method, the TOD cannot be seen as being reliablebased solely on medical evidence.


Debate is pointless when we do not accept the fact or approach with an open mind and a desire to learn.


Steve

[FISHY1118]

Many modern experts say it is perfectly possible, indeed it was even said at the time.

But of course lets not listen to experts, lets go with any old nonsense, such is the way today sadly.

The degree of arrogance shown in the above post that maybe they can't determine that theres two different scenarios being discuss is truly astounding.

SEE WHAT I MEAN , YOU DID EXACTLY THAT WHICH I SAID YOU WOULD'' But of course lets not listen to experts,'' WHAT A JOKE

[FISHY1118]

Dr. Frederick Gordon 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. that means 1.40am in case you cant work it out.

[Coroner] How long do you believe life had been extinct when you arrived?

Dr. G. W. Sequeira'' Very few minutes - probably not more than a quarter of an hour.' that aslo means 1.40 am.

P.C Watkns discoverers Eddowes body at 1.44 am .

So two medical doctors were right weren't they, if Eddows was killed between 1.35 and 1.45 . Now heres the part you dont understand because your to busy thinking about modern medical pathologist and how wildly inaccurate doctors could be and that they were little more than guessing when it came to time of death in Eddowes case.

No where does Watkins or anybody else suggest to Brown and Sequeira that the body was discovered at between 1.35 and 1.45 therefor you must report t.o.d as between these times [ this is the only evidence that would suggest that the doctors relied on someone else for t.o.d , and it doesn't exist.

So finally like ive said all along, its got nothing to do with modern medical opinion vs the doctors of 1888 , and everything to do with just this . when asked to give their medical opinion about t.o.d they were correct . simple ..... again

[Herlock Sholmes]

Many modern experts say it is perfectly possible, indeed it was even said at the time.

But of course lets not listen to experts, lets go with any old nonsense, such is the way today sadly.

The degree of arrogance shown in the above post that maybe they can't determine that theres two different scenarios being discuss is truly astounding.

Welcome to my world Steve

We are long past any thoughts of not understanding. This is a deliberate attempt to twist what we know to be true simply to support a discredited theory.

On it goes

[Elamarna]

What was the first Thing the doctors did upon arrival at the murder scene of Eddowes Stride and Nichols. 1, to pronounce life extinct, 2, to determine cause of death 3, to to try and give an estimate time of death . Would that be a fair assumption?.

So in all 3 cases i dont see any written evidence from any witnesses or police that any doctor needed their statements to help confirm those three things


It was their and their judgement alone based on their medical experience to determine a t.o d. and in all 3 cases they were right .

Now how they came to that conclusion you can debate that till the cows come homes ,im not interested in that as far as a scientific theory goes, that was never the question

Only that when asked about time of death they were right . Simple .

Still refusing to face up to the facts, how did they determine time of death? You can't just say "experience", lets them fix a time, medicine is not magic.
The procedures used are in fact more important than if they are right or wrong.
If the procedures are flawed then we are using guesswork, in this case supported by the police statements.

That you are either unable or unwilling to see that, shows clouded judgement, and a poor approach to research.

That you are not interested in how they reached their conclusions is no surprise, lets not lets facts stand in the way of a good story.

You say 3 TODs are correct, how do you know that?

The only evidence we, you have, are the police statement. You use them to confirm the TOD, just as the doctors must have.


I am sorry but that approach is simplistic, and cannot be taken seriously

The reason perhaps they're frustrated is they cant determine that theres two different scenarios being discuss .

The same modern medical experts also say that Eddowes could not have had her kidney and uterus removed as well as all the other mutilation done in 5 minutes in the dark?, are they also to be ignored in pursuit of the now common theory ?

Many modern experts say it is perfectly possible, indeed it was even said at the time.

But of course lets not listen to experts, lets go with any old nonsense, such is the way today sadly.

The degree of arrogance shown in the above post that maybe they can't determine that theres two different scenarios being discuss is truly astounding.


Steve

[FISHY1118]

What was the first Thing the doctors did upon arrival at the murder scene of Eddowes Stride and Nichols. 1, to pronounce life extinct, 2, to determine cause of death 3, to to try and give an estimate time of death . Would that be a fair assumption?.

So in all 3 cases i dont see any written evidence from any witnesses or police that any doctor needed their statements to help confirm those three things


It was their and their judgement alone based on their medical experience to determine a t.o d. and in all 3 cases they were right .

Now how they came to that conclusion you can debate that till the cows come homes ,im not interested in that as far as a scientific theory goes, that was never the question

Only that when asked about time of death they were right . Simple .

That you continue to argue this point is actually frustrating for those who understand how TODs were arrived at in 1888.
The fact that such times has given in 1888, would not be acceptable to modern forensic Pathologist is just ignore by you in pursuit of your theory.

The reason perhaps they're frustrated is they cant determine that theres two different scenarios being discuss .

The same modern medical experts also say that Eddowes could not have had her kidney and uterus removed as well as all the other mutilation done in 5 minutes in the dark?, are they also to be ignored in pursuit of the now common theory ?

[Elamarna]

Ok thats good . So firstly in the case of Eddowes, Stride, and Nichols the doctors were asked to give their ''medical opinion'' as to how long had the deceased had been dead . The coroner did not ask them to back that up with ''medical evidence''.No doctor said that he made his estimate on the time of death because the police and other witnesses told him when they discovered the bodies . It was just their ''medical opinion'' and they were correct.

So when 3 doctors gave the estimates in the time of death in the Eddowes ,Stride and Nichols murders they were correct .

I see you ignore the question I asked.

Let's try again, what leads you to believe that the TODs were based on anything other than the police reports of the bodies not being present a set time before?

If that is what the TODs are based on, rather than medical knowledge, and I await your proof that they are not; it follows that the TOD for Chapman, where there is no previous Police statement, cannot be viewed as being reliable.

That they appear to have been correct in 3 cases(based on the police reports) does not and cannot be seen as saying they would be correct in cases that did not have the police input of the other 3 . Do you really not understand that?

That you continue to argue this point is actually frustrating for those who understand how TODs were arrived at in 1888.
The fact that such times has given in 1888, would not be acceptable to modern forensic Pathologist is just ignore by you in pursuit of your theory.


There are No methods and were no methods that would allow a doctor to say death occurred 30, 35, or 40 minutes before, that is not my opinion, that is medical fact .

Steve