Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Time Of Death

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

  • FISHY1118
    started a topic Time Of Death

    Time Of Death

    Interesting how in the case of Nichols ,Stride and Eddowes the t.o.d given by the medical doctors when they first examining the bodies seems to be pretty much spot on according to the witness statements and police reports. Where as in Chapman's case according to one doctor it was so far out, or was he ? Thoughts anyone .
    Last edited by FISHY1118; 06-19-2019, 02:19 AM.

  • FISHY1118
    replied
    ill be answering the above post after the weekend, ive got to move house.... yuck .

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    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! ; )

    Leave a comment:


  • ohrocky
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • FISHY1118
    replied
    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 .

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Any chance of hearing youír proof that Simon was wrong on those 6 points?

    I guess not.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

    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 donít even seem able to interpret the words - possibly, might or could from the words definitely or probably or did. You donít respond to what Iíve actually said, you respond to what you believe that Iíve said.

    Its boring.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

    Not when it came to the doctors in the Stride, Eddowes, and Nichols they weren't, neither was i in saying it , i told you, you didnt get it .
    I keep trying to think of a simpler way of explaining the obvious to you but I canít. This is deliberate on your part. It has to be.

    Again Fishy.....I have never said, or even insinuated, that Phillips TOD estimations had to have been wrong. Or that doctors in general couldnít have gotten TODís correct at times.

    Nichols, Stride and Eddowes are completely irrelevant. If you toss a coin and get it right three times running this does not prove that predicting a coin toss is infallible!

    The very obvious difference with Nichols, Stride and Eddowes is that there was no evidence that contradicted those estimates. This is not the case with Chapman. We have three witnesses that all contradict Phillips. Again Fishy, before you start jumping up and down, yes they could all have been mistaken or lying but we cannot know that for anything like certain. And we certainly cannot say that they were definitely mistaken or lying because Phillips was a doctor and therefore infallible.

    Is there another person in the world that canít understand this....or are you the only one?


    Leave a comment:


  • FISHY1118
    replied
    What are you waffling on about?

    You were told how inaccurate TOD estimates could be.

    You quite clearly showed that you didnít accept this fact.

    You were wrong.

    Simple as that.
    Not when it came to the doctors in the Stride, Eddowes, and Nichols they weren't, neither was i in saying it , i told you, you didnt get it .

    Maybe one of these days we will see an example where you donít dishonestly misinterpret what I post. I said:
    Thats rich coming from king Mr Misinterpret himself

    This in no way means that I think that everyone is reading this thread. It means that anyone can read back and check what youíve said should they wish to, as any reasonable minded poster would realise.

    Do I have to explain everything to you Fishy? Itís very tiresome.
    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 .



    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    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 .
    Maybe one of these days we will see an example where you donít dishonestly misinterpret what I post. I said:

    . We can all see your posts. We know what you said.
    This in no way means that I think that everyone is reading this thread. It means that anyone can read back and check what youíve said should they wish to, as any reasonable minded poster would realise.

    Do I have to explain everything to you Fishy? Itís very tiresome.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

    Yep as suspected more nonsense, totally ignored the post about Pash, called Sickert an oddball, and wont entertain any other theory but the Gladstone ,top hat, mad man running through the streets of whitechapel mutilating prostitutes . Yup that about sums you up NARROW MINDED.
    Oh weíre back to the Gladstone bag lie are we? Even though I explained to you, in very easy to understand terms, how the Gladstone bag derived from the belief that JTR was a Doctor.

    Remind me again Fishy.....which one of us promotes a theory where the ripper was a doctor?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    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 .
    What are you waffling on about?

    You were told how inaccurate TOD estimates could be.

    You quite clearly showed that you didnít accept this fact.

    You were wrong.

    Simple as that.
    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 07-30-2019, 02:35 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • FISHY1118
    replied
    Take off the blinkers Fishy. Iím saying that Knight was wrong about the story in the newspapers. What Iíve said, and again you need to be more accurate when reading, was that in Knightís book he claimed that the Nickley story was about Netley and Alice Margaret and that he was not only incorrect but he might even have been dishonest because it was apparently very easy to check other newspapers to find the real name of the young girl. Surely as a researcher heíd have looked at other sources for further information. If heíd done this itís likely heíd have found the real story so itís possible that he concealed contrary evidence.

    Please explain Fishy why you are so keen to give weight to word of mouth stories passed down through the years and concerning an oddball like Sickert and yet you are quite happy to completely ignore actual, provable, concrete facts that dispute the theory. You are clutching at straws.

    At that remains is to look at the likelihood of blackmailing prostitutes, Freemasonic murder, Gull, murder in coaches, carrying mutilated corpses and dumping them. So we look. We analyse and consider. Then we conclude......obvious drivel.
    Yep as suspected more nonsense, totally ignored the post about Pash, called Sickert an oddball, and wont entertain any other theory but the Gladstone ,top hat, mad man running through the streets of whitechapel mutilating prostitutes . Yup that about sums you up NARROW MINDED.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X