A time to live, a time to die

[Supe]

Phil,

Do be so kind and quote your sources next time, there's a good chap.

A rather risible request from someone who has been caught plagiarizing on these boards.

Don.

[Phil Carter]

A rather risible request from someone who has been caught plagiarizing on these boards.

Don.

Don,

A rather silly comment from one being caught out (by others, note) and reknowned for his 'holier than thou' attitude, his schoolboylike joining in on other people's attempted digs. Not just me, note. If you are trying to insult me, you are failing miserably. You are also OFF TOPIC.
Now- as this is MY thread-I call a halt to it. Kindly desist from more off topic insults as above and stick to the subject.

Others, Jon (Wickerman) included, directed myself, and all, to two really excellent links that are educational to all here. Whatever is presented I consider fairly, for or against, shame it doesnt fit in with your projected image of me. You see Don, like Howard, like myself, there will be people who in future who will ask the same questions, for varying reasons.
THIS thread may help them in their thoughts. It is for EVERYONE'S benefit, now and in the future.


All,

Like it or not, as Dave agreed, the problem of TIME is a recurring theme throughout the series of attacks- whether by witness, policeman or doctor.
This thread adresses one of those problems.

ONE of those problems is comparable knowledge 124 years ago and the subsequent discovery thqough learning showing quite how wrong the doctor's knowledge was then with what we know about pathology now.

Nowadays, it is regarded as futile to estimate a time of death under one hour since any purported attack. Also that it is a precaution (and recommended) that any time of death be approched in the case of the EARLIEST estimation, to be from the time of the last RELIABLE sighting of the victim when alive. In Eddowes case, a policeman letting her out of Bishopsgate Station. (Lawende, by dint of his testimony, would arguably be deemed unreliable).

Therefore, can we take this and apply accordingly? Try the Kelly murder? The pathologist (doctor) made no certain time of death AT THE inquest itself. Hutchinson's statement came AITER the inquest. So using the accepted rule of thumb of today's standards, his statement can be ignored. So WHEN was the last reliable sighting of Mary Kelly?
That would be the pathologist of 2012's, EARLIEST initial estimate of time of death.

Perhaps now some will see what I am getting at. A TOTALLY different picture.

You can all read those modern day applications by looking at the links Jon so kindly provided.
I dont want to be looked at as cherry-picking, so by all means do have a wander through the links.
Through modern application of reliable knowledge of how to examine time of death situations, we can see that we have been presented with evidence from doctors in 1888, that would be regarded as highly controversial by the standards of 2012.
The given time of death in a few cases would be very questionable.

Best wishes

Phil

[Supe]

Phil,

Caught out at what? And by whom? What I mentioned about being factors in the consideration of ToD are common knowledge and require no citation. What you did on more than one occasion was lift whole passages from Wikipedia and pass them off as your own. Anyone who wants the particulars may contact me.

Do get your facts straight in the future.

Don.



Don.

[Phil Carter]

Don.

This is your 2nd posting in a row containing OFF TOPIC comment. I will NOT be answering it. I clearly stated I wanted no more of such on my thread, and put an end to it.. Yet you continue. You have been kindly asked to desist from it. For the final time, please kindly respect my request and the thread's topic. Thank you.

Phil