How did JtR see in the dark?

[FISHY1118]

Ok Sherlock you'd better give me that shovel as you have indeed dug yourself a hole you cant get out of . By your own words you prove my point, you have not only made Mrs Longs testimony irreverence you just did the same for Cadosche. How can it be 5.30am for both statement's be true WELL DONE CHAMP YOUR STARTING TO SEE THE REAL PICTURE . THATS WHY THERE IS SO MANY BOOKS WITH SO MANY SUSPECTS BECAUSE YOU ALL CHANGE THE WITNESS STATEMENTS TO SUIT YOUR OWN NARRATIVE WHEN WILL YOU LEARN ,EDDOWS CHAPMAN WERE NOT MURDERED WHERE THEY WERE FOUND.NOW JUST FOR GOOD MEASURE HERES SOMETHING YOU CLEARLY DONT GET WHEN IT COME TO TIME OF DEATH AND THE GOOD DOCTOR PHILLIPS IN THE CASE OF NICHOLS STRIDE AND EDDOWS ALL THERE T.O.D WERE GIVEN AS NEAREST TO THE CORRECT TIME BASED ON THE DISCOVERY OF THEIR BODIES AND WITNESSES WHO PASSED BY THE SPOTS BEFORE HAND I.E POLICE WALKING THE BEAT.NOW IF MRS LONG SAW EDDOWS AT 5.30 AS SHE CLAIMS AND THE RIPPER TOOK HER INTO THE BACK OF HANBURY ST HE WOULD HAVE NEEDED 15 20 MINUTES TO CARVE HER UP. HOW WAS IT THAT DR PHILLIPS WAS SO FAR OUT WITH HIS T.OD ??? ''TWO HOURS PROBABLY MORE'' HIS WORDS WHEN CHAPMAN HAD ONLY BEEN DEAD FOR 30 MINUTES BEFORE HE ARRIVED.NICHOLS STRIDE EDDOWS NO ONE QUESTIONS THE DOCTORS T.O.D .ONLY IN CHAPMAN DOES IT SUIT YOUR SO CALLED RIPPER EXPERTS BECAUSE IT SUITS THEIR NARRATIVE TO DO SO. BUT YOU JUST KEEP GOING CHASING THAT GHOST

[FISHY1118]

Like ive already stated, the people involved and the motive behind the murders is way to complex for you to understand, they will not be discussed any further as you clearly have your facts wrong there as well. Joseph Sickert retracted the statement he made up the story, Florence Pash confirms his story 35 years before he ever made it . Gull was considered a ripper suspect in 1892 and 1888 theses are the facts do not change them to suit your narrative. THE ONLY CONSPIRACY THEORIST HERE IS YOU . YOU CONSPIRE TO IGNORE THE FACTS AND THE TRUTH .

[GUT]

Absolutely sick and tired of idiots JTR sites, whose only case is “Your too stupid to understand what I understand” and/or “I know something you don’t”.

and here we have another one of them, we really end to stop giving them oxygen

[FISHY1118]

You know gut perhaps your right, im sorry if ive offended anybody, thats not my intention. we all have a right to an opinion and after all it is a forum ,but i admit ive probably overstepped the mark and once again i apologize .

[FISHY1118]

Farewell and i bid you all a good- knight.

[Michael W Richards]

Any reasonable person would conclude from the records that the thud and soft cry at around 5:20 was almost certainly Annie and her killer, and the blood stains on the fence confirm that it was the spot where her throat was cut. Considering the killer took the extra step of removing flaps from her abdomen, its easy to see why she cooled more rapidly than the contemporary physicians estimates. If her mutilations started shortly after the thud I don't see any obstacles with her discovery time, but obviously with Mrs Longs sighting.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok Sherlock you'd better give me that shovel as you have indeed dug yourself a hole you cant get out of . By your own words you prove my point, you have not only made Mrs Longs testimony irreverence you just did the same for Cadosche. How can it be 5.30am for both statement's be true WELL DONE CHAMP YOUR STARTING TO SEE THE REAL PICTURE . THATS WHY THERE IS SO MANY BOOKS WITH SO MANY SUSPECTS BECAUSE YOU ALL CHANGE THE WITNESS STATEMENTS TO SUIT YOUR OWN NARRATIVE WHEN WILL YOU LEARN ,EDDOWS CHAPMAN WERE NOT MURDERED WHERE THEY WERE FOUND.NOW JUST FOR GOOD MEASURE HERES SOMETHING YOU CLEARLY DONT GET WHEN IT COME TO TIME OF DEATH AND THE GOOD DOCTOR PHILLIPS IN THE CASE OF NICHOLS STRIDE AND EDDOWS ALL THERE T.O.D WERE GIVEN AS NEAREST TO THE CORRECT TIME BASED ON THE DISCOVERY OF THEIR BODIES AND WITNESSES WHO PASSED BY THE SPOTS BEFORE HAND I.E POLICE WALKING THE BEAT.NOW IF MRS LONG SAW EDDOWS AT 5.30 AS SHE CLAIMS AND THE RIPPER TOOK HER INTO THE BACK OF HANBURY ST HE WOULD HAVE NEEDED 15 20 MINUTES TO CARVE HER UP. HOW WAS IT THAT DR PHILLIPS WAS SO FAR OUT WITH HIS T.OD ??? ''TWO HOURS PROBABLY MORE'' HIS WORDS WHEN CHAPMAN HAD ONLY BEEN DEAD FOR 30 MINUTES BEFORE HE ARRIVED.NICHOLS STRIDE EDDOWS NO ONE QUESTIONS THE DOCTORS T.O.D .ONLY IN CHAPMAN DOES IT SUIT YOUR SO CALLED RIPPER EXPERTS BECAUSE IT SUITS THEIR NARRATIVE TO DO SO. BUT YOU JUST KEEP GOING CHASING THAT GHOST

Another dishonest post to add to the others that you’ve posted.

No one is changing witness statements. That’s an impossibility as they are there in black and white. Every single person that has an interest in The Whitechapel Murders (whatever their opinion and whether they propose a suspect or not) they all accept, based on knowledge of the Late Victorian Period, that the vast majority of working class people wouldn’t have owned a watch and so we approach timings with caution. We don’t simply dismiss them but we understand that we have to consider the possibility that when someone gives a time they could be incorrect. Of course if they said 3pm they are unlikely to have been so mistaken as to have meant 8pm but errors of 10 or 15 minutes are definite possibilities which cannot be ignored because they are inconvenient to a theory.

So I’ll challenge you to point to a book where a witness statements has been deliberately changed changed. We can however give an example of a book where facts were invented to suit an argument and facts that disproved the theory were deliberately ignored by the writer. The writer was Stephen Knight of course.

Finally, why are you asking the stupid question - How is it that Dr Phillips was so far out on his TOD? You have been told that TOD’s at that time could we wildly inaccurate due to the knowledge they possessed at that time. There’s a thread on her, which I can’t find, with quotes from numerous forensic medical EXPERTS who all confirm this. This is not a point that you can argue against simply because it’s inconvenient. It’s a FACT.

You really are embarrassing yourself. You’re someone that has read Knight, likes the theory and then actively only supports that which you incorrectly believes supports the theory. Can you not understand the level of research that goes on? How in depth each aspect of these crimes have been looked into. And no one, I mean NO ONE takes Knight’s theory seriously because it’s categorically been shown to have been untrue. Only a dishonest person ignores the evidence to pursue a theory. Everything that you’ve said about the victims is wrong. You ignore 99.9% of research but cheer on Trevor Marriott because you believe that it helps your case. Try asking Trevor if he believes the Knight theory. I’m confident of his answer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Like ive already stated, the people involved and the motive behind the murders is way to complex for you to understand, they will not be discussed any further as you clearly have your facts wrong there as well. Joseph Sickert retracted the statement he made up the story, Florence Pash confirms his story 35 years before he ever made it . Gull was considered a ripper suspect in 1892 and 1888 theses are the facts do not change them to suit your narrative. THE ONLY CONSPIRACY THEORIST HERE IS YOU . YOU CONSPIRE TO IGNORE THE FACTS AND THE TRUTH .

STAGGERING!!

These are checkable, provable facts with the sources provided. The Records Office, Rates Books, Workhouse Records etc. Absolutely unfalsifiable.

they will not be discussed any further

I know they won’t. Because you are embarrassed and cannot rebut these FACTS. These events did not take place. Not a Catholic, not in Cleveland Street, no studio, no hospital and fact that she had epilepsy. And there’s more of course. From memory didn’t Joe the Liar talk about Netley running over Alice Margaret Crook? Yet this event was found in the press and it was a girl called Lizzie.

You have no facts, you ignore facts. That’s why no one takes you seriously. And no one ever will. Typical conspiracy theorists.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Any reasonable person would conclude from the records that the thud and soft cry at around 5:20 was almost certainly Annie and her killer, and the blood stains on the fence confirm that it was the spot where her throat was cut. Considering the killer took the extra step of removing flaps from her abdomen, its easy to see why she cooled more rapidly than the contemporary physicians estimates. If her mutilations started shortly after the thud I don't see any obstacles with her discovery time, but obviously with Mrs Longs sighting.

Exactly Michael, unless Sickert cleverly flicked some blood onto the fence to make it look that way.

[John G]

Time of death estimates are pretty useless as evidence even today, despite the many modern forensic science advances since 1888.

Here's the guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator:

"When providing a ToD estimate to the investigator the pathologist should take the following steps.

a) The pathologist must make clear the esimate is only an estimate and the accuracy cannot be determined.

b) The pathologist must explain that the death could have occurred outside the estimate period and, perhaps, a significant period outside it.

c) Advise that the estimate should not be uses to:

(i) Define the period in which death occurred.

(ii) Assign probabilities to likely period of death; or

(iii) Include or exclude a suspect from the
investigation."

Source: FSR-G-211, 2014, para 6.3.2.

In other words, even in a modern investigation ToD estimates are virtually worthless!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Time of death estimates are pretty useless as evidence even today, despite the many modern forensic science advances since 1888.

Here's the guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator:

"When providing a ToD estimate to the investigator the pathologist should take the following steps.

a) The pathologist must make clear the esimate is only an estimate and the accuracy cannot be determined.

b) The pathologist must explain that the death could have occurred outside the estimate period and, perhaps, a significant period outside it.

c) Advise that the estimate should not be uses to:

(i) Define the period in which death occurred.

(ii) Assign probabilities to likely period of death; or

(iii) Include or exclude a suspect from the
investigation."

Source: FSR-G-211, 2014, para 6.3.2.

In other words, even in a modern investigation ToD estimates are virtually worthless!

Thanks for that John.

I intended to search for a quote from an expert later today. This sums it up well. And you’re not part of a Freemasonic Conspiracy I assume.

[John G]

Thanks for that John.

I intended to search for a quote from an expert later today. This sums it up well. And you’re not part of a Freemasonic Conspiracy I assume.

No problem, Herlock, many thanks. I personally think the freemason conspiracy theories are ludicrous, and not remotely supported by the available evidence. But that doesn't seem to be a problem for some people...!

[Herlock Sholmes]

No problem, Herlock, many thanks. I personally think the freemason conspiracy theories are ludicrous, and not remotely supported by the available evidence. But that doesn't seem to be a problem for some people...!

I think it’s because it’s the most exciting theory. It reads like a horror story. A couple of times over the past few years, if I’ve been waiting for a book to be delivered and I needed a quick read, I’ve re-read Knight. It’s an enjoyable book to read. I wish it was the solution to the case but it’s not of course. Murder By Decree was a great movie too.

[John G]

I think it’s because it’s the most exciting theory. It reads like a horror story. A couple of times over the past few years, if I’ve been waiting for a book to be delivered and I needed a quick read, I’ve re-read Knight. It’s an enjoyable book to read. I wish it was the solution to the case but it’s not of course. Murder By Decree was a great movie too.

Yes, of course you're absolutely right, and films and TV series on the subject are primarily motivated by entertainment. That's why both the Micheal Caine TV series, and Depp film, followed the Masonic theory.

On another point, the unreliability of ToD estimates means that Parry can't be completely ruled out as a suspect in the Wallace case, i.e. on the basis of McFall The Flawed's deeply silly ,ToD conclusions. Sorry...couldn't resist!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, of course you're absolutely right, and films and TV series on the subject are primarily motivated by entertainment. That's why both the Micheal Caine TV series, and Depp film, followed the Masonic theory.

On another point, the unreliability of ToD estimates means that Parry can't be completely ruled out as a suspect in the Wallace case, i.e. on the basis of McFall The Flawed's deeply silly ,ToD conclusions. Sorry...couldn't resist!