Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Absence Of Evidence

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

  • Originally posted by DJA View Post

    They were not mutilations.

    I've explained Eddowes' wounds more than once.

    Like Nichols,they were both inpatients of Sutton's from December 1867 with rheumatic fever.The 'strep makes it's home in the small intestine.

    Eddowes also had Xanthelasma.

    Not to mention cancer.
    So Eddowes and Nichols both had Xanthelasma? , [not to mention cancer of course] , wheres the medical evidence of this,? have you posted that somewhere?
    'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

    Comment


    • And you wonder why .
      'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

      Comment


      • Between this lastest theory, and the organ harvesting theory , and deconstructing jack, [no ripper at all theory]



        Is it any wonder ?
        'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

        Comment


        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

          There are definitely problems with those reports. However, the later report begins:

          The body of the murdered woman, which now lies in St. George's Mortuary, close to St. George's Parish Church, presents a dreadful spectacle. It is the corpse of a woman about 40 years of age, and, as it lies on the slab, exhibits prominently a fearful wound on the throat.

          That sounds to me like the reporter is at the mortuary, observing the corpse at first hand.
          He's not conducting a post-mortem examination, nor is he trained to. One of the Dr's duties in a post mortem is to record and describe any and all injuries, while one of the duties of a reporter is to write stories that will sell papers.

          Personally, I put my odds on the Dr. being the more accurate of the two, but you can place your bet where you feel lucky.


          Would a fall resulting in bruising to the temple, necessarily result in that sort of head trauma?
          A fall resulting in brusing to the temple would result in, well bruising on the scalp. And the report says:

          Also in Phillip's testimony he reports "...On removing the scalp there was no sign of bruising or extravasation of blood between it and the skull-cap. ..." negating the idea she suffered any kind of head injury, otherwise an interesting idea.

          So yes, a fall that results in bruising to the scalp (temple area) would result in bruising to the scalp, but there was no bruising to the scalp, hence a fall that would result in bruising to the scalp did not occur.

          If you want to argue that the scalp didn't include the temple area, then it seems more to the point to just indicate the statement I included wouldn't include the temple area. But there's no mention of injuries or bruises to the temple area, which would still have to be recorded during the post-mortem.


          If he pulls the scarf - not enough to strangle but enough to prevent speech or screams - and then quickly gets her to the ground and cuts her throat, when does this stuff occur ...?

          "...Over both shoulders, especially the right, from the front aspect under colar bones and in front of chest there is a bluish discolouration which I have watched and seen on two occasions since...."
          Presumably before the the pulling of the scarf event.


          It's a very tricky problem. I seriously wonder is she were sitting down when the attack began. Then any fall or rapid decent becomes more like a fairly gentle recline.

          Lamb: She looked as if she had been laid quietly down. Her clothes were not in the least rumpled.
          Her clothes were examined and were very muddy on the left, not on the right and the doctors conclude she was put to the ground in the position she was found (lying on her left side). If she was sitting at one point, that might be expected to be apparent by the mud pattern and they would have mentioned that. There's no mention of such a mud pattern, but you are free to presume it is there but not mentioned. But it makes the doctor's suggestion her throat was cut as she was falling odd as he implies falling after having her scarf pulled as she moves away from her attacker (hard to do while sitting).

          Basically, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest she sat down in the mud at any point during the attack.


          I'm fairly confident that Schwartz existed, however I'm undecided on whether he saw less or more than he claimed to.

          Do you mean, not very strong evidence that it was JtR? Isn't there strong support for the idea that Stride was an interrupted murder? What is that support based on, if not the apparent skills of the murderer?
          Stride could have been killed by JtR, and she could have been killed by someone else. I'm about 50/50 odds in my thinking. The other 4 of the C5 I see no reason to believe they were not all killed by the same person (JtR), Tabram and McKenzie are interesting possible victims as well in my opinion, though both at lower odds of inclusion. Opinions vary of course.

          - Jeff
          Last edited by JeffHamm; 04-02-2022, 10:12 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

            He's not conducting a post-mortem examination, nor is he trained to. One of the Dr's duties in a post mortem is to record and describe any and all injuries, while one of the duties of a reporter is to write stories that will sell papers.

            Personally, I put my odds on the Dr. being the more accurate of the two, but you can place your bet where you feel lucky.



            A fall resulting in brusing to the temple would result in, well bruising on the scalp. And the report says:

            Also in Phillip's testimony he reports "...On removing the scalp there was no sign of bruising or extravasation of blood between it and the skull-cap. ..." negating the idea she suffered any kind of head injury, otherwise an interesting idea.

            So yes, a fall that results in bruising to the scalp (temple area) would result in bruising to the scalp, but there was no bruising to the scalp, hence a fall that would result in bruising to the scalp did not occur.

            If you want to argue that the scalp didn't include the temple area, then it seems more to the point to just indicate the statement I included wouldn't include the temple area. But there's no mention of injuries or bruises to the temple area, which would still have to be recorded during the post-mortem.
            I believe most people know a bruise when they see one. However, I'm happy to concede that the journalist at the mortuary should not be included in that generalisation.

            Presumably before the the pulling of the scarf event.
            Would not bruising over the shoulders, suggest downward rather than horizontal pressure? How does she get from the footway to the laneway, with downward force on the shoulders?

            Her clothes were examined and were very muddy on the left, not on the right and the doctors conclude she was put to the ground in the position she was found (lying on her left side). If she was sitting at one point, that might be expected to be apparent by the mud pattern and they would have mentioned that. There's no mention of such a mud pattern, but you are free to presume it is there but not mentioned. But it makes the doctor's suggestion her throat was cut as she was falling odd as he implies falling after having her scarf pulled as she moves away from her attacker (hard to do while sitting).

            Basically, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest she sat down in the mud at any point during the attack.
            This assumes the ground was uniformly muddy. You are free to presume that but it is not mentioned.

            Dr Phillips:

            Mud on face and left side of the head. Matted on the hair and left side.

            Examining her jacket I found that although there was a slight amount of mud on the right side, the left was well plastered with mud.


            Sounds like she was very muddy on the left side, but only above the waistline. No mention of her skirt, which was down to her boots.

            I don't suppose she did move away after having her scarf pulled, because I don't think she did have her scarf pulled.
            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

            Comment


            • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

              I believe most people know a bruise when they see one. However, I'm happy to concede that the journalist at the mortuary should not be included in that generalisation.
              And the post mortem would have mentioned the bruise if it was there, but instead explicitly states there were no bruises on the scalp. But, if you want to put one there feel free, but I can tell you now I won't believe anything that follows on from that because we know she didn't have such a bruise.

              Would not bruising over the shoulders, suggest downward rather than horizontal pressure? How does she get from the footway to the laneway, with downward force on the shoulders?
              I don't know, depends upon the exact placement and angle of the bruises. That would have been a good question for the Dr's that examined her. Sadly, we will never know.

              This assumes the ground was uniformly muddy. You are free to presume that but it is not mentioned.
              Fair enough, but there's no indication she was ever sitting down either, so I suppose you are free to presume that but it is not mentioned.

              Dr Phillips:

              Mud on face and left side of the head. Matted on the hair and left side.

              Examining her jacket I found that although there was a slight amount of mud on the right side, the left was well plastered with mud.


              Sounds like she was very muddy on the left side, but only above the waistline. No mention of her skirt, which was down to her boots.

              I don't suppose she did move away after having her scarf pulled, because I don't think she did have her scarf pulled.
              Maybe it wasn't. It was the Dr's opinion, but maybe the doctor was wrong. Sure, so offer your own opinion, but maybe that will be wrong. At least the Doctor actually saw the body and clothing and how it was arranged, so if we are forced to pick which opinion to bet upon, my money will still be on the Doctor's I'm afraid, but I also recognize I'm not guaranteed to win that bet. Of course, the answer now can never be known.

              - Jeff

              Comment

              Working...
              X