Jack's Escape Route?

[c.d.]

You are making an invalid comparison and there is no evidence to back up what you are suggesting happened.

Just common sense, experience and an understanding of human nature. I didn't expect you to agree but that is fine. That is what these boards are for.

c.d.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I would suggest you read my earlier post on the topic

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[The quotes below are mine in italics and yours in bold italics]


Maybe take the blinkers off ...

I suggest that remark of yours is uncalled-for.



The police did not note that her apron had been cut in two nor that it had bloodstains or faeces on it.

What reason would they have had to make note of this while she was in custody?

Well, the apron was white and bloodstains would have shown easily.

Are your seriously suggesting that policemen do not notice whether someone in their custody has blood on white
clothing?



It is obvious that Eddowes walked directly from Bishopsgate southwards in the direction of Mitre Square and did not go there via Goulston Street.

It is not obvious no one saw her after she left the police station Eddowes had ample time when leaving the police station to make her way in the direction of Flower and dean Street where she was lodging and in doing so would have passed close to Goulston Street archway

Upon leaving the station, instead of turning right to take the shortest route to her Flower and Dean Street lodging-house, Eddowes turned left in the general direction of Aldgate.^[43]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cather...s#cite_note-46

The reference is to Evans and Skinner, p. 195 and Fido, p. 43

I have not seen that detail in the report provided by the Daily Telegraph.

I have an idea of where those authors may have come across that detail but have not been able to check yet.



No sharp knife was found on her person.

She had a knife in her possessions

She had a table knife in her possession.

Are you suggesting that she cut her own apron in two with a table knife?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I see you are trying to use absolute times such as 5.28, which is a totally pointless exercise. Such times, based on witness statements are not reliable, certainly not to the degree you attempt to suggest here.


I did not use an absolute time.

I wrote:

Even if you accept the eyewitness evidence of the residents of Hanbury Street and agree with the coroner, then the time of death is, as noted by Macnaghten, about
5.28 a.m., which is earlier than Long's sighting of the man she said was with Chapman.

You are, as you have done before, attributing to me a view I do not hold.

I used the words about 5.28 a.m and you say I am using absolute times.

You are obviously wrong on that point.

I cited MacNaghten's report to support my contention that the murder took place before Long's supposed sighting of the victim alive.

I did not say that the murder took place at exactly 5.28 a.m.



The timings given by both Cadosch and Long, are at best rough estimates, which in all probability cannot even be compared to each other, due to the lack of syncronizied time, and human nature with regards to estimating time.


You did not mention the clock, to which Cadoche referred in his evidence, and the fact that he had to get to work.

These facts suggest that his timings were more reliable than you make them out to be.



Quoting Macnaghten, who was not even in the police at the time, as if his view carries great weight is also pointless.

One wonders why, if Macnaghten is as unimportant as you make him out to be, there is a report by him.



On digestion
digestion rates are not set in stone. they vary and can be affected by many things. More importantly we have no idea of the last time Chapman ate!
We know the last time she is reported as eating as you quote, but we have no idea, if she took food with her from the lodging house, or if she gained more food afterwards.
You may think it's obvious that she did not eat after that time, but that is simply speculation on your part.
Indeed you can use it to support your view, but it is not in itself proof.


I go by the evidence.

You wrote:

You may think it's obvious that she did not eat after that time, but that is simply speculation on your part.

That is NOT simply speculation on my part!

It is a reasonable deduction from the evidence.

Your suggestion that she did eat again later IS speculation!

I am not the one who is speculating; you are!

The evidence is that Chapman was eating a potato at 1.30 a.m.

The evidence suggests that she had finished eating the potato by 1.50 a.m.

The evidence is that she had no money.

The evidence suggests that, after eating the potato, she went to look for a customer, not to find another potato.

You suggest she took another potato with her or gained food afterwards.

There is no evidence for either suggestion.

The evidence is that she ate a potato inside the lodging house, not that she took a potato with her.

As I may have noted before, we have a different attitude towards evidence.

In spite of all your attempts to make out that I have a less than scrupulous approach to evidence, I always go by the evidence.

I do not write things likethis may have happened or we don't know that this didn't happen.

You suggest she took a potato with her.

How long do you think she would have carried the potato with her without eating it?





With regards to RM, the idea that it always progresses at the same rate and that it can be used to pinpoint TOD is I am afraid a fantasy fuelled by tv cop shows.
In reality it's much more variable.

To say you are not basing your opinion on the views of Phillips is odd, you clearly rely to a degree on his assesment of the degree of RM present, and how long that would take to occur.


Again, you are suggesting that I am claiming that rigor mortis can be used to pinpoint the time of death.

Neither Dr Philips nor I have claimed to be able to to pinpoint the time of death.

You are wrong about that too.

What you are writing is irrelevant since the fact that rigor mortis had set in - unless you are going to suggest that Phillips was incapable of recognising it - means that she had been dead for some considerable time.

That, taken together with the state of digestion of the potato which, according to the eyewitness evidence, was eaten shortly after 1.30, means that she died well before Long claimed to see her alive.

My reasoning is based on the eyewitness evidence and medical evidence.

It is obviously not speculation, assumption, or supposition.

I am bound to ask what exactly you are disputing.

Are you suggesting that Chapman may have been seen by Long at about 5.30 a.m. and been murdered afterwards?

Please see my answers above.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Eddowes was sober enough to be discharged at 1am,four and a half hours after being picked up by police,so she was not that drunk.

She had not been imitating a fire engine.That was invented by a newspaper.

PC Louis Robinson told the inquest that Eddowes was lying on the footway drunk, he picked her up and carried her to the side, but she slid down. He had to get assistance to take her to the police station. Sgt Byfield reported that she was very drunk and had to be supported by the two constables who brought her to the station.

We can debate how drunk is "very drunk", but it is of little importance, because the point I was making was that although she said her name was "nothing" as George claimed, when she arrived at the police station, she gave the name Mary Ann Kelly when she left.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Please see my answers above.

You clearly don’t have a clue what you’re talking about when it comes to TOD estimation or about the application of reason. We’ve had extended threads on here going into in depth detail about how unreliable TOD estimation is and how completely unreliable it was in 1888. Every single expert you can possibly source will tell you exactly the same thing. We’ve also had members asking direct questions to a modern day experts who told us that it’s entirely possible and plausible that Chapman could have been killed after 5.00. Yet again your ego leads you assume to assume some kind of expertise. The research has been done, the evidence is in place on here. Try finding things out first before spouting nonsense.

And as for your reasoning (if I can be as loose with the English language as to call it that) that just because we have no evidence that Chapman ate anything after the potato in the lodging house then she couldn’t have ate anything isn’t worthy of a response. Firstly, Phillips didn’t say that he found potato in her stomach. It could have been other foodstuffs. Also we know that various circumstances and illnesses can slow down metabolism. Evidence was provided on here showing how a potato could indeed take a longer time than expected to be digested.

And finally, if we allow a reasonable and small margin for error in times in the case of Long and Cadosch then we have three witnesses all saying that she died after 5.00. Either way, you are wrong about TOD estimation and your reasoning on the potato is poor.

[DJA]

PC Louis Robinson told the inquest that Eddowes was lying on the footway drunk, he picked her up and carried her to the side, but she slid down. He had to get assistance to take her to the police station. Sgt Byfield reported that she was very drunk and had to be supported by the two constables who brought her to the station.

We can debate how drunk is "very drunk", but it is of little importance, because the point I was making was that although she said her name was "nothing" as George claimed, when she arrived at the police station, she gave the name Mary Ann Kelly when she left.

Reckon Mary Ann Kelly was the last victim's real name and that Jack the Ripper was on his way to room 13 when he wrote GSG and left the apron piece.

Strongly suspect Eddowes was exhausted by the walk back to London which exacerbated her ill health resulting from rheumatic fever 21 years earlier.She has sought rest in a bar,had a few drinks,left and collapsed.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Reckon Mary Ann Kelly was the last victim's real name and that Jack the Ripper was on his way to room 13 when he wrote GSG and left the apron piece.

Strongly suspect Eddowes was exhausted by the walk back to London which exacerbated her ill health resulting from rheumatic fever 21 years earlier.She has sought rest in a bar,had a few drinks,left and collapsed.

Hi Dave,

Your previous comment that Eddowes' fire engine impression was a newspaper invention interests me as I have not previously come across this information. Where did you get the evidence for this?

[DJA]

Hi Dave,

Your previous comment that Eddowes' fire engine impression was a newspaper invention interests me as I have not previously come across this information. Where did you get the evidence for this?

By memory the rumor was started by a newspaper like The Star.

If you look at the reputable papers of the day,it was not mentioned.

Ditto the police,etc.

[Elamarna]

Please see my answers above.

Quoting a time of "about 5.28" is attempting to present it as an absolute time.
It is such because you claim the about 5.28 shows Chapman is dead before the Long sighting.
That by definition is using 5.28 as an absolute time.

In reality the two times, that of Long and 5.28 are so close one cannot be used to exclude the other.

Why Macnaghten wrote his "report" as you call it, is open to considerable debate.

What is very clear is that he had no personal knowledge of the events of the murders and was going purely on witness statements and Doctors reports, as I said in the previous post.
I actually suspect it may be important, but not for the reasons you believe.



I don't mention the clock Cadosch quotes?

No I don't, because it's not the same clock referenced by Long, and therefore it can't be used to compare the time given by Long with the time given by him.
Do you really not get the issue over timings?




How long would she go without eating any food she took?

Any answer to that would be pure speculation, neither of us can say.

She had no money to buy other food, true when she left the lodging house. but we cannot rule out that she may have acquired money after she left the lodging housing, and decided to eat rather than go back to the lodging house.



You clearly do belive that one can set a TOD based on the onset of RM, modern medical science shows that is not as comprehensive as was belived in 1888, or in modern tv and films.


You say you don't use phrases such as "this may have happened" or "we don't know if this happened. Indeed You do not, you see issues in simple black and white.

That is why your Speculation, which you call "deductions" are flawed, they do not consider all the possibilities.

Your "Deductions", are simply speculation, that you can't see that does not change the reality of such.

What I am I disputing?
Seriously?

That is fairly clear, I am suggesting that When Richardson sits on the step, there is no body present.

That Long very probably sees Chapman as she passes 29 Hanbury st, that the time of this is probably within a range of 10 minutes.

That Cadosch hears the attack, a few minutes after the Long sighting.

That the issue of syncronizied or non syncronizied time means debating difference of 5- 10 minutes proves nothing.

We clearly don't agree, I am fine with that, people all interpret evidence differently.

The difference is I present my views as possibilities, not facts.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

She had no money to buy other food, true when she left the lodging house. but we cannot rule out that she may have acquired money after she left the lodging housing, and decided to eat rather than go back to the lodging house.


She was quite definite that she would be coming back to the lodging house as soon as she had the money to pay for her bed there.

Since she had already eaten, there is no reason to suppose that she would have spent the money on food instead.

You would not rule out the possibility that a man who spoke English and had the appearance of a gentile could have spoken Yiddish and worn Jewish religious attire at a police identification.

I go by the evidence, not by fanciful speculation.

Please see my answer above.

[Elamarna]

Please see my answer above.

Your interpretation of the evidence is merely your speculation, that you cannot see that is telling.
Why do you assume your interpretation is more accurate or realistic than that of others I wonder?

How can you assume that having eatern part of a baked potato, she did not want more?
Or that she did not keep some of it back for later?

The answer is you can't, the conclusive answers you present are merely your speculation.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Your interpretation of the evidence is merely your speculation, that you cannot see that is telling.
Why do you assume your interpretation is more accurate or realistic than that of others I wonder?

How can you assume that having eatern part of a baked potato, she did not want more?
Or that she did not keep some of it back for later?

The answer is you can't, the conclusive answers you present are merely your speculation.

I am not arguing with you about your opinion of the testimony that suggests the body was not there at about 5 a.m., because there is a conflict between the evidence of two witnesses on the one hand and Dr Phillips' evidence on the other.

The coroner sided with those two witnesses, whereas medical opinion seems to have supported Phillips.

My point is that I do not speculate.

I go by the evidence and I do not see the need to consider speculation that conflicts with the evidence.

[Elamarna]

I am not arguing with you about your opinion of the testimony that suggests the body was not there at about 5 a.m., because there is a conflict between the evidence of two witnesses on the one hand and Dr Phillips' evidence on the other.

The coroner sided with those two witnesses, whereas medical opinion seems to have supported Phillips.

My point is that I do not speculate.

I go by the evidence and I do not see the need to consider speculation that conflicts with the evidence.

That's your problem, you are so convinced your view is the only view, that you are incapable or unwilling to consider any other possibility.
You are convinced you are following the evidence, but in reality it's simply your interpretation of where the evidence leads.
Such methodology in historical research tends to lead to false conclusions.

Modern medical evidence does NOT support Phillips.
What was believed in 1888 is a different matter. The Doctors really did think they could judge death by RM and touch. That's why the police tended to go with the views of the doctor's, they believed the doctor's were stating medical certainties, we know now that is not the case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Medical evidence does NOT support the Coroner. Medical EXPERTS tell us not to rely on the methods used by Phillips to estimate the TOD.

I thought that we had done with all of this?

So NO you don’t go by the evidence. You completely ignore the evidence. Because the EVIDENCE tells us categorically and without a solitary shred of doubt that we should NOT rely on Phillips TOD estimate.

How many ******** times?

[FISHY1118]

Anyone viewing this exchange can see that I made serious, reasoned points in # 316 and that throughout it you have made flippant and gratuitously condescending and insulting remarks, without putting forward a single counter-argument, as follows:


# 317

you have seriously got to be kidding . Any wonder herlock is pulling his hair out with you . What nonsense you write .

# 318

Its worth repeating for a good laugh i guess.

# 321

You didnt refute anything ,you just made a a silly statement to start with and you got caught out

# 325

There was really no need to [counter my reasoned arguments with reason], you didnt have an arguement to start with after that silly comment .

# 326

Well stop making your own silly flippant statemets like the Lawende one and you just might get taken a little more seriously , but for now just stop wasting my time.


# 331

Oh now were using pretty colors hmmm i little desperate but it to be expected i guess.

Again there was no need for any arguement, it was a silly comment to begin with ... However you went off on some silly rant that proved nothing ... youve made yourself look even less credable than when you started that reckless comment by trying to defend it .

# 337

Ahh the old sober and reasoned ploy ,yeah thats a good one keep it up, your not fooling anyone here.

# 339

I'm suggesting you quit this argument that which started from a ridiculous statement of yours , stop throwing your toys out of the crib and Get a good night sleep .

# 352

... what a ridiculous statement you made ... That you have been shown to be the case ... Don't let your opinions get mixed up with the facts. Rookie mistake.


You are bringing this forum into disrepute and, unfortunately, the moderators are allowing you to do so.

Well I guess you now know how this site and the moderaters work, having just read an admin post on another thread . Enough said .

Btw, you got your simple answer to your original comment regarding lawende, you just chose to ignore that which was a possibility, just as Jeffs brilliants post suggest all things jtr should be viewed this way. Try reading it . Good day sir.