Jack's Escape Route?

[JeffHamm]

Thanks for the advice, Jeff.

Can you refer me to any link explaining what you just explained to me about quoting text?

No, I don't know of any link, sorry.

But, it's just a matter of inserting the [ /quote ] and [ quote ] commands at the points in the quoted text where you want to turn off and on the quote format (but remove the space after the first square bracket and before the last one. If I type them in exactly as they are supposed to be they won't show up.

- Jeff

[Enigma]

That is why I suggested moving it to
Long v Cadosch. Seeing vs Hearing.

I took the opportunity, at the same time, to explain how I became involved in the now-forbidden discussion.

Thank you. Good work.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Regardless of who said what, and whatever replies were made, the subject of this thread is conjecture on what route the Ripper took to leave Mitre Square. All other matters are digressions.

That is why I suggested moving it to
Long v Cadosch. Seeing vs Hearing.

I took the opportunity, at the same time, to explain how I became involved in the now-forbidden discussion.

[FISHY1118]

I think PI has raised a very valid point in relation to the TOD of Chapman using Eddowes as a guide. He cites almost identical weather conditions for both murders and the fact that both bodies had been mutilated in identical fashion with the abdomens being left exposed to the elements

Regarding the Chapman murder, there are those who suggest that she was killed at a later time of death but I personally don't concur. Phillps stated that "The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body. Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing"

Whereas with Eddowes we know she was killed within a 45 min window from when she left the police station and Dr Brown examined the body in situ approx 50 mins after it was found and he states "The body had been mutilated, and was quite warm - no rigor mortis. The crime must have been committed within half an hour, or certainly within forty minutes from the time when I saw the body" we know this is fairly accurate

I personally think this is how we can set about trying to prove a more accurate TOD of Chapman using the doctor's findings in the Eddowes murder for comparison.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I was more referring to when some posters constantly referring to the possibility that clocks could be wrong , witnesses couldn't tell what time it was , people may not have had clocks in there houses etc etc you know the usual stuff .

[Enigma]

Regardless of who said what, and whatever replies were made, the subject of this thread is conjecture on what route the Ripper took to leave Mitre Square. All other matters are digressions.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Once again, please, take this discussion to a suitable thread.

A reminder of the rule "Don't hijack threads with theory bias or with other off topic commentary."

The way it started was with the following comments:


GSG was written by someone of the same height as the man Elizabeth Long saw at Hanbury Street.

(DJA #370)



At the time that Elizabeth Long saw that man, Annie Chapman was already dead.

(PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 # 378)



You may well argue that she was dead, but again you are stating this belief as FACT.

(Elamarna, # 382)



I believe I had a right to reply to that and I believe the case for an early T.O.D. remains strong.

I have also posted (two and a half hours ago) a recent comment on the thread

Long v Cadosch. Seeing vs Hearing.

where Chapman's T.O.D. has also been discussed.

[Enigma]

Once again, please, take this discussion to a suitable thread.

A reminder of the rule "Don't hijack threads with theory bias or with other off topic commentary."

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I think PI has raised a very valid point in relation to the TOD of Chapman using Eddowes as a guide. He cites almost identical weather conditions for both murders and the fact that both bodies had been mutilated in identical fashion with the abdomens being left exposed to the elements

Regarding the Chapman murder, there are those who suggest that she was killed at a later time of death but I personally don't concur. Phillps stated that "The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body. Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing"

Whereas with Eddowes we know she was killed within a 45 min window from when she left the police station and Dr Brown examined the body in situ approx 50 mins after it was found and he states "The body had been mutilated, and was quite warm - no rigor mortis. The crime must have been committed within half an hour, or certainly within forty minutes from the time when I saw the body" we know this is fairly accurate

I personally think this is how we can set about trying to prove a more accurate TOD of Chapman using the doctor's findings in the Eddowes murder for comparison.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I believe that Brown examined Eddowes about 36 minutes after she had been found by Watkins.

As she was presumably killed some time between 1.35 a.m. and 1.44 a.m., she must have died about 42 minutes before Brown examined her.

That makes his estimate of 40 minutes not bad at all - for someone who supposedly did not know how to estimate a time of death or the temperature of a body.

[Trevor Marriott]

Timings are "evidence " set in stone or not we don't know that .
so there just as likely to be right as wrong .

So when building a case for or against a t.o.d in Chapmans case, both sides of the argument have no real advantage to claim 100 % proof t.o.d.

I think there's a stronger case on an earlier time of death based on exactly the same evidence that those use a later time .

I think PI has raised a very valid point in relation to the TOD of Chapman using Eddowes as a guide. He cites almost identical weather conditions for both murders and the fact that both bodies had been mutilated in identical fashion with the abdomens being left exposed to the elements

Regarding the Chapman murder, there are those who suggest that she was killed at a later time of death but I personally don't concur. Phillps stated that "The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body. Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing"

Whereas with Eddowes we know she was killed within a 45 min window from when she left the police station and Dr Brown examined the body in situ approx 50 mins after it was found and he states "The body had been mutilated, and was quite warm - no rigor mortis. The crime must have been committed within half an hour, or certainly within forty minutes from the time when I saw the body" we know this is fairly accurate

I personally think this is how we can set about trying to prove a more accurate TOD of Chapman using the doctor's findings in the Eddowes murder for comparison.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

Not bizarre at all when one realises that the timings are not set in stone, and so contradictions of 5 or even 10 minutes are not as significant as they appear at face value.
While i did not cover Hanbury Street in my conference talk on timings last year, it will certainly be covered in the planned volume on such.
The points raised in that talk with regards to Bucks Row and Mitre Square, apply equally to the timings given in Hanbury Street .

Timings are "evidence " set in stone or not we don't know that .
so there just as likely to be right as wrong .

So when building a case for or against a t.o.d in Chapmans case, both sides of the argument have no real advantage to claim 100 % proof t.o.d.

I think there's a stronger case on an earlier time of death based on exactly the same evidence that those use a later time .

[Elamarna]

And the answer is so obvious that you cannot even state it in your reply.

As I have already pointed out, you have evaded the central issue.

If you do not understand that the "central issue" as you see it, is based on a series of flawed interpretations and assumptions by yourself, there really is point in debate.

We have been asked several times to stop this off topic debate by others, I suggest we do.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

These points have all been answered so many times before, you simply choose to ignore the points made by any who do not agree with you.

These issues have no relevance to the topic of this thread.

Btw a course in relative and quantum mechanics as nothing to do with the actual issues of syncronizied and non-syncronizied time keeping in the late 19th century, and is therefore irrelevant.


Goodnight and goodbye.

And the answer is so obvious that you cannot even state it in your reply.

As I have already pointed out, you have evaded the central issue.

[Elamarna]

Please see my replies below.

These points have all been answered so many times before, you simply choose to ignore the points made by any who do not agree with you.

These issues have no relevance to the topic of this thread.

Btw a course in relative and quantum mechanics as nothing to do with the actual issues of syncronizied and non-syncronizied time keeping in the late 19th century, and is therefore irrelevant.


Goodnight and goodbye.

[DJA]

As suggested,kindly move your argument to a suitable thread.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

As for you first section, you ascribe an ability to Phillips and other Doctors of the time they simply did not have. The medical knowledge for determing a reliable TOD did not exist in 1888.
That the Doctors believed they could fix death to often within 30 minutes is clear, science shows they were mistaken in their belief, which cannot even be achieved today.


It is not a question of whether Phillips believed he could fix the time of death to within 30 minutes.

The question is whether he could recognise the onset of rigor mortis.

He evidently could.

The same goes for the doctor who examined Eddowes in Mitre Square and did not detect the onset of rigor mortis.



As for citing 13 websites to claim RM sets in at 2 hours, well those are simply generalisations, such timings are not set in stone.


I did not say they are - and neither did Phillips - but anyone reading your dismissal of Phillips' estimation might be surprised upon reading that the textbook estimation of two hours used by him has not changed since 1888.


I prefer to rely on actual scientific research and peer reviewed papers. many of which are linked in threads on this subject on this site
Such clearly show that the onset of RM, varies between individuals, their underlying physical condition, the environment and the means of death, and early and late onset of RM occurs .


I believe you are still evading the issue.

The conditions in every way in Mitre Square were comparable to those in Hanbury Street.

It is clear that some 42 minutes after death, Eddowes' body was still warm and rigor mortis had not commenced.

In Hanbury Street, Chapman's body was almost completely cold and rigor mortis had commenced.

The only possible conclusion is that Chapman was killed much earlier than Eddowes relative to the time when she was found.



Medical science doesn't work to such exacting definitions you suggest.
That you appear to reject this says all one needs to know about the comments you make.


I suggest you are adopting a lofty attitude instead of addressing the real issues.



That you state that the terms "warm" and "cold" are not subjective is totally unrealistic.


The two words exist precisely because the two conditions they describe are easy to distinguish.

Chapman was cold; Eddowes was warm.

If you dispute that, then not only are YOU being unrealistic but you are being rather condescending towards the two doctors concerned.



Such terms may mean very different things to different doctors, may even vary with the same doctor depending on the occassion.

More Importantly neither term provide any meaningful measurement of body temperature which can be used in determing a reliable TOD.


The terms 'warm' and 'cold' did not 'mean very different things to different doctors'!



Now for you points on time.

There is nothing in Cadoschs testimony that indicates the times he gave at the inquest are in anyway syncronizied to the spitialfieds church clock he mentions that he passed after he left home that morning.


There is!

It is quite obvious that there is and that you are splitting hairs.



To suggest it does, is at best wishful thinking and at worst simply disingenuous, let's assume it's the former.

,
Having objected to the use of assumptions, you allow yourself the luxury of making one yourself.

How very generous of you!

As I pointed out before, one needs to have a good reason to think that a timing is wrong to any significant degree and in Cadoche's case it obviously is not.

You have suggested that both Cadoche's watch and the Spitalfields clock could both have been wrong by a large margin.

That is, I suggest, farfetched.

Cadoche was on his way to work.

He needed to get to work on time.



There is certainly nothing to indicate that the church clock which he mentioned is in anyway, syncronizied to the clock which Long claimed she used for her timings in Brick Lane.

Therefore the times quoted by both cannot be assumed to be syncronizied and any apparent discrepancies are in reality not solid.


You may as well throw out all timings given by witnesses and substitute your own.



It is common even today for public clocks to be incorrect, I suggest you check the evidence on this issue included in the talk at last year's East End Conference.

That you don't grasp, or are not prepared to accept the issues that exist with the times quoted, simply means your conclusions on timings are flawed and irrelevant


I stated previously that in the case of the Nichols inquest, it is clear that a witness was wrong about the time because three policemen gave times that agreed roughly with one another and the witness's timing could not be made to agree with theirs.

I suggest that most readers would consider that that suggests some ability on my part to grasp matters relating to time.

If I were to adopt the lofty attitude that you take, I suppose I might point out that having taken courses in relativity and Quantum mechanics, I have a better grasp of matters relating to time.

I suggest that the issues be discussed without the adoption of a condescending attitude.



It is not my views based on years of actual research that are far fetched, but your interpretations of both the issue of time keeping, and of determining TOD that are over simplified and demonstrate a lack of real knowledge on these issues.

There you go again, resorting to condescension instead of dealing with the real issues.


I have yet to see an explanation from you as to why we have any reason to think that Chapman, who was found to be almost completely cold and starting to stiffen, and Eddowes, who was still warm and had not yet started to stiffen, had been dead for similar periods of time.



Sadly nothing changes .


That must be the umpteenth time you have used your favourite condescending adverb when concluding a reply to me.

Anyone reading your lengthy exercise in condescension can see that you still have not addressed the central issue.