Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Modern Day Expert Opinion

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    But there professional experience and expertise can be challenged by modern day medical experts such as Dr Biggs.
    But Trevor, your Dr. Biggs is also guessing, you know he didn't have an autopsy report to work from, so, like us, he must use his imagination.

    You have given an opinion based on your own findings and beliefs which you are entitled to do. I am entitled to challenge that opinion using Dr Biggs in doing so to also challenge what the Victorian doctors have stated.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    True, but he isn't an authority on these cases. I'll grant you he is a professional in his field, but he is still applying his knowledge to what you have insisted are unreliable press accounts.
    So how does that put you ahead of the game?
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      The inquest testimony of the doctors relates to the post mortems as conducted by the doctors and their reports which Dr Biggs was provided with.
      Considering an autopsy report contains far more detailed information than was captured at the inquest, your doctor is hindered by a lack of important detail.

      And there you go again twisting things around to suit your own purpose. I have not dismissed the doctors testimony I have let Dr Biggs negate much of that testimony. It is other witness testimony whcih I have suggested is unsafe to rely on.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      Have you compared each press version of what the doctor is reputed to have said?
      You'll find in most cases the doctor's words are not verbatim but paraphrase, and by the newspaper (either reporter or editor).
      So, we can't say for sure if we have the actual doctors words, and if we do, which version are they?
      We all must deal with this problem, but so must your Dr Biggs, which lessens his reliability when he can only rely on the same sources as the rest of us.
      The point being, doctor's Phillips, Llewellyn, Blackwell, Brown, etc. had first-hand information on which to cast their opinions, all we have (we, includes your Dr Biggs), is mostly a set of differing paraphrase accounts of the medical information.
      Last edited by Wickerman; 07-18-2021, 10:50 PM.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

        But Trevor, your Dr. Biggs is also guessing, you know he didn't have an autopsy report to work from, so, like us, he must use his imagination.

        True, but he isn't an authority on these cases. I'll grant you he is a professional in his field, but he is still applying his knowledge to what you have insisted are unreliable press accounts.
        So how does that put you ahead of the game?
        Dr Biggs is a forensic patholgist he attends crime scenes and carries out post mortems on murder victims so he clearly knows what he is talking about

        He doesnt have to be an authority on these cases he is able to read what has been presented to him and give his professional opinion on what the Victorian doctors have stated and their opinions, which clearly go against what you want to believe.

        It is quite clear that modern technology and modern day experts opinions are going to challenge the medical opinions from 132 years ago, when that happens you just have to accept it and move on unless you are suitably qualified to make that challenge.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 07-19-2021, 06:25 AM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          Dr Biggs is a forensic patholgist he attends crime scenes and carries out post mortems on murder victims so he clearly knows what he is talking about

          He doesnt have to be an authority on these cases he is able to read what has been presented to him and give his professional opinion on what the Victorian doctors have stated and their opinions, which clearly go against what you want to believe.

          It is quite clear that modern technology and modern day experts opinions are going to challenge the medical opinions from 132 years ago, when that happens you just have to accept it and move on unless you are suitably qualified to make that challenge.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          True but I think the challenge is should modern day experts make wide, sweeping opinions on such scant information? Opinions or course are going to play in.Some chosen legal experts say "I'd take that suspect to court" or "there's a case for murder" when there isn't towards anyone. Same for Forensics as well.

          Comment


          • #35
            I have a friend who is a professor at Copenhagen University who is an expert on Genome DNA profiling and machine learning. He could not be more disinterested in this case from an academic standpoint. He has no motivation, time or academic desire to read any of the materials connected with the case. He has excellent practical knowledge but zero interest.

            I have some sympathy with Trevor on this. The best you can hope for is to pose questions and hope you get an answer that is someway usable to forming an understanding. Unless they consume all of the available data (as many on here have), they will not know the nuance to create a suitably accurate assessment (as per Wick's point).

            It might be helpful to form an expert panel of regular users on the forum to be open about their expertise and areas of knowledge, who would be happily pressed on specifics of issues surrounding the case. Trevor, actually as an ex Murder Squad detective (along with Monty), could be our Police procedural experts etc. Prosector is a surgeon, etc. etc. Just an idea.

            What would be the fantasy experts panellists to have, and do we have people on the boards who could fill those expert roles?
            • Police Procedure
            • Mortician / Post-Mortem Expert / Coroner
            • DNA / mDNA expert
            • Criminal Psychologist
            • Surgeon / Surgeon Training
            • Blood Spray / Crime Scene Forensics Expert
            • Butcher / Meat Slaughterer
            • Weapons Expert
            • Geographical Profiling
            What else?
            Last edited by erobitha; 07-19-2021, 05:25 PM.
            "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
            - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

            Comment


            • #36
              If they were dead before the throat was cut why cut the throat at all, if the primary objectives were to kill then mutilate the abdomen and genital area .

              Comment


              • #37
                No, I'm sure they were just unconscious when laid down, by either suffocation or strangulation, the reason for the slash to the jugular was to kill them.
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  Dr Biggs is a forensic patholgist he attends crime scenes and carries out post mortems on murder victims so he clearly knows what he is talking about
                  Of course he does. But we are not debating a body laid in front of Dr Biggs, we are debating medical opinion that is a century old.

                  He doesnt have to be an authority on these cases he is able to read what has been presented to him and give his professional opinion on what the Victorian doctors have stated and their opinions, which clearly go against what you want to believe.
                  On the contrary, if your Dr Biggs told you the victims throats were cut while standing, but the professionals at the time said they were laid down, then your Dr biggs is not capable of understanding medical opinion.

                  IF.....your Dr Biggs WAS familiar with these cases, he would know that evidence existed that they had been strangled.
                  And, medical opinion had confirmed that conclusion in later years.
                  Therefore IF, Dr Biggs had been familiar with the case then he would have known that.
                  That being the case he would have either....
                  1 - explained to you how it was possible to strangle someone, and while holding them upright, cut their throat, or
                  2 - how it was more likely the contemporary medical opinion at the time was correct. That they must have had their throats cut while laid down, due to the fact you can't strangle someone and expect to cut their throat while propping their body upright!

                  What he told you isn't worth the paper it was written on, but that's your problem, and it's always been your problem.
                  You only choose to listen to people who say what you like to hear, regardless how contrary it is.

                  It is quite clear that modern technology and modern day experts opinions are going to challenge the medical opinions from 132 years ago, when that happens you just have to accept it and move on unless you are suitably qualified to make that challenge.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  Modern medical opinion has helped us understand the methods for removing a kidney & a uterus.
                  Modern doctors are not normally experienced in the technique of cutting someone's throat. It tends to go against their hippocratic oath.

                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                    Of course he does. But we are not debating a body laid in front of Dr Biggs, we are debating medical opinion that is a century old.



                    On the contrary, if your Dr Biggs told you the victims throats were cut while standing, but the professionals at the time said they were laid down, then your Dr biggs is not capable of understanding medical opinion.

                    IF.....your Dr Biggs WAS familiar with these cases, he would know that evidence existed that they had been strangled.
                    And, medical opinion had confirmed that conclusion in later years.
                    Therefore IF, Dr Biggs had been familiar with the case then he would have known that.
                    That being the case he would have either....
                    1 - explained to you how it was possible to strangle someone, and while holding them upright, cut their throat, or
                    2 - how it was more likely the contemporary medical opinion at the time was correct. That they must have had their throats cut while laid down, due to the fact you can't strangle someone and expect to cut their throat while propping their body upright!

                    What he told you isn't worth the paper it was written on, but that's your problem, and it's always been your problem.
                    You only choose to listen to people who say what you like to hear, regardless how contrary it is.



                    Modern medical opinion has helped us understand the methods for removing a kidney & a uterus.
                    Modern doctors are not normally experienced in the technique of cutting someone's throat. It tends to go against their hippocratic oath.
                    Also most modern medical professionals pretty much believe the mutilations, outside of Kelly, would only take a few minutes, as opposed to the 1888 physicians who opined anywhere from 5-15 minutes, which given what we know about police patrolling routes at the time make that a little implausible.

                    Columbo

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                      Of course he does. But we are not debating a body laid in front of Dr Biggs, we are debating medical opinion that is a century old.



                      On the contrary, if your Dr Biggs told you the victims throats were cut while standing, but the professionals at the time said they were laid down, then your Dr biggs is not capable of understanding medical opinion.

                      IF.....your Dr Biggs WAS familiar with these cases, he would know that evidence existed that they had been strangled.
                      And, medical opinion had confirmed that conclusion in later years.
                      Therefore IF, Dr Biggs had been familiar with the case then he would have known that.
                      That being the case he would have either....
                      1 - explained to you how it was possible to strangle someone, and while holding them upright, cut their throat, or
                      2 - how it was more likely the contemporary medical opinion at the time was correct. That they must have had their throats cut while laid down, due to the fact you can't strangle someone and expect to cut their throat while propping their body upright!

                      Perhaps with your superio medival knowledeg you might explain the reasoning behind sttarngling a victim and then cutting the throa

                      What he told you isn't worth the paper it was written on, but that's your problem, and it's always been your problem.
                      You only choose to listen to people who say what you like to hear, regardless how contrary it is.

                      Modern medical opinion has helped us understand the methods for removing a kidney & a uterus.
                      Modern doctors are not normally experienced in the technique of cutting someone's throat. It tends to go against their hippocratic oath.
                      So you are saying that we should belive the Victorian doctors from 132 years ago instead of modern day experts whose expertise can now prove or disprove the opinions of the doctors back then with all the medical know how gained over the past 132 years.

                      Hav you not considered that the bruises could have been caused by the killer holding the victim by thenck/throat from behind before cutting the throat whilst still standing

                      You simply have no argument in this matter despite trying to create one and you are one on those who I refer to regularly who continue to prop up the old accpted facts despite what is put before you that negates much of those old accpeted facts. You argued about the apron piece stating that the organs had been take away in it and I proved you wrong on that.

                      I would suggest you buy a copy of my book and review all that Dr Biggs says about these murders because you clearly are p.....g in the wind.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Even FBI Profiler Roy Hazelwood was always careful not to out rightly accuse Kosminski. He always said the FBI profile fit a person like Kosminski but that doesn't mean he did it. So some professionals, even if getting paid, which I don't know if they do or not for these things, are careful not to be so dismissive of the 1888 details.

                        Columbo

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          So you are saying that we should belive the Victorian doctors from 132 years ago instead of modern day experts whose expertise can now prove or disprove the opinions of the doctors back then with all the medical know how gained over the past 132 years.

                          Hav you not considered that the bruises could have been caused by the killer holding the victim by thenck/throat from behind before cutting the throat whilst still standing

                          You simply have no argument in this matter despite trying to create one and you are one on those who I refer to regularly who continue to prop up the old accpted facts despite what is put before you that negates much of those old accpeted facts. You argued about the apron piece stating that the organs had been take away in it and I proved you wrong on that.

                          I would suggest you buy a copy of my book and review all that Dr Biggs says about these murders because you clearly are p.....g in the wind.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          I have a copy of your book. Why do you only suggest Dr. Biggs when you have a complete chapter dedicated to the medical aspect of the case with 3 other experts? I'm speaking of your book Jack the Ripper: the Secret Police Files. It's a very interesting chapter.

                          Columbo

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            So you are saying that we should belive the Victorian doctors from 132 years ago instead of modern day experts whose expertise can now prove or disprove the opinions of the doctors back then with all the medical know how gained over the past 132 years.
                            That all depends on what you are asking.
                            If we are talking about whether the victim was lying on the ground or standing, when the throat was cut - certainly, they saw the evidence in situ.
                            If you are asking about estimating a time of death, then no, we today know considerably more than they did. But that said, it is still recognised today that estimating a time of death has so many variables, and still is not an exact science.

                            Hav you not considered that the bruises could have been caused by the killer holding the victim by thenck/throat from behind before cutting the throat whilst still standing
                            Yes, and the bruise pattern (one the size of a thumb, the other size of 'fingers') means it was a right hand if the killer stood behind her. But, the throat would have to be cut by the right hand if that was the case. That's how we can rule that out.

                            You simply have no argument in this matter despite trying to create one and you are one on those who I refer to regularly who continue to prop up the old accpted facts despite what is put before you that negates much of those old accpeted facts.
                            Remind me when you have ever had even a handful of supporters following your train of thought.
                            My recollection is, constant criticism.

                            You argued about the apron piece stating that the organs had been take away in it and I proved you wrong on that.
                            That was another instance when you jumped to an erroneous conclusion. You argued it was an accepted fact, when it was nothing more than a suggestion. How you could prove it wrong was never clearly explained, though you insisted on it.

                            I would suggest you buy a copy of my book and review all that Dr Biggs says about these murders because you clearly are p.....g in the wind.
                            Of course you would, but you have chosen to discuss your book here on Casebook, and you have not weathered the storm very well at all. In fact your theory has drawn huge amounts of criticism from members here who know this case inside out.
                            It's just a shame some of the newer members have not yet come across those past threads where you talk about an 'apron of many pieces', and you not knowing the difference between blood spots & smears. Not forgetting that you have insisted that no-one reliable ever saw Eddowes wearing an apron that day.
                            And now you seem to have suggested that Dr Briggs knowledge of this case came entirely through you.

                            What have you said about "unreliable sources"?



                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Columbo View Post

                              Also most modern medical professionals pretty much believe the mutilations, outside of Kelly, would only take a few minutes, as opposed to the 1888 physicians who opined anywhere from 5-15 minutes, which given what we know about police patrolling routes at the time make that a little implausible.

                              Columbo
                              Yes, though surgeons of the time were trained to be slow & methodical. It was also expected that any person under the knife of the surgeon would eventually get up and walk away, that they would live.
                              The killer was not burdened by such expectations.
                              Even a surgeon dissecting a body in an autopsy had to be slow & methodical, he would not risk damaging another organ incase he destroyed evidence. Plus, everything done had to be written down by his assistant.
                              Oddly enough, the best professional to ask at the time would have been a battlefield surgeon, one attached to the military. In the US Civil War there are many accounts of hack-n-slash amputations performed out of necessity due to the shear number of casualties.
                              One with such experience could have provided a more accurate estimate on how fast an organ could have been removed.
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                                Final reply on this topic

                                If we are talking about whether the victim was lying on the ground or standing, when the throat was cut - certainly, they saw the evidence in situ.

                                They gave an opinion which was nothing more than guesswork and not to be taken as fact (see below)

                                Yes, and the bruise pattern (one the size of a thumb, the other size of 'fingers') means it was a right hand if the killer stood behind her. But, the throat would have to be cut by the right hand if that was the case. That's how we can rule that out.

                                If I can again refer to Dr Biggs interview which I hope will help you fully understand

                                Q. The
                                doctors in their reports offer opinions as to in which position the killer was with the victims when carrying out the murders. Are these opinions reliable or simply guesswork?


                                A. In answer to your question, it is impossible to say with certainty how the wounds were inflicted in terms of ‘reconstructing’ events from the appearance of wounds. This is something that used to be quite ‘popular’ even up until relatively late on in the 20thcentury, with pathologists stating confidently that a left-handed dwarf with a limp inflicted the injury from behind using a specific knife, etc. Nowadays it is accepted that there is so much variation that in such cases, apart from a few ‘extreme’ scenarios that can be more-or-less excluded, just about anything is possible.

                                Of course you would, but you have chosen to discuss your book here on Casebook, and you have not weathered the storm very well at all. In fact your theory has drawn huge amounts of criticism from members here who know this case inside out.

                                Knowing the case inside out does not make what that person states facts to be relied upon history facts are there to be challenged!!!!!!!!!!

                                It's just a shame some of the newer members have not yet come across those past threads where you talk about an 'apron of many pieces', and you not knowing the difference between blood spots & smears. Not forgetting that you have insisted that no-one reliable ever saw Eddowes wearing an apron that day.
                                And now you seem to have suggested that Dr Briggs knowledge of this case came entirely through you.

                                I stand by the results of my research which cast a major doubt about some of the old accepted facts in particular the apron piece

                                What have you said about "unreliable sources"?
                                I have said they are unreliable !!!!!!!!!!!

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk





                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X