Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    No defensive wounds on the hands or arms?

    And no one heard anyone cry out?
    What has any cry of anguish got to do with post mortem notes .
    Did they have a 'black box' ?

    and not having knife wounds on the hands is hardly the same as 'no struggle'

    You may recall Collard said there was no sign of a struggle about her clothing .
    Never mind that her dress was ripped at the top and with supposed knife holes and rips through four layers of clothing ..... but that's another thread as to what possessed him to claim that
    You can lead a horse to water.....

    Comment


    • Originally posted by packers stem View Post

      Care to give your explanation on how Dr Bond deduced, solely from his use of post mortem notes the following


      "In all the cases there appears to be no evidence of struggling and the attacks were probably so sudden and made in such a position that the women could neither resist nor cry out "
      You're asking what medical evidence could be found in a postmortem examination document to indicate the victim struggled, right?

      Doctor's interpret swollen finger nails, described as turgid, as an indication of the victim fighting back. The same with torn clothes, bruises and or cuts on the arms and hands, skin or blood under the fingernails.
      Would you disagree that these are quite reasonable indications of a struggle?

      The funny thing is, Chapman's fingernails were turgid and there were vertical scratches to her neck as if she had tried to pull something very tight from around her throat. Eddowes had some bruises on her hands. Kelly had small cuts to her forearm & thumb.
      So, it would appear Dr Bond was not really paying much attention because there certainly were some indications of a struggle.

      Or

      "in the first four cases the murderer must have attacked from the right side of the victim"

      I'm not sure why you want to keep digging this hole tbh
      This only refers to the cut to the throat being applied from the right side of the victim (ie, L-R), in most of the cases. Debatable with Kelly.

      See what I mean, rather than argue you only have to ask.
      Last edited by Wickerman; 06-16-2019, 09:27 PM.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        Because every single suspect that has ever been named was far more likely to have been Jack the Ripper than Sir William Gull as part of a Royal Conspiracy. Itís incredible that Iíve already explained to you how Simonís research showed that 1. Crook categorically wasnít a Catholic, 2. She categorically wasnít living at 6 Cleveland Street, 3. Annie Crook and Elizabeth Cook categorically werenít one and the same as Hans Christian Knight claimed, 4. Sickertís Cleveland Street studio, around which the conspiracy originated, categorically did not exist in 1888, and 5. The hospital that Knight said that Crook was taken to by the evil Gull categorically did not exist.

        How can your confidence in this theory survive so many hammer blows?

        Open your eyes Fishy. It never happened. It was made up.
        Harsh but true
        The errors were Knights
        I suspect strongly that it was Walters handiwork though and not Joseph's .
        Maybe the diaries too
        You can lead a horse to water.....

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

          You're asking what medical evidence could be found in a postmortem examination document to indicate the victim struggled, right?

          Doctor's interpret swollen finger nails, described as turgid, as an indication of the victim fighting back. The same with torn clothes, bruises and or cuts on the arms and hands, skin or blood under the fingernails.
          Would you disagree that these are quite reasonable indications of a struggle?

          The funny thing is, Chapman's fingernails were turgid and there were vertical scratches to her neck as if she had tried to pull something very tight from around her throat. Eddowes had some bruises on her hands. Kelly had small cuts to her forearm & thumb.
          So, it would appear Dr Bond was not really paying much attention because there certainly were some indications of a struggle.



          This only refers to the cut to the throat being applied from the right side of the victim (ie, L-R), in most of the cases. Debatable with Kelly.

          See what I mean, rather than argue you only have to ask.
          The upper part of the dress was open as if it had been pulled open.

          Brown on Eddowes

          So you're saying he didn't take much notice of the Chapman notes
          He didn't take much notice of Eddowes' clothing .
          The whole attack from the right is again down to Brown, nothing to do with the cut , it's down to Eddowes head tilting to the left and the idea that she bled out to the left , what tiny amount of blood there was .
          People presume too much .

          Still waiting for the explanation of how he knew that the "attacks were probably so sudden and made in such a position that the women could neither resist nor cry out "
          and how our genius knew this .
          Simple truth is that had Eddowes been on the ground , facing left with a killer holding her head with his left hand and cutting her throat with his right she had more than ample opportunity to cry out .
          Strangulation was not given as cause of death and there was no indication of it on Eddowes .

          As for your last point , think I'll pass lol
          You can lead a horse to water.....

          Comment


          • The upper part of the dress was open as if it had been pulled open.

            Brown on Eddowes
            Couldn't that have happened after she was dead?
            Regards

            Herlock






            "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              Couldn't that have happened after she was dead?
              Either way it happened before Bond got his hands on any notes so how could he possibly know the difference ?
              You can lead a horse to water.....

              Comment


              • Originally posted by packers stem View Post

                The upper part of the dress was open as if it had been pulled open.

                Brown on Eddowes

                So you're saying he didn't take much notice of the Chapman notes
                He didn't take much notice of Eddowes' clothing .
                The whole attack from the right is again down to Brown, nothing to do with the cut , it's down to Eddowes head tilting to the left and the idea that she bled out to the left , what tiny amount of blood there was .
                I have never been a defender of Dr. Bond, what we are talking about is where he obtained his information.

                You put some details (above) down to Dr. Brown, or course, he was the surgeon in charge, so he wrote the autopsy record.
                Also, the points you are making above are all part of the condition of the body when found in-situ at the crime scene. This is the normal preface to an autopsy report. There are details at the crime scene which are relevant to an autopsy so they need to be recorded.
                Read Dr. Phillips's autopsy of McKenzie, how does it start? - by making note of the condition of the body in-situ at the crime scene.

                Still waiting for the explanation of how he knew that the "attacks were probably so sudden and made in such a position that the women could neither resist nor cry out "
                and how our genius knew this
                Simply, because Bond concluded there was no evidence of a struggle, which was in fact incorrect.

                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by packers stem View Post
                  The upper part of the dress was open as if it had been pulled open.

                  Brown on Eddowes
                  Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  Couldn't that have happened after she was dead?
                  Normally, clothing is cut from a body.
                  The reason for this is that there can be clues in the buttoning of clothes that needs to be preserved. There could be hairs, fibers or stains on button holes. Likewise knots, they are not untied, the string is cut and duly noted.
                  Remember the description of the apron with "one string attached". Thats correct because the apron was tied on the body so to remove it without disturbing the knot requires the string to be cut at one point.


                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • You can't pick and choose what you want the autopsy report to read
                    IF you choose to add what Brown noted at the scene then you must surely concede that as much as anything else , the fact that Brown stated she had been dead for 30-40 minutes due to the body being warm and rigor not having commenced is likely to be of uppermost importance ?
                    For that reason , yes you are trying to defend Bond , you're defending the quite ridiculous 3-4 hours in the case of three victims .
                    What I'm saying is that he didn't read the notes or he did but he decided to ignore it for whatever reason .
                    Either way , his musings are completely irrelevant
                    You can lead a horse to water.....

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by packers stem View Post
                      You can't pick and choose what you want the autopsy report to read
                      You're really lost with this aren't you.

                      IF you choose to add what Brown noted at the scene then you must surely concede that as much as anything else , the fact that Brown stated she had been dead for 30-40 minutes due to the body being warm and rigor not having commenced is likely to be of uppermost importance ?
                      Brown only told the court his opinion of her being dead for 30-40 minutes, because the Coroner asked him. That is not a detail to put in an autopsy report, in part because such a conclusion can only be arrived at by comparing data from tests which are conducted both before & after the autopsy.

                      For that reason , yes you are trying to defend Bond , you're defending the quite ridiculous 3-4 hours in the case of three victims .
                      What I'm saying is that he didn't read the notes or he did but he decided to ignore it for whatever reason .
                      Either way , his musings are completely irrelevant
                      Explaining how Bond arrived at his conclusions is not defending him, it's more aligned with educating you, so you better understand where Bond was coming from.
                      Last edited by Wickerman; 06-17-2019, 12:21 AM.
                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        Thank you Harry

                        Although I have to admit to my part in sidetracking your thread.
                        No worries. I wrote it off years ago

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                          You're really lost with this aren't you.



                          Brown only told the court his opinion of her being dead for 30-40 minutes, because the Coroner asked him. That is not a detail to put in an autopsy report, in part because such a conclusion can only be arrived at by comparing data from tests which are conducted both before & after the autopsy.



                          Explaining how Bond arrived at his conclusions is not defending him, it's more aligned with educating you, so you better understand where Bond was coming from.

                          Not lost at all on any of it and when the insults arrive it's a good indication of being on the right track .

                          You have decided , for your own reasons , what is and what isn't in the autopsy reports .
                          I am guessing you are in possession of another of Browns reports that show he would document the scene but not mention the state of the body in terms of temperature and rigor .
                          Unless You can provide this you are arguing on a whim and belief .

                          You have also decided , for your own reasons , that Bond didn't do what he was asked to do which was to read the inquest reports .
                          So now you're doing the dance to try to persuade anybody who cares to listen that you are correct .

                          I won't stand for being told by someone who constantly toys with semantics that I require educating
                          You can lead a horse to water.....

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by packers stem View Post


                            Not lost at all on any of it and when the insults arrive it's a good indication of being on the right track .

                            You have decided , for your own reasons , what is and what isn't in the autopsy reports .
                            I pointed you to the McKenzie autopsy by Dr Phillips. If you bothered to read it you would see the description of the victim in situ is at the beginning of the autopsy report.
                            So, I know you are either not reading up, or you're just making things up.
                            Which is it?


                            I am guessing you are in possession of another of Browns reports that show he would document the scene but not mention the state of the body in terms of temperature and rigor .
                            Unless You can provide this you are arguing on a whim and belief .
                            You'll have to reword that, I don't know what you are referring to.

                            You have also decided , for your own reasons , that Bond didn't do what he was asked to do which was to read the inquest reports .
                            An inquest record (not report), is not an autopsy report. Anderson said "medical evidence from the inquest", not an "inquest report".

                            So now you're doing the dance to try to persuade anybody who cares to listen that you are correct .

                            I won't stand for being told by someone who constantly toys with semantics that I require educating
                            You certainly do need educating on the subject because your terminology is all over the place.

                            An inquest record is made up of "Witness testimony", "tangible evidence" (weapon?, apron? etc.) and "medical evidence" (the Autopsy report).
                            Anderson supplied the "medical evidence from the inquest" - which is the autopsy report, by itself!

                            This is what Anderson wrote:
                            "...(to Bond)...to ask you if you will be good enough to take up the medical evidence given at the several inquests"...

                            Anderson suggested Dr Bond use the autopsy reports to analyze the mutilations.

                            I'm inclined to think you are not using the correct terminology because you do not understand the issue we are debating.


                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                              I pointed you to the McKenzie autopsy by Dr Phillips. If you bothered to read it you would see the description of the victim in situ is at the beginning of the autopsy report.
                              So, I know you are either not reading up, or you're just making things up.
                              Which is it?
                              We're discussing Eddowes
                              Let me know when you've found one from Brown so you have something comparable giving your claims some validity .

                              There ya go .....reworded

                              An inquest record (not report), is not an autopsy report. Anderson said "medical evidence from the inquest", not an "inquest report".
                              Semantics.....again



                              This is what Anderson wrote:
                              "...(to Bond)...to ask you if you will be good enough to take up the medical evidence given at the several inquests"...
                              Keep reading that ..... write it as lines if you prefer seeing as you like to comment on education

                              MEDICAL EVIDENCE GIVEN AT THE SEVERAL INQUESTS

                              You can thank me when it sinks in .

                              Anderson suggested Dr Bond use the autopsy reports to analyze the mutilations.

                              I'm inclined to think you are not using the correct terminology because you do not understand the issue we are debating.

                              You have evidence for Anderson's suggestion and/or supply ?
                              Without Brown's autopsy report you provide nothing but assumptions with no basis in fact
                              You can lead a horse to water.....

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by packers stem View Post

                                We're discussing Eddowes
                                Let me know when you've found one from Brown so you have something comparable giving your claims some validity .

                                There ya go .....reworded
                                Oh, right, you think surgeon's made up their own procedures and documentation.

                                Do you know the difference between an inquest and a trial?, or the difference between a postmortem for an inquiry, and a postmortem for an inquest?
                                Do you know who has charge of the postmortem, and what role the coroner has in the selection of a surgeon to conduct a postmortem?
                                What you will find is that there are very rigid rules to be followed by all surgeons involved in a postmortem; Brown, Bond, Phillips, Blackwell, all of them follow the same rules and guidelines.
                                What Brown did was the same as Phillips, Bond, Blackwell, in fact any surgeon who came through the Royal College of Surgeon's. They all met the same criteria, the law required uniform observance, but of course this is all way beyond you....all you want to do is argue.


                                Keep reading that ..... write it as lines if you prefer seeing as you like to comment on education

                                MEDICAL EVIDENCE GIVEN AT THE SEVERAL INQUESTS

                                You can thank me when it sinks in .
                                Any entry level English student can explain what that means to you.

                                You have evidence for Anderson's suggestion and/or supply ?
                                You mean you haven't even read that for yourself?
                                It's in the "Ultimate", if you care to look.
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X