Let there be light!

[Pierre]

Well if, as you admit, Dr Bond said that the time of the murder was one OR two o'clock then you definitely altered his conclusion in your timeline by claiming that he had said that the murder had been carried out at two o'clock. He didn't say this. You changed his conclusion for your own purposes. I was, therefore, perfectly entitled to accuse you of altering Dr Bond's conclusion because that's precisely what you did.

OK. You do not understand the word "or". So you are not serious when you discuss the subject. Therefore, I will not waste any more time on you in it. I know that you will come back and continue with your lies about me. I do not have "purposes". But you have. The next time you make up lies about me I will contact admin.

[Pierre]

you're missing:

4am - time the lamp post in Miller's court shuts off.

Hi John,

What is the source for this?

Kind regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Since Dr Bond stated that "the period varies from 6 to 12 hours before rigidity sets in." TOD could have been at 8 in the morning, since it had set in at 2am. But he gives 1 or 2 oīclock in the night as possible TOD. And this correlates with the witnesses statements about light in the room and with the scream

It doesn't correlate at all. The scream was at about 3.45am, a full hour and 45 minutes after the latest time of death estimated by Dr Bond. So the scream, on the face of it, has nothing to do with the time of death. Further, no witness statements referred to any light in the room at 1 or 2 o'clock so how does the absence of light in a room correlate with someone being murdered in that room?

[David Orsam]

. 8 in the morning was the last possible TOD but did not correlate with any light time period or any witness statements. So we must exclude that possible TOD and follow the sources where they takes us: To the TOD given by Dr Bond and the possible times given by the witnesses. [/B]

8 in the morning was NOT, of course, the "last possible TOD". What about between 9am and 10am? That correlates with Mrs Maxwell seeing Kelly alive at that time doesn't it?

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre,

what happened to 4-5 am? Dark or light period?
I think this is quite a crucial time window when mutilations are concerned. Did you leave it out of the analysis on purpose?

I had also highlighted in a previous thread (entitled 'Elizabeth Prater - Key Witness') the curious fact that the coroner did not ask Prater whether or not she had seen any light emit from the boards of Mary Kelly's room at 5am.
The failure to put this question on record is still incomprehensible to me.

Best regards
IchabodCrane

Hi IchabodCrane,

The sources for that time period is of rather low validity since all we know is:

Dark time period 2:

05.00-05.45 Prater going to The Ten Bells (not stating a word about light or darkness)

Since Prater says nothing, we can not know anything about this period. The scream was not observed in this time period and there is not one statement of any activity or light seen in the room, so we can only hypothesize that it was dark.

I donīt know why they did not ask her about the light at that time. Perhaps they did not consider it relevant, even if we think it should have been relevant.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

8 in the morning was NOT, of course, the "last possible TOD". What about between 9am and 10am? That correlates with Mrs Maxwell seeing Kelly alive at that time doesn't it?

According to Bond, rigor had already set in.

And Mrs Maxwell is NOT a reliable source.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

OK. You do not understand the word "or". So you are not serious when you discuss the subject. Therefore, I will not waste any more time on you in it. I know that you will come back and continue with your lies about me. I do not have "purposes". But you have. The next time you make up lies about me I will contact admin.

Good luck in contacting admin with a complaint about me saying that you had changed the conclusion of Dr Bond.

Dr Bond: "one or two in the morning would be the probable time of the murder".

You: "02.00 TOD (time of death) according to Dr Bond".

I'd love to hear you explain to admin how you hadn't changed Dr Bond's conclusion there, coz you certainly haven't done so on this forum.

[David Orsam]

According to Bond, rigor had already set in.

That's fine Pierre, but rigor can set in almost immediately after death, certainly within 30 minutes of death.

That's what Dr Bond didn't know.

[Pierre]

That's fine Pierre, but rigor can set in almost immediately after death, certainly within 30 minutes of death.

That's what Dr Bond didn't know.

Yes, it can, when you use the scientific, technical, biochemical instruments of 2016 to measure it. Bond did not have those methods in 1888.

Thatīs what you donīt know.

[David Orsam]

And Mrs Maxwell is NOT a reliable source.

We're back to a circular argument.

Why was Mrs Maxwell not a reliable source? Because Kelly was dead before 9am. How can we say Kelly was dead before 9am in view of Mrs Maxwell's evidence? Because Mrs Maxwell was not a reliable source.

That's all I've heard from you basically.

[David Orsam]

Yes, it can, when you use the instrument of 2016 to measure it. Bond did not have those methods.

Well I agree with you Pierre. And that means that Dr Bond's estimate of the time of death was wrong, being based on a faulty premise, doesn't it?

[John G]

Yes, it can, when you use the scientific, technical, biochemical instruments of 2016 to measure it. Bond did not have those methods in 1888.

Thatīs what you donīt know.

Hello Pierre,

Forgive me, but I'm a bit confused by this post. Are you saying that rigor couldn't set in within, say, 30 minutes, in 1888 simply because it couldn't be accurately measured at that time? If not, what exactly are you saying?

[Elamarna]

Yes, it can, when you use the scientific, technical, biochemical instruments of 2016 to measure it. Bond did not have those methods in 1888.

Thatīs what you donīt know.

Actually Pierre, that is not how The Onset of Rigor Mortis is detected.



Steve

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;375389]

Hi Steve,

This will help you:

Nokes, Leonard Derek Martin, Henssge, C., Knight, B. H., Madea, B. and Krompecher, T. 2002. The estimation of the time since death in the early postmortem period (2nd Edition). London: Hodder Arnold.

"Abstract

This internationally recognized source book is now referred to in court cases around the world. It deals with all aspects of scientific estimation of time since death, emphasising the practical application to the work of the forensic pathologist. The new edition includes completely rewritten chapters on lividity and thanatochemistry, changes in infants and children after death and gastric contents. Clinical cases have been added to illustrate the points made. The latest research has been taken into account on key issues such as rigor mortis."

ISBN:
9780340719602

URI:

http://orca.cf.ac.uk/id/eprint/2118

Kind regards, Pierre

Pierre

you have not answered the questions you were asked?

When someone states categorically that there have been changes in a method of examination, and they are asked what those changes are: the minimum that is normally expected in reply is a brief explanation of those changes.

what was supplied as an answer was a link to a publication of a book published in 2002, which includes the abstract in your post.

The site says "Full text not available from this repository."

One has to ask, have YOU actually read this publication? Or is the source the result of an internet search?

Do You know what the changes in method are? that is the question you were asked.

regards

steve

[David Orsam]

Hello Pierre,

Forgive me, but I'm a bit confused by this post. Are you saying that rigor couldn't set in within, say, 30 minutes, in 1888 simply because it couldn't be accurately measured at that time? If not, what exactly are you saying?

Can I second this question.