Is Mr Schwartz the equivalent of a Hasidic Hutchinson?

[perrymason]

As to the evidence that Israel Schwzrtz's story meant anything relevant to the investigators, and was considered as valued testimony.....still cant see anything that makes that a viable supposition. Based of course on the complete absence of him or his story on official Inquest recordings.

Best regards

[Chris]

perrymason

As I said, I simply don't have the time to waste on this.

If you want to believe "not more than 20 minutes, or 30 at the most" means "between 20 and 30 minutes", go right ahead. I can't believe anyone else shares your confusion.

And in any case, as drstrange169 points out, there's no way Blackwell could have had anything but the vaguest idea of when Stride died, on medical grounds.

[perrymason]

perrymason

As I said, I simply don't have the time to waste on this.

If you want to believe "not more than 20 minutes, or 30 at the most" means "between 20 and 30 minutes", go right ahead. I can't believe anyone else shares your confusion.

And in any case, as drstrange169 points out, there's no way Blackwell could have had anything but the vaguest idea of when Stride died, on medical grounds.

Hi Chris,

At the most her cut was a half hour old by his remarks. I think that's well within his deductive powers to discern that time frame. He did examine her onsite at 1:16am. He knew how long a severed artery would take to bleed out. He saw the congealed blood.

This guy was an expert, thats why he was brought there.

As to "confusion", I am able to read and interpret English. And as much as 1/2 hour back from 1:16am doesnt add up to a cut nearer to 1am.....only 16 minutes before his arrival. Did he even mention a time within 20 minutes before he arrived? Did he even so much as hint he thought it happened after 12:56am? Ill answer that, since you feel what he said means nothing anyway....he didnt.

The "confused" rests. Maybe he was interrupted by the idea that someone might come by in the next 5 or 10 minutes.

Best regards

[Tom_Wescott]

As to what his cut time estimate suggests Tom.....at least you have one supporter. I guess thats the difference between just reading something and trying to actually understand it...since the quote first sets a time almost in stone by the phase "not more than" and then is immediately followed by a time that was in fact MORE THAN, means 20 minutes or less to you and at least one other.

If you are suggesting that I have supporters in my thinking because I have tried to understand the evidence, not merely read it, then I thank you for that compliment.

Im always surprised when people support a partial quote. I think an entire quote is more meaningful and probably more revealing myself....certainly for the context. But I guess thats my radical use of logic and reason again....sorry.

Obviously, the quote is contradictory. That is why Dusty, Chris and myself are attempting to get to the root of Blackwell's thought on the matter. Far from 'supporting a partial quote', we're intrigued by the contradiction and working to explain it, free from theory bias.

Blackwell personally feels it was "no more than 20 minutes", which means 20 minutes on the outside. He then emphasizes that it could not have been more than 30 minutes, which I take to mean the non-medical evidence renders anything outside of 30 minutes next to impossible.

It might be inconvenient to some, but the truth is that if you were discussing the case with Blackwell himself and tried to argue that the murder occurred within the 20-30 minute frame, you would not find Blackwell in agreement. Therefore, it's not really fair to use him in backing up such an argument in writing.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

perrymason

As I said, believe what you like.

I don't believe anyone else has any difficulty whatsoever understanding the meaning of "not more than twenty minutes, or at the most half an hour".

As for what you say about Blackwell's ability to estimate the time of death accurately, it's sheer nonsense. As drstrange169 said, time of death can't be estimated that accurately even today with the benefit of modern measurement techniques. Do some reading, and you'll see he is right.

[Chris]

Tom

The real root of the problem is that the press reports of Blackwell's inquest testimony are contradictory:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=21678&postcount=192

All but two have some variant of the opinion that Stride had been dead not more than 20-30 minutes. Unfortunately two just say she had been dead 20-30 minutes. I think it's quite understandable that "not more than" could have been missed by a reporter, but obviously that's open to debate.

What's not acceptable is to try to twist the facts and pretend that - for example - a report that says "the woman could not have been dead more than twenty minutes or half an hour" actually means she must have been dead between 20 and 30 minutes.

[perrymason]

Not one quote says 20 minutes or less.

Best regards

[The Good Michael]

Not more than 20 minutes means 20 minutes or less. That is a fraction of a nanosecond to 20 minutes. It can only mean 20 minutes or less. Adding another 10 minutes confuses things, but together it would mean 30 minutes or less. It can mean nothing else.

Cheers,

Mike

[Jon Guy]

He did examine her onsite at 1:16am. He knew how long a severed artery would take to bleed out. He saw the congealed blood.

Hi Mike

According to the Times, Blackwell arrived at 1.10, and he states his estimate of T.O.D. was made then.

[Chris]

Of course there is the Star's version:
She could not have been dead more than twenty minutes, the body being perfectly warm.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881001.html

Edit:

This is from a separate statement issued by Blackwell before the inquest.

It is reported by the Times as follows:
Dr. Blackwell made a statement yesterday in which he said that about ten minutes past 1 in the morning he was called by a policeman to 40, Berners-street, where he found the body of the murdered woman. Her head had almost been severed from the body; the body was perfectly warm, and life could not have been extinct for more than 20 minutes. ...

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/times/18881001.html

This also makes it rather clear that his estimate of the time of death was based on post-mortem cooling.

[Chris]

According to the Times, Blackwell arrived at 1.10, and he states his estimate of T.O.D. was made then.

But a comparison between the versions of Blackwell's testimony in the Times and the Telegraph suggests that may be a misprint.

Times:
I live at 100, Commercial-road, and am a surgeon. At 10 minutes past 1 on Sunday morning I was called to 40, Berner-street. I was called by a policeman, and my assistant, Mr. Johnson, went back with him. I followed immediately I had dressed. I consulted my watch on my arrival, and it was just 1:10.

Telegraph:
I reside at No. 100, Commercial-road, and am a physician and surgeon. On Sunday morning last, at ten minutes past one o'clock, I was called to Berner-street by a policeman. My assistant, Mr. Johnston, went back with the constable, and I followed immediately I was dressed. I consulted my watch on my arrival, and it was 1.16 a.m.

Clearly it would have taken several minutes for him to get dressed and walk to the murder site.

[Tom_Wescott]

Chris, et al

Yes, the Times misprinted the time. It was 1:16, not 1:10. As far as the Stride murder goes, the Times made a ridiculous number of errors.

And yes, "not more than 20 minutes" can only mean 20 minutes or less. If Michael or someone else wants it to be 30 or 40 minutes or 2 hours, that's their business, but they can't expect to receive any agreement.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[perrymason]

Chris, et al

Yes, the Times misprinted the time. It was 1:16, not 1:10. As far as the Stride murder goes, the Times made a ridiculous number of errors.

And yes, "not more than 20 minutes" can only mean 20 minutes or less. If Michael or someone else wants it to be 30 or 40 minutes or 2 hours, that's their business, but they can't expect to receive any agreement.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom,

When the Inquest quotes for Blackwell from the Telegraph on this site say.....

Blackwell-"I consulted my watch on my arrival, and it was 1.16 a.m."

Coroner-"Did you form any opinion as to how long the deceased had been dead?" Blackwell-" From twenty minutes to half an hour when I arrived."

Blackwell-"She would have bled to death comparatively slowly on account of vessels on one side only of the neck being cut and the artery not completely severed."

...a conclusion that what he meant was that the wound occurred "not more than 20 minutes" before his arrival would obviously not be consistent with his comments.

He clearly says...."from 20 minutes to half an hour".

Just as I have been suggesting he said.

Best regards

[Chris]

perrymason

The Telegraph and the Times say Blackwell said that. All the other newspapers say Blackwell said something quite different.

Can you really not grasp that?

[perrymason]

perrymason

The Telegraph and the Times say Blackwell said that. All the other newspapers say Blackwell said something quite different.

Can you really not grasp that?

This argument is similar to one I had that suggests a single description of a location proximity one paper invalidates the 8 or so contradictory ones.

The quote I used isnt vague, isnt grammatically and logically incorrect as some others are, ..some you may prefer, but unless I see something flagrantly wrong with a quote that is in effect substantiated, but likely misquoted, in other papers, I dont see reason to discard it as you do Chris.

Youve made a statement, so has Tom....so produce the single quote that says he said "NOT more than 20 minutes" without any additional time subsequently added, and clearly suggesting that the cut was by his remarks made after 12:56am.

Can I grasp this indeed ...maybe you should get over yourself and put up or shut up.

Post your quote....and substantiate what you claim....or save your tripe for lunch. On What basis do you question the veracity of that recording of his statement?

Best regards