Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

    I suspect many are not aware of that Jon.

    Steve
    We used to have Stewart Evans, Paul Begg, Martin Fido, and a few other notables, all contributing in the first 5-10 years or so.
    It was a great source for anyone interested in the police side of the case, and professional research methods.
    Casebook was hacked not long after it began, I think between 2000-2003, we lost almost everything on the Message Boards. So we slowly rebuilt each thread, and the funny thing was the guy who hacked us came back and apologized, he became a member.
    Not to go off on a tangent.....
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Lewis C View Post

      I didn't know that. Interesting.
      Yes, although we have the Maybrick theory to thank for the creation of Casebook, I don't think it has helped with the credibility of the study of the Jack the Ripper murders.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

        Yes, although we have the Maybrick theory to thank for the creation of Casebook, I don't think it has helped with the credibility of the study of the Jack the Ripper murders.
        I agree.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

          Can you show me any inquest evidence where the doctor in Eddowes case actually incorporated police times to arrive at t.o.d . ?
          Dr Phillips gave a window of within an hour TOD of arriving at Liz's murder site.

          'No such within an hour with Annie.

          The experienced doctor who was there, at the time. He observed two very different stages of decomposition.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Hair Bear View Post

            If you're struggling to eat enough each day, would you not stuff down whatever you could?
            Annie didn't usually. As you said: "great deprivation", and so why on this particular day is Annie inundated with food when she wasn't on any other given day?

            Originally posted by Hair Bear View Post

            Who would sell food? Who said she bought it?
            Where did she get it from then?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              The Doctor didn’t say that they were potatoes in her stomach. Why did she have to have bought food? How do you know that she didn’t have some item of food in her pocket? How do you know that she didn’t have two potatoes on her and cooked one in the lodging house and one later on? Or that she cooked both but only ate one. Or that a friend didn’t give her some food? You’re talking about these women as if food was easy to come by for them. As if they could just nip into a Starbucks whenever they felt peckish. They ate whenever they could. Whenever the opportunity arose. If some friend of hers offered to share a bit of food with her why would she have turned it down when she wouldn’t have known when she would get the next opportunity. She would hardly have said “no thanks, I’ve already had a potato in the last 15 hours I could manage another morsel.” Prostitutes were known to, on occasions, sell themselves for a crust of bread.

              So the ‘sell’ is a red herring. It’s also the case that some people with illnesses have slower metabolisms.
              It's a post of 'what ifs'.

              Annie had eaten at 1.45am. Annie had gone out to get money for her bed, in her words. Of course Annie isn't eating again at 3 or 4 in the morning or whatever. Furthermore, nobody is going to be serving food at that time, the vendors are asleep. There's no business for them. Supposedly Annie isn't seen for the best part of 4 hours because there's nobody around, and so who in their right mind is trying to sell food when there's nobody around?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post


                She didn't hear the 5.15 chime . She heard the 5.30
                Odd isn't it.

                All of these witnesses are supposedly straight down the line, had it all right, and we should accept them over the medical evidence.

                Except of course when the witnesses don't fit the theory, and then it's a case of: "well, the witnesses got everything else right but not this one that we need to manipulate in order to make it all fit".

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                  We used to have Stewart Evans, Paul Begg, Martin Fido, and a few other notables, all contributing in the first 5-10 years or so.
                  It was a great source for anyone interested in the police side of the case, and professional research methods.
                  Casebook was hacked not long after it began, I think between 2000-2003, we lost almost everything on the Message Boards. So we slowly rebuilt each thread, and the funny thing was the guy who hacked us came back and apologized, he became a member.
                  Not to go off on a tangent.....

                  At least Christer apologized in the end...

                  ha ha!


                  Jokes!


                  RD


                  "Great minds, don't think alike"

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                    What an odd interpretation of my post.

                    My argument is that we cannot fix any time to the absolute times used in so many "Theories".

                    The theory may well still stand up to scrutiny, just the exact times used are pointless.
                    So if a theory requires an event to occur at shall we say pricisely 01.15, or it fails, then it will fail.
                    If a time between 01.10 and 01.20 is all that's needed it will not fail.

                    While Long and Cadosch may be out by a few minutes on the time quoted, such in No way devalues the rest of the content of their statements.
                    We know the rough time frames both are talking about, between roughly 3.15 and 3.30.
                    With Richardson, we know he checks before leaving the house. So again while the pricise time he gives may be inaccurate, we have a rough window, say 4.45-05.00
                    He says there was no body.

                    Against this we have the fantasy, and that is the correct word, that 19th century Doctors had a magical ability to fix TOD, without the methods used today.

                    The 3 C5 TODs that are basically accepted, Nichols, Stride and Eddowes, are I submit , in part due to the witness statements of the police on the beat and the times they mention.
                    In all 3 cases the police say the body was not there on the last beat.

                    In Nichols and Stride that gives aapprox a 30 minute window that is used by the doctors.
                    With Eddowes, that window is even tighter, 15 minutes at most.

                    There was/is no way, one could fix a TOD to within 30-40 minutes otherwise.

                    Steve
                    A very good post Steve. What we always have to keep in mind is that witnesses will speak in points but the researcher must interpret in ranges.

                    - Jeff

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                      Odd isn't it.

                      All of these witnesses are supposedly straight down the line, had it all right, and we should accept them over the medical evidence.

                      Except of course when the witnesses don't fit the theory, and then it's a case of: "well, the witnesses got everything else right but not this one that we need to manipulate in order to make it all fit".
                      The witnesses and the medical evidence do not conflict. I find it odd that people want to throw out evidence when there is no indication of it being wrong, other than the fact it must be thrown out in order to provide a window wide enough to place the murder before 4:30. There's a lot of entirely consistent evidence being tossed just to be left with medical testimony that still doesn't even rule out 5:20-5:30ish as the ToD.

                      - Jeff

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                        Dr Phillips gave a window of within an hour TOD of arriving at Liz's murder site.

                        'No such within an hour with Annie.

                        The experienced doctor who was there, at the time. He observed two very different stages of decomposition.
                        With all due respect, ALL I see is an unrealistic faith in the medical ability and knowledge of doctors in 1888.

                        The reason the doctors give a different time scale is I submit largely due to the presence of a policeman some thirty minutes before the body is found in Berner Street, and no such report from Hanbury street.

                        I am sorry my friend, but you are assigning skills to the doctors that they simply did not have.


                        Steve

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                          Odd isn't it.

                          All of these witnesses are supposedly straight down the line, had it all right, and we should accept them over the medical evidence.

                          Except of course when the witnesses don't fit the theory, and then it's a case of: "well, the witnesses got everything else right but not this one that we need to manipulate in order to make it all fit".
                          You talk of medical evidence, so I wonder would you care to explain what method the doctors used to determine TOD.

                          A method that is know to be reasonable accurate and avaliable in 1888.

                          Steve

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                            It's a post of 'what ifs'.

                            Annie had eaten at 1.45am. Annie had gone out to get money for her bed, in her words. Of course Annie isn't eating again at 3 or 4 in the morning or whatever. Furthermore, nobody is going to be serving food at that time, the vendors are asleep. There's no business for them. Supposedly Annie isn't seen for the best part of 4 hours because there's nobody around, and so who in their right mind is trying to sell food when there's nobody around?
                            And yours is a post of ‘i don’t have a single clue what she did between 1.45 and her death but I know that she didn’t…” How does that make sense on planet Earth? It’s clearly a case of you wanting a particular outcome. You can’t have a complete absence of information then attempt to shoehorn a ‘known’ into place just to make a point.

                            You repeat this fallacy that the only way Annie could have gotten food was by purchasing it after 1.45. It’s a straw man argument. You completely, and very conveniently, ignore the fact that she might have already had some item of food in her possession. Or that she might have spent some time with a friend who shared some food with her. Or that she stole some food from the lodging house kitchen. She might have had se for food….yes she wanted cash but if it was on offer with no alternative at the time would someone in her position turn it down when she wouldn’t have known where her next meal would come from. So why do you keep pushing this ‘vendor’ nonsense?

                            Digestion can only be used in test for T0D when we know for a 100% certainty when she last ate and we clearly don’t know this. And we know that certain illnesses/conditions can slow down digestion too so why is this ignored?

                            And clearly the streets would have been entirely deserted unless you think that she was the only homeless person around, or that no one was going to work, or returning from work? Or that there were Constable’s patrolling or night watchmen on duty. She wasn’t seen because she was invisible. She was one of thousands that no one paid much, if any, attention to.

                            You can’t invent a ‘known’ in an effort to skew the ToD evidence which overwhelmingly points to around 5.30.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                              You talk of medical evidence, so I wonder would you care to explain what method the doctors used to determine TOD.

                              A method that is know to be reasonable accurate and avaliable in 1888.

                              Steve
                              But Phillips was a magician Steve. Didn’t you know? He was 100 years ahead of his time and a man who could take a temperature just by the touch of his wizards fingers.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                But Phillips was a magician Steve. Didn’t you know? He was 100 years ahead of his time and a man who could take a temperature just by the touch of his wizards fingers.
                                Sadly, it seems people do believe this stuff Herlock, DESPITE what medical science actually says.

                                Steve

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X