John Richardson

[Lewis C]

I've always assumed that if Cadosche heard Chapman and her killer when he went in his yard, he must have entered his yard after they entered theirs. However, It has occurred to me that maybe there is another possibility. Maybe Chapman and her killer entered the yard while Cadosche was in the loo, and being in the loo prevented him from hearing their entry. This assumes that the loo has a door that would have been shut. If this theory is realistic, it has the advantage of reducing the discrepancy between Cadosche's testimony and and Long's testimony by 2 or 3 more minutes.

[Michael W Richards]

I've always assumed that if Cadosche heard Chapman and her killer when he went in his yard, he must have entered his yard after they entered theirs. However, It has occurred to me that maybe there is another possibility. Maybe Chapman and her killer entered the yard while Cadosche was in the loo, and being in the loo prevented him from hearing their entry. This assumes that the loo has a door that would have been shut. If this theory is realistic, it has the advantage of reducing the discrepancy between Cadosche's testimony and and Long's testimony by 2 or 3 more minutes.

When you start imaging comings and goings happening with precise times you invariably will have trouble. And its not clear that Cadosche did in fact use the loo when "relieving himself". He did however note that he had heard sounds from the yard of #29 before, so it stands to reason then that his statement that he believed the sounds were from that yard, can be accepted. The timings, as some are intent on dismissing offhandedly, do suggest that when Cadosche heard the sounds, both sounds, the same party was in that yard and it almost without doubt would have been Annie and her killer. 4:45-no-one there, 5:15 and 5:20-voice, then thud sounds, 5:45-6am-found dead. If she is killed in that yard, and that seems to be without question, then we need to allow time for the cutting and the unseen exit.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Fishy,

Hi Jeff , you make some interesting points for sure, one in perticular about which side of the yard the the 'NO'came from, I.E was it the left hand side or right hand of 29 or was it the 25 side or 29 side. Ive brought this point up myself in the past, and if im right in reading your above post your of the belief like me there is no way of knowing what Cadosch meant unless he was asked to elaborate on that point by the Coroner during his inqust testimony.

Language is always a problem with witness statements. Common sense tells people that we can say things clearly and unambiguously, but in reality, language is actually pretty vague much of the time. We put an idea, or concept, into words and think we've been crystal clear, and yet the receiver of that information very often misunderstands something. Having marked many a student paper, and having submitted many papers for peer review, I am very familiar with this aspect of language. Reviewers will often point out aspects of the text that to me were absolutely clear and unambiguous which they have interpreted almost back to front! And when they point it out, it then dawns upon me how the phrasing, so clear to me, is not so clear when let loose into the wild.

This is why witness statements, and interviews, last so long. It's not a matter of saying something once, but the same basic things have to be talked about for a while to pull out all the details and to ensure that what they mean is clearly conveyed. A lot of information gets left out, or, as per Cadosche above, might be open to different possible meanings even though Cadosche himself would have only meant a particular meaning.

This is why Richardson's story, where we get a clearer picture of his activities over time, is not a big deal. That's what happens. His first interactions with the police will focus on the big main central point, which was that he was there to check the lock at just before 5:00 am and Annie was not. As we look at other tellings more details, less central to that point, are filled in, but critically nothing in the central plot changes. (If he said something like, "Ok, I didn't go to check the lock, I was there to clean up the back yard." or "Ok, it was actually around 3:00 am", etc, then we would have reason to be suspicious because now he's changing the story rather than filling in details that don't contradict the original (remember, fixing his boot wasn't why he went to #29, it was just something he did while there because it was convenient to do so).

With the inquest testimonies, we only have access to relatively short presentations, with only a few clarification questions being asked. If we had the police interviews, we would see a much more thorough coverage and I am sure we would be able to determine exactly what Cadosche meant.

If ive leant one thing from my time here, is that the Evidence in all the JtR murders can be, and is often interpreted by many people in many different ways .

In saying that, i believe one could argue the point either way and rightly so as to what Cadosch meant, to add support to any arguement for an earlier or later t.o.d.

One has to be careful, though. While one can point out that Cadosche might have meant A or B, all that does is show that we cannot be sure which way his testimony points, we cannot use it as "weight" to our arguement though. For example, I cannot say that "He could just mean either side of the yard, therefore his statement more strongly supports a later ToD than an earlier", that would be invalid because his statement could also mean different yards. Viewed in isolation, we would treat each as equally likely.

However, the location of his fence noise is unambiguous. What caused that noise is unknown. For an earlier ToD, we need his first statement to mean different yards, and we need an explanation for the noise. For a later ToD, the same explanation accounts for both (Annie and JtR are in the yard, and JtR bumps the fence).

While I'm not saying this is definitive, when one explanation starts to account for multiple ambiguous bits of evidence that require separate explanations in a second theory, that amounts to support (not proof mind you), of the single account explanation. As a result, that means the later ToD does come out as the preferred theory, even though none of the evidence is sufficient to prove it, when one views all of it, later is the better theory than earlier.

Im sure your aware that i happen to support and earlier time of death in the Chapman case ,as my interpretation of the evidence in that perticular event suggest to me that was indeed possible. For that to be so the witnesses would have to be wrong and or mistaken,[they dont even need to have lied as some have suggested ,just wrong or mistaken would suffice] and yes Dr Phillips testimony would indeed need to be reasonably accurate in that the body was deceased for two hours probably more .

As I've been at pains to point out, an earlier ToD is possible. But anything that doesn't violate the laws of the universe is possible, but that doesn't make all things equally probable, or equally supported by the evidence. As a silly example, and meaning no disrespect, it is possible that an escaped chimp was on the loose, attacking people. After all, chimps exist, they are very strong, they can be very violent, they can escape areas in ways that humans cannot. Therefore, it is entirely "possible" that the reason the JtR murders have never been solved is because we're looking for a human. However, while I could create all sorts of possible sequences of events to keep my chimp (or aardvark perhaps) in the picture, I would hope nobody every elevates that idea to be considered probable.

What I'm getting at is this simple rule. Just because something is possible doesn't make it probable. We are trying to work out the probable sequence of events. When the information is not sufficient to rule one sequence as probable, and all others as improbable, we may end up with multiple theories/explanations that range in probability, from highest to "lowest worthy of consideration".

In the Chapman case, with respect to the ToD, later is more probable than earlier, though both remain worthy of consideration. My chimp theory, however, does not make the cut, and I can scream "It is possible" all I want, but nobody should listen to me on that point.

Although both earlier and later are possible, and worthy of consideration, later is the more probable given the information we have. However, one is not obliged to support the theory that comes out on top with regards to how theory and evidence is evaluated. You are, of course, fully free to support the less probable, but still sufficiently probable to remain in the running. idea of an earlier ToD. Sometimes the less probable does happen. I would, however, suggest a break if you start supporting my above chimp story.

Now , as has been pointed out on many many occasions during this debate, that medical evidence of the Drs in Victorian times cant be relied upon to establish an accurate definitive time of death. [by modern day medical experts]. So has it also been shown by modern day experts who warn against and advise caution when using witness testimony, again to reach a definitive conclusion for obvious human error reasons what ever the circumstance ,in this case a later t.o.d


Now that its been shown that the both witnesses and Drs face the exactly same dilemma, we are left with [in Annie Chapmans case ] whether one supports one or the other when trying to establish an accurate t.o.d..

My main reason [just one i might add] for supporting Dr Phillips in the Chapman case is ,and dont get me wrong im fully aware of their limitation when it come to their ablitity to definitive give an accurate t.od ,but as Doctors even victorian times Doctors must surley be given there degree of expertise in their field to establish an reasonable accurate conlusion when ask to do so by a coroner . Guesswork is not a term i would use for any doctor at anypoint in time when giving a medical opinion as some have suggested.

Sorry Fishy, but on this there is simply no debate. Even today the ability to estimate the ToD is not sufficient to produce the degree of reliability that you are arguing for. It's not really a "guess" in the pluck a number out of a hat type, but it is still an estimation, possibily based upon an equation which uses an internal body temperature reading. However, that equation (1 hour/degree F lost) will include assumed values (such as the person's starting body temperature), which immediately means there will be about +-1 hour of error introduced to the estimate as normal temperature in people ranges between 97 and 99F. The usual assumed temperature is 98.6, so as you may see, there is more room to overestimate the time than underestimate from that source of error.

Anyway, with regards to the doctors being influenced by other information, it would be odd if they did not factor that information in. If they determined that yes, everything medical is consistent with the murder happening during the police rounds, then that would help them narrow their estimate. If, however, they found that the medical evidence was not consistent with a murder during the police rounds, then that might lend support to the murder occurring elsewhere and the body being dumped there after the fact.

Of the C5, only Chapman and Kelly are killed in a location where there wasn't a regular patrol involved that helped to narrow the window of opportunity. And those are the two murders where the ToD estimations are less precise. I believe a 6 hour window is presented for Kelly (note, +-3 hours is a 6 hour window), and with Chapman we have a stated time, then possibly more, and finally the caveated that indicates as also possibly less. The doctors in those cases are signalling their awareness of the imprecise nature of ToD estimations. In all the cases where they appear very accurate, those are the cases where we know they are accurate due witness statements, and there is no reason to believe the doctors were unaware of that same information.

Adding to that, ive mentioned and compared the ability and knowledge as Doctors of both Blackwell and Brown in the Eddowes and Stride murders, whos t.o.d medical opinion when asked to do so were within minutes of the actual Murders. As yet i havent seen one shread of documented evidence where by both Drs used any witnesses testimony [i.e police beat times ,or any other outside influences etc ] other than their own expert medical opinions when giving such important information.

IF one wants to argue that somehow they were influenced by witnesses times to assist their opinions, they should at least provide some evidence to support this and not just claim ifs, buts, and maybys, or they must have. etc.

Given that we know ToD estimations are not as accurate or as reliable as you are presenting them to be, the fact that in those cases you mention above the doctor's appear to be that precise is the evidence that they are using additional information. It is not possible to be that precise otherwise because the estimation of ToD is, by it's very nature, highly imprecise and associated with very large ranges. Two cases that appear identical can, and generally do, produce very different estimates for the ToD. This is why I keep pushing the point we have to include that error range, and when we do, we see that Dr. Phillip's estimate for Annie does not rule out either an earlier or later ToD - so his estimate is not in conflict with the witness statements (or, if you prefer, the witness statements do not conflict with Dr. Phillip's estimated ToD).

So as you yourself suggested ,if we remove the witnesses in Eddowes and Strides cases ,were Brown and Blackwell right as a result of guessswork ? or were they right as Medical Doctors with their own ablity to determind how long a body has been dead for ? regardless of what methods they used and that may have available to them.

If we choose to Remove the witnesses from the Chapman murder, should we not view Phillips estimate and expert medical opinion in the same way?

We should view all of them the same way, with a +-3 hour margin of error if that's what you mean.

Its my opinion that when assessing All the evidence ,even tho others may favour a later t.o.d overwhelmingly more than an earlier, i dont see it that way at all . An earlier t.o.d is equally on the cards for just some of the reasons ive mentioned above .

An earlier ToD is, of course, still possible and sufficiently probable that we cannot rule it out entirely, but it is not equally probable as the later ToD. The information we have, while insufficient to definitively prove either, is better explained by a later ToD than an earlier one. You can still have a personal preference for the earlier ToD, but in terms of how information/evidence is used to evaluate and rank theories, the ranking goes:
1st: Later ToD
2nd: earlier ToD
out of the running: Chimp

Anyway, what I'm trying to get across here is that how theories are evaluated and ranked is not the same thing as which one you or I choose to prefer. There are methods by which information and theory get evaluated, while our preferences are influenced by all sorts of things, including our own subjective natures and biases. Those subjective things can sometimes lead us to the correct answer, or encourage us to look for information that might change how those theories get evaluated (i.e. I might look for evidence of chimp hair at the scenes of the crimes, to find that the complete lack of it supports my zoo coverup theory). But sometimes they can lead us astray as well. Because I've spent decades doing research, I focus on the evaluation rankings, but when I design experiments and so forth, I also look for potential outcomes that if found could potentially change those rankings.

With JtR, unfortunately, that change would require the uncovering of some new information that tips the scales in favour of an earlier ToD. Currently, the information favours the later ToD though; but as I say, it does not conclusively prove it.

- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Herlock,

It makes perfect sense when the complete quote is examined:

It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from.

You will recall that in one of the Stride threads you were adamant that the Victorian phrase "I should think" meant the person was guessing or estimating. So in the above quote Cadosch is saying I'm sure it didn't come from our yard, and I'm guessing that it might have come from the No 29 side, but I can't really say which side it came from. He wasn't talking about ends, he was talking about sides.

Of the six reports of the inquest, five were in the narrative form and only The Telegraph reported the actual questions and answers, which is less open to reporter interpretation than the narrative.

And you will note that Casebook always uses The Telegraph's reports of inquests.

Cheers, George

What isn't discussed much, George, and probably never has been; is why Albert couldn't determine the direction of the "no".

The human brain understands the direction of sound due to the difference in volume when hitting the right and left ear. Obviously, a sound to your left means there is obstruction in your senses prior to the sound hitting your right ear and as a result the sound is of a lower volume when in the right ear. It follows that when a noise is coming from your left or right it's very easy to determine the direction of that sound.

Albert had just reached the door, supposedly Annie is not far away at all to his left. Why didn't he know the direction of that sound?

On the other hand, the most difficult place from which to determine the direction of sound, is when it's coming from in front of you and that's because the sound hits your right and left ear at the same time and at the same volume.

[GBinOz]

Hi George

Everyone seems to keep quoting from newspaper articles and we know they are unsafe to rely on and as can be seen they even conflict with each other.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I agree, it's frustrating, but were it not for the newspaper reports, would sites like this one even exist?

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

"I heard a very loud noise from just outside. There was no serial killer there"

You know that for a fact? (joke)

I'm pretty sure. If I could just find my wife I'd ask her if she noticed anything.

[GBinOz]

Sorry Fishy, but on this there is simply no debate. Even today the ability to estimate the ToD is not sufficient to produce the degree of reliability that you are arguing for.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

"the degree of reliability" is the key. Consider a table upon which are a can of beer and a mug of coffee. If you pick up the can you can tell if it has just come from the fridge, or has been sitting there over night. Likewise with the mug, it is discernable whether the coffee has been made fresh or is a remnant of the previous night's activities. Subjectivity will play a very small part in these judgements, and common sense tells us that, if the beer just came out of the fridge and the coffee is freshly made, it will be some considerable time before they feel like they are the same temperature. To say that the time will be more than 20 minutes does not require a high level of perception or expertise.

This is how I view the comparison between the bodies of Chapman and Eddowes with the former being cold and the latter warm. The difference is just too large to be explained in terms of 20 to 30 minutes. JMO

Best regards, George

[FISHY1118]

And all that’s being suggested is that Phillips lower estimate was out by a mere 50 minutes or so. Therefore you’re suggesting extreme accuracy. Phillips wasn’t an expert in Forensics. He was simply a Doctor. No more qualified to assess ToD than a G.P would be today.

Another point is on unreliability. Yes, witnesses can be unreliable but not all of them. Only some. Some are perfectly reliable. But that’s not the case with a Victorian Doctor because the experts tells us that the methods he employed for estimating ToD were always unreliable methods. They weren’t occasionally unreliable. Yes they could get it right…even spot on occasionally but you can get an accurate result from an unreliable method but you can’t rely on it.

In the end were all were left with is an unreliable TOD in either situation ,I think I made my point clear enough from my recent post . Evidence interpretation in relation to Chapmans murder will always no doubt be a contentious issue. . I happen to support one out come over another as the all the evidence on evaluation allows for it. Others agree with me ,some don't ,so be it . It changes nothing as to the topic of this thread and the question that was originally asked in #1 .

[FISHY1118]

Rather a ironic request coming from you Fishy. Perhaps I should just do exactly as you always do? So…..the evidence has been posted it’s on here it’s not my job to find it for you.

Or I could just say…..read David Barrat’s book for examples ……I’m not buying it for you.

Nothing ironic at all , other posters offer this suggestion every other day " show some evidence to supports a particular view" it pretty simple really if that evidence exist i should think . Does it ?

[Trevor Marriott]

I agree, trying to tease out a picture is very difficult, but difficult does not mean impossible.

One real issue is how different people interpret the same article or document in very different ways.
We see that here every day.

However, those documents and press reports are all we have. So we use them.

Otherwise as I asked, what do we use?


Steve

We are restricted in what we can use, in fact, whats left of the original papers from these cases have been scrutinized over the years and nothing from them has led to the identity of the killer so unless something appears from out of someone's loft or cupboard in our lifetime these murders will remain unsolved, but that still won't stop researchers playing amateur detective, and we will still see all the repetitive posts on everything from the witness testimony to the medical issue continually being discussed over and over again.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

I agree, it's frustrating, but were it not for the newspaper reports, would sites like this one even exist?

Cheers, George

But the accuracy of the newspaper reports is also contentious and as we see can lead researchers on false trails.

But the majority of threads on this site are nothing more than threads which keep being re-hashed and have been discussed many times all to no avail. After a time it becomes boring because we seem to simply keep posting the same replies, creating the same arguments all to no avail.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,


Language is always a problem with witness statements. Common sense tells people that we can say things clearly and unambiguously, but in reality, language is actually pretty vague much of the time. We put an idea, or concept, into words and think we've been crystal clear, and yet the receiver of that information very often misunderstands something. Having marked many a student paper, and having submitted many papers for peer review, I am very familiar with this aspect of language. Reviewers will often point out aspects of the text that to me were absolutely clear and unambiguous which they have interpreted almost back to front! And when they point it out, it then dawns upon me how the phrasing, so clear to me, is not so clear when let loose into the wild.

This is why witness statements, and interviews, last so long. It's not a matter of saying something once, but the same basic things have to be talked about for a while to pull out all the details and to ensure that what they mean is clearly conveyed. A lot of information gets left out, or, as per Cadosche above, might be open to different possible meanings even though Cadosche himself would have only meant a particular meaning.

This is why Richardson's story, where we get a clearer picture of his activities over time, is not a big deal. That's what happens. His first interactions with the police will focus on the big main central point, which was that he was there to check the lock at just before 5:00 am and Annie was not. As we look at other tellings more details, less central to that point, are filled in, but critically nothing in the central plot changes. (If he said something like, "Ok, I didn't go to check the lock, I was there to clean up the back yard." or "Ok, it was actually around 3:00 am", etc, then we would have reason to be suspicious because now he's changing the story rather than filling in details that don't contradict the original (remember, fixing his boot wasn't why he went to #29, it was just something he did while there because it was convenient to do so).

With the inquest testimonies, we only have access to relatively short presentations, with only a few clarification questions being asked. If we had the police interviews, we would see a much more thorough coverage and I am sure we would be able to determine exactly what Cadosche meant.

If ive leant one thing from my time here, is that the Evidence in all the JtR murders can be, and is often interpreted by many people in many different ways .

One has to be careful, though. While one can point out that Cadosche might have meant A or B, all that does is show that we cannot be sure which way his testimony points, we cannot use it as "weight" to our arguement though. For example, I cannot say that "He could just mean either side of the yard, therefore his statement more strongly supports a later ToD than an earlier", that would be invalid because his statement could also mean different yards. Viewed in isolation, we would treat each as equally likely.

However, the location of his fence noise is unambiguous. What caused that noise is unknown. For an earlier ToD, we need his first statement to mean different yards, and we need an explanation for the noise. For a later ToD, the same explanation accounts for both (Annie and JtR are in the yard, and JtR bumps the fence).

While I'm not saying this is definitive, when one explanation starts to account for multiple ambiguous bits of evidence that require separate explanations in a second theory, that amounts to support (not proof mind you), of the single account explanation. As a result, that means the later ToD does come out as the preferred theory, even though none of the evidence is sufficient to prove it, when one views all of it, later is the better theory than earlier.



As I've been at pains to point out, an earlier ToD is possible. But anything that doesn't violate the laws of the universe is possible, but that doesn't make all things equally probable, or equally supported by the evidence. As a silly example, and meaning no disrespect, it is possible that an escaped chimp was on the loose, attacking people. After all, chimps exist, they are very strong, they can be very violent, they can escape areas in ways that humans cannot. Therefore, it is entirely "possible" that the reason the JtR murders have never been solved is because we're looking for a human. However, while I could create all sorts of possible sequences of events to keep my chimp (or aardvark perhaps) in the picture, I would hope nobody every elevates that idea to be considered probable.

What I'm getting at is this simple rule. Just because something is possible doesn't make it probable. We are trying to work out the probable sequence of events. When the information is not sufficient to rule one sequence as probable, and all others as improbable, we may end up with multiple theories/explanations that range in probability, from highest to "lowest worthy of consideration".

In the Chapman case, with respect to the ToD, later is more probable than earlier, though both remain worthy of consideration. My chimp theory, however, does not make the cut, and I can scream "It is possible" all I want, but nobody should listen to me on that point.

Although both earlier and later are possible, and worthy of consideration, later is the more probable given the information we have. However, one is not obliged to support the theory that comes out on top with regards to how theory and evidence is evaluated. You are, of course, fully free to support the less probable, but still sufficiently probable to remain in the running. idea of an earlier ToD. Sometimes the less probable does happen. I would, however, suggest a break if you start supporting my above chimp story.



Sorry Fishy, but on this there is simply no debate. Even today the ability to estimate the ToD is not sufficient to produce the degree of reliability that you are arguing for. It's not really a "guess" in the pluck a number out of a hat type, but it is still an estimation, possibily based upon an equation which uses an internal body temperature reading. However, that equation (1 hour/degree F lost) will include assumed values (such as the person's starting body temperature), which immediately means there will be about +-1 hour of error introduced to the estimate as normal temperature in people ranges between 97 and 99F. The usual assumed temperature is 98.6, so as you may see, there is more room to overestimate the time than underestimate from that source of error.

Anyway, with regards to the doctors being influenced by other information, it would be odd if they did not factor that information in. If they determined that yes, everything medical is consistent with the murder happening during the police rounds, then that would help them narrow their estimate. If, however, they found that the medical evidence was not consistent with a murder during the police rounds, then that might lend support to the murder occurring elsewhere and the body being dumped there after the fact.

Of the C5, only Chapman and Kelly are killed in a location where there wasn't a regular patrol involved that helped to narrow the window of opportunity. And those are the two murders where the ToD estimations are less precise. I believe a 6 hour window is presented for Kelly (note, +-3 hours is a 6 hour window), and with Chapman we have a stated time, then possibly more, and finally the caveated that indicates as also possibly less. The doctors in those cases are signalling their awareness of the imprecise nature of ToD estimations. In all the cases where they appear very accurate, those are the cases where we know they are accurate due witness statements, and there is no reason to believe the doctors were unaware of that same information.


Given that we know ToD estimations are not as accurate or as reliable as you are presenting them to be, the fact that in those cases you mention above the doctor's appear to be that precise is the evidence that they are using additional information. It is not possible to be that precise otherwise because the estimation of ToD is, by it's very nature, highly imprecise and associated with very large ranges. Two cases that appear identical can, and generally do, produce very different estimates for the ToD. This is why I keep pushing the point we have to include that error range, and when we do, we see that Dr. Phillip's estimate for Annie does not rule out either an earlier or later ToD - so his estimate is not in conflict with the witness statements (or, if you prefer, the witness statements do not conflict with Dr. Phillip's estimated ToD).


We should view all of them the same way, with a +-3 hour margin of error if that's what you mean.



An earlier ToD is, of course, still possible and sufficiently probable that we cannot rule it out entirely, but it is not equally probable as the later ToD. The information we have, while insufficient to definitively prove either, is better explained by a later ToD than an earlier one. You can still have a personal preference for the earlier ToD, but in terms of how information/evidence is used to evaluate and rank theories, the ranking goes:
1st: Later ToD
2nd: earlier ToD
out of the running: Chimp

Anyway, what I'm trying to get across here is that how theories are evaluated and ranked is not the same thing as which one you or I choose to prefer. There are methods by which information and theory get evaluated, while our preferences are influenced by all sorts of things, including our own subjective natures and biases. Those subjective things can sometimes lead us to the correct answer, or encourage us to look for information that might change how those theories get evaluated (i.e. I might look for evidence of chimp hair at the scenes of the crimes, to find that the complete lack of it supports my zoo coverup theory). But sometimes they can lead us astray as well. Because I've spent decades doing research, I focus on the evaluation rankings, but when I design experiments and so forth, I also look for potential outcomes that if found could potentially change those rankings.

With JtR, unfortunately, that change would require the uncovering of some new information that tips the scales in favour of an earlier ToD. Currently, the information favours the later ToD though; but as I say, it does not conclusively prove it.

- Jeff

Thanks for the detailed reply jeff, although I agree with some of your points I disagree with others , ill refrain from expanding on those points again as we'd only be going over the same ground to that which we differ in opinions regarding the evidence at hand .All in all I don't think enough evidence has been shown that conclusively suggest a much later TOD is more viable than an earlier one based on the way that evidence is being and has been interpreted imo.

[Elamarna]

But the accuracy of the newspaper reports is also contentious and as we see can lead researchers on false trails.

But the majority of threads on this site are nothing more than threads which keep being re-hashed and have been discussed many times all to no avail. After a time it becomes boring because we seem to simply keep posting the same replies, creating the same arguments all to no avail.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I agree Trevor, we are all guilty of it, both you and me too.

But either we use the sources that are available or we just say any nonsense is ok.

Sadly most of the problem is due to how people interpret reports. Some are very limited, some just read stuff different to others.

Steve

[GBinOz]

But the majority of threads on this site are nothing more than threads which keep being re-hashed and have been discussed many times all to no avail. After a time it becomes boring because we seem to simply keep posting the same replies, creating the same arguments all to no avail.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I agree Trevor, and would add that there is a tendency to oppose new and innovative ideas, such as some of your theories, seemingly because they don't fit into the big box of standard opinions.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

We are restricted in what we can use, in fact, whats left of the original papers from these cases have been scrutinized over the years and nothing from them has led to the identity of the killer so unless something appears from out of someone's loft or cupboard in our lifetime these murders will remain unsolved, but that still won't stop researchers playing amateur detective, and we will still see all the repetitive posts on everything from the witness testimony to the medical issue continually being discussed over and over again.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

???

But you’re on a forum doing exactly that….playing amateur detective. And no one on hear is more repetitive that you are Trevor. It’s like having a parrot posting sometimes.