Time Of Death

[FISHY1118]

ive posted my last view of this topic, cant do better than that post .

[Fisherman]

I’m not avoiding any issue.

Yes, you are. You avoided answering the key point I made about how it is stupid to claim that views of people with suspects should not be looked upon as equally worthy as the views of those who ascribe to the idea that the case cannot be solved. If that was the case, then I´d suggest that the inly reason that you will not accept that Phillips was correct is because you promote Druitt, and you want to get rid of the competition Lechmere represents. You realize that the carman is by far the better suspect, and so you try to damage him in order for Druitt to remain on the list. Shame on you!
How does that sound? To me, it sounds outright stupid. To me, the merit of each suspect must be weighed on its own, and we should not claim that the ones with suspects are in any way less likely to be truthful than anybody else.

Fishy is desperately trying to push Chapman’s TOD back to account for bodies being dumped and coaches and horses. It’s an agenda. It’s not that he's interested in what’s likely or unlikely to have been the truth. It's shoehorning.

To be fair, I have not read up on what Fishy is arguing, but I HAVE read up extensively on the TOD matter in Chapman´s case, and I can tell you that there is no shoehorning involved in saying that Phillips may very well be correct, and that Cadosh-Long-Richardson may very well be wrong. And that must surely be the key point.

And I also don’t think that you would have expended so much time and effort in trying to defend Phillips and dismiss Richardson if it didn’t concern Lechmere. That’s my opinion.

And a foul opinion it is. Its the kind of thinking we should not engage in, because it is heavily prejudiced and unfairly aimed at diminishing the veracity of a fellow poster. I´ll have you know that regardless if Chapman died after 5.30 and was nevertheless cold and in a state of rigor less than an hour afterwards (which is in conflict with any normal development), that does not rule Lechmere out in any way!
Phillips was adamant - no less than two hours, and she had onsetting rigor. That is TOTALLY in line with a TOD about the time when Lechmere would have passed if he chose Hanbury Street. And these are facts, not something I invented to push Lechmere as a suspect. It just so happens that what the medico in charge says points to a TOD that is consistent with Lechmere having killed her en route to work, and that is actually a tremendously good argument for those who promote Lechmere, as it happens. If we were to allow for you to say that I only say it because I promote Lechmere, we´d be screwing the factual matters of the case, and that is only a good idea if we are intent on skewing the picture against Lechmere.
How is that for an agenda, Herlock? You see, coins regularly have two sides.
You say it is your opinion, and that is fine - we are allowed to have opinions. But once we express them, we should get ready to have them shot down if they are not up to scratch.

Again we know that TOD’s could be very inaccurate. I don’t know why anyone should bother debating this. It’s a fact. And so there is at least a reasonable possibility that Phillips could have been out by an hour or so. This isn’t some major character assassination here. Phillips only had the knowledge available to him at the time. So this is a reasonable suggestion.

It is a fact that TOD:s can be inaccurate. Nobody IS debating that. But then lesser the time elapsed between the actual TOD and the examination of the body, the lesser the chance that the doctor will get it dramatically wrong. If a woman is killed at 3.41 and a doctor examines her at 3.42, then there is virtually no chance that he will say that she is stone cold and has been dead for at least two hours. Similarly, the chance that Phillips would have mistaken less than an hour for around three hours or so is nigh on non-existent. And the litmus paper is there in the shape of the onsetting rigor that speaks of a TOD at least two hours away. Plus he will of course also have checked the eyes, the blood, patching of the skin and so on, factors that are left uncommented on but that will have played a role.
Its all very cosy and convenient to say that TOD is a difficult business, but using it as a smokescreen is simply wrong.

Now compare this to a man who was absolutely unequivocal that he could see the entirety of the yard and that there was no body. For him to have been wrong he would have had to have been an absolute vegetable not to have realised (as you suggest) that wooden doors can impede a view. He saw the body later in situ which adds even more weight to his statement. He saw the whole yard. He knew exactly where Annie’s body was situated. He knew exactly how much floor space it took up and if it could have been obscured by a door.

Once we have a world in which no witness tells porkies or misremember things/exaggerate things, your point will become valid. Once we have a picture where Richardson was a strong witness, not changing what he said a single time, you have a little something of a case.
Rigor mortis is a much better witness than Richardson.

Therefore it is overwhelmingly more reasonable to suggest that Richardson was far less likely to have been wrong than Phillips. Far less.

That is your opinion.

Then when we take Cadosch into account more weight is added.

That is your opinion.

4.45am and Annie Chapman was still alive. 99% certain.

Since I know that the matter cannot possibly be quantified, I cannot say exactly how stupid that statement is. I freely admit that.

[FISHY1118]

i love how he puts ideas into Richardsons mind .

I’m not avoiding any issue. Fishy is desperately trying to push Chapman’s TOD back to account for bodies being dumped and coaches and horses. It’s an agenda. It’s not that he's interested in what’s likely or unlikely to have been the truth. It's shoehorning.

What im suggesting is that it was and is possible for Phillips to be right with t.o,d so as to consider any number of other possibilities in regards to Chapmans death . including knights , which is also possible and you cannot prove otherwise .

BUT AS USUAL YOU MISINTERPRET AGAIN .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Avoiding the issue, I see. How about Wolf Vanderlinden, who wrote the dissertation about Phillips et al. He doesn't favour any suspect, as far as I know. So how does that affect the viability of his suggestion, Herlock?

Maybe it is time to grow up and accept that even people who favour suspects may be able to express valid points in spite of this.

I’m not avoiding any issue. Fishy is desperately trying to push Chapman’s TOD back to account for bodies being dumped and coaches and horses. It’s an agenda. It’s not that he's interested in what’s likely or unlikely to have been the truth. It's shoehorning.

And I also don’t think that you would have expended so much time and effort in trying to defend Phillips and dismiss Richardson if it didn’t concern Lechmere. That’s my opinion.

Again we know that TOD’s could be very inaccurate. I don’t know why anyone should bother debating this. It’s a fact. And so there is at least a reasonable possibility that Phillips could have been out by an hour or so. This isn’t some major character assassination here. Phillips only had the knowledge available to him at the time. So this is a reasonable suggestion.

Now compare this to a man who was absolutely unequivocal that he could see the entirety of the yard and that there was no body. For him to have been wrong he would have had to have been an absolute vegetable not to have realised (as you suggest) that wooden doors can impede a view. He saw the body later in situ which adds even more weight to his statement. He saw the whole yard. He knew exactly where Annie’s body was situated. He knew exactly how much floor space it took up and if it could have been obscured by a door.

Therefore it is overwhelmingly more reasonable to suggest that Richardson was far less likely to have been wrong than Phillips. Far less.

Then when we take Cadosch into account more weight is added.

4.45am and Annie Chapman was still alive. 99% certain.

[Fisherman]

Fishy and Fisherman.

You should form a double act.

Yes, and you should try and get one reasonable act together yourself.

[Fisherman]

Richardson said that he could see the entire yard and that he couldn’t have missed a corpse had it been there. Therefore the corpse wasn’t there and Phillips was wrong. This is overwhelmingly the most reasonable viewpoint.

Avoiding the issue, I see. How about Wolf Vanderlinden, who wrote the dissertation about Phillips et al. He doesn't favour any suspect, as far as I know. So how does that affect the viability of his suggestion, Herlock?

Maybe it is time to grow up and accept that even people who favour suspects may be able to express valid points in spite of this.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It´s as boring as it is predictable.

Fishy and Fisherman.

You should form a double act.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is epidemic with you - whatever somebody says, if that somebody has a suspect or if he believes in a conspiracy, then THAT is why that somebody says it. No learoom is offered for the poster holding that view regardless of their other views; when and if they have a suspect or believe in a conspiracy, then all they say can be discarded on account of how they are unable to think straight and make just calls.

It must be a comfy little world to live in.

As for the diagram that you "cannot remember anyone accepting", yo seem to have forgotten about how R J Palmer tried the matter practically and found it to be correct. Then again, he may only have done so because he supports ... no, wait a sec ...

Richardson said that he could see the entire yard and that he couldn’t have missed a corpse had it been there. Therefore the corpse wasn’t there and Phillips was wrong. This is overwhelmingly the most reasonable viewpoint.

[Fisherman]

i sense a deja vu moment fisherman , ive been trying to convey this view via the Wolf Vanderlinden article, but to no avail.

So i suppose you might as well expect this in reply .'' Doctors back in those days can be wildly inaccurate and in determining t.o.d, guessing at best'' , something to a that effect.

It´s as boring as it is predictable.

[Fisherman]

And we know why that is. It’s because you know that if Richardson was correct and Chapman died later it would mean that in all likelihood Lechmere would have been at work and therefore a less likely killer.

This is epidemic with you - whatever somebody says, if that somebody has a suspect or if he believes in a conspiracy, then THAT is why that somebody says it. No learoom is offered for the poster holding that view regardless of their other views; when and if they have a suspect or believe in a conspiracy, then all they say can be discarded on account of how they are unable to think straight and make just calls.

It must be a comfy little world to live in.

As for the diagram that you "cannot remember anyone accepting", yo seem to have forgotten about how R J Palmer tried the matter practically and found it to be correct. Then again, he may only have done so because he supports ... no, wait a sec ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

I appear to have filled up my amber bars. Do I win a prize?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I´m afraid it is nowhere near "overwhelmingly likely" that Annie Chapman was alive at 4.45. Yes, there is witness testimony to that effect, but witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Cadosh and Long contradicted each other, and both were dead certain about the timings, so we should in all probability rule at least one of them out. And Richardson was all over the place with his testimony and not only that - he may actually not have been able to see the body from his position the stairs, as has been shown some time back.
The counterpart is Phillips´testimony, and the factors he name are mutually corroborating each other - she would have been dead AT LEAST two hours and probably more (nota bene, that although Baxter misinterpreted the doctor and although the coroner has many a follower today, Phillips money was never on the elapsed time being half only of the MINIMUM he allowed for - but did not believe to be correct), and rigor had just about set in. And rigor was something the doctor knew was likely to occur no earlier than two hours after death, not least because chapman was found in conditions that would slow down its onset.

Taken together, these things cannot leave us with a picture where it is "overwhelmingly likely" that Phillips was totally out, I'm afraid. It can leave you personally with the idea that this was so, but rest assured that such a thing does not suffice to make it overwhelmingly likely to many others, me included. I would instead say that the possibility of Phillips being so dramatically wrong as it would take for you to be correct are miniscule.

For you to be correct, it would take that Phillips missed out on the temperature of the body and that rigor set in at a stage which would be very much out of the ordinary. And such things are not easily shoved aside.

And we know why that is. It’s because you know that if Richardson was correct and Chapman died later it would mean that in all likelihood Lechmere would have been at work and therefore a less likely killer.

Put simply....estimating a TOD was a matter of judgment which can be affected by various factors and Phillips was restricted by the knowledge of the time.

Looking into a yard and seeing that there wasn’t a mutilated corpse on the other hand required eyesight and the absence of imbecility.

Therefore Phillips was far more likely to have been incorrect than Richardson.

he may actually not have been able to see the body from his position the stairs, as has been shown some time back

No Fish. You produced a diagram which, from memory, I can’t recall anyone accepting. There’s no way he could have missed the body unless he’d sat in an unnatural position and refrained from pushing the door open. It’s a manipulation. The absolutely overwhelming likelihood is that Chapman wasn’t there when Richardson sat on that step however inconvenient for theories that might prove.

[FISHY1118]

In the case of Nichols , Stride and Eddowes, we know it to be INDISPUTABLY correct.

[Herlock Sholmes]

i sense a deja vu moment fisherman , ive been trying to convey this view via the Wolf Vanderlinden article, but to no avail.

So i suppose you might as well expect this in reply .'' Doctors back in those days can be wildly inaccurate and in determining t.o.d, guessing at best'' , something to a that effect.

Probably because this was indisputably the case.

[FISHY1118]

i sense a deja vu moment fisherman , ive been trying to convey this view via the Wolf Vanderlinden article, but to no avail.

So i suppose you might as well expect this in reply .'' Doctors back in those days can be wildly inaccurate and in determining t.o.d, guessing at best'' , something to a that effect.