Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Time Of Death

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

  • In other words, he simply allows for both sides of the coin, whereas you yourself want very much to disallow one of them.

    Comment



    • Iím 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 Iīd 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 a you have allowed your judgment to become biased.
      No one has said that Phillips couldnít have been correct but as itís likelier that he was incorrect, due to the unlikeliness of Richardson being mistaken, your refusal to acknowledge this pretty obvious point leads me to the conclusion that you simply do not want Phillips to be wrong.
      Fishy is desperately trying to push Chapmanís TOD back to account for bodies being dumped and coaches and horses. Itís an agenda. Itís not that he's interested in whatís 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 Chapmanīs 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.
      You should try reading his posts. It might cheer you up.


      As weíre discussing issues which are debatable then all that we can do is to speak of likeliness. The likeliness is in heavily favour of Richardson and Cadosch imo.
      And I also donít think that you would have expended so much time and effort in trying to defend Phillips and dismiss Richardson if it didnít concern Lechmere. Thatís 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. Iīll 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!
      But, as you well know, it makes it less likely for a man that had to be at work for 4am.
      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. No itís not because itís a laughable suggestion that Lechmere or anyone else killed on the way to work! If we were to allow for you to say that I only say it because I promote Lechmere, weīd 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.

      Which you havenít done of course.
      Again we know that TODís could be very inaccurate. I donít know why anyone should bother debating this. Itís a fact. And so there is at least a reasonable possibility that Phillips could have been out by an hour or so. This isnít 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.

      Richardson said the he could see the entire yard and there was no body therefore Phillips was likely to have been wrong. Itís a simple as that when it comes to assessing likelihood. And then when you add Cadosch more weight is added.
      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 Annieís 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.

      Not in this case and at this time itís not. Richardson every time.
      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.
      True.
      Then when we take Cadosch into account more weight is added.

      That is your opinion.
      True
      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.

      Again we are talking of likelihoodís. For Richardson to have been mistaken heíd have had to have been an imbecile of such monumental proportions that it would have been a question of why he was still at large. Youíre diagrams would have to have assumed that Richardson was entirely unaware of the concept that a door can obscure someoneís view.

      It boils down to this. TOD estimations at that time were highly fallible. This has been well documented and accepted. So many factors and unknowns were involved. Looking into a yard however requires no great skill or knowledge. There is far far less that can have gone wrong. Despite diagrams showing potential door positions we cannot avoid the fact that John Richardson was absolutely adamant that he could see the entirety of the yard and that there was no way that a mutilated corpse could have eluded him. Thereís no way that if heíd sat with the door against the left side of his body that he wouldnít have been aware that a portion of the yard was out of view. He later saw the body in situ which adds weight to his statement that he could see all of the yard and that heíd have been fully aware of any possibility of a body remaining out of sight.

      And then we can add Cadosch. A man who was very cautious about what he heard and so doesnít really come across as a liar or some kind of attention seeker. He said that he heard something against the fence which would have been around 5.20-5.25. We know that nothing occurred in the yard of number 25 and so the noise was overwhelmingly likely to have come from number 29.

      And so when we combine Richardson and Cadosch then Iíll repeat that it is overwhelmingly likely that at 4.45 am Annie Chapman was still alive.
      Regards

      Herlock






      "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post


        Regards

        Herlock






        "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

          Iīm 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 Phillipsītestimony, 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.
          But Rigor is a virtually worthless means of assessing an accurate time of death, I.e. usually appearing within 1 to 6 hours, allowing for only a basic indication. And temperature, as I keep pointing out, is also very unreliable. See, for example, https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics...y/rigor-mortis
          Last edited by John G; 07-07-2019, 05:37 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by John G View Post

            But Rigor is a virtually worthless means of assessing time of death. And temperature, as I keep pointing out, is very unreliable.
            Iím afraid youíre wasting your time John. The same things just keep being repeated and for pretty obvious reasons.

            According to some its less likely that a TOD estimate could have been incorrect than it is that a man could have been unaware that there was a considerable part of a yard that he couldnít see.
            Regards

            Herlock






            "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              Iím afraid youíre wasting your time John. The same things just keep being repeated and for pretty obvious reasons.

              According to some its less likely that a TOD estimate could have been incorrect than it is that a man could have been unaware that there was a considerable part of a yard that he couldnít see.
              It seems, Herlock, that some people believe that forensic science was far more advanced in 1888 than today! Not that Dr Phillips was a forensic expert anyway; he was a general practitioner.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by John G View Post

                It seems, Herlock, that some people believe that forensic science was far more advanced in 1888 than today! Not that Dr Phillips was a forensic expert anyway; he was a general practitioner.
                Exactly. My medical knowledge is zero but all that Iíve asked is - where was there the greatest possibility of error. a) in a TOD estimate when we know from experts that those estimates could be considerably in error due to many factors compounded by the level of understanding at the time? Or b) a man that was absolutely certain that he had a full view of the yard and couldnít possibly have missed a mutilated corpse had it been there when he was there?

                Just from those two possibilities surely we would have to say a)

                And then, to add weight to that likelihood, we have Cadosch who said that he heard something falling against the fence at around 5.20-5.25. As nothing occurred in the yard of number 25 and Cadosch said that he believed that it came from 29 then the overall likelihood has to have been that Annie wasnít dead at 4.45. Of course this doesnít explain Mrs Long. If Mrs Long was correct about seeing Annie then Cadosch was mistaken but it still leaves Richardson correct. If however Phillips was correct then Richardson, Cadosch and Long were all mistaken or lying.

                Therefore I think it likelier that Richardson was correct and Annie was still alive at 4.45. Then you take your pick of Long or Cadosch (who could still have both been mistaken or lying of course.) Or one of them could have gotten the time wrong.
                Regards

                Herlock






                "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                Comment


                • So Herlock! You admit that your medical knowledge is zero. Let's contribute a little something to it, then, from the net:

                  "At the time of death, a condition called "primary flaccidity" occurs. Following this, the muscles stiffen in rigor mortis. All muscles in the body are affected. Starting between two and six hours following death, rigor mortis begins with the eyelids, neck, and jaw. The sequence may be due to different lactic acid levels among different muscles, which is directly related to the difference in glycogen levels and different types of muscle fibers.

                  Rigor mortis then spreads to the other muscles, including the internal organs, within the next four to six hours. The onset of rigor mortis is affected by the individual's age, sex, physical condition, and muscular build. Rigor mortis may not be perceivable in many infant and child corpses due to their smaller muscle mass."

                  This is repeated in article after article. Rigor mortis does NOT commence less than an hour after death. And in cool conditions, it is SLOWED DOWN!

                  So where does this take your belief in Richardson? Iīll tell you: it urges you to accept that Richardson was in all probability wrong or lying. That is a common condition within the sphere of witnesses - many of them enjoy the idea of fifteen minutes of fame.

                  You see, what you need to allow for your take on things to be correct is a medical miracle. And although miracles sometimes do occur, the wiser thing to do is not to expect them. Once such a thing is needed to bolster an idea, that idea is best abandoned.

                  This is no example of the total lack of understanding of establishing the TOD that you seemingly expect from victorian doctors - it is the factual knowledge we have about rigor mortis.

                  AT LEAST two hours would have elapsed (Can you see how knowledge about rigor would close that case for Phillips? And how the police after having read up decided to root for his take on things?), and we should expect MORE time to have passed since the conditions were cold, and since Chapman was also quite cold.

                  It all adds up, whereas Long/Cadosch/Richardson do not. Nor do they in any way corroborate each other - the effectively GAINSAY each other! And Long and Cadosch are dead certain of the timings both of them = at least one of them is wrong. The rigor tells us that Annie Chapman died at the very earliest 4.30, and probably well before that, so we can deduct that neither witness can possibly be correct, unless we are dealing with a medical miracle.

                  And you know, witnesses are not always reliable, its as simple as that. Working from the assumption that Richardson MUST have sat where he (occasionally) said he sat, is not a clever thing to do when the medical evidence goes against the notion. Before that insight dawns on you, the idea is actually not very much better anyway; it is always a slippery thing to rely solely on uncorroborated witness testimony.

                  So much for that!

                  The rest of your post is not very remarkable, but for the fact that you claim that "itís a laughable suggestion that Lechmere or anyone else killed on the way to work", thereby throwing all the information we have about opportunistic serial killers to the wind. If it goes to show anything, then it goes to show the broadminded idea behind the boards, allowing for all kinds of people with all levels of knowledge and insights into the topics they debate.

                  Kudos to the administrators for that, less so to you. Just because you've got it, it is not necessarily a good idea to flaunt it, Herlock.

                  Now I will go to Iceland, and I recommend a trip back to the drawing board for you.
                  Last edited by Fisherman; 07-07-2019, 06:49 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by John G View Post

                    But Rigor is a virtually worthless means of assessing an accurate time of death, I.e. usually appearing within 1 to 6 hours, allowing for only a basic indication. And temperature, as I keep pointing out, is also very unreliable. See, for example, https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics...y/rigor-mortis
                    If it had been "worthless", it would not have been employed legally, John. And it is. This passage is what you rely on now: "The time of onset is variable but it is usually considered to appear between 1 and 6 hours (average 2Ė-4 hours) after death."

                    The average is therefore 2-4 hours. And in cool conditions the time is extended. So when we ask for Chapman to have been killed LESS than an hour (as per Long) before Phillips saw her, we are effectively asking for a medical miracle.

                    In very warm conditions, rigor MAY set in after an hour, but there were no such warm conditions in Hanbury Street. Nor were there lukewarm conditions. There were cold conditions! And that means that the expected average in Chapmans case should be pushed closer to four than two hours.

                    If we were to name the knowledge about these things worthless, we would put ourselves at the mercy of people who think John Richardson was a stellar witness, non-faltering and truthful in all he said.

                    The problem with that take is that he said various things, and that he produced a story that was as dull as the knife he claimed to have used to cut leather with - until it was revealed he never did.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      If however Phillips was correct then Richardson, Cadosch and Long were all mistaken or lying.
                      No, not necessarily - Cadosch never identified Chapman, and therefore he may well have told the truth. It would not have been Chapman falling that he heard, though, but he never claimed that this was so.

                      Long must have been mistaken or lying, though as would Richardson have been. And that is not any strange thing, I'm afraid - there were scores of people who told porkies, like Violenia, for example, and like the inhabitants of Millers Court who were ready to testify about various timings for the "Murder" cry they claimed to have heard. The Ripper case was a high profile case, and such matters always attract nutters. Have a look at how many such characters came forward to admit to the murders, even!

                      Iceland now!

                      Comment


                      • One more for John G:

                        "Temperature is an important factor in determining the time of onset of rigor. In normal circumstances and at room temperature rigor is complete in about three to six hours. If the temperature is higher the onset is more rapid ó perhaps no more than an hour in tropical temperatures. Conversely, the onset of rigor is delayed at low temperatures. In cases of drowning in cold water, for example, rigor may not appear until the body has been removed from the water, even after several days of immersion. The onset of rigor is hastened if there has been intense physical activity shortly before death. Thus, in forensic medical practice, the presence of rigor is a poor determinant of the time of death. Once established, the duration of rigor ranges from 18 to 36 hours."

                        Now, how tropical was the temperature in the backyard of 29 Banbury Street on that September morning, John? Because this is the one hour possibility you are suggesting for Chapman.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          So Herlock! You admit that your medical knowledge is zero. Let's contribute a little something to it, then, from the net:

                          "At the time of death, a condition called "primary flaccidity" occurs. Following this, the muscles stiffen in rigor mortis. All muscles in the body are affected. Starting between two and six hours following death, rigor mortis begins with the eyelids, neck, and jaw. The sequence may be due to different lactic acid levels among different muscles, which is directly related to the difference in glycogen levels and different types of muscle fibers.

                          Rigor mortis then spreads to the other muscles, including the internal organs, within the next four to six hours. The onset of rigor mortis is affected by the individual's age, sex, physical condition, and muscular build. Rigor mortis may not be perceivable in many infant and child corpses due to their smaller muscle mass."

                          This is repeated in article after article. Rigor mortis does NOT commence less than an hour after death. And in cool conditions, it is SLOWED DOWN!

                          So where does this take your belief in Richardson? Iīll tell you: it urges you to accept that Richardson was in all probability wrong or lying. That is a common condition within the sphere of witnesses - many of them enjoy the idea of fifteen minutes of fame.

                          You see, what you need to allow for your take on things to be correct is a medical miracle. And although miracles sometimes do occur, the wiser thing to do is not to expect them. Once such a thing is needed to bolster an idea, that idea is best abandoned.

                          This is no example of the total lack of understanding of establishing the TOD that you seemingly expect from victorian doctors - it is the factual knowledge we have about rigor mortis.

                          AT LEAST two hours would have elapsed (Can you see how knowledge about rigor would close that case for Phillips? And how the police after having read up decided to root for his take on things?), and we should expect MORE time to have passed since the conditions were cold, and since Chapman was also quite cold.

                          It all adds up, whereas Long/Cadosch/Richardson do not. Nor do they in any way corroborate each other - the effectively GAINSAY each other! And Long and Cadosch are dead certain of the timings both of them = at least one of them is wrong. The rigor tells us that Annie Chapman died at the very earliest 4.30, and probably well before that, so we can deduct that neither witness can possibly be correct, unless we are dealing with a medical miracle.

                          And you know, witnesses are not always reliable, its as simple as that. Working from the assumption that Richardson MUST have sat where he (occasionally) said he sat, is not a clever thing to do when the medical evidence goes against the notion. Before that insight dawns on you, the idea is actually not very much better anyway; it is always a slippery thing to rely solely on uncorroborated witness testimony.

                          So much for that!

                          The rest of your post is not very remarkable, but for the fact that you claim that "itís a laughable suggestion that Lechmere or anyone else killed on the way to work", thereby throwing all the information we have about opportunistic serial killers to the wind. If it goes to show anything, then it goes to show the broadminded idea behind the boards, allowing for all kinds of people with all levels of knowledge and insights into the topics they debate.

                          Kudos to the administrators for that, less so to you. Just because you've got it, it is not necessarily a good idea to flaunt it, Herlock.

                          Now I will go to Iceland, and I recommend a trip back to the drawing board for you.
                          ďHis original opinion, given at 6.20 a.m. and backed up by 22 years as a police surgeon, was that Chapman had been dead "for two hours, probably more." When a witness said that he had not seen Chapman's body in the yard when he went there at 4.45 - when by Phillips' original estimate she would have been dead for over half an hour - the doctor qualified this by saying that with the coldness of the morning and the amount of blood that she had lost, the victim might have appeared to have been dead for longer than she was.Ē

                          So it appears that Dr Phillips was so confidant in his verdict that he immediately hedged as soon as Richardson was mentioned. And this inspires confidence how?

                          As for your arrogant comment regarding the boards and admin, Iím fairly immune Fish. Iíve lost count of how many insults have come from you only to find any response met with whimpers of victimhood and offence. Steve, Pat and others have met with the same old.




                          Regards

                          Herlock






                          "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                            No, not necessarily - Cadosch never identified Chapman, and therefore he may well have told the truth. It would not have been Chapman falling that he heard, though, but he never claimed that this was so.

                            Long must have been mistaken or lying, though as would Richardson have been. And that is not any strange thing, I'm afraid - there were scores of people who told porkies, like Violenia, for example, and like the inhabitants of Millers Court who were ready to testify about various timings for the "Murder" cry they claimed to have heard. The Ripper case was a high profile case, and such matters always attract nutters. Have a look at how many such characters came forward to admit to the murders, even!

                            Iceland now!
                            How many of them lied to put themselves alone in a yard with a knife next to an horrifically mutilated corpse when they had no need to?
                            Regards

                            Herlock






                            "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                              If it had been "worthless", it would not have been employed legally, John. And it is. This passage is what you rely on now: "The time of onset is variable but it is usually considered to appear between 1 and 6 hours (average 2Ė-4 hours) after death."

                              The average is therefore 2-4 hours. And in cool conditions the time is extended. So when we ask for Chapman to have been killed LESS than an hour (as per Long) before Phillips saw her, we are effectively asking for a medical miracle.

                              In very warm conditions, rigor MAY set in after an hour, but there were no such warm conditions in Hanbury Street. Nor were there lukewarm conditions. There were cold conditions! And that means that the expected average in Chapmans case should be pushed closer to four than two hours.

                              If we were to name the knowledge about these things worthless, we would put ourselves at the mercy of people who think John Richardson was a stellar witness, non-faltering and truthful in all he said.

                              The problem with that take is that he said various things, and that he produced a story that was as dull as the knife he claimed to have used to cut leather with - until it was revealed he never did.
                              Hi Christer,

                              I'm not sure why you suggest that the average period of time for the onset of rigor in Annie's case should be around 4 hours. As I keep noting, there are many variables. For instance, Annie was undernourished, perhaps severely so. This is another factor that, potentially, can have a dramatic effect on the onset of rigor. For instance, Mesri et al. 2017, describe a case of a 41kg woman, admitted to hospital, where rigor mortis and whole body spasms had started whilst the patient was still alive!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by John G View Post

                                Hi Christer,

                                I'm not sure why you suggest that the average period of time for the onset of rigor in Annie's case should be around 4 hours. As I keep noting, there are many variables. For instance, Annie was undernourished, perhaps severely so. This is another factor that, potentially, can have a dramatic effect on the onset of rigor. For instance, Mesri et al. 2017, describe a case of a 41kg woman, admitted to hospital, where rigor mortis and whole body spasms had started whilst the patient was still alive!
                                Good point John. Have I read this somewhere but isnít it also the case that the manner of death can have a serious impact too? Something that Phillips would have been unaware of?
                                Regards

                                Herlock






                                "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X