AC and TOD

[Fisherman]

Hi fish
So you think all the three witnesses lied?

Long could well have seen a couple in Hanbury Street. That does not mean that they were THE couple, as she admits herself by acknowledging that she would not be able to ID her people.

That does not make her a liar.

Cadosh could have heard or imagined he heard something. The conversation could have come from elsewhere than No 29 - he admits that himself. And the bump - described as it was as either a heavy fall or as somebody touching the fence - could have been a rat hoping to fins itīs way to Mrs Hardimanīs layer.

That does not make him a liar.

Richardson may have missed Chapman, as outlined by the police at the time.

That does not make him a liar either.

Conversely, they may all have lied to a smaller or greater extent. They may have embellished, looked for fame, been ashamed to tell the truth etcetera.

Finally, Chapman may have been killed at 5.25, making them all good, reliable witnesses, more or less.

My money is on them being bad witnesses, all three. That has happened before.

All the best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

Phillips

Hello Christer. Thanks.

“The rest of the body WAS quite cold.”

Christer, keep over-egging and it’s a fine pudding you’ll have. Where does he say “quite”?

Here are the words.

“How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.”

Notice that he volunteers the point.

“And a body will normally keep its warmth to at least some degree for around up to eight (8) hours.”

Then why did Bagster not claim 8 hours? If a body stays warm for about 8 hours, and she was as cold as you claim, why did he plump for two hours?

“Whatever warmth there was in the abdomen, underneath the intestines, would have been faint.”

Very well.

“And the rest of the body was quite, quite cold.”

Please show me where he says “quite, quite” cold. You’re still egg--, er, exaggerating what he actually said.

“This very unanimously tells a story of the victim having been perished for hours, other than in quite exceptional cases.”

Not according to Phillips. If you care to quote him and NOT to add anything, you will get a very different story.

“And we have the rigor mortis and the digestion to consider too. It can all be conveniently explained away, clinging on to the hope that Chapman deviated totally from the normal in all three instances.”

Hope? Normal? As has been pointed out more than once, rigor can have onset in as little as 10 minutes.

“Just keep in mind that statistically, this calls for very high odds.”

Oh, please.

“I need to read that dissertation . . . “

You do, indeed.

“And how would it result in their going into the back yard?”

As I said, she misunderstood. She INDEED thought there was a trick to turn, in my opinion.

“A bump? As of a heavily falling body - like he first said? Or like somebody hastily touching the fence, like he said at the inquest? A "boom" or a "swish"?
Which is it you need me to explain?”

Any of the above. But a packing crate won’t do.

“Cadosch telling porkies suits the general picture just fine, as far as I’m concerned.”

His motivation?

“Cadosch SAID he heard a fall against the fence. If he did not, he was EITHER a liar, perhaps an attention-seeker - or simply mistaken. Whichever applies, a heavy thud as from a falling body and a sound as if somebody touched the fence on the other side are two very different matters.”

Not so different. The idea is that a falling body bumped the fence.

“Saying that the night was a chilly one is not backing off. It is saying that he had taken notice of the surrounding circumstances. If he had not, and if he had to be informed about this by somebody else, it would be another thing. But what he effectively says is that people who are totally cold (regardless of the abdominal spark of warmth). . .”

There you go again. This is a mereological contradiction. And where does he call it a “spark”? Let’s stay with the wording.

“. . . are people who have been dead for many an hour.”

Then why not put Annie back around midnight?

“He had 23 years of service backing his knowledge up. Chapman was not the first dead person found in a chilly place that he had established a TOD for. He worked against a large amount of examples, and tried to fit Chapman in as best as he could according to that knowledge. He would have known that rigor was not hastened by chill, and he would have known that bodies keep warm long after they are dead.”

I, of all people, need no demonstration of Bagster’s professional and intellectual virtues. So I accept what he says: “it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.”

“He would however NOT have had any experience of whether an opened-up abdomen made the cooling off faster. He would, however, have seen other bodily damage and blood loss by dead people, and this would not have been enough for him to state that bodily damage or blood loss definitely did hasten the cooling off. If he had known this, he would have said so. Instead he said that Chapman, going by what the body revealed, had been dead for two or three hours AT THE VERY LEAST. And if this was not so, then he opened up for the possibility that the individual circumstances under which Chapman had died could have - not would have - had some impact.
That, Lynn, is not "backing off" - it is standing by his conviction, and adding that the case was singular. He would have known that there are exceptions to the rule and that some cool off quicker than others - it would have been described in the literature. And in each such case, this would have been governed by singular circumstances. Whether this applied in the Chapman case was something he did not give his view on - he said that to his mind, she had died two or three hours earlier than 6.30 at the very least.”

All of which is to say he offered an opinion but acknowledged it could be mistaken.

Perhaps you and I may emulate his example? Putting Richardson to one side, Long and Cadosch, too, offered opinions. And they may have been right—nothing Phillips said precludes that possibility.

Now I am aware that Phillips may be correct and Long and Cadosch mistaken. But it is not possible for him to be wrong; after all, HE made the exception quite uninvited. So even if Annie died around 5.30, Bagster is still RIGHT.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

agreed

Hello (again) Christer.

"Finally, Chapman may have been killed at 5.25, making them all good, reliable witnesses, more or less."

Now we agree. (Not too sure about Richardson, though.)

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=lynn cates;273298]Hello Christer. Thanks.

“The rest of the body WAS quite cold.”

Christer, keep over-egging and it’s a fine pudding you’ll have. Where does he say “quite”?

"The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines"

I take that to mean not that the body was lukewarm, but instead hat it was quite cold, apart from the area mentioned where some little warmth remained. If the body had NOT been quite cold otherwise, I take it that Phillips would have said so: "The body was slightly warm, and the area under the intestines was even warmer." For some reason, he did not.

So can we leave the funny semantic games aside now? Although you are quite, quite fond of them?

Here are the words.

“How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.”

Notice that he volunteers the point.

I noted that thirty years ago. And you seem to think that he says "Two hours and probably more, but that is probably wrong since it was a cool night".

I decided thirty years ago that Phillips was no idiot. I stand by that meaning today. Therefore, I say that he said that Chapman had been dead at least two hours, and probably more - but that probability should be weighed against the cold circumstances. So in fact, the three, four hours he would perhaps normally have opted for would perhaps not apply here.But the two hours suggested as a minimum stood fast. Thatīs why he said that he was of the meaning that two hours was an absolute minimum.

Note that I volunteer my view free of charge too.

“And a body will normally keep its warmth to at least some degree for around up to eight (8) hours.”

Then why did Bagster not claim 8 hours? If a body stays warm for about 8 hours, and she was as cold as you claim, why did he plump for two hours?

Because the warmth left after eight hours is very little, and something you cannot feel by touch. The innermost parts of the body retains itīs warmth the longest. If you donīt believe me, thereīs always the net, where you can see that the normal outcome after death is. It involves the period "warm and stiff", covering approximately the area between hour 3 and hour 8.

“Whatever warmth there was in the abdomen, underneath the intestines, would have been faint.”

Very well.

“And the rest of the body was quite, quite cold.”

Please show me where he says “quite, quite” cold. You’re still egg--, er, exaggerating what he actually said.

Read the above. Cold is cold, not slightly warm.

“This very unanimously tells a story of the victim having been perished for hours, other than in quite exceptional cases.”

Not according to Phillips. If you care to quote him and NOT to add anything, you will get a very different story.

I do get a different story than you do, thatīs correct. I noticed that Wolf Vanderlinden makes the same silly mistake as I do. Among others.

“And we have the rigor mortis and the digestion to consider too. It can all be conveniently explained away, clinging on to the hope that Chapman deviated totally from the normal in all three instances.”

Hope? Normal? As has been pointed out more than once, rigor can have onset in as little as 10 minutes.

And rigidity can be even quicker.

“Just keep in mind that statistically, this calls for very high odds.”

Oh, please.

Really? Then show me where a murder victim has had all the same three parameters work together the way you claim they worked in Chapman. Please.

“I need to read that dissertation . . . “

You do, indeed.

Iīm wawering a bit now, though.

“And how would it result in their going into the back yard?”

As I said, she misunderstood. She INDEED thought there was a trick to turn, in my opinion.

Oh, please! Issenschmidt begging away? And when she offered sex instead of money, he blew his top?

Letīs be perfectly clear here: It could have happened. Thatīs all I can do for you, plus refraining from saying what I really think about the suggestion. Please note that I volunteer the offer.

“A bump? As of a heavily falling body - like he first said? Or like somebody hastily touching the fence, like he said at the inquest? A "boom" or a "swish"?
Which is it you need me to explain?”

Any of the above. But a packing crate won’t do.

Why? If a packing crate was leaning against the palings and the wind or Cadoshes march past the fence brought it out of balance, then why wonīt it do?

“Cadosch telling porkies suits the general picture just fine, as far as I’m concerned.”

His motivation?

Fifteen minutes of fame? Or is that a "packing crater" too?

“Cadosch SAID he heard a fall against the fence. If he did not, he was EITHER a liar, perhaps an attention-seeker - or simply mistaken. Whichever applies, a heavy thud as from a falling body and a sound as if somebody touched the fence on the other side are two very different matters.”

Not so different. The idea is that a falling body bumped the fence.

How can we tell, without helping Cadosche out?

“Saying that the night was a chilly one is not backing off. It is saying that he had taken notice of the surrounding circumstances. If he had not, and if he had to be informed about this by somebody else, it would be another thing. But what he effectively says is that people who are totally cold (regardless of the abdominal spark of warmth). . .”

There you go again. This is a mereological contradiction. And where does he call it a “spark”? Let’s stay with the wording.

See the above. Again.

“. . . are people who have been dead for many an hour.”

Then why not put Annie back around midnight?

Because there was a spark of warmth in her belly, Lynn.

“He had 23 years of service backing his knowledge up. Chapman was not the first dead person found in a chilly place that he had established a TOD for. He worked against a large amount of examples, and tried to fit Chapman in as best as he could according to that knowledge. He would have known that rigor was not hastened by chill, and he would have known that bodies keep warm long after they are dead.”

I, of all people, need no demonstration of Bagster’s professional and intellectual virtues. So I accept what he says: “it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.”

See the above. Again.

“He would however NOT have had any experience of whether an opened-up abdomen made the cooling off faster. He would, however, have seen other bodily damage and blood loss by dead people, and this would not have been enough for him to state that bodily damage or blood loss definitely did hasten the cooling off. If he had known this, he would have said so. Instead he said that Chapman, going by what the body revealed, had been dead for two or three hours AT THE VERY LEAST. And if this was not so, then he opened up for the possibility that the individual circumstances under which Chapman had died could have - not would have - had some impact.
That, Lynn, is not "backing off" - it is standing by his conviction, and adding that the case was singular. He would have known that there are exceptions to the rule and that some cool off quicker than others - it would have been described in the literature. And in each such case, this would have been governed by singular circumstances. Whether this applied in the Chapman case was something he did not give his view on - he said that to his mind, she had died two or three hours earlier than 6.30 at the very least.”

All of which is to say he offered an opinion but acknowledged it could be mistaken.

No. See the above. Again.

Perhaps you and I may emulate his example? Putting Richardson to one side, Long and Cadosch, too, offered opinions. And they may have been right—nothing Phillips said precludes that possibility.

Now I am aware that Phillips may be correct and Long and Cadosch mistaken. But it is not possible for him to be wrong; after all, HE made the exception quite uninvited. So even if Annie died around 5.30, Bagster is still RIGHT.

No. See the above. Again.

The best,
Fisherman

[Errata]

I'm just going to throw this out there. It can't all be forensics and witnesses. Some of this is going to come down to simple behavior. Like why would Chapman be soliciting at 5 in the morning? I'm not saying she wouldn't, but I am saying she would need a damn good reason, because even without doss money there comes a time when she would just settle down in a doorway or something to sleep. And getting doss money at five in the morning doesn't make sense, because places turned people out pretty early. So she would have maybe 15 minutes of sleep in a bed before getting rousted out. So if she was killed that late (in terms of typical work hours) why was she still working?

I will say that backyard would not be a terrible place to sack out for awhile, assuming no one cares what goes on back there, which apparently they didn't. But if she was doing that, no one saw her with her killer. He found her back there.

I'm just saying consider behavior in all this. Sometimes that gets a little lost.

[Fisherman]

why would Chapman be soliciting at 5 in the morning?

Why indeed? And how? Looking for necrophiliacs, perhaps?

She was dead at five o clock, Errata.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

I'm just going to throw this out there. It can't all be forensics and witnesses. Some of this is going to come down to simple behavior. Like why would Chapman be soliciting at 5 in the morning? I'm not saying she wouldn't, but I am saying she would need a damn good reason, because even without doss money there comes a time when she would just settle down in a doorway or something to sleep. And getting doss money at five in the morning doesn't make sense, because places turned people out pretty early. So she would have maybe 15 minutes of sleep in a bed before getting rousted out. So if she was killed that late (in terms of typical work hours) why was she still working?

I will say that backyard would not be a terrible place to sack out for awhile, assuming no one cares what goes on back there, which apparently they didn't. But if she was doing that, no one saw her with her killer. He found her back there.

I'm just saying consider behavior in all this. Sometimes that gets a little lost.

In Rumbelow and Evans`s "Scotland Yard Investigates" a press snippet of the Long incident has the extra bit of detail that the man approached the woman. So maybe she was just going with the flow?
But yes, she could have been kipping on the stairs or had nipped in the yard for a pee and was spotted as she stood outside no. 29.

[Wickerman]

One point of view I think is necessary in this case is to uphold the conclusions given by professionals, whether it be the police or the medical men.

In trying to rationalize an assumed time of death for Annie Chapman it is not a case of upholding the opinions of layperson's against that of a professional. What is necessary is to consider that a professional has voiced legitimate doubts, and, as a professional he is the most informed person, and best educated to make this observation.

As Phillips claims he may be wrong, for reason's he described, then it does no-one here today any good to try to second-guess the 'professional' opinion of a man who was there.

Had Dr Phillips maintained 'no doubt' (thankyou Lynn), then the argument would be completely different.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

reasons to still be soliciting

1. Food.

2. To secure the next evenings doss money so as to NOT end up on the streets again.

3. The oportunity presented itself.

Sure there are more, but I think the idea is clear enough and not too unreasonable?

Many blessings everyone.

[Hunter]

2. To secure the next evenings doss money so as to NOT end up on the streets again.

I doubt she would have been concerned with that. These women usually didn't think that far ahead. If she'd made any money, she would have spent it.

The other options may be possible.

[Hunter]

As Phillips claims he may be wrong, for reason's he described, then it does no-one here today any good to try to second-guess the 'professional' opinion of a man who was there.

Thanks in part to Wynne Baxter, much about Bagster Phillips is misunderstood.

[Abby Normal]

Long could well have seen a couple in Hanbury Street. That does not mean that they were THE couple, as she admits herself by acknowledging that she would not be able to ID her people.

That does not make her a liar.

Cadosh could have heard or imagined he heard something. The conversation could have come from elsewhere than No 29 - he admits that himself. And the bump - described as it was as either a heavy fall or as somebody touching the fence - could have been a rat hoping to fins itīs way to Mrs Hardimanīs layer.

That does not make him a liar.

Richardson may have missed Chapman, as outlined by the police at the time.

That does not make him a liar either.

Conversely, they may all have lied to a smaller or greater extent. They may have embellished, looked for fame, been ashamed to tell the truth etcetera.

Finally, Chapman may have been killed at 5.25, making them all good, reliable witnesses, more or less.

My money is on them being bad witnesses, all three. That has happened before.

All the best,
Fisherman

Thanks fish
We will just have to disagree then. I just don't see how all three could be wrong.

[lynn cates]

warm regards

Hello Christer. Thanks.

Stop the semantics? Delighted to. Of course, you are the one using unauthorised adjectives.

Yes cold is cold. But there was warmth yet--as you yourself admit. Let's let Bagster be Bagster.

"Then show me where a murder victim has had all the same three parameters work together the way you claim they worked in Chapman. Please."

Not even if you beg. (heh-heh) I detest statistics and, if you have indeed gone over to that dark side, then even Obi-Wan cannot redeem you. (heh-heh)

"And when she offered sex instead of money, he blew his top?"

Actually--if you'll forgive my way of putting it--he nearly blew HER top.

"If a packing crate was leaning against the palings and the wind or Cadosch's march past the fence brought it out of balance, then why won't it do?"

Because it would have been noted by the inspector.

As for warmth, see my last post--again.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Little Kipper Annie

Hello Errata.

"Like why would Chapman be soliciting at 5 in the morning?"

Don't think she was. Likely threw up the sponge a good bit earlier and opted to snit round to #29 for a bit of kip.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

love

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"What is necessary is to consider that a professional has voiced legitimate doubts, and, as a professional he is the most informed person, and best educated to make this observation.

As Phillips claims he may be wrong, for reason's he described, then it does no-one here today any good to try to second-guess the 'professional' opinion of a man who was there."

Say, this really MAY be love.

Cheers.
LC