AC and TOD

[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

[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]

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Fisherman]

Hi fish
Nice try. But no. I could see if there was only one witness who's testimony disputes the drs, but three? And they all corroborate that chapman died later. Plus there are no eye witnesses that corroborate an earlier death with the dr.
More than likely chapman died around 5:30.

If all the women who spoke of a "Murder!" outcry in Millerīs court had been called to the inquest, you would have perhaps ten ladies "corroborating" each other, Abby.
Ten million flies canīt be wrong, eh?

The witnesses "corroborate" Chapman dying around 5.30 - but they donīt corroborate each other. Cadoschīs people are in the back yard many a minut before Long sees them outside, in the street.

And - again - Long admitted that she would not be able to ID her couple the day before she saw Chapman at the morgue. She only turned up three days after the killing, and said she had not payed any much attention to her couple.

Cadosh - again - gave a very much more lively scenario before the inquest for the event, than he did at the inquest. He at least reported to the police early on (in spite of what the Times lead on), but the different accounts for that "fall" makes me wonder very much.

And Richardson need not have seen a thing, even if he DID sit on the stairs.

So Iīll just say what you said - nice try. But no.

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

LynnC:

In discussing Annie's intestinal warmth, you are saying what I have been saying. I don't wish to do a lesson in mereology, but such an example negates the claim of being totally cold.

The rest of the body WAS quite cold. And a body will normally keep itīs warmth to at least some degree for around up to eight (8) hours. Whatever warmth there was in the abdomen, underneath the intestines, would have been faint. And the rest of the body was quite, quite cold.This very unanimously tells a story of the victim having been perished for hours, other than in quite exceptional cases. 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. Just keep in mind that statistically, this calls for very high odds.

If you wish to impugn Richardson as a witness, you certainly have my blessing. I have said he was a poor witness since day one--and irrespective of my view on Annie's TOD.

Itīs either that, or he was completely misinterpreted and expressed himself poorly.

What of Long and Cadosch?

You call the conversation she heard strange. It would be IF it were as suggested.

Thanks for recognizing that.

But as far back as my dissertation, I have maintained that the assailant was not looking for sex, but for MONEY. In which case, it would be perfectly natural to ask, "Will you?" Nor would it be unnatural for a sick woman with little food and sleep to misunderstand.

For ... money? The man speaking to Chapman (who am I kidding...?) asked her for money? I need to read that dissertation; what makes you think this? And how would it result in them going into the back yard...?


Cadosch heard a fall against the fence. He did or he did not. If he did not, he lied. If he did, an account must be given of a bump against the fence whilst Annie is lying dead.

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 "swisch"?
Which is it you need me to explain?

Cadosch telling porkies suits the general picture just fine, as far as Iīm concerned. Cadosh 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.

Once again you bring in Phillips (that's good) and claim he does not waver (not so good). He admitted at inquest that there were factors involved which could have skewed his judgment. Is that not wavering? It would be different if he had said, "Look, the woman died about 4.30. And I AM the doctor." But, no, he backed off.

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) are people who have been dead for many an hour.
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.

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 bloodloss by dead people, and this would not have been enough for him to state that bodily damage or bloodloss 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.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi fish
So you think all the three witnesses lied?

[Abby Normal]

This is thoroughly interesting to discuss, and I welcome the input. I also note that people who ascribe to the Long/Cadosch/Richardson lineup strive - naturally - to look for the exceptions to the rule that may allow for believing in Chapman dying at around 5.30. Feverish people can go into rigor early on, there has been recorded quick coolings-off and so on.

All very true. James Brady was hit between the eyes when Reagan was shot, but Brady didnīt die - he miraculously survived, since the bullet passed exactly between the two halves of his brain. Conclusion? You can survive being shot right between the eyes. Forgotten conclusion? You normally die.

The best explanation to Chapman being cold (yes, Lynn, apart from a small area in the stomach she WAS quite cold), to her having an onsetting rigor mortis and to her having partly undigested food in her stomach is and remains that she was killed around two or three hours before Phillips saw her. Not a living soul would - or could - object to that.
The one and only reason the idea is being bandied about that Chapmans corpse could loose all itīs body warmth (yes, Lynn, etc) in an hour or less and that rigor mortis would set in very early in spite of the prevailing chill and that her potato was so incredibly hard to digest, is that there are three witnesses who seemingly nullify Phillips suggestion of a TOD around 4 AM.

I think that too much credence has been invested in these witnesses, and I will outline why.

Mrs Long - she purportedly saw Chapman and her killer outside 29 Hanbury Street at around 5.30 or shortly thereafter. She heard the man say "Will you?" and the woman answer "Yes", and she positively identified Chapman at the morgue.

Problems: She admitted that she offered the couple only scant attention, yet she says four days after the murder that she recognizes the woman at the morgue as the one she had seen in Hanbury Street. And what did she say initially? Letīs turn to the Daily News of September 12:th, the day Long surfaced:
"Another fresh point was elicited in the form of a statement made by a woman named Darrell, who minds carts on market mornings in Spitalfields Market. She asserts that about half-past five on Saturday morning she was passing the front door of No. 29, Hanbury-street, when she saw a man and a woman standing on the pavement. She heard the man say "Will you?" and the woman replied "Yes," and they then disappeared. Mrs. Darrell does not think she could identify the couple."

Somehow, the day after, she COULD identify Chapman, however. Positively so, even.

Letīs also listen to that exchange again - does it not ring strange? Letīs suppose that a person wants fifteen minutes of fame, and letīs suppose this person is Mrs Long. Now, how could she drive home a message that the couple she saw was Chapman and her killer?
Perhaps by presenting a rudimentary conversation that left us unable to fill the blanks in in any other way than as a confirmation of Long being right:
Will you? (...follow me into the backyard and serve me sexually for money?)
Yes (I will step into that backyard with you)

There is a nice parallel with Cadosh here; more on that later.

Now, the conversation lends itself excellently to ruling out that this was anything else than a meeting between a prostitute and a client. However, a client KNOWS that the prostitute "will", so he need not ask her that. I find the conversation very odd. I donīt think that this sort of wording is very likely to go down in an encounter such as the one we are looking at. A question about the price, a "come along, luvī", something like that; yes. But "Will you?" No.

So, a witness that changes her view on the ability to recognize the couple and who offers a very odd conversation, clumsily shaped to try and confirm an act of sexual purchasing and to top things off, a witness that took three days on herself to surface. She would have known the timeline and the circumstances and could shape her story accordingly. Letīs throw her out of court, shall we?

But no - in steps young Cadosh to serve a story that ALSO speaks of Chapman being alive up til about 5.30 - but not all the way up to that point.

The Times, September 15:
"On the question as to the time when the crime was committed, concerning which there was a difference between the evidence of the man Richardson and the opinion of Dr. Phillips, a correspondent yesterday elicited that Mr. Cadoche, who lives in the next house to No. 29, Hanbury-street, where the murder was committed, went to the back of the premises at half-past 5 a.m. As he passed the wooden partition he heard a woman say "No, no." On returning he heard a scuffle and then someone fell heavily against the fence. He heard no cry for help, and so he went into his house. Some surprise is felt that this statement was not made in evidence at the inquest. There is a very strong feeling in the district and large numbers of persons continue to visit the locality."

So, just the one trip to the loo? And it was a woman who said "No, no" as he passed the partition? And there was a heavy fall against the palings?

At the inquest, he did not know where the voice came from, he did not say it belonged to a woman, he made two trips to the loo and the fall sounded like something suddenly touching the fence. Plus the voice said "No", not "No, no".

Cadosh apparently surfaced many days after the murder, just like Long. And just like Long, he finds the choice bits that leave us with a scenario that is easily read: The killer makes his intentions clear, Chapman says "No!", but is subdued and killed. It takes the odd minute, but she falls against the fence along which she was subsequently found.

How lucky that these two witnesses get hold of these exact details, leaving us in no doubt of what went down!

Actually, if Long had said that she saw the couple speaking to each other and no more, and if Cadosch had only stated that he had heard people moving about in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street, I would have thought the evidence a lot more credible. Especially if it had been delivered on Saturday morning.

As it stands, my thoughts are drawn to Millerīs court, where the different women tried to outbid each other about the "Murder" cry. Just like the Cadosch article from the 15:th says, "There is a very strong feeling in the district and large numbers of persons continue to visit the locality." There would have been many persons wanting to be part of the ongoing saga.

I cannot help but to feel that we are at great risk if we accept Long and Cadosch. We have other witnesses in the Ripper saga of the same quality; Prater who first heard nothing and then spoke of a "Murder" cry, and Lewis, who gave flesh and bone to a person she had already admitted to not being able to describe at all leap to mind.

And Richardson? Heīs all over the place, testimonywise. All over the stairs, at least. Plus no matter if he was on step one or step two, it still applies that a door that closes itself would have been very much in the way for his ability to see Chapman.

The one guy who does not wawer is Phillips. We may conclude that he was not in it for any fifteen minutes of fame, at the very least. He gave a professional view, standing on three legs that all corroborate each other. He therefore offers the best explanation as to why nobody could remember seeing Annie Chapman on the London Streets after she left her dosshouse: because to see her, one would need to enter the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street.

All the best,
Fisherman

Hi fish
Nice try. But no. I could see if there was only one witness who's testimony disputes the drs, but three? And they all corroborate that chapman died later. Plus there are no eye witnesses that corroborate an earlier death with the dr.
More than likely chapman died around 5:30.

[Fisherman]

LynnC:

In discussing Annie's intestinal warmth, you are saying what I have been saying. I don't wish to do a lesson in mereology, but such an example negates the claim of being totally cold.

The rest of the body WAS quite cold. And a body will normally keep itīs warmth to at least some degree for around up to eight (8) hours. Whatever warmth there was in the abdomen, underneath the intestines, would have been faint. And the rest of the body was quite, quite cold.This very unanimously tells a story of the victim having been perished for hours, other than in quite exceptional cases. 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. Just keep in mind that statistically, this calls for very high odds.

If you wish to impugn Richardson as a witness, you certainly have my blessing. I have said he was a poor witness since day one--and irrespective of my view on Annie's TOD.

Itīs either that, or he was completely misinterpreted and expressed himself poorly.

What of Long and Cadosch?

You call the conversation she heard strange. It would be IF it were as suggested.

Thanks for recognizing that.

But as far back as my dissertation, I have maintained that the assailant was not looking for sex, but for MONEY. In which case, it would be perfectly natural to ask, "Will you?" Nor would it be unnatural for a sick woman with little food and sleep to misunderstand.

For ... money? The man speaking to Chapman (who am I kidding...?) asked her for money? I need to read that dissertation; what makes you think this? And how would it result in them going into the back yard...?


Cadosch heard a fall against the fence. He did or he did not. If he did not, he lied. If he did, an account must be given of a bump against the fence whilst Annie is lying dead.

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 "swisch"?
Which is it you need me to explain?

Cadosch telling porkies suits the general picture just fine, as far as Iīm concerned. Cadosh 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.

Once again you bring in Phillips (that's good) and claim he does not waver (not so good). He admitted at inquest that there were factors involved which could have skewed his judgment. Is that not wavering? It would be different if he had said, "Look, the woman died about 4.30. And I AM the doctor." But, no, he backed off.

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) are people who have been dead for many an hour.
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.

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 bloodloss by dead people, and this would not have been enough for him to state that bodily damage or bloodloss 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.

The best,
Fisherman

[curious4]

Painful

The information may well be there, of course, even if it is wrong. Iīll happily take your word for it if you promise to fight off that halsfluss - nasty things, those. And painful.

The best,
Fisherman

Hello Fish,

Thank you - and I can say with absolute certainty, yes it is!

Best wishes,
Gwyneth/C4

[lynn cates]

witnesses

Hello Christer. Thanks.

In discussing Annie's intestinal warmth, you are saying what I have been saying. I don't wish to do a lesson in mereology, but such an example negates the claim of being totally cold.

If you wish to impugn Richardson as a witness, you certainly have my blessing. I have said he was a poor witness since day one--and irrespective of my view on Annie's TOD.

What of Long and Cadosch?

You call the conversation she heard strange. It would be IF it were as suggested. But as far back as my dissertation, I have maintained that the assailant was not looking for sex, but for MONEY. In which case, it would be perfectly natural to ask, "Will you?" Nor would it be unnatural for a sick woman with little food and sleep to misunderstand.

Cadosch heard a fall against the fence. He did or he did not. If he did not, he lied. If he did, an account must be given of a bump against the fence whilst Annie is lying dead.

Once again you bring in Phillips (that's good) and claim he does not waver (not so good). He admitted at inquest that there were factors involved which could have skewed his judgment. Is that not wavering? It would be different if he had said, "Look, the woman died about 4.30. And I AM the doctor." But, no, he backed off.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

possibility

Hello Jon. Thanks for that.

Yes, that's a distinct possibility.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Hallo Fisherman,

You are most probably right - fighting off halsfluss/tonsillitis, hence my somewhat feverish posts. My throat will probably recover more quickly if I can keep my mouth shut. Sure I have heard that about the door somewhere, though, right or wrong.

Best wishes,

C4

The information may well be there, of course, even if it is wrong. Iīll happily take your word for it if you promise to fight off that halsfluss - nasty things, those. And painful.

The best,
Fisherman

[curious4]

Fever

Nope. It was not a parted door.

The best,
Fisherman

Hallo Fisherman,

You are most probably right - fighting off halsfluss/tonsillitis, hence my somewhat feverish posts. My throat will probably recover more quickly if I can keep my mouth shut. Sure I have heard that about the door somewhere, though, right or wrong.

Best wishes,

C4