Chapman time of death poll

[curious]

Hi Velma

Post and be damned I say...and if the TOD comes out earlier rather than later then who's to say you're wrong? Personally I think the quack was looking at body temperature first and foremost rather than rigor, but either way I suspect earlier's the way to go!

All the best

Dave

Thanks, Dave,

It's just that I get bored saying it. And anyone who has read through this already knows what I think, but it just keeps being re-hashed.

Plus, the condition of the body makes it seem so obvious to me I don't understand the 5:30 thinking . . . .

oh, well.

Merry Christmas everyone -- no matter what your thinking is on this or any thing else.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Velma

Post and be damned I say...and if the TOD comes out earlier rather than later then who's to say you're wrong? Personally I think the quack was looking at body temperature first and foremost rather than rigor, but either way I suspect earlier's the way to go!

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

R M

Hello Velma. Thanks. Yes, most of that has been cited by Wolf Vanderlinden in his excellent piece.

If only rigour mortis obeyed the rules. I have read about VERY wide exceptions.

Cheers.
LC

[curious]

Hello Damaso. Thanks.


Well, he certainly backed off from his initial position, citing atmosphere, etc. in his reckoning.

Cheers.
LC

Lynn,
Unfortunately, the problem with the doctor quoting the cold night is the onset of rigor which is slowed by cold, not advanced.

In addition, the rigor noticed by the doctor was in the limbs, not in the face where rigor actually starts.

The combination of the coldness of the body (contrast it with Eddowes, who supposedly was examined soon after death and also had extensive blood loss) and noticeable in the limbs, and there is only one possible conclusion -- for me at least. But since I've posted this dozens of times, you see why I would prefer not to go there again.

[lynn cates]

backing off

Hello Damaso. Thanks.

My main objective is to get to the bottom of this mess. All other considerations are secondary.

"did the doctor adjust the the body temperature for the fact that so much blood loss, etc., had taken place?"

Well, he certainly backed off from his initial position, citing atmosphere, etc. in his reckoning.

Cheers.
LC

[Damaso Marte]

“In any event, accepting an earlier time for Chapman and accepting Schwartz would both further your core theory, but you deny both.”

I agree with you about Schwartz, but I don’t see the application to Chapman?

Having Chapman's killing take place at the same time as Nichols (and a different time than Stride or Eddowes) would strengthen your core argument of Nichols and Chapman being done by a different hand than the other canonicals.

I'm inclined to agree with the post two posts ahead of this one: did the doctor adjust the the body temperature for the fact that so much blood loss, etc., had taken place?

I'm inclined to treat Victorian time of death estimation from body temperature like I treat Victorian telling of time: an imprecise science that we should not expect complete accuracy and consistency from.

[curious]

decided not to go there anymore

[Michael W Richards]

Hi folks,

I think in this case the TOD mystery is solvable. What is still contentious though is how long it takes a body to cool.

I dont believe that Annie was there when Richardson was, as per his statement....so not killed before 4:45ish......and I believe Cadosche likely heard the start of the murder, because he heard a soft female voice. That makes her murder between 5:15 and 5:30...which makes Mrs Long incorrect about, at the very least, the time,.......and means that the body cooled within the time between 5:30 and the first person to touch the dead woman, so,.....approximately 45 minutes.

Considering that the body was in essence an open cavity, and that most if not all the blood had drained from her, that seems reasonable or probable to me.

Best regards

[lynn cates]

Colney Hatch

Hello Jon. Thanks. Duly noted.

I was thinking about Rob Clack's rogue's gallery from Colney Hatch. Rather frightening to say the least.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Eye, eye sir.

Hello Greg. Thanks. Whilst anything is possible, the eyes are more likely a sign of some form of dementia.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Precisely. That would be the look of ANY wandering lunatic.

Just for jolly, have a go at Isenschmid's photo. See what I mean?

Cheers.
LC

I think we must allow for the fact that in 'mug' shots taken of anyone arrested, they are not in the best of moods to start with. So yes, they may have a wild-eyed look.
Witnesses noticed this feature when, supposedly, these men were in the process of picking up a female. Worth noting, but we can't read too much into it, unless the suspect had syphilis. In which case they may have suffered from madarosis, a complication where the man loses his eyelashes.

Regards, Jon S.

[GregBaron]

Diseased eyes...

Hello Jon. Thanks.


"There does appear to be another common detail among a few witnesses, that he had "funny eyes", whatever that is supposed to mean."

Precisely. That would be the look of ANY wandering lunatic.

Just for jolly, have a go at Isenschmid's photo. See what I mean?

Cheers.
LC

Question gentlemen. I wonder if funny eyes might result from syphilis or some other disease.....?


Greg

[lynn cates]

The eyes have it.

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Largely agree.

"There must have been more than one man with an awkward gait."

Yes, indeed. Mrs. Fiddymont's man, Piser, Henry James--all had a peculiar gait.

"There does appear to be another common detail among a few witnesses, that he had "funny eyes", whatever that is supposed to mean."

Precisely. That would be the look of ANY wandering lunatic.

Just for jolly, have a go at Isenschmid's photo. See what I mean?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

I took it that Leather Apron was simply a 'moniker' for a man who never existed.

Once they established that Piser could not be the killer, whether he was known as Leather Apron or not became immaterial, then it was replaced in a couple of weeks by 'Jack the Ripper', another name for a man who some say never existed

Regardless, I don't see the man in Fiddymont's story as being able to scrub-up to turn himself out like the 'Britannia man', who seems to cut a gentlemanly cloth.

There must have been more than one man with an awkward gait.
There does appear to be another common detail among a few witnesses, that he had "funny eyes", whatever that is supposed to mean.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

Here, there be rumours.

Hello Jon. Thanks.

As with any rumour, "Leather Apron" has many strands involved in his genesis. I think that Isenschmid, Piser, James, Thimbleby's man and perhaps Richardson's man all contributed to the legend.

Cheers.
LC