Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapman time of death poll

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

  • #46
    decided not to go there anymore
    Last edited by curious; 12-24-2012, 02:08 AM. Reason: decided to delete

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
      “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.

      Comment


      • #48
        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

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
          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.

          Comment


          • #50
            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

            Comment


            • #51
              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

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post
                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.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by curious View Post
                  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.
                  Discussions always get rehashed, opinions change, and new idea's can be brought to bear. Remember, new members are coming on board all the time, and likely are not aware of what has been discussed before.
                  Don't worry about it...

                  Merry xmas, Jon S.
                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                    Discussions always get rehashed, opinions change, and new idea's can be brought to bear. Remember, new members are coming on board all the time, and likely are not aware of what has been discussed before.
                    Don't worry about it...

                    Merry xmas, Jon S.
                    True, Jon,
                    With me, even the same ole thing might be worded slightly differently and bring me a new thought or angle of seeing something.

                    So rehashing is not lost -- even on people who have waded through these boards for awhile.

                    Merry Christmas to you too.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post
                      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!
                      Hi Dave,

                      Just curious, who was the quack?
                      Best Wishes,
                      Hunter
                      ____________________________________________

                      When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post
                        Hi Phil



                        Yes I agree Richardson's testimony seems to have been built on brick by brick...my initial suspicion was that he'd lied to his mother about looking in every day, felt committed to the lie, perpetuated it and then got himself into deeper and deeper trouble as the lies built up...culminating of course with the knife....

                        However, Debs' discovery that Richardson might've been discharged from the army with epilepsy could possibly lead to other scenarios...

                        So perhaps he suffered a petit mal type event and lost some period of time...or maybe (and just conceivably) worse...

                        I'm personally aware of at least one person in my past whose otherwise harmless epilepsy on occasion triggered violent episodes...the poor chap in question was resident in what could only (in the 70's) be described as a Mental Hospital (Haywards Heath) ... and as a casual visitor frankly one generally wondered why...he was a gentle and genial soul, a little confused sometimes, with a love of railway history...It was only after a couple of unfortunate events (one of which involved the attempted strangulation of a minibus driver taking him and others out for the day - during which incidentally he decked the attendant - me - with a single blow to the temple) that it emerged that his home prior to Haywards Heath had been Rampton...something which the authorities had chosen not to disclose to the charity I was working for!

                        I don't want to unjustly accuse John Richardson of something for which he might well've been totally innocent...but I'm keeping a very much open mind on the subject...particularly considering Colin's revelations regarding Cadosche and the possibly dubious nature of the Long sighting

                        All the best

                        Dave

                        Great post Dave!


                        Epilepsy!


                        Add to that, Richardson had long hair on his face, and only one good eye!


                        As this thread shows, 10 out of 21 voted for an earlier TOD.



                        The Baron

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by The Baron View Post


                          Great post Dave!


                          Epilepsy!


                          Add to that, Richardson had long hair on his face, and only one good eye!


                          As this thread shows, 10 out of 21 voted for an earlier TOD.



                          The Baron
                          OMG... you actually took this post seriously?

                          You know it was a p*sstake, right?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                            OMG... you actually took this post seriously?

                            You know it was a p*sstake, right?
                            I rest my case Harry.
                            Regards

                            Herlock






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

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                              OMG... you actually took this post seriously?

                              You know it was a p*sstake, right?

                              Yes, seriously! Can you imagine! I did!



                              The Baron

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                I rest my case Harry.


                                Let it rest in peace!



                                The Baron

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X