Chapman’s death.

[FISHY1118]

Time to pull the curtain down
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
It’s amazing what bias and the desperate desire to bolster a theory will bring people to. And let’s recall what Trevor said (and Trevor has no theory to support.) He accepted that Phillips TOD estimate was completely unreliable and yet he still favoured it over three witnesses. I’ll stick my neck out and say that this is one of the most bizarre pronouncements that I’ve ever heard in my 35 years of interest in the case! It’s simply staggering.

Nothing bizarre at all, one of the two scenarios has to be the right one. I like you am entitled to make a calculated guess, which one is right and I have made that guess, and that all it is a guess, the same as you suggesting that the witnesses could not be mistaken, we know that is not correct. As I have said before it cannot be conclusively proved what the TOD was, accept it and move on, and stop arguing for the sake of arguing.

This debate should have been ended days ago. The moment that the incontrovertible evidence was produced showing that Phillips simply could not have accurately estimated the TOD. In how many fields would we get complete laymen disputing the words and writings of the foremost experts on a subject? Can you believe the arrogance? Can you believe the desperate lengths that posters will go to to try and discredit perfectly plausible witnesses? Witness that the police at the time considered plausible. And on such pathetic and biased grounds.

The debate should have ended days ago, but your are one of those who wont allow it to end, practice what you preach stop posting on the thread, what are you achieving ?

That Dr Phillips could not have accurately estimated the TOD to preclude 5.30 is an established fact. Anyone debating this is debating every authority on the subject. Therefor Phillips TOD can be disregarded. This is a fact.

But it it not an ascertained fact !

We have three witness. Like all witnesses, they are not perfect. A desperate attempt has been made to dismiss Cadosch (mainly by Fishy) purely on the grounds that he was cautious about hearing the ‘no.’ In other circumstances caution would strengthen the case for Cadosch honesty but not with the dishonest it doesn’t. He was confident about the noise but because he was cautious about the ‘no’ then he should be dismissed. Has anyone ever heard such nonsense? As Michael has said, what are the chances that, in an unoccupied yard, early in the morning, a voice and a noise are heard and they are not connected to the murder? How much do we wish to stretch believability to pander to the terminally biased?

The nonsense spoken about the passageway conversation between Chandler and Richardson is bizarre. Why would Richardson lie to put himself at a crime scene with a knife when he had no need to. This is palpable nonsense. Could Richardson have missed a body? He was 100% certain not and we have absolutely no reason to disbelieve him. Forget Fish’s sketched manipulations just look at the photograph and you have your answer. There’s no way that he could have missed a body. Chapman definitely wasn’t there at 4.50.

And finally the only witness of the three who causes an issue and it’s simply one of timing. Yes she could have been mistaken. But the fact that she was confident after viewing the corpse gives weight to her testimony. So it’s down to time. Fishy dishonestly refuses to accept what every single person interested in this case knows, that we have to make allowances for timings with people who usually didn’t own watches or even clocks. Is it impossible that Long was 15 minutes out? Of course it isn’t. Is it impossible that Cadosch might have been 15 minutes out? Of course it isn’t. Is it impossible that both Long and Cadosch were both 7 or 8 minutes out? Of course it isn’t.

The witnesses outweigh the Doctor. They have to because the doctors TOD can safely be disregarded. I’m no longer interested in wasting time debating with the biased and the illogical. Fish, Fishy, The Baron are welcome to their fantasies and their theories. None of us should take someone seriously that believes that Annie Chapman was murdered and mutilated in a carriage by the Queens 72 year old Physician then dumped in the backyard by a famous painter and a deranged coach driver. That kind of drivel elimintates anyone from a sensible discussion of the case.

The witness testimony is unsafe

Annie Chapman TOD 5.25/5.30 beyond all reasonable doubt.

Please stop repeating this over and over again its getting boring and its not proven !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

End of.


Thanks Trevor , you saved me the trouble
.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Time to pull the curtain down
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
It’s amazing what bias and the desperate desire to bolster a theory will bring people to. And let’s recall what Trevor said (and Trevor has no theory to support.) He accepted that Phillips TOD estimate was completely unreliable and yet he still favoured it over three witnesses. I’ll stick my neck out and say that this is one of the most bizarre pronouncements that I’ve ever heard in my 35 years of interest in the case! It’s simply staggering.

Nothing bizarre at all, one of the two scenarios has to be the right one. I like you am entitled to make a calculated guess, which one is right and I have made that guess, and that all it is a guess, the same as you suggesting that the witnesses could not be mistaken, we know that is not correct. As I have said before it cannot be conclusively proved what the TOD was, accept it and move on, and stop arguing for the sake of arguing.

Firstly, I haven’t said that the witnesses could not have been mistaken. What I’m saying is that there’s no evidence of that.

Secondly, how can you honestly make this kind of judgment call - the doctors TOD estimate is unsafe and h could only have gotten it right by luck, but I’ll go with it over three witnesses!! - Even though logic tells us that even if he could have gotten the TOD right by luck we have no way of knowing it.

This debate should have been ended days ago. The moment that the incontrovertible evidence was produced showing that Phillips simply could not have accurately estimated the TOD. In how many fields would we get complete laymen disputing the words and writings of the foremost experts on a subject? Can you believe the arrogance? Can you believe the desperate lengths that posters will go to to try and discredit perfectly plausible witnesses? Witness that the police at the time considered plausible. And on such pathetic and biased grounds.

The debate should have ended days ago, but your are one of those who wont allow it to end, practice what you preach stop posting on the thread, what are you achieving ?

Im fighting against a wave of irrationality from a few posters. Posters who either need an earlier TOD to support a theory r who favour luck over creditable witnesses. Posters who appear willing to go to ludicrous lengths to discredit witnesses.

That Dr Phillips could not have accurately estimated the TOD to preclude 5.30 is an established fact. Anyone debating this is debating every authority on the subject. Therefor Phillips TOD can be disregarded. This is a fact.

But it it not an ascertained fact !

Yes it is. Read the evidence that has been posted. There is no but’s or maybe’s. All of he authorities tell us that Phillips could only have got the TOD correct by luck as the methods that he used were unsafe. Payne-James for one categorically states this. Phillips should be ignored.

We have three witness. Like all witnesses, they are not perfect. A desperate attempt has been made to dismiss Cadosch (mainly by Fishy) purely on the grounds that he was cautious about hearing the ‘no.’ In other circumstances caution would strengthen the case for Cadosch honesty but not with the dishonest it doesn’t. He was confident about the noise but because he was cautious about the ‘no’ then he should be dismissed. Has anyone ever heard such nonsense? As Michael has said, what are the chances that, in an unoccupied yard, early in the morning, a voice and a noise are heard and they are not connected to the murder? How much do we wish to stretch believability to pander to the terminally biased?

The nonsense spoken about the passageway conversation between Chandler and Richardson is bizarre. Why would Richardson lie to put himself at a crime scene with a knife when he had no need to. This is palpable nonsense. Could Richardson have missed a body? He was 100% certain not and we have absolutely no reason to disbelieve him. Forget Fish’s sketched manipulations just look at the photograph and you have your answer. There’s no way that he could have missed a body. Chapman definitely wasn’t there at 4.50.

And finally the only witness of the three who causes an issue and it’s simply one of timing. Yes she could have been mistaken. But the fact that she was confident after viewing the corpse gives weight to her testimony. So it’s down to time. Fishy dishonestly refuses to accept what every single person interested in this case knows, that we have to make allowances for timings with people who usually didn’t own watches or even clocks. Is it impossible that Long was 15 minutes out? Of course it isn’t. Is it impossible that Cadosch might have been 15 minutes out? Of course it isn’t. Is it impossible that both Long and Cadosch were both 7 or 8 minutes out? Of course it isn’t.

The witnesses outweigh the Doctor. They have to because the doctors TOD can safely be disregarded. I’m no longer interested in wasting time debating with the biased and the illogical. Fish, Fishy, The Baron are welcome to their fantasies and their theories. None of us should take someone seriously that believes that Annie Chapman was murdered and mutilated in a carriage by the Queens 72 year old Physician then dumped in the backyard by a famous painter and a deranged coach driver. That kind of drivel elimintates anyone from a sensible discussion of the case.

The witness testimony is unsafe

Utter nonsense. The efforts to discredit them are simply dishonest. By your judgment method every single witness is unsafe.

Annie Chapman TOD 5.25/5.30 beyond all reasonable doubt.

Please stop repeating this over and over again its getting boring and its not proven !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ANNIE CHAPMAN WAS MURDERED AT AROUND 5.25/5.30 BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT APART FROM TO THE BIASED OR THE BLOODY MINDED!!!!!

End of.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Time to pull the curtain down
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
It’s amazing what bias and the desperate desire to bolster a theory will bring people to. And let’s recall what Trevor said (and Trevor has no theory to support.) He accepted that Phillips TOD estimate was completely unreliable and yet he still favoured it over three witnesses. I’ll stick my neck out and say that this is one of the most bizarre pronouncements that I’ve ever heard in my 35 years of interest in the case! It’s simply staggering.

Nothing bizarre at all, one of the two scenarios has to be the right one. I like you am entitled to make a calculated guess, which one is right and I have made that guess, and that all it is a guess, the same as you suggesting that the witnesses could not be mistaken, we know that is not correct. As I have said before it cannot be conclusively proved what the TOD was, accept it and move on, and stop arguing for the sake of arguing.

This debate should have been ended days ago. The moment that the incontrovertible evidence was produced showing that Phillips simply could not have accurately estimated the TOD. In how many fields would we get complete laymen disputing the words and writings of the foremost experts on a subject? Can you believe the arrogance? Can you believe the desperate lengths that posters will go to to try and discredit perfectly plausible witnesses? Witness that the police at the time considered plausible. And on such pathetic and biased grounds.

The debate should have ended days ago, but your are one of those who wont allow it to end, practice what you preach stop posting on the thread, what are you achieving ?

That Dr Phillips could not have accurately estimated the TOD to preclude 5.30 is an established fact. Anyone debating this is debating every authority on the subject. Therefor Phillips TOD can be disregarded. This is a fact.

But it it not an ascertained fact !

We have three witness. Like all witnesses, they are not perfect. A desperate attempt has been made to dismiss Cadosch (mainly by Fishy) purely on the grounds that he was cautious about hearing the ‘no.’ In other circumstances caution would strengthen the case for Cadosch honesty but not with the dishonest it doesn’t. He was confident about the noise but because he was cautious about the ‘no’ then he should be dismissed. Has anyone ever heard such nonsense? As Michael has said, what are the chances that, in an unoccupied yard, early in the morning, a voice and a noise are heard and they are not connected to the murder? How much do we wish to stretch believability to pander to the terminally biased?

The nonsense spoken about the passageway conversation between Chandler and Richardson is bizarre. Why would Richardson lie to put himself at a crime scene with a knife when he had no need to. This is palpable nonsense. Could Richardson have missed a body? He was 100% certain not and we have absolutely no reason to disbelieve him. Forget Fish’s sketched manipulations just look at the photograph and you have your answer. There’s no way that he could have missed a body. Chapman definitely wasn’t there at 4.50.

And finally the only witness of the three who causes an issue and it’s simply one of timing. Yes she could have been mistaken. But the fact that she was confident after viewing the corpse gives weight to her testimony. So it’s down to time. Fishy dishonestly refuses to accept what every single person interested in this case knows, that we have to make allowances for timings with people who usually didn’t own watches or even clocks. Is it impossible that Long was 15 minutes out? Of course it isn’t. Is it impossible that Cadosch might have been 15 minutes out? Of course it isn’t. Is it impossible that both Long and Cadosch were both 7 or 8 minutes out? Of course it isn’t.

The witnesses outweigh the Doctor. They have to because the doctors TOD can safely be disregarded. I’m no longer interested in wasting time debating with the biased and the illogical. Fish, Fishy, The Baron are welcome to their fantasies and their theories. None of us should take someone seriously that believes that Annie Chapman was murdered and mutilated in a carriage by the Queens 72 year old Physician then dumped in the backyard by a famous painter and a deranged coach driver. That kind of drivel elimintates anyone from a sensible discussion of the case.

The witness testimony is unsafe

Annie Chapman TOD 5.25/5.30 beyond all reasonable doubt.

Please stop repeating this over and over again its getting boring and its not proven !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

End of.


Thanks Trevor , you saved me the trouble
.

Yes he has. There’s no point in you both posting the same nonsense.

[Errata]

Because it was (and still is) standard procedure for a post mortem exam?

Well, it was and it wasn’t. It’s an exacting procedure with often no fruit for a ton of effort. So some coroners even today tend not to bother unless there is some other indication of head injury, such as palpable cracks in the skull, penetrating injury, or swelling. It certainly was not a procedure regularly done on essentially the homeless. But they really should have in these instances. Because all of these women have injuries consistent with a blow to the face or side of the head. And I never thought about what that meant until I had my own brain injury two years ago. Annie Chapman’s brain is consistent with a closed head injury. Yes, some of her brain condition is due to disease, but dark blood, fluid, the texture, classic closed head injury. Perhaps even a concussion, but with no injury to the skull. And having the other brains described as thoroughly as Chapman’s would have been useful. Though with little knowledge of brain injury aside from injury from insult, I’m not confident of what their conclusions would have been.

[JeffHamm]

Well, it was and it wasn’t. It’s an exacting procedure with often no fruit for a ton of effort. So some coroners even today tend not to bother unless there is some other indication of head injury, such as palpable cracks in the skull, penetrating injury, or swelling. It certainly was not a procedure regularly done on essentially the homeless. But they really should have in these instances. Because all of these women have injuries consistent with a blow to the face or side of the head. And I never thought about what that meant until I had my own brain injury two years ago. Annie Chapman’s brain is consistent with a closed head injury. Yes, some of her brain condition is due to disease, but dark blood, fluid, the texture, classic closed head injury. Perhaps even a concussion, but with no injury to the skull. And having the other brains described as thoroughly as Chapman’s would have been useful. Though with little knowledge of brain injury aside from injury from insult, I’m not confident of what their conclusions would have been.

HI Errata,

Others have posted that the dark blood noted in the membrains of Annie's brain is also consistent with lack of oxygen prior to death, consistent with the suggestion she was at least partially strangled before her throat was cut. Examination of the other victim's brains would have been useful to see if this was the case there as well, if for no other reason that it would have been another piece of evidence for or against strangulation in each of the cases. I would think a closed head injury type event would produce a more localized area of bruised blood, while interference with breathing a more diffuse pattern as the entire blood supply is being deprived of oxygen. So yes, I entirely agree with you that this would have been very useful information for us to have.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi,

I think it should be noted that Dr. Phillips evidence is not being dismissed en mass, nobody is suggesting, for example, that his descriptions of Annie's injuries, or how her body was positioned at the crime scene, etc should be dismissed simply because one bit of his testimony is problematic. His estimation of the ToD, because it was based upon feeling the surface of her body rather than based upon actual core body temperature readings, is being dismissed because he made that estimation using a procedure that is known to be inaccurate. I suppose if he found her still warm to the touch that would be more informative simply because the cooling of the body surface will take some time, and under the conditions she was found, not very much time (which is why once she doesn't feel warm to him anymore it doesn't give any useful information; let's say it would take X amount of time for exposed skin to feel cold, then once it does, all you can say is that the ToD is X or more, and if X was 45 minutes, and he doesn't examine her until 1, or 2 hours, or 3, etc, all he could do was say "well, she's cold, so X or more", but if she's still warm he could say "withing 45 minutes". That would be why Eddowes ToD could be relatively accurate because she was probably killed quite soon before she was examined, so she was still warm to the touch (Brown notes the body was quite warm to the touch). The difference in the rate of cooling between the two cases, or the difference in the perceived warmth of the bodies, may have to do with differences in the amount of clothing the two victims were wearing, the amount of exposed skin, where on the body was felt to determine body warmth (and don't forget, Phillips does report feeling some heat under the intestines as well, so she's not cold throughout). I'm not saying that determining ToD by touch is accurate here, only that bodies that are outside and exposed cool rapidly, so if they haven't cooled to the touch then they can't have been there for long, but if they have cooled, that just means it's cold outside and we probably can't say much of anything - it's not the type of information that works "both ways", where warm can tell you not here long and cold tells you the opposite, rather it's more "warm can tell you not here long, but cold tells you all bets are off". I'm not even sure what I've suggested there is even reliable as the time for X is probably also so variable that it could be just as misleading. Some have argued that the ToD estimations by touch for Eddowes was accurate, but again, that was based upon feeling warmth, in Chapman's case it was upon perceive cold, and if only the former has a chance to be accurate, and the latter is widely inaccurate, there's your explanation for why the results differ. Again, I want to make it absolutely unambiguous, I don't know if feeling warmth is at all reliable, but I can imagine why it might be, and how at the same time, feeling cold is utterly useless. But if warmth is accurate, and Phillips did feel heat under the intestines, that that to me suggests his data points more towards earlier than later.

Anyway, for all the reasons that have been repeated, the ToD he gives based upon surface body perceived coldness cannot be considered as reliable and must be set aside. But the rest of his evidence, however, remains open for consideration, we don't throw it all out just because one bit is known to be unreliable.

And we shouldn't do that with the witness testimony either. We know there must be some errors associated with it, particularly the times given by Long and Cadosh. But really, reconciling that difference in time, which is basically in the order of minutes, should hardly be such a source of contention. There are all sorts of reasons why reports of the time have error with them. I've tended to lean towards Long misremembering the chime she heard (a simple memory error; note, I'm not saying she misheard it at the time, only she misremembered what she heard when she later thought back to what happened and what she saw, etc). Herlock has tended to suggest that Cadosh may be the one that was out, which is also possible, though in my view his morning routines of getting ready to go to work make me think he was probably more specifically aware of time as he was going about his routines than Long would have been as she went to the market. But that's a difference of opinion, if Cadosh is out by 15 minutes, or as Herlock has also suggested, if both Long and Cadosh are out by 7 or 8 minutes, there really is no conflict in their testimony. All that's been done is one aspect of their evidence is being questioned without throwing all of it out.

It's also partly why I'm now trying to work out if we can determine at what point Annie may have reached full rigor (or at least determine the times at which she hadn't yet reached full rigor). While the analysis I've done is highly tentative, and estimating ToD is crude, there are times that are more consistent with the witnesses than with Dr. Phillips, and vice versa. If we can determine either when she did enter full rigor, or at least know the last time she was not in full rigor, that latter time has the possibility of bringing Dr. Phillips evidence in line with the witnesses (in that it would be more consistent with 5:30ish than with 4:30ish). It would be satisfying to know that all of the evidence that is not known to be erroneous fits together in a consistent, even if tentative, way.

- Jeff

[Errata]

HI Errata,

Others have posted that the dark blood noted in the membrains of Annie's brain is also consistent with lack of oxygen prior to death, consistent with the suggestion she was at least partially strangled before her throat was cut. Examination of the other victim's brains would have been useful to see if this was the case there as well, if for no other reason that it would have been another piece of evidence for or against strangulation in each of the cases. I would think a closed head injury type event would produce a more localized area of bruised blood, while interference with breathing a more diffuse pattern as the entire blood supply is being deprived of oxygen. So yes, I entirely agree with you that this would have been very useful information for us to have.

- Jeff

The extra firm brain, the cloudy meninges, that’s serious swelling. The fluid, it’s injury related hydrocephaly. The dark blood could be from asphyxia, or the brain injury itself. Never having seen another Victoria era brain autopsy before, I am assuming that the doctor was fully capable of detecting whether or not the brain was still attached to the spinal cord, major arteries, and the meninges still intact. That there was no substantial bleeding in the brain I think is just a function of the injury. Maybe the swelling was profound enough? Had she slipped and hit her head on the stairs there would definitely be blood. If she was hit in the head with a bat, there would definitely be blood. If there was a more diffuse blow, like say boxers roundhouse say, right by the ear, that could cause closed brain injury without bleeding. And has. But that is either super lucky or very very practiced.

[JeffHamm]

The extra firm brain, the cloudy meninges, that’s serious swelling. The fluid, it’s injury related hydrocephaly. The dark blood could be from asphyxia, or the brain injury itself. Never having seen another Victoria era brain autopsy before, I am assuming that the doctor was fully capable of detecting whether or not the brain was still attached to the spinal cord, major arteries, and the meninges still intact. That there was no substantial bleeding in the brain I think is just a function of the injury. Maybe the swelling was profound enough? Had she slipped and hit her head on the stairs there would definitely be blood. If she was hit in the head with a bat, there would definitely be blood. If there was a more diffuse blow, like say boxers roundhouse say, right by the ear, that could cause closed brain injury without bleeding. And has. But that is either super lucky or very very practiced.

Hi Errata,

Could be. I would think such a punch would have left a rather large bruise though. While there is bruising reported, it seems to be indicative of strangulation (detected on both sides) or of grasping while cutting the throat. Dr. Phillips reports on the bruise patterns, and I don't think there are signs of a major blow like a boxer's punch, but you may be seeing something I'm overlooking.

- Jeff

[Errata]

Hi Errata,

Could be. I would think such a punch would have left a rather large bruise though. While there is bruising reported, it seems to be indicative of strangulation (detected on both sides) or of grasping while cutting the throat. Dr. Phillips reports on the bruise patterns, and I don't think there are signs of a major blow like a boxer's punch, but you may be seeing something I'm overlooking.

- Jeff

Yeah I’m missing something. I’ll work on it.

[JeffHamm]

Yeah I’m missing something. I’ll work on it.

No worries. If you find something do keep us in the loop.

- Jeff

[DJA]

Because it was (and still is) standard procedure for a post mortem exam?

Sensible answer/question.

Phillips performed brain examinations on two of The Five.

Stride obviously had HHT which often results in abnormal blood vessel formation,including in the brain.
Cachous and iron are useful medications due to bleeding.
Very rare.
Lungs are a problem in 50% of cases,which was also checked along with her heart.

Chapman had TB.
25% or more of Whitechapel carried the disease.
No doubt there were clues to her infection like LOW BODY TEMPERATURE,however I suggest the attempt to unhinge her head ensured his procedure.

Other post mortems were pedestrian.

[John G]

It's certainly standard procedure for post mortems today: https://www.rcpath.org/

[DJA]

Great link John. Thanks.

The various Guidelines on autopsy practice pdfs are interesting reads.

[PaulB]

Herlock, there is no point in arguing. They're not listening.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi,

I think it should be noted that Dr. Phillips evidence is not being dismissed en mass, nobody is suggesting, for example, that his descriptions of Annie's injuries, or how her body was positioned at the crime scene, etc should be dismissed simply because one bit of his testimony is problematic. His estimation of the ToD, because it was based upon feeling the surface of her body rather than based upon actual core body temperature readings, is being dismissed because he made that estimation using a procedure that is known to be inaccurate. I suppose if he found her still warm to the touch that would be more informative simply because the cooling of the body surface will take some time, and under the conditions she was found, not very much time (which is why once she doesn't feel warm to him anymore it doesn't give any useful information; let's say it would take X amount of time for exposed skin to feel cold, then once it does, all you can say is that the ToD is X or more, and if X was 45 minutes, and he doesn't examine her until 1, or 2 hours, or 3, etc, all he could do was say "well, she's cold, so X or more", but if she's still warm he could say "withing 45 minutes". That would be why Eddowes ToD could be relatively accurate because she was probably killed quite soon before she was examined, so she was still warm to the touch (Brown notes the body was quite warm to the touch). The difference in the rate of cooling between the two cases, or the difference in the perceived warmth of the bodies, may have to do with differences in the amount of clothing the two victims were wearing, the amount of exposed skin, where on the body was felt to determine body warmth (and don't forget, Phillips does report feeling some heat under the intestines as well, so she's not cold throughout). I'm not saying that determining ToD by touch is accurate here, only that bodies that are outside and exposed cool rapidly, so if they haven't cooled to the touch then they can't have been there for long, but if they have cooled, that just means it's cold outside and we probably can't say much of anything - it's not the type of information that works "both ways", where warm can tell you not here long and cold tells you the opposite, rather it's more "warm can tell you not here long, but cold tells you all bets are off". I'm not even sure what I've suggested there is even reliable as the time for X is probably also so variable that it could be just as misleading. Some have argued that the ToD estimations by touch for Eddowes was accurate, but again, that was based upon feeling warmth, in Chapman's case it was upon perceive cold, and if only the former has a chance to be accurate, and the latter is widely inaccurate, there's your explanation for why the results differ. Again, I want to make it absolutely unambiguous, I don't know if feeling warmth is at all reliable, but I can imagine why it might be, and how at the same time, feeling cold is utterly useless. But if warmth is accurate, and Phillips did feel heat under the intestines, that that to me suggests his data points more towards earlier than later.

Anyway, for all the reasons that have been repeated, the ToD he gives based upon surface body perceived coldness cannot be considered as reliable and must be set aside. But the rest of his evidence, however, remains open for consideration, we don't throw it all out just because one bit is known to be unreliable.

And we shouldn't do that with the witness testimony either. We know there must be some errors associated with it, particularly the times given by Long and Cadosh. But really, reconciling that difference in time, which is basically in the order of minutes, should hardly be such a source of contention. There are all sorts of reasons why reports of the time have error with them. I've tended to lean towards Long misremembering the chime she heard (a simple memory error; note, I'm not saying she misheard it at the time, only she misremembered what she heard when she later thought back to what happened and what she saw, etc). Herlock has tended to suggest that Cadosh may be the one that was out, which is also possible, though in my view his morning routines of getting ready to go to work make me think he was probably more specifically aware of time as he was going about his routines than Long would have been as she went to the market. But that's a difference of opinion, if Cadosh is out by 15 minutes, or as Herlock has also suggested, if both Long and Cadosh are out by 7 or 8 minutes, there really is no conflict in their testimony. All that's been done is one aspect of their evidence is being questioned without throwing all of it out.

It's also partly why I'm now trying to work out if we can determine at what point Annie may have reached full rigor (or at least determine the times at which she hadn't yet reached full rigor). While the analysis I've done is highly tentative, and estimating ToD is crude, there are times that are more consistent with the witnesses than with Dr. Phillips, and vice versa. If we can determine either when she did enter full rigor, or at least know the last time she was not in full rigor, that latter time has the possibility of bringing Dr. Phillips evidence in line with the witnesses (in that it would be more consistent with 5:30ish than with 4:30ish). It would be satisfying to know that all of the evidence that is not known to be erroneous fits together in a consistent, even if tentative, way.

- Jeff

Excellent, calm, reasoned post as ever Jeff. Totally wasted on some though.