Chapman’s death.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's three and a half feet from her neck.

Yes, three and a half feet from a mutilated corpse. It’s not a difficult deduction. It couldn’t have been from Newley and Sickert carrying in the body as Fishy believes because the stains would have been behind the door. What else could they have come from?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Do you think that's why Jack gave her the cachous?

How do you know that any victim got cachous from Jack?

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

He wanted to know if she was alive or dead for a long time. Yes, I agree he wanted to know that.

Good, because you seemed to propose that he would have had difficulties establishing whether she was alive or not. And I don´t think we should try and stretch Phillips´ shortcomings to that extent...

But as he took none of the necessary temperature readings to answer this question based on body temperature, he cannot form an informed opinion - he does not have the necessary information.

...to establish the exact temperature, no. But he DID have the equipment to establish that she was long dead! He identified the last little remainder of warmth under the intestines, in the abdominal cavity. The rest of the warmth was gone, and that means that we are looking at a case of a long dead body. Although we do. not get the exact temperature, we can safely rule out that it weas one that allowed for her having been alive one hour before Phillips´ examination. You guys really should not carry the message of the uncertainty of the method when it comes to establishing exact temperatures over to the matter of telling a warm body from a cold one. You should also think twice about the suggested uncertainty as such - Brown established that Eddowes was quite warm, Blackmore and Phillips did the same in the Stride case and Llewellyn said quite warm about Nichgols too. Should we accept that these medicos all were just as likely to be wrong as they were to be correct? Should we work from the assumption that these victims may just as well have been all cold to the touch, and the medicos simply got it wrong - they way you seem to propose they were quite likely to do? I think nobody would suggest that - it would be too silly.
And nevertheless, you are perfectly prepared to do so in the Chapman case. The orther doctors all got it right and Phillips got it all wrong, therefore.
Hopefully, you can see how this amounts to very little in terms of logical reasoning.

Everything else is smoke and mirrors. You are incorrect to assert that his touching the body means anything of evidential value.

- Jeff

No, I am not. It is you who are incorrect, trying to employ what was aimed at other matters on whether Phillips could tell very broadly or not whether a person was recently or long dead. He could, and he did, and that rules out the 5.30 witnesses.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, it is, actually - it has at long last opened up for a discussion that stale old ripperology has considered ruled out until Wolf Vanderlinden changed it all. Otherwise, I am fine with people making different choices, as long as the copunterpart does not make stupid, faulty and generally speaking outrageous claims about the reason for that choice.

I’m on a weeks break in London at the moment and I’m not going to waste time bandying words with someone like you. All has been said. Three witnesses outweigh Phillips. End of. Only someone utterly desperate to keep there suspect in the hunt would expend so much effort to try and manipulate the truth. Im hoping now to have a break from this thread. You can keep preaching to your two cheerleaders as much as you want to. I’ve had two years of arrogance, manipulation and bias from you and still you play the victim and try to push all of it on to me. I look at the case in an balanced way. I’ve never said that my knowledge is better than anyone else despite your dishonest last post. I’ve just gone on what the world’s Forensic experts tell us. You know better of course. Wolf Vanderlinden wrote a dissertation. Ok. Fine. I do recall him though. I recall David Orsam picking him to shreds.

Post what you like Fish. You will anyway.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I now pity Jeff. One of the most balanced, fair posters on here getting the Fish Method.

[Fisherman]

I think Herlock is on the warpath again. Let´s see whether he can intimidate me and make me so desperate that I go away this time too! (P S, Herlock - don´t forget to tell us how I would have derailed the thread, something you tell us all that you NEVER would do, whereas I.... you are quite keen to divide people up in little camps, are you not? And you are in the very finest one, bless you! )

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nichols , Chapman , Stride , Eddowes and Kelly all had their throats cut from left to right, if this is correct would there be any argument if one was to declare that the killer must have been right handed. ?

Yes there would.

[Fisherman]

I’m on a weeks break in London at the moment and I’m not going to waste time bandying words with someone like you. All has been said. Three witnesses outweigh Phillips. End of. Only someone utterly desperate to keep there suspect in the hunt would expend so much effort to try and manipulate the truth. Im hoping now to have a break from this thread. You can keep preaching to your two cheerleaders as much as you want to. I’ve had two years of arrogance, manipulation and bias from you and still you play the victim and try to push all of it on to me. I look at the case in an balanced way. I’ve never said that my knowledge is better than anyone else despite your dishonest last post. I’ve just gone on what the world’s Forensic experts tell us. You know better of course. Wolf Vanderlinden wrote a dissertation. Ok. Fine. I do recall him though. I recall David Orsam picking him to shreds.

Post what you like Fish. You will anyway.

Yes, you may rely on that - I certainly will. And I thank you for finally having arrived at the conclusion that it´s best not to try and defend your stance. Apparently, you have grown so desperate so as to flee? Or?

I am sad to hear that you think you have had two years of arrogance, manipulation and bias from me; that cannot have been easy. Dear me. Then again, why not extend me some little sympathy? I have gone through far worse myself in your company, let me assure you.

You think you "look at the case in a balanced way". That´s heartwarming. But what good is balance when the scales are both filled with junk?

PS. You forgot to tell us how I "derailed" the thread. But I can answer for you: I never did. You were wrong on that score too.

Have a wonderful time in London. The East End is to the right on the maps.

[DJA]

You said:




You can’t even remember your own dishonesty.

Any apology?

Thought not

Fishy has actually been consistent on that.

The spray on the fence confirms his viewpoint. Moving to the other side smeared the spray afterwards.

You have once again displayed the intelligence of a retarded gerbil,with nuts to match.

Enjoy your holiday.

WE WILL!

Highly unlikely you will be able to refrain. Very excitable short fuse.

[John G]

Wolf Vanderlinden has been referred to on more than one occasion, so I thought it would be useful to evaluate his conclusions.

Unfortunately, he seems to rely somewhat on Dr Phillips' conclusions. As discussed previously, Dr Phillips was not a forensic expert and he didn't have the advantage of modern research. To underline his lack of knowledge in this area, he relied on touch alone to assess the temperature of the victim, even though it had been known since at least the 1860s that this is a completely inadequate if you're striving for any degree of accuracy, and therefore a rectal body temperature should have been taken.

To put things into perspective, imagine you're a modern forensic expert being grilled by the defence barrister on a trial. You're being questioned on your time of death estimate, which relied largely on body temperature, and the barrister says, "Of course you took a rectal temperature." You reply, "Oh no, I couldn't be bothered with that faff. I just touched the body and then made a guess." Your response wouldn't go down too well, would it?

Now, it's been suggested on a number of occasions that Dr Phillips, by touch alone, could have been accurate and within a "degree or two." This may not seem a lot but, as I've pointed out before, I'm afraid it makes a great deal of difference: just 0.87 degrees C is equivalent to around one hour in respect of cooling rates post mortem, so being a "degree or two" out would equate to the TOD estimate being wrong by over an hour as a minimum, and over two hours as a maximum.

Dr Phillips also failed to take into consideration Chapman's severely undernourished state when making his estimate: he's not really culpable here as he didn't have the advantage of modern research: Happily, that's not the position today.

Thus, whilst the average rectal body temperature of a healthy adult female is 37 degrees C, that's not the case for someone who is several undernourished: In the Biosphere 2 study, which I've referred to before, individuals who were subject to severe calorie restrictions started off in the normal range, 37 C, but following the calorie restriction their body temperature was often in the 35.5 to 36 range, and sometimes below 35.5. (walford et al. 1999).

To put that into perspective,can severely undernourished Chapman, with a body temperature of, say, 36 degrees, would have the same initial temperature, I.e. whilst alive, as a person of "normal" body temperature more than one hour after death.

Of course, there are also environmental factors, such as the victim being partially clothed,and the surface the victim was lying on, that could impact on body temperature, none of which Dr Phillips analysed in any sort of detail.

Based upon the above analysis I would conclude that Dr Phillips' assessment must be regarded as unreliable and cannot stand.

As an aside, Wolf also refers to the rigor mortis issue. Unfortunately, this is a very unreliable way of estimating time of death, due to the many variables. For instance, as discussed previously, both cut-throat and wasting diseases, like tuberculosis, both of which applied to Chapman, rigor will have an early onset: Kori, 2018. I would therefore further conclude that the rigor mortis issue is of little value to the present case.

[John G]

I believe the fact that she doesn't have the money she made that afternoon on her, and that she hadn't been drinking that night, and that she had a new flower arrangement on her jacket and cashous in her hand, is indication that she bought those herself. And without knowing where she would stay that night? I don't think so. I think she knew where she would stay, but not how long she would stay there. She was there meeting a date. Or a cleaning job client...she was at work "among the Jews".

It's possible that Stride was meeting someone, such as a secret boyfriend, maybe someone from the club, and they agreed to meet in Dutfield's Yard, and that individual killed her.

I agree that it is likely that Stride bought the cachous herself.

[DJA]

Her TB,as mentioned in a publication Joshua gave us reference to,could have seen her usual temperature as low as 32C.

Due to her health and diet,ATP production/levels would have been low,hence early onset of rigor mortis.

[John G]

Her TB,as mentioned in a publication Joshua gave us reference to,could have seen her usual temperature as low as 32C.

Due to her health and diet,ATP production/levels would have been low,hence early onset of rigor mortis.

Thanks for this. Excellent points, which further underline how unreliable Dr Phillips' assessment was.

[DJA]

I agree that it is likely that Stride bought the cachous herself.

Cachous were an expensive,very new product from France at that time.

Doubt they were on sale in the vicinity.

[DJA]

Thanks for this. Excellent points, which further underline how unreliable Dr Phillips' assessment was.

His assessment of rigor mortis onset would be correct.

He did an autopsy on lungs and brain later.