Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapman’s death.

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by DJA View Post

    As mentioned before,the medication/breath freshener has been around for thousands of years.

    Returns as a fad, usually marked by marketing and packaging.

    Such was the case with Cachou Lajaunie,a formulation from 1880 which was marketed from 1890 in a small yellow tin designed by a watchmaker.

    If anyone locates evidence of cachous being marketed in London 1888,I would be very,very interested.
    Here's a Prince Albert cachous tin, C 1860. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/303852306086547590/

    Comment


    • Regarding rigor mortis:

      As a reminder, the most comprehensive research in this area was undertaken by Mallach, and he concluded that the average time for onset was 3 hours, plus or minus 2 hours. 1 hour is therefore within the confidence interval. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...0james&f=false


      And this from Kori:

      " Similarly, the rigor mortis, which is cadeveric rigidity, starts developing withn 1 to 2 hours after death..." ( Kori, 2018)

      Comment


      • Here's a reminder of the Forensic Science Regulator's guidance:

        6.3.2 When providing a ToD estimate to the investigator the pathologist must take the following steps.

        a) The pathologist must make clear that the estimate is only an estimate and the accuracy cannot be determined.

        b) The psthologist must explain that the death could have occurred outside of the estimated period and, perhaps, a significant period outside it.

        C) Advise that the estimate should not be used to:

        i. Define the period in which death occurred.
        ii. Assign probabilities to likely periods of death; or
        iii. Include or exclude a suspect from the investigation.

        The Use of Time of Death Estimates Based on Heat Loss From the Body, FSR-G-21, Issue 1, 2014.

        Comment


        • And as a reminder:


          "The phases of rigor mortis can be extremely helpful in piecing together the circumstances and timing of a death. Rigor is one of the many potential clues examined by crime scene technicians, forensic pathologists, and detectives during an investigation to determine the proper manner of death (i.e., homicide, suicide, accident, or natural causes). It may also verify or refute a witness or suspect statement and can sometimes indicate whether a body has been moved after death. It is a valuable indicator that cannot be overlooked.

          About the Author: Jennifer Bucholtz is a former U.S. Army Counterintelligence Agent and a decorated veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. She holds a Bachelor of Science in criminal justice, Master of Arts in criminal justice and Master of Science in forensic sciences. Bucholtz has an extensive background in U.S. military and Department of Defense counterintelligence operations. While on active duty, she served as the Special Agent in Charge for her unit in South Korea and Assistant Special Agent in Charge at stateside duty stations. Bucholtz has also worked for the Arizona Department of Corrections and Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in New York City. She is currently an adjunct faculty member at American Military University and teaches courses in criminal justice and forensic sciences. Additionally, she is a licensed private investigator in Colorado"




          The Baron

          Comment


          • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
            And as a reminder:


            "The phases of rigor mortis can be extremely helpful in piecing together the circumstances and timing of a death. Rigor is one of the many potential clues examined by crime scene technicians, forensic pathologists, and detectives during an investigation to determine the proper manner of death (i.e., homicide, suicide, accident, or natural causes). It may also verify or refute a witness or suspect statement and can sometimes indicate whether a body has been moved after death. It is a valuable indicator that cannot be overlooked.

            About the Author: Jennifer Bucholtz is a former U.S. Army Counterintelligence Agent and a decorated veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. She holds a Bachelor of Science in criminal justice, Master of Arts in criminal justice and Master of Science in forensic sciences. Bucholtz has an extensive background in U.S. military and Department of Defense counterintelligence operations. While on active duty, she served as the Special Agent in Charge for her unit in South Korea and Assistant Special Agent in Charge at stateside duty stations. Bucholtz has also worked for the Arizona Department of Corrections and Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in New York City. She is currently an adjunct faculty member at American Military University and teaches courses in criminal justice and forensic sciences. Additionally, she is a licensed private investigator in Colorado"

            The Baron
            Yes, that's very true. There is information that rigor can tell an investigator. For example, if a body is found on their back, but the arms are raised off the floor, defying gravity, it tells you the body has been moved, for example. But as an indicator for time of death, it provides only a very wide window spanning many hours. The progression, including time of onset, time required to reach full rigor, its duration, and subsequent fading, is very variable from case to case, though obviously each "phase" occurs at a later time than the previous. Trying to tell apart 2 points in time separated by only 1 hour would be like trying to pick up a particular grain of rice wearing boxing gloves, meaning for that is is not very precise. Most of the estimates for ToD are actually not very exact, but if you have a suspect saying they were with the victim and left them 4 hours ago, but the body has gone through rigor and returned to limp again, let's say, you know there's a problem. But that's differentiating 4 hours from over a day, which is not the same thing.

            As far as I can tell so far, Dr. Phillips information, on the whole, is consistent with a time window that doesn't preclude the witnesses based one, other than his stated estimated for the ToD. The latter being based upon what he thought was a valid procedure, but from what we've learned since then, one we now know isn't accurate. It's not about being against Dr. Phillips in any way, it's just examining the evidence. It's like how most tend to reject the sighting of Mary Kelly at 8 am of the morning of her death. That just doesn't fit in with everything else, and seems highly suspect in terms of its accuracy. Dr. Phillips stated ToD, being based upon unreliable measure for that purpose, is the only thing from him that is inconsistent with the witnesses. The rest all seems to fit (in that the fairly large window of possible times it would give us would include the witness based time).

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • Yes, I have previously responded to the Jennifer Bucholtz issue. She points out, " In locations where temperatures and environments are moderate, rigor mortis begins to set in one or two hours after death." https://inpublicsafety.com/ (Public Safety, Feb 13, 2019).

              This reinforces the point that I have made on numerous occasions.
              Last edited by John G; 09-27-2019, 09:13 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by John G View Post

                Here's a Prince Albert cachous tin, C 1860. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/303852306086547590/
                Thanks.
                That's the Thomas Jackson brand mentioned earlier.
                My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                Comment


                • Originally posted by DJA View Post


                  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.
                  They have internet in London Dave.

                  I’d like to draw everyone’s attention to this post because these things get ignored.

                  Firstly, on the topic.
                  • Fishy claimed for a fact (not an opinion) that Annie’s killer was on her right for the mutilations.
                  • I pointed out that he couldn’t say this as a fact.
                  • He denied that he’d ever said this as a fact
                  • I produced the post where he’d said this as a fact.

                  Dave then criticises and insults me as if I’ve gotten it wrong. This is par for the course.

                  Secondly of course, yet another personal insult which, yet again, I will not report even though I’m the devil incarnate according to Dave.


                  So to sum up:
                  • A dishonest statement
                  • A dishonest statement highlighted
                  • A dishonest statement denied
                  • A dishonest statement proved and confirmed
                  • A dishonest statement defended
                  • A personal insult thrown in
                  Pretty much sums up the way some posters operate.
                  Regards

                  Herlock






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

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                    Of course youd say that would you , you've totally butchered this thread with your one eyed ,bias ,waffling, continuous post,.

                    im pretty sure most would accept jack was right handed , all but you .
                    Prove that definitively.
                    Regards

                    Herlock






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

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
                      And as a reminder:


                      "The phases of rigor mortis can be extremely helpful in piecing together the circumstances and timing of a death. Rigor is one of the many potential clues examined by crime scene technicians, forensic pathologists, and detectives during an investigation to determine the proper manner of death (i.e., homicide, suicide, accident, or natural causes). It may also verify or refute a witness or suspect statement and can sometimes indicate whether a body has been moved after death. It is a valuable indicator that cannot be overlooked.

                      About the Author: Jennifer Bucholtz is a former U.S. Army Counterintelligence Agent and a decorated veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. She holds a Bachelor of Science in criminal justice, Master of Arts in criminal justice and Master of Science in forensic sciences. Bucholtz has an extensive background in U.S. military and Department of Defense counterintelligence operations. While on active duty, she served as the Special Agent in Charge for her unit in South Korea and Assistant Special Agent in Charge at stateside duty stations. Bucholtz has also worked for the Arizona Department of Corrections and Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in New York City. She is currently an adjunct faculty member at American Military University and teaches courses in criminal justice and forensic sciences. Additionally, she is a licensed private investigator in Colorado"




                      The Baron


                      The Baron trying to use evidence.

                      Regards

                      Herlock






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

                      Comment


                      • The Baron wrote this back in post 1683. There were replies (1685, 1687), and my own (1727), all of which he would seem to have missed. The tone of post 1683 suggested to me that The Baron was interested in scoring points rather than establishing the facts. It does seem to the layman that Dr Phillips' estimate could have been wildly off.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                          Eh...what are you on about? Do you think they searched Liz´ system for candy?
                          I believe I was responding to the grapes and stalk Fish.
                          Michael Richards

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                            It does seem to the layman that Dr Phillips' estimate could have been wildly off.


                            What a weak statement..

                            Come to me when you can say something like:

                            - It is clear to the layman that Dr Phillip's estimate was widly off.



                            The Baron

                            Comment



                            • Has it been proven that she was strangled? I’m not saying that she wasn’t of course but I wasn’t aware that this was a proven fact.
                              The Coroner: We will postpone that for the present. You can give your opinion as to how the death was caused.
                              Witness: From these appearances I am of opinion that the breathing was interfered with previous to death, and that death arose from syncope, or failure of the heart's action, in consequence of the loss of blood caused by the severance of the throat.

                              so lets agree at least she was rendered unconscious and placed on the ground before her throat was cut ?

                              If the “no” came from Annie then I’d tend toward the fact that she said it before she died, yes.

                              Again, so that being the case then the noise that codosch heard hit the fence, came six minutes ''after'' she was killed. i conclude therefor it was not Annie Chapmans dead body that hit the fence as she was dead on the ground long before codosch heard the noise, and to suggest that any part of her body somehow was pushed, moved, or any other way she could have hit the fence after death is just in the realms of impossibility.

                              Errata is suggesting that the killer knelt above Annie’s head to do the mutilations. Unlike you Errata isn’t claiming to be psychic. He/she is suggesting a possibility.
                              Unlike him i suggested that the killer cut Annie Chapman throat while he was on her right hand side and not her left, between her and the fence. i dont recall saying anything about the mutilation ........... yet.

                              so as there was no response from you herlock i will now say you have agreed with the above .... done.... now then

                              1. the '' no'' was right before the attack on Chapman

                              2. she was unconscious as she was placed on the ground

                              3. her throat was cut from left to right [ fact]

                              4. the killer did this on her right hand side ... NOT BETWEEN HER AND THE FENCE

                              5. NOW REMEMBER IM TALKING ABOUT THE CUTTING OF THE THROAT ONLY, NOT THE OTHER MUTILATIONS

                              6. Chapmans body could not have been the noise hitting the fence six minutes later after the ''no'' according to codosch, the killer did not move her , push her, kick her ,shove her, or anything else to make her hit the fence .

                              7 the killer could not have made the noise that codosch heard hit the fence while on chapmans right side cutting her throat .

                              8. it is well accepted that the killer was right handed


                              the killer couldn't or it would be a very unnatural act to hold Chapman chin and cut her throat from left to right if he was on her left hand side between her and the fence.



                              You realized he couldn't have done it, didn't you herlock

                              GAME ,SET, MATCH , YOU'VE LOST .

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                They have internet in London Dave.

                                I’d like to draw everyone’s attention to this post because these things get ignored.

                                Firstly, on the topic.
                                • Fishy claimed for a fact (not an opinion) that Annie’s killer was on her right for the mutilations.
                                • I pointed out that he couldn’t say this as a fact.
                                • He denied that he’d ever said this as a fact
                                • I produced the post where he’d said this as a fact.

                                Dave then criticises and insults me as if I’ve gotten it wrong. This is par for the course.

                                Secondly of course, yet another personal insult which, yet again, I will not report even though I’m the devil incarnate according to Dave.


                                So to sum up:
                                • A dishonest statement
                                • A dishonest statement highlighted
                                • A dishonest statement denied
                                • A dishonest statement proved and confirmed
                                • A dishonest statement defended
                                • A personal insult thrown in
                                Pretty much sums up the way some posters operate.
                                Usual pedantic nonsense from you.

                                You spend most of your time adding nothing and flaming people. Then you threaten to run to Daddy.

                                YOU ARE PATHETIC,BEYOND BELIEF!

                                Report me. Jon isn't blind,or stupid.

                                My support for Fishy's post remains steadfast.
                                My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X