Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapmanís death.

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

  • Originally posted by packers stem View Post
    It's not just the onset of rigor.
    The detection of undigested food (which we know was potato which has a very quick digestion time ) also indicates a TOD of between 2.30 and 4 .
    Having said that Richardson could not fail to see the body as it was starting to get light
    This leaves us with the blindingly obvious that nobody wants to contemplate .
    But that's ripperology for you
    Why do we know that it was a potato?
    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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

      Why do we know that it was a potato?
      Because we were told
      You can lead a horse to water.....

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        Why do we know that it was a potato?
        Even if it were, there are no starch-digesting enzymes in the stomach, so any starchy foods sitting in the stomach will not be broken down.

        Starch digestion starts in the mouth with the salivary enzyme ptyalin (aka amylase), but this is only active in neutral or alkaline environments. The stomach juices are highly acidic, and inhibitory to the action of ptyalin.

        It's only when food enters the small intestine, after pancreatic and gall-bladder secretions neutralise the gastric acid to create an alkaline environment, that the breakdown of starchy foods re-commences. .
        ​​​
        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, GŲtzendšmmerung, 1888)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          The evidence provided is overwhelming and from impeccable sources. TOD estimates using rigor mortis and temperature are unreliable and could have been influenced by factors that Phillips, in 1888, simply would not have been aware of.

          Does this mean that Phillips might not have been correct and that the witnesses might not have lied or been mistaken? No it doesnít.

          Does it mean that Phillips might have been wrong (and not freakishly wrong) and that two or three of those witnesses might have been correct. Yes it does.

          So to sum up, you cannot do what youíve repeatedly attempted to do in previous posts. That is to try a portray those of us that accept the possibility/likelihood hat Phillips was wrong and the witnesses were correct as being delusional. That we are flying in the face of the facts. The evidence shows that this isnít the case. Iím no longer interested in any debate that starts from a point of view that Phillips either a) had to be correct because he did his job properly, or b) that for him to have been wrong woul have had to have been some kind of million-to-one occurrence.
          I am not saying that you are delusional, though, nor that you are flying in the face of facts. Flukes do happen.

          What I AM saying is that you choose to discard what is extremely likely to be a correct assessment in favor of believing the witness who were not very credible in the first place.

          You may have missed out on this (if so, just tell me), but the main governing parameter when it comes to the onset of rigor is temperature. The consequence of this irreversible fact is that we need to accept that those who exhibit a very early onset of rigor will most likely be people who have died in conditions of high temperatures.

          Can you see how that works?

          Now, Chapman was lying in a temperature that was close to fridge temperature.

          Can you understand the implications of that?

          Apparently not. Since there are cases of rigor that sets in within the hour, then you want to believe that Chapman was such a case. But everything is against the idea! We even have Dr Biggs telling us that she was a prime example of how a person would have a slowed down onset of rigor, being an alcoholic and meagre.

          But no, let's throw that to the wind. Herlock has an idea!!

          I will try again:

          George Bagster Phillips arrived in 29 Hanbury Street and began his examination at around 6.30. He felt the body for warmth and we know that he could feel warmth, because he did so in the abdominal region. The rest of the body had taken on ambient temperature, and so Phillips said to himself "This woman has been dead for a number of hours, perhaps three or four".
          Then he will perhaps have thought "That means that she may have developed rigor, since that normally takes place in the 2-4 hour span, and here it is cold, meaning that the process may not start until after 3-4 hours. Then he checks, and lo and behold - it dovetails with the temperature, and Phillips concludes that she had been dead for some three or four hours. But since he knows that rigor Can in rare cases be swifter and since he recognizes that the body has been cut open and subjected to the elements, he acknowledges that he may have to allow for an extreme of two hours. he does n ot beleive in that time himself, and suggests a longer one, but to be on the safe side, he allows for it anyway.

          Then along comes Herlock Sholmes, telling us that since there were witnesses speaking of Chapman being alive and well at around 5.30, Phillips MUST have been wrong. And not a little wrong: his low extreme needs not to be nibbled on but HALVED! We must accept that she was warm and cosy and that Phillips failed to pick up on it, and she must have gone into a stuepondeously quick rigor, given the circumstances.

          Once again, why should we accept the freak version when the sensible one has TWO collaborating parameters speaking for it, and to boot, it takes us into a night time murder - as were all the other ripper deeds.

          Why choose the Grimm brothers over the divisional surgeon, extremely experienced and knowledgable?

          That is not going to work, Herlock, no matter how much you gab about guesswork and incompetence. We should try and be a little competent ourselves when looking at the matter.

          Comment


          • assuming that phillips is right and the witnesses are mistaken-it is a pretty amazing coincidence to me that tabram, Nichols, chapman and Kelly in all likelihood are all killed in the 3-4 am time frame which is in lechs wheelhouse for a trek to work.

            and stride and eddowes murdered on a sat night/sunday morning much earlier--perhaps after a visit to mums who lived close by (and lech not having to worry about getting up early the next morn).
            "Is all that we see or seem
            but a dream within a dream?"

            -Edgar Allan Poe


            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

            -Frederick G. Abberline

            Comment


            • Originally posted by packers stem View Post

              Because we were told
              Where and who by?

              And if she was seen eating how can you be certain that she didnít eat something later for which there was no witness?
              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 Fisherman View Post

                I am not saying that you are delusional, though, nor that you are flying in the face of facts. Flukes do happen.

                Again you are being misleading. Point me to the expert that says that when earlier onset of rigor occurs itís a fluke. Or even a rarity. Itís simply not the case.

                What I AM saying is that you choose to discard what is extremely likely to be a correct assessment in favor of believing the witness who were not very credible in the first place.

                As you appear the quoted evidence of acknowledged experts in the field who say that rigor can commence at even less than an hour. Yes, more often it is within the 2-4 hour average but thatís simply nowhere near enough for you to conveniently dismiss an earlier time.

                You may have missed out on this (if so, just tell me), but the main governing parameter when it comes to the onset of rigor is temperature. The consequence of this irreversible fact is that we need to accept that those who exhibit a very early onset of rigor will most likely be people who have died in conditions of high temperatures.

                Again no. Show me the quote where the experts say this. Where they say explicitly that early onset of rigor almost always only occur in tropical temperatures. You are interpreting selectively to suit yourself.

                Can you see how that works?

                Yes, Fisherman knows more about forensic science than Sir Keith Simpson, Francis Camps and many others. Ok, glad we got that clear.

                Now, Chapman was lying in a temperature that was close to fridge temperature.

                He appears to have said that it was fairly cold. Nothing about close to fridge temperatures. Again, you exaggerate to accommodate your own point.

                Can you understand the implications of that?

                Yes, thereís only one of us looking at the facts impartially here.

                Apparently not. Since there are cases of rigor that sets in within the hour, then you want to believe that Chapman was such a case. But everything is against the idea! We even have Dr Biggs telling us that she was a prime example of how a person would have a slowed down onset of rigor, being an alcoholic and meagre.

                Everything is not against the idea.

                But no, let's throw that to the wind. Herlock has an idea!!

                Not me. The acknowledged authorities on the subject.

                I will try again:

                George Bagster Phillips arrived in 29 Hanbury Street and began his examination at around 6.30. He felt the body for warmth and we know that he could feel warmth, because he did so in the abdominal region. The rest of the body had taken on ambient temperature, and so Phillips said to himself "This woman has been dead for a number of hours, perhaps three or four".
                Then he will perhaps have thought "That means that she may have developed rigor, since that normally takes place in the 2-4 hour span, and here it is cold, meaning that the process may not start until after 3-4 hours. Then he checks, and lo and behold - it dovetails with the temperature, and Phillips concludes that she had been dead for some three or four hours. But since he knows that rigor Can in rare cases be swifter and since he recognizes that the body has been cut open and subjected to the elements, he acknowledges that he may have to allow for an extreme of two hours. he does n ot beleive in that time himself, and suggests a longer one, but to be on the safe side, he allows for it anyway.

                For a start Iíll repeat the obvious. Simpson and Payne James (and others) tell us that rigor shouldnít be used to estimate time of death because it is an inaccurate method. We have also been told that rigor can commence as early as an hour or even less (and certainly not only in tropical climates as you keep falsely implying)

                Then along comes Herlock Sholmes, telling us that since there were witnesses speaking of Chapman being alive and well at around 5.30, Phillips MUST have been wrong. And not a little wrong: his low extreme needs not to be nibbled on but HALVED! We must accept that she was warm and cosy and that Phillips failed to pick up on it, and she must have gone into a stuepondeously quick rigor, given the circumstances.

                Again this is incorrect. I have never said that Phillips must have been wrong and I challenge you to find the quote where I said this. You really need to stop making stuff up to try and prove your point Fish. Iíve repeatedly said that Phillips might have been wrong and I was categorically correct to have done so.

                We have a Doctor using methods to establish a TOD that we know from experts are not accurate and with a large scope for error. Even without the witnesses these are facts. Then when we add those witnesses to the equation the likelihood that Phillips was indeed wrong increases.


                Once again, why should we accept the freak version when the sensible one has TWO collaborating parameters speaking for it, and to boot, it takes us into a night time murder - as were all the other ripper deeds.

                Freak is deliberately misleading.

                Why choose the Grimm brothers over the divisional surgeon, extremely experienced and knowledgable?

                Why do you ignore the black and white, indisputable, rock solid, take it to the bank fact that TODís can occur earlier and that these are not dependant on tropical weather or any kind of imagined freak million-to-one circumstances?

                That is not going to work, Herlock, no matter how much you gab about guesswork and incompetence. We should try and be a little competent ourselves when looking at the matter.

                The argument is indeed over. Youíve lost. The evidence has been produced. From experts in the field. Only your deliberate misdirections are muddying the water.
                This is now game over. Phillips could definitely have been wrong. Without a shadow of a doubt.

                Regards

                Herlock






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

                Comment


                • To add, from the source that you've quoted.

                  The Kori paper says: "In wasting diseases like cancer, phthisis, rigor mortis will appear early".

                  Notice that it doesn’t say might.

                  At the inquest, Phillips says she was "far advanced in disease of the lungs and membranes of the brain.'

                  Elsewhere is says TB. This certainly sounds like TB.

                  Id say that’s just about checkmate on this subject.
                  Regards

                  Herlock






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

                  Comment


                  • From an online document called Recognition Of Life Extinct For Ambulance Technicians.

                    ĎRigor Mortis occurs first in the small muscles of the face, next in the arms then in the legs (30 minutes to 3 hours
                    Regards

                    Herlock






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

                    Comment


                    • From the Textbook Of Forensic Medicine And Toxicology:

                      The time of onset and duration of Rigor is varied by multiple factors as will be discussed shortly but in general it is likely to be apparent in about 1-2 hours after death,
                      Regards

                      Herlock






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

                      Comment


                      • what about the condition I forgot what its called but people are always arguing in the stride case that she suddenly went stiff or spasm when her throat was cut causing her to clutch the cashoo? could that be a factor here?
                        "Is all that we see or seem
                        but a dream within a dream?"

                        -Edgar Allan Poe


                        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                        -Frederick G. Abberline

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                          assuming that phillips is right and the witnesses are mistaken-it is a pretty amazing coincidence to me that tabram, Nichols, chapman and Kelly in all likelihood are all killed in the 3-4 am time frame which is in lechs wheelhouse for a trek to work.
                          An observation for a Lechmere thread, methinks, Abby I actually wrote a specific rebuttal of your point, but decided not to post it for fear of derailing the discussion.
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, GŲtzendšmmerung, 1888)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                            what about the condition I forgot what its called but people are always arguing in the stride case that she suddenly went stiff or spasm when her throat was cut causing her to clutch the cashoo? could that be a factor here?
                            I think that youíre talking about Cadaveric Spasm Abby. Iíve seen it written that it can be mistaken for rigor but Iíve just seen this on wiki:

                            Matthias Pfaffli and Dau Wyler, Professors of Legal Medicine at University of Bern, Switzerland, posed five requirements in order for a death to have been observed and classified as containing a cadaveric spasm:
                            1. The body part hypothesized as having undergone cadaveric spasm must be freestanding against the force of gravity[5]
                            2. The deceased must be observed before the rigor mortis has developed [6]
                            3. There must be adequate and continuous documentation of post mortem changes in respect to the lividity of the deceased
                            4. The scene of the death must be undisturbed before examination of the crime scene
                            5. No third party may be present at the death to ensure no manipulation of the body

                            It seems to me that if these criteria are legit (and Iíve no reason to doubt it) then number one would be the killer in Chapmanís case. Unless Iím misinterpreting Iíd say that they are saying that her arm wouldnít just have been stiff or stiffening it would have been rock solid. Enough to defy gravity. Rigor is a gradual process but Cadaveric Spasm occurs straight away. From the little Iíve read I think that itís pretty rare too.
                            Regards

                            Herlock






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

                            Comment


                            • Before Fish responds i would like to make the point about certainty and over-confidence here. I’m not trying to prove that Dr Phillips was definitely wrong. That can’t be done. The whole point is simply to say that he definitely could have been wrong. The evidence from accepted experts in the field is there for all to see. Undoubtedly the average time for onset is between 2 and 4 hours but the whole idea of an average is that there can be examples higher and lower (or the experts would simply say something like - rigor sets in after 2 hours) Many factors contribute. Earlier onset of rigor isn’t dependant on a tropical climate and instances of early onset aren’t freakishly rare either. Experts also tell us that estimating the time of death from rigor or temperature can be fraught with danger of error. They are not reliable. Remember Payne-James told us in his update of Keith Simpson’s standard textbook that rigor should not be used to estimate TOD.

                              So we cannot simply mock or dismiss the suggestion that Phillips could well have been wrong by talk of the Brothers Grimm. This is a discipline ripe fo error. We cannot say for certain whether Phillips was right or wrong. But.....

                              We can use our individual judgment on witnesses. We have three witnesses that absolutely contradict Phillips. Two dovetail of course and one doesn’t. Were they all wrong? We’re they all lying? Or a mixture? Or, as I suspect was the case, were two of them correct and that Annie Chapman, in all likelihood, died around 5.20 - 5.25?
                              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 Abby Normal View Post
                                assuming that phillips is right and the witnesses are mistaken-it is a pretty amazing coincidence to me that tabram, Nichols, chapman and Kelly in all likelihood are all killed in the 3-4 am time frame which is in lechs wheelhouse for a trek to work.

                                and stride and eddowes murdered on a sat night/sunday morning much earlier--perhaps after a visit to mums who lived close by (and lech not having to worry about getting up early the next morn).
                                Careful, Abby - people will understand that I only say what I say because I am infatuated with Lechmere!!!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X