Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapmanís death.

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

  • Originally posted by John Wheat View Post

    But Lechmere is a terrible suspect.
    Yes, and the Ripper was terrible too. Do the math!

    Comment


    • There's no flogging involved Fish as you lost the argument quite a while ago. There is absolutely no doubt that Phillips could have been wrong based on the methods employed and that fact taken in combination with the witness statements move us to conclude that it was very likely that he was wrong.

      Even Phillips himself said that the temperature and extreme blood loss might have meant an earlier TOD than the one stated. Checking warmth by touch is hardly an exact science is it? But it’s irrelevant because we know from experts that circumstances can advance cooling. It can even be affected by the movement of air and not just how hot or cold it was.

      And let’s face it, were not suggesting a six hour discrepancy here! 2-4 hours for the onset of rigor is an average. By definition that means that there will be earlier and later dependant on circumstances. As we don’t have figures to work from it’s disingenuous to try and portray every occasion that falls outside of those parameters as some kind of freak circumstance. If Phillips arrived at 6.30 it’s no stretch to say that it might have been 6.40 when he checked stiffness and temperature. Per Cadosch the murder might have occurred at 5.20. That’s 1 hour 20 minutes so it’s hardly the expectation of a miracle to suggest that Phillips might have been 40 minutes out in his estimate. Again, experts tell us that he couldn’t have been as accurate as that. Even the Coroner believed that Phillips might have been wrong.

      So what if Phillips was correct? Two hours gives a TOD at 4.30....Lechmere is at work. Two and a quarter hours gives us a TOD at 4.15....Lechmere is at work. Two and a half hours gives us a TOD at 4.00....Lechmere is at work. Two and three quarter hours gives us a TOD at 3.45....Lechmere is walking to work and so unlikely in the extreme to stop off to brutally murder and horrifically mutilate a prostitute. So yes, it’s understandable why you are so desperate for an earlier TOD. Unfortunately we have a doctor using highly unreliable methods (as irrefutably attested to by experts in the field) and 2, possibly three, witness who also point to him being wrong.
      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
        There's no flogging involved Fish as you lost the argument quite a while ago. There is absolutely no doubt that Phillips could have been wrong based on the methods employed and that fact taken in combination with the witness statements move us to conclude that it was very likely that he was wrong.
        Again you get it wrong. How unexpected! Once more, I am not saying that Phillips could have been wrong, only that it is unlikely in the extreme. As I said, we either work from the freak ideas and allow for normality, or we work from normal ideas and allow for freakish things to happen. You choose the former way, I choose the latter.

        Even Phillips himself said that the temperature and extreme blood loss might have meant an earlier TOD than the one stated.

        No, Phillips himself never said he allowed for a shorter time than the one he stated. Baxter misinterpreted what he said, and you gratefully follow on. Thereby, you actively allow for Phillips having said "Two hours is the absolute minimum, but it was probably more. But I am prepared to alter that now, although nobody has asked for it".

        The fewest will make that interpretation on account of how utterly dumb it would be - a medico stating an absolute minimum, nobody challenges it and in the next breath he HALVES it?
        That is how far desperation will take some of the worst and least insightful posters out here. And as fate will have it, some of them declare themselves winners of debates that are instead revealing them as blinder than bats.


        Checking warmth by touch is hardly an exact science is it?

        Now, Sherlock, can you tell me where anybody suggested it is? This is more of your smoke and mirrors campaigning - try to make out as if I have said something only an idiot will say, and maybe people will believe it. And what happens? Yes, indeed, you are revealed for it and raked over the coals as misrepresenting things when you are losing yet another point.

        But itís irrelevant because we know from experts that circumstances can advance cooling. It can even be affected by the movement of air and not just how hot or cold it was.

        Yes, of course. And once again, nobody is saying anything different. Nor do I have to, I only need to point to Eddowes who - in COLDER conditions, lying more open to the elements - was quite warm 45 minutes after she died. Of course, you can make your usual point: Maybe Chapman was totally, incredibly and freakishly different, maybe she actually came from planet Mars? Maybe martians cool off in a jiffy?
        That is the quality of your argument. It is always the same: maybe Chapman did not answer to any normal rules? Maybe she differed. And yes, she may have differed to a degree - but NOT to the kind of degree you want!


        And letís face it, were not suggesting a six hour discrepancy here! 2-4 hours for the onset of rigor is an average. By definition that means that there will be earlier and later dependant on circumstances.

        And by definition, we should nevertheless expect 2-4 hours in any normal case.

        As we donít have figures to work from itís disingenuous to try and portray every occasion that falls outside of those parameters as some kind of freak circumstance.

        When a doctor uses two parameters that dovetail and that are in accordance with what should be expected, and get it all wrong in BOTH cases, then we DO have a freak occurrence. It is the very definition of freakish things.

        If Phillips arrived at 6.30 itís no stretch to say that it might have been 6.40 when he checked stiffness and temperature.

        We can even say 6.45. Or even 6.55. Or lets be generous and say 7.30! That would clear things up, eh?
        Phillips gives the time 6.30 as the time when he arrived and he would have started the examination immediately since it was of the essence to get these matters as right as possible.


        Per Cadosch the murder might have occurred at 5.20. Thatís 1 hour 20 minutes so itís hardly the expectation of a miracle to suggest that Phillips might have been 40 minutes out in his estimate.

        5.20 to 6.30 is one hour and ten minutes, and it would be almost a halving of the time Phillips allowed for as the very shortest possible. It is out of the question since Chapman would have been warm to the touch at that stage, and - if I may remind you - she was instead all cold. Black and white. Not grey.

        Again, experts tell us that he couldnít have been as accurate as that. Even the Coroner believed that Phillips might have been wrong.

        The coroner believed a good many things and frankly, if you put no trust at all in the medical competence of a doctor, why would you do so in a medically untrained and self-serving coroner as Baxter? What? Because it serves your purpose? Ah, I see.

        So what if Phillips was correct? Two hours gives a TOD at 4.30....Lechmere is at work. Two and a quarter hours gives us a TOD at 4.15....Lechmere is at work. Two and a half hours gives us a TOD at 4.00....Lechmere is at work. Two and three quarter hours gives us a TOD at 3.45....Lechmere is walking to work and so unlikely in the extreme to stop off to brutally murder and horrifically mutilate a prostitute. So yes, itís understandable why you are so desperate for an earlier TOD. Unfortunately we have a doctor using highly unreliable methods (as irrefutably attested to by experts in the field) and 2, possibly three, witness who also point to him being wrong.
        There you are again, just as usual: although I go with the medical evidence, you claim I only do so because I favor Lechmere, when the truth is that the evidence also favors him. It is rotten ripperology at its worst, cowardly and uninformed. Or Herlock Sholmes, whichever way you want to name it. Now, it is time for you to run over to JTR and call Edward Stows turning the podcast (mainly the Mizen part of it) into a train wreck "palpable nonsense". Steve needs all the help he can get. So far he has only managed to reiterate that "everything is covered in the book", which supposedly means that he expresses a totally different take on things there than he does in podcasts.

        Anyway, its always good to have this kind of judgment passed by a real connoisseur. Keep up the good work and if you are told that you are out of your depth, don't believe it. Your take on things is surely as good as anybody elses. Ehrm.
        Last edited by Fisherman; 08-24-2019, 12:49 PM.

        Comment


        • unlikely in the extreme. As I said, we either work from the freak ideas and allow for normality,
          Again, you have absolutely no basis for using words like freak. Or to imply that early onset rigor is some kind of million to one occurrence. This is far from true. As you well know.
          Regards

          Herlock






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

          Comment


          • .
            When a doctor uses two parameters that dovetail and that are in accordance with what should be expected, and get it all wrong in BOTH cases, then we DO have a freak occurrence. It is the very definition of freakish things.
            Two parameters that modern experts tell us should not be used to estimate TOD.

            Pointless points Fish.
            Regards

            Herlock






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

            Comment


            • . And by definition, we should nevertheless expect 2-4 hours in any normal case.
              On what planet is a middle aged, poorly nourished, Tuberculosis suffering woman that had her throat cut followed by appalling mutilations, a normal case?
              Regards

              Herlock






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

              Comment


              • .
                5.20 to 6.30 is one hour and ten minutes, and it would be almost a halving of the time Phillips allowed for as the very shortest possible. It is out of the question since Chapman would have been warm to the touch at that stage, and - if I may remind you - she was instead all cold. Black and white. Not grey.
                Phillips arrived at 6.30. Itís not unlikely that he talked to a police officer first. He also checked around that yard so we cannot be certain that he checked for stiffness at 6.30. It might easily have been nearer 6.40. How many times. Circumstances can accelerate cooling. Phillips himself admitted as much.
                Regards

                Herlock






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

                Comment


                • Anyway, its always good to have this kind of judgment passed by a real connoisseur. Keep up the good work and if you are told that you are out of your depth, don't believe it. Your take on things is surely as good as anybody elses. Ehrm.
                  Arrogant, biased, nonsense!

                  No change at all there then.

                  The argument is over. You have repeatedly been proven wrong by the testimony of experts. Not journalists but experts in Forensics. It’s supposed to be the worm on the hook that does the wriggling and not the Fish himself. Rigor and temperature are not reliable methods. Ask your friend Payne-James. The circumstances that might distort estimates did exist at the Chapman crime scene. The constant propaganda claim that early onset rigor only occurs under freakish circumstances is a lie and, despite requests you’ve provided not a single shred of evidence to support this. In short....you made it up. Your nonsense about early onset rigor only occurring in tropical climates is more propaganda. I asked you to provide evidence for this too and you didn’t. Why....because you made it up to try and prove a point.

                  So what can we be certain of? That, witnesses aside, Dr Phillips might have been right or wrong. Simple as that.

                  Now we add the witnesses. Mainly Cadosch and Richardson of course because they concur timewise (although Long might simply have been mistaken with her own time.) We have no evidence of them lying (although this doesn’t mean that they couldn’t have lied of course) They had very simple tasks (unlike attempting to estimate TOD using unsafe methods) One simply had to be competent enough to look into a yard and realise that a body could not have been concealed from him. He was absolutely adamant. The other simply had to hear something falling against a fence that he was two feet away from. He was absolutely adamant.

                  Unreliable methods of estimating TOD’s vs witnesses performing very simple tasks.

                  The likelihood therefore is that Phillips got it wrong and that Annie Chapman met her death sometime after 5.20. The evidence points to this.

                  although I go with the medical evidence, you claim I only do so because I favour Lechmere
                  What else to conclude when you constantly dismiss the evidence provided by acknowledge experts in the field to favour a Victorian Doctor. And when you dismiss witnesses to bolster the idea that he was infallible. If the witnesses were correct and Phillips was wrong then it’s a huge blow for Lechmere of course but perhaps you’ll come up with another ‘scam’ to make everything fit.

                  Regards

                  Herlock






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

                  Comment


                  • How long does it take for your body to get cold after death?





                    Rob Seddon-Smith, Medical general practitioner
                    Answered Jun 16 2018 ∑ Author has 1.2k answers and 1m answer views

                    It depends on what you call cold of course.

                    Once you die, you are just subject to physics and will cool at a rate depending on the transfer of the heat into the environment. The key factors are of course the air temperature, and draughts and insulation such as clothing and bedding.

                    What is interesting is that people are cold and clearly dead about 10Ė-20 minutes after death. Though the core takes a long time to cool, the skin is insulated from the core and cools very rapidly once circulation ceases. Although there is residual warmth, the body feels cold quite quickly. After 4Ė6hours the body feels stone cold.




                    https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-...ld-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


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                      Yes, and the Ripper was terrible too. Do the math!
                      Lechmere was a witness nothing more.

                      Comment


                      • If a modern expert opinion is wanted, then I doubt a more recent one could be found than that of Trevor Marriot's acquaintance Dr. Biggs, offered less than a week ago:


                        Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        (...)

                        ... So in summary, rigor mortis could possibly be detected by a trained observer within an hour (or even less) after death, but would not usually be expected to become apparent for a (small) number of hours. In extreme cases (e.g. severe physical exertion prior to death) this might be even quicker. Ignoring the likely artefact of so-called ďcadaveric spasmĒ, if a body is genuinely stiff at the time of discovery, then it hasnít died immediately prior to discovery. The exact time since death cannot be estimated with any degree of accuracy or certainty. (As an aside, if the victim is a malnourished, slight, alcoholic female then rigor mortis may be less pronounced than might be expected, and so detection of rigor mortis in such an individual may in fact indicate a longer time having elapsed since death.)"
                        I've quoted only the last paragraph here, but I'd recommend reading the whole thing for anyone who hasn't. It's interesting and enlightening.


                        Both of you are basically cherrypicking data and/or engaging in ad hominem attacks to support your respective theories. While both theories are at least plausible (unlike, say, John Netley clattering up in a coach and four to whisk a disembowelled murder victim through a sleeping house), the available data isn't enough to categorically exclude either without unproven, possibly unprovable assumptions being made. Can you please both call a truce, and actually try to argue and discuss, instead of harangue?

                        - Ginger

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Ginger View Post
                          If a modern expert opinion is wanted, then I doubt a more recent one could be found than that of Trevor Marriot's acquaintance Dr. Biggs, offered less than a week ago:




                          I've quoted only the last paragraph here, but I'd recommend reading the whole thing for anyone who hasn't. It's interesting and enlightening.


                          Both of you are basically cherrypicking data and/or engaging in ad hominem attacks to support your respective theories. While both theories are at least plausible (unlike, say, John Netley clattering up in a coach and four to whisk a disembowelled murder victim through a sleeping house), the available data isn't enough to categorically exclude either without unproven, possibly unprovable assumptions being made. Can you please both call a truce, and actually try to argue and discuss, instead of harangue?
                          What truce can there be? Iíve simply argued that the methods available were not reliable for predicting TOD accurately. This has been attested to be experts. Itís a fact. Early onset rigor can occur and the circumstances that could cause them to occur where there at the Chapman scene. Ditto temperature. Fish keeps trying to portray these as freak occurrences when they are simply not. So we have unreliable methods of arriving at a TOD (which of course still doesnít mean that Phillips was definitely wrong) and witnesses that directly contradict the idea of an earlier TOD. The reasonable view surely has to be that whilst it is not categorical that Phillips was wrong the likelihood is that he was.

                          Thats all Iíve said. But Fish thinks Iím siding with some kind of million to one shot and this is simply untrue. And, as ever, the insults and mockery came from Fish first but no doubt heíll continue to portray himself as the victim. Iím sorry but my position is based on the evidence of experts in the field. Iím not being illogical. Simpson, Camps, Payne-James and more confirm this.

                          And im not cherry-picking. Who was the one that conveniently left out...cut throats?

                          And of course we canít prove either way. Thatís entirely my point. But to Fish it has to be that Phillips was overwhelmingly likely to correct or else were just into freak territory again. Well Iím sorry but unsafe methods plus contradicting witnesses favour Phillips being mistaken. Not definite but favour.
                          Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 08-25-2019, 12:25 AM.
                          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 likelihood therefore is that Phillips got it wrong and that Annie Chapman met her death sometime after 5.20. The evidence points to this.

                            Absolute nonsense Herlock , science and physics are never wrong or mistaken, only people are wrong ,mistaken or just flat out lie . So to say that Chapman was dead after 5.20am simply because we have to accept Long and Codosch and Richardson whos so called evidence you wholeheartedly have been mistaken in believing as fact is astonishingly naive of you , wake up my friend stop flogging that dead horse , its way more likely that Chapman was killed before the whole Long ,Codosch Richardson fiasco


                            Evidence is science and physics...... not Long ,Codosch and Richardson , you'll do well to remember that .

                            Comment


                            • As someone that has made no contribution to this debate you appear to have taken on the role of cheerleader for Fish in yet another utterly desperate attempt to bolster your belief in the thoroughly discredited Knight/Sickert theory. Your statement that Long, Cadosch and Richardson were wrong is just not factual. Itís wish-thinking. You really should try thinking properly and logically before posting:

                              ďand the thud against the fence, well that could have been anythingĒ

                              Really? Like what?

                              According to the infallible Dr Phillips the mutilated corpse of Annie Chapman was already there. Perhaps it was a blind gardener?

                              Ohhhhh but i have contributed Herlock , ive put forward more than enough in regards to the Chapman murder with you , but your not accepting that there could also have been a different scenario to the Long Codosch and Richardson saga, so im wasting my time with a closed mind such as yours . Its good to see fisherman doing such a great job of putting a good case to what ive been saying all along , good on him for that . Regardless whether you or i believe the knight Sickert theory is irreverent , its Phillips t.o.d thats been discussed, and is more likely that he was correct with his t.o.d than that L.C.R STORY.




                              Really? Like what? Where would you like me to start, ......lets see its 1888 in a dirty backyard of stacked boxes , what do you think could have also been in that back yard at that time of the morning THAT COULD HAVE MADE ANY NOISE UP AGAINST A FENCE
                              ďand the thud against the fence, well that could have been anythingĒ

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                Again, you have absolutely no basis for using words like freak. Or to imply that early onset rigor is some kind of million to one occurrence. This is far from true. As you well know.
                                Yes, I have a very good basis for speaking of freakishness. If Phillips thought that quite warm was totally cold and if Chapman had rigor set in before the hour had passed, that would be a freakish fluke. As anybody understands. Well, with the odd exception, of course.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X