Chapman’s death.

[Fisherman]

Two parameters that modern experts tell us should not be used to estimate TOD.

Pointless points Fish.

I´m afraid, modern experts say no such thing. They instead urge us to be careful when establishing the TOD since these are inexact methods. They are NOT, though, as inexact as you would have it.

Sorry, but it seems you cannot get much right, can you?

[Fisherman]

On what planet is a middle aged, poorly nourished, Tuberculosis suffering woman that had her throat cut followed by appalling mutilations, a normal case?

Of course, this is gross misleading on your behalf. I never said that Chapman - or any other ripper case - was a normal case, did I? I instead said that for every parameter that you can off that will perhaps hasten the onset of rigor, I can offer just as many that will slow it down. And THAT is why I say that these things weigh each other out and we have not coach but to acknowledge that we must work from an assumption of rigor setting in along a normal schedule in Chapmans case.

If you can´t see how that differs from me claiming that the case was normal, I am sure anybody else will do so, and catch you out misrepresenting me. Again.

[Fisherman]

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 10–-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 4–6hours the body feels stone cold.




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

With every passing day you are starting to look more and more like the Bagdad Bob of Ripperology. You google as much as you can, you don't check the reliability of your sources (like Kori, where YOU quoted him, had ME telling you that his paper was not up to scratch and then you asked ME if I was aware that I was quoting a bad source...?), and you come up with useless information.

This is the latest (and hopefully last) example. You now introduce Rob Seddon-Smith, who proves that Lechmere was the killer. Nichols was still warm but for the underarms and hands as Llewelyn felt her body, remember? And since Seddon-Smith tells us that the body will feel totally cold 10-20 minutes after death, that rules out anybody else as the killer. Hurray, Herlock! You SOLVED it!!

Then again, I am not quite the kind of character that you are. I am fully aware that skin may cool down quickly - there are people who have very cold hands although they are alive, for example.

No, the one and only useful thing you produce here is what Seddon-Smith adds later: after 4-6 hours the body feels stone cold. Nota bene the word "feels". That does not mean that we have to cut it in pieces and put a thermometer to it. It means that to the human touch, a body will feel stone cold after 4-6 hours! You see, the warmth of the body can be felt THROUGH the skin, and although the skin itself may have cooled down, the underlying tissues have not. Moreover, Phillips checked inside the abdominal cavity, where there IS no skin, and found Chapman cold to the touch.

Do you think we can assume that Phillips would have been aware that skin can grow cold although the underlying tissues retain their warmth? Eh? Or would he, after decades of practicing the method of feeling for warmth, have been blissfully unaware of this? If so, and if Chapman felt stone cold at the skin, why do you think that Phillips did not say that she could have been dead since New Years Eve, going on the temperature? You DID say that temperature was the parameter Phillips used in an effort to clear out the rigor in an earlier post, did you not?

So where does this land us? Hm?

[Fisherman]

The argument is over.

You have repeatedly been proven wrong by the testimony of experts

Bagdad Bob tactics all over again.

In a sense you have a point, the argument IS over. Only, it did not end the way you seem to think.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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 .

Well, the less said about this drivel the better. Can you read?

How many forensic scientists does it need for it to sink in that TOD estimates that Phillips used were unreliable. This is not debatable. These are facts.

And so on that basis to say that Richardson, Cadosch and Long were definitely mistaken is nonsense. Worse that that though it’s dishonest.

And why are you so insistent on an infallible Phillips? Because you are dishonestly trying to keep alive the most thoroughly discredited theory in the whole of Ripperology.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

I’d say that infected would be a more accurate word than contributed. You are indeed wasting your time Fishy because you are the only person on planet Earth that still pushing the Knight/Gorman theory. You’re basically just indulging in Ripperological grave-robbing.

Of course Fisherman is putting up a fight. Like you he needs an earlier TOD.

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
“and the thud against the fence, well that could have been anything”

Amazing!

There were no stacked boxes in that yard so we can bin that rubbish.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Find me the quote where any forensic scientist that says early onset rigor or advanced cooling only occurs in freakish circumstances.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I´m afraid, modern experts say no such thing. They instead urge us to be careful when establishing the TOD since these are inexact methods. They are NOT, though, as inexact as you would have it.

Sorry, but it seems you cannot get much right, can you?

Your friend Payne-James said that they shouldn’t be used.

Youre making yourself look utterly desperate here Fish.

Its embarrassing in fact.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course, this is gross misleading on your behalf. I never said that Chapman - or any other ripper case - was a normal case, did I? I instead said that for every parameter that you can off that will perhaps hasten the onset of rigor, I can offer just as many that will slow it down. And THAT is why I say that these things weigh each other out and we have not coach but to acknowledge that we must work from an assumption of rigor setting in along a normal schedule in Chapmans case.

If you can´t see how that differs from me claiming that the case was normal, I am sure anybody else will do so, and catch you out misrepresenting me. Again.

There’s only one person misrepresenting here Fish and it’s not me. You’re the one talking about freak circumstances. You’re the one that conveniently edited a quote to leave out cut throats.

No we don’t have to work from that assumption. The criteria existed which could have advanced rigor. This is not debatable. It’s a fact. So the only honest conclusion is that Phillips could have been mistaken and it certainly wouldn’t have required freak circumstances.

So then we have witnesses who add to the weight of evidence against Phillips being correct. The only reasonable, reasoned conclusion (apart from by someone hopelessly biased of course) is that the likelihood is in favour of Phillips being wrong.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Anyone that says that Dr Phillips could not have been wrong is simply being dishonest. But hey, what’s new.

[Fisherman]

Find me the quote where any forensic scientist that says early onset rigor or advanced cooling only occurs in freakish circumstances.

Better still, find me a medico who have mistaken a quite warm body for a totally cold one! It is not a case of not acknowledging that medicos can get things wrong, it is a case of telling you that they don't get it THAT wrong. But this you fail to understand - you keep on gabbing about how the method is unreliable as if that would mean that all measurements are likely to go totally wayward.
Stick to the actual CASE, Herlock, and don't try and make out as if the unreliability is equally likely to muddle all cases.

[The Baron]

Anyone that says that Dr Phillips could not have been wrong is simply being dishonest. But hey, what’s new.

Then why you always say Richardson could not have been wrong and could not have missed the body ?!

Dishonesty in your definition!



The Baron

[Fisherman]

Anyone that says that Dr Phillips could not have been wrong is simply being dishonest. But hey, what’s new.

Tell me who says that Phillips could not be wrong. I know I don't. I am saying that Phillips would not be THAT wrong, because that would be freakishly wrong. That is why the term applies here.

[Fisherman]

Your friend Payne-James said that they shouldn’t be used.

Youre making yourself look utterly desperate here Fish.

Its embarrassing in fact.

Yes, it IS embarrassing. Thanks to your contributions and you fallacy to understand how cases can differ from each other.

[Fisherman]

No we don’t have to work from that assumption. The criteria existed which could have advanced rigor. This is not debatable. It’s a fact.

And the criteria existed which could have DELAYED rigor. This is not debatable. Its a fact.

So why should we put our trust in your parameters only being at work? Hm?