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 Herlock Sholmes View Post
    The idea that Coroner had misunderstood what Dr Phillips was saying to him is barking mad!
    Lets´take a look at some extracts from Wolf Vanderlindens groundbreaking essay on the Chapman murder:

    The official Scotland Yard position seems to have been to trust the opinions and evidence of two of its own. Inspector Chandler's evidence, taken at face value and without resorting to impugning the man, cast serious doubt on Richardson's truthfulness. This led to police suspicion against the market porter. How was it, exactly, that he did he not see the body if, as he said, he had sat on the steps? Was he lying? And if so, why? Chief Inspector Swanson's report of 19 October, 188828tells us that the police, rather than seeing him as the crucial witness, saw him as a serious suspect.

    "If the evidence of Dr. Phillips is correct as to time of death, it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body when he went into the yard at 4:45 a.m. but as his clothes were examined, the house searched and his statement taken in which there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him, although police specially directed their attention to him."

    The police were obviously depending upon Dr. Phillips' opinions and his standing as a reliable medical expert when directing the course of their investigations. To the detectives working on the Chapman murder, Dr. Phillips' estimated time of death made Long and Cadosch irrelevant.

    This sentiment is also expressed in Swanson's report. After listing the actions of the police during the investigation, Swanson was forced to admit that "Up to the present the combined result of those inquiries did not supply the police with the slightest clue to the murderer" thus damning Mrs. Long's description of the man she had seen with no praise at all. Swanson continues, "Again if the evidence of Mrs. Long is correct that she saw the deceased at 5:30 a.m. then the evidence of Dr. Phillips as to probable time of death is incorrect. He was called and saw the body at 6:20 a.m. [sic] and he then gives it as his opinion that death occurred about two hours earlier, viz: 4:20 a.m. hence the evidence of Mrs. Long which appeared to be so important to the Coroner, must be looked upon with some amount of doubt, which is to be regretted."

    This "doubt" apparently soon became the conviction that Mrs. Long's testimony was worthless. By the end of 1888, for example, Inspector Walter Andrews stated "The police are perfectly powerless, no one ever having seen the murderer except the victims." 29 Sir Melville Macnaghten said very much the same thing in his 1894 "Memoranda", stating, "no one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer" , although in his draft copy he adds, "unless possibly it was the City P.C. who was a beat [sic] near Mitre Square."

    It is now time to look at Dr. Phillips' opinions about the time of death of Annie Chapman, opinions that were supported by Scotland Yard. The doctor was called to number 29 Hanbury Street at 6:20 a.m. and arrived there at 6:30. He then immediately examined the body in situ and observed a couple of things important to us. He stated "the body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body." He also observed that "stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing." At the post mortem, conducted at 2:00 that afternoon, he also observed that "the stomach contained a little food." It is doubtlessly from the first two observations that Dr. Phillips made his estimate of the time of death.

    Chandler's report, dated on the day of the murder, said, "The Doctor pronounced life extinct and stated the woman had been dead at least two hours." 30 Later at the inquest he responded to a question about the time of death of Annie Chapman by stating "I should say at least two hours, and probably more" but there was a caveat to this statement, which has been used to explain away Dr. Philips' estimation. The doctor added "but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood." Does this disqualify Dr. Phillips' time frame for the murder? No, it doesn't. The doctor was merely stating the obvious and not changing his estimate of time of death.

    Estimating time of death has been called more of an art form than an exact science. It is difficult, with what we have to work with, to know exactly what Dr. Phillips had observed and what exactly were the variables surrounding the death of Annie Chapman. A few things can be gleaned from pathology texts, such as the fact that rigor mortis generally begins two to four hours after death. Many things can affect the onset of rigor but generally the two to four hour period is consistently espoused in the literature. In the case of Annie Chapman, Dr. Phillips observed that rigor mortis had just begun when he examined the body at 6:30 that morning. This alone would explain his opinion that Chapman had been dead for at least two hours.

    As I have said, however, several things can hasten or lengthen the time it takes rigor to appear. I have noticed that more than one author writing on the Chapman murder has misunderstood this fact. For some reason authors have confused the fact that subjecting the body to cold temperatures will not hasten rigor but instead will retard its onset, will in fact slow it down. It is correct to say, therefore, that the coldness of Chapman's body would cause a delay in the appearance of stiffening and thus point to a time greater than two hours for her time of death. This fact is apparently reflected in Dr. Phillips' inquest testimony....

    ...The final observation offered us by Dr. Phillips is the coldness of the body. In effect the doctor stated that the body was stone cold except for some "remaining heat" in the abdominal cavity underneath the intestines. It is to this observation which he added the caveat at the inquest that the body could have cooled faster because of the conditions. What he didn't do was suggest that this had caused him to reevaluate his estimated time of death. He certainly didn't offer any support for Mrs. Long and Albert Cadosch's testimonies.

    Phillips' caveat was apparently stated in so offhand a manner that it didn't leave an impression on everyone. At least one jury member, the foreman, remarked aloud at the inquest that the time stated by Elizabeth Long as to when she had seen Annie Chapman alive was not consistent with the time of death stated by the doctor. The coroner answered sharply that "Dr. Phillips had since qualified his statement" 34 or, "qualified it very much," according to the Daily News. This was not true, as the police opinion shows, and in contrast to Coroner Baxter's beliefs was a report in the Times which stated after Dr. Phillips had testified "Dr. Phillips's positive opinion that the woman had been dead quite two hours when he first saw the body at half-past 6, throws serious doubt upon the accuracy of at least two important witnesses, and considerably adds to the prevailing confusion." 35 (emphasis mine)"


    So there we are, Herlock, a world of "barking mad" men opens up before your eyes, among them Swanson, Walter Andrews, Melville MacNaghten, the entire Scotland Yard and a reporter or two who actually were at the inquest.

    And so, once again I ask you: If you rule out Baxter and accept Phillips´ minimum time frame of two hours, what does that do to your reasoning?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

      We differ somewhat here, I notice. To me, it IS set in stone that Long and Cadosch cannot possibly have seen/heard Chapman alive/Chapman falling against the fence. Phillips cannot have been THAT wrong on the earth issue, quite simply, the way I see it. I of course cannot know that Long and Cadosch told porkies, but it remains a very obvious possibility. Long may of course have mistaken another woman for Chapman, and something/someone else than Chapman may have been what Cadosch heard. But in my world, Chapman was long dead when their observations were made.
      Richardson was there significantly earlier than Long and Cadosch, and so he has to be more likely to be correct the they were looking at the time factor only. But in his case, he may have missed out on the body, plus we have different versions of what he said, making him a shaky witness.

      What I would like to add - and what I find most important - is that once you say that I make my calls because it "fits one particular theory", you are getting things very wrong. This is the exact kind of thing I would warn about.

      If a parameter fits a theory, that is something that STRENGTHENS the theory. It is not something that WEAKENS it on account of the theorist pointing it out. This is something that is far too often employed in ripperology - when something points to a person being the culprit, it is somehow regarded out here as worthless information if that something is pointed out be somebody who regards the person pointed out as a suspect. It is like saying "Yes, he did stand by the deceased with a smoking gun in his hand, but you only point to that because he is your favorite suspect!"
      Just to clarify, when I referred to fitting evidence to a theory I was talking about the murder occurring before Richardson, Cadosch et al. were present. I wasn't referring to Lechmere as the killer.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

        Just to clarify, when I referred to fitting evidence to a theory I was talking about the murder occurring before Richardson, Cadosch et al. were present. I wasn't referring to Lechmere as the killer.
        Okay, Harry. I've probably been subjected to too many "You only say that because you promote Lechmere!", and reacted accordingly. Sorry if I offended you.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

          Okay, Harry. I've probably been subjected to too many "You only say that because you promote Lechmere!", and reacted accordingly. Sorry if I offended you.
          None taken, Fish.

          Comment


          • Interesting that this has come down to 'degrees of wrongness'.

            (Sorry - new member, but been reading threads in their entirety so well-versed on some of the 'politics' here.)

            Simply - we will likely never know for certain. The 'evidence' as is cancels each side out almost equally.

            In a calm and logical view of the available detail, I would suggest it is most likely (and only just 'most' likely) that the corpse was NOT there when Richardson was on the yard steps.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

              Yes, and when we CAN be certain, we KNOW that witnesses who testify to the contrary to that certainty are wrong.
              More crap. You appear to have an endless supply. This is wearying.
              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

                More crap. You appear to have an endless supply. This is wearying.

                Swimming against current is always wearying.


                The Baron

                Comment


                • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                  [Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? -][codosch] ''They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings''

                  Are you serious? Is there no end to the nonsense that you insist on posting?

                  Of course there could be the noises of people moving packing cases around at other times but we are talking about at around 5.20-5.25 on that particular morning. And on that particular morning there were no packing cases in the yard! And more importantly Fishy there was no other person in that yard to move those non-existent packing cases around! And how do we know that there can’t have been? Because if the infallible Dr Phillips was correct then there was a mutilated corpse there which makes it unlikely that someone would be working away without seeing it!


                  i guess your proven wrong again YOU REALLY SHOULD READ MORE . this is getting to easy herlock

                  Seriously Fishy, just made one of the worsts points ever posted.....by anyone...ever.




                  Stick to Phillips t.o.d , you know thats the debate your losing .

                  There is no debate. It’s bias against fact. My point has been proven beyond doubt.

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

                  Wow! In one post you’ve now made two of the worst points ever! Why the hell do I need an earlier TOD? Why have I been arguing for a later one? Please, please answer those two questions Fishy. I desperately want to hear your thoughts.

                  WE ALREADY HAVE ONE 3.30AM TO 4.30AM
                  Wish thinking.
                  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 when we CAN be certain, we KNOW that witnesses who testify to the contrary to that certainty are wrong.
                    Untrue of course but par for the course with you.
                    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


                      Swimming against current is always wearying.


                      The Baron
                      Oh The Troll’s back.
                      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


                        AGREED
                        You and Baron agreeing with each other. Hardly surprising.
                        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

                          Eh -no. I don´t "need" an earlier TOD. If you are referring to Lechmere, he was a carman, and as likely to be in Hanbury Street at 5.30 as anywhere else. And there are records of parked carts in Hanbury Street at that approximate hour.

                          So I am not making my case on grounds of promoting Lechmere, I am making it because I find it is the by far most likely and credible scenario, plus it takes the murder into night time darkness and thus it tallies with the other strikes.

                          So that is how it works - it is not Lechmere who favors an early strike, it is the early strike factors as given by Phillips that favor him having killed her at around 3-3.30 or so.
                          You are at liberty to say that and I’m at liberty not to believe you.
                          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 FriedBrotato View Post
                            Interesting that this has come down to 'degrees of wrongness'.

                            (Sorry - new member, but been reading threads in their entirety so well-versed on some of the 'politics' here.)

                            Simply - we will likely never know for certain. The 'evidence' as is cancels each side out almost equally.

                            In a calm and logical view of the available detail, I would suggest it is most likely (and only just 'most' likely) that the corpse was NOT there when Richardson was on the yard steps.
                            Bingo

                            Exactly FriedBrotato. This is the crux of the matter. As a stand alone issue from the medical evidence we cannot be certain either way. Fish continually tries to portray a later TOD as a freak. This can be dismissed as wish thinking. So we are left with Richardson, Cadosch and Long. Richardson and Cadosch dovetail so we have two witnesses who confirm a later TOD. Simple

                            Fish will simply keep posting acres of words. It’s now become white noise.
                            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

                              Untrue of course but par for the course with you.
                              The full exchange:
                              Your input: If we cannot be certain either way then we have to look elsewhere. Like witnesses.

                              My answer: Yes, and when we CAN be certain, we KNOW that witnesses who testify to the contrary to that certainty are wrong.

                              Since when has it become untrue to say that witnesses testifying to the contrary of certainties must be wrong, Herlock? Maybe the wording became too hard for you to master?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                You are at liberty to say that and I’m at liberty not to believe you.
                                You are at liberty to believe ANYTHING. And indeed, you do.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X