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

    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.
    Richardson and Long ALSO dovetail. And the temperature and the rigor onset dovetail. Many things do - or may seem to do. The police did not believe in EITHER Long and Cadosch, so one can say that the regarded their respective testimonies as dovetailing in the sense that they were both nonsense. Then again, the police were "barking mad" since they did not invest a single penny in the misleading coroner Baxter, right?

    By the way, that reminds me of that question I have asked twice before and not gotten an answer to: If Baxter was wrong and Phillips really did not allow fr a second less than two hours, how would that affect your thinking, Herlock?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      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.
      Actually, it never was and still is not a question of two equally likely scenarios. The medical evidence does not allow for that.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

        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?


        Im no going to keep going over the same old grounds here. This isn’t a see who can use the most words competition.

        Rigor and temperature are unsafe methods and shouldn’t be used - experts tell us this. FACT

        Certain criteria can distort findings - those criteria were present and so the possibility existed. FACT

        Therefore, 130 years later, Phillips could have been wrong - you’ve admitted this (even you couldn’t have denied it) FACT

        Ive never said that Phillips couldn’t have been correct or that it was impossible for the witnesses to have been mistaken or to have lied. FACT

        Youre characterisation of an earlier TOD as a freak circumstance is simply not true and, despite requests, you’ve provided not one shred of verification for this. FACT



        So when we break this argument down it really is very simply despite your smokescreening. We have methods of establishing TOD’s which hordes of forensic experts tell us are unreliable and should not be used. The results deduced by doctors using them can be distorted by certain factors which were present on the night of Chapman’s murder. There are even criteria such as the manner of death, which can accelerate the onset of rigor, which Dr Phillips in 1888, was simply unaware of. This shows us that Dr Phillips TOD estimation was unsafe. He might have been correct of course (we cannot know for sure) but he might have been wrong (we cannot know for sure) Percentages are fairly useless here and an attempt to try and make it appear that an earlier TOD would have been a freak occurrence is dishonest. Even a 5% chance of Philips being wrong would be vital! Why? Because we have witnesses. Witnesses that it appears in vogue to dismiss out of hand when it suits an agenda.

        UNSAFE METHODS ADDED TO THE FACT THAT THE CRITERIA THAT MIGHT DISTORT THE RESULTS WERE IN EVIDENCE IN HANBURY STREET MEAN THAT PHILLIPS TOD ESTIMATE CANNOT BE RELIED UPON AS ENTIRELY ACCURATE. COMBINE THIS WITH WITNESSES THAT FLATLY CONTRADICT PHILLIPS AND WE HAVE THE LIKELIHOOD THAT CHAPMAN DIED AT AROUND 5.W0-5.25.

        This is an entirely reasonable position to take. It’s not a definite one but it’s at the very least a plausible possibility. The level of vehemence from three posters I’m afraid is hardly surprising. Two of them want an earlier TOD to bolster the theory theory that they support (something that doesn’t apply to me) and the other one (The Baron) 100% only makes posts which mock or insult me and we all know the word for that.
        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

          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?
          So you are now saying that it’s absolutely impossible for Phillips to have been 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 Fisherman View Post

            You are at liberty to believe ANYTHING. And indeed, you do.
            There are many things that I don’t believe. And with good reason
            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 are many things that I don’t believe. And with good reason
              And many things you DO believe for no good reasons at all.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post



                Im no going to keep going over the same old grounds here. This isn’t a see who can use the most words competition.

                Rigor and temperature are unsafe methods and shouldn’t be used - experts tell us this. FACT

                Certain criteria can distort findings - those criteria were present and so the possibility existed. FACT

                Therefore, 130 years later, Phillips could have been wrong - you’ve admitted this (even you couldn’t have denied it) FACT

                Ive never said that Phillips couldn’t have been correct or that it was impossible for the witnesses to have been mistaken or to have lied. FACT

                Youre characterisation of an earlier TOD as a freak circumstance is simply not true and, despite requests, you’ve provided not one shred of verification for this. FACT



                So when we break this argument down it really is very simply despite your smokescreening. We have methods of establishing TOD’s which hordes of forensic experts tell us are unreliable and should not be used. The results deduced by doctors using them can be distorted by certain factors which were present on the night of Chapman’s murder. There are even criteria such as the manner of death, which can accelerate the onset of rigor, which Dr Phillips in 1888, was simply unaware of. This shows us that Dr Phillips TOD estimation was unsafe. He might have been correct of course (we cannot know for sure) but he might have been wrong (we cannot know for sure) Percentages are fairly useless here and an attempt to try and make it appear that an earlier TOD would have been a freak occurrence is dishonest. Even a 5% chance of Philips being wrong would be vital! Why? Because we have witnesses. Witnesses that it appears in vogue to dismiss out of hand when it suits an agenda.

                UNSAFE METHODS ADDED TO THE FACT THAT THE CRITERIA THAT MIGHT DISTORT THE RESULTS WERE IN EVIDENCE IN HANBURY STREET MEAN THAT PHILLIPS TOD ESTIMATE CANNOT BE RELIED UPON AS ENTIRELY ACCURATE. COMBINE THIS WITH WITNESSES THAT FLATLY CONTRADICT PHILLIPS AND WE HAVE THE LIKELIHOOD THAT CHAPMAN DIED AT AROUND 5.W0-5.25.

                This is an entirely reasonable position to take. It’s not a definite one but it’s at the very least a plausible possibility. The level of vehemence from three posters I’m afraid is hardly surprising. Two of them want an earlier TOD to bolster the theory theory that they support (something that doesn’t apply to me) and the other one (The Baron) 100% only makes posts which mock or insult me and we all know the word for that.
                I would say that you are as unaware about which factors Phillips were aware and/or unaware of - that is just you guessing away (can you confirm this for the readers, please?) Any which way, it does not matter a bit, because WE know today that there were factors speaking for both an earlier and a later onset, so these factors weigh each other out. Unless you want to claim that you have the better factors?

                The "facts" that you list are the same "facts" that have been proven not to have the kind of impact you wish for in your dreams.

                And calling you "entirely reasonable" is like calling cold warm. Then again, that it exactly your line of reasoning, isn´t it?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  So you are now saying that it’s absolutely impossible for Phillips to have been wrong?
                  I am saying what I have said for eons of time: Phillips was human, and therefore he could be wrong, but he would not be THAT wrong. If he was severely drunk ... no, he would not get it that wrong anyway, but let´s see, if he was ...ehh...I have it: if he had forgotten to take his gloves off, he may have gotten the temperature very wrong. So in essence, you have got a one in a million shot to be correct here. A freak chance, as I tend to call it.
                  But how about admitting that your protest against the sentence you quote was misguided and faulty in the first place? You missed out on that part for some unfathomable reason. Surely witnesses denying certainties MUST be wrong? Any admittance on that one?

                  Comment


                  • And now you can say that I will probably go on to spout my nonsense while similarly spouting out your own nonsense. It seems I am the one who needs not to debate, whereas you are to grace the boards with your misconceptions and allegations that the whole Scotland Yard was wrong not to accept Baxter´s nonsense.

                    Surprise: It does not work that way.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                      I would say that you are as unaware about which factors Phillips were aware and/or unaware of - that is just you guessing away (can you confirm this for the readers, please?) Any which way, it does not matter a bit, because WE know today that there were factors speaking for both an earlier and a later onset, so these factors weigh each other out. Unless you want to claim that you have the better factors?

                      The "facts" that you list are the same "facts" that have been proven not to have the kind of impact you wish for in your dreams.

                      And calling you "entirely reasonable" is like calling cold warm. Then again, that it exactly your line of reasoning, isn´t it?
                      I’d say that Phillips wouldn’t have known that the manner of death, the trauma if you will, might have been a contributing factor to an earlier onset.

                      so these factors weigh each other out.
                      And so the medical evidence is unsafe to rely upon as you do. The pros and cons cancel each other out.

                      The witnesses tip the balance in favour of a later time of death. What can be more logical than this?
                      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
                        And now you can say that I will probably go on to spout my nonsense while similarly spouting out your own nonsense. It seems I am the one who needs not to debate, whereas you are to grace the boards with your misconceptions and allegations that the whole Scotland Yard was wrong not to accept Baxter´s nonsense.

                        Surprise: It does not work that way.
                        Or the misconceptions of Simpson or Camps or Payne-James or any of the other experts who can apparently be ignored.

                        Very convenient.
                        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

                          Or the misconceptions of Simpson or Camps or Payne-James or any of the other experts who can apparently be ignored.

                          Very convenient.
                          There are no misconceptions on their behalf. The only misconception there is, is that their information would go to disqualify Phillips verdict in any way. And that is where the "convenience" would lie (note the two meanings of "lie". Neat, eh?)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            I’d say that Phillips wouldn’t have known that the manner of death, the trauma if you will, might have been a contributing factor to an earlier onset.

                            And do you say that because you KNOW it or because you guess it? There was extensive work in the medical sector carried out on those who were decapitated in the Fresh revolution, for example. Rigor onset is actually quite likely to have been checked in those cases.

                            And so the medical evidence is unsafe to rely upon as you do. The pros and cons cancel each other out.

                            No, it is not unsafe at all. That is not the inference here. The inference is that although you shout all you can about violent deaths as quickening the onset of rigor, I can shout about alcoholism, cold surroundings and asphyxiation as factors that will SLOW THE PROCESS of rigor. So either we agree that your factors are better than. one, we agree that my factors are better than your - or we simply accept that they outweigh each other. In which case we have no reason at all to EITHER quicken or slow down the onset time. In which case we use the normal schedule which you agree prescribes 2-4 hours. And I am being generous here!

                            The witnesses tip the balance in favour of a later time of death. What can be more logical than this?
                            The witnesses never even get to be heard. Our agreeing that the factors that quicken or slow down the onset of rigor cancel each other out means that we must work from an assumption of a normal rigor onset, and that means bye-bye witnesses. As if that was not enough, the temperature - or rather the lack of it - in Chapmans body delivers a further spike-shoe kick in the butts of Long/Cadosh/Richardson.

                            The case is closed before it opens. There IS no case.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                              There are no misconceptions on their behalf. The only misconception there is, is that their information would go to disqualify Phillips verdict in any way. And that is where the "convenience" would lie (note the two meanings of "lie". Neat, eh?)
                              It’s as simple as this. You are saying that Phillips couldn’t have been wrong by 50 minutes using methods to estimate TOD that have been stated as unsafe by experts! And on that basis you dismiss two very plausible witness (with one other witness who might simply have got her timing wrong)

                              If that’s your idea of being reasonable then there isn’t much more to say.
                              Regards

                              Herlock






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

                              Comment


                              • No, it is not unsafe at all. That is not the inference here. The inference is that although you shout all you can about violent deaths as quickening the onset of rigor, I can shout about alcoholism, cold surroundings and asphyxiation as factors that will SLOW THE PROCESS of rigor. So either we agree that your factors are better than. one, we agree that my factors are better than your - or we simply accept that they outweigh each other. In which case we have no reason at all to EITHER quicken or slow down the onset time. In which case we use the normal schedule which you agree prescribes 2-4 hours. And I am being generous here!
                                Noooo!

                                You are saying: the points in favour of under 2 hours are cancelled out by those in favour of two hours plus therefore by default we should accept 2 hours plus!

                                How does this pass for logic? On what planet? Does logic have a different meaning in Sweden 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

                                Working...
                                X