Chapman’s death.

[Fisherman]

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?

I am saying this, and listen REAL hard now:

We have a case with no points to either a quicker or a slower rigor. Let's call it 0 (zero).

Then you add two or three parameters for a quicker onset of rigor.

We then move to 2 or 3 plus.

Then I add two or three factors that speak for a slower rigor.

We then actually move back to zero. Its not as if my points do not count, right?

And accordingly, we should NOT work from an assumption of either an early OR a slow onset of rigor. We should work from a NORMAL onset of rigor, that is to say 2-4 hours.

Once we work from that, we can see that the witnesses are most likely wrong and the temperature further clinches it.

THAT planet, Herlock. The logical one.

[Fisherman]

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.

I don´t want to speak in terms of minutes, I want to speak in terms of percentages. That makes the whole thing a lot more clear. And what you want is to have Phillips having added a hundred per cent to the time that should not have been there. You reason that she grew cold and stiffening in an hour, while Phillips says that growing cold and stiffening will normally take more than two hours to do, but that he is ready to accept two hours only - as a bare minimum.

The difference is way too massive to make any sort of sense, and it is ONLY led on by a wish to believe the witnesses. If we had only had Phillips, every ripperologist on planet Earth would say "She died at the same time as the others, approximately - that makes a whole lot of sense!"

The witnesses ar far too bad to award any faith at all. They are not only deviating in the timings in an impossible manner, there are other things that are not very good. Long said the she did not take a good look at the couple, she said that she would not be likely to be able to identify them - and then she was dead certain four days later that Chapman was the woman she had seen. Richardson said he cut leather from ibis boot and then laced it back up again, but had to admit later that he did not such thing, because the knife was too dull, and Cadosch says that he is not sure where the sounds came from when he heard voices, plus he is adamant that he heard nothing at all but for the sound against the fence the second time over. Would not the Ripper overpowering Chapman and wrestling her to the ground while suffocating her have given away a single sound?

Yes, this is my way of being reasonable. If you fail to respond, so much the better. Best of all would have been if you had never said anything at all on the errand, because I genuinely believe that confusion and lacking insights have been your main contributions.

Give it a few years, and you will see what happens to this errand now that the cats out of the bag.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In response to your post #388

He said that the body was cold. Maybe it was not stone cold, maybe it was barbecue cold. He saids that there was no other warmth at all remaining but for a small spot under the intestines. What do you think that makes the rest of the body?



You misrepresent the evidence AGAIN. Phillips didn’t say anything about a “small spot”. Nor did he say that “there was no warmth at all remaining” in the rest of the body. Having abandoned “stone cold” you are just having another go at making it all up to suit yourself. You ask me about the rest of the body, but there is no evidence that Phillips put his hands over the entire body is there? In fact, the Morning Advertiser tells us that Phillips only noted that the left side of Chapman’s body was cold. Even you admit that “the reasonable thing to surmise is that medicos did not necessarily check both sides”. Did Phillips remove Chapman’s shoes and check the temperature her feet? There’s no evidence of this? Did he remove any other of her garments to check her body? Not mentioned. He doesn’t even say that he checked her hands. All we are told is that the left side of her body was cold. That is the evidence Fisherman and you can't expand it because you would like him to have said or done more. He also found ‘a certain remaining heat’ in the body under the intestines. If you stick to the evidence and not speculate about what Phillips did or did not find you might get to the truth of the matter.


I have quoted the passage about the remaining warmth under the intestines numerous times


So why did you pretend it didn’t exist (by saying the body was "stone cold") at the very point in the discussion where it was relevant?


And one has to marvel at how Brown felt Eddowes quite warm 45 minutes after the strike...?
Do you have an explaxation for this?


Yes. 45 minutes isn’t an hour. Nor is it 70 minutes. Furthermore, and this is the whole point, different corpses take different times to cool. It’s not a precise science which is why all the experts say you cannot rely on body temperature to accurately estimate a time of death. Don’t you get it?



What Phillios allowed for - but did NOT recommend - was two hours. He thought the suggestion was likely to be wrong (it was PROBABLY MORE than a mere two hours). But he was willing to accept that short a time period as two hours on account of how ot was cold and how there was extensive damage to the body. In which universe do doctors say "The very, very, very, very shortest time possible is two hours It was NO SHORTER than that. Unless if was just one hour."But he was willing to accept that short a time period as two hours on account of how ot was cold and how there was extensive damage to the body.



That is false and ridiculous. We have two statements from Dr Phillips to the Coroner. Firstly he said that Chapman had been "dead at least two hours, and probably more, when he saw her". That was his opinion. At least two hours. Then there is a qualification of THAT statement. For we have the word "BUT" and then an actual admission, as revealed by the words of the Coroner that "he admitted". He was admitting something. So what was he admitting? It's perfectly obvious that he was admitting that his estimate of "at least two hours" could have been wrong based on the two factors he mentioned. It's ridiculous and barking mad for you to try and argue that he wasn't doing this. It's obvious in plain English and the Coroner understood him perfectly well to be saying this which is why he found as a fact that the witnesses at about 5.30 could have seen and heard Chapman.



Tell me, if you were to accept what I say, and accept that Phillips never allowed for anything less than two hours, what would that make to your stance?



You are asking me a crazy hypothetical question. That’s not what happened in reality. But I’ve already repeatedly explained to you that Phillips couldn’t do what he thought he could do. It’s not possible to accurately estimate a time of death from body temperature. Hells bells, Phillips didn’t even take Chapman’s body temperature with a thermometer which is how it is done. All he did was touch the body. There’s no scientific basis for estimating a time of death on that basis. It’s just pure opinion. But the fact is that by using the word “but”, Phillips was definitely saying that Chapman could have been murdered later than 4.30. That is perfectly clear. It’s what the Coroner understood him to be saying and what the Coroner found actually DID happen. You are arguing with a Coroner who had far more experience of inquiries into deaths that you will ever have. All you are doing is denying reality and living in a world where Phillips couldn't have been wrong and never admitted he could have been wrong. But he could have been wrong and he admitted it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In response to post #391

Firstly Wolf Vanderlinden is NOT agreeing with you about Phillips’ comments to the Coroner. What he is saying is that Phillips was “stating the obvious” or, in other words, that it is obvious that the temperature and loss of blood could have affected his conclusion and that, therefore, death couldhave occurred later than 4.30am, even though 4.30 or earlier was his own estimate. I have never said that Phillips was changing his estimate as to time of death, only that he was admitting there were two factors which could mean that death occurred later than 4.30am. Wolf is not disputing this.



So Wolf isn’t following your “barking mad” theory and its disingenuous of you to post the entire extract with the claim that he is supporting you.

What we can see from Wolf is that he, like you, is in error in thinking that rigor was a factor in Phillips’ estimate of the time of death. This is an opinion on his part. I don’t know who Wolf Vanderlinden is. I don’t believe he has any expertise in the subject of forensic pathology. He just seems to have found the same 2-4 hours average of the onset of rigor that you found from googling and worked around that. Furthermore, if you’ve read David Orsam’s Suckered Trilogy and Quadrilogy you’ll see that Wolf Vanderlinden is not above getting things completely wrong.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Give it a few years, and you will see what happens to this errand now that the cat’s out of the bag.

The cat certainly is out of the bag. We know the lengths that you will go to simply to make things fit. You lost this argument quite a few posts ago Fish. Nothing that you have said changes this very obvious fact.

Phillips could have been wrong - it wouldn’t have required freak circumstances - the witnesses tip the balance in favour of him being wrong.

Have fun chasing that cat.

[Ginger]

Richardson said he cut leather from ibis boot and then laced it back up again, but had to admit later that he did not such thing, because the knife was too dull...

You seem to be sure, then, that Richardson's initial statement was a lie, and his subsequent revision truthful. Why?

[Fisherman]

You seem to be sure, then, that Richardson's initial statement was a lie, and his subsequent revision truthful. Why?

Dot do the Herlock Sholmes mistake, Ginger! I am NOT sure, but I do think it is a very likely explanation. Why? Well, if we listen to Wolf Vanderlinden, he has this to say about the matter:

The fact that Richardson stated that he had been in the yard where a murder had been committed, and that he had with him a knife, was a significant admission not lost on the coroner. He questioned the porter about the knife and finally ordered him to go and get it, which Richardson did accompanied by a constable. He returned and was recalled to the witness stand. The knife he produced was a rusty and blunt little dessert or table knife with half the blade broken off and no handle. The coroner, who examined the blade, wondered how such an implement could be used to cut boot leather and Richardson amazingly stated "as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market" ²³ to do the job.

This is a not insignificant change to his story. What he had been saying unequivocally up until this point was that he had "sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot." ²⁴ He even went into some detail about his actions stating "after cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market." ²⁵ He stated quite clearly on more than one occasion that he had cut the leather from his boot. He even added a wholly unnecessary comment that he tied his boot up, but nowhere had he mention that in fact he had been unsuccessful in cutting the offending leather. Remember, this is the only reason that Richardson was deemed an important witness - his claim that he sat down on the steps and cut a piece of leather from his shoe - and now he had changed his story.

Sugden states that Richardson was "the crucial witness" and that he "had nothing to hide" and "he stated his evidence clearly and unequivocally" ²⁶ which is not all together true. Richardson seems to have changed his story more than once so he was hardly "unequivocal." As for having nothing to hide, this is true insofar as he was probably (though who really can say) not actually involved in the murder. He does certainly seem to go from one story of very little import to another where he becomes "the crucial witness." He wouldn't be the first person who perjured themselves in order to appear more important than they actually were and he did become important.

I think it neatly sums up my own take on things.

[Fisherman]

In response to your post #388

He said that the body was cold. Maybe it was not stone cold, maybe it was barbecue cold. He saids that there was no other warmth at all remaining but for a small spot under the intestines. What do you think that makes the rest of the body?



You misrepresent the evidence AGAIN. Phillips didn’t say anything about a “small spot”. Nor did he say that “there was no warmth at all remaining” in the rest of the body. Having abandoned “stone cold” you are just having another go at making it all up to suit yourself. You ask me about the rest of the body, but there is no evidence that Phillips put his hands over the entire body is there? In fact, the Morning Advertiser tells us that Phillips only noted that the left side of Chapman’s body was cold. Even you admit that “the reasonable thing to surmise is that medicos did not necessarily check both sides”. Did Phillips remove Chapman’s shoes and check the temperature her feet? There’s no evidence of this? Did he remove any other of her garments to check her body? Not mentioned. He doesn’t even say that he checked her hands. All we are told is that the left side of her body was cold. That is the evidence Fisherman and you can't expand it because you would like him to have said or done more. He also found ‘a certain remaining heat’ in the body under the intestines. If you stick to the evidence and not speculate about what Phillips did or did not find you might get to the truth of the matter.

What was said was that the only place where warmth ( a certain heat) remained was under the intestines in the abdomen. As bodies go, that means that three was only detectable heat in a very limited part of the body, under the intestines in the abdomen.


I have quoted the passage about the remaining warmth under the intestines numerous times


So why did you pretend it didn’t exist (by saying the body was "stone cold") at the very point in the discussion where it was relevant?

Actually, the fact that I have taken it up numerous times is not evidence that I in any way would pretend it didn't exist. It is, beleive it or not, clear evidence that I know that it existed, evidence that I shared with those who read the posts I have written out here. I am not so dumb as to first mention it half a dozen times and then try to deny it. You, on the other hand, seem quite accustomed to these kinds of shenanigans.


And one has to marvel at how Brown felt Eddowes quite warm 45 minutes after the strike...?
Do you have an explaxation for this?


Yes. 45 minutes isn’t an hour. Nor is it 70 minutes. Furthermore, and this is the whole point, different corpses take different times to cool. It’s not a precise science which is why all the experts say you cannot rely on body temperature to accurately estimate a time of death. Don’t you get it?

The "witness indications" in the Chapman case point to a TOD at 5.30, which was the one suggested by the coroner. Actually, since Long saw the couple at 5.30, we must move that time a bit further away, so maybe 5.35-5.40 is more useful. In which case we are dealing with 50 minutes. It would at any rate be quite comparable to Eddowes, and just like you say, conditions differ: Eddowes died in COLDER conditions and she was MORE subjected to the elements than Chapman who laying a recess. Therefore, if anything, Eddowes would have cooled QUICKER than Chapman. It is not a question of ME not getting the simplest of things, you know...

What Phillios allowed for - but did NOT recommend - was two hours. He thought the suggestion was likely to be wrong (it was PROBABLY MORE than a mere two hours). But he was willing to accept that short a time period as two hours on account of how ot was cold and how there was extensive damage to the body. In which universe do doctors say "The very, very, very, very shortest time possible is two hours It was NO SHORTER than that. Unless if was just one hour."But he was willing to accept that short a time period as two hours on account of how ot was cold and how there was extensive damage to the body.


That is false and ridiculous. We have two statements from Dr Phillips to the Coroner. Firstly he said that Chapman had been "dead at least two hours, and probably more, when he saw her". That was his opinion. At least two hours. Then there is a qualification of THAT statement. For we have the word "BUT" and then an actual admission, as revealed by the words of the Coroner that "he admitted". He was admitting something. So what was he admitting? It's perfectly obvious that he was admitting that his estimate of "at least two hours" could have been wrong based on the two factors he mentioned. It's ridiculous and barking mad for you to try and argue that he wasn't doing this. It's obvious in plain English and the Coroner understood him perfectly well to be saying this which is why he found as a fact that the witnesses at about 5.30 could have seen and heard Chapman.

Once again, read up on Vanderlinden, and look at how the Scotland Yard treated the "qualification" made up by Baxter. If Phillips had said "normally I would say at least two, but probably more hours, but this time I am willing to concede that it could have been one hour only", you would have had a point. But he never did. He set in stone his take on things from the outset: AT LEAST two hours, and PROBABLY MORE. After having said that, how likely is it that he would disqualify his own words? Exactly, THAT idea is false and ridiculous.


Tell me, if you were to accept what I say, and accept that Phillips never allowed for anything less than two hours, what would that make to your stance?

You are asking me a crazy hypothetical question. That’s not what happened in reality. But I’ve already repeatedly explained to you that Phillips couldn’t do what he thought he could do.

And what was it he thought he could do? Estimate warmth? Or tell cold from warm?

It’s not possible to accurately estimate a time of death from body temperature.

And who suggests it is?

Hells bells, Phillips didn’t even take Chapman’s body temperature with a thermometer which is how it is done. All he did was touch the body. There’s no scientific basis for estimating a time of death on that basis.

And once again, I am not saying that he could estimate the exact time of death. But he COULD exclude impossible scenarios. His view was a that Chapman died at perhaps 4.30, perhaps 3.30, perhaps 3.00, perhaps 4.15. You see, he did NOT assume to be able to establish an exact TOD, he only said when she could NOT have died: after 4.30.

It’s just pure opinion.

It is of course no such thing. The medicos would have practiced the method with useful results, and they would be aware that there were limitations.

But the fact is that by using the word “but”, Phillips was definitely saying that Chapman could have been murdered later than 4.30.

No, the word BUT referred to how it was possible, albeit not in any way likely, that she had been dead two hours only. "I am pretty certain that she has been dead for more than two hours, BUT it was cold, so two hours could be a possibility nevertheless".

That is perfectly clear.

So why do not Scotland Yard, scores of ripperologists, Wolf Vanderlinden and I agree with you? If it is that clear?

It’s what the Coroner understood him to be saying and what the Coroner found actually DID happen.

If you had been a bit aware about what coroners do, you would know that they often try to piece things together. And when the pieces do not fit, they cut corners. The Palme investigation and the Palme commissions report is a prime example. The rest of the world has found Baxter out long since, though. Find me an example where a medico puts his reputation on the line by saying that somebody has been dead at least X hours in bis opinion, only to then halve that time without nobody challenging him and with no new information added. Phillips KNEW that it was cold, he KNEW that she had been cut up, and he nevertheless said AT LEAST TWO HOURS!

TheYou are arguing with a Coroner who had far more experience of inquiries into deaths that you will ever have. All you are doing is denying reality and living in a world where Phillips couldn't have been wrong and never admitted he could have been wrong. But he could have been wrong and he admitted it.

This is sad. I have a zillion times said that Phillips of course could be wrong. Don't sulk!The problem for you is that he could not be THAT wrong.

[Fisherman]

In response to post #391

Firstly Wolf Vanderlinden is NOT agreeing with you about Phillips’ comments to the Coroner. What he is saying is that Phillips was “stating the obvious” or, in other words, that it is obvious that the temperature and loss of blood could have affected his conclusion and that, therefore, death couldhave occurred later than 4.30am, even though 4.30 or earlier was his own estimate. I have never said that Phillips was changing his estimate as to time of death, only that he was admitting there were two factors which could mean that death occurred later than 4.30am. Wolf is not disputing this.



So Wolf isn’t following your “barking mad” theory and its disingenuous of you to post the entire extract with the claim that he is supporting you.

What we can see from Wolf is that he, like you, is in error in thinking that rigor was a factor in Phillips’ estimate of the time of death. This is an opinion on his part. I don’t know who Wolf Vanderlinden is. I don’t believe he has any expertise in the subject of forensic pathology. He just seems to have found the same 2-4 hours average of the onset of rigor that you found from googling and worked around that. Furthermore, if you’ve read David Orsam’s Suckered Trilogy and Quadrilogy you’ll see that Wolf Vanderlinden is not above getting things completely wrong.

He says plain and simple that Baxter was wrong about the qualification made by Phillips. End of.

[Fisherman]

You lost this argument quite a few posts ago Fish.

Bagdad Bob, anybody?

[Fisherman]

Another thing, Herlock - Phillips DID feel both sides of Chapmans body. I found this nugget:

The stiffness was more noticeable on the left side, especially in the fingers, which were partly closed.

... meaning that Phillips felt the right side to an extent too. Maybe it was warm and he kept that information from us? What do you think, Herlock?

[Fisherman]

Lets extend the question to anybody out there: what examples do we have of medicos who have said ”I am certain that 50 is the absolute maximum, but it could be 100”. Doctors who halve or double their own bids, in the same sentence and without having been challenged? ”You can at the very most live with this disease for three years, but it can also be six, sort of. The suggestion is kind of asinine, is it not?

[Sam Flynn]

You seem to be sure, then, that Richardson's initial statement was a lie, and his subsequent revision truthful. Why?

Besides, Richardson's revision does not negate his having tried to remove the leather from his boot, and doesn't do anything to his having sat on the step or affect his adamant statement that there was no corpse in the yard when he went to check the cellar door.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is sad. I have a zillion times said that Phillips of course could be wrong. Don't sulk!The problem for you is that he could not be THAT wrong.

What was said was that the only place where warmth ( a certain heat) remained was under the intestines in the abdomen. As bodies go, that means that three was only detectable heat in a very limited part of the body, under the intestines in the abdomen.



But we've already established that a body can feel cold very quickly from the outside. A GP that I cited said it can feel cold in 10-20 minutes. In the case of Chapman, we know that there was heat remaining in intestines so she was not, as we now know, and as you have, I think conceded, stone cold. So what can we tell from that? Nothing other than that it's not possible to accurately estimate the time of death.



The indications in the Chapman case point to a TOD at 5.30, which was the one suggested by the coroner. Actually, since Long saw the couple at 5.30, we must move that time a bit further away, so maybe 5.35-5.40 is more useful. In which case we are dealing with 50 minutes



So if it WAS an hour after death that Phillips examined the body you agree that you have a problem? Clearly from your desperate attempt to shorten the amount of time you realize that you do.



Eddowes died in COLDER conditions and she was MORE subjected to the elements than Chapman who laying a recess. Therefore, if anything, Eddowes would have cooled QUICKER than Chapman



The problem is that you are not factoring ALL the variables. For example, you are ignoring the fact that Chapman might have lost a lot more blood than Eddowes. And what about Chapman's wasting disease? Could that have contributed to the body going colder earlier? And did Chapman and Eddowes have exactly the same biological makeup? If everyone always went cold at exactly the same rate after death it would make estimating the time of death a lot easier but that doesn't happen in reality, so you cannot compare two different deaths in the way you are doing. And as I've already said, 45 minutes is not an hour. And it's not 70 minutes.



Once again, read up on Vanderlinden, and look at how the Scotland Yard treated the "qualification" made up by Baxter.



Why should I read up on Vanderlinden? Who is he? And what qualifications does he have as a forensic pathologist? He's just a ripperologist who has formed his own, possibly faulty, opinion isn't he?


As for Scotland Yard, what did Swanson know about estimating a time of death? Of course he would have relied on what a doctor told him? But the Coroner knew better. He knew perfectly well from experience that doctors can't accurately estimate time of death, as all the experts tell us today, and he could not be relied upon to do it, so what do Scotland Yard's opinions in 1888 have to do with anything? They were simply based on ignorance.



If Phillips had said "normally I would say at least two, but probably more hours, but this time I am willing to concede that it could have been one hour only", you would have had a point. But he never did.



But that's precisely what he DID say, in so many words. He WAS willing to concede this and that's exactly what Coroner Baxter understood him to say. Your continued attempts to make out that Baxter somehow misunderstood what Dr Phillips was saying to him are as hopeless as they are ridiculous. Of course Baxter didn't misunderstand the medical evidence at his inquest. It is literally barking mad to say he did. And you seem to be the only one who thinks so.



He set in stone his take on things from the outset: AT LEAST two hours, and PROBABLY MORE. After having said that, how likely is it that he would disqualify his own words? Exactly, THAT idea is false and ridiculous.


How likely is it that Dr Philips would disqualify his own words? Fisherman, it's 100% likely. It actually happened. It's what he did! Just read the words from the inquest. You are on your own here. Neither Vanderlinden or Scotland Yard deny that Phillips was qualifying his opinion. Of course he was. That's what "BUT" means. That's why the Coroner used the words "he admitted".



It’s not possible to accurately estimate a time of death from body temperature.

And who suggests it is?


You for one. It you don't suggest that then you must agree that Chapman's body temperature doesn't help us and that the witness evidence is more important. Right?



And once again, I am not saying that he could estimate the exact time of death. But he COULD exclude impossible scenarios. His view was a that Chapman died at perhaps 4.30, perhaps 3.30, perhaps 3.00, perhaps 4.15. You see, he did NOT assume to be able to establish an exact TOD, he only said when she could NOT have died: after 4.30.


Okay, you say Dr Phillips could exclude possible scenarios. So show me where he excluded a time of death of 5.30. You can't because he never did it. All he said was that in his opinion the time of death was 4.30 or earlier. How much earlier he doesn't say. But that doesn't in any way mean he has excluded an earlier time of death. In fact, the very opposite is true because he ADMITTED to the coroner that some factors could have misled him and that, while not abandoning his opinion, she COULD have died earlier. That is perfectly sensible of him and excludes nothing. It's only you who is making up in your imagination that he excluded any time because you just can't be sensible and rational and admit that Chapman might well have been murdered at 5.30 and that this is entirely plausible, even if it disagrees with Dr Phillips opinion. And to remind you: Dr Phillips' opinion was based on body temperature which is known to be an unreliable method of estimating time of death, as all experts now agree.


No, the word BUT referred to how it was possible, albeit not in any way likely, that she had been dead two hours only. "I am pretty certain that she has been dead for more than two hours, BUT it was cold, so two hours could be a possibility nevertheless".


Fisherman that is a joke. You are perverting the English language. Of course Phillips was NOT saying that. Why can you even think it? He's already said that he thought she had been dead 2 hours, then adds a BUT, admitting that his opinion could be wrong because of the cool temperature and loss of blood. He's making this admission in the context of witness evidence suggesting that Chapman was murdered at about 5.30. So of course he is admitting a possible time of death of 5.30. This is what the coroner understood him to be saying and the coroner, who could speak English perfectly well, understood him to be saying this because that's exactly what he WAS saying. You simply can't accept this plan fact can you? You can't bring yourself to admit what is perfectly obvious? And don't kid yourself that Vanderlinden or anyone else supports you in this crazy and warped interpretation. They don't!



Phillips KNEW that it was cold, he KNEW that she had been cut up, and he nevertheless said AT LEAST TWO HOURS!



Yes, but he admitted that his estimate of time of death could have been wrong because the coolness of the air and the loss of blood which might have misled him into thinking she'd died earlier than she had. I mean, it was an opinion based on touch only. I thought we'd agreed that there was no way that Phillips could have properly estimated time of death based on feeling Chapman's body temperature. He just couldn't do it. So it really doesn't matter what time he thought she'd died. He couldn't provide an accurate time of death nor could he rule out that she had been murdered at 5.30 (and he never did rule it out). But the fact of the matter is that he did accept that his opinion might need to be adjusted. Yes, he could easily have been an our out Fisherman. Of course he could. That's what Coroner Baxter decided had happened and, as I keep saying, he knew more about estimating time of death that you ever will.



This is sad. I have a zillion times said that Phillips of course could be wrong. Don't sulk!The problem for you is that he could not be THAT wrong.


So provide me some evidence that a doctor can't get a time of death wrong by a mere one hour based on body temperature. Find me a single expert prepared to say it. Because I think you are just making this up as you go along in order to keep Lechmere in the frame for Chapman's murder. If you say I'm wrong, please produce some evidence to support. If not, it's time to give this nonsense up.

[Joshua Rogan]

Lets extend the question to anybody out there: what examples do we have of medicos who have said ”I am certain that 50 is the absolute maximum, but it could be 100”. Doctors who halve or double their own bids, in the same sentence and without having been challenged? ”You can at the very most live with this disease for three years, but it can also be six, sort of. The suggestion is kind of asinine, is it not?

Dr Blackwell;

"I do not think the deceased could have been dead more than twenty minutes, at the most half an hour."