Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapmanís death.

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I can sense Herlock Sholmes typing away on his keyboard in his next answer to me. Will it be more accusations of me misinforming and twisting, being unable to see sense and such things? Or will he actually admit that he has gotten things wrong?

    Who knows?

    At any rate, letīs give him a little something to chew on. Remember how he wanted to convey a picture of how people "may" get cold in 10-20 minutes, while all the while, that information only touched on the skin, which is insulated from the warm body core underneath?

    I just found an interesting fact, when checking a few things. I took a deeper look and could confirm what I had learnt, so let's put it out here now. Its from the link http://healthdrip.com/algor-mortis/
    but as I said, I noted the same thing on other links. Its about the so called postmortem temperature plateau, and I have highlighted the most important passage.

    "The Algor Mortis (chill of death or cooling of dead body) is a complex process, which does not occur at the same rate throughout the body. After stoppage of circulation, convectional transport of heat inside the body stops.

    The postmortem rate of heat production by anaerobic glycolysis is very low. With the start of Algor Mortis, a temperature gradient develops from the surface to the core of any part of the body.

    Exchange of heat between the core and surface of the body occurs only by conduction. At first heat is lost from superficial layers of the body only. Due to the low velocity of heat transport inside the body, it takes some time for heat to be conducted from the deeper layers to the more superficial layers, until finally, the temperature gradient reaches the core.

    Conductive heat exchange occurs due to the temperature difference between the body and surroundings, e.g. clothing, covering, air, water, etc. At non-contact areas heat exchange occurs by convectional mechanism, which exceeds that of contact surface. Heat exchange by radiation is extensive for the first hour, but decreases later, depending on the rapid decrease in skin temperature.

    Only a small fraction of heat is lost by evaporation of fluid from the skin. For about half to one hour after death, the rectal temperature falls little or not at all. (postmortem temperature plateau).

    This is followed by a linear rate of cooling (between 0.5 to 1įC per hour) for the next 12 to 16 hours. Then the cooling rate is relatively uniform in its slope. Then it gradually becomes slower, and when the temperature is within about 4įC of the environment, rate of Algor Mortis cooling becomes very slow."


    This seems to me to explain why Kate Eddowes was "quite warm" to the touch some 45 minutes after her death. Apparently, the core of the body does not start cooling off until after half an hour to one hour after death.

    Now, if Chapman had only been dead for an hour or a little less, where does that put us?

    This is not going to plan for Herlock, methinks. Let's wait and see - maybe that plateau only affects the right side of the body? Or maybe some people will skip over the plateau, meaning that Chapman - once again - may have been one of the chosen few?
    Last edited by Fisherman; 08-27-2019, 01:53 PM.

    Comment


    • From Simpson's Forensic Medicine, 13th edition (updated by Jason Payne James and others)




      '...a body is not a uniform structure: its temperature will not fall evenly and, because each body will lie in its own unique environment, each body will cool at a different speed, depending on the many factors surrounding it.'




      AND




      '...the sensible forensic pathologist will be reluctant to make any pronouncement on the time of death based on body temperature alone.'




      The examples given of factors affecting the rate of cooling of a body are:




      1. Mass of the body

      2. Mass surface area

      3. Body temperature at time of death

      4. Site of reading of body temperature

      5. Posture of the body - extended or in a fetal position

      6. Clothing - type of material, position on body - or lack of it

      7. Obesity - fat is a good insulator

      8. Emaciation - lack of muscle bulk allows a body to cool faster

      9. Environmental temperature

      10. Winds, draughts, rain, humidity


      You can't argue with Payne James!!!

      But you probably will


      Its noticeable that Fish hasnít acknowledged his error in post number #431.


      How much more evidence needs to be produced here? How many acres of words from some of the most esteemed experts on the subject? How many times do I have to keep stating the obvious? How many more authorities need to inform us that rigor and temperature are unsafe methods to use.....unless you are His Holiness Dr Phillips of course. Could he have been 50 minutes out? Perish the thought! All I get is Fishís usual arrogant, mocking tone which he employs simply to convince everyone that heís some kind of authority and that we should all stand back and be silent. I canít complain though because this is the tone that Fish always employs as a substitute for unbiased reason and logic.

      We know that these these methods are unsafe and that the criteria that might have affected Phillips judgment were in evidence in Hanbury Street on that morning. Does that mean that he was definitely wrong? No it doesnít and I havenít said that it does. Fish appears to admit of these criteriaís but he emphasises that criteria which might confirm a 2-4 hour TOD also existed. Heís correct of course. I never said that they werenít. But the problem is that Fish says that as they, to all intents, cancel each other out then we should by default go for the earlier TOD. Iím afraid not. This is wish-thinking yet again and itís all based around Fishyís proposition that a later TOD could only have occurred under freakishly rare circumstances. At least twice Iíve asked Fish to provide the expert quote that backs this up. No quote has been posted. Why? Because itís a lie. Pure and simple. 2-4 hours is an average time. This could mean that 60% of cases fall within those parameters but 40% fall outside. We have no figures to go on so itís dishonest to make claims about freak circumstances. Fishís wish-thinking Logic goes like this:

      x occurs 70% of the time whilst y occurs 30% of the time. We have no way of deciding whether x or y is true so we should just go with x

      Can anyone possibly think that this is reasonable, logical or scientific?

      Even Dr Phillips stated that he might have been wrong. This was acknowledged by the Coroner. Itís there in black and white but Fish tries a weird mangling of the known English language to try and dispute this very obvious fact.

      And so we have very unreliable methods. Methods that modern experts tell us should not be relied upon. We have the possibility that Phillips might have been right and the possibility that Phillips might have been wrong. The word freak is an intentional diversion tactic. The criteria that could have caused Phillips to err existed. And letís face it, the sight that greeted Dr Phillips can hardly be claimed to have been par for the course!

      And so, if the results arrived at by Phillips were unreliable. Or if the proís negated the conís as Fish has stated where do we go?

      Well, we have witnesses of course. Or liars and idiots according to Fish, Fishy and The Baron. Can I say 100% that they were honest or correct? Of course I canít. But then again my approach is different to The Three Stooges. I donít want or need them to be imbeciles or con men.

      Despite the desperate attempts against Richardson the fact remains that he was absolutely adamant that he could not have missed a mutilated corpse had it been there. Cadosch was equally confident that he heard a noise of something brushing against a fence that he was two feet away from at the time. Longís timing doesnít tie in of course and none of us can come to a definite solution there. She might have simply gotten her timing wrong or she may have seen two entirely unconnected people. Who knows?

      And so an unsafe TOD estimate combined with three witnesses who contradict this estimate, for me and many others, make it entirely likely that Annie Chapman met her death sometime after 5.20.

      But unfortunately we canít avoid the impression of a level of desperate wish thinking at work from some. As near as dammit they say that Phillips couldnít have been wrong (or only under freak circumstances.) To be absolutely frank I think that even if some previously undiscovered witness testimonies surfaced where three neighbours said that they saw Richardson on the step fixing his shoe in an otherwise empty yard the Stooges would still go for Phillips.

      Perhaps their viewpoint was obscured by those packing cases that werenít there?

      THIS REALLY IS GAME OVER ON THIS POINT.
      Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 08-27-2019, 02:12 PM.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes



      “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

      “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

        And Phillips was referring to the presence of rigor in the limbs, not the surface temperature of the right side of the body. Presumably, he only checked the temperature of the left side because it was still largely intact. The asymmetric hole in the abdomen meant that there was less undamaged flesh to assess on the right side than on the other.

        ​​​​​


        Good point Sam
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes



        “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

        “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          THIS REALLY IS GAME OVER ON THIS POINT.
          Hey, Bagdad Bob (remember him? He was the guy that proclaimed victory while Iraq was crumbling to dust around his feet) - go check out the post above yours! (And I mean above in every sense of the word)
          Last edited by Fisherman; 08-27-2019, 02:21 PM.

          Comment


          • Just a quickie, based on your latest revelations (was it a Dr Simpson this time? Or is it Kori again?)

            '...a body is not a uniform structure: its temperature will not fall evenly and, because each body will lie in its own unique environment, each body will cool at a different speed, depending on the many factors surrounding it.'

            Yes! Each and every body will cool at varying speeds, depending on many factors. But no body will get cold in an hour!

            '...the sensible forensic pathologist will be reluctant to make any pronouncement on the time of death based on body temperature alone.'

            Yes, and Phillips never did make any such estimation. He never fixed the TOD, which he meant could have occurred anywhere between two or some hour/s earlier. That is not fixing the TOD, Herlock. What he did do was to RULE OUT any possibility that it could have been LESS than two hours.
            Plus, of course, he did NOT use body temperature as the only factor, did he? He also used rigor, that was in accordance with the cold body he found.

            And is this new? Nope, you have been told this over and over and over and over and over and over again, but those ears of yours seem stuffed full with falsities, making them impregnable to simple facts.

            Comment


            • [QUOTE=Fisherman;n720104]

              Hey, Bagdad Bob - go check out the post above yours! (And I mean above in every sense of the word)[/QUOTE

              im no longer interested.

              Youve been proven wrong time and time and time again.

              Dishonest editing, language twisting, gross exaggerations, quoting incorrect examinations, biased wish thinking.

              My points have been proven.

              Game over.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes



              “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

              “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

              Comment


              • Post #431

                Any acknowledgement

                of course not. That would take integrity.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                  Well, we have witnesses of course. Or liars and idiots according to Fish, Fishy and The Baron. Can I say 100% that they were honest or correct? Of course I canít. But then again my approach is different to The Three Stooges. I donít want or need them to be imbeciles or con men.
                  How about being truthful? They were mistaken or telling porkies, that is what I have said all along. So exactly why do you claim that I would have dubbed them liars or imbeciles?

                  Pray tell us! After you have tried your hand at a character assassination of me, it is no more than fair, Iīd say.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                    Post #431

                    Any acknowledgement

                    of course not. That would take integrity.
                    Oh, have I missed out? Give me a minute or two, please!
                    Last edited by Fisherman; 08-27-2019, 02:36 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                      Post #431

                      Any acknowledgement

                      of course not. That would take integrity.
                      Here it is, its mine:

                      "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?"


                      What is it you want me to comment to save my integrity? Oh, that it came from the later examination? True, it did - I mistook it. But you know, that does not mean that the right side of the body could have been warm while the left was cold. People grow cold from the exterior inwards, and Chapman would have followed that pattern.

                      While we are speaking of integrity, I have not seen you commenting on Seddon-Smith yet, and how you got that backwards? Maybe we BOTH need to be men of integrity?

                      But now it is supper. I hope it has not cooled along your lines of thinking.
                      Last edited by Fisherman; 08-27-2019, 02:35 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                        How about being truthful? They were mistaken or telling porkies, that is what I have said all along. So exactly why do you claim that I would have dubbed them liars or imbeciles?

                        Pray tell us! After you have tried your hand at a character assassination of me, it is no more than fair, Iīd say.
                        ????

                        Someone that tells porkies is by definition a liar. Porkies are lies.

                        Imbecile - Richardson would have had to have been some kind of spectacular imbecile, moron, dimwit (take your pick) not to have realised that a mutilated corpse might have been concealed by a door!

                        Character assassination! - After the mockery and the implications that Iím simply not intelligent enough to understand, as ever, we get the victim mentality again.

                        You can insult with me impunity but I have to maintain a quietly respectful tone to you.

                        Deja-vu, as anyone who has debated with you on Lechmere threads can attest to.
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes



                        “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                        “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          ????

                          Someone that tells porkies is by definition a liar. Porkies are lies.

                          yes, pokies are lies, and I have offered the explanation that they could all have lied. I have also offered the explanation that they could have been mistaken. I have however bot offered the explanation that they were imbecile. That was something you cooked up on served on my account, and which I dislike greatly.

                          Imbecile - Richardson would have had to have been some kind of spectacular imbecile, moron, dimwit (take your pick) not to have realised that a mutilated corpse might have been concealed by a door!

                          But I never said anything about them being imbecile, did I? It is your own interpretation, and I don't think that Richardson must have been imbecile at all to miss the corpse. Nor did the police or anybody else offer that kind of a speculation at the time. So it remains that you claimed something on my behalf that I never have said or would say.

                          Character assassination! - After the mockery and the implications that Iím simply not intelligent enough to understand, as ever, we get the victim mentality again.

                          Victim mentality? No. I cannot be a victim of yours the way I see things. But you nevertheless posted this:

                          " All I get is Fishís usual arrogant, mocking tone which he employs simply to convince everyone that heís some kind of authority and that we should all stand back and be silent. I canít complain though because this is the tone that Fish always employs as a substitute for unbiased reason and logic."

                          That was not a very nice thing to say. And then you coupled it to speaking about integrity. My definition of that character trait does not involve resorting to that kind of accusations and speculation about what I stand for. Maybe yours does.

                          You can insult with me impunity but I have to maintain a quietly respectful tone to you.

                          Oh no - we have the exact same obligations and options out here, and you are every bit as welcome to them as I am. It is another thing that we may not be equally matched when it comes to our respective gifts of handling it.

                          Deja-vu, as anyone who has debated with you on Lechmere threads can attest to.
                          Many who have debated with me on the Lechmere threads have subjected me to all sorts of accusations and allegations, varying from dissecting my family life to claiming that I am a narcissist and a liar. I have cut off the exchanges with one of the absolutely worst examples, and I have retaliated in other cases. There are also many examples of posters who have exchanged with me on these threads and where the atmosphere has been thoroughly good one, like Frank van Oploo, Gary Barnett, Debra Arif, Cris Malone, Jon Smythe and numerous others. None of these posters agree with me about Lechmere being the culprit, but they have nevertheless been able to offer criticism and we have discussed the case in a friendly manner throughout.

                          Maybe it is a case of me randomly choosing people to torment on account of an inner need to degrade? And you just happened to come along on the wrong day?

                          Who knows?

                          There is also the option of you and me playing nice. Just say the word, and I am ready and willing. Then again, what if I am the devil himself? Maybe I am just trying to lure you into a trap?

                          Find out, if you wish.


                          PS. Any input on the matter of the postmortem temperature plateau?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            Well, we have witnesses of course. Or liars and idiots according to Fish, Fishy and The Baron. Can I say 100% that they were honest or correct? Of course I canít. But then again my approach is different to The Three Stooges. I donít want or need them to be imbeciles or con men.

                            Of course, you only need to draw Phillips as an imbecile, who cannot tell if a body is warm or cold, whose practise will not help him give a reasonable TOD, and all of his examinations and conclusions were just little more than guesswork.


                            Speaking of Richardson, reading you, one may think Richardson went in the yard, check behind the door, and told the inquest that there was no body there.

                            Too bad for you Herlock, it was not as you imagined, he only said, he wouldn't have missed her if she was there, this is an enormous difference, and according to you, saying "he woulnt have been wrong" is dishonesty!


                            Only your game is over, we play no games here.



                            The Baron


                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


                              Of course, you only need to draw Phillips as an imbecile, who cannot tell if a body is warm or cold, whose practise will not help him give a reasonable TOD, and all of his examinations and conclusions were just little more than guesswork.

                              Its staggering that an adult can write something like this!


                              Speaking of Richardson, reading you, one may think Richardson went in the yard, check behind the door, and told the inquest that there was no body there.

                              No. He sat on the step and said that he could see the whole yard and there was no body there. Itís a very simple thing to do. No body.

                              Too bad for you Herlock, it was not as you imagined, he only said, he wouldn't have missed her if she was there, this is an enormous difference, and according to you, saying "he woulnt have been wrong" is dishonesty!

                              Another staggering piece of witlessness! He wouldnít have missed her had she been there. He didnít see her so she wasnít there! Are you an Amazonian tribesman who began to learn English last week? This is simple stuff.

                              Only your game is over, we play no games here.

                              No. You make absolutely no posts anywhere. You take part in no debate or discussion. All you do is make the occasional random post and every single one of them is aimed at me. Thereís only one word for that kind of behaviour. Troll.

                              The Baron

                              You and Fishy make a good pair.

                              Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 08-27-2019, 05:47 PM.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes



                              “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                              “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                He didnít see her so she wasnít there! Are you an Amazonian tribesman who began to learn English
                                Wrong.

                                He didn't see her means he didn't see her, or so he said. END.

                                Taking this to mean she wasn't there!? is nothing more than guesswork and theorising on your behalf.

                                Of course, anything that supports Lechmere wont taste right ro you.


                                The Baron

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X