Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapmanís death.

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

  • Originally posted by The Baron View Post

    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
    Rchardson said he saw no body at 4.45am - so he is either lying or there was no body there. He could not have missed the body if it was there. The door would not obscure the body from anyone sitting on the stair in the yard. Fisherman's diagram of how the body might have been obscured distorts the layout of the yard - see the youtube clip of James Mason visiting the yard. So, if Philip's TOD is correct - Richardson lied. This of course is possible.

    Long stated she saw Chapman with a man at 5.30am. If Philip's TOD is correct, Long was either mistaken or she too lied. This too is possible.

    Cadosch says he heard a noise in the next yard at around 5.30am, number 29. He heard voices and a woman say NO. If Philip's TOD is correct, then Cadosch was either mistaken or lied. This too is possible.

    So, we have to ask which is more probable

    a) Philip's TOD was inaccurate either because rigor set in more quickly than usual or because he made a mistake about rigor setting in.

    b) or, three separate people lied or made a mistake, even though within a few minutes, all their mistakes or lies confirmed each others' account.

    FYI - I have no view on Lechmere as a suspect, so not coloured by that argument. Clearly though, the balance of probability is very heavily weighed in the favour of Philip's TOD being inaccurate. Chapman must have been killed shortly after 5.30am. I don't think this discounts Lechmere as a suspect - people bunk off work all the time.


    Last edited by etenguy; 08-27-2019, 08:10 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by The Baron View Post

      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
      You would save yourself all of this embarrassment if you simply read what he said.

      From The Times report on the Inquest:

      ďIt was not light, but was getting so, and so was sufficient for him to see all over the place. He could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there.Ē

      From The Telegraph report on The Inquest:

      [Coroner] Did you sit on the top step? - No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard.
      [Coroner] You must have been quite close to where the deceased was found? - Yes, I must have seen her.


      And so, as I clearly said, he was absolutely confident that had Annieís body been there he would have seen it. It simply couldnít be clearer.

      Forget Lechmere Baron. Why donít you just abandon your weird obsession with me? If I told you that Friday followed Thursday you would find some way to disagree with me.

      Answer this one very simply question:

      Why do you only ever (and I really do mean ever) makes posts that are responding to me in a derogatory way? Why donít you respond to others? Why donít you ever join threads that Iím not on?
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes

      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

        Rchardson said he saw no body at 4.45am - so he is either lying or there was no body there. He could not have missed the body if it was there. The door would not obscure the body from anyone sitting on the stair in the yard. Fisherman's diagram of how the body might have been obscured distorts the layout of the yard - see the youtube clip of James Mason visiting the yard. So, if Philip's TOD is correct - Richardson lied. This of course is possible.

        Long stated she saw Chapman with a man at 5.30am. If Philip's TOD is correct, Long was either mistaken or she too lied. This too is possible.

        Cadosch says he heard a noise in the next yard at around 5.30am, number 29. He heard voices and a woman say NO. If Philip's TOD is correct, then Cadosch was either mistaken or lied. This too is possible.

        So, we have to ask which is more probable

        a) Philip's TOD was inaccurate either because rigor set in more quickly than usual or because he made a mistake about rigor setting in.

        b) or, three separate people lied or made a mistake, even though within a few minutes, all their mistakes or lies confirmed each others' account.

        FYI - I have no view on Lechmere as a suspect, so not coloured by that argument. Clearly though, the balance of probability is very heavily weighed in the favour of Philip's TOD being inaccurate. Chapman must have been killed shortly after 5.30am. I don't think this discounts Lechmere as a suspect - people bunk off work all the time.

        Good post Eten but Iím afraid that your in danger of being labelled a fool by the disciples of Dr Phillips.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes

        “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

          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.
          What is it you want me to comment on about Seddon-Smith? And what do you think I got backwards? I can't even work out if you accept that what Seddon-Smith is saying is correct because your first reaction was to dispute it if I remember rightly. So please, do you accept what Seddon-Smith is saying in his entirety or don't you?

          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes

          “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            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.
            This is madness Fisherman. But if you think it's true, please provide the quote where Dr Phillips rules out "any possibility" that death could have occurred later than 4.30.


            Because the truth is the exact opposite. The doctor qualified his opinion and admitted that death could indeed have occurred later. That's why the coroner made a finding of fact that it could have happened at 5.30. The idea that Dr Phillips ruled out death at 5.30 and then the coroner failed to understand him saying that is bordering on insanity.


            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes

            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              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?


              You are just showing your ignorance now Fisherman. That is the RECTAL temperature. Did Dr Phillips take the rectal temperature?


              And if you want to consider the rectal temperature you can check out this paper:



              https://scholarlycommons.law.northwe...2&context=jclc



              It says, on page 568, 'the time lag we have noticed, before rectal cooling definitely sets in, may be fixed at 45 minutes'



              But to repeat that is RECTAL temperature. As the paper also states. 'it is necessary for the body surface to first drop in temperature and establish a temperature gradient before cooling can affect the internal body temperature.'


              We are considering the body surface here because that's what Dr Phillips said was cold, i.e. the left side of the body, per the Morning Advertiser.

              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes

              “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                Okay, then, over now to the poster who thinks that Chapmans right side may have been warm while then left one was cold!

                I will not go into detail this time, but instead I will change the perspective somewhat and pick just a few things that I personally find revealing.

                We have the master detective Herlock Sholmes telling us that "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."

                To begin with, "we" have not established something. YOU have tried and failed to establish falsities, and that is not the same thing.

                Now, the GP Herlock refers to is of course Rob Seddon-Smith. Herloci found him answering peoples questions on an internet site, and one question was about the cooling off when we die. This is what Seddon-Smith answered:

                "Once you die, you are just subject to physics and will cool at a rate depending on the transfer of the heat into the environment. The key factors are of course the air temperature, and draughts and insulation such as clothing and bedding.

                What is interesting is that people are cold and clearly dead about 10Ė20 minutes after death. Though the core takes a long time to cool, the skin is insulated from the core and cools very rapidly once circulation ceases. Although there is residual warmth, the body feels cold quite quickly."


                So! To begin with, Seddon-Smith does not say that a body "can feel cold in 10-20 minutes", did he? No, he instead said that the body WILL be cold and clearly dead after 10-20 minutes! It is not a case of SOME people getting colder quicker than others, it is a question of how the skin WILL give away that we are cold in 10-20 minutes. This is because "the skin is insulated from the core and cools very rapidly".

                And the core? Does that cool very rapidly? No, it cools at a rate of approximately 1,5 degrees per hour.

                So what is it the medicos feel? The temperature of the skin or the temperature of the core?

                Well, if Herlock and Seddon-Smith are correct, then medicos will ALWAYS be subjected to bodies where the skin has taken 10-20 minutes to grow cold. And now Herlock wants this process to be the one that governs a medicos ability to feel for warmth. So what happens? Its easy - whenever a body has been dead for 20 minutes plus, the medico WILL say that the body has been dead long enough to grow cold. And THAT is what Herlock suggests happened in the Chapman case. Although, he does not want to admit to what Seddon-Smith REALLY says - that the skin WILL grow cold in 10-20 minutes. No, Herlock has a more clever strategy, he tells us that Seddon-Smith claims that SOME peoplesī skin MAY grow cold in as little as 10-20 minutes.

                Oh, how that would work magic in the Chapman case for Herlock. But- alas - it was not to be! The ever deceiving and misleading Fisherman found him out. Again! and now Fisherman will once again explain to Herlock how it works:

                -The skin is insulated from the body core.

                -Therefore, the warmth in the core will not be conducted up to the skin surface.

                -This is why the skin is not 37 degrees when we feel it.

                -It is also the reason we don't put a fever thermometer to the skin - because being insulated, it is much colder than the core.

                -Medicos know that now and the knew it back then.

                -They also knew that when feeling for warmth, there are places where the blood vessels are many and thick and closer to the skin than in other places. And when feeling for warmth there, it can be detected for hours after death. In ALL people! Not in some, mind you.

                Now, this is what I am wondering about: Herlock is trying to scrape together a minute or two by suggesting that Phillips was turtle slow at the murder site and tended to everything else but examining the body the first few minutes. He wants to prolong the time that had passed before Phillips checked the body. It seems like Chapman was alive at 5.30 if we ask Long (which we really, really shouldn't, because she is not telling us what happened), and so a TOD at around 5.35 is as quick as we can be. Phillips set out examining at 6.30 it would seem. That leaves us with 55 minutes for Chapman to cool off.
                Herlock wants the deed to be as quick as he wants Phillips to have been slow. He wants to stretch it to 57 minutes, 60, 62 - maybe even 70!

                Now I am wondering - if we all develop a cold skin in 10-20 minutes, and if the medicos were at a loss to feel for warmth beyond that stage - why all the efforts to prolong the time, Herlock? Twenty minutes is all you are going to need, right? Perhaps only ten, and Phillips would go: "Cold. Dead for at least two hours, probably more."

                Now, does ANYONE at all out here actually buy into this kind of crap? Is there anybody - outside of Herlock - who cannot see how this works, who actually believes that a victorian medico would not be able to feel for warmth BEYOND 10-20 minutes? That he would accept the cool skin as an indication of hours of death?

                I hope not. It would make a sad business even sadder.

                Here it is, hopefully for the last time:

                We can be certain that Long and Cadosch had nothing to do with the Ripper, and that Chapman was dead at 5.30.

                We can be reasonably certain that she was also dead at 4.45-4.50.

                And we can be absolutely certain that Herlock Sholmes will embark on a new crusade of naysaying. The only thing that is interesting with that is to see what new material he will dredge up from the net and misrepresent. Its not as if there is a shortage of whoppers going around: "Chapman might have lost a lot more blood than Eddowes."

                Yeah, right.


                You are hallucinating. I never said anything about the right side being warm while the left one was cold (although that is, in fact, perfectly possible, if, for example, one side was wrapped in clothing and the other side wasn't). I pointed out to you that the evidence from the Morning Advertiser was that Phillips noted that the left side of the body was cold. This was after you had falsely stated that he found the body to be "stone cold".




                "In your ignorance of the subject, you've missed the real significance of Phillips saying that the left side was cold. It proves that he didn't rectally take the temperature of the body with a thermometer which is how it's supposed to be done. Feeling a part of the body is pointless."



                You don't seem to dispute the evidence of the GP Seddon-Smith. Well do you or don't you? Are you challenging what he says or not? He said that a dead body can (or will) be cold after 10-20 minutes. You are not suggesting that dead body which is cold doesn't feel cold, are you? I honestly don't know what you are talking about any more. You just seem to be making up forensic science on the hoof so that it is whatever suits you. In particular, you say this:



                "And the core? Does that cool very rapidly? No, it cools at a rate of approximately 1,5 degrees per hour.



                So what is it the medicos feel? The temperature of the skin or the temperature of the core?"



                How can you possibly be asking me if a medico "feels" the temperature of the core? You need a thermometer to do that. Feeling the temperature of the skin, which is what Dr Phillips has evidently done,is certainly not the correct way to check the body temperature. The correct way to take the temperature of a dead body is rectally with a thermometer. Other parts of the body are possible but the rectal method is the most accurate. The key thing is that you need to do is take a reading with a thermometer which Phillips doesnít appear to have done. There is a calculation that a forensic pathologist will then perform based on the temperature - but if the temperature hasn't been taken, it can't be done.



                This is why I have been repeatedly saying to you that feeling that a dead body is cold is useless for estimating time of death. Yet, unfortunately this is what Victorian medicos did. Check this paper out.



                https://scholarlycommons.law.northwe...2&context=jclc



                We find it stated on p.562: "It is curious, however, that as late as 1921, Vaughan recommends the sense of touch as a means of determining "the approximate time of death with a fair degree of accuracy". This is stated to be "curious" because, of course, it is wrong. You can see that it also says that Vaughan estimated time of death by "gauging with the hand the temperature differences of ten imaginary segments into which he divides the lower extremities of the body". This proves that different parts of the body have different temperatures to the touch otherwise he wouldn't have bothered.



                According to you, if a dead body feels cold to the touch then that person MUST have been dead for at least 2 hours and probably more. Have I got that right? If that's the case, it must be a simple matter to find it stated in a textbook on forensic pathology. I mean it's such a clear guide isn't it?



                So please provide a source that tells us this because it should be very easy.



                The ability to feel a dead body which is cold and then say that death must have occurred at least 2 hours before, is not something I can find stated anywhere. If that's not possible from a forensics perspective then it simply doesn't matter what Philips thought because what he was doing was impossible. Unless, of course, you can provide the source that I'm asking for. Can you? If not, you finally need to concede defeat.



                Well, if Herlock and Seddon-Smith are correct, then medicos will ALWAYS be subjected to bodies where the skin has taken 10-20 minutes to grow cold. And now Herlock wants this process to be the one that governs a medicos ability to feel for warmth. So what happens? Its easy - whenever a body has been dead for 20 minutes plus, the medico WILL say that the body has been dead long enough to grow cold. And THAT is what Herlock suggests happened in the Chapman case. Although, he does not want to admit to what Seddon-Smith REALLY says - that the skin WILL grow cold in 10-20 minutes. No, Herlock has a more clever strategy, he tells us that Seddon-Smith claims that SOME peoplesī skin MAY grow cold in as little as 10-20 minutes.



                What does this gobbledigook mean? A medico CANNOT accurately estimate time of death from just touching the body and feeling if it is warm or cold. Do you not understand that?



                Now I am wondering - if we all develop a cold skin in 10-20 minutes, and if the medicos were at a loss to feel for warmth beyond that stage - why all the efforts to prolong the time, Herlock? Twenty minutes is all you are going to need, right? Perhaps only ten, and Phillips would go: "Cold. Dead for at least two hours, probably more."



                The short answer, as I keep telling you, is that Phillips was wrong to give an estimate of death based on the body (or, as in this case, the left side of the body) feeling "cold". It was impossible to do what he thought he could do. Forensic scientists now know this. It's what I keep telling you. Relying on Phillips is useless. It doesn't matter how experienced he was he got it wrong. A dead body can feel cold to the touch inside an hour. So he just got it wrong in saying that death had occurred two hours previously on the basis of feeling the body Ė or at least he should not have given such an estimate if he really knew what he was doing. I'm NOT estimating the time of Chapman's death from her body temperature at all (because it's not possible). I'm doing it based on the witness evidence.



                actually believes that a victorian medico would not be able to feel for warmth BEYOND 10-20 minutes? That he would accept the cool skin as an indication of hours of death?



                Victorian medicos were not magicians. They were only able to work within the laws of physics. Our understanding of estimating time of death is far more advanced than it was in the Victorian age. We now know, and Payne James tells us, that body temperature is not a reliable method for estimating time of death (and he's talking about actual temperature readings, not just touching the body!).



                Here's some more evidence



                http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/me...mperature.html





                "It should also be noted that children and the elderly lose body heat faster than adults between the ages of eighteen to sixty five and also that the deceased - should they have been in ill health prior to death - will lose heat more rapidly."



                Was Chapman in ill health prior to death? Yes, she was!




                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                Comment


                • She was cold : FACT
                  There was rigor: FACT

                  I wouldn't have missed her: Presumption

                  2 Facts against an Assumption

                  The balance of FACTS /Assumption probability is very heavily weighed in the favour of Philip's TOD being right.


                  You have to do your math the right way.



                  The Baron

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                    Yes, a doctor may of course change his take, depending on a reevaluation, normally caused by added information. Phillips - according to you - changed his estimation in the same sentence, no information and no criticism added.

                    Maybe, just maybe, you are able to see that these are different matters. No?
                    No, I didn't say that Phillips changed his estimation in the same sentence. I've actually stated more than once that he did not change his estimate. What he DID do, however, was qualify his estimate. If you don't know what it means when an expert qualifies his opinion then I really can't help you further.
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes

                    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
                      She was cold : FACT
                      There was rigor: FACT
                      Not fact - as reported by Dr Philips who may have been mistaken or circumstances conspired to hasten the usual process.

                      Originally posted by The Baron View Post
                      I wouldn't have missed her: Presumption
                      Not a presumption - the yard layout makes it impossible that Richardson could have missed the body if he did as he says - he either lied or the body was not there at 4.45am. We do need to rely on Richardson telling us he could not have missed the body, we have video of the yard which makes it obvious.

                      Originally posted by The Baron View Post
                      2 Facts against an Assumption

                      The balance of FACTS /Assumption probability is very heavily weighed in the favour of Philip's TOD being right.


                      You have to do your math the right way.
                      Indeed, and you forgot to factor in two other witness statements, each of which supports Richardson's statement and each others. You not only have to do the math in the right way - you also have to use all the elements of the math.





                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
                        She was cold : FACT
                        There was rigor: FACT

                        I wouldn't have missed her: Presumption

                        2 Facts against an Assumption

                        The balance of FACTS /Assumption probability is very heavily weighed in the favour of Philip's TOD being right.


                        You have to do your math the right way.



                        The Baron
                        Itís not about maths. Itís about science.

                        All Iím asking is that you read the information above taken from medical experts. I mean genuine authorities on Forensic medicine. People who have written textbooks which are in standard use. People who know vastly more than a Victorian Doctor with 19th century knowledge.

                        They all, without exception, tell us the same thing. Iím not making this up Baron. This is not the hated Herlock speaking. Forget that itís me posting for a minute and just read the few posts above.

                        Rigor Mortis and Algor Mortis are simply not reliable. Experts tell medical men that they shouldnít use them to estimate times of death.

                        Phillips believed that he could get accurate results simply from feeling the temperature of the body. He was 100% wrong. It doesnít mean that weíre calling him an idiot. He was simply working with the knowledge available at that time. Knowledge has now moved on. The only temperature that can be used is rectal temperature (which requires a thermometer) which Phillips didnít do. And experts tell us that even rectal temperature can be misleading.

                        And so, again, the evidence that Phillips could have been wrong is overwhelming. There is no doubt at all that thereís an entirely reasonable chance that Phillips was wrong. And when you add to this fact the fact that he also have witnesses that contradicting him then we can say that the odds heavily favour him being wrong.

                        If you could put aside youíre strange Ill feeling toward me, which is hopelessly biasing your judgment, you might be able to see the wood for the trees.
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes

                        “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                          Indeed, and you forgot to factor in two other witness statements, each of which supports Richardson's statement and each others. You not only have to do the math in the right way - you also have to use all the elements of the math.

                          Long testimony is conflicted:

                          She said first:

                          "I saw the woman's face. Have seen the deceased in the mortuary, and I am sure the woman that I saw in Hanbury-street was the deceased"

                          Then she said:

                          "I see lots of them standing there in the morning.
                          [Coroner] At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them"

                          If she did not take much notice of them, she can not be sure the woman she saw was Chapman.

                          Unless you think she didn't take much notice of them means she didn't ask her her name and adress!

                          Cadosch heared a voice, so what ?! how can you be sure it was Chapman?! by the way, Cadosch himself is a ripper suspect, and one who may have lied in Church to marry a second wife and made himself 10 years younger!


                          Good luck fighting against FACTS!


                          The Baron

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


                            Long testimony is conflicted:

                            She said first:

                            "I saw the woman's face. Have seen the deceased in the mortuary, and I am sure the woman that I saw in Hanbury-street was the deceased"

                            Then she said:

                            "I see lots of them standing there in the morning.
                            [Coroner] At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them"

                            If she did not take much notice of them, she can not be sure the woman she saw was Chapman.

                            Unless you think she didn't take much notice of them means she didn't ask her her name and adress!

                            Cadosch heared a voice, so what ?! how can you be sure it was Chapman?! by the way, Cadosch himself is a ripper suspect, and one who may have lied in Church to marry a second wife and made himself 10 years younger!


                            Good luck fighting against FACTS!


                            The Baron
                            Long may very well have been mistaken - as may any of the four witnesses, including Dr Philips.

                            As for Cadosch - if he heard voices from number 29, then he either heard Chapman or someone else. If it was someone else, they were in the yard with Chapman's corpse and would have seen it. Surely they would have been scared at such a sight and screamed or shouted out. Of course Cadosch may have lied - but that leaves us with three liars/mistaken witnesses versus one witness who may have interpreted the evidence incorrectly. Since the methods Dr Philips was using are universally accepted as unreliable, it is likely in the extreme that it is Dr Philip's interpretation of his examination that was incorrect.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              Itís not about maths. Itís about science.

                              All Iím asking is that you read the information above taken from medical experts. I mean genuine authorities on Forensic medicine. People who have written textbooks which are in standard use. People who know vastly more than a Victorian Doctor with 19th century knowledge.

                              .
                              Strange you should say that .I posted an extensive report on digestion some months back which has been conveniently ignored .

                              She was long dead when Richardson entered the yard

                              Regardless of any ridiculous supposition that after eating her potatoes she found more food whilst wandering the streets for four hours
                              You can lead a horse to water.....

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


                                Long testimony is conflicted:

                                She said first:

                                "I saw the woman's face. Have seen the deceased in the mortuary, and I am sure the woman that I saw in Hanbury-street was the deceased"

                                Then she said:

                                "I see lots of them standing there in the morning.
                                [Coroner] At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them"

                                If she did not take much notice of them, she can not be sure the woman she saw was Chapman.

                                Unless you think she didn't take much notice of them means she didn't ask her her name and adress!

                                Cadosch heared a voice, so what ?! how can you be sure it was Chapman?! by the way, Cadosch himself is a ripper suspect, and one who may have lied in Church to marry a second wife and made himself 10 years younger!


                                Good luck fighting against FACTS!


                                The Baron
                                Cadosch heard something brush against a fence that he was two feet away from on a quiet morning. If Phillips was correct the mutilated corpse of Annie Chapman was already there.

                                So.....

                                a) Annie came back to life.

                                b) A blind man was in that yard.

                                c) Cadosch was hallucinating.

                                d) He heard Annieís killer.

                                e) He made it up for no apparent reason.


                                The likeliest is d.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                                “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X