Chapman’s death.

[Lipsky]

Not fact - as reported by Dr Philips who may have been mistaken or circumstances conspired to hasten the usual process.

Isnt that an interestingly recurring "theme" in the La-La-Land which were (some at least of) these inquests/medical assessments?

At least here an assement of when she was murdered *was* attempted in public ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Thank you for bringing reason to this thread Eten.

We might also add that when Cadosch said that he heard the word no he admitted that he might have been mistaken (but not about the noise against the fence.) This shows caution. He could easily have lied and said - no, I’m certain that it came from 29. Caution doesn’t imply someone lying just for the sake of it. It makes him more believable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

When did she eat last?

[FISHY1118]

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.

Is this the same Codosch that was also standing two feet away on the top step of his back door entrance when he heard the ''NO''[ which by the way he couldn't be sure which side it came from] AT 5.20AM . Lets not forget that Codosch, on four occasions was at least two feet away from the killer ripping into Chapman in the daylight while 17 people were getting ready to start their day.ALSO HE WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY VISIBLE TO THE KILLER FROM THE HEIGHT ON HIS STEP WHICH AT FIVE FOOT SIX WOULD HAVE MADE HIM STAND OUT LIKE THE PROVERBIAL DOGS BALLS. ITS TRULY REMARKABLE TO THINK THAT CHAPMANS MURDER WAS COMMITTED WHILE ALL THIS WAS GOING ON .


ILL GO WITH THIS VERSION ANY DAY OF THE WEEK , 1 PHILLIPS WAS CORRECT AND CHAPMAN WAS DEAD IN THE YARD A 3.30 TO 4.30 2 CODOSCH WAS MISTAKEN IN WHERE HE HEARD THE ''NO'' COME FROM, AND THE THUD COULD HAVE BEEN ANY THING, NOT NECESSARILY OF HUMAN ORIGIN. 3 LONG WAS FLAT OUT WRONG IN IDENTIFYING CHAPMAN AND THE RIPPER.[ remember for long to be right ,codosch is totally irreverent ] 4 AND FINALLY RICHARDSON IN MY OPINION LIED, AS HIS FIRST STATEMENT HE GAVE TO INSPECTOR CHANDLER MADE NO REF TO SITTING ON THE STEP TO CUT HIS BOOT STRAP . GAME OVER FOR YOU HERLOCK , MOVE ON.

[Fisherman]

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.

Yes, he could.

The door would not obscure the body from anyone sitting on the stair in the yard.

It could well do just that.

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.

The layout of the yard is of no consequence whatsoever. If the door was not fully open and if Richardson was behind it, it could have obscured Chapman, simple as that.

So, if Philip's TOD is correct - Richardson lied. This of course is possible.

But not necessary.

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.

It is way more than possible - it is more or less a certainty.

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.

See the above.

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.

The latter is way more credible, not least since we can be more or less certain that Phillips takes two witnesses out of the equation, and very likely the third too.

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.

I think you are completely off, I'm afraid. If I was to give a percentage, I´d be somewhere between 90 and 100 against the witnesses. And frankly, we can see that the police never put any trust in them - they went with Phillips for the same reason that I do. The whole problem lies in Baxter, originally, who misrepresented Phillips, likely in order to try and make the pieces fit, a very common thing when somebody has the task to explain something. So he came up with the official misconception that has stood in the way for rational thinking ever since.
The whole concept with the witnesses is blown out of the water once we realize just how large the span between warm and cold is and once we realize that it would take an almighty fluke for Phillips to have been incredibly wrong on all counts. Like I say, if there witnesses are taken out of the equation, everybody would go "That's exactly what we should expect - killed at around 3.30 or so."
I fear you are fighting a battle that cannot be won, etenguy.

[Fisherman]

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

No, not a chance. Wrong? Yes, extremely likely. But not a fool.

[Fisherman]

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?

Yes, I accept what he is saying.

But he is not saying what you claim he is saying.

You stated that he says that "some" people's skin will grow cold in 10-20 minutes. Thereby, you believed that he supported your take that Chapman could have been one of these "some" people, and that this supported your take that Phillips could have mistaken her for a long dead woman.

What Seddon-Smith instead says is that ALL people's skin will grow cold in 10-20 minutes, on account of how it is insulated from the warm body core. And that means that Chapman will not have been an isolated example in this regard - she, Eddowes, Stride, Kelly, Nichols, Tabram, you, me, Obama, Pink, Jay Leno, the milkman and bush-women from African tribes will ALL have our skin grow cold in 10-20 minutes when we die.

So why is it that not all people who had been dead for more than 20 minutes were pronounced cold and dead for hours? As I have tried to explain: because you can feel the body core warmth THROUGH the skin. And this was what Phillips felt fore, but there WAS no warmth. It had all gone away.

And to boot, there is such a thing like the plateau I mentioned - the temperature will NOT start to drop immediately after death, but instead we will retain out body temperature for between half an hour and an hour before the dropping process sets in. So arguably, Chapman would have been ALL WARM or very close to all warm one hour after her death, just as Eddowes was found to be. Both women SKIN would at that stage have been cold, though, which is what Seddon-Smith speaks about - the cooling of the SKIN, not of the BODY.

I hope you can see how this works now, Herlock!

[Fisherman]

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.

"I should say at least two hours, probably longer."

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.

There was no qualification, other than towards the two hour minimum. Doctors don't disqualify themselves. Its not a hobby they have.
But coroners can get things wrong, especially if they strive to.

[Fisherman]

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.

If it was about rectal temperature, how is it that any doctor at all could feel any warmth at all in any body at all after the 20 minutes that Seddon-Smith points out as the latest point of the skin having grown cold? Do you believe that the warmth only resides in the rectum after death?
Of course the material in the paper measures the exact temperatures using a rectal thermometer, but that does not mean that the temperature can only be noticed by that implement. As has been the case since the first human being, body warmth can be felt through the skin too.

[Fisherman]

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".

You said that Phillips only felt the left side for warmth, and that the right side was left unchecked. So I think my hallucinations are VERY appropriate, since what you wished to imply can have been one thing only.
Now that you seemingly admit that the idea is stupid, we are in agreement.

How can you possibly be asking me if a medico "feels" the temperature of the core? You need a thermometer to do that.

No. Fill a plastic bag with warm water and feel the plastic. Is it the warmth of the plastic or the water you feel?

I am AMAZED to have to tell you these things. Amazed! You only need a thermometer to establish the EXACT temperature, not to know that there IS warmth in the core!

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?

A body that feels all cold will have been dead for numerous hours. The two hour minimum given by Phillips rested on the fact that there was some remaining heat under the intestines in combination with the rigor, that will normally set in after two hours at the earliest. If the body had been all cold, we would be working with times from 4-6 hours and upwards.

I left out the parts where I have already corrected you, mainly on the Seddon-Smith matter, where I hope you have understood the problems with your reasoning.

[Fisherman]

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.

Oh, I do know it. That is why I am saying that his minimum was two hours. Accordingly, it seems I can manage without your help.

[Fisherman]

Not fact - as reported by Dr Philips who may have been mistaken or circumstances conspired to hasten the usual process.



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.



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.

That won't do, etenguy. I agree that the facts we have is that Phillips SAID that the body was cold and that there WAS onsetting rigor. To me, this is good enough, because the rigor will be an actual fact, and the temperature assessment is not one that purports to tell something a degree or two apart from something else - it is telling cold from warm, and I am satisfied that much as Phillips could have mistaken 35 degrees for 33 and gotten it an hour wrong, he could NOT mistake warm for cold, and Chapman would reasonably have been all warm of very close to warm if she had been dead for an hour or less only. Eddowes is the proof of the pudding, taken together with the fact that there is a plateau of half an hour to an hour after death during which time the body temperature will not start to drop.

And it is DOUBTLESSLY a presumption only - and a wrong one at that - that Richardson could not have missed the body. Can YOU see through doors, etenguy? I know I can´t. It of course also applies that for you to see something, you MUST look in the direction where that something is. Is it proven that Richardson looked to his left? "Must" he have done so? And IF he did, once again - how did he manage to see through a doorblade?

[Fisherman]

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.

But he wasn't even sure that the voices came from No 29!

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.

Phillips cannot expand into three persons. But his view was accepted by scores of people in retrospect, the whole of Scotland Yard not least, so he was not alone. Even the Lancet commented on how he would have been right. We cannot make this a question of how a million flies can't be wrong, or we will be eating dogshit before we know it.

[Fisherman]

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

And that is the problem! A lot of speculation and mistakes and freakish things must be in place to make Phillips wrong. She must have taken a second meal while out on the streets looking for customers, although we know she had eaten already. Possible? Yes, but unlikely. And Phillips must have mistaken warm for cold! Possible? No. Unless Chapman had grown cold quicker than anybody else in medical history. Possible? Maybe if she was stuck in a freezer before placed in the backyard. Plus she would have developed a very quick rigor. Possible? Yes, but not very likely.

The other way around, if she died 3.30, the meal she had was in the shape it should be, the body temperature was where it should be and the rigor was where it should be. Plus the murder was committed at a time consistent with the others.

It really is a no-brainer.

[Fisherman]

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 Annie’s killer.

e) He made it up for no apparent reason.


The likeliest is d.

Cadosh was asked whether he heard anything else on his way from the loo to the back door but for the thump. He said that he didn't. No rustling of clothes, no scuffle, no treating, no crying out, no nothing. There was the thump and nothing else.

Is that consistent with the Ripper wrestling Chapman to the ground to cut her neck?

The UNLIKELIEST option is d, because Chapman was long dead at 5.30. The hallucinations and the blind man are therefore likelier, although unlikely in the extreme both of them. Dead people hurling themselves against fences surely must be the ultimate unthinkable option?