Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapmanís death.

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    It was getting light.

    Every day is. But the fact of the matter is that it was still dark. "Was it light? -Beginning to get light, but not thoroughly. I could see all over the place."And believe it or not, but we are much restricted by low lighting conditions when it comes to our ability too see things. Plus Richardson could not see all over the place although he said so. He could for example not see the wall between the door and the fence. Saying that he could see "all over the place" is a generalized sentence that disregards areas he could not see. He could see just about the whole place, with the exception of what the door hid from him.

    Despite all of this twisting and turning the fact of the matter is a very simple one and itís the reason that I used the word imbecile.

    Imbecility does not come into play on Richardsons behalf. Seeing things is a sensory action, not one of calculating intelligence.

    Anyone that says that Richardson might not have seen her is saying that he wouldnít have been aware of the fact that a solid door can possibly impede a personís view.

    No, it is simply pointing out that he did not THINK the door would obscure as much as it did.

    Again he was adamant that he could see the entirety of the yard.

    And he could not. And Long and Cadosch were ADAMANT about their timings. And you are ADAMANT on being wrong, and just as ADMANT on not admitting it. But go on, by all means, its kind of fun to watch. Sad, but fun.

    It has to be remembered that Richardson actually saw the body where it lay.

    Yes, he did.

    He knew itís position.

    Yes, he did.

    He knew how much floor space it took up.

    Ground space. Yes, he did.

    And so were being asked to accept that, after seeing the body, Richardson would have had to have been such an imbecile that he didnít even think:

    ďHmm, looking at where the body is perhaps the door blocked my view of it?Ē

    Once again, he was no imbecile at all. He simply misjudged the matter and was more certain that he really should have been. Do you think that makes him an isolated character in any way? Look at yourself - you though you could win this discussion, and what happened? THAT is a much worse misjudgment than Richardsons. Whether it makes you "imbecile" in your own eyes is for you to say. I stand by my view that not being able to see things has nothing at all to do with imbecility.

    No, he was certain that the body couldnít have been hidden by the door.
    Yes, he really believed so. But being certain is not being correct, remember!
    Last edited by Fisherman; 08-29-2019, 02:10 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
      [B]I

      What rubbish you speak ''thoroughly and irrevocably exploded'' BULLDADASH . The same modern expert after expert also tell us that Eddowes kidney and uterus couldn't possibly be removed in the dark in 5 mins. But the great Herlock has no trouble not believing them, do you ? Phillips was overwhelmingly likely to have been right, so get down off your high horse and stop using modern medical experts to discredit Phillips when you not prepared to except their conclusions in the Eddowes case ... Game over for you .

      The massive difference in your 2 instances obviously eludes you Fishy. How many modern experts cast doubt on whether the Eddowes mutilations could have been achieved in 5 minutes or so? Is it two? And all of the others that have looked into the case have had no problem with it. Nice cherry-picking. The difference in Chapmanís case is that every single modern expert agrees with me. Every single one Fishy. So your point is invalid Iím afraid.

      The rest of your post is not worth responding to, its that full of nonsense . Seriously Herlock this is over for you pal , your so blind to ANY OTHER possibility of a different scenario to the Chapman murder. You,ve been sucked in to believing as gospel the contradictory testimonies of L.C.R , like ive said in a previous post any intelligent person who is interested in the Chapman murder should start with the Wolf Vanderlinen article and not with L.C.R so my advice to you would be to go back there too . Game Over Herlock .

      Desperate bias Iím afraid. Obvious to all.

      Im looking as unbiased experts. Youíre picking and choosing the Ripperologist that might support the theory that you support. Wolf Vanderlinden is a researcher and not an infallible one as you would see if youíd read David Orsam picking some of his research to shreds. Fishermanís ducking and diving has been exposed every single time. Bu of course you wonít have read it properly. You desperately want a Victorian Doctor to have had more knowledge and skill than was possible. He was Dr Phillips and not Dr Who.

      Annie Chapman died sometime after 5.20. The evidence is a Mount Everest of expert testimony. Indisputable, unbiased and unchallengeable. As unpalatable as that might be to some in their desperate attempts to bolster a theory. I have no theory dependant on Phillips being right or wrong.

      The game is over Fishy and no amount of wish-thinking on your, or anyone elseís part, will alter that. From now on the only real discussion needs to be on whether Long was mistaken with her sighting or her timing. All else is done.
      Regards

      Herlock






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

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        Every point that you have made has been exposed. Youíve lost every single one without exception. The testimony of experts speak for themselves. Itís black and white. There is no debate left to be have. Phillips should be disregarded.
        There goes Bagdad Bob again. Herlock, you are the one proudly claiming that you have support from experts. And still you think that the right side of Chapman will have been warmer than the left one, that Chapman will have bled out more than Eddowes, that cold skin prevents a medico from feeling for warmth, that missing out on seeing something equals imbecility, that bodies can grow all cold in less than an hour and that people who say they are certain of something will always be right.

        Maybe you - eh - sort of MISREAD those experts of yours...? Just a teenzie, weenzie bit? No?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          We canít know whether this question was asked. But of course itís irrelevant. Richardson was aware of the properties of a door. As far as we know he wasnít visually impaired. And he said that he couldnít have missed a body had it been there. The police would also have been aware of the properties of a door and so if they had asked him he stuck to his statement. If they didnít ask him then we have to ask why? Probably because they realised that the body couldnít have remained hidden.

          Therefore.....it wasnít there. Unless he was an unmitigated imbecile of course.
          Its one thing to be wrong. Its another to flaunt it.

          The police did NOT "realize that the body could not have been hidden behind the door". They very clearly thought it could have been.
          Last edited by Fisherman; 08-29-2019, 02:21 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            Annie Chapman died sometime after 5.20. The evidence is a Mount Everest of expert testimony. Indisputable, unbiased and unchallengeable. As unpalatable as that might be to some in their desperate attempts to bolster a theory. I have no theory dependant on Phillips being right or wrong.

            The game is over Fishy and no amount of wish-thinking on your, or anyone elseís part, will alter that. From now on the only real discussion needs to be on whether Long was mistaken with her sighting or her timing. All else is done.
            Oh dear. He's caving in.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by packers stem View Post
              It's a ridiculous suggestion that Richardson could possibly fail to see the body as it was starting to get light ...... especially as he was supposed to be sitting on the steps inches from a body.
              Therefore the body wasn't there at 4.45

              We then have medical opinion of Phillips which on it's own could be suspected as being a little wayward ,although so wayward as to fit a 5.30 death is extreme, but it is independently backed up by the digestion and by nobody seeing her wander around for four hours .
              The quite obvious answer is that she was already dead between 3 and 4 but was not yet in the yard .

              Far too many ifs and buts have to come into play to fit the 5.30
              Phillip's dismissed ,she ate something else later ,she fell asleep etc

              However unpalatable it may be to some
              She was dead earlier than 5.30 ,she just wasn't in situ
              More nonsense Iím afraid. You cannot possibly know that she didnít eat again. This was a poorly nourished woman who rarely knew where her next meal was coming from. She could have had another client and bought something else to eat. She might have met a friend who shared some food with here. Why are you so obsessed with the fact that her cannot be accounted for for four hours? She was a poverty stricken prostitute. Hardly someone who would have turned heads. This was 1888. No ccctv footage. No ATM machine use. There is simply nothing remotely notable about this. You keep implying a sinister explanation based on absolutely nothing except conspiracy theorist thinking. The idea that Annie was killed elsewhere is lunacy. This is why 99.9999% of people donít give t a seconds consideration. Itís an affront to logic, reason and evidence.
              Regards

              Herlock






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

              Comment


              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                .

                So packer are you saying she was killed elsewhere then dumped in the yard ? because if you are youll cop a lot of stick for that around here.
                And deservedly so. Itís a laughable notion without a single shred of evidence apart from discredited conspiracy theory thinking. Most of us prefer to remain on earth.
                Regards

                Herlock






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

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  And deservedly so. Itís a laughable notion without a single shred of evidence apart from discredited conspiracy theory thinking. Most of us prefer to remain on earth.
                  Of course it's laughable.

                  So her mutilated remains were dragged through the hall and dumped in the yard, and left behind no trace of blood? Unless they think she was killed, dumped and THEN mutilated, which is equally stupid.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                    Of course it's laughable.

                    So her mutilated remains were dragged through the hall and dumped in the yard, and left behind no trace of blood? Unless they think she was killed, dumped and THEN mutilated, which is equally stupid.
                    Imagine the scene Harry where our mythical Freemasonic villains lug the corpse along the pavement to the door of number 29 then “damn! It’s locked!” so they carry the body back to the carriage!

                    Or perhaps these Victorian Chuckle Brothers just walked down Hanbury Street trying door after door until the found one open.

                    You couldn’t make it up. Well....apparently someone did make it up.
                    Regards

                    Herlock






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

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                      This is just sad. "Some magical level of skill for Phillips"? No, I am not predisposing anything such. The problem is that you are claiming that there are no cases where Phillips would not be very likely to get it wrong. You are grossly misleading by employing the difficulties involved in SOME operations to involve ALL operations! In your world, it is not a question of Phillips PERHAPS not being able to get sensitive and difficult calls right, you have expanded it to Phillips not being able to get ANYTHING right!

                      You simply cannot do what you do, because it is misusing history and crippling logic. Can you get it into your head that there were different LEVELS of difficulties involved in feeling for warmth? Please answer! Do you understand this? Can you see that whereas establishing an exact TOD going on feeling for warmth only is something VERY different from telling a cold body from a warm one? Or are your gifts of understanding insufficient to accomplish this fairly mundane task? No squirming, just tell me!
                      You said:

                      This is just sad. "Some magical level of skill for Phillips"? No, I am not predisposing anything such.

                      My response:

                      But that's EXACTLY what you ARE doing. You are suggesting that by feeling whether the body was warm or cold Phillips was magically able to tell how long Chapman had been dead (i.e. "at least two hours"). Science tells us that's not possible. So it must have been magic.

                      You said:

                      The problem is that you are claiming that there are no cases where Phillips would not be very likely to get it wrong.

                      My response:

                      No, I'm claiming that there are no cases where Phillips could feel that a dead body was cold and, at the same time, accurately and reliably estimate the time of death. If you disagree please do what I've already asked and provide a source.

                      You said:

                      You are grossly misleading by employing the difficulties involved in SOME operations to involve ALL operations! In your world, it is not a question of Phillips PERHAPS not being able to get sensitive and difficult calls right, you have expanded it to Phillips not being able to get ANYTHING right!

                      My response:

                      No, I'm saying you can never feel that a dead body is cold and then go on to accurately and reliably estimate the time of death (i.e. by saying the person has been dead at least two hours). In 1888, medicos evidently thought it was possible to do it by touching the body with the back of the hand but modern forensic pathologists tell us that it is, in fact, impossible. The only acceptable method of assessing time of death through temperature is by taking rectal temperature readings with a thermometer (something which is, nevertheless, said by Payne James himself not to be reliable and should not be relied upon).

                      You said:

                      You simply cannot do what you do, because it is misusing history and crippling logic. Can you get it into your head that there were different LEVELS of difficulties involved in feeling for warmth? Please answer! Do you understand this?

                      My response:

                      No, I don't understand Fisherman. In fact, I literally have no idea what you are talking about, probably because you never provide any kind of source for your bizarre statements. What do you mean by "different LEVELS of difficulties involved in feeling for warmth"? It's nonsense. A Victorian medico at the crime scene just felt the body. It was either warm or cold. Alternatively, some parts of the body might have been warm and other parts cold. That's about the extent of any "level of difficulty". A police officer could do it and a member of the public could do it. Dr Phillips did not have a superpower which allowed him to assess degrees of warmth by touching. If you think there was any level of skill or difficulty involved you need to explain exactly what it was, and how it was done, and provide a source to back it up. Otherwise I'm saying you are imagining it, thinking it was more complicated than it really was.

                      You said:


                      Can you see that whereas establishing an exact TOD going on feeling for warmth only is something VERY different from telling a cold body from a warm one?

                      My response:

                      No, because you are talking gibberish. To repeat myself, all a Victorian medico did at the crime scene was feel whether the body was warm or cold. That's it, Fisherman. That's all they did and all they could do (in the absence of using a thermometer). Dr Phillips evidently laboured under the belief (no doubt shared by others in the profession) that a cold body meant that death must have occurred at least two hours earlier. But in thinking that, he was mistaken. I've already quoted you a report from the proceedings of the Surgical Society of Ireland where one medical man said that he had noted that a dead body after one hour could feel just as cold as another dead body after six hours. We know that after six hours a body is stone cold so he was, in effect, saying from his personal experience that a dead body can feel stone cold after an hour. Consequently you were quite wrong to say that Chapman had grown colder than anyone else in medical history weren't you? It was a noted phenomenon that bodies can feel cold after an hour.






                      Regards

                      Herlock






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

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        I really cannot pick up the will to read extensively through your posts. I saw two connected things and decided that the rest will be along the same line, and so I will take the two things up and leave the rest because I fear it will be along the same lines. These two matters will be enough to show you why I see your reasoning as unworthy of a serious debate:

                        1. You claim I went into "full panic mode" when you brought up Seddon-Smith. That is the laugh of the year! Herlock, what Seddon-Smith speaks about has nothing at all to do with the topic we are discussing! But you seem unable to take that in.
                        What Seddon-Smith speaks about is the temperature of the SKIN! The temperature of the skin will quickly grow cold as we die. For each and every one of us that means that our skin will grow cold to the touch when we perish, and it will do so in a period of ten to twenty minutes only. But although a medico puts his fingers to the surface of the skin, it is not the temperature of the skin he is feeling for - it is the underlying temperature, stored in the underlying structures of the body!
                        I have explained this a hundred times now, it seems, and you still cannot take it in? Or do you refuse to believe it, quite simply? When George Bagster Phillips knelt beside Annie Chapman in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street on that morning, he KNEW that the skin would have grown cold quickly. he KNEW that the skin was insulated from the body core and therefore would be colder than it. He KNEW that he would nevertheless be able to feel the warmth of the core THROUGH the skin, because although insulated from the core, the skin will nevertheless conduct heat from the deeper structures once you put your fingers against it. If the lower structures are cold, no heat will rise up through the skin when a medico feels for warmth, if the lower structures are warm, it WILL do so.

                        Therefore, Seddon-Smith has nothing at all to do with the process and the phenomenon of skin cooling is not linked to the issue in any manner at all.

                        2. The next thing I noticed has to do with the same thing. You ignorantly asked in an earlier post that if the skin was cold, then how could a medico know that there was warmth underneath. I then said that if you fill a cold plastic bag with warm water and feel the surface, you will feel the warmth of the water THROUGH the plastic bag. And now I find you asking me if I really believe that a plastic bag and warm water is the same as a body and its warmth...?

                        Just when you think the bottom has been reached, somebody gets a shovel and takes the bottom to new and deeper levels.

                        I will try and keep my cool:

                        No, I do not think that a plastic bag and warm water is the same as the body and its warmth. But I DO think that it can explain to you how a surface can convey underlying warmth from within! And that is exactly what this is all about. The victorian doctor KNEW that the underlying structures of the body would be somewhere around 37 degrees celsius in a living person. He also KNEW that the skin of a person never is 37 degrees celsius, it is cooler than so. And he also KNEW that this is because the skin is insulated from the body core and its warmth. And, yes: he KNEW that the warmth of the core could be felt THROUGH the skin - actually, that was precisely why he would do that kind of thing when faced with a dead body.
                        Basically, insulation is what keeps us from freezing to death. Some mammals, like seals, live under extremely cold conditions, and their skin will ALWAYS be icy cold to the touch when they emerge from arctic waters. Seals furthermore have a thick layer of fat that allows for further insulation.

                        Question: If we were to put a thriving seal, fresh from the icy water, before Bagster Phillips, do you think he would believe the seal was dead on account of its skin being cold? Or would he surmise that there was underlying heat? And would he be able to feel that heat, if checking for it where the blood vessels of the seal were plentiful and close to the surface of the skin?

                        While you ponder that question, I will try and do something better with my day than answering things like these, that really require no answer at all once you have some basic knowledge about the mechanisms we are dealing with.

                        That is how "fully panicked" I am by Seddon-Smiths telling me what I already knew, and that is how a plastic bag and some warm water explains how it works in a crude and pedagogically accessible way.

                        Excuse me? What? Do I really think that Annie Chapman was a seal?

                        Herlock, Herlock....

                        PS. I fully realize that I am leaving myself open to suggestions of not being able to answer your points now that I cannot muster any will to wade through more material like the above. I will Kindly ask you not to employ that technique once again, but instead reproduce in shortness whatever questions there may be hidden inside your massive texts (why am I being pointed to as the one who writes too long...?) that you feel are in any way important to the issue and that I have not answered ten times before - like I have done with the Seddon-Smith material. So please?
                        You said:


                        I really cannot pick up the will to read extensively through your posts

                        My response:

                        Can I suggest that if you do read my posts "extensively" you might actually learn something and we can shorten this ridiculous debate. One in which you refuse to accept plain facts.

                        You said:

                        You claim I went into "full panic mode" when you brought up Seddon-Smith. That is the laugh of the year! Herlock, what Seddon-Smith speaks about has nothing at all to do with the topic we are discussing! But you seem unable to take that in.

                        My response:

                        The laugh of the year, Fisherman, is that, in your panic, you first claimed that Dr Seddon-Smith's information was "useless" while now telling us that accept it in its entirety! You haven't even responded to that. This is why debating with you is almost impossible. And, of course, Seddon-Smith's answer to the question "How long does it take your body to get cold after death?" is VERY relevant to the topic we are discussing. It could hardly be more relevant. Do you think he didn't understand the question he was answering?You either don't understand it or you DO understand it but donít like it, so ignore it, just as you are ignoring everything Payne James tells us about the subject.

                        You said:

                        When George Bagster Phillips knelt beside Annie Chapman in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street on that morning, he KNEW that the skin would have grown cold quickly. he KNEW that the skin was insulated from the body core and therefore would be colder than it. He KNEW that he would nevertheless be able to feel the warmth of the core THROUGH the skin, because although insulated from the core, the skin will nevertheless conduct heat from the deeper structures once you put your fingers against it. If the lower structures are cold, no heat will rise up through the skin when a medico feels for warmth, if the lower structures are warm, it WILL do so.

                        My response:

                        Please don't make assumptions about what Phillips knew and did not know.


                        It is not possible to "feel" the warmth of the core "through" the skin. That is incorrect and, frankly, bizarre. All you can do is feel whether the surface of the body (i.e. the skin) is warm or cold. I literally don't know where you have got it into your head that Dr. Phillips had some kind of magic skill to feel warmth through the skin. But you will, no doubt, provide a source which shows that this is how it was done in the 1880s. Oh no, you won't, because what you are saying is ridiculous.

                        You said:

                        No, I do not think that a plastic bag and warm water is the same as the body and its warmth. But I DO think that it can explain to you how a surface can convey underlying warmth from within! And that is exactly what this is all about. The victorian doctor KNEW that the underlying structures of the body would be somewhere around 37 degrees celsius in a living person. He also KNEW that the skin of a person never is 37 degrees celsius, it is cooler than so. And he also KNEW that this is because the skin is insulated from the body core and its warmth. And, yes: he KNEW that the warmth of the core could be felt THROUGH the skin - actually, that was precisely why he would do that kind of thing when faced with a dead body.

                        My response:

                        You keep talking about what Phillips knew and did not know without evidence. What I am telling you, with evidence, is that he could not know long a person who felt cold had been dead for. He thought it must have been a minimum of two hours but that was not correct (although, of course, and in fairness to him, he qualified his opinion). Do you understand that?

                        You said:

                        I fully realize that I am leaving myself open to suggestions of not being able to answer your points now that I cannot muster any will to wade through more material like the above. I will Kindly ask you not to employ that technique once again, but instead reproduce in shortness whatever questions there may be hidden inside your massive texts (why am I being pointed to as the one who writes too long...?) that you feel are in any way important to the issue and that I have not answered ten times before - like I have done with the Seddon-Smith material. So please?

                        My response:

                        The only reason I mentioned Seddon-Smith in #507 was because you claimed I had got him "backwards" and had somehow made a mistake in understanding him which was comparable to your error in confusing the post-mortem examination of Chapman with the examination at the crime scene. But I hadn't. I understood him perfectly well just like I understand what Payne James is saying. Remember Payne James? That guy you never mention at all any more.


                        If you want to keep things short and simple, please do so in your posts rather than introducing irrelevancies and saying things like "Baghdad Bob", and then my own posts will be short too.


                        You DO leave yourself open to the suggestion of not being able to answer my points because you clearly cannot answer them. My position is crystal clear and I keep asking you to provide some expert source material to back up your statements but you fail each time to do so. On the other hand, I give you source after source after source. I'm not interested in your own personal mistaken assumptions and beliefs about the abilities of medicos in the nineteenth century.


                        If you want a question to answer here it is: Why can't a person whose body is cold not have been murdered an hour earlier?



                        Regards

                        Herlock






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

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          I often turn to the Morning Advertisers ad verbatim reports when I look at things. Many a nuance can be found there that is lacking in other reports, and this his how the exchange between Baxter and Bagster, if you will, was portrayed:

                          - How long do you suppose deceased had been dead before you saw the body?
                          - At least two hours, probably more, but the morning was fairly cold, and the body would have become cold sooner in consequence.


                          It is very clear that Phillips delivers a minimum time of death and that this minimum time is two hours. It is also very clear that he really do NOT believe that two hours is the correct estimation, because he adds that it was PROBABLY MORE. That is where he puts the TOD, BEYOND two hours. There really cannot be any doubt at all that this was what he believed.

                          Now notice that he does not say that the body COULD have grown cold sooner on account of the cold circumstances, he says that it WOULD do so. Does that mean that he is saying

                          A: I believe the deceased had been dead for at the very least two hours, and I also believe that she had probably been dead longer than so but she MUST actually have been dead shorter than two hours because it was cold.

                          or

                          B/ I believe that the deceased had been dead for at the very least two hours and that is a minimum. My real estimation is that she would have died before that time, but since the morning was cold and she will have cooled of quicker than what is normally the case, I am willing to concede that it may have been two hours only.

                          There goes the idea of that "qualification". Shame on you, Baxter!!
                          You said:

                          I often turn to the Morning Advertisers ad verbatim reports when I look at things. Many a nuance can be found there that is lacking in other reports, and this his how the exchange between Baxter and Bagster, if you will, was portrayed:

                          - How long do you suppose deceased had been dead before you saw the body?
                          - At least two hours, probably more, but the morning was fairly cold, and the body would have become cold sooner in consequence.


                          It is very clear that Phillips delivers a minimum time of death and that this minimum time is two hours. It is also very clear that he really do NOT believe that two hours is the correct estimation, because he adds that it was PROBABLY MORE. That is where he puts the TOD, BEYOND two hours. There really cannot be any doubt at all that this was what he believed.

                          Now notice that he does not say that the body COULD have grown cold sooner on account of the cold circumstances, he says that it WOULD do so. Does that mean that he is saying

                          A: I believe the deceased had been dead for at the very least two hours, and I also believe that she had probably been dead longer than so but she MUST actually have been dead shorter than two hours because it was cold.

                          or

                          B/ I believe that the deceased had been dead for at the very least two hours and that is a minimum. My real estimation is that she would have died before that time, but since the morning was cold and she will have cooled of quicker than what is normally the case, I am willing to concede that it may have been two hours only.

                          There goes the idea of that "qualification". Shame on you, Baxter
                          !!

                          My response:


                          So you think the other newspaper reports which mention the loss of blood as his second qualification simply imagined that part of Dr Phillips' evidence? Or do you think it's more likely it was erroneously omitted by the Morning Advertiser reporter?


                          Here are the other (independent) reports of the exchange:



                          Times



                          He should say that the deceased had been dead at least two hours, and probably more, when he first saw her; but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood.



                          Telegraph



                          How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.



                          The Standard



                          How long had the deceased been dead when you first saw the body? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more, but it is right in connection with that opinion to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.



                          How did the coroner understand what he was being told? Well, this is what he said:



                          "It was true that Dr. Phillips thought that when he saw the body at 6:30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admitted that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood might affect his opinion, and if the evidence of the other witnesses was correct, Dr. Phillips had miscalculated the effect of those forces"



                          And what about the Lancet?



                          We confess to sharing Mr. Phillips' view that the coldness of the body and commencing rigidity pointed to a far longer interval between death and discovery than [between half past five and six o'clock.]; but, as he remarked the almost total draining away of the blood, added to the exposure in the cold morning air, may have hastened the cooling down of the body"



                          There can be no doubt whatsoever that Dr Phillips was qualifying his minimum 2 hour estimate when answering the coroner's question. It's perfectly clear in English, the coroner understood it this way, the Lancet understood it this way, it bears no other sensible meaning and your strange interpretation in which you try to twist the doctor's words is hopeless.


                          Regards

                          Herlock






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

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                            Herlock Sholmes:

                            Im relying on all of modern Forensic knowledge. You are relying on a Victorian Doctor who couldn't possibly have made a accurate TOD apart from by fluke.

                            When will you understand that nobody is questioning that the victorian method of feeling for warmth was unable to establish an exact TOD? How many posts must I make before you admit that I have said this a thousand times? Modern forensics tells us that it is impossible today too, going on temperature only. And it is also something that Phillips was aware of. He knew quite well that he was not able to establish any exact TOD. Which-was-why-he-never-tried-to-do so! He did not say that she died at 3.32.15, did he?

                            Indeed , if he was to chance on an exact TOD for Chapman, it would - just as you say - be a complete fluke if he succeeded. He would reasonably be likely not to be too far from the target (but that is another discussion), but to get it spot on would be a feat that could only be accomplished as a stroke of totally freakish luck. We all know that, Herlock! Nobody denies it!!

                            There! Do you see now that you are not speaking of what SHOULD be spoken of here? What SHOULD be spoken of is whether Phillips would be unable to tell the difference between a quite warm or reasonably warm body and a cold one!

                            He does NOT say that she died at any exact time, what he instead does is to stretch the minimum time as much he knows the circumstances allow for - and then he gives a minimum time of two hours since death. He does NOT say that she has been dead exactly two hours, he says that at any rate, she has not been dead less than two hours. And he predisposes that she has been dead a lot longer than so, on account of how she has grown cold and on account on how she has developed onsetting rigor. He BELIEVES she has been dead for three or four hours, but he is at a MAXIMUM stretch willing to accept two.

                            At no stage does he claim that he can be exact in any way, and therefore, my fine friend, you should not claim that he DOES so, because that is pointing away from the REAL issue. You are either being ignorant or dishonest, and I really cannot say that I favour any of the options.

                            Now, the next time I hear you claiming that anybody has said that Phillips would have established an exact TOD for Chapman, I will remind you of this conversation. If you want to have any credibility left (and you are scraping the bottom of the barrel since very long now) you will refrain from such antics. Fair is fair!
                            You said:

                            When will you understand that nobody is questioning that the victorian method of feeling for warmth was unable to establish an exact TOD?

                            My response:

                            It's not about an "exact" TOD. It's about whether they could reliably distinguish between one hour, two hours and three hours etc. I'm saying they couldn't do it. It's basically them sticking a finger in the air and coming up with an estimate (such as "at least 2 hours") with no scientific (and thus no accurate and reliable) basis. Now what about that statement is it that YOU are not understanding?

                            You said:

                            Modern forensics tells us that it is impossible today too, going on temperature only. And it is also something that Phillips was aware of. He knew quite well that he was not able to establish any exact TOD. Which-was-why-he-never-tried-to-do so! He did not say that she died at 3.32.15, did he?

                            My response:

                            To repeat, the issue is not about the EXACT time of death. It's about whether it was possible to give the rough estimate he did. He said at least 2 hours possibly more. But I'm saying that he HAD to accept and DID, in fact, accept that it could have been 1 hour. So where does that leave us? None the wiser on temperature but reliant on witness evidence to try and get to the bottom of when Chapman was murdered.

                            You said:

                            There! Do you see now that you are not speaking of what SHOULD be spoken of here? What SHOULD be spoken of is whether Phillips would be unable to tell the difference between a quite warm or reasonably warm body and a cold one!

                            My response:

                            I'm sure Phillips could tell the difference between a warm body and a cold one. The question is: what conclusion should have drawn from the fact that Chapman's body was cold? Unless you can produce some proper evidence that Chapman's body couldn't have been cold after an hour, or that such a thing would have been a "freak" occurrence, I really don't know what you are arguing about. I remind you Ė just as one example - of the proceedings of the Surgical Society of Ireland where it was stated that a body one hour after death can, in practice, feel as cold as a body six hours after death.

                            You said:

                            He does NOT say that she died at any exact time, what he instead does is to stretch the minimum time as much he knows the circumstances allow for - and then he gives a minimum time of two hours since death. He does NOT say that she has been dead exactly two hours, he says that at any rate, she has not been dead less than two hours. And he predisposes that she has been dead a lot longer than so, on account of how she has grown cold and on account on how she has developed onsetting rigor. He BELIEVES she has been dead for three or four hours, but he is at a MAXIMUM stretch willing to accept two.

                            My response:


                            I know what happened and what Phillips was saying, Fisherman. You don't need to summarize his evidence to me. I've read it in the newspaper reports. Do you understand that I'm not saying anything about the "exact" time? I'm saying that he couldn't draw the conclusions that he purported to draw from the temperature (or, the extent he used the supposed rigor, or "evidently commencing stiffening", from that too) namely that Chapman had been dead "at least" two hours. He just couldn't do it with any reliability because she could easily have been murdered an hour earlier. That is the very simple point of issue. I have no idea why you can't seem to understand it or respond to it without changing what I am saying.

                            You said:

                            Now, the next time I hear you claiming that anybody has said that Phillips would have established an exact TOD for Chapman, I will remind you of this conversation. If you want to have any credibility left (and you are scraping the bottom of the barrel since very long now) you will refrain from such antics. Fair is fair!

                            You said:

                            I've never said it! Why don't you start responding to the posts that I HAVE made rather than the ones you have imagined me making?

                            Stop the distortions Fish. Itís shows desperation.

                            Regards

                            Herlock






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

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                              There goes Bagdad Bob again. Herlock, you are the one proudly claiming that you have support from experts. And still you think that the right side of Chapman will have been warmer than the left one, that Chapman will have bled out more than Eddowes, that cold skin prevents a medico from feeling for warmth, that missing out on seeing something equals imbecility, that bodies can grow all cold in less than an hour and that people who say they are certain of something will always be right.

                              Maybe you - eh - sort of MISREAD those experts of yours...? Just a teenzie, weenzie bit? No?
                              You said:

                              And still you think that the right side of Chapman will have been warmer than the left one,

                              My response:

                              You keep saying this, although I've never actually said that it was, but why would that not be possible in theory? It would depend on the position of the body and, for example, whether one side of the body was exposed or clothed. You are not saying that if one part of a body is cold then the entire body must be cold are you?

                              You said:

                              that Chapman will have bled out more than Eddowes,

                              My response:

                              Please tell me how much Chapman bled out in comparison to Eddowes, since you obviously know so much?


                              But that wasn't even my point. It was that Eddowes was examined 45 minutes after death while Chapman was examined an hour, or possibly, more after death. Also that, as experts tell us, there are variables that affect the rate of cooling, for example ill health and, moreover, Chapman had a wasting disease of which one symptom is muscle loss and a renowned expert like Payne James tells us that lack of muscle bulk is a variable that accelerates cooling.

                              Remember him?

                              You said:


                              that cold skin prevents a medico from feeling for warmth,

                              My response:

                              Well cold skin will feel cold Ė and cold means the absence of warmth - so that's the end of that discussion.

                              You said:

                              that missing out on seeing something equals imbecility,

                              My response:

                              imbecility can equal a number of things.

                              You said:

                              that bodies can grow all cold in less than an hour

                              My response:

                              I have provided evidence that a dead body can feel cold after an hour. "all cold" is an expression you have invented which is not used in the evidence and didn't apply to Chapman, because Philips found some heat.

                              You said:

                              and that people who say they are certain of something will always be right.

                              My response:

                              I am certain of what I am saying. I have been waiting to read something sensible from you in response, supported by some kind of reliable evidence, and am still waiting.

                              You said:

                              Maybe you - eh - sort of MISREAD those experts of yours...? Just a teenzie, weenzie bit? No?

                              My response:

                              If you think I have misread any experts I would expect you to identify which ones and how I have misread them. I don't recall you even mentioning Payne James, let alone explaining why what he says about estimating time of death on the basis of temperature should not be relied upon. And I can give you more experts if you want them. But, as you haven't even dealt with the ones I have provided, I'm not sure there's much point.

                              Regards

                              Herlock






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

                              Comment


                              • Its way past time for you to throw in the towel on this subject. I mean it Fish. This is getting embarrassing. Youíre having to resort to avoidance, distortion, misquoting and sadly deliberate misinformation.

                                Phillips can safely and sensibly be kicked into touch. The whole world of modern forensic expertise screams this at us.
                                Regards

                                Herlock






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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X