Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapmanís death.

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

  • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

    An interesting suggestion, but what of the other victims? Were they killed in situ? And how do you explain the blood - are you suggesting they were killed elsewhere but the mutilations were carried out in situ? No - I see you believe Eddowes kidney was removed somewhere other than where her body was found. Your view regarding Chapman is in direct opposition to Philips' view that Chapman was definitely alive when she entered the yard, is there any reason you think Philips was wrong?
    Interesting how Phillip's view on that is taken as valuable whereas his opinion on TOD is dismissed

    There was very little blood around the head, no noticeable arterial spray that couldn't be put down to impact of a body being dropped .
    Phillips also said that the injuries would take 'at least 15 minutes' ... it was broad daylight at a time when a house full of residents would be getting up for work .

    Stride was killed in situ ,Millers Court was something altogether different in my opinion and that's for another place and time
    You can lead a horse to water.....

    Comment


    • Originally posted by packers stem View Post

      I'm going by what we know .
      You're going by where your imagination takes you in order to make science fit 5.30 .....
      Firstly PS it’s noticeable that you’ve neglected to respond to Sam’s post #303 which was in response to you.

      Furthermore....

      Simpson's Forensic Medicine (Payne James) says "Analysis of gastric contents...cannot reliably be used to determine time of death"

      Basically your supposed digestion figures of between 40 minutes and 2 hours are known to be false.



      "The stomach stops working after death, creating a gastronomic time capsule of the victim’s last moments. Though digestion varies from person to person, a meal is typically fully digested (and the stomach empty) six hours after eating."


      https://www.atlasobscura.com/article...al-bock-norris


      There were only 3 hours and 40 minutes between 1:50 am and 5.30. It's well in the normal six hour range for the stomach to be empty. And there was only "a little" food in the stomach so we get nothing from that.


      So whether it we go for rigor mortis, algor mortis or digestion it’s the same. It’s inaccurate and unreliable.

      We’re therefore left with the witnesses after we rightly dismiss Phillips.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

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

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        We’re therefore left with the witnesses after we rightly dismiss Phillips.
        Would you agree that we do not dismiss Philips but rather take his full advice into account which alluded to the unreliability of his estimate by reason of blood loss and coldness of the night.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

          Long said she saw Chapman - that much is fact. Could she be mistaken? Possibly, but given Chapman was in the vicinity at around the time Long says she saw her, it becomes much more likely that Long did see her and not some doppelganger.

          Cadosch heard noise from the yard of 29 Hanbury Street at about the time Chapman was being murdered, this increases the likelihood that what he heard was part of that murder taking place.

          If we assume Long did not see Chapman and Cadosch did not hear anything murder related, we have to start relying on errors, lying and coincidences to explain what happened. The simpler explanation is more often the correct one.
          There are many issues there.
          Firstly you are taking a glance by a passer by who believed she saw two people who were unknown to her standing in the street ...... she then goes on to identify the body.
          Now lets remember first that both Stride and Eddowes bodies were incorrectly identified by women who thought each were their sister .People struggle to identify bodies .
          How many people you passed today could you identify right now if they were in a morgue?

          Now here's the real quirk of ripperology and the underlying reason of why it never gets anywhere.
          I'll bet that a number of commentators here will scream out loud that Caroline Maxwell and Maurice Lewis were mistaken after accepting Long and Cadosch ......... prove me wrong

          Cadosch heard 'a voice' saying no .
          Not male nor female..... a voice.
          Five minutes later bearing in mind his walking to and from the toilet twice and time spent in there he heard nothing else other than something 'touch' the fence.
          No talking,no rustling of clothes ,no struggle, nothing.
          Doesn't sound like someone being attacked does it ?
          You can lead a horse to water.....

          Comment


          • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

            Would you agree that we do not dismiss Philips but rather take his full advice into account which alluded to the unreliability of his estimate by reason of blood loss and coldness of the night.
            Hi Eten.


            Yes and no. If he was giving a proper answer to the coroner (based on current knowledge) he should have said that there are more variables to be taken into account, especially emaciation and ill health, which can accelerate cooling. Also, while the coldness of the night would certainly have been a factor, modern pathologists, I think, would say that blood loss would only have had minimal effect. I also think that his fundamentals were wrong. He shouldn't have taken 2 hours as his minimum starting point. He probably should have suggested a likely range of death having occurred between 1 and 4 hours previously based on the information he had available to him but without excluding times outside of this range. Or in other words, pretty useless for all practical purposes! But that's what the pathologists themselves say about their abilities. Francis Camps stated: "The best we can achieve is a reasoned guess taking into account all the known factors and our aim should be to limit the margin of error inherent in assessing the effect of these factors." So I'm rather dismissive of Phillips' belief in his ability to do what he was attempting to do while recognising at the same time that he did seem to accept that his estimate might have been wrong.
            Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 08-29-2019, 09:36 PM.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

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

            Comment


            • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

              Would you agree that we do not dismiss Philips but rather take his full advice into account which alluded to the unreliability of his estimate by reason of blood loss and coldness of the night.
              You can lead a horse to water.....

              Comment


              • Originally posted by packers stem View Post

                Cadosch heard 'a voice' saying no .
                Not male nor female..... a voice.
                Five minutes later bearing in mind his walking to and from the toilet twice and time spent in there he heard nothing else other than something 'touch' the fence.
                No talking,no rustling of clothes ,no struggle, nothing.
                Doesn't sound like someone being attacked does it ?
                No it doesnít particularly but it didnít need to be.

                A more reasonable explanation would be that the Ďnoí was the point that the killer seized her and put his hand over her mouth so that she couldnít cry out further. Which would explain why there was no further noise until the sound of something brushing against the fence. The later noise was after she was dead. It could simply have been the killer brushing against the fence during the mutilations. Maybe he was changing his position to gain access?
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

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

                Comment


                • Originally posted by packers stem View Post

                  I donít understand the laugh.

                  Phillips admitted that he could have been wrong. Itís in black and white.

                  Plus Iíve responded to Eten.

                  Unlike you who has failed to respond to Samís #303 and my #587 which conclusively dismiss your digestion point.

                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

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

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    I donít understand the laugh.

                    Phillips admitted that he could have been wrong. Itís in black and white.

                    Plus Iíve responded to Eten.

                    Unlike you who has failed to respond to Samís #303 and my #587 which conclusively dismiss your digestion point.

                    Herlock
                    my lack of obsession at this thread such that I may miss a post may be alien to you but strange as it may appear I have other things going on in life .

                    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...B8lXvoyUT3okrf

                    Here's the link you couldn't be bothered to read the last time we discussed this same thing

                    whole lot of reading and charts but the basic important info was on page 2
                    In that ....

                    A light meal you can expect to digest in half an hour to two hours

                    and

                    that carbohydrates are the quickest to digest .

                    We know she ate a potato
                    We also know that a potato is a light meal and a carbohydrate

                    So you have light meal combined with carbohydrate = considerably less than two hours in all likelihood

                    You will make of it what you will

                    You may also spot the 30 minutes for fish in there ....
                    Bond's spotting of fish and potato with the naked eye was nothing short of miraculous
                    Last edited by packers stem; 08-29-2019, 09:55 PM.
                    You can lead a horse to water.....

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by packers stem View Post

                      There are many issues there.
                      Firstly you are taking a glance by a passer by who believed she saw two people who were unknown to her standing in the street ...... she then goes on to identify the body.
                      Now lets remember first that both Stride and Eddowes bodies were incorrectly identified by women who thought each were their sister .People struggle to identify bodies .
                      How many people you passed today could you identify right now if they were in a morgue?

                      Now here's the real quirk of ripperology and the underlying reason of why it never gets anywhere.
                      I'll bet that a number of commentators here will scream out loud that Caroline Maxwell and Maurice Lewis were mistaken after accepting Long and Cadosch ......... prove me wrong

                      Cadosch heard 'a voice' saying no .
                      Not male nor female..... a voice.
                      Five minutes later bearing in mind his walking to and from the toilet twice and time spent in there he heard nothing else other than something 'touch' the fence.
                      No talking,no rustling of clothes ,no struggle, nothing.
                      Doesn't sound like someone being attacked does it ?
                      Itís noticeable that your confidence in Dr Phillips appears to be selective:

                      [Coroner] In your opinion did she enter the yard alive? - I am positive of it. I made a thorough search of the passage, and I saw no trace of blood, which must have been visible had she been taken into the yard.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

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

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by packers stem View Post

                        Herlock
                        my lack of obsession at this thread such that I may miss a post may be alien to you but strange as it may appear I have other things going on in life .

                        https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...B8lXvoyUT3okrf

                        Here's the link you couldn't be bothered to read the last time we discussed this same thing
                        The link doesnít work.

                        The digestion argument has been disproved so we can move on.

                        Chapman was killed sometime after 5.20 where she was found.
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

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

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by packers stem View Post

                          There are many issues there.
                          Firstly you are taking a glance by a passer by who believed she saw two people who were unknown to her standing in the street ...... she then goes on to identify the body.
                          Now lets remember first that both Stride and Eddowes bodies were incorrectly identified by women who thought each were their sister .People struggle to identify bodies .
                          How many people you passed today could you identify right now if they were in a morgue?

                          Now here's the real quirk of ripperology and the underlying reason of why it never gets anywhere.
                          I'll bet that a number of commentators here will scream out loud that Caroline Maxwell and Maurice Lewis were mistaken after accepting Long and Cadosch ......... prove me wrong
                          That's an interesting comparison. Of course, each situation has different people involved and different evidence to weigh. Caroline knew Kelly a little and at 8.30 it was lighter than at 5.30, so she is less likely to be mistaken than Long. And yet the other evidence surrounding Kelly's death leads us to the inevitable conclusion that Caroline was wrong. Her evidence is at odds with what we know about when Kelly died. Maurice Lewis was also clearly wrong as his evidence is also in conflict with other evidence about Kelly's time of death. The difference with Long is that her evidence is in keeping with the other witnesses accounts and so is more likely to be correct. But you are right to point out how easily witnesses can be mistaken.

                          Originally posted by packers stem View Post
                          Cadosch heard 'a voice' saying no .
                          Not male nor female..... a voice.
                          Five minutes later bearing in mind his walking to and from the toilet twice and time spent in there he heard nothing else other than something 'touch' the fence.
                          No talking,no rustling of clothes ,no struggle, nothing.
                          Doesn't sound like someone being attacked does it ?
                          All the ripper murders were quiet, and there is no evidence that the victims fought back, caught abruptly unaware. But I take your point. It is odd that if he heard part of the murder - say the beginning if he heard a voice say no and the body drop, that he didn't hear clothes rustling etc... It would be interesting to know how good his hearing was. It is possible he heard the louder sounds but not the softer ones - but I have no idea if his hearing was good. I also do not know that the murderer would have made much noise - but surely some noise.



                          Comment


                          • https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...of-death/page5

                            Post 70 for Herlock's benefit
                            It's pretty clear that digestion isn't 'dismissed'
                            yes ,let's move on
                            Last edited by packers stem; 08-29-2019, 10:11 PM.
                            You can lead a horse to water.....

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                              That's an interesting comparison. Of course, each situation has different people involved and different evidence to weigh. Caroline knew Kelly a little and at 8.30 it was lighter than at 5.30, so she is less likely to be mistaken than Long. And yet the other evidence surrounding Kelly's death leads us to the inevitable conclusion that Caroline was wrong. Her evidence is at odds with what we know about when Kelly died. Maurice Lewis was also clearly wrong as his evidence is also in conflict with other evidence about Kelly's time of death. The difference with Long is that her evidence is in keeping with the other witnesses accounts and so is more likely to be correct. But you are right to point out how easily witnesses can be mistaken.



                              All the ripper murders were quiet, and there is no evidence that the victims fought back, caught abruptly unaware. But I take your point. It is odd that if he heard part of the murder - say the beginning if he heard a voice say no and the body drop, that he didn't hear clothes rustling etc... It would be interesting to know how good his hearing was. It is possible he heard the louder sounds but not the softer ones - but I have no idea if his hearing was good. I also do not know that the murderer would have made much noise - but surely some noise.


                              So pick and choose evidence to suit what you wish to believe happened?

                              Maxwell and Lewis are inconvenient, let's ignore.....ripperology at its finest
                              Last edited by packers stem; 08-29-2019, 10:14 PM.
                              You can lead a horse to water.....

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                Hi Eten.


                                Yes and no. If he was giving a proper answer to the coroner (based on current knowledge) he should have said that there are more variables to be taken into account, especially emaciation and ill health, which can accelerate cooling. Also, while the coldness of the night would certainly have been a factor, modern pathologists, I think, would say that blood loss would only have had minimal effect. I also think that his fundamentals were wrong. He shouldn't have taken 2 hours as his minimum starting point. He probably should have suggested a likely range of death having occurred between 1 and 4 hours previously based on the information he had available to him but without excluding times outside of this range. Or in other words, pretty useless for all practical purposes! But that's what the pathologists themselves say about their abilities. Francis Camps stated: "The best we can achieve is a reasoned guess taking into account all the known factors and our aim should be to limit the margin of error inherent in assessing the effect of these factors." So I'm rather dismissive of Phillips' belief in his ability to do what he was attempting to do while recognising at the same time that he did seem to accept that his estimate might have been wrong.
                                I take your point. Reading his testimony he comes across as unhelpful, hostile even - or perhaps pompous. It's hard to tell just from the written word, with no body language or tone. He was quick to point out the other people and facilities he was unhappy with. Maybe he had a point but his more useful answers were shorter than his complaints.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X