Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapman’s death.

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

  • Originally posted by packers stem View Post

    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
    No, that is not what I am saying. Its not picking and choosing, it is weighing up the wider evidence and coming to a conclusion on a case by case basis based on all the information we have. Sometimes the evidence supports the witness testimony and sometimes it proves it incorrect. It isn't black and white that all witness evidence is inaccurate or all witness evidence is accurate.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by packers stem View Post
      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
      It was dismissed. By Sam’s post #303 and my #587

      and in response to your quote above JG posted this.

      http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.c...-estimate.html

      In the conclusion part we have this quote:


      Dr. Jaffe correctly cautioned his readers about dangers of overinterpreting stomach contents as they relate to TOD.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes



      "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

      ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by packers stem View Post

        So pick and choose evidence to suit what you wish to believe happened?
        Do you mean like this?


        [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.

        It appears that when he estimated the TOD he exhibited a wizardry beyond his capability and yet when he was simply looking for physical clues to deduce whether the victim had been killed elsewhere he became Inspector Clouseau.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes



        "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

        ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          Do you mean like this?


          [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.

          It appears that when he estimated the TOD he exhibited a wizardry beyond his capability and yet when he was simply looking for physical clues to deduce whether the victim had been killed elsewhere he became Inspector Clouseau.
          We only have like buttons, I was looking for a button that denotes you made me smile.

          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

            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
            Just to put this point to bed...


            Did you actually read the paper you have linked to Packers?

            It makes clear that there are a huge number of variables so that "due to the variability in gastric emptying in different individuals we can not exactly define time since death" and, in particular that "Any illness or emotional stress, may prolong the emptying time for many hours". You are aware that Dr Phillips found that Chapman was in an advanced state of TB right? He said: "The deceased was far advanced in disease of the lungs and membranes of the brain" and "there were signs of great deprivation".

            This is why I have already cited the leading textbook of Simpson on Forensics (by Jason Payne James & co) which tells us that analysis of gastric contents "cannot reliably be used to determine time of death".


            There is a reason why experts are experts packers. They know what they are talking about.



            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes



            "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

            ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

            Comment


            • Dear me. Herlock Sholmes id flooding the boards with nonsense again. He is totally unable to see how his sandcastle has come crashing down long ago, and ridicules himself by posting one thing more bizarre than the other. I am not going to read it in its entirety ö- I don't have to. I can do what I have become accustomed to do - read ten seconds, and that will be enough for me to pick out examples of how he does not understand a syllable of what he is too. Here's a few nice examples:

              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...

              Once again (is it the nineteenth or the twentieth time now?): Phillips did NOT establish the time of death!!!

              He then carries on to say "..(i.e. by saying the person has been dead at least two hours).

              Of course, saying that a person has been dead for at least to hours is NOT "accurately and reliably establishing the time of death"! It is making a crude judgement, that allows the time of death to have been 2 hours, 2,5 hours, 3 hours, 3,5 hours, 4 hours.... BUT HERLOCK SHOLMES DOES NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO UNDERSTAND THIS!

              More of the same: Dr Phillips did not have a superpower which allowed him to assess degrees of warmth by touching.

              Do I really have to point it out again: Phillips never assessed any degrees of warmth, he noted that the body was COLD. That is not about any exact establishing of a temperature. It is not about saying "Her body had a core temperature of 18,2 degrees as I felt her. It is simply noting that she had grown cold to the touch! And Phillips would have felt thousands of bodies, so he had tremendous experience of doing the job. This will have been a very easy call to make.

              And this again: 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.

              Of course the warmth of the core is what you feel through the skin. The skin is insulated from the core and it grows cold much quicker than the core. We KNOW that the victorian medicos felt for warmth by touching the skin. We KNOW that warmth can be felt hours after death. We KNOW (grace a Herlocks OWN post about Seddon-Smith) that the skin WILL grow cold in no more than 20 minutes.
              So either the medico CAN feel the wrath of the body core through the cold skin, or no medico will ever be able to feel any warmth at all when touching a body that has been dead twenty minutes plus.

              This goes without saying, and the one truly bizarre thing around here is how Herlock fails to understand this.

              In the same school of "thinking": 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.

              Jason Payne-James. There, I mentioned him. And why wouldn't I? He has said nothing that in any way is in conflict with what I am saying. And how did you get Seddon-Smith backwards? Because you thought that he said that SOME peoples skin grow cold in ten to twenty minutes. He never said that, though. He said that ALL peoples skin grow cold in that space of time. And that does NOT mean that no person that has been dead for twenty minutes will give away any traces of warmth when a doctor feels for warmth. In fact, ALL people who have been dead for only twenty minutes WILL be quite warm to the touch.
              Now, Herlock, take a deep breath and try to explain this:
              IF EVERY PERSON WILL BE QUITE WARM TO THE TOUCH AFTER TWENTUY MINUTES, ALTHOUGH THEIR SKIN HAS GROWN COLD IN THAT TIME - WHAT WARMTH IS IT THAT CAN BE FELT: THAT OF THE SKIN OR THAT OF THE CORE?

              Llewellyn felt the upper arms of Polly Nichols, at the earliest around 30 minutes after she had died. I hope we may agree on that? Not that it matters, because it is a fact nevertheless. It is also a fact that - according to Seddon-Smith - that her SKIN would have been quite cold when this was performed, because Nichols had been dead for MORE than 20 minutes. So explain to me: The warmth Llewellyn felt, although the skin had grown cold - where did that come from? His imagination? Is this another example of how a doctor got it all wrong? Was in fact Nichols totally cold when Llewellyn felt her, and he only THOUGHT that he felt that she was quite warm over the elbows?

              The failure to understand this is indicative of Herlock Sholes reasoning on the whole. Strewn with accusations about how I would not understand and packed with misconceptions and poor understanding, this goes on, post after post of horse manure is disgracing the boards on his account. It really needs to end.

              It is this kind of reasoning that is crowned with the question he asks as a send-off in one of his sad posts:

              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?

              The answer is very simple to those who have even the smallest of understanding of the matter: because a body will never cool off that quick. 1 - 1,5 degrees per hour is the rate, and since there is a plateau the first half hour to an hour where the temperature does not drop at all (probably due to a chemical process that oxygenates the blood for some time after death, but that is a technical question we need not go into), a person that has only been dead for an hour simply cannot be cold. It is physically impossible.

              To ask the question as such is opening up the gateways to an abyss of ignorance.

              And there I leave it. It is a sad business by now, and I really cannot muster any will to read more of it.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                This is what Philips actually said at the inquest when asked about the time of death of Annie Chapman:



                So Fisherman is correct concerning Dr Philip's opinion. However to go on and say 'he never qualified his opinion' is not correct. While he implies rather than explicitly states, he is telling the court that the circumstances of weather and blood loss could have led to more rapid cooling than usual - which in turn means that his estimate of time of death is not reliable and the victim may have been dead for less time than he estimates.
                Ah, yes - he DOES qualify the statement, of course. He does so by telling the coroner that although it seems an easy case of more than two hours, the coolness means that he must nevertheless allow for that minimum time. That can of course be seen as a qualification!

                He never allowed for a second less than two hours, etenguy.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                  Philips gave a detailed account of the position of the body at the inquest (my bold).



                  If the head was 6" in front of the level of the bottom step and the feet were towards the shed and Richardson had been on the stairs where he said he was, the door could not have obscured the whole body. Therefore either Richardson is lying (maybe for a newspaper to pay for his story, or perhaps for five minutes of fame or for some other reason) or the body was not there when Richardson went into the yard. Chandler stated that if Richardson remained at the top of the stairs, he may have missed the body. Given the position of the body, this seems unlikely indeed, but Chandler was there and I was not. Nevertheless, Richardson states he came down the steps to sit and cut his boot - if this is true, he could not have missed Annie's body if it had been there.
                  Sorry, but that is of course wrong. All we can say is that although there is a possibility that he came down the stairs, and that coming down the stairs may have taken him so far out that he would have been able to see parts of the body IF he looked in that direction.

                  Then again, we know that he was not truthful about cutting the leather from his boot, so why would we believe any of the stuff connected to the story? And once again, even if he was sitting where he said he was, the door could still have obscured Chapman. Some will say "but then he must have sat down in an awkward way and he must have sat at an awkward angle", but you know what? People DO move in awkward ways and they DO sit in what some will call awkward angles! And they DO miss things that we would have thought they should have picked up. The process is totally mundane, even.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                    Indeed, but he wouldn't have gauged the intestinal temperature temperature "through the skin", as Herlock rightly pointed out.
                    Of course not! In that case, he would have put his hand in the abdominal cavity. And if he had not had that option, he would perhaps have said that she was quite cold. But we DO know from f ex Llewellyn's examination of Nichols that a medico was able to say that somebody was quite warm half an hour or more after death, by touching the skin!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by etenguy View Post
                      Taking all the statements of Philips, Long, Cadosch and Richardson, I reach the following conclusion based on the following assumptions:

                      Assumptions
                      1. None of the four witnesses lied at the Inquest.
                      2. Opinions, as opposed to observations, may or may not be correct.
                      3. Observations provided were the truth as far as the witness was concerned.

                      Conclusion
                      Annie Chapman was murdered at approximately 5.30am - hence:
                      Richardson did not see a body at 4.45am in the yard of 29 Hanbury street as it was not yet there
                      Cadosch did hear the murderer and victim some time around 5.30am
                      Long did see Chapman with a man at about 5.30am
                      Philips estimate was in line with his observations but he failed to allow for the effect of blood loss and coldness of the night as he alluded to himself in his testimony.

                      An earlier death relies on Long, Cadosch and Richardson all lying or being mistaken within the same general time frame (possible but most unlikely all 3 should concur with each other also).
                      I'm afraid blood loss and coldness will not make the temperature go away altogether, more or less, in an hour. Eddowes suffered a similar bloodloss and was subjected to colder temperatures that Chapman, and she was not in a protective recess when found. She was also a very thin woman. But she was QUITE WARM nevertheless, 45 minutes after being killed!
                      Contrary to what you say, it is quite evident that Phillips noted the low temperature, and he stated that this WOULD have cooled Chapman down quicker than in, say, room temperature. But it was in no way freezing cold and Chapman lay in a protecting recess, so if anything, Phillips will have been generous when he allowed for a two hour minimum. It should probably have been pushed up towards two and a half hours or more, and if the Eddowes case had been at hand, I have no doubt that it would have been.

                      We are dealing with physical realities here, etenguy, and those physical realities DO blow Long and Cadosch way out of the water. And likely Richardson too, with some substantial margin. The only reason they are still around is on account of Baxters misguided dabbling in the con artists business.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by packers stem View Post

                        There wasn't
                        There was a 'smear' on the fence
                        There were 6 tiny dots on the brickwork ,the largest being the size of a sixpence (a sixpence was a tiny silver coin ,much smaller than any coin we use today).
                        Hardly surprising if you were to throw a body to the ground with a slit throat
                        There are drawing of that smear, and it very much looks like arterial spray to me. Have a look. Plus, of course, the medicos agreed that she died on the spot, so in my world she was there from perhaps around 3.30 onwards.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          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."
                          The known factors:

                          She was cold to the touch, but for a certain remaining heat under the intestines. People who have grown cold have been dead for many hours, medicos normally cite that they have been gone for 4-6 hours.

                          She had started to develop rigor. Rigor normally sets in between 2-4 hours after death.

                          So how do we limit the margins of error? Oh, I know: we predispose that she had been dead for an hour only, and that the medico was way wrong, plus we make the guess that she managed to get into rigor in an hour only, or less.

                          That is how the margins of error are best limited.

                          Yes, Herlock, you really know how to put experts to good use, don't you?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                            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.
                            Phillips did not like Baxter one bit, and the feeling was mutual. That will have contributed to the chilly exchanges.

                            Comment


                            • There is a reason why experts are experts packers. They know what they are talking about.
                              Wow ARE YOU SERIOUS Herlock,, the experts also said that Oswald was the lone assassin in the JFK killing but we know 85% of Americans now believe the Warren Commission Report is not worth the paper its written on . ive got news for you, OSWALD WAS THE '' CONSPIRACY '' in case you haven't worked it out yet .

                              Experts can be wrong Herlock, after all their human too, they make mistakes just like the rest of us. The title of ''EXPERT'' doesn't make them infallible now does it ?.

                              My apologies to other posters for going off topic to make a point .

                              I feel a long winded drawn out meaningless reply coming on .

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                                Wow ARE YOU SERIOUS Herlock,, the experts also said that Oswald was the lone assassin in the JFK killing but we know 85% of Americans now believe the Warren Commission Report is not worth the paper its written on . ive got news for you, OSWALD WAS THE '' CONSPIRACY '' in case you haven't worked it out yet .

                                The Fact that you can even make that analogy says it all. The ‘public’ will believe anything. They are drawn to conspiracies. I’m talking about scientific experts not me or you or Fish.

                                Experts can be wrong Herlock, after all their human too, they make mistakes just like the rest of us. The title of ''EXPERT'' doesn't make them infallible now does it ?.

                                The highest guarantee for accuracy that humans have achieved is in science. For Phillips to have been accurate in 1888 every single forensic expert that has written anything since would have to be wrong. Every single one. You’re comments are a joke as ever.

                                My apologies to other posters for going off topic to make a point .

                                You should apologise for simply wasting everyones time with your desperately biased posts.

                                I feel a long winded drawn out meaningless reply coming on .

                                What? Do you mean a categorical, Fact based shredding of every piece of dishonest, ant-scientific drivel that Fish can come up with.

                                Phillips couldn’t have done what you biased posters want him to have done. Your bubble has been burst. All that you and Fish are coming up with is white noise!
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                                "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                                ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X