Chapman’s death.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Would it have contributed to Phillips admitting that he could have been wrong too?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

More dishonesty. Fish twists the language to suit. Yet another sign of a man whistling in the dark.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Of course you won’t respond fully because your argument lies in tatters. I’ll respond later on. I keep having to waste my time rebutting the drivel of someone so hopelessly and irrevocably biased that he’ll twist logic, misquote science, selectively quote.

Fish stand stubbornly against the entirety of Forensic medical authority.


Have we all noticed something about the more regular posters on here ?

Myself, Fisherman, Sam, HarryD, Fishy, Etenguy, Packers Stem and The Baron.

Those that believe Phillips wrong.

Myself - I believe Druitt is the likeliest of the known suspects but I certainly don’t say that he was the ripper. Chapman’s TOD has no bearing on Druitt’s guilt or innocence.

Sam - I haven’t known Sam push a particular suspect or theory.

HarryD - Ditto

Etenguy - Ditto

Those that believe Phillips correct.

Fisherman - Promotes Lechmere and would much prefer this murder to have taken place before Lech got to work at 4am.

Fishy - Supports Knight/Sickert. Needs Chapman killed elsewhere and in the dark so that they’d have had more chance of carrying a body in public unseen.

Packers Stem - Also believes that Chapman was killed elsewhere.

The Baron - Simply argues anything that opposes me.


Anyone notice a pattern?

Those that support Phillips need him to be correct.

Coincidence......I think not.

[FISHY1118]

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
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!rest of us. The title of ''EXPERT'' doesn't make them infallible now does it ?.

Right on cue, just as suspected. A long winded useless post as always from Herlock. You've lost the arguments where Chapman and Phillips are concerned . Fisherman has seen to that ,pack it up and move on and stop trying to convince people that L.C.R is the only possibility for the Chapman murder because its just not true ,and your just deceiving people if you continue this farce.

[Fisherman]

Would it have contributed to Phillips admitting that he could have been wrong too?

Phillips never admitted such a thing, and he actually could not have been that wrong in the first place. It is a physical impossibility.

[Fisherman]

More dishonesty. Fish twists the language to suit. Yet another sign of a man whistling in the dark.

I think, Herlock, that most readers by now are very aware about who is twisting Phillips wording and who is not. And I agree that if it is a conscious twisting it is dishonesty.

[Fisherman]

Of course you won’t respond fully because your argument lies in tatters. I’ll respond later on. I keep having to waste my time rebutting the drivel of someone so hopelessly and irrevocably biased that he’ll twist logic, misquote science, selectively quote.

Fish stand stubbornly against the entirety of Forensic medical authority.


Have we all noticed something about the more regular posters on here ?

Myself, Fisherman, Sam, HarryD, Fishy, Etenguy, Packers Stem and The Baron.

Those that believe Phillips wrong.

Myself - I believe Druitt is the likeliest of the known suspects but I certainly don’t say that he was the ripper. Chapman’s TOD has no bearing on Druitt’s guilt or innocence.

Sam - I haven’t known Sam push a particular suspect or theory.

HarryD - Ditto

Etenguy - Ditto

Those that believe Phillips correct.

Fisherman - Promotes Lechmere and would much prefer this murder to have taken place before Lech got to work at 4am.

Fishy - Supports Knight/Sickert. Needs Chapman killed elsewhere and in the dark so that they’d have had more chance of carrying a body in public unseen.

Packers Stem - Also believes that Chapman was killed elsewhere.

The Baron - Simply argues anything that opposes me.


Anyone notice a pattern?

Those that support Phillips need him to be correct.

Coincidence......I think not.

I am not sure how you can claim that you have the entire world of science on your side in one sentence and then claim that the right side of a body is likely to grow cold slower than the left one. Nor do I see how that fraternity between you and science can result in a supposition that Eddowes did not loose as much blood as Chapman did. And the liasion really should not lead you to conclude that core temperature cannot be felt through the skin. But at any rate, it is entertaining when somebody who cannot tell cold from warm aspires to be the champion of all things scientific!

You, Sir, is somebody who anybody interested in correct interpretations of matters of science would not touch with a ten foot pole. You are the epitome of the inability to understand science. The foremost example of this - and God knows there is an ocean of contenders to choose from! - was when you asked the question why a body cannot grow cold in an hour only.

You cannot ask that kind of a question. and mention the word science on the same boards without subjecting yourself to ridicule, I'm afraid. It tells the whole story, and nothing more can be asked for on my behalf. It is entertaining, a good laugh and evidence of your shortcomings to understand the matter at Han, packed into one generous gift.

And that applies REGARDLESS of whether I support Lechmere or not. Ignorance is ignorance, and it does not brighten up because the one who points to it has a suspect.

[Fisherman]

Right on cue, just as suspected. A long winded useless post as always from Herlock. You've lost the arguments where Chapman and Phillips are concerned . Fisherman has seen to that ,pack it up and move on and stop trying to convince people that L.C.R is the only possibility for the Chapman murder because its just not true ,and your just deceiving people if you continue this farce.

Actually, I´d say he is not only deceiving people, he is also amusing us to quite an extent.

In my darkest moments, I ask myself whether he actually believes in what he is saying. But then darkness subsides, the fog is swept aside, daylight sneaks in and I tell myself that such a thing cannot be even remotely possible.

[Harry D]

All I've learned from this thread is that you all suck at using the quote function.

[Lipsky]

All I've learned from this thread is that you all suck at using the quote function.

Quoted! :P

I fail to grasp the reason for extending this "rectal" discussion so much!
As if the suspects' list wasnt already filled with exotic moustache-sporting emigrees, now we need to implicate those who actually discovered the body?
Fitting with serial killers' profiling, our man wouldnt (and indeed, didnt) inject himself into police investigation, by becoming a "body-discoverer" -- or a witness.
The only (self-proclaimed) witness who had (some) awareness of what was going on and is a shady character, was Hutch.
Chapman's body's discoverer, whoever it may have been debated to be, are safely presumed innocent.

[Fisherman]

Quoted! :P

I fail to grasp the reason for extending this "rectal" discussion so much!
As if the suspects' list wasnt already filled with exotic moustache-sporting emigrees, now we need to implicate those who actually discovered the body?
Fitting with serial killers' profiling, our man wouldnt (and indeed, didnt) inject himself into police investigation, by becoming a "body-discoverer" -- or a witness.
The only (self-proclaimed) witness who had (some) awareness of what was going on and is a shady character, was Hutch.
Chapman's body's discoverer, whoever it may have been debated to be, are safely presumed innocent.

It was John Davidson, and I do think he was very innocent.

I also believe Long, Cadosch and Richardson were quite innocent - of murder. Whether they were innocent of falsely reporting things that never happened is another matter, and it is not as if we lack evidence that these kinds of things happened a plenty in the ripper case - as indeed is likely in the extreme to happen in any high profile serial killer case over time.

What is less innocent is claiming that there is a profiling of serial killers that prevent them from interjecting themselves into the police investigations, because we know that many have done so. It is in perfect line with the true observation that many serialists are also narcissists.

You seem to be able to tell that Hutchinson was a "shady" character whereas Charles Lechmere was not. I admire that ability and I would dearly liked to have it myself, but alas, I don't. I do, however, know that Russel Williams, John Eric Armstrong, Robert Yates and many other serial killers were not regarded as any shady characters by people who knew them. So maybe that isn't the best possible decider. Just saying.

[Fisherman]

All I've learned from this thread is that you all suck at using the quote function.

Then you have not read it carefully enough.

[Fisherman]

One thing that we can learn from what has been established is that the average time for the temperature drop in a dead body is somewhere around 1-1,5 degrees Celsius per hour.
Another thing we have learnt is that there is a temperature plateau directly after death, meaning that the temperature will n ot start dropping at all until after between half an hour and an hour.

Piecing these matters together, we can work from the assumption that Annie Chapman would have had a normal temperature walking into the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street. That means that she would have had a temperature of around 37 degrees Celsius. If she was sick, that temperature can have been much higher, but we really should not predispose that it was. The clever and correct thing to to is to opt for the mean temperature of 37 degrees Celsius.

That means that if she died at 5.30, then her temperature should have dropped by 1-1,5 degrees Celsius during that hour.

However, since there is a plateau of between half an hour and an hour during which the temperature does NOT drop, we must count that factor in.

Kets say that the drop started at the earliest possible time: after half an hour.

That would mean that the temperature should drop - at the most - half of one and a half degree Celsius, meaning 0,75 degrees Celsius.

If I am generous, I will say that she cooled off a lot quicker than most do, so let's make it an even 1,0 degrees.

That takes us to 36 degrees Celsius in her body at 5.30.

If there is no generosity offered, we opt for a full plateau hour, and no decrease at all in body temperature. That means that she would have been 37 degrees Celsius when found.

So the span is 36-37 degrees Celsius. And the idea that is entertained by some out here is that Phillips would not be able to feel this, that he would instead mistake it for Chapman being totally cold, but for a little remaining heat under the intestines in the abdominal cavity.

Why are we discussing this at all? It is a non-issue. Long and Cadosch were ushered out by the victorian police, and rightfully so. Richardson went the same way for the same very good reasons.

It is a done deal, regardless of how many unrealistic ripperologists are crying their eyes out.

[Fisherman]

Here is a quick manual speaking about what temperatures can be expected in dead people:

Algor Mortis - refers to the change of temperature that occurs after death due to the lack of energy.

• 98.6 degrees F (37 degrees C) - normal body temperature
• Warm to the touch up to 3 hours after death
• Around 4 to 6 hrs – cool to the touch
• After 24 hrs – temp of the external environment.

Note how 4-6 hours is - as I have pointed out before - the period where a dead body will start to feel cool. Also note how we are warm to the touch for up to three hours. Further note how all of this jibes perfectly with Phillips statement and how we can see that he allowed for a whole lot in terms of quick cooling off. After two hours, we should still be warm to the touch, and Chapman was not, but since it was a cold night, Phillips offered an absolute possible minimum of two hours. She FELT like somebody who had been dead for 4-6 hours, though, and therefore Phillips sensibly added that it would in all probability be MORE than two hours.

It really is a total no-brainer. There is no way that Chapman can have become all cold (but for that remaining heat that could only be sensed by putting the hands inside her abdominal cavity) in an hour only. It is way beyond the possibilities offered by the laws of physics.

Of all the people in the whole investigation, the fewest have done more damage to the case than Long, Cadosch, Richardson and Baxter.

[Ozzy]

All I've learned from this thread is that you all suck at using the quote function.

Tell me about it.
There are often (like - all the bloody time actually) threads on this forum with posts that I want to read but I can't because I just can't work out if the poster is saying something themselves or quoting.
What I mean is I can't work out if the poster is quoting or saying something themselves. Then sometimes the same poster will change how they quote. In some posts they quote by using bold (why?) and then a couple of days later I read another post by the same person where they quote using italic (again why?).
Then you get the posts which are all in bold. Why? If you make you're whole post in bold, you might as well just forget using bold. The reason to use bold is to make certain words/sentences stand out to the rest of your post. With a whole post in bold you defeat the reason of why you should use bold.
Now I know some people are not up to scratch with computers, let alone how often software like forum software such as vbulletin change, but you can preview your post before posting it. I'm not sure if it still exists but I'm sure there used to be a test forum here as well. I know some other forums have a test area.