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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Wrong of course.
    And there he is in that corner, bitterly mumbling away: 5.25, 5.25, 5.25...

    Just like I said.

    Bye, Herlock.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

      You do realize that these sentences taken together mean that the witnesses CANNOT have been wrong or lying?

      Wow. What a whopper! I wasn't aware that you were that desperate!

      I will leave you to it. Try and get out and catch some fresh air and get a bite to eat every now and then, Herlock.
      Another deliberate misuse of the English language by you. How many more can you come up with?

      We know that we can dismiss Phillips as unreliable because the methods that he was employing were inaccurate. Even he admitted that he could have been wrong. It’s in black and white but again you use some weird version of the language to achieve a bit of convenient shoehorning.

      The witnesses could have been wrong or lying. I’ve never said that it was impossible. What I’m saying is that they cannot be dismissed in favour of a Victorian Doctor using unreliable methods. A moderately intelligent toddler could understand the difference.

      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

        And there he is in that corner, bitterly mumbling away: 5.25, 5.25, 5.25...

        Just like I said.

        Bye, Herlock.
        Im genuinely saddened that you can keep stooping so low.

        Shame on you Fish.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          Im genuinely saddened that you can keep stooping so low.

          Shame on you Fish.
          I think that before you start speaking about ME "stooping low", you may need to look at your own posts, like this one, for example:

          "You have altered words to deceive everyone into believing what you post.

          You have added words/changed words in my posts to deceive everyone into believing what you post.

          You have cynically and quite deliberately edited out crucial parts of a post (remember the cut throat) to deceive everyone into believing what you post.

          You have made a childish errors (like the examination) and had to have an admission of this dragged out of you.

          You have deliberately misinterpreted quotes to suit and have been exposed.

          You have seen sourced quote after sourced quote from acknowledged expert after acknowledged expert after acknowledged expert that all back up my points without fail and yet you still persist purely out of a desperate attempt to bolster Phillips to prop up Lechmere as a candidate.

          You are like one of those drunks that keeps getting knocked down yet you keep coming back for more.

          You are flat flat out wrong on this issue and the worst part of it is that I’m utterly convinced that you know this too!"


          And I am the one who should be ashamed? Isn't that a tad rich?

          Once you post something like that, you give up any right you could possibly have to criticize me for stooping low.

          You have a problem now - you need to explain how Henssges method can lead to a TOD around 2.30-3.30 for Chapman, when you are sure that it must have been 5.25 at the earliest.

          I´m afraid that is what you are stuck with, and I don't envy you.

          Suggestion: Instead of gabbing on about me as a person and trying to come up with useful insults, you try to solve the Henssge enigma instead. You can begin by reading up on him, and why his method is regarded as superior to any other method. You have the link, I provided it!

          PS. I only just noticed that you, in your post right before the one where you claim that I stoop low and need to be ashamed, pointed to me as less able to comprehend things than a moderately intelligent toddler! Bravo!

          Why not tell it as it is? You insult me and I insult you, only I do it in much more style. Not that it matters any longer, thanks to Henssge.

          Actually, I am appropriately off to a party now, so I won't be there to comfort you the next few hours. Find another shoulder to cry out on, that's my advice.
          Last edited by Fisherman; 08-31-2019, 02:10 PM.

          Comment


          • Have a nice party Fish!

            It is a mission completed now.


            The Baron

            Comment


            • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
              Have a nice party Fish!

              It is a mission completed now.


              The Baron
              On the Druitt thread you sat on Trevor’s shoulder like a parrot with Tourette’s now your are doing the same with Fish.

              I await the day when you have a meaningful thought of your own.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                Suggestion: Instead of gabbing on about me as a person and trying to come up with useful insults, you try to solve the Henssge enigma instead. You can begin by reading up on him, and why his method is regarded as superior to any other method. You have the link, I provided it!
                Hi Fisherman. All models for estimating TOD based on temperature of the body are considered unreliable by the Royal College of Pathologists in the UK as well as the UK regulator for forensic pathologists. This was codified into guidance for all forensic pathologists in 2018. They provide their reasons in their guidance, which you can read if you wish by following my link in post 672.

                Also, even if we disagree with the Royal College (who are made up of the majority of pathologists in the UK) and the UK regulator on this point, Phillips did not use a sophisticated temperature based model for estimating TOD - he simply said she felt cold and so died at least two hours ago. Not compelling even on its own terms.

                Now, the fact that I (and others) find it hard to argue against the professional body for forensic scientists and therefore find we can place no reliance on Phillip's estimate for TOD does not mean we know the TOD. If we find the witness statements combine to be compelling, we would come to an estimate of around 5.30am, if not, we are no closer to knowing what time she was murdered.



                Comment


                • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                  Hi Fisherman. All models for estimating TOD based on temperature of the body are considered unreliable by the Royal College of Pathologists in the UK as well as the UK regulator for forensic pathologists. This was codified into guidance for all forensic pathologists in 2018. They provide their reasons in their guidance, which you can read if you wish by following my link in post 672.

                  Also, even if we disagree with the Royal College (who are made up of the majority of pathologists in the UK) and the UK regulator on this point, Phillips did not use a sophisticated temperature based model for estimating TOD - he simply said she felt cold and so died at least two hours ago. Not compelling even on its own terms.

                  Now, the fact that I (and others) find it hard to argue against the professional body for forensic scientists and therefore find we can place no reliance on Phillip's estimate for TOD does not mean we know the TOD. If we find the witness statements combine to be compelling, we would come to an estimate of around 5.30am, if not, we are no closer to knowing what time she was murdered.


                  An excellent, calm, reasoned and logical post.
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    An excellent, calm, reasoned and logical post.
                    Thank you, but this post is all about my opinion.

                    My opinion (not fact) concerning the three witness statements of Long, Cadosch and Richardson.

                    1. Long - on it's own her statement is unreliable. She could easily have made a mistake about who she saw. I prefer not to suggest she deliberately lied, both because there is no evidence to suggest she lied and I can find no compelling reason for her to lie beyond attention seeking, which would be mere supposition.

                    2. Cadosch - the hearing of the word 'no' is not compelling since Cadosch was not sure what he heard and he was also not sure where the sound originated. The noise against the fence he heard is more interesting. He was sure it came from the yard of number 29. It is not likely someone other than the murder victim and murderer would have made such a noise unless Chapman's body was not yet in the yard. I infer from that that the noise was part of Chapman's murder or she had not yet been murdered. Again, as with Long, I am not inclined to believe he was lying for the same reasons as for Long.

                    3. Richardson - his inquest statement is compelling and based on that I would conclude Chapman was killed some time after 4.45am. However, there is doubt since Chandler's account of Richardson's statement taken on the night of the murder is different. Chandler states Richardson told him he did not descend the steps into the yard. This is not an omission it is a discrepancy. This casts doubt on what actually happened and whether Richardson was in a position to see Chapman's body if it was there.

                    Taken together, the three statements suggest Chapman was killed at around 5.30am and it would be an odd coincidence that three mistaken testimonies would dove-tail to a potential single narrative. We can by no means be certain, but the witnesses taken together (despite their individual unreliability) does on balance suggest death occurred at around 5.30am.

                    With regards to Lechmere, this does not rule him out as murderer. He should have been at work, and what a good alibi to have if he chose to leave work unnoticed to commit the crime.

                    Comment


                    • And now, after the dust settled down, with Fisherman's last achievement, we can safely say, we have reached


                      The End of an Era


                      The era of darkness, of blindly believing anything a witness may say, we managed, thanks Fish, to see, for the first time in the history of Jack the ripper investigations, through the chaos, depending on science and logic, the most rational and powerful method to establish the real time frame of Chapmans death.


                      We have to thank Fisherman for his hard work that brought us to those new areas of wisdom and illumination.



                      The Baron

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
                        We have to thank Fisherman for his hard work that brought us to those new areas of wisdom and illumination.
                        The Baron
                        I have a great respect for Fisherman. He is extremely knowledgeable about these crimes and has conducted much useful research, especially in relation to the possibility of Lechmere being the Ripper. He usually posts cogent arguments and is happy to enter into passionate debate. I find it unfortunate that he and Herlock (who I also respect greatly for similar reasons) are at such loggerheads in this thread, but that I think is not too surprising given the different views they hold.

                        However, Fisherman is not infallible, and for him to argue that Phillip's estimate of TOD should be relied upon in the face of great opposition to this by the profession itself seems a pointless argument. While I would, and often do, concede to his superior knowledge on most ripper related threads I have met him on, in this particular case I find the scientific experts more convincing.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
                          And now, after the dust settled down, with Fisherman's last achievement, we can safely say, we have reached


                          The End of an Era


                          The era of darkness, of blindly believing anything a witness may say, we managed, thanks Fish, to see, for the first time in the history of Jack the ripper investigations, through the chaos, depending on science and logic, the most rational and powerful method to establish the real time frame of Chapmans death.


                          We have to thank Fisherman for his hard work that brought us to those new areas of wisdom and illumination.



                          The Baron
                          What a waste of space.

                          Look below as yet again I wipe out one of Fish’s pointless arguments.
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                            Thank you, but this post is all about my opinion.

                            My opinion (not fact) concerning the three witness statements of Long, Cadosch and Richardson.

                            1. Long - on it's own her statement is unreliable. She could easily have made a mistake about who she saw. I prefer not to suggest she deliberately lied, both because there is no evidence to suggest she lied and I can find no compelling reason for her to lie beyond attention seeking, which would be mere supposition.

                            2. Cadosch - the hearing of the word 'no' is not compelling since Cadosch was not sure what he heard and he was also not sure where the sound originated. The noise against the fence he heard is more interesting. He was sure it came from the yard of number 29. It is not likely someone other than the murder victim and murderer would have made such a noise unless Chapman's body was not yet in the yard. I infer from that that the noise was part of Chapman's murder or she had not yet been murdered. Again, as with Long, I am not inclined to believe he was lying for the same reasons as for Long.

                            3. Richardson - his inquest statement is compelling and based on that I would conclude Chapman was killed some time after 4.45am. However, there is doubt since Chandler's account of Richardson's statement taken on the night of the murder is different. Chandler states Richardson told him he did not descend the steps into the yard. This is not an omission it is a discrepancy. This casts doubt on what actually happened and whether Richardson was in a position to see Chapman's body if it was there.

                            Taken together, the three statements suggest Chapman was killed at around 5.30am and it would be an odd coincidence that three mistaken testimonies would dove-tail to a potential single narrative. We can by no means be certain, but the witnesses taken together (despite their individual unreliability) does on balance suggest death occurred at around 5.30am.

                            With regards to Lechmere, this does not rule him out as murderer. He should have been at work, and what a good alibi to have if he chose to leave work unnoticed to commit the crime.
                            Fish says:


                            '"You have a problem now - you need to explain how Henssges method can lead to a TOD around 2.30-3.30 for Chapman, when you are sure that it must have been 5.25 at the earliest."


                            Simple response:


                            The Henssges method leads to a TOD of 2.30-3.30 to Chapman? Sorry, Fish, I must have missed that one.


                            But, of course, it's impossible. You can't use the Henssges method without having a rectal temperature reading for Chapman. We don't have one!


                            So how does the Henssges method cause me any kind of problem? Err...it doesn’t.


                            But if we wrongly assume that we can guess Chapman's temperature at death as 37.2 deg C and we randomly assume a rectal temperature at 6.30am of 36.2 deg C, that's going to lead to a TOD based on the Henssges method of 5.30am (using your own figures of 9 deg C ambient temperature, weight of 45kg, with an empiric correction factor of 0.75, and not even factoring in that Chapman was suffering from TB and was severely undernourished).


                            So where does that get us? As Phillips never took the rectal (core) temperature how do we know it wasn't 36.2 deg at 6.30am?


                            All he felt was the skin temperature. We know that the skin is insulated from the core and will be cold in 10-20 minutes post mortem. So she could easily have felt cold on the surface while retaining most of her core temperature.


                            I don't seem to have any kind of problem here.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              You can't use the Henssges method without having a rectal temperature reading for Chapman. We don't have one!
                              Bummer.
                              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                                Now the thud of the supposed body of Chapman hitting the fence at 5.26 could also irreverent could it not.
                                Cadosche is alleged to have stated at the hearing "....…. that on the morning of 8th September 1888, he got up at 5.15am and went into the yard, presumably to relieve himself. On going back to the house, he heard a voice say "No!" from behind the fence which divided the backyards of Nos.27 and 29 Hanbury Street. A few minutes later, he needed to use the yard again, whereupon he heard something touch the fence from the other side. His suspicions were not aroused as he had occasionally heard people in the yard of No.29 at that time of the morning. He did not hear the rustling of clothes and he did not look to see what was causing the noises."

                                Cadosche said he could hear things from the backyard in 29, why couldn't he determine on that day where that call came from at 5:15-5:20? Mrs Long is irrelevant, Phillips estimate is irrelevant based on a few factors including both Cadosche and Richardson, and no amount of blue faced breath holding will change that.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X