Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapmanís death.

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

  • I have decided to look deeper into this business, and therefore I will not participate in the discussion until further notice. Before I leave, let's see where we stand, the way I see things:

    1. It is less likely that Phillips could not tell that Chapman was warm if she was only one hour dead, than it is that he COULD do so. I don't think anybody would disagree with that (but I am always prepared to be surprised, mind you), but the more important question is just HOW much more likely is that he could tell cold from war, than that he could not. My own stance is that he could do it with ease, and that no body dead for an hour only could offer circumstances that would make him run any real risk of getting that wrong.

    2. It is less likely than not that rigor had set in after an hour only, because rigor normally seems in between 2-4 hours after death, and heat is normally regarded as the most important factor in the process. Not heat, no quick onset of rigor, and putting a dead body in a refrigerator will slow the process down and can even halt it.

    3. These two points reinforce each other. The likelihood of two factors deviating from the normal will always be less than just the one factor doing so.

    4. The fact that a death around 3.30 and in darkness is in line with the other weekday slayings while a TOD at 5.30 is not so must speak in favour of the former being the better bet, all other parameters unregarded.

    5. Taken together with points 1 and 2, we get a nigh on watertight case for all things having been what they seemed to be as per Phillips, the way I see things.

    6. The likelihood of Steve claiming that I do not have proper enough knowledge to speak about matters medical is much larger than the likelihood that he will not do so.

    That is how it stands as I leave the debate and Casebook for some time now. When I come back, I will have more to say in the errand, and I will try to find a few more useful anchoring points.

    Comment


    • I think that the only thing we can conclude when using Cadosches statement, and Richardsons, is that someone was very alive in the yard in 29 at almost 5:30am. That is not compatible with a theory that has Annie already dead in that same spot, as some would have it, for hours. Drs are human, humans make errors, and the last time Phillips had to estimate a TOD on a corpse that was outside in cool air and disemboweled was...well, never. The evidence on the fence says her artery was cut on that spot, so she wasn't brought there dead. This isn't a big a deal as its being made. Annie was taken into that yard after Richardson went back in, she softly called out "no" around 5:15, and at around 5:20, something made a thud on the 29 side of the fence. She was likely choked. She fell against the fence when she lost consciousness. Then her throat was cut, where she lay. John Davis finds her just before 6am. That's the story, she was killed there, after 5:15, and Mrs Long did not see Annie alive at 5:30.

      Not that hard to follow.
      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • You know I rarely call in to this forum very much these days, it's not a patch on the way things used to be. Having had a somewhat lengthy perusal of the various threads I'm under the impression that I have indeed wanderered into the best little whorehouse in Texas. There's hair flying all over the place in here. Oh dear!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
          I have decided to look deeper into this business, and therefore I will not participate in the discussion until further notice. Before I leave, let's see where we stand, the way I see things:

          1. It is less likely that Phillips could not tell that Chapman was warm if she was only one hour dead, than it is that he COULD do so. I don't think anybody would disagree with that (but I am always prepared to be surprised, mind you), but the more important question is just HOW much more likely is that he could tell cold from war, than that he could not. My own stance is that he could do it with ease, and that no body dead for an hour only could offer circumstances that would make him run any real risk of getting that wrong.

          2. It is less likely than not that rigor had set in after an hour only, because rigor normally seems in between 2-4 hours after death, and heat is normally regarded as the most important factor in the process. Not heat, no quick onset of rigor, and putting a dead body in a refrigerator will slow the process down and can even halt it.

          3. These two points reinforce each other. The likelihood of two factors deviating from the normal will always be less than just the one factor doing so.

          4. The fact that a death around 3.30 and in darkness is in line with the other weekday slayings while a TOD at 5.30 is not so must speak in favour of the former being the better bet, all other parameters unregarded.

          5. Taken together with points 1 and 2, we get a nigh on watertight case for all things having been what they seemed to be as per Phillips, the way I see things.

          6. The likelihood of Steve claiming that I do not have proper enough knowledge to speak about matters medical is much larger than the likelihood that he will not do so.

          That is how it stands as I leave the debate and Casebook for some time now. When I come back, I will have more to say in the errand, and I will try to find a few more useful anchoring points.


          I have decided to look deeper into this business

          It's about time! Don't you think it would have been better to do it at the start of this discussion rather than try and bluff your way through it?



          It is less likely that Phillips could not tell that Chapman was warm if she was only one hour dead, than it is that he COULD do so. I don't think anybody would disagree with that (but I am always prepared to be surprised, mind you),

          Prepare to be surprised. You haven't provided a source for this statement, therefore it is something you've just made it up off the top of your head, therefore it is twaddle.



          but the more important question is just HOW much more likely is that he could tell cold from war, than that he could not. My own stance is that he could do it with ease, and that no body dead for an hour only could offer circumstances that would make him run any real risk of getting that wrong

          Your so-called 'stance' is based on nothing more than voodoo superstition. It has nothing to do with science.



          It is less likely than not that rigor had set in after an hour only, because rigor normally seems in between 2-4 hours after death, and heat is normally regarded as the most important factor in the process. Not heat, no quick onset of rigor, and putting a dead body in a refrigerator will slow the process down and can even halt it.

          Except that a number of forensic scientists have been cited in this very thread saying that rigor sets in between one and three hours after death, which you have ignored every time. You've also ignored the fact that rigor can be accelerated by (1) wasting diseases such as TB and (2) in violent deaths such as cut throats. This information, you may recall, came from an academic paper based on the conclusions of experts in forensic pathology, normally regarded as "the most important factor in the process" of understanding time of death.



          These two points reinforce each other. The likelihood of two factors deviating from the normal will always be less than just the one factor doing so.

          Just twaddle. No scientific basis for it.



          The fact that a death around 3.30 and in darkness is in line with the other weekday slayings while a TOD at 5.30 is not so must speak in favour of the former being the better bet, all other parameters unregarded.

          "The better bet"??? This isn't the 4.15 from Kempton Park, Fisherman. We are not in the bookies having a flutter. A wrong estimate of time of death in the 1880s would potentially have seen an innocent man hanged. This is supposed to be about science, not gambling.



          Taken together with points 1 and 2, we get a nigh on watertight case for all things having been what they seemed to be as per Phillips, the way I see things

          So from four points of utter twaddle, you have managed to get the answer you want in the face of every single expert on forensic pathology telling us that Dr Phillips could not possibly, in any way, have estimated a reliable time of death in the way he did it. And you call THAT a "watertight case"? If the rest of your case against Lechmere is as 'watertight' as this, it is already sunk.



          The likelihood of Steve claiming that I do not have proper enough knowledge to speak about matters medical is much larger than the likelihood that he will not do so.

          You don't seem to have any knowledge of medical matters, as this thread has proved. All you seem to know about is plastic bags and bread rolls!



          That is how it stands as I leave the debate and Casebook for some time now. When I come back, I will have more to say in the errand, and I will try to find a few more useful anchoring points.

          Goodbye then. Sorry you haven't been able to find a single bit of evidence to support your argument so far.

          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 Observer View Post
            You know I rarely call in to this forum very much these days, it's not a patch on the way things used to be. Having had a somewhat lengthy perusal of the various threads I'm under the impression that I have indeed wanderered into the best little whorehouse in Texas. There's hair flying all over the place in here. Oh dear!
            Things were always better in the good old days.
            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

              Things were always better in the good old days.
              They were with regards to this forum. You wouldn't know that,that's for sure.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                If

                what else? , not who else, thats more the question.
                No, it's not.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  Welcome to the rabbit hole Paul.
                  Just passing by.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Observer View Post

                    They were with regards to this forum. You wouldn't know that,that's for sure.
                    And of course this drop in standards is down to me? I sometimes wonder if you and The Baron are related? Neither of you post very often but when you do you always home in specifically on threads where Iím posting to make posts directed at me. If I was of a more paranoid persuasion I might be tempted to check under my bed.
                    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 of course this drop in standards is down to me?
                      You said it.

                      Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                      I sometimes wonder if you and The Baron are related? Neither of you post very often but when you do you always home in specifically on threads where Iím posting to make posts directed at me. If I was of a more paranoid persuasion I might be tempted to check under my bed.
                      I homed in on this thread because it was the most vitriolic of all the threads being discussed. That's it. If you notice I suggested that there was hair flying everywhere, implying that several posters were engaged in handbags at five paces. Perhaps you are paranoid.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                        The problem is, as I have pointed out, double: You have to drop way too much and quickly from an initial extremely low temperature to reach the kind of temperatures we would need. And that does not happen. Also, a dead person will not drop at all during the first half hour to one hour - we stay at a plateau during that initial stage, the temperature remaining constant! Lastly, if Chapman defied all the laws of nature and differed totally from Nichols, Stride and Eddowes (who all lived under small circumstances and were not well fed and fat) and grew cold in a jiffy, then why is it that she has onsetting rigor after an hour only? Rigor is heat-conducted, so when you cool somebody, rigor will not commence until late in the process.

                        How do you make all of these factors work, John? How on earth could Phillips, after having stuck his hands INSIDE Chapmans body, NOT be correct in saying that she was cold? And how can a woman described as c8old have been dead for an hour only, when we KNOW that we retain temperature for AT LEAST half an hour and very possibly a whole hour too?

                        It happens? A coincidence? A lucky fluke? Phillips could not tell the difference between cold and warm? Yes, if we factor in outrageous numbers into the Henssge method, we will arrive at outrageous conclusions. Let's not do that.

                        And please, PLEASE, forget about how the skin may feel cold in living people - they will nevertheless be 37 degrees on the inside!!!
                        Well, I'm afraid Dr Phillips' TOD assessment was as pseudoscientific as, say, water divining! I mean, I'm sure you'd agree that you can't simply touch someone and then conclude they've been dead X number of hours; that's obviously absurd.

                        But to answer your question specifically, some people just happen to be cold to the touch generally. There are a number of possible reasons for this, but the one most relevant to Chapman is loss of body fat. Thus, as my earlier post illustrates, loss of body fat can have a dramatic effect on body temperature, internal and external. Why? Because fat is necessary to maintain body heat and conditions that significantly decrease crease body fat "can lead to cold skin because your body has no means of maintaining the heat it creates." https://www.buoyhealth.com/symptoms-a-z/cold-skin/

                        I don't know what you mean by factoring in "outrageous numbers into the Hessgne method". With respect, I did nothing of the sort: see the Biosphere 2 study, for example, which perfectly illustrates that individuals who have lost significant weight/ body fat will have a much lower body temperature: 35.5 to 36 degrees Celsius in the aforementioned study, sometimes lower.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Observer View Post

                          You said it.



                          I homed in on this thread because it was the most vitriolic of all the threads being discussed. That's it. If you notice I suggested that there was hair flying everywhere, implying that several posters were engaged in handbags at five paces. Perhaps you are paranoid.
                          Itís good to know that there are such saints as yourself still in existence. And of course, why contribute when you can occasionally swoop down and snipe from the sidelines?
                          Regards

                          Herlock






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

                          Comment


                          • Just passing by.
                            Keep passing, and for god sake take Herlock with you, as his stuck on Long,Codosch Richardson contradiction. And Chapman was 100 per cent killed at 5.30am
                            Last edited by FISHY1118; 09-05-2019, 10:55 PM.

                            Comment


                            • You will of course notice the word about. This means that he couldnít say that it was exactly twenty past.
                              notice how he say about twenty past, which means about 20 past ,

                              Cadosch of course didnít say that he heard Annie Chapman. Just that he heard something brush against the fence. Again we have to accept that his timing might have been out. Not definitely but possibly. Itís not a stretch of the imagination. Any reasonable person would accept this.
                              Thats the same Annie Chapman ''YOU'' believe hit the fence...... , stop using the timing excuse, stick to what we know .

                              Where you there Fishy? I certainly wasnít. You are stating things that you cannot know for certain. Why is it impossible that Annie and he killer were chatting quietly as they walked through the passage then, when they got into the yard, her killer said something to which any replied no. Annieís reply might ave been slightly louder than the rest of the talk which was why Cadosch heard it. Alternatively, t might have been the moment that he grabbed her by the throat. Either are entirely possible. You are stating as a fact something that itís impossible for any of us to know as a fact.
                              Again stick to what is know, the ''NO'' was 5.22 the ''thud'' at 5.28 , dead at 5.23... 5 mins before the thud of Chapman hitting the fence. which ''YOU'' also believe was that noise . So her body couldn't have hit the fence when she fell ,unless of couse she took 5 mins to fall to the ground after being rendered unconscious dead at 5.23.

                              This proves that you really do not read posts. The noise of something brushing the fence could easily have been her killer as he was mutilating her unless you were there and saw what happened. This idea of the killer holding her up fo 5 minutes is nonsense which no one has suggested. Itís a straw man argument.

                              If it was Annie hat said no then the noise afterwards simply had to have been connected. Thereís no other explanation.

                              This idea of the killer holding her up fo 5 minutes is nonsense which no one has suggested. Itís a straw man argument.
                              Yet this is precisely what ''YOU'' believe happen in order to prove that Chapman was killed at 5.30 according to Codosch

                              As ever, this really is desperate stuff from you Fishy. Everything is against you. Experts tell us that Phillips was using unreliable methods and we have creditable witnesses. TOD 5.25 onwards. No doubt.


                              Nothing is against me except you Herlock . your same experts tell us that Eddowes couldn't have her kidney and uterus removed in 5 mins, but you conveniently choose to ignore them , shame on you .

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                                Keep passing, and for god sake take Herlock with you, as his stuck on Long,Codosch Richardson contradiction. And Chapman was 100 per cent killed at 5.30am
                                So you finally accept the truth?

                                One day you might make a sensible and unbiased post. There is no contradiction whatsoever except for Mrs Longís timing. She might have gotten the time wrong or she might have seen two people unconnected to the case. Who knows?

                                The evidence that Phillips was in all likelihood wrong is self evident to all but the blind. How many experts are you willing to dismiss simply to bolster a theory that was discredited 40 years ago? Whatís wrong with you? Expert after expert after expert after expert. Every single one of them telling us the same thing. Without exception Fishy. Every single one of them tells us that the methods used by a Victorian Doctor like Phillips are unsafe to rely on because so many criteria can affect the judgment (some of which a doctor in 1888 wouldnít even have been aware of) Criteria that definitely existed with the murder of Annie Chapman. What medical qualifications do you possess which enable you to gainsay the whole of Forensic medicine? Why do you tell them that they are wrong when they say that these methods shouldnít be used to estimate TOD accurately? You should be embarrassed about challenging authorities on a subject about which you know nothing. And no...I know nothing about it too. So I leave it to the experts. The authorities on the subject. Those that have written scholarly papers and standard textbooks on the subject. But no....we should ignore all of them because Fishy knows better!

                                And not only do you arrogantly dismiss Forensic authorities you now arrogantly dismiss Paul. This from a man that stands alone on the planet in his ridiculous, laughable, childish belief that Annie Chapman was killed in a posh carriage and carried into the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street! You really could not make this 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

                                Working...
                                X