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


    This is from Simpson's Forensic Medicine (2011), lead author: Jason Payne James:


    'Sometimes the perceived warmth of the body to touch is mentioned in court as an indicator of the time of death; this assessment is so unreliable as to be useless...'


    "useless" is pretty much identical to "dodgy".

    It means that this method should not be used. It doesn’t get plainer or more inarguable than this. Unless of course you maintain that your knowledge of forensics is greater than that of Payne-James Baron?

    Do you?

    Thought not.

    Excellent reference, from Christer's forensic expert, Jason Payne-James. I would also refer back to a reference I cited previously: https://www.buoyhealth.com/symptoms-a-z/cold-skin/

    This reference was written by a medical doctor and reviewed by a medical review team. It is stated that any condition that decreases body fat can result in cold skin, i.e. because fat is necessary to maintain body heat. Chapman had been suffering from tuberculosis, a muscle wastage condition, so it's possible, if not likely, that she would have been cold to the touch even whilst alive, let alone whilst dead!
    ​​

    Comment


    • Originally posted by John G View Post

      See my above post. Poly-trauma can dramatically slow digestion! And Chapman may have been very underweight, which would have had a fairly substantial affect on body temperature, to the extent that she may well have been cold to the touch whilst still alive!
      Again, you're looking for extremes .
      Extremes on digestion, combined with extremes on TOD should tell us to look at it differently.....
      You want two medical extremes rather than 'most likely'
      That is ,of course, your choice...... doesn't make it fact though
      You can lead a horse to water.....

      Comment


      • What do you mean by extremes? I hope your not trying the Fisherman tactic of trying to lead everyone to believe that the circumstances which could have led a doctor to error were ‘freak’ circumstances? It’s just not the case and repeated requests to Fish to come up with evidence for this came up with zero as expected. The criteria that could have affected results all existed at the time. Therefore, as per the experts, all three methods are unreliable. None of them are ‘likely’ to have been correct. This is simply a fact.

        And so, as the TOD estimation by Phillips can be disregarded, we are left to ask if there are any other ways of guiding us toward an accurate TOD. And the answer of course is an overwhelming yes. We have witnesses (despite the desperate contortions that have been employed to discredit them) Thankfully, the vast majority of sensible posters can see through this tactic.

        Witnesses in this instance must outweigh the Doctor. Annie overwhelmingly died after 5.20. And definitely in the backyard of number 29.
        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 so, as the TOD estimation by Phillips can be disregarded,
          The TOD cannot be positively be determined, because Phillips TOD was guesswork, although he did notice the onset of rigor, and again there is no definitive answer as to whether rigor could have set in between 5.20am and 6.30am. It was not a very cold morning, and not forgetting that the body was still partially clothed keeping the body warmth in.

          As previously stated the rest of the witness testimony is also unsafe to totally rely on.

          Researchers will readily accept which TOD suits there own beliefs

          If I had to give my opinion, I would side with Phillips

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            The TOD cannot be positively be determined, because Phillips TOD was guesswork, although he did notice the onset of rigor, and again there is no definitive answer as to whether rigor could have set in between 5.20am and 6.30am. It was not a very cold morning, and not forgetting that the body was still partially clothed keeping the body warmth in.

            As previously stated the rest of the witness testimony is also unsafe to totally rely on.

            Researchers will readily accept which TOD suits there own beliefs

            If I had to give my opinion, I would side with Phillips

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            Theres nothing unsafe about Richardson or Cadosch.

            Why is Richardson ‘unsafe’ just because Chandler said that he didn’t actually mention sitting on the step? How do we know that Chandler was right? Why is it so sinister if Richardson simply said something like....I looked into the yard at 4.50 and there was definitely no body there? We don’t know how long Chandler spoke to him for but as it took place in the passageway with a crime scene investigation going on it was hardly likely to have been an in-depth interrogation. If Richardson did say something like that why would Chandler question him further at the time? The information that the body wasn’t there at 4.50 was all that he needed to know apart from whether Richardson was the killer or not.

            At the Inquest, when he was under oath, he could easily have said that he’d only stood on the doorstep. If they’d have said to him “well you might have missed the body then?” he could have just said “I suppose so.” No problem and no skin off his nose. But no, he insisted on telling the full facts even though it put him in that yard with a knife. Just saying that Richardson could have lied doesn’t cut it. Anyone could have lied. Chandler could have lied. Is he unsafe?

            Overwhelmingly likely that Richardson was telling the truth.

            When it comes to Cadosch there’s just zero to throw any doubt onto what he said. He showed caution which doesn’t point to an attention-seeker. Cadosch is totally believable.

            Long is more difficult. She could have seen someone unconnected, she could have gotten her timing wrong or Cadosch could have gotten his timing wrong. After all we’re only talking 15 minutes here. Is it impossible that someone could mis-hear clock bells if they weren’t paying attention for them and then trying to remember the time, of what was an insignificant occurrence, hours later?

            The odds are massively in favour of the witnesses over Phillips. Close to certain in my opinion.
            Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 09-08-2019, 11:22 PM.
            Regards

            Herlock






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

            Comment


            • He was in no doubt whatsoever about hearing something brushing against the fence though. Which meant that someone was in that yard, with a corpse.
              So the next time i hear a noise hit my back fence when i get up to go to work, should i also expect there to be a murderer and his victim in the yard next door just because a corpse was there 30 mins later ?. The noise doesn't prove it was them it only proves that codosch heard a noise, period..... that could have been anything.

              Again, because Phillips said that there was a body in the yard 2 hours , [his t.o.d] before. Its more likely Chapman was dead all alone in the yard from 4.30am to the time she was discovered at 6.00am .The ''no'' and the ''thud'' are not proof anyone was in the yard . Thats a fact . Stop trying to prove otherwise . ...

              Comment


              • Originally posted by packers stem View Post

                Again, you're looking for extremes .
                Extremes on digestion, combined with extremes on TOD should tell us to look at it differently.....
                You want two medical extremes rather than 'most likely'
                That is ,of course, your choice...... doesn't make it fact though
                No, this is not extreme at all. As I keep pointing out, it's what is likely based upon the existing circumstances. Thus, it's a fact that Chapman had a wasting disease and was probably emaciated. This would have had a substantial impact on body temperature; this has been explained to you. That's why the Hessgne model requires adjustments to be made for body weight when assessing ToD. I would also point out that we don't know what Chapman's body temperature was because Dr Phillips didn't bother to take a reading!

                I have also no idea why you have introduced digestion as a means of assessing ToD as this is a very unreliable method; this has also been explained to you. Thus, poly-trauma will substantially slow down digestion (this has also been explained to you), and you must realize that this is highly relevant in the Chapman case. After all, she'd suffered severe neck injuries and had been eviscerated. How on earth could you not know this?

                Last edited by John G; 09-09-2019, 07:29 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  Theres nothing unsafe about Richardson or Cadosch.

                  Overwhelmingly likely that Richardson was telling the truth.

                  I note you say likely he was telling the truth, but you cannot be certain, and he is the main witness who perhaps points to the real TOD

                  It is documented what Richardson said at the inquest, and what he said to Chandler, and that is where the differing accounts occur, sadly there was no clarifying of the ambiguities at the inquest, which doesn't help us now. So we are left to consider the testimony of both. Can we safely rely on what Richardson said as against a police officer who had no reason to lie? there is no corroboration to either witnesses account.

                  Where as Richardson who as a totally innocent person in this case might have just panicked having seen the body, having regards to him being in the rear yard in possession of a knife with a dead body, and simply walked away knowing that someone else would soon find the body, but he would have to be certain he was not seen, and he could not guarantee that so his differing accounts are as we know when interviewed by the police.

                  When it comes to Cadosch there’s just zero to throw any doubt onto what he said. He showed caution which doesn’t point to an attention-seeker. Cadosch is totally believable.

                  Things that go bump in the night, sound carries and he could not be certain where the noises emanated from

                  Long is more difficult. She could have seen someone unconnected, she could have gotten her timing wrong or Cadosch could have gotten his timing wrong. After all we’re only talking 15 minutes here. Is it impossible that someone could mis-hear clock bells if they weren’t paying attention for them and then trying to remember the time, of what was an insignificant occurrence, hours later?

                  her evidence when analyzed is worthless

                  The odds are massively in favour of the witnesses over Phillips. Close to certain in my opinion.
                  You are entitled to your opinion but you have to take a step back and closely examine the witness testimony from an evidential perspective and not readily accept what was said as being the gospel truth.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • Sound does indeed carry, but not to the extent that a sound from a few houses distant could be mistaken for the sound of something falling against a fence mere feet, perhaps inches, away.
                    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                      Sound does indeed carry, but not to the extent that a sound from a few houses distant could be mistaken for the sound of something falling against a fence mere feet, perhaps inches, away.
                      I note that the fence was only 5.6 inches high, he stated he didn't look over, but with a fence of that height surely he would have been able to see anyone on the other side, or moving about on the other side, unless of course he and they were less than 5.6 ins tall, and more so if his house had steps leading from the building because at that point on those steps he would have been at least 2 feet higher and would surely have seen anyone on the other side.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk


                      Comment


                      • I note that the fence was only 5.6 inches high, he stated he didn't look over, but with a fence of that height surely he would have been able to see anyone on the other side, or moving about on the other side, unless of course he and they were less than 5.6 ins tall, and more so if his house had steps leading from the building because at that point on those steps he would have been at least 2 feet higher and would surely have seen anyone on the other side.
                        Being making this exact point for ages , HERLOCK TAKE NOTE .

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          You are entitled to your opinion but you have to take a step back and closely examine the witness testimony from an evidential perspective and not readily accept what was said as being the gospel truth.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          Hi Trevor,

                          What's your view of Sugden's argument that Chandler probably misunderstood Richardson because he had only a few minutes spare to conduct the interview, i.e. because he had another appointment to attend shortly afterwards?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            I note that the fence was only 5.6 inches high, he stated he didn't look over, but with a fence of that height surely he would have been able to see anyone on the other side, or moving about on the other side, unless of course he and they were less than 5.6 ins tall, and more so if his house had steps leading from the building because at that point on those steps he would have been at least 2 feet higher and would surely have seen anyone on the other side.
                            Inches? You sure about that?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by John G View Post

                              Hi Trevor,

                              What's your view of Sugden's argument that Chandler probably misunderstood Richardson because he had only a few minutes spare to conduct the interview, i.e. because he had another appointment to attend shortly afterwards?
                              Everybody,it seems has a different take on the evidence ! that would be an argument put forward by those who might want to accept that Richardson was being truthful and Chandler mistaken

                              How long would it have taken for Chandler to conduct the interview,? bearing in mind what Richardson allegedly stated he seems to have recorded the relevant parts, but the question is when did he record the interview? He arrived at the mortuary just after 7am so not much time for him to go and do something else ! He arrived at the crime scene approx 6.20am

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                                Inches? You sure about that?
                                The Foreman: What height are the palings? - About 5 ft. 6 in. to 6 ft. high.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X