Chapman’s death.

[Trevor Marriott]

These were differences in newspaper reporting.

From The Telegraph:

[Coroner] Did you sit on the top step? - No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard.

He sat on the steps. No doubt whatsoever.

So where does the truth lie? As I keep saying the witness testimony is unsafe, if you believe that she was killed at 5.20am then you are going to accept the account that tends to support you belief

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

We know Richardson was in the yard before 5am, we know Cadosche was in his yard around 5:15, and what we have with those 2 simple facts is that 2 people were either directly adjacent or on the same spot as the murder occurs. Whether there are contradictory reports of what Richardson said he saw is irrelevant when Cadosche's statement essentially verifies that no-one was dead yet in the yard of #29 when he went out. So whether Richardson "could have" missed seeing the dead body, something that is unlikely anyway, Cadosches remarks suggest that at least someone was on the spot Annie is killed 40-45 minutes before she is found there. Since people seem to want to follow Phillips comments, having Annie killed any later than indicated by the witnesses is therefore unlikely, and it would seem that, by the witnesses, her being killed before 5 is also unlikely. Making Phillips estimates wrong. Estimates are variables, witnesses on the spot at just before 5 and near half past 5 are not.

She was killed around 5:20.

Take the blinkers off for once !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Exactly Michael. But those that require an earlier TOD with continue their desperate nonsense.

and so will those who believe that she was killed at 5.20am. The evidence you seek to rely on is not conclusive proof that she was killed at 5.20am, and thats a fact like it or not.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

and so will those who believe that she was killed at 5.20am. The evidence you seek to rely on is not conclusive proof that she was killed at 5.20am, and thats a fact like it or not.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

not conclusive but more than likely

[Trevor Marriott]

not conclusive but more than likely

Beyond a reasonable doubt ? I dont think so

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

Take the blinkers off for once !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Blinkers are so one doesn't get distracted from the activities going on in the periphery Trevor. That kind of activity may be interesting, but it has little to do with the matter straight ahead.

[Trevor Marriott]

Blinkers are so one doesn't get distracted from the activities going on in the periphery Trevor. That kind of activity may be interesting, but it has little to do with the matter straight ahead.

Straight ahead would seem to be readily accepting the old accepted theory that she was murdered at 5.20am without fully assessing and evaluating the full facts and evidence,which might show that theory does not stand up to close scrutiny, Thats called being blinkered

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

and so will those who believe that she was killed at 5.20am. The evidence you seek to rely on is not conclusive proof that she was killed at 5.20am, and thats a fact like it or not.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Unless the sources provide 'conclusive proof', and determine what is 'conclusive proof' will invariably provoke argument, you will never get it. You therefore have to do the best with the sources tell you. As someone said earlier, you are dealing with probabilities, weighing up likelihoods. That's why the past is history, not a cold case. Nobody will ever be brought into court, unless it's the court of history, so the requirements of evidence are considerably less than might be required legally. You have your sources, you have to do the best you can with them. If the best you can do is declare that they are unreliable, and then sideline them, how do you expect to come close to understanding the past?

[Trevor Marriott]

Unless the sources provide 'conclusive proof', and determine what is 'conclusive proof' will invariably provoke argument, you will never get it. You therefore have to do the best with the sources tell you. As someone said earlier, you are dealing with probabilities, weighing up likelihoods. That's why the past is history, not a cold case. Nobody will ever be brought into court, unless it's the court of history, so the requirements of evidence are considerably less than might be required legally. You have your sources, you have to do the best you can with them. If the best you can do is declare that they are unreliable, and then sideline them, how do you expect to come close to understanding the past?

But when the sources that are relied on contradict with each other, and there is no way of telling which one is correct, of if they are all wrong, that then makes it unsafe to rely on. I am sure even you can see that? As to understanding the past in this case we can only readily accept as an ascertained fact, that Annie Chapman was murdered and mutilated in the back garden of 29 Hanbury Street, everything else connected to this murder is unsafe to totally rely on.

My remit is and has always been to prove of disprove where possible all that is known about these murders. Historical facts are there to be proved or disproved nothing changes.

The evidence is there to be assessed, and evaluated, not readily accepted as being safe to rely on. The same principle applies whether you look at all of this from and evidential or historical perspective, either way the witness testimony is still going to be the same If you are going to accept it as being correct without question then we might as well remove ourselves from any further involvement and go out and take up hand gliding.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

i know why John.

To be honest, Herlock, I'm finding the whole argument quite surreal. It's a while since I looked at the Chapman case: did Phillips actually find any undigested food? Even if he did it doesn't mean very much as regards ascertaining time of death. As I noted, the studies in this area are not consistent, and they invariably involve healthy people. Moreover, we cannot possibly know what time Chapman consumed her last meal, so this gets us precisely no where.

[packers stem]

I have absolutely idea why you persist on using a very unreliable method to ascertain ToD. And we have no idea when the meal was consumed, so your argument that the meal had already been digested prior to her death is pure speculation.

You might also want to reflect on the fact that there are conflicting studies in this area. For instance, Spitz and Fisher argue that a small meal takes around 1 hour to digest, wheras Adelson estimates half an hour to 2 hours.And Brophy et al. found that meal emptying time can vary significantly from day to day in the same and differrent individuals. Then there's the issue of weight and caloric intake. Finally, these studies ate usually based on healthy individuals, and Chapman wasn't healthy!

Hi John

We do know .
it was shortly before 2am .that's the whole point.
It was potatoes as Joshua points out but we can safely assume she wouldn't be standing by the door with a huge plate of mash so a baked potato is a good punt .
We have absolutely no reason to believe she would have eaten again over the next few hours as she was apparently desperate for doss money.
At the upper end of both of your estimates ,it is most likely that she would be dead by 4am at the latest .
It would be highly unlikely that a light meal of potato would not have left the stomach by 5.30 .
Food would not leave the stomach after death.
Carbohydrates are rapidly digested although resistant starch may not be digested this is related to the small and large intestine not the potato leaving the stomach ,much of which digests almost immediately in saliva .

This is what I mean by extremes

This has to be wildly inaccurate
AND phillips also has to be wildly inaccurate in order to make a TOD between 5.30 and 6 fit

[PaulB]

But when the sources that are relied on contradict with each other, and there is no way of telling which one is correct, of if they are all wrong, that then makes it unsafe to rely on. I am sure even you can see that? As to understanding the past in this case we can only readily accept as an ascertained fact, that Annie Chapman was murdered and mutilated in the back garden of 29 Hanbury Street, everything else connected to this murder is unsafe to totally rely on.

My remit is and has always been to prove of disprove where possible all that is known about these murders. Historical facts are there to be proved or disproved nothing changes.

The evidence is there to be assessed, and evaluated, not readily accepted as being safe to rely on. The same principle applies whether you look at all of this from and evidential or historical perspective, either way the witness testimony is still going to be the same If you are going to accept it as being correct without question then we might as well remove ourselves from any further involvement and go out and take up hand gliding.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, of course I understand that some sources are unsafe to rely on, but in this case it is not agreed that the sources are unsafe.

If one discounts the notoriously unreliable estimated time of death, and the witnesses are declared unsafe, then we are left with nothing but a dead body in a backyard. But we do have witnesses - three of them - and as far as we can tell, they were not lying. As the only witnesses we have, we can and should try to make sense of them. The fact that they could be wrong doesn't mean that they were wrong.

What makes you think the evidence has been 'readily accepted as being safe to rely on'? Wo do you imagine is accepting the evidence as correct without question? Surely countless people have assessed and evaluated the evidence before you came along and are even now assessing and evaluating it, and are coming to conclusions different to yours. Why are they wrong and you right.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, of course I understand that some sources are unsafe to rely on, but in this case it is not agreed that the sources are unsafe.

If one discounts the notoriously unreliable estimated time of death, and the witnesses are declared unsafe, then we are left with nothing but a dead body in a backyard. But we do have witnesses - three of them - and as far as we can tell, they were not lying. As the only witnesses we have, we can and should try to make sense of them. The fact that they could be wrong doesn't mean that they were wrong.

what is the matter with you everyone can see that Richardsons varying accounts contradict each other and therefore they are unsafe

What makes you think the evidence has been 'readily accepted as being safe to rely on'? Wo do you imagine is accepting the evidence as correct without question? Surely countless people have assessed and evaluated the evidence before you came along and are even now assessing and evaluating it, and are coming to conclusions different to yours. Why are they wrong and you right.

if you have been following the posts you will see that there are posters who believe conclusively that she was murdered at 5.20 and they do not accept that the witness testimony is unsafe and clearly are blinkered to the conflicting evidence in their misguided beliefs

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

if you have been following the posts you will see that there are posters who believe conclusively that she was murdered at 5.20 and they do not accept that the witness testimony is unsafe and clearly are blinkered to the conflicting evidence in their misguided beliefs

Nobody arguing in favour of a later TOD struck me as being tied to any "misguided beliefs", Trevor. On the contrary, I see plenty who have considered the matter in detail, they've done (and shared) their research, weighed the evidence appropriately, and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, caveated where necessary. That really doesn't strike me as the behaviour of "blinkered" people.

[Michael W Richards]

Straight ahead would seem to be readily accepting the old accepted theory that she was murdered at 5.20am without fully assessing and evaluating the full facts and evidence,which might show that theory does not stand up to close scrutiny, Thats called being blinkered

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

To suggest that I follow the pre-existing theories on any of these murders is a stretch Trevor. Read any of my posts over the past 10 plus years, you don't see a follow the leader in any of those.