Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapman’s death.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by packers stem View Post
    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 .

    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
    A
    Can you honestly keep proposing this utter tosh Packers?

    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.
    We also have absolutely no reason to believe that she didn’t eat again. None at all. She was an impoverished, malnourished woman. Do you need witness testimony for every perfectly normal act? We have no evidence that she urinated in that time but it’s not a wild stab in the dark to suggest that she might have done.

    And even if we knew for a fact that she didn't eat again (and we don’t) we still have expert testimony that using digestion to judge TOD is unreliable. Why do we appear to have a small bunch of posters who are labouring under the misapprehension that they are experts in Forensic medicine. As JohnG said - it’s surreal.

    . ND phillips also has to be wildly inaccurate in order to make a TOD between 5.30 and 6 fit
    And I’ll pose the same challenge that I set to Fish when he kept claiming that a TOD of under 2 hours would have been freakish.

    Post me the quote where any Forensic expert says this. Any one. Fish couldn’t do it despite being asked a few times. See if you can succeed where he failed?

    The 2-4 hours is an average. Anything outside of an average isn’t by definition extreme. The average height is 5’ 10.” I’m 6’ 2” tall. Does that make me extremely tall? Or freakishly tall? No.

    This is simply misinformation employed to create create a false impression in an effort to shoehorn theories into place.

    Annie Chapman overwhelmingly likely, beyond almost all reasonable doubt was killed sometime after 5.20.


    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 Trevor Marriott View Post

      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

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      Rubbish Trevor. Did you only ever pay attention to witnesses that were utterly perfect? Richardson didn’t lie and you cannot prove or show that he did. He simply gave a fuller version of events at the Inquest than he gave in an impromptu interview with Chandler in a passageway. Under oath, and without prompting or pressure from anyone he told so sitting on the step. That’s what he did and we have no reason to disbelieve him. According to you there’s not a single person involved in this case that any weight can be placed upon. Of course we have to be cautious and use our judgment but not to bloody-mindedly dismiss everyone.

      If you were presented with a situation when you were on the Force of having a Doctor giving a TOD estimate (but from using methods that all of the experts on the subject told you were little more than guesswork) and three witnesses who all absolutely contradicted that TOD (and you had absolutely no reason to suspect them of lying) which would you have gone for?

      As I said earlier. This is a no-brainer.
      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 Sam Flynn View Post

        I can vouch for that, Trevor; Michael's quite the nonconformist in many ways. I should add that, personally, I don't care when the Chapman murder occurred, but the balance of evidence points to a later TOD than Phillips suggests.
        I can second that. Michael’s theory on Stride’s murder certainly can’t be called conventional so I see no blinkered thinking there. And as you know I mildly favour Druitt of the known suspects followed by Kosminski and I pretty much dismiss all others so Annie’s TOD affects neither. So where are these blinkers Trevor. As I’ve mentioned before though, it’s noticeable that the three strongest supporters of Phillips’ TOD on this thread all need an earlier time to support theories.
        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 Joshua Rogan View Post

          It's a minor point, but all the reports I can find say she was eating potatoes, not a potato.
          Hi Joshua,
          Which would probably mean cut up pieces of potato, and there's no reason why she couldn't have taken some with her. Basically, all I'm getting at is the fact we don't know when she ate the potatoes found during autopsy. We know she had some earlier, but three is nothing that precludes her having eaten after she left the doss house. It's just one of the many possibilities we have to consider (not saying it's a fact she took some with her, just that it is one of the many reasonable, and therefore worth considering, possibilities).

          - Jeff

          Comment


          • Just to remind Packers on this point:


            From "Time of Death, Decompensation and Identification: An Atlas" by Jay Dix and Michael Graham (1999):

            "Some foods such as celery, onion, potato, corn and tomato skins typically take longer than meat or other foods to exit the stomach"

            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 Trevor Marriott View Post

              Hi Jeff
              No matter how you dress it up or what explanations are put forward it doesn't detract from what is there in black and white from 1888, and that is what we have to work, with, not modern day researchers explanations or their interpretations of what was said or what they believe the witness did. The fact is that there discrepancies which as they stand make the testimony unsafe, and that TOD cannot be conclusively established.

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              Hi Trevor,

              Nothing in this case is carved in stone, and in the end, all eye-witness testimony is, by its very nature of often being inaccurate and/or misremembered, unsafe. We're dealing with a very sub-optimal evidence set. Given that, we either ignore all the testimony and through out everything that's said, or we look to see if the testimony we have to work with is consistent on the whole, with the errors and inconsistencies being in the fine details, which is normal for any retelling of the same events (new details are added, earlier mistakes or miscommunications updated, etc). Sadly, it is sometimes those very fine errors of details that end up being important for rejecting one witness's account, while another witness's account with similar "types" of errors can later be shown to be, on the whole, accurate and reliable. But that final assessment is based upon less unstable sources of evidence.

              So, yes, I agree with you in principle on this, all the evidence we have to this day is, in the end, filtered through the unreliable nature of testimony. Even the police reports and letters are filtered this way, as they tend to reflect more thoughts and opinions than a detailing of the less subjective facts.

              On the other hand, one has to work with what one has. To throw out all the statements is to leave one with an open field in which one can place anything, resulting in nothing more than a series of creative writings rather than a series of analyses of statements. We know statements will be error prone, but in Chapman's case, for example, we also have 3 different potential sources, whose stories do fit together well enough, creating friction between them only if the testimonies are read as if they must be accurate in every detail, no matter how small.

              Viewed for what it is, the testimonies we have are all pointing to the murder happening after Richardson's visit to the yard, and somewhere around 5:30, give or take. It's not conclusive, but unless there is some other evidence to support rejecting this, then the argument "the statements have some inconsistencies" is simply describing the nature of statements - they always will have some inconsistencies that can be found if one looks hard enough. It's the global level of consistency, and how those inconsistencies get introduced (with Richardson they get introduced as he provides further details of what he did - but that's not really inconsistencies it's just what happens as one is probed for more details, the previously omitted details get added in; and details are often omitted because the witness does not appreciate the importance of what, at first blush, might seem like trivial minutia).

              So I agree with you about the importance of remembering that the 5:20-5:30 range is not conclusively proven and that one should be prepared to abandon that time should evidence arise to point away from it. But I disagree with the approach that one should abandon that time range in the absence of more reliable evidence pointing elsewhere. At the moment, there is nothing that points away from the 5:20-5:30 time, so trying to make the claim that some other time is right simply because 5:20-5:30 might be wrong, just puts one in even more unsafe position.

              But, I take your point, too often the "most likely story" is treated as if it is "proven", and unfortunately, pretty much nothing in this case falls in the latter category, and even the former is a relatively small set of topics.

              - Jeff

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                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

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                I have been reading the posts and you believe conclusively that her time of death cannot be certainly given and, after due and careful consideration, believe it is reasonable to accept that three witnesses who have no known reason to have lied are probably telling the truth as best they were able. Their conclusion appears to be based on a considered assessment of the evidence, just as you imagine that yours is. Why are they blinkered and you're not? Why are their beliefs misguided and yours not? Where is the difference between you?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                  I have been reading the posts and you believe conclusively that her time of death cannot be certainly given and, after due and careful consideration, believe it is reasonable to accept that three witnesses who have no known reason to have lied are probably telling the truth as best they were able. Their conclusion appears to be based on a considered assessment of the evidence, just as you imagine that yours is. Why are they blinkered and you're not? Why are their beliefs misguided and yours not? Where is the difference between you?
                  The reason being is that I understand fully the the evidential issues that arise from conflicting witness testimony, which it seems others do not want to for whatever reasons. Richardson testimony is unsafe by reason of the different accounts,which conflict with each other. one of which clearly shows he could have missed seeing the body. I hope you have the ability to see and understand that?

                  If he is to be believed in one account he states he stood on the top step that would have allowed him to see over the fence into No 29, and if he stood for a short time should have perhaps seen movement on the other side

                  I am in total agreement that Phillips TOD was guesswork, but did he guess wrong based on what he saw? I have mentioned the fact that her body was still partially clothed thereby allowing the body to retain some of its body heat and not cool as quck as some suggest for the onset of rigor, which Phillips clearly observed, but this seem to have fallen on deaf ears and ignored I wonder why?

                  As to guesswork remember Sequeira, and Brown both guessed right when it came to etstablishing a time of death for Eddowes

                  The evidence of Mrs Long and Cadosh are also from an evidential perspective also unsafe for the reasons not only I have stated but others on here to so I am not ploughing a lone furrow as you seem to suggest. There is no doubt if Cadosh is to be believed he heard a bump and a voice from nearby. We cant be certain that the bump was part of the murder or the voice he heard either.

                  So what are we left with a bump, and a voice from afar, not good evidence in trying to firmly establish a time of death

                  Please dont keep banging on about the historical side to the testimony, if its unsafe from and evidential perspective as you suggest then its also unsafe from a historical aspect.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 09-10-2019, 09:51 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    I have mentioned the fact that her body was still partially clothed thereby allowing the body to retain some of its body heat
                    Her innards had been pulled out and draped over her shoulder. This would have presented a large area of tissue well-supplied with blood to the open air, thereby accelerating cooling.
                    and not cool as quck as some suggest for the onset of rigor, which Phillips clearly observed
                    I wouldn't say "clearly", as the stiffness of the body was not marked, according to Phillips.
                    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                      Her innards had been pulled out and draped over her shoulder. This would have presented a large area of tissue well-supplied with blood to the open air, thereby accelerating cooling.I wouldn't say "clearly", as the stiffness of the body was not marked, according to Phillips.
                      "But evidently commencing" according to his testimony Times.Telegraph Inquest testimony

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        The reason being is that I understand fully the the evidential issues that arise from conflicting witness testimony, which it seems others do not want to for whatever reasons. Richardson testimony is unsafe by reason of the different accounts,which conflict with each other. one of which clearly shows he could have missed seeing the body. I hope you have the ability to see and understand that?

                        And I would hope that you would have the ability to realise that these were Press Reports. Press Reports often varied this doesn't mean that the witness was inconsistent. You used this quote:

                        Times Inquest testimony Richardson paraphrased
                        "I stood on the steps, I did not go into the yard, my object was to see the cellar was alright and looked and saw it was alright. I did not sit on the top step, but rested my feet on the flags of the yard"

                        Here he only stood on the steps and states he did not sit down !!!!!!!

                        This is obviously a confusion in reporting unless you are suggesting that, in the space of two sentences, Richardson said a) he stood on the steps, b) he did not sit on the steps, and yet c) he rested his feet on the flags - which negates either a) or b). This is nonsense of course. You are assuming a lie or a concealment but you have no evidence to support this. Richardson simply gave a fuller, more detailed version of events under oath at The Inquest. And again, he wasn’t forced into changing his story. He wasn’t responding to being questioned. He told the full story of him sitting on the steps entirely of his own volition.

                        If he is to be believed in one account he states he stood on the top step that would have allowed him to see over the fence into No 29, and if he stood for a short time should have perhaps seen movement on the other side

                        Obviously you are talking about Cadosch. As I mentioned in an earlier post, 2 points. 1) why is it assumed that Chapman her killer stood near to the steps? This is surely unlikely as this was where her head eventually lay so it’s more likely that they were further down the yard near to where her feat lay after death. Six feet or so behind Cadosch on his steps. And 2) He said that when he heard the ‘no’ he didn’t look back. So it’s no point even saying what if he’d looked. He didn’t.

                        I am in total agreement that Phillips TOD was guesswork, but did he guess wrong based on what he saw? I have mentioned the fact that her body was still partially clothed thereby allowing the body to retain some of its body heat and not cool as quck as some suggest for the onset of rigor, which Phillips clearly observed, but this seem to have fallen on deaf ears and ignored I wonder why?

                        And the mountains of quotes and evidence from authorities on the subject have been conveniently ignored by you and others.

                        Sudden haemorrhage
                        Excessive mutilation
                        Malnourished victim
                        Wasting disease (Tuberculosis)

                        Chapman was pretty much a textbook example of reasons for earlier onset Rigor.

                        But Phillips actually judged TOD by Algor Mortis. He did this simply by touch. Even if he’d taken a rectal temperature by using a thermometer it would still have been no guarantee of accuracy. So unless he was a magician blessed with powers that no other Doctor has ever possessed he was using an inaccurate method.

                        We can safely dismiss Phillips. We are left with witnesses.



                        As to guesswork remember Sequeira, and Brown both guessed right when it came to etstablishing a time of death for Eddowes

                        Irrelevant. If someone guessed a TOD correctly in 1888 we cannot know that.

                        The evidence of Mrs Long and Cadosh are also from an evidential perspective also unsafe for the reasons not only I have stated but others on here to so I am not ploughing a lone furrow as you seem to suggest. There is no doubt if Cadosh is to be believed he heard a bump and a voice from nearby. We cant be certain that the bump was part of the murder or the voice he heard either.

                        Sadly you are not ploughing a lone furrow. There are others with these strange ideas.

                        So what are we left with a bump, and a voice from afar, not good evidence in trying to firmly establish a time of death

                        We are left with a man who testified under oath at an Inquest that he was absolutely, 100% certain that Annie Chapman’s body wasn’t there at 4.50.

                        We have a man that heard the word ‘no’ and the sound of something brushing against the fence in a yard where a woman was killed and at a time that was within Richardson’s 4.50 and John Davis’ 6.00. A man who as far as we know wasn’t prone to hallucinations. In all seriousness what else could it have been? If Phillips was correct and Chapman was already dead then it wasn’t a human being unless he or she was blind.

                        We have Long who is the most difficult but nowhere near impossible of the three witnesses. As Steve has explained (though for some this falls on deaf ears) timings have to have a bit of leeway amongst people that, as a rule, didn’t own watches or clocks. And so, as I said earlier, for Long to tie in with Cadosch all we need is for them both to have been 7 or 8 minutes out with their times. Of course we can’t prove that this was the case but it’s at least plausible.


                        Please dont keep banging on about the historical side to the testimony, if its unsafe from and evidential perspective as you suggest then its also unsafe from a historical aspect.

                        All witnesses in this case can be questioned. We can add ‘what if’s’ to every one of them. But I’m afraid that you are simply going out of your way to brand these three as unsafe on no good grounds. I see nothing significantly unsafe about Richardson and Cadosch and Long might (or might not) simply be an issue of timing.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        A doctor who’s opinion was unsafe - and not on the word of Ripperologists but on the entirety of Forensic science.

                        versus

                        Three witness who all contradicted him.

                        As I said earlier. A no-brainer really.
                        Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 09-10-2019, 11:26 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


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          "But evidently commencing" according to his testimony Times.Telegraph Inquest testimony
                          Indeed, however we also have "was not marked". Either way, as we've seen, that could be an hour after death.
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                          Comment


                          • Sadly you are not ploughing a lone furrow. There are others with these strange ideas.
                            Nothing strange about it at all herlock, only strange thing here is, you cant see it .

                            Wolf Vanderlined , Trevor and myself can , but you must by now be in the minority where L.C.R are concerned .

                            Last edited by FISHY1118; 09-11-2019, 12:05 AM.

                            Comment


                            • As to guesswork remember Sequeira, and Brown both guessed right when it came to etstablishing a time of death for Eddowes

                              Trevor, ive also mention this exact observation, you'll never guess what response i got .....



                              HERE IT IS , THEY WERE ONLY RIGHT BECAUSE WITNESSES AND THE POLICE AT THE SCENE TOLD THEM HOW LONG IT WAS BETWEEN THE DISCOVERY OF THE THE BODY AND THE LAST TIME THEY WALKED THROUGH MITRE SQUARE . THUS NO NEED FOR A MEDICAL ANY OPINION ... CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by packers stem View Post
                                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
                                Hi Packers,

                                But we don't know. You're merely referring to Chapman's last recorded meal. She could have consumed a further meal after Crossinghams; in fact, she could have taken some food with her, i.e. to eat as a snack for later (not unreasonable considering she was waking the streets for hours). And Phillips simply says there was undigested food in the stomach, not what type of food.

                                The studies you rely on are contradictory and based upon healthy subjects. And this is highly relevant, as Chapman wasn't healthy, and may have been very stressed due to her dysfunctional lifestyle (another very important point.)

                                This is what Dr Phillips said:


                                "Disease of the lungs was of long standing, and there was a disease of the membranes of the brain. The stomach contained a little food."

                                He further states that there were probable signs of "great privation."

                                Now consider this:

                                "The time taken for the stomach to empty has been used on occasion in court in an attempt to give some idea of the time between a last meal and death. However, for a number of decades it has been recognized that individual variability make this a very imprecise indicator...The problem is that the rate of gastric emptying may be significantly affected by the nature of the ingested food, stress, drugs, disease states and infections. Thus, if food is found within the stomach at autopsy by a pathologist, the most reasonable conclusion is that the person has died some time after eating." ( Byard, Forensic Sci Med Pathol (2017) 13: 113-114.)
                                Last edited by John G; 09-11-2019, 07:48 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X