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 FISHY1118 View Post


    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.
    Thats the reply I would have expected from those wearing blinkers, when anything is said, or posted, which goes against the old accepted theories, what do we see a plethora of what if`s and explanations, or personal opinions as to why it is wrong, we never see or hear from anyone who says "hang on you might be right here"

    In today's world of criminal investigation I see on a daily basis flaws in witness statements, and going back 131 years I still see flaws, some are minor, but others have a dramatic outcome in prosecution cases.

    The point I keep trying to make is that no one can dismiss the statements because they are there as evidence, but from an evidential perspective they are unsafe to totally rely, and this is what some cannot understand the difference between unsafe and dismissal.

    In fact from what I have seen and read the whole inquest system on all of these murders was nothing less than slap dab. Many conflicts arose in witness testimony, which were never clarified, or expanded on as was the case with ambiguities which also arose, leaving us now to try to ascertain the truth surrounding witness testimony

    And on that basis I suggest TOD cannot be conclusively be proven, but I do accept that everyone is entitled to their own opinions its how those opinions are formed

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
      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"
      Did they give sources for this ?
      Every medical or nutrition source that I have seen will tell you that meat takes longer to leave the stomach than vegetables .
      The higher the fat and protein content the longer it takes with lamb and pork taking longer than beef .

      Carbs digest quickest followed by proteins and fats

      Seeing the source would be interesting
      Books eh ....
      You can lead a horse to water.....

      Comment


      • Originally posted by packers stem View Post

        Did they give sources for this ?
        Every medical or nutrition source that I have seen will tell you that meat takes longer to leave the stomach than vegetables .
        The higher the fat and protein content the longer it takes with lamb and pork taking longer than beef .

        Carbs digest quickest followed by proteins and fats

        Seeing the source would be interesting
        Books eh ....
        The digestion process would depend on the individual, there is no standard official or experts guideline that can be deemed to be 100% accurate

        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?

          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
          Surely most reasonably intelligent people grasp the ‘evidential issues’ that arise from conflicting witness testimony? But are those ‘issues’ relevant? Nobody will ever stand in the witness box, witnesses will never be cross examined, no judge or jury will ever be asked to pass judgement. All we have is a handful of largely inadequate sources from which our job is to try and understand what most likely happened 130 years ago?

          People know that Richarson gave conflicting accounts and they understand the ‘evidential issues’, but they are trying to see if the conflicts are explainable within the context of what was happening - and some people evidently believe they are. You say that Richardson gave conflicting accounts, ‘one of which’ showing that he could have missed seeing the body. Another account suggests that he would have seen it if it was there. Can you resolve the conflict? What is wrong with the ways other people resolve it?

          What would it matter if Richardson saw movement on the other side of the fence?

          I don’t know why your observation that the body being clothed would have retained warmth longer has been ignored. Perhaps it’s because some people believe you are wrong and that the body having been eviscerated would have lost a lot of heat. However, you have acknowledged that Phillips’ estimated time of death was a guess and could have been wrong, so we have two possible times of death; which of them best fits with the context of known facts?

          The evidence of Mrs Long and Cadosch is ‘unsafe’ – but what is it ‘unsafe’ for?

          You state that if Cadosch is to be believed, ‘there is no doubt’ that he heard a voice and a bump nearby. There is no reason to doubt that Cadosch was making an honest statement, and to his credit he admitted uncertainty but stated it as his belief that it came from no.29.The weight of probability is that the voice and bump did come from the yard of 29, because most of us are able to judge whether a sound is close or distant or whether it’s one’s own fence that’s bumped against or one a house or two away.

          A bump and ‘a voice from afar’ might not be good evidence for establishing time of death, but the voice wasn’t from afar. That’s your attempt to spin things and suggests a bias.

          You need to define what you mean by an 'evidential perspective'.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            Beyond a reasonable doubt ? I dont think so

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            'Beyond a reasonable doubt' is what you need to prove if you are taking a case to court, but nobody will ever be going to court with this. What we are trying to do is build a probable picture of what most likely happened.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by packers stem
              Carbs digest quickest followed by proteins and fats
              As I've pointed out, there are no carbohydrate-digesting enzymes in the stomach, and the low pH of the gastric juices would inhibit the action of any such enzymes (salivary amylase/ptyalin) secreted during the short time the food was in the mouth.
              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                And on that basis I suggest TOD cannot be conclusively be proven, but I do accept that everyone is entitled to their own opinions its how those opinions are formed
                Agreed, Trevor. Few people are saying that the murder definitely happened at 5.30am. They're saying that on the balance of evidence, imperfect though it might be, the probability is that Annie Chapman was killed later than Dr Phillips' estimated TOD.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                  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 .
                  Rubbish. The poll says differently for a start.

                  Wolf Vanderlinden wrote a dissertation. That’s all. You treat it as gospel because it suits you.

                  Fish’s TOD arguments have been thoroughly trashed with evidence. You treat Phillips as gospel because it suits you,

                  Rom those posting on this thread only Fish, you, Packers, Trevor and The Baron go with Phillips. That’s all

                  And three of those desperately need Phillips uesseork to bolster their theories.

                  Its sad.
                  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 FISHY1118 View Post


                    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.
                    Embarrassing.

                    You need to stop typing and start reading.

                    Forensic expert after Forensic expert. The most respected authorities on the subject. Not ripperologists but published experts. And there’s not a single one Fishy....not one....that supports Phillips. Every single one says that he could not have made an accurate TOD estimation. This is black and white. It’s a non-argument perpetuated by the dishonest. Phillips can be dismissed. He wasn’t a magician. He didn’t have magic hands. He could not have accurately estimate Chapman’s TOD. Why are you desperately continuing this? Are you a Forensic expert? Is Trevor? Is Fish? No but every single one of the people that I’ve quoted is.

                    Phillips is finished. Anyone that says otherwise is simply allowing bias to lead them into embarrassing positions.
                    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 packers stem View Post

                      Did they give sources for this ?
                      Every medical or nutrition source that I have seen will tell you that meat takes longer to leave the stomach than vegetables .
                      The higher the fat and protein content the longer it takes with lamb and pork taking longer than beef .

                      Carbs digest quickest followed by proteins and fats

                      Seeing the source would be interesting
                      Books eh ....

                      The late Dr Jay Dix was an Associate Professor of Pathology and Chief of Forensic Pathology at the University of Missouri. He IS the source! I mean, are you arguing about forensic pathology with an Associate Professor of pathology?

                      Do your sources say that meat takes longer to leave the stomach than ALL vegetables? Do they say that ALL carbs digest quicker than proteins and fats? If not, then you need to accept the information in source that has been provided.



                      Otherwise it becomes a case of an individual on the internet expressing his own uninformed opinion over that of an expert in pathology.
                      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 PaulB View Post

                        'Beyond a reasonable doubt' is what you need to prove if you are taking a case to court, but nobody will ever be going to court with this. What we are trying to do is build a probable picture of what most likely happened.
                        But you cant do that if there are conflicts in the facts, and the evidence, all you are going to be able to do is cherry pick what you belive to be the best scenario which is what we see here.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                          Surely most reasonably intelligent people grasp the ‘evidential issues’ that arise from conflicting witness testimony? But are those ‘issues’ relevant? Nobody will ever stand in the witness box, witnesses will never be cross examined, no judge or jury will ever be asked to pass judgement. All we have is a handful of largely inadequate sources from which our job is to try and understand what most likely happened 130 years ago?

                          People know that Richarson gave conflicting accounts and they understand the ‘evidential issues’, but they are trying to see if the conflicts are explainable within the context of what was happening - and some people evidently believe they are. You say that Richardson gave conflicting accounts, ‘one of which’ showing that he could have missed seeing the body. Another account suggests that he would have seen it if it was there. Can you resolve the conflict? What is wrong with the ways other people resolve it?

                          What would it matter if Richardson saw movement on the other side of the fence?

                          I don’t know why your observation that the body being clothed would have retained warmth longer has been ignored. Perhaps it’s because some people believe you are wrong and that the body having been eviscerated would have lost a lot of heat. However, you have acknowledged that Phillips’ estimated time of death was a guess and could have been wrong, so we have two possible times of death; which of them best fits with the context of known facts?

                          The evidence of Mrs Long and Cadosch is ‘unsafe’ – but what is it ‘unsafe’ for?

                          You state that if Cadosch is to be believed, ‘there is no doubt’ that he heard a voice and a bump nearby. There is no reason to doubt that Cadosch was making an honest statement, and to his credit he admitted uncertainty but stated it as his belief that it came from no.29.The weight of probability is that the voice and bump did come from the yard of 29, because most of us are able to judge whether a sound is close or distant or whether it’s one’s own fence that’s bumped against or one a house or two away.

                          A bump and ‘a voice from afar’ might not be good evidence for establishing time of death, but the voice wasn’t from afar. That’s your attempt to spin things and suggests a bias.

                          You need to define what you mean by an 'evidential perspective'.
                          Just dealing with the witnesses

                          Simple question to Mrs Long "Are you certain that the woman you saw talking to the man was the victims Eddowes"? what would her answer have been based on what she said the answer would be "No I am not" So that would rule her testimony out in favour of a TOD being 5.20am

                          As to Cadosh he has already said he didnt know where the voice came from other than the direction of 29, but as we know sound carries in the dead of night or the early morning. So that part of his testimony weakens the case for a 5.20 murder. As to a bump agains the fence it could have been caused by anything.

                          Staying with Cadosh he hears a bump against the fence it could have been anything so the 5.20am murder time is not conclusively proven by his evidence. He could have got his time wrong or simply heard Davies or Richardson open the door, which if you look at the picture might have been caused by the door swinging open and banging against the fence.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • If the noise he heard was Richardson or Davies, the body was definitely there by the time Cadoche went to the karzi.
                            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                              Simple question to Mrs Long "Are you certain that the woman you saw talking to the man was the victims Eddowes"? what would her answer have been based on what she said the answer would be "No I am not"
                              I don`t know about Eddowes, but Long was shown the body of Annie Chapman and identified her as the woman she saw that morning.
                              This info is already on record, Trev, have a look.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                But you cant do that if there are conflicts in the facts, and the evidence, all you are going to be able to do is cherry pick what you belive to be the best scenario which is what we see here.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                No. Cherry-picking is selecting the evidence that best fits your theory. What we are doing is assessing the evidence very carefully and constructing the most likely picture of what happened 130 years ago. That picture can change if new material appears or a new interpretation is accepted. That's why history is a fluid subject, not static and stagnant.

                                You want the impossible, you want certainty, but you'll hardly ever get that. You'll NEVER have 'beyond reasonable doubt'. All you have are the sources. That's it. Nothing else. And if there are conflicts in those sources then you do the best you can with them and, as said, construct the most likely sequence of events. The alternative is to do what you do, namely set the testimony aside as unreliable, don't use it, and leave us without any history - in this case leaving just a body in a yard. As a policeman that's what you might have to do, lacking any firm evidence to bring charges and go to court, but that's not at all satisfactory to a historian trying to understand what happened back then, and as he or she's not constrained by the legal needs of the evidence, even unreliable testimony cane considered and balanced in context with the events.

                                A careful and controlled assessment of the evidence is not cherry-picking.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X