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 Sam Flynn View Post
    Based on what modern science tells us about body rigor mortis and body temperature (both in terms of how it's measured and post mortem rates of cooling), we know that Dr Phillips' estimation of TOD was unsafe.
    I agree with you but there has to be a TOD, as we know Chapman was murdered at some point in time, but in the grand scheme of things is this so important to try to tie this time of death now conclusively in this case, especially as we cannot accurately tie the times of death down to many of the other victims?

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 09-13-2019, 08:09 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      But when the various reports along with the official testimony throw up conflicts we have no choice but to accept that they are then unsafe because we have no means of corroborating which one is the real truth, in the case of Richardson we are left to ask based on the conflicts in his recorded testimony both from the inquest and in newspaper reports

      Did he stand on the step, with the door open and just look to the right at the lock on the cellar door, and seeing it was still in place go back in the house, if he did he could have missed seeing the body because the open door would have obstructed his view of where the body was lying.
      Did he sit on the step and should have seen the body
      Did he sit and cut leather from his boot
      Did he throw open the door allowing it to bang against the fence for Cadosh to hear

      These conflicts are real along with Cadosch and Mrs. Long`s, it matters not in the grand scheme of things whether they are looked at from a modern-day legal perspective, or from a historical perspective, they are real and have to be looked at in the same way. It is ridiculous researchers trying to guess what the witness might have meant to say, or what he meant by what he said.

      Collectively based on what we have with all three witnesses, the testimony is unsafe for us to be able to conclusively establish a TOD.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Any time anyone tells the same story more than once there will be differences in the details. One has to evaluate the statements in the context in which they were given.

      Richardson's first telling was an informal telling - he spoke to the police at the scene informing them that he was there around 4:50 to check the door and there was no body. He was not giving or making an "official statement", he was doing his civic duty. Later, when there was more time to question him, and time for him to provide further details, he added to that first telling, adding details about sitting on the steps to remove a piece of bothersome leather from his shoe, which he was unable to do, and so did it at work. None of those details would have seemed all that important in that initial telling. Moreover, none of those additional details make what he first reported appear incorrect, rather they simply provide a clearer picture. So, barring him lieing, I would say there's no reason to discount the final picture that emerges, that he was there, sat on the steps but didn't go into the yard, and there was no body there at that time. The overall consistency of his story far outweighs the minor changes in details (all of which are easily explainable when one considers the situations under which the "tellings" occurred - espescially since the very first one is a retelling of what he said by the police officer - so it's possible he's the source of the changed details due to recollection errors or due to how he chose to describe what was described to him). That latter point, though, is of course another reason to view the statements with caution and consider them in context with the others to try and determine what was being communicated.

      Given Richardson was there at 4:50, and Cadosch's testimony covers the time around 5:30, even if Richardson swung the door open and it was possible for it to hit the fence (I'm not really buying your "what if the door could reach the fence" hypothetical, but that doesn't matter), there's no way for Richardson's door opening to be Cadoch's noise.

      Richardson just means the murder occured sometime after 4:50. Cadosch's and Long's stories do not mesh in terms of their indivdiual stated times, but they are within a range that covers the margin of error in terms of people's estimation of time, so we can't say they definitely conflict, though that doesn't mean they definitely are both reliable either. Long could very well have seen two people unrelated to the crime, but she did positively identify Chapman's body. I agree with you that could be an erroneous identification (as we see in the Stride case). Cadosh reports hearing people talking, and a noise against the fence, which seems difficult to explain in any other way other than he heard sounds associated with the crime, unless those sounds came from somewhere other than #29 (and given that sounds can carry, and can be mislocated, that's not out of the realm of possibilities that need to be considered). So yes, what I'm describing, I believe, are various reasons for the evidence to be viewed by what you refer to as "being unsafe" - it is not safe to conclude these are 100% what they seem to be. But just because they "might be wrong" doesn't prove they are wrong because people can hear sounds, and can locate where they came from, and there was a murder in the yard where he thought those sounds came from, and the sounds he described are not inconsistent with the crime that was committed. These are all reasons to consider the possibility that the testimony is "safe" - just not enough to say it is "definitive".

      Given these testimonies are all that we have, and given that Cadosh and Richardson alone combine to a post 4:50 death somewhere around 5:20-5:30, it means serious consideration must be given to Long's testimony and positive identification of Chapman. I'm not saying it shouldn't be questioned (which I think is what you mean by unsafe - it's questionable). Her testimony, though, is not necessary to draw the tentative conclusion that the crime occurred somewhere around 5:20-5:30. Her testimony, rather, could possibly be more useful in terms of describing JtR pre-offense behaviour - it appears he was someone capable of talking with and luring his victims to go with him, which seems to point against the "raving lunitic" of Kosminski, who ate bread out of the gutter, and where one might suggest he blitz attacked them out of the shadows (which could fit for Nichols, Stride, and Eddowes but not Chapman or Kelly). Mind you, the very location of Chapman's murder also points to "JtR posing as client", which would entail an interaction before hand as well. Long's testimony, of the lot, is the most "unsafe", which in someways is the most disappointing as her's would include the possibility of learning something about JtR. Her description of him, though, was far too minimal and from behind, so not much use that way.

      And in the end, nobody is saying the evidence isn't questionable and nobody is saying the conclusions drawn from it are definite, I've not seen anyone seriously push the argument that the ToD has been proven beyond any doubt. Rather, people have been saying "The evidence we have tends to indicate the ToD was somewhere around 5:20-5:30, so unless there is some compelling counter evidence, that appears to be what we have to work with, but keep your mind open on it in case new evidence emerges to suggest otherwise." It's not enough to throw out the evidence we have simply because one can hypothesize that it might be wrong, even when one has good arguments for that hypothesis (because there are good reasons to be cautious). But unless something more than "what if they're wrong" or "maybe they're wrong" is put forth, the idea that the evidence should be ignored is simply the same mistake made in the other direction.

      Note, that last bit doesn't apply to the Dr. Phillip's ToD estimation because all modern knowledge tells us not only might he be wrong but in all probabilities he is wrong. That is evidence his testimony is not just unsafe, it's worthless. For the witnesses, all we have is the standard caveate that goes with any witness statement - "they might be wrong because witness statements are not all that reliable" - but because they are not all that reliable, we also know that they will have contradictions between tellings. In fact, if they don't, that sounds like they've been rehearsed, which then suggests they are lying and were probably involved somehow!

      - Jeff

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        But when the various reports along with the official testimony throw up conflicts we have no choice but to accept that they are then unsafe because we have no means of corroborating which one is the real truth, in the case of Richardson we are left to ask based on the conflicts in his recorded testimony both from the inquest and in newspaper reports

        Did he stand on the step, with the door open and just look to the right at the lock on the cellar door, and seeing it was still in place go back in the house, if he did he could have missed seeing the body because the open door would have obstructed his view of where the body was lying.
        Did he sit on the step and should have seen the body
        Did he sit and cut leather from his boot
        Did he throw open the door allowing it to bang against the fence for Cadosh to hear


        These conflicts are real along with Cadosch and Mrs. Long`s, it matters not in the grand scheme of things whether they are looked at from a modern-day legal perspective, or from a historical perspective, they are real and have to be looked at in the same way. It is ridiculous researchers trying to guess what the witness might have meant to say, or what he meant by what he said.

        Collectively based on what we have with all three witnesses, the testimony is unsafe for us to be able to conclusively establish a TOD.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk



        The conflict is between which of the two versions is the most reliable and therefore likelier to have been the truth. We have:

        a) An unrecorded and impromptu conversation in the passage way of the scene of a sensational murder between a man who might possibly have just dashed back from work worried that his mother might have been murdered and a Police Inspector dealing with a uniquely horrific event. A situation where, later on at The Inquest, we only hear one version without the other party having the benefit of responding. A situation where for example “”I sat on the steps and...”” might have been misheard or misremembered for “”I stood on the steps and...”” or that Richardson might simply have said something like “”I went to check on the cellar doors and there was definitely no body there..”” and Chandler understandably didn’t press him further. Can we just assume that Chandler was correct?

        or,

        b) A testimony by Richardson, under oath, at The Inquest where he tells a fuller version of events. In a situation where (as his testimony preceded that of Chandler’s) he wasn’t compelled in anyway to change his version of events or to adapt his testimony in the light of questioning.


        There’s one thing that we can be confident of and that’s that John Richardson was absolutely without a shred of doubt that he couldn’t possibly have missed seeing a mutilated corpse had it been there at 4.50. To try and discredit him, on the uncorroborated words of another, is simply not an honest, reasoned approach. Richardson is a very creditable witness.
        Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 09-13-2019, 10:13 AM.
        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 JeffHamm View Post

          Any time anyone tells the same story more than once there will be differences in the details. One has to evaluate the statements in the context in which they were given.

          Richardson's first telling was an informal telling - he spoke to the police at the scene informing them that he was there around 4:50 to check the door and there was no body. He was not giving or making an "official statement", he was doing his civic duty. Later, when there was more time to question him, and time for him to provide further details, he added to that first telling, adding details about sitting on the steps to remove a piece of bothersome leather from his shoe, which he was unable to do, and so did it at work. None of those details would have seemed all that important in that initial telling. Moreover, none of those additional details make what he first reported appear incorrect, rather they simply provide a clearer picture. So, barring him lieing, I would say there's no reason to discount the final picture that emerges, that he was there, sat on the steps but didn't go into the yard, and there was no body there at that time. The overall consistency of his story far outweighs the minor changes in details (all of which are easily explainable when one considers the situations under which the "tellings" occurred - espescially since the very first one is a retelling of what he said by the police officer - so it's possible he's the source of the changed details due to recollection errors or due to how he chose to describe what was described to him). That latter point, though, is of course another reason to view the statements with caution and consider them in context with the others to try and determine what was being communicated.

          Given Richardson was there at 4:50, and Cadosch's testimony covers the time around 5:30, even if Richardson swung the door open and it was possible for it to hit the fence (I'm not really buying your "what if the door could reach the fence" hypothetical, but that doesn't matter), there's no way for Richardson's door opening to be Cadoch's noise.

          Richardson just means the murder occured sometime after 4:50. Cadosch's and Long's stories do not mesh in terms of their indivdiual stated times, but they are within a range that covers the margin of error in terms of people's estimation of time, so we can't say they definitely conflict, though that doesn't mean they definitely are both reliable either. Long could very well have seen two people unrelated to the crime, but she did positively identify Chapman's body. I agree with you that could be an erroneous identification (as we see in the Stride case). Cadosh reports hearing people talking, and a noise against the fence, which seems difficult to explain in any other way other than he heard sounds associated with the crime, unless those sounds came from somewhere other than #29 (and given that sounds can carry, and can be mislocated, that's not out of the realm of possibilities that need to be considered). So yes, what I'm describing, I believe, are various reasons for the evidence to be viewed by what you refer to as "being unsafe" - it is not safe to conclude these are 100% what they seem to be. But just because they "might be wrong" doesn't prove they are wrong because people can hear sounds, and can locate where they came from, and there was a murder in the yard where he thought those sounds came from, and the sounds he described are not inconsistent with the crime that was committed. These are all reasons to consider the possibility that the testimony is "safe" - just not enough to say it is "definitive".

          Given these testimonies are all that we have, and given that Cadosh and Richardson alone combine to a post 4:50 death somewhere around 5:20-5:30, it means serious consideration must be given to Long's testimony and positive identification of Chapman. I'm not saying it shouldn't be questioned (which I think is what you mean by unsafe - it's questionable). Her testimony, though, is not necessary to draw the tentative conclusion that the crime occurred somewhere around 5:20-5:30. Her testimony, rather, could possibly be more useful in terms of describing JtR pre-offense behaviour - it appears he was someone capable of talking with and luring his victims to go with him, which seems to point against the "raving lunitic" of Kosminski, who ate bread out of the gutter, and where one might suggest he blitz attacked them out of the shadows (which could fit for Nichols, Stride, and Eddowes but not Chapman or Kelly). Mind you, the very location of Chapman's murder also points to "JtR posing as client", which would entail an interaction before hand as well. Long's testimony, of the lot, is the most "unsafe", which in someways is the most disappointing as her's would include the possibility of learning something about JtR. Her description of him, though, was far too minimal and from behind, so not much use that way.

          And in the end, nobody is saying the evidence isn't questionable and nobody is saying the conclusions drawn from it are definite, I've not seen anyone seriously push the argument that the ToD has been proven beyond any doubt. Rather, people have been saying "The evidence we have tends to indicate the ToD was somewhere around 5:20-5:30, so unless there is some compelling counter evidence, that appears to be what we have to work with, but keep your mind open on it in case new evidence emerges to suggest otherwise." It's not enough to throw out the evidence we have simply because one can hypothesize that it might be wrong, even when one has good arguments for that hypothesis (because there are good reasons to be cautious). But unless something more than "what if they're wrong" or "maybe they're wrong" is put forth, the idea that the evidence should be ignored is simply the same mistake made in the other direction.

          Note, that last bit doesn't apply to the Dr. Phillip's ToD estimation because all modern knowledge tells us not only might he be wrong but in all probabilities he is wrong. That is evidence his testimony is not just unsafe, it's worthless. For the witnesses, all we have is the standard caveate that goes with any witness statement - "they might be wrong because witness statements are not all that reliable" - but because they are not all that reliable, we also know that they will have contradictions between tellings. In fact, if they don't, that sounds like they've been rehearsed, which then suggests they are lying and were probably involved somehow!

          - Jeff
          Excellent post Jeff. I don’t really think that the situation that we are faced with could have been summed up better. Pretty much renders my post #1203 surplus to requirements.
          Regards

          Herlock






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

          Comment


          • Here we go again !
            Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

            Any time anyone tells the same story more than once there will be differences in the details. One has to evaluate the statements in the context in which they were given.

            No you are wrong, one has to asses and evaluate the content, one assumes they were given in good faith, and that the witnesses were not lying or just plain mistaken, or as is the case with other witnesses trying to be too helpful and getting there 15 mins of fame !

            I am not happy with Richardsons testimony, he is sitting down, then he is standing up, then he doesnt go down the steps, to many flaws to safely rely on


            Richardson's first telling was an informal telling - he spoke to the police at the scene informing them that he was there around 4:50 to check the door and there was no body. He was not giving or making an "official statement", he was doing his civic duty. Later, when there was more time to question him, and time for him to provide further details, he added to that first telling, adding details about sitting on the steps to remove a piece of bothersome leather from his shoe, which he was unable to do, and so did it at work. None of those details would have seemed all that important in that initial telling. Moreover, none of those additional details make what he first reported appear incorrect, rather they simply provide a clearer picture. So, barring him lieing, I would say there's no reason to discount the final picture that emerges, that he was there, sat on the steps but didn't go into the yard, and there was no body there at that time. The overall consistency of his story far outweighs the minor changes in details (all of which are easily explainable when one considers the situations under which the "tellings" occurred - espescially since the very first one is a retelling of what he said by the police officer - so it's possible he's the source of the changed details due to recollection errors or due to how he chose to describe what was described to him). That latter point, though, is of course another reason to view the statements with caution and consider them in context with the others to try and determine what was being communicated.

            Which ever way you dress it up there is still a conflict and that is never going to change 131 years down the line

            Richardson just means the murder occured sometime after 4:50.

            If he is to be believed and you disregard the conflcits

            I am not saying and never have said they are wrong because of the conflicts in all of the witnesses, I say they are unsafe to totally rely on thats a long way from totally disregarding them.


            Cadosch's and Long's stories do not mesh in terms of their indivdiual stated times, but they are within a range that covers the margin of error in terms of people's estimation of time, so we can't say they definitely conflict, though that doesn't mean they definitely are both reliable either. Long could very well have seen two people unrelated to the crime, but she did positively identify Chapman's body. I agree with you that could be an erroneous identification (as we see in the Stride case). Cadosh reports hearing people talking, and a noise against the fence, which seems difficult to explain in any other way other than he heard sounds associated with the crime, unless those sounds came from somewhere other than #29 (and given that sounds can carry, and can be mislocated, that's not out of the realm of possibilities that need to be considered). So yes, what I'm describing, I believe, are various reasons for the evidence to be viewed by what you refer to as "being unsafe" - it is not safe to conclude these are 100% what they seem to be. But just because they "might be wrong" doesn't prove they are wrong because people can hear sounds, and can locate where they came from, and there was a murder in the yard where he thought those sounds came from, and the sounds he described are not inconsistent with the crime that was committed. These are all reasons to consider the possibility that the testimony is "safe" - just not enough to say it is "definitive".

            Given these testimonies are all that we have, and given that Cadosh and Richardson alone combine to a post 4:50 death somewhere around 5:20-5:30, it means serious consideration must be given to Long's testimony and positive identification of Chapman. I'm not saying it shouldn't be questioned (which I think is what you mean by unsafe - it's questionable). Her testimony, though, is not necessary to draw the tentative conclusion that the crime occurred somewhere around 5:20-5:30. Her testimony, rather, could possibly be more useful in terms of describing JtR pre-offense behaviour - it appears he was someone capable of talking with and luring his victims to go with him, which seems to point against the "raving lunitic" of Kosminski, who ate bread out of the gutter, and where one might suggest he blitz attacked them out of the shadows (which could fit for Nichols, Stride, and Eddowes but not Chapman or Kelly). Mind you, the very location of Chapman's murder also points to "JtR posing as client", which would entail an interaction before hand as well. Long's testimony, of the lot, is the most "unsafe", which in someways is the most disappointing as her's would include the possibility of learning something about JtR. Her description of him, though, was far too minimal and from behind, so not much use that way.

            And in the end, nobody is saying the evidence isn't questionable and nobody is saying the conclusions drawn from it are definite, I've not seen anyone seriously push the argument that the ToD has been proven beyond any doubt.

            You clearly have not been reading Herlocks posts !!!

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


              The Chandler SCAM !!!!





              Anything, we will turn every policeman to charlatan just to avoid giving Fisherman support to his Theory!

              Unbiased gentelmen!

              Listen to the voice of an unbiased poster!



              The Baron
              My stalker is back having made no contributions on any other thread on any other topic. Having made no meaningful contribution to this thread he simply swoops back in to make a mocking, out of the blue comment, against me.

              Every single poster can see what you are Baron.

              The conversation that took place in the passageway between Chandler and Richardson was unrecorded therefore we only have Chandlers version - do you disagree with this Professor Baron?

              As a human being Chandler, like anyone else, is capable of being mistaken - do you accept this Professor Baron?

              Postulating that one police officer might have been mistaken in no way implies that all police officers were charlatans - do you accept this Professor Baron?

              You believe that we should all just support what Fisherman says - do you consider that an unbiased approach Professor Baron?

              And what is Fisherman’s theory? That every single expert in Forensic science throughout history, all of whom tell us categorically that Phillips could not have accurately estimated Chapman’s TOD, was completely wrong and that a Swedish Jounalist and researcher is correct - is that a theory that you think feasible too Professor Baron?


              Why can’t you find yourself another hobby apart from being a Troll? You have made absolutely no meaningful contribution to any debate on these threads. You use them for one purpose and one purpose only, to attack me and any opinion that I hold. I would even question whether you have any real interest in the case at all as you never actually debate points. You either jump in and cheer for anyone that disagrees with me or you cut and paste a quote r you just make a meaningless mocking comment. You are simply abusing your membership of this Forum. Will you respond intelligently to the points in debate? Of course you won’t.

              I don’t like to say it Baron but if you asked each poster their opinion in private the majority would say that they don’t really see no benefit in you being here and that you detract from the Forum.
              Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 09-13-2019, 10:53 AM.
              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
                Here we go again !

                Trevor, you can’t even be anything like certain that any conflict included Richardson himself because the conversation was uncorroborated. You are simply accepting Chandler as being gospel.

                I am not saying and never have said they are wrong because of the conflicts in all of the witnesses, I say they are unsafe to totally rely on thats a long way from totally disregarding them.
                I agree with your phrase - totally rely on.

                No one should say that any testimony is set in stone. Errors can occur, people do lie. But the only conflict with Richardson are Chandlers words and he might have been mistaken or Richardson just might not have gone into detail. Either way he was absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt confident that there was no body there and we have no reason to disbelieve him apart from nitpicking.
                Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 09-13-2019, 10:50 AM.
                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 at a quick check.

                  Of Baron’s last 26 posts, 14 were directly at me, 6 were in mocking reply to other posters but very obviously directed at me. That’s 77% by the way.

                  No further comment is required.
                  Regards

                  Herlock






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

                  Comment


                  • Richardsons inconsistencies do not affect this fact within the stories he gives..he was in the yard just before 5am,.... on the steps...sitting, standing, went down into the yard, sat there...who gives a s***. Its inconceivable that Annie would be lying there and he wouldn't have noticed. Just like when Cadosche hedges his bet, he said he had heard sounds from that yard before, so that he added he "couldn't be sure" he was just giving himself leeway in case some other witness claimed something different. Another witness in a Ripper crime did the same thing....Morris Eagle, He "couldn't be sure" whether a dead body was there when he went in the passageway. The reality is he would have had to step around Liz if she was lying where he said he went...close to the club wall. He hedged his bet, but perhaps for different reasons. It might be because Liz was actually there, but he didn't know what other people would say when asked.
                    Michael Richards

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                      Here we go again !

                      Sigh, no Trevor, you're wrong. Content is not devoid of the context in which it was given. A statement mentioned, and not written down but later recounted by the police officer, is a statement that will not even be an accurate retelling of what Richardson even said. So any conflicts that arise from that version are unsafe to call conflicts at all. One could just put that version aside as unsafe.

                      Then you have his inquest testimony, which no longer conflicts at all.

                      But that's just playing silly buggers by turning your own rules on your own arguments. I'll call the first statement "unsafe", therefore insist we ignore it, then all of a sudden the conflicts are gone. Magic thinking!

                      Get any two versions of a witness statement and you can, if you look, find "conflicts", particularly if one wants to find them. But one has to weigh the conflicts, and see if they are really are of any real importance - or if they really are conflicts at all. And, given the conflicts are in details that are not the primary focus of his information (that he was there and there was no body and he was sure of that), and the conflicts are quite minor details and might not even be conflicts (he would be standing when he checked the door then sat on the stairs, etc so yes, he was standing at one point and he was sitting at another - hardly a surprise for a human; he left out the sitting to sort his shoe as that was an irrelavent detail which was filled in later), then to dismiss them is unsafe.

                      And if you read my message above, and even this one, you will see that I was not, and am not, saying the testimony is rock solid, and that it should be taken with caution. You seem to be saying it should be thrown out, and that is at least as misguided as accepting it as gosphel in my view. Too many times evidence is thrown out because it is inconvenient, with justifications nothing more than disguised bias, driven by a theory that is unsupported by the evidence to be removed at all costs.

                      What we do have, are witness statements that have no more conflict than one would expect to find in the retelling of the same events under the circumstances they occurred. As such, the statements need to be considered. At the same time, witness statements are notoriously weak evidence, but we have nothing else. Hence, the only time one can say has any support is around 5:20-5:30, but that support is based upon witness testimony only so no, it's not proven and could be wrong. If you mean something other than that by "unsafe", then you use it very differently than I understand it to mean. As I say, it comes across that when you say "unsafe" you're using that to mean "and so should be entirely thrown out". Although your quote "I am not saying and never have said they are wrong because of the conflicts in all of the witnesses, I say they are unsafe to totally rely on thats a long way from totally disregarding them." denies that, but the tone and implications of the rest of your post conflict with that denial (so should I throw all of your statements out as unreliable, as there's conflict?).. Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding you. It's clear, though, that you're misunderstanding me and are reading my posts as if I'm saying the evidence is conclusive, which I'm not.

                      - Jeff
                      Last edited by JeffHamm; 09-13-2019, 12:31 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Mrs Long, at the Inquest.....worth noting that Mrs Long did not immediately come forward, even with all the newspapers and gossip about the murder "...


                        "I saw the woman's face. Have seen the deceased in the mortuary, and I am sure the woman that I saw in Hanbury-street was the deceased. I did not see the man's face, but I noticed that he was dark. He was wearing a brown low-crowned felt hat. I think he had on a dark coat, though I am not certain. By the look of him he seemed to me a man over forty years of age. He appeared to me to be a little taller than the deceased.
                        Did he look like a working man, or what? - He looked like a foreigner.
                        Did he look like a dock labourer, or a workman, or what? - I should say he looked like what I should call shabby-genteel.
                        Were they talking loudly? - They were talking pretty loudly. I overheard him say to her "Will you?" and she replied, "Yes." That is all I heard, and I heard this as I passed. I left them standing there, and I did not look back, so I cannot say where they went to.
                        Did they appear to be sober? - I saw nothing to indicate that either of them was the worse for drink.
                        Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.
                        At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them."
                        Michael Richards

                        Comment


                        • Dear me. Turn your back on the boards and it will turn into kindergarten while you are away.

                          I look the thread up, and what do I see? Well, I see Herlock Sholmes, the self-proclaimed promotor of science, claiming that "Fish’s TOD arguments have been thoroughly trashed with evidence." I suppose the evidence alluded to is the reoccurring assurances that palpating byt hand is not reliable in comparison with using a thermometer.

                          The thing is, I have never claimed otherwise. Thermometers ARE more reliable - but that does n ot make palpating by hand unreliable as such. It only makes it less exact. There can be no hand palpation telling us temperatures in decimals like a thermometer will do.

                          But that was never the issue here, was it? No, the issue was always - and is still - that much as the method is less reliabale than a thermomneter, it is NOT so unrleiable so as to make a medico miss out on numerous degrees, and so Phillips is not likely to have been totally wrong in his estimation. Sure, he can have been some way off, but he could not have been as off as it takes for us to be able to dismsiss him, the way Herlock would like to do. As we van see from quotations from his posts, he hads alread taken the liberty to do so:

                          "Phillips can be dismissed. He wasn’t a magician. He didn’t have magic hands. He could not have accurately estimate Chapman’s TOD." (post 1104)

                          and

                          "Phillips is finished. Anyone that says otherwise is simply allowing bias to lead them into embarrassing positions." (post 1105)

                          To prove this, it will NOT take more examples of articles pointing out that palpating by hand is unreliable. It will instead take articles telling us that it is so unreliable as to make it more likely than not that Phillips got the temperature of Chapmans body many degrees wrong when feeling her for warmth? Has any such material been presented yet? I don´t think so.

                          Next up is Paul B, who writes (in a post to Trevor Marriott):

                          "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?" (post 1100)

                          This calls for an explanation what the term "guess" points to: A random guess with no backing substantiation, or an INFORMED supposition, based on the examnination Phillips made?

                          To take us one step further, I woud like for all of us to read and digest a paper called "Detection of skin temperature differences using palpation by manual physical therapists and lay individuals".

                          Interestingly, this is a paper concerning itself with the EXACT information we have all been making assumptions about for quite some time now. It takes a look at how 44 lay persons and 44 manual physical therapists tested just how exact they were in terms of being able to tell temperatures from each other, by feeling simulated skin for warmth. We can learn whether the method is worthless (as we are told by Herlock Sholmes) or useful to a significant degree (which is that I am saying).

                          Since we have a poster who asks for highly scientific material, it makes me happy to present the authors, complete with their credentials:


                          David Levine, J. Randy Walker, Denis J. Marcellin-Little, Ron Goulet, and Hongyu Ru

                          David F. Levine (born July 13, 1965) is an American author, a professor of physical therapy, and a biomedical scientist. He holds the Walter M. Cline Chair of Excellence in Physical Therapy at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga.His research and publication contributions focus on veterinary rehabilitation and physical therapy, including canine physical therapy, animal assisted therapy, gait analysis and motion analysis, the use of modalities such as electrical stimulation and therapeutic ultrasound, as well as clinical infectious disease research.

                          J. Randy Walker, PT, PhD

                          Professor Emeritus

                          Physical Therapy

                          Dr. Denis Marcellin-Little
                          Associate Professor, Orthopedics

                          Department of Clinical Sciences

                          College of Veterinary Medicine

                          North Carolina State University

                          Dr. Marcellin completed his doctor of veterinary medicine training in Toulouse, France. He is a Diplomate of both the European and American College of Veterinary Surgeons. Dr. Marcellin is recognized as an authority in the field of veterinary orthopedics. His areas of interest include total hip replacement, external fixation, treatment of bone deformities and physical therapy. His current research interests include the biological response to orthopedic implants, distraction osteogenesis and canine developmental orthopedic diseases.

                          Dr. Ron Goulet is an Associate Professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. He received a BSCE from Northwestern University in 1976. He worked in the Chicago area as a project engineer for a consulting firm and as an applications engineer for a manufacturer of ash handling systems then in Pittsburgh as manager of utility sales and marketing for a competitor serving the power industry. In 1986, Goulet earned Professional Registration in the state of Maine, started Consultech, a sole proprietorship, and delivered expert engineering consulting services to legal and insurance clients in matters involving injury, event reconstruction and property loss. He earned an Engineering PhD from the University of New Hampshire in 1997 defending a thesis in the field of experimental fracture mechanics. Goulet joined the CECS faculty in 1998, taught undergrad and graduate courses in engineering mechanics and materials science and directed the UTC Orthopedic Biomechanics Research Laboratory, a collaboration with the UT College of Medicine, Dept. of Orthopedic Surgery. Goulet’s research interests include improving the effectiveness of engineering education, experimental orthopedic biomechanics and applied experimental mechanics.

                          Hongyu Ru, PhD

                          Clinical Assistant Professor of Biostatistics


                          I trust this line-up shall meet the high demands of Herlock Sholmes, even.

                          I have cut out the most important bits, but anybody who wants can find the article on the net.

                          Here we go:

                          Objectives

                          To evaluate the accuracy of detection of temperature differences among skin sites of lay individuals and manual physical therapists.

                          Methods

                          Forty-four manual physical therapists and 44 lay individuals were recruited. Subjects palpated two temperature-controlled surfaces that ranged in temperature between 30 and 35 °C and varied randomly by 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 °C for 10 s. The subjects were then asked to identify the warmer pad.

                          Results

                          Accuracy increased with larger temperature differences. Accuracy of detection of 1 and 3 °C temperature differences was higher in manual physical therapists than lay individuals.

                          Discussion

                          Palpation can be used to accurately detecting temperature differences between sites and is more accurately performed by an experienced practitioner.


                          +++

                          Now, that was from the summary, but here are the pertinent parts from the discussion:

                          Palpation is an integral part of the physical examination of soft tissues. Tissue changes, particularly inflammation, lead to changes in skin temperature [8–10]. The results of the current study indicate that manual physical therapists and laypersons can detect temperature differences as small as 1–2 °C, making palpation a valid tool when screening for pathology involving increased tissue temperature.

                          We accepted our hypothesis that the rate of accurate detection by manual physical therapists and by lay individuals increased when temperature differences between plates increased. Lay individuals accurately detected the warmer plate only two thirds of the time when differences were 1 or 2 °C, accurately detected the warmer plate approximately 90% of the time when the temperature difference was 4 °C, and >95% when the difference was 5 °C. Manual physical therapists accurately detected the warmer plate > three quarters of the time when differences were 1 or 2 °C and detected differences of ≥3 °C with an accuracy >95%. We accepted our hypothesis that manual physical therapists were more accurate than lay individuals for smaller gradients (1 and 3°). These differences disappeared with larger gradients, as the accuracy of lay individuals approached 100%. The source of the increased accuracy observed in manual physical therapists compared to lay individuals is not known. Increased accuracy could result from differences in palpation technique or in the cognitive processing of perceived temperatures differences. Palpation technique likely influences thermal perception. Thermal perception differs based on the area of contact and on contact mechanics.

                          We concluded that palpation can accurately detect temperature differences between skin sites. Accuracy increases with larger temperature differences. Manual physical therapists are more accurate than lay individuals.


                          So, palpation is a very useful and not very unexact method of determining body warmth. Physical therapists were able to tell differences of 1 or 2 degrees in 75 per cent of the cases, and when the difference was more than 3 degrees, they were able to tell in 95 per cent of the cases. Lay persons were less skilled, but I think we may rule out that Phillips was in any way a lay person.
                          He was instead an extremely skilled medico with heaps of experience. And he knew in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street that he was dealing with a case where it was of the utmost importance that he got it right - there cannot have been any sloppy work.

                          One more thin that has dawned on me while being away for some little time is how every medico who was called out to palpate for body warmth actually brought along a test kit so he would not get things wrong: himself. If Phillips had any doubt about how a living person would feel, all he had to do would be to feel his own skin!

                          Going on the above, I would say that far from dismissing Phillips, we should dismiss once and for all the nutty idea that palpating for warmth was always going to get things very wrong. Apparently, the possibility that Phillips would have gotten the temperature three degrees wrong or more is less than 5 per cent. And since the temperature falls by 0,8 degrees Celsius per hour and not at all during the first half to one hour, it would not have fallen at all or very little in Chapmans body if she had only been dead for a mere hour. And guess what: Phillips would not have missed out on that, as per the above.

                          I believe this is the first truly relevant paper presented to date on this thread. It should make Herlock very happy, since he has lamented over how I have had a view without being a medically versed man, whereas his own misinterpretations of heaps of experts have been passed off as fact.

                          So let´s sign off by repeating this phrase: Palpation can be used to accurately detecting temperature differences between sites and is more accurately performed by an experienced practitioner.

                          ... and, of course, by wawing goodbye to the witnesses. Adieu, Mrs Long, you never saw Annie Chapman, and farewell, Albert Cadosch, you never heard her.

                          I may or may not answer the oncoming protests by Herlock et al "But my experts cannot be refuted, Phillips must be thrown to the wolves. Please, PLEASE!" I actually have other things to do, and I am in the process of looking at more material, so throwing horse manure is not at the top off my bucket list right now.

                          Nor do I need to - I just proved that palpation for temperature is normally fairly exact.




                          Last edited by Fisherman; 09-13-2019, 01:38 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                            Mrs Long, at the Inquest.....worth noting that Mrs Long did not immediately come forward, even with all the newspapers and gossip about the murder "...


                            "I saw the woman's face. Have seen the deceased in the mortuary, and I am sure the woman that I saw in Hanbury-street was the deceased. I did not see the man's face, but I noticed that he was dark. He was wearing a brown low-crowned felt hat. I think he had on a dark coat, though I am not certain. By the look of him he seemed to me a man over forty years of age. He appeared to me to be a little taller than the deceased.
                            Did he look like a working man, or what? - He looked like a foreigner.
                            Did he look like a dock labourer, or a workman, or what? - I should say he looked like what I should call shabby-genteel.
                            Were they talking loudly? - They were talking pretty loudly. I overheard him say to her "Will you?" and she replied, "Yes." That is all I heard, and I heard this as I passed. I left them standing there, and I did not look back, so I cannot say where they went to.
                            Did they appear to be sober? - I saw nothing to indicate that either of them was the worse for drink.
                            Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.
                            At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them."
                            She initially said that she would not be able to identify the couple, though. That terminally undermined whatever she said afterwards, I´m afraid. That´s how it works.

                            Comment


                            • Next up is Paul B, who writes (in a post to Trevor Marriott):

                              "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?" (post 1100)

                              This calls for an explanation what the term "guess" points to: A random guess with no backing substantiation, or an INFORMED supposition, based on the examnination Phillips made?

                              There is nothing about the kindergarten in my statement. No explanation of what 'guess' means is needed or implied. Whether a guess is informed or not is an indication of likely reliability, an informed guess being preferred to an uniformed one, but informed or otherwise, it could still have been wrong. What I wrote actually accepted that the guess was valid, I also accepted the time of death suggested by the witness statements was valid, and that is clear from the statement 'so we have two possible times of death'. I asked Trevor which time of death best fitted the context of known facts. He, unsurprisingly, didn't answer. I do suggest that you try to understand what is written before hurrying to assign them to the kindergarten.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                                She initially said that she would not be able to identify the couple, though. That terminally undermined whatever she said afterwards, I´m afraid. That´s how it works.
                                Really? Since when did we start living in a world where one couldn't change one's mind?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X