Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapmanís death.

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
    Hi Fisherman

    You've misinterpreted the paper's conclusions as to what Philips would have been able to detect. Perhaps you should reread it and amend what you've proudly "proved".

    Also, you are using the article to compare a senior Victorian physician with 21st century manual physical therapists. Would their workdays be very similar, do you think?
    Likin' that post Kat.

    Michael Richards

    Comment


    • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

      Another Herlock lie .
      Fisherman had destroyed all of his 'arguments' , that's why he is lying, to give the false impression that he is at a better position in this debate.

      When you see him using words like swedish, you don't understand english, troll, dishonest, you know he is lost.



      The Baron

      Comment


      • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
        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?

        This is a typical Herlock statement, ive notice he does this when it suits his argument, with no regard for posters who believe otherwise ,

        Why is it that because Richardson told his story about the sitting on the step and cutting his boot at the inquest and a different version to chandler, we should believe his inquest version? , can we then not use the same argument for chandler who was also under oath when he told his version of what Richardson told him in the passageway?

        It has to work both ways if your going to use this form of argument , but then again it is Herlock were talking about.

        So basically your calling Chandler a liar for his inquest statement ?
        The difference is that the conversation in the passageway was uncorroborated and unrecorded. So from the conversation (based purely on Chandlers word) we have four possible explanations (feel free to add any if you or anyone else can think of something that Iíve missed):
        • Richardson didnít mention sitting on the steps because he didnít sit on the steps.
        • Richardson didnít mention sitting on the steps because (possibly due to the shortness of the conversation) because he felt that the information that there was no body there was all that mattered and all that Chandler was interested in.
        • Richardson did mention it but Chandler misunderstood or misheard him.
        • Richardson deliberately withheld the information because he was concerned about placing himself at the scene of a murder with a knife.
        None of us, neither myself, yourself, Trevor or anyone can possibly know which one of these is correct because we cannot know what words actually came out of Richardsonís mouth. I hope that you accept this Fishy?

        Now we get to The Inquest. Richardson had no reason as far as we can see to alter his version of events. He testified before Chandler so we canít say that he was reacting to his version. He wasnít reacting to the Coroner as he just asked him what happened. And so under oath Richardson gave a fuller version of what went on. This wasnít a conversation on the spur of the moment like the one in the passageway. This was a statement given calmly and after the chance to recall events fully.

        And so which version would any reasonable person say was the most trustworthy? One where we only here one personís version of what another person said (under difficult circumstances) or, one where we hear that personís own version; from his own lips (albeit via the Press)

        Its obviously the latter Fishy. Itís desperate to keep bringing up the passageway conversation. And apart from this, in both versions, Richardson is 100% certain that he could not have missed a mutilated corpse had it been there. The idea that he could have missed a mutilated corpse around a foot from his own feet is laughable.

        Id suggest that you ditch the Knight/Sickert bias and look at the facts. Look at the likelihoodís and overwhelming likelihoodís which point to a TOD around 5.25.


        Its also very noticeable Fishy that you never responded to my earlier question. If you have such a high level of confidence in Phillips and the complexities of determining TOD why do you dismiss him in the much simpler discipline of checking where a body was killed?

        [Coroner] In your opinion did she enter the yard alive? - I am positive of it. I made a thorough search of the passage, and I saw no trace of blood, which must have been visible had she been taken into the yard.


        Strange that Phillips is a magician when it comes to establishing a TOD but a complete incompetence when deciding where a body was killed.​​​​​​​
        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

          The reason this argument persists is that some on here,and you in particular will not fully accept that the TOD cannot be firmly established. You keep stamping your feet in your posts stating that the TOD was 5.20am. As has been stated there are so many issues with all the witnesses, which we cannot bottom out, which in my opinion lead us into having to accept that TOD is inconclusive.

          Is there any reason for this argument to continue. Even if we could positively ascertain a time of death would it further the investigation, or is it the case that some just want to argue for the sake of arguing !

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          I don't think anyone on the "Phillips Was Incorrect" team is saying we can establish a TOD,... at least for me, I believe we can establish the window of time that the murder occurred within. We have, once again and for my last time, we have 3 witnesses... just before 5, and 1 at quarter past 5, and 1 just before 6am at the scene of the crime that establish that window that Annie was killed within. Its also established within those 3 witness statements that at the 5:15 time a voice was heard from the location of the murder, proving beyond any reasonable doubt that someone was alive on that spot at 5:15. It is irrational to imagine that the cry was made by someone standing over a murdered woman. A scream would have been an argument, but we don't have that.

          So....Annie is killed between 5:15 and 5:30 most probably, with some time left before Davis comes in to do the mutilating.

          We have the evidence here, why are people questioning what is clearly established by those 3 accounts? Establishing TOD wasn't exact science, and Phillips had never been asked to establish that under the same circumstances. If you don't see that that obviously physicians were beyond their ability to establish much of anything in these cases, beyond cause of death, then you haven't been at this study long enough.

          In Pollys we have from last sighting to discovery a TOD window, with Annie we have the 3 witnesses on the scene to establish the window, in Strides case we have from the last moment she is seen on the street until Louis finds her as the window, with Kate we have the square PC Watkins passes to mark the TOD, and we are all over the map with Kelly because some people cling to Maxwells statement, one that was chastised for disagreeing with all the other evidence submitted.

          Its the people studying these crimes that makes answers impossible, not the evidence itself.
          Michael Richards

          Comment


          • Strange that Phillips is a magician when it comes to establishing a TOD but a complete incompetence when deciding where a body was killed.
            ITS ALSO STRANGE WHEN ''YOU'' COMPLETED DISMISS THE MODERN MEDICAL EXPERTS WHO SAY THAT EDDOWES UTERUS AND KIDNEY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REMOVE IN 5 MINS IN THE DARK. BUT YOU'LL GO WITH DR SEQUEIRAS MEDICAL EXPERT ADVICE WHEN IT SUITS YOU

            Comment


            • Originally posted by The Baron View Post

              Fisherman had destroyed all of his 'arguments' , that's why he is lying, to give the false impression that he is at a better position in this debate.

              When you see him using words like swedish, you don't understand english, troll, dishonest, you know he is lost.



              The Baron
              Fishís latest argument has been destroyed by myself, Jeff, Kattrup and Etenguy. But you wouldnít know that because you only make silly comments.

              I used the word Swedish (actually Swedish Journalist), not in a derogatory way but in a descriptive way because, guess what, Fish is a Swedish Journalist.

              I use the word Troll because you exhibit all the attributes of one and Iím not the only poster to have pointed this out Baron. You overwhelmingly target me with your posts. I post on a thread and you turn up in opposition.


              This argument was over weeks ago. Only the bias of posters allows it to continue. I remember the time when you and Fishy used to mock my suggestion that TOD estimates were unreliable. As if I was making it up. Now evidence upon evidence has been posted to back up this obvious fact. Experience, knowledgeable posters like Sam Flynn, Paul Begg, Jeff Hamm, JohnG, Kattrup, Etenguy, Trevor Marriott, Michael Richards, Steve Blomer and others have confirmed what we all knew. Even Fish himself has confirmed the unreliability.

              Do I now get an apology from you and Fishy or do you dishonestly keep ploughing on with your utter desperation?

              Let me guess?
              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

                The reason this argument persists is that some on here,and you in particular will not fully accept that the TOD cannot be firmly established. You keep stamping your feet in your posts stating that the TOD was 5.20am. As has been stated there are so many issues with all the witnesses, which we cannot bottom out, which in my opinion lead us into having to accept that TOD is inconclusive.

                Is there any reason for this argument to continue. Even if we could positively ascertain a time of death would it further the investigation, or is it the case that some just want to argue for the sake of arguing !

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                Aren't you causing this argument to persist by stamping your feet and stating that the witness testimony is unreliable?

                Positively ascertaining the time of death probably wouldn't further the investigation, but it would possibly tell us a lot about the reliability of the testimony of Richardson, Cadosch and Long, and nobody knows what bearing that could have on the investigation. Some people think it is important to give full and proper consideration to a scenario that includes the testimony of Richardson, Cadosch and Long. They're right to do that? Are you right to block it?

                And you are blocking it.You have stated that Dr Phillips' estimated time of death cannot be relied on, yet you prefer it to the time of death indicated by the testimony of three witnesses. You object to the witness testimony because it is potentially unreliable, but it has not been proven to be wrong. You have insisted that you are not dismissing the witness testimony, but you have not offered any balancing scenario in which that testimony is used or suggested how it should otherwise be treated. Basically, you are dismissing the witness testimony - and as Herlock has stated, your stance on pretty much everything is to go against the accepted assessments of the evidence, everything from Eddowes' apron to the Swanson marginalia, which strongly indicates an inherent and strong bias in your arguments and conclusions.

                What you are missing is that the likes of Herlock are prepared to accept that time of death cannot be firmly established, they are prepared to accept that Dr Phillips' estimated time of death cannot be relied upon on with any degree of certainty, and they are therefore considering the alternatives, namely the time of death suggested by the witness testimony. Why isn't that the right thing to do?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                  ITS ALSO STRANGE WHEN ''YOU'' COMPLETED DISMISS THE MODERN MEDICAL EXPERTS WHO SAY THAT EDDOWES UTERUS AND KIDNEY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REMOVE IN 5 MINS IN THE DARK. BUT YOU'LL GO WITH DR SEQUEIRAS MEDICAL EXPERT ADVICE WHEN IT SUITS YOU
                  And as Iíve pointed out about 500 times you are taking the opinion of a couple of experts. Experts can and do disagree. The vast majority of experts over the years appear to have no issue with this. And, as we know that Eddowes was killed where she was found because only a loony would think otherwise, then we know that this did happen in the time available.

                  And, as you well know but choose to ignore, is that in the case of the estimation of TOD every single medical expert agrees. There is a massive, massive difference Fishy.

                  Two dissenting voices versus uniform agreement.

                  I can see this, every other poster can see this, why canít you?
                  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 Fisherman View Post

                    All we need to recognize is that palpation is a much more exact technique than you have tried to lead on, Herlock. Any idea that we can feel subtle differences in living people but not in dead is just silly. Actually, the paper is not concerened with living people, something you would know if you read it. It relates to palpating SIMULATED skin.
                    The one thing that matters here is nevertheless how we are well equipped to identify temperature differences by way of feeling with our hands. And as the paper points out - there is less than a 5 per cent chance that a therapist will get things three degrees wrong or more.

                    It is all about how exact the method is, and the method is reasonably exact. Exact enough for the writers of the paper to recognize it as a useful tool. Whether the results were reached with simulated skin or not and whether it was directed at being able to feel temperature differences in pathological conditions is neither here nor there.
                    Hi Fisherman,

                    No, being able to detect that A is warmer than B doesn't tell you the temperature of either A or B, just the relative temperature. Hence, he could tell there was more "heat" under the intestines than elsewhere. Second, the temperature at the surface of the body, even if he could measure it, is not a measurement that could be used to estimate the ToD anyway. If you're hands are exposed to the winter air, they get cold. The surface of them will feel cold to another person. That doesn't mean you've been dead for a few hours. To get anything even close to meaningful, you have to take a temperature with a rectal thermometer (or from the liver), and even then, all the calculations are based upon having an intact body, which Chapman's wasn't. So, even though the paper isn't about estimating the actual temperature, only the relative difference (making it irrelevant to our purposes), the measurement one would get by touching the body is useless with regards to estimating the ToD, particularly under the circumstances in which hers was found.

                    This was noted even at the time by the corner at her inquest, where during summing up he states "It was true that Dr. Phillips thought that when he saw the body at 6:30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admitted that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood might affect his opinion, and if the evidence of the other witnesses was correct, Dr. Phillips had miscalculated the effect of those forces.Ē So even the contemporaries recognized Dr. Phillips' estimate was questionable.

                    You're a journalist, and you live in a country with cold winters. Go interview your local coroner (or the equivalent) and ask them. You can even show them the paper you found and ask if that changes their mind.

                    - Jeff

                    Comment


                    • i can see this, every other poster can see this, why canít you
                      stop speaking for other posters to make your point as if they agree with you.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                        Aren't you causing this argument to persist by stamping your feet and stating that the witness testimony is unreliable?

                        I am stating a proven fact by highlighting the flaws

                        Positively ascertaining the time of death probably wouldn't further the investigation, but it would possibly tell us a lot about the reliability of the testimony of Richardson, Cadosch and Long, and nobody knows what bearing that could have on the investigation Some people think it is important to give full and proper consideration to a scenario that includes the testimony of Richardson, Cadosch and Long. They're right to do that? Are you right to block it

                        you tell me why conclusively ascertaining TOD would further the investigation.we know that there are conflicts in the witness testimony. We also cannot fully determined the conclusive TOD in the other murders.

                        And you are blocking it.You have stated that Dr Phillips' estimated time of death cannot be relied on, yet you prefer it to the time of death indicated by the testimony of three witnesses. You object to the witness testimony because it is potentially unreliable, but it has not been proven to be wrong. You have insisted that you are not dismissing the witness testimony, but you have not offered any balancing scenario in which that testimony is used or suggested how it should otherwise be treated. Basically, you are dismissing the witness testimony - and as Herlock has stated, your stance on pretty much everything is to go against the accepted assessments of the evidence, everything from Eddowes' apron to the Swanson marginalia, which strongly indicates an inherent and strong bias in your arguments and conclusions.

                        if anyone is biased it has to be you and how many more times do I have to tell you I am not dismissing the testimony I am saying it is unsafe

                        What you are missing is that the likes of Herlock are prepared to accept that time of death cannot be firmly established, they are prepared to accept that Dr Phillips' estimated time of death cannot be relied upon on with any degree of certainty, and they are therefore considering the alternatives, namely the time of death suggested by the witness testimony. Why isn't that the right thing to do?
                        There has to be a TOD and I like many others do not know what that is and based on what I know and how I interpret the fact and the witness testimony I believe Phillips could have been right

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk


                        Comment


                        • I made the point that you and Baron have consistently mocked the suggestion the TOD estimates are unreliable.

                          You made the response below:

                          . Another Herlock lie .
                          From the TOD thread, post # 12 you said:

                          . That TOD estimations were unreliable and could be wildly inaccurate?......... rubbish
                          I can find more if you want me too?

                          So, surprise, surprise, I was telling the truth and you were lying.....again.

                          Any apology Fishy?

                          Didnt think so
                          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

                            stop speaking for other posters to make your point as if they agree with you.
                            Stop make rubbish, childish posts.

                            The posters that i mentioned: Sam Flynn, Paul Begg, Jeff Hamm, JohnG, Kattrup, Trevor Marriott, Etenguy, Michael Richards, Steve Blomer all do agree with me on the specific topic that we are discussing. Everyone of them agrees that TOD estimations are unreliable. And believe me Fishy I could find more. In fact Iíd struggle to find a single poster who would disagree with me on that point - except for Dr Fishy and Professor Baron of course.

                            Give it up Fishy. Try basing your judgments around evidence and not whether it agrees with Stephen Knight or not.



                            Regards

                            Herlock






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

                            Comment



                            • There has to be a TOD and I like many others do not know what that is and based on what I know and how I interpret the fact and the witness testimony I believe Phillips could have been right
                              So what youíre actually saying is this Trevor:

                              ~ whilst I accept that Dr Phillips couldnít have estimated Chapmans TOD accurately using the methods that he did, my own logic and reason tells me that he simply lucky guessed it and I base this Holmes-like piece of deduction on a) that Cadosch was cautious about saying the that the word Ď”noí” came from number 29, b) that Chandler, in an unrecorded and uncorroborated interview, said that Richardson didnít actually mention sitting on the step (even though he was 100% certain that he couldnít have missed a mutilated corpse) and c) the fact that Cadosch and Longís timings donít align. I also believe that itís entirely impossible and outlandish that Long and Cadosch might have each been 7 or 8 minutes out (which would make them tie up neatly)~

                              This basically sums up your viewpoint Trevor. You would rather throw out three creditable witnesses on little more than trivialities to support a TOD based on complete luck.
                              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 Fisherman View Post

                                Of course - thermometers CAN NOT tell the wrong temperatures and they WILL be more exact, so it wouold be outright stupid to use had palpation. But that is not the question at hand. The question at hand is whether hand palpation is so unreliable as to allow for Phillips to have been mistaken to the degree that is suggested. And it is not, as per the paper provided.

                                Letīs not compare apples to pears, because it becomes misleading.

                                First point, any scientist will tell you a single paper proves nothing, one needs several saying the same thing.
                                However that is a minor point.

                                Let's look at this paper itself.

                                This paper is about detectiting changes in skin temperature by feel.

                                So we know that people can tell if the skin changed temperature, I am not sure that has ever been in dispute.
                                Of course the participants had a base to start from, and the test was simply which of two pads was hotter.
                                It is still subjective as the results clearly show.

                                This has no relationship at all to Phillips touching a victims skin and claiming to base TOD on such.

                                The experiment of course in no way it tell us about internal body temperature based on feel or TOD.

                                There is no evidence in the paper which even hints that one can speculate on actual skin temperature or apply that to internal body temperatures.

                                As such the paper is irrelevant to the debate.

                                Once again Christer, you take a scientific paper, which you apparently don't really understand and draw faulty conclusions from the paper.
                                Last time it was a paper regarding a rise in internal cell pressure which you claimed equated to a rise in blood pressure.


                                Steve


                                Last edited by Elamarna; 09-14-2019, 06:48 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X