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 Trevor Marriott View Post

    There has to be a TOD
    Yes, we agree on that given we're discussing a murder.


    and I like many others do not know what that is


    And we're all in agreement here, none of us know for certain the ToD. That's why people have been talking about what they view as "the most likely ToD"", the "the most likely" qualifier is indicating that it is tentative.
    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
    Which of course is fine, you believe Dr. Phillip's estimate is the most likely time because you've interpreted things differently than others. You've chosen to favour the testimony of Dr. Phillips who based his estimate on methods proven to be inaccurate and unreliable (I would think, though, that fits your definition of "unsafe" as well) and by doing so you dismiss the witness statements on the basis that they might be inaccurate, while others have chosen the opposite because they see the witnesses as being the least unsafe of the two.

    - Jeff
    Last edited by JeffHamm; 09-14-2019, 07:58 PM.

    Comment


    • Do we really need to get into epistemological debates because Trevor's throwing stones from his ivory tower?

      Can we say with absolute certainty what time Annie Chapman was killed? No. We can only make a careful and critical analysis of the evidence available and take an educated guess.

      Comment


      • That just about sums it up Jeff. We know from the authorities on the subject that Phillips was using unsafe and unreliable methods. Methods that those experts tell us repeatedly should not be used to estimate TOD. This is fact.

        There are no facts that tell us that the witnesses must have been wrong though. Witnesses can be mistaken of course and witnesses can lie. So we have to weigh up the witnesses with caution but this doesn’t mean dismissing them because they aren’t perfect which appears to be Trevor’s approach. Cadosch is a rather glaring example. Just because he was cautious/less certain about where the ‘no’ came from Trevor calls him unsafe. He felt that it came from number 29 but was certain that the noise came from 29. Would the police today call such a witness unsafe? It’s hard to see how. Even if we dismiss the ‘no’ we still have a witness testifying to hearing a noise against the fence in a yard where a murder was committed at a time when no one else had been in that yard. Unless we accuse Cadosch (with no evidence) of lying then the chances of the ‘no’ and the noise being unconnected to the murder has have been remote.

        Richardson’s testimony under oath is dismissed because of the testimony of a man who might easily have been wrong. Richardson was absolutely certain that there was no body there at 4.50. We have absolutely no good reason to disbelieve him apart from someone’s uncorroborated opinion. So, nitpicking aside, Richardson is easily believable.

        Long was confident that it was Annie that she saw. Could she have been mistaken? Of course. But if we accept the undeniable fact that witnesses without watches could very easily have been wrong with timings then all that we have to postulate is the entirely unremarkable possibility that both Long and Cadosch were both 7 or 8 minutes out for them to tie up perfectly thus giving us three witnesses that fit a timeline.

        Again.....an unsafe TOD versus three witnesses. It really is a no brainier on which is overwhelmingly the likeliest. I’d say considerably over 95% for a TOD around 5.25/5.30. Almost no doubt at all.
        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

          Yes, we agree on that given we're discussing a murder.



          And we're all in agreement here, none of us know for certain the ToD. That's why people have been talking about what they view as "the most likely ToD"", the "the most likely" qualifier is indicating that it is tentative.


          Which of course is fine, you believe Dr. Phillip's estimate is the most likely time because you've interpreted things differently than others. You've chosen to favour the testimony of Dr. Phillips who based his estimate on methods proven to be inaccurate and unreliable (I would think, though, that fits your definition of "unsafe" as well) and by doing so you dismiss the witness statements on the basis that they might be inaccurate, while others have chosen the opposite because they see the witnesses as being the least unsafe of the two.

          - Jeff
          Well it seems that both Dr Phillips, and the witnesses are unreliable so we have reached an impasse, One of the times has to be right.

          Why does everyone keep saying I dismiss the witnesses, I do not dismiss them, I keep saying they are unsafe to totally rely on, a big difference

          We are never going to find out what the real time of death was. Why don't you and others accept that and move on. Why the need to continually argue for the sake of arguing, which is what some posters seem to want to do continuously.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
            That just about sums it up Jeff. We know from the authorities on the subject that Phillips was using unsafe and unreliable methods. Methods that those experts tell us repeatedly should not be used to estimate TOD. This is fact.

            There are no facts that tell us that the witnesses must have been wrong though. Witnesses can be mistaken of course and witnesses can lie. So we have to weigh up the witnesses with caution but this doesn’t mean dismissing them because they aren’t perfect which appears to be Trevor’s approach. Cadosch is a rather glaring example. Just because he was cautious/less certain about where the ‘no’ came from Trevor calls him unsafe. He felt that it came from number 29 but was certain that the noise came from 29. Would the police today call such a witness unsafe? It’s hard to see how. Even if we dismiss the ‘no’ we still have a witness testifying to hearing a noise against the fence in a yard where a murder was committed at a time when no one else had been in that yard. Unless we accuse Cadosch (with no evidence) of lying then the chances of the ‘no’ and the noise being unconnected to the murder has have been remote.

            Richardson’s testimony under oath is dismissed because of the testimony of a man who might easily have been wrong. Richardson was absolutely certain that there was no body there at 4.50. We have absolutely no good reason to disbelieve him apart from someone’s uncorroborated opinion. So, nitpicking aside, Richardson is easily believable.

            Long was confident that it was Annie that she saw. Could she have been mistaken? Of course. But if we accept the undeniable fact that witnesses without watches could very easily have been wrong with timings then all that we have to postulate is the entirely unremarkable possibility that both Long and Cadosch were both 7 or 8 minutes out for them to tie up perfectly thus giving us three witnesses that fit a timeline.

            Again.....an unsafe TOD versus three witnesses. It really is a no brainier on which is overwhelmingly the likeliest. I’d say considerably over 95% for a TOD around 5.25/5.30. Almost no doubt at all.
            Yes we know by what has been said that doctors times of death are nothing more than guesswork, but why do we have to totally dismiss his estimation which was based on his observations as to how he arrived at the approximate time of death. Even guesswork sometimes pays off, as was the case with the doctors guessing the TOD of Eddowes and in her case both Doctors guesses were not that far off were they?

            You can throw in all the experts in the world and cite how a body cools etc but that again doesn't prove a thing because no two bodies are alike and all bodies will react differently given many factors, none of which we can readily apply to Chapman for comparisons despite attempts by posters to do just that.

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • You should trying giving up the L.C.R scenario as not proof Chapman was killed at 5.30am. Simple fact , others all agree with that too except you .

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                Well it seems that both Dr Phillips, and the witnesses are unreliable so we have reached an impasse, One of the times has to be right.

                Why does everyone keep saying I dismiss the witnesses, I do not dismiss them, I keep saying they are unsafe to totally rely on, a big difference

                We are never going to find out what the real time of death was. Why don't you and others accept that and move on. Why the need to continually argue for the sake of arguing, which is what some posters seem to want to do continuously.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                Hi Trevor,

                Pretty much everybody has been saying the witnesses are not to be totally relied upon, which is why everybody has always talked about "the most likely time based upon the evidence" rather than the "proven time of death" - that difference in phrasing is tantamount to saying "the witnesses are not sufficient to conclusively prove the time of death". Those same people are also saying that Dr. Phillips time is based upon a technique that is proven to be unreliable, and therefore should be dismissed.

                I would suggest that the conclusion that one of them has to be right is not necessarily true. Dr. Phillips places the time of death around 4:30, the witnesses around 5:20-5:30. We know Dr. Phillips time is based upon faulty technique, so that time only has a chance of being right based upon a lucky guess. If the witnesses are in error then the same applies to them. Therefore, all we know is that anytime between Chapman's last known sighting and the discovery of her body is open to lucky guesses.

                In other words, if one only accepts evidence that is conclusive then there is no evidence to accept, giving one the freedom to place the ToD anywhere that fits their theory (they become freed from annoying constraints). If one is less cavalier with the evidence, then one has two times to consider, Dr. Phillips' and the witnesses'. Since they conflict beyond resolution, one must weigh the relative confidence one has in how those times are derived. My own personal view is that Dr. Phillips' estimate is proven to be unreliable and so it must be dismissed, while the witnesses' only suffers from the possibility they might be in error. So, while accepting that it is possible that both times are wrong, Dr. Phillips' is the more unsafe by a long shot, making the witnesses' time window the "least unsafe that does not dismiss all the evidence". You weigh those differently, which is fine, but it is your presentation about other people's stance as if they are not recognizing the possibility that the witness' time could also be wrong that has been the source of the argument. You acknowledge that Dr. Phillips used invalid techniques, but still prefer his time (which I find hard to follow the logic of to be honest and I would have thought you to argue for the most conservative view, of "anytime after 1:30 when she left the doss house"). But that's neither here nor there.

                - Jeff

                Comment


                • This is why people think you're dismissing the witnesses, this opening paragraph you are arguing why we should prefer Dr. Phillips' estimated ToD (basically because sometimes a guess is right). And by saying Dr. Phillips should be the one to go with (and not referring to his time as "unsafe"), it indicates that you use "unsafe" as meaning "to be ignored" and you consistently refer to the witnesses' ToD estimation as "unsafe". But unsafe doesn't mean "unsound" it means "to be viewed as tentative rather than conclusive". Unsound means it should be ignored.

                  Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  Yes we know by what has been said that doctors times of death are nothing more than guesswork, but why do we have to totally dismiss his estimation which was based on his observations as to how he arrived at the approximate time of death. Even guesswork sometimes pays off, as was the case with the doctors guessing the TOD of Eddowes and in her case both Doctors guesses were not that far off were they?
                  But below you give a series of explanations as to why Dr. Phillips' should be ignored! If all bodies react differently, then there's no basis upon which Dr. Phillips could make his estimation for this particular case because, they all react differently. That means Dr. Phillips estimate isn't "unsafe", it is "unsound" and to be set aside.


                  You can throw in all the experts in the world and cite how a body cools etc but that again doesn't prove a thing because no two bodies are alike and all bodies will react differently given many factors, none of which we can readily apply to Chapman for comparisons despite attempts by posters to do just that.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  - Jeff

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    Yes we know by what has been said that doctors times of death are nothing more than guesswork, but why do we have to totally dismiss his estimation which was based on his observations as to how he arrived at the approximate time of death. Even guesswork sometimes pays off, as was the case with the doctors guessing the TOD of Eddowes and in her case both Doctors guesses were not that far off were they?

                    You can throw in all the experts in the world and cite how a body cools etc but that again doesn't prove a thing because no two bodies are alike and all bodies will react differently given many factors, none of which we can readily apply to Chapman for comparisons despite attempts by posters to do just that.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    Because it’s impossible to confirm or reject guesswork. It should be ignored. Witnesses outweigh the doctors opinion. It’s very simple.
                    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
                      You should trying giving up the L.C.R scenario as not proof Chapman was killed at 5.30am. Simple fact , others all agree with that too except you .
                      Do you ever read anything before posting?

                      Apparently not.

                      I said that the witnesses combined versus and unreliable TOD from the Doctor makes a later TOD overwhelmingly likely. I have not said that the witnesses are definite proof.

                      I noticed you haven’t responded to my other posts.

                      Not surprising as I yet again proved that you lied.​​​​​​​
                      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

                        Well it seems that both Dr Phillips, and the witnesses are unreliable so we have reached an impasse, One of the times has to be right.

                        Why does everyone keep saying I dismiss the witnesses, I do not dismiss them, I keep saying they are unsafe to totally rely on, a big difference

                        We are never going to find out what the real time of death was. Why don't you and others accept that and move on. Why the need to continually argue for the sake of arguing, which is what some posters seem to want to do continuously.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        The witnesses are not unreliable. How the hell did you ever arrest anyone? You’d have dismissed a witness if they’d been two inches out in judging someone’s height!!
                        Regards

                        Herlock






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

                        Comment


                        • Do you ever read anything before posting?

                          Apparently not.

                          I said that the witnesses combined versus and unreliable TOD from the Doctor makes a later TOD overwhelmingly likely. I have not said that the witnesses are definite proof.

                          I noticed you haven’t responded to my other posts.

                          Not surprising as I yet again proved that you lied.

                          SPEAKING OF READING , TRY READING WOLF VANDERLINDENS ARTICLE THEN GET BACK TO ME . BECAUSE YOU CLEARLY IGNORE EVERYTHING HIS SAYS AS PER USUAL.

                          AND YOU SERIOUSLY THINK LONG CODOSCH AND RICHARDSON ARE RELIABLE , YOU NEED TO TAKE A BREAK FROM THIS THREAD, HERLOCK ITS CONFUSING YOU .

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            The witnesses are not unreliable. How the hell did you ever arrest anyone? You’d have dismissed a witness if they’d been two inches out in judging someone’s height!!
                            You are a clown ! why dont you for once extract your head from where it seems to spend much of its time and listen, read, and digest.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                              Hi Fisherman. Good to have you back.

                              For the sake of argument, let's assume Dr Phillips was experienced with hand palpation and was able to fairly accurately determine the temperature he felt. Even then, to use that temperature to estimate time of death is too unreliable to be in any way useful. When the measurements were made that determined the unreliability of estimates of time of death based on body temperature, thermometers were used, so even if his hands were as sensitive as a thermometer, his estimate would still be unreliable. It is not Dr Phillips ability to tell hot from cold that is in doubt - it is the usefulness and accuracy of then using that to estimate time of death.

                              I infer from some of Herlock's posts that your theory concerning Lechmere as Ripper is undermined by a later time of death, since we would expect Lechmere to be at work by 5.30am. I disagree with Herlock on this point. We do not know where Lechmere was, his work pattern, whether he had a later start that day, whether he was working at all that day etc...
                              The reoccurring problem with this debate is that people seem unable to recognize that we are talking about two different matters.

                              I have no problems acknowledging that trying to establish a TOD by way of hand palpation must always result in a guess. Depending on many circumstances, that guess will be better or worse. Most of the time, it will be a useful guess since most cases involve parameters that are relatively easy to keep track of. But there will also be cases where the initial temperature of the vioctim is not what one would havce expected and there may be other parameters involved, internal as well as external, that can have unforeseen influence of the temperature curve of the body. Couple that with how feeling for warmth is a much cruder method tham using a thermometer, and we are at risk to get things very wrong.

                              This is all true. Sadly, it is not the one and only exponent of the issue we need to look at.

                              What we have is a medico who said that the body he examined was cold to the touch (yes, apart from an area under the intestines etc, etc). A medico will be able to feel body warmth for at least three hours, generally speaking. Conversely, a bdoy will start feeling cold to the touch after 4-6 hours, once more generally speaking. This means (and this is of course totally obvious) that what makes the body feel cold to the touch is a drop in temperature in the body core. The body core starts dropping in temperature after half an hour to one hour (there is an initital temperature plateau, led on by chemical reactions in the body after death, where the body temperature is upheld). When the dropping sets in, the temperature falls by roughly once degree celsius per hour (the number mentioned is actually 0,8 degrees, but let´s say that the cold conditions in Hanbury Street made it 1,0 degrees).

                              That would mean that Chapman upheld something very close to full body temperature after one hour, that is to say at 6.30, when Phillips examined her. If her body temperature was normally 37 degrees celsius (the average is 37.2, with womwen having slightly higher temperatures on average, but let´s keep it simple), then it would have been between 36,5 and 37 degrees one hour after death.

                              If she instead died at 3.30, then the temperature should have dropped aroundthree degrees, taking us close to the kind of temperatures that are referred to as "cold to the touch".

                              If she dies at 2.30, we would be more on the safe side to reason that she would feel cold to the touch.

                              So we can see that if Phillips was right, then some three or four hours would fit what he said perfectly. So the question that must be asked is of course "How likely is Phillips to have been correct?". And before I presented the paper I posted on hand palpation, there was no scientific material at hand that offered a solution to that question. But now there is. There is a less than 5 per cent likelihood that trained therapists will miss out on a temperature difference of 3 degrees or more.

                              When Phillips said that the body was cold to the touch, he would have made this kind of a mistake - or worse - if the body was in fact warm. And it WOULD have been warm a mere hour after death. There is no telling exactly HOW warm, buyt warm it would have been.

                              There are no two ways around this. Phillips is unlikely in the extreme to have judged a body dead for one hour only as cold to the touch if it was only one hour dead. This was also accepted by the Lancet at the time, for example, just as it became the stance of the police. The area that needs to be bridged by accepting a mistake on Phillips´ behalf is quite simply way to large.

                              Add to this how a body is extremely unlikely to develop rigor in an hour in cold conditions, and we have a no-brainer. The one thing that speaks for a OD a mere hour away are two witnesses who gainsaid each other in terms of chronology, who in one case shifted meaning from "No, I could not identify the woman" to "Yes, that was her alright" and in the other case was uncertain where the voices he heard came from and who witnessed about a thud - but no other sounds whatsoever coupled to that thud.

                              In the end, if Long and Cadosch had swopped times with each other and if Long had said from the outset that she COULD identify the woman and if Cadosch had said that he saw Chapman entering the yeard from window, they would nevertheless not be correct. The medical evidence puts an efficient stop to it.

                              What the discussionwould benefit from would be if we could refrain from stating that hand palpation is less exact than thermometer measurements. That goes without saying, and it has a tendency to blur the overall issue.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by John G View Post

                                Hi Christer,

                                The core temperature is variable, and body mass is a significant factor. Thus, even the "normal" range varies between 36.5 and 37.5 C. However, it can be significantly less with abnormally thin people: anorexics, for example, are in danger of suffering hypothermia, where the body temperature falls below 35 degrees C.

                                Of course, Dr Phillips didn't bother with a temperature reading - he simply relied on touch-so we cannot know Chapman's internal body temperature at the time. However, as I noted previously, unusually thin people can feel cold to the touch even whilst still alive.

                                Moreover, you don't have to be out by very much in order for serious errors to have occurred in your calculations. Thus, in ideal circumstances body temperature post mortem falls by about 0.83 degrees C an hour, although adjustments for environmental factors-partially clothed victim, surface victim was found on etc- may be necessary. However, to put that into perspective, if you, say, estimate a time of death of, say, 4:30 am, based upon an internal body temperature estimate of 37.5 C, but the victim was actually, 36.5 C (still within the normal range which, as discussed, Chapman might reasonably not have been) then your estimate would be out by over an hour, meaning the actual time of death would be later than 5:30 am.
                                Body temperature is variable, yes. But none of us go around with a temperature of 33 degrees. And Chapman was no anorectic, she was a sturdy but malnourished woman. Moreover, women normally have higher body temperatures than men, generally speaking.

                                And please, John - can we agree that Phillips would have known quite well that some people have cold hands and feet and foreheads and whatnot? He would ALSO have known that they nevertheless have a core temperature of around 37 degrees!

                                When Phillips said AT THE VERY LATEST 4.30, that would have entailed the parameters you mention. Phgillips would have reasoned that IF she had a normal temperature of 36 degrees only and IF the weater had a larger infkuence than usual and IF the damage lowered the temp as dramatically a possible, THEN she could perhaps have died as late as 4.30. It is not as if he recommended that as the best solution, is it? He said that it was probaly MORE, since he knew that he would be able to feel warmth for at least three hours in normal cases - but he acknowledged that if all parameters were extremely in favour of cooling of rapidly, then it could perhaps be two hours only.

                                That is Phillips´ haggling over and done with. We cant ask for a second round of haggling, John. Least of all one that detracts half of the minimum time...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X