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 etenguy View Post

    I, too, got lost within this logic and thought I must be missing something.



    I'd probably say an educated guesstimate, but agree it shouldn't be used to counter other evidence.



    I believe this to be accurate based on my reading around the subject. I have been unable to find any techniques researched that rely on skin temperature.
    I have answered Jeff, and you may be interested in reading my answer.

    Comment


    • And since most of the exchange has now againmoved into horse manure throwing territory, I will once more leave the discussion intermittently and try to be more productive. Last time I did so, I returned with a paper on hand palpation for warmth that disclosed that we are able to tell subtle temperature differences from each other by way of feeling with our hands.
      It is of course a paper that is extremely important in the context we are discussing - the only one I have been been able to find that scientifically breaks down these questions and give us a numerical basis to stand on.
      And what happens? Some posters claim that the paper has no relevance whatsoever to the Chapman discussion -ö which is about whether Phillips would have been able to distinguish between varying temperatures by way of feeling for warth with his hands.

      Ripperology is sometimes ridiculed by other research branches. Small wonder.

      See you guys, take care, wise up and do try to be nice to each other while I´m away.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

        Yes, that line would apply to Chapman, but so would this one:

        With all that in mind, there are circumstances in which rigor mortis can be observed sooner after death. If somebody has an illness or fever, this can speed up the rate of onset by exhausting the cellular supply of energy more quickly than usual, for example.

        And while not intended to start a different debate, nor to suggest that the above is more important then the line you highlighted (which is not my intention), it just goes to further validate his point that "For all these reasons, a description of a body being found in a state of rigor mortis has to be interpreted with caution."

        I do wish we had numbers, rather than impressions, to deal with though. At least then we could apply updated knowledge, but impressions only sound specific when, unfortunately, they are extremely vague types of data and hard to work with.

        - Jeff
        The point being that even experts differ in their opinions. Dr Biggs is a modern day forensic pathologist, so his opinions should not be totally disregarded, and as stated the last part without a doubt could apply to Chapman.

        And caution is what I have always sided with, but some keeping categorically stating that Chapman could not have been killed much earlier

        Another point Dr Biggs highlighted

        "Being ‘cold to the touch’ really isn’t helpful as even live people can feel cold to the touch. Body temperature doesn’t start to drop straight away as soon as a person dies, but there is a plateau or ‘lag’ phase that can last a few hours. In other words, somebody could have been dead for a couple of hours but still have an essentially ‘normal’ body temperature, whereas a live person can feel stone cold"


        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 09-16-2019, 06:51 AM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          Excellent post John

          And you’ve also shown, just for Trevor, that Chandler was hardly Mr Efficiency. So I’ll use Trevor’s logic (after reading your post) and say that Chandler is unsafe. We can therefore dismiss what he said in the passageway as unsafe. And as we don’t even have corroborated proof that Richardson didn’t mention sitting on the steps then Trevor’s statement that Richardson is unsafe is....unsafe.

          We are long past the ‘game over’ stage here. The witnesses have to be taken in to account against a doctor that could only have gotten the TOD correct by luck. How much clearer can it get?

          TOD 5.25/5.30ish as per evidence.
          Thanks Herlock, much appreciated. I really wonder if the coroner hsd prior experience of Inspector Chandler's inefficiency. Rebuking him in such away-publically, to the jury- was certainly remarkable thing to do.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

            That will depend on who is looking for it.

            As for the Chandler exchange, what is your problem? He beleived that the nurses took the handkerchief off, but he could of course not be positive, so he offered the likeliest guess, but nevertheless a guess he copuld not substantiate. he comes across as a very astute and observant man to me, and one who has a flexible and quick intellect. I would not mind more of his sort in my life, I can tell yu that much.
            The issue here, Christer, is his lack of supervision, and attentiveness. The coroner certainly considered it a serious issue, and it's likely he'd had previous experience of the man, i.e. whilst giving evidence at inquests (I doubt this was Chandler's first inquest).

            I'm not sure how you can conclude that he was "astute", "flexible" , "quick of intellect" and "observant" ( he didn't even notice the handkerchief being removed from the body), based upon the evidence we have. However, he must have had an excellent memory, because otherwise, it was a bit remiss of him to have not made a single note durung his interrogation of Richardson, who was not only a witness, but a possible suspect!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              And since most of the exchange has now againmoved into horse manure throwing territory, I will once more leave the discussion intermittently and try to be more productive. Last time I did so, I returned with a paper on hand palpation for warmth that disclosed that we are able to tell subtle temperature differences from each other by way of feeling with our hands.
              It is of course a paper that is extremely important in the context we are discussing - the only one I have been been able to find that scientifically breaks down these questions and give us a numerical basis to stand on.
              And what happens? Some posters claim that the paper has no relevance whatsoever to the Chapman discussion -ö which is about whether Phillips would have been able to distinguish between varying temperatures by way of feeling for warth with his hands.

              Ripperology is sometimes ridiculed by other research branches. Small wonder.

              See you guys, take care, wise up and do try to be nice to each other while I´m away.
              Hi Christer,

              I'm really struggling with your argument that the paper on hand palpitations is at all relevant. With respect, I don't think anyone's arguing that Phillips couldn't tell the difference between hot and cold; but that's not what's at issue here.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                The point being that even experts differ in their opinions. Dr Biggs is a modern day forensic pathologist, so his opinions should not be totally disregarded, and as stated the last part without a doubt could apply to Chapman.

                And caution is what I have always sided with, but some keeping categorically stating that Chapman could not have been killed much earlier

                Another point Dr Biggs highlighted

                "Being ‘cold to the touch’ really isn’t helpful as even live people can feel cold to the touch. Body temperature doesn’t start to drop straight away as soon as a person dies, but there is a plateau or ‘lag’ phase that can last a few hours. In other words, somebody could have been dead for a couple of hours but still have an essentially ‘normal’ body temperature, whereas a live person can feel stone cold"


                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                Hi Trevor,

                Of course it's theoretically possible that Chapman could have been killed earlier. However, throw out tje forensic evidence and what you're left with are three wirnesses supporting a later time of death, and no witnesses supporting an earlier time of death, or at least as early as the estimate given by Dr Phillips.

                Of the three witnesses I consider John Richardson to be the most important, and he was adamant that he would have noticed the body. Moroever, I don't see what he had to gain from lying about going down the steps. On the contrary, he had everything to lose, as he's now placing himself closer to the scene of crime with a knife in his hand, which was certainly of interest to the coroner, as he ordered it to be retained.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                  So you still have not grapsed it, Jeff? Okay, I will explain it to you in as simple a fashion that I can think of. Here who:

                  Imagine, if you will, that you will be asked to determine what temperature your bathwater is by way of feeling it for warmth with your behind.

                  You are then submerged into a bathtub, ass first, and you are asked to tell us what temperature the water is.

                  I would say that this is a method fraught with risk. You will not be able to do it correctly other than by way of fluke. So I would not want to use your behind for feeling bodies for warmth and establish their temperatures.

                  Now, ask another question: Can you tell whether the tub you are submerged into has cold or warm water in it? You are then sunk into two tubs, one with warm and one with cold water.

                  Now, we know that your behind is fraught with uncertainty. It cannot establish temperatures with any certainty at all. But will it be able to tell warm and cold apart nevertheless? What do you think?

                  Exactly, Jeff! Even if we only use our behinds we may nevertheless be able to get things right!

                  I am saying that Phillips was reasoning that Chapman probably had been dead for the kind of period it normally takes for a palpating medico to be unable to feel any warmth from the core through the skin. That period is typically regarded as arriving 4-6 hours after death. That means that we are looking at roughly a drop in temperature of around five degrees.

                  If you bathe in the sea in 17 degrees celsius you will think it is very cold. If the water suddenly rises to 22 degrees celsius you will think it is very nice and warm.

                  That is my tortuous logic, Jeff. If your tortoise logic could do me the favor of picking up on what I say, I would be eternally grateful.
                  ha ha ha! That was very amusing. Ok, let's see if I can get you to understand why Dr. Phillips skin based temperature reading is useless.

                  I plunge one of my hands into a hot tub, and the other I put into an icebucket and I leave them there for an hour. At which point, you feel the skin on my hands (using your hand thank you very much). One will feel cold, the other hot. Now, am I alive or dead, or have I just proved I'm Schodinger's cat?

                  Surely that clarifies the difference between being able to tell the difference in temperatures at different points on the skin, and their relationship to ToD (or even to living/non-living)?

                  - Jeff

                  Comment


                  • Yes, some parameters will hasten rigor. And rigor normally sets in at around two hours, as we have agreed upon. So these parameters may shorten that time to something less than two hours. But will they do so in cold conditions and with a body that has lost all it´s blood? Not very likely, no. Plus, of course, there were parameters about in the case that are known to SLOW DOWN rigor too!

                    Once again, you have to pull out all the stops, stretch everything to it´s limit and beyond, you have to have something cooling Chapman down at a tremendeous rate while at the same time, you need to heat her body up top get rigor in motion. You have taken on a task that is unsurmountable, I´m afraid. Every parameter will have to be out of sync with a normal development, and two major parameters will work against each other. This is what you need to overcome.

                    What do I need to overcome? I need to say that it seems the witnesses were either wrong or looking for fifteen minutes of fame. And we know that Long went from "cannot identify" to "can identify" in a jiffy, just as we know that hers and Cadosches timings are a joke, just as we know that Richardson told Chandler one thing and the inquest another (and please, don´t start the "maybe Chandler mistook sat for stood business again, because if we do our ripperology that way, we will be able to prove that Abraham Lincoln returned from the grave and became the Ripper) and that he never cut any leather from his boot although he claimed to have done so until the coroner caught him out.

                    Which problem is the greater one? Yours or mine? Which is likelier; that a person defies the laws of nature or that another person mistakes something very trivial or lies?

                    Becasue, you see, what Phillips points to is totally in sync with what we should expect from a woman who is three or four hours dead. It is a smack, bang perfect hit on the normality button - and the jaw of anybody who prefers freak developments.

                    Excellent post Fisherman, Long Codosch Richardson , VERY UNRELIABLE AS EVIDENCE AND PROOF THAT CHAPMAN WAS KILLED AT 5.30AM

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by John G View Post

                      Hi Trevor,

                      Of course it's theoretically possible that Chapman could have been killed earlier. However, throw out tje forensic evidence and what you're left with are three wirnesses supporting a later time of death, and no witnesses supporting an earlier time of death, or at least as early as the estimate given by Dr Phillips.

                      Of the three witnesses I consider John Richardson to be the most important, and he was adamant that he would have noticed the body. Moroever, I don't see what he had to gain from lying about going down the steps. On the contrary, he had everything to lose, as he's now placing himself closer to the scene of crime with a knife in his hand, which was certainly of interest to the coroner, as he ordered it to be retained.
                      I have to question why posters are still flogging to death this issue, does it matter in the grand scheme of things what time she was killed? If we could positively determine time of death would it even dramatically effect the investigation into the murders. No it wouldn't because we do not know specifically the times of death with the other victims, and even if we did, again where would it take us. We cannot place any known suspect out on the streets, or in any of the murder spots, or anywhere near to the murders.

                      The only change I can see is that if she was murdered earlier, then Fisherman has support for his Lechmere theory, but of course he seems to stand alone with that. If not then where does it leave us, exactly where we were before, and weeks have been wasted in trying to prove something that is un-proveable.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        The point being that even experts differ in their opinions. Dr Biggs is a modern day forensic pathologist, so his opinions should not be totally disregarded, and as stated the last part without a doubt could apply to Chapman.

                        And caution is what I have always sided with, but some keeping categorically stating that Chapman could not have been killed much earlier

                        Another point Dr Biggs highlighted

                        "Being ‘cold to the touch’ really isn’t helpful as even live people can feel cold to the touch. Body temperature doesn’t start to drop straight away as soon as a person dies, but there is a plateau or ‘lag’ phase that can last a few hours. In other words, somebody could have been dead for a couple of hours but still have an essentially ‘normal’ body temperature, whereas a live person can feel stone cold"


                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        Hi Trevor,

                        I fully agree. Experts in any field are often aware of the most current research findings, which are always right at the edge of our understanding, and as such, what that cutting edge actually tells us can take quite a few years before there is general agreement as to what those findings mean, are they reliable, and so forth. Experts will vary between them as to which new findings they consider reliable and so on. They will agree on the bulk of things (usually), but disagree quite a bit on fine details. Some of it has to do with the subjectiveness of "good enough" (some might say "it has a 3 hour time window, but that's good enough to work with", while others would decide that same 3 hour window makes it rubbish (they're not even disagreeing on the 3 hour time window in this hypothetical case I'm making up to illustrate the point I'm trying to convey). Anyway, his information is very helpful as he's illustrating a few of the complicated factors that one has to consider before using, in this case rigor, to try and estimate ToD. I suspect a lot of the information he's pointing out, and probably other factors he's not mentioned, was information not available in 1888. Again, just like skin temperature to estimate ToD (as he points out as being less useful than a screen door on a submarine), using rigor onset/offset times would result in a very wide time window because the error associated with it would be quite large if the important factors that modify it are not included. Since those modifiers were not known in 1888, Dr. Phillips time estimation will be associated with a large error window.

                        But yes, caution is always called for. I've never suggested anyone take any of the evidence at face value, but to carefully consider it and try and pull it apart, etc. Sometimes evidence survives that process, in which case we offer tentative conclusions, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes its survival depends upon certain conditions being met (conditional survival), in which case one should clearly state those conditions. If we cannot verfy if those conditions were or were not met, then we have the possibility open, but it's a conditional possibility. Those are the most testable ones, as we can either find evidence directly, or we may be able to increase/decrease it's viability by finding evidence pertaining to the conditional aspects.

                        With regards to Chapman, it is entirely possible she was killed much earlier, but that is conditional on Richardson being wrong and there is really nothing in the evidence to suggest he was wrong with regards to being sure there was no body there at 4:50. You and I disagree on the impact of the variation between what he told at the inquest and what he is reported to have told Chandler at the scene, but that's the nature of things. We're cautious in different directions, you're cautious about accepting evidence while I'm cautious about throwing out evidence. And because that can lead us to different conclusions, more ideas end up being shared. And that's the best part.

                        - Jeff

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                          more ideas end up being shared. And that's the best part. - Jeff
                          And more boring repetitive same arguments over and over again !

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            I have to question why posters are still flogging to death this issue, does it matter in the grand scheme of things what time she was killed? If we could positively determine time of death would it even dramatically effect the investigation into the murders. No it wouldn't because we do not know specifically the times of death with the other victims, and even if we did, again where would it take us. We cannot place any known suspect out on the streets, or in any of the murder spots, or anywhere near to the murders.

                            The only change I can see is that if she was murdered earlier, then Fisherman has support for his Lechmere theory, but of course he seems to stand alone with that. If not then where does it leave us, exactly where we were before, and weeks have been wasted in trying to prove something that is un-proveable.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            Hi Trevor,

                            Well, there are some issues that follow depending upon which answer one goes with (other than Lechmere/Cross viability). Of the three witnesses, Richardson and Cadosch would be the two definitely related to the murder if they are accepted. But all they really contribute to is ToD and a bit about the nature of the attack itself (obviously sudden - Chapman's "no" was not reported as a scream or anything, just one word he reports hearing, so it's not clear to me that was her responding to a threat, but may have been part of some ongoing conversation, possibly refusing a particular request or even just answering something mundane. A few minutes later, he hears a noise against the fence, presumably that's the point he's put her to the ground, but other than that, there's no obvious sounds. That would have to mean that JtR is very strong, and very quickly subdues her, and does so quickly enough that she can't get a scream out. This isn't much, and it is the typical inferences that are drawn from the other crimes as well, but it would be closer to confirmation of just how quickly and quietly he's able to overcome his victims. That would point away from any suspect not capable of that sort of attack.

                            Also, Long's possible sighting remains viable (her reported time and that of Cadoch are close enough that the discrepancy is within the window of error, so it can't be dismissed entirely - though it must be viewed as conditional, unfortunately on a condition we can never solve - were their times just misremembered?). Anyway, her identification of Chapman lends some weight to her sighting (but we must not forget the Stride inquest and that whole debacle). Her sighting, however, was of JtR back on, so I don't think her age estimate can be considered as anything but guesswork, but things like height, build, dress, etc, would still be worth considering. It also indicates that JtR was, at least on that occasion, still looking for victims at the early hours of dawn, and so he was not only hunting in the darkest hours of night. It has to be someone who could get around at any of those times. (The Cross/Lechmere theory is that he was on his way to work, as per Nichols, but that doesn't work if the murder was at 5:20-5:30 as Cross/Lechmere had to be at work by 4:00 - even Dr. Phillips time of 4:30 is too early by 30 minutes, but he said 2 hours or more, so that conditional would save Cross/Lechmere as a suspect - though I suspect Fisherman has a number of ways to save him).

                            Now, if we go with Dr. Phillips time, Long's sighting is clearly of two other people, her identification of Chapman is a mistake, Richardson just didn't see the body beside him, and Cadoch heard a voice from elsewhere, and the wind blue something against the fence. That means, we have no idea how the attack went, how quiet it was (still couldn't have been all that loud as there were people in the house, but it might not have been quite as silent as it seems to have been based upon what we would conclude from Cadosch's testimony). And depending upon how much ealier than 4:30 one allows Dr. Phillips window to stretch, it narrows the time window when JtR seems to have been on the hunt.

                            None of this will, in and of itself, solve the case or anything quite so dramatic, but pending on which way this cookie crumbles will influence one's thinking about other evidence. For example, if a suspect doesn't match up with Long's description, one might say "that goes against them" while others might say "that's irrelevant since she saw someone else". And so forth.

                            Also, it's a good exercise in logical reasoning, evidence evaluation, critical thinking, and so forth.

                            - Jeff

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              And more boring repetitive same arguments over and over again !

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              Well, yes, every silver lining has its cloud after all.

                              - Jeff

                              Comment


                              • I note that rigor mortis has been referred to again. As has been noted many times this is a very unreliable indicator. However, in emaciated or thin individuals, like Chapman, it sets in quickly and is of shorter durarion: see, for example, Kori, 2018.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X