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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Much in the case cannot be proven. According to you no one can be trusted, everything is unsafe. Or is it simply a case of Trevor speaks....?

    It’s hard to take someone seriously that, whilst agreeing with the unreliability of TOD estimates, would rather trust that Phillips lucky guessed correctly that three witness. Now we are down the rabbit-hole.
    Well I choose to keep all my options open until something can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and in this case that's never going to happen if we sit here and argue for ever and a day. As they say you pays your money and you takes your choice, each unto their own. Life is to short to sit here day after day arguing the same points over and over again.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      Well I choose to keep all my options open until something can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and in this case that's never going to happen if we sit here and argue for ever and a day. As they say you pays your money and you takes your choice, each unto their own. Life is to short to sit here day after day arguing the same points over and over again.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      The evidence shows us that it’s overwhelmingly likely that Chapman was killed around 5.25/5.30. That should be where the debate ends.
      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 John G View Post

        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.
        Yes I wonder how often an Inspector got rebuked in public like that even as far as to question whether he was the right man in charge?

        We can put little weight on what was said in the passageway because we are reliant on Chandlers words alone. It would have been interesting if the Coroner had recalled Richardson and asked him what he thought about Chandler saying that he hadn’t mentioned sitting on the steps? He might have said “yes I did, he must have misheard me.” He might have said “I didn’t think it was important, I just told him that the body definitely wasn’t there.” So basically we have the uncorroborated word of one man. Whereas, at The Inquest under oath, we have Richardson’s words (albeit via a newspaper transcript) Theres just no comparison. We have to go with what we know Richardson said and not one what Chandler said that he didn’t.
        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


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

          The only unreliable evidence is Phillips TOD. This has been proven beyond doubt. Only you, Fish, The Baron and possibly Packers Stem believe otherwise. Everyone else disagrees with you. Even Trevor accepts the unreliability of Phillips TOD estimate. It’s game over for Phillips. We can very safely disregard his opinion and look to three very plausible witnesses.

          Anyone that says that these witnesses are unreliable based on the utter trivialities that have been mentioned is a fool.

          TOD 5.25/5.30 beyond all reasonable doubt.

          By the way, this is now the fourth time I’ve asked this:

          .
          Its also very noticeable that, yet again, you avoid answering the question about Phillips. Why do you choose to agree with him on TOD when it suits you but you disagree with him when he said that Chapman was definitely killed where she was found?
          Anyone would think that you're too embarrassed to answer Fishy.
          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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

            Yes I wonder how often an Inspector got rebuked in public like that even as far as to question whether he was the right man in charge?

            We can put little weight on what was said in the passageway because we are reliant on Chandlers words alone. It would have been interesting if the Coroner had recalled Richardson and asked him what he thought about Chandler saying that he hadn’t mentioned sitting on the steps? He might have said “yes I did, he must have misheard me.” He might have said “I didn’t think it was important, I just told him that the body definitely wasn’t there.” So basically we have the uncorroborated word of one man. Whereas, at The Inquest under oath, we have Richardson’s words (albeit via a newspaper transcript) Theres just no comparison. We have to go with what we know Richardson said and not one what Chandler said that he didn’t.
            But officers are required to make their pocket books up as soon as practicable after an event, he may have just done that we dont know. He seemingly didn't refer to his pocket book during the inquest. or if he did it wasnt mentioned. I would have expected him to have done so, there was an awful lot he said, perhaps to much to remember verbatim, and to much detail in his testimony. So I suspect he had done so.

            and not to forget that he would have alreday have made a statement prior to the inquest

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 09-16-2019, 04:16 PM.

            Comment


            • Hi Trevor,

              " . . . officers are required to make their pocket books up as soon as practicable after an event."

              Although not pocket book entries, the four extant Metropolitan Police reports, by Warren, Arnold, Long and Swanson, relating to the 30th September 1888 discovery of the Goulston Street graffiti, were all written on the same day, ——6th November 1888, ——five weeks after the event.

              How long is "as soon as practicable"?

              Regards,

              Simon
              Last edited by Simon Wood; 09-16-2019, 05:31 PM.
              Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post


                if the victim is a malnourished, slight, alcoholic female then rigor mortis may be less pronounced than might be expected, and so detection of rigor mortis in such an individual may in fact indicate a longer time having elapsed since death

                And we have been told to SAFELY discard Dr. Phillips TOD!!


                The Baron

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                  Hi Trevor,

                  " . . . officers are required to make their pocket books up as soon as practicable after an event."

                  Although not pocket book entries, the four extant Metropolitan Police reports, by Warren, Arnold, Long and Swanson, relating to the 30th September 1888 discovery of the Goulston Street graffiti, were all written on the same day, ——6th November 1888, ——five weeks after the event.

                  How long is "as soon as practicable"?

                  Regards,

                  Simon
                  As a side issue the rules of evidence differ in inquests to those in criminal trials

                  in a criminal trial it would be for a judge to decide whether or not an officer can use his pocket book to refer to. That would depend on when he said he made the entries in his pocket book

                  the term as soon as practicable has no specific interpretation

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                    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.

                    Exactly Fish, brilliant as always!



                    The Baron

                    Comment


                    • Pocket book or not this still leaves us with a version of events (the passageway conversation) that is one-sided. Richardson never got the opportunity to either confirm it or say yes he had mentioned sitting on the steps. Chandler might easily have misheard Richardson but even if Richardson didn’t mention sitting on he steps we can’t assume anything sinister. It might simply not have come up. That he went to check the cellar doors and there was definitely no body there might easily have been all that he told Chandler and, at the time, what reason would Chandler have had for pressing for more details?

                      We have to go by he Inquest as the more detailed and only reliable version of events.
                      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 The Baron View Post


                        Exactly Fish, brilliant as always!



                        The Baron
                        Disproven nonsense.

                        Idiotic post.

                        What a waste of space.
                        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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          Disproven nonsense.

                          Idiotic post.

                          What a waste of space.

                          How can this poster freely attack others like this ?!

                          I have reported his post.


                          The Baron

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            The evidence shows us that it’s overwhelmingly likely that Chapman was killed around 5.25/5.30. That should be where the debate ends.
                            It is where the logical debate ends Herlock, but when youve got Baron egging on Fisherman, its malevolent mayhem for the forseeable future. The nice thing about particpating in a Forum like this is that it makes no difference whether you get a consensus, there are Barons and Pierres all over the Internet boards that will make that impossible. All you need to do is be sure of the facts and legitimately interested in figuring out the problem, people that are just farting around will eventually just fade against the facts. The facts in this case are very clear...Annie wasnt there at 4:50ish, someone was there at 5:15ish, and Annie was found just before 6am on that same spot. The rest is just BS.
                            Michael Richards

                            Comment


                            • This is from Shivpoojan K. (2018). Time since Death from Rigor Mortis: Forensic Prospective. J Forensic Sci & Criminal Inves 2018; 9(5): 555771. DOI: 10.19080/JFSCI.2018.09.555771.

                              The introduction summarizes a lot of literature, which of course will contradict each other in the specifics (it was oriiginally believed that rigor mortis started in the head and progressed downwards, but this turns out not to be true, it's just more easily detected in smaller muscles which are more prevalent in the face, all muscles start developing rigor at the same time. Some researchers say it starts 1-2 hours following death, others present different times, and so forth. Some of these conflicts will have to do with how the onset is determined or if they are talking about the time for rigor to be complete. I suggest that anyone who chooses to read this not get too excited when they come across a particular sentence that "works for them" as you go through the introduction. What you'll find will be as many sentences that don't (this reflects the variability of rigor mortis in the first place, hence it's not a very precise indicator of ToD).

                              However, they do a nice summary of all the literature they cover, and this is what we should be concerning ourselves with (not cherry picking from individual studies, but looking at what comes from the totality of the evidence). I've pasted this below, and highlighted a few that I think should be considered with regards to Chapman:

                              Basic back ground of rigor mortis Influencing Conditions:

                              On onset and duration of rigor mortis

                              a. Condition of Body: Rigor mortis sets in quickly in thin built emaciated subject and its duration is also shorter in such cases. The more muscular and healthier the subject, rigor mortis will be more late to set in and long to continue.

                              b. Age of Deceased: In case of foetus, rigor mortis is both earlier to appear and also to disappear. Its duration is short in case of the stillborn. It is said that rigor mortis does not occur in foetus less than 7 months. It is early to set in the bodies of newly born infants and may last for some hours. Rigor is early to appear in early youth and old age and its duration is also shorter.

                              c. Cause Of Death: Rigor will be earlier to set in but shorter in duration in case of death due to tetanus, strychnine poisoning, in death preceded by violent spasms and convulsions as in status epilepticus, electrocution, lightening or in case of death of soldiers after many hours of violent exertion in the battle fields, and in cut throat and firearm injures. It is early to set in death due to cholera , typhoid , T.B ,uremia , plague, cancer and nephritis .It is late in onset of death from pneumonia ,apoplexy, asphyxia especially hanging , carbon monoxide and dioxide poisoning ,arsenic or mercuric chloride poisoning ,nervous disease producing the paralysis of muscles.

                              d. Environmental Factor: The onset of rigor will be rapid and duration will be short in case bodies exposed to warm and moist climatic conditions. The factors such as movements of cold air, presence of wearing apparels will indirectly influence the onset and progress of rigor by their effects on the body temperature. In cold, rigor will be delayed in onset and its duration will be prolonged. Temperature below 5°C will retard the onset of rigor indefinitely, but when temperature is raised, rigor sets in the usual manner. Body if exposed to temperature of 75 °C or little above, the rigidity becomes more pronounced due to coagulation of all muscles proteins and the body will show the rigidity in the form of heat stiffening .

                              I'm not sure a really applies. Annie was not well fed, but she wouldn't be considered emaciated. I've highlighted it only because this has been mentioned at times.

                              The other two points, though, work in opposition. We have, specifically stated, that cut throat deaths have more rapid onset of rigor mortis, but cold works to delay it. In fact, below 5C it doesn't set in at all. According to https://www.casebook.org/victorian_london/weather.html the daily low for Annie's death was 46.3F (about 8C), so we're getting close to the point where rigor wouldn't set in at all until the body is warmed up.

                              Anyway, there's also Table 1 on page 3, that lists the number of cases where rigor was complete, after various hours (2 were complete by 2 hours)
                              Number of cases postmortem at which rigor was complete (hrs)
                              Cases Hours
                              2 2
                              14 3
                              31 4
                              14 5
                              20 6
                              11 7
                              7 8
                              4 9
                              7 10
                              1 11
                              1 12
                              2 13
                              So as we can see, while rigor is, on average, complete around 5.7 hours, the variation is quite large and to apply that average to a specific case without considering the margin of error, would be unwise. The standard deviation (average amount by which an individual case differs from the mean) is over 2 hours for this data (2.36), Which means, 95% of cases will have reached full rigor between 1 and 10 hours after death. (well, not quite as the data isn't normally distributed, but even accounting for the skew we're talking 95% show full rigor between 3 and 12 hours. So if Dr. Phillips recorded the time when full rigor was reached, the ToD would be estimated to be between 3 and 12 hours earlier, which I rather suspect will include the witnesses time window.

                              - Jeff

                              https://juniperpublishers.com/jfsci/....ID.555771.pdf

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                                Well I choose to keep all my options open until something can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and in this case that's never going to happen if we sit here and argue for ever and a day. As they say you pays your money and you takes your choice, each unto their own. Life is to short to sit here day after day arguing the same points over and over again
                                I agree we are unlikely in the extreme to establish the TOD of poor Annie Chapman beyond a reasonable doubt.

                                However, I do not believe we are left helpless in establishing a reasonable approximation of her TOD based on the information we have. It will necessitate theories substantiated by the evidence we have and people to challenge those theories to destruction until we satisfy ourselves of a TOD on the balance of probabilities. We may never reach total agreement, but I would expect a significant consensus by the end of the process. I think we are close to a significant consensus now.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X