Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapmanís death.

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

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    No two patients/Victims are the same, the conditions of the bodies, will vary, as will the locations, and the climate etc, so many difference so there is no point in posters keep posting examples of the onset of rigor mortis to compare with Chapman.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Fair point, Trevor. In fact, if I was to present a balanced argument I would have to agree that, assuming Chapman had died only an hour prior to the post mortem, the onset of rigor was unusually rapid.

    Thus, as you've pointed out, in malnourished individuals rigor is usually delayed or fails to occur at all. Heat is also a factor on determining onset: cold temperatures normally delay onset, warm temperatures the opposite. Chapman was found outdoors, and only partially clothed, in the early hours of the morning. Her body was transferred to the mortuary, but that was basically a shed, so I can't imagine it was heated.

    Against this we have the evidence of three witnesses, who all suggest a later time of death.

    Comment


    • Lets just try a new take on Chapman shall we , and concentrate solely on Mrs Longs testimony .... under oath, for that matters, as Herlock seems to put so much emphasis on this .

      So for Chapman to be killed from 5.30 onward according to Mrs Long who claims she pass them in Handbury st at 5.32, that means the killer and Chapman, after Long passed then, casually walk through the passage of 29 Hanbury st .5.33 , stop behind the door for a little small talk at 5.34, then the killer strangles her rendering her unconscious 5.35 lays her body down to start a 15 minute mutilation ,escapes at 5.50 .

      Body discovered at 6.00, and Phillips turns up at 6.30 gives his t.o.d at 2 hours probably more .
      How can it be that he was an full 75 mins out with his time of death?


      Answer .... He Wasn't .

      Reason ... Albert Codosch

      Albert could not have heard the ''NO'' at 5.20 and the the thud against the fence at 5.26 ''IF'' we are to believe Mrs Longs sworn testimony.

      Time to eliminate one of theses untrue testimonies ... PICK ONE HERLOCK Long or codosch ?

      Comment


      • Dr Phillips was a 19th century doctor making a rough guesstimate. It's proven that TOD cannot be accurately determined as there are numerous variables. His conclusion is contradicted by three independent witnesses and therefore open to doubt. People are free to believe what they like but those are the facts.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

          Hi Herlock,

          With Fisherman the theory drives the data, though he doesn't acknowledge that, it is evident from his behaviour. Unfortunately, the impact is the other way round, the evidence drives the theory. In many ways, Fisherman's "Cross/Lechmere" theory has some good points. He's looking at someone who is known to have been in the vicinity of one of the victims (Nichols), and is local so would have a good idea of the area, and so forth, and is also someone who, as far as we know, received relatively little attention from the police (which could explain why he was never caught). He's noted that Chapman's murder site is on a route he might take on his way to work, so that was interesting. And all of that's actually a good starting point for the hypothesis that "Might Cross/Lechmere have been JtR?" Once the evidence is looked at to test that hypothesis, though, it conflicts with it at every turn (I'm not going to rehash all the arguments people have put forth again, they can be found in various threads). Rather than conclude the research was successful (in that it a) came up with a plausible hypothesis, b) put that hypothesis to the test by examining the data and c) produced a well supported conclusion that Cross/Lechmere was not JtR, Fisherman continues to discard the evidence, or distort it, because he does not view it as a hypothesis to be tested, it is truth. And since it is true, the data/evidence must therefore be wrong. This is, unfortunately, a common error in reasoning, not only with respect to JtR but a lot of other issues in everyday life.

          It's also why he sees a link between a study that measures ability to detect differences in temperature as being relevant at all. First, knowing that A is warmer than B doesn't tell you either the temperature of A nor B, nor does it even tell you how many degrees apart A and B are, it only gives you a relative ranking. Let's say, for example, You touch A then B and conclude A was the warmer. (and let's say that they were 4 degrees between them). Now you touch C and D, and note that D was warmer than C. And they may differ by 4 degrees as well. And if I asked which pair differed by the most, if A and B were 28 and 24 degrees, but C and D were 10 and 14, people are most likely going to say that the 2nd pair had the greater temperature difference (our perceptions of differences tend to be non-linear - though I don't know for sure about perceived warmth so I'm going out on a limb here, but a fairly safe one. Other than length, I can't think of anything we perceive that follows a strictly linear relationship).

          Of course, all of that is a distraction, because if one wants to have any hope of estimating ToD based upon temperature readings it has to be a core reading, and it has to include exact numbers with respect to air termperature, body mass, and so forth, none of which Dr. Phillips had. So even if he had a device that gave him the exact skin temperature, it would still be just as useless with respect to making a ToD estimation. He won't acknowledge that, though, because he needs the ToD to be before 4:00, because Cross/Lechmere's work required him to be at work by 4:00. And while he could hypothesize that Cross/Lechmere had the day off, he then is left without an explanation for why he appears to have been heading to work (since that's part of his evidence - Chapman is enroute to work, etc), which means he has to modify it to "well, he was familiar with that area because he normally went to work that way", which is far less convincing, and again, the threads unravel, and the sewing kit must come out. Stitch over the hole created by the witness testimonies, and his theory is safe to wear another day.

          Nothing will get him to admit that he's wrong because, in his mind, he knows the truth. I have no idea what the truth is, but I do know what the evidence seems to suggest. I also know the evidence we have is not without error, hence I think at best we can draw tentative conclusions. What I look for, basically, is after we draw those tentative conclusions for each of the murders, which ones seem consistently to be drawn? Those ones, are probably the ones as close to the truth as we are likely to get based upon the current evidence set we have to work with.

          - Jeff
          I agree 100% Jeff. Evidence, whether itís inconvenient to a theory or not, has to be viewed objectively. I have pointed out in earlier post that itís hardly a coincidence that, of the other three posters that support Phillips TOD, two also need an earlier TOD to support theories. Fishy supports the Knight/Sickert theory and Packers Stem (whilst I donít think that he believes Knight/Sickert) also believes that Chapman was killed elsewhere. The Baron would just disagree with me if I said that Abberline was definitely a man!

          Fish latching on to palpation is the latest desperate effort to bolster Phillips. If theories werenít involve no one would even question this. Itís black and white. Phillips has to be put to one side in favour of a weighing up of the witness statements. We can all see the imperfections of those statements but to label them as unsafe is bizarre. We have posters here seeking to dismiss Cadosch purely on the grounds that he showed caution about the direction of the word Ďno.í The most problematical part of the witness testimony is the time issue between Long and Cadosch. I think that in the past weíve possibly been exaggerating this issue by asking how either of them could have been 15 minutes out? In reality they only had to have been 7 or 8 minutes out each for the times to match up and this is surely no flight of fantasy considering the fact that neither witnesses owned watches?

          The facts simply point to a TOD at 5.25/5.30.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes



          "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

          ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by John G View Post

            I agree, Herlock. The 1.5-4 hour period for the onset of rigor is the average, so I assume plenty of patients fall outside this average.

            Here's an example of extremely accelerated rigor mortis in a patient, in account of having suffered too much weight loss (she weighed only 41kg). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5721493/
            In a previous post we even had Fish saying something to the effect of - as we cannot rely totally on the accuracy of the TOD by Rigor we should assume the 2-4 hour average. As if an average is a kind of default position even in a case of such extenuating circumstances.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes



            "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

            ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

            Comment


            • i agree 100% jeff. Evidence, whether itís inconvenient to a theory or not, has to be viewed objectively. I have pointed out in earlier post that itís hardly a coincidence that, of the other three posters that support phillips tod, two also need an earlier tod to support theories. Fishy supports the knight/sickert theory and packers stem (whilst i donít think that he believes knight/sickert) also believes that chapman was killed elsewhere. The baron would just disagree with me if i said that abberline was definitely a man!

              Fish latching on to palpation is the latest desperate effort to bolster phillips. If theories werenít involve no one would even question this. Itís black and white. Phillips has to be put to one side in favour of a weighing up of the witness statements. We can all see the imperfections of those statements but to label them as unsafe is bizarre. We have posters here seeking to dismiss cadosch purely on the grounds that he showed caution about the direction of the word Ďno.í the most problematical part of the witness testimony is the time issue between long and cadosch. I think that in the past weíve possibly been exaggerating this issue by asking how either of them could have been 15 minutes out? In reality they only had to have been 7 or 8 minutes out each for the times to match up and this is surely no flight of fantasy considering the fact that neither witnesses owned watches?

              The facts simply point to a tod at 5.25/5.30.
              the facts , the facts.... Your kidding right, your so blinded by your own made up facts you cant see clearly .

              Comment


              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                T

                i didnt call you an idiot, it was a moron .
                Correct.

                Which is far worse than me criticising Baronís post. Itís a personal attack but did I report it? No.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                  the facts , the facts.... Your kidding right, your so blinded by your own made up facts you cant see clearly .
                  Rather than just making silly comments why donít you, for once explain what you mean?

                  Debate properly.

                  Its what the Forum is intended for.
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes



                  "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                  ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                    Dr Phillips was a 19th century doctor making a rough guesstimate. It's proven that TOD cannot be accurately determined as there are numerous variables. His conclusion is contradicted by three independent witnesses and therefore open to doubt. People are free to believe what they like but those are the facts.
                    Well said Harry
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes



                    "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                    ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                    Comment


                    • correct.

                      Which is far worse than me criticising baronís post. Itís a personal attack but did i report it? No.
                      fair call

                      Comment


                      • The facts simply point to a TOD at 5.25/5.30.
                        It simply means this , you cant just say the ''facts'' point to a t.o.d of 5.25 / 5.30

                        Because the Long, Codosch, Richardson scenario are ''not'' facts


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                          Lets just try a new take on Chapman shall we , and concentrate solely on Mrs Longs testimony .... under oath, for that matters, as Herlock seems to put so much emphasis on this .

                          So for Chapman to be killed from 5.30 onward according to Mrs Long who claims she pass them in Handbury st at 5.32, that means the killer and Chapman, after Long passed then, casually walk through the passage of 29 Hanbury st .5.33 , stop behind the door for a little small talk at 5.34, then the killer strangles her rendering her unconscious 5.35 lays her body down to start a 15 minute mutilation ,escapes at 5.50 .

                          Body discovered at 6.00, and Phillips turns up at 6.30 gives his t.o.d at 2 hours probably more .
                          How can it be that he was an full 75 mins out with his time of death?


                          Answer .... He Wasn't .

                          Reason ... Albert Codosch

                          Albert could not have heard the ''NO'' at 5.20 and the the thud against the fence at 5.26 ''IF'' we are to believe Mrs Longs sworn testimony.

                          Time to eliminate one of theses untrue testimonies ... PICK ONE HERLOCK Long or codosch ?
                          Hi Fishy,

                          It was Cadosch who testifies that he passed the Spitalfields clock at 5:32, so based upon his testimony, (gets up around 5:15, goes to the toilet and hears someone say "no" from #29 yeard, goes back in the house. Returns to the yard 3 or 4 minutes later and hears the noise against the fence. - so probably somewhere around 5:25 for the murder according to him.

                          Long says she saw the couple outside at 5:30, and she noted the time because the Brewers Clock had just struck the time as she went passed them.

                          Clearly, as stated, things don't line up.

                          The simplest, though not the only, resolution is that either Long sees an unrelated couple (in which case no big deal other than we can discount her description - but we have to wonder how she was able to identify Annie at the morgue) or she misremembers hearing the half hour chime when it was the quarter passed chime. If that were the case, the time lines actually link up really well.

                          The reason I think Long's time is the one to question, rather than say "adjust Cadosch's times to later", is because Long indicates her memory for the time was based upon hearing the chimes (and she had no reason to specifically note any of this), while Cadosch was getting up for work (so the time would be important to him in his routine), and he checked the clock specifically on his way. Knowing the time, therefore, was something Cadosch would have been making himself aware of in preparation for going to work, while Long is basing her recollection of the time on a memory of which chime sequence she recalls hearing. Therefore, given she did identify Chapman at the morgue (unless you think she's mistaken or lying on that), it seems most plausible that the error is a typical one of memory.

                          And if she passed them around 5:15 rather than 5:30, and Cadoch is going into the yard and hears "no" around 5:20, that's a good 5 minutes between those two events, and more than enough time for them to go from the front of the house to the back yard.

                          And given Eddowes mutilations probably were completed in about 7 minutes, with the dawn breaking, there's more light available, so Chapman's murder probably didn't take any longer than 7 minutes either (and probably less given there's even light available). I think we tend to vastly overestimate how much time was required for these murders.

                          Anyway, obviously I can't prove any of that but it's not a great stretch, but either Long saw someone else and erroneously identified Chapman in the morgue, or, in my view, she most likely has misremembered which chime rang and her time is 15 minutes off as a result.

                          - Jeff

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                            Lets just try a new take on Chapman shall we , and concentrate solely on Mrs Longs testimony .... under oath, for that matters, as Herlock seems to put so much emphasis on this .

                            So for Chapman to be killed from 5.30 onward according to Mrs Long who claims she pass them in Handbury st at 5.32, that means the killer and Chapman, after Long passed then, casually walk through the passage of 29 Hanbury st .5.33 , stop behind the door for a little small talk at 5.34, then the killer strangles her rendering her unconscious 5.35 lays her body down to start a 15 minute mutilation ,escapes at 5.50 .

                            Body discovered at 6.00, and Phillips turns up at 6.30 gives his t.o.d at 2 hours probably more .
                            How can it be that he was an full 75 mins out with his time of death?


                            Answer .... He Wasn't .

                            Reason ... Albert Codosch

                            Albert could not have heard the ''NO'' at 5.20 and the the thud against the fence at 5.26 ''IF'' we are to believe Mrs Longs sworn testimony.

                            Time to eliminate one of theses untrue testimonies ... PICK ONE HERLOCK Long or codosch ?
                            As Iíve said in a previous post no one is saying that the witnesses are perfect. Witnesses are rarely perfect. The main issue of course (in fact, the only issue worth mentioning) is the time discrepancy between Long and Cadosch. Iíve previously stayed (but you ignore this of course) that Long might simply have been mistaken. But she might not have been.

                            It appears that you are the only person interested in the case that doesnít accept the fact that most working class people didnít own watches. They relied on Constables to et them up for work and Church clocks and clocks on buildings. Often simply the distant chiming of a clock so we have to accept that timing errors can occur. This is simply a fact that every reasonable poster would accept. Except for you of course. And so itís not impossible or even unlikely that both Cadosch and Long were slightly out in their timings. And so the following has to be a reasonable possibility unless you are hopelessly biased (which you are of course.) Itís worth pointing out of course that the 15 minutes mutilation time cannot be set in stone either. Maybe it took 10 minutes or 9 minutes or 8 minutes who knows?

                            Long passes Chapman and her killer a little before 5.25.

                            Cadosch hears the Ďnoí at 5.25.

                            He hears the noise against the fence at 5.28.

                            Now, before you start jumping up and down, Iím not saying that this is what definitely happened but itís a definite possibility. Long might have been 15 minutes out and Cadosch correct with his timings. Or Long might have been correct but Cadosch was 15 minutes out.

                            So it simply cannot be that Long and Cadosch have to cancel each other out. Timing errors are a genuine possibility and w lose credibility by denying this.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes



                            "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                            ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                              It simply means this , you cant just say the ''facts'' point to a t.o.d of 5.25 / 5.30

                              Because the Long, Codosch, Richardson scenario are ''not'' facts

                              You are not-picking Fishy.

                              The evidence of Long, Cadosch and Richardson exists so they have to be considered. Even if we eliminate Long, we have 2 witnesses pointing to that TOD.

                              It is however a fact that Phillips TOD estimation is unreliable. The evidence that has been posted on here is absolutely overwhelming. It’s more than a little embarrassing when posters who have no medical background feel themselves qualified to overrule the opinionsof experts in the field. A let’s not forget this isn’t a division of opinion. Every single expert agrees that Phillips could not have accurately estimated the TOD. 100% of them. So that is certainly a fact.

                              And so you need the three witnesses to all have been wrong. You try and dismiss Cadosch on the desperate basis that he was cautious over the direction of the word ‘no.’ Something that should count in favour of his honesty.

                              You seek to dismiss Richardson on the grounds of an unrecorded and uncorroborated conversation in a passageway whilst dismissing his testimony under oath where he was 100% confident that he couldn’t have missed a body had it been there.

                              This is not a reasoned approach. And so yes.... it is beyond reasonable doubt that Annie Chapman was killed at around 5.25/5.30.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes



                              "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                              ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                In a previous post we even had Fish saying something to the effect of - as we cannot rely totally on the accuracy of the TOD by Rigor we should assume the 2-4 hour average. As if an average is a kind of default position even in a case of such extenuating circumstances.
                                Yes, rigor mortis is only a rough indicator at best, i.e. because there are so many variables. For instance, "in wasting diseases, like cancer or phthisis, rigor mortis will appear early": Kori, 2018.

                                Phthisis is pulmonary tuberculosis, a condition that Chapman may well have been suffering from.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X