Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapmanís death.

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

  • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
    .

    There you go again, using the word fact when Phillips is concerned with his t.o.d being unreliable.


    When its just as much a fact that long codosch and richardson testimonies are also unreliable and contradictory.



    WHOS REALLY NITPICKING
    What is your definition of the word Ďfactí Fishy as it appears to be different to the rest of us?

    If every single Forensic authority tells us that Phillips could not have accurately estimated Chapmanís TOD, AND THEY CERTAINLY DO FISHY, then we can call it a fact. Unless you know more on the subject than they do. Phillips is dismissed without a single, solitary shred of doubt. This leaves us with three witnesses.
    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 Harry D View Post
      Dr Phillips might have been right with his TOD. I don't think anyone has denied that.

      However, it would need all three witnesses to be in error. Long didn't see Chapman (possible), Cadosch didn't hear the murder (doubtful) and Richardson missed the body (inexplicable).
      Yes Harry but, as the expert I quoted earlier stated explicitly, it would have been by luck. Not impossible though of course.

      Totally agree with your fair assessment of the three witnesses
      Regards

      Herlock






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

      Comment


      • Duplicated post.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

          again.... What about chandlers 100% testimony of what richardson told him. Why doesn't that count .?
          Thereís a big difference Fishy.

          Theres no one to back up Chandlers statement. No one else was there and it wasnít recorded. Also, when he brought this up at the Inquest, Richardson had already testified so he didnít get chance to respond to Chandlerís claim. Chandler might have misheard him. He might have misunderstood him. Richardson might simply have said something like....I went to the backdoor to check the cellar doors and there was definitely no body there - so there we would have a situation where he didnít mention sitting on the steps but there would have been nothing dodgy about it. Chandler would have had no reason to push for more details.

          We are therefore relying on one manís version of what might have been said. With the possibilities of error.

          At the Inquest however we know for certain what Richardson said. Plus he was cross-examined. We canít say that Richardson might or might not have said this or that at the Inquest but we can say that for Chandler in the passageway.

          Regards

          Herlock






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

          Comment


          • dr phillips might have been right with his tod. I don't think anyone has denied that.

            However, it would need all three witnesses to be in error. Long didn't see chapman (possible), cadosch didn't hear the murder (doubtful) and richardson missed the body (inexplicable).

            long [definatley]

            codosch [his own testimony proves nothing that anyone was in the yard between 5.i5 /5.30 ]

            richardson [again his first statement to inspector chandler on the morning of the murder has him not sitting on the step and cutting his boot .

            Thats how simple it is to suggest that the whole long codosch and richardson scenario is not a fact or proof that chapman was killed at 5.30am in the backyard of 29 handbury st .

            Comment


            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post


              long [definatley]

              codosch [his own testimony proves nothing that anyone was in the yard between 5.i5 /5.30 ]

              richardson [again his first statement to inspector chandler on the morning of the murder has him not sitting on the step and cutting his boot .

              Thats how simple it is to suggest that the whole long codosch and richardson scenario is not a fact or proof that chapman was killed at 5.30am in the backyard of 29 handbury st .
              But you have no reasonable grounds to dismiss them. Why canít you se this?

              Bu itís not that you canít see it though is it Fishy? This whole thread goes on because certain posters (including yourself) need Phillips to have been a magician and th witnesses to all have been liars or idiots. If you didnít support the Knight theory you would hardly have botched posting.

              I nearly forgot...Iíll ask you for the seventh time:

              Why is it that you strongly believe that Phillips made an accurate estimate of Chapmanís TOD (in the face of 100% of expert medical opinion)? Something that he couldnít have done.

              And yet when Phillips undertook the far, far simpler task of checking for evidence of Annie being killed elsewhere he became completely incompetent.

              Why was he an unprecedented genius at the difficult task
              but a complete dimwit at the easier one?
              Regards

              Herlock






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

              Comment


              • why is it that you strongly believe that phillips made an accurate estimate of chapmanís tod (in the face of 100% of expert medical opinion)? Something that he couldnít have done.
                because in the nichols , stride and eddowes cases the doctors were also correct with their t.o.d why should phillips have got it so wrong ?

                oh wait maybe its because the witnesses and the police at the murder scenes told them how long the bodies were there so they turned around and went home without offering their expert medical opinions . Yer that must be it

                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 ?
                  Sorry...we are arguing about an earlier TOD than indicated by Phillips when compared with the witness statements? If Long and Cadosche happen to both be correct, then Annie is still alive, right? If just one is correct, then Annie is alive at that time, right? If you accept ALL the relevant witnesses, Richardson, the Cadosche, then Long, then Davis, then Annie alive until around 5:30, correct? Then the summary is that Phillips was wrong, simple, and no need for the petty BS that has ensued here.
                  Michael Richards

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                    because in the nichols , stride and eddowes cases the doctors were also correct with their t.o.d why should phillips have got it so wrong ?

                    oh wait maybe its because the witnesses and the police at the murder scenes told them how long the bodies were there so they turned around and went home without offering their expert medical opinions . Yer that must be it
                    Ok so youíre back on that drivel?

                    Sir Bernard Knight is wrong?
                    Sir Keith Simpson is wrong?
                    Jason Payne-James is wrong?

                    Every single authority on the subject is wrong.

                    Every scholarly, peer-reviewed paper on the subject is wrong.

                    Every standard textbook on the subject is wrong.

                    .
                    ďMany pathologists have in the past used various 'rules of thumb' to calculate time of death from the body temperature but these are generally so unreliable that they should not now be used. Sometimes the perceived warmth of the body to touch is mentioned in court as an indicator of time of death; this assessment is so unreliable as to be useless and is even more so if the pathologist is asked to comment upon the reported perceptions of another person.".

                    Source: 'Simpson's Forensic Medicine' (13th edition), lead author Jason Payne-James.
                    Even The Coroner:

                    . Dr. Phillips thinks that when he saw the body at 6.30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admits that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood may affect his opinion; and if the evidence of the other witnesses be correct, Dr. Phillips has miscalculated the effect of those forces.
                    Just in case you try the old digestion argument:

                    .
                    From "Time of Death, Decompensation and Identification: An Atlas" by Jay Dix and Michael Graham (1999):

                    "Some foods such as celery, onion, potato, corn and tomato skins typically take longer than meat or other foods to exit the stomach"
                    Another one dismissing digestion:

                    . And hereís one explaining why itís unsafe to use stomach content to estimate TOD

                    http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.c...-estimate.html
                    and more

                    . the leading textbook of Simpson on Forensics (by Jason Payne James & co) which tells us that analysis of gastric contents "cannot reliably be used to determine time of death".
                    then this

                    . Professor Bernard Knight - an actual expert in forensic pathology - who said that the 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit (note Fahrenheit not Celsius) formula is "almost always wrong" and, if ever correct, it was "by chance"

                    There are many more of course.

                    What Iíd suggest though Fishy is that you should write to all of the worldís authorities and all of the societies and tell them that they are all wrong because three Victorian doctors appear to have gotten it right. Iím sure theyíll sayĒ

                    Thank you for putting us right Fishy. Weíve been wrong all of these years. Would you believe it? How embarrassing for us.


                    Fame and fortune awaits you 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 FISHY1118 View Post


                      long [definatley]

                      codosch [his own testimony proves nothing that anyone was in the yard between 5.i5 /5.30 ]

                      richardson [again his first statement to inspector chandler on the morning of the murder has him not sitting on the step and cutting his boot .

                      Thats how simple it is to suggest that the whole long codosch and richardson scenario is not a fact or proof that chapman was killed at 5.30am in the backyard of 29 handbury st .
                      What do you mean by 'scenario'? The testimony of Richardson, Long and Cadosch is fact - they did say what they are reported to have said. And I don't think anyone is seriously saying that there testimony proves Chapman's time of death. There are problems with their testimony which argues that we adopt caution, but nothing proves their testimony should be disregarded.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                        What do you mean by 'scenario'? The testimony of Richardson, Long and Cadosch is fact - they did say what they are reported to have said. And I don't think anyone is seriously saying that there testimony proves Chapman's time of death. There are problems with their testimony which argues that we adopt caution, but nothing proves their testimony should be disregarded.
                        I agree their statements don't prove empirically the time that Annie died, but combined they all do prove empirically that Annie didn't die until after 5am. We know when she was found....so it should be fairly simple to provide a time window for her murder. Without the baseless discrediting any what any witness said,... other than Phillips of course.
                        Last edited by Michael W Richards; 09-17-2019, 01:21 PM.
                        Michael Richards

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                          I agree their statements don't prove empirically the time that Annie died, but combined they all do prove empirically that Annie didn't die until after 5am. We know when she was found....so it should be fairly simple to provide a time window for her murder. Without the baseless discrediting any what any witness said,... other than Phillips of course.
                          Yes, indeed. But Fishy1118 may not draw that distinction. I assumed that he didn't.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                            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.

                            ...

                            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
                            Ok, just geeking out here. I posted this a while back (a table on times until full rigor mortis from a research article I came across). Anyway, as the table shows, individual cases vary in the time to reach full (not onset time, but full rigor) from 2 to 13 hours. I've been analysing the data a bit as I've been working on some routines to fit distributions of data (to find the equation that describes them). Basically, using this data as my example, we plot hours on the x-axis and then the percentage of all the data that would have reached full rigor by this point in time. So, for 4 hours, we just add up the number of cases for 2, 3, and 4 hours, and plot that percentage of the 114 cases. This is just a cumulative total plot. Then, you find the equation that describes that relationship between hours and probability of reaching full rigor at or before that time, and there you have it.

                            The data for rigor follows what's called a "log normal distribution". Basically, if you take the natural log of the hours, then look at the distribution it will be normal (typical bell shaped distribution). Log normal distributions are skewed in terms of the "hours", but are normally distributed in terms of the "ln(hours)".

                            I've plotted the data and the model function:

                            Click image for larger version  Name:	Rigor_LogNormal.jpg Views:	0 Size:	20.8 KB ID:	722355
                            if you want to play with it, and have excel, if you paste the following into Cell B1, then you can enter a number of hours in Cell A1 and the formula will return the probability of reaching full rigor by that time.

                            =NORMSDIST((LN(A1-0.648)-1.38)/0.527)

                            Also, the 95% confidence interval is that a body will reach full rigor between 2.05 and 11.8 hours, with half reaching full rigor after 4.625 hours.

                            now, I don't know under what conditions this data was collected (it's certainly not going to be ones similar to how Annie Chapman was found, but far more likely going to be people who died in care, so at room temperatures, not disemboweled, etc. Be that as it may, I thought some may be interested.

                            - Jeff
                            Last edited by JeffHamm; 09-18-2019, 04:27 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Ok, I can't resist playing with this.

                              Dr. Phillips testifies that he arrived at the scene at 6:30, and performed his examination at the "mortuary" shortly after 2. So that's a bit more than 7 hours 30 minutes after he arrived, but as I don't know what "shortly after" is in terms of minutes, we'll just call it 7 hours 30 minutes. At 2 he notes the stiffness of the limbs is "well marked", so if that is full rigor then not entirely surprising. Even if Dr. Phillips killed Chapman at 6:30, by 7 hours and 30 minutes later 85% of cases would be in full rigor (let's pretend the above data is at all useful with regards to Annie Chapman's case, which, to be honest, I know it's not, but I'm playing here )

                              Now, if 2 o'clock is full rigor, from the above data we have our 95% confidence interval. That means, her ToD would have to fall between 2.05 hours earlier than 2, (so shortly before noon ) and extending back in time as far as 11.8 hours, which would be 2:12 am. Basically, we know she was dead around 6, so based upon the reported time of full rigor, we can narrow down her ToD to anywhere after 2:12 am up until she was found, with 95% certainty. Given we know she was eating potatos around 1:30, which is when she left to get money. We've reduced our time window by almost 45 minutes!

                              And of course, since it's possible she was in full rigor before Dr. Phillips checked, if that happened an hour earlier, our "window of consideration for ToD" will span times both when she was known to be alive (it will extend past the time she was eating potatoes by about 15 minutes), and known to be dead (because the 95% time window will end around 11, 5 hours after she was found dead). What I'm getting at is that the margin of error for this kind of data is so wide that it doesn't help us, because the evidence we have from the witnesses narrow the time window even more than this can.

                              - Jeff
                              Last edited by JeffHamm; 09-18-2019, 04:49 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                                Ok, I can't resist playing with this.

                                Dr. Phillips testifies that he arrived at the scene at 6:30, and performed his examination at the "mortuary" shortly after 2. So that's a bit more than 7 hours 30 minutes after he arrived, but as I don't know what "shortly after" is in terms of minutes, we'll just call it 7 hours 30 minutes. At 2 he notes the stiffness of the limbs is "well marked", so if that is full rigor then not entirely surprising. Even if Dr. Phillips killed Chapman at 6:30, by 7 hours and 30 minutes later 85% of cases would be in full rigor (let's pretend the above data is at all useful with regards to Annie Chapman's case, which, to be honest, I know it's not, but I'm playing here )

                                Now, if 2 o'clock is full rigor, from the above data we have our 95% confidence interval. That means, her ToD would have to fall between 2.05 hours earlier than 2, (so shortly before noon ) and extending back in time as far as 11.8 hours, which would be 2:12 am. Basically, we know she was dead around 6, so based upon the reported time of full rigor, we can narrow down her ToD to anywhere after 2:12 am up until she was found, with 95% certainty. Given we know she was eating potatos around 1:30, which is when she left to get money. We've reduced our time window by almost 45 minutes!

                                And of course, since it's possible she was in full rigor before Dr. Phillips checked, if that happened an hour earlier, our "window of consideration for ToD" will span times both when she was known to be alive (it will extend past the time she was eating potatoes by about 15 minutes), and known to be dead (because the 95% time window will end around 11, 5 hours after she was found dead). What I'm getting at is that the margin of error for this kind of data is so wide that it doesn't help us, because the evidence we have from the witnesses narrow the time window even more than this can.

                                - Jeff
                                My advice is stop playing, ask your ward manager to let you out more !

                                Dr Phillips at crime scene "Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing"

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 09-18-2019, 07:03 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X