Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapman’s death.

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

  • This is a interesting academic text, which gives a detailed assessment of rigor mortis. You will note that both violent death, such as cut- throat, and wasting diseases, like tuberculosis, will result in early onset of rigor. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...gautam&f=false

    Comment


    • Originally posted by John G View Post
      This is a interesting academic text, which gives a detailed assessment of rigor mortis. You will note that both violent death, such as cut- throat, and wasting diseases, like tuberculosis, will result in early onset of rigor. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...gautam&f=false
      Cool. Yes, both of those factors are mentioned in the article I posted a link to (where I got the data to work with) a ways back as well. And cold temperatures slows it down of course. There's a number of competing forces in play with regards to Annie Chapman's case, and how those all would combine are not clear to me. That's why I've been stating that the analyses I've been presenting need to be viewed with caution, and more as an illustration of what could be done. I think it might serve as a useful guideline in some ways, though, but it's never going to be conclusive.

      I'll have a look at the textbook and see if there's anything else I could draw upon. However, from what I've seen so far, the two times being only an hour apart, and the wide time range over which rigor can vary, makes it a pretty crude indicator that probably can't differentiate our two options very well (which is what the last few analyses are showing).

      - Jeff

      Comment


      • Interesting bits in there. Disease, cut throat speeds it up, cold and hemorrhaging slows it down, and how those all play out in Annie's case is hard to tell. Also interesting is that rigor onset generally begins between 1 and 2 hours after death (though I'm sure there's a fair bit of variation in those numbers as well), so again, both our ToDs are consistent with Dr. Phillips' observation of the begging of rigor (as the two options are 1 and 2 hours prior to his observation).

        - Jeff

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
          cold and hemorrhaging slows it down
          I'd have thought that, given that cut throat is specifically cited as accelerating the onset of rigor, and a cut throat is likely to result in significant loss of blood in a very short time, then the effect of death by throat-cutting on rigor may trump the effect of haemorrhage in cases where the throat is cut. Perhaps rigor is retarded mainly in cases where haemorrhage is more prolonged and/or "internal".

          As to cold, perhaps Chapman hadn't been lying there long enough for the retardant effects to kick in. Phillips may have noted the onset of rigor due to a (comparatively recent) cutting of the throat, but perhaps it proceeded at a slower rate thereafter, when the low temperature began to take effect.
          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

            I'd have thought that, given that cut throat is specifically cited as accelerating the onset of rigor, and a cut throat is likely to result in significant loss of blood in a very short time, then the effect of death by throat-cutting on rigor may trump the effect of haemorrhage in cases where the throat is cut. Perhaps rigor is retarded mainly in cases where haemorrhage is more prolonged and/or "internal".

            As to cold, perhaps Chapman hadn't been lying there long enough for the retardant effects to kick in. Phillips may have noted the onset of rigor due to a (comparatively recent) cutting of the throat, but perhaps it proceeded at a slower rate thereafter, when the low temperature began to take effect.
            Yah, I thought that odd too, the cut throat and haemorrhage aspect that seem to swing both ways. As you say, it may be that while the loss of blood tends to slow it down, the increase due to the violent mode of death must counter it, and perhaps even overcomes it. I suppose if "violent death" speeds it up by "5", let's say, but blood loss slows it down by 6, it would just indicate to expect "less of a slow down than usual due to blood loss in cases of cut throat deaths"; of course if blood loss just slows it down by 2, then same thing "expect less of a speed up than usual during violent deaths that include throat cutting as the blood loss will partially counter act it". The table is just listing what the influences are, not the magnitude of those influences, so just about any combination is open.

            Also, this is indicating the influences on detecting the onset of rigor, not the time to reach full rigor (but presumably they are related).

            I've included the table below and underlined the listings that we might want to consider (I included Asphyxia as there were signs she may have been strangled, so that would slow it down, and Fatigue or exhaustion because in either case, she seems to have been up until at least 4:30 or 5:30 walking the streets - so that needs to be considered too.

            - Jeff

            Click image for larger version

Name:	RigorTable.jpg
Views:	68
Size:	72.0 KB
ID:	722488

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

              I included Asphyxia as there were signs she may have been strangled, so that would slow it down
              Perhaps asphyxia only becomes relevant if it's the only factor present. I'm guessing that most carbon monoxide or hanging victims don't also suffer from the effects of cut throats, tuberculosis or fatigue.
              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                Perhaps asphyxia only becomes relevant if it's the only factor present. I'm guessing that most carbon monoxide or hanging victims don't also suffer from the effects of cut throats, tuberculosis or fatigue.
                Could be. Or, asphyxia creates a depletion of energy in the cells due to lack of oxygen before death, and that is hastens rigor, while the violence of the throat cutting perhaps results in an adrenaline response doing something else and they could combine. But if she's unconscious at the point of throat cutting, the fear response doesn't occur to that (although it would still have occurred during strangulation as well), and so on. I suspect things get really complicated and this is well outside of my knowledge so I'm just tossing random thoughts here. We're getting into things that really require a specialist's knowledge who knows how all these factors interact. Even then, I wouldn't be surprised if the conclusion was "the two time windows are too close to really differentiate with any degree of confidence".

                - Jeff

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  Treating it all alike as unsafe to totally rely on to be able to conclusively prove a time of death beyond a reasonable doubt.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  But nobody is totally relying on the testimony for anything, everyone knows that conclusive proof is impossible with an event that happened 130 years ago and lacks full documentation, and that the same applies to proving that anything 'beyond reasonable doubt' that happened that long ago. So you are requiring the evidence to fulfil the impossible, which, I'm sure you'll agree, is unreasonable.

                  Secondly, whilst it is possible that 21st century experts can say with utmost confidence that Dr Phillips' estimated time of death is wrong (and I am not saying that they ae saying that), the witness testimony has problems but has not been shown to be wrong. You have to address the problems, not simply set the testimony aside and forget about it.

                  Thirdly, you repeatedly state that you are not dismissing the witness testimony, but, despite being asked several times, you are not stating what you are doing with it. You see, if historians didn't use all the evidence that has a problem with it, we'd have very little history left. If you just stick the witness testimony on a metaphoric shelf and leave it to gather dust, you are dismissing it. You either have to acknowledge what you are dismissing it, or explain what you are doing with it.

                  To sum up, you are applying unreasonable expectations to the data; you are discounting the data because it has problems, not because it is untrue; and you are not explaining how you are handling the problematic data, thus giving the impression that you are dismissing it.

                  Comment


                  • So I've had a look and it was Mary Elizabeth Simonds, a nurse, who undressed and washed Annie Chapman's body. She doesn't say the time, just that it was the morning, and the body was still on the ambulance. There's not much detail to work with, but the description of undressing and washing does not indicate any problems in doing so and there's no mention of having to cut the clothes to get them off. We know Dr. Phillips arrived at the crime scene at 6:30ish, had to do his examination (and he checked the yard with Chandler, and the items placed around her as well, so it looks a much more thorough examination than it was for Nichols).

                    Not much to work with in regards to what time it was though, but perhaps 1 or 2 hours later it's being undressed and washed (around 7:30 or 8:30; noting that we're starting to push things into the weak evidence zone, which is what this sort of evidence is), but I would prefer to guess unless absolutely forced to. I'll see if I can find anything in the press as there could be something that mentions crowds of people watching the body being removed (which would be great), or at least about people looking where the body used to be (less good, but will take what I can get).

                    - Jeff

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                      Yah, I thought that odd too, the cut throat and haemorrhage aspect that seem to swing both ways. As you say, it may be that while the loss of blood tends to slow it down, the increase due to the violent mode of death must counter it, and perhaps even overcomes it. I suppose if "violent death" speeds it up by "5", let's say, but blood loss slows it down by 6, it would just indicate to expect "less of a slow down than usual due to blood loss in cases of cut throat deaths"; of course if blood loss just slows it down by 2, then same thing "expect less of a speed up than usual during violent deaths that include throat cutting as the blood loss will partially counter act it". The table is just listing what the influences are, not the magnitude of those influences, so just about any combination is open.

                      Also, this is indicating the influences on detecting the onset of rigor, not the time to reach full rigor (but presumably they are related).

                      I've included the table below and underlined the listings that we might want to consider (I included Asphyxia as there were signs she may have been strangled, so that would slow it down, and Fatigue or exhaustion because in either case, she seems to have been up until at least 4:30 or 5:30 walking the streets - so that needs to be considered too.

                      - Jeff

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	RigorTable.jpg
Views:	68
Size:	72.0 KB
ID:	722488
                      Hi Jeff,

                      The problem with rigor mortis as a reliable indicator is the lack of studies in this area. The most accurate estimates seem to be from Mallach, based upon a meta analysis of literature from 1811 to 1969 with statistical analysis.

                      Mallach concluded that the average hours post mortem and standard deviation, for the onset of rigor, was 3 hours, plus or minus 2 hours: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...0houck&f=false

                      I'm assuming therefore that one hour would still be considered to be within the average, I.e. taking into consideration standard deviation.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by John G View Post

                        Hi Jeff,

                        The problem with rigor mortis as a reliable indicator is the lack of studies in this area. The most accurate estimates seem to be from Mallach, based upon a meta analysis of literature from 1811 to 1969 with statistical analysis.

                        Mallach concluded that the average hours post mortem and standard deviation, for the onset of rigor, was 3 hours, plus or minus 2 hours: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...0houck&f=false

                        I'm assuming therefore that one hour would still be considered to be within the average, I.e. taking into consideration standard deviation.
                        Yes, 1 hour would still be in the 95% confidence interval (actually, with a mean of 3 hours and a standard deviation of 2, the 95% CI spans to before death! The 95% CI is the Mean +- 1.96*s. In other words, onset times are not really very useful at all.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                          Yes, 1 hour would still be in the 95% confidence interval (actually, with a mean of 3 hours and a standard deviation of 2, the 95% CI spans to before death! The 95% CI is the Mean +- 1.96*s. In other words, onset times are not really very useful at all.
                          Thanks, I agree. There's just far too many variables. As discussed, tuberculosis and cut throat indicates early onset, asphyxiation the opposite. What about where there are two causes of death? And, of course, the victim didn't just suffer a cut throat, she was virtually decapitated. How would such a scenario affect calculations?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by John G View Post

                            Thanks, I agree. There's just far too many variables. As discussed, tuberculosis and cut throat indicates early onset, asphyxiation the opposite. What about where there are two causes of death? And, of course, the victim didn't just suffer a cut throat, she was virtually decapitated. How would such a scenario affect calculations?
                            Again, I have no idea as all of those are empirical questions and require data on the topic to answer. Otherwise, given the complexities involved, it could be any combination one imagines. The book line gives an average time to maximum rigor of 8 hours, with a standard deviation of 1, so 95% interval from just over 6 hours to just under 10. The data set I'm working with has an average of about 5 hours 40 minutes, ranging from 2 to 13 hours (and it's 114 cases, so a decent sized sample), so I'm not sure how reliable things are from study to study. A lot of the cases in the book are from 1800s reports, and I'll have to go back to check the details in the paper, but there could be important differences between the samples. It's clear, though, that rigor as a ToD estimator is really imprecise.

                            - Jeff

                            Comment


                            • [QUOTE=FISHY1118;n722463]I
                              ve explained this point to you two or three times. Even a very small child could understand it but you seem unable to. It’s more likely of course that you do understand it but you simply lack the honesty and integrity to concede the point.[/QUOTE

                              And i have explained the simple truth to you herlock , that is, stop trying to convince the world that the long codosch and Richardson testimony is the only explanation the Annie Chapman must have been killed at 5.30 the 3 of them are contradictory and unreliable .... period . My honesty and integrity is just fine thank you, its your intelligence and lack of understanding thats bothering me.

                              Please don’t tell me what I can or can’t do. The three witnesses are not unreliable. Only a biased person utterly lacking in sense and integrity would make such a statement. 5.30 is overwhelmingly the likeliest. It’s no longer worth debating because the points from the other side are so laughable. Game over.

                              T

                              ill just ignore this as for the gibberish and child like nonsense you like to post . fisherman has also explained t.o.d in great detail ,he certainly has your number there .

                              This is why he keeps vanishing every time he’s disproven. Fish’s arguments are dead in the water. He’s utterly lost the arguments to facts. To medical science. To the authorities on the subjects.



                              Again not a proven fact, their ample evidence to suggest he was correct. You choose to ignore this tho . See wolf vanderlinden ,and Trevor Marriott ,and Fisherman if you having trouble understand t.o.d [ which you do]

                              Theres not a shred of evidence that Phillips was correct. He has now been dismissed completely. Phillips is a goner. Ask the experts Fishy. Bad luck.



                              Yes completely unreliable as the ''no'' cant be substantiated as coming from 29 and the thud is not proof along with the ''no'' that anyone was in the yard at 5.15 am to 5.30 fact, fact, fact . a good lawyer would tear shreds off codosch for that testimony [i love how you consistently put thoughts into the witnesses heads, absolutely baloney herlock, stop doing it , he was simply being cautious, what a dumb thing to say.

                              Childish rubbish as ever. He was being cautious. Look in the dictionary and discover what cautious means. Cadosch is cast iron. Cannot be disproven. Bad luck.


                              Heres the best one by far, again your suggesting a different narrative to suit you belief of Richardson with words like mis hearing or mis remembering , just stick to what was said and stop making up thoughts of what you think happen to support Richardsons change of mind when he gave his testimony ''2'' two days later . And pray tell us oh wise one, what about chandlers sworn testimony under oath when he made mention that Richardson never said he sat on the step to cut he boot huh huh . If thats not contradictory and totally unreliable what the bloody hell is.? But you dont care or give a toss about that do you.

                              Can you prove that Richardson didn’t mention sitting on the step? No you cannot. You only have the uncorroborated word based on a conversation in a passageway. A conversation that Richardson had no opportunity to dispute. AND SO WE HAVE THE INQUEST. UNDER OATH. Bad luck.



                              And the easiest of all 3, the the women who clearly countnt pick out Andre the giant in a room full of midgets .as we know she could not possibly have seen Chapman and her killer if we are to accept codoschs version of events . For you to use that ridiculous timing nonsense over and over again is ludicrous . if if if that all we get from you regards to timing , and if my auntie had balls she be my uncle . Again stick to the time Long said it was when she passed the clock . Another unreliable and contradictory testimony when put next to the other two..

                              Only an idiot would say that people who didn’t own watches had to be correct on timings. It beggars belief.


                              NO IT MOSTLY COMES FROM JUST YOU , DONT SPEAK FOR THE REST OF US THAT HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION

                              No. You are in a small minority.

                              Fish - who needs an earlier TOD to support Lechmere - biased
                              You - needs an earlier TOD to support Knight - biased
                              Packers - needs an earlier TOD because he thinks Annie was Killed elsewhere - biased
                              The Baron - can be ignored because he’s a troll.

                              Only Trevor goes for Phillips even though he admits that his TOD estimation was unsafe.

                              Every other poster goes for the witnesses. All of them. And it’s way, way more than 5.

                              You are in a group of 5. 3 of whom desperately need an earlier TOD.






                              ITS JUST AS OVERWHELMINGLY POSSIBLE CHAPMAN WAS KILLED MUCH EARLIER THAT 5.30

                              Dishonest drivel.


                              The argument is long over. It’s sad that you keep on just to try and bolster your utterly discredited fantasy.

                              Youre little group has become a joke.

                              Chapman was killed around 5.25/5.30

                              Bad luck Professor 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


                              • Are the people that are discussing the varied aspects of calculating TOD by Rigor onset oblivious to the many times mentioned fact that we already know, within less than an hour, when she was cut and killed? All 3 witnesses that give us this window were either on the murder spot or on the other side of the fence within that hour. First one didn't see a dead body, he was on the spot, second heard a person alive, he was next door, and the third one found the dead woman. All within an hour. Not brain surgery.
                                Michael Richards

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X