Chapman’s death.

[FISHY1118]

I[QUOTE]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.

T

his is what you need to do Fishy....contact a few authorities on Forensic medicine and say this:

Hello, my name is Mr Fishy. In all of your books and all of the papers that you’ve written you have said that estimating TOD using Rigor and Algor is unsafe and unreliable and should not be used. Because of this some people are saying that Dr Phillips couldn’t have accurately given Annie Chapman’s TOD. You are all wrong I’m afraid and this is why.......three Victorian doctors got a TOD correct....therefore all doctors must have been able to estimate TOD accurately. As I’ve educated you could please change all of your books and acknowledge how brilliant I am and how dumb you all are for missing this.

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 .

Was Phillips TOD estimate unsafe and unreliable?

Yes....absolutely....undoubtedly....categorically. .....without a single, solitary, scintilla of doubt!

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]

Was Cadosch unsafe and unreliable?

No...he was simply cautious on which direction the ‘no’ came from. This points to honesty. The chances of him heading something coming from that yard, at that time, and it not being connected to the murders is tiny.

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.

Was Richardson unsafe and unreliable?

Of course he wasn’t. Chandlers unverified comments from the passageway interview might easily have been a mis-hearing or a mid-remembering. Apart from that there would have been nothing suspicious about him saying that he checked the cellar doors without mentioning sitting on the steps. To read more into it is desperate nitpicking. Under oath at The Inquest he said that he could not have missed a body had it been there. You can’t get much stronger witness evidence than this. He was 100% certain.

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.

Was Long unsafe and unreliable?

Her timing is certainly an issue. She may simply have been mistaken and seen someone else. It’s a possibility but an unlikely one imo. As we know that timings have to be taken with a pinch of salt due to the absence for most of watches and clocks we have at least a plausible explanation (of course Fishy is again the only person in the world that doesn’t accept that times could be inaccurate because of these facts) If we simply postulate that both Cadosch and Long were 7 or 8 minutes out with their timings then it all fits a timeline.

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..

All this makes it overwhelmingly likely that Chapman died around 5.25/5.30. This comes from following logic, Forensic authorities, common sense and the absence of bias. It’s why the sensible, unbiased posters all agree.

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

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

[JeffHamm]

Now, that means we have two "timelines" of probabilities, one that starts off favoring Dr. Phillips and fades to equivocal, and the other that starts off strongly favoring Dr. Phillips and eventually switches over to weakly favoring the witnesses.

I've combined these two series into a final, singular, time series analysis, so this final one would be based upon considering all of the evidence.



And it looks similar to the one above, but you can see the equivocal time shifted to 10 (because while 9 was equivocal for the "backwards direction" analysis, 9 is in favor of Dr. Phillips in the "forward" analysis, so we have 1 bit that says for Dr. Phillips and one "abstain", which means when combined that's more in favor than against. At 10 o'clock the "forward" analysis weakly favors Dr. Phillips but the backwards analysis weakly favors the witnesses, so when combined that becomes equivocal (and a perfect time for people to choose which cherry looks ripest - this combined analysis, however, captures that ambiguity in the data and objectively tells us "it doesn't tell you anything".

Again, don't get too hung up on this. As I say, the entire output from the analyses is based upon a normal progression of rigor, and there are lots of factors that might suggest in this case rigor would progress more quickly or more slowly than normal. So unless those factors all cancel each other out and the net result is a typical rigor profile, then the analysis is using the wrong model (which I've said a few times to make sure nobody thinks I'm making strong claims here; I'm just working with what we have, and pointing out the limitations). What it also does is reflect Trevor's calls for caution and not to draw too firm a conclusion from things - the evidence, at best, really could only provide weak support for the witness ToD, and while it could have provided very strong evidence for Dr. Pihllips, when she was tested around those time windows she hadn't reached full rigor, so most likely the time she did reach full rigor will be at a time that doesn't well differentiate between the two time windows all that well, and would either weakly favor one or the other. And given they are only an hour apart, that's not too surprising given how variable the progression of rigor is in the first place (go back to the cumulative plot and just look at the range in hours normal cases can take to reach full rigor - a 1 hour difference isn't much compared to that variability.

However, as I say, this is the kind of thing that one could do. The only problem is, of course, we don't have the information we would need to make really good use of it - namely, the actual time Chapman did reach full rigor. But I like analysing numbers, and as I've been working on routines to fit these kinds of functions to other data, I thought I would test them out with this, and share what I found.


- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

So, after all that, what this entire exercise would cautiously suggest (all caveats about the data and analysis approach firmly in place here), is that if she reached full rigor at 11 o'clock or later, that would be evidence in favor of the witness based ToD (but only be weak evidence), and if she reached full rigor up to and including 9:30, that would be evidence in favor of Dr. Phillips ToD. Depending upon how much earlier than 9:30 that could vary from being only weak evidence right up to very strong evidence (though one of those time points is already ruled out). If, however, she reached full rigor between 9:30 and 11:00, then that would be equivocal evidence and both ToDs could equally account for that.

If one wanted to make the call on this, and assume a "near enough to normal rigor progression" (arguing that the forces that speed it up and slow it down balance out enough that one could consider it normal - and I'm not suggesting you do that, but you can do what you like with this information), then I would suggest one focuses on the evidence to see if there is anything that might suggest times she wasn't in full rigor yet. For example, we know the mortuary attendants stripped her of her clothes before Dr. Phillips examined her at 2 o'clock. I don't know if they had to cut them off her, or what time that happened (never occurred to me to pay attention to those details). But, it seems to me that if they did not have to cut them to remove them that would tend to suggest she wasn't in full rigor at that point in time (and if they did have to cut them off, that might indicate she was in full rigor by then). If there's anything that tells us when that preparation happened, and if the clothes had to be cut, etc, that could help narrow our options (as knowing she wasn't in full rigor at time X means all earlier times are out as well; and knowing she was in full rigor would rule out all later times. Again, we would have to make an assumption that the cutting of the clothes was due to her being in a state of rigor, so it would be a qualified conclusion, but it would at least be based upon the evidence, and if presented with such qualifiers, it would be a reasonable suggestion even if it can't be a conclusive one.

And this is why working with numbers, and using objective forms of analysis on data is useful. It can focus us on what sort of evidence to look for that has the potential to actually tell us something.

- Jeff

[John G]

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

[JeffHamm]

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

[JeffHamm]

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

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[JeffHamm]

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

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[JeffHamm]

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

[PaulB]

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.

[JeffHamm]

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

[John G]

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

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.

[JeffHamm]

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.

[John G]

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?