Chapman’s death.

[Fisherman]

Dr Biggs has given this input- The very last sentence makes interesting reading !!!!!!!!!!

"How long rigor mortis takes to develop varies greatly from person to person, and perhaps more importantly the assessment of how stiff someone is also varies from person to person! Very often we will be told that “paramedics found the body to be in a state of rigor mortis, therefore death must have been several hours ago”. In reality, people not used to examining for signs of rigor may find a dead body heavy and difficult to lift interpret it as being “stiff” and draw all sorts of incorrect conclusions. A big, heavy muscular person will exhibit more pronounced stiffness than a skinny person, and so on. The process occurs gradually over many hours so there isn’t really a “time of onset”. Subtle early onset signs may be missed (meaning that rigor has started, but has been recorded as being absent). In a similar manner, a body that has fully established rigor mortis (or in which stiffness may already be passing away due to early decomposition) may have been dead for many hours or even some days, yet be interpreted as “freshly dead” due to “rigor mortis” being diagnosed at the time of body discovery. For all these reasons, a description of a body being found in a state of rigor mortis has to be interpreted with caution.

With all that in mind, there are circumstances in which rigor mortis can be observed sooner after death. If somebody has an illness or fever, this can speed up the rate of onset by exhausting the cellular supply of energy more quickly than usual, for example. Specifically within the context of “trauma”, if there has been a period of extreme exertion immediately prior to death (e.g. running / fighting for your life) then you can see how cellular energy stores may have been depleted prior to death, resulting in more rapid onset of rigor mortis. This is the theory behind the phenomenon of so-called “cadaveric spasm”, which is usually included in forensic texts, but is thought by most of us these days likely to be an artefact. The most quoted examples are usually dead soldiers found clutching their rifles on the battlefield, or drowned men “clutching straws” in their hands. A lock of hair (victim’s or assailant’s) may even be found “grasped” in the stiff hand of a dead person. It is likely that this represents “standard” development of rigor mortis (with the fingers gradually stiffening around an object that just happens to lie within the hand over the course of several hours) rather than a sudden, “instant rigor mortis”. However, such phenomenon can’t scientifically be excluded, so it remains in the literature.

So in summary, rigor mortis could possibly be detected by a trained observer within an hour (or even less) after death, but would not usually be expected to become apparent for a (small) number of hours. In extreme cases (e.g. severe physical exertion prior to death) this might be even quicker. Ignoring the likely artefact of so-called “cadaveric spasm”, if a body is genuinely stiff at the time of discovery, then it hasn’t died immediately prior to discovery. The exact time since death cannot be estimated with any degree of accuracy or certainty. (As an aside, if the victim is a malnourished, slight, alcoholic female then rigor mortis may be less pronounced than might be expected, and so detection of rigor mortis in such an individual may in fact indicate a longer time having elapsed since death.)"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, that last sentence was new to me, Trevor. And we can both see where it points. Otherwise, what Biggs says is very much in sync with what has already been pointed out here. The part about people not used to examining dead persons adding an element of uncertainty can safely be discarded here, since Phillips would have been the very epitome of experience in that field.
So, a trained medico can possibly detect rigor within one hour (which does not mean that rigor will set in after an hour only, it means that it takes skill to see it when it occurs in that short a time period), but the expected thing is that the signs will not be there until after a smallish number of hours. No exact time can be established using rigor as a determining parameter, which makes sense since we know that there are significant differences inbetween victims.

The general rule, though, seems to hold true: when somebody dies, the first signs of rigor will generally be there after a smallish number of hours. And Biggs tells us that with alcoholic, malnourished women (which is an exact description of Chapman), there will often be a less pronounced process, meaning that a longer time than expected may have passed when an examining medico notices an onsetting rigor.

So the consistent and logical explanation to why Chapman was cold and displayed signs of onsetting rigor is that she had been dead for some hours, perhaps three or four, that the murder thus was in line with the others in terms of timing, that the killer did not deviate from his preferred method of killing in the dark hours and that there is nothing at all strange about how nobody saw any killer, bathing in blood, scuttling away down Hanbury Street at 5.45 AM that day, in bright morning light. There was never any such character. The killer had escaped under the cover of darkness, as always, some hours earlier.

All is well, therefore. And as it should be.

[Herlock Sholmes]

For obvious reasons you focus your attention (and seek to focus everyone else’s attentions) on the average times of 2-4 hours despite the fact that you posted the Munro article which states the time time of onset is variable but is usually considered between 1-6 hours with an average of 2-4 hours. Was Chapman’s death an average one? Is having throat her cut after a brief struggle and the shock of realising that she was about to die an average death? Is the average woman weak, undernourished and suffering from a lung disease?

Camps and Knight both tell us that rigor can commence within an hour of death and neither would be surprised if it occurred as early as 30 minutes. All of the examples cited were post 1888 and so if Phillips was working from an assumption that rigor could not occur in less than two hours he was clearly working from a misapprehension (forgivable due to the lack of knowledge at the time.) From what he says though Phillips appears to have based his TOD on body temperature which is also inaccurate. Not really stuff you can take to the bank is it Fish?

You appear to be cherry-picking evidence. You dismiss Spitz who quite clearly states that rigor can occur within 30-90 minutes in a temperate climate on the basis of another claim that it averages 1-2 hours in India. Rates of onset in different countries can be misleading as temperature is only one variable to be considered. Your reference to freak cases is deliberately misleading too. If, for example, 60 or 70% of cases fell between the 2-4 hour mark then that would leave 30 or 40% that fell outside of that range. This would equate to a lot of cases. Even at 20% or even only 10% these wouldn’t be quantities sufficiently small to merit the label freak. It’s convenient for you to label them thus though.

Bizarrely Fish you appear to be using Wikipedia to try and discredit someone as eminent in his field as Sir Keith Simpson! Are you somehow more knowledgeable than him? He states quite clearly that rigor can appear within 1-4 hours in temperate conditions. Maybe you know more than Francis Camps too?

And what does Jason Payne James say in his update of Simpson’s book. Remember Payne James Fish?


rigor is such a variable process that it can never provide an accurate assessment of the time of death. Extreme caution should be exercised in trying to assign a time of death based on the very subjective assessment of the degree and extent of rigor."


It’s also worth asking - did Phillips say that he detected rigor at 6.30? Actually no. He arrived at Hanbury Street at 6.30 and during his examination he “....searched the yard and in doing so found a small piece of course muslin and a pocket comb” so this could have delayed his investigation somewhat. As the body was removed just before 7.00 detection of the stiffness might not have occurred until 6.45.

It’s also worth pointing out that Phillips doesn’t mention rigor. Only stiffness. Might this have been Cadaveric Rigidity?

Cadaveric rigidity ‘Cadaveric rigidity’ is said to be the stiffness of muscles that has its onset immediately at death, and the basis for this concept is the finding of items gripped firmly in the hand of the deceased before the onset of normal rigor. Most cases are said to be related to individuals who are at high levels of emotional or physical stress immediately before death and many reports relate to battlefield casualties, but there are many reports of individuals recovered from rivers with weeds or twigs grasped firmly in their hand or the finger of a suicidal shooting found tightly gripping the trigger. It is suggested that the mechanism for this phenomenon is possibly neurogenic, but no scientifically satisfactory explanation has been given. It is clearly not the same chemical process as true rigor and it is better that the term ‘instantaneous rigor’ is no longer used as it implies an equivalence with a process for which there is a scientific explanation .


It’s now fairly self-evident that using rigor mortis to determine TOD is fraught with danger and open for considerable error (something that we’ve been aware of all along) It’s also self-evident that, even in temperate conditions, rigor can occur in less than two hours. There is simply no doubt about this. It might not be within the average. It might not be a common occurrence. But occur it most definitely does.

So can we say that Phillips was definitely correct. No we cannot. By any means. It’s very possible that he was wrong. Genuine experts testify to the possibility of this.



And now that we can be absolutely certain that Phillips could have been wrong and we have no need to consider the cherry-pickers we can weigh up our interpretations. Richardson and Cadosch combined with the expert knowledge quoted show us that the odds are that Annie Chapman died between 5.20 and 5.35am. Give or take a bit.

[Herlock Sholmes]

According to Herlock and Co., since a witness says so, is adamant, has two eyes, and half a brain, then we have to accept his testimony over Doctors opinions which were little more than guesswork.

Too bad for Herlock, Richardson had only one good eye!




The Baron

You don’t have to believe me Baron. Try listening to the expert that was used in Fish’s Lechmere documentary. He was updating a standard textbook by the legendary Sir Keith Simpson:


“rigor is such a variable process that it can never provide an accurate assessment of the time of death. Extreme caution should be exercised in trying to assign a time of death based on the very subjective assessment of the degree and extent of rigor."


You might do well to focusing your efforts on making meaningful posts for a change instead of concentrating on trolling me.

Read it again....

IT CAN NEVER PROVDE AN ACCURATE ASSESSMENT OF THE TIME OF DEATH

End Of argument.

[Fisherman]

For obvious reasons you focus your attention (and seek to focus everyone else’s attentions) on the average times of 2-4 hours despite the fact that you posted the Munro article which states the time time of onset is variable but is usually considered between 1-6 hours with an average of 2-4 hours. Was Chapman’s death an average one? Is having throat her cut after a brief struggle and the shock of realising that she was about to die an average death? Is the average woman weak, undernourished and suffering from a lung disease?

Camps and Knight both tell us that rigor can commence within an hour of death and neither would be surprised if it occurred as early as 30 minutes. All of the examples cited were post 1888 and so if Phillips was working from an assumption that rigor could not occur in less than two hours he was clearly working from a misapprehension (forgivable due to the lack of knowledge at the time.) From what he says though Phillips appears to have based his TOD on body temperature which is also inaccurate. Not really stuff you can take to the bank is it Fish?

You appear to be cherry-picking evidence. You dismiss Spitz who quite clearly states that rigor can occur within 30-90 minutes in a temperate climate on the basis of another claim that it averages 1-2 hours in India. Rates of onset in different countries can be misleading as temperature is only one variable to be considered. Your reference to freak cases is deliberately misleading too. If, for example, 60 or 70% of cases fell between the 2-4 hour mark then that would leave 30 or 40% that fell outside of that range. This would equate to a lot of cases. Even at 20% or even only 10% these wouldn’t be quantities sufficiently small to merit the label freak. It’s convenient for you to label them thus though.

Bizarrely Fish you appear to be using Wikipedia to try and discredit someone as eminent in his field as Sir Keith Simpson! Are you somehow more knowledgeable than him? He states quite clearly that rigor can appear within 1-4 hours in temperate conditions. Maybe you know more than Francis Camps too?

And what does Jason Payne James say in his update of Simpson’s book. Remember Payne James Fish?


rigor is such a variable process that it can never provide an accurate assessment of the time of death. Extreme caution should be exercised in trying to assign a time of death based on the very subjective assessment of the degree and extent of rigor."


It’s also worth asking - did Phillips say that he detected rigor at 6.30? Actually no. He arrived at Hanbury Street at 6.30 and during his examination he “....searched the yard and in doing so found a small piece of course muslin and a pocket comb” so this could have delayed his investigation somewhat. As the body was removed just before 7.00 detection of the stiffness might not have occurred until 6.45.

It’s also worth pointing out that Phillips doesn’t mention rigor. Only stiffness. Might this have been Cadaveric Rigidity?

Cadaveric rigidity ‘Cadaveric rigidity’ is said to be the stiffness of muscles that has its onset immediately at death, and the basis for this concept is the finding of items gripped firmly in the hand of the deceased before the onset of normal rigor. Most cases are said to be related to individuals who are at high levels of emotional or physical stress immediately before death and many reports relate to battlefield casualties, but there are many reports of individuals recovered from rivers with weeds or twigs grasped firmly in their hand or the finger of a suicidal shooting found tightly gripping the trigger. It is suggested that the mechanism for this phenomenon is possibly neurogenic, but no scientifically satisfactory explanation has been given. It is clearly not the same chemical process as true rigor and it is better that the term ‘instantaneous rigor’ is no longer used as it implies an equivalence with a process for which there is a scientific explanation .


It’s now fairly self-evident that using rigor mortis to determine TOD is fraught with danger and open for considerable error (something that we’ve been aware of all along) It’s also self-evident that, even in temperate conditions, rigor can occur in less than two hours. There is simply no doubt about this. It might not be within the average. It might not be a common occurrence. But occur it most definitely does.

So can we say that Phillips was definitely correct. No we cannot. By any means. It’s very possible that he was wrong. Genuine experts testify to the possibility of this.



And now that we can be absolutely certain that Phillips could have been wrong and we have no need to consider the cherry-pickers we can weigh up our interpretations. Richardson and Cadosch combined with the expert knowledge quoted show us that the odds are that Annie Chapman died between 5.20 and 5.35am. Give or take a bit.

One has to say that somebody who accuses ME of cherrypicking, only to then turn to rooting for Chapman to have developed a super quick rigor alongside a medico who could not get the temperature right is a comic enough inclusion on these boards. No clown could have done that better, so thank you for the entertainment!

There are a few other gems here, like how you think that cadaveric rigidity may have been what Chapman suffered. "Phillips doesn't mention rigor - might it instead have been cadaveric rigidity?" you ask.

Once you manage to cool down a little bit, I suggest you take a look in a synonym wordbook, Herlock. You have a surprise coming up!

Here´s one for you; can we say that Phillips was definitely correct?

My answer: no.

New question: Can we say that Phillips in all probability was correct?

My answer: yes.

It still remains that the average onset time for rigor is two to four hours. One to six may occur, but the lower estimate is to be expected in high temperatures. And then there will be cherrypicking cas... freak cases, I mean. Plus with an alcoholic and thin person, the signs will appear less clearly and be recognized later, as witnessed by Dr Biggs. It was cold, she WAS an alcoholic, she WAS thin, she DID suffer great bloodloss, she WAS probably asphyxiated and so she SHOULD be expected not to have too quick an onset of rigor. And she WAS all cold, but for that little warmth under the intestines. The picture is consistent and clear.

No, go and read that synonym wordbook. I cannot wait!

Cherrypicking, haha! Good one, Herlock!!!

[Fisherman]

Let's try and be very clear about the Chapman matter and what it is all about. Basically, it boils down to a simple choice:

We either rule the doctor out in favor of the witnesses.

Or we rule the witnesses out in favor of the doctor.

If we rule the doctor out, then we also rule out a decision based on two different parameters: rigor and temperature. Beginning with the last factor, it is suggested that Phillips can have been not a little, but way off. So what is it he says and does?
He feels the body for warmth, and he does so in many places. it is not just a case of putting his hand on her forehead and saying "Cold!". We know that he put his hand under the intestines, inside the abdominal cavity, where he found the old remaining little warmth that he could detect. The rest of the body was , as it is normally put, "cold". That means that it had taken on the ambient temperature in the yard. Now, why would Phillips not settle for feeling the forehead only? Obviously because he had the task to try and determine a TOD, and to that end, any little remaining warmth on or inside the body would be helpful. And he found that minuscule remainder of warmth inside the abdominal cavity.
He also checked for rigor. There was an onsetting stiffness of the limbs, and he interpreted that as an onsetting rigor that had only just commenced. He then followed up on that rigor to see if it developed along the expected lines, and it is apparent that it did, when we read the inquest material:
"Examination resumed: The body had been attended to since its removal to the mortuary, and probably partially washed. I noticed a bruise over the right temple. There was a bruise under the clavicle, and there were two distinct bruises, each the size of a man's thumb, on the fore part of the chest. The stiffness of the limbs was then well-marked."

So each and every detail was carefully examined and followed up on, and the parameters all dovetailed with each other. And we should keep in mind that we are not speaking of a "near call" or anything such. It is not as if there was any doubt temperature-wise, it was not a case of her being slightly cold or in a process of cooling down. That journey had already been undertaken as Phillips examined her in the backyard, and she was totally cold but for one small part of the abdomen. That part could not have been superhot, it must have been very close to ambient temperature too, but Phillips´ touch was sensitive enough to detect it. Likewise, since the temperature of the body dovetailed with an onsetting rigor (which will normally commence after around two hours at the earliest), he found that it made sense to conclude that two hours was the minus time that had elapsed. The temperature spoke for a longer time, but Phillips was willing to accept that the far-reaching eviscerations and bloodloss could have quickened the pace. A few weeks later, the Eddowes case told another story - she was all warm forty-five minutes after the strike, but Phillips did not have that information as he testified about Chapman. Also, he would have known that the low temperatures would have promoted a longer time than two hours before rigor set in, but all in all, he was willing to concede that a two hour minimum was not impossible.

The witnesses? That's another matter altogether. They do NOT dovetail, but in effect they gainsay each other in the cases of Long and Cadosch. And Richardson was doubted by the police when he said he could not have missed the body. Plus he gave different stories on different occasions. No matter how we look upon it, the testimony offered is fraught with uncertainty.

So there we are. We either

1. ...opt for a medico with heaps of experience who did a very thorough job and who did not present a case where there could be reasonable doubt - she was stone cold, and she did have onsetting rigor, a process that could mean that she had been dead for up to five or six hours. But if she HAD been, there would not have been a remaining warmth in her stomach - and there WAS. Ergo, she probably fit in with the average rigor time of 2-4 hours, and the exact middle of three hours would suit the picture perfectly. Which is why Phillips opted for somewhere around that time (although he did not give it at the inquest, he only said that it was probably more than two hours). He then offered two hours as an absolute minimum - only to be gravely misrepresented by Baxter in his summing up.
If we opt for Phillips, the medical factors are in place and we get a murder that is in precise line with the other weekday murders. Everything is consistent.

2. ...opt for witnesses who we KNOW are mistaken as to the time in Longs and Cadosches cases, and who we KNOW were doubted by the police in Richardsons case. Furthermore, they offered their testimony in a case that attracted all kinds of weird people and publicity-seekers. The ones admitting to the deeds arrived in spades, and in Millers Court, every prostitute seems to have heard the "Murder" cry - but not at the same time. And they were all eager to make it into the papers.
If we make this choice, we make a choice where the murder is set aside as unique - it would become a strike where the killer did not take advantage of the cover of night, something he otherwise always did. And we need to accept that doctor Phillips´ two-parameter exhausting effort was not slightly but completely off - in both the rigor and the temperature regard. In spite of how Phillips was able to detect a minuscule warmth in the abdominal cavity, he would have missed out on how the whole body was warm. And in spite of the cool conditions in the yard, Chapman would have won the Le Mans race of rigor onset.

The choice is a very easy one, really. Least of all is it something to get aggravated over. It is far too trivial for that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

One has to say that somebody who accuses ME of cherrypicking, only to then turn to rooting for Chapman to have developed a super quick rigor alongside a medico who could not get the temperature right is a comic enough inclusion on these boards. No clown could have done that better, so thank you for the entertainment!

There are a few other gems here, like how you think that cadaveric rigidity may have been what Chapman suffered. "Phillips doesn't mention rigor - might it instead have been cadaveric rigidity?" you ask.

Once you manage to cool down a little bit, I suggest you take a look in a synonym wordbook, Herlock. You have a surprise coming up!

Here´s one for you; can we say that Phillips was definitely correct?

My answer: no.

New question: Can we say that Phillips in all probability was correct?

My answer: yes.

It still remains that the average onset time for rigor is two to four hours. One to six may occur, but the lower estimate is to be expected in high temperatures. And then there will be cherrypicking cas... freak cases, I mean. Plus with an alcoholic and thin person, the signs will appear less clearly and be recognized later, as witnessed by Dr Biggs. It was cold, she WAS an alcoholic, she WAS thin, she DID suffer great bloodloss, she WAS probably asphyxiated and so she SHOULD be expected not to have too quick an onset of rigor. And she WAS all cold, but for that little warmth under the intestines. The picture is consistent and clear.

No, go and read that synonym wordbook. I cannot wait!

Cherrypicking, haha! Good one, Herlock!!!

Your desperation is showing Fish when the man you have to resort to insults.

You keep repeating the same bit of cherry-picking of course. You can witter on all you like about the 2-4 hour average but the fact is that rigor can set in in an hour or less. The experts don’t say that this only happens in hot climates as you keep attempting to portray and the use of the phrase freak cases is intentionally misleading yet again. You also seek to use temperature to bolster your point despite the fact that temperature is also not a reliable way of estimating TOD’s. Perhaps you should try consulting the tea leaves?

Your point about synonyms is weak. I have never once said that Phillips couldn’t have been correct; only that he might have been wrong. All the misplaced certainty has come from you Fish. It’s been you that has constantly tried to create the illusion that Dr Phillips couldn’t have gotten it wrong and we have ample testimony from proper, acknowledged experts.

Could Phillips have gotten it wrong. Yes. Would it have been the kind of million-to-one type occurrence that you try to portray. No. Do we have addition evidence that points to Phillips being wrong. Yes.

I’ll tell you what might be a million-to-one chance though. That the two main proponents of the Phillips version both have he word Fish in their names and both need an earlier TOD to support the theory that they support. How’s that for a freak case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
If we rule the doctor out, then we also rule out a decision based on two different parameters: rigor and temperature.

Both of which have been described as inaccurate by experts.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
So each and every detail was carefully examined and followed up on, and the parameters all dovetailed with each other.

Again, deliberately misleading. Experts don’t say - rigor and temperature are accurate ways of measuring TOD as long as you are meticulous. - They say that they are unreliable methods full stop.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;n719466]
The witnesses? That's another matter altogether. They do NOT dovetail, but in effect they gainsay each other in the cases of Long and Cadosch. And Richardson was doubted by the police when he said he could not have missed the body. Plus he gave different stories on different occasions. No matter how we look upon it, the testimony offered is fraught with uncertainty.[QUOTE]

The three witness do not dovetail but Richardson and Cadosch do. They don’t necessarily come as a package.

Where was Richardson doubted by the police? He testified under oath at the Inquest that he couldn’t possibly have missed seeing Chapman’s body had it been there. The fact that he originally didn’t mention sitting on the step is about as sinister as Lechmere using the name Cross. Sinister when it suits.

Two methods of estimating TOD which experts unequivocally call unreliable and at least two (and possibly three) very plausible witness who strongly point to Chapman being killed after 5 am.

[Herlock Sholmes]

opt for a medico with heaps of experience who did a very thorough job and who did not present a case where there could be reasonable doubt

His level of experience is as irrelevant as his thoroughness. I’ve no doubt that doctors that prescribed leeches for everything were considered experienced and thorough.

The methods that he employed were not reliable.

[Fisherman]

You still fail to get it, Herlock. Nobody is saying that rigor cannot set in within the hour. What is being said is that it is not common, it is rare, and the shorter the time is, the rarer it becomes. Therefore, we should not engage in freak ripperology the way you recommend.

To claim that it is misleading to say that the medical details were carefully examined and followed up on, and that the parameters dovetailed with each other is not sound. You can claim, if you wish, that the careful examinations and the following up that DID take place, and the ensuing verdict from Phillips that they dovetailed does not make for a safe ground to stand on, but you cannot claim that it never happened. It would amount to - yes, exactly: misleading.

No matter how we look upon things, there is no realistic possibility that Phillips was as wrong as you wish for before going to bed, Herlock. Precisely WHY would we want a curiously short time for rigor (or cadaveric rigidity, I'm glad you found a synonym wordbook!) on Chapmans behalf? And WHY would we want Phillips to have been totally unable to make a correct description of the body warmth of Chapman? WHY should we choose the unexpected, the freak option?

Ah, I see: so that you can be right about Long, Cadosch and Richardson. Well, I'm dreadfully sorry to deny you that request, but the fact is that you are almost certainly wrong, whereas Phillips was with the same certainty not as wrong as he must have been for your dream to come true.

Now, you can tackle the facts, or you can go on calling me misleading. One method will earn you a fair debate, the other one a tin foil hat. The choice is yours. I don´t rule out that you may look good in tin foil.

Measuring rigor and/or body temperature CAN be misleading, but the circumstances in the Chapman murder does not encourage any disbelief. She HAD taken on ambient temperature (and Phillips WAS able to feel even a little warmth, remember) and she HAD onsetting rigor at around 6.30. That makes for safe ground, regardless how many times you quote how medicos advise caution. They are speaking about the methods singled out, to begin with, and not about BOTH parameters being consistent and dovetailing, and they are furthermore covering the whole field of possible cases. Believe it or not, but the circumstances rule the built in difficulties. It is not as if every case is equally difficult to gauge.

"The methods that he employed were not reliable". Aha. But witnesses are, even if they get the timings wrong, give different versions and are doubted by the police?

The methods Phillips employed were not exact, but they were good enough to categorically rule out that Chapman died at 5.30. That myth is gone in this universe by now.

PS. You really should not opt for the stupendously improbable solutions and then call me cherrypicking, Herlock. Tin foil, tin foil ... beware!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Furthermore, they offered their testimony in a case that attracted all kinds of weird people and publicity-seekers. The ones admitting to the deeds arrived in spades, and in Millers Court, every prostitute seems to have heard the "Murder" cry - but not at the same time. And they were all eager to make it into the papers.

This is a pretty pointless statement. We can potentially dismiss any witness as a liar. What’s new?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You still fail to get it, Herlock. Nobody is saying that rigor cannot set in within the hour. What is being said is that it is not common, it is rare, and the shorter the time is, the rarer it becomes. Therefore, we should not engage in freak ripperology the way you recommend.

These are not freak circumstances. This is your own phrase. You are grossly exaggerating.

To claim that it is misleading to say that the medical details were carefully examined and followed up on, and that the parameters dovetailed with each other is not sound. You can claim, if you wish, that the careful examinations and the following up that DID take place, and the ensuing verdict from Phillips that they dovetailed does not make for a safe ground to stand on, but you cannot claim that it never happened. It would amount to - yes, exactly: misleading.

I did not say or even imply that Phillips wasn’t meticulous. I’m simply relating expert opinion that the methods were not reliable.

No matter how we look upon things, there is no realistic possibility that Phillips was as wrong as you wish for before going to bed, Herlock. Precisely WHY would we want a curiously short time for rigor (or cadaveric rigidity, I'm glad you found a synonym wordbook!) on Chapmans behalf? And WHY would we want Phillips to have been totally unable to make a correct description of the body warmth of Chapman? WHY should we choose the unexpected, the freak option?

Cadaveric rigidity and rigor mortis are not synonyms.

Again, you are being deliberately misleading by using the word freak. As I’ve explained, if the average time for onset was 2-4 hours (and I’m not disputing that) it categorically doesn’t mean that anything that falls outside of those parameters is a freak. The average U.K. lifespan is 80. My dad was 81 when he passed away. Was he freakishly old? Is my 90 year old aunt freakishly old or are there millions of people over 90?

Ah, I see: so that you can be right about Long, Cadosch and Richardson. Well, I'm dreadfully sorry to deny you that request, but the fact is that you are almost certainly wrong, whereas Phillips was with the same certainty not as wrong as he must have been for your dream to come true.

From a method stated as unreliable by experts you claim to be almost certainly correct?

Now, you can tackle the facts, or you can go on calling me misleading. One method will earn you a fair debate, the other one a tin foil hat. The choice is yours. I don´t rule out that you may look god in tin foil.

No foil hat required Fish. I’m not going to ignore or amend the evidence simply to suit you Fish. You constantly seek to re-write the script. I’ll stop calling you misleading if you stop perpetuating the myth that a TOD a under two hours based on rigor is not a freak, million-to-one occurrence.

The evidence provided is overwhelming and from impeccable sources. TOD estimates using rigor mortis and temperature are unreliable and could have been influenced by factors that Phillips, in 1888, simply would not have been aware of.

Does this mean that Phillips might not have been correct and that the witnesses might not have lied or been mistaken? No it doesn’t.

Does it mean that Phillips might have been wrong (and not freakishly wrong) and that two or three of those witnesses might have been correct. Yes it does.

So to sum up, you cannot do what you’ve repeatedly attempted to do in previous posts. That is to try a portray those of us that accept the possibility/likelihood hat Phillips was wrong and the witnesses were correct as being delusional. That we are flying in the face of the facts. The evidence shows that this isn’t the case. I’m no longer interested in any debate that starts from a point of view that Phillips either a) had to be correct because he did his job properly, or b) that for him to have been wrong woul have had to have been some kind of million-to-one occurrence.

[Michael W Richards]

Interesting how the determination of the state of rigor onset argument is present here, and with Mary Kelly..... yet here, people seem to imagine its a precise scientific barometer, and in Kellys case, its something that cant be defined in precise terms. Which is it.

[packers stem]

It's not just the onset of rigor.
The detection of undigested food (which we know was potato which has a very quick digestion time ) also indicates a TOD of between 2.30 and 4 .
Having said that Richardson could not fail to see the body as it was starting to get light
This leaves us with the blindingly obvious that nobody wants to contemplate .
But that's ripperology for you