Chapman’s death.

[Fisherman]

This is now game over. Phillips could definitely have been wrong. Without a shadow of a doubt.

Why post this? As I keep saying, Phillips could have been wrong and nobody opposes that view. There is always a philosophical possibility.

The one problem we have is that the suggestion that he WAS totally wrong on the temperature issue (its not a question of mistaking 14 degrees for 12, its a question of mistaking a warm body for a totally cold one) plus that the dovetailing rigor process, carefully monitored by the doctor, would have been ridiculously much quicker in Chapmans case the. what should be expected from a body found in conditions reminiscent of fridge temperatures.

Don´t make it any harder than it is, and don't speak of ME misleading and cherrypicking.

[Fisherman]

To add, from the source that you've quoted.

The Kori paper says: "In wasting diseases like cancer, phthisis, rigor mortis will appear early".

Notice that it doesn’t say might.

At the inquest, Phillips says she was "far advanced in disease of the lungs and membranes of the brain.'

Elsewhere is says TB. This certainly sounds like TB.

Id say that’s just about checkmate on this subject.

Would you? How interesting! So maybe we have come now to the stage where you prevail? Dear me. I shudder in fear.

Let´s have a look at Koris paper, submitted in 2018. We can link to it from here: https://juniperpublishers.com/jfsci/....ID.555771.pdf
In it he writes:

"In death from diseases causing great exhaustion and wasting, like ...tuberculosis... (and tuberculosis is the same as phthisis, the latter name being a more archaic one, my remark) the onset of rigor is early and the duration is short."

Bravo, Herlock! You got me good there!! There is only one smallish problem: Chapman actually did not die from tuberculosis. She WOULD have died from it, had the ripper allowed her to live. But the fact of the matter is that she died from other reasons, namely being asphyxiated and having her throat cut.

So let's turn to how Kori carries on in his text, same page, just the fewest of lines down:

"In deaths from asphyxia, severe hemorrhage ...the onset is delayed."

I am genuinely sorry for you. I mean, here you were on top of the world, corking up the champagne and handing out candy to kids - and what happens? The very source you refer to as the decisive factor becomes a deep dark hole into which you fall, champagne, candy and all! And Kori does not even say the asphyxiation and severe hemorrhage MAY slow the process down, he says it WILL do so!

Here is some little consolation for you: rigor depends on many factors. I personally think that the good dr Kori is a bit too unforgiving. I believe most discerning experts would have said that asphyxiation and severe hemmorhage MAY and likely WILL slow the process down, not that it really must do so.
Then again, I don't think that any doctor would say that asphyxiation and hemmorhage will QUICKEN the process. Nor do I think that any doctor will say that Annie Chapman died from tuberculosis.

So, Herlock, what do we make of all this? Please let me know!

[Fisherman]

what about the condition I forgot what its called but people are always arguing in the stride case that she suddenly went stiff or spasm when her throat was cut causing her to clutch the cashoo? could that be a factor here?

It cannot be cadaveric spasm, Abby. That means going smack, bang into a frozen position all over the body. Chapman was exhibiting smallish signs in the limbs from onsetting rigor, and she subsequently drifted into a full rigor, all monitored by Phillips.

[Fisherman]

Before Fish responds i would like to make the point about certainty and over-confidence here

Looking at your post about Kori and your certainty and over-confidence in it, I´d say this is about as entertaining as Ripperology gets.

[FISHY1118]

Your doing great fisherman , stick to your guns .Phillips was right all along 3.45am to 4.30am for poor old Annie Chapmans Death.

[Fisherman]

Your doing great fisherman , stick to your guns .Phillips was right all along 3.45am to 4.30am for poor old Annie Chapmans Death.

Actually, if we work from the expected "normal" outcome, we would need to fit Chapman into a rigor onset space of 2-4 hours. That would take her TOD to somewhere between 2.30-4.30. The 4.30 timing was one that Phillips never believed in himself but could/would not rule out. The mean time takes us to 3.30, seemingly smack bang consistent with the other strikes. Note that the extreme given by Phillips not only totally rules out Long and Cadosch, it also takes Richardsons claim out of the equation - Chapman was lying dead in the backyard when Richardson was there. Or if.

Thanks for the thumbs up!

[FISHY1118]

Actually, if we work from the expected "normal" outcome, we would need to fit Chapman into a rigor onset space of 2-4 hours. That would take her TOD to somewhere between 2.30-4.30. The 4.30 timing was one that Phillips never believed in himself but could/would not rule out. The mean time takes us to 3.30, seemingly smack bang consistent with the other strikes. Note that the extreme given by Phillips not only totally rules out Long and Cadosch, it also takes Richardsons claim out of the equation - Chapman was lying dead in the backyard when Richardson was there. Or if.

Thanks for the thumbs up!

Well ive had my fair share of stoushs with Herlock where Chapman is concerned .... as far as long and Codosch goes, well Long was just flat out mistaken in identifying Chapman outside 29 Hanbury st, and Codosch was just wrong in thinking it was the killer who he heard say ''no'' and the thud against the fence, well that could have been anything . Like ive always said, Long and Codosch are no way proof that the killer was in the yard murdering Chapman at 5.20 am.

JUST MY OPINION OR COURSE.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Would you? How interesting! So maybe we have come now to the stage where you prevail? Dear me. I shudder in fear.

Let´s have a look at Koris paper, submitted in 2018. We can link to it from here: https://juniperpublishers.com/jfsci/....ID.555771.pdf
In it he writes:

"In death from diseases causing great exhaustion and wasting, like ...tuberculosis... (and tuberculosis is the same as phthisis, the latter name being a more archaic one, my remark) the onset of rigor is early and the duration is short."

Bravo, Herlock! You got me good there!! There is only one smallish problem: Chapman actually did not die from tuberculosis. She WOULD have died from it, had the ripper allowed her to live. But the fact of the matter is that she died from other reasons, namely being asphyxiated and having her throat cut.

So let's turn to how Kori carries on in his text, same page, just the fewest of lines down:

"In deaths from asphyxia, severe hemorrhage ...the onset is delayed."

I am genuinely sorry for you. I mean, here you were on top of the world, corking up the champagne and handing out candy to kids - and what happens? The very source you refer to as the decisive factor becomes a deep dark hole into which you fall, champagne, candy and all! And Kori does not even say the asphyxiation and severe hemorrhage MAY slow the process down, he says it WILL do so!

Here is some little consolation for you: rigor depends on many factors. I personally think that the good dr Kori is a bit too unforgiving. I believe most discerning experts would have said that asphyxiation and severe hemmorhage MAY and likely WILL slow the process down, not that it really must do so.
Then again, I don't think that any doctor would say that asphyxiation and hemmorhage will QUICKEN the process. Nor do I think that any doctor will say that Annie Chapman died from tuberculosis.

So, Herlock, what do we make of all this? Please let me know!

Well Fish....desperation has really set in hasn’t it?

'In wasting diseases like cancer, phthisis, rigor mortis will appear early'.

This does not say that the disease needs to be the cause of death but only that the illness is present. We know that rigor is caused by chemical changes in muscles and that someone with TB wold already have been affected by those changes. This is why experts tell us that people who are weak will have a more rapid onset of rigor. In the paper it also mentions thin-built subjects and those with weak musculature. Say, like a poorly nourished, seriously ill, heavy drinking, middle-aged Victorian prostitute for example. It’s very simple Fish. There’s no need for twisting at all.

The paper goes on to say:

Death in exhausted diseases or when the convulsions proceeds death and also in wasting diseases the rigor comes early and passes off early'.

It’s simply incorrect to say that someone with TB but who dies from another cause will have a different reaction to someone that actually dies from the disease because it’s not the disease itself which causes rigor but the effect that the disease has already had on the subject. TB has an effect on the muscles of the subject and, as a consequence, those effects lead to an earlier onset of rigor.

I hope that’s easy enough for you to understand Fish?


I should also credit you with a Rubenholdian piece of selective quoting:

"In death from diseases causing great exhaustion and wasting, like ...tuberculosis... (and tuberculosis is the same as phthisis, the latter name being a more archaic one, my remark) the onset of rigor is early and the duration is short."

The actual quote in full:

"In death from diseases causing great exhaustion and wasting e.g. cholera, typhoid, tuberculosis and cancer and in violent deaths as by cut throats, firearms or by electrocution, the onset of rigor is early and duration is short"

I wonder why that bit didn’t make the cut?


You have also noted that some experts have said that severe haemorrhaging can delay the onset of rigor. This is undoubtedly true of course but if we look at A.K. Mant author of Forensic Pathology In Great Britain he says:

"Rigor Mortis comes on slowly and uniformly in healthier subjects and the onset is rapid in case of deaths in exercises prior to death, convulsions and sudden haemorrhage"


The difference is obvious. Severe versus sudden. There is a big difference Fish. Sudden haemorrhage....like a cut throat? Annie was killed by a sudden haemorrhage.


So to sum up. Annie was an unhealthy, poorly nourished TB sufferer killed by a sudden haemorrhage which led to the onset of rigor at the lower end of the scale in accordance with expert medical knowledge. And these facts, when taken in conjunction with a witness who was 100% adamant that he simply could not have missed a mutilated corpse had it been there at 4.50, and a man who was certain that he heard the sound of something brushing against a fence at around 5.20 that he was little more than a couple of feet away from at the time in an otherwise quiet yard, and we have every possibility /likelihood that Phillips was wrong in his TOD estimate.

You need to give this one up Fish.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well ive had my fair share of stoushs with Herlock where Chapman is concerned .... as far as long and Codosch goes, well Long was just flat out mistaken in identifying Chapman outside 29 Hanbury st, and Codosch was just wrong in thinking it was the killer who he heard say ''no'' and the thud against the fence, well that could have been anything . Like ive always said, Long and Codosch are no way proof that the killer was in the yard murdering Chapman at 5.20 am.

JUST MY OPINION OR COURSE.

As someone that has made no contribution to this debate you appear to have taken on the role of cheerleader for Fish in yet another utterly desperate attempt to bolster your belief in the thoroughly discredited Knight/Sickert theory. Your statement that Long, Cadosch and Richardson were wrong is just not factual. It’s wish-thinking. You really should try thinking properly and logically before posting:

“and the thud against the fence, well that could have been anything”

Really? Like what?

According to the infallible Dr Phillips the mutilated corpse of Annie Chapman was already there. Perhaps it was a blind gardener?

[Fisherman]

Well Fish....desperation has really set in hasn’t it?

'In wasting diseases like cancer, phthisis, rigor mortis will appear early'.

This does not say that the disease needs to be the cause of death but only that the illness is present. We know that rigor is caused by chemical changes in muscles and that someone with TB wold already have been affected by those changes. This is why experts tell us that people who are weak will have a more rapid onset of rigor. In the paper it also mentions thin-built subjects and those with weak musculature. Say, like a poorly nourished, seriously ill, heavy drinking, middle-aged Victorian prostitute for example. It’s very simple Fish. There’s no need for twisting at all.

The paper goes on to say:

Death in exhausted diseases or when the convulsions proceeds death and also in wasting diseases the rigor comes early and passes off early'.

It’s simply incorrect to say that someone with TB but who dies from another cause will have a different reaction to someone that actually dies from the disease because it’s not the disease itself which causes rigor but the effect that the disease has already had on the subject. TB has an effect on the muscles of the subject and, as a consequence, those effects lead to an earlier onset of rigor.

I hope that’s easy enough for you to understand Fish?


I should also credit you with a Rubenholdian piece of selective quoting:

"In death from diseases causing great exhaustion and wasting, like ...tuberculosis... (and tuberculosis is the same as phthisis, the latter name being a more archaic one, my remark) the onset of rigor is early and the duration is short."

The actual quote in full:

"In death from diseases causing great exhaustion and wasting e.g. cholera, typhoid, tuberculosis and cancer and in violent deaths as by cut throats, firearms or by electrocution, the onset of rigor is early and duration is short"

I wonder why that bit didn’t make the cut?


You have also noted that some experts have said that severe haemorrhaging can delay the onset of rigor. This is undoubtedly true of course but if we look at A.K. Mant author of Forensic Pathology In Great Britain he says:

"Rigor Mortis comes on slowly and uniformly in healthier subjects and the onset is rapid in case of deaths in exercises prior to death, convulsions and sudden haemorrhage"


The difference is obvious. Severe versus sudden. There is a big difference Fish. Sudden haemorrhage....like a cut throat? Annie was killed by a sudden haemorrhage.


So to sum up. Annie was an unhealthy, poorly nourished TB sufferer killed by a sudden haemorrhage which led to the onset of rigor at the lower end of the scale in accordance with expert medical knowledge. And these facts, when taken in conjunction with a witness who was 100% adamant that he simply could not have missed a mutilated corpse had it been there at 4.50, and a man who was certain that he heard the sound of something brushing against a fence at around 5.20 that he was little more than a couple of feet away from at the time in an otherwise quiet yard, and we have every possibility /likelihood that Phillips was wrong in his TOD estimate.

You need to give this one up Fish.

No, no, no, Herlock. I am not going to let you off that easy!

You quoted Kori as if he was the master of all things rigor, and you triumphantly proclaimed yourself the winner of the debate, and so I will hold you to it. And just as I wrote, Kori says that "In death from diseases causing great exhaustion and wasting, like ...tuberculosis... the onset of rigor is early and the duration is short."

You pounced on Kori, and you took him to your heart. And you did so after falsely having pointed to me as the one who referred to a paper you called "childish" - of course, the one having referred to it was Gareth. But in Ripperology, everything goes!

Gareth had furthermore engaged in the precise thing you excel in too: quoting "economically", remembering the parts that serve your purposes and forgetting about the ones that don´t. It is generally referred to as cheating, and it is not a commendable thing.

But let's return to Shivpoojan Kori, your chosen hero and master of all things rigor! His work is called "Time since death from Rigor Mortis: Forensic prospective", which is not a very useful name as it seems to point Rigor Mortis out as a cause of death. In the conclusion, it gets worse, not least for you: "In this review of literature, time since death from rigor mortis has been compiled on the basis of forensic prospective. In future, rigor mortis is a paramount and dominant parameter for estimating the time since death and others." You may - or may not, what do I know? - realize that the language leaves a lot to ask (or at least hope) for, and you may also see how Kori thinks we are heading towards a future where rigor will be a "paramount and dominant parameter" for estimating TOD. It of course always WAS just that, and it of course will remain to a degree uncertain even in the future.

This is the kind of expert you will crown king of the castle - as long as you can find anything at all that you think is of use to you. Of course, you simultaneously ask me why I think that I am anywhere near as qualified and good as your "champions" are (of course, you don't question your OWN right to dabble in medical matters, oh no!).

Let me tell you this: Regardless of what you dig up from the deepest and murkiest recesses of the net, it remains a very safe bet that Phillips would not get the two parameters he used tremendously and outlandishly wrong. It would be - exactly! - a FREAK coincidence, and once again, I don't base my ripperology on freak coincidences.

Most people don't, but some do.

And you are sadly one of them.

I hope this gives you a decent chance to estimate just how likely I am to "give this one up". I am having way too much fun for that, Herlock. I chose between crying and laughing, and after all, its Friday.

PS. Thanks for tutoring us all about how a sudden hemorrhage cannot be an extensive one. Or vice versa. Priceless information, delivered by a true master of the game.

[Fisherman]

Really? Like what?

What do you think is most common:

People who slip and fall?

Or people who are murdered by serial killers?

Chapman was long since dead when Cadosh made this rounds, so we can effectively rule her out. Meaning that if Cadosch DID hear what he said he heard (which is no certainty at all), it was something else, just like Fishy says.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What do you think is most common:

People who slip and fall?

Or people who are murdered by serial killers?

Chapman was long since dead when Cadosh made this rounds, so we can effectively rule her out. Meaning that if Cadosch DID hear what he said he heard (which is no certainty at all), it was something else, just like Fishy says.

Are you being serious?

How could it possibly be something else? According to the infallible Dr Phillips there was a horribly mutilated corpse lying in the yard! I realise that you think that Richardson was too dumb to realise that a door might block his view but who would you nominate as capable of moving around in a back yard and missing seeing Annie?

Come on!

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, no, no, Herlock. I am not going to let you off that easy!

You quoted Kori as if he was the master of all things rigor, and you triumphantly proclaimed yourself the winner of the debate, and so I will hold you to it. And just as I wrote, Kori says that "In death from diseases causing great exhaustion and wasting, like ...tuberculosis... the onset of rigor is early and the duration is short."

You pounced on Kori, and you took him to your heart. And you did so after falsely having pointed to me as the one who referred to a paper you called "childish" - of course, the one having referred to it was Gareth. But in Ripperology, everything goes!

Gareth had furthermore engaged in the precise thing you excel in too: quoting "economically", remembering the parts that serve your purposes and forgetting about the ones that don´t. It is generally referred to as cheating, and it is not a commendable thing.

But let's return to Shivpoojan Kori, your chosen hero and master of all things rigor! His work is called "Time since death from Rigor Mortis: Forensic prospective", which is not a very useful name as it seems to point Rigor Mortis out as a cause of death. In the conclusion, it gets worse, not least for you: "In this review of literature, time since death from rigor mortis has been compiled on the basis of forensic prospective. In future, rigor mortis is a paramount and dominant parameter for estimating the time since death and others." You may - or may not, what do I know? - realize that the language leaves a lot to ask (or at least hope) for, and you may also see how Kori thinks we are heading towards a future where rigor will be a "paramount and dominant parameter" for estimating TOD. It of course always WAS just that, and it of course will remain to a degree uncertain even in the future.

This is the kind of expert you will crown king of the castle - as long as you can find anything at all that you think is of use to you. Of course, you simultaneously ask me why I think that I am anywhere near as qualified and good as your "champions" are (of course, you don't question your OWN right to dabble in medical matters, oh no!).

Let me tell you this: Regardless of what you dig up from the deepest and murkiest recesses of the net, it remains a very safe bet that Phillips would not get the two parameters he used tremendously and outlandishly wrong. It would be - exactly! - a FREAK coincidence, and once again, I don't base my ripperology on freak coincidences.

Most people don't, but some do.

And you are sadly one of them.

I hope this gives you a decent chance to estimate just how likely I am to "give this one up". I am having way too much fun for that, Herlock. I chose between crying and laughing, and after all, its Friday.

PS. Thanks for tutoring us all about how a sudden hemorrhage cannot be an extensive one. Or vice versa. Priceless information, delivered by a true master of the game.

I notice that you’ve ignored the comment about your bit of editing? And you have the nerve to accuse me of cheating! I also notice that you’ve failed to provide the quotes to support your fatuous assertion that early onset rigor was dependant on tropical climates? Or perhaps you might provide some back up for your assertion that early onset only occurred in freak cases! Perhaps you don’t understand what an average means?

Of course you won’t give it up. You and your cheerleader both need an earlier TOD.

The evidence provided is clear. Phillips could definitely have been wrong and it certainly wouldn’t have been afreak occurrence.

Chapman, in all likelihood, died between 5.20 and 5.25.

[Fisherman]

Are you being serious?

How could it possibly be something else? According to the infallible Dr Phillips there was a horribly mutilated corpse lying in the yard! I realise that you think that Richardson was too dumb to realise that a door might block his view but who would you nominate as capable of moving around in a back yard and missing seeing Annie?

Come on!

I think it is better if I try to be serious than if you do. Somehow, that seems to go horribly wrong when you try.

Yes, there WAS a mutilated corpse in the backyard at 5.30. Accordingly, the likely thing is that Cadosch was telling porkpies, like scores of other people who wanted a piece of the ripper cake. If he was NOT telling porkies, then there will be another explanation. It is that simple choice, and I would go with option number one, because number two is less likely although not impossible. it is funny how you regard it totally impossible (or at least Loch Ness-monster impossible) that the witnesses were wrong, but you are happy to impose all sorts of regulations against not agreeing with you.

Maybe that's just you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think it is better if I try to be serious than if you do. Somehow, that seems to go horribly wrong when you try.

Yes, there WAS a mutilated corpse in the backyard at 5.30. Accordingly, the likely thing is that Cadosch was telling porkpies, like scores of other people who wanted a piece of the ripper cake. If he was NOT telling porkies, then there will be another explanation. It is that simple choice, and I would go with option number one, because number two is less likely although not impossible. it is funny how you regard it totally impossible (or at least Loch Ness-monster impossible) that the witnesses were wrong, but you are happy to impose all sorts of regulations against not agreeing with you.

Maybe that's just you.

My apologies for being logical. If he wasn’t lying (and there’s no evidence that he was of course) then what other explanation could there have been? Maybe it was someone tripping over a corpse?