Chapman’s death.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Then why you always say Richardson could not have been wrong and could not have missed the body ?!

Dishonesty in your definition!



The Baron

More idiocy.

Ive said that it’s unlikely in the extreme that he could have missed the body. He sat on a step a foot away from a severely mutilated corpse! He was insistent that he could see the whole of the yard and that he couldn’t have missed a body had it been there. He knew where the body lay and how much floor space it took up. He had eyes. As far as we know he wasn’t a drooling imbecile.

So yes, it is overwhelmingly likely that he’d have seen a body had it been there at the time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Tell me who says that Phillips could not be wrong. I know I don't. I am saying that Phillips would not be THAT wrong, because that would be freakishly wrong. That is why the term applies here.

And you’re wrong

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, it IS embarrassing. Thanks to your contributions and you fallacy to understand how cases can differ from each other.

Cases can of course differ. Unless of course you desperately need them not too.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And the criteria existed which could have DELAYED rigor. This is not debatable. Its a fact.

So why should we put our trust in your parameters only being at work? Hm?

If we cannot be certain either way then we have to look elsewhere. Like witnesses.

[Herlock Sholmes]

With every passing day you are starting to look more and more like the Bagdad Bob of Ripperology. You google as much as you can, you don't check the reliability of your sources (like Kori, where YOU quoted him, had ME telling you that his paper was not up to scratch and then you asked ME if I was aware that I was quoting a bad source...?), and you come up with useless information.

This is the latest (and hopefully last) example. You now introduce Rob Seddon-Smith, who proves that Lechmere was the killer. Nichols was still warm but for the underarms and hands as Llewelyn felt her body, remember? And since Seddon-Smith tells us that the body will feel totally cold 10-20 minutes after death, that rules out anybody else as the killer. Hurray, Herlock! You SOLVED it!!

Then again, I am not quite the kind of character that you are. I am fully aware that skin may cool down quickly - there are people who have very cold hands although they are alive, for example.

No, the one and only useful thing you produce here is what Seddon-Smith adds later: after 4-6 hours the body feels stone cold. Nota bene the word "feels". That does not mean that we have to cut it in pieces and put a thermometer to it. It means that to the human touch, a body will feel stone cold after 4-6 hours! You see, the warmth of the body can be felt THROUGH the skin, and although the skin itself may have cooled down, the underlying tissues have not. Moreover, Phillips checked inside the abdominal cavity, where there IS no skin, and found Chapman cold to the touch.

Do you think we can assume that Phillips would have been aware that skin can grow cold although the underlying tissues retain their warmth? Eh? Or would he, after decades of practicing the method of feeling for warmth, have been blissfully unaware of this? If so, and if Chapman felt stone cold at the skin, why do you think that Phillips did not say that she could have been dead since New Years Eve, going on the temperature? You DID say that temperature was the parameter Phillips used in an effort to clear out the rigor in an earlier post, did you not?

So where does this land us? Hm?

You challenge the use of Seddon-Smith , but, while discarding his claim that a dead body can feel cold after 10-20 minutes, you ACCEPT the claim that it will be "stone cold" after 4-6 hours. So that's cherry picking right there.

And what does you then do? You manipulate the evidence. Now you claim that Dr Phillips said that Chapman's body was "stone cold". But of course Phillips never said that.


This is from the Daily Telegraph of 14 Sept 1888 reporting Phillips' evidence:

"The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body."

So it was just "cold", not "stone cold" and contrary what you seem to be saying, there WAS heat in the body.


Then this from the Morning Advertiser which is more specific about the coldness:

"The left side of the body was cold, excepting a remaining heat under the intestines in the body."

So it's just the left side!


An hour after death, having lost a lot of blood and in the cool temperature, Chapman's body could easily have been cold to touch (on the left hand side!), as Phillips himself admitted, and the Coroner actually FOUND as a bloody fact!!!

How would you interpret this part of Dr Phillips' evidence from the Times of 14 Sept:

"He should say that the deceased had been dead at least two hours, and probably more, when he first saw her; but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood"

What do you think Phillips was trying to convey to the coroner by that qualification?


From the Times of 27 Sept - the coroner's summing up.:

"It was true that Dr. Phillips thought that when he saw the body at 6:30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admitted that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood might affect his opinion, and if the evidence of the other witnesses was correct, Dr. Phillips had miscalculated the effect of those forces."

The idea that Coroner had misunderstood what Dr Phillips was saying to him is barking mad!

[Harry D]

With respect Fisherman, I think it's disingenuous to blithely dismiss Cadosch, Long and Richardson as liars or attention-seekers because it doesn't fit one particular theory. The evidence from Dr Phillips is certainly compelling, and I agree that habitually the killer would kill earlier than 5am but it's certainly not set in stone. The killer was most likely an opportunist and he would seize any opportunity he had. Although the later the murder the higher the risk, it was still quiet enough for him to commit the murder without a disturbance.

[Herlock Sholmes]

With respect Fisherman, I think it's disingenuous to blithely dismiss Cadosch, Long and Richardson as liars or attention-seekers because it doesn't fit one particular theory. The evidence from Dr Phillips is certainly compelling, and I agree that habitually the killer would kill earlier than 5am but it's certainly not set in stone. The killer was most likely an opportunist and he would seize any opportunity he had. Although the later the murder the higher the risk, it was still quiet enough for him to commit the murder without a disturbance.

You won’t be surprised that I agree with you Harry. Personally I’ve never said that Phillips was definitely wrong but it’s just not correct to say that it was overwhelmingly likely that he was either. The methods, according to genuine experts, were unreliable. There was definitely room for error and the factors that might have caused such an error were present in this particular murder. So at best we can say that Phillips might have been correct or he might have been wrong. It’s inconclusive. And so we are left to ask if there are any other factors that might guide us as to when Chapman died? We have Cadosch, who when talking about hearing the word ‘no’ was quite cautious. Not exactly sounding like a liar trying to get his 15 minutes. But when he spoke about something falling against the fence (which at the time he was a couple of feet away from) he was much more confident. Now if Phillips was correct Chapman’s mutilated corpse was already there so it couldn’t have been another person for obvious reasons. Then we have Richardson who was absolutely adamant that he couldn’t have missed the corpse had it been there. Long is more troubling of course. She might have simply seen another couple or she might just have been 15 minutes or so out with her timing. So, on balance, I’d certainly say that it was likeliest that Annie was killed around 5.25.

[Fisherman]

With respect Fisherman, I think it's disingenuous to blithely dismiss Cadosch, Long and Richardson as liars or attention-seekers because it doesn't fit one particular theory. The evidence from Dr Phillips is certainly compelling, and I agree that habitually the killer would kill earlier than 5am but it's certainly not set in stone. The killer was most likely an opportunist and he would seize any opportunity he had. Although the later the murder the higher the risk, it was still quiet enough for him to commit the murder without a disturbance.

We differ somewhat here, I notice. To me, it IS set in stone that Long and Cadosch cannot possibly have seen/heard Chapman alive/Chapman falling against the fence. Phillips cannot have been THAT wrong on the earth issue, quite simply, the way I see it. I of course cannot know that Long and Cadosch told porkies, but it remains a very obvious possibility. Long may of course have mistaken another woman for Chapman, and something/someone else than Chapman may have been what Cadosch heard. But in my world, Chapman was long dead when their observations were made.
Richardson was there significantly earlier than Long and Cadosch, and so he has to be more likely to be correct the they were looking at the time factor only. But in his case, he may have missed out on the body, plus we have different versions of what he said, making him a shaky witness.

What I would like to add - and what I find most important - is that once you say that I make my calls because it "fits one particular theory", you are getting things very wrong. This is the exact kind of thing I would warn about.

If a parameter fits a theory, that is something that STRENGTHENS the theory. It is not something that WEAKENS it on account of the theorist pointing it out. This is something that is far too often employed in ripperology - when something points to a person being the culprit, it is somehow regarded out here as worthless information if that something is pointed out be somebody who regards the person pointed out as a suspect. It is like saying "Yes, he did stand by the deceased with a smoking gun in his hand, but you only point to that because he is your favorite suspect!"

[Fisherman]

Cases can of course differ. Unless of course you desperately need them not too.

Great; progress! Cases CAN differ! So let's look at what it is that sets the Chapman case aside from many other cases of establishing TOD by feeling for warmth!

You endlessly repeat that feeling for warmth is a method that is uncertain. The obvious inference you want here is that since it is an uncertain method, what Phillips said must be uncertain, and so we can look away from it - Phillips is just al likely to be right as wrong, more or less.

The uncertainty there is, is linked to how it is not easy to establish just how warm a body is. One doctor could say "not very warm, has been dead for two hours or more" and another could say "significantly warm, has been dead for an hour and a half" about the same body. Doctors may of course also miss out on surrounding factors that have an influence; a fat person will cool off slower than a thin one and so on. So there are things a plenty that can go wrong when establishing TOD by feeling for warmth, and nobody is contesting that.

The thing is that when we have a specter of things, there will always be extremes, and once we arrive in extreme country in the TOD business, we need not worry about any difficulties when it comes to the Chapman case. She was COLD, the only remaining warmth there was was in one small spot under the intestines (I note that you in another post try to give the impression that I would have suppressed the information about that remaining warmth, but I have of course quoted it numerous times). So it is not a question about whether the body was hot, all warm, lukewarm, slightly warm, steaming, fiery, simmering, coolish or anything like that - the body was cold.

Kate Eddowes´ body was "quite warm" 45 minutes after she died, and she died in colder conditions plus she was every bit as exposed and more to the elements and just as thin as Chapman was.

These are the extremes. Cold/Warm. It is not as if Chapman was like Eddowes. She was not halfway to it. She was nowhere on the road towards warm, she was COLD.

So yes, when a medico needed to choose between two victims and tell who died first, if one had died three hours ago and the other four - that would be like trying to clear two meters twenty for a professional high jumper - maybe he would do it, maybe not. But he would always be able to clear the one meters ten that Chapman represented - she could NOT have died within the hour.

So this is why I say that there are different types of cases and some of them will pose problems while others will not. We cannot establish Chapmans TOD by saying that she was cold - she could have been dead for 2.20, 3.30 or 4.40 - but we CAN say that she would NOT have been dead for 0.45 - 1.00!

[Fisherman]

If we cannot be certain either way then we have to look elsewhere. Like witnesses.

Yes, and when we CAN be certain, we KNOW that witnesses who testify to the contrary to that certainty are wrong.

[FISHY1118]

[Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? -][codosch] ''They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings''

There were no stacked boxes in that yard so we can bin that rubbish.

i guess your proven wrong again YOU REALLY SHOULD READ MORE . this is getting to easy herlock

And why are you so insistent on an infallible Phillips? Because you are dishonestly trying to keep alive the most thoroughly discredited theory in the whole of Ripperology.

Stick to Phillips t.o.d , you know thats the debate your losing .


Of course Fisherman is putting up a fight. Like you he needs an earlier TOD.

WE ALREADY HAVE ONE 3.30AM TO 4.30AM

[FISHY1118]

Then why you always say Richardson could not have been wrong and could not have missed the body ?!

Dishonesty in your definition!

AGREED

[Fisherman]

You challenge the use of Seddon-Smith , but, while discarding his claim that a dead body can feel cold after 10-20 minutes, you ACCEPT the claim that it will be "stone cold" after 4-6 hours. So that's cherry picking right there.

And of course, you misrepresent me. Did I discard Seddon-Smith at all? No, I did not. I said that you are using him in a way he cannot be used. You claim that a body can feel cold after ten minutes, but what Seddon-Smith says is that the SKIN of the body will grow cold in 10-20 minutes. Of course, if that meant that it would disenable a doctor to feel for UNDERLYING warmth, then one has to wonder how Llewellyn was able to say that Nichols was quite warm over the elbows 30 minutes or more after the murder.
And one has to marvel at how Brown felt Eddowes quite warm 45 minutes after the strike...?
Do you have an explaxation for this? Or?

Fact: The skin will be the part quickest to take on ambient temperature.
Fact: You misinterpret Seddon-Smith if you think he says that this will disenable doctors to feel for underlying warmth. Now that I have explained it to you, do you understand it?

And what does you then do? You manipulate the evidence. Now you claim that Dr Phillips said that Chapman's body was "stone cold". But of course Phillips never said that.

He said that the body was cold. Maybe it was not stone cold, maybe it was barbecue cold. He saids that there was no other warmth at all remaining but for a small spot under the intestines. What do you think that makes the rest of the body?


This is from the Daily Telegraph of 14 Sept 1888 reporting Phillips' evidence:

"The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body."

So it was just "cold", not "stone cold" and contrary what you seem to be saying, there WAS heat in the body.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, I have quoted the passage about the remaining warmth under the intestines numerous times. Trying to make it look as if I tried to sweep it under the carpet won't do, Herlock. It is not a very honest thing to do. And in the end, since Phillips uses it to point out that it was in contrast to the rest of the body, that was all cold, I find the information informative and useful.


Then this from the Morning Advertiser which is more specific about the coldness:

"The left side of the body was cold, excepting a remaining heat under the intestines in the body."

So it's just the left side!

Yes, the RIGHT side of the body was in fact WARM, the way right sides generally are!
Herlock, the reasonable thing to surmise is that medicos did not necessarily check both sides. One reason (I am just guessing here) is that the heart is to the left, and that may have meant that it was the side recommend for using when feeling for warmth. Any which way, when a body cools off, it seems it does so from the extreme parts of it (hands, feet) in towards the core of the body, where the last remainders of the warmth will reside. I really don't think we should nourish too much of a hope that Chapmans right side was warm and that this was the reason that Phillips felt compelled to point out that the left was cold.

An hour after death, having lost a lot of blood and in the cool temperature, Chapman's body could easily have been cold to touch (on the left hand side!), as Phillips himself admitted, and the Coroner actually FOUND as a bloody fact!!!

Neither thing happened. Phillips never said that since the body was cold, it may be that she had only need dead for less than an hour, did he? No, he instead said that she could not have been dead for less than TWO hours, and that she had in all probability been dead for a longer time than that. Baxter´s involvement is one not to be proud of, because he misrepresented the good doctor in a horrid fashion, and we really should accept this. Not least because we know full well that the police never bought into any idea of Phillips having allowed for less than an hour - we can clearly see how Swanson in his report work from a two-hour perspective and tell us that if Phillips was right, then Long MUST be wrong.

How would you interpret this part of Dr Phillips' evidence from the Times of 14 Sept:

"He should say that the deceased had been dead at least two hours, and probably more, when he first saw her; but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood"

See the above. What Phillios allowed for - but did NOT recommend - was two hours. He thought the suggestion was likely to be wrong (it was PROBABLY MORE than a mere two hours). But he was willing to accept that short a time period as two hours on account of how ot was cold and how there was extensive damage to the body. In which universe do doctors say "The very, very, very, very shortest time possible is two hours It was NO SHORTER than that. Unless if was just one hour."

What do you think Phillips was trying to convey to the coroner by that qualification?

Seer the above.

From the Times of 27 Sept - the coroner's summing up.:

"It was true that Dr. Phillips thought that when he saw the body at 6:30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admitted that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood might affect his opinion, and if the evidence of the other witnesses was correct, Dr. Phillips had miscalculated the effect of those forces."

Phillios never allows for anything less than two hours. Baxter misinterpreted him - the same way that you choose to do - and this wording is from Baxters erroneous summing up.

The idea that Coroner had misunderstood what Dr Phillips was saying to him is barking mad!

Not exactly, no. But the idea that doctors who have given a minimum time based on the evidence he has seen will suddenly halve that time, with no added evidence and no-one challenging him, is kind of goofy.

Tell me, if you were to accept what I say, and accept that Phillips never allowed for anything less than two hours, what would that make to your stance?

[Fisherman]

[Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? -][codosch] ''They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings''




i guess your proven wrong again YOU REALLY SHOULD READ MORE . this is getting to easy herlock




Stick to Phillips t.o.d , you know thats the debate your losing .


Of course Fisherman is putting up a fight. Like you he needs an earlier TOD.

WE ALREADY HAVE ONE 3.30AM TO 4.30AM

Eh -no. I don´t "need" an earlier TOD. If you are referring to Lechmere, he was a carman, and as likely to be in Hanbury Street at 5.30 as anywhere else. And there are records of parked carts in Hanbury Street at that approximate hour.

So I am not making my case on grounds of promoting Lechmere, I am making it because I find it is the by far most likely and credible scenario, plus it takes the murder into night time darkness and thus it tallies with the other strikes.

So that is how it works - it is not Lechmere who favors an early strike, it is the early strike factors as given by Phillips that favor him having killed her at around 3-3.30 or so.

[Fisherman]

You won’t be surprised that I agree with you Harry. Personally I’ve never said that Phillips was definitely wrong but it’s just not correct to say that it was overwhelmingly likely that he was either.

It is overwhelmingly unlikely to believe in him being as wrong as it takes to fit Long and Cadosch in, and it is much, much likelier that Chapman was in the yard at 4.45 than not. That is not the same as accepting that Phillips could never be wrong, it is simply pointing out that he would not be Biblically wrong the way you want him to have been.