Chapman’s death.

[Herlock Sholmes]

stop speaking for other posters to make your point as if they agree with you.

Stop make rubbish, childish posts.

The posters that i mentioned: Sam Flynn, Paul Begg, Jeff Hamm, JohnG, Kattrup, Trevor Marriott, Etenguy, Michael Richards, Steve Blomer all do agree with me on the specific topic that we are discussing. Everyone of them agrees that TOD estimations are unreliable. And believe me Fishy I could find more. In fact I’d struggle to find a single poster who would disagree with me on that point - except for Dr Fishy and Professor Baron of course.

Give it up Fishy. Try basing your judgments around evidence and not whether it agrees with Stephen Knight or not.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There has to be a TOD and I like many others do not know what that is and based on what I know and how I interpret the fact and the witness testimony I believe Phillips could have been right

So what you’re actually saying is this Trevor:

~ whilst I accept that Dr Phillips couldn’t have estimated Chapmans TOD accurately using the methods that he did, my own logic and reason tells me that he simply lucky guessed it and I base this Holmes-like piece of deduction on a) that Cadosch was cautious about saying the that the word ‘”no’” came from number 29, b) that Chandler, in an unrecorded and uncorroborated interview, said that Richardson didn’t actually mention sitting on the step (even though he was 100% certain that he couldn’t have missed a mutilated corpse) and c) the fact that Cadosch and Long’s timings don’t align. I also believe that it’s entirely impossible and outlandish that Long and Cadosch might have each been 7 or 8 minutes out (which would make them tie up neatly)~

This basically sums up your viewpoint Trevor. You would rather throw out three creditable witnesses on little more than trivialities to support a TOD based on complete luck.

[Elamarna]

Of course - thermometers CAN NOT tell the wrong temperatures and they WILL be more exact, so it wouold be outright stupid to use had palpation. But that is not the question at hand. The question at hand is whether hand palpation is so unreliable as to allow for Phillips to have been mistaken to the degree that is suggested. And it is not, as per the paper provided.

Let´s not compare apples to pears, because it becomes misleading.

First point, any scientist will tell you a single paper proves nothing, one needs several saying the same thing.
However that is a minor point.

Let's look at this paper itself.

This paper is about detectiting changes in skin temperature by feel.

So we know that people can tell if the skin changed temperature, I am not sure that has ever been in dispute.
Of course the participants had a base to start from, and the test was simply which of two pads was hotter.
It is still subjective as the results clearly show.

This has no relationship at all to Phillips touching a victims skin and claiming to base TOD on such.

The experiment of course in no way it tell us about internal body temperature based on feel or TOD.

There is no evidence in the paper which even hints that one can speculate on actual skin temperature or apply that to internal body temperatures.

As such the paper is irrelevant to the debate.

Once again Christer, you take a scientific paper, which you apparently don't really understand and draw faulty conclusions from the paper.
Last time it was a paper regarding a rise in internal cell pressure which you claimed equated to a rise in blood pressure.


Steve

[JeffHamm]

There has to be a TOD

Yes, we agree on that given we're discussing a murder.

and I like many others do not know what that is

And we're all in agreement here, none of us know for certain the ToD. That's why people have been talking about what they view as "the most likely ToD"", the "the most likely" qualifier is indicating that it is tentative.

and based on what I know and how I interpret the fact and the witness testimony I believe Phillips could have been right

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Which of course is fine, you believe Dr. Phillip's estimate is the most likely time because you've interpreted things differently than others. You've chosen to favour the testimony of Dr. Phillips who based his estimate on methods proven to be inaccurate and unreliable (I would think, though, that fits your definition of "unsafe" as well) and by doing so you dismiss the witness statements on the basis that they might be inaccurate, while others have chosen the opposite because they see the witnesses as being the least unsafe of the two.

- Jeff

[Harry D]

Do we really need to get into epistemological debates because Trevor's throwing stones from his ivory tower?

Can we say with absolute certainty what time Annie Chapman was killed? No. We can only make a careful and critical analysis of the evidence available and take an educated guess.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That just about sums it up Jeff. We know from the authorities on the subject that Phillips was using unsafe and unreliable methods. Methods that those experts tell us repeatedly should not be used to estimate TOD. This is fact.

There are no facts that tell us that the witnesses must have been wrong though. Witnesses can be mistaken of course and witnesses can lie. So we have to weigh up the witnesses with caution but this doesn’t mean dismissing them because they aren’t perfect which appears to be Trevor’s approach. Cadosch is a rather glaring example. Just because he was cautious/less certain about where the ‘no’ came from Trevor calls him unsafe. He felt that it came from number 29 but was certain that the noise came from 29. Would the police today call such a witness unsafe? It’s hard to see how. Even if we dismiss the ‘no’ we still have a witness testifying to hearing a noise against the fence in a yard where a murder was committed at a time when no one else had been in that yard. Unless we accuse Cadosch (with no evidence) of lying then the chances of the ‘no’ and the noise being unconnected to the murder has have been remote.

Richardson’s testimony under oath is dismissed because of the testimony of a man who might easily have been wrong. Richardson was absolutely certain that there was no body there at 4.50. We have absolutely no good reason to disbelieve him apart from someone’s uncorroborated opinion. So, nitpicking aside, Richardson is easily believable.

Long was confident that it was Annie that she saw. Could she have been mistaken? Of course. But if we accept the undeniable fact that witnesses without watches could very easily have been wrong with timings then all that we have to postulate is the entirely unremarkable possibility that both Long and Cadosch were both 7 or 8 minutes out for them to tie up perfectly thus giving us three witnesses that fit a timeline.

Again.....an unsafe TOD versus three witnesses. It really is a no brainier on which is overwhelmingly the likeliest. I’d say considerably over 95% for a TOD around 5.25/5.30. Almost no doubt at all.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, we agree on that given we're discussing a murder.



And we're all in agreement here, none of us know for certain the ToD. That's why people have been talking about what they view as "the most likely ToD"", the "the most likely" qualifier is indicating that it is tentative.


Which of course is fine, you believe Dr. Phillip's estimate is the most likely time because you've interpreted things differently than others. You've chosen to favour the testimony of Dr. Phillips who based his estimate on methods proven to be inaccurate and unreliable (I would think, though, that fits your definition of "unsafe" as well) and by doing so you dismiss the witness statements on the basis that they might be inaccurate, while others have chosen the opposite because they see the witnesses as being the least unsafe of the two.

- Jeff

Well it seems that both Dr Phillips, and the witnesses are unreliable so we have reached an impasse, One of the times has to be right.

Why does everyone keep saying I dismiss the witnesses, I do not dismiss them, I keep saying they are unsafe to totally rely on, a big difference

We are never going to find out what the real time of death was. Why don't you and others accept that and move on. Why the need to continually argue for the sake of arguing, which is what some posters seem to want to do continuously.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

That just about sums it up Jeff. We know from the authorities on the subject that Phillips was using unsafe and unreliable methods. Methods that those experts tell us repeatedly should not be used to estimate TOD. This is fact.

There are no facts that tell us that the witnesses must have been wrong though. Witnesses can be mistaken of course and witnesses can lie. So we have to weigh up the witnesses with caution but this doesn’t mean dismissing them because they aren’t perfect which appears to be Trevor’s approach. Cadosch is a rather glaring example. Just because he was cautious/less certain about where the ‘no’ came from Trevor calls him unsafe. He felt that it came from number 29 but was certain that the noise came from 29. Would the police today call such a witness unsafe? It’s hard to see how. Even if we dismiss the ‘no’ we still have a witness testifying to hearing a noise against the fence in a yard where a murder was committed at a time when no one else had been in that yard. Unless we accuse Cadosch (with no evidence) of lying then the chances of the ‘no’ and the noise being unconnected to the murder has have been remote.

Richardson’s testimony under oath is dismissed because of the testimony of a man who might easily have been wrong. Richardson was absolutely certain that there was no body there at 4.50. We have absolutely no good reason to disbelieve him apart from someone’s uncorroborated opinion. So, nitpicking aside, Richardson is easily believable.

Long was confident that it was Annie that she saw. Could she have been mistaken? Of course. But if we accept the undeniable fact that witnesses without watches could very easily have been wrong with timings then all that we have to postulate is the entirely unremarkable possibility that both Long and Cadosch were both 7 or 8 minutes out for them to tie up perfectly thus giving us three witnesses that fit a timeline.

Again.....an unsafe TOD versus three witnesses. It really is a no brainier on which is overwhelmingly the likeliest. I’d say considerably over 95% for a TOD around 5.25/5.30. Almost no doubt at all.

Yes we know by what has been said that doctors times of death are nothing more than guesswork, but why do we have to totally dismiss his estimation which was based on his observations as to how he arrived at the approximate time of death. Even guesswork sometimes pays off, as was the case with the doctors guessing the TOD of Eddowes and in her case both Doctors guesses were not that far off were they?

You can throw in all the experts in the world and cite how a body cools etc but that again doesn't prove a thing because no two bodies are alike and all bodies will react differently given many factors, none of which we can readily apply to Chapman for comparisons despite attempts by posters to do just that.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

You should trying giving up the L.C.R scenario as not proof Chapman was killed at 5.30am. Simple fact , others all agree with that too except you .

[JeffHamm]

Well it seems that both Dr Phillips, and the witnesses are unreliable so we have reached an impasse, One of the times has to be right.

Why does everyone keep saying I dismiss the witnesses, I do not dismiss them, I keep saying they are unsafe to totally rely on, a big difference

We are never going to find out what the real time of death was. Why don't you and others accept that and move on. Why the need to continually argue for the sake of arguing, which is what some posters seem to want to do continuously.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Pretty much everybody has been saying the witnesses are not to be totally relied upon, which is why everybody has always talked about "the most likely time based upon the evidence" rather than the "proven time of death" - that difference in phrasing is tantamount to saying "the witnesses are not sufficient to conclusively prove the time of death". Those same people are also saying that Dr. Phillips time is based upon a technique that is proven to be unreliable, and therefore should be dismissed.

I would suggest that the conclusion that one of them has to be right is not necessarily true. Dr. Phillips places the time of death around 4:30, the witnesses around 5:20-5:30. We know Dr. Phillips time is based upon faulty technique, so that time only has a chance of being right based upon a lucky guess. If the witnesses are in error then the same applies to them. Therefore, all we know is that anytime between Chapman's last known sighting and the discovery of her body is open to lucky guesses.

In other words, if one only accepts evidence that is conclusive then there is no evidence to accept, giving one the freedom to place the ToD anywhere that fits their theory (they become freed from annoying constraints). If one is less cavalier with the evidence, then one has two times to consider, Dr. Phillips' and the witnesses'. Since they conflict beyond resolution, one must weigh the relative confidence one has in how those times are derived. My own personal view is that Dr. Phillips' estimate is proven to be unreliable and so it must be dismissed, while the witnesses' only suffers from the possibility they might be in error. So, while accepting that it is possible that both times are wrong, Dr. Phillips' is the more unsafe by a long shot, making the witnesses' time window the "least unsafe that does not dismiss all the evidence". You weigh those differently, which is fine, but it is your presentation about other people's stance as if they are not recognizing the possibility that the witness' time could also be wrong that has been the source of the argument. You acknowledge that Dr. Phillips used invalid techniques, but still prefer his time (which I find hard to follow the logic of to be honest and I would have thought you to argue for the most conservative view, of "anytime after 1:30 when she left the doss house"). But that's neither here nor there.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

This is why people think you're dismissing the witnesses, this opening paragraph you are arguing why we should prefer Dr. Phillips' estimated ToD (basically because sometimes a guess is right). And by saying Dr. Phillips should be the one to go with (and not referring to his time as "unsafe"), it indicates that you use "unsafe" as meaning "to be ignored" and you consistently refer to the witnesses' ToD estimation as "unsafe". But unsafe doesn't mean "unsound" it means "to be viewed as tentative rather than conclusive". Unsound means it should be ignored.

Yes we know by what has been said that doctors times of death are nothing more than guesswork, but why do we have to totally dismiss his estimation which was based on his observations as to how he arrived at the approximate time of death. Even guesswork sometimes pays off, as was the case with the doctors guessing the TOD of Eddowes and in her case both Doctors guesses were not that far off were they?

But below you give a series of explanations as to why Dr. Phillips' should be ignored! If all bodies react differently, then there's no basis upon which Dr. Phillips could make his estimation for this particular case because, they all react differently. That means Dr. Phillips estimate isn't "unsafe", it is "unsound" and to be set aside.

You can throw in all the experts in the world and cite how a body cools etc but that again doesn't prove a thing because no two bodies are alike and all bodies will react differently given many factors, none of which we can readily apply to Chapman for comparisons despite attempts by posters to do just that.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes we know by what has been said that doctors times of death are nothing more than guesswork, but why do we have to totally dismiss his estimation which was based on his observations as to how he arrived at the approximate time of death. Even guesswork sometimes pays off, as was the case with the doctors guessing the TOD of Eddowes and in her case both Doctors guesses were not that far off were they?

You can throw in all the experts in the world and cite how a body cools etc but that again doesn't prove a thing because no two bodies are alike and all bodies will react differently given many factors, none of which we can readily apply to Chapman for comparisons despite attempts by posters to do just that.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Because it’s impossible to confirm or reject guesswork. It should be ignored. Witnesses outweigh the doctors opinion. It’s very simple.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You should trying giving up the L.C.R scenario as not proof Chapman was killed at 5.30am. Simple fact , others all agree with that too except you .

Do you ever read anything before posting?

Apparently not.

I said that the witnesses combined versus and unreliable TOD from the Doctor makes a later TOD overwhelmingly likely. I have not said that the witnesses are definite proof.

I noticed you haven’t responded to my other posts.

Not surprising as I yet again proved that you lied.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well it seems that both Dr Phillips, and the witnesses are unreliable so we have reached an impasse, One of the times has to be right.

Why does everyone keep saying I dismiss the witnesses, I do not dismiss them, I keep saying they are unsafe to totally rely on, a big difference

We are never going to find out what the real time of death was. Why don't you and others accept that and move on. Why the need to continually argue for the sake of arguing, which is what some posters seem to want to do continuously.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The witnesses are not unreliable. How the hell did you ever arrest anyone? You’d have dismissed a witness if they’d been two inches out in judging someone’s height!!

[FISHY1118]

Do you ever read anything before posting?

Apparently not.

I said that the witnesses combined versus and unreliable TOD from the Doctor makes a later TOD overwhelmingly likely. I have not said that the witnesses are definite proof.

I noticed you haven’t responded to my other posts.

Not surprising as I yet again proved that you lied.

SPEAKING OF READING , TRY READING WOLF VANDERLINDENS ARTICLE THEN GET BACK TO ME . BECAUSE YOU CLEARLY IGNORE EVERYTHING HIS SAYS AS PER USUAL.

AND YOU SERIOUSLY THINK LONG CODOSCH AND RICHARDSON ARE RELIABLE , YOU NEED TO TAKE A BREAK FROM THIS THREAD, HERLOCK ITS CONFUSING YOU .