Chapman’s death.

[FISHY1118]

It is however a fact that Phillips TOD estimation is unreliable

.

There you go again, using the word fact when Phillips is concerned with his t.o.d being unreliable.


When its just as much a fact that long codosch and richardson testimonies are also unreliable and contradictory.


WHOS REALLY NITPICKING

[FISHY1118]

you seek to dismiss richardson on the grounds of an unrecorded and uncorroborated conversation in a passageway whilst dismissing his testimony under oath where he was 100% confident that he couldn’t have missed a body had it been there.

again.... What about chandlers 100% testimony of what richardson told him. Why doesn't that count .?

[Harry D]

Dr Phillips might have been right with his TOD. I don't think anyone has denied that.

However, it would need all three witnesses to be in error. Long didn't see Chapman (possible), Cadosch didn't hear the murder (doubtful) and Richardson missed the body (inexplicable).

[Herlock Sholmes]

.

There you go again, using the word fact when Phillips is concerned with his t.o.d being unreliable.


When its just as much a fact that long codosch and richardson testimonies are also unreliable and contradictory.


WHOS REALLY NITPICKING

What is your definition of the word ‘fact’ Fishy as it appears to be different to the rest of us?

If every single Forensic authority tells us that Phillips could not have accurately estimated Chapman’s TOD, AND THEY CERTAINLY DO FISHY, then we can call it a fact. Unless you know more on the subject than they do. Phillips is dismissed without a single, solitary shred of doubt. This leaves us with three witnesses.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dr Phillips might have been right with his TOD. I don't think anyone has denied that.

However, it would need all three witnesses to be in error. Long didn't see Chapman (possible), Cadosch didn't hear the murder (doubtful) and Richardson missed the body (inexplicable).

Yes Harry but, as the expert I quoted earlier stated explicitly, it would have been by luck. Not impossible though of course.

Totally agree with your fair assessment of the three witnesses

[John G]

Duplicated post.

[Herlock Sholmes]

again.... What about chandlers 100% testimony of what richardson told him. Why doesn't that count .?

There’s a big difference Fishy.

Theres no one to back up Chandlers statement. No one else was there and it wasn’t recorded. Also, when he brought this up at the Inquest, Richardson had already testified so he didn’t get chance to respond to Chandler’s claim. Chandler might have misheard him. He might have misunderstood him. Richardson might simply have said something like....I went to the backdoor to check the cellar doors and there was definitely no body there - so there we would have a situation where he didn’t mention sitting on the steps but there would have been nothing dodgy about it. Chandler would have had no reason to push for more details.

We are therefore relying on one man’s version of what might have been said. With the possibilities of error.

At the Inquest however we know for certain what Richardson said. Plus he was cross-examined. We can’t say that Richardson might or might not have said this or that at the Inquest but we can say that for Chandler in the passageway.

[FISHY1118]

dr phillips might have been right with his tod. I don't think anyone has denied that.

However, it would need all three witnesses to be in error. Long didn't see chapman (possible), cadosch didn't hear the murder (doubtful) and richardson missed the body (inexplicable).

long [definatley]

codosch [his own testimony proves nothing that anyone was in the yard between 5.i5 /5.30 ]

richardson [again his first statement to inspector chandler on the morning of the murder has him not sitting on the step and cutting his boot .

Thats how simple it is to suggest that the whole long codosch and richardson scenario is not a fact or proof that chapman was killed at 5.30am in the backyard of 29 handbury st .

[Herlock Sholmes]

long [definatley]

codosch [his own testimony proves nothing that anyone was in the yard between 5.i5 /5.30 ]

richardson [again his first statement to inspector chandler on the morning of the murder has him not sitting on the step and cutting his boot .

Thats how simple it is to suggest that the whole long codosch and richardson scenario is not a fact or proof that chapman was killed at 5.30am in the backyard of 29 handbury st .

But you have no reasonable grounds to dismiss them. Why can’t you se this?

Bu it’s not that you can’t see it though is it Fishy? This whole thread goes on because certain posters (including yourself) need Phillips to have been a magician and th witnesses to all have been liars or idiots. If you didn’t support the Knight theory you would hardly have botched posting.

I nearly forgot...I’ll ask you for the seventh time:

Why is it that you strongly believe that Phillips made an accurate estimate of Chapman’s TOD (in the face of 100% of expert medical opinion)? Something that he couldn’t have done.

And yet when Phillips undertook the far, far simpler task of checking for evidence of Annie being killed elsewhere he became completely incompetent.

Why was he an unprecedented genius at the difficult task but a complete dimwit at the easier one?

[FISHY1118]

why is it that you strongly believe that phillips made an accurate estimate of chapman’s tod (in the face of 100% of expert medical opinion)? Something that he couldn’t have done.

because in the nichols , stride and eddowes cases the doctors were also correct with their t.o.d why should phillips have got it so wrong ?

oh wait maybe its because the witnesses and the police at the murder scenes told them how long the bodies were there so they turned around and went home without offering their expert medical opinions . Yer that must be it

[Michael W Richards]

Lets just try a new take on Chapman shall we , and concentrate solely on Mrs Longs testimony .... under oath, for that matters, as Herlock seems to put so much emphasis on this .

So for Chapman to be killed from 5.30 onward according to Mrs Long who claims she pass them in Handbury st at 5.32, that means the killer and Chapman, after Long passed then, casually walk through the passage of 29 Hanbury st .5.33 , stop behind the door for a little small talk at 5.34, then the killer strangles her rendering her unconscious 5.35 lays her body down to start a 15 minute mutilation ,escapes at 5.50 .

Body discovered at 6.00, and Phillips turns up at 6.30 gives his t.o.d at 2 hours probably more .
How can it be that he was an full 75 mins out with his time of death?


Answer .... He Wasn't .

Reason ... Albert Codosch

Albert could not have heard the ''NO'' at 5.20 and the the thud against the fence at 5.26 ''IF'' we are to believe Mrs Longs sworn testimony.

Time to eliminate one of theses untrue testimonies ... PICK ONE HERLOCK Long or codosch ?

Sorry...we are arguing about an earlier TOD than indicated by Phillips when compared with the witness statements? If Long and Cadosche happen to both be correct, then Annie is still alive, right? If just one is correct, then Annie is alive at that time, right? If you accept ALL the relevant witnesses, Richardson, the Cadosche, then Long, then Davis, then Annie alive until around 5:30, correct? Then the summary is that Phillips was wrong, simple, and no need for the petty BS that has ensued here.

[Herlock Sholmes]

because in the nichols , stride and eddowes cases the doctors were also correct with their t.o.d why should phillips have got it so wrong ?

oh wait maybe its because the witnesses and the police at the murder scenes told them how long the bodies were there so they turned around and went home without offering their expert medical opinions . Yer that must be it

Ok so you’re back on that drivel?

Sir Bernard Knight is wrong?
Sir Keith Simpson is wrong?
Jason Payne-James is wrong?

Every single authority on the subject is wrong.

Every scholarly, peer-reviewed paper on the subject is wrong.

Every standard textbook on the subject is wrong.

.
“Many pathologists have in the past used various 'rules of thumb' to calculate time of death from the body temperature but these are generally so unreliable that they should not now be used. Sometimes the perceived warmth of the body to touch is mentioned in court as an indicator of time of death; this assessment is so unreliable as to be useless and is even more so if the pathologist is asked to comment upon the reported perceptions of another person.".

Source: 'Simpson's Forensic Medicine' (13th edition), lead author Jason Payne-James.

Even The Coroner:

. Dr. Phillips thinks that when he saw the body at 6.30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admits that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood may affect his opinion; and if the evidence of the other witnesses be correct, Dr. Phillips has miscalculated the effect of those forces.

Just in case you try the old digestion argument:

.
From "Time of Death, Decompensation and Identification: An Atlas" by Jay Dix and Michael Graham (1999):

"Some foods such as celery, onion, potato, corn and tomato skins typically take longer than meat or other foods to exit the stomach"

Another one dismissing digestion:

. And here’s one explaining why it’s unsafe to use stomach content to estimate TOD

http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.c...-estimate.html

and more

. the leading textbook of Simpson on Forensics (by Jason Payne James & co) which tells us that analysis of gastric contents "cannot reliably be used to determine time of death".

then this

. Professor Bernard Knight - an actual expert in forensic pathology - who said that the 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit (note Fahrenheit not Celsius) formula is "almost always wrong" and, if ever correct, it was "by chance"

There are many more of course.

What I’d suggest though Fishy is that you should write to all of the world’s authorities and all of the societies and tell them that they are all wrong because three Victorian doctors appear to have gotten it right. I’m sure they’ll say”

Thank you for putting us right Fishy. We’ve been wrong all of these years. Would you believe it? How embarrassing for us.


Fame and fortune awaits you Fishy.

[PaulB]

long [definatley]

codosch [his own testimony proves nothing that anyone was in the yard between 5.i5 /5.30 ]

richardson [again his first statement to inspector chandler on the morning of the murder has him not sitting on the step and cutting his boot .

Thats how simple it is to suggest that the whole long codosch and richardson scenario is not a fact or proof that chapman was killed at 5.30am in the backyard of 29 handbury st .

What do you mean by 'scenario'? The testimony of Richardson, Long and Cadosch is fact - they did say what they are reported to have said. And I don't think anyone is seriously saying that there testimony proves Chapman's time of death. There are problems with their testimony which argues that we adopt caution, but nothing proves their testimony should be disregarded.

[Michael W Richards]

What do you mean by 'scenario'? The testimony of Richardson, Long and Cadosch is fact - they did say what they are reported to have said. And I don't think anyone is seriously saying that there testimony proves Chapman's time of death. There are problems with their testimony which argues that we adopt caution, but nothing proves their testimony should be disregarded.

I agree their statements don't prove empirically the time that Annie died, but combined they all do prove empirically that Annie didn't die until after 5am. We know when she was found....so it should be fairly simple to provide a time window for her murder. Without the baseless discrediting any what any witness said,... other than Phillips of course.

[PaulB]

I agree their statements don't prove empirically the time that Annie died, but combined they all do prove empirically that Annie didn't die until after 5am. We know when she was found....so it should be fairly simple to provide a time window for her murder. Without the baseless discrediting any what any witness said,... other than Phillips of course.

Yes, indeed. But Fishy1118 may not draw that distinction. I assumed that he didn't.