Chapman’s death.

[JeffHamm]

Thanks, I agree. There's just far too many variables. As discussed, tuberculosis and cut throat indicates early onset, asphyxiation the opposite. What about where there are two causes of death? And, of course, the victim didn't just suffer a cut throat, she was virtually decapitated. How would such a scenario affect calculations?

Again, I have no idea as all of those are empirical questions and require data on the topic to answer. Otherwise, given the complexities involved, it could be any combination one imagines. The book line gives an average time to maximum rigor of 8 hours, with a standard deviation of 1, so 95% interval from just over 6 hours to just under 10. The data set I'm working with has an average of about 5 hours 40 minutes, ranging from 2 to 13 hours (and it's 114 cases, so a decent sized sample), so I'm not sure how reliable things are from study to study. A lot of the cases in the book are from 1800s reports, and I'll have to go back to check the details in the paper, but there could be important differences between the samples. It's clear, though, that rigor as a ToD estimator is really imprecise.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=FISHY1118;n722463]I

ve explained this point to you two or three times. Even a very small child could understand it but you seem unable to. It’s more likely of course that you do understand it but you simply lack the honesty and integrity to concede the point.[/QUOTE

And i have explained the simple truth to you herlock , that is, stop trying to convince the world that the long codosch and Richardson testimony is the only explanation the Annie Chapman must have been killed at 5.30 the 3 of them are contradictory and unreliable .... period . My honesty and integrity is just fine thank you, its your intelligence and lack of understanding thats bothering me.

Please don’t tell me what I can or can’t do. The three witnesses are not unreliable. Only a biased person utterly lacking in sense and integrity would make such a statement. 5.30 is overwhelmingly the likeliest. It’s no longer worth debating because the points from the other side are so laughable. Game over.

T

ill just ignore this as for the gibberish and child like nonsense you like to post . fisherman has also explained t.o.d in great detail ,he certainly has your number there .

This is why he keeps vanishing every time he’s disproven. Fish’s arguments are dead in the water. He’s utterly lost the arguments to facts. To medical science. To the authorities on the subjects.



Again not a proven fact, their ample evidence to suggest he was correct. You choose to ignore this tho . See wolf vanderlinden ,and Trevor Marriott ,and Fisherman if you having trouble understand t.o.d [ which you do]

Theres not a shred of evidence that Phillips was correct. He has now been dismissed completely. Phillips is a goner. Ask the experts Fishy. Bad luck.



Yes completely unreliable as the ''no'' cant be substantiated as coming from 29 and the thud is not proof along with the ''no'' that anyone was in the yard at 5.15 am to 5.30 fact, fact, fact . a good lawyer would tear shreds off codosch for that testimony [i love how you consistently put thoughts into the witnesses heads, absolutely baloney herlock, stop doing it , he was simply being cautious, what a dumb thing to say.

Childish rubbish as ever. He was being cautious. Look in the dictionary and discover what cautious means. Cadosch is cast iron. Cannot be disproven. Bad luck.


Heres the best one by far, again your suggesting a different narrative to suit you belief of Richardson with words like mis hearing or mis remembering , just stick to what was said and stop making up thoughts of what you think happen to support Richardsons change of mind when he gave his testimony ''2'' two days later . And pray tell us oh wise one, what about chandlers sworn testimony under oath when he made mention that Richardson never said he sat on the step to cut he boot huh huh . If thats not contradictory and totally unreliable what the bloody hell is.? But you dont care or give a toss about that do you.

Can you prove that Richardson didn’t mention sitting on the step? No you cannot. You only have the uncorroborated word based on a conversation in a passageway. A conversation that Richardson had no opportunity to dispute. AND SO WE HAVE THE INQUEST. UNDER OATH. Bad luck.



And the easiest of all 3, the the women who clearly countnt pick out Andre the giant in a room full of midgets .as we know she could not possibly have seen Chapman and her killer if we are to accept codoschs version of events . For you to use that ridiculous timing nonsense over and over again is ludicrous . if if if that all we get from you regards to timing , and if my auntie had balls she be my uncle . Again stick to the time Long said it was when she passed the clock . Another unreliable and contradictory testimony when put next to the other two..

Only an idiot would say that people who didn’t own watches had to be correct on timings. It beggars belief.


NO IT MOSTLY COMES FROM JUST YOU , DONT SPEAK FOR THE REST OF US THAT HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION

No. You are in a small minority.

Fish - who needs an earlier TOD to support Lechmere - biased
You - needs an earlier TOD to support Knight - biased
Packers - needs an earlier TOD because he thinks Annie was Killed elsewhere - biased
The Baron - can be ignored because he’s a troll.

Only Trevor goes for Phillips even though he admits that his TOD estimation was unsafe.

Every other poster goes for the witnesses. All of them. And it’s way, way more than 5.

You are in a group of 5. 3 of whom desperately need an earlier TOD.





ITS JUST AS OVERWHELMINGLY POSSIBLE CHAPMAN WAS KILLED MUCH EARLIER THAT 5.30

Dishonest drivel.

The argument is long over. It’s sad that you keep on just to try and bolster your utterly discredited fantasy.

Youre little group has become a joke.

Chapman was killed around 5.25/5.30

Bad luck Professor Fishy.

[Michael W Richards]

Are the people that are discussing the varied aspects of calculating TOD by Rigor onset oblivious to the many times mentioned fact that we already know, within less than an hour, when she was cut and killed? All 3 witnesses that give us this window were either on the murder spot or on the other side of the fence within that hour. First one didn't see a dead body, he was on the spot, second heard a person alive, he was next door, and the third one found the dead woman. All within an hour. Not brain surgery.

[John G]

Are the people that are discussing the varied aspects of calculating TOD by Rigor onset oblivious to the many times mentioned fact that we already know, within less than an hour, when she was cut and killed? All 3 witnesses that give us this window were either on the murder spot or on the other side of the fence within that hour. First one didn't see a dead body, he was on the spot, second heard a person alive, he was next door, and the third one found the dead woman. All within an hour. Not brain surgery.

A very fair point, Michael. To put things into perspective, we have the evidence of three witnesses, who broadly support each other in respect of time window, against that of a Victorian doctor who believed that you could approximate time of death simply by touching the victim. So I agree; it's not brain surgery.

[Michael W Richards]

A very fair point, Michael. To put things into perspective, we have the evidence of three witnesses, who broadly support each other in respect of time window, against that of a Victorian doctor who believed that you could approximate time of death simply by touching the victim. So I agree; it's not brain surgery.

Thanks John, always a pleasure to find reason here.

[DJA]

A very fair point, Michael. To put things into perspective, we have the evidence of three witnesses, who broadly support each other in respect of time window, against that of a Victorian doctor who believed that you could approximate time of death simply by touching the victim. So I agree; it's not brain surgery.

The poll at the beginning shows that 66% agree.

26% agree on Cadosh and Richardson.

One person disagrees by voting for Phillips.

[Damaso Marte]

You can dismiss Long and Cadosch as confused people who didn't know what time it was or what they were seeing and hearing. Dismissing Richardson is much harder. Either Richardson is straight-up lying, or Annie was killed later in the morning. I know at least some people here think he was lying and have suggested motives, but ultimately he's the one that keeps me in the traditional chronology camp.

IMO, the strongest argument for Chapman being killed earlier is that it would fit the MO of the other killings. This is stronger to me than the Victorian medical opinion.

[JeffHamm]

Hi,

Just doing a bit more reading on studies of rigor mortis. Found this one, which is a bit tangential as it's a study of the progression of rigor in muscle tissue taken from rats, which will no doubt differ in some ways from human tissue (they're also testing at 37 and 25 C, which is much warmer, so faster rigor). Anyway, they mount sections of muscles to measure the tension in it over time, which removes the difficulty of using subjective measures. Also, they're testing at much higher temperatures, etc. Anyway, the important point from the study is not the specific timelines they present, but rather how they show that different types of muscle have different time courses of rigor mortis. This would explain why the time course can vary so much between individual cases even when environmental circumstances are similar - it will, in part, depend upon a persons relative amounts of different muscle types. This could explain why thin people show a different progression than large muscular people, for example (despite thin people cooling more quickly, which might be expected to slow rigor, etc). The spread between the time to maximum rigor also becomes larger as the rates slow at the lower temperature, and so on.

Anyway, what one "feels" in terms of rigor is the result of the various muscles' tension increasing over time, and different muscle types have different temporal patterns, that vary with temperature. And different people have different ratios of muscle types, resulting in variation between individuals even under similar environmental conditions. And different people will have different perceptual criterions for when they decide if they can "feel" this stiffness in various limbs (so the time estimation of rigor onset will vary from one observer to the next simply due to different decision criterion - same applies for deciding full rigor).

We know it's a very crude and imprecise indicator of the ToD, and it's becoming more clear to me why that is as I read up more about it.

Here's the link for anyone who might want to check it out:

https://www.anilaggrawal.com/ij/vol_003_no_002/papers/paper001.html

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s amazing what bias and the desperate desire to bolster a theory will bring people to. And let’s recall what Trevor said (and Trevor has no theory to support.) He accepted that Phillips TOD estimate was completely unreliable and yet he still favoured it over three witnesses. I’ll stick my neck out and say that this is one of the most bizarre pronouncements that I’ve ever heard in my 35 years of interest in the case! It’s simply staggering.

This debate should have been ended days ago. The moment that the incontrovertible evidence was produced showing that Phillips simply could not have accurately estimated the TOD. In how many fields would we get complete laymen disputing the words and writings of the foremost experts on a subject? Can you believe the arrogance? Can you believe the desperate lengths that posters will go to to try and discredit perfectly plausible witnesses? Witness that the police at the time considered plausible. And on such pathetic and biased grounds.

That Dr Phillips could not have accurately estimated the TOD to preclude 5.30 is an established fact. Anyone debating this is debating every authority on the subject. Therefor Phillips TOD can be disregarded. This is a fact.

We have three witness. Like all witnesses, they are not perfect. A desperate attempt has been made to dismiss Cadosch (mainly by Fishy) purely on the grounds that he was cautious about hearing the ‘no.’ In other circumstances caution would strengthen the case for Cadosch honesty but not with the dishonest it doesn’t. He was confident about the noise but because he was cautious about the ‘no’ then he should be dismissed. Has anyone ever heard such nonsense? As Michael has said, what are the chances that, in an unoccupied yard, early in the morning, a voice and a noise are heard and they are not connected to the murder? How much do we wish to stretch believability to pander to the terminally biased?

The nonsense spoken about the passageway conversation between Chandler and Richardson is bizarre. Why would Richardson lie to put himself at a crime scene with a knife when he had no need to. This is palpable nonsense. Could Richardson have missed a body? He was 100% certain not and we have absolutely no reason to disbelieve him. Forget Fish’s sketched manipulations just look at the photograph and you have your answer. There’s no way that he could have missed a body. Chapman definitely wasn’t there at 4.50.

And finally the only witness of the three who causes an issue and it’s simply one of timing. Yes she could have been mistaken. But the fact that she was confident after viewing the corpse gives weight to her testimony. So it’s down to time. Fishy dishonestly refuses to accept what every single person interested in this case knows, that we have to make allowances for timings with people who usually didn’t own watches or even clocks. Is it impossible that Long was 15 minutes out? Of course it isn’t. Is it impossible that Cadosch might have been 15 minutes out? Of course it isn’t. Is it impossible that both Long and Cadosch were both 7 or 8 minutes out? Of course it isn’t.

The witnesses outweigh the Doctor. They have to because the doctors TOD can safely be disregarded. I’m no longer interested in wasting time debating with the biased and the illogical. Fish, Fishy, The Baron are welcome to their fantasies and their theories. None of us should take someone seriously that believes that Annie Chapman was murdered and mutilated in a carriage by the Queens 72 year old Physician then dumped in the backyard by a famous painter and a deranged coach driver. That kind of drivel elimintates anyone from a sensible discussion of the case.

Annie Chapman TOD 5.25/5.30 beyond all reasonable doubt.

End of.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The poll at the beginning shows that 66% agree.

26% agree on Cadosh and Richardson.

One person disagrees by voting for Phillips.

I initially voted for Cadosch and Richardson Dave. If I had the chance I’d now change to all three as I believe it likeliest that it was an error of timing.

[John G]

The problem with rejecting Mrs Long's evidence is what's the alternative? An Annie Chapman lookalike suddenly appearing yards away from where the body was found just a few minutes later? She also doesn't exaggerate what she's witnessed, making it quite clear that she didn't see the suspects face, and couldn't be certain of his age, or the type of coat he was wearing, "I think he had on a dark coat, though I'm not certain."

[DJA]

Hi Herlock!

Agreed.

Dr Phillips testimony regarding the knife used,perhaps requires revisiting ..... again

Also his view on anatomical knowledge.

Do people understand why he opened up Chapman's brain!

Wake up! He recognized the work of one of his peers who he knew quite well.

[Errata]

Hi Herlock!

Agreed.

Dr Phillips testimony regarding the knife used,perhaps requires revisiting ..... again

Also his view on anatomical knowledge.

Do people understand why he opened up Chapman's brain!

Wake up! He recognized the work of one of his peers who he knew quite well.

I never met the guy, but I would assume he opened the skull because potential facial injuries are consistent with blows to the face, either strong enough to create a contra coup injury to the brain, or if delivered while she was lying down, sufficient to crack the skull or cause a concussion. And in truth he did find signs of brain damage, but had no corresponding injury to the skull.

why does that remind me of something? That’s gonna fester.

[Trevor Marriott]

Time to pull the curtain down

It’s amazing what bias and the desperate desire to bolster a theory will bring people to. And let’s recall what Trevor said (and Trevor has no theory to support.) He accepted that Phillips TOD estimate was completely unreliable and yet he still favoured it over three witnesses. I’ll stick my neck out and say that this is one of the most bizarre pronouncements that I’ve ever heard in my 35 years of interest in the case! It’s simply staggering.

Nothing bizarre at all, one of the two scenarios has to be the right one. I like you am entitled to make a calculated guess, which one is right and I have made that guess, and that all it is a guess, the same as you suggesting that the witnesses could not be mistaken, we know that is not correct. As I have said before it cannot be conclusively proved what the TOD was, accept it and move on, and stop arguing for the sake of arguing.

This debate should have been ended days ago. The moment that the incontrovertible evidence was produced showing that Phillips simply could not have accurately estimated the TOD. In how many fields would we get complete laymen disputing the words and writings of the foremost experts on a subject? Can you believe the arrogance? Can you believe the desperate lengths that posters will go to to try and discredit perfectly plausible witnesses? Witness that the police at the time considered plausible. And on such pathetic and biased grounds.

The debate should have ended days ago, but your are one of those who wont allow it to end, practice what you preach stop posting on the thread, what are you achieving ?

That Dr Phillips could not have accurately estimated the TOD to preclude 5.30 is an established fact. Anyone debating this is debating every authority on the subject. Therefor Phillips TOD can be disregarded. This is a fact.

But it it not an ascertained fact !

We have three witness. Like all witnesses, they are not perfect. A desperate attempt has been made to dismiss Cadosch (mainly by Fishy) purely on the grounds that he was cautious about hearing the ‘no.’ In other circumstances caution would strengthen the case for Cadosch honesty but not with the dishonest it doesn’t. He was confident about the noise but because he was cautious about the ‘no’ then he should be dismissed. Has anyone ever heard such nonsense? As Michael has said, what are the chances that, in an unoccupied yard, early in the morning, a voice and a noise are heard and they are not connected to the murder? How much do we wish to stretch believability to pander to the terminally biased?

The nonsense spoken about the passageway conversation between Chandler and Richardson is bizarre. Why would Richardson lie to put himself at a crime scene with a knife when he had no need to. This is palpable nonsense. Could Richardson have missed a body? He was 100% certain not and we have absolutely no reason to disbelieve him. Forget Fish’s sketched manipulations just look at the photograph and you have your answer. There’s no way that he could have missed a body. Chapman definitely wasn’t there at 4.50.

And finally the only witness of the three who causes an issue and it’s simply one of timing. Yes she could have been mistaken. But the fact that she was confident after viewing the corpse gives weight to her testimony. So it’s down to time. Fishy dishonestly refuses to accept what every single person interested in this case knows, that we have to make allowances for timings with people who usually didn’t own watches or even clocks. Is it impossible that Long was 15 minutes out? Of course it isn’t. Is it impossible that Cadosch might have been 15 minutes out? Of course it isn’t. Is it impossible that both Long and Cadosch were both 7 or 8 minutes out? Of course it isn’t.

The witnesses outweigh the Doctor. They have to because the doctors TOD can safely be disregarded. I’m no longer interested in wasting time debating with the biased and the illogical. Fish, Fishy, The Baron are welcome to their fantasies and their theories. None of us should take someone seriously that believes that Annie Chapman was murdered and mutilated in a carriage by the Queens 72 year old Physician then dumped in the backyard by a famous painter and a deranged coach driver. That kind of drivel elimintates anyone from a sensible discussion of the case.

The witness testimony is unsafe

Annie Chapman TOD 5.25/5.30 beyond all reasonable doubt.

Please stop repeating this over and over again its getting boring and its not proven !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

End of.

[Joshua Rogan]

Do people understand why he opened up Chapman's brain!

Because it was (and still is) standard procedure for a post mortem exam?