Chapman’s death.

[John G]

I'm pretty sure the section by Hebbert on the torso autopsies (from memory, page 86 or so) is quite thorough too, though obviously doesn't cover the brains...



That line has always leapt out at me, too!



Quite. But all the major organs and the spinal column should also be examined.
Perhaps all the autopsies on the victims were as thorough as they should be, but only mentioned and organ if it had suffered damage or illness?
Killeen, again, comments on the state of health of most of Martha's organs followed by the number of stab wounds. And most of the PMs comment on the victims' lungs.

Incidentally, does Dr Phillips mention TB specifically in Chapman's case, or is that your diagnosis? As far as I can recall, most of their lungs showed "firm adhesions" which are characteristic of something like pleurisy, but can only recall Phillips mentioning generalities.

What about pleural pulmonary tuberculosis?

[DJA]

40% statistically.

Phillips probably did not have the necessary equipment back then.

[Errata]

"Disease of the lungs was long standing, and there was disease of the membranes of the brain" Meh .... dropsy of the brain.Oops

Pretty sure it was TB.

You missed Page 57.

Pages 75 onward concern cases in London with Mr Bond from 1887 to 1889.

Bloody good read.

Dropsy in the brAin is fluid, and that’s either trauma Or birth defect with very noticeable symptoms, such as seizures. The extra firm brain is definitely swelling. Which can result from diseases like meningitis, but not tuberculosis as best I can tell. But the tuberculosis could account for the color of the meninges, or that also could be trauma. I mean with TB you generally have terrible circulation because your blood is an oxygenating. So most of her blood should be dark colored, no matter where it is, that’s disease. Maybe. She had a blow to the temple earlier in the evening, but the temple is a very sensitive spot. The bone is the thinnest there. A hard blow to the temple would break the bone. So the blow was hard enough to bruise but not break the bone. Which I think is less than 12 pounds of pressure? Or is that the clavicle?

The reason I’m so taken with this, it’s because these women apparently didn’t fight Jack the Ripper. And there’s a lot of theories as to why that is, strangulation, chloroform, alien intervention whatever. But I know from experience that a strong blow to the side of the head causes immediate disorientation, vertigo, incredible pain, nausea… Closed brain injuries would account for why these women just lay down and had their throat slit, but without cracked skulls or broken jaws...

is there any any mention of any of their ear structures? Perchance?

[DJA]

A System of Legal Medicine - asystemlegalmed00godkgoog.pdf

Have a read of pages 109 and 117. I've just finished reading the whole document.

Compare to Phillips' post mortems of Chapman and Stride.

It appears the two women actually died from asphyxia. Refer post #1512.

I've long suspected the same of Eddowes.

"Disease of the lungs was long standing, and there was disease of the membranes of the brain" is quoting Phillips testimony at Chapman's inquest.

Meh .... dropsy of the brain.Oops is one of my bad jokes. It is however a term for TB. Feel free to Google it.

Meningitis is inflammation caused by microorganisms like TB.

[Errata]

A System of Legal Medicine - asystemlegalmed00godkgoog.pdf

Have a read of pages 109 and 117. I've just finished reading the whole document.

Compare to Phillips' post mortems of Chapman and Stride.

It appears the two women actually died from asphyxia. Refer post #1512.

I've long suspected the same of Eddowes.

"Disease of the lungs was long standing, and there was disease of the membranes of the brain" is quoting Phillips testimony at Chapman's inquest.

Meh .... dropsy of the brain.Oops is one of my bad jokes. It is however a term for TB. Feel free to Google it.

Meningitis is inflammation caused by microorganisms like TB.

I don't object to the idea they were asphyxiated. They were. Their tracheae were cut. And While they apparently didn't drown in their own blood, which can happen, their breathing apparatus was compromised. It takes a minute or two to bleed out. The head was anoxic. That can cause some of the signs on these women. I cannot medically object to strangulation, except that air hunger is pure torture, and these women would fight like hell if they were being strangled. Even if they were held upright they would carve tracks into the dirt with their shoes, claw their faces and neck to free themselves. I don't think thats how he subdued them, even if he did do it.

But I got a question into an epidemiologist and he thinks the color and texture to the meninges were due to tuberculosis, but not the structure of the brain itself. But he's punting to a neurologist to be safe, so I may retract this.

But especially with Annie Chapman, where apparently someone was on the other side of the fence, a wallop to the head or something is consistent with what was heard, and I think strangulation less so because of the fight it induces. Even in brain dead people. They will twitch and jerk when oxygen is removed. It's really effing terrible being choked out. I'm thinking a well placed blow may be how he controlled them. I wish I knew a boxer... I have questions.

I tend to think Stride was not a Ripper victim. damn I forgot something.

[John G]

A System of Legal Medicine - asystemlegalmed00godkgoog.pdf

Have a read of pages 109 and 117. I've just finished reading the whole document.

Compare to Phillips' post mortems of Chapman and Stride.

It appears the two women actually died from asphyxia. Refer post #1512.

I've long suspected the same of Eddowes.

"Disease of the lungs was long standing, and there was disease of the membranes of the brain" is quoting Phillips testimony at Chapman's inquest.

Meh .... dropsy of the brain.Oops is one of my bad jokes. It is however a term for TB. Feel free to Google it.

Meningitis is inflammation caused by microorganisms like TB.

Meningeal tuberculosis is presumably a possibility.

[jmenges]

Now im certain you've lost the plot with a ridiculous statement like this , take a break from this thread herlock, your just being dishonest and deceitful .

Fishy...
Chill out with the name calling and abrasive attitude or it'll be you taking a break.

JM

[FISHY1118]

annie chapman was murdered at around 5.25/5.30 beyond all reasonable doubt apart from to the biased or the bloody minded!!!!!

annie chapman was most probably murdered at the much earlier time of 3.30am /4.30am according to dr phillips medical opinion, and the uncertainty and contradictory statements of the witnesses long , codosch and richardson.

now again ,if one wants to claim doctors in 1888 couldn't give a correct or close t.o.d and that it was guess work and or luck, then great keep telling yourself that . However the t.o.d given to by the doctors in the eddowes stride and nichols murder were correct within ''minutes'' .

ill gladly and confidently go with a medical opinion with chapmans t.od. Rather than

1. Cosdoschs ''no'' was unsure which yard it originated from , and noise up against the fence is pure speculation that a body must have made the noise . If the 'no' was elsewhere the noise is irreverent.

2. Chandlers sworn testimony under oath that richardson , the morning of the murder did not mention anything at all about him sitting on the step to cut leather from his boot , thereby making his claim two full days later that he could not possibly have missed chapmans body while he was sitting on the step next to her makes richardson as a witness totally unreliable. Caution and doubt should be taken when using richardson as proof that chapman was not already dead in the yard before 4.45am .

3 mrs longs siting of a man and chapman at 5.32 is completely and 100% in conflict with codoschs sworn testimony under oath . Those would support long statement must eliminate codosch altogether, if indeed it was her killer and chapman long saw outside 29 hanbury st at 5.32am .

as for the argument in regards to clocks, watches be wrong ,out by 5,10 mins , slow ,fast people didn't own watches , police had to tell people the time, the chimes were 15 mins early ,no wait i mean late and so on, and so and so on, please dont waste your time the discussion should only be based one one thing and one thing only what the witnesses actually said under sworn oath ,one would do well to stick to that when debating the murder of annie chapman at around say 3.30 / 4.30

[FISHY1118]

Fishy...
Chill out with the name calling and abrasive attitude or it'll be you taking a break.

[FISHY1118]

Please tell me why you are so convinced that Phillips was correct when estimating the TOD (given that all of the world’s experts tell us that he could not have made a reliable estimate using the methods that did) and yet, when he was performing the very much simpler task of checking for evidence of Annie being killed elsewhere with the help of the police (as you believe that she was) he said this:

Please tell me why your so convinced that given all the medical experts that tell us eddowes could ''NOT'' have had her kidney and uterus removed in the dark in 5 mins but Dr. G. W. Sequeira was correct?

when he was performing the very much simpler task of checking for evidence of Annie being killed elsewhere with the help of the police (as you believe that she was) he said this

Phillips was a medical doctor not a c.s.i

[DJA]

Meningeal tuberculosis is presumably a possibility.

Winner winner chicken dinner

[DJA]

I don't object to the idea they were asphyxiated. They were. Their tracheae were cut. And While they apparently didn't drown in their own blood, which can happen, their breathing apparatus was compromised. It takes a minute or two to bleed out. The head was anoxic. That can cause some of the signs on these women. I cannot medically object to strangulation, except that air hunger is pure torture, and these women would fight like hell if they were being strangled. Even if they were held upright they would carve tracks into the dirt with their shoes, claw their faces and neck to free themselves. I don't think thats how he subdued them, even if he did do it.

A blood choke takes a few seconds.

In Stride's case he applied a near naked choke from behind using his left arm.

Unfortunately you haven't read the suggested pages of A System of Legal Medicine.

[John G]

Winner winner chicken dinner

Thanks! Incidentally, the annual risk of tuberculosis infection has been estimated to be 19% in 1882 (the year Koch discovered tubercle bacillus.) The annual risk of infection of 0-4 year olds from tuberculosis meningitis, in England and Wales, has been estimated to be about 12.7% in 1901: see The Annual Risk of Infection with Mycobacterium Tuberculosis in England and Wales since 1901, E Vynnycky and P.E.M Fine, Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 1 (5): 389-396.

[Herlock Sholmes]

annie chapman was most probably murdered at the much earlier time of 3.30am /4.30am according to dr phillips medical opinion, and the uncertainty and contradictory statements of the witnesses long , codosch and richardson.

now again ,if one wants to claim doctors in 1888 couldn't give a correct or close t.o.d and that it was guess work and or luck, then great keep telling yourself that . However the t.o.d given to by the doctors in the eddowes stride and nichols murder were correct within ''minutes'' .

ill gladly and confidently go with a medical opinion with chapmans t.od. Rather than

No matter how many times this is explained to you; no matter how much evidence is piled upon evidence you still persist in pursuing this line. Surely you can understand how redundant your position. Are you an authority in Forensic science? No. Am I? No. Are the people that I’ve quoted in abundance? Yes they are. Jason Payne-James, in updating a standard textbook on the subject tells us that TOD estimations using the methods that Phillips used was totally unreliable. So many experts Fishy. Why do you think that you can make a deductions that outweighs their opinion? As I’ve said before, if you presented them with the point that you are making to me (about the other murders) do you really think that they would say “oh we never considered that. We’ve been wrong lol these years. Thanks Fishy we’ll change all of our textbooks.” This is preposterous thinking Fishy. You, a layman, are trying to overrule all the authorities on the subject. How can you think this? Even Trevor accepts that TOD estimations were unsafe and unreliable.

1. Cosdoschs ''no'' was unsure which yard it originated from , and noise up against the fence is pure speculation that a body must have made the noise . If the 'no' was elsewhere the noise is irreverent.

You are deliberately misinterpreting evidence. Cadosch said that he felt that the “no” came from number 29 but that he wasn’t certain. Why is it the case that you see caution as weakness? This isn’t an honest evaluation. Caution points to honesty. Do you not think that the police would have spoken to neighbours to see if anyone had been around that might have said the word “no?” Do you not think that an average person could tell more closely where a word came from when given the choice between being from a distance away or a few feet? You are delusional if you think that today, in a court of law, the noise would have been dismissed as irrelevant. This is joke thinking. This is purely and simply bias warping every aspect of your thinking.

2. Chandlers sworn testimony under oath that richardson , the morning of the murder did not mention anything at all about him sitting on the step to cut leather from his boot , thereby making his claim two full days later that he could not possibly have missed chapmans body while he was sitting on the step next to her makes richardson as a witness totally unreliable. Caution and doubt should be taken when using richardson as proof that chapman was not already dead in the yard before 4.45am .

More confused and biased thinking. No one can corroborate or confirm that Richardson didn’t mention sitting on the steps. Richardson didn’t get the opportunity to respond to Chandlers statement. So we cannot know what Richardson did or did not say. Simply electing to believe Chandler is cherry-picking. I can’t be accused of that I’m afraid because I accept that he might not have mentioned sitting on the steps. Even if he didn’t specifically mention it at the time it still didn’t mean that he didn’t. All Chandler needed to know was that there was no body there. Richardson told him this unequivocally. Richardson is only unreliable to the biased. His Inquest testimony cannot be disputed.

3 mrs longs siting of a man and chapman at 5.32 is completely and 100% in conflict with codoschs sworn testimony under oath . Those would support long statement must eliminate codosch altogether, if indeed it was her killer and chapman long saw outside 29 hanbury st at 5.32am .

as for the argument in regards to clocks, watches be wrong ,out by 5,10 mins , slow ,fast people didn't own watches , police had to tell people the time, the chimes were 15 mins early ,no wait i mean late and so on, and so and so on, please dont waste your time the discussion should only be based one one thing and one thing only what the witnesses actually said under sworn oath ,one would do well to stick to that when debating the murder of annie chapman at around say 3.30 / 4.30

Fishy you are the only person in ripperology who does not accept this obvious fact. It’s not an opinion. It’s a fact. How can we say that the timings of impoverished people are 100% accurate as you are attempting to do. You are so biased in your opinions Fishy that it continues to be excruciatingly embarrassing to read your posts. They didn’t own watches or clocks. They relied on policemen to wake hem up for work in h morning. They judge the time by seeing public clocks and hearing chimes. How does this fact make for accurate timings? Everyone else understands and accepts this Fishy. Mr Long might have been mistaken. I’ve accepted this possibility. Why can’t you accept the obvious fact that timings can be unreliable?

Your posts are becoming more and more desperate. You try and dismiss Cadosch because he was cautious. You dismiss Richardson because of an uncorroborated statement and on an unimportant point. You dismiss Long because you believe that impoverished Victorians had some magic and infallible way of telling the time. And you support Phillips TOD in the face of contradictory evidence from the whole of Forensic Medical Science.

And you still haven’t answered the question that I’ve put to you a dozen times. Why are you completely convinced that Phillips was correct on TOD and yet you disregard him when he says that Chapman was definitely killed where she was found.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Please tell me why your so convinced that given all the medical experts that tell us eddowes could ''NOT'' have had her kidney and uterus removed in the dark in 5 mins but Dr. G. W. Sequeira was correct?

[/B]Phillips was a medical doctor not a c.s.i

Changing the subject.

What do you mean by this

[QUOTE. all the medical experts [/QUOTE]

Wasnt it two!? Which is a tiny, tiny minority.

Out of all of the medical experts that have looked into the case? The late Nick Warren was a surgeon and yet he never said that those mutilations couldn’t have been completed? Because they could.

We also know this because we know that Eddowes was killed where she was found. Only a biased loony would suggest otherwise.