Chapman’s death.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So take this reality shock, it will be hard:


"The phases of rigor mortis can be extremely helpful in piecing together the circumstances and timing of a death. Rigor is one of the many potential clues examined by crime scene technicians, forensic pathologists, and detectives during an investigation to determine the proper manner of death (i.e., homicide, suicide, accident, or natural causes). It may also verify or refute a witness or suspect statement and can sometimes indicate whether a body has been moved after death. It is a valuable indicator that cannot be overlooked.

About the Author: Jennifer Bucholtz is a former U.S. Army Counterintelligence Agent and a decorated veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. She holds a Bachelor of Science in criminal justice, Master of Arts in criminal justice and Master of Science in forensic sciences. Bucholtz has an extensive background in U.S. military and Department of Defense counterintelligence operations. While on active duty, she served as the Special Agent in Charge for her unit in South Korea and Assistant Special Agent in Charge at stateside duty stations. Bucholtz has also worked for the Arizona Department of Corrections and Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in New York City. She is currently an adjunct faculty member at American Military University and teaches courses in criminal justice and forensic sciences. Additionally, she is a licensed private investigator in Colorado"



First Lesson:


Don't let others do your homeworks



The Baron

Every expert will tell you this. It’s a very general point and as John has pointed out she isn’t saying that it’s precise way of predicting TOD. Just that it can be a helpful tool. The very obvious point is that some circumstances can hasten the onset of Rigor. And those circumstances existed in the case of Annie Chapman.

Sudden Haemorrhaging.
Excessive Bleeding.
Malnourished Victim.
Wasting disease (TB)

Annie’s death was list of ticked boxes for early onset Rigor. This is why experts tell us that it’s not a reliable method. You’re quote achieves nothing I’m afraid. It’s a very general statement. For more specific opinions on the viability of using Rigor to estimate TOD I won’t apologise for reminding you of the following:


This is from Francis Camps FRCP, FRCPath, one of the most renowned Pathologists.


"....Camps stated that.Ordinarily the rigor mortis appears between 2-4 hours, but sometimes it is seen within 30 minutes of death and sometimes the onset is delayed for 6 hours or more."


This is from Bernard Knight CBE, who became Home Office Pathologist in 1965.


“Bernard Knight described the method of testing the rigor mortis by attempting to flex or extend the joints though the whole muscle mass itself becomes hard, and finger pressure on quadriceps or pectoralis can also detect the changes. The stiffness may develop within half an hour of death or may be postponed indefinitely."


In addition we have


Werner Uri Spitz (1993), a German-American forensic pathologist, "reported that in temperate climate, under average condition, rigor becomes apparent within half an hour to an hour, increases progressively to a maximum within twelve hours, remains for about twelve hours and then progressively disappears within the following twelve hours."


Then there is

From the English physiologist Sir Andrew Fielding Huxley (1974), who lived and worked in a temperate climate, we get this: 'the rigor mortis, which is cadaveric rigidity, starts developing within 1 to 2 hours after death and takes around 12 hours after death for complete development.'


To illustrate how the condition of the victim can accelerate the onset of Rigor


A.K. Mant, author of 'Forensic Pathology in Great Britain': "Rigor Mortis comes on slowly and uniformly in healthier subjects and the onset is rapid in case of deaths in exercises prior to death, convulsions andsudden haemorrhage".


Notice the emboldened part here Baron


Mason JK stated "The onset of rigor will be accelerated in conditions involving high ante-mortem muscle lactic acid e.g. after a struggle or other exercise.". So a struggle could bring on rigor earlier than the average, just like a cut throat

Sound familiar?


What if the muscles were feeble, fatigued and exhausted as in someone with TB?

Well according to S.C. Basu, author of the Handbook of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, rigor is "hastened or accelerated in feeble, fatigued and exhausted muscles"



And on to the point about the reliability of using rigor mortis to estimate TOD. Here’s a chap that you seem to believe understands the subject less well than you do


Dr Jason Payne-James LLM FRCS FFFLM FFSSoc RFP DFM


"The only use of assessing the presence or absence of rigor lies in the estimation of the time of death, and the key word here is estimation, as rigor is such a variable process that it can never provide an accurate assessment of the time of death. Extreme caution should be exercised in trying to assign a time of death based on the very subjective assessment of the degree and extent of rigor."


Please read the emboldened part closely Baron. This is not my opinion. I’ll ask again.....do you and Fishy claim the authority and expertise to dispute this man’s opinion?


I might add this one while I’m at it


The Kori paper says: "In wasting diseases like cancer, phthisis, rigor mortis will appear early".


Notice that it doesn’t say might. It says will.

Pthisis is TB and if you recall what Dr Phillips stayed at the Inquest about Annie Chapman


That she was "far advanced in the disEase”



I really don’t know why you keep up this desperate effort to try and promote the idea that all of the world’s Forensic experts are wrong and that you and Fishy are correct. Can’t you see this Baron?

I wouldn’t argue Biology with Richard Dawkins. I wouldn’t argue physics with Lawrence Krauss. I wouldn’t argue Tudor History with David Starkey or philosophy with AC Grayling. So why do you persist with this? And I’m the one getting stick for this debate! I’ll say it again but we’re down the rabbit-hole here.

[Michael W Richards]

Can we close threads? Unless we have new evidence or information, I fear we will get no closer to agreement and the discussion has become somewhat . . . unconstructive.

It says Annie after I corrected it, sometimes get confused as to which nonsense Im responding to at the moment. There seems to be abundant amounts in both general Stride threads and Chapman posts concerning the TOD. Actually there seems to be a nonsense trend on most threads here lately, Im sure an anarchist like you is pleased that nonsense has made mainstream discussions.

[Michael W Richards]

Welcome to Ripperology.

JM

Actually Id prefer not be lumped in with Ripperologists if this is the extent of the knowledge being imparted by them. And I think to be fair, true Ripperologists don't include the fringe elements just intent on disruption and fanciful theorizing, they can be identified easily enough if anyone reads their posts.

[DJA]

It says Annie after I corrected it, sometimes get confused as to which nonsense Im responding to at the moment.

Obviously.

Even worse on the other thread.

[DJA]

Actually Id prefer not be lumped in with Ripperologists if this is the extent of the knowledge being imparted by them. And I think to be fair, true Ripperologists don't include the fringe elements just intent on disruption and fanciful theorizing, they can be identified easily enough if anyone reads their posts.

Come back and read your recent posts when you sober up.

[Michael W Richards]

Come back and read your recent posts when you sober up.

I just responded to this kind of nonsense from you on another thread, perhaps you should try and broaden your repertoire. And for sure, your reasoning.

[Michael W Richards]

Obviously.

Even worse on the other thread.

Yes, you are the one I keep having to council on credibility, believability, nonsense and long discarded and completely unfounded theories. It creeps into many threads due to your participation.

[Ozzy]

It says Annie after I corrected it, sometimes get confused as to which nonsense Im responding to at the moment. There seems to be abundant amounts in both general Stride threads and Chapman posts concerning the TOD. Actually there seems to be a nonsense trend on most threads here lately, Im sure an anarchist like you is pleased that nonsense has made mainstream discussions.

I think you quoted the wrong post. Was it not post #1688 by The Baron that you meant to quote, rather than #1689 by etenguy.

[DJA]

Ozzy,he doesn't know. Obviously.

[FISHY1118]

Try answering Paul’s very reasonable question instead of your usual waffle.

Try staying out of pauls and mine conversation and dont be rude

[FISHY1118]

What I’m saying, if you’d bothered reading and understanding, is that you cannot say that she must have been on Annie’s right. You weren’t there. I wasn’t there. We have absolutely no way of knowing where the killer positioned himself or whether he changed positions whilst he was mutilating her.

Has that sunk in Fishy? We cannot know. And so.....

why are you assuming that you do know?

Thats better , ... i understand very well thank you, but its your comprehension thats letting you down im afraid.... just like theres no way of knowing there was anyone in the yard of number 29 at 5.20am ? Remember herlock, codosch only thought the ''no'' came from 29 but he could say for certain which side it came from ... DOUBT.

Has that also sunk in herlock.

[FISHY1118]

I debate every single point that you make. You use tactics like the above just to avoid answering.

You actually know that you are wrong Fishy and all reasonable posters can see this.

No , its just like i said ive spent to much time debating chapman with you. And have shown over and over and over again why long, codosch and Richardson are unreliable and contradict each other, and in no way make it certain that she was killed at 5.30am like you famously claim .

Thanks to wolf vanderlinden for his excellent work in establishing just that .

All other reasonable posters can see this too.

[FISHY1118]

I’ve answered this repeatedly and you’ve repeatedly and dishonestly posted otherwise.

Careful herlock about calling me dishonest, remember what you were told about that .

[FISHY1118]

Flaming (Internet) - Wikipedia

Barnum effect - Wikipedia

I actually reposted part my research due to repeated requests on this thread.

I have long considered you a dishonest flaming time waster. You stoop to following your enemies around this forum and attacking them completely off topic.

My habit of replying to posts without the quote fails at times,hence ONE reply to you was prefaced with Hi Sherlock.

Have a peep at number nine in Barnum effect. You took that as a compliment.

Arrogant gullible fool with a Little Hitler script.

You are like an organ grinder's monkey, which as a climax steals an onlooker's cigarette and shoves it up it's arse. Rewarded with gold bars.

Pierre has used multiple aliases.He is laughing at people like you. One of his alters is using a female name on another forum. A gentleman when compared to you.

Brilliant post dave

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thats better , ... i understand very well thank you, but its your comprehension thats letting you down im afraid.... just like theres no way of knowing there was anyone in the yard of number 29 at 5.20am ? Remember herlock, codosch only thought the ''no'' came from 29 but he could say for certain which side it came from ... DOUBT.

Has that also sunk in herlock.

There is nothing wrong with my comprehension Fishy. You are being selective again. Can you not see this.

Yes, Cadosch admitted to uncertainty about the ‘no.’ He was being honest. Why is this held against him in your eyes?

But he had no such uncertainty about the noise. You cannot dismiss one because of the other. If someone is uncertain about point A but certain about point B point B cannot simply be dismissed. It makes no logical sense. Cadosch is a creditable witness. There is no evidence that he got anything wrong. There is no evidence that he lied. Your logic is deeply flawed.

Two questions.

1. Cadosch hears the word no. He thinks it came from 29 but he cannot be certain. How likely is it that he could mistake a noise that came from 6 feet away for one that came from yards away? If it came from further away then it must have been louder. No one else heard someone shout no. The police would have questioned neighbours and yet no one appears to have been in the other yards. The only place where anything of significance occurred was in the yard of number 29. How likely is it that the ‘no’ came from a distance away?

2. He was certain that the noise came from number 29. A matter of 6 feet or so away from him. In a yard where a woman is murdered. What else could the noise have realistically been? A while ago you suggested packing cases but I pointed out that there were no packing cases in the yard at the time. So what else, realistically, could have made the noise.