Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    I’m not saying that there’s no difference Fish I’m saying that the differences aren’t huge. The ‘no’ and the sound appear in all. The time of the morning. The two journeys to the loo. It’s no massive leap or unbelievable twist that a conversation might have been...

    Journalist: So you heard the word ‘no?’

    Cadosch: Yes.

    Journalist: Like someone was answering a question?

    Cadosch: Yes, but I only heard the ‘no’ part.

    And the Journalist, back at his desk writing this up, writes that Cadosch heard a muttered conversation but could only pick out the ‘no.’

    Likewise the sound...

    Journalist: So you heard something brush against the fence.

    Cadosch: Yes.

    Journalist: So this could have been the sound of the woman being attacked?

    Cadosch: It could have been, yes.

    Back at his desk the Journalist has Cadosch saying that he heard a scuffle. Sensationalism sold newspapers and here was a man who might very well have heard Annie and her killer. It’s hardly unbelievable that a Journalist might have succumbed to the temptations of a bit of elaboration.

    The basics of what Cadosch said remain though. A ‘no’ and a sound against the fence. The only way that Cadosch could be categorically eliminated would be if we knew 100% that Phillips could not have been wrong. I’m guessing that you would go at least pretty close to that but others disagree.

    We both know that the line is drawn. You think that Cadosch should be dismissed. I think that he shouldn’t. Others will form their own opinions.

    ....

    Id ask you Fish the same question that I’ve asked Trevor (numerous times) He hasn’t replied but I’m confident that you will. Knowing that witness discrepancies exist and that wording in various statements can vary. Are there any witnesses in this case that we cannot find a reason for dismissing? Discounting Doctors of course.
    Once more? Okay, Iīll accommodate.

    If your model for how the journalists (it is more than one, and therefore the risk of them getting things wrong in the same manner and with the same general wording is minuscule) is true, then Albert Cadosch has been hard done by and treated unfairly.

    If we knew that this was so, if it was something that was part of our confirmed knowledge (not that it could happen, but that it DID happen), then Albert Cadosch should be treated as a good and truthful witness.

    But even if we suspect that this was what happened (as an aside, I donīt suspect it for a minute, but IF...), Albert Cadoschīs testimony is nevertheless to be regarded as unreliable, for the simple reason that we do not KNOW that Albert was hijacked and used by two or more sensation-lusting journalists.

    Itīs much like standing on a five meter trampoline by a pool filled with black water, and having somebody telling you to jump in, head first. The water CAN be four meter deep as that somebody tells you, but the problem is that somebody else is also there, telling you that it is only five inches deep.

    Would you jump? Yes, going by how you treat Cadoschīs testimony, I dare say you would.

    Of course I will answer your witness question, but maybe not in the fashion youīd expect me too, Herlock. Iīll begin by saying that witness psychology tells us that just about all witnesses are unsafe bets, because human memory is not as safe to rely on as has formerly been believed. In that sense, we must always keep the door ajar for witnesses having gotten things wrong, even if what they say is logical and stated with great composure and certainty.

    If we turn this around and look at it from the other angle, of course witnesses may be of great use too, and it is not as if they always get things wrong. Certainly, there are witnesses who remember long and complex sequences in great detail and get things completely right.

    That is the combined backdrop we must use when we look at witness testimony, and when we do, there is one thing that is of relevance both on a general level but also very spcifically for our case. And that is the fact that once we have a witness saying that he saw a bankrobber fleeing in a Ford Edsel, we should always keep in mind that he or she can be mistaken - but if we have TWO witnesses saying that they saw a Ford Edsel, then the suggestion of such a vehicle having been used becomes an extremely good one.

    This is one of the most useful things there are in the world of witness testimony - intercorroborative material.

    And what it is we have in the Chapman case? Well, we have not two, but THREE witnesses testifying to the effect that Annie Chapman was not dead at 4.45 and she was seemingly up and about at 5.30 too!

    That is one hell of a firewall to try and tear down! It is not something that should be taken lightly. And it is quite understandable that many people cannot see their way through to even thinking about questioning it.

    There is also the fact that once somebody steps in and tells those who believe in this triumvirate that one of the pillars must go, it makes for great distress. They are all links in the same chain, how can one link be removed? They all corroborate each other!

    This, I suspect, is what lies behind your unwillingness to accept the removal of Cadosch. It is not just a question of you thinking his testimony is perfectly shipshape, because we can all see it is not. It is also, and to a decisive degree, the result of you reasoning that the three links all come from the same chain.

    To start dissolving that picture, we must first ask ourselves whether or not an attention-seeker can only creep into an investigation as a witness if he testifies about something he or she is the only person to testify about. Putting it differently, if Cadosch was an attention-seeker, then why would he NOT choose to come forward in the Chapman case? He would in all probability not be aware of the other two witnesses as he approached the police, and so he would feel at ease to suggest any scenario he wanted to.

    In such a case, it would only become obvious to him that his story was challenged by other witnesses later in the process, when he was made aware of Phillipsī, Richardsons and Longs claims.

    What I want to point to here is not how the claims differed but instead that there was nothing that stopped an attention-seeker to approach the police in the Chapman case, and therefore it may well be that one or more of the three witnesses were of this character. Certainly, the change of heart Cadosch had if he was fairly represented in his two early interviews lends itself remarkably well to speculate that he only backpedalled when he knew the game was up.

    What indications do we have that all three witnesses were wrong? That, as you know, is Phillipsī verdict. And we now have the E L O, that tell us in no uncertain terms that Phillips was very clear on how two hours was a minimum and NOT his professionally guided suggestion, which instead stipulated that Chapman died between 3 and 4 AM. And what was the outcome of his certainty? Exactly: it was pointed out that in the E L O that nobody believed in the "groundless story" about Chapman having been spotted drinking in a pub at 5 AM of the murder morning. It was an impossibility, because she was long dead at that stage.

    The problem then becomes another one: If she was long dead at 5 AM, and if the mere suggestion that she was spotted in a pub at that stage was immediately written off as groundless, then how could she still be talking to a stranger outside 29 Hanbury Street HALF AN HOUR LATER?

    And this is where we should note that Longs and Cadoschīs stories are mutually excluding each other. The timings are wayward, and thatīs not just the groundless suggestion that she could still live at 5.30, but also the suggestion from Cadosch that he heard the murder go down at 5.15-5.20, a long time before when Long supposedly saw Chapman outside the premises, still waiting to walk into the backyard and get knackered.

    All the kind of stuff you want to find if you suspect that these two witnesses were mistaken or lying is there, served on a silver plate. Before we can start believing in the witnesses, we must make medical adjustments that are extremely weird and wonderful and we must give the clocks and watches all over the East End a thorough shakedown. Unless we decide that Long and Cadosch, who both pressed the point that they could not have been wrong on the timings, were mistaken about that nevertheless.

    And all of this becasue we say that these two witnesses corroborate each other, are links in the same chain - while all the time they do and are no such thing. They instead gainsay each other, and none of them have observed the same things. One says she has seen Chapman, one infers that he has heard her being killed. But there is no instance of truly corroborative stuff like for example the flower Stride was seen to wear by multiple witnesses.

    For me, it is an easy enough task to throw these two groundless stories out, as regards the idea that they had anything to do with Chapman. The minutiae of the stories, however, can have true elements; there could have been a couple outside 29 Hanbury Street at 5.30, and Long can have seen them there and she can have thought that the woman looked like the dead woman she was shown four days later in the morgue. But it was NOT Chapman and here killer (or any other gentleman), just as Cadosch can have mnade his loo trips and hear somebody saying "No" from somewhere, and he may have heard - or thought he heard - a sound against the fence. But once again, it cannot have been Chapman.

    And this is where we return to your question - are there any "good" witnesses in the case? I think there are, but for the reasons above, I donīt think that Long and Cadosch fit the bill. They must be deemed unreliable for factual reasons.

    It is only of you do not have such factual reasons speaking against you as a witness that you may be looked upon as a probably good witness, although there can be no guarantees; witness testimony is, as I pointed out in the beginning of my Gettisburg address, notoriuosly unreliable.

    Letīs stick with the Chapman case when trying to list witnesses:

    John Davis - seems a good witness to me. There is nothing gainsaying his observations, although we should keep in m ind that he was very upset by what he saw and so that may have affected his testimony to some degree.

    Tim Donovan is interesting - he seems to be a truthful witness, but then again, he was the one Donald Rumbelow picked as a possible Ripper! Apart from that, though, he seems good enough.

    James Kent - nothing odd about him, his story seems to pan out.

    Amnelia Richardson - well, although she says nothing that seems out of the order, it must be remembered that she was the mother of a witness who seems dodgy in many ways, and so that link may have tainted her testimony.

    ... and so on. I donīt know if you are planning to say "There you are, if we are to look at witnesses like that, we may just as well rule then all out!". If this is so, it would not be good, because it would bundle all witnesses up together, and we should not bundle people who we cannot fault and who made logical statements up with people we CAN fault and who made illogical statements. Not should we bundle up witnesses who never changed their stories with the ones who did. And so on. it is a weighing process, and much as we will use different scales at times, that does not mean that we should disregard all witnesses. Quite the contrary - they are very important to understand the cases we look at although it carries risks, they are the sources we use to piece together what happened on the murder nights.


    Last edited by Fisherman; 10-25-2020, 07:55 AM.

    Comment


    • It's as simple as this, Fisherman...

      Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      I read the article (good research by Colin) and realised that I’d read it before. It doesn’t impact on this case though. Just because someone has the capacity to lie (which would include everyone) doesn’t mean he lied about what he heard.
      There's no arguing with this bit of brilliance. It covers every witness in every situation, so you're toast, I'm afraid.
      Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 10-25-2020, 08:27 AM.
      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

      Comment


      • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
        It's as simple as this, Fisherman...

        There's no arguing with this bit of brilliance. It covers every witness in every situation, so you're toast, I'm afraid.
        If that was what I argued against, then yes, I would be toast. And rightfully so!

        Youīd be hard pressed to find a better argument, itīs an absolute gem.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          This is an exaggeration Fish. Hearing someone shout “no I’m not going to let you live” in high pitched Portuguese followed by the sound of someone throwing a bucket of custard at the fence would be a wildly different version. The other version has the ‘no’ and the noise. Just with a couple of added details.
          Why wasn't this ever a Monty Python sketch?
          Thems the Vagaries.....

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

            Why wasn't this ever a Monty Python sketch?
            What are you doing here, still standing up? I thought you were exposed to my wrath yesterday?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

              What are you doing here, still standing up? I thought you were exposed to my wrath yesterday?
              Tentative steps Fish. The road to recovery is a long one...
              Thems the Vagaries.....

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                The issue here is the apparent accepting of times as being not only accurate but syncronized.
                i strongly feel the unreliability of time keeping and lack of synrconization means that All times can be at least 5 minutes out in either direction.
                This applies to all the murders, not just Chapmans.
                longs timing does not mean the cadoschs timing is wrong or irrelevant in my considered opinion.


                steve
                I agree about the approximate nature of timings generally; however, Mrs Long specifically stated that the (Trumans?) brewery clock had just struck the half hour so, if she was right in saying that it was the half hour and not the quarter (as the coroner surmised) then I think that Cadosch's timings (from 5.15am to 3 or 4 minutes later) would require too great an inaccuracy for the two accounts to fit.
                "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                  Once more? Okay, Iīll accommodate.

                  If your model for how the journalists (it is more than one, and therefore the risk of them getting things wrong in the same manner and with the same general wording is minuscule) is true, then Albert Cadosch has been hard done by and treated unfairly.

                  Its a possibility.

                  If we knew that this was so, if it was something that was part of our confirmed knowledge (not that it could happen, but that it DID happen), then Albert Cadosch should be treated as a good and truthful witness.

                  I haven’t said that it did happen only that it’s possible (and not far fetched)

                  But even if we suspect that this was what happened (as an aside, I donīt suspect it for a minute, but IF...), Albert Cadoschīs testimony is nevertheless to be regarded as unreliable, for the simple reason that we do not KNOW that Albert was hijacked and used by two or more sensation-lusting journalists.

                  Nope. We simply have to admit the possibility.

                  Itīs much like standing on a five meter trampoline by a pool filled with black water, and having somebody telling you to jump in, head first. The water CAN be four meter deep as that somebody tells you, but the problem is that somebody else is also there, telling you that it is only five inches deep.

                  Would you jump? Yes, going by how you treat Cadoschīs testimony, I dare say you would.

                  No. Because no one is at risk of harm. As I’ve said before it’s ridiculous to impose such rigid strictures on ourselves when we are only dealing with possibilities and likelihood’s. Neither Albert Cadosch nor anyone else will end up on the gallows as a result of our discussions on here.

                  Of course I will answer your witness question, but maybe not in the fashion youīd expect me too, Herlock. Iīll begin by saying that witness psychology tells us that just about all witnesses are unsafe bets, because human memory is not as safe to rely on as has formerly been believed. In that sense, we must always keep the door ajar for witnesses having gotten things wrong, even if what they say is logical and stated with great composure and certainty.

                  ​​​​​​​We all know this Fish. Therefore we assess and not dismiss unless we can prove that a witness has lied or was mistaken.

                  If we turn this around and look at it from the other angle, of course witnesses may be of great use too, and it is not as if they always get things wrong. Certainly, there are witnesses who remember long and complex sequences in great detail and get things completely right.

                  Yes.

                  That is the combined backdrop we must use when we look at witness testimony, and when we do, there is one thing that is of relevance both on a general level but also very spcifically for our case. And that is the fact that once we have a witness saying that he saw a bankrobber fleeing in a Ford Edsel, we should always keep in mind that he or she can be mistaken - but if we have TWO witnesses saying that they saw a Ford Edsel, then the suggestion of such a vehicle having been used becomes an extremely good one.

                  This is one of the most useful things there are in the world of witness testimony - intercorroborative material.

                  ​​​​​​​Yes. It’s why it’s so annoying to have three witnesses who don’t corroborate Phillips.

                  And what it is we have in the Chapman case? Well, we have not two, but THREE witnesses testifying to the effect that Annie Chapman was not dead at 4.45 and she was seemingly up and about at 5.30 too!

                  ​​​​​​​So a way is required to facilitate their dismissal.

                  That is one hell of a firewall to try and tear down! It is not something that should be taken lightly. And it is quite understandable that many people cannot see their way through to even thinking about questioning it.

                  Patronising as ever Fish. But moving on....

                  There is also the fact that once somebody steps in and tells those who believe in this triumvirate that one of the pillars must go, it makes for great distress. They are all links in the same chain, how can one link be removed? They all corroborate each other!

                  This is the longest post ever by the way.

                  This, I suspect, is what lies behind your unwillingness to accept the removal of Cadosch. It is not just a question of you thinking his testimony is perfectly shipshape, because we can all see it is not. It is also, and to a decisive degree, the result of you reasoning that the three links all come from the same chain.

                  ​​​​​​​Patronising and wrong.

                  To start dissolving that picture, we must first ask ourselves whether or not an attention-seeker can only creep into an investigation as a witness if he testifies about something he or she is the only person to testify about. Putting it differently, if Cadosch was an attention-seeker, then why would he NOT choose to come forward in the Chapman case? He would in all probability not be aware of the other two witnesses as he approached the police, and so he would feel at ease to suggest any scenario he wanted to.

                  Unless another neighbour had heard a scuffle in the yard at 3.30. Or, as I said in an earlier post, someone had seen Annie alive at 5.30 three streets away. Or that a resident of number 29 was in the yard at 5.20. Or someone saw someone suspicious leaving number 29 at 4am. So there were numerous potential ways for AC to have been exposed as a liar if he had lied.

                  In such a case, it would only become obvious to him that his story was challenged by other witnesses later in the process, when he was made aware of Phillipsī, Richardsons and Longs claims.

                  Previous reply.

                  What I want to point to here is not how the claims differed but instead that there was nothing that stopped an attention-seeker to approach the police in the Chapman case, and therefore it may well be that one or more of the three witnesses were of this character. Certainly, the change of heart Cadosch had if he was fairly represented in his two early interviews lends itself remarkably well to speculate that he only backpedalled when he knew the game was up.

                  ​​​​​​​Speculate.

                  What indications do we have that all three witnesses were wrong? That, as you know, is Phillipsī verdict. And we now have the E L O, that tell us in no uncertain terms that Phillips was very clear on how two hours was a minimum and NOT his professionally guided suggestion, which instead stipulated that Chapman died between 3 and 4 AM. And what was the outcome of his certainty? Exactly: it was pointed out that in the E L O that nobody believed in the "groundless story" about Chapman having been spotted drinking in a pub at 5 AM of the murder morning. It was an impossibility, because she was long dead at that stage.

                  Pointless responding against His Holiness Dr Phillips.

                  The problem then becomes another one: If she was long dead at 5 AM, and if the mere suggestion that she was spotted in a pub at that stage was immediately written off as groundless, then how could she still be talking to a stranger outside 29 Hanbury Street HALF AN HOUR LATER?

                  ​​​​​​​If she was alive.

                  And this is where we should note that Longs and Cadoschīs stories are mutually excluding each other. The timings are wayward, and thatīs not just the groundless suggestion that she could still live at 5.30, but also the suggestion from Cadosch that he heard the murder go down at 5.15-5.20, a long time before when Long supposedly saw Chapman outside the premises, still waiting to walk into the backyard and get knackered.

                  True. But if a witness can mid-identify someone then they can get the time wrong (especially when it was judged by hearing bells)

                  All the kind of stuff you want to find if you suspect that these two witnesses were mistaken or lying is there, served on a silver plate. Before we can start believing in the witnesses, we must make medical adjustments that are extremely weird and wonderful and we must give the clocks and watches all over the East End a thorough shakedown. Unless we decide that Long and Cadosch, who both pressed the point that they could not have been wrong on the timings, were mistaken about that nevertheless.

                  ​​​​​​​Exaggeration.

                  And all of this becasue we say that these two witnesses corroborate each other, are links in the same chain - while all the time they do and are no such thing. They instead gainsay each other, and none of them have observed the same things. One says she has seen Chapman, one infers that he has heard her being killed. But there is no instance of truly corroborative stuff like for example the flower Stride was seen to wear by multiple witnesses.

                  No-one, certainly not me, has tried to deny the time difference between Long and Cadosch. It was a mere 15 minutes. We’re not talking sci-fi here. Just the possibility that a woman walking the street heard church clock bells and later recalled them as indicating 5.30 when it was actually 5.15.

                  For me, it is an easy enough task to throw these two groundless stories out, as regards the idea that they had anything to do with Chapman.

                  Of course it is.

                  The minutiae of the stories, however, can have true elements; there could have been a couple outside 29 Hanbury Street at 5.30, and Long can have seen them there and she can have thought that the woman looked like the dead woman she was shown four days later in the morgue. But it was NOT Chapman and here killer (or any other gentleman), just as Cadosch can have mnade his loo trips and hear somebody saying "No" from somewhere, and he may have heard - or thought he heard - a sound against the fence. But once again, it cannot have been Chapman.

                  Nope. If we scrub away at this very lengthy post Fish it still boils down to this for you. Phillips cannot have been wrong so the witnesses are out. I don’t accept that. It’s not a fact.

                  And this is where we return to your question - are there any "good" witnesses in the case? I think there are, but for the reasons above, I donīt think that Long and Cadosch fit the bill. They must be deemed unreliable for factual reasons.

                  Very poor reasons.

                  It is only of you do not have such factual reasons speaking against you as a witness that you may be looked upon as a probably good witness, although there can be no guarantees; witness testimony is, as I pointed out in the beginning of my Gettisburg address, notoriuosly unreliable.

                  ​​​​​​​Like a Victorian doctors TOD estimate.



                  Letīs stick with the Chapman case when trying to list witnesses:

                  John Davis - seems a good witness to me. There is nothing gainsaying his observations, although we should keep in m ind that he was very upset by what he saw and so that may have affected his testimony to some degree.

                  Tim Donovan is interesting - he seems to be a truthful witness, but then again, he was the one Donald Rumbelow picked as a possible Ripper! Apart from that, though, he seems good enough.

                  James Kent - nothing odd about him, his story seems to pan out.

                  Amnelia Richardson - well, although she says nothing that seems out of the order, it must be remembered that she was the mother of a witness who seems dodgy in many ways, and so that link may have tainted her testimony.

                  ... and so on. I donīt know if you are planning to say "There you are, if we are to look at witnesses like that, we may just as well rule then all out!". If this is so, it would not be good, because it would bundle all witnesses up together, and we should not bundle people who we cannot fault and who made logical statements up with people we CAN fault and who made illogical statements. Not should we bundle up witnesses who never changed their stories with the ones who did. And so on. it is a weighing process, and much as we will use different scales at times, that does not mean that we should disregard all witnesses. Quite the contrary - they are very important to understand the cases we look at although it carries risks, they are the sources we use to piece together what happened on the murder nights.

                  Nothing has changed. The witnesses should not and cannot be dismissed.

                  Regards

                  Herlock




                  “ Herlock is the cleverest man that I’ve ever met.” - Stephen Hawking.
                  “ I wish that I could have achieved half as much as Herlock.”- Neil Armstrong.
                  “ What a voice Herlock has.” - Luciano Pavarotti.
                  “ I wish that I could dump Harry for Herlock.” - Meghan Markle.
                  “ I know that it’s not good to be jealous but I just can’t help it.” - John Holmes.

                  Comment


                  • Phillips COULD have been wrong, but he could not have been THAT wrong, and so the witnesses remain out. It’ s very easy and very wrong to claim that Victorian doctors were all about guesswork. You and Trevor make a nice pair. And an ignorant one. (Ooooh - was I patronizing now...?)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Bridewell View Post

                      I agree about the approximate nature of timings generally; however, Mrs Long specifically stated that the (Trumans?) brewery clock had just struck the half hour so, if she was right in saying that it was the half hour and not the quarter (as the coroner surmised) then I think that Cadosch's timings (from 5.15am to 3 or 4 minutes later) would require too great an inaccuracy for the two accounts to fit.
                      And there is the issue, what time did she hear, and how accurate was that clock anyway?

                      I have to say I am more inclined to accept Cadosch's statement than that of Long, but each to their own interpretation .

                      Steve

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        Phillips COULD have been wrong, but he could not have been THAT wrong, and so the witnesses remain out. It’ s very easy and very wrong to claim that Victorian doctors were all about guesswork. You and Trevor make a nice pair. And an ignorant one. (Ooooh - was I patronizing now...?)
                        Unfortunately he could be, and probably was.
                        I see nothing changes , your belief in the abilities of Victorian Doctors, to establish reliable TOD, despite there being no known way of determining TOD so exactly in 1888, is still touching.

                        Its no coincidence that the TODs that are not disputed and appear to be generally acurrate, are the murders where police patrolled the murder sites withing 30 minutes of the discovery, Nichols, Stride and Eddowes. The TODs provide for those murders almost certainly took those statements to help establish TOD, once the doctor was convinced the body had not been moved.

                        I have asked before, and will ask again, what medical method was avalible in 1888, to allow a Doctor to establish TOD , thats not been shown with modern science to be flaw?

                        RM is certainly Flawed, and the onset is now know to be variable depending on environment and other viarables, and not as fixed as believed in 1888.

                        LM again is not pricise, but useful in determining if a body had been moved.

                        Intetnal body temps were not taken. Touch and feel are highly subjective and next to useless.

                        And of course the much praised "experience", is not only highly Subjective, but if based on previous cases using the above mentioned methods, will of course be flawed by definition.

                        steve


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                          And there is the issue, what time did she hear, and how accurate was that clock anyway?

                          I have to say I am more inclined to accept Cadosch's statement than that of Long, but each to their own interpretation .

                          Steve
                          How do you feel about the fact that the East London Observer wrote, on the 15:th of September, that "One other important fact was the surgeon able to glean, which discounted the groundless stories of the murdered woman having been seen at five o'clock that morning, and that was that death had taken place fully two hours before the first discovery of the body - probably between three and four o'clock on the Saturday morning."

                          Here, we are informed about the time gap Phillips shot for when he said it was probably more than two hours. He puts the LIKELY time of death to 3-4 AM, some 2,5-3,5 hours before he examined Chapman.
                          If we choose the middle of that road, 3.30 AM, we find a gap of three hours.
                          A dead body will give away body warmth for up towards four hours, so extensive damage and a chilly morning is quite in line with a small remainder or warmth being present under the intestines. The rest of the body was all cold to the touch.

                          The time amount needed to be cut away from that verdict to reach an hour only is staggering. Two thirds of it has to go - and it takes us to a stage when a dead body is typically all warm to the touch.
                          If that does not worry you, then it should.
                          When we couple it with the knowledge that rigor typically sets in 2-4 hours after death, and later in cold conditions, it should worry you even more.
                          Lastly, once we know that Phillips judged the blood at the site to be "well clotted", we have three parameters that are all in line with an early TOD. Add the digestion of the food and you have four parameters.

                          In Stewart Evans "Scotland Yard Investigates", the author writes that Phillips should have taken the rectal temperature. And that he should have established the ambient temperature too, becasue if you donīt, the value of having taken the rectal temperature is nullified.

                          He somehow seems to think that it was of the essence to get the exact temperatures established, while I am of the meaning that much as it would have improved the working ground, it does. ot mean that Phillips could not tell a completely warm body from a completely cold one.
                          That point seems to go lost in the learned discussions about how Phillips was unable to be exact.
                          The fact is he never needed to.

                          Evans elucidates how hard it is to establish TOD by telling us that Bond and Phillips differed 3-4 hours in their verdict on Kelly. That, he adds, does not instill any faith in Phillips. What we are not told, however, is that Kelly had been dead beyond the time when body heat could be felt by the hand. She had taken on room temperature, and that is a stage that goes on until the body is removed from the room. She would be at the same temperature to the hand the next day too, if she was left lying there.

                          What there weas to determine from was basically only rigor in Kellys case. And rigor sets in after 2-4 hours, typically, and is fully developed after 8-12 hours. So both doctors were within the span allowed for, and had to guess much of the rest.

                          It is an example that is not very healthy to dismiss a doctors professional capacities from.

                          In Chapmans case, there was body heat, and so she was within the four hour span, reasonably at the end of it.

                          There was onsetting rigor, and that rigor should have set in 2-4 hours after death, making the time span 2.30 - 4.30 AM. Quite likely, the cold conditions could have pushed it further afield.

                          By the side of Kate Eddowes forty minutes after she died, there was a pool of liquid blood serum. Beside Annie Chapman, there was well clotted blood. To know it was well clotted, Phillips will have felt it.

                          All of this is why the five o clock observation of Chapman drinking at a pub was dubbed groundless and thrown out.

                          Add another fifty per cent of time, worsening the case hugely, and you reach Albert Cadosch at 5.30.

                          Albert Cadosch, who desperatley backpedalled from his two original versions of the developments in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street at the inquest, when it was well known that John Richardson was disbeleived by the police who reasoned that Chapman would have arrived earlier than 4.45 to the murder spot.

                          4.45 is three quarters of an hour BEFORE Cadoschīs sideshow.

                          There is not a chance in heaven or hell that Annie Chapman died at 5.30, grew cold in a jiffy, developed rigor twice as fast or more than she should have, had her food digested to a degree that tallied with a TOD at 3-4 AM and had her blood drying up at her side quicker that you can say bazinga.

                          I thought Iīd make that clear once again, since it seems to be unneccesarily hard to scrub from the floor.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                            RM is certainly Flawed, and the onset is now know to be variable depending on environment and other viarables, and not as fixed as believed in 1888.


                            steve

                            Are you aquainted with Karolinska Institutet, the most renowned medical university in Sweden? Hereīs what they say about rigor, translated into British:

                            "Muscular rigidity which develops in the cadaver usually from 4 to 10 hours after death and lasts 3 or 4 days."

                            To think that you are so much more up to date than they are! Amazing!!

                            Goodnight.

                            Comment


                            • There is not a chance in heaven or hell that Annie Chapman died at 5.30
                              I agree. Probably nearer 5.20. That’s why she wasn’t there when Richardson sat on the step.
                              Regards

                              Herlock




                              “ Herlock is the cleverest man that I’ve ever met.” - Stephen Hawking.
                              “ I wish that I could have achieved half as much as Herlock.”- Neil Armstrong.
                              “ What a voice Herlock has.” - Luciano Pavarotti.
                              “ I wish that I could dump Harry for Herlock.” - Meghan Markle.
                              “ I know that it’s not good to be jealous but I just can’t help it.” - John Holmes.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                                Are you aquainted with Karolinska Institutet, the most renowned medical university in Sweden? Hereīs what they say about rigor, translated into British:

                                "Muscular rigidity which develops in the cadaver usually from 4 to 10 hours after death and lasts 3 or 4 days."

                                To think that you are so much more up to date than they are! Amazing!!

                                Goodnight.
                                The word ‘usually’ can be taken to mean ‘not always.’
                                Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 10-25-2020, 07:40 PM.
                                Regards

                                Herlock




                                “ Herlock is the cleverest man that I’ve ever met.” - Stephen Hawking.
                                “ I wish that I could have achieved half as much as Herlock.”- Neil Armstrong.
                                “ What a voice Herlock has.” - Luciano Pavarotti.
                                “ I wish that I could dump Harry for Herlock.” - Meghan Markle.
                                “ I know that it’s not good to be jealous but I just can’t help it.” - John Holmes.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X