Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[Fisherman]

Rigor can commence after 30 minutes Fish. How many times have we showed experts saying between 1 hour and x. And not only in tropical conditions and not under freak conditions.

Annie ticked every box for early onset rigor. Rigor is out.

No, she did not "tick every box" for early onset rigor. She was lying exposed in cold conditions, for example. Since when does that tick a box for early onset rigor...?

Further to this, "early onset rigor" starts in the involuntary muscles of the face, like any other rigor.

Rigor of the limbs becomes evident a lot later. It typically starts to show after 2-4 hours.

But ooooh, I forgot - Chapman was DIFFERENT in all of these aspects. She was TRULY one of a kind!

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Would someone throwing a pan of cold water on the body, accelerate its cooling?

Baxter: You spoke of some liquid having been thrown over her. Did you notice any water or anything?
James Kent: I could not tell what it was.

Baxter: Could you see she was dead?
James Kent: Yes; she had some kind of handkerchief round her neck which seemed "soaked" into her throat. Her face and hands were smeared with blood, as if she had struggled. She looked as if she had been sprinkled with water or something. I did not touch her.

[harry]

'In some cases a party may retain a person who is a specialist in a subject for the purpose of providing his/her expert opinion on an aspect of the case.Such people may become an expert witness if they are qualified in their area of expertise,training and specialised knowledge.'
The above is not my personnel opininion by the way,but take it as written by someone who knows,and it refers to the requirements at a court appearance.
So,attending as the police surgeon,in itself did not qualify Phillips,and I have seen no information that he submitted any such requirements to the Coroner or to the inquest,as to his expertise on the aspect of time of death.Of course,as the only medical person present his opinion had to be accepted,but it cannot be classed as expert in relation to time of death.Then again,perhaps I am off course and someone,expoliceman or journalist ,may surprise and produce such information that qualifies Phillips.Should be easy,as Fisherman has stated Phillips would have attended many such deaths.

[Bridewell]

Phillip's evidence as to time of death was opinion.There is insufficent evidence to show it was expert opinion,normally the required level in a serious crime case.Of course the wording of his testimony stands,and cannot be ignored,but by the same token,the testimony of Richardson,Long,and Cadosch stands and cannot be altered or ignored.All in the eyes of the law were witnesses,of equal standing,and unless they had at the time, proved to have been lying,the witness Phillips's evidence cannot be classed as superior,nor should it.

I didn't class it as superior. I explained that evidence of opinion, as opposed to fact, is admissible only from a witness expert in the relevant field. Bagster Phillips would have commenced his evidence by outlining his academic qualifications. The arbiter, then, as to whether or not Dr Bagster Phillips was, or was not, an expert was the coroner who would decide whether or not his evidence could be accepted as expert testimony. He must have accepted his expertise as he allowed that evidence of opinion to be given. Yes, of course, an expert witness can, like any other witness, turn out to be wrong but that is beside the point. His evidence of opinion was allowed by the coroner - therefore he was an expert witness.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fascinated thread as always.


It’s clear that everyone has their own individual viewpoints and opinions on the case, which can only be a good thing if we are to flush out every possible scenario, angle and possibility.


But the key to making definitive progress is to accept that this simply cannot be resolved and then move on from there.


Perhaps if all the great analytical minds involved with this could find some middle ground and then base a structured way forward from there.

The most efficient way to do this is to start from the very beginning, go back to basics and see what is left after all of our subjective opinions have been sidelined, albeit temporarily.

in other words, are there any key aspects to this case which are completely and definitely agreed upon as a whole?

Looking at Chapman and each of the other alleged victims, are there any points which are set in stone and can be used as a core base of fact from which to branch out ideas and concepts from?

it may sound odd, but maybe if there was more structure to the process of investigating this case, then more could be agreed upon in the long term.

perhaps it’s a case of trying to identify and desperate those of us who want to try and actually solve the case and expose the ripper, from those who want to continue the story of the ripper by not really wanting to know the truth of his identity; and in effect, not solve the case, by intentionally dismissing ideas and theories put forward. A self perpetuating continuum in which nothing is truly resolved.


if you’re confused or baffled by that then please
ask yourselves the question...

if you could go back in time and be a “fly on the wall” and discover who the ripper actually was and finally expose the truth and ultimately solve the case, but it meant that your entire personal theory was proved wrong and you’d been mistaken about everything you believed to be true... would you want to know the truth or continue to keep the mystery alive?


Truth and Resolution?

or

Personal belief and eternal mystery?


Once you know what you really want from all of this, then the case will truly move forward. We all have ideas which hold elements of truth but we all have ideas which are completely incorrect to the truth of it all.
acknowledge that and move forward


but may I say once again, truly brilliant ideas and arguments being put forward here. Humbled to be amongst such great minds.


TRD

I can see no way of moving forward on this particular issue TRD (in the absence of new information of course) and so perhaps it is time to let this thread die?

Obviously none of us can be expected to alter our opinions just to conform. Fish could be correct. I could be wrong in every opinion that I hold. The main point of contention of course is Phillips.

Fish believes either that either he couldn’t have been mistaken or that he was extremely unlikely to have been mistaken (it’s down to Fish of course as to what degree of certainty he holds) I believe that he could have been mistaken. Phillips called a 2 hour minimum range. Could it have been around 1 hour and 10 minutes or so? I don’t think that we can or should discount this possibility.

Then we have three imperfect witnesses. Whatever our own individual interpretations we have a brick wall in terms of the words ‘unreliable’ and ‘unsafe.’ It’s my belief that, as no one’s life is on the line, we should explore the likelihood’s. Any witness might lie. Police officers can lie. They can also be honestly mistaken. Journalists can exaggerate or simply make things up (not Swedish ones of course) And so if we have differing versions I think that they should be left on the table rather than potentially throwing the baby out with the bath water. Fish believes that they should be discounted. How many possible avenues might be closed down which, for all that we know, might lead somewhere. Saying that a witness ‘might’ have been truthful or correct doesn’t cause any issues at all. We aren’t in court.

I don’t know if the thread will continue much longer TRD. It’s certainly not down to me.

Ill challenge Fish (or should I say Fishypoo) to start a new thread on another aspect of the case. As we’ve only really debated Chapman’s TOD and Lechmere perhaps he’ll be able to find a topic where we are on the same side of the debate?

Now that might be a newsworthy story for a Journalist

[Robert St Devil]

Fascinated thread as always.


It’s clear that everyone has their own individual viewpoints and opinions on the case, which can only be a good thing if we are to flush out every possible scenario, angle and possibility.


But the key to making definitive progress is to accept that this simply cannot be resolved and then move on from there.


Perhaps if all the great analytical minds involved with this could find some middle ground and then base a structured way forward from there.

The most efficient way to do this is to start from the very beginning, go back to basics and see what is left after all of our subjective opinions have been sidelined, albeit temporarily.

in other words, are there any key aspects to this case which are completely and definitely agreed upon as a whole?

Looking at Chapman and each of the other alleged victims, are there any points which are set in stone and can be used as a core base of fact from which to branch out ideas and concepts from?

it may sound odd, but maybe if there was more structure to the process of investigating this case, then more could be agreed upon in the long term.

perhaps it’s a case of trying to identify and desperate those of us who want to try and actually solve the case and expose the ripper, from those who want to continue the story of the ripper by not really wanting to know the truth of his identity; and in effect, not solve the case, by intentionally dismissing ideas and theories put forward. A self perpetuating continuum in which nothing is truly resolved.


if you’re confused or baffled by that then please
ask yourselves the question...

if you could go back in time and be a “fly on the wall” and discover who the ripper actually was and finally expose the truth and ultimately solve the case, but it meant that your entire personal theory was proved wrong and you’d been mistaken about everything you believed to be true... would you want to know the truth or continue to keep the mystery alive?


Truth and Resolution?

or

Personal belief and eternal mystery?


Once you know what you really want from all of this, then the case will truly move forward. We all have ideas which hold elements of truth but we all have ideas which are completely incorrect to the truth of it all.
acknowledge that and move forward


but may I say once again, truly brilliant ideas and arguments being put forward here. Humbled to be amongst such great minds.


TRD

I don't think it's the superficial aspect of posturing TRD but rather the subtext of suspects which offers the reason why there can be no middle ground now or ever. To find a middle ground this late in the game would be equivalent to a scorched earth approach & abandoning all the known suspects and starting all over again... in other words, nah!

I can see Fisherman's point in a roundabout way; for 4 & 1/2 hours, Annie Chapman is off the official record so the time of her murder could have potentially occurred whenever within that timeframe. True, we do have witness accounts (with the strongest being Elizabeth Long because she claims to be an eyewitness to seeing a living Annie Chapman); but, it's her testimony that gets muddled by Albert Cadosch's account, and so the doors to varying possibilities and historical apologies get thrown wide open.

The only historical account that I can prove is subjective at best. In the post mortem, the doctor is convinced [Annie Chapman] has not taken any strong alcohol for some hours before her death. We know Donovan had a clear impression that she had been drinking when she left the lodging house that morning. In this case, "some" is subjective; but if the doctor believes it has been "some hours", then there's a strong likelihood that Annie was murdered in the latter half of that 4 & 1/2 hour timeframe that I mentioned in the previous paragraph.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Humbled to be amongst such great minds.


TRD

[The Rookie Detective]

Fascinated thread as always.


It’s clear that everyone has their own individual viewpoints and opinions on the case, which can only be a good thing if we are to flush out every possible scenario, angle and possibility.


But the key to making definitive progress is to accept that this simply cannot be resolved and then move on from there.


Perhaps if all the great analytical minds involved with this could find some middle ground and then base a structured way forward from there.

The most efficient way to do this is to start from the very beginning, go back to basics and see what is left after all of our subjective opinions have been sidelined, albeit temporarily.

in other words, are there any key aspects to this case which are completely and definitely agreed upon as a whole?

Looking at Chapman and each of the other alleged victims, are there any points which are set in stone and can be used as a core base of fact from which to branch out ideas and concepts from?

it may sound odd, but maybe if there was more structure to the process of investigating this case, then more could be agreed upon in the long term.

perhaps it’s a case of trying to identify and desperate those of us who want to try and actually solve the case and expose the ripper, from those who want to continue the story of the ripper by not really wanting to know the truth of his identity; and in effect, not solve the case, by intentionally dismissing ideas and theories put forward. A self perpetuating continuum in which nothing is truly resolved.


if you’re confused or baffled by that then please
ask yourselves the question...

if you could go back in time and be a “fly on the wall” and discover who the ripper actually was and finally expose the truth and ultimately solve the case, but it meant that your entire personal theory was proved wrong and you’d been mistaken about everything you believed to be true... would you want to know the truth or continue to keep the mystery alive?


Truth and Resolution?

or

Personal belief and eternal mystery?


Once you know what you really want from all of this, then the case will truly move forward. We all have ideas which hold elements of truth but we all have ideas which are completely incorrect to the truth of it all.
acknowledge that and move forward


but may I say once again, truly brilliant ideas and arguments being put forward here. Humbled to be amongst such great minds.


TRD

[Herlock Sholmes]

Rigor can commence after 30 minutes Fish. How many times have we showed experts saying between 1 hour and x. And not only in tropical conditions and not under freak conditions.

Annie ticked every box for early onset rigor. Rigor is out.

[Fisherman]

Just a refresher:


Rigor Mortis

• It is known as the ‘rigidity of death’.
• Mechanism involves ATP depletion.
• Every muscle of the body is affected
• Progression is proximo-distal
• First appears in involuntary muscles (within an hour) due to less mass and less glycogen reserve
• In voluntary muscles, begins 2-4 hours after death
• Persists for about 12 hours and then begins to disappear
• Takes 12-24 hours to disappear completely

Organ	Time taken for Rigor Mortis development
Eyelid muscles	3-4 hours
Facial muscles	4-5 hours
Neck muscles and trunk	5-7 hours
Upper limbs	6-8 hours
Legs	9-12 hours

Instantaneous Rigor Mortis (Cadaveric spasm)


It occurs when a person dies in an intense emotional state. Usually a few groups of muscles are involved, fixed in a state of contracture. E.g. a person shoots himself in the head, his arm may be fixed, if he is killed by some other person, there is no such observation.

Forensic Importance

1. Time since death
2. Body posture
3. Manner of death (cadaveric spasm)

• If body is warm but no rigor –death has occurred in previous 3 hours
• If rigor is progressing but not complete –time of death is between 3-9 hours
• If rigor is fully developed –death occurred more than 9 hours before
• In exceptional cases, rigor mortis may develop even in one hour (as in instantaneous rigor mortis)

+++++++

And where did Phillips speak of an onsetting rigor? In the involuntary muscles of the face? Or in the limbs?

Dear me, I am being subjective again. When will it stop?

[Fisherman]

e is no

There is no way of reliably telling the time of death, and there is no way that the witness testimony can be readily accpeted or rejected. However, we can assess and evaluate all the evidence and facts from 1888, along with what we are able to work with in the 21st Century and we should be able to arrive at an unbiased personal opinion.

But that is never going to happen because each and everyone has their own theories and no matter what is put before them they are not going to change, this is why we see Herlock and Fish going at it hammer and tongs all to no avail. They should both just walk away, or admin close this thread because it becoming boring and repetitive with the same old same.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I donīt think admin is likely to close a thread for being boring, Trevor.

[Fisherman]

Its remarkable that you continue to argue subjective terms like this completely warm and completely cold.

i asked for a reliable means by which TOD could be reliably established, and you have failed to give any, just the same old subjective arguments.

When a body is all cold, it has not been dead for an hour only.

When a a body is all warm, it has not been dead for three or four hours.

Of course, if the cold body is found in Antarctica, it is a different story. Likewise, if the warm body is found in a furnace, it is also a reason to think twice.

No such extreme conditions allude to the case at hand for us, though, and so we may conclude that Chapman had been dead for significantly longer than an hour only.

Thereīs reliability for you.

I could, if I chose to, serve up a verdict on the matter from a top authority in forensic medicine that supports what I say, but why would I? All you amount to is to say "It is not proven" and "My expert is better than yours", and so there is no sense in stooping to that level of debate.

You are on your own in that bog.

PS. "Subjective"...? Says the ever objective Steve ...

[Fisherman]

The issue you ignore is the word "usually"

And even using that definition, it cannot pinpoint TOD and thus my comments stand.

Yes, "usually". What you suggest has happened is not "usually", It is not "unusually" either. It is "unusual in the extreme, but it can luckily not be 100 per cent rejected".

The different parameters Phillips weighed in are all in syck for a death 3-4 hours removed in time. That, by the way, is why Phillips suggested it.

There is not a single parameter od detail in what Phillips described that is in any way suggestive of a TOD at 5.20 - 5.30.

But much hope is attached to how it cannot be 100 per cent rejected. Basically, yu are banking on the integrity of those who are way too discerning to suggest something as wildly imporobale as a TOD at 5.20 to be equally discerning when it comes to not rejecting the outlandish idea 100 per cent.

Good luck with that scheme.

[Trevor Marriott]

e is no

Its remarkable that you continue to argue subjective terms like this completely warm and completely cold.

i asked for a reliable means by which TOD could be reliably established, and you have failed to give any, just the same old subjective arguments.

There is no way of reliably telling the time of death, and there is no way that the witness testimony can be readily accpeted or rejected. However, we can assess and evaluate all the evidence and facts from 1888, along with what we are able to work with in the 21st Century and we should be able to arrive at an unbiased personal opinion.

But that is never going to happen because each and everyone has their own theories and no matter what is put before them they are not going to change, this is why we see Herlock and Fish going at it hammer and tongs all to no avail. They should both just walk away, or admin close this thread because it becoming boring and repetitive with the same old same.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

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.

Its remarkable that you continue to argue subjective terms like this completely warm and completely cold.

i asked for a reliable means by which TOD could be reliably established, and you have failed to give any, just the same old subjective arguments.