Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

    ''Perhaps i could explain but it wont make any difference in regards to yours or my interpretation of Dr Phillips estimate of t.o.d'' .

    Or translated , '' youve had it explained to you more than once already, but your unwilling to accept what most people on this topic have being saying regarding dr phillips t.od . So why on earth would we want to explain it to you again for the umpteenth time? .

    See, the difference here herlock is, at least i tried to be a little diplomatic as not to offend, but when you reply with a smart-alec comment like that its no wonder this thread has turn to shite.

    So if you want to go on for ever and a day with your little game so be it ill more than happy to oblige , or you can just tone it done a touch and maybe, just maybe this thread can continue on with some positive debate.
    Point out where Thiblin said that it was likely that Annie was killed earlier.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes

    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      And rigor can set in just after death so this proves nothing.
      and where is your source to corroborate that? "just after death" But of course no two dead bodies will react after death in the same way there are many factors to consider

      I am not aware of anything that corroborates that, just after death is too open ended I stand to be corrected but does it not take at least an 2-4 hours on average for the onset of rigor.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 08-29-2022, 10:32 AM.

      Comment


      • Here you go Trevor,

        "In some cases, rigor mortis appears within a few minutes, which is said that accelerated rigor mortis, and in rare cases, it appears immediately after death which is called the cadaveric spasm. The cadaveric spasm occurs without primary loosening. This situation can be seen in deaths that have occurred after a serious physical or emotional stress."

        Saukko P, Knight B. KNIGHT's Forensic Pathology. 4th ed. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC; 2016. pp. 62–6.
        dustymiller
        aka drstrange

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          Point out where Thiblin said that it was likely that Annie was killed earlier.
          Point out where he was asked directly if Annie was likely killed earlier.
          'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

          Comment


          • On rigor mortis and Annie Chapman:

            We are getting into a discussion that was touched upon earlier in this thread.

            That being, the outliers in terms of when rigor can begin, and these outliers are being used to make a case surrounding Dr Phillips' observation: "commencing of the limbs".

            I for one base my opinions on that which is most likely. Others are free to go with outliers but I'm sure they will accept that these outliers aren't the most likely scenario.

            Dr Strange posts from a thesis. What Dr Strange fails to mention is that in the same thesis it is stated that rigor appears on average 1.5 to 4 hours after death. Bear in mind that rigor had 'commenced of the limbs' in Annie's case and so this was a more advanced stage of rigor than first appearing.

            Here is the link:

            Accelerated rigor mortis: A case letter - PMC (nih.gov)

            Here is the full quote from that link:

            Rigor mortis appears on an average within 1.5–4 hours postmortem and spreads to all body muscles within 6–12 h. The full rigor mortis remains 18–36 h and will then collapse within 24–50 h in the same order that it first appeared. Rigor mortis may rarely persist for up to 6 days. This time is so variable depending on different places of living.[1,2,3]

            Here are the 1,2,3 footnotes for anyone wishing to challenge this:

            1. Saukko P, Knight B. KNIGHT's Forensic Pathology. 4th ed. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC; 2016. pp. 62–6. [Google Scholar]
            2. Shkrum MJ, Ramsay DA. Forensic Pathology of Trauma. Totowa, New Jersey: Humana Press Inc; 2007. pp. 24–8. [Google Scholar]
            3. Shepherd R. Simpson's Forensic Medicine. 12th ed. Euston Road, London: Arnold, a Member of the Hodder Headline Group; 2003. pp. 38–9. [Google Scholar]

            Ultimately, the average is far more likely than outlier cases. That average being appearing between 1.5 to 4 hours. Add in that in Annie's case this was not rigor first appearing, it was 'commencing of the limbs' which is a more advanced stage, and add in the cold environmental temperature which delays the onset of rigor.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
              Here you go Trevor,

              "In some cases, rigor mortis appears within a few minutes, which is said that accelerated rigor mortis, and in rare cases, it appears immediately after death which is called the cadaveric spasm. The cadaveric spasm occurs without primary loosening. This situation can be seen in deaths that have occurred after a serious physical or emotional stress."

              Saukko P, Knight B. KNIGHT's Forensic Pathology. 4th ed. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC; 2016. pp. 62–6.
              The cadaveric spasm you cited is a rare phenomenon as cited in your citation and you quote "however, this phenomenon often occurs only in a group of muscles such as muscles of a limb and does not involve all the muscles in the body." so Phillips states that stiffness in the limbs so by that can we rightly or wrongly assume that all the limbs were showing signs of rigor?

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                The cadaveric spasm you cited is a rare phenomenon as cited in your citation and you quote "however, this phenomenon often occurs only in a group of muscles such as muscles of a limb and does not involve all the muscles in the body." so Phillips states that stiffness in the limbs so by that can we rightly or wrongly assume that all the limbs were showing signs of rigor?

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                Trevor,

                See my post 2465. Dr Strange quoted a very narrow part of their thesis, the thesis taken in its entirety suggests it is likely that Annie had been dead for more than 1 hour when examined by Dr Phillips. Details and footnotes are in that post.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                  Trevor,

                  See my post 2465. Dr Strange quoted a very narrow part of their thesis, the thesis taken in its entirety suggests it is likely that Annie had been dead for more than 1 hour when examined by Dr Phillips. Details and footnotes are in that post.
                  It is my beleif that she had been murdered much earlier than the later TOD suggested by others

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    It is my beleif that she had been murdered much earlier than the later TOD suggested by others

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    I agree.

                    And what's more, the evidence, as opposed to "what I find hard to believe" and outlier medical examples, strongly points towards an earlier TOD.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                      I agree.

                      And what's more, the evidence, as opposed to "what I find hard to believe" and outlier medical examples, strongly points towards an earlier TOD.
                      I often thought that myself Mac, based on all the evidence as a whole. Exactly that. '' whats /why is it so hard to believe an earlier t.o.d . ????
                      'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                      Comment


                      • There is no basis for an earlier TOD of around 5:30 AM..The doctors can't help.
                        Last edited by Varqm; 08-29-2022, 11:26 AM.
                        Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
                        M. Pacana

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                          I often thought that myself Mac, based on all the evidence as a whole. Exactly that. '' whats /why is it so hard to believe an earlier t.o.d . ????
                          I'd say so, Fishy.

                          I think it's a case of solid medical evidence versus compromised and contradictory witness statements.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Varqm View Post
                            There is no basis for an earlier TOD of around 5:30 AM..The doctors can't help.





                            If were going to use that arguement to say Doctors cant help, then where does that leave us with the witnesses ?




                            This was Georges post #1320 My highlighted part in red. Notice the Doctors in 3 other Ripper cases were pretty much spot on. Drs do help.

                            Jeff has pointed out also that its his opinion the difficulty for an Victorian Dr to give a t.o.d from 0 to 30 mins [such as the case was with these doctors] is more or less the same as 2 hours or more as in Phillips case. Yet no one seems to question their t.o.d. opinion.



                            I accept that that the estimates for the interval of time elapsed from ToD until time of examination can be considered unreliable using the techniques employed at the time. However, looking at Llewellan's estimate for Polly, Blackwell and Phillip's estimate for Stride, and Brown and Sequeira's estimate for Eddowes, I question the magnitude of the error involved with Phillip's estimate for Chapman. Modern medical opinion dictates that Phillip's could have been wrong, but by how much? Can we know for sure?

                            But can we look at the other side of the coin? Modern opinion on the reliability of eye witnesses. Let's look at some statements on the modern theory in that regard gleaned from a Google search on "can eyewitnesses be wrong".

                            How reliable is an eye witness?
                            Studies have shown that mistaken eyewitness testimony accounts for about half of all wrongful convictions

                            List of Cons of Eyewitness Testimony
                            • Eyewitness testimony may not always be accurate. ...
                            • Eyewitness testimony rely only on people's memory. ...
                            • Eyewitness testimony can have parts that are made up by the witness due to nervousness or fear. ...
                            • Eyewitness testimony can convict the wrong person.
                            How reliable is your memory?
                            Human memory is notoriously unreliable, especially when it comes to details. Scientists have found that prompting an eyewitness to remember more can generate details that are outright false but that feel just as correct to the witness as actual memories.

                            Most false memories aren't malicious or even intentionally hurtful. They're shifts or reconstructions of memory that don't align with the true events. However, some false memories can have significant consequences, including in court or legal settings where false memories may convict someone wrongfully.

                            There is currently no way to distinguish, in the absence of independent evidence, whether a particular memory is true or false. Even memories which are detailed and vivid and held with 100 percent conviction can be completely false.

                            Cadosch's original statement to the press was that he heard voices from which he distinguished only the word "no", a rustle of clothing and a scuffle and a noise of something falling against the fence, all as one incident. Then he remembered they occurred at different times, some on his way to the toilet, and the last on his return. At the inquest his recollection was of two trips to the toilet with no rustle or scuffle, only the "No" on one trip, and the noise against the fence on the second trip some 3-4 minutes later. He summarised by saying that he didn't look over the fence because what he heard was nothing out of the ordinary.

                            Long stated that she saw many people and couples on the street that morning, but picked out one couple of whom she stated she took no notice. Four days after the event she identifies Chapman, a woman she had never seen before, in the morgue, as the woman she had seen on that morning.

                            Richardson told Chandler and the press that he had checked the lock on the cellar door that morning by the method he had been using for two months. Two days later he remembered that he sat on the step to cut leather from his boot. At the inquest he told the coroner he sat on the step and cut leather from his boot, but after retrieving the knife he said he used, then remembered in wasn't sharp enough and that the leather removal was actually achieved afterwards at his work with a borrowed knife.

                            Is it reasonable to suggest that in the discussions of the reliability, or otherwise, of Phillip's testimony, the same consideration must be given to that of the witnesses?

                            Best regards, George
                            'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                              He summarised by saying that he didn't look over the fence because what he heard was nothing out of the ordinary.
                              This is an important point.

                              A point aside, I've always wondered what exactly Cadosch meant by this: it seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.

                              When an object touches a fence, I can't think of scenarios where it does so 'suddenly' and 'not suddenly'.

                              Any idea what Cadosch meant when he said: "suddenly"?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                                Any idea what Cadosch meant when he said: "suddenly"?
                                I take it to mean "quickly" and "without warning" - as opposed to something leaning or scraping against the fence, or something that might scrape across the fence as it falls.
                                Imagine a branch moving in the wind and scraping across the fence - such a sound might not be described as "suddenly", as there is a certain build-up in the sound.
                                So in my opinion the sound was not of something that leaned and then tipped over, falling slowly or in a staccato fashion while scraping the fence.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X