John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

I would suggest that he put his whole body between Annie and the fence but perhaps he brushed his right shoulder or arm against it.

That was should read “I wouldn’t suggest that….”

[Fleetwood Mac]

You are being repeatedly told, and mysteriously choose to ignore that he also decided to advise the Coroner that his estimate might have been wrong and as a result the ToD could have been later than his original estimate.

Unfortunately, you and the small clique on here are intent on posting and debating points in response that were never made by the person you're responding to.

You know that I haven't ignored Dr Phillips' 'caveat', and you know and I know that because you've replied to my posts which stated exactly what I'm about to state below.

Dr Phillips stated this:

I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.

In the event you believe that Dr Phillips did not mean 'at least two hours' then you're bending his words. He tells you that in his statement: 'at least two hours', which in the English language means the minimum time possible.

It's a perfectly ordinary statement in the English language: at least two hours, probably more, but due to the cold morning I cannot be certain on nor quantify that probably more.

On the other hand, you are suggesting that Dr Phillips meant this:

At least two hours and probably more but possibly less than at least two hours.

There are two monumental flaws with your conclusion:

1) You are suggesting a nonsensical statement from an educated man.
2) You are ignoring the fact, not an opinion, but a fact: that Dr Phillips stated 'at least two hours', which in the English language means the minimum time possible, regardless of whatever else Dr Phillips stated.

[Wickerman]

My interpretation of Dr Biggs comment is that he is indicating by the example of how Chapmans body was described that her condition could have slowed down the condition of rigor., and might indicate an earlier TOD. I think he has made that clear, again you like Herlock seem to want to interpret the evidence in a way that suits your theories.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, no, I get what you're trying to say.
It's the word "indicate", you mean "obscure" - because rigor is the result of a chemical process within the body and alcohol may dilute that chemical process, then the onset of rigor may be slowed by the alcohol. The effect of alcohol may obscure an earlier time of death.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm not agreeing either because Chapman had taken no alcohol, so this quote is hypothetical.
But, it is the word "indicate", you should revise it to say "obscure", then it would be clearer.

So, yes, although what your Dr. Biggs says will be correct, it does not apply in a victim like Chapman who had taken no alcohol in the hours prior to her death.
Alcohol dissipates in the body very quickly, once it reaches the liver it is essentially removed from your system. It can take anything from 10 minutes to an hour to reach the liver, much depends on their body weight, what they may have eaten, and how much.
So, although Chapman had an illness, we can't assess to what degree that infection may have delayed the onset of rigor.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Very good post, Fleetwood.

I think Phillips' qualification of his estimate has been wishfully misunderstood by some.

[Wickerman]

What theories? I have no theory. Wick has no theory. You on the other hand do have a theory. And your theory is that the killer wouldn’t have killed at that time. Therefore the only person with an incentive to deliberately misinterpret evidence is yourself.

And again, Biggs was only saying ‘may.’ Which means that it also ‘may not.’

Absolutely, any expression of caution in the negative automatically admits the positive. You can't have one possibility without the other, that only stands to reason.
The presence of alcohol MAY or MAY NOT obscure an earlier time of death.

[Coroner] Was there any appearance of the deceased having taken much alcohol?
Dr. Phillips - No. There were probably signs of great privation. I am convinced she had not taken any strong alcohol for some hours before her death.

So, that scuttles that argument in the case of Chapman.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm not agreeing either because Chapman had taken no alcohol, so this quote is hypothetical.

Dr Biggs mentioned alcoholism.

He did not specify that the deceased had to have drunk alcohol in the hours before her death.

[Wickerman]

There you go again forming your own opinions on what he has stated if he was not sure he would have included may or may not in his comment again you want to dismiss experts testimony in favour of an early TOD

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I'm not dismissing it, I'm correcting it.
If MAY does not include MAY NOT, then it simply isn't MAY, ....it is WOULD - alcohol WOULD obscure an earlier time of death.

[Wickerman]

Dr Biggs mentioned alcoholism.

He did not specify that the deceased had to have drunk alcohol in the hours before her death.

Yes, but alcoholism doesn't affect rigor, alcoholism is a state of mind, not a state of body.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Yes, but alcoholism doesn't affect rigor, alcoholism is a state of mind, not a state of body.

I used the word alcoholism as shorthand for being alcoholic.

If Chapman was an alcoholic, then she does not have to have drunk alcohol very recently in order for Biggs' hypothesis to apply to her.

[Fleetwood Mac]

It doesn't matter if he had been using the methodology for 1 year or 50, the method was flawed.
If he knew "immediatley" on the scene that death occcured "within 1 hour" or dead for over two hours, then he must have been using some method still unknown to medical science today.

It's like if a report from 1788 from a very experienced, well read doctor, suggesting that "Despite twice using the scarifiers, bleeding the patient was unsuccesful, and he succcumbed to an imbalance of the humors the following morning."
We'd know that the doctor was using bad science. Estimating ToD without even using a thermometre and recording the body temp, and its CONTINUED decline over a period of at least 6 hours, is no more trustworthy.
What people are suggesting is that the contemporary doctors' ignorance of the science makes the science go away.

In the case of Chapman he had no police guideline on ToD.

None of this is specific to Dr Phillips' judgement. It is mere vague rhetoric.

Which points made by Dr Phillips does this relate to, and how and why?

If John Richardson had been Constable Richardson, checking the security of the yard at 4.50am, he would have used that as part of his estimate.

This says a lot about your deduction capability.

In actual fact, Dr Phillips did not go along with received wisdom when it came to Liz Stride. He did not suggest 1 in the morning 'disturbed by Louis', nor did he suggest a quarter to one: 'BullShit man and associates'.

It is a pattern on this forum, when all else fails, simply pluck anything out of thin air to prop up a weak argument.

[Wickerman]

Catherine Eddowes was examined by a doctor about 42 minutes after her murder, and in similar weather conditions.

She too was found with her intestines placed over her right shoulder.

Unlike Chapman, whose body was almost entirely cold, she was still warm and, unlike Chapman, whose body had started to display signs of rigor mortis, Eddowes' displayed none.

These facts suggest that Chapman had been dead for quite a while longer than 42 minutes when she was examined by Phillips.

But, Eddowes had been pissed out of her mind, about 4 hours earlier?

[Wickerman]

That may be so, but the weather conditions were similar, both victims had intestines over the right shoulder, and supposedly had been dead for approximately the same length of time.

Why, then, was one almost completely cold and the other still warm?

I'd like to point out, you can't compare two comments by two different doctors. One person's 'warm' is another persons 'cool'.
You need a level from which to measure.
Had the same doctor made those different observations you would have a valid question, but not between two different doctors.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

But, Eddowes had been pissed out of her mind, about 4 hours earlier?

Five, not four.

[Wickerman]

I used the word alcoholism as shorthand for being alcoholic.

If Chapman was an alcoholic, then she does not have to have drunk alcohol very recently in order for Biggs' hypothesis to apply to her.

OK, but how does her being an alcoholic contest Phillips observation that she had taken no alcohol in some hours before her death?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Very good post, Fleetwood.

I think Phillips' qualification of his estimate has been wishfully misunderstood by some.

Certainly cynically manipulated, PI, which I reckon amounts to the same thing and borne of the same vested interest that I think you're suggesting.

It's spell binding that anyone can sit there and claim with a straight face that Dr Phillips meant this: at least two hours and probably more, but possibly less than at least two hours.