John Richardson

[Fleetwood Mac]

I said that Phillips estimation was of no use days ago and guess what……I was 100% correct.

You're not.

You're doing what you always do.

Which is grab hold of any information that you believe supports your theory, without question or challenge; and discard any contrary information with claims of "we just don't know" or on the back of irrelevant scrutiny such as "cold" versus "all cold".

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi FM,

Thank you. A discussion post instead of an "I'm right, you're wrong - declare victory, again" post.

Here is what Cadosch originally told the press.
"Albert Cadosch, who lodges next door, had occasion to go into the adjoining yard at the back at 5.25, and states that he heard a conversation on the other side of the palings, as if between two people. He caught the word “No,” and fancied he subsequently heard a slight scuffle, with the noise of a falling against the palings, but thinking that his neighbours might probably be out in the yard, he took no further notice and went to his work".

It sounds exactly like what someone thinks they should have heard after finding out there had been a murder next door.

This sounds more than a bit conspiracy inclined. It’s was also what someone would have said if he heard the word ‘no’ coming from the yard next door.

Come the inquest, and Cadosch has seen Richardson being roasted by the coroner and police, and his story had changed.

This is simply untrue George. There’s no evidence that Richardson’s story had changed.

Now, instead of one event, there are two events separated by three or four minutes. First event: "As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door". Just as he was going through the door, with the door closing behind him. Not an optimum position to be determining from which direction the word emanated.

You’re surely not suggesting that the closing of the door affected what he’d heard George? The gap between the ‘No’ and the ‘noise’ is only troubling if we assume that the ‘no’ was Chapman being attacked. The ‘no’ could simply have been a part of any conversation between the two. If Chapman and her killer had heard Cadosch (which isn’t at all certain) they might easily have just assumed that he was going to the outside loo and waited a short while until he went back inside. He then killed her when Cadosch was back indoors and the noise that he heard was caused by the killer during the mutilations.

In the other murders Jack decided by this time that it was was time to depart, so he could have just cut Annie's throat and fled, as he did with Stride. But no. The potential witness reappears on his way to to toilet and back. Two more times within feet of Jack, and only a paling fence between. Wouldn't Jack have had an "Uh oh" moment?

Why two more times? Cadosch went into the yard twice in total. Why did he need to depart George? If someone goes to the outside loo what are the chances of them going again within 5 minutes? So it would have be reasonable for the killer to assume that Cadosch wouldn’t have come back out - which he only did due to his medical problem. And this is all assuming that they actually heard Cadosch.

Now, according to Cadosch, "It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly". What happened to the shuffle and the scuffle and the "fall" against the palings? And still Jack persists?
IMO the story it is just not believable and it doesn't fit Jack's MO.

Again you are making an assumption that the ‘no’ and the ‘noise’ were a part of the same action. Anything can be made to sound unlikely if we make unfounded assumptions George.

The other thing I find puzzling is the conversation allegedly heard by Long. "Will you", "Yes". If this was Annie propositioning a customer, was he unaware of the range of services on offer, or the likelihood of acceptance?

Come on George, isn’t this a bit desperate? How can we assume the contents of a conversation.

Cheers, George

Hello George,

I see nothing wrong with Cadosch. He went to the loo and heard a ‘no.’ His initial thought was that it came from number 29 (and at such close proximity I’d suggest that someone’s first impression would be likely) When pressed he admitted that it was possible that it could have come from elsewhere. This is caution and caution implies honesty. If someone is trying to propagate a lie they don’t usually use caution. There are no ‘possibles’ or ‘maybe’s’ if trying to convince someone of an untruth. So isn’t it worth noting that a man shoe]wing caution on the ‘no’ but was certain on the ‘noise?’ The only reasonable conclusion is that he was being absolutely certain that the noise came from number 29. Behind a fence that he was a very few feet away from. Also, after he’d heard the ‘no’ he was already alerted to the fact that there was someone in that yard.

So again we have to resort to the 15 minutes of fame option. We continually have to accuse witnesses of lying. At a time and location where most people wouldn’t have wanted anything to do with the police if they could help it. There is absolutely no reason for accusing Cadosch of lying. And if he did here a sound and a word from number 29 then there is one thing that we can say for a certainty. That there was no mutilated corpse lying there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You're not.

You're doing what you always do.

Which is grab hold of any information that you believe supports your theory, without question or challenge; and discard any contrary information with claims of "we just don't know" or on the back of irrelevant scrutiny such as "cold" versus "all cold".

So you know more that Dr. Biggs? You should write a textbook.

Game over on the TOD point.

[Herlock Sholmes]

To recap on the discussion surrounding Dr Phillips' estimate:

Much earlier in the thread there were claims that Dr Phillips' estimate is completely useless, of no consequence and should be ignored. This went on for a good while and eventually these claims were challenged.

As far as I'm aware nobody suggested that Dr Phillips must have been correct in his assessment.

The main reason I challenged the claims was not an attempt to prove Dr Phillips correct, but to make the point that we really shouldn't throw around these claims, use a series of links not specific to Dr Phillips' situation to justify them, accept the claims as fact and then use those claims to prop up some run-away-horse theory built upon shaky foundations.

And, as reminder, we have three useful observations left by Dr Phillips:

"Little food in the stomach", rigor mortis "commencing of the limbs" and the discussion we have been having surrounding a cold body and warmth under the intestines.

While far from conclusive, Dr Phillips had three very useful pieces of information at his disposal and could quite conceivably have been correct in his assessment of: "at least two hours and probably more".

Phillips could have been right; Phillips could have been wrong. As I’ve been saying for days in the face of posters like you who have desperately resisted this to try and skew things in favour of an earlier TOD. You’ve been exposed by Biggs (and ironically, by Trevor)

Perhaps someone could explain what good the above sentence is in regard to estimating the TOD.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You have conceded that Dr Phillips could have been correct , same as me, so ill leave you to that

Of course you will Fishy. Never one to admit an error are you. You’ve been 100% wrong on this issue. With FM trying to skew the evidence in favour of an earlier TOD by boosting Phillips.

[Fleetwood Mac]

In my opinion there is no other primary medical evidence which supports an earlier or later time of death to that end I have again contacted Dr Biggs who is a modern day forensic patholgist and below is his comments on establishing and accurate TOD

"It is not possible to be accurate when it comes to estimating time of death, as there are simply too many variables. Even if core body temperature and ambient temperature had been objectively measured at the time, any calculations would still give an estimation that would necessarily spread far wider than the “two hours or more ago” estimate quoted. In other words, a more “accurate” estimation ends up being less precise (i.e. saying the time range was “between 12 hours and one minute ago” would definitely be more accurate, in that it is far more likely to include the “true” answer… it’s just so imprecise as to be useless. Similarly, “47.5 minutes ago” is a precise time, but is much much more likely to be wrong.) When it comes to bodies “feeling” cold, the estimations are even less reliable – live people can feel cold, and dead people can still feel warm, depending on the circumstances.

Blood can clot very soon after it has left the body, and the onset of stiffness is a highly variable phenomenon that can also be over-estimated by examiners. A modern scenario that we frequently encounter is when paramedics arrive at a scene of death, and state that a person has been dead for several hours because they feel “stiff”. In reality, someone who is unaccustomed to manipulating dead bodies can interpret the “dead weight” of a limb as “stiffness”, giving a false impression of when stiffening actually started. In reality, it can be many hours (especially in cold conditions) before this is truly noticeable.

So, whilst not criticising Dr Phillips, or anyone else involved with the cases at the time, I would have to say that this particular victim could have died considerably more than 2 hours before discovery, but also could potentially have been killed as recently as 05.30 as suggested by the (unreliable) witness account. Of course, I’m not saying that she was killed earlier or later, I’m just saying that all would have been possible and there is no way of being certain (either back then or here and now).

So we are left with the balance of probabilities do we believe the witnesses, or do we say that a later TOD is not consitent with the TOD of the other victims, and ask why would the killer take such a risk at killing in that location at that later TOD

Sadly none of the answers to the above issues are going to prove conclusivley an accurate TOD

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,

This is useful information. Thanks for taking the time to post and, as said previously, we need all of the information to arrive at informed opinion. Professor Thiblin and Dr Biggs can only possibly help us inform that opinion.

I think it's fair to add some degree of challenge to Dr Biggs' statement, as has been the case with Professor Thiblin's statement, rather than accept it blindly. No offence intended to Dr Biggs.

Can I ask, who is Dr Biggs in terms of his/her credentials?

In the opening statement, Dr Biggs states this: it is not possible to be accurate when it comes to estimating time of death. As far as I can tell this is accepted by everyone, where an exact time is given.

Dr Biggs tells us that a wider timeframe is much more likely to be accurate, which seems obvious to me. What we could really do with knowing is this:

Upon examining a body with a supposed PMI of 1 hour, how likely is it that Dr Phillips would have misread the situation and concluded a TOD of between 2 and 3 hours or 2 and 4 hours? Based on your post, Dr Biggs doesn't clarify this (to my mind anyway, feel free to correct me, rather Dr Biggs tells us that a wider timeframe, of say 12 hours, is more likely to be accurate).

On the point surrounding the stiffness of the limbs, it seems that Dr Biggs is drawing a comparison between a paramedic and Dr Phillips, and Dr Biggs states people: "unaccustomed to manipulating dead bodies". What is the inference in terms of Dr Phillips? Was he unaccustomed to manipulating dead bodies? And, what does Dr Biggs experience among those accustomed to manipulating dead bodies, what is the norm? Finally, what exactly does Dr Biggs mean when he states: "manipulating dead bodies"?

I think both you and Fisherman are lucky in that you're able to speak with people with experience in the field, by the way.

[FISHY1118]

Of course you will Fishy. Never one to admit an error are you. You’ve been 100% wrong on this issue. With FM trying to skew the evidence in favour of an earlier TOD by boosting Phillips.

No herlock, im just tired of going over the same old ground with you. when the evidence as i see it backs up my opinion on chapmans t.o.d which im 100% correct on that . Youve admitted to philiips could have been right just as i have of him being wrong. .

I seriously dont know what your problem is anymore, lighten up .

[Fleetwood Mac]

In the other murders Jack decided by this time that it was was time to depart, so he could have just cut Annie's throat and fled, as he did with Stride. But no. The potential witness reappears on his way to to toilet and back. Two more times within feet of Jack, and only a paling fence between. Wouldn't Jack have had an "Uh oh" moment?

Hi George,

The part I quote is the most important point to my mind, i.e. assuming Cadosch heard the murder taking place, then the WM was taking a risk not seen in any of the other murders. He did not place himself in a position to be heard at any other crime scene.

To my mind, it is not sufficient to say: "he took risks at other murder scenes so why not this one".

Firstly, he wasn't flush with options. Given what he was doing, i.e. propositioning and murdering prostitutes, I can't think of any realistic low-risk option and I'd be interested to hear one. What is most instructive is that the risk he took at this crime scene, assuming Cadosh heard a murder, was a far greater risk than any other crime scene.

Ultimately, it would be highly unusual for a murder to take place in the circumstances described by Cadosch.

The other thing I find puzzling is the conversation allegedly heard by Long. "Will you", "Yes". If this was Annie propositioning a customer, was he unaware of the range of services on offer, or the likelihood of acceptance?

I'm not a good person to talk with on these types of matters, George, because I tend to kill speculation and a plethora of possibilities and unknowns stone dead. I know there's no fun in this, but never mind.

I think the "will you" could mean so many things and some of those things are conceivable. I imagine that when people proposition prostitutes, they have certain demands and ask prior to agreement. In the event this was the WM, it could quite conceivably have been a question related to the position in which the WM wanted to have Annie, e.g. anal sex versus the alternatives.

[Trevor Marriott]

Ok perhaps a better way of putting it , do you support Dr Phillip explanation and or opinion,[ how ever way you like it] with his estimate of Chapmans t.o.d or Dr Biggs explanation regarding t.o.d estimates that may be right or wrong in regards to Chapmans murder ?

Just a simple answer if i may please. Thanks Trevor

My own personal opinion and it is only an opinion and is based on my unbiased appraisal of all the evidence is that Chapman was murdered within Dr Phillips timeframe, but the real truth will never be known.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

This is useful information. Thanks for taking the time to post and, as said previously, we need all of the information to arrive at informed opinion. Professor Thiblin and Dr Biggs can only possibly help us inform that opinion.

I think it's fair to add some degree of challenge to Dr Biggs' statement, as has been the case with Professor Thiblin's statement, rather than accept it blindly. No offence intended to Dr Biggs.

Can I ask, who is Dr Biggs in terms of his/her credentials?

Dr Biggs is a home office forensic pathologist attached to The East Midlands Forensic Patholgy Unit

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fleetwood Mac]

Dr Biggs is a home office forensic pathologist attached to The East Midlands Forensic Patholgy Unit

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Grand. Cheers Trevor.

'Any thoughts on the wider post 2601 and the questions posed?

[Herlock Sholmes]

No herlock, im just tired of going over the same old ground with you. when the evidence as i see it backs up my opinion on chapmans t.o.d which im 100% correct on that . Youve admitted to philiips could have been right just as i have of him being wrong. .

I seriously dont know what your problem is anymore, lighten up .

No, you’re 100% wrong.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You didn't read my post properly, thiblin agreed with Phillips evidence and assessment of 2 hour probably more explaining why .

So a modern day doctor supported that evidence ,as was what fisherman showed in his post .

Speaking of picking out the points you like ......... wow kettle ⚫

As Dusty has already said, that's not true. In addition to what Dusty has written, Thiblin doesn't ever refer to a PMI of "2 hours probably more". In his hypothetical scenario based on inaccurate information where he suggests that if there was a significant difference between the outer and core (for which there is no evidence in Annie's case), he refers to a 3-4 hour PMI. So, in your mind, he must be saying Phillips got it wrong in suggesting a PMI as low as 2 hours!

For an actual expert opinion on this case, FISHY, please see Trevor's #2576. Chapman"could potentially have been killed as recently as 05.30". It's there in black and white from an expert.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You're not.

You're doing what you always do.

Which is grab hold of any information that you believe supports your theory, without question or challenge; and discard any contrary information with claims of "we just don't know" or on the back of irrelevant scrutiny such as "cold" versus "all cold".

As I explained a long time ago, the use of the expression "all cold" was a deliberate one by Fisherman to include the temperature under the armpits.

There is no evidence that Phillips did check under the armpits but by telling his expert that Chapman's body was "all cold" he was implying that he had done so. This was significant because Thiblin had already suggested to Fisherman that body warmth would be expected to be present under the armpits an hour after death, even if exposed skin areas of a dead body feel cold. So Fisherman was effectively telling Thiblin that Chapman's armpits felt cold.

That's why it's not irrelevant at all.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The fact that some are STILL trying to skew the TOD evidence says it all.