John Richardson

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

Dr Phillips tells you that the only warmth in Annie's body was under the intestines.

The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

Except: used before you mention the only thing or person about which a statement is not true

What you're doing here is attempting to send the discussion into a guessing game as to how Dr Phillips arrived at his conclusion, i.e. obfuscation and disingenuity.

By all means carry on, but it does not detract from the conclusion that Dr Phillips tells you: the only warmth in Annie's body was under her intestines in her body.

Essentially, you are arguing against Dr Phillips' professionalism and his ability to record his observations in a meaningful fashion.

I know this will all be lost on you given you're arguing like a fanatic. As I said: latching onto any piece of information that you think supports your argument without question nor challenge, while scrutinising every other piece of information in the most preposterous manner and at other times, when it suits, falling back on: "we just don't know" and "the newspapers may not have recorded the exchange accurately".

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dr Phillips tells you that the only warmth in Annie's body was under the intestines.

The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

Except: used before you mention the only thing or person about which a statement is not true

What you're doing here is attempting to send the discussion into a guessing game as to how Dr Phillips arrived at his conclusion, i.e. obfuscation and disingenuity.

By all means carry on, but it does not detract from the conclusion that Dr Phillips tells you: the only warmth in Annie's body was under her intestines in her body.

Essentially, you are arguing against Dr Phillips' professionalism and his ability to record his observations in a meaningful fashion.

I know this will all be lost on you given you're arguing like a fanatic. As I said: latching onto any piece of information that you think supports your argument without question nor challenge, while scrutinising every other piece of information in the most preposterous manner and at other times, when it suits, falling back on: "we just don't know" and "the newspapers may not have recorded the exchange accurately".

No, you've entirely missed the point. You can conjure up in your mind whatever you want to believe about which parts of the body Dr Phillips felt were cold.

What I have been saying is that it wasn't appropriate for Fisherman to change Dr Phillips words of "the body was cold" to "the body was all cold" because it's not the same and conveys a different impression. As I keep saying, and will say again, Fisherman wanted Thiblin to believe that Dr Phillips had felt for warmth under the armpits, about which we have no actual evidence.

I'm only mentioning this now because you claimed in #2596 that the difference between "cold" and "all cold" is irrelevant. I'm saying its not and, furthermore, that it had the potential to mislead Thiblin.

[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?

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.

I cant answer for Dr Biggs but he has stated what we all knew that an accurate TOD cannot be established within a 12 window.

I take that to mean by any method. But of course that doesnt stop anyone taking a calculated guess within that 12 hour window which Dr Phillips did.

So did he guess right? you and everyone else has to assess and evaluate all the connecting evidence both reliable and un-reliable and form your own opinions. because based on all the evidence no one is going to be proved right or wrong.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fleetwood Mac]

I cant answer for Dr Biggs but he has stated what we all knew that an accurate TOD cannot be established within a 12 window.

I take that to mean by any method.

Cheers Trevor.

Well, 'all due respect to yourself and Dr Biggs, but based on your post in this thread I think there are pertinent questions that remain unanswered from Dr Biggs.

The more reasonable among us understand that there is no certainty here, but what we're really asking is which of the two scenarios is most likely, i.e. an evaluation of the two options/scenarios being put forward:

1) Given a supposed PMI of 1 hour, Dr Phillips was out to the magnitude of at least two hours (given he stated "and probably more").

2) Given a supposed PMI of 2 to 3 hours or 2 to 4 hours, Dr Phillips proposed an equivalent TOD and was correct.

The question I would be asking Dr Biggs is this: given the observations that Dr Phillips left us, which of these two options do you feel is more likely.

I'd be asking for clarification around the stiffness of the limbs point also, as mentioned in the previous post.

It seems to me that while Professor Thiblin commits to 3-4 hours being the more likely scenario, Dr Biggs does not commit to which he feels is more likely.

Mind you, Dr Biggs may feel that committing would compromise his professionalism and I understand that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Cheers Trevor.

Well, 'all due respect to yourself and Dr Biggs, but based on your post in this thread I think there are pertinent questions that remain unanswered from Dr Biggs.

The more reasonable among us understand that there is no certainty here, but what we're really asking is which of the two scenarios is most likely, i.e. an evaluation of the two options/scenarios being put forward:

1) Given a supposed PMI of 1 hour, Dr Phillips was out to the magnitude of at least two hours (given he stated "and probably more").

2) Given a supposed PMI of 2 to 3 hours or 2 to 4 hours, Dr Phillips proposed an equivalent TOD and was correct.

The question I would be asking Dr Biggs is this: given the observations that Dr Phillips left us, which of these two options do you feel is more likely.

I'd be asking for clarification around the stiffness of the limbs point also, as mentioned in the previous post.

It seems to me that while Professor Thiblin commits to 3-4 hours being the more likely scenario, Dr Biggs does not commit to which he feels is more likely.

Mind you, Dr Biggs may feel that committing would compromise his professionalism and I understand that.

Sure, but only in a case where there is a significant difference in temperature between the outer and central parts of the body.

As we don't have any such evidence in the Chapman case, it obviously can't be said to apply to it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I cant answer for Dr Biggs but he has stated what we all knew that an accurate TOD cannot be established within a 12 window.

I take that to mean by any method. But of course that doesnt stop anyone taking a calculated guess within that 12 hour window which Dr Phillips did.

So did he guess right? you and everyone else has to assess and evaluate all the connecting evidence both reliable and un-reliable and form your own opinions. because based on all the evidence no one is going to be proved right or wrong.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Exactly Trevor.

We can’t say that the evidence favours an earlier TOD and we can’t say that it favours a later TOD.

That should be the end of all discussion on this topic. I’ve been saying the same thing for months. It’s simply dishonest to try and skew this one way or the other.

[Trevor Marriott]

Cheers Trevor.

Well, 'all due respect to yourself and Dr Biggs, but based on your post in this thread I think there are pertinent questions that remain unanswered from Dr Biggs.

The more reasonable among us understand that there is no certainty here, but what we're really asking is which of the two scenarios is most likely, i.e. an evaluation of the two options/scenarios being put forward:

1) Given a supposed PMI of 1 hour, Dr Phillips was out to the magnitude of at least two hours (given he stated "and probably more").

2) Given a supposed PMI of 2 to 3 hours or 2 to 4 hours, Dr Phillips proposed an equivalent TOD and was correct.

The question I would be asking Dr Biggs is this: given the observations that Dr Phillips left us, which of these two options do you feel is more likely.

I'd be asking for clarification around the stiffness of the limbs point also, as mentioned in the previous post.

It seems to me that while Professor Thiblin commits to 3-4 hours being the more likely scenario, Dr Biggs does not commit to which he feels is more likely.

Mind you, Dr Biggs may feel that committing would compromise his professionalism and I understand that.

Dr Biggs has stated that TOD cannot be proven

he says
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…

Lets just leave it at that

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dr Biggs has stated that TOD cannot be proven

he says
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…

Lets just leave it at that

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thank you Trevor,

Cue the desperate wriggling.

”yes but err…….what if……err, I mean to say perhaps…..err maybe if…..err.”

[Varqm]

Assuming the WM wasn't deaf, you'd imagine he would have known Cadosch was in the yard.

It would be very unusual for a murder to be committed a few yards away from a member of the public.

Whitechapel/Spitalfields was dense, he had to deal with it. For one in Berner st. there were members still in the club house. One possible reason that point to he was a local or formerly one (as the dates point to a visitor), it was a feel thing.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Dr Biggs has stated that TOD cannot be proven

he says
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…

Lets just leave it at that

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hmmm, I'm not convinced you've asked the probing questions, Trevor, and it seems you don't want this explored.

In this post I've replied to you state: in other words, a more accurate estimation ends up being less precise. So, what exactly does this mean for a body with a very short PMI and an estimated TOD between 2 and 3 hours or 2 and 4 hours?

In addition, as I stated, Dr Biggs makes reference to a paramedic "unaccustomed to manipulating dead bodies". What does this mean in relation to Dr Phillips? I don't think it is sufficient to suggest that Dr Phillips' observation that rigor was commencing of the limbs is pretty much useless because of someone "unaccustomed to manipulating dead bodies".

Now, it may well turn out that Dr Biggs can add some more meat to the bones and as a result the penny drops and it all becomes clear. As it stands, however, we're not at that point.

I am more than happy to leave it there, Trevor, but I think you and I have entirely different standards when it comes to probing questions, scrutiny and accepting what is put before us.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Whitechapel/Spitalfields was dense, he had to deal with it. For one in Berner st. there were members still in the club house. One possible reason that point to he was a local or formerly one (as the dates point to a visitor), it was a feel thing.

The point being made is the WM didn't give anyone a chance to hear him committing a murder, but it's being proposed he did in the case of Annie.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hmmm, I'm not convinced you've asked the probing questions, Trevor, and it seems you don't want this explored.

In this post I've replied to you state: in other words, a more accurate estimation ends up being less precise. So, what exactly does this mean for a body with a very short PMI and an estimated TOD between 2 and 3 hours or 2 and 4 hours?

In addition, as I stated, Dr Biggs makes reference to a paramedic "unaccustomed to manipulating dead bodies". What does this mean in relation to Dr Phillips? I don't think it is sufficient to suggest that Dr Phillips' observation that rigor was commencing of the limbs is pretty much useless because of someone "unaccustomed to manipulating dead bodies".

Now, it may well turn out that Dr Biggs can add some more meat to the bones and as a result the penny drops and it all becomes clear. As it stands, however, we're not at that point.

I am more than happy to leave it there, Trevor, but I think you and I have entirely different standards when it comes to probing questions, scrutiny and accepting what is put before us.

Surprise, surprise, I was right……wriggle, wriggle.

[Ms Diddles]

The point being made is the WM didn't give anyone a chance to hear him committing a murder, but it's being proposed he did in the case of Annie.

Hi FM,

Isn't that kind of ascribing more significance to this than the situation actually merits though?

I personally see all of the murder locations as being extremely high risk.

Someone could have come along or peered out of a window on Buck's Row.

Any of the club members could have popped out of the club on Berner St at any time etc.

It just so happens that Cadosche answered a call of nature at that specific moment

I'd say all pure chance and outwith the killers control.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I'd say all pure chance and outwith the killers control.

I'm not talking about who could turn the corner, Ms Diddles, but rather his behaviour when someone did turn the corner.

What is being suggested here is that the WM hung around in the middle of a murder and carried on with mutilations when someone was yards away. That didn't happen with Liz and possibly Polly. Ultimately, he avoided situations in which he was heard committing a murder.

And then of course, it would be highly unusual for anybody to commit a murder in the situation Cadosch describes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So Cadosch goes to the outside loo while the killer is in the yard with a still alive Annie Chapman. The first question that we have no way answering is - how can we know that the killer actually heard Cadosch either on his first or second visit to the yard? Yes Cadosch heard a ‘no’ but Cadosch didn’t say anything for the killer to hear. Yes Cadosch heard the noise against the fence. So all we have to consider 1) whether the door of number 27 made a noise when it closed? - unknown, for all that we know it might have stayed open when pushed back. 2) Whether he banged the loo door? Unknown but why would he have? And 3) how much noise would his footsteps across the yard have made? Unknown - how much of the yard might have been dirt rather than stone? How good was the killers hearing compared to Cadosch’s? - who knows?

So we’ve no way of knowing for certain that the killer would definitely have heard Cadosch especially as he was otherwise occupied but we certainly can’t eliminate the possibility that he might have heard him.

So….we have Chapman and her killer having just entered the yard. Cadosch opens the door and they hear him. Perhaps the ‘no’ was Chapman saying “no….wait until he’s gone back indoors?” Either way, they assume that Cadosch isn’t out for a bit of early morning gardening and that he’s going to use the loo in which case he’s not going to be long. So they wait the couple of minutes until they hear him go back inside. Naturally they wouldn’t expect him to come back out for the loo again a couple of minutes later so they ‘get going.’ Annie is killed and is know on the floor. The killer begins his mutilations and, being wrapped up in what he’s doing, doesn’t hear Cadosch come out again. As he’s mutilating her her brushes against the fence or he moves Annie’s left arm which brushes against the fence. Cadosch hears this but thinks nothing of it because he’d heard the ‘no’ earlier. Someone was doing something in the backyard of number 29…so what? His first thought wouldn’t have been….I bet that’s a woman being mutilated.

He didn’t plan on Cadosch entering the yard. What could he have done? He could have said “forget it” and left of course but how easy would that have been for a serial killer on the cusp of carrying out something that he dreams about and wants more than anything else when all that he had to do was to wait for a man to go back indoors after using the outside loo.

Theres just no issue here.