Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The question should be why do so many people put such faith in the patently flawed, long since disabused and replaced, over confidence at stating a ToD based on little more than guesswork?

Why then has so much faith been placed by so many posters in Phillips' caveat?

[A P Tomlinson]

I refer you to # 604.

If Chapman had been killed at about 5.30 p.m. and Phillips had noted that she was still warm and rigor mortis had not yet commenced, would anyone here be asking questions about how warm Phillips' hands were, describing his judgment as subjective, and complaining that his methods were primitive?

From a personal point of view without the witness corroborations I wouldn't trust any of them to be as accurate as they claim to be.
I may have pointed this out before but in case you either forgot, (that does happen you know... human memory is extrememly poor FM and George told me!) they were using unreliable methodology to determine a time of death.

Modern SOC pathologists, MEs and doctors are unable to make the same sorts of claims to ToD on an initial examination, with better equipment and over a century of better research, experimentation and leaps in scientific advancements. They require time to study the post mortem effects in situ, and monitor the changes against well established measures.
These guys weren't even taking the temperature of the body and you treat them like bloody Quincy.

The question should be why do so many people put such faith in the patently flawed, long since disabused and replaced, over confidence at stating a ToD based on little more than guesswork?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The answer is we are dealing with two opinions from two doctors.

These are subjective opinions, as such will often differ.

I refer you to # 604.

If Chapman had been killed at about 5.30 p.m. and Phillips had noted that she was still warm and rigor mortis had not yet commenced, would anyone here be asking questions about how warm Phillips' hands were, describing his judgment as subjective, and complaining that his methods were primitive?

[Wickerman]

I AM going to mention Mitre Square.

The weather conditions were similar, the loss of blood was similar, the mutilation was similar, and both victims had their intestines over the right shoulder.

Yet Eddowes was still warm about 42 minutes after death occurred, whereas Chapman was almost completely cold, supposedly after about an hour.

I do not think you have any answer to that.

The answer is we are dealing with two opinions from two doctors. You would only have a case when you compare two opinions from the same doctor.
Look how Dr Bond always seems to contest the findings of his peers, especially in the Mylett case. Doctors do not always agree, this is why we go for the proverbial 'second opinion'.
One doctor may be right, the other wrong, this is demonstrable today.
If you want to take the alternate view - that doctors always agree, good luck with that
These are subjective opinions, as such will often differ.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Why is it that either Chapman has to be earlier than she thought or Cadoche has to be later than he thought, but it is never suggested that Chapman was later than she thought or Cadoche was earlier than he thought?

Why is it that Chapman was not quite warm and Eddowes was not cold?

[Wickerman]

I have read everyone's reply.

No-one has argued that Swanson was unaware of Phillips' caveat.

Posters previously argued that Phillips' caveat allowed for the possibility that Chapman died at about 5.30 a.m.

Yes, but sequentially, Phillips was reacting to Richardson's testimony, he had not heard Long or Cadosch testify. The contention was between Phillips's "2 hours or more" (implying 4:30 am.), and Richardson not seeing the body at 4:45 am.
This is when Phillips added the caveat, that the death could have been later for stated reasons.

In that case, there would be no conflict between Phillips' and Richardson's testimony, yet Swanson considered them to be irreconcilable.

That suggests that he understood that Phillips' 'at least two hours' was not reduced by his caveat.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, there was conflict.

[A P Tomlinson]

Let me know when you are ready to answer my #588.

OK.
Rather than just refer you back to posts that I've made numerous times in the past. I'll answer.

Aside from the oft posted reminder that comparing two individual bodies is far more complex than your simple factors, which of course you choose to ignore...

Neither Doctor used a thermometre.

Both took surface temp measurements using their hand.

This does NOT tell the temperature of the body, it gives the individual a rough idea of the difference in temperature between their hand and whatever they are touching.

A number of factors can contribute to makiing this thoroughly useless as a means of making on the spot findings, let alone a comparative study of two different estimates by two different doctors on two different bodies.

The blood circulation of an individual doctor can make a big difference.
Let me give you an example. When my wife and I work in the same room and sit writing for an hour or so, she will inevitably come over and grab my hands to warm hers up. She has crappy circulation, and I always have warm hands.
In that insatnce her hands feel cold to me, and my hands feel warm to her.
If I were to put the back of my hand against the same thing as SHE did, it would feel colder to me that it would to her.
Please tell me you see and understand how that works???

Likewise if one person has been wearing gloves, or had their hands in their pockets, or just moved from a warmer environment, their hands will be warmer than someone who hadn't.
The same difference in percieved temperature will occur.

Unless you can account for and state these variables your comparison between the two is not worth a damn.

I know you are going to ignore all this and move to a "Ah but what about..." and avoid explaining why you KNOW that the Eddowes ToD was accurate.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

But reluctant to do so now... OK.

Don't worry.
I won't press you for specifics.
I don't need to keep a score.

Let me know when it gets back to Albert's reliability.

Let me know when you are ready to answer my #588.

[A P Tomlinson]

I already have several times.

But reluctant to do so now... OK.

Don't worry.
I won't press you for specifics.
I don't need to keep a score.

Let me know when it gets back to Albert's reliability.

[Wickerman]

I think you are mistaken on that point, one of the first questions the police would ask a doctor at a crime scene is "How long has she been dead" ? it is important for the police to know this approx TOD at the earliest for obvious reasons.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I agree, that is what I'm saying. Phillips estimated 2 or more hours. He had no reason to think otherwise.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Should be easy to explain then.

I already have several times.

[A P Tomlinson]

Well, you did not specify in the first place which murder you were referring to.

It is obvious why Eddowes' TOD of about 1.38 a.m. is accurate.

Should be easy to explain then.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I asked, after you went for Mitre Square... how you know the ToD was accurate.
You asked how I know it was inaccurate.
I don't. It WAS accurate. And I know why I know that it was accurate.

How do you KNOW that the Mitre Square ToD was accurate?

Well, you did not specify in the first place which murder you were referring to.

It is obvious why Eddowes' TOD of about 1.38 a.m. is accurate.

[A P Tomlinson]

I don't know what you mean.

I asked, after you went for Mitre Square... how you know the ToD was accurate.
You asked how I know it was inaccurate.
I don't. It WAS accurate. And I know why I know that it was accurate.

How do you KNOW that the Mitre Square ToD was accurate?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I don't... But I know WHY I know it was correct...

I don't know what you mean.