Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Looking at the estimates online, I noticed two things: there was not a single estimate that allowed for death to have occurred less than an hour before rigor mortis began to set in, and rigor mortis is said to begin in the facial and neck muscles and travel downwards to the limbs.

Phillips did say that it was beginning in the limbs - and more than one limb.

That means that his statement that rigor mortis had just commenced in the limbs does not mean that it had just commenced in the body.

And that suggests that his estimate of two hours is reliable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Anecdotally I was at work last week and happened to look at my watch. It was 1:34pm. The clock on the shop floor said 1:31pm and when I checked the computer it was 1:36pm. Which one was right? Most likely the computer meaning both my watch and the shop clock were slow.

So that was a 5 minute range there SD. In 2023 with modern tech. I just can’t see why this is questioned?

[Herlock Sholmes]

... going to the most extraordinary, desperate lengths to try and make it sound like some bizarrely unlikely occurrence that Chapman might have eaten again.

It is not a question of whether it is something bizarrely unlikely.

The point is that the evidence is that she had already eaten, that she quite deliberately went indoors to eat and drink, and that she then went out to earn money to pay for her bed for the night, not to obtain more food.

It is about what the evidence tells us.

And the evidence tells us that we don’t know what she did between leaving the doss house and her death at 5.30. That’s an absence of knowledge PI. You’re trying to fill in that gap by saying what she didn’t do. You can’t possibly know or assume that she didn’t eat again. Why is this an issue for you?

[Fleetwood Mac]

And the evidence tells us that we don’t know what she did between leaving the doss house and her death at 5.30. That’s an absence of knowledge PI. You’re trying to fill in that gap by saying what she didn’t do. You can’t possibly know or assume that she didn’t eat again. Why is this an issue for you?

Appeal To Ignorance.

This fallacy occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it. This fallacy wrongly shifts the burden of proof away from the one making the claim.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Leaving your other nonsense aside, actually, no, nobody told you that. You're making it up yet again.

Read the thread and you'll find that of the four people on that thread who believe Annie was murdered earlier than twenty past five in the morning; George, Fishy and Trevor didn't rely on Dr Phillips at all. All three of them weren't convinced by Dr Phillips' ability to come up with a 'reliable estimate'. They had other reasons for suggesting Annie wasn't alive at a quarter past five in the morning.

What a joke. PI is even doing it now in this thread. Fishy has stated in numerous times. You just can’t get anything right can you.

I was the one who thought Dr Phillips knew more than that which was suggested by the like of you.

Which sums you up.

The problem with your argument, and not just you, a few more as well; is this:

Dr Phillips didn't attempt to give an accurate TOD. He clearly accepted the limitations of estimating TOD, which is why he stated: "and probably more" but didn't attempt to narrow that down for one obvious reason, i.e. he knew he was getting into waters that outstripped his knowledge.

What he did say was 'at least two hours'. He was confident in that assertion.

Drivel. Just because you can’t read don’t expect that the rest of us can’t. The caveat is clear to all but the terminally biased.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You can’t possibly know or assume that she didn’t eat again. Why is this an issue for you?

As I wrote:

The point is that the evidence is that she had already eaten, that she quite deliberately went indoors to eat and drink, and that she then went out to earn money to pay for her bed for the night, not to obtain more food.

That is the evidence.

It is not assumption, supposition, nor speculation.

Saying that she may have found a customer and changed her mind and decided to spend her earnings on food instead of a bed for the night, or that someone gave her food for free, or that she took potatoes with her when she left the lodging house, IS speculation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Looking at the estimates online, I noticed two things: there was not a single estimate that allowed for death to have occurred less than an hour before rigor mortis began to set in, and rigor mortis is said to begin in the facial and neck muscles and travel downwards to the limbs.

Phillips did say that it was beginning in the limbs - and more than one limb.

That means that his statement that rigor mortis had just commenced in the limbs does not mean that it had just commenced in the body.

And that suggests that his estimate of two hours is reliable.

How many times!!!!


From: Forensic Biology For The Law Enforcement Officer by Charles Grady Wilber,1974


'The stiffening of the body or rigor mortis develops usually within an hour or two hours after death.'


Or,


From: EstimationOf Time Of Death by Ranald Munro and Helen M.C. Munro.

"The time of onset is variable but it is usually considered to appear between 1 and 6 hours (average 2-4 hours) after death.'


Or,


"Francis E. Camps stated that.Ordinarily the rigor mortis appears between 2-4 hours, but sometimes it is seen within 30 minutes of death and sometimes the onset is delayed for 6 hours or more."


Or,

"Bernard Knight described the method of testing the rigor mortis by attempting to flex or extend the joints though the whole muscle mass itself becomes hard, and finger pressure on quadriceps or pectoralis can also detect the changes. The stiffness may develop within half an hour of death or may be postponed indefinitely."


Or,


Werner Uri Spitz (1993), a German-American forensic pathologist, "reported that in temperate climate, under average condition, rigor becomes apparent within half an hour to an hour, increases progressively to a maximum within twelve hours, remains for about twelve hours and then progressively disappears within the following twelve hours."


Or,

From the English physiologist Sir Andrew Fielding Huxley (1974), who lived and worked in a temperate climate, we get this: 'the rigor mortis, which is cadaveric rigidity, starts developing within 1 to 2 hours after death and takes around 12 hours after death for complete development.'


Or,

Furthermore, according to K.S. Narayan Reddy, author of 'Essentials of Forensic Medicine', "In death from diseases causing great exhaustion and wasting e.g. cholera, typhoid, tuberculosis and cancer and in violent deaths as by cut throats, firearms or electrocution, the onset of rigor is early and duration is short".The paper alsostates that,according to W.G. Aitcheson Robertson, author of 'Aids to Forensic Medicine and Toxicology', in "death followed by convulsions, muscular exertion, racing, the rigor mortis will appear earlier". We are told thatMason JK stated "The onset of rigor will be accelerated in conditions involving high ante-mortem muscle lactic acid e.g. after a struggle or other exercise.". So a struggle could bring on rigor earlier than the average, just like a cut throat. Then what about the physical condition of the deceased? Well according to S.C. Basu, author of the Handbook of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, rigor is "hastened or accelerated in feeble, fatigued and exhausted muscles"


Or,


What does Fisherman's own favourite expert, Jason Payne James, have to say about using rigor to estimate the time of death? Well let's have a look in Simpson's Forensic Medicine, updated 13th edition by Jason Payne James, Richard Jones, Steven Karch and John Manlove (2011):


"The only use of assessing the presence or absence of rigor lies in the estimation of the time of death, and the key word here is estimation, as rigor is such a variable process that it can never provide an accurate assessment of the time of death. Extreme caution should be exercised in trying to assign a time of death based on the very subjective assessment of the degree and extent of rigor."


Or,

From the Textbook Of Forensic Medicine And Toxicology:


The time of onset and duration of Rigor is varied by multiple factors as will be discussed shortly but in general it is likely to be apparent in about 1-2 hours after death,


WILL THIS EVER SINK IN!!!!

Phillips = UNRELIABLE.

Just accept it and move on PI. It’s a fact.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As I wrote:

The point is that the evidence is that she had already eaten, that she quite deliberately went indoors to eat and drink, and that she then went out to earn money to pay for her bed for the night, not to obtain more food.

That is the evidence.

It is not assumption, supposition, nor speculation.

Saying that she may have found a customer and changed her mind and decided to spend her earnings on food instead of a bed for the night, or that someone gave her food for free, or that she took potatoes with her when she left the lodging house, IS speculation.

‘There are other ways that she could have come by food.

A friend gave her some.

She had some on her person.

She stole some from the kitchen.

Jesus Christ PI. You’re trying to fill in the gaps. She might not have eaten again but she might have. That’s it. That’s all we know. There are no “yes buts.”

We don’t know.

So she might have.

End of.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have enough of this biased crap!

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Furthermore, according to K.S. Narayan Reddy, author of 'Essentials of Forensic Medicine', "In death from diseases causing great exhaustion and wasting e.g. cholera, typhoid, tuberculosis and cancer and in violent deaths as by cut throats, firearms or electrocution, the onset of rigor is early and duration is short"

(HS)


The stiffness of the limbs was then well-marked.

(Dr Phillips on the state of rigor mortis about nine hours after first noting rigor mortis.)


That suggests that Chapman's tuberculosis and violent death by having her throat cut did not influence the timing of the onset of her rigor mortis.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

‘There are other ways that she could have come by food.

A friend gave her some.

She had some on her person.

She stole some from the kitchen.

Jesus Christ PI. You’re trying to fill in the gaps. She might not have eaten again but she might have. That’s it. That’s all we know. There are no “yes buts.”

We don’t know.

So she might have.

End of.

You are not going by the evidence, which is that she went to a particular place indoors to eat and drink and then went out with the sole intention of finding a customer and returning.

You are speculating that she ate again later, when the evidence suggests otherwise.

Again, the preponderance of opinion cited online is that rigor mortis would appear after two hours or even longer.

One hour is also cited as possible, but not less.

You have cited doctors according to whom it is possible for it to set in after half an hour.

But most of the estimates you cite are 1-2 hours or 2-4 hours.

That does not make one hour or, still less, less than a hour, likely.

Phillips' estimate is a fair one.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

WILL THIS EVER SINK IN!!!!

Phillips = UNRELIABLE.

Just accept it and move on PI. It’s a fact.

I have no intention of moving on.

I do not accept that Phillips' estimate was unreliable.

That is for you yet to prove.

[Wickerman]

Looking at the estimates online, I noticed two things: there was not a single estimate that allowed for death to have occurred less than an hour before rigor mortis began to set in, and rigor mortis is said to begin in the facial and neck muscles and travel downwards to the limbs.

Phillips did say that it was beginning in the limbs - and more than one limb.

That means that his statement that rigor mortis had just commenced in the limbs does not mean that it had just commenced in the body.

And that suggests that his estimate of two hours is reliable.

I'm afraid you're not looking at the whole picture.

How long does a car engine last?
How long do the tires last?
It varies right, and it varies because of external influences.
The Engineering manual might say the engine will last 100,000 miles, but they always include a caveat.

Here it tells the reader Rigor Mortis begins immediately after death.

"Rigor mortis starts immediately after death and is usually seen in a sequence known as the "march of rigor" and Nysten's Law. While rigor mortis develops simultaneously in all muscle tissue in the body, voluntary and involuntary, the size of the muscle determines the perceptibility of changes by the examiner. Smaller muscles over the face – around the eyes, around the mouth, etc."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK549867/

Almost every source provides an average for the onset of Rigor in about 2 hrs., but this is an average, and if you research on factors which affect the onset of Rigor you will see that cold temperatures can delay the onset, but if the body was warmer at death the onset may be immediate.
We already know Chapman fought for her life, her swollen lips, turgid fingernails, scratches on her neck, oxygen deficient blood in the brain (indicating her heart still beat after she stopped breathing).

Physical exertion raises the body temperature, her internal body temp can cause the immediate onset of rigor, the cold ambient temperature will cause a delay in the onset. We do not know which force was at play, or which of the two opposing forces was superior.
Which means using text book suggestions do not reflect the real world condition of what Dr. Phillips was faced with that morning.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Physical exertion raises the body temperature, her internal body temp can cause the immediate onset of rigor, the cold ambient temperature will cause a delay in the onset.

I already dispensed with the suggestion that she had cadaveric spasm, which would mean immediate onset of rigor mortis.

If the cold caused a delay in the onset, then where does that leave Phillips' caveat?

[Wickerman]

...

I do not accept that Phillips' estimate was unreliable.
...

It looks like you are making a distinction between his initial estimate - which you agree with, as opposed to his subsequent caveat - which you do not?

It looks like Phillips applied the documentation available at the time, in his mind at least. I'm not suggesting he carried books with him.
In your earlier post you listed "available documentation", just like Phillips, here I am suggesting you apply the caveat.

Now here's another complication that I mentioned a week or more ago.
From Phillips's words it looks like he (or possibly the medical community at the time), associated rigor mortis with body temperature. Because he says the cooler morning could have affected the onset of rigor.
He meant the cooler morning could have accelerated the onset of rigor, so a body found dead after 30 mins might be in a state of rigor that reflects the standard 2 hours, not 30 minutes.
This is what I think he meant, it's a further complication because the opposite is true.
Cold delays the onset of rigor, so that after 30 minutes no rigor should be perceptible.

And that raises another minor point.
All these modern journals & papers are providing general information by saying rigor mortis takes about 2 hours to appear. They are wrong, rigor mortis begins immediately after death, but it is first noticeable in the smaller muscles. It's a chemical process that takes time to convert the fluids in the body to a type of acid.
As every body has a different temperature & physical makeup, then rigor will appear in some sooner or later than others. So the modern literature suggests 2 hours as an average.

Back to Phillips on Chapman, it looks to me like Dr Phillips thought cold air brings on rigor mortis sooner than warm air, when in fact the reverse is true.
Dr Phillips does not seem to have realised Chapman must have fought for her life, raising her body temperature sufficiently to affect the onset of rigor, also, we have since become aware that Chapman was ill, she could have had a temperature due to illness, which would also play a role in accelerating the rigor mortis.

All that being said, her body began to show signs of rigor mortis within the first hour of her death, which suggested to Phillips's knowledge of the current literature means she must have died about 2 hours before he first saw her.
But as the morning was cold, he assumed a correction was necessary to account for the lower temperature accelerating the onset of rigor mortis.
The problem was, he assumed wrong. It was her internal body temp. that was responsible for the accelerated state of rigor mortis.
The conclusion was the same, it was the means by which he arrived at his conclusion that was in error.