Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

... 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.

The stiffening affects the small, involuntary (i.e., autonomic) muscles of the body first, including those in the eyelids, around the internal organs, and heart. Next, rigor mortis is evidenced in small voluntary muscles, such as the jaw and neck. It eventually spreads throughout the entire body, from the neck down.

https://amuedge.com/how-rigor-mortis-can-help-indicate-time-of-death/

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning ...

(Dr Phillips)



Cold water or weather and frost can delay the formation of body rigor ...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5721493/

The temperature around the body will either increase the rate of rigor (hot) or slow it down (cold).

https://www.chem.fsu.edu/chemlab/chm...n%20for%20Rigo r,slow%20it%20down%20(cold).



In general, high environmental temperature will accelerate the onset, whereas low ambient temperatures have the opposite effect.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/nursing-and-health-professions/rigor-mortis

Warm conditions speed up the onset and pace of rigor mortis by providing a hospitable environment for the bacteria and processes that cause decay. Cold temperatures, on the other hand, slow it down.

https://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/death-dying/rigor-mortis-cause2.htm

A colder temperature promotes a slower onset of rigor mortis.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/medicine/diseases-and-conditions/pathology/rigor-mortis

[Wickerman]

Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

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.

You are making an assumption - are you not?

I wouldn't say it is as simple as that, two independent sources explained what Phillips meant. They both agreed that his caveat meant the body was in a state of rigor more consistent with being dead 2 hours, but Phillips believed the coolness of the morning was to account for the discrepancy.
Other witnesses had said she was alive about 5:30, one hour before Phillips first saw her, which probably suggests his caveat belongs to his testimony at the inquest.
Whereas, on the morning of the murder Phillips only estimated she had been dead 2 hours, or more.
There was no need for him to offer a caveat on the morning of the murder.

So that's not my assumption, it's taken directly from the inquest.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

... witnesses had said she was alive about 5:30, one hour before Phillips first saw her ...

So that's not my assumption, it's taken directly from the inquest.

You wrote:

her body began to show signs of rigor mortis within the first hour of her death

The testimony of Long, who may have been mistaken about whom she saw, Cadoche, who did not see anyone, and Richardson, whose testimony has always been controversial, cannot enable you to make such a categorical statement about the appearance of rigor mortis.

[Fiver]

Some have argued potatoes eaten at the Doss House should not be found in her stomach if she was killed at 5:25. - Let's accept this as true (it's not, but hey, as I said, my head is a bit out of sorts).

- Jeff

They do claim that, but I haven't seen any evidence that supports the idea, just assumptions about how fast potatoes are digested.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

They do claim that, but I haven't seen any evidence that supports the idea, just assumptions about how fast potatoes are digested.

They are not assumptions.

The consensus is one hour.



What’s more, there are also starchy root vegetables, such as potatoes, which take up to 60 minutes to digest.

https://www.donat.com/how-long-does-...%20to%20digest.



Starchy vegetables such as potatoes digest in 60 minutes.

https://www.ndtv.com/health/these-foods-might-be-difficult-to-digest-read-here-to-know-about-them-1991576

Starches like potatoes spend about an hour in the stomach before moving on to the intestines

https://tiphero.com/food-digestion-times

potatoes: 60 minutes

https://www.9tofine.net/en/diet/digestion-time-of-different-foods/

[Herlock Sholmes]

But that is no different to Phillips TOD in which he uses a similar term to suggest he may have been wrong !!!!!!!!!! a term which you are using to prop up a later TOD

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And so if Phillips might have been wrong…..come on Trevor…..I’m not spoon feeding you.

It doesn’t need propping up by the way. She was killed at around 5.30. If she was dead at 4.30 then Richardson would have seen her. It’s black and white. Add Cadosch. Add Long. Add the fact that we know that Phillips was using unreliable methods. Game over. All that you’re quote says is that ‘under certain circumstances x might possibly have occurred.’ If you’re using that to prop up an earlier ToD fantasy then your more desperate than I’d assumed Trevor.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

She was killed at around 5.30. If she was dead at 4.30 then Richardson would have seen her. It’s black and white. Add the fact that we know that Phillips was using unreliable methods. Game over.

How do we know Richardson was not using unreliable methods?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Appeal to Illiteracy - A logical fallacy is used by a person constantly desirous of making himself appear cleverer than he actually is by vacuously misusing logic fallacies.

~ Herlock Sholmes 2023 ~

We don’t know what happened during the gap. This is a fact.

You are the one claiming to know something that we can’t know. You are claiming that she wouldn’t have eaten again. This is the Appeal To Ignorance. My position is that we don’t know whether she did or didn’t eat.

Outum Offus Depthum, I’d say.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We have a sighting of her eating and drinking indoors, and then going out for an entirely different purpose, intending to return as soon as she had acquired the money for a bed.

That suggests no intention - quite apart from the means - of acquiring more food.

There is no sighting of her acquiring any food, let alone eating it, afterwards.

The evidence suggests she did not eat after going out.

That is not speculation!

It’s the very definition of speculation PI. We don’t know what she did or didn’t do during that period. Events beforehand are irrelevant. The evidence suggests nothing. Please try and understand this.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is another fallacious argument.

The either-or fallacy.

An either-or fallacy occurs when someone claims there are only two possible options or sides in an argument when there are actually more. This is a manipulative method that attempts to coerce others into accepting the speaker's viewpoint as legitimate.

Actually, the evidence in relation to Annie's stomach contents does not support either of the contentions in your post. What you have done here is employed the 'either-or' fallacy in a manipulative attempt to strengthen your pretty weak argument.

The evidence is this:

1) We know Annie ate potatoes around a quarter to two.
2) We know potatoes is easily digested food.
3) Annie had partially digested food in her stomach.

That evidence suggests that Annie was dead earlier than half four in the morning, i.e. some time between a quarter two in the morning and the time it took for that food to become partially digested.

According to pathologists quoted on other threads, it should have been prior to a quarter to four in the morning, with the most probable conclusion being around half three in the morning. That is based on the evidence we have at our disposal, which is:

1) Knowing what Annie ate and when.
2) Pathologist information on digesting potatoes.

Take note: this post is concerned with evidence, as opposed to "we just don't know what happened".

As I stated previously: "we just don't know" is another fallacious argument.

Appeal to ignorance fallacy:

The foundation of any logical argument is at least one credible, logical source to support it. You use a logical fallacy when you support your claim with an illogical source or fail to provide a source. One such logical fallacy relies on the lack of any evidence that disproves the claim. This fallacy is known as the appeal to ignorance fallacy and it is an attempt to shift the burden of proof elsewhere.

It is not a credible argument in a reasonable discussion.

Its getting a bit laughable now FM. I’d give up while you’re only a mile behind.

1) We know Annie ate potatoes around a quarter to two.
2) We know potatoes is easily digested food.
3) Annie had partially digested food in her stomach.

The glaring point of course is that we cannot know what the food was that Phillips found in her stomach. You of course make an unfounded assumption that it was potatoes as we would expect from you.

Pitiful really.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The fact that it cannot be proven that she ate afterwards is not evidence.

It is evidence that we don’t know if she did or didn’t eat. All else is speculation. You really would be better off leaving this point alone PI. You simply cannot claim to know or to suggest a likelihood for an entirely unexplained, undocumented period.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It’s the very definition of speculation PI.

You are the one who has been speculating, HS.

Events beforehand are irrelevant.

They are not irrelevant.

Whether she had already eaten, whether she preferred to eat and drink in the lodging house to doing so in the street, how much money she had left, what she intended to do next and subsequently, and why, are all relevant.

The evidence suggests nothing.

The evidence suggests she had other things on her mind than eating.

What happened next was not a toss up between eating and soliciting.

She said she intended to find a customer, she needed to find a customer, and she did find what she thought was a customer.

Please try and understand this.

Please try to go by the evidence rather than your imagination.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The glaring point of course is that we cannot know what the food was that Phillips found in her stomach. You of course make an unfounded assumption that it was potatoes as we would expect from you.

It is not an unfounded assumption but a reasonable deduction from the evidence.

What you are doing is saying that although she had eaten potatoes, she could have digested them fully and then eaten something else - even though there is no evidence of that - OR it could have taken hours for the potato to be digested - even though the consensus is that it would not have taken that long.

That is pure speculation.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It is evidence that we don’t know if she did or didn’t eat.

That is not evidence.