|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1520
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 5:08 am: | 
|
Just browsing back through some old messages, I found a related discussion about Kelly's time of death involving Wolf Vanderlinden, Jeff Hamm and others (from March 1994).
I thought the thread contained some very pertinent information. If anyone is particularly interested, it would be worth starting here:
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4920&post=90366#POST90366
and then continuing into this follow-up thread:
../4921/10027.html"#C6C6B5"> |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 718
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 3:44 pm: |
|
Something to consider when it comes to statements based upon "vast personal experience" rather than from careful examination of data. A former student of mine is working with a team of doctors. Her job involves the analysis of various treatment and screening routines and their success rate.
During a group meeting, she indicated that one of the procedures was fairly un-reliable. The procedure involved the doctor's assessment, through touch, of the presence or absense of an abnormality. One doctor indicated with extreme confidence that he knew this procedure was 100% accurate if performed correctly, and based this on his vast years of personal experience (of course, he also knew he did this test "correctly").
Anticipating this response (he was a bit full of himself), she then presented his actual accuracy rates, which were as unreliable as everyone else's. What he "remembered" was his "correct" diagnosis because he believed the procedure (and himself) was highly accurate; what he took less notice of were the cases where this procedure (and himself) was wrong. If you were to ask his opinion, he would have strongly indicated that "through his years of experience he knows this procedure is accurate"; he was wrong, his experience and his belief actually blinds him to what really occurred.
The point to take home here, is that without formal investigation into something, years of experience does not translate into accurate knowledge. As often as not, what happens is that we may "think we've figured it out", and when things "fit our expectations" that just reconfirms our belief and we often forget or ignore the more important cases that suggest we are wrong in our beliefs.
This caution must be applied for the opinions of the doctor's of 1888, who were giving opinions based upon their experiences as medical doctors rather than as people who investigated things like "rates of digestion", "rates of body cooling after death", "progression of rigor mortis", etc.
- Jeff |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2184
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 7:43 am: |
|
Hi N. Beresford,
"Jellied eels" is still a popular dish in East London (and nowhere else). Also popular in East London,and nowhere else, is "Pie and Mash" (mashed potatoes).
Not just in East London. Jellied eels can be bought at many fish shops and seafood stalls in London and all over the south-east. I have to be in the mood for them, but hubby (born in Deptford) likes them for breakfast! And pie mash shops spring up from time to time in areas other than the East End.
Would "Jellied Eels" be called "Fish"?
I don't see why not.
Hi RJ,
I don't see where the great thinkers in history were skeptical; at times it can be a sort of intellectual laziness, that makes one doubt all inconvenient testimony and take the path of least resistance...I think from a purely tactical angle, it's better for a detective to occasionally buy the Brooklyn Bridge than to be so cynical that they never risk such a transaction. One doesn't really know what they'll find under the wayward rock.
I couldn't agree more. I'm just waiting patiently for you to apply this good sense to another mystery - one that's been going on for thirteen years. You won't find anything under a wayward rock until you acknowledge the possibility that the rock itself exists. 
Love,
Caz
X |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 826
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 7:40 am: |
|
I don't see where the great thinkers in history were skeptical; at times it can be a sort of intellectual laziness, that makes one doubt all inconvenient testimony and take the path of least resistance...I think from a purely tactical angle, it's better for a detective to occasionally buy the Brooklyn Bridge than to be so cynical that they never risk such a transaction. One doesn't really know what they'll find under the wayward rock.
RJ you put it so well. I couldn't have said it better. Take Columbus. The standard wisdom was that the world was flat and you would sail off the edge. Of course he didn't get to India but he found something else.
Sir Alexander Fleming, t}he inventor of penicillin couldnt know for sure that it would cure all kinds of deadly diseases. He fooled around with mold (one source said from a rotten cantaloupe) and lo and behold came up with something that changed everyone's health for the better.
A theory that has every i dotted and every t crossed before its pursued isn't a theory.
The person who says, "How do you know this?" and "What proof do you have of that?" would have kept Columbus from sailing and that rotten cantaloupe would never have been purchased, let alone investigated.
Of course there is a difference between the person who says, "Could it have happened this way?" and wants to investigate and the person who says, "My theory is the correct one and everyone else is wrong." Columbus eventually had to bring back flora and fauna from the New World to prove it existed. Fleming had to demonstrate that his mold actually could cure diseases.
I guess the issue isn't whether to be skeptical or not but the timing. In the early stages when one is trying to find out, suspension of skepticism is more appropriate. Toward the end when one has a fully formed model and claims that they have found the truth, then it should be scrutinized and picked apart. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 960
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 5:07 pm: |
|
Hi Diana,
Contrary to the notion of Columbus as a great thinker that was taught to many unfortunate gradeschoolers in the United States, people in 1492 did not think the world was flat. Every scholar, not to mention every halfway observant sailor or anyone with a clear view of the horizon, already knew the world was spherical.
The reason people thought Columbus was nuts was not because he didn't buy into the mythical notion that the world was flat. It was because he thought the earth was a lot, lot smaller than what the scientists had calculated its size to be. Columbus figured India was just a relatively short hop across some water. Columbus was wrong, incredibly wrong. The scientists were right. The only reason Columbus is hailed as a hero is because he, through bravado and bluster, stumbled by dumb luck onto something he never imagined. Even there he apparently never figured out that he was wrong, and it took other people -- smarter, more educated people -- to figure out what had happened.
Columbus is absolutely not an example to be looked up to when it comes to intellectual achievements. We can certainly value his bravery and dedication to an idea, but we shouldn't forget that his idea was dead wrong.
Similarly, the idea that penicillin is a refutation of the principles of skepticism is not accurate either. (What was the bit of nonsense Radka posted earlier? "The discovery of penicillin was at bottom in part a case of pareidolia."? I still laugh out loud over that one...) Penicillin was discovered through strict use of scientific principles: Observations, theories, testing, and verification by others. It wasn't just cooked up as a bright random idea out of nowhere and then believed in because it's good to believe in untested ideas, it was proposed and ways were created to check on it and prove it.
Skepticism is not a contrary stance opposed to new knowledge. It really consists of agreed upon, logical ways to come up with new knowledge and weed out bad ideas. Without being skeptical, there's nothing to hold back the wacky, nonsensical and totally unsupported ideas from taking over...
...and that's exactly why people with wacky, nonsensical and totally unsupported ideas are opposed to it.
(Message edited by dannorder on October 18, 2005)
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1534
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 5:30 pm: |
|
Dan
I wonder if you can help me with something I'm currently puzzling over.
As you know, in his article Wolf Vanderlinden relies rather heavily on Dr Phillips's opinion that Chapman had been dead for at least two hours and probably more, which was based on the temperature of the body.
I've argued that the margin of error for Phillips's estimate, even given very generous assumptions, would be at least an hour.
You didn't seem to agree, though you never really gave me an answer when I asked you about it.
Now what's puzzling me is that earlier discussion about Kelly's time of death, in which Vanderlinden had said:
You are right about the body temperature as given by Bond being "unreliable." I was told that it was virtually meaningless under the circumstances.
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4921&post=91157#POST91157
Have you any idea whether Wolf Vanderlinden had changed his mind by the time he wrote the article on Chapman? Or did he conclude that for some reason the body temperature was "virtually meaningless" in Kelly's case, but enabled Phillips to make an accurate estimate of Chapman's time of death?
Chris Phillips
|
David Radka
Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 35
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 5:35 pm: |
|
Mr. Norder wrote:
1. "Skepticism is not a contrary stance opposed to new knowledge. It really consists of agreed upon, logical ways to come up with new knowledge and weed out bad ideas."
>>This definition is essentially a formula for authoritarianism and fascism in the sciences, and gives one a good idea of where Mr. Norder's mind is at.
2. "Without being skeptical, there's nothing to hold back the wacky, nonsensical and totally unsupported ideas from taking over..."
>>Sounds simplistic and paranoid to me. Let me ask you, Mr. Norder, have you ever studied the skeptical age that followed that of the great philosophers of Athens? Please give us a summary of it, for this was where skepticism originated, and explain why it was an improvement over Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2502
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 5:52 pm: |
|
Do you know David,I often think Henry Ford was right when he said History was bunk.
Mind I have always been intrigued about the way Dionysius gave way to Orpheus and Orpheus gave way to Christ, in terms of the History of Western Philosophy.
Orpheus was depicted wearing a red cap and in early depictions of Christ and his Apostles Christ too was depicted wearing the same style of red cap.
I wonder if this was where Sickert got his penchant for wearing a red cap from?
Do you know the symbolic significance of this "red cap" in Orphic philosophy David?
Sorry if it sounds off the wall-I am interested in finding out-dont tell Cornball though-its just a hunch I have about old man Sickert!
Thanks
Natalie
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1079
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 4:24 pm: |
|
Chris and all...
Here is the e-mail that I recieved today from Dr.Wecht.
Hope this helps....
******************************************
Email to: Donston1888@aol.com
Mr. Howard Brown
October 19, 2005
Dear Mr. Brown:
In my opinion, Dr. Phillips' determination regarding Chapman's time of death would have been highly questionable. His estimate was supposedly based on the temperature of the body. But he did not use a special thermometer to determine core (inner body) temperature (such a thermometer did not exist at that time).
Evisceration of the body further complicated any reasonable estimate regarding time of death.
Sincerely yours,
Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D.
CHW/km
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1540
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 4:45 pm: |
|
How
Many thanks for following this up and posting Dr Wecht's response.
I've been reading a little more about this, and the more I've read, the more unbelievable it has seemed that Phillips's estimate of the time of death could have been remotely accurate.
From what I posted yesterday, it seems this is the same advice that Wolf Vanderlinden had already been given regarding estimates for Kelly's time of death based on body temperature.
Chris Phillips
|
David Radka
Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 36
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 6:38 pm: |
|
You fellows put too much faith in notes from your mommies. If you want to be credible in academic circles, you can't go around sending letters to an expert and then acting as his mouthpiece when he answers you. You have to do basic research and master all areas that your thought involves yourself. John Douglass and Martin Fido each asked two different psychiatrists what kind of crazy man would commit the Whitechapel murders, and they received replies that would implicate Cohen. But in fact, all both psychiatrists did was mirror back to the questioner what the questioner had asked. This is the essential problem of the note from your mommy. My advice: Bite the bullet, grow up.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1080
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 7:02 pm: |
|
Hmm...I sort of assume that that refers to me.
Thats cool.
You fellows put too much faith in notes from your mommies.
Actually,I was trying to get someone who has years of experience in a field that was relevant to the thread. Its up to those on the thread to interpret what Mom Wecht decided. Me ? It don't make no nevermind,Dave..I was just passing thru..
"...and then acting as his mouthpiece when he answers you."
Not really a mouthpiece,but just providing the proof that he did reply to Chris Phillips post.
". You have to do basic research and master all areas that your thought involves yourself."
This is true. It requires reassessing what we thought was true and then being receptive to critiques...like you have,for example,to the A?R theory.
"This is the essential problem of the note from your mommy."
Dr. Wecht is waaay too good looking to be a Brown...and way more fine that my momma. Mr. Phillips provided a good honest series of questions that Mom...er.. Dr.Wecht replied to. Maybe you should ask Dr. Hare...no..show Dr.Hare the A?R theory and let him peruse it. I would like to learn what Dr. Hare says. I'm surprised that no one has sent him a copy.
"My advice: Bite the bullet, grow up.."
No can do my man...No can do...Too much fun my way.
Take care, Dave
How |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 963
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 7:34 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
What you fail to note yet again is that Wolf interviewed 12 modern professional experts to get his info for his article. You sure are good at picking and choosing things to look at to try to support your side while ignoring everything else. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but being deceptive about the evidence and the topic under dispute to try to support your side is simply unacceptable.
Hi Howard,
I'm afraid that a short note to someone without going into all the details is less than useful. Of course one person's time of death from back then can be less tahn accurate, but with multiple sources from then and now all pointing to an earlier time of death than the one proposed by Coroner Baxter (someone without medical training and in contradiction to the evidence presented to him), just saying that one person's estimate might be off doesn't mean a whole lot.
Hi David,
"If you want to be credible in academic circles"
Honestly, David, why do you think anyone would take advice from you on academic credibility? It's not like it's possible to have a worse reputation for credibility than you have.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 470
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 8:05 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Regarding Chapman, even with the tests we have now, such as eye fluid and liver temperature, they still have trouble getting the time down much closer than two hours. The longer the interim the wider the range of the estimate as well.
Any supposed lack of medical training on Baxter's part could be ameliorated by experience. And, as I said earlier, an M.D. from 1888 couldn't qualify as an E.M.T. today so I'm not sure their opinion would be of much greater value anyway.
Furthermore, if the witnesses had some issue or agenda, I'd like to see some evidence of it.
Best wishes,
Stan |
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1066
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 10:12 pm: |
|
Hi Stan,
Sorry to get off topic, but since you bring up Baxter's s training and experience in connection with determining Chapman's death, I thought you might be interested that coroners typically didn't conduct an extensive internal or external examination. They relied on their medical witness. Even well before the Whitechapel murders, the coroner's view of the body was simply a formality and it was one they undertook with the jury in tow. Sometimes, it was nothing more than a peek. By 1888, the view was increasingly seen as a barbarity (especially the jury's view). Nowadays the view has completely been dispensed with, both by jury and coroner.
I don't mean to say that coroners couldn't examine a body (legally, they had jurisdiction over it), but Baxter's background was legal (as far as I know he didn't have any medical training). A legal coroner like Baxter couldn't determine cause of death or time of death because he wasn't trained for it. Even medical coroners didn't conduct postmortems (I don't think they had time). Both types of coroner relied on either an attending physician or divisional surgeon to come in and conduct the postmortem examination.
There was an interesting debate going on, particularly earlier in the century, about who made the better coroner, the doctor or the solicitor. The doctor's advantage wasn't that he could conduct postmortems, but that he was better able to spot incompetent medical practice (quackery was a big issue in the 19th century). On the other hand, the solicitor knew his way around legal procedure (and the coroner was after all, a judicial figure). Dr. Roderick Macdonald's 1888 campaign ads I think are interesting, because you'll see that after he narrowly lost the 1886 East Middlesex election to Wynne Baxter, he went back and got some legal training in addition to his medical background before running again; his answer to the medical/legal question was, "be both".
Sorry to go on!
Cheers,
Dave |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 726
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 11:06 pm: |
|
Hi Howard,
Thanks for posting the reply, although to be honest, I'm not surprised by it.
- Jeff |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 472
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 11:28 pm: |
|
Hi Dave,
Thanks for that. Then I wonder why Baxter gave a TOD. Perhaps he'd been clued in by some medical witness whose name has been missed.
Best regards,
Stan |
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1067
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 12:01 am: |
|
Hi Stan,
No problem at all, thanks for putting up with my long-windedness. Baxter balanced all the witness testimony to form his summation. Phillips thinks the TOD was 4:30, but there's the qualifier of cold weather. So there's doubt, on top of which there was Richardson saying he was in the yard at 4:50 and Chapman wasn't there, and Mrs. Long saying she saw her outside the house at 5:30. So, with the medical TOD reasonably doubtful and conflicting with other testimony, Baxter relied on two other witnesses who seem to independently agree she was killed later than 4:30. At least that's how I read it, anyway.
Cheers,
Dave |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1541
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 4:10 am: |
|
Dan Norder
So, you dismiss Dr Wecht's opinion out of hand. No surprise there.
But apparently you also dismiss what Vanderlinden was told by his "experts" about body temperature in the case of Kelly - that it was "virtually meaningless". And you dismiss what I posted, showing that even on wildly generous assumptions, Phillips's margin of error would be at least an hour.
The point is that no evidence at all has been offered in favour of the accuracy of Phillips's estimate of Chapman's time of death - either by Vanderlinden, by Vanderlinden's "experts" or by you.
You started this discussion in the first place by posting a link to Vanderlinden's article. Isn't it about time you actually started answering some of the awkward questions, rather than just insulting me? (I'm accused of "deception" this time - without a shred of evidence as usual.)
So if body temperature cannot be relied on, what indication of an earlier time of death do you find reliable? (I note that Dr Wecht didn't even think it was worth mentioning the other two possible factors I mentioned - rigor mortis and digestion.)
Chris Phillips
|
Wolf VDL
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 12:37 pm: |
|
Mr. Phillips.
I don’t get involved in what passes for “debate” on the boards anymore. I guess I just got tired of people who, for example, read a single article on the internet and then set themselves up as experts on complex medical and forensic matters. Also attempting to intelligently debate the many closed minded people who attack anyone who holds an opinion contrary to their own desperately held orthodoxies gets old real fast. I post now because I see that you are attempting to make points against my article “Considerable Doubt” and the Death of Annie Chapman (Ripper Notes #22, April 2005) by suggesting that I have displayed two different viewpoints regarding Algor Mortis, or the cooling of the body after death. As the article was dealing with the death of Annie Chapman and the quote concerns the death of Mary Kelly I’m really not talking about the same thing am I? And, as you fail to understand, neither were the experts whom I consulted.
You see the opinions expressed in the two articles (the Chapman article and Screams of Murder, Ripper Notes Volume 3 Number 1, July 2001) are not my own. I am not an expert in forensic medicine and so I contacted people who were. Only a fool would believe that he could form a knowledgeable opinion about such a difficult subject by merely reading a couple of books or articles. The question I was trying to answer was which of the eyewitnesses can be trusted? Is Mrs. Long’s description of the man she claims to have seen with Annie Chapman a viable description of the killer? Was Caroline Maxwell lying? What about the man she claims to have seen with Mary Kelly at around 8:30 to 9:00 am on the morning of the Kelly murder? Is this a possible sighting of the Ripper? I thought fixing the time of death more accurately by consulting modern forensic scientists could possibly answer these questions. The answers I received startled me.
Back to your earlier question regarding my quote, I am obviously talking about Dr. Bond and his observation regarding the body temperature of victim Mary Kelly, not Dr. Phillips and Annie Chapman. What did Bond say about the temperature of Kelly’s body? That “the body was comparatively cold at 2 o’clock” (when he first examined it). This phrase “comparatively cold,” I was told, was “virtually meaningless.” The body was obviously cold but compared to what? What does “comparatively cold” mean medically? The phrase offers absolutely no information which can aid the modern expert. Dr. Phillips, on the other hand, tells us that “the body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat under the intestines.” In other words almost all the heat of the body had dissipated except for some remaining under the intestines. Annie Chapman’s body was almost stone cold. This would take some time to occur, I was told.
I have a question for you now. You state “the margin of error for Phillips’s estimate, even given very generous assumptions, would be at least an hour.” How did you come to this conclusion? What is it based upon? What expertise do you possess which qualifies you to make such a statement and why should it not be instantly dismissed if you have no medical or forensic expertise? Just curious.
All the best.
Wolf Vanderlinden.
|
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 5:26 am: |
|
Chris,
I note that Dr Wecht didn't even think it was worth mentioning the other two possible factors I mentioned - rigor mortis and digestion
Precisely why he didn't discuss those factors we don't know, but it is incorrect to extrapolate from this omission to assume that Wecht "didn't think it was worth" mentioning rigor/digestion at all. It's frustrating that he didn't, but we can't lend any weight to his omission one way or another. Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence etc etc...
Sincerely :o)
Gareth |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 829
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 12:06 pm: |
|
Bottom line -- when we think of Chapmans TOD we have to be flexible. It could have been early it could have been late. |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1542
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 12:42 pm: |
|
Wolf Vanderlinden
I have a question for you now. You state “the margin of error for Phillips’s estimate, even given very generous assumptions, would be at least an hour.” How did you come to this conclusion? What is it based upon? What expertise do you possess which qualifies you to make such a statement and why should it not be instantly dismissed if you have no medical or forensic expertise? Just curious.
It's all explained in detail here:
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4920&post=144230#POST144230
Please take a look at it and tell me if you disagree after reading it.
By the way, were you really told by an expert that "almost all the heat of the body had dissipated" from Chapman's body? If so, I'm afraid you have been very badly advised.
Chris Phillips
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2698
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 4:58 pm: |
|
When I see a statement like this from someone who used to be a sparkling influence on these boards I fall into utter despair:
‘I don’t get involved in what passes for “debate” on the boards anymore.’
And so do quite honest and forthright folk become Ripposaurs, just because they posted a few stories in some half-arsed rags.
Where is your self-respect man?
Put your foot on the line in the sand. |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1546
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 5:53 pm: |
|
Wolf Vanderlinden
I thought fixing the time of death more accurately by consulting modern forensic scientists could possibly answer these questions. The answers I received startled me.
On this point, I think it would be useful if you could clarify exactly what answers you received regarding Chapman's time of death.
Looking at your article, I can see only three of your "experts" quoted:
(1) Randy Hanzlick said that a small meal of potatoes would be fully digested "in about an hour to an hour and a half,"
(2) Wilmes Teixeira said that "this small solid meal would take some time like 2 3 hours, 'let us say' to be digested."
(3) James Kaplan said that "Remarks made regarding the body cooling faster in exsanguination are generally true. Disembowelment would hasten cooling significantly as well."
(1) and (2) are obviously inconsistent with each other. (And I should still be interested to know why you asked your experts about the digestion time for a small meal. Do you have evidence that it was small, or is that your own guess?)
For what it's worth, (3) obviously indicates that Chapman's body would have cooled faster than Phillips would have expected from his other experience. Therefore, if anything, it tends to undermine your case that Phillips's estimate was accurate.
What about the other 97 experts you asked? Didn't any of them say anything relevant about Chapman's time of death?
Chris Phillips
|
David Radka
Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 38
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 6:18 pm: |
|
Mr. Norder wrote:
"Honestly, David, why do you think anyone would take advice from you on academic credibility? It's not like it's possible to have a worse reputation for credibility than you have."
>>This nebulous, blanket jibe is just another attempt to avoid discussing specific items related to criticisms Mr. Norder makes of others. Mephisto, Scott Nelson, Ms Comer, Mr. Palmer, and Mr. Phillips as well as I have now remarked on it on this web site.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2508
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 6:25 pm: |
|
These people who believe themselves so superior to everyone else on the boards that they cannot bear to stoop to "debate" with anyone at all-----
its childish somehow----like saying,"I don"t wanna play in your yard---naa,naa-you smell- blah blah
|
David Radka
Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 39
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 3:49 am: |
|
Mr. Radka wrote: ". You have to do basic research and master all areas that your thought involves yourself." Mr. Brown responded: "This is true. It requires reassessing what we thought was true and then being receptive to critiques...like you have,for example,to the A?R theory."
>>I seek out and encourage critiques on my A?R theory, Mr. Brown--that's why I published it here, free of charge. I've been favored with some positive critiques which I appreciate, such as from Mephisto, Scott Nelson, Natalie Severn, R.J. Palmer, and a few others.
You have posted, however, that the A?R theory is incorrect because I am a psychotic person taking the psychotropic drugs Haldol and Thorazine, among many other lies of a similar caliber. In consideration of this, I don't understand why anybody takes what you say here seriously.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2972
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 4:43 am: |
|
That's nice David,
it really is nice that you published for free. BUT this is not the place to discuss your theory. Although sadly there is no place to discuss you theory. You and I both know full well why that is.
Now back to the topic of this thread
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my momma taught me better than that."
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1081
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 6:10 am: |
|
Dave:
This isn't the thread for discussing the A?R.
A joke or two that were made almost 20 months ago and were NEVER posted on Casebook,shouldn't be taken to heart. You can dish out comments about the "low men" and the "chandala",but those comments are okay... Lets bite the bullet and grow up together like a couple of pals... Why would you worry what I say about the A?R anyway,buddy?
Lets let the people get back to the thread at hand,okay?
Take care,old bean...
How |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2510
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 6:11 am: |
|
Hi All,
Yes,its quite true that I did enjoy David"s theory.It was such an astonishing "take"on the Anderson suspect
and strayed so far from the "party line"that it took us on a quite astonishing trajectory!
In turning the case for Aaron Kosminski on its head and naming his brother-in law instead,he produced an exhiliarating,if finally "unconvincing", insight into how the ripper may have functioned!
Natalie
ps sorry about remaining unconvinced David! |
Wolf VDL
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 5:13 pm: |
|
Mr. Phillips.
As I had suspected. I see that your opinions are based upon no medical or forensic experience or expertise.I will reiterate "Only a fool would believe that he could form a knowledgeable opinion about such a difficult subject by merely reading a couple of books or articles. Does that answer your question?
All the best Wolf Vanderlinden
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1552
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 11:15 am: |
|
Wolf Vanderlinden
Firstly, the question of post mortem body cooling is essentially a problem of physics rather than a medical or forensic one (I assume you are using "forensic" to refer to forensic medicine).
As a matter of fact, it's one I am perfectly well qualified to comment on (though if you expect me to post my cv here at your request, you are going to be disappointed).
I can only ask again that you look at my post on the error inherent in the estimate based on body temperature, and let us know whether you accept that the margin of error would have been at least an hour. Or if you do not accept that, please let us know where is the flaw in my analysis.
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4920&post=144230#POST144230
As you also object so strongly to non-experts pronouncing on these questions, could you explain where this leaves your own commentary on algor mortis and rigor mortis, which were not based on evidence from "experts", but on "A few things ... gleaned from pathology texts" and on your own rather eccentric idea that Chapman's body heat had "drain[ed] away almost completely"?
And on top of that, you'll see above a number of questions concerning your treatment of the evidence of the three witnesses. Though judging by the tone of your last two messages, I'm not hopeful that we'll ever see answers to those.
Chris Phillips
|
David Radka
Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 40
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 6:51 pm: |
|
Mr. Brown wrote: "Why would you worry what I say about the A?R anyway,buddy?"
>>I don't care what you THINK about the A?R theory, Mr. Brown, because you aren't qualified to tell the difference between a significant event in the history of Ripperology and a hole in the wall. But I do care what you SAY about the A?R theory, because there are perhaps thousands of unassuming people reading this who figure you know what you're talking about, just because you shoot your mouth off. You didn't accuse Caroline Morris of masturbating very excessively, you made that comment about me. You didn't accuse Natalie Severn of being an anti-semitist, but you did me. You didn't call Stephen Ryder a homosexual, but that's what you called me, and I don't like it. The same is true of your comment that my theory is dead because I wear a beannie with a propeller in it, and your many other gross lies about me.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1083
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 8:07 pm: |
|
Dave:
Nietzsche-expert: You spelled "anti-Semite" wrong. It ain't "anti-semist"...Oy !
You funny little man !
Take care
Your pal...
How
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2982
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 6:07 am: |
|
David,
What was and was not said about A?R is an archived fact and can be read by anyone over on the thread of that name. It has nothing at all to do with this thread. This thread being about the times of the murders.
Please can we get back to the point now!!?
You guys know how i get!
Jenni
"it is hard not to feel a twinge of guilt. Guilt for the fact that this man's name would always be coupled with something other than the great works of book-collecting and abdominal operations with which he is now associated."
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2708
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 5:18 pm: |
|
'I wear a beannie with a propeller in it,'
If this is true David, then I do start to have respect for you.
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 737
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 12:37 am: |
|
N. Beresford---Hello. Thanks for your comments.
A random thought or two...
I don't think that Skepticism, or 'blanket cynicism' as Mr. Radka calls it above, can be described as a method of logic or clear-thinking...at least not in itself. It seems to me to be more of a temperment...an attitude. In certain extreme case, it may even be just another type of gullibility. It starts with an assumption of doubt, as opposed to an assumption of belief.
Here is something to ponder. Mr. Vanderlinden makes a very careful case, using contemporary (1888) sources, modern medical opinion, and logic. Another researcher, Dave Yost, did an identitical study (in News From Whitechapel) using exactly the same sources, the same referal to modern forensic medicine, and similar closely-reasoned logic. And yet, the two men came to diametrically opposed positions. I know neither man, and I mean no disrespect, and I draw no conclusions at the moment. But it seems to me that it does raise an interesting philosophical question--one that I've pondered since childhood. Is there another force that shapes our "logic"? An inborn tendency for belief or unbelief?
I fully admit that I'm biased towards cranks, but it seems to me that the Skeptic very often tends to overreach himself. This is because of his temperment. For a lack of better word...he likes to disprove, to debunk. It always seemed a little strange to me that fellows that subscribe to Skeptical Inquirer magazine spend so much time going around doing useful (?) things like convincing young ladies not to dance in the moonlight while wearing diaphanous dresses. Probably because the skeptic's method is active rather than passive. He wants to exert his toy: logic.
Having bumped heads with Radka for a long time, I've come to sort of understand his thinking. He's an interesting study, and he's recently agreed to let me have a cast of his skull on the occasion of his death (unless I precede him) for use in a phrenological experiment. His argument is an interesting one. He is saying that the continental Rationalists were less apt to overreach themselves because they withheld judgement until the last possible second... In other words, that's part of their method; they're not "front end loaders" like we empricicists tend to be, if you see what I mean. We start with an obsession with the facts and move forward...actively. I've come to realize that it's a far cop. Einstein was, of course, very much concerned with facts, but he didn't obsess about how ridiculous those facts might have been; he certainly didn't have a skeptical temperment. He didn't tell women not to dance in diaphanous dresses. Rather, he plugged away with his German sort of thinking, and when he discovered the brilliant idea, then all those awkward and ridiculous facts started to make a bit of sense. A "rear end loader" is how I'm calling it.
My jibe about Folklorism probably didn't make much sense. My attitude is pretty simple, if not entirely respectable. As I see it, history is slanted by the fact that it necessarily is based on documentation. But reality is exceedingly complex and only a slight fraction of experience is ever recorded--particularly in a format that the historian finds palatable. Ergo, history is written by the literati..the doctors, the policemen, the journalists, and the bureaucrats.
Which brings me to Laura Sicking and Inspector Chandler, but I'll save that for another dull Sunday night. Take care. RP |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2526
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 6:54 am: |
|
Stimulating post RJ,
As I am away for a few days from tomorrow I havent really time to consider and fully absorb it all but I think I follow the main gist.
The articulation of arguement in David"s thesis
was through an unusual linking together of witness statements and asylum records which then focused on who might have benefitted from within the Anderson suspect"s family from his mental illness and incarceration.
Some of these "linkings"were often so imaginative and original as to seem far fetched viz Wolff Abrahams the tailor, by the use of the symbols of tailoring on Catherine Eddowes face etc to accuse Kosminski etc
I found coherence in David"s linking to gether of these bizarre symbols rather than through logic[at least that was how I saw it]. I was not convinced but I was intrigued and impressed and think it extends our own field of vision regarding time,place and motive.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2219
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 7:06 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
In certain extreme case, it may even be just another type of gullibility. It starts with an assumption of doubt, as opposed to an assumption of belief...
He is saying that the continental Rationalists were less apt to overreach themselves because they withheld judgement until the last possible second...
We start with an obsession with the facts and move forward...actively...
Einstein was, of course, very much concerned with facts, but he didn't obsess about how ridiculous those facts might have been; he certainly didn't have a skeptical temperment... he plugged away with his German sort of thinking, and when he discovered the brilliant idea, then all those awkward and ridiculous facts started to make a bit of sense...
As I see it, history is slanted by the fact that it necessarily is based on documentation. But reality is exceedingly complex and only a slight fraction of experience is ever recorded--particularly in a format that the historian finds palatable...
Such a waste, RJ, such a terrible waste.
I mean your intellectual talents v the d word, and why the devil you think your valuable and valid take here doesn't apply to a certain area of debate.
I'll say just one thing.
Mike Barrett makes no one gullible. The diehard sceptics can do that all by themselves with knobs on.
Love,
Caz
X
PS No apologies here - your words cried out to be applied across the board. |
N. Beresford.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 12:51 pm: |
|
To R.J.,
Thanks for giving me another start.
Skepticism simply means 'reserving judgement' - no more, no less. It is neither good nor bad in the general sense but can be either in specific circumstances. bad, leads to stubborness and stopping progress. good, leads to possible progress in another direction, if not the same direction. Either way could be a clarification of issues, essential to progress.
The opposite to skepticism is Faith - also neither good nor bad in the general sense but not necessarily appropriate here. Faith in one's ability to reach a conclusion can lead to the same blindness that results from 'over'-skepticism but that's a general point that applies to specific circumstances and doesn't apply here. (Just a philosophical point of no note, really).
Is 'Folklore-ism' what is expressed by The Police, journalists etc., or something else? Can you give me an example? (Empirical?)(Joke).
As for everything else you have said about skepticism, I still do not understand.
Skeptics do not have a toy - 'logic' - they are persuaded by logic or empiricism. They have nothing to bring to an argument except a call for more clarification. They don't exhert anything except their powers of reasoning on themselves to accept or not accept an argument. We've talked about the excess of skepticism that becomes something else, and it's the something else that uses it's own wiles in debunking - anti-logic and anti-empiricism.
I hope this answers some of the points you made - I don't think it has but,.....
Best wishes, Beresford. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page