|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1494
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 7:21 pm: | 
|
We seem to have got a bit off the topic of the times of the murders.
I think there's an interesting point here. Have people rated too highly the ability of the doctors to estimate the victims' time of death?
My feeling is that few have been persuaded by Wolf Vanderlinden's arguments about Chapman, so it's perhaps not a particularly burning issue in her case.
But, of course, Kelly's time of death is an important unknown, and witness testimony about her being seen on the morning of the Friday has been discounted on the basis of medical evidence. So there's an interesting question here.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on October 10, 2005) |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 243
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 6:47 am: |
|
Hi Dan and Chris
Thanks for your fascinating thread, please do try and keep it on track and not get bogged in silly arguements. It's obvious from anyone that you both have vallid pionts.
So having read the thread, links and all, I will make some observations.
Firstly I've always considered Dr Philips one of the more reliable and efficient (for the time) Dr's involved in the case. certainly better than Dr Bond.
Although he does give vague body temperatures, warm, cold, etc I dont beleive that he would have been under obligation to use a thermometre or heat measuring divice. However surely he would have had a more acurate idea in his head (am I making sence here) his 'professional judgement' would have given him a more acurate feeling. What I'm trying to say is although he didn't take measurements he would have known what he mean't by his own experience of cold or warm.
Also as Chris pionted out, you seem to have concintrated on this aspect when surely the digestion of the potatoe is more important..
The smell is an interesting piont Glenn. However I recently spent a day in the london dungeon filming rats for a sequence about the smell of London in 1605 with proffessor Hutton. The general conclusion is London was a city that would have smelt alot anyway. I realize that it had started to clean its act up comparitively by 1888 but people slept rough and releived themselves in these areas. Would the smell of a body have stood out? you cant use modern comparissons.
For what its worth I have considered both sides and I'm still on the fence, however Dans argument that the Ripper struck earlier than previously thought does make sence. Especially if you take Eddows time of 1.40 into account.
The ripper wants to operate when people are asleep and it is as quiet as possible, so I'd also put an earlier time for Kelly. It leaves me in a quandary about Annie Millwoods afternoon attack however but not crossing her off my list yet.
Anyway I'm interested on everyones thoughts about the potatoe so can you give up on personal stuff.
Well done Dan and Chris. Wonder what happened to Inaki when he's needed.
Yours Jeff
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1495
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 7:49 am: |
|
Jeff
Thanks for those comments.
Just to reiterate a couple of points:
(1) Phillips's inquest testimony makes it clear that he based his estimate of the time of death mainly on the body temperature, not on rigor mortis or digestion.
(2) With the best will in the world, there is an inherent inaccuracy in this method of estimation. Firstly, because the body temperature at the time of death is uncertain, and secondly because - no matter how good a doctor you are - there is a limit to how accurately you can measure temperature by touch. There are a lot of other difficulties on top of that, but as I've shown, those two are enough to provide an uncertainty of an hour or more.
As far as the argument about digestion is confirmed, I don't think anything can be concluded from this. Vanderlinden quotes widely varying estimates of the time that would be required for Chapman's last meal to be digested - "less than half-an-hour", "about an hour", "about an hour to an hour and a half" and "some time like 2 3 hours, 'let us say'". These are clearly inconsistent, and it's no good just sticking them all together and saying it amounts to "less than three hours". (And even then, Vanderlinden chooses to conclude from this that she died "before 4:30 a.m.". In fact, her last meal was "between 1:30 and 1:45 a.m.", so the correct conclusion would be "before 4:45 a.m.")
For what it's worth, Bond concluded from the presence of some of Kelly's last fish and potato meal in her stomach that she had died 3 or 4 hours before. On this criterion, there would be no inconsistency with any of the witnesses' statements in the Chapman case, Long included.
Incidentally, I notice that the estimates quoted by Vanderlinden all refer to a small meal - "a potato", "a small meal of potatoes", "this small solid meal", ... Presumably a larger meal would take longer to digest. Do we really know that Chapman's last meal was a small one?
Chris Phillips
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 245
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 11:47 am: |
|
Hi Guy's
Tuesday 4th September. Annie Tell's Amelia Palmer she has had nothing to eat or drink all day.
She has not eaten well since her 10shilling allowance has been stopped, and did not take to prostitution until this time.
On the night of her murder she arrives at her lodgings at 1.00am worse for drink. She claims she got 5d from her family which was probably spent on her favourite tipple Rum.
At 1.35am she's seen eating a baked potatoe.
Not potatoes, and I think we can assume average size given her means.
Annie has been unwell but hasn't the money for her bed she leaves saying she will soon be back. In her condition it is unlikely that she intend any more tricks than was absolutely necessary for the bed in her condition.
From the way she said she would soon be back I'm assuming that 'one' trick would have paid for the bed but I'm willing to argue the piont.
Of course we have no idea how long Annie would have awaited for a trick on average. But my guess from her attitude is that she didnt intend to take longer than an hour. If she met Jack between 2.00 and 2.30 and was dead between 2.30 and three. It would explain the potatoe state of digestion at about 2hrs.
I'm considering that Annie was eating an average size (spudulike) potatoe on an emptie stomach. (not certain if the drink makes a differance to digestion).
Anything much after 4.30 and surely the potatoe would have been digested?
Also there were no sightings of Annie after she leaves the lodging house, she is unwell and states she will soon be back, where was she for four hours if she wasn't murdered until 5.30am. Certainly not in loving conversation about art with Jack.
Surely working on an average size potatoe Dr Philips could have given a good idea of time of death from the 1.30 information.
Philips seems pretty certain he is right.
And I think from the above information we can assume that Annie's last meal was a small one.
Jeff |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1496
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 12:35 pm: |
|
Jeff
At 1.35am she's seen eating a baked potatoe.
Not potatoes, ...
I'm asking what the evidence is for "a baked potato".
Donovan's inquest evidence just says "potatoes".
Anything much after 4.30 and surely the potatoe would have been digested?
The point is that this is exactly what we can't be sure about, without better evidence.
Chris Phillips
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 731
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 1:17 pm: |
|
I think what Radka is responding to is his belief that he has been shouted down. Mr. Norder already owns a magazine and controls what is published in it. The strength of a forum such is this is that people can voice their ideas or opinions without editorial interference or control. The article being critiqued above was first published in Mr. Norder's magazine; I think it was unreasonable and tweaking at the pant leg of Big Brother to respond to a critique of that same article with fury. If we shout down unpopular ideas in a public forum, what will we be left with? We might as well abandon open forums and have everything filtered through an editor. Would that be a good thing? On Mr. Norder's side, I can only imagine that he found the article being unfairly attacked. Let's err on the side of free inquiry, if we are going to err. As for flipping out one's diplomas, it is crass; so is having one's credentials and advertising at the bottom of every post. It's a variation of the 'appeal to authority.' But what I notice in the real world is that this is usually a response to another fallacy: ad hominem. When a fellow feels unfairly attacked, he whips out his papers. I don't have any real answers to these things, but I found much of the above thread disturbing, and those contributing here (including me) should try to promote an atmosphere were inquiry can be reasonably made without the person being black balled.
As for Chapman. The great Justice James Fitzjames Stephen (before he went addle-minded during the Maybrick case) once wrote that it was expert opinion that called for the greatest caution and closest scrutiny. The average bloke/blokette in the street is just telling us what he or she had seen. What I find unconvincing about the Vanderlinden article (or for James Tully's arguments, for that matter, since this line of reasoning dates back to his 1997 Prisoner 1137) is the rather dubious necessity of degrading the testimony of Richardson, Cadosch, and Long. That's three diffrent people. The response for those who accept the medical evidence is simplicity itself: those folks were either lying or were dullards. But Cadosch stated quite clearly and without faltering that the 'thump' came against the fence of No. 29. Vanderlinden attempts to weaken this in his article, but Cadosch said what he said, and he said it under oath. No. 29 and No. 27 were mirrored images of one another, so the back stoops were only a few feet apart, divided by the fence. I see no reason to alter his testimony. If he didn't hear the Ripper, who the heck did he hear in the other yard? The same sort of thing can be said for Richardson. Dawn broke at 4:51 that morning. He stated he looked around and could 'see' everywhere. The claim he changed his story is, in my opinion, based on the misunderstanding of Inspector Chandler, and a misreading of the knife evidence, as Chris Phillips has shown. This is the same conclusion that Sugden, Begg, and Fido came to--which is my own appeal to authority in response to the ad hominem suggestion that this is "sloppy thinking." RP
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 813
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 1:47 pm: |
|
You cant compare a potato (Chapman) to fish and potatoes (Kelly). Potatos are mainly carbohydrate and fish are mainly protein. The latter is a much more complex molecule and will take longer for the digestive system to process. Whether the presence of the fish would have slowed things down with the potato I am not at all sure.
Both doctors would have been correct. Annie Chapman's potato would have digested faster than Mary Kelly's fish and potatoes. |
David Radka
Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 31
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 1:53 pm: |
|
Mr. Norder wrote:
“Message received. I'll be over on the other threads now... like the new Uncle Jack one, I hear something big is going on there...”
>>This strategy of ducking out the back door when your points are seriously questioned never was going to work for you, Mr. Norder, and it won’t now either. Since you were gifted ‘Ripper Notes’ in early 2004 you’ve barged and blustered your way around these boards, shooting from your hip and aiming for the crotch of anybody you thought was an easy enough mark to up your public image as Editor. By now you’ve left so much evidence of your blanket cynicism, shallow thinking, hatred and invective all over this web site it’s going to follow you wherever you go. You are seeing your comeuppance increasingly, form Mr. Palmer and Mr. Philips on this board, and from others elsewhere. As Star Parker recently editorialized, “…The tendency to suspect rather than give the benefit of the doubt, the tendency to lean to the negative, rather than seek the positive, is because it is easy. Suspicion, accusation and blame take little effort. Careful listening, clear thinking and a pure heart require real work. Maybe that’s why, unfortunately, we see so little of these things.”
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 774
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 2:31 pm: |
|
David,
Do you have anything to contribute to the "time of death" discussion? If not, then please take your tiresome personal vendetta elsewhere.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1497
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 2:42 pm: |
|
Diana
But do you think it's safe to draw any definite conclusion from the stomach contents, given the wide variation of the estimates quoted by Wolf Vanderlinden?
And do you agree that if she ate "potatoes", as testified at the inquest by Donovan, the timescale would be longer than for "a potato"?
Chris Phillips
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 953
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 7:44 pm: |
|
What I see Chris Phillips doing here is trying to discredit the medical testimony of the doctors of that period to try to claim that they were not right on their belief that Chapman had died several hours before she was found (while ignoring that modern medical opinion states the same thing) and then turning around and trying to grasp at one contemporary doctor's statement that potatoes could have taken up to four hours to digest while ignoring all the other statements (including modern medical opinion) that it would have been significantly faster than that. That's just not a reasonable strategy to take if one wants to find the truth instead of just trying to prop up an unsupported conclusion he's already reached.
As far as education and credential issues goes, I only ever brought that up when David was making conclusions about a field he has no educational background in (abnormal psychology) that I happen to have. More importantly, I have always sourced the current experts in that field for any conclusions I make on that topic. Any characterization by David or anyone else that I am trying to beat people down with claims of overall superior credentials so that other voices shouldn't be heard is simply untrue... and rather ironic based upon that being the clear strategy of another poster here (regardless of the fact that his credentials are actually laughable).
What I am doing, however, is disputing certain posters' attempts to sweeps things aside by ignoring the clear weight of evidence. Picking and choosing only those tiny bits of evidence that might be twisted to support their views while mischaracterizing the others (no one has to discredit three witnesses here, one did it to himself, the other two have hopelessly vague and unuseful information) is not a good strategy for coming to informed conclusions... even if it is often the standard procedure for most people in this field.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1498
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 4:32 am: |
|
Dan
Again, you're waving your arms vaguely and just claiming the weight of evidence is "clear", while ignoring all the specific criticisms I've made of Vanderlinden's arguments (see all the posts above).
I think the digestion question is a bit of a side issue, but let's add one more specific question to the list of those that need answering:
Is there really a contemporary source that says Chapman's last meal consisted of "a baked potato"?
Oh, and I don't know how many times it has to be pointed out to you (R. J. has just done it yet again). To claim that the evidence of Cadosche and Long was "hopelessly vague and unuseful" is simply dishonest. They both gave highly pertinent pieces of evidence under oath, which they did not express any doubt about.
If you can't view this issue objectively, just because you edit the journal where the article was published, it's very sad.
Chris Phillips
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 955
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 5:07 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
What's sad is how you consistently make statements that simply are not accurate or relevant in order to try to defend yourself. It is not dishonest to say that Cadosch and Long's testimony was hopeless vague and unuseful, for all the reasons given above and in the article under discussion. You just go around in circles here and ignore my points, falsely claiming that I never made any. I am fine with those people who want to disagree with the points I raise or the points brought up in the article, but I am not fine when people purposefully lie about them in order to dismiss them. That strategy was older than dirt when Radka was doing it a year and a half ago, and it's not going to work any better now.
I actually view the articles in the magazine quite objectively. I disagree with the conclusions of many of the authors, and that's fine. It's a journal for various authors to discuss the case, not Ripper Facts According to Dan. In this particular case I started out not really giving much weight to the idea that Chapman was killed earlier in the night, but after reading the article and seeing all the various reasons (the three conflicting stories given by Richardson, the fact that Long's alleged sighting was not in front of 29 Hanbury Street like is commonly assumed but only a nearby building, with no indication that the people she claims to saw went that direction, the medical evidence of heat loss compared to Eddowes' heat loss, the food digestion, the conflicting times of Cadosch and Long, and so forth and so on). I am not 100% convinced she died when Wolf thinks she did. I'm not 100% on much of anything on this case specifically because I bend over backwards to be objective on this case and consider all the angles when many people are just satisfied regurgitating the conventional wisdom even though the evidence behind most of these conclusions are really very weak. Do I know that Chapman died before Long and Cadosch think she was alive? No, but I think the weight of the evidence is extremely strong there. Do I know that she was already dead when Richardson claims (in one of his stories) to have sat on the step in a position that is likely to have spotted her? (Although Antonio Sironi in the latest Ripperologist argues that the door could have prevented Richardson's view of the corpse even if he were basically telling the truth.) No, but it's certainly quite possible based upon the medical evidence and the thoroughly discredited nature of Richardson's testimony.
It disturbs me that so many people seem to be basing their conclusion on this point on what the press reported instead of what the police thought. With some other areas in the past 10 to 20 years we have tossed out claims in the press in favor of what the police decided, yet people are clinging tightly to this because most every book is stuck in the same unquestioning mindset following along believing in what a grandstanding (and, I have to say, largely buffoonish) coroner with no medical training thought about the issue. So somehow in all of this the muddled statements of three alleged witnesses and the beliefs of the guy who started more damaging myths about the case than any other contemporary individual have through inertia if nothing else overrules the opinions of the police, the doctors, and modern medical experts.
The fact that some alleged witness didn't express any doubt about their opinions does not mean that their opinions were right, especially when they are contradictory, vague, reported after the fact and extremely weak. Witnesses are inherently unreliable in the best of instances, as study after study has proven over and over again. And these three alleged witness statements are about as far from best case scenarios for reliable witness testimony as it gets.
And despite the fact that this has all already been pointed out to you, you continue to pretend none of that ever happened so you can go back to believing what you originally believed and toss insults off at people you disagree with. That's what's really sad.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1499
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 6:40 am: |
|
Dan
It is not dishonest to say that Cadosch and Long's testimony was hopeless vague and unuseful, for all the reasons given above and in the article under discussion.
Look. This really isn't a difficult or obscure point.
Cadosch swore under oath that he heard something falling against the fence of number 29 at about 5.23-5.24.
Long swore under oath that she was sure the woman she saw outside number 29 at about 5.30 was Chapman.
Not by any stretch of the imagination is that vague or unuseful.
You may not like what they said, and you may not believe their testimony, but at least be honest and admit that it was specific and - obviously - potentially highly relevant.
I am fine with those people who want to disagree with the points I raise or the points brought up in the article, but I am not fine when people purposefully lie about them in order to dismiss them.
I have been very patient and ignored a lot of your personal insults, but if you're going to accuse me of lying, you'd better back it up.
Now.
Forget about vague get-outs like "for all the reasons given above", and forget about evasions such as "it's all in the article" or "I don't have time to discuss it now", and let's have some straight answers.
What about the question I've asked you about ten times now?
Do you accept that Phillips's estimate of post mortem cooling would have been subject to a margin of error of at least an hour? That's a question you can answer "yes" or "no" to.
Chris Phillips
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 246
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 12:56 pm: |
|
Surely wether you are talking 'potatoe' or 'potatoes' is fairly irrelivant without knowing size or number.
More important is the type of potatoe, as I presume the skin takes longer to digest than the softer inside. So baked take longer to degest than bioled or mash.
What I think we can all safely assume is that Annie was malnurrished and probably only had a small portion, whether that was two or three small potatoes or one wopping Spud'u'Like.
What would be useful to know is how much her bed for the night cost (there must be records) given that she had 5d, presumed turned into Rum, and how much of that 5d would have been left for potatoes. She would not have bought the potatoe if she had enough for the bed.
I think we can safely say she had a little money left, not enough for the room. She choose to spend that little money on food...so probably a small portion...and then went to find a trick to pay for the bed.
The import thing is the 'Jacket' as the Skin will take longer to digest, especially if cooked or burned in oven.
The potatoes thing is therefore a red herring unless your sugesting that she ate boiled potatoes with no skin.
I still think if there were traces of potatoe in her degestive system it was probably the skin from Baked potatoe and Dr Philios was probably correct.
Yours Jeff |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1501
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 1:26 pm: |
|
Jeff
I still think if there were traces of potatoe in her degestive system it was probably the skin from Baked potatoe and Dr Philios was probably correct.
As I've explained, Phillips based his estimate of the time of death on post mortem cooling, not on the contents of the stomach. In that sense, this is a side issue.
As to how many potatoes, whether boiled, baked or whatever, all we know is just "potatoes" unless somebody can come up with more evidence.
The point is that the estimates quoted by Wolf Vanderlinden assumed one potato, or a small meal. That's not borne out by the sources he refers to.
Chris Phillips
|
David Radka
Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 32
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 2:06 pm: |
|
Mr. Norder wrote:
1. “As far as education and credential issues goes, I only ever brought that up when David was making conclusions about a field he has no educational background in (abnormal psychology) that I happen to have. More importantly, I have always sourced the current experts in that field for any conclusions I make on that topic.”
>>Baloney. You sourced an insignificant number of web sites you browsed casually, and which do not represent the field of psychiatry, nor do they support your claims. You have never done any serious reading in the field of psychopathy. You sourced nothing from psychiatric textbooks. You provided no citations from qualified experts to adequately back up any of the frivolous, scattered and incomplete points you made, despite being asked to do so by Mephisto, Scott Nelson and I repeatedly. On the other hand I quoted extensively and substantively from, and sourced directly, the psychiatrists Cleckley, Hare, and Lykken from their essential works on the subject of psychopathy, as well as from the American Psychological Association’s “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual,” fourth edition. You lie like the living room rug, Mr. Norder. You lie lavishly, and with gusto. You lie openly, pathologically, fearlessly, self-ruinously and foolishly, and despite that you are aware of the close presence of contrary information to refute you. Anyone can refer to the A?R thread to read for themselves what you wrote. Have you no honor? Have you not one ethical feeling in your body? Have you no concept of your own best interest, of avoiding dereliction, of taking reasonable care of yourself?
2. “Any characterization by David or anyone else that I am trying to beat people down with claims of overall superior credentials so that other voices shouldn't be heard is simply untrue... and rather ironic based upon that being the clear strategy of another poster here (regardless of the fact that his credentials are actually laughable).”
>>You are in the above clearly trying to beat ME down with claims of superior credentials, Mr. Norder. You claim that my educational credentials are “laughable” compared to yours. But I have good reason to believe you are a total educational failure, an inane dropout with no or inadequate education to enable a claim of superiority of credentials to anyone. I do not believe you are educated enough, be it on the subject of abnormal psychology or anything else, to understand in any depth any erudite subject, including most or any of the subjects you give the transparent illusion of pronouncing upon. On the other hand my true educational qualifications are available in my profile. You could clear this matter up by spending twenty seconds jotting down for your readers the names of your degrees if you had any, the institutions conferring them, and the dates right here. But you won’t do that, Mr. Norder, because you are not educated. In my opinion, your participation on this web site consists mainly of your sitting back and marveling at the lies you can whip up to build conviction out of thin air, and then laughing when your public readership actually believes and trusts you.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 144
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 2:42 pm: |
|
Hi,
Wisdom is not a product of diplomas, degrees, certifications, seminars, or religious education.
That makes it difficult to ascertain whether one has wisdom or not, or if wisdom even exists without ignorance to contrast it with. That being said, I believe I am wise enough to see that this constant fighting and badgering is destructive in nature. The possibility does exist that I am ignorant about such things and destructive arguments are better than informed discourse that seeks to value and understand other opinions.
Who knows?
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 713
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 8:26 pm: |
|
Hi,
Although I do not want to stir things up, there are good points raised by Wolfe and there are good counter arguments raised by Chris.
Long's testimony must viewed with caution. Eye witnesses can be very sure and positive when making an identification despite the fact they are identifying the wrong person. The innocence project in the US has, through DNA, proved that many wrongly convicted people were wrongly convicted despite extremely positive (and often multiple) eye witnesses testifying in good faith they believed the convicted person was who they saw. Long's identification of Annie as the person she saw, despite her being very postive, must therefore be viewed with extreme caution.
Cadoche's testimony is, as Wolfe points out, ambiguous as to where he heard the word NO come from. However, as Chris points out, he's clear that the "falling object" was against the fence of number 29. So, even if we allow for the "No" to be "unrelated", the "falling object against the fence" is not, based upon his testimony, questionable. Since he's not "identifying" someone, just locating a sound source (object against fence), his testimony on this point might be more reliable. However, it's an unfortunate fact that memory will "rewrite" itself, and similar caution must be made.
Now, that being said, what Long and Cadoche "say" is highly related and important information. Although the "validity" of that information can be questioned and is of a concern, what they testify to is clearly related to the case and, if correct, obviously bears great weight on the case.
Richardson gives 3 accounts, each with an additional detail. First, he indicates he went to #29 to check the lock, and that he did not go into the yard to do this. He is also postive the body was not there.
Later, he adds the detail that he sat on the step to cut leather from his boot.
And, finally, he indicates that the knife was not sharp enough, so he borrowed another at the market.
Do these additional details equate to Richardson's story changing in the way Packer's does? No, Packer's story went from "seeing nobody", to "seeing the victim, selling grapes to a man with her" and the time at which these events occured kept changing. Meaning, Packer changed his story by changing the information previously told, as well as adding new characters and events.
Richardson's story, however, adds more information in a slightly different way. His sitting down on the step to fix his boot does not invalidate what he said earlier. Earlier, he stated his "reason for being there", which was to check the lock, and that he did not go into the yard, and that he was sure the body was not there. Fixing his boot was not his reason for going to no 29, it was just something else he did while there. If he sat on the step he did not go "in to the yard", and it would explain why he was so sure the body was not there. One can, I am sure, understand why someone might want to avoid mentioning that they had a knife while in the vicinity of a mutilated body. The bluntness of the knife, and his later "borrowing of one at the market", does not mean he was able to make any repairs to his boot, only that whatever he did accomplish was insufficient and he did more later with better tools.
In otherwords, the changes to Richardson's story provide additional details but do not invalidate his previous tellings. This is very different to the changes that Packer made.
Now, this doesn't mean that Richardson's story is true. I don't know, maybe he made the whole thing up and was never even at no 29 to check out the lock. I wasn't there, I don't know. All I'm saying is that there is nothing about the additional details that Richardson supplies that contradicts what he said previously. 1) His reason for being there was to check the lock, without going into the yard. 2) He adds that he also fixed his boot, and still hasn't gone into the yard to do so. 3) The knife he produces was blunt, and he provides more detail about fixing his boot further. (Since the quality of his boot fixing attempt can hardly be something one would expect the police to care about, it's probably not surprising that Richardson did not go on about how well he did on his first attempt).
I'm not saying that Richardson's story must be true, only that I see nothing in his testimony that creates any real problems the way Packer contradicts himself.
As for any attempt to estimate the time of death based upon any of the details we actually have, it's futile. We do not know where Annie was for most of the night, so we obviously have no idea of when she had her last meal. We know she had a potato at one point, but we do not know if that was the last thing she ate. We have no information about what her body temperature actually was at the time of discovery (let alone what her normal body temperature was), only that she was cold to the touch. Any attempt to make estimates of time of death based upon the fact that we have a report that says she was "cold to the touch" must be viewed as suspect as the eye witness testimony. We simply do not have the medical information available from which to make any kind of accurate assessment pertaining to the time of death. Even under the best of circumstances, time of death estimatations in modern murder cases are always presented with caution. And in a modern case the detail of information that is available is vastly more detailed than what we have for any of the Ripper murders.
In other words, the medical testimony from which we have to work from in this case is not sufficient to rule out the murder occuring after Richardson's visit. At the same time, the eye-witness testimony of both Long and Cadoche cannot be considered as 100% reliable no matter how positive they present their beliefs.
And Richardson's testimony, although not internally contradictory, does increase in details. The issue is why does he add more details? This behaviour could be interpreted as him "telling a tale", or it could indicate honest answers to questions for more information.
Finally, even if we decide that Richardson is telling the truth, we have to decide whether or not the open door would have obscured his view of the body even if he did sit and fix his boot. Since we cannot investigate this directly (the house no longer exists), we cannot be sure this was not possible.
However, this last notion appears to be considered as fairly unlikely; although I see there's reference to an article I've not read that suggest there are arguments which might change one's view on that probability. If we for now accept the notion that it was unlikely for Richardson to miss the body if it were there, then we are left with the following situation. Other eye witness testimony is questionable in it's reliablity. The medical information is of insufficient detail from which to draw any conclusions. Therefore, the most important information pertaining to the time of death for Annie Chapman we have comes from Richardson. If you believe he's testifying in good faith (not making it up), then Annie was not dead at the time he visited the yard. If you do not believe him when he adds the details about the boot fixing, then Annie may (or may not) have been in the back yard. And for completeness, even if you think Richardson is "honest", you have to decide, with no way to test or verify your decision, whether or not he could have missed the body even if he did all he said he did.
- Jeff |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1060
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 8:41 pm: |
|
One point that I think may have been overlooked regarding the estimation of Annie's death,is that she was eviscerated.
Normal,usual,means of gauging time of death are almost invariably determined on available corpses not eviscerated. The standard method of determining time of death is done on a "whole" corpse,not on one open at the midsection,as was Mrs.Chapman's...Body heat would escape more rapidly than with a "whole" torso.
Has this fact been taken into consideration?
In fact,to clear this matter up and from a wholly objective professional viewpoint, if someone would like to write a letter or put together the details of Mrs.Chapman's death.....I will send it to Dr. Cyril Wecht of Duquesne University for his qualified professional opinion. They don't come more qualified than him...Perhaps Dr.Wecht knows the difference on determining time of death between the two types of corpses...
Is that cool with you guys?
(Message edited by howard on October 12, 2005) |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 714
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 8:58 pm: |
|
Hi Howard,
I think that would be a good idea. Who is Dr. Cyril Wecht though, out of curiosity. I think the following points would be important to make clear.
1) Unless I'm mistaken, we do not have the ambiant temperature for the night in question
2) Annie's location and activities are unknown after she is last seen eating the potato, and when she was found. Whether or not she had another meal during that time is unknown.
3) She was cold to the touch, although heat remained under her intestines (which to me seems to suggests she couldn't have been there for hours, but I'm no expert)
Unfortunately, I've got a meeting and don't have the time to put together all the testimony we have. I just think it would be important we do not inadvertantly provide information we do not know for sure (i.e., we should not say "her last meal was at 12:30", or whatever, because we do not know for a fact that was her last meal. It's on the last time we have information about her eating, but there's a whole swag of time we know nothing about).
- Jeff |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 778
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 9:09 pm: |
|
Jeff,
Who is Dr. Cyril Wecht
Oh dear, you have just ruined someone's day. No question that Dr. Wecht is eminent in the field of forensic pathology, but (how do I say this nicely?) he is also, shall I say, hardly microphone and TV camera phobic.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1061
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 9:15 pm: |
|
Hey Jeff...
Wecht is probably the pre-eminent forensic pathologist in America,if not the world. He has been involved with tens of thousands of autopsies and is very much in demand for unsolved crimes in the States.
I had been in contact with him over a year ago,being the first [ pats himself on the back] person to ever show him inquest material found here on Casebook regarding the C5 victims. Up until then,he had never read anything,much less seen any medical data, regarding the C5...or the Whitechapel Murders.
His opinion of one of the eviscerations was that the Ripper had to have been aware of the location of the kidney of Mrs.Eddowes and declared that that was no ordinary feat.
But like I sez....it doesn't matter from whom it comes from and if possible,maybe the two sides to the argument can put their mojos and heads together and I will be happy to send it along to him.
Jeff...you can check him out on the Web. His credentials are impeccable. Look him up on GOOGLE... |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1062
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 9:21 pm: |
|
Don...
How does that make his opinion on a 117 year old murder less credible ? He's only going to be asked what the heat loss ratio to time of death in a murder involving evisceration could be.
Why the zinger to Wecht? If Wecht sees this potential paper that the guys put together, then maybe he can provide a better answer than all this unnecessary fighting back and forth over an issue that no one on this thread could provide...
Do you have a better solution? |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 780
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 9:54 pm: |
|
Howard,
Smile will you? I said that he was eminent in his field and obviously his opinion on the questions posed here would be quite valuable. Sorry if I offended you, but I suspect Dr. Wecht would smile wryly at anyone asking "Who is he?"
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 715
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 10:36 pm: |
|
Hi Howard,
Ahh, thanks for the info. I'm afraid I've not heard his name before, but I live in New Zealand now and we don't get the American News broadcasts, etc.
- Jeff |
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 145
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 12:46 am: |
|
Jeff,
I'm sure New Zealand has many equally talented forensics people. Wecht is one in thousands. He's just well-known by those who watch HBO.
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1507
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 3:54 am: |
|
How
That's a very kind offer, but I have to say I don't think there's much point asking him about the post mortem cooling, because we have no absolute data on the temperature of the body. I can't see how he could respond with anything other than "How cold is 'cold'? And how much heat is 'some heat'?"
Perhaps you could usefully ask him how accurately he thinks a Victorian police surgeon could estimate the time of death from a measurement of the temperature by touch.
And perhaps it would be useful to ask about digestion. But as Jeff points out, we can't tell anything at all about that if we allow the possibility that she ate something else after her potato meal at the lodging house.
What I think would be interesting is his opinion on the evidence about rigor mortis. Would he be willing to put a time to "Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing."?
Chris Phillips
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1063
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 5:35 am: |
|
Don:
You didn't offend me. Mentioning Wecht's high visibility and lack of stage fright have nothing to do with his abilities. The following poster shows that many people only know him from television. Which of course,thousands of other forensic pathologists aren't on...
Barren:
Wecht is hardly "one in thousands". But thanks for your input....very helpful.
Chris :
Yeah buddy...whatever you want to put together,I'll be glad to pass it on.
You're probably right however...there may be no way of gauging time of death without those critical factors or determinants...like ambient temp. and Chapman's body temp.
Just trying to help... |
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 7:12 pm: |
|
I'm sticking with witnesses I think, the doctors dont seem to be able to agree on very much.
I think one of the problems here are the victims,especially Polly & Annie, or rather their standing in society.
Of particular note is the time that elapses between the victims being found and the post mortem taking place.
In 2005 they are five of the most infamous women in recent history,in 1888 they were the dregs of society and,as AP has pointed out in other threads,there was nothing unusual about women turning up dead in Whitechapel.
Would the doctors have been a tad more thorough is these were the daughters of gentry? It's another dead woman that nobody cares about.Prostitutes have always been reguarded as 'lesser beings' by authority,it was even evident at the trial of Peter Sutcliffe to such an extent that reprimands were handed out for certain statements given in evidence such as 'Miss A was an innocent victim and yet Miss B was a common prostitute.
I do not believe that it is coincidence that witness statements conflict so often with doctors evidence in this case.I tend to stick with those who were at the heart of the matter,the witnesses,because I dont think the doctors cared much one way or another. |
N. Beresford
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 2:31 pm: |
|
Diana,
I feel it may depend whether the fish was a mush. "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). Both meals are still popular today - back then I think they were a really working class meal, it would be fair to say. Would "Jellied Eels" be called "Fish"?
Take care,
N. |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 11:28 am: |
|
Folks,
It's worth remembering that stress, undernourishment and chronic illness plays havoc with human digestion, tending to slow it down. Annie was fretful, malnourished and chronically ill long before she met her killer. Post-mortem evidence (lung and brain disease - tuberculosis and/or cancer it would appear) suggests that she hadn't long to live, even if she had not been killed by Jack.
What would have taken a healthy person an hour or so to metabolise would probably have taken Annie much longer to digest, given her parlous state of health at the time.
|
N.Beresford
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 6:41 pm: |
|
It's great this chaps. I like it when David Radka gets involved and RJ and now Chris Philips Who I've seen Knocking around the site. I've got so much to say but I think I aught to become a member first. I would agree with Wolf's sentiments and say it's good to have you here. I'm sure David finds it a relief to read RJ's comments (and CP's) and Davids article/thesis was brilliant - I've got a lot of questions to ask by-the-way but perhaps more easily done when a member. What is cryptology? I hope you will take this seriously - I'm a bit cagey, man. C'est ca. Au revoir.
NB. |
N.Beresford
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 6:59 pm: |
|
Dan's point in the past has been to go strongly for the empirical evidence - a reasonable, sensible and valid view as regards assertions based on the circumstantial where scepticism can and should be used. But scepticism requires thought and we should not banish thought from the asserters aswell. Take care, Chaps.
Au revoir. |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 734
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 1:28 pm: |
|
N. Beresford--Hello. By inclination, I'm very skeptical. But I do wonder more and more if it isn't a type of character flaw. 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. That's why I have my doubts about the Urban Folklorism trend in modern Ripperology. 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.
As for Mr. Norder's "the opinions of the police..."
One of the most important documents in the entire case evidence is Donald Swanson's report to the Home Office on Oct. 19, 1888. To claim that the police believed Phillips and disregarded Cadosch, Long, and Richardson is certainly nowhere to be found in this document, at least as far as I can tell. Swanson carefully restates Phillips' opinion, and then just as carefully repeats without a hint of cyncism the evidence of the three witnesses. It is obvious that Swanson himself is rather puzzled by the contradictions. He states that if Dr. Phillips is right, then Richardson must have missed the body; and that if Long was right, then Phillips must have been wrong in his estimated time of death. Swanson is entirely non-committal and is clearly squating, if you will excuse me, on the fence posts of No. 29 Hanbury Street. I see no valid evidence to support the claim that the Police had any agreement on who or what to believe. RP
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1510
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 1:31 pm: |
|
How
Thanks. I've put together something fairly brief below, which may be suitable to send him.
Do feel free to make any changes you think fit.
Chris Phillips
_________________________
The body of Annie Chapman was discovered at about 6am in the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street, and examined by Dr Phillips, the divisional police surgeon, at about 6.30.
At the inquest Phillips said he thought the victim had been dead "at least two hours, and probably more" when he saw the body. This was evidently based on the temperature of the body.
The problem is that this estimate of the time of death conflicts with the evidence of three witnesses. One of these, Richardson, stated that the body had not been in the yard when he was there between 4.45 and 4.50. Another, Cadosch, said that from the back yard of 27 Hanbury Street he had heard "a sort of a fall" against the fence of number 29, 3 or 4 minutes after 5.20. A third, Mrs Long, said she saw Chapman nearby at about 5.30.
It has been suggested that the explanation for the discrepancy may be that Richardson was lying and the other two witnesses were mistaken.
What we should like to know is:
(1) What level of accuracy can we could expect from Phillips's estimate of the time of death based on body temperature? In evidence he said "The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body." He qualified his estimate as follows: "but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood." (In addition, the abdomen had been opened and part of its contents removed.)
(2) Whether we can learn anything about the time of death from Phillips's other observations, namely:
(i) That when he saw the body "Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing." When he examined the body again after 2.00pm, "The stiffness of the limbs was then well-marked."
(ii) That "The stomach contained a little food." (In his address to the jury, the coroner said "a meal of food".) When seen at about 1.50am, Chapman had been "eating potatoes". It is not known whether she had anything else to eat subsequently.
|
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1048
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 2:53 pm: |
|
Hi Howard and Chris,
Gareth makes a good point about the variance of digestion time, so maybe Howard could ask about that as well? How long does digestion take and what are the varying factors? Do potatoes digest slower than other foods?
For those in the UK, Dr. Wecht makes an appearance in The Men Who Killed Kennedy, which I think has played over there. He's the fellow criticizing the Kennedy autopsy.
Cheers,
Dave |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 716
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 3:37 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
I think we might want to include the information we have concerning Annie's state of health at the time. If she was suffering from TB, or something like that, what effect might illness, malnutrition, etc, have on digestion, body temperature (might her body temperature have been lower or higher to start with due to illness, etc? Would that matter given that temperature was measured by touch? (so the doctors hands are either warmer than usual by being in gloves up until he touches her, or colder because they are exposed?) Would this change her digestive system to slow things down?
Rigor Mortis is slowed in cool temperatures (apparently stops if things get below 10C, but then when the body warms up, progresses as normal). However, it can progress faster due to other factors (struggle, hemorage I think), etc. Also, there is a lot of individual variation as well that would make even the best hoped for estimation presented as a "window of probable times" (by probable times, that means the death could have happened outside of that window, but it has a low probability of doing so; say only a 5% chance of happening outside of the given window).
Maybe we should be asking for information along these lines? What are the various "windows of probable time"? Unfortunately, I suspect the windows would be large enough to span all the debated times, which doesn't really get us that far except to say "ok, we all could be right". But maybe that would be nice too?
- Jeff |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 439
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 4:54 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Wecht's assertions about the Kennedy evidence take him off my list of persons having anything useful to say about much of anything.
Stan |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1064
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 5:05 pm: |
|
Gents:
Chris: Nice effort,old bean...I have stashed that away for the time being.
Gareth's post may well be included too...it could be of importance.
Jeff's ideas likewise...
So if someone would like to collate all that data into one post [ if they wished ] I'll send it on to him. Using Chris's basic outline,maybe the additional info could give a better idea as to the time of death....
And...if someone knows of another pathologist who has ample experience,their opinion would be valuable too.
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1513
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 6:35 pm: |
|
How
Fine - please feel free to make use of it (or not) as you think fit.
It's your idea, and your contact, so if you are willing to do the collation, so much the better.
Stan
I don't think I've seen the Kennedy programme in question, but I certainly don't think another expert opinion can do any harm. So long, of course, as we treat it in a suitably level-headed manner. R. J. Palmer's caveat against treating expert opinion as Holy Writ is certainly pertinent.
Chris Phillips
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1065
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 7:08 pm: |
|
Chris:
The documentary that Dave O'Flaherty mentioned was first broadcast in 1988 and was created by British documentarian,Nigel Turner.
Okay then Chris...I'll go ahead and do that right away. Thanks for the nice list again !
P.S. Dave....Sox in Six. You heard it here first. |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 247
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 14, 2005 - 5:42 am: |
|
HI again all
I'm in a bit of a hurry and will try and return later. I've been making some enquiries as this piont has me facinated. The time of death says alot about Jack and the risks he is or not prepared to take. Hope you agree Glenn.
Anyway someone kindly dug up the following. I will try and find put more later.
Daily News, 10 September 1888: ˜She had probably come out of the infirmary with little or nothing in her pocket, and after putting in an appearance at the lodging house passed out into the street till just before two on the fatal Saturday morning, when she returned eating baked potatoes, and according to the deputy somewhat the worse for drink.'
The Daily Telegraph, 10 September 1888: ˜About 1.40a.m. on Saturday morning she came again to the lodging house, and asked for a bed. The message was brought upstairs to him, and he sent downstairs to ask for the money. The woman replied, "I haven't enough now, but keep my bed for me. I sha'n't be long." Then as she was going away she said to John Evans, the watchman, "Brummy, I won't be long. See that Jim keeps my bed for me." She was the worse for drink at the time, and was eating some baked potatoes.
On the face of it the sources for her eating baked potatoes would seem to be the night watchman John Evans.
I'm also wondering if the use of the plural potatoes, may be a regional accent thing. My Antie from Scunthorpe had a habit of putting 's' on the end of things. Anyway will post later.
Jeff
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1514
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 14, 2005 - 6:08 am: |
|
Jeff
Thanks for that useful information (and please thank your kind assistant).
The Daily News report seems a bit muddled as to Chapman's comings and goings, but from the Telegraph report and its coverage of Donovan's evidence at the inquest, it seems that she came to the lodging house between 1.30 and 1.45 (at about 1.40 according to the report you quote above) and went into the kitchen, and after that was called up by Donovan.
It was when she came up from the kitchen to Donovan that she was seen eating potatoes (and that seems to have been "two or three minutes" before "about ten minutes to two").
Anyhow, it seems the potatoes were indeed baked, but were also plural. And the Telegraph account above suggests she was still eating "some baked potatoes" when she left at about 1.50. (Perhaps she even saved one for later?)
How
In view of what Jeff pointed out about the jackets of baked potatoes being less easily digestible than the rest, I think it would be worth including the "baked" specification in anything you send to Wecht.
Chris Phillips
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 819
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 14, 2005 - 12:00 pm: |
|
I am not of Mr. Wecht's caliber. Far from it. But the things we eat contain mainly fiber, carbohydrates, protein, and water. Carbs include sugars which are extremely simple molecularly and break down rapidly and starches, which are more complex and take longer but do not rise to the level of proteins. Potatoes are mostly starch. Proteins, such as meat are made up of molecules of huge polypeptides, folded every which way sort of like the Los Angeles Freeway. They would definitely take the longest. I don't know what effect the presence of alcohol would have. |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1067
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 14, 2005 - 4:25 pm: |
|
Diana:
I will bring that to his attention,as I will add that on to the message as well as what Chris P. has mentioned.
Fortunately,for once,my stupidity turned out to be a good thing. I somehow misplaced his e-mail address as I was all ready to send that original post by Chris to him. His son sent me Cyril's personal address...so now I can send a better message.
Thanks again,Mrs.Comer,for that additional idea.
You too,Chris ! |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 774
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 4:28 am: |
|
Hi Howard,
What I miss in the good outline put together by Chris and what might be of some importance as well, is that Dr. Phillips, after having given his original estimate as to the time of death, admitted that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood might affect his opinion.
I look forward to 'hearing' what Dr. Wecht's can make of it.
Thanks for the efforts & all the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1519
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 4:37 am: |
|
Frank
I did include that bit, under number (1).
Chris Phillips
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 777
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 6:01 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
I see you're (of course) quite right. I guess I must've read your post too hastily. Sorry - stupid me. Please consider my message as 'not posted' then.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
N. Beresford
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 4:26 pm: |
|
To RJ,
Gosh, you've totally confused me - I'll have to take some time to think about what you've said. First of all, you are - no worries there, but as for anything else I'll have to think a while longer. You make some great points under the guise of doing yourself down - I think you are a free and radical thinker and allow and encourage this process, balance the weights of arguments. I like this approach. Skepticism, yes, can be a black-hole, a morass which only the intelectually weak can't be bothered to pull themselves out of. To quote Monty Python - 'This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction' - 'No, it isn't' - 'Yes, it is'.
The automatic gain-saying of what other people say is not Skepticism in my view, but open mindedness will win the day. Hmmm,..Skepticism means distrusting the provenance or weightiness of an assertion when the asserter is convinced of it's provenance or weightiness or at least willing to entertain it. This would make for good argument, wouldn't it. But, the autonomic shouting down of arguments - well, I can't see where the good lies in that. Discussion, chaps, at it!
A roister doister is an alternative to progress - sometimes the only alternative- while we wait.
Good waiting.
There is no Urban Myth of 'Jack the Ripper' - he was a monster, wasn't he?
This really ties in with another thread, but Gor! blimey if it ain't the same thread. Digestion, doc, if it ain't my digestion! I'm loathe to say what I think. I think it’s a good idea to get a doctor involved but if he can’t give us the conclusive information we would like is it time for the skeptics to rush in with arms flailing and come up with the solution - potassium permanganate and iron filings!
Hey, RJ. In a thing about Shakespeare, you put 'The plays that he wrote' - you obviously meant 'The plays what he wrote', didn't you?
By 'testimony', you mean 'Truth' (absolute).
Well, you see, The Brooklyn Bridge is a monument and a rock is a thing on the ground - buy the rock and you've got the rights to all the shipping that passes under it and the toll charges for the traffic that passes over it. Remarkable!
Yours, N. Beresford.(Best wishes to others). |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
