Time Of Death

[FISHY1118]

Interesting how in the case of Nichols ,Stride and Eddowes the t.o.d given by the medical doctors when they first examining the bodies seems to be pretty much spot on according to the witness statements and police reports. Where as in Chapman's case according to one doctor it was so far out, or was he ? Thoughts anyone .

[FISHY1118]

packers stem
Inspector

• 

#1 3 and a half missing hours...

10-12-2015, 11:31 AM
'IF' we believe Annie was killed at around 5.30 ,she had 3.5 hours of wandering beforehand.That's a lot of wandering with no sightings in an area where people were coming and going through the night .If there was a 'case' for believing a ripper victim was not killed on the spot and transported there then surely Annie is the one...and what's the explanation for the blood at no.25?

[FISHY1118]

Fisherman
Commisioner

• Join Date: Feb 2008
• Posts: 19404

• 

#
Remember what Phillips said at the inquest. He examined Chapman at around 6.30, and stated that he was of the meaning that she had been dead AT LEAST two hours, and PROBABLY MORE.

So that should take perhaps three hours of that "lost" time, if Phillips was on the money. My own feeling is that he was.

[FISHY1118]

Hope you guys dont mind me posting some of your earlier thoughts on this subject . Are you both still of the same opinion still ?

[FISHY1118]

Beware the dreaded sherlock tho

[JeffHamm]

Hi Fishy,

In Nichols, Chapman, and Stride's cases the body appears to have been discovered very soon after the murder happened. It is possible in all of those cases that the murder had, for all intents and purposes, just occurred minutes before discovery. In 1888, a big part in the estimation of TOD was done simply by the doctor feeling the body and judging the temperature. That, and also based upon rigor mortis started to set in and how it progressed, was pretty much all they had to work with. So if the body was still warm, it was considered fairly soon since death. Rigor mortis is highly variable, and can start anywhere from 6 - 12 hours after death (or something like that), which basically means once that starts the estimate of ToD is somewhere between 6 and 12 hours previously. Surface body temperature, as determined by touch, is simply so variable that modern research pretty much shows it is about as useful as tea leaves. Doctors of 1888, however, didn't have that information, and presumed that experience would train someone to get better at that. That assumption has proven invalid.

The would be some other possible sources of evidence they could use at the crime scene, such as whether or not the blood had clotted, but that tends to occur over a period of 10 minutes or so. In Stride's case there are some indications in the testimony that appear to suggest that the earliest descriptions of the blood are before it clotted, and by the end of the sequence we start to get reports of the blood clot being present. While interesting to note, it's also entirely possible that the recorded statements we have simply reflect that different people mention and omit different details.

Anyway, in Chapman's case in particular, the murder had probably occurred a bit longer before discovery, and it was just before dawn, so the temperature would be at its lowest. This will cool the body faster, as of course would the removal of the intestines, the removal of the flesh over the gut cavity (Eddowes, while the intestines were drawn out, did not have the skin flaps of the stomach removed from the body). These would allow the body to cool faster than is typical, throwing off an already unreliable measurement. The doctor notes that their estimation does not take into account the testimony of the other witnesses, and he indicates that if those factors had a greater effect at cooling the body than he estimated (i.e. guessed), then he would not say his estimate for the time of the murder was to be preferred. Basically, he indicated caution as well, which I think shows a good understanding of the measurement technique and the external factors that influence it.

Personally, I tend to set aside the medical estimates of the ToD simply because the measurements they used are all now known to be so imprecise that the values given are meaningless unless supported by other sources of evidence, and when they are supported, it's the other evidence that is sufficient for ToD determination. We can narrow Nichols and Eddowes ToD down to within 30 minutes for Nichols and Eddowes to within 14 minutes based upon the PC's patrol times, which is already a narrower window than the medical estimates can give anyway. We lack that for Stride, but there are other testimonies that do much the same for us.

In Kelly's case, though I know you didn't mention her, we have fewer clues, and the ones we have are more ambiguous (was she the one who cried out "murder" around 4:00 am? for example). The doctor noted rigor mortis setting in, and combined with the signs of food in her stomach, placed the ToD around 2 I think it is, which is close to a 12 hour set in time for rigor. But 4 would also be within that 6-12 hour time window; but that's a pretty broad brush.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

Someone was alive at that very location, on the spot where she is found, at 5:20am. Therefore, unless that person stood over a mutilated woman, or unless the body was brought from elsewhere after that time, Annie was killed around 5:20-5:25.

[FISHY1118]

Someone was alive at that very location, on the spot where she is found, at 5:20am. .... who ?

[John G]

Even today ToD estimates cannot be relied upon.

This is the current guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator concerning estimating the post mortem interval from body temperature:

6.3.2
"When providing a ToD estimate to the investigator the pathologist should take the following steps:

a) The pathologist must make clear the estimate is only an estimate and the accuracy cannot be determined.

b) The pathologist must explain that the death could have occurred outside the estimated period and, parhaps, a significant period outside it.

c) Advise that the estimate should not be used to:

(i) Define the period in which death occurred;

(ii) Assign probabilities to likely periods of death; or

(iii) Include or exclude a suspect from the investigation."

Source: The Use of Time of Death Estimates Based on Heat Loss From the Body, FSR- G-211, Issue 1, 2014.

[Michael W Richards]

Someone was alive at that very location, on the spot where she is found, at 5:20am. .... who ?

Obviously the "no" and thud was Annie and her killer at 5:20.

[Michael W Richards]

The fact that Annie was suggested to have been dead for some time likely related to the inaccuracies rife in the TOD guesstimate game as John suggests above, and the fact that they didn't have many corpses that had their internal organs accessed and exposed or removed in the morning air before. Just one other in recent memory it appears.

[FISHY1118]

The obvious may not seem that obvious when we look at the inquest testimonies of Mrs Long and Mr Albert Cadosch.''I got up about a quarter past five in the morning, and went into the yard. It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door.''

Mrs. Elizabeth Long said: I live in Church-row, Whitechapel, and my husband, James Long, is a cart minder. On Saturday, Sept. 8, about half past five o'clock in the morning, I was passing down Hanbury-street, from home, on my way to Spitalfields Market. I knew the time, because I heard the brewer's clock strike half-past five just before I got to the street. I passed 29, Hanbury-street. On the right-hand side, the same side as the house, I saw a man and a woman standing on the pavement talking. The man's back was turned towards Brick-lane, and the woman's was towards the market. They were standing only a few yards nearer Brick-lane from 29, Hanbury-street. I saw the woman's face. Have seen the deceased in the mortuary, and I am sure the woman that I saw in Hanbury-street was the deceased.

Long was sure the women she saw was Chapman and it was 5.30 when she entered handbury street , so it had to be at least 1 to 2 minutes before she passed Chapman and her companion. Then another minute for them to enter through the passage to the spot she supposedly said ''no'' which makes it 5.33 before shes on the murder spot.

13 minutes after Cadosch heard someone say ''no''....... THAT ''NO'' wasn't Chapman if were to believe Mrs Longs account .


Now im only going on what they both gave in evidents at the official inquest, thats all we can go on , saying or making excuse for their times being wrong or inaccurate for what ever reason would be to change the testmonie to suit another narrative .

[FISHY1118]

I tend to favor Mrs long due too the following inquest statement from cadosch Albert Cadosch ''As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. i however cannot say on which side it came from,''... could this mean that it could have come from number 25 ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I tend to favor Mrs long due too the following inquest statement from cadosch Albert Cadosch ''As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. i however cannot say on which side it came from,''... could this mean that it could have come from number 25 ?

I have to ask. Are Jeff and JohnG just making stuff up to suit an agenda too? Or do you now accept that what I told you was true (and John And Jeff know far more about it than I do by the way) that TOD estimations were unreliable and could be wildly inaccurate?

[FISHY1118]

That TOD estimations were unreliable and could be wildly inaccurate?......... rubbish... my post already prove that 3 doctors were right with there time of death . subject closed move on . admit you were wrong .

anyone else that would like to comment on long v cadoush feel free