A time to live, a time to die

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

One of the many problems with the case is time.
It is the single biggest problem we have in every murder occurrance of the C5.

The Cross/Lechmere possibility has a root problem in the variance of time of attack/death of Polly Nichols.
The Richardson scenario and witness scenario is problematic because of the variance of time of attack/death of Annie Chapman.
At what time did Elizabeth Stride enter that Yard entrance, when was she fatally attacked, when did she die? All questions which are counter argued.
The Catherine Eddowes murder has real problems surrounding time of death, time of police beat involvement and time used prior to 1.45a.m.

Finally, the lack of time of death estimation at a hurriedly closed inquest has theorists vigourously making differing claims

And I have just listed some examples. There are more.

So I turn to the Doctor's estimations about time of death. Just what do we believe in each case?
In some cases there are varying medical opinions. A few approximations seem nigh on impossible relating to witness statements.

So what do we do? How exact could a time of death estimation need to be?
Time of death estimations are notoriously hard, but certain things make the job easier. The nearer the time of the doctor's arrival to the attack makes estimation easier as the window time-frame is smaller, body temperature is relatively near to the live temperaturep, and estimations given due to weather temperature and its effect on the body more easily taken into account.
On the contrary view, the Mary Kelly situation is minefield due to a broken window into a tiny room in a cold month with rain outside and a possibly lit fireplace alight at an unknown time the previous evening/day to complicate the problem of room temperature and at what point did the body become exposed to heat/cold.

If Nichols died at 3.30am- if Chapman died before 4.30am- if Stride died nearer 1am- if Eddowes died at 1.40am- if Kelly died after 6am- these are examples of the problems we face.

Do we believe that in 1888, the doctors were to be relied upon by today's standards of estimation? And what do we do when there are varying estimates given?
Do we rely on any newspaper witness accounts when we consider the doctors timings? Likewise statements given the police and at the inquests?

So which are the most reliable?

Views anyone?

I will be interested to read them.

Best wishes

Phil

[John Wheat]

To Phil
I don't think the estimations of times of death are that reliable and certainly not by today's standards of estimation. Even if the estimated times of death were reliable how much use would they really be in identifying the killer?

[Cogidubnus]

You're right Phil...much of the evidence that remains in this case is so, so dependent upon time...and yet as you observe it's a slippy-slidey subjective thing as far as most of the evidence is concerned...

In 1888 absolute time is measured just where? Did the churchwarden actually wind the clock last week and, if he did, did he check it against...(what?)...so even the generally recognised medium of time is relative, rather than absolute...

Any scientific (or even pseudo-scientific) estimate of time of death, any witness estimate of time, any statement at all (even if backed up by a timepiece of some kind), has to be seen against this background...

But I think we knew this anyway mate, and because I know you're a long, long way from being a dummy, I suspect your original post was almost a rhetorical question in it's own right! So spill Phil...what was it you didn't quite ask?

Best wishes always

Dave

[Phil Carter]

To Phil
I don't think the estimations of times of death are that reliable and certainly not by today's standards of estimation. Even if the estimated times of death were reliable how much use would they really be in identifying the killer?

Hello John,

Perhaps, and perhaps not. It might, in some cases, rule out some of today's suspicions though. Thank you for your reply. Appreciated.

Best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

You're right Phil...much of the evidence that remains in this case is so, so dependent upon time...and yet as you observe it's a slippy-slidey subjective thing as far as most of the evidence is concerned...

In 1888 absolute time is measured just where? Did the churchwarden actually wind the clock last week and, if he did, did he check it against...(what?)...so even the generally recognised medium of time is relative, rather than absolute...

Any scientific (or even pseudo-scientific) estimate of time of death, any witness estimate of time, any statement at all (even if backed up by a timepiece of some kind), has to be seen against this background...

But I think we knew this anyway mate, and because I know you're a long, long way from being a dummy, I suspect your original post was almost a rhetorical question in it's own right! So spill Phil...what was it you didn't quite ask?

Best wishes always

Dave

Hello Dave,

What I'd like to see, if possible, is 3 well versed experts in this particular field, study the 5 cases in detail, and individually explain the precise in's and out's of ability to recognise and record times of death given length of time after a murder had supposedly taken place, known conditions of weather and victim exposure, given only from the knowledge of the facts before them.

Imagine all murders medically re-assessed on the basis of time. Would it be possible to confirm or counter the medical opinion of the time? And three people doing it independantly of each other would ensure impartiality.

Thank you for your reply. Most appreciated.

Best wishes

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

In some ways I'm disappointed Phil...I thought you perhaps had something more in mind...but nonetheless it's still a very, very, interesting concept...which I'm sure could make a fascinating TV programme...now there's a thought...Where is Mr Leahy when you need him?

All the best

Dave

[Phil Carter]

Hello Dave,

It's a proposition in my mind at least, done as a paper. A written article on the subject. Independantly. The media circus can wait.

i do have a few other thoughts surrounding this but they are far from complete. Hint hint.
LOL

Best wishes

Phil

[Supe]

Several years ago Howard Brown prevailed upon Dr. Cyril H. Wecht, as famed a forensic pathologist as you'll find today, to study the few photographs available of the Canonic Five as well as what inquest or post mortem notes there are. As I recall, Howard reported that Dr. Wecht said there was simply too little surviving information to make any kind of determinations about the murders.

That struck me as a quite reasonable and honest reply, especially from as outspoken a pathologist as Dr. Wecht, and would seem to put finis to any thoughts of a modern pathological investigation based on the very meager amount of material that has come down to us.

Don.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Don,

thanks for the response.
Was he asked to study the medical utterances? Was he shown just the photographs?
Also, did Howard get 2nd and 3rd opinions? Was the pathologist asked to concentrate on the TIME element only? Was a paper of any sort presented with this conclusion? One man's one line opinion doesnt cut it as a fully independant asessment either. Ask the once most highly regarded historian AJP Taylor, or any physicist studying the start of the universe. (one of whom's proposal of a missing anti matter equation has only now, 35 years since his paper, been accepted as true.)

Pas finis.

Regards

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Don,

An apology. i missed the line referring to post mortem comments.
However, as said, a one line utterance isnt enough. And one experts opinion isnt enough. A paper of study, on the Time Element alone, from 3 independant experts, given the material we have today, is in my mind, needed, to give us the correct authenticity.
Just my thoughts.

Regards

Phil

[Supe]

Phil,

Ask the once most highly regarded historian AJP Taylor, or any physicist studying the start of the universe.

What are you blathering about?

As far as forensic evidence is concerned, do you understand what is involved today in making an estimate of time of death? Temperature of victim's body in situ, ambient temperature, as full a medical history as possible of the victim in order to balance all the elements that may speed up or retard temperature loss, blood clotting, onset of rigor and so on. None of that information is available for any of the Ripper victim's, so how would you expect your three "independent" (independent of what by the way? The cabal?) experts, or for that matter one hundred "experts," to make an informed determination of ToD? It's nonsense.

Don.

[Wickerman]

Phil.
We cannot even make a reliable determination today, even with all the forensic sciences.

'Determination of death time by the pathologist is seldom useful as evidence in criminal proceedings because of the non-predictability of the rate of post mortem changes, the lack of reproducible standards allowing correlation between post mortem interval and a post mortem change, and a wide variation in opinions when confronted with the same facts. It is a subjective opinion and little weight should be placed on it'
Read more: http://www.forensicmed.co.uk/patholo...rtem-interval/

In the 19th century the three most reliable methods for determining the Post Mortem Interval (from death to autopsy) were Rigor Mortis, Algor mortis, and Liver Mortis. Today these are still referred to as the three "classic" methods.

This pdf is a very good source for anyone interested.

https://www.dundee.ac.uk/forensicmedicine/notes/timedeath.pdf

Regards, Jon S.

[Phil Carter]

'As far as forensic evidence is concerned, do you understand what is involved today in making an estimate of time of death? Temperature of victim's body in situ, ambient temperature, as full a medical history as possible of the victim in order to balance all the elements that may speed up or retard temperature loss, blood clotting, onset of rigor and so on. None of that information is available for any of the Ripper victim's, so how would you expect your three "independent" (independent of what by the way? The cabal?) experts, or for that matter one hundred "experts," to make an informed determination of ToD? It's nonsense.'

Hello Don,

Do be so kind and quote your sources next time, there's a good chap. We wouldn't want anyone thinking you were an acredited expert on time of death pathology in situ, would we?

Independant of EACH OTHER, done independantly, without the other being aware of, hindering any use of one another's work. Separate from others. Separately. On their own.
Want any more definitions of the meanings? There are various on-line dictionaries available you know?

'Nonsense' eh? A ludicrous notion? A lame idea? The suggestion that ANY NUMBER of Pathologists could attempt to form an opinion today related to medical evidence in 1888?
I see.
Then you obviously think it was completely nonsensical of Howard to ask someone to do that very thing! Now be a nice chap and tell the gentleman in the same, deft manner you have here. I'm sure he'll get the message. I did.

Now if you wont mind, I have a respectful post to answer from Jon, whìch is most helpful and educational. With references, note- so you wont have to offer me any now. That's good.

Regards

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Phil.
We cannot even make a reliable determination today, even with all the forensic sciences.

'Determination of death time by the pathologist is seldom useful as evidence in criminal proceedings because of the non-predictability of the rate of post mortem changes, the lack of reproducible standards allowing correlation between post mortem interval and a post mortem change, and a wide variation in opinions when confronted with the same facts. It is a subjective opinion and little weight should be placed on it'
Read more: http://www.forensicmed.co.uk/patholo...rtem-interval/

In the 19th century the three most reliable methods for determining the Post Mortem Interval (from death to autopsy) were Rigor Mortis, Algor mortis, and Liver Mortis. Today these are still referred to as the three "classic" methods.

This pdf is a very good source for anyone interested.

https://www.dundee.ac.uk/forensicmedicine/notes/timedeath.pdf

Regards, Jon S.

Hello Jon,

Thank you for your excellent post. It is indeed most appreciated.
I have had a quick look at the links. But may have missed a reference to near-attack time of death examinations (violent crime)? This area interests me greatly. I will peruse the links again at length.
Thank you again for your help.
EDIT- I have found a reference in one, and it clearly states that the nearer the body being attacked to the examination starting, the estimated t.o.d will be more precise.
best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

In one of the links Jon so kindly provided, it states that it is futile estimating any time of death in units of minutes or parts of an hour, when the time of death is UNDER an hour. It goes on to say that any doctor who does this is exposing himself to ridicule.
At the same time he is to give a maximum estimate and a minimum estimate of time of death.

Interesting.

Best wishes

Phil