Lechmere versus Richardson.

[JeffHamm]

Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
In my opinion, it's likely the doctors were aware of the patrol times and so their assessment will be one of determining if that time is consistent with the medical information. With Chapman, there isn't that information and the unreliability of the techniques is in full force. Even today, taking proper measurements (internal body temperatures with thermometers, etc), is not reliable enough to make the call.
Are you suggesting a type of medical insider trading? Unreliable as their techniques may have been, their estimates were not wildly off the mark.

Ha ha! Not quite, rather, that their assessment would be influenced by such knowledge. It changes how they view things and would be looking to see if the temperature of the body (which was their primary measure; though we have a mention of Rigor onset with Chapman) was consistent with the rest of the information. They're only "accurate" in the cases where that sort of information was available. With Chapman, the doctor would have less information to work with, so the guess is more prone to be wrong when compared to information that arises later. Not too, Dr. P. does point out that his estimate would be wrong if, due to the coolness of the morning and blood loss, the body cooled more quickly than he factored in - which indicates he was not using Rigor onset as the primary basis for his estimate but body temperature by touch, which we now know doesn't work.

Long's testimony could be erroneous, but she did identify Chapman at the morgue as the woman she saw. That could be wrong too, of course, particularly if she only was shown Chapman and just asked if this was the woman she saw. She might have said "Yes" to anyone after all. However, it is still an identification of the victim being the woman she saw, and that shouldn't be entirely ignored without care.
That would be my suggestion.

And we can't be sure that didn't happen, but at the same time, we can't be sure it did either; a common theme in all of these cases.

As you say, if he's willing to murder in daylight, then aren't we talking about someone with really poor risk assessment, at least during this murder? Might that be consistent with someone willing to commit two murders on the same night (presuming Stride is a JtR victim of course) or someone willing to kill in the open street (Nichols), or murder after being seen in Kelly's company (Blotchy, or Astrakhan man) or maybe Eddowes (Church Passage Man) or Stride (a fair number of possible sightings - and very risky if Schwartz saw him attacking Stride)? I'm not sure Chapman's murder can be set to be at night simply because daylight is risky. It looks to me that JtR took huge risks at virtually all of the crimes, and so to me his assessment of the risks seems very unlike how you and I would see things.
I agree that risk assessment is a major part of our considerations. I have difficulty accepting that someone with really poor risk assessment could have escaped detection to the degree that the police admitted that no one ever saw him other than possibly one unnamed police officer.

Well, there wasn't any CCTV, or phones to track, etc. At the time, it would be difficult to catch a stranger killer as unless he was spotted in the act all he has to do is distance himself post offense. And the police did think there were more people who spotted him Lawende, Leve, and Schwartz come to mind, though later memoirs may state otherwise. And yet, if those sightings are valid, then being seen with the victim, in the vicinity of the crime scene, only shortly before the murder, was not enough to prevent him from going on and killing. And if Schwartz did see the start of Stride's murder, then even being seen assaulting the victim did not stop him. Again, I don't see any high level of clever risk management, rather, it looks very out of control and his escapes were more due to luck than by design.

But again, that's just how I see things, and obviously I can't (and am not) saying you're view is impossible or wrong. It's just different from mine. Between the two us, we're bound to get something right though!

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I am gratified when a poster of your calibre challenges my assessment of the evidence as it forces me to re-examine my evidence trail and my logical progressions. Whether, as a consequence, I change my opinion is neither here nor there.

Best regards, George

I enjoy the sharing of ideas and viewpoints as well. Always something to consider.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Another thing that’s also ‘flawed’ Trevor is a Victorian doctors TOD estimates

How flawed could they have been? LLewellyn, Brown and Sequeira were only minutes out in their time since death estimates. It is speculation that Phillips was out by an hour or more.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

How flawed could they have been? LLewellyn, Brown and Sequeira were only minutes out in their time since death estimates. It is speculation that Phillips was out by an hour or more.

Cheers, George

It’s also speculation that the witnesses were all wrong too George. It can’t be said that Phillips was definitely wrong or right and the same goes for the witnesses but we know 2 things: 1) 3 witnesses all point to a later TOD, and 2) that TOD estimation at that time was undoubtedly unreliable with so many factors being involved (and if I recall correctly 2 of those factors Phillips wouldn’t have been aware of in 1888)

[GBinOz]

TOD estimation at that time was undoubtedly unreliable with so many factors being involved (and if I recall correctly 2 of those factors Phillips wouldn’t have been aware of in 1888)

So were LLewellyn, Brown and Sequeira using a different method?

[JeffHamm]

So were LLewellyn, Brown and Sequeira using a different method?

Don't forget that Phillips does qualify his time as well, and he admits if he's miscalculated how fast the body would cool his estimate will be off. We see him hedging his bets as he hears about the witness statements. Hence, it seems likely that the other doctors were simply confirming that there was nothing about the body that would be inconsistent with death during the time between the police patrols. They are accurate only because there was very little room for them to guess and be far off. With PC Watkin's patrol being 14 minutes, the Dr's really couldn't be out by much at all. It's not the method that was accurate, it was the fact they had a small window to work with. And given how variable the data is, they can't say it was inconsistent with that. With Chapman they have less information, so there's more room for the flawed method to show itself to be flawed.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

But he wasnt there for 5 mins was he, unless he did not remove the organs then I would be inclined to agree on that time. But if as you suggest he did remove the organs then the least time according to Dr Phillips was 15 mins to remove the organs thats an awful long time to spend with a murder victim at that time of the morning.

So, you're suggesting that 5 minutes is enough time to kill and mutilate Chapman as she's described apart from the removal of her uterus, and that 10 minutes were required to do the one additional step of cutting out her uterus. Twice as much time was required for that one step as all the rest of it combined.

But why would the killer take that un-necessary risk. As as I keep having to say there were no other murders as late as 5.30am, If the killer was looking for potential victims throughout the night I am sure there were plenty around to be had.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That's the question, though, isn't it? Why would he take such a risk? Forget the organ debate for now, but regardless of the time the murder occurred, to kill and mutilate a victim while trapped in a backyard with no escape route is in and of itself a huge risk. That step alone means whoever JtR was, his risk assessment of the murder scenes is not the same as we view it. Either he's psychotic, so delusional thinking (not necessarily a dribbling idiot, but it would mean he doesn't assess situations well) or his psychopathic, and so-over-the-top unconcerned about risk that he goes for it all the same. While there are problems with drawing parallels to modern cases, but just as an example, think of Ted Bundy and his double abduction at Lake Sammamish - he's using his real name, and he approached multiple people throughout the day ensuring that he was spotted and so potentially recognizable. And indeed, he was recognized enough that the composite image they released was accurate enough to raise the suspicions of his girl friend who then reported him to the police. The risks he took were just unfathomably stupidly high, but to him they were worth the effort. In the end, murder is an incredible risky activity, and mutilation type murders even more so.

In short, I don't think it is safe to rule out the time simply because to us it seems too risky - we're applying normal thinking to someone who clearly does not think normally.

And just because there were no other murders at 5:30 am (well, Kelly may have been murdered at 4:00 am but of course that's closer to Dr. P's guess, but some even suggest it was after she had got up and been out that morning, but I think those latter reports are wrong) that doesn't mean much. This is a specific case, and if he killed her at 5:30ish or a bit earlier, then that's what he did this particular time. It's hard to say, but that may even tell us something important about JtR and his daily routines; sometimes the key piece of the puzzle is something as innocuous as that one deviation from what is seen as the more typical case. To override the evidence simply because it doesn't fit the pattern of the other specific cases is to make the cases look more uniform than they may actually have been. That results in thinking the time of the murder is specifically important, but it is the Chapman case that could point to that assumption being wrong. While I do see what you're getting at, and that the 5:30ish time seems uncharacteristic, but that doesn't make it wrong.

In the end, we either go with unreliable guesses by the doctor, or the inherent unreliability of eye-witness testimony. None of the information we have is reliable, or "safe" as you like to put it, but of all the statements it is only the doctor's which is qualified such that he does not completely rule out the later time, and so the time of 5:30 is, while not his first choice, an estimate that he himself does not refute completely. To me, that suggests it should be viewed as the best working hypothesis.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

So, you're suggesting that 5 minutes is enough time to kill and mutilate Chapman as she's described apart from the removal of her uterus, and that 10 minutes were required to do the one additional step of cutting out her uterus. Twice as much time was required for that one step as all the rest of it combined.

I am not saying that I am reiterating what Dr Phillips stated at the inquest about how long it would have taken him he states 15 mins to remove the uterus

In the end, we either go with unreliable guesses by the doctor, or the inherent unreliability of eye-witness testimony. None of the information we have is reliable, or "safe" as you like to put it, but of all the statements it is only the doctor's which is qualified such that he does not completely rule out the later time, and so the time of 5:30 is, while not his first choice, an estimate that he himself does not refute completely. To me, that suggests it should be viewed as the best working hypothesis. - Jeff

To much emphasis is being put on Phillips TOD being wrong He examained the body at around 6am he stated at the inquest "I should say at least two hours, and probably more"

Now for those who say he guessed wrong exactly how wrong was he and how far out was his TOD? He says two hours and probably more. he doesnt say two hours or probably less.

Probably more could infer 3 hours. Had he said probably less than 2 hours then that might have been nearer the TOD suggested by those who prop up a later time of death

The deciding factor in my opinion is where he states "the stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but was evidently commencing." indictaing the onset of Rigor Mortis

Dr Biggs tells us on the topic which fits Annie Chapman

The exact time since death cannot be estimated with any degree of accuracy or certainty. (As an aside, if the victim is a malnourished, slight, alcoholic female then rigor mortis may be less pronounced than might be expected, and so detection of rigor mortis in such an individual may in fact indicate a longer time having elapsed since death.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

And just because there were no other murders at 5:30 am (well, Kelly may have been murdered at 4:00 am but of course that's closer to Dr. P's guess, but some even suggest it was after she had got up and been out that morning, but I think those latter reports are wrong) that doesn't mean much.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Elizabeth Long is walking down the street on a morning that is no different to any other morning, and sights a couple, neither of whom she knew who were doing nothing more noticeable than talking, and from the many couples that Long said were present at that time she notes enough detail to identify the woman and to describe the man and his clothing.

Caroline Maxwell sights Mary Kelly, whom she knows, and is shocked by her appearance and her behaviour. She actually speaks with Mary, and later sees her again talking to a man outside a pub.
Maurice Lewis, who had known Mary Kelly for the past five years, saw her at 8.00am and 10.00am.

I am entirely more accepting of the later reports than the former.

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

To much emphasis is being put on Phillips TOD being wrong He examained the body at around 6am he stated at the inquest "I should say at least two hours, and probably more"

Now for those who say he guessed wrong exactly how wrong was he and how far out was his TOD? He says two hours and probably more. he doesnt say two hours or probably less.

Probably more could infer 3 hours. Had he said probably less than 2 hours then that might have been nearer the TOD suggested by those who prop up a later time of death

The deciding factor in my opinion is where he states "the stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but was evidently commencing." indictaing the onset of Rigor Mortis

Dr Biggs tells us on the topic which fits Annie Chapman

The exact time since death cannot be estimated with any degree of accuracy or certainty. (As an aside, if the victim is a malnourished, slight, alcoholic female then rigor mortis may be less pronounced than might be expected, and so detection of rigor mortis in such an individual may in fact indicate a longer time having elapsed since death.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And yet here, we see that malnourishment speeds up rigor onset, with the following quotes relevant:

"... In subjects who pass away when in a very low physical condition – usually very underweight and malnourished individuals – rigor mortis can set in much more rapidly. ..."

"...Rigor mortis initiates when ATP levels are approximately 85% of a normal, healthy level. In subjects who, previous to death, were unable to produce normal levels of ATP either through malnutrition or other disorders such as Huntingdon’s disease, rigor mortis will develop at a more rapid rate. In those with high muscle mass or high ATP production and transfer rates such as the active obese, rates can usually be expected to slow down. Adenosine triphosphate levels of 15% indicate maximum rigor. ..."

And, while extremely rare, there is one case (not comparable to Chapman though) reported where rigor set in within the first minute or two after death, to the point the medical team could not perform chess compressions! The article is here. I'm only mentioning this one as an indication of just how variable rigor onset is, and how the factors that are important to assess things are numerous, and we do not have all the pertinent ones. The one aspect of this rapid onset case is that does correspond is that the patient was ill and had been losing a lot of weight in the previous weeks (and we know Annie was poorly, and she would have been walking around much of the night and does not appear to have eaten much the night before).

Again, we just don't know enough, neither did Dr. Phillips at the time, to determine with any degree of accuracy a ToD based upon rigor onset. There's also the possibility that the stiffness he noted wasn't rigor, but something called cold shortening that happens when a gutted carcass is cooled rapidly after death. Given the descriptions we have of a cool morning, that even Dr. P. acknowledges may have thrown off his estimate (because he didn't base it on rigor but on body temperature by touch).

In this article, where body temperature (in this case beagles) measured rectally and with a thermometer could, at best, estimate the ToD in 2 hour bands. That's a procedure far more accurate than touching the body with one's hands, and even then we're dealing with 2 hour bands for the estimate. The "bands" for touching will be far far wider. (relevant section:
"... The study by Erlandsson & Munro⁸ on beagles showed that over the first 10 hours after death rectal temperature could be helpful in establishing the approximate time of death within intervals, or time bands, of 2 hours. Further, under the conditions of the study (dogs lying undisturbed in cool dry air), body temperature declined to ambient temperature by 24–48 hours after death. Additional data are required on the effects on the cooling curve of higher ambient temperatures, different body weights, moving air, coverings and immersion in water. ...
"
)

So no, I don't think too much is being made of the unsafe nature of Dr. Phillip's estimated ToD, or any of the ToD's proposed by the doctors in any of the cases. I don't think any of the ToD's are "supported" by the doctors' guesses because they are just that, guesses based upon a method that is not capable of providing the degree of accuracy they believed it could. If their guess appears to correspond with the other information we have in some of the cases I rather suspect that reflects them having that same information and that knowledge influenced their estimate.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

The TOD of Mary Kelly is generally thought to be around 4am. What is the basis for this belief?

Elizabeth Prater: I went to bed at half-past one and barricaded the door with two tables. I fell asleep directly and slept soundly. A kitten disturbed me about half-past three o'clock or a quarter to four. As I was turning round I heard a suppressed cry of "Oh - murder!" in a faint voice. It seemed to proceed from the court.
[Coroner] Do you often hear cries of "Murder?" - It is nothing unusual in the street. I did not take particular notice.

Mary Ann Cox: [Coroner] Did you go to sleep ? - No; I was upset. I did not undress at all. I did not sleep at all. I must have heard what went on in the court. I heard no noise or cry of "Murder," but men went out to work in the market.
I feel certain if there had been the cry of "Murder" in the place I should have heard it; there was not the least noise.

So eye witness reports from Caroline Maxwell and Maurice Lewis are discarded in favour of two contradictory reports and a medical TOD estimate?

Is Phillip's TOD at Hanbury St the only estimate that is flawed and inaccurate?

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

Elizabeth Long is walking down the street on a morning that is no different to any other morning, and sights a couple, neither of whom she knew who were doing nothing more noticeable than talking, and from the many couples that Long said were present at that time she notes enough detail to identify the woman and to describe the man and his clothing.

Caroline Maxwell sights Mary Kelly, whom she knows, and is shocked by her appearance and her behaviour. She actually speaks with Mary, and later sees her again talking to a man outside a pub.
Maurice Lewis, who had known Mary Kelly for the past five years, saw her at 8.00am and 10.00am.

I am entirely more accepting of the later reports than the former.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Yah, the testimony is odd, and the argument is generally that they may have misremembered which day they saw her. I think the fact that Kelly is wearing what appears to be her sleeping clothes (a chemise), suggests she was murdered after going to bed for the night. However, one can't rule out that she wore the chemise as an under garment, and was servicing a client in the morning I suppose. While her being ill might argue against that, she was desperate for money and one does what they must. I could be wrong on this, but if I am, it seems a remarkably short period of time for the extensive mutilations. And, of course, it would mean her killer then walks out into the street, full daylight, people around, and there must be some blood on him (but he might have time to clean up) yet there's no sightings of a man leaving the courtyard. It could happen of course, maybe nobody took notice, etc, but it's uncomfortable. There's also the sounds of footsteps leaving the area earlier (I forget the time, maybe 6 am ish?), which I think the person attributes to a police officer, but it also could have been her killer leaving the scene (which would fit with possible cry of "murder" heard that night - again acknowledging that may be something that is unrelated to the murder). Also a day time killing would not require the fire, well, at least not for light.

But, if we accept that Kelly was killed that morning, then 5:30 is no longer unusual with regards to the time of his crimes, and being willing to walk around in the day light post-murder is something he's clearly ok with; as is committing a murder in a location from which he cannot escape and where if the victim makes any call for help (and maybe she did), he is risking detection (and got lucky nobody came to inspect).

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

The TOD of Mary Kelly is generally thought to be around 4am. What is the basis for this belief?

Elizabeth Prater: I went to bed at half-past one and barricaded the door with two tables. I fell asleep directly and slept soundly. A kitten disturbed me about half-past three o'clock or a quarter to four. As I was turning round I heard a suppressed cry of "Oh - murder!" in a faint voice. It seemed to proceed from the court.
[Coroner] Do you often hear cries of "Murder?" - It is nothing unusual in the street. I did not take particular notice.

Mary Ann Cox: [Coroner] Did you go to sleep ? - No; I was upset. I did not undress at all. I did not sleep at all. I must have heard what went on in the court. I heard no noise or cry of "Murder," but men went out to work in the market.
I feel certain if there had been the cry of "Murder" in the place I should have heard it; there was not the least noise.

So eye witness reports from Caroline Maxwell and Maurice Lewis are discarded in favour of two contradictory reports and a medical TOD estimate?

Is Phillip's TOD at Hanbury St the only estimate that is flawed and inaccurate?

Cheers, George

No, all the doctors' ToD estimates are flawed in my view and should just be ignored. I don't include any of them myself.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Yah, the testimony is odd, and the argument is generally that they may have misremembered which day they saw her.
The other theory is that it was not actually Mary Kelly that died that morning.

And, of course, it would mean her killer then walks out into the street, full daylight, people around, and there must be some blood on him (but he might have time to clean up) yet there's no sightings of a man leaving the courtyard. It could happen of course, maybe nobody took notice, etc, but it's uncomfortable.
Isn't this what is being suggested for Hanbury St?

- Jeff

"And, while extremely rare, there is one case (not comparable to Chapman though) reported where rigor set in within the first minute or two after death, to the point the medical team could not perform chess compressions!" Is that anything like the Sicilian Defence?

Best regards, George

[rjpalmer]

He went to feed a rabbit!!!!

Where was that rabbit?! Do rabbits need the carrot to be cut in order to eat them?!

The Baron

That's the spirit!

And Mrs. Richardson certainly chose a strange week to wash her son's leather apron. The timing was strange enough that the Coroner even joked about it.

And does one normally soak leather?

I must say, there may be an innocent explanation, but I've sawed and nailed a lot of boards in my life, and I don't recall ever needing to do much more than brush the sawdust off afterwards...unless there was an accident of some sort and there were stains...

[FISHY1118]

req

In Dr Browns report to Anderson he states

“In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific or anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals.

So that being said do you still believe the killer removed the organs at the crime scene

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Coroner] Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill? - Dr Brown He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.

Now look closely at what you wrote ''The Mutilations''required no scientific or anatomical knowlegde ..... NOT the removal of HER kellys organs . Dr Brown was describing the ''mutilations'' ,he like you had no idea wether the killer romoved kellys organs ''before'' the mutilation began in the same way in which he removed Eddowes just as he described, with A.K. So your back to square one arent you, No Dr has said the organs of Kelly were removed with out any anotomical knowledge . Again your whole theory falls apart with Kellys organs left behind at the murder scene by the same killer who murdered Nichols ,Chapman, Eddowes and Stride .