Evidence of innocence

[JeffHamm]

Are you saying that even Quincy couldn’t have done it Jeff?

Oh, let's not go that far! ha ha!

But seriously, while anything is possible in creative writing, if one wants to apply science to the real world then we are limited by how things actually work, and that includes the variability associated with our measurements and also the influence of "unknown variables" (things we didn't realize were important).

Equations produce exact values, because that's how math works, but the connection between the output of an equation based upon a real world measurement value and the true value of what the equation estimates will have variation in how closely they correspond, because that's how science works. The goal of research is to try and account for more and more of that variation, resulting in a closer and closer correspondence between the estimated value (like the estimated ToD) and the true value (like the actual ToD). To do that, we generally need more and more complex equations, that require more reliable measurements and generally a larger collection of measurements (i.e. not just body temperature, but environmental temperature, so two values go into our equation - maybe victim's body mass needs to be include to improve that reliability, and so forth).

The number of things that influence body cooling post-mortem are large. One source of variation is the fact that people's starting temperature is not the same. Some people have higher internal body temperatures than others, and that information is not available in estimating the ToD of a murder victim. So two bodies can be found with the same internal body temperature, but if one victim's living temperature is a degree higher than the other, that means that victim has been dead longer. The other complications is that, for reasons unknown, sometimes the internal body temperature can rise before it starts to fall, and so that could result in a fairly large underestimation of how long they have been dead.

And all of these complications require that you use internal body temperatures (touching the body surface is not reliable at all; we even see the doctor's saying that some parts might be cold, like the face and hands, while others can be warm, the upper arms - which do you use?) and even then the estimated value from the equations will have a range of error with regards to the true time of death that spans hours - even under the best conditions! (one of those best conditions is that the body is intact!).

The JtR crimes are very much a worst case scenerio even today, so while it's hard to accept, the doctors at the time, using the best knowledge of the day, simply cannot provide an estimate that should be viewed as reliable beyond within a few hours. Given the estimates for Stride and Eddowes do correspond to the other evidence, I rather suspect the doctors were factoring that in and so their estimated ToDs should be viewed as confirming that the medical evidence was consistent with what that other evidence pointed to. (We should note we see the doctors doing this in the McKenzie case, I believe, where the opinion is stated as "Based purely on the medical information I don't think she was killed by JtR, but if other evidence were to contradict that, I wouldn't object" (not the exact words, but I think that captures the intent - that if the doctor were to factor in other information that might be forth coming, they would change their opinion).

- Jeff

[Lewis C]

I think very few people would convict anyone on the basis of evidence as weak as the evidence against Cross.

I hope that you're right.

[John Wheat]

If The Baron is accurately quoting Fisherman here, I find this statement concerning. Fisherman is saying that Cross is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning that if a case with this evidence came to a jury that he was on, he would be in favor of convicting. It makes me wonder how many other people out there that serve on juries would favor convicting on the basis of evidence as weak as the evidence against Cross. If there are many of them, then there must be a lot of innocent people being convicted. We know there's a significant number of them anyway, but maybe the number is higher than we think.

I think very few people would convict anyone on the basis of evidence as weak as the evidence against Cross.

[Lewis C]

In my world, there can be no realistic chance that he was NOT guilty

If The Baron is accurately quoting Fisherman here, I find this statement concerning. Fisherman is saying that Cross is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning that if a case with this evidence came to a jury that he was on, he would be in favor of convicting. It makes me wonder how many other people out there that serve on juries would favor convicting on the basis of evidence as weak as the evidence against Cross. If there are many of them, then there must be a lot of innocent people being convicted. We know there's a significant number of them anyway, but maybe the number is higher than we think.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Forensic medicine is far far more complicated and far far less precise than the general public perception of it. Movies, TV shows, and so forth, give the impression that ToD can be pinpointed down to minutes by a few simple measurements and assessments. The reality is that it cannot, and even today, the reliability of estimates of ToD are associated with ranges in the order of hours at best. Even if one takes measurements following current best practice methods, including accurate measurements of the environmental temperature, accurate internal body temperature readings, and factors in the coverage of the body by clothing, the presence/absence of water, and so forth, we're still looking at ranges that span hours. The progression of rigor is likewise highly variable in terms of the time course of when it sets in, how it progresses, and so forth. Much of the information used today was simply unknown at the time of the JtR murders so it was unavailable to the doctors at the time, and even what was known in the literature does not appear to have been applied. We have no evidence that the doctors actually measured body temperatures with a thermometer, or took temperature readings at the crime scene - what tends to be argued is that we cannot believe they didn't but our incredulity is not evidence and we have to remember that, as hard as that may be at times.

We also have to keep in mind that even today the estimation of ToD based upon temperature readings employs equations (it's a calculation after all) that are based upon intact bodies! I know of no study that has tracked body temperature readings over time for bodies that have been cut open in a way that would apply to the JtR victims. Physics, however, tells us that the equations based upon intact bodies will not be suitable, and will grossly overestimate the time interval since death. As such, any medical examiner would have to make a guess as to how the equations might have to be modified, and that guess, no matter what the experience level of the examiner is, will simply make their final estimation more unreliable, meaning a greater range of time intervals are considered "consistent" with the value they give.

As for the "blood evidence" that often gets thrown about in the Nichols case, as mentioned earlier in this thread, there are no studies that use that information to estimate ToD. It's not considered a way of determining ToD, it's something Fisherman has noted and he then has presented it as if it is an actual tool. But how long blood will ooze from a body after death is not something where the time course, and it's variation, is known because it's not measured. Blood clotting times are, like any medical measurement, not constant but variable in nature. We can see in the Stride case, for example, how descriptions of the condition of the blood are of it flowing although later described as clotted, suggesting that the clotting could have occurred over that period, which we know is well after her murder (making Fisherman's claim that oozing blood from the body means Nichols must have been killed within very few minutes of her discovery by PC Neil incorrect). We also see the failure of Fisherman's claim when we examine the information from the McKenzie murder.

In short, Fisherman's argument that the "blood evidence" points to Cross/Lechmere's guild is factually incorrect. The "blood testimony" is not evidence, and it should not be described as such. While it "sounds good" to the layman, that is in part due to our (and yes, I include myself here) lack of expertise in forensic medical science. What should alert us to it's lack of utility is the complete lack of studies on this as a measure used to estimate ToD. Those who are experts in this area do not consider it worth their while - and that is very informative as to it's utility, particularly when the "analysis" is entirely based upon a subjective evaluation of a verbal description of the blood, rather than an objective measurement of the blood flow, or even the state of the blood.

- Jeff

Are you saying that even Quincy couldn’t have done it Jeff?

[Herlock Sholmes]

As was litigated at length some time ago in the matter of John Richardson and The Doctor. Rigor, Livor and body temp are only useful in determining ToD in any scientific sense if their deteriration/advancemnt is measured over time.
And with body temp the methods used by Victorian Doctors assessing a scene of crime did NOT provide an accurate record of the body's temperature. It gave a rough estimate of the difference in temperature between the part of the body beng touched and the hand that was doing the touching. So if the doctor's hand had been exposed to the ambiant temperature of the environment the body would appaer warmer than if the doctor had moments before removed a glove.
The forensic methods of doctors at scene of crime examinations in 1888 were little more than educated guesswork, and scientifically unreliable.

Without measuring the rate at which rigor set in and eased over time, using it as a means of establishing a ToD is guesswork. The doctors doing research into it at the time were only just discovering those rates, and establishing how the deterioration curves could be applied. If they had been applied in any of the Whitechapel murders they would most certainly have been mentioned at the inquests.

Exactly AP. And they certainly weren’t anywhere near reliable enough to give us reason to dismiss the three witnesses.

[JeffHamm]

Forensic medicine is far far more complicated and far far less precise than the general public perception of it. Movies, TV shows, and so forth, give the impression that ToD can be pinpointed down to minutes by a few simple measurements and assessments. The reality is that it cannot, and even today, the reliability of estimates of ToD are associated with ranges in the order of hours at best. Even if one takes measurements following current best practice methods, including accurate measurements of the environmental temperature, accurate internal body temperature readings, and factors in the coverage of the body by clothing, the presence/absence of water, and so forth, we're still looking at ranges that span hours. The progression of rigor is likewise highly variable in terms of the time course of when it sets in, how it progresses, and so forth. Much of the information used today was simply unknown at the time of the JtR murders so it was unavailable to the doctors at the time, and even what was known in the literature does not appear to have been applied. We have no evidence that the doctors actually measured body temperatures with a thermometer, or took temperature readings at the crime scene - what tends to be argued is that we cannot believe they didn't but our incredulity is not evidence and we have to remember that, as hard as that may be at times.

We also have to keep in mind that even today the estimation of ToD based upon temperature readings employs equations (it's a calculation after all) that are based upon intact bodies! I know of no study that has tracked body temperature readings over time for bodies that have been cut open in a way that would apply to the JtR victims. Physics, however, tells us that the equations based upon intact bodies will not be suitable, and will grossly overestimate the time interval since death. As such, any medical examiner would have to make a guess as to how the equations might have to be modified, and that guess, no matter what the experience level of the examiner is, will simply make their final estimation more unreliable, meaning a greater range of time intervals are considered "consistent" with the value they give.

As for the "blood evidence" that often gets thrown about in the Nichols case, as mentioned earlier in this thread, there are no studies that use that information to estimate ToD. It's not considered a way of determining ToD, it's something Fisherman has noted and he then has presented it as if it is an actual tool. But how long blood will ooze from a body after death is not something where the time course, and it's variation, is known because it's not measured. Blood clotting times are, like any medical measurement, not constant but variable in nature. We can see in the Stride case, for example, how descriptions of the condition of the blood are of it flowing although later described as clotted, suggesting that the clotting could have occurred over that period, which we know is well after her murder (making Fisherman's claim that oozing blood from the body means Nichols must have been killed within very few minutes of her discovery by PC Neil incorrect). We also see the failure of Fisherman's claim when we examine the information from the McKenzie murder.

In short, Fisherman's argument that the "blood evidence" points to Cross/Lechmere's guild is factually incorrect. The "blood testimony" is not evidence, and it should not be described as such. While it "sounds good" to the layman, that is in part due to our (and yes, I include myself here) lack of expertise in forensic medical science. What should alert us to it's lack of utility is the complete lack of studies on this as a measure used to estimate ToD. Those who are experts in this area do not consider it worth their while - and that is very informative as to it's utility, particularly when the "analysis" is entirely based upon a subjective evaluation of a verbal description of the blood, rather than an objective measurement of the blood flow, or even the state of the blood.

- Jeff

[A P Tomlinson]

Jason Payne James along with Richard Jones, Steve Karch and John Manlove updated Simpson's Forensic Medicine, 13th edition (2011) which is a standard textbook. Writing about Rigor Mortis, something often referred to when discussing Chapman’s ToD:

"The only use of assessing the presence or absence of rigor lies in the estimation of the time of death, and the key word here is estimation, as rigor is such a variable process that it can never provide an accurate assessment of the time of death. Extreme caution should be exercised in trying to assign a time of death based on the very subjective assessment of the degree and extent of rigor."

They also wrote about body-cooling:

'...a body is not a uniform structure: its temperature will not fall evenly and, because each body will lie in its own unique environment, each body will cool at a different speed, depending on the many factors surrounding it.'

As was litigated at length some time ago in the matter of John Richardson and The Doctor. Rigor, Livor and body temp are only useful in determining ToD in any scientific sense if their deteriration/advancemnt is measured over time.
And with body temp the methods used by Victorian Doctors assessing a scene of crime did NOT provide an accurate record of the body's temperature. It gave a rough estimate of the difference in temperature between the part of the body beng touched and the hand that was doing the touching. So if the doctor's hand had been exposed to the ambiant temperature of the environment the body would appaer warmer than if the doctor had moments before removed a glove.
The forensic methods of doctors at scene of crime examinations in 1888 were little more than educated guesswork, and scientifically unreliable.

Without measuring the rate at which rigor set in and eased over time, using it as a means of establishing a ToD is guesswork. The doctors doing research into it at the time were only just discovering those rates, and establishing how the deterioration curves could be applied. If they had been applied in any of the Whitechapel murders they would most certainly have been mentioned at the inquests.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's not looking too good for Holmgren to be honest. Although he will never see it that way. The interesting thing will be if Lechmere get's another book written about him. See if they rely on the same BS...

I still have cold sweats about long drawn out threads discussing the Chapman ToD. What I did find amazing was that it is argued that a later ToD wouldn’t eliminate or even weaken Cross’ candidature and yet you wouldn’t believe the lengths that were gone to to try and promote an earlier ToD. It was basically being suggested that Phillips had greater skills and reliability when assessing a ToD than a modern day doctor has. Bizarre. Then the efforts to dismiss the three witnesses.

[Geddy2112]

Jason Payne James along with Richard Jones, Steve Karch and John Manlove updated Simpson's Forensic Medicine, 13th edition (2011) which is a standard textbook. Writing about Rigor Mortis, something often referred to when discussing Chapman’s ToD:

It's not looking too good for Holmgren to be honest. Although he will never see it that way. The interesting thing will be if Lechmere get's another book written about him. See if they rely on the same BS...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hang on a cotton picking moment. So the expert Holmgren relies on in the Nichols case he would reject in the Chapman case since the doctor's ToD was done via touch. Say it isn't so.

Also Holmgren relies, and often bloody states he believes the Coroner, Baxter regarding ToD in the Nichols case but again does not believe Baxter (late ToD) in the Chapman case?

Why does anyone still believe this crackpot theory?

Jason Payne James along with Richard Jones, Steve Karch and John Manlove updated Simpson's Forensic Medicine, 13th edition (2011) which is a standard textbook. Writing about Rigor Mortis, something often referred to when discussing Chapman’s ToD:

"The only use of assessing the presence or absence of rigor lies in the estimation of the time of death, and the key word here is estimation, as rigor is such a variable process that it can never provide an accurate assessment of the time of death. Extreme caution should be exercised in trying to assign a time of death based on the very subjective assessment of the degree and extent of rigor."

They also wrote about body-cooling:

'...a body is not a uniform structure: its temperature will not fall evenly and, because each body will lie in its own unique environment, each body will cool at a different speed, depending on the many factors surrounding it.'

[Geddy2112]

"Sometimes the perceived warmth of the body to touch is mentioned in court as an indicator of the time of death; this assessment is so unreliable as to be useless and is even more so if the pathologist is asked to comment upon the reported perceptions of another person."

Hang on a cotton picking moment. So the expert Holmgren relies on in the Nichols case he would reject in the Chapman case since the doctor's ToD was done via touch. Say it isn't so.

Also Holmgren relies, and often bloody states he believes the Coroner, Baxter regarding ToD in the Nichols case but again does not believe Baxter (late ToD) in the Chapman case?

Why does anyone still believe this crackpot theory?

[Fiver]

Jason Payne James, forensic physician extraordinaire, said that Lechmere need not have any blood on his person. What else of a "suspicious" character would there be to take part of? Nervous tics?

That is Jason Payne-James stating that Nichols' killer could have done it without getting any blood on themselves, not a statement that the killer had no blood on themselves. We also don't know how accurate a description of the victim's wounds was given to Dr. Payne-James.

This also ignores some key points.
* There is no way to avoid getting blood on the knife. There is no way to clean the knife without getting blood on the cloth used to clean it. Doing this risks getting blood on hands and clothing. Concealing the knife and the cleaning cloth almost certainly gets blood on the killer's clothing.

* The killer would have no idea whether or not they had visible blood on their hands or clothing until they had access to a light source and a mirror. They would know they had gotten all blood off of the knife. They would know they had a bloody cloth in their pocket and that blood might have oozed into the cloth of the pocket.

Speaking of blood oozing, Dr. Jason Payne-James is one of four authors of the 13th edition of Simpson’s Forensic Medicine. Nowhere in it do he and his coauthors even suggest determining time of death by the blood ceasing to ooze from the body.

Here are some things he does say.

"The pathologist is often asked for an opinion on PMI (the ‘time since death’) based on the pathological findings. While none of the changes after death is capable of providing a precise ‘marker’ of PMI, the most reliable would appear to be related to the cool-ing of the body after death."

"Sometimes the perceived warmth of the body to touch is mentioned in court as an indicator of the time of death; this assessment is so unreliable as to be useless and is even more so if the pathologist is asked to comment upon the reported perceptions of another person."

[Geddy2112]

Has anyone mentioned that Cross was found near a freshly killed corpse btw?

They have and he wasn't...

[Geddy2112]

Fisherman: True. It is only when the rest of the ingredients are added that he becomes a suspect. Then again, it must be noted that he was at the murder site at a time that is consistent with him being the killer, and that Nichols bled for many minutes after he left. Those are some of the ingredients I point to, that Do make him a suspect

Agree, and a good suspect at that

Interesting to note that the blood evidence comes from in the main Policemen who are not qualified to make such assessments. Also Prof Thiblin and Payne-James contradict each other on the blood evidence and when asked for examples to back up their comments they answer with such comments as 'no' 'I guess..' and 'no empirical data.' One says 5 mins one 7-10 mins to bleed out. They can't even agree on that. We also of course have Dr Michael Biggs' comments which extend the bleeding out time more. Of course the evidence does not mention bleeding out at all, the only unambiguous word mentioned regarding blood is 'oozing.' Thiblin and Payne-James were never asked about 'oozing.'
Oh crud we also have the McKenzie case were it was mentioned blood was still running for at least 25 mins after death with similar injuries to Nichols. Now lets look at Holmgren's ToD, he claims 3:45, so back at least 25 mins from then gives you a time of death of 3:20. Which is very possible since PC Neil passed at 3:15. Where was Lechmere at 3:20 am then? Case dismissed. next.

Fisherman: No, I´d expect him to be halfway down Hanbury Street at 3.45 if he left home at 3.30

Don't agree, if he left between 3:20-3:30 I expect him to be even further far away

Oh is that Holmgren forgetting to put the 'about' in again. I'm not an expert by any means but I'm fairly sure the leaving out of the 'about' is paramount to 'reasonable doubt.'

Realistically no. If they did, they would have known his true name

Agree, this is a good point

Jesus, Mary, Joseph and the little donkey. Read here The Baron and then answer the point again...

https://deedpolloffice.com/change-name/law/case-law

In all parts of the U.K., your legal name is the name you are generally known by. This is something which has been established by case law, going back hundreds of years. Over the years — whenever a dispute about someone’s name (or surname) has been brought before a court of law — the court (and in particular, the judges who were there) have interpreted and defined where exactly the law stands. There has never been any statute, in any part of the U.K., which formally defines what your name is in law (or how you can change it)

Fisherman: Jason Payne James, forensic physician extraordinaire, said that Lechmere need not have any blood on his person. What else of a "suspicious" character would there be to take part of? Nervous tics?

Agree, and thanks to Dr. James, if Lechmere was the one who suggested to prop up the woman he can even go away with any traces there.

Now since I know Payne-James was not answering Holmgren's questions directly regarding the blood evidence here I'll make a point or two. Since Holmgren believes the abdominal cuts came first we can assume the body had it's full blood content. Ok, right Baron I challenge you to go fill a balloon to the brim with red paint. Secure it on the floor, I don't know between two planks of wood or two bricks or whatever and stab at it. I can safely say you will not be able to do it without getting paint on your hands. So let's forgot 'experts' just for one moment here and go with common sense.

Fisherman: Exactly how many of these people spent time alone with the freshly killed Polly Nichols? 3? 15? All of them? Or none?

Lechmere and Neil, If the woman was cut when Paul arrived then it is Lechmere the prime suspect, if not then it must be Neil.

Answer only Neil was alone with the freshly killed Polly Nichols and of course Jack The Ripper but we do not know who that was.