Evidence of innocence

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

And that’s the only way that we can look at it Jeff. The problem that we find is that we get questions like “how come x was the case with Chapman and yet y was the case with Eddowes?” and “if Doctor’s were so unreliable on ToD estimation how come they got Stride and Eddowes right?” In situations where science is involved we have to avoid using intuition; the feeling that something “sounds right,” or “doesn’t sound right.” We hear people say “well it stands to reason that…” but that’s not how science works unless you have the scientific knowledge required to make those statements. You hear it when people are ill and they say that “it makes sense that if x helps with that ailment then it will surely help with this one.”

I think that its also our instinct to defend a medical expert out of respect for the profession even though, quite clearly, no one is questioning Dr. Phillips competence, even if we question his conclusion. If modern day experts tell us that the methods of ToD estimation used by a Victorian Doctor were unreliable then we can take that to the bank. Some do get a little ‘warm’ if it’s suggested that a Doctor might alter his ToD estimation due to witness evidence but this has definitely occurred. David Barrat found at least two examples of this occurring in his research for his book The Temperature Of Death.

Even without the three witnesses we would have to exercise caution over Phillips ToD estimates. Add those witnesses and we get a different picture.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I hope that you're right.

It wouldn’t even go to court Louis. The CPS would be annoyed at the waste of their time. The only reason that Scobie felt that there was a case to answer was because he was provided with ‘evidence’ that ‘proved’ that Cross must have been in Bucks Row earlier than he’d stated (which, if true, would set off alarm bills for anyone) We know that this wasn’t the case though because Scobie had been misinformed. So when we remove the invented gap there’s simply nothing left.

[Geddy2112]

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

Side bar... I worked at a school many many moons ago for a short while and the Head was one of those who demanded to be referred to as Dr. Of course she was not a medical doctor just had a P.hD. Probably in something random. Unfortunately her surname was Quincy and did not like me 'doing the theme' tune every time I walked past...

[Geddy2112]

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.

Well he says it in a few roundabout ways in the Video, but of course he had no control over the video.... pfff. Great point though. You only have to look at Stow's YouTube account, the vast majority are completely convinced and of course then go one step further to stroke the ego.

Ironically if you Google 'The internet has given a voice to people who would have been considered the village idiot' I think the second answer down gives a link to a Reddit page where the second comment is 'A cursory glance at any YouTube comments section would confirm this as fact.'

What do some folk say? 'I weep for the future...'