AC and TOD

[Fisherman]

The point is that the old standard assumption (inaccurate as it was) was that body temperature would initially drop by 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit per hour after death. On that basis the difference between 32 and 31 degrees Celsius alone would represent nearly an hour and a quarter's uncertainty - and that is without taking into account all the other sources of error.

Looking at it the other way round, on that basis Phillips's estimate that Chapman had been dead two hours or more when he saw her would translate to a body temperature of 35.3 degrees Celsius or less. So all your stuff about the body being "ice-cold" and so on is way out. Unless Phillips was completely clueless, what he must have meant by "cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body" was that it was a couple of degrees or so below normal body temperature.

Thanks for that, Chris. So what you are saying is that "cold" was warm, whereas "warm" was a bit warmer...? Or do you mean that the area in the abdomen was still normal body temperature, that is around 37 degrees Celsius, whereas the rest of the body was around, letīs see here, hmm, two hours, that would be three degrees ... ah, 34 degrees Celsius?

Then we have to make the assumption that the borderline between "cold" and "warm" went somewhere inbetween 34 and 37 degrees, right?
"The body was cold (around 34), except that there was a certain remaining heat (around 37), under the intestines, in the body."
Is that it?

And what about Eddowes? She was still "quite warm" 40 minutes after she died. Was that because she had only fallen from 37 to 36? If so, we can narrow down the borderline more - 36 is "warm" 34 is "cold", so 35 must be the crucial point where the metamorphosis took place?

And all of this, the doctors felt with their fingertips?

Of course, Chris, Chapman was not ice cold. Some warmth is stored in the body for many an hour, we know that. But I use the phrase somewhat metaphorically; we all say we are freezing cold at times, although we are not below zero. We are, though, at these times very cold to the touch, and that would have been what Phillips sensed in Chapman too. And he would have checked all over, knowing quite well where warmth is stored for the longest time and where vessels run close to the skin and so on. Iīd submit two things - that Chapman would have been much colder than Eddowes, described as "quite warm" 40 minutes after her death, and that I am going to read up very much on this subject. More, that is, than I have done so far, which is not little.

When we discuss all of this, it is also important to realize that Phillips did not go by body temperature only as he made his call. There were the factors of rigor mortis and the food digestion point to take into account too, both of which seemingly corroborated the time estimate the doctor gave. To this, other parameters should probably be added - the state of the blood, the appearance of the cut surfaces on the body; the overall impression of everything that lay before Phillips must have jointly led him to his conclusion. He would had seen thousands of dead bodies and the impact death had on them, and this would have been the best guide possible for him. And when he spoke of at least two hours, probably three or more, we need to find a crude mean value at, say two and a half hours. We are then asked to believe that he was an hour and a half off the mark?

I donīt think so. Haggling could scrape away some minutes I guess - but not sixty per cent of the time suggested!

All the best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

Wiedersehen

Hello Christer. Thanks.

Well. In looking over the vehemence of your posts, I have a flashback to the old Toppy threads. They were not worth it and neither is this.

An old professor once remarked to my class that you must always determine what is riding on an argument. And in the present case, nothing.

So, I do as my prof advised--I walk away.

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

It was not a question of choosing between 32 or 31 degrees Celsius - it was a question of a body that had gone quite cold.

The point is that the old standard assumption (inaccurate as it was) was that body temperature would initially drop by 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit per hour after death. On that basis the difference between 32 and 31 degrees Celsius alone would represent nearly an hour and a quarter's uncertainty - and that is without taking into account all the other sources of error.

Looking at it the other way round, on that basis Phillips's estimate that Chapman had been dead two hours or more when he saw her would translate to a body temperature of 35.3 degrees Celsius or less. So all your stuff about the body being "ice-cold" and so on is way out. Unless Phillips was completely clueless, what he must have meant by "cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body" was that it was a couple of degrees or so below normal body temperature.

[Fisherman]

The more i read Richardsons highly contradictory statements to both police and at the inquest the more i am inclined to believe that Richardson merely opened the yard door ever so slightly to check the padlock low to his right hand side , completely missing Annie's body on his left , being hidden by the half opened door ( check out James Mason's visit to 29 Hanbury street on you tube to get Richardson's obstructed view of the yard as the back door slowly opens ) He added the bit on about sitting on the steps days later .. filled with discrepancies .. a classic example of running without being chased !

moonbegger .

The possibility very much belongs to the equation, Moon!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Christer.
A body would not fit between the steps and the fence, as we can see if we draw a circle about 6 inch forward of the steps (per Phillips) then we can see how open to view Chapman's body was.

Hi Jon!

The pic you kindly reproduced has a fence on it that was not there in 1888 - it is not the original, methinks. So we canīt judge from that.

Letīs read Davis instead!

"Witness said the deceased was lying between the steps and the fence"

James Kent:

"He saw a woman lying in the yard by the side of the steps, between them and the partition"

Chandler:

"Her head was towards the back of the house, but it was some 2 ft from the wall"

So, she was lying in the recess between stairs and fence. Probably around two feet from the back wall with her ehad. And she was short, a mere five feet tall. Plus she had her legs drawn up, detracting further from the distance she would reach out past the stairs.

Now look what happens - we get an altogether different picture than the one you suggested. And that is of vital importance! If she had been lying as you suggested in your diagram, it would indeed be nigh on impossible to miss her. But half - or more than half - hidden behind the stairs, with a perhaps 45 degree angle of the door and Richardson perhaps sitting angled away from her? Now, thatīs a different story.
It still applies that it was strange that he did not see her. But Swanson accepted this, and he would have known how she lay and how much the door obstructed from view in different angles.

On your pic, the door is flung wide open. What happens if you open it to a fortyfive degree angle? Take a look!

Plus, lets not forget this, from the Star:
"On Saturday the sun rose at twenty-three minutes past five; for half an hour previously the light would be such as to render it difficult for any one to distinguish even near objects."

It was relatively dark, Jon. Do you have the saying "In darkness, all cats turn grey"? We have it here, and it is useful in this context. When we make sketches, we tend to see everything as if it was bright daylight, but it was the other way around. That would have helped Swanson decide whether Richardson could have missed Annie or not. And he was for the suggestion.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Fisherman

All this second-guessing of what Phillips may have thought in 1888 is a complete waste of time.

This subject is much better understood now than it was in Victorian times. Whatever Phillips may have thought then, we know now - if we can be bothered to acquaint ourselves with the facts - that he would not have been capable of estimating the time of death accurately.

Why don't you spend just a little time reading about the subject, so that you can see for yourself what the margin of error for his estimate would have been?

Surprising though it may sound, I have read a lot about the subject. Thanks anyway for the kind advice.
In spite of your misgivings, I think Phillips was very capable of feeling whether a body was cold or warm. It was not a question of choosing between 32 or 31 degrees Celsius - it was a question of a body that had gone quite cold. And if you care to take a look at the snippet on body temperature loss I posted earlier (incidentally, that is one of the things I have actually read), you will find a whole lot of interesting and useful information.
Phillips was absolutely certain that two hours was a minimum - otherwise, he would not have discarded the Richardson suggestion, which was actually one hour and fortyfive minutes away, timewise. One would have thought that Phillips would budge a little, but no - he was certain about the two hour verdict. And now you are telling me that this would have been useless and ridiculous, and that totally cold bodies can have been 37 degrees Celsius an hour before that.
Iīm sorry, Chris, but I donīt buy into that.

All the best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

The more i read Richardsons highly contradictory statements to both police and at the inquest the more i am inclined to believe that Richardson merely opened the yard door ever so slightly to check the padlock low to his right hand side , completely missing Annie's body on his left , being hidden by the half opened door ( check out James Mason's visit to 29 Hanbury street on you tube to get Richardson's obstructed view of the yard as the back door slowly opens ) He added the bit on about sitting on the steps days later .. filled with discrepancies .. a classic example of running without being chased !

moonbegger .

[Wickerman]

Sorry for the crude diagram

Christer.
A body would not fit between the steps and the fence, as we can see if we draw a circle about 6 inch forward of the steps (per Phillips) then we can see how open to view Chapman's body was.

[Wickerman]

Hi Christer

And Annie's head lay 6 inch further out than the last step, and her body, all five feet of it, extending out into the yard is entirely open to view.

Her head was close to the back wall, Jon. The body was between the stairs and the fence to a very large extent.

Chandler:
Her head was towards the back wall of the house, nearly two feet from the wall, at the bottom of the steps, but six or nine inches away from them.

Phillips:
The head was about 6in in front of the level of the bottom step, and the feet were towards a shed at the end of the yard.

Sorry Christer but her head was not close to the house, it was approx. 30" (2ft + 6 in), away from the house wall, and forward of the steps.

In other words, her body was not between the steps and the fence, it was well open to view.

[Chris]

Fisherman

All this second-guessing of what Phillips may have thought in 1888 is a complete waste of time.

This subject is much better understood now than it was in Victorian times. Whatever Phillips may have thought then, we know now - if we can be bothered to acquaint ourselves with the facts - that he would not have been capable of estimating the time of death accurately.

Why don't you spend just a little time reading about the subject, so that you can see for yourself what the margin of error for his estimate would have been?

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=lynn cates;273393]Hello Christer. Thanks.

I think we two are repeating ourselves.

We are. And one of us ought not do that.

Phillips opined that Annie had been dead 2+ hours. Yes, no?

Yes. Why would anybody say no? We can all read, canīt we?

Then he pointed out that, given the cool morning and her blood loss, cooling may have been more rapid. Yes, no?

Once again, we can all read. Yes, he said that cooling could perhaps - he was not sure either way - be more rapid. But that did not change his two hour minimum, as we can see from the Times article and from Swansonīs report, where he accepts that Chapman must have been in the yard as Richardson was there. So these "yes, no" questions of yours are useless mumbo-jumbo. We need to know what part of his verdict that carried with itself some uncertainty, and that was the part where he said that Chapman would probably have been dead for three hours or more, and NOT the minimum of two hours. If Phillips had thought that one hour could be sufficient, then why did he meet with the police and decide that Richardson MUST have missed Chapman? You have forgotten to answer that one, Lynn, just as you have forgotten to answer why Swanson despaired about Longs usefulness and why he stated that it was odd that Richardson missed the body of Chapman as he sat in the yard.

You are absolutely right he does not say "mistaken." The inference is that, given his exceptions, perhaps she was dead less than his two hour estimate.

No. That is YOUR inference. Phillipīs inference was that she had perhaps not been dead as long as a full three hours or more. He THOUGHT she had been, but he protected his behind by adding that the cool night and the eviscerations could have speeded up the process, meaning that she may only have been dead for a minimum of two hours. The article, Lynn. Swanson, Lynn. Read them.

I'm delighted that you have no need for an early TOD. And I have none for a later one. It makes no difference to the overall picture.

Oh, but it does - to some extent. Lechmere could have killed her anytime, but the overall picture is one of him killing en route to work. And whaddoyouknow? Phillips says that forensically, we can bet our butts on Chapman dying no later than 4.30, and probably an hour or so earlier. That takes us to around 3.30, and an hour that fits very well with Lechmereīs work-trek. It would seem that Tabram, Nicholls and Chapman thus died at a time leading up towards 4 a.m. and they all died along the routes that were easiest to use when walking from Doveton Street to Broad Street.

And, as was pointed out above (by Jon Smyth?) if Phillips had not interpolated his codicil, then the other three witnesses are not worth even a listen. But he did.

He did open up for an hour of death between 3.00 to 4.30, justaboutish. Itīs in black and white. He pressed the point together with the police. Then along came swaggering Baxter and got it wrong. Oh, and you!
Now, Baxter is dead, so he canīt amend himself. But you can. Read!

Now, as you know, I am no fan of Richardson--for obvious reasons. And I am aware that Long and Cadosch could BOTH be wrong. Nevertheless, I no longer need mental gymnastics to cope, as I did a few years back when I began this silly thread.

With respect, Lynn ... . Thatīs swaggeringly Baxterish.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

mental gymnastics

Hello Christer. Thanks.

I think we two are repeating ourselves.

Phillips opined that Annie had been dead 2+ hours. Yes, no?

Then he pointed out that, given the cool morning and her blood loss, cooling may have been more rapid. Yes, no?

You are absolutely right he does not say "mistaken." The inference is that, given his exceptions, perhaps she was dead less than his two hour estimate.

I'm delighted that you have no need for an early TOD. And I have none for a later one. It makes no difference to the overall picture.

And, as was pointed out above (by Jon Smyth?) if Phillips had not interpolated his codicil, then the other three witnesses are not worth even a listen. But he did.

Now, as you know, I am no fan of Richardson--for obvious reasons. And I am aware that Long and Cadosch could BOTH be wrong. Nevertheless, I no longer need mental gymnastics to cope, as I did a few years back when I began this silly thread.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Wickerman: Richardson opened the door, and sat on the top step, with his feet on the yard level.
And we are supposed to believe he was not able to see the body inches from his left foot?

No, not necessarily. To begin with, you are working from the assumption that Richardson told the truth in the second version of events. It could be that he was sloppy, just opened a little bit and took a peek to his right.

But letīs say that he DID sit on the middle step with his feet on the flagstone! If that was the case, how do we know that his feet were inches away from Chapmans body? Of course, they would always have been, even if he was ten yards off - that can be counted in inches too. But I think you are surmising that he sat with his back in a ninety degree angle to the fence?

Why would he do that? He could have, yes - but he could equally have opened the door, turned to his right (since that was the direction he needed to look for the padlock in) and sat himself down with his face angled away from the fence to a large extent.
And when he opened the door, it swung back on him, remember! And as his head would have been over step two, the door would have formed a barrier to his left, hindering him to see what was behind the stairs.

John Davis, opened the back door, and stood there.
"Directly I opened the door I saw a woman lying down in the lefthand recess, between the stone steps and the fence."

He had no problem seeing the body, and from a standing position.

He could not have seen all of Chapman as he opened the door, if he stood in the doorway. What he could have seen if he threw the door open all the way (and we donīt know that Richardson did!), would have been the lower part of her. For him to see all of her, he needed to walk down the steps. He may also have had his focus straight down the stairs, whereas Richardson may have had HIS focus very much to the right hand side - where the lock was.

Who else is there?

James Kent & James Green, the packing case workers. They also stood at the door with it open, Kent tells us:
".. standing on the top of the back door steps, I saw a woman lying in the yard between the steps and the partition between the yard and the next."

Neither of these two men had trouble seeing the body from the top step.

Are you saying that they had taken the door away by that stage? Of course they had some trouble if they wanted to see all of her, while standing on the top step; they needed to lean out and peek around the door to do so. The door was there, Jon. It would have obscured a lot of the view. But these men KNEW that there was a dead woman lying to the left of the stairs, so they did what they had to to see her. Also note that they donīt say that they saw all of her, mind you - but they probably could have, employing some gymnastics.

Even if Richardson had let the door swing back to rest against his arm, the bottom edge of the door was still no lower than his left knee. So everything below his knee, to his left was perfectly visible.

If you looked that way, yes. But would he do that? He focused on the other direction, perhaps with his body angled that way. Plus it was much darker as he sat there. Davis, Kent and Green all had full daylight to go by, while Richardson sat in gloom.

And Annie's head lay 6 inch further out than the last step, and her body, all five feet of it, extending out into the yard is entirely open to view.

Her head was close to the back wall, Jon. The body was between the stairs and the fence to a very large extent.

I challenge anyone to act out a video of this, using all the dimensions we have of the location of the body, and then try to explain exactly how Richardson, sat on the steps, could not see what three other men were able to see from standing in the doorway.

Who are our reenactment specialists?

That is a great idea! Just keep in mind that even if part of Chapman would have been visible, there is no certainty that Richardson would have noticed, given that his focus was to the other side and that it was relatively dark at the time.

Imagine it like this:

Richardson comes from John Street, and turns into 29 Hanbury, the outer door being open. He walks through the corridor, and reaches the back door. He puts his left hand to the door and starts to push it open. It yelds, but the propensity of it to swing back means that it does not open up more than Richardson pushes it. He only needs to push it a little bit more than half open, in order for him to produce a large enough opening to pass through. He steps out onto the upper step, and decides to sit down and fix his shoe. He steps down to the flagstone and sits down on the middle step, half-turning his back to the left, and sits down on the middle step. His body is angled to the right, allowing him to take a look at the lock. He cuts at his boot, ties it up, and stands up. Since he is angled to the right, he turns that way get into the corridor again, turning away from Chapman as he rises. All the while, the door is following his body, and it slams shut as he steps into the corridor.
At no time as he sat there did he focus to the left.

That is a rough outline of how it could have happened - IF he was telling the truth. We know that Swanson thought it was strange that he missed the body, but going from Swansons wording in his report, he accepted that this was exactly what had happened anyway.

I would love to see this on film!

All the best, Jon!
Fisherman
[/QUOTE]

[Fisherman]

Anyone who wants to argue that what Cadosch heard was a packing case falling against the fence needs to have an explanation as to what became of the packing case - because it wasn't there when Chapman's body was found.

It does not matter what it was Cadosche heard or claimed to have heard. When he heard it - if he heard it - Chapman was long dead.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Lynn Cates:

Hello Christer. Thanks.

I take the liberty of translating your post.

"For reasons that God alone knows, I have decided to back Lechmere. And now I need an earlier TOD."

Voila.

Iīm afraid thatīs not true. Lechmere could have killed Chapman at any time of the day. He had access to a horse and cart, he was familiar with Hanbury Street and he was on his own most of the time. SO no, there is no need at all for me to have Chapman dying at around 4 o clock.
However, Phillips makes it very clear that this WAS the time around which she died. Or 3. Or 3.30. Those are all possibilities.
5.30 is not.

Look at Baxter's summary. It comes AFTER "The Echo," testimonies, the whole thing.

Baxter? Why would I want to listen to him? He was no medico, no policeman. Swanson makes it very clear that he was mistaken, and it is equally clear that what he was mistaken on was how to read Phillips. Baxter is a lot of wind and no substance. What he said and thought was overruled by Phillips and the police, who decided that Chapman was in the yard when Ricardson was.
Thatīs why it says so in the reports and articles I posted.
What Baxter did in his summary was to misrepresent Phillips. He would have heard from the good doctor afterwards, in no soothing terms. Plus, of course, we have it from the Times that the police heard from Phillips, met with him and discussed the matter, resulting in a combined acceptance that Chapman died at least two hours before 6.30. Itīs in black and white, Lynn.

Bagster said he might be mistaken. He put it on the table.

Wasnīt it you, Lynn, who wanted things to be quoted exactly? Yes? Then tell me where Bagster Phillips said he "might be mistaken"!

He says NO SUCH THING! What he says is that he was sure that Chapman was killed AT LEAST two hours prior to 6.30, and that she was PROBABLY killed earlier than that. This suggestion of an even earlier TOD, however, is where he leaves room for not a mistake on his behalf - the implications were that she HAD been killed earlier than two hours before, so no mistake there, just professionalism - but for the chill and the eviscerations being responsible for a quicker cooling off than normally, so that he could not be sure that she had been killed earlier than two hours before he saw her. He still thought this was the case, though.

You, however, wish it off.

Itīs not me, Lynn. Itīs Phillips, Swanson, the colleagues of Phillips and the rest of the police. Once again, weīve got in in black and white. That was the end station, after all the blustering of Baxter and all the red herring "tracks" - Swanson ended up pointing out that Baxter had gambled on the wrong horse, and added that he was a bit baffled that Richardson had not seen Chapman as he sat by the yard.
You CAN read, I take it? But can you accept what you read?

The best,
Fisherman