Who's talking Cobblers ? John Richardson ?

[Wickerman]

I'm afraid it was guesswork as far as these cases were concerned. I could find no indication that the actual temperature of the victim was taken in situ. I refer you to the one actual examination report that does exist -

And that is precisely the point.
No actual firsthand report does exist for these murders, so I'm a little astonished that you of all people would assume Dr Phillips took a somewhat cavalier approach when you know as well as anyone else that Phillips was as "old-school" as they came in those days.

If anyone were to dot the eye's & cross the T's is was Dr Phillips. The fact this detail was not mentioned in the press is no excuse for assuming he let his professionalism laps.
The very fact that a full report does exist for MacKenzie demonstrates exactly how exhaustive Dr Phillips was in his autopsy's.
The MacKenzie report, rather than be held up as some exceptional case, should be taken as indicative of exactly how thorough Dr. Phillips was in all his cases.

Regards, Jon S.

[Archaic]

Hello all,

I just thought that it was worth remembering that its very likely the Mitre Square killer was either interrupted while killing or just as he finished by Watkins approach, based on the premise that Lawende et al did indeed see Kate Eddowes at approx 1:35am. The discovery timing is not the same with the Hanbury St murder, hence, there is a "cooling" period available there.

Best regards,

Mike R

Hi Mike, just wanted to welcome you to Casebook.

Best regards,
Archaic

[moonbegger]

The size of the women might. Wasn't Eddowes small and Chapman "fleshy"?

Since fat is supposed to keep people warm . . .

I found this at http://wc.pima.edu/Bfiero/tucsonecol...tions/size.htm


Concept: Small-bodied animals or plant parts (e.g., leaves) heat up and cool down faster; bigger and/or thicker bodies heat up and cool down slower.

Explanation: smaller/thinner bodies have a larger surface area to volume ratio (see examples below). Bodies gain and lose heat out of the surface of their body; more surface area means greater gains and losses. Bodies retain heat within their bodies; more volume means more heat retention. When the surface area is large compared to the volume (small/thin things), heat is gained and lost quickly because there is lots of surface area to gain and lose heat and relatively little volume to retain heat.


Examples illustrating surface area to volume ratio:

Small cookies cool down faster than larger cookies after coming out of the oven. Also small cookies burn faster.
Your hand has the same volume whether it is balled up (fat) or spread out (thin). On a cold day, your hand will get cold faster when spread out because balling up you hand into a fist effectively reduces surface area because now the part of your hand within your fist is no longer "surface".

Consider two individuals exactly alike except in size. The smaller individual is 1' by 1' by 1' in size and the larger individual is 2' by 2' by 2' in size. The small individual has less surface area (length times width times number of sides = 1' x 1' x 6 sides = 6 square feet) than the large individual (24 square feet). The small individual has less volume (length times width times height = 1' x 1' x 1' = 1 cubic foot) than the large individual (8 cubic feet). But the small individual has twice as high a surface area to volume ratio (surface area divided by volume = 6 divided by 1 = 6) as the large individual (24 divided by 8 = 3)!

Hi Curious ,

Good post , there is Some great information here that i had not even considered . it definitely adds a lot of weight ( no pun intended ) to the argument that Annie was killed before 5.30

cheers ,
moonbegger .

[Hunter]

Hi Jon,

I agree that Mr. Phillips was meticulous and this surviving report exemplifies that. But, I have not been able to find any indication that he actually took the temperature of the victim and I believe that if he did it would have been stated in his very detailed report on this case.

What I have found about him so far is that he was 'old school' and didn't peruse the information provided by others in the advancement of pathological research during the subsequent years; relying almost totally on what he learned in medical school and his own experience along the way. Unlike many of his peers, I could not find one treatise, article or essay on medical topics that he ever wrote. Though meticulous - and certainly experienced - he was very conservative in his thinking and in the way he conducted his examinations.

The McKenzie report is very telling in the way he operated and how he came to his conclusions. As detailed as he was, I'm fairly certain he would have noted precise body temperatures and their progressions if he had conducted his examinations in that manner. Despite the experience that many of these medicos possessed, the Whitchapel murders were totally new grounds to all of them on a forensic level and some of the old school techniques were outdated. These murders changed much of that and pathology did take a great leap forward as a result of the lessons learned here. Woodhead's 'Practical Pathology' written in 1892 is a good example. These events happened so quickly that it just took more time to evaluate certain procedures and apply the necessary changes.

If there is any evidence that the actual body temperatures were taken in situ, it would be very beneficial. I'm just saying, in my research, I've been unable to find any indication of it. I readily admit that I could be wrong and may have missed something. The medical aspect of this case is something that I'm always striving to increase my knowledge of as I believe it is the most important and the only aspect that is reasonably tangible.

[Michael W Richards]

Thanks Lynn and Archaic,

Its actually nice to be back, I was aboard a few years back as perrymason and Ive recently been allowed to re-join the discussions. For full disclosure, Im back to communicate, not agitate.

Thanks again and Cheers,

Mike R

[lynn cates]

welcome back

Hello Michael. Well, the thought had crossed my mind, but I was unsure.

At any rate, welcome back then.

Cheers.
LC

[Archaic]

Welcome back, Mike!

You did sound rather well-informed for a newbie.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Hunter]

Hey Mike,

Good to hear from you again. Whether we disagreed on something or not, I always enjoyed chatting with you and I know I will continue to do so.

Challenges hone one's skills and knowledge and you always presented some fine challenges to consider.

Indeed, welcome back my friend.

[Bridewell]

Good post , there is Some great information here that i had not even considered . it definitely adds a lot of weight ( no pun intended ) to the argument that Annie was killed before 5.30

Hi Moonbegger,

Assuming that Dr Bagster Phillips is right, I can see how Richardson could be wrong (the partially open door could have obscured the body). I can see how Long could be mistaken (wrong day). I struggle with Cadosch though. Forgive me, I don't have my copy of The Ultimate (or anything else) to hand as we're house-sitting for friends, so I speaking from memory - he reported hearing the sound of something falling against the fence where the body was subsequently found. If that something wasn't Annie Chapman, who or what was it that presumably landed on top of her? Cadosch has to be mistaken about the time in that scenario, doesn't he? (Unless you accept the second prostitute and her client scenario, which I think an unlikely explanation.)

Regards, Bridewell.

[Michael W Richards]

Thanks Hunter, Lynn and Archaic,

Looking forward to discussing things with you again. Nice to be back. Enough about me though.....

All the best,

Mike R

[Archaic]

Cadosch

Hi Moonbegger,

Assuming that Dr Bagster Phillips is right, I can see how Richardson could be wrong (the partially open door could have obscured the body). I can see how Long could be mistaken (wrong day). I struggle with Cadosch though. Forgive me, I don't have my copy of The Ultimate (or anything else) to hand as we're house-sitting for friends, so I speaking from memory - he reported hearing the sound of something falling against the fence where the body was subsequently found. If that something wasn't Annie Chapman, who or what was it that presumably landed on top of her? Cadosch has to be mistaken about the time in that scenario, doesn't he? (Unless you accept the second prostitute and her client scenario, which I think an unlikely explanation.)

Hi Bridewell.

I struggle with Cadosch's testimony too; it sounds so compelling. Maybe he really was incorrect as to the time that he heard the sounds coming from next door? After all, he was up early in the morning, feeling unwell following some kind of operation, and had to make repeat trips to the privy.

Maybe Cadosch made more trips to the outdoor privy that morning than we realize? And maybe the noises he heard occurred at a somewhat different time than he later recalled?

I'll try to say this politely, but if he was unwell in a way that required multiple "visits" to the facilities, might he have gone out to the backyard privy multiple times before he had to get up for work? Because he was sick he might not have wanted to use his chamberpot- if he did use it he'd have to go dump it outside before he could use it again anyway.

Just an idea... When you're feeling unwell, and possibly in pain, it's harder to pay attention to external details, much less recall them accurately later.

> If Cadosch was correct in what he heard but mistaken as to when, what window of time would make the known facts fit more smoothly?

Thanks and best regards,
Archaic

[Observer]

Hello Observer ,

Now pay attention, it's really quite simple. This is what Dr Philips said at the inquest

[Coroner] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.

( See No mention of YOUR " Less than 2 hours remark " ) also take a boo at this comparison .. would appreciate your thoughts on it .

Dr. Brown stated that he was called to Mitre Square shortly after 2:00 a.m. and arrived there at around 2:20. By this time Catherine Eddowes had been dead for roughly forty minutes. Brown observed that "the body had been mutilated, and was quite warm - no rigor mortis." We can thus say that, after roughly forty minutes, a body with extensive mutilations that was found under cool outdoor conditions was examined and described as being "quite warm." How do we reconcile this with the idea that the body of Annie Chapman was found to be almost completely cold after only the passing of twenty more minutes? We can't. It is very difficult to believe that in under twenty minutes almost all body heat would have dissipated into the morning air. This would be the work of a couple of hours, not minutes. Again, that observation is more in line with Dr. Phillips' opinion as to the time of death of Annie Chapman.

.

" you get in the red mini , and i'll get in the blue one "

moonbegger ( old chap )

Good grief, how many times?

Listen, I'll forget for a moment your half baked theories surrounding the murder of Annie Chapman, you know, a prostitute and her client finding the body stealing her rings etc. and ask you a question. Did Dr Philips rely solely on the onset of rigor mortis to determine the TOD in the case of Annie Chapman? The crux of the matter here lies in the few sentences in which he stated.

"[Coroner] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more; ."but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood"

Take note of the words

"but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood"

By using those words, was he referring to the fact that the great loss of blood, plus the cold morning air, slowed rigor mortis down? You seem to think he's inferring as much. He dosn't actually say that though does he?

I believe the words "but its right to say" implies that he is uncertain regarding the two hours he'd previously given, and that in this instance he's relying solely on the method of body temperature plus air temperature to determine TOD. That is, the colder the body the longer it had been dead. In short the great loss of blood, together with the cold weather conditions could lead one to believe that she had been dead for longer than had actually been the case.

If he had said

"[Coroner] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more; ."FOR it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood"

Then I would concede he was referring to rigor mortis.

Also

There are so many different circumstances which differ in the Eddowes and Chapman murders, that I think it's pointless to compare the observances of the two doctors involved. Also as has been pointed out, warm, quite warm, quite cold etc, are not based on any scientific measurement that I know of.

Regarding the items placed at Annie Chapmans feet you wrote

"And as for the pile by the fence .. i am merely putting out another possibility , equally as plausible as the one that is held onto so tightly by you and many other theorists .. If Dr Phillips Said to Chandler " hey did your pile that lot together without me knowing " " oh yeah , sorry i should have told ya " or " No Not me guv " we would all be in the clear ! but he didn't so the door is open to speculation ( many a road leads into the same town )"

Equally as plausible? What? That a policeman placed the items in nice neat order at Annie Chapmans feet as opposed to her killer? Dream on. You're not even near. Chandler was the first to spot them and he said as much.

"After the body had been taken away I examined the yard, and found a piece of coarse muslin, a small tooth comb, and a pocket hair comb in a case. They were lying near the feet of the woman."

Please pay attention. Found, not placed, lying near the feet of the woman. And before you infer that Dr Philips placed them there he also stated

"I searched the yard and found a small piece of coarse muslin, a small-tooth comb, and a pocket-comb, in a paper case, near the railing. They had apparently been arranged there."

Do take care, Regards

Observer

[Observer]

Hi Bridewell.

I struggle with Cadosch's testimony too; it sounds so compelling. Maybe he really was incorrect as to the time that he heard the sounds coming from next door? After all, he was up early in the morning, feeling unwell following some kind of operation, and had to make repeat trips to the privy.

Maybe Cadosch made more trips to the outdoor privy that morning than we realize? And maybe the noises he heard occurred at a somewhat different time than he later recalled?

I'll try to say this politely, but if he was unwell in a way that required multiple "visits" to the facilities, might he have gone out to the backyard privy multiple times before he had to get up for work? Because he was sick he might not have wanted to use his chamberpot- if he did use it he'd have to go dump it outside before he could use it again anyway.

Just an idea... When you're feeling unwell, and possibly in pain, it's harder to pay attention to external details, much less recall them accurately later.

> If Cadosch was correct in what he heard but mistaken as to when, what window of time would make the known facts fit more smoothly?

Thanks and best regards,
Archaic

Hi Archaic

I struggle with the relentless undermining of witness testimony to placate a doctor's opinion as to TOD of Annie Chapman. Not one witness, not two, but three witnesses at the single sweep of a thermometer, provided he used one of course. Isn't it a case of he made a decision on the spot at a moment in time, and despite hearing testimony to the contrary regarding TOD. he chose to ignore it, and stick by his guns? He would not have been the first expert witness to do so, and he certainly aint the last.

Regards

Observer

[moonbegger]

Hello Observer ..

Holy Cow , you've got some pent up aggression issues going on there sunshine You really need to drop a chill pill and wipe the frothy foam from your mouth . Then sit back and slowly ( very slowly ) read through the last ten or so posts . It may all fall into place for you ( enlightenment is a wonderful thing and should be embraced ) or it may not , Either way i think you should talk to someone , Firstly about your crazy nonsensical and stubborn attitude towards anything or anyone that doesn't go along with the world according to you .. And secondly your venomous and ( bully boy ) style ramblings , roughly disguised as facts, or should i say ( your opinion of them )

Ta Tar for now

moonbegger .

"It's nice to be important , but its more important to be nice "

[moonbegger]

Hi Bridewell.

I struggle with Cadosch's testimony too; it sounds so compelling. Maybe he really was incorrect as to the time that he heard the sounds coming from next door? After all, he was up early in the morning, feeling unwell following some kind of operation, and had to make repeat trips to the privy.

Maybe Cadosch made more trips to the outdoor privy that morning than we realize? And maybe the noises he heard occurred at a somewhat different time than he later recalled?

I'll try to say this politely, but if he was unwell in a way that required multiple "visits" to the facilities, might he have gone out to the backyard privy multiple times before he had to get up for work? Because he was sick he might not have wanted to use his chamberpot- if he did use it he'd have to go dump it outside before he could use it again anyway.

Just an idea... When you're feeling unwell, and possibly in pain, it's harder to pay attention to external details, much less recall them accurately later.

> If Cadosch was correct in what he heard but mistaken as to when, what window of time would make the known facts fit more smoothly?

Thanks and best regards,
Archaic

Hi Bridewell / Archaic .

I'm not sure whether i really ever doubted the Cadosh testimony, in so much as what he said he heard .. moreover , what he was actually hearing . However i think Archaic puts forward a good alternative here .. i must say though i still dont think its too far beyond the realms of possibility that Annie may have been robbed sometime after she was murdered, and thats what cadosh may have been hearing .. i know that doesn't sit too well with some of you .. and in light of that i would much prefer to go along with Archaic's train of thought .. oh well

Cheers all
moonbegger .