Who's talking Cobblers ? John Richardson ?

[curious]

Dave.
I intentionally held back from mentioning what the actual temperature was as taken from newspapers or weather reports.

http://www.casebook.org/victorian_london/weather.html

I don't know the time of day the Low temperature was taken. Was it first thing in the morning or last thing at night?
Looking at the 2nd chart (above link).
The Low given for the Chapman murder is 47.4 deg. whereas the Low given for Eddowes is 44.7 deg.
But, what time of day were these temps taken, early in the morning consistent with both murders, or last thing at night making them irrelevant to the murders?
Either way, 3 deg makes no significant difference.

Regards, Jon S.

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)!

[Wickerman]

Dave.
I intentionally held back from mentioning what the actual temperature was as taken from newspapers or weather reports.

http://www.casebook.org/victorian_london/weather.html

I don't know the time of day the Low temperature was taken. Was it first thing in the morning or last thing at night?
Looking at the 2nd chart (above link).
The Low given for the Chapman murder is 47.4 deg. whereas the Low given for Eddowes is 44.7 deg.
But, what time of day were these temps taken, early in the morning consistent with both murders, or last thing at night making them irrelevant to the murders?
Either way, 3 deg makes no significant difference.

Regards, Jon S.

[Cogidubnus]

Personally, before I dared commit to a halfway valid comparison between the Chapman and Eddowes murder scenarios I would want to know the ambient temperature in each of the two cases, plus details of any meteorological (temperature, rain, wind, humidity etc) or other conditions (eg shelter from wind or otherwise), which jointly might lead to any wind-chill factor to take into account...I'd also want expert opinion on how partial versus total evisceration might affect body temperature...I'd also want to know how much effect relative body mass or metabolism might have on the equation...

Not being funny, I really don't know how comparable these cases are, and I very much doubt anybody currently on Casebook is qualified to make such a judgement either...let's be honest, after so many years, there are too many intangibles and not enough experts!

All the best

Dave

[Supe]

Jon is quite right; "cold" and "quite warm" are definitely subjective terms, especially when used by two different doctors. Moreover, the onset and progression of rigor mortis is not an inflexible phenomenon -- it varies among bodies for a variety of external and internal reasons. Begger is simply playing word games to fit his rather fanciful theory.

Don.

[Wickerman]

...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."

Hi Moonbegger.
Yes, that does appear to be the case.
Brown observed the body was "quite warm" shortly after his arrival about 2:20 am.
It would appear that Sequeira made a similar observation to Collard who arrived about 2-3 mins past 2:00. Sequeira said the body was "warm".
So Eddowes body was "warm" about 2:00 am (after 20 mins?) and still "quite warm" about 2:25 am (after about 40 mins?).
As opposed to Chapman's body which was "cold" at 6:30 am, after about one hour of laying in the yard.

So you are asking if it is reasonable to conclude that two separate doctors could estimate a body going from "quite warm" to "cold" in 20 minutes on a cold morning?

I can't see a major argument here, how do we define "quite warm" turning to "cold" after 20 minutes without specific body temperatures being noted?
The argument is relying on vague terminology.

Regards, Jon S.

[curious]

Hi Moonbegger.

That's an excellent question. I'll be interested to read the responses.

Best regards,
Archac

Hi, Moonbegger,

I agree with Archaic. You have arrived at the crux of the matter (and the very reason I believe Chapman was dead before 5:30).

Can't wait to see who answers and how.

curious

[Archaic]

Comparative Cooling Times Between Chapman & Eddowes Murders

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.

Hi Moonbegger.

That's an excellent question. I'll be interested to read the responses.

Best regards,
Archac

[moonbegger]

Hi Moonbegger

First off where does Dr Philips equate great loss of blood, and cool weather conditions with rigor mortis? It is you who puts words into Philips mouth.

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.

The operative words here are "but it is right to say". Now to me, this implies that Dr Philips recognised that the great loss of blood and the fairly cold morning meant that his arrival at the TOD was based on the temperature of the body, and the surrounding cool air. He does not mention rigor mortis in the above passage. And it has been pointed out earlier in this thread that rigor can set in after as little as one hour after death. This is what Dr Philips said regarding rigor. I quote.

"The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body. Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing."

Commencing not marked. Would there have been "a certain amount of heat under the intestines" if Annie Chapman had been murdered more than two hours prior to Dr Philips examination? I don't know. Dr Philips seemed to think so, and this taking into account the fact that she'd lost most of her blood.

Also, taking in mind that I and others have pointed out to you that Inspector Chandler orderered the constables arriving at the scene not to touch the body, when are you going to address the assertion that you believe that a member of the police force arranged the scrap of muslin and two combs at Annie Chapmans feet? I only ask this as you seem to be avoiding the issue.

All the very best old chap

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.

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 ) .

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

moonbegger ( old chap )

[Wickerman]

There's worse than that Bridewell... see the Scottish Fingerprint Service scandal...arising out of HM Advocate v McKie and in which it is finally conceded that fingerprint evidence is expressed scientific opinion and NOT scientific fact...

Dave

Interesting that you should bring this up, recently (April?) we had a documentary about police forensic sciences, essentially putting CSI under the microscope.
Fingerprint analysis is on a par with the argument that no two snowflakes are the same. Claims which cannot be proven.

A case in question had one man firmly identified by a partial print which provided so many identical loops & whirls it was a foregone conclusion, passed by three independent labs.
The man was convicted, until another crime was committed where this same print surfaced again, this time complete, but this time matched another known criminal who was on the loose.
Too many fingerprint convictions are by partial prints, apparently.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

The operative words here are "but it is right to say". Now to me, this implies that Dr Philips recognised that the great loss of blood and the fairly cold morning meant that his arrival at the TOD was based on the temperature of the body, and the surrounding cool air.

Precisely why I thought Supe had erred in suggesting that Dr Phillips had not followed procedure in taking the body temperature.

He does not mention rigor mortis in the above passage. And it has been pointed out earlier in this thread that rigor can set in after as little as one hour after death. This is what Dr Philips said regarding rigor. I quote.

"The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body. Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing."

In the late 19th century I think that the onset of Rigor was associated with the temperature of the body. I could be wrong here, but in reading the relative literature I find no mention of the theory of a chemical process at work.
Tieing Rigor to the presence of lactic acid is a fairly recent discovery and I'm pretty sure was not known back in 1888. If anyone knows otherwise I would appreciate a heads-up.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Good god Jon...that's three times in a week I've agreed with you outright! Have you turned over a new leaf? (I know I haven't!)

All the best

Dave

You're keeping count?
....I'm still getting over jet-lag, ...England is so conjested, I'm glad to be home.

All the best, Jon S.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

If Casebook got donated to the Library of Congress and "someone a hundred years from now were to read our posts" they would think we were all stark raving nuts.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

You're absolutely right about that. At best, we have thumb nail sketches. A doable comparison might be these boards. If someone a hundred years from now were to read our posts, they would think they'd know us. But would they?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Debra A]

I'm guessing we will all have our own experiences of epilepsy. I just threw it into the mix because we think we know someone... a witness...but do we really?

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Debs

My former brother-in-law is an epileptic so I have some experience here...

Presumably (even at a petit mal level) this potentially affects his ability to honestly witness the time he's arrived at the scene, the time he's allegedly sat on the step, the time he's got up and the time he's gone to work...In an extreme case, his ability even to tell from one day to the next whether he's fulfilled a particular task...

Interesting...

Dave