Who's talking Cobblers ? John Richardson ?

[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.

[Archaic]

Welcome back, Mike!

You did sound rather well-informed for a newbie.

Best regards,
Archaic

[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

[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

[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murders were totally new grounds to all of them on a forensic level and some of the old school techniques were outdated.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.

[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 .

[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

[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.

[lynn cates]

story

Hello Michael. Welcome to the boards.

You are right, a good bit of the Mitre sq story hinges on that identification. Take it away and . . .

Cheers.
LC

[Fleetwood Mac]

You appear to have missed the point FM.

No-one is arguing that "cold" and "quite warm" are the same, the suggestion was made by Moonbegger that "quite warm" could not have become "cold" after a further 20 minutes of exposure.
A suggestion which needs to be quantified in absolute terms not vague terminology in order to sustain such an argument.
There is a mathematical formula to determine heat loss of a body, it is not determined by guesswork.

Regards, Jon S.

The point hasn't been missed at all.

It seems you're saying that without supporting scientific apparatus and measures, it is rendered guesswork.

I'm saying that the body temperature was taken at the scene, and was noted as quite warm. I would imagine the doctor understood that which is meant by quite warm and we can take his word that the body was warm to a large extent. This is not guess work; it simply lacks a table of indicators.

Following on from this it becomes a matter of opinion, based on the doctor's findings at the scene, as to whether or not the body could move from quite/to a large extent warm to cold in 20 minutes. I doubt it; you may think otherwise. I'm no professor of these matters, but then there aren't many experienced DI's doing the rounds round here.

[Hunter]

There is a mathematical formula to determine heat loss of a body, it is not determined by guesswork.

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 - that of Mr. Phillips regarding Alice McKenzie:

'Found the body of a woman lying on back. face turned sharply to right. temp. moderate....

Temp. of body.
Warmth still perceptible under right cheek.
Body still warm where covered. Where exposed quite cold.'

In this case, Phillips accompanied the body to the mortuary (if one could even call it such). He discussed his preliminary findings with Supt. Arnold and Insp. West, who had also accompanied him. He makes no further mention of body temperature; only that he ordered that the body was not to be disturbed until he had received the required notification from the coroner's office to proceed with a post-mortem examination.

It was all apparently done by touch. If anyone can find evidence that actual body temperature was taken in any of these cases and the progression of the cooling process was noted by that means, I would be enlightened.

[Michael W Richards]

Comparatives

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

[Wickerman]

You appear to have missed the point FM.

No-one is arguing that "cold" and "quite warm" are the same, the suggestion was made by Moonbegger that "quite warm" could not have become "cold" after a further 20 minutes of exposure.
A suggestion which needs to be quantified in absolute terms not vague terminology in order to sustain such an argument.
There is a mathematical formula to determine heat loss of a body, it is not determined by guesswork.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

Quite clearly, it is not.

We set standards in language in order to communicate, and it follows we adhere to those standards.

So, the average layman understands the difference between royal blue and navy blue.

Similarly, a doctor understands the general consensus of what constitutes cold and quite warm. When he says cold he means cold as you or I would understand it; when he says quite warm he means considerably, or to a large extent, warm (which is the definition of quite).

When we say a term is subjective surely we mean we understand the generally accepted meaning of that term, but we differ in terms of whether or not it has any basis in reality, e.g. "equality". "Cold" or "quite warm" is entirely different as we are not asked to question the existence of "cold" in reality.

There are clearly defined parameters for that which is generally understood to mean "cold" and "quite warm". I suppose you could argue that a doctor/the doctor lacks a decent grasp of English, so when he said quite warm he really meant luke warm.

Look, be honest here:

We know that quite warm means the body was warm give or take a small amount of heat loss. We know what cold means in this context.

Moonbegger gives us a comparitor, although not a scientific study by any stretch of the imagination. We know, also, that rigor would not have commenced within an hour in the majority of cases.

It looks like Long did not see Chapman; Cadosch heard someone else; Richardson did not see the body for whatever reason. This is hard to bear, of course, because the implication is that witnesses in general are of limited value and this detracts from the case/discussion points.

[curious]

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown, London police surgeon had this to say in his examination of Eddowes' body:


"I made a post mortem examination at half past two on Sunday afternoon. Rigor mortis was well marked; body not quite cold."


"Body not quite cold"

Air temperature that day 3 degrees cooler and she had been dead, what, 12 hours or more???

again, more questions than answers.

curious