Chapman’s death.

[Fisherman]

There is no reason to answer any of your other posts, Herlock - for example, bringing up the fact that a hand is nowhere nearly as sensitive to temperatures as a thermometer is something we all know since very, very long. Not a soul has questioned it. But - once again - it is not a question of subtle differences, it is one of a cold body (let's not forget the area under the intestines, though, so you don't claim that I am trying to hide it) versus a warm one.

Regardless of any lividity and such matters, no doctor would say that a person that he recognizes as being cold to the touch appears to have been dead for an hour only, for reasons given above: there were no other medical parameters to give away a death so close in time in victorian days! Rigor will not set in until after two hours, normally, lividity can start showing in half an hour or in two hours, so it is worthless in the context - and no other parameters were there to make that kind of a call in 1888.

Ergo, any doctor who claimed that a body that was cold to the touch had probably died within the hour was misrepresenting his profession or misquoted.

That is all we need to know, and it will save us a bundle of posting.
Unless, of course, I am making this up.

[Elamarna]

True enough! But - of course - what he REALLY says is something that you miss out on, true to form. I will explain it to you, though - also true to form.

Of course a surface measurement will not produce any core temperature. The surface will always be cooler than the core, and moreover, the heat in the core will not dissolve evenly - the innermost parts of it will retain the warmth longest, while the parts closer to the cool skin and surroundings while from cold swifter.

This is a universal truth that no doctor or layman with any insights at all would challenge.

And would you beleive it - I have never claimed that the EXACT core temperature will be readable on the surface. That was never going to happen! If you think this is what I am saying, you have misunderstood me totally. Maybe that is where your charming accusations of me making things up come from? Another misunderstanding of yours?

What Can be felt via the skin for up to three hours or so after death is nevertheless core warmth. it can -and will - be picked up on by medicos if it is still around in a measure that allows for it. And as it happens, it IS around in detectable measures for around three hours in the dead body.

Of course, if the temperature is 37 degrees Celsius inside the core, it will not be 37 degrees on the skin! But it will be quite enough for the doctor the feel that the core has warmth to give away! During the three hours after death, that warmth in the core will give away enough heat for the doctor to pick up on it through the skin. After that, there will still be plenty of warmth - but not enough to reach through the skin for the doctor to feel it. This stage is reached after 4-6 hours. Now the doctor will say that the body is cold to the touch, although in fact, the core will retain a slowly disappearing heat for around 24 hours. The last twenty hours of the process, the doctor will not be able to feel it, though.

There is one thing that is interesting, and that isn where we return to professor Knight: The plateau during the first half hour up to a full hour, when the body heat does not sink at all. And THIS is what Knight sparks about - he says that although the core temperature (as checked via a rectal reading) will establish that plateau, measuring the temperature at the skin will NOT do so. And that will owe to how the skin is insulated from the core, and how it will be subjected to a process of sinking temperature for that reason - the ambient temperatures will make the skin temperature fall, whereas it will not affect the core temperature during the plateau stage. I will guide you through it, word for word:

"surface measurements do not reflect the initial retention of heat in the core (meaning that we cannot note from skin temperatures that the core is not sinking in temperature during th initial half hour or hour), as detected by rectal readings (precisely: the rectal temperature will reflect the core temperature, and in there, the temperature will not fall initially)". In other words, you can't detect the heat in the rectum, or core, from measurements taken at the surface. (which is exactly what I am saying - the precise temperature of the core will not be legible in the skin)"

However! This does NOT mean that warmth from the core cannot be felt through the skin after death!

An understanding of physiology would be helpful when discussing physiological matters.

One recalls a post of a year or so ago, which claimed after reading a scientific paper, that a rise in internal cell pressure in specific cells, equated to a rise in Blood Pressure.

The same lack of understanding is being demonstrated yet again.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Fisherman keeps talking about a "freak" result because the cooling and rigor is being said to have appeared earlier than one would expect from a "normal" case.



But Chapman, by being in an advanced state of a wasting disease and by being severely undernourished was already outside of the norm. Not to mention that she was murdered on the street. We don't have any scientific studies, as far as I am aware, which look at the rate of cooling and onset of rigor of people with wasting diseases and malnourishment who died in the open but what if it was found that in, say, 75 per cent of such cases the body is cold within an hour and rigor is present at the same time? In which event, the results in Chapman's case would be entirely as expected and within the norm.



That's why it is ridiculous and totally unscientific of Fisherman to use the word "freak" for a result outside of the "average". But we all know why he is doing it.



Fisherman - If you disagree, please provide examples of forensic pathologists using the word "freak" to describe a result outside of the average in respect of cooling or rigor. Because what I see are experts who all repeatedly tell us that there are so many variables for cooling and rigor that there is no reliable "average" which can be applied to all cases.



Your argument is like saying that, because the average height of a man today is five feet nine inches, if I tell you that you the first man I saw in the street after I Ieft my house this morning was five feet six inches you will conclude that this was a "freak" result and, indeed, unlikely to be true. That's the kind of nonsensical outcome that one gets when playing silly games around the word "average".

Herlock,
people still talking about the time rigor sets in after death as being an indicator of death which is either violent or where stress to the muscles as occurred, simply demonstrates a lack of knowledge.
In such cases rigor can set in almost immediately.

Steve

[Harry D]

Is either side going to reach any kind of consensus here?
Will one side make a concession and change their opinion?
Or are both sides entrenched in an endless back-and-forth of bickering and point-scoring?

[Elamarna]

Is either side going to reach any kind of consensus here?
Will one side make a concession and change their opinion?
Or are both sides entrenched in an endless back-and-forth of bickering and point-scoring?

The point is Harry, that you can't compromise or reach a consensus, if some ignore science, in favour of belief.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

True enough! But - of course - what he REALLY says is something that you miss out on, true to form. I will explain it to you, though - also true to form.

Of course a surface measurement will not produce any core temperature. The surface will always be cooler than the core, and moreover, the heat in the core will not dissolve evenly - the innermost parts of it will retain the warmth longest, while the parts closer to the cool skin and surroundings while from cold swifter.

This is a universal truth that no doctor or layman with any insights at all would challenge.

And would you beleive it - I have never claimed that the EXACT core temperature will be readable on the surface. That was never going to happen! If you think this is what I am saying, you have misunderstood me totally. Maybe that is where your charming accusations of me making things up come from? Another misunderstanding of yours?

What Can be felt via the skin for up to three hours or so after death is nevertheless core warmth. it can -and will - be picked up on by medicos if it is still around in a measure that allows for it. And as it happens, it IS around in detectable measures for around three hours in the dead body.

Of course, if the temperature is 37 degrees Celsius inside the core, it will not be 37 degrees on the skin! But it will be quite enough for the doctor the feel that the core has warmth to give away! During the three hours after death, that warmth in the core will give away enough heat for the doctor to pick up on it through the skin. After that, there will still be plenty of warmth - but not enough to reach through the skin for the doctor to feel it. This stage is reached after 4-6 hours. Now the doctor will say that the body is cold to the touch, although in fact, the core will retain a slowly disappearing heat for around 24 hours. The last twenty hours of the process, the doctor will not be able to feel it, though.

There is one thing that is interesting, and that isn where we return to professor Knight: The plateau during the first half hour up to a full hour, when the body heat does not sink at all. And THIS is what Knight sparks about - he says that although the core temperature (as checked via a rectal reading) will establish that plateau, measuring the temperature at the skin will NOT do so. And that will owe to how the skin is insulated from the core, and how it will be subjected to a process of sinking temperature for that reason - the ambient temperatures will make the skin temperature fall, whereas it will not affect the core temperature during the plateau stage. I will guide you through it, word for word:

"surface measurements do not reflect the initial retention of heat in the core (meaning that we cannot note from skin temperatures that the core is not sinking in temperature during th initial half hour or hour), as detected by rectal readings (precisely: the rectal temperature will reflect the core temperature, and in there, the temperature will not fall initially)". In other words, you can't detect the heat in the rectum, or core, from measurements taken at the surface. (which is exactly what I am saying - the precise temperature of the core will not be legible in the skin)"

However! This does NOT mean that warmth from the core cannot be felt through the skin after death!

No, he does not say that the only thing he felt inside the body was heat. He says the only heat he could find was under the intestines, and that otherwise the body was COLD. And that means that whichever other area inside or on the outside of the body he felt, there was NO heat.

Hold on, is it your position now that Dr Phillips fumbled around inside Chapman's body testing for heat throughout the inside her body? Because that's crazy talk isn't it? Personally I don't believe for one second that he stuck his hand into her body to feel the heat of the intestines. I can't think for one moment why he would have done that.

What I suspect he did was follow the recognized technique of feeling the part of her back in contact with the ground and he naturally surmised that the heat he felt there was being generated by the intestines. But there's no point in arguing with you over a detail like that. The point is that there was heat. Yet, you asked John: "How on earth could Phillips, after having stuck his hands INSIDE Chapmans body, NOT be correct in saying that she was cold?" But the fact of the matter is he found heat when (according to you) he "stuck his hands INSIDE Chapman's body". So he didn't say she was cold full stop. He said she was cold (at the surface) but there was also heat still in the body.

Phillips was clearly saying that Chapmans' body was cold on the surface save for heat being generated by the intestines. But that is only based on what he could feel with his own hands. And his hands wouldn't necessarily have been able to feel the warmth of Chapman's body as we've seen from Dr Burman and Dr Taylor. His hands were not a thermometer. What he could feel was subjective only and subject to misinterpretation.



A thousand victorian doctors and todays collected knowledge would be the source.

That's another way of saying that you have no source, isn't it? I mean, just one would do. Even Dr Phillips qualified his own two hour estimate and the coroner found that Chapman, despite feeling cold, could have been murdered an hour before the examination.



What the doctors felt (and feel) for was always the core warmth, conducted up to the surface when the fingers are put towards it. The target areas would have been where the vessels are shallowly placed and many.

All you are saying there in a convoluted way is that the doctors feel the surface warmth. It doesn't matter where the heat comes from, be it the internal body core, from the circulating blood (if the person is still alive) or from an external furnace blowing heat at the body's surface. All they can feel is the warmth on the surface and they are using their (warm) fingers to do so, which means they just get a subjective and possibly inaccurate result. Without a thermometer you can't actually test whether there is warmth there or not.



No, he does not, because he knows that skin warmth will disappear in a matter of ten to twenty minutes as per Seddon-Smith (the guy you claim has me panicking).

You originally stated that Seddon-Smith's information was "useless". Now you accept it. But what he told us explains why the body can get cold at the surface very rapidly UNLESS the heat being lost is replaced by heat generated internally, within the body, which has managed to make its way through to the insulated surface. Where you have an emaciated and undernourished woman, the metabolic heat from the muscles and liver may be non-existent. Out in the open, on a cool evening, a dead body can, therefore, FEEL cold to an observer very quickly, regardless of the actual surface temperature when taken with a thermometer. That's why all the experts say that estimating time of death on the basis of whether the body feels "warm" or "cold" is entirely inappropriate, unreliable and should not be done. Unfortunately that's what Dr Phillips did.

It might amaze you that Dr Phillips could have carried out a test with his hands that was so obviously flawed and unlikely to lead to any kind of reliable estimate of time of death but that's what Victorian doctors did I'm afraid. It was common practice. Wrong but common.

As I've been trying to tell you throughout the entire thread, what Dr Phillips was attempting to do with his hands was IMPOSSIBLE.



It is not. Otherwise, the procedure of feeling for warmth would not have been employed after the twenty minutes it takes the skin to grow cold. When will you learn?

You are right in one sense. Dr Phillips should definitely not have employed the procedure he did. He should have taken Chapman's rectal temperature. It's what I've been saying to you all along. Even in the 1880s this was known to be the case. He couldn't get any useful information in respect of time of death from simply feeling Chapman's body. I've already explained to you in a long post why some bodies will retain heat for hours in certain circumstances and thus feel warm for an extended period. But others, in different circumstances, will feel cold within an hour. When will you learn?



It is the warmth from the core, felt THROUGH the skin. Of course, the skin takes on the warmth from underneath as the medico puts his fingers to that skin, but the warmth he feels is core warmth, seeping into the skin. Once the doctor removes his fingers, the skin will cool off quickly, whereas the core will NOT do so. The warmth from it can be felt through the skin for a period of roughly three hours in the normal case.

This is the thing you are making up. He can't feel the warmth from the core "THROUGH" the skin. You've never provided a source for this and it is the most absurd nonsense. The core warmth is completely difference from the surface warmth. Or to put it another way, as we've seen from the sources, the core can be warm, raging hot even, while the surface can still feel cold.

You are closer to the truth when you say that, after an hour, when the existing surface heat has been lost, any warmth on the surface will be the warmth from the core that has been seeping into the skin. But we've been told that the skin is insulated from the core. We've been told that the normal metabolic heat generated from the muscles and liver isn't generated in all cases. We've been told that even though there might be warmth from the core at the surface, an observer with warm hands might not feel it. We've been told that there is rapid heat loss at the surface within an hour. All these things put together mean that a body can feel cold within certain circumstances within an hour. It's just a fact. No forensic pathologist would deny this.



And that is why no victorian doctor will ever say "the body appeared to be only one hour dead, but was cold".

I've given you examples of two Victorian doctors actually saying it!!! In the case of Dr Fowler, you went off on a long diversion about lividity, actually quoting sources!!!! - but we now know that the lividity was a symptom of the prussic acid. So it doesn't affect Fowler's opinion. In the case of Dr Kennedy, you haven't come up with anything sensible at all!

I could even add a third doctor, in Dr Phillips who qualified his opinion to allow for Chapman to have been dead an hour, as understood perfectly by the coroner, who found, as a fact, that Chapman was murdered at about 5.30 despite knowing that her body was cold at 6.30.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And would you beleive it - I have never claimed that the EXACT core temperature will be readable on the surface. That was never going to happen! If you think this is what I am saying, you have misunderstood me totally. Maybe that is where your charming accusations of me making things up come from? Another misunderstanding of yours?

No, Fisherman don't try and put up a strawman defence, pretending that you have been misunderstood. What you have been saying loud and clear is that, if the core is warm, the surface must feel warm too. You've been saying it ever since you found a paper which said that there is no heat loss in the first 30 minutes to an hour after death but didn't realize, until I pointed it out to you, that this was referring only to the temperature at the core, or rectum.

The importance of the Knight extract is that it makes crystal clear that the actual temperature at the surface "does not reflect the retention of heat at the core". Hence, when you take the temperature of the surface, you discover on a scientific basis, that "the body cools rapidly soon after death". Dr Burman's study found that there can be a significant fall in temperature on the surface within the first hour after death. All Phillips could possibly do was feel the surface of Chapmans skin and, with his warm hands, could easily have felt her skin to be cold after an hour even though there was still remaining warmth in the core (and, indeed, even though there might also have been remaining warmth at the surface).



Of course, if the temperature is 37 degrees Celsius inside the core, it will not be 37 degrees on the skin! But it will be quite enough for the doctor the feel that the core has warmth to give away.

But what is your source for the second sentence? You are clearly just guessing, or rather hoping. And you are hoping wrong.

Because we've had the perfect explanation from Dr Taylor as to why a doctor might not feel warmth with his hands, even when there might be some warmth there. And we've had Dr Kennedy tell us that a body that is dead after one hour can be just as cold as a dead body after six hours.

There is absolutely no scientific reason why a dead body must feel warm to the touch after an hour. None at all. You've not produced one single source to support it. Yet, when it came to lividity, by contrast, you were maniacally posting source after source after source!!! That's when you thought you had made a great point to kill off Dr Fowler. You hadn't, of course, and Dr Fowler's estimate is still a problem for you, but the point is that when you think you have sources to supporting your arguments you post them. Your failure to post a single source demonstrating that there will always be sufficient warmth at the surface an hour after death which can be felt with the hands is most revealing.



During the three hours after death, that warmth in the core will give away enough heat for the doctor to pick up on it through the skin

Please provide a source for that statement.



However! This does NOT mean that warmth from the core cannot be felt through the skin after death!

Please provide a source for that statement.

[Sam Flynn]

I think he did place his hand in the body under the intestines, Herlock. If he'd felt her back, he'd have said as much; no doctor is going to describe the back as "in the body" or "under the intestines", which is what Phillips says.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no reason to answer any of your other posts, Herlock - for example, bringing up the fact that a hand is nowhere nearly as sensitive to temperatures as a thermometer is something we all know since very, very long. Not a soul has questioned it. But - once again - it is not a question of subtle differences, it is one of a cold body (let's not forget the area under the intestines, though, so you don't claim that I am trying to hide it) versus a warm one.

Regardless of any lividity and such matters, no doctor would say that a person that he recognizes as being cold to the touch appears to have been dead for an hour only, for reasons given above: there were no other medical parameters to give away a death so close in time in victorian days! Rigor will not set in until after two hours, normally, lividity can start showing in half an hour or in two hours, so it is worthless in the context - and no other parameters were there to make that kind of a call in 1888.

Ergo, any doctor who claimed that a body that was cold to the touch had probably died within the hour was misrepresenting his profession or misquoted.

That is all we need to know, and it will save us a bundle of posting.
Unless, of course, I am making this up.

There is no reason to answer any of your other posts

What a shame. I was looking forward to more "Fishplaining" of the subject from you. By which I mean endless assertions based on no evidence whatsoever, in the face of expert sources which contradict everything you are saying!



bringing up the fact that a hand is nowhere nearly as sensitive to temperatures as a thermometer is something we all know since very, very long

If you know it, why do you keep saying that Dr Phillips had magic hands which could undoubtedly detect heat from the dead body of an emaciated woman lying in the open air during a cold night an hour after her death?



Not a soul has questioned it. But - once again - it is not a question of subtle differences, it is one of a cold body (let's not forget the area under the intestines, though, so you don't claim that I am trying to hide it) versus a warm one.

But this is just you making up the notion that it's not a subtle difference. Why can't it be a subtle difference? All Dr Phillips had to rely on was his probably warm hands when testing for warmth on the surface of Chapman's emaciated body on a cold night. Every single expert in the world will say that this is an unreliable and wholly subjective method of testing for warmth and cannot possibly be used to reliably estimate the time of death. From where does Dr Phillips get the superpower to be the only person in the entire history of the world to be able to do it?



Regardless of any lividity and such matters, no doctor would say that a person that he recognizes as being cold to the touch appears to have been dead for an hour only, for the reasons above given.

Do you mean apart from Dr Fowler in 1861 and Dr Kennedy in 1856?

You justify your statement on the basis of "the reasons above given" but none of those reasons were sourced to any expert in forensic pathology or, indeed, ANY source at all. It was just you "Fishplaining". The sources show that EVERY doctor in the world would be forced to admit that a body cold to the touch could have died an hour earlier. Until you can show me one expert who would disagree with that statement, your own assertions must be ignored because you are simply making it all up.



Rigor will not set in until after two hours

In your desperation you are now reduced to making provably false statements. I've provided multiple sources which say that rigor will commence after 1-3 hours. Here's just one more: "After death, the muscles of the body become flacid. Within one to three hours they become increasingly rigid…" 'Guide to Forensic Pathology' (1998) by Jay Dix MD and Robert Calaluce MD. That's absolutely consistent with what Dr Phillips said about stiffening "evidently commencing" but "not marked" in the case of Chapman.



Ergo, any doctor who claimed that a body that was cold to the touch had probably died within the hour was misrepresenting his profession or misquoted.

On the contrary, any doctor who claims that a body that is cold to the touch CANNOT have died within the hour is a bungling fool. No-one will ever do it. Even Dr Phillips didn't do it!!



That is all we need to know, and it will save us a bundle of posting.
Unless, of course, I am making this up

Yes, you are making it up.

[The Baron]

I think he did place his hand in the body under the intestines, Herlock. If he'd felt her back, he'd have said as much; no doctor is going to describe the back as "in the body" or "under the intestines", which is what Phillips says.

Thank you Sam!

Now he cannot claim that you don't understand english or that you don't have read enough books about the supject as he always does whenever he finds his arguments weak.

He will bow to the sound of truth.


The Baron

[DJA]

Posts #690 and #694, which showed Chapman's temperature would have been expected to be low due to TB having infected her brain, have been ignored.

Given that Phillips displayed excellent knowledge of Jack's weapon of choice and that an attempt had been made to remove Chapman's head,does anyone find his opening of her brain of particular interest!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thank you Sam!

Now he cannot claim that you don't understand english or that you don't have read enough books about the supject as he always does whenever he finds his arguments weak.

He will bow to the sound of truth.


The Baron

What are you talking about?

How much truth can be ignored here? How many quotes need to be posted telling us conclusively that Phillips couldn’t have predicted the TOD accurately. This is no longer a debate. It’s simply a case of prolonging futility. Of obfuscating the truth. Phillips can very safely be dismissed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think he did place his hand in the body under the intestines, Herlock. If he'd felt her back, he'd have said as much; no doctor is going to describe the back as "in the body" or "under the intestines", which is what Phillips says.

Hi Sam



What Phillips says is ambiguous. What is it he is saying was "in the body"? Is it the heat or the intestines. For, as you know, part of the intestines had been removed from the body by the killer and was apparently lying on the ground. So when Phillips said that there was heat under the intestines "remaining in the body" he could have been speaking about there being heat beneath that part of the intestines which remained in the body. I note what you say about "under the intestines", and of course it is an unusual way of expressing himself if he was talking about having placed his hand underneath her body but not inconceivable to my mind (and he might have actually said, or meant, "under the area of the intestines"). I just don't believe that he put his hands inside her body and underneath her intestines to feel heat while she was lying on the ground at the crime scene because it seems such an unusual thing to do at such an examination. At the same time, I accept it is possible which is why I said I didn't want to waste time endlessly arguing with Fisherman about it and made clear it was just my personal opinion. However, what I feel sure Phillips didn't do was rummage around inside her body feeling for heat elsewhere and that the comment that her body was cold was based on feeling the surface of her body (although he doesn't say which parts of her body he tested, and the Morning Advertiser reported it as being only her left side). Furthermore, as Phillips said there was heat under, or coming from, the intestines, this part of his evidence actually supports what I've been saying because she obviously wasn't "stone cold".


The only reason I mentioned it was because Fisherman had told John that Phillips placed his hands inside Chapman's body and still said she was cold. This was such a glaring misrepresentation of the evidence that it needed correcting.

[Sam Flynn]

So when Phillips said that there was heat under the intestines "remaining in the body" he could have been speaking about there being heat beneath that part of the intestines which remained in the body.

The key part of his statement is "under the intestines". I reckon he shoved his hand in there, and I wouldn't find that a particularly odd thing for him to have done. He'd have been used to handling dead bodies, so not squeamish, and his hands would almost certainly have been bloodied already after examining the body and the various bits of flesh that had been cut away.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The key part of his statement is "under the intestines". I reckon he shoved his hand in there, and I wouldn't find that a particularly odd thing for him to have done. He'd have been used to handling dead bodies, so not squeamish, and his hands would almost certainly have been bloodied already after examining the body and the various bits of flesh that had been cut away.

I understand what you are saying Sam and I can't say that you are wrong. Only that the normal procedure to test for warmth was to place the hand beneath the part of the body in contact with the ground. Obviously there is no "normal" procedure for a crime scene examination of a body that has been cut open but that's why it's unusual. Sticking one's hand in a body is usually something to be done at a post-mortem. It just seems a strange thing for Phillips to have done, if he did it, at the crime scene and I've never seen any other examples. I've obviously read the report of the inquest and your comments and, while you may be right, and I can certainly see why you interpret it in the way you do, I still personally don’t believe he did this. However, it's a bit of a diversion, irrelevant to the main topic under discussion, and not, I think, worth arguing a