Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapman’s death.

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by John G View Post

    I will now attempt to provide a definitive response.

    Firstly, as an overview, body temperature is by no means an accurate way of determining time of death. It has been argued that Henssge's Nomogram is the most accurate means, however, even this method, involving a series of complex calculations, is flawed: Hubig et al. 2015, found that 57.1% of cases did not fall within 95% confidence interval.

    But this is all largely incidental because as I shall now demonstrate, Dr Phillips, The Man with the Golden Touch , didn't even understand the basics of forensic science.

    Thus, Phillips attempted to determine ToD simply by touching the victims skin. This is a grossly unscientific method and, frankly, he should have known better. For instance, skin temperature readings are unreliable, and declines at a different rate than, say, rectal temperature readings (not that he actually did any readings, so his approach wasn't remotely scientific, or objective, instead relying on the subjectiveness of touch alone. And considering that the importance of taking a rectal temperature was known as early as 1869, he should of known better: see Rainy, 1869.

    ​​​​​​Of course, he also failed to make any calculations to take into account environmental factors, which is problematic because factors such as the presence of wind passing over the body, body posture (as a result of altered surface area exposed), and the victim being found partially naked can all influence cooling rates (this we can forgive him, as forensic science was in its infancy).

    Regarding initial body temperature. Normal rectal body temperature for women doesn't vary by a great deal- 36.8-37.1 degrees C. However, as there are wider variations in respect of oral temperatures- 33.2-38.1: see Sund- Levender et al, 2002, further highlighting the importance of taking a rectal temperature.

    However, Chapman was almost certainly not of normal body temperature. According to Dr Phillips' autopsy she was greatly undernourished and suffering from an advanced lung disease (this may well have been tuberculosis). And if Chapman was suffering from tuberculosis, it had almost certainly progressed to gastric tuberculosis, which occurred in an overwhelming number of cases in the pre-anti biotic age, further exasperating problems (this may partly explain the undernourishment).

    How would this have impacted on body temperature. The answer is a great deal. Considering disease, for example. Carpenter, et al. 2004, in a study of cancer sufferers, found that five out of eight subjects had mesors at or below 36.09 degrees c. In respect of caloric restriction (Chapman was greatly undernourished), individuals in the Biosphere 2 study, who were subject to chronic caloric restriction, and weight loss, had temperatures that were often in the range of 35.5 to 36.1 C, sometimes less: Walford et al, 1999. To put that into perspective, cooling rates, not taking into account environmental factors, are around 0.82 C per hour (The Glaister Equation) so a difference of just 1 degree would require a time adjustment of more than an hour (incidentally, in the paper you cited, you referred to being seen degree or two out as if it was only of a minor consequence; this isn't correct as 1 degree would require an adjustment of more than hour, and 2 degrees more than 2 hours: see the Glaister Equation.)

    I have therefore demonstrated that Dr Phillips' estimate cannot be relied upon and can be safely dismissed.

    So what of the witness statements. John Richardson that when he went to Hanbury Street, between 4:45 and 4:50, there was no body..And he is certain about this: "I could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there then." He had no reason whatsoever to lie on this point, especially as he was effectively placing himself close to where the body was found with a knife in his hand- something that was if definite interest to the coroner-"I think we will detain this knife for the present." Of course, Inspector Chandler somewhat contradicts his account by stating that Richardson had said that he didn't go down the steps, but he was obviously incompetent: I mean, he didn't even bother to take notes of the interview, and was clearly relying memory. Moreover, he may have conducted a somewhat perfunctory interview, considering he had to be at the mortuary just a few minutes later.

    If there are any remaining doubts about Chandler's competence, reflect on this exchange with the coroner:

    Coroner: "Did you see the handkerchief taken off the body?

    Chandler: "I did not. The nurses must have taken it off the throat."

    Coroner: "How do you know?"

    Chandler: "I don't know."

    Coroner: " Then you are guessing."

    Chandler: " I am guessing."

    Coroner: "That is all wrong, you know. (To the jury.) He is really not the proper man to have been left in charge."

    So there you have it. The evidence of a doctor, who didn't even understand the basics of forensics, and whose evidence, regards time of death, is therefore completely useless, and an incompetent police officer, against that of a reliable witness who had absolutely no reason to lie.

    It's novel difficult to see where the truth lies, is it?
    Excellent post John

    And you’ve also shown, just for Trevor, that Chandler was hardly Mr Efficiency. So I’ll use Trevor’s logic (after reading your post) and say that Chandler is unsafe. We can therefore dismiss what he said in the passageway as unsafe. And as we don’t even have corroborated proof that Richardson didn’t mention sitting on the steps then Trevor’s statement that Richardson is unsafe is....unsafe.

    We are long past the ‘game over’ stage here. The witnesses have to be taken in to account against a doctor that could only have gotten the TOD correct by luck. How much clearer can it get?

    TOD 5.25/5.30ish as per evidence.

    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 09-15-2019, 06:18 PM.
    Regards

    Herlock






    "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post


      We KNOW that bodies do not turn cold in an hour only, and so we may safely throw these cases in the dustbin as mistakes by the medicos.

      No, we do not KNOW this. I repeat that human bodies can feel cold while alive. This is well known. In such cases, what do you think they are going to feel like an hour after death?

      Yes, it is a well known fact that some people are always "surface cold", mainly in the areas furthest removed from the heart, that is to say hands and feet. the temperature of the skin of people always have and always will vary. However, that is not the issue here. These "surface cold" people actually hold the same temperture as the rest of us on the inside. They are not 23 degrees celsius or 32 degrees or anything like that - they are the same tedious 36-37 degrees as the rest of us. Simiarly, those who are hot on the skin and who sweat floods are not 59 degrees on the inside - they TOO are the same tedious 36-37 degrees as the rest of us. And the simple fact is that this has always been known, and medicos have never lived in fear of pronouncing such people dead although they are very much alive, because their inner heat can be picked up on. The human hand is very sensitive, and since medicos know where the vessels are close to the surface, they will prioritize feeling for warmth there if it is hard to pick up on in other places. The dorsal side of the hand is extremely sensitive to heat and would have been used many times in such detections.
      Amateurs and quacks will resonably be less versed in the art of palpation, and so we will easily be able to find claims that are not in sync with proper knowledge. This will inevitably be the case when sonebody says tht a person who has been dead for an hour only is all cold.



      Of course, in cases where somebody says that a completely cold body has been dead for at least an hour, he or she WILL be correct

      But what does “completely cold” mean? If a person feels completely cold while alive, they are going to feel completely cold an hour after death aren’t they?

      A person does never feel completely cold when alive, simple as that. Yes, the forehead mnayt feel cold, yes the hands may feel cold - but put your hand in the groin and it will NOT feel cold.


      If you think that a one hour dead person will have the same core temperature as a twelve hour dead person, you need to do some little reading up.


      No, Fisherman you are misunderstanding as usual? Dr Verity said nothing about the “core temperature”. He just said the body was cold. Quite correctly, he said that this means that the deceased could have been dead between an hour and 12 hours. Even more correctly, he could have said it could have been just about any time between her death and his examination.

      Dr Veritys (that name - ha!) patient was not cold if he or she had been dead an hour only. End of. A proper medico would easily have been able to rule out that short a time of death if the body was really cold to the touch all over. Verity is either a quack or somebody who wants to minimize risk of getting thiongs wrong in such a degree as to be willing to allow for the absurd.

      The examples you present are all along these lines. And we can exclude in all cases that death had occurred within an hour in any of them if the body was quite cold. Once again, it is physically impossible for a body
      to loose all detectable warmth in an hour only.


      That’s not true. You’ve never provided a source to support this.

      Yes, I have. I have made it very clear that nobody turns cold immediately after death on account of how we stay on a plateau for between half an hour and an hour, after which the temperature will drop by around 0,8 degrees celsius per hour. That leaves us with no or very little temperature loss inside the hour.
      What has NOT been provided is evidence that a body can take a drop of some five degrees or so in the firt hour after death - whila alongside with that process developing rigor! Now, THAT would be quite simething if you could find that combination of events!


      But it misses the point anyway. You said that a medic would never say that a cold body was murdered an hour earlier. The examples provided show that, as usual, you were wrong.


      No, none of your examples suggest a time of death an hour only before feeling cold. They all suggest time periods allowing for the body to have been dead for many hours.

      So why would not Phillips do the same mistake, you ask. I would say partly because he was a very experienced medico (which I very much doubt the ones in your examples were) and partly because we know that a very rapid cooling of a body will not produce any rigor - it will slow it down or even halt it.

      But aside from the fact that he didn’t have magic hands and therefore couldn’t accurately tell whether a dead body was cold or not, he was operating in the nineteenth century when not only were all the variables that could accelerate body cooling not known but it also wasn’t known that it the perceived warmth of a body to touch is useless as an indicator of time of death.

      But he COULD feel if a body was warm or not. That is what the paper I posted teaches us - the victorians were NOT using a usless method, they were using a rather exact method that allows for feeling subtle temperature changes.

      It’s also untrue to say that a very rapid cooling of a body will not produce rigor in all circumstances. We’ve already seen that a cut throat (sudden hemorrhage) and wasting disease will accelerate rigor.


      Yes, possibly so - but HOW MUCH? And will it accelerate rigor in a refrigerator? Because as science will have it, even a commencinf rigor will be slowed down or even halted in such conditions. You are once again trying to suggest freak occurrences, where one actually rules out the other one - on the planet whee I am living, at least.


      Of course, freak thinking will be accompanied by freak examples.

      Produce a single expert in forensic pathology who says that accelerated cooling and accelerated rigor is a “freak” event.

      They all do. Cold conditions SLOW down rigor, it is a well known fact.

      It’s well known that there are variables which will produce accelerated cooling and rigor which is why forensic pathologists say that body cooling and rigor should NOT be used to estimate time of death.

      Neither should hand palpation. They can only point us in a logical direction. Incidentally, that is the direction running contrary to you suggestions.

      How many times have I asked you to produce this evidence?

      Probably half a dozen.

      Have you produced it yet?


      Yes.

      NO, because it doesn’t exist.
      Oh yes, it does. It is as evident as how there is a fantasist out here claiming that I make things up.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post



        The paper concerns itself with how close temoperatures hand palpation can tell apart. That is monumentally important here, because it is the very thing we are discussing: Could Phillips tell a warm body from a cold one or not?

        That’s a non-sequitur. You move from hand palpation to Phillips in one fell swoop. Where is the evidence that Phillips would have even contemplated palpating Chapman’s dead body?

        To palpate is to use the hands to determine different matters about a body, be it looking for lumps, body cavities - or temperature. Are you suggesting that Phillips did NOT feel Chapman fr temperature using his hands? Then what DID he use? The feet? An ear? No harm in it if so, modern palpation knowledge tells us that we should employ any part of us that is suited to detect temperature.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          Phillips knew quite well that a body will be warm enough for a medico to feel it up to three hours or more after death. When you claim that I make things up, you are actually making things up.

          All you are doing there is using Phillips to support himself (although you are actually arguing with him because his time estimate was at least two hours, not three!). The whole point is that Phillips in 1888 didn’t have sufficient knowledge to be able to do what he was trying to do. That’s why Payne-James says that his method of assessing time of death was useless.

          I am not arguing with myself. Phillips knew quite well that he allowed for the normally unallowabe when he said that two hours was the minimum. He did so - as he pointed out very clearly - on account of how the cases was NOT normal. He had probably never seen anything quite like it, and so he was prepared to allow for a TOD that was beyond the normal too. If he had waited a few days, he would probaly have retracted it, becasue Eddowes taught him and me (but not you) that people who have been dead for 45 minutes are actually "quite warm" even though they have been lying out in very cold conditions with their entrails pulled out and with all the blood having been spilled. That is on account of the chemical processes after death (that plateau, you know?) that counteract against the cold conditions.

          And Payne-James is still right. And you are still wrong.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            Palpation is the name of the very method the victorian doctors used in 1888

            Could you produce some evidence for this please in the context of touching a dead body to assess body temperature? Just one bit of evidence will do.

            In the paper you cited, the subjects were required to palpate “with the palmar surface of the dominant hand”. It was a specific form of palpation.

            I remind you that I’ve already provided a source which says the traditional method of checking a dead body for warmth was the back of the hand.


            Yes, and that is because of how there are many heat sensors on the back of the hand.

            Regardless if the palpation was done with the palm of the hand in the paper and often with the back of the hand when a medico examined a dead body in 1888, what we can learn is that even the PALM is sensitive enough for people to pick up on subtle differences. The back of the hand is a lot more sensitive to heat, so I can only say that this makes your position even. more untenable.

            If you are telling us that todays pathologists will use a thermometer, you really could have saved us the pain of having to read something everybody already knew.

            No, I’m telling you they just used touch. Are you using “palpate” as a synonym for “touch”? Because to palpate is what a doctor does on a living body during a medical examination to assess for certain specific conditions which only apply to their living patients. They don’t "palpate" dead bodies. If you mean “touch” just use that word.

            To palpate for warth is to feel for warmt using the hand. And using this fact to try and obfuscate things is ridiculous.

            Do I have to explain everything to you?
            Oh, the irony!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post



              Well, the paper I posted is clear on how palpation is a method that allows for identifying subtle diffrences in temperature, so that is five experts telling us that what has been claimed by Herlock Sholmes et al was never true.

              But, as I have repeatedly pointed out (and you didn’t respond except to say “twaddle”), a pathologist isn’t attempting to detect subtle differences in temperature in a dead body. That’s something that applies to living patients only. We are talking about a doctor feeling a body and deciding whether it is cold or warm. It’s got nothing to do with “differences”. Until you address this point you might as well be shouting at the passing traffic.

              Until you wise up, discussing with you is like the exact same thing. Regardless of whether a body is dead or not, we are able to tell subtle differences in temperature. If we can tell 36 degrees from 38, we can equally tell 32 from 34. Only a seriously daft person would try and deny that (Any daft persons arond here? Yes?). Temperature is temperature regardless of it is inside a dead or a living body.


              Plus I have of course provided lots of material that tells us that rigor will not set in quickly in cold conditions and that the temperature of the human body will not drop muych - if anything - during the first hour of death. That is material that weighed together points very clearly in favour of what I say.

              Could you please re-post this “lots of material” because I must have missed it. As far as I’m aware, you’ve not provided ANY material to support those two statements. I don’t mean your waffle incidentally, I mean actual material.

              I KNOW you missed it.

              Finding a paper or thesis on how well Phillips performed on the night in question will not be possible

              No, that’s right but Payne-James says that ANY conclusion drawn from perceived body temperature is unreliable and useless. So we know for a fact that Phillips performed badly because he was attempting the impossible. If he was right, it was by luck only.

              No, that is you trying to pass of a comment on one thing as a comment on another matter.

              How many times do I need to repeat this for your and your tiny fan club?

              The fewer times the better; getting it right is to be preferred.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by John G View Post

                I will now attempt to provide a definitive response.

                Firstly, as an overview, body temperature is by no means an accurate way of determining time of death.

                I know. I thought you knew I know. You should by now.

                It has been argued that Henssge's Nomogram is the most accurate means, however, even this method, involving a series of complex calculations, is flawed: Hubig et al. 2015, found that 57.1% of cases did not fall within 95% confidence interval.

                But this is all largely incidental because as I shall now demonstrate, Dr Phillips, The Man with the Golden Touch , didn't even understand the basics of forensic science.

                This should be interesting.

                Thus, Phillips attempted to determine ToD simply by touching the victims skin.

                Eh - not, not only. He actually felt the inside of the body too.

                This is a grossly unscientific method and, frankly, he should have known better. For instance, skin temperature readings are unreliable, and declines at a different rate than, say, rectal temperature readings (not that he actually did any readings, so his approach wasn't remotely scientific, or objective, instead relying on the subjectiveness of touch alone. And considering that the importance of taking a rectal temperature was known as early as 1869, he should of known better: see Rainy, 1869.

                No medicos carried frail thermometers in their suitcases. Phillips would certainly have been aware of their existance, but chose not to take the risk to employ them, just as the rest of his fellow medicos, as shown by the other cases. But then againm, they were just a bunch of dummies, right? The paper I posted tells us how "grossly unscientific" palpation by hand is - it is still in use and the paper tells us why: It can pick up on rather subtle changes in temperature.

                ​​​​​​Of course, he also failed to make any calculations to take into account environmental factors, which is problematic because factors such as the presence of wind passing over the body, body posture (as a result of altered surface area exposed), and the victim being found partially naked can all influence cooling rates (this we can forgive him, as forensic science was in its infancy).

                Where did you get that from? He very clearly spoke of how he weighed in matters like the cold conditions. Of course he also knew the degree to which the body was exposed. Would he need to list it for you to accept that? Really?

                Regarding initial body temperature. Normal rectal body temperature for women doesn't vary by a great deal- 36.8-37.1 degrees C. However, as there are wider variations in respect of oral temperatures- 33.2-38.1: see Sund- Levender et al, 2002, further highlighting the importance of taking a rectal temperature.

                Sigh. The true temperature of the body is around 37 degrees. Normally, the liver is considered the best place to determine the core temperature. Obviously we can get lower reasing if we meaure the oral cavity or the spaces between the toes - but how and why would that enter the discussion?

                However, Chapman was almost certainly not of normal body temperature.

                That, John, is bnot something we can determine. Least of all if we are going to suggest that a medico could mistake a warm body for a cold one! And actually, women are generally warmer than men.

                According to Dr Phillips' autopsy she was greatly undernourished and suffering from an advanced lung disease (this may well have been tuberculosis). And if Chapman was suffering from tuberculosis, it had almost certainly progressed to gastric tuberculosis, which occurred in an overwhelming number of cases in the pre-anti biotic age, further exasperating problems (this may partly explain the undernourishment).

                I quickly tried to find the term "greatly undernourished" but failed. Can you provide the source? I think I have read that she was undernourished but I don´t remember to what degree. And I don´t think it would have lowered her temperature very much anyway.

                How would this have impacted on body temperature. The answer is a great deal. Considering disease, for example. Carpenter, et al. 2004, in a study of cancer sufferers, found that five out of eight subjects had mesors at or below 36.09 degrees c. In respect of caloric restriction (Chapman was greatly undernourished), individuals in the Biosphere 2 study, who were subject to chronic caloric restriction, and weight loss, had temperatures that were often in the range of 35.5 to 36.1 C, sometimes less: Walford et al, 1999. To put that into perspective, cooling rates, not taking into account environmental factors, are around 0.82 C per hour (The Glaister Equation) so a difference of just 1 degree would require a time adjustment of more than an hour (incidentally, in the paper you cited, you referred to being seen degree or two out as if it was only of a minor consequence; this isn't correct as 1 degree would require an adjustment of more than hour, and 2 degrees more than 2 hours: see the Glaister Equation.)

                We cannot possibly know what temperature Chapman had, I´m afraid.

                I have therefore demonstrated that Dr Phillips' estimate cannot be relied upon and can be safely dismissed.

                Damn! I must have missed it...?

                So what of the witness statements. John Richardson that when he went to Hanbury Street, between 4:45 and 4:50, there was no body..And he is certain about this: "I could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there then."

                Yes. Do you have any idea how many witnesses who claimed to be certain subsequently turmerd out to be wrong? It is a vital question to ponder. If we will not beleive a medico in any repspect, then why would we believe a man who claimed to have cut leather from his boot only to then remember that he did no such thing, and who gave different stories to the poplice on doifferent occasions - because he said he would not be wrong?

                He had no reason whatsoever to lie on this point, especially as he was effectively placing himself close to where the body was found with a knife in his hand- something that was if definite interest to the coroner-"I think we will detain this knife for the present."

                We nevertheless KNOW that he did not tell the truth abiut cutting the leather from his boot.

                Of course, Inspector Chandler somewhat contradicts his account by stating that Richardson had said that he didn't go down the steps, but he was obviously incompetent:

                It may be less obvious to others than to you, John. To you, Phillips was incompetent. Incompetence is rife in your narrative. But there are always two sides to a coin.

                I mean, he didn't even bother to take notes of the interview, and was clearly relying memory.

                Does he say that he did not take notes? Regardless of that, not all people need to take notes. And when this occurs, it is an example of a safe memory, not of incompetence.

                Moreover, he may have conducted a somewhat perfunctory interview, considering he had to be at the mortuary just a few minutes later.

                Herlock suggests that he may have misheard "sat" for "stood". Wirth that kind of evidence, the case is exploded wide open. What if te cry "murder" was just a foodtruck owner yelling "burgers"?

                If there are any remaining doubts about Chandler's competence, reflect on this exchange with the coroner:

                Coroner: "Did you see the handkerchief taken off the body?

                Chandler: "I did not. The nurses must have taken it off the throat."

                Coroner: "How do you know?"

                Chandler: "I don't know."

                Coroner: " Then you are guessing."

                Chandler: " I am guessing."

                Coroner: "That is all wrong, you know. (To the jury.) He is really not the proper man to have been left in charge."

                So there you have it. The evidence of a doctor, who didn't even understand the basics of forensics, and whose evidence, regards time of death, is therefore completely useless, and an incompetent police officer, against that of a reliable witness who had absolutely no reason to lie.

                It's novel difficult to see where the truth lies, is it?
                That will depend on who is looking for it.

                As for the Chandler exchange, what is your problem? He beleived that the nurses took the handkerchief off, but he could of course not be positive, so he offered the likeliest guess, but nevertheless a guess he copuld not substantiate. he comes across as a very astute and observant man to me, and one who has a flexible and quick intellect. I would not mind more of his sort in my life, I can tell yu that much.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                  [Etenguy]: Dear Fisherman. We do have experts that actually said that the technique used by Phillips (estimating time of death based on temperature) is so unreliable as to be unsafe.

                  [Fisherman]: And they are correct. I thought I had made that clear?

                  [Etenguy]: Therefore, by extension, they are saying that no reliance can be placed on the TOD estimation provided by Phillips (since he used such a technique).

                  [Fisherman]: No, that does not follow. If we say that it is life-threatening to climb Mount Everest, that does not mean it is life-thretening to climb a molehill. It is all about the difficulties involved in the task at hand, and a technique that cannot establish factor A with any ceraiinty may well be able to establish factor B with great exactitude. So the extension you blithely suggest cannot be accepted.
                  The torturous logic that enables one to adamantly agree with the fact the technique is so unreliable as to be unsafe and then adamantly claim that it does not follow that the result should not be relied upon beggars belief.


                  [Etenguy]: Not only are the authors of this advice experts, they are the training and professional body for all pathologists working in the UK and have issued guidance telling pathologists to not give the impression to police authorities that they could even provide a window in which death likely occurred using this technique, as the technique is not capable of providing reliable information.

                  [Fisherman]: Once again the technique cannot be relied upon to provide an exact TOD. But where do your experts say that we may rely on how a trained medico is anywhere near likely to mistake warm bodies for long dead, cold ones?
                  And again, in the first sentence there's agreement the technique cannot be used to provide ToD (the issue) is acknowledge, but then followed by an irrelevancy. Smoke and mirrors.

                  [Etenguy]: Of course this does not mean Phillips was wrong, but in light of contradictory information provided by witnesses, Phillips estimate must be considered weak given the technique he used is known not to be reliable.
                  Well, technically it means his estimate is no better than random guessing, which of course has some probability of accidentally getting the right time, but it means that in light of any evidence pointing to a different time, his guesstimate should not factor in as counter-evidence.


                  The technique he used is quite reliable when it comes to telling cold from warm.
                  Which is so far from the mark of what is necessary to make a ToD estimate that it's irrelevant to the current topic. Nobody disputes that people can detect differences in temperature. Rather, it's the fact that surface temperature of the body is not a measure that can give you ToD, even if Dr. Phillips had used a thermometer to measure the surface skin temperature it would be equally useless for current purposes. And without having measured a number of other external factors (the temperature in the yard; the amount of wind, which affects cooling rates, body mass, the influence of blood loss, opening the gut cavity, removal of the organs and intestines, etc), even the core body temperature would have been useless. Trying to get anything like an accurate estimate of ToD based upon body temperature readings is far more complicated than simply touching the skin and going "brrrrr".

                  - Jeff

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                    We KNOW that bodies do not turn cold in an hour only, ....
                    And if that body is in a freezer, you're saying it will still be warm an hour later? Chapman's body was outside, in the cold, partially undressed, with the body cavity opened and partially emptied. And you're trying to say that doesn't matter because "We", or should I say, "You KNOW that bodies do not turn cold in an hour only,...". Personally, I KNOW that exposed skin of living people feels cold after relatively few minutes, pending on the external temperature, so have no problem with the skin of a dead person feeling cold when exposed to cold temperatures for an hour. Why you find this difficult to understand is fascinating.

                    - Jeff



                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                      Oh yes, it does. It is as evident as how there is a fantasist out here claiming that I make things up.

                      Yes, I have. I have made it very clear

                      Stopping you there Fisherman. Saying "I have made it very clear" is NOT providing a source. It's just you Fishplaining. In other words, making it up. I was asking for a source which tells us that a body cannot feel cold in an hour. You've never provided one.


                      I have made it very clear that nobody turns cold immediately after death on account of how we stay on a plateau for between half an hour and an hour

                      This is false. We've been over it. The plateau only affects the core temperature at the rectum. There is NO PLATEAU for the fall of surface body temperature. This has been known for over 100 years. You need to catch up.


                      after which the temperature will drop by around 0,8 degrees celsius per hour.

                      Even this, which only relates to the rectal or core temperature, is now known to be false, as to which I've provided a source in Professor Bernard Knight.


                      What has NOT been provided is evidence that a body can take a drop of some five degrees or so in the firt hour after death

                      If you want evidence of that, check out the 1880 report by Dr J.W. Burman to which I've already referred in this thread entitled 'On the Rate of Cooling of the Human Body after Death'. He gives an example of a SIX DEGREE (Fahrenheit) drop in one hour from an assumed 100 deg F at time of death! See Case IX of his report. And that was someone in a warm room.


                      whila alongside with that process developing rigor! Now, THAT would be quite simething if you could find that combination of events!

                      You are the only known person in the world who says that rapid cooling (or just a cold body staying cold) and the onset rigor cannot occur simultaneously. But you have no medical qualifications. Therefore, no such example is required and you'd only ignore it anyway, like you've ignored all the other examples I've provided. In any case, Chapman is obviously a possible example as agreed by the coroner in the case.


                      But he COULD feel if a body was warm or not. That is what the paper I posted teaches us - the victorians were NOT using a usless method, they were using a rather exact method that allows for feeling subtle temperature changes.

                      No, your paper says absolutely nothing about this. It's impossible to accurately tell whether a dead body is "cold" or not just by touch. Touching for perceived warmth is described by Payne-James as useless.


                      Yes, possibly so - but HOW MUCH?

                      I could give you an proven example of stiffening commencing within an hour after death But what's the point? You'll just ignore it as you've ignored all the other examples I've provided.


                      They all do. Cold conditions SLOW down rigor, it is a well known fact

                      But it's well known fact - and we've seen the papers - that a cut throat and wasted muscles accelerate rigor. If you only look at one possible variable and not all of them you are cherry picking and thus deliberately leading yourself into an unscientific position.


                      Regards

                      Herlock






                      "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                        To palpate is to use the hands to determine different matters about a body, be it looking for lumps, body cavities - or temperature. Are you suggesting that Phillips did NOT feel Chapman fr temperature using his hands? Then what DID he use? The feet? An ear? No harm in it if so, modern palpation knowledge tells us that we should employ any part of us that is suited to detect temperature.
                        Are you having difficulty reading Fisherman? I've already said that he probably used the back of his hand, which was the time honoured method. Otherwise he would have just used his hand or fingers. But that is not to palpate. Or do you say that a mother feeling her child's forehead for a high temperature is palpating her child?

                        Regards

                        Herlock






                        "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                          I am not arguing with myself. Phillips knew quite well that he allowed for the normally unallowabe when he said that two hours was the minimum. He did so - as he pointed out very clearly - on account of how the cases was NOT normal. He had probably never seen anything quite like it, and so he was prepared to allow for a TOD that was beyond the normal too. If he had waited a few days, he would probaly have retracted it, becasue Eddowes taught him and me (but not you) that people who have been dead for 45 minutes are actually "quite warm" even though they have been lying out in very cold conditions with their entrails pulled out and with all the blood having been spilled. That is on account of the chemical processes after death (that plateau, you know?) that counteract against the cold conditions.

                          And Payne-James is still right. And you are still wrong.

                          He had probably never seen anything quite like it

                          Ha! So you admit that the "experienced" Dr Phillips was encountering a situation he had probably never experienced before. Exactly! How could he possibly have factored in the coldness of the night, the loss of blood, the sudden hemmorhage, the wasting disease, the malnutrition and accurately assessed the time of Chapman's death to ANY degree by touching her body. The knowledge wasn't even available in Victorian times. Payne-James tells us that such a method is unreliable and useless, even today. That's really all that there is to say.


                          Eddowes taught him and me (but not you) that people who have been dead for 45 minutes are actually "quite warm"

                          Anyone who thinks it is possible to extrapolate a conclusion in pathology from a single example (and one which involves a different time of 45 minutes compared to an hour to boot) is obviously not a scientist and should, therefore, not be commenting on scientific matters.


                          To palpate for warth is to feel for warmt using the hand. And using this fact to try and obfuscate things is ridiculous.

                          No it is not! That's not even the primary purpose of a doctor palpating the body during a medical examination. They are feeling for all types of different things. Heat is just one possible factor. For that reason, it's not something done during an examination of a corpse. The sources tell us that the back of the hand was used. But, if not, they just touched the body. You've suddenly become obsessed with the word "palpate" but I'm not going to distort the English language just because you somehow want to link a forensic examination of a dead body with your irrelevant paper.

                          Regards

                          Herlock






                          "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                            The fewer times the better; getting it right is to be preferred.
                            If we can tell 36 degrees from 38, we can equally tell 32 from 34.

                            What is this madness? Fisherman, you have totally misunderstood that paper. No-one can tell 36 degrees from 38 or 32 from 34. The subjects in the tests could say which of the two pads they were asked to touch with the palmar surface of their hand was warmer. That's all. They weren't asked to guess at the actual temperatures!!! The paper has no application to testing a dead body for warmth. Dr Phillips wasn't attempting to assess whether Chapman was colder or warmer than another body or anything else. Nor was he attempting to assess whether one part of her body was colder or warmer than another. The only question was whether Chapman's body was cold or not. That's something the paper doesn't deal with and it's something that it's not possible for anyone to assess accurately or reliably.

                            Its simply not possible that you cant understand this. You are deliberately trying to mislead....again.



                            I KNOW you missed it.

                            Because it exists only in your imagination. You have provided no material to support ANYTHING you've said throughout this entire thread.


                            No, that is you trying to pass of a comment on one thing as a comment on another matter.

                            You are in denial Fisherman. Payne-James has given us the definitive answer. He says that ANY conclusion drawn from perceived body temperature is unreliable and useless. There is no way out for you. I'm going to repeat this to every time you try to dispute it.

                            UNRELIABLE AND USELESS

                            Regards

                            Herlock






                            "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                              That will depend on who is looking for it.

                              As for the Chandler exchange, what is your problem? He beleived that the nurses took the handkerchief off, but he could of course not be positive, so he offered the likeliest guess, but nevertheless a guess he copuld not substantiate. he comes across as a very astute and observant man to me, and one who has a flexible and quick intellect. I would not mind more of his sort in my life, I can tell yu that much.
                              I'm not going to comment on everything you said to John but I'm going to pick up on this:


                              I quickly tried to find the term "greatly undernourished" but failed. Can you provide the source? I think I have read that she was undernourished but I don´t remember to what degree. And I don´t think it would have lowered her temperature very much anyway.

                              What you think is neither here nor there. You constantly tell us what you think but you have no medical qualifications (or medical knowledge, to be honest). You need to provide source material otherwise the only sensible thing is to ignore you.

                              As to her undernourishment, Dr Phillips said in his evidence that 'there were signs of great deprivation, and he should say she had been badly fed". This has been quoted by me on more than on occasion previously but you prove that you haven't even considered the evidence properly.



                              Too easy Fish
                              Regards

                              Herlock






                              "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                                Oh yes, it does. It is as evident as how there is a fantasist out here claiming that I make things up.

                                They all do.

                                Saying "They all do" in response to a request to produce a single expert in forensic pathology who says that accelerated cooling and accelerated rigor is a “freak” event is both childish and wrong. None of them say this Fisherman. Otherwise you would have directed us to at least one of them. So I'm afraid I've caught you out in a lie.


                                Cold conditions SLOW down rigor, it is a well known fact.

                                It's a well known fact that a cut throat, exertion prior to death and wasting diseases of the muscles ACCELERATE rigor mortis. I've never seen a single expert say that a dead body in a cold environment with commencing stiffening cannot also feel cold after one hour. In fact, we've seen experts who say that rigor can appear within half an hour.



                                Regards

                                Herlock






                                "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X