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 JeffHamm View Post
    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.
    I, too, got lost within this logic and thought I must be missing something.

    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
    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.
    I'd probably say an educated guesstimate, but agree it shouldn't be used to counter other evidence.

    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
    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
    I believe this to be accurate based on my reading around the subject. I have been unable to find any techniques researched that rely on skin temperature.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

      I struggle to understand why this argument persists. We have absolute clarity from the highest authority in the land that temperature based estimates of time of death are so unreliable that they are not to be used in criminal investigations.
      I have posted this before but I think it is relevant to re post. I asked Dr Biggs the question "In the case of death by trauma, is it correct that early signs of rigor might set in much quicker, and if so how much quicker?" his reply is set out below. It is interesting to read the last line which would seem to refer to Chapman, and perhaps may vindicate Dr Phillips

      "In short, rigor mortis happens because cellular stores of energy are not replenished after death. (Muscle contraction happens by long, overlapping molecules changing shape to shorten the muscle fibres, but energy is needed to “unlock” the molecules before they can move again… hence the stiffness that occurs once energy is depleted. The energy is continually being replenished during life, but after death it soon runs out, resulting in stiffness for a period of time before decomposition takes over and softens things up again…)

      How long rigor mortis takes to develop varies greatly from person to person, and perhaps more importantly the assessment of how stiff someone is also varies from person to person! Very often we will be told that “paramedics found the body to be in a state of rigor mortis, therefore death must have been several hours ago”. In reality, people not used to examining for signs of rigor may find a dead body heavy and difficult to lift, interpret it as being “stiff” and draw all sorts of incorrect conclusions. A big, heavy muscular person will exhibit more pronounced stiffness than a skinny person, and so on. The process occurs gradually over many hours so there isn’t really a “time of onset”. Subtle early onset signs may be missed (meaning that rigor has started, but has been recorded as being absent). In a similar manner, a body that has fully established rigor mortis (or in which stiffness may already be passing away due to early decomposition) may have been dead for many hours or even some days, yet be interpreted as “freshly dead” due to “rigor mortis” being diagnosed at the time of body discovery. For all these reasons, a description of a body being found in a state of rigor mortis has to be interpreted with caution.

      With all that in mind, there are circumstances in which rigor mortis can be observed sooner after death. If somebody has an illness or fever, this can speed up the rate of onset by exhausting the cellular supply of energy more quickly than usual, for example. Specifically within the context of “trauma”, if there has been a period of extreme exertion immediately prior to death (e.g. running / fighting for your life) then you can see how cellular energy stores may have been depleted prior to death, resulting in more rapid onset of rigor mortis. This is the theory behind the phenomenon of so-called “cadaveric spasm”, which is usually included in forensic texts, but is thought by most of us these days likely to be an artefact. The most quoted examples are usually dead soldiers found clutching their rifles on the battlefield, or drowned men “clutching straws” in their hands. A lock of hair (victim’s or assailant’s) may even be found “grasped” in the stiff hand of a dead person. It is likely that this represents “standard” development of rigor mortis (with the fingers gradually stiffening around an object that just happens to lie within the hand over the course of several hours) rather than a sudden, “instant rigor mortis”. However, such phenomenon can’t scientifically be excluded, so it remains in the literature.

      So in summary, rigor mortis could possibly be detected by a trained observer within an hour (or even less) after death, but would not usually be expected to become apparent for a (small) number of hours. In extreme cases (e.g. severe physical exertion prior to death) this might be even quicker. Ignoring the likely artefact of so-called “cadaveric spasm”, if a body is genuinely stiff at the time of discovery, then it hasn’t died immediately prior to discovery. The exact time since death cannot be estimated with any degree of accuracy or certainty.
      (As an aside, if the victim is a malnourished, slight, alcoholic female then rigor mortis may be less pronounced than might be expected, and so detection of rigor mortis in such an individual may in fact indicate a longer time having elapsed since death.)

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk


      Comment


      • Fisherman, can I ask you to respond to my #1320 because I think it's quite important. Essentially can you answer this question:


        Is a body which is 25 degrees centigrade on the surface warm or cold?


        I'm interested in reading your answer.
        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 Trevor Marriott View Post
          I have posted this before but I think it is relevant to re post. I asked Dr Biggs the question "In the case of death by trauma, is it correct that early signs of rigor might set in much quicker, and if so how much quicker?" his reply is set out below. It is interesting to read the last line which would seem to refer to Chapman, and perhaps may vindicate Dr Phillips
          Thank you, Trevor.

          My original post was solely in relation to temperature based estimates of TOD.

          I know little about the onset, and factors that affect the speed of onset, of rigor mortis, but your source has provided a good summary of the issues I have gleaned from reading around the subject. It appears to be a complex process potentially impacted by a range of factors. This would lead me to think it is just as difficult to use this to estimate TOD as it is temperature. But I will await other more informed posters.

          Comment


          • Where do you get this nonsense from? Do you honestly think that posters take you seriously Fishy? Believe me, you are widely regarded as a joke. Let’s not forget that you are the only poster that believes the Knight story? Who agrees with you on that one? Even Melvyn Fairclough’s doesn’t and he wrote a book supporting it!

            I don’t want to keep naming people that do agree with me Fishy (and who obviously do take my opinions seriously. Researchers like Sam Flynn, Jeff Hamm, Michael Richards, MikeG, Etenguy, Steve Blomer (Elamarna) oh and yes..Paul Begg (acknowledged as one of the world’s leading authorities on the subject.) All agreeing with me Fishy.

            Its also very noticeable that, yet again, you avoid answering the question about Phillips. Why do you choose to agree with him on TOD when it suits you but you disagree with him when he said that Chapman was definitely killed where she was found?


            Believe you .. ....you must be kidding right ?.

            Is that what were calling them now is it '' researchers'' Hmmmm i must be one too. With respect to those mention, were all on the same level where accessing information on the jtr murders are concerned .its just what conclusion we decide to put forward as who what and why and when. So dont kid yourself .

            Why do you disagree with Eddowes when modern medical experts, and there are many of them who say her kidney and uterus and all her mutilation couldnt be done in 5 mins in the dark in 5 mins? .

            Stop trying to convince everybody that the Long Codosch Richardson scenario proves Chapman was killed at 5.30AM . If the above mention names where totally honestly with themselves they would also agree . Wolf Vanderlinen make as plausible case that she was indeed killed earlier than that.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              I have posted this before but I think it is relevant to re post. I asked Dr Biggs the question "In the case of death by trauma, is it correct that early signs of rigor might set in much quicker, and if so how much quicker?" his reply is set out below. It is interesting to read the last line which would seem to refer to Chapman, and perhaps may vindicate Dr Phillips

              "In short, rigor mortis happens because cellular stores of energy are not replenished after death. (Muscle contraction happens by long, overlapping molecules changing shape to shorten the muscle fibres, but energy is needed to “unlock” the molecules before they can move again… hence the stiffness that occurs once energy is depleted. The energy is continually being replenished during life, but after death it soon runs out, resulting in stiffness for a period of time before decomposition takes over and softens things up again…)

              How long rigor mortis takes to develop varies greatly from person to person, and perhaps more importantly the assessment of how stiff someone is also varies from person to person! Very often we will be told that “paramedics found the body to be in a state of rigor mortis, therefore death must have been several hours ago”. In reality, people not used to examining for signs of rigor may find a dead body heavy and difficult to lift, interpret it as being “stiff” and draw all sorts of incorrect conclusions. A big, heavy muscular person will exhibit more pronounced stiffness than a skinny person, and so on. The process occurs gradually over many hours so there isn’t really a “time of onset”. Subtle early onset signs may be missed (meaning that rigor has started, but has been recorded as being absent). In a similar manner, a body that has fully established rigor mortis (or in which stiffness may already be passing away due to early decomposition) may have been dead for many hours or even some days, yet be interpreted as “freshly dead” due to “rigor mortis” being diagnosed at the time of body discovery. For all these reasons, a description of a body being found in a state of rigor mortis has to be interpreted with caution.

              With all that in mind, there are circumstances in which rigor mortis can be observed sooner after death. If somebody has an illness or fever, this can speed up the rate of onset by exhausting the cellular supply of energy more quickly than usual, for example. Specifically within the context of “trauma”, if there has been a period of extreme exertion immediately prior to death (e.g. running / fighting for your life) then you can see how cellular energy stores may have been depleted prior to death, resulting in more rapid onset of rigor mortis. This is the theory behind the phenomenon of so-called “cadaveric spasm”, which is usually included in forensic texts, but is thought by most of us these days likely to be an artefact. The most quoted examples are usually dead soldiers found clutching their rifles on the battlefield, or drowned men “clutching straws” in their hands. A lock of hair (victim’s or assailant’s) may even be found “grasped” in the stiff hand of a dead person. It is likely that this represents “standard” development of rigor mortis (with the fingers gradually stiffening around an object that just happens to lie within the hand over the course of several hours) rather than a sudden, “instant rigor mortis”. However, such phenomenon can’t scientifically be excluded, so it remains in the literature.

              So in summary, rigor mortis could possibly be detected by a trained observer within an hour (or even less) after death, but would not usually be expected to become apparent for a (small) number of hours. In extreme cases (e.g. severe physical exertion prior to death) this might be even quicker. Ignoring the likely artefact of so-called “cadaveric spasm”, if a body is genuinely stiff at the time of discovery, then it hasn’t died immediately prior to discovery. The exact time since death cannot be estimated with any degree of accuracy or certainty.
              (As an aside, if the victim is a malnourished, slight, alcoholic female then rigor mortis may be less pronounced than might be expected, and so detection of rigor mortis in such an individual may in fact indicate a longer time having elapsed since death.)

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Yes, that line would apply to Chapman, but so would this one:

              With all that in mind, there are circumstances in which rigor mortis can be observed sooner after death. If somebody has an illness or fever, this can speed up the rate of onset by exhausting the cellular supply of energy more quickly than usual, for example.

              And while not intended to start a different debate, nor to suggest that the above is more important then the line you highlighted (which is not my intention), it just goes to further validate his point that "For all these reasons, a description of a body being found in a state of rigor mortis has to be interpreted with caution."

              I do wish we had numbers, rather than impressions, to deal with though. At least then we could apply updated knowledge, but impressions only sound specific when, unfortunately, they are extremely vague types of data and hard to work with.

              - Jeff

              Comment


              • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                I'd probably say an educated guesstimate, but agree it shouldn't be used to counter other evidence.
                You're nicer than I am, clearly!


                I believe this to be accurate based on my reading around the subject. I have been unable to find any techniques researched that rely on skin temperature.
                I suspect that researchers in this area consider it such a non-starter that it would suffer from the "We knew it all along" problem when it came to them trying to publish their results. It would simply be viewed by the reviewers of the article as "Why would you even think this would be possible in the first place?" Science can sometimes suffer from the problem of looking for how things work and forgetting the importance of showing that something doesn't work. The latter is becoming increasingly important today, where non-experts in fields apply "common sense" and derive quite incorrect ideas and as a result view the experts in the field as being idiots or charlatans. But most things are far more complex than we non-experts realize and there are a large number of important factors that influence things. Common sense explanations tend to simplify a problem to a single influence, or a small and incomplete set of influences. So while t's common, it's rarely sensible once one actually gets into a topic. But I'm digressing.

                - Jeff

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                  Fisherman, can I ask you to respond to my #1320 because I think it's quite important. Essentially can you answer this question:


                  Is a body which is 25 degrees centigrade on the surface warm or cold?


                  I'm interested in reading your answer.
                  There can be different answers to that question, of course. The celsius scale has a point of plus minus zero representing neither warm nor cold. And in that context anything that is 25 degrees plus is on the warm side.

                  Another way of answering your question is by looking at whether 25 degrees celsius is a skin temperqature that is above or below average skin temperature. In that context, this passage may be helpful:

                  "Unlike core temperature, which is more or less set, skin temperature is highly variable. The body uses the blood vessels under the skin to carry excess heat away from the core and out of the body. Similarly in cold conditions the blood vessels under the skin are constricted to prevent heat escape. The skin temperature in your hands and feet is most variable. It's possible for a healthy person to have a skin temperature in the fingers of around 10OC if they are cold and inactive, while the same person can register 38O in warm conditions. It's entirely possible that if you have been moving around while your husband has been lieing down inactive that he will feel considerably cooler then you, particularly if he's asleep or falling asleep which causes a reduction in circulation and a slight drop in core temperature anyway.
                  There are also other factors like body mass, level of fitness and resting heart rate that determine how much blood is pumped around the body that will affect skin temperature. So long as someone is feeling OK and and has no other symptoms (skin turning blue, low pulse rate, abnormal BP etc.) a low skin temperature shouldn't be a cause for concern."

                  As you may have gathered by now, what a doctor palpates for when examining a body is not skin temperature, but instead the underlying core temperature, carried up to the skin surface by the blood vessels mentioned in the passage above. The skin is an organ, the largest organ of the body, and like any other organ, it is supplied with large amounts of blood.

                  You seem toi still suffer from the miscomprehension that if the skin of a body is cold, then the medico will be unable to pick up on the underlying core warmth. As I have pointed out many times now, if this was the case, then many people with cold skin would run the risk of being proclaimed dead on their yearly health check-ups.

                  A pedagogical example of how the matter is resolved can be gained from you performing an experiment on yourself. Go out into the brisk autumn air in your bathing trousers and spend an hour there. Then. go in and let somebody feel different areas on your body for warmth: the hands, the forehead, the armpit, the groin (don´t use your neighbours daughter for the exercise). Then tell me whether these areas all held the same temperature, or if perhaps some of them felt warmer and some colder to the touch.
                  Then go drown yourself and ask that helpful person who checked your body the last time to feel the same areas for warmth five hours after you were pulled out of the water. Guess what? ALL areas will now hold the same temperature. And THAT is where that magic you speak of comes into our little equation.

                  So there´s your answer, Herlock.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                    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.
                    - Jeff
                    So you still have not grapsed it, Jeff? Okay, I will explain it to you in as simple a fashion that I can think of. Here who:

                    Imagine, if you will, that you will be asked to determine what temperature your bathwater is by way of feeling it for warmth with your behind.

                    You are then submerged into a bathtub, ass first, and you are asked to tell us what temperature the water is.

                    I would say that this is a method fraught with risk. You will not be able to do it correctly other than by way of fluke. So I would not want to use your behind for feeling bodies for warmth and establish their temperatures.

                    Now, ask another question: Can you tell whether the tub you are submerged into has cold or warm water in it? You are then sunk into two tubs, one with warm and one with cold water.

                    Now, we know that your behind is fraught with uncertainty. It cannot establish temperatures with any certainty at all. But will it be able to tell warm and cold apart nevertheless? What do you think?

                    Exactly, Jeff! Even if we only use our behinds we may nevertheless be able to get things right!

                    I am saying that Phillips was reasoning that Chapman probably had been dead for the kind of period it normally takes for a palpating medico to be unable to feel any warmth from the core through the skin. That period is typically regarded as arriving 4-6 hours after death. That means that we are looking at roughly a drop in temperature of around five degrees.

                    If you bathe in the sea in 17 degrees celsius you will think it is very cold. If the water suddenly rises to 22 degrees celsius you will think it is very nice and warm.

                    That is my tortuous logic, Jeff. If your tortoise logic could do me the favor of picking up on what I say, I would be eternally grateful.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      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.[/COLOR]

                      You can start by reading "The post mortem temperature plateau and its role in the estimation of time of death. A review" by Jimmy L. Smart and Michał Kaliszan, where the phenomenon of that plateau is discussed. Once we knbow that the core temperature does not diminish much the first hour after death, we know that there is core warmth to be picked up on by the medicos. You seem to think that skin is not heat conductive? Is that the case? Anyway, as I said in my former post, go feel your groin.

                      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.

                      I have quoted that exact thing many posts ago, so I need no catching up - the core is the place where the plateau is at play. But core warmth is what the medicos feel for. And they can pick it up because skin is heat conductive.

                      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.

                      Is it? Then why do all sources claim that body core temperature typcially falls at a rate of around 0,83 degrees celsius per hour? Are Knight and you the only ones in the know?


                      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.

                      I am speaking about celsius, not Fahrenheit, to begin with. The link you provided is invalid, furthermore. And of course, if there was such a fall, then there will have been sometbing extremly odd at play, that is to say, there must have been some extreme freak matter involved, as there so often is when you discuss the case. But fair enough, people CAN drop quicker than normal, but let me ask you: This human Yeti you speak of - did he develop a very quick rigor? Do supply a functioning link, please - I am anxious to see what it is you are hiding from me.


                      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.

                      Ignore away. There´s nothing else you can do, because rigor IS halted/slowed down by cold conditions.


                      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.

                      "My" paper tells us that we can tell subtle temperature differences by way of palpating. That is all it takes for your claims about a worthless method to go down the drain. And double quick too. The efforts to claim that a paper like this cannot be used in a discussion about our ability to feel different levels of warmth by using our hands on skin says it all when it comes to your truthfulness and thought processes.

                      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.

                      No, I won´t. Promise! If you can provide an example of somebody with great bloodloss in cold conditions who nevertheless developed rigor within the hour, I will bow to your effort and admit that I did not think that it could happen. Of course, we are not speaking of cadaveric spasm here, because that is NOT rigor and Chapman never suffered it. And of course, the more examples yo can provide the better it is - you would not want me to tell you that you are asking for flukes and freak occurrences in the Chapman case, would you?


                      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.[/SIZE]
                      Yes, some parameters will hasten rigor. And rigor normally sets in at around two hours, as we have agreed upon. So these parameters may shorten that time to something less than two hours. But will they do so in cold conditions and with a body that has lost all it´s blood? Not very likely, no. Plus, of course, there were parameters about in the case that are known to SLOW DOWN rigor too!

                      Once again, you have to pull out all the stops, stretch everything to it´s limit and beyond, you have to have something cooling Chapman down at a tremendeous rate while at the same time, you need to heat her body up top get rigor in motion. You have taken on a task that is unsurmountable, I´m afraid. Every parameter will have to be out of sync with a normal development, and two major parameters will work against each other. This is what you need to overcome.

                      What do I need to overcome? I need to say that it seems the witnesses were either wrong or looking for fifteen minutes of fame. And we know that Long went from "cannot identify" to "can identify" in a jiffy, just as we know that hers and Cadosches timings are a joke, just as we know that Richardson told Chandler one thing and the inquest another (and please, don´t start the "maybe Chandler mistook sat for stood business again, because if we do our ripperology that way, we will be able to prove that Abraham Lincoln returned from the grave and became the Ripper) and that he never cut any leather from his boot although he claimed to have done so until the coroner caught him out.

                      Which problem is the greater one? Yours or mine? Which is likelier; that a person defies the laws of nature or that another person mistakes something very trivial or lies?

                      Becasue, you see, what Phillips points to is totally in sync with what we should expect from a woman who is three or four hours dead. It is a smack, bang perfect hit on the normality button - and the jaw of anybody who prefers freak developments.
                      Last edited by Fisherman; 09-16-2019, 06:33 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                        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


                        You are right. Maybe Chapman was put in a freezer. That could have been the thud Cadosch heard, even, when she was flung into the freezer. Why didn´t I think of that? Excellent. Brilliant. There just one small problems - well, two actually:

                        Freezers only surfaced in the 1940:s

                        Eddowes was found in COLDER conditions than Chapman - and was "quite warm" some 45 minutes after death. Then again, what Cadosh heard was perhaps a foreshadowing of Kate being thrown into a kebab grill to keep warm?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          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?
                          The term is used when medicos are at work, so I would say that a medico feeling the forehead of a child is palpating for warmth. But don´t take my word for it, ask for a source!

                          "Palpation is a skilled examination tool involving physical touch to assess a variety of physical characteristics such as heart rate, bony deformity, tissue tenderness, tissue temperature, firmness, shape of living tissue . Healthcare professionals use palpation for assessing various conditions. Accurate identification of anatomic landmarks improves as a result of medical training. Skin palpation is used to determine skin texture, temperature, sweating differences, keratosis, pain, and induration. Clinicians and lay individuals routinely palpate the skin to assess the presence of temperature changes. Clinicians use palpation to detect temperature changes resulting from inflammation associated with musculoskeletal disorders."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                            I, too, got lost within this logic and thought I must be missing something.



                            I'd probably say an educated guesstimate, but agree it shouldn't be used to counter other evidence.



                            I believe this to be accurate based on my reading around the subject. I have been unable to find any techniques researched that rely on skin temperature.
                            I have answered Jeff, and you may be interested in reading my answer.

                            Comment


                            • And since most of the exchange has now againmoved into horse manure throwing territory, I will once more leave the discussion intermittently and try to be more productive. Last time I did so, I returned with a paper on hand palpation for warmth that disclosed that we are able to tell subtle temperature differences from each other by way of feeling with our hands.
                              It is of course a paper that is extremely important in the context we are discussing - the only one I have been been able to find that scientifically breaks down these questions and give us a numerical basis to stand on.
                              And what happens? Some posters claim that the paper has no relevance whatsoever to the Chapman discussion -ö which is about whether Phillips would have been able to distinguish between varying temperatures by way of feeling for warth with his hands.

                              Ripperology is sometimes ridiculed by other research branches. Small wonder.

                              See you guys, take care, wise up and do try to be nice to each other while I´m away.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                                Yes, that line would apply to Chapman, but so would this one:

                                With all that in mind, there are circumstances in which rigor mortis can be observed sooner after death. If somebody has an illness or fever, this can speed up the rate of onset by exhausting the cellular supply of energy more quickly than usual, for example.

                                And while not intended to start a different debate, nor to suggest that the above is more important then the line you highlighted (which is not my intention), it just goes to further validate his point that "For all these reasons, a description of a body being found in a state of rigor mortis has to be interpreted with caution."

                                I do wish we had numbers, rather than impressions, to deal with though. At least then we could apply updated knowledge, but impressions only sound specific when, unfortunately, they are extremely vague types of data and hard to work with.

                                - Jeff
                                The point being that even experts differ in their opinions. Dr Biggs is a modern day forensic pathologist, so his opinions should not be totally disregarded, and as stated the last part without a doubt could apply to Chapman.

                                And caution is what I have always sided with, but some keeping categorically stating that Chapman could not have been killed much earlier

                                Another point Dr Biggs highlighted

                                "Being ‘cold to the touch’ really isn’t helpful as even live people can feel cold to the touch. Body temperature doesn’t start to drop straight away as soon as a person dies, but there is a plateau or ‘lag’ phase that can last a few hours. In other words, somebody could have been dead for a couple of hours but still have an essentially ‘normal’ body temperature, whereas a live person can feel stone cold"


                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 09-16-2019, 06:51 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X