Chapman’s death.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think we should avoid being one-dimensional here, Herlock. There are levels in the matter, quite simply. Imagine that Phillips had found that Chapman was completely warm when he found her. That would have meant that she MUST have been very recently dead. And there would be no doubt about that whatsoever - people who lie did in cold conditions will not retain their body warmth for a couple of hours. It WILL go down. And that is not guesswork at all, it is simple logic.

The more time we add to the process, the harder it will be to determine these things, and so the element of uncertainty will grow.

But it will not grow to enable people who died 55 minutes before to have grown totally cold.

Where are the modern forensic experts who will say that Phillips cannot have been wrong? How many medical men have looked into this case over the years? Why is this particular point still debated if it’s so rock solid that Phillips must have been correct?

[Fisherman]

Where are the modern forensic experts who will say that Phillips cannot have been wrong? How many medical men have looked into this case over the years? Why is this particular point still debated if it’s so rock solid that Phillips must have been correct?

Where are the modern forensic experts who will assure us that Phillips is likely to have been wrong, Herlock? The prolonged debate may owe to a number of matters, like how people are reluctant to admit that they may have been wrong, the readily available material that speaks of the overall problems involved in establishing a TOD and, not least, Baxters misinterpretation of what Phillips actually said. Taken together with the three witnesses, it is easy to understand how people are willing to believe in a miraculous cooling and an equally miraculous onset of rigor - that would actually require the exact opposite to that cooling!

[Ginger]

Logically, there was no way that Richardson could have missed seeing the body when he sat on that step, even if Annie were a midget. And I'd suggest that, had someone else discovered the body, they'd have done more than just say "No!" - not only would they likely scream the place down, but they'd almost certainly have gone for help.

Did I find a murder victim, most assuredly I'd make as much noise and commotion as I could. The murderer might be hiding nearby, after all, his bloodlust still unsated.

Not everyone sees it that way, though. The "Boy in the Box" case of 1957 comes right to mind. The body of the (presumably - I'm not sure it was ever proven) murdered boy was found in a cardboard box in a field by an immigrant from eastern Europe. He was engaged in lawbreaking at the time (setting animal traps) and terrified of the police to begin with, so kept silent. The body was subsequently found by an American student, who (IIRC) feared being decried as a pervert, since the field overlooked the dorm windows of a girls' school, and initially kept quiet. The truth eventually came out, although one still wonders if there were still other witnesses who didn't eventually come forward.

[Trevor Marriott]

Where are the modern forensic experts who will assure us that Phillips is likely to have been wrong, Herlock? The prolonged debate may owe to a number of matters, like how people are reluctant to admit that they may have been wrong, the readily available material that speaks of the overall problems involved in establishing a TOD and, not least, Baxters misinterpretation of what Phillips actually said. Taken together with the three witnesses, it is easy to understand how people are willing to believe in a miraculous cooling and an equally miraculous onset of rigor - that would actually require the exact opposite to that cooling!

Dr Phillips

"Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing"

Now if that statement was correctly recorded that clearly shows that she was killed several hours before these witnesses say what they saw and heard.

Much mention has been made of the fact that it was a cold night, but how cold? I would suggest that at that time of the year, there would have been nothing more than a chill in the early morning air, and if she had been killed 2-3 hours before, Phillips estimation of the TOD is not that far out, and as previously stated the witness testimony is unsafe to rely on.

It has been well documented that TOD as given by the Victorian doctors was nothing more than guesswork, however in the case of Eddowes they guessed right in the estimation of her TOD, and Phillips may also have got his estimation of TOD very near to the time of death.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Rigor Mortis "appears early [in] Chronic diseases (TB, cancer, typhoid, cholera)... Violent deaths (cut throat, electrocution, lightning)…... fatigue/exhaustion before death”. Source: medicoapps.org/tag/rigor-mortis

Annie was chronically ill, possibly even tuberculous, she'd suffered a violent death through a severely cut throat, and it's very likely that she was fatigued after having wandered the streets and/or slept rough that night.

[Trevor Marriott]

Rigor Mortis "appears early [in] Chronic diseases (TB, cancer, typhoid, cholera)... Violent deaths (cut throat, electrocution, lightning)…... fatigue/exhaustion before death”. Source: medicoapps.org/tag/rigor-mortis

Annie was chronically ill, possibly even tuberculous, she'd suffered a violent death through a severely cut throat, and it's very likely that she was fatigued after having wandered the streets and/or slept rough that night.

Quote from Chapman on the Monday before her death

"If my sister will send me the boots, I shall go hopping." hardly someone as medically incapacitated as you suggest

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Rigor Mortis "appears early [in] Chronic diseases (TB, cancer, typhoid, cholera)... Violent deaths (cut throat, electrocution, lightning)…... fatigue/exhaustion before death”. Source: medicoapps.org/tag/rigor-mortis

Annie was chronically ill, possibly even tuberculous, she'd suffered a violent death through a severely cut throat, and it's very likely that she was fatigued after having wandered the streets and/or slept rough that night.

Yes, but HOW early, Gareth? After 55 minutes, perhaps? Or as early as two hours, even though the conditions are cold? You see, two hours is the early type, whereas six is the late.

I took a look at the link you provided, and it tells us:

"Time of Onset :

• Temperate climates – 3-6 hours
• Tropical climates – 1-2 hours"

So according to this, an onset two hours after death would indeed be an early one in temperate climates!

You also seem to have missed out on this, from that same source of yours:

"Delayed onset :

• Asphyxia, apoplexy, severe haemorrhage, pneumonia and paralysis of muscles."

Whether or not we may agree that there were signs of asphyxiation in Chapman (from the inquest: "The face was swollen and turned on the right side, and the tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips; it was much swollen"), I do think that we may need to agree that there was some little haemorrhage...?

[Sam Flynn]

Quote from Chapman on the Monday before her death

"If my sister will send me the boots, I shall go hopping." hardly someone as medically incapacitated as you suggest

I'm not suggesting it. It's a fact that she had been very ill, was on medication, and had expressed the need to go back to the hospital because she was feeling so unwell. Post mortem, she was found to be malnourished and had a chronic disease of the membranes of the brain. She was far from being a healthy woman.

[Fisherman]

I'm not suggesting it. It's a fact that she had been very ill, was on medication, and had expressed the need to go back to the hospital because she was feeling so unwell. Post mortem, she was found to be malnourished and had a chronic disease of the membranes of the brain. She was far from being a healthy woman.

And she was asphyxiated and suffered a tremendous loss of blood, all of which - according to your own chosen and partly quoted source - DELAYS the onset of rigor.

If the source had said that the time between death and the onset of rigor could be reduced from three hours (the time given by the source as the early extreme in temperate climates) to less than an hour, a whopping 70 per cent detraction or so, then you would have a very good point. But when taking in the full contents of that source, no such point is on offer. Quite the contrary, to be fair.

[Trevor Marriott]

And she was asphyxiated and suffered a tremendous loss of blood, all of which - according to your own chosen and partly quoted source - DELAYS the onset of rigor.

If the source had said that the time between death and the onset of rigor could be reduced from three hours (the time given by the source as the early extreme in temperate climates) to less than an hour, a whopping 70 per cent detraction or so, then you would have a very good point. But when taking in the full contents of that source, no such point is on offer. Quite the contrary, to be fair.

Just because the tongue was swollen doesn't necessary mean she was asphyxiated

Dr Phillips inquest testimony

The face was swollen and turned on the right side. The tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips. The tongue was evidently much swollen.

Dr Biggs

Strangulation can (and usually does) leave a bruise or bruises, but this is not always the case. Suffocation is perhaps less likely to result in bruising, but it would of course be possible. So the presence or absence of bruising around the neck does not either prove or exclude strangulation / suffocation.

A swollen tongue and / or face are findings that are non-specific. Many people try to attribute such findings to particular causations, but often it means nothing as a variety of mechanisms (natural and unnatural) can result in the same appearance. There is also no guarantee that somebody’s description of a ‘swollen’ tongue or face represents genuine swelling, as appearances of bodies after death can appear peculiar to observers and prompt all sorts of not-necessarily-objective descriptions.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Just because the tongue was swollen doesn't necessary mean she was asphyxiated

Dr Phillips inquest testimony

The face was swollen and turned on the right side. The tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips. The tongue was evidently much swollen.

Dr Biggs

Strangulation can (and usually does) leave a bruise or bruises, but this is not always the case. Suffocation is perhaps less likely to result in bruising, but it would of course be possible. So the presence or absence of bruising around the neck does not either prove or exclude strangulation / suffocation.

A swollen tongue and / or face are findings that are non-specific. Many people try to attribute such findings to particular causations, but often it means nothing as a variety of mechanisms (natural and unnatural) can result in the same appearance. There is also no guarantee that somebody’s description of a ‘swollen’ tongue or face represents genuine swelling, as appearances of bodies after death can appear peculiar to observers and prompt all sorts of not-necessarily-objective descriptions.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Okay. In this case, experienced medicos described the tongue as MUCH swollen, and so I think we can rule out them making a mistake about it. Coupled with how other Ripper cases exhibit asphyxiation signs, my money remains on that being the case with Chapman too, but I note your remarks.

[Ginger]

Much mention has been made of the fact that it was a cold night, but how cold? I would suggest that at that time of the year, there would have been nothing more than a chill in the early morning air

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

[Fisherman]

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

... meaning that the temperature dropped down to around 8 to 9 degrees Celsius. A refrigerator typically holds between 4-8 degrees.

Not the best disposition for a quick onset of rigor at any rate...

[Harry D]

Interesting points from Fisherman & Trevor.

It really flags up John Richardson's testimony. IMO, there's no way he would have missed the body. He was there to check the yard and make sure no one was trespassing. It's impossible that his head was cranked permanently to the right and he failed to spot (or even smell!) the rotting corpse a few feet away from him. There were other witnesses who immediately saw the body from the top of the steps. So, we have a man with a knife who was in the yard and failed to see a corpse that, according to the medico, should have been there.

I'm surprised he did not become a suspect/POI.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm not suggesting it. It's a fact that she had been very ill, was on medication, and had expressed the need to go back to the hospital because she was feeling so unwell. Post mortem, she was found to be malnourished and had a chronic disease of the membranes of the brain. She was far from being a healthy woman.

And let’s face it, a period of rest and recuperation was hardly on the cards from someone in Annie’s desperate situation. It was work or starve.