Chapman’s death.

[Lipsky]

It was John Davidson, and I do think he was very innocent.

I also believe Long, Cadosch and Richardson were quite innocent - of murder. Whether they were innocent of falsely reporting things that never happened is another matter, and it is not as if we lack evidence that these kinds of things happened a plenty in the ripper case - as indeed is likely in the extreme to happen in any high profile serial killer case over time.

What is less innocent is claiming that there is a profiling of serial killers that prevent them from interjecting themselves into the police investigations, because we know that many have done so. It is in perfect line with the true observation that many serialists are also narcissists.

You seem to be able to tell that Hutchinson was a "shady" character whereas Charles Lechmere was not. I admire that ability and I would dearly liked to have it myself, but alas, I don't. I do, however, know that Russel Williams, John Eric Armstrong, Robert Yates and many other serial killers were not regarded as any shady characters by people who knew them. So maybe that isn't the best possible decider. Just saying.

Thank you for your response, dear Fisherman!

Injecting one's self in police investigation physically by becoming a recorded/observed/interrogated witness/body discoverer is one thing. Taunting the police via direct or indirect (through the press) correspondence is another thing. Zodiac and Berkowitz did it. Ted Bundy offered to "help" police prior to execution, to con his way out. Ian Brady and his blonde cheerleader tried to "assist" the police to gain time or simply some fresh air. Brady was definetely a narcissist with many antics and stunts.

No serial killer though, to my knowledge, has stepped forward prior to arrest in his physical presence , asked to be interrogated and provide info as material witness/body discoverer. Not that serial killer science, as any theory, should move with absolutes (religion does, science doesnt). But science can have axioms, until noted otherwise of course.

I mention Hutch as "shady" not to make a case for him being our man. I believe he was in on the blackmailing scam that our man was "hired" to eradicate via executionary-style murder. I do think, though, that Hutch was a shady "street ear"/muscle boy who interjected to the police process at a much later date to be presumed genuine (if flawed) with an all-too-precise vision of someone (if you have such eye-opening info, you go straight to the police). My assumption is that he did it after being coached to by what little was left of that blackmailing scheme, in order to show publicly that, even if MJK gone, those few left behind could still identify their "Target of blackmail" -- a desperate move to carry on the scheme, knowing that our man wouldnt assassinate men cause that would force him to "break character" -- and indeed he didnt. He settled score with the loose ends/"back benches" of those tragic women in 1889 and 1891.

[Harry D]

Those that believe Phillips wrong.

Myself - I believe Druitt is the likeliest of the known suspects but I certainly don’t say that he was the ripper. Chapman’s TOD has no bearing on Druitt’s guilt or innocence.

Sam - I haven’t known Sam push a particular suspect or theory.

HarryD - Ditto

I'm actually a little more on the fence now. You probably missed me. It's easily done... or not as the case may be.

However, I've seen all the photos of 29 Hanbury Street, and even if the fence was a little further back at the time, I still struggle to see how Richardson could've ever missed Annie's mutilated remains laying there. If Richardson opened the door and took a cursory glance at the cellar maaaaybe? Sitting on the step tending to his boot? Not a chance.

Did Richardson embellish his story in order to exonerate himself from suspicion? He might have felt the need to put himself in a position where he could categorically deny that the murder had taken place, or the more innocent explanation is that Chandler never questioned Richardson enough or misinterpreted what Richardson told him.

[Fisherman]

Thank you for your response, dear Fisherman!

Injecting one's self in police investigation physically by becoming a recorded/observed/interrogated witness/body discoverer is one thing. Taunting the police via direct or indirect (through the press) correspondence is another thing. Zodiac and Berkowitz did it. Ted Bundy offered to "help" police prior to execution, to con his way out. Ian Brady and his blonde cheerleader tried to "assist" the police to gain time or simply some fresh air. Brady was definetely a narcissist with many antics and stunts.

No serial killer though, to my knowledge, has stepped forward prior to arrest in his physical presence , asked to be interrogated and provide info as material witness/body discoverer. Not that serial killer science, as any theory, should move with absolutes (religion does, science doesnt). But science can have axioms, until noted otherwise of course.

Lechmere did not ask to be interrogated, and he never was. If there had been any real efforts to examine him, his name would have come up.

You must also realize that the alternative to coming forward would have been to make himself the prime suspect - if the police believed Paul, and they would have after interviewing Mizen.

So let's not see Lechmere´s going to the cop shop as the result of some inner drive. It was likely about saving his neck, although me may actually have enjoyed it too.

I mention Hutch as "shady" not to make a case for him being our man. I believe he was in on the blackmailing scam that our man was "hired" to eradicate via executionary-style murder. I do think, though, that Hutch was a shady "street ear"/muscle boy who interjected to the police process at a much later date to be presumed genuine (if flawed) with an all-too-precise vision of someone (if you have such eye-opening info, you go straight to the police). My assumption is that he did it after being coached to by what little was left of that blackmailing scheme, in order to show publicly that, even if MJK gone, those few left behind could still identify their "Target of blackmail" -- a desperate move to carry on the scheme, knowing that our man wouldnt assassinate men cause that would force him to "break character" -- and indeed he didnt. He settled score with the loose ends/"back benches" of those tragic women in 1889 and 1891.

Hutchinson was George William Topping Hutchinson. He was a plumber and a hobby violinist, not a blackmailer - although these things can of course be combined. There is nothing at all shady about him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think, Herlock, that most readers by now are very aware about who is twisting Phillips wording and who is not. And I agree that if it is a conscious twisting it is dishonesty.

Yes it’s you.

[Fisherman]

Yes it’s you.

True to form - if you can get it wrong, you will. Now explain to me how Phillips missed out on how Chapman was around 36-37 degrees Celsius, mistakenly believing she had grown as cold as your ripperology (stiff of the year).

[Fisherman]

Maybe one of your experts can clarify it for you?

[Lipsky]

Hutchinson was George William Topping Hutchinson. He was a plumber and a hobby violinist, not a blackmailer - although these things can of course be combined. There is nothing at all shady about him.

Anyone coming forth by physical presence during police enquiry is prone to interrogation, regardless if they "ask for it" or not. They are named, recorded, observed. Serial killers prefer to pull stunts to flee crime scenes (and indeed they have) than pretend to be "by-standers". They hate law enforcement and they never assist --- or repent, for that matter (Dahmer's on-camera baffled inability to speak for his grotesque nature is as genuine as a serial killer can be).

I reject Lechmere for many reasons. One, since we're talking witnesses/crime scenes, is that our man wouldnt have put himself in the disposition of a "lesser evil" dilemma -- coming forward or else becoming a suspect -- and indeed he didn't. He was special-ops disciplined, never indulging. He pulled off a spectacular stunt at the Double Event where confirmed sightings were deliberate ones , theatening ones (both Scwarz and Lawende felt threatened), to plant the decoy of a jew perpetrator which was the "running theme" of the double event (murder sites, graffiti). Because if there is one single better thing than having no face, is to portray another face -- the one sketched by the grotesque stereotypes of antisemitism, already dominant on both UK and the continent.

George was not a (certainly not *the*) blackmailer. "Shady" does not describe his hobbies, but the delay of his astonishingly "precise" description, which is blatantly coached and "targeting". By his own admission a regular of lodging houses and Dorset, indirectly painting himself as someone who "helped our" MJK, Hutch was probably ears and muscles for the local "lord", who backed the blackmailing scheme. MJK was the "stellar witness" of that group. After her slaughter, there were two desperate attempts to keep the plan going: two planted "testimonies". Hutch came forth in very suspicious and dishonest/not genuine manner as a desperate move and a calculated risk, albeit to no avail. If he wasn't coached, and if that argument is false , then he was harboring the idea of Sir Charles' pardon, and he might have been a "side-switcher" out for his own. Cant exclude that. However, it seems those around "Miller's" (McCarthy's) court were keen to send out conflicting / erroneous testimonies that only baffled Abberline.

[DJA]

Hutchinson was George William Topping Hutchinson. He was a plumber and a hobby violinist, not a blackmailer - although these things can of course be combined. There is nothing at all shady about him.

Oh,goody ..... another Hutchinson thread

Topping was an employed plumber who was unlikely to had military training.

On the other hand we have a sailor who cohabits with an unexplained child whose parents lived in Primrose Street.

[Herlock Sholmes]

To avoid confusion my responses to Fish will be in blue.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dear me. Herlock Sholmes id flooding the boards with nonsense again. He is totally unable to see how his sandcastle has come crashing down long ago, and ridicules himself by posting one thing more bizarre than the other. I am not going to read it in its entirety ö- I don't have to. I can do what I have become accustomed to do - read ten seconds, and that will be enough for me to pick out examples of how he does not understand a syllable of what he is too. Here's a few nice examples:

No, I'm saying you can never feel that a dead body is cold and then go on to accurately and reliably estimate the time of death...

Once again (is it the nineteenth or the twentieth time now?): Phillips did NOT establish the time of death!!!

He then carries on to say "..(i.e. by saying the person has been dead at least two hours).

Of course, saying that a person has been dead for at least to hours is NOT "accurately and reliably establishing the time of death"! It is making a crude judgement, that allows the time of death to have been 2 hours, 2,5 hours, 3 hours, 3,5 hours, 4 hours.... BUT HERLOCK SHOLMES DOES NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO UNDERSTAND THIS!

More of the same: Dr Phillips did not have a superpower which allowed him to assess degrees of warmth by touching.

Do I really have to point it out again: Phillips never assessed any degrees of warmth, he noted that the body was COLD. That is not about any exact establishing of a temperature. It is not about saying "Her body had a core temperature of 18,2 degrees as I felt her. It is simply noting that she had grown cold to the touch! And Phillips would have felt thousands of bodies, so he had tremendous experience of doing the job. This will have been a very easy call to make.

And this again: It is not possible to "feel" the warmth of the core "through" the skin. That is incorrect and, frankly, bizarre. All you can do is feel whether the surface of the body (i.e. the skin) is warm or cold. I literally don't know where you have got it into your head that Dr. Phillips had some kind of magic skill to feel warmth through the skin.

Of course the warmth of the core is what you feel through the skin. The skin is insulated from the core and it grows cold much quicker than the core. We KNOW that the victorian medicos felt for warmth by touching the skin. We KNOW that warmth can be felt hours after death. We KNOW (grace a Herlocks OWN post about Seddon-Smith) that the skin WILL grow cold in no more than 20 minutes.
So either the medico CAN feel the wrath of the body core through the cold skin, or no medico will ever be able to feel any warmth at all when touching a body that has been dead twenty minutes plus.

This goes without saying, and the one truly bizarre thing around here is how Herlock fails to understand this.

In the same school of "thinking": The only reason I mentioned Seddon-Smith in #507 was because you claimed I had got him "backwards" and had somehow made a mistake in understanding him which was comparable to your error in confusing the post-mortem examination of Chapman with the examination at the crime scene. But I hadn't. I understood him perfectly well just like I understand what Payne James is saying. Remember Payne James? That guy you never mention at all any more.

Jason Payne-James. There, I mentioned him. And why wouldn't I? He has said nothing that in any way is in conflict with what I am saying. And how did you get Seddon-Smith backwards? Because you thought that he said that SOME peoples skin grow cold in ten to twenty minutes. He never said that, though. He said that ALL peoples skin grow cold in that space of time. And that does NOT mean that no person that has been dead for twenty minutes will give away any traces of warmth when a doctor feels for warmth. In fact, ALL people who have been dead for only twenty minutes WILL be quite warm to the touch.
Now, Herlock, take a deep breath and try to explain this:
IF EVERY PERSON WILL BE QUITE WARM TO THE TOUCH AFTER TWENTUY MINUTES, ALTHOUGH THEIR SKIN HAS GROWN COLD IN THAT TIME - WHAT WARMTH IS IT THAT CAN BE FELT: THAT OF THE SKIN OR THAT OF THE CORE?

Llewellyn felt the upper arms of Polly Nichols, at the earliest around 30 minutes after she had died. I hope we may agree on that? Not that it matters, because it is a fact nevertheless. It is also a fact that - according to Seddon-Smith - that her SKIN would have been quite cold when this was performed, because Nichols had been dead for MORE than 20 minutes. So explain to me: The warmth Llewellyn felt, although the skin had grown cold - where did that come from? His imagination? Is this another example of how a doctor got it all wrong? Was in fact Nichols totally cold when Llewellyn felt her, and he only THOUGHT that he felt that she was quite warm over the elbows?

The failure to understand this is indicative of Herlock Sholes reasoning on the whole. Strewn with accusations about how I would not understand and packed with misconceptions and poor understanding, this goes on, post after post of horse manure is disgracing the boards on his account. It really needs to end.

It is this kind of reasoning that is crowned with the question he asks as a send-off in one of his sad posts:

If you want a question to answer here it is: Why can't a person whose body is cold not have been murdered an hour earlier?

The answer is very simple to those who have even the smallest of understanding of the matter: because a body will never cool off that quick. 1 - 1,5 degrees per hour is the rate, and since there is a plateau the first half hour to an hour where the temperature does not drop at all (probably due to a chemical process that oxygenates the blood for some time after death, but that is a technical question we need not go into), a person that has only been dead for an hour simply cannot be cold. It is physically impossible.

To ask the question as such is opening up the gateways to an abyss of ignorance.

And there I leave it. It is a sad business by now, and I really cannot muster any will to read more of it.

I am not going to read it in its entirety- I don't have to



This is the typical cop out. A way of not responding to unpleasant facts that destroy your weird and unsupported beliefs.



Once again (is it the nineteenth or the twentieth time now?): Phillips did NOT establish the time of death!!!



It's hard to believe that someone can misunderstand English in such a way, even a non-native speaker.



I wrote that it's not possible to feel a cold body and then "accurately and reliably estimate the time of death" You have decided to change my word "estimate" to a completely different word, "establish". Thus, with three exclamation marks and a capital letter, you say "Phillips did NOT establish the time of death!!!" Why? Because you always change words to try and suit your argument. I have already complained about this. Why can't you stick with the words I use?



Even more amazing is that you go on to use quotation marks to falsely quote me and write "Of course, saying that a person has been dead for at least to hours is NOT "accurately and reliably establishing the time of death"! How has my word "estimating" again become "establishing"?



If you don't think that Dr Phillips was giving an estimate of the time of death, which he so obviously was, it's really difficult to know how to continue with you. His estimate of time of death was that murder had occurred at about or before 4.30am (although he qualified that by accepting that it could have been later due to certain factors). That was is his estimate. It's clear and undeniable. No-one in this discussion, least of all me, has been talking about him establishing the time of death.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The known factors:

She was cold to the touch, but for a certain remaining heat under the intestines. People who have grown cold have been dead for many hours, medicos normally cite that they have been gone for 4-6 hours.

She had started to develop rigor. Rigor normally sets in between 2-4 hours after death.

So how do we limit the margins of error? Oh, I know: we predispose that she had been dead for an hour only, and that the medico was way wrong, plus we make the guess that she managed to get into rigor in an hour only, or less.

That is how the margins of error are best limited.

Yes, Herlock, you really know how to put experts to good use, don't you?

People who have grown cold have been dead for many hours, medicos normally cite that they have been gone for 4-6 hours.



It's hard to know what you mean by "grown cold", but do you have any evidence showing this of modern medicos? I doubt it because modern medicos no longer estimate time of death based on feeling body temperature and would never conclude that someone has been dead 4-6 hours based on nothing more than the fact that the body feels cold to the touch. If they do make an estimate from temperature they will use a complicated formula based on exact rectal temperature readings and air temperature, not on the basis of "grown cold".



Or do you mean Victorian medicos? Do you even have evidence of THAT? I doubt it and, in any case, they didn't know what they were talking about because the science wasn't up to scratch. But let me remind you of some evidence which you decided to simply ignore:



From the Times of 6 March 1861 reporting proceedings at Mansion House Police Court regarding a charge of assisting in the suicide of Thomas Richards by Sarah Rose Ferry:

"Mr Robert Fowler, surgeon, Bishopsgate-street, said on Friday afternoon, his assistant, who had been called to see the deceased, returned with an empty bottle which had a strong smell of prussic acid. Witness went and saw deceased. The body was cold, and the deceased appeared to have been dead about an hour."



Do you have anything to say about this? I thought not.



She had started to develop rigor. Rigor normally sets in between 2-4 hours after death.



We've been all over this. 2-4 hours is an average only which means that it can easily occur outside that range. I've already noted the variables that can accelerate rigor and they apply to Chapman. The experts say loud and clear that the time of onset of rigor should not be relied upon to estimate time of death. That includes Payne James, Fisherman. Remember him? The guy whose conclusions are so shocking to you that you can barely mention his name but if you do, you just ignore everything he has said on the subject!

[Herlock Sholmes]

General response:



Fisherman, I asked you to provide some source material or evidence to support your bizarre ramblings and you have failed to do it. I know why. It's because you are making all of this up, hoping to wing it, without any knowledge of the subject. I'm not going to reply to every silly and unsupported point you make (although at least you are not still jabbering on about paper bags!). Instead, I'm now going to explain the subject to you and the rest of the Forum with expert sources. If you disagree, you need to provide expert source material in response or, otherwise, keep quiet.

Dr Seddon-Smith is quite right to say that people are cold about 10-20 minutes after death and that the skin cools very rapidly once circulation ceases. So how then to explain that some bodies feel warm more 20 minutes after death? If we consult an expert in forensic pathology, the answer is easy. This is from Knight's Forensic Pathology (2016), the 'Knight' in question being the renowned pathologist Professor Bernard Knight:

"When death occurs, heat transfer within the body through the circulation ceases. Metabolic heat production, occurring mainly in the muscles and liver, does not cease uniformly and some heat generation continues for a variable time. As soon as the supply of warmed blood ceases with cardiac arrest, the skin surface immediately begins to lose heat. The rate is variable because of clothing, posture and shielding against the supporting surface and, of course, the environmental temperature. "

So let's look at that. Heat transfer within the body through circulation ceases upon death and "the skin surface immediately begins to lose heat". One can't provide an exact time for the heat to be completely lost because the rate is variable and depends on a variety of factors. A clothed body will retain warmth longer than a naked one. A body in a warm room will retain heat longer than one outdoors. A body outdoors in warm weather will retain heat longer than one in cold weather. But within 10-20 minutes after death the effects of the absence of heat transfer through the skin can be felt and the skin is cooling rapidly.

However, despite death, there is still possible internal heat production, mainly in the muscles and the liver, so the body can be generating heat from within (known as the 'core'). As the surface heat is lost, heat can be transferred to the surface from the core by conduction. So it's possible to feel warmth at the surface for some time after death even though the skin has lost all its original warmth. If, however, per Payne James, a person is suffering from emaciation and loss of muscle bulk, the heat being generated from the core will be much less and may not warm the surface at all.

Fisherman refers to a supposed rate of cooling of 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit an hour. This is a nineteenth century formula (specifically in respect of the core temperature or, otherwise, the rectal temperature) based on an 1887 theory by Frederick Womack which has long been known to be wrong. Hence, this is again from Knight's Forensic Pathology:

"In spite of the great volume of research and publications already mentioned, accuracy in estimating the time since death from temperature remains elusive. The old rule-of-thumb was that temperature fell at about 1.5degF/h, something under 1degC/h. Another rule of thumb was that the fall in degC from 37degC, plus three (to arbitrarily allow for the plateau), was equal to the time since death in hours. The only confidence that one could place in these methods was that they were almost always wrong, and that, if the answer happened to be correct, it was by chance rather than science!"

And this is from 'Corpse: Nature, Forensics, And the Struggle to Pinpoint Time of Death" by Jessica Snyder Sachs (2002):

"Seemingly overnight [in 1887], forensic doctors across Europe and the Americas embraced the idea that they could calculate post-mortem interval with pinpoint accuracy. Dropping Womack's own rather complex mathematics, they settled on the deceptively simple formula still used by many pathologists today: that of adding one hour since death for every 1.5 degree drop below normal body temperature. Over the next century, this misleading bit of arithmetic would send countless murder investigations down cold trails, set free an unknown number of killers, and conceivably spell life imprisonment - even death – for a comparable number of innocents."

As it happens, it is has long been known that a dead body can actually get warmer after death than it was in life! It's a recognised phenomenon.

It's also the case that a living person's body can feel cold. Especially someone on the brink of death. In that case, if it's not one of those random bodies that gets warmer after death, it's probably going to remain cold after death. The conclusions you can draw from feeling a cold body after death are very limited. Fisherman seems to think that because one body might be warm 45 minutes, or an hour, after death, this means that every single body must be warm an hour after death! That's his whole argument. But it's in no way as simple as that. There are so many variables to take account of and, by the 45 minute stage, per Seddon-Smith, the skin has long lost all its heat and the only heat actually being generated from within the body is from (mainly) the muscles and liver, thus potentially making the skin feel warm through conduction. So if one person has relatively healthy muscles and liver they might well feel warmer at the surface much longer after death than someone who was already weakened due to more heat being generated within the dead body.

What cannot be said with any certainty is how long every single person will take to feel cold. I have referred three times now to a doctor at a meeting of the Surgical Society of Ireland who had noted that a dead body can feel as cold after one hour as other dead bodies do after six hours. Fisherman has remained silent about it (pretending he hasn't read it!). He hasn't challenged it. There is no exact science about the process.

Without any evidence at all, and contrary to the evidence of the Surgical Society of Ireland, Fisherman tells us that it is "impossible" for a body that has been dead for an hour to be cold! This is a joke. Not only is that based on a false assumption of the rate of cooling but he is confusing the temperature of the core (the rectal temperature) with the temperature of the body surface (the skin). As we've seen, he seems to magically think that it's possible to feel the core temperature through the skin. Of course it isn't. For there to be heat at the body surface after one hour, in circumstances where a body is lying in the open air on a cool night, is entirely dependent on heat being generated within the core and then being conducted to the surface. But, as Seddon Smith has stated (and Fisherman accepts), the skin is insulated from the core so it's not straightforward and with all the different variables involved, especially if the muscles and liver are not generating much heat after death, the remaining heat in the core will not always reach the surface.

The notion of estimating time of death through placing the back of one's hand on a dead body (which was loved of Victorian medicos and, it seems, Dr Phillips himself) has long since been abandoned. In 'Human Body Decomposition' by Jarvis Hayman and Marc Oxenham (2016) it is stated: "it is interesting to note that Bauman (1880) recognized the inaccuracy of using the then customary method of gauging the temperature of the skin of a body by using the back of the hand" Nevertheless, Knight says it can be done as a useful first manoeuvre when at the scene of death and, in the process, suggests "sliding a hand under the body where it is in contact with the supporting surface". I would have thought that this is what Dr Phillips did with Chapman and found some warmth on he lower back which he attributed to coming from the intestines. In Chapman's case the intestines were, unusually, exposed. I wouldn't have thought that Phillips would have slipped his hand into the intestines to feel the warmth but I suppose he might have done. Either way, it shows that simply checking "the left side" of the body (which is what the Morning Advertiser says Phillips did, and which Fisherman seems to accept) was not sufficient because that excludes the middle of the body. In this case, there was warmth in the centre so that Chapman's body was not "all cold" or "stone cold".

Finally, I see that Fisherman wants us to believe that Dr Phillips had carried out "thousands" of examinations at scenes of death and was, in effect, a one man walking research team, conducting a series of personal experiments until he had built up a bank of knowledge of estimating time of death that was far superior to any of his peers and perhaps even better than forensic pathology experts today! It's absolutely ridiculous. How many times in his career does Fisherman think Dr Phillips had been called out to a person who was lying murdered in the open, especially a person in an advanced state of a serious illness, and had arrived at the scene within a short time of that murder? It wouldn't surprise me if it was the first time he had ever done it. It was a very rare occurrence. His estimate of at least two hours was probably something he had been taught at medical school in the 1850s. He obviously wasn't aware of ALL the variables that can affect (and increase) the rate of cooling of a body as listed by Payne James in Simpson's modern forensics textbook.

I don't think anything more need be said. All the top forensic experts agree that you can't reliably estimate time of death by temperature (or for that matter by rigor and digestion). It's perfectly possible from a modern forensics perspective that Chapman could have been murdered at around 5.30am (and we don't even need Phillips' own admission of this to assist us in this respect) so that the best evidence of time of death is going to come from witness evidence. Simple. And. Sorted.

[Herlock Sholmes]

One thing that we can learn from what has been established is that the average time for the temperature drop in a dead body is somewhere around 1-1,5 degrees Celsius per hour.
Another thing we have learnt is that there is a temperature plateau directly after death, meaning that the temperature will n ot start dropping at all until after between half an hour and an hour.

Piecing these matters together, we can work from the assumption that Annie Chapman would have had a normal temperature walking into the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street. That means that she would have had a temperature of around 37 degrees Celsius. If she was sick, that temperature can have been much higher, but we really should not predispose that it was. The clever and correct thing to to is to opt for the mean temperature of 37 degrees Celsius.

That means that if she died at 5.30, then her temperature should have dropped by 1-1,5 degrees Celsius during that hour.

However, since there is a plateau of between half an hour and an hour during which the temperature does NOT drop, we must count that factor in.

Kets say that the drop started at the earliest possible time: after half an hour.

That would mean that the temperature should drop - at the most - half of one and a half degree Celsius, meaning 0,75 degrees Celsius.

If I am generous, I will say that she cooled off a lot quicker than most do, so let's make it an even 1,0 degrees.

That takes us to 36 degrees Celsius in her body at 5.30.

If there is no generosity offered, we opt for a full plateau hour, and no decrease at all in body temperature. That means that she would have been 37 degrees Celsius when found.

So the span is 36-37 degrees Celsius. And the idea that is entertained by some out here is that Phillips would not be able to feel this, that he would instead mistake it for Chapman being totally cold, but for a little remaining heat under the intestines in the abdominal cavity.

Why are we discussing this at all? It is a non-issue. Long and Cadosch were ushered out by the victorian police, and rightfully so. Richardson went the same way for the same very good reasons.

It is a done deal, regardless of how many unrealistic ripperologists are crying their eyes out.

One thing that we can learn from what has been established is that the average time for the temperature drop in a dead body is somewhere around 1-1,5 degrees Celsius per hour.

No, you have said it but that doesn't mean it has been "established". In fact, we know from experts who know what they are talking about that it is actually wrong.

Another thing we have learnt is that there is a temperature plateau directly after death, meaning that the temperature will not start dropping at all until after between half an hour and an hour

No, you are confusing the core or rectal temperature (which starts dropping after about 45 minutes) with the temperature of the body surface which can start to feel cold after 10-20 minutes.




Piecing these matters together, we can work from the assumption that Annie Chapman would have had a normal temperature walking into the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street

Why would we start from this assumption? She was an undernourished ("badly fed" with "signs of great deprivation") woman, suffering from a very advanced stage of a lung and brain disease (TB) who had been on the cold streets all night. Why wouldn’t she have been cold while alive?




That means that she would have had a temperature of around 37 degrees Celsius. If she was sick, that temperature can have been much higher, but we really should not predispose that it was. The clever and correct thing to to is to opt for the mean temperature of 37 degrees Celsius.

It's neither clever nor correct. Even a qualified forensic pathologist these days wouldn't do this. And such a person would know what they are talking about, unlike you.




That means that if she died at 5.30, then her temperature should have dropped by 1-1,5 degrees Celsius during that hour.

You are talking about her core temperature but it's not even correct because the supposed hourly drop of 1.5 degrees FARENHEIT, not Celsius, has been discredited.

Can you get anything right Fish?



That takes us to 36 degrees Celsius in her body at 5.30.

You don't know what you are talking about and you are confusing Celsius with Farenheit.




So the span is 36-37 degrees Celsius. And the idea that is entertained by some out here is that Phillips would not be able to feel this, that he would instead mistake it for Chapman being totally cold, but for a little remaining heat under the intestines in the abdominal cavity

As you are talking about Chapman's core temperature, then of course Phillips wouldn't have been able to feel it. At least not without sticking his finger up her anus. He would have had to use a thermometer. All he could feel was the temperature at the surface of the skin. You have already agreed that Seddon-Smith, who referred to the skin being insulated from the core, is correct. So talking about the core temperature is pointless.




Why are we discussing this at all? It is a non-issue. Long and Cadosch were ushered out by the victorian police, and rightfully so. Richardson went the same way for the same very good reasons.

We are discussing it because the coroner, who was in the best position, having heard all the evidence, concluded that Long and Cadosch were correct and that Phillips' estimate was wrong. The only reason that Long and Cadosch were "ushered out" by the Victorian police was because the Victorian police had literally no understanding of forensics and no way of disputing the estimate of time of death provided by their divisional surgeon.



It is a done deal, regardless of how many unrealistic ripperologists are crying their eyes out

I'm sorry you have been reduced to tears. But I see you are STILL not citing any sources for your posts. Without citation, nothing you say should be believed for one second by anyone because you are clearly floundering outside of your depth, as your confusion between celsius and farhenheit shows very clearly. Stop relying on out of date, unreliable or inaccurate information. Post your sources.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here is a quick manual speaking about what temperatures can be expected in dead people:

Algor Mortis - refers to the change of temperature that occurs after death due to the lack of energy.

• 98.6 degrees F (37 degrees C) - normal body temperature
• Warm to the touch up to 3 hours after death
• Around 4 to 6 hrs – cool to the touch
• After 24 hrs – temp of the external environment.

Note how 4-6 hours is - as I have pointed out before - the period where a dead body will start to feel cool. Also note how we are warm to the touch for up to three hours. Further note how all of this jibes perfectly with Phillips statement and how we can see that he allowed for a whole lot in terms of quick cooling off. After two hours, we should still be warm to the touch, and Chapman was not, but since it was a cold night, Phillips offered an absolute possible minimum of two hours. She FELT like somebody who had been dead for 4-6 hours, though, and therefore Phillips sensibly added that it would in all probability be MORE than two hours.

It really is a total no-brainer. There is no way that Chapman can have become all cold (but for that remaining heat that could only be sensed by putting the hands inside her abdominal cavity) in an hour only. It is way beyond the possibilities offered by the laws of physics.

Of all the people in the whole investigation, the fewest have done more damage to the case than Long, Cadosch, Richardson and Baxter.

• Algor Mortis - refers to the change of temperature that occurs after death due to the lack of energy.
  • 98.6 degrees F (37 degrees C) - normal body temperature
  • Warm to the touch up to 3 hours after death
  • Around 4 to 6 hrs – cool to the touch
  • After 24 hrs – temp of the external environment.

This has no source given. It just shows how desperate you are taking unsourced and certainly unreliable information off the internet. If you are going to paste in information you need to provide the source otherwise it could be anyone posting stuff on the internet. And how do we know where they got it from?

Even what you have posted is not inconsistent with what I have said. "Warm to the touch up to 3 hours after death". I haven't said anything about how long a body can remain warm after death have I? That's another question.

If you are suggesting that a body is only cool to the touch after four hours then how could Dr Phillips have said that Chapman, who was cold, had been murdered two hours earlier? Or are you saying that Phillips got it wrong now?

I don’t doubt that a dead body will probably be cold to the touch after 4 hours. The question is whether it could be cold to the touch before 4 hours, specifically after 1 hour. The "information" you have provided doesn't answer this question.


Note how 4-6 hours is - as I have pointed out before - the period where a dead body will start to feel cool.

Where have you pointed this out before? Had you done so before today I would have asked you why that was inconsistent with Dr Phillips' evidence. So I don't think you have pointed this out before at all.



Also note how we are warm to the touch for up to three hours.

Well a body that can be warm to the touch for up to three hours can also be cold to the touch after one hour without being inconsistent with that statement can't it?

Where are the qualifications to the "three hours" which any proper forensic pathologist would make before writing such a statement. Payne James lists about 10 variables which will affect the rate of cooling. Where are they in your list?



Further note how all of this jibes perfectly with Phillips statement

Hardly "jibes". On your interpretation, it's totally different!



and how we can see that he allowed for a whole lot in terms of quick cooling off. After two hours, we should still be warm to the touch, and Chapman was not, but since it was a cold night, Phillips offered an absolute possible minimum of two hours.

Aha! So you are now saying that the information you have just posted is wrong because it doesn't provide any qualifications. You say that a body is warm up to 3 hours but could be cold after 2 hours in "a cold night". But that's not in the information you provided. So what about if it is a cold night and the victim is in an advanced state of illness due to a wasting disease and has lost muscle bulk? How would that affect the estimate? Perhaps instead of 2 hours it would be 1 hour, no?


She FELT like somebody who had been dead for 4-6 hours, though, and therefore Phillips sensibly added that it would in all probability be MORE than two hours.


You are making this all up. Phillips never said she felt like someone who had been dead for 4-6 hours. You have no idea if this unsourced information which you have taken off the internet in 2019 would have even been known or believed by anyone in 1888, let alone DrPhillips. The fact of the matter in any case is that Dr Phillips qualified his opinion of at least 2 hours by saying it could have been less than this. But you are just in denial of this clear fact.

[DJA]

To avoid confusion my responses to Fish will be in blue.

Assumed you always did when conversing with the fish people here.

Colorblind.