Chapman’s death.

[John G]

Yes, John, there will be variations - but NOT large ones. And you may have noticed what it said in the source I provided; "Additionally it is worth noting that a body's temperature will drop much more slowly if the body has been exposed to extreme cold; such as being left outdoors, submerged in water or icy conditions." Why this is so, I don´t know, I can only reiterate it. But I will look for the answer!

The thing to REALLY keep in mind here, though, is that Herlock had the audacity - or the utter ignorance - to claim that the 1,5 degrees drop ratio was "actually wrong"! He accused me of using faulty material, probably based on the prussic acid poisoning case he cited. That case is an absolute anomaly if true, but I suspect it cannot BE true. And it applies that prussic acid will lower the body temperature, so the example is an extremely dubious one to cite in the first place.

However, just as you agree, the normal ratio is one of a 1,5 degree celsius drop per hour. And I will NOT stand by somebody as gloriously ignorant as Herlock claiming the opposite. We are not out here to disinform and make a complete mockery of the facts, and I will make that very obvious for as long as it takes.

Sorry Christer, I posted my last post before I saw your reply. Yes, it does seem bizarre that body temperature will drop more slowly in cold temperature-I'll have to carry out more research!

I agree the 1.5 degree per hour drop ratio is the starting point. Of course, you then have to take into account factors that may have caused more rapid heat loss, some of which I discussed in my previous post, as well as factors that may have resulted in slower heat loss: you mentioned the cold ambient temperature. Also, a fever would have resulted in a higher starting point: as Chapman had been ill, has this been completely ruled out?

In any event, it's a very complicated equation!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fisherman, you are going wrong on every level. I've already tried to explain it to you once but you seem to just rephrase what I have written and then try and Fishsplain to me things that I already know better than you.




Let me try again.




The first place you are going wrong is that you don't understand how a Victorian medico tested for warmth. I've already given you a source that they used the back of their hand to feel either warmth or cold on the skin. That is it. There was no pinching involved if that's what you are saying. If you think a Victorian medico tested for warmth in any other way than touching the surface of the body (i.e. the skin) you need to provide a source like I keep asking you. But I can tell you now that you are totally wrong.


That being said, it should be clear to you that we ARE talking about the skin temperature. Without a thermometer that is ALL that Dr Phillips could have considered. The temperature of the skin.


Now that we have established that, the science of the situation is that the skin becomes cold very rapidly after death. At the same time, there is, as you have said, in some but not all cases, a period where the core temperature (i.e. the temperature in the rectum) does not fall immediately after death. This period of a sort of constant (or slow decay) internal body temperature lasts on average 45 minutes. You can call this the postmortem temperature plateau if you like. This is from 2011 paper entitled "A Post mortem temperature plateau and its role in the estimation of time of death. A review" by Jimmy L. Smart and Michal Kaliszan.


"Upon death, as a body begins to cool, and heat flows from the body to the surrounding environment, rectal temperatures do not drop immediately. A short period of time elapses as steady state temperature gradients become established. This is normal temperature decay phenomenon and has been described by many investigators, including demonstration within inanimate geometries. Some would call this normal temperature decay phenomenon a temperature plateau. Other investigators have declared that there is no temperature plateau in the human body, but only normal slowed temperature loss in the very early post mortem period. "



After the plateau, rectal cooling starts to set in. I need to stress that, it is RECTAL COOLING. The surface of the body by this stage is quite possibly already cold (depending on the many factors such as air temperature, weather, clothing, positioning of body, surface mass and area, emaciation, temperature at time of death etc. Here is a quote regarding the plateau effect and rectal cooling from "Post-Mortem Temperature and the Time of Death" (1956) by G.S.W. De Saram, G. Webster and N. Kathirgamatamby

'..we are satisfied that, in general, the loss of temperature during the first 45 minutes after death is hardly significant and that the time lag we have noticed, before rectal cooling definitely sets in, may be fixed at 45 minutes".


But, the authors state:


"it is necessary for the body surface to first drop in temperature and establish a temperature gradient before cooling can affect the internal body temperature ".


So the reason for the delay in the cooling of the core is that the body is "waiting" for the skin to get cold. Once that happens, then by a process of conduction the heat will flow to the skin and then by convection into the atmosphere.


That is why the SKIN will start to cool immediately after death but the rectal temperature does not change. In fact the rectal temperature can increase.


There was no way that a Victorian medico could assess the temperature of the rectum without a thermometer. But Victorian medicos didn't use them at crime scenes. They just used their hands, specifically the back of their hands.


The fact of metabolism generating body heat is a different phenomenon to the postmortem temperature plateau, incidentally.


So really that's it. Game over. You have accepted that the skin gets cold quickly after death. Whatever magical skills you think he possessed, Dr Phillips could only gauge the temperature of the skin. I'm pleased to see that you accept that the skin is insulated from the heat remaining in the body and that "the skin itself will cool off very quickly after death, in a matter of ten to twenty minutes it will have turned cold."


For that reason, if you don't have plenty of heat coming to the surface from the core, the body will feel cold very quickly. And that's what I am saying happened in the case of Chapman. Because the point is that there are so many variables which will affect how quickly the heat flows out of the body from the core which could easily happen within the hour. There is not always a temperature plateau effect. In a study of 117 cases, only 26.7% displayed a temperature plateau and "Sometimes the TPE (Temperature Plateau Effect) is short, sometimes long, sometimes non-existent' (Smart and Kaliszan). In some cases, heat is coming out of the body through decomposition lasting for hours. So the body continues to feel warm. In others, this doesn't happen. Especially in the case of an emaciated and sick person with lack of muscle bulk. This is recognised by pathologists including Payne James In Simpson's Forensic Medicine. Here is a quote from Payne James because I know you will believe him:


"Newton's Law of Cooling states that the heat will pass from the warmer body to the cooler environment and the temperature of the body will fall. However, a body is not a uniform structure: its temperature will not fall evenly and, because each body will lie in its own unique environment, each body will cool at a different speed, depending on the many factors surrounding it.". He also says, "Many other variables and factors also affect the rate of cooling of a body and together show why the sensible forensic pathologist will be reluctant to make any pronouncement on the time of death based on body temperature alone."



Finally, Fisherman it doesn't matter what size font you type it in or what internet website you take it from, the supposed rate of cooling is 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit per hour NOT Celsius so you have completely ballsed that up.


Youre only making it worse for yourself Fish.

[Fisherman]

Okay, this is a complex issue so I'll highlight some of the problems. Firstly, when assessing time of death by body temperature we need to know our starting point. Thus, Sarum, Webster, and Kathirgamatamby, 1956 carried out a study on 41 executed prisoners. They found that the rectal temperature ranges were between 97.8 and 100.8 degrees Fahrenheit, with a mean average of 99.6. Thus, the lowest temperature was almost 2 degrees below average, which means that if you assumed this individual had an average body temperature whilst still alive, then your time of death estimate would be out by about 2 hours!

According to the source I quoted, chronic illness may lower initial body temperature. Chapman had been ill, so her starting point may have been at the lower end of the range, possibly below 97.8 (although women generally tend to have a higher body temperature than men, which could, if course, impact on the equation.

Next, we have to consider how rapidly body temperature would fall from the stating point. The chronically ill and emaciated (both these factors may have applied to Chapman) tend to lose heat more rapidly. If the corpse was unclothed or in contact with a cold surface, such as concrete, heat loss will be greater: see the reference I quoted in my earlier post. Blood loss, as Dr Phillips pointed out, would also result in quicker heat loss.

Seen that paper, John! But I think you need to look at the Henssge method I describe in my last post. It allows for crude calculations that are nevertheless very telling in our case, because it shows how we must be extremely drastic to get even close to a TOD a mere hour away.

Finding extreme examples will not get us anywhere - they will always be there, but their applicability is beyond limited.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, John, there will be variations - but NOT large ones. And you may have noticed what it said in the source I provided; "Additionally it is worth noting that a body's temperature will drop much more slowly if the body has been exposed to extreme cold; such as being left outdoors, submerged in water or icy conditions." Why this is so, I don´t know, I can only reiterate it. But I will look for the answer!

The thing to REALLY keep in mind here, though, is that Herlock had the audacity - or the utter ignorance - to claim that the 1,5 degrees drop ratio was "actually wrong"! He accused me of using faulty material, probably based on the prussic acid poisoning case he cited. That case is an absolute anomaly if true, but I suspect it cannot BE true. And it applies that prussic acid will lower the body temperature, so the example is an extremely dubious one to cite in the first place.

However, just as you agree, the normal ratio is one of a 1,5 degree celsius drop per hour. And I will NOT stand by somebody as gloriously ignorant as Herlock claiming the opposite. We are not out here to disinform and make a complete mockery of the facts, and I will make that very obvious for as long as it takes.

If you cared to read my post #642 Fisherman, I quoted Professor Bernard Knight - an actual expert in forensic pathology - who said that the 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit (note Fahrenheit not Celsius) formula is "almost always wrong" and, if ever correct, it was "by chance". What more do you want? I can cite more sources to you if you like (and the 1.5 degrees formula was discredited many years ago) but why would you doubt Prof Knight?

ALMOST ALWAYS WRONG AND IF EVER CORRECT IT WAS BY CHANCE.

Do you know more than Professor Bernard Knight?

Lets all think about that one shall we?

[Fisherman]

Fisherman, you are going wrong on every level. I've already tried to explain it to you once but you seem to just rephrase what I have written and then try and Fishsplain to me things that I already know better than you.




Let me try again.




The first place you are going wrong is that you don't understand how a Victorian medico tested for warmth. I've already given you a source that they used the back of their hand to feel either warmth or cold on the skin. That is it. There was no pinching involved if that's what you are saying. If you think a Victorian medico tested for warmth in any other way than touching the surface of the body (i.e. the skin) you need to provide a source like I keep asking you. But I can tell you now that you are totally wrong.


That being said, it should be clear to you that we ARE talking about the skin temperature. Without a thermometer that is ALL that Dr Phillips could have considered. The temperature of the skin.


Now that we have established that, the science of the situation is that the skin becomes cold very rapidly after death. At the same time, there is, as you have said, in some but not all cases, a period where the core temperature (i.e. the temperature in the rectum) does not fall immediately after death. This period of a sort of constant (or slow decay) internal body temperature lasts on average 45 minutes. You can call this the postmortem temperature plateau if you like. This is from 2011 paper entitled "A Post mortem temperature plateau and its role in the estimation of time of death. A review" by Jimmy L. Smart and Michal Kaliszan.


"Upon death, as a body begins to cool, and heat flows from the body to the surrounding environment, rectal temperatures do not drop immediately. A short period of time elapses as steady state temperature gradients become established. This is normal temperature decay phenomenon and has been described by many investigators, including demonstration within inanimate geometries. Some would call this normal temperature decay phenomenon a temperature plateau. Other investigators have declared that there is no temperature plateau in the human body, but only normal slowed temperature loss in the very early post mortem period. "



After the plateau, rectal cooling starts to set in. I need to stress that, it is RECTAL COOLING. The surface of the body by this stage is quite possibly already cold (depending on the many factors such as air temperature, weather, clothing, positioning of body, surface mass and area, emaciation, temperature at time of death etc. Here is a quote regarding the plateau effect and rectal cooling from "Post-Mortem Temperature and the Time of Death" (1956) by G.S.W. De Saram, G. Webster and N. Kathirgamatamby

'..we are satisfied that, in general, the loss of temperature during the first 45 minutes after death is hardly significant and that the time lag we have noticed, before rectal cooling definitely sets in, may be fixed at 45 minutes".


But, the authors state:


"it is necessary for the body surface to first drop in temperature and establish a temperature gradient before cooling can affect the internal body temperature ".


So the reason for the delay in the cooling of the core is that the body is "waiting" for the skin to get cold. Once that happens, then by a process of conduction the heat will flow to the skin and then by convection into the atmosphere.


That is why the SKIN will start to cool immediately after death but the rectal temperature does not change. In fact the rectal temperature can increase.


There was no way that a Victorian medico could assess the temperature of the rectum without a thermometer. But Victorian medicos didn't use them at crime scenes. They just used their hands, specifically the back of their hands.


The fact of metabolism generating body heat is a different phenomenon to the postmortem temperature plateau, incidentally.


So really that's it. Game over. You have accepted that the skin gets cold quickly after death. Whatever magical skills you think he possessed, Dr Phillips could only gauge the temperature of the skin. I'm pleased to see that you accept that the skin is insulated from the heat remaining in the body and that "the skin itself will cool off very quickly after death, in a matter of ten to twenty minutes it will have turned cold."


For that reason, if you don't have plenty of heat coming to the surface from the core, the body will feel cold very quickly. And that's what I am saying happened in the case of Chapman. Because the point is that there are so many variables which will affect how quickly the heat flows out of the body from the core which could easily happen within the hour. There is not always a temperature plateau effect. In a study of 117 cases, only 26.7% displayed a temperature plateau and "Sometimes the TPE (Temperature Plateau Effect) is short, sometimes long, sometimes non-existent' (Smart and Kaliszan). In some cases, heat is coming out of the body through decomposition lasting for hours. So the body continues to feel warm. In others, this doesn't happen. Especially in the case of an emaciated and sick person with lack of muscle bulk. This is recognised by pathologists including Payne James In Simpson's Forensic Medicine. Here is a quote from Payne James because I know you will believe him:


"Newton's Law of Cooling states that the heat will pass from the warmer body to the cooler environment and the temperature of the body will fall. However, a body is not a uniform structure: its temperature will not fall evenly and, because each body will lie in its own unique environment, each body will cool at a different speed, depending on the many factors surrounding it.". He also says, "Many other variables and factors also affect the rate of cooling of a body and together show why the sensible forensic pathologist will be reluctant to make any pronouncement on the time of death based on body temperature alone."



Finally, Fisherman it doesn't matter what size font you type it in or what internet website you take it from, the supposed rate of cooling is 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit per hour NOT Celsius so you have completely ballsed that up.


Youre only making it worse for yourself Fish.

It was given as degrees Celsius in the paper I quoted and John G has found the same information apparently, but let´s say it WAS fahrenheit. Would it not mean that the body cooled off even slower? Excuse me for not being fully familar with the two scales and their differences. Anyway, if that is the case, I would be ecstatic to stand corrected.

It is comical how you claim that Phillips could only have gauged the temperature of the skin. You seem unable to explain how it is that medicos say that bodies will feel warm to the touch the first three hours. I will try again, and we shall see what happens:

The skin conducts the underlying warmth in the body up to its surface when you press your fingers against it.

See? THIS is how medicos will be able to feel the underlying warmth. Yes, they do so by touching the skin, but no, it is not the warmth of the skin they feel - it is the underlying core warmth, CONDUCTED by the skin to it´s surface.

I know that you would soooo very much like Seddon-Smith´s information to tell us that people can grow cold to the touch in twenty minutes or less, but you see, you cannot have that pacifier to suck on. It conveys something else than warmth, that is to say a false picture.

Then again conveying false pictures and hoping that people will think we have equally good arguments is your whole game plan, is it not?

I stand by what I have said: You are the worst example of ignorance and/or deception I have come across out here over the years.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here is a very interesting page: https://www.swisswuff.ch/calculators/todeszeit.php

It demonstrates the Henssge method of establishing time of death, and allows crude calculations of the TOD. A number of factors are filled in, and then it calculates the LIKELY time of death.

I added the approximate factors adhering to the Chapman case, such as the temperature of nine degrees zero (well established) and I used the body temperature 32 degrees (because that is the approximate temperature that will be reached from the given 37,2 degrees temperature used as a starting point for the procedure if we allow for four hours of cooling - which is the minimum time period resulting in the body feeling cold to the touch). Finally, I made the guess that Chapman can have weighed around 45 kilograms when she died.

A number of factors are uncertain, but what is not uncertain is that these parameters gave the result of 4,0 hours having passed since death!

I then reasoned that it could have perhaps been only two hours, and I therefore tried that timing instead, reasoning that the temperature had only sunk 2 x 1,5 degrees = 3 degrees, giving us 34.2 degrees, and I cut Chapmans weigh down to a skeletal 30 kilograms, all to make Herlock happy. That resulted in a two hour time.

I then reasoned that Phillips may have had numb fingers, and gave the temperature 35 degrees, plus I cut Chapman down to twenty kilograms and lowered the ambient temperature to 5 degrees zero. TOD? Heureka, Herlock. THAT is how we reach exactly one hour!!

A little fiddling is thus all that is needed, and Herlock can have his dream!

A complete waste of time. The supposed rate of cooling is NOT 1.5 degrees Celsius an hour, on which you have based your calculations, it is about 0.8 degrees Celsius an hour, or 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit an hour. I've already cited Professor Knight saying this in #642. If you don't read what I am posting, you will learn nothing.

[John G]

Seen that paper, John! But I think you need to look at the Henssge method I describe in my last post. It allows for crude calculations that are nevertheless very telling in our case, because it shows how we must be extremely drastic to get even close to a TOD a mere hour away.

Finding extreme examples will not get us anywhere - they will always be there, but their applicability is beyond limited.

Thanks Christer, I'll certainly ook at the method you refer to when I have more time. Meanwhile, I've just noticed a small error in my earlier post! Of course, a 1.8 degree difference in initial body temperature 1.8 degrees below average)would require an adjustment of around 1 hour and 12 minutes, not two hours, based upon the starting point assumption of heat loss of 1.5 degrees per hour.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I stand by what I have said: You are the worst example of ignorance and/or deception I have come across out here over the years.

You have altered words to deceive everyone into believing what you post.

You have added words/changed words in my posts to deceive everyone into believing what you post.

You have cynically and quite deliberately edited out crucial parts of a post (remember the cut throat) to deceive everyone into believing what you post.

You have made a childish errors (like the examination) and had to have an admission of this dragged out of you.

You have deliberately misinterpreted quotes to suit and have been exposed.

You have seen sourced quote after sourced quote from acknowledged expert after acknowledged expert after acknowledged expert that all back up my points without fail and yet you still persist purely out of a desperate attempt to bolster Phillips to prop up Lechmere as a candidate.

You are like one of those drunks that keeps getting knocked down yet you keep coming back for more.

You are flat flat out wrong on this issue and the worst part of it is that I’m utterly convinced that you know this too!

[Sam Flynn]

Here is a quote from Payne James because I know you will believe him:

"Newton's Law of Cooling states that the heat will pass from the warmer body to the cooler environment..."

Not that it affects the matter in hand, nor in any way negates Payne James' point, I'd point out that, whilst Newton's Law acknowledges that the rate of cooling depends on the difference in temperature between an object and its surroundings, I don't think it explicitly states that heat flows from a warmer body to a cooler one. That specific point was, however, made explicit in the 19th Century, in connection with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It was given as degrees Celsius in the paper I quoted and John G has found the same information apparently, but let´s say it WAS fahrenheit. Would it not mean that the body cooled off even slower? Excuse me for not being fully familar with the two scales and their differences. Anyway, if that is the case, I would be ecstatic to stand corrected.

It is comical how you claim that Phillips could only have gauged the temperature of the skin. You seem unable to explain how it is that medicos say that bodies will feel warm to the touch the first three hours. I will try again, and we shall see what happens:

The skin conducts the underlying warmth in the body up to its surface when you press your fingers against it.

See? THIS is how medicos will be able to feel the underlying warmth. Yes, they do so by touching the skin, but no, it is not the warmth of the skin they feel - it is the underlying core warmth, CONDUCTED by the skin to it´s surface.

I know that you would soooo very much like Seddon-Smith´s information to tell us that people can grow cold to the touch in twenty minutes or less, but you see, you cannot have that pacifier to suck on. It conveys something else than warmth, that is to say a false picture.

Then again conveying false pictures and hoping that people will think we have equally good arguments is your whole game plan, is it not?

I stand by what I have said: You are the worst example of ignorance and/or deception I have come across out here over the years.

You keep walking into them Fish



No, John G's article was in Fahrenheit, e.g.

"The corpse inside would lose heat at about 1.5 degrees per hour, so that if the medical examiner had evidence that the death had occurred four hours earlier, he would expect to find a core body temperature of approximately 92 to 93 degrees."

AND

"Hours since death = 98.6 – corpse core temperature / 1.5"

AND

1.5 degrees / hour x 4 hours = 6 degrees
98.6 – 6 = 92.6

That's all Fahrenheit. How's your basic comprehension Fisherman?

[Fisherman]

A complete waste of time. The supposed rate of cooling is NOT 1.5 degrees Celsius an hour, on which you have based your calculations, it is about 0.8 degrees Celsius an hour, or 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit an hour. I've already cited Professor Knight saying this in #642. If you don't read what I am posting, you will learn nothing.

Many works, standard ones (like for example "Forensic Science: An Introduction to Scientific and Investigative Techniques" (Stuart H. James, Jon J. Nordby Ph.D., Suzanne Bell, Lana J Williams - the fourth edition of this book, called a landmark, can be bought today), give the figure as 1,5 degrees Celsius, and I am afraid that I would never take your word as gospel on anything. But if I DID, all I would need to do would be to substitute the 1,5 value for 0,8, and I would end up with 34.0 after the four hours that is a minimum before a body starts to feel cold to the touch.

Then we add the rest again 9 degrees ambient temperature, 45 kilos on Chapman and we get 3,0 hours.

Yes, I can see why you think the worlds most most renowned method for establishing TOD via algor mortis is a waste of time. It will not produce the wanted result by a country mile.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it. I can tell you the flavor: defeat. Long, bitter, excruciating defeat. And well deserved to!

All things settled, I am taking a much needed break now. Celsius, Herlock. Anders Celsius. He was also a Swede, you know. Clever people, mind you.

Oh, and DO keep trying. It´s amusing when you trip yourself up like this. Three hours. Three long hours. Puts the murder at, let´s see ... hmmm... 3.30!

I wonder who was walking down Hanbury Street at that ungodly time of the morning?

[etenguy]

I fear that the argument about estimating the time of death through body cooling in relation to Chapman's corpse is becoming ever more heated (forgive the pun). I decided the best way for me to satisfy myself on how much credence to give Phillip's estimate was to consult a forensic pathologist. I don't have access to one so did the next best thing and consulted the guidance to forensic pathologists provided by the Royal College of Pathologists. It can be found at this link if anyone else wishes to read it.

https://www.rcpath.org/search-results.html?q=The%20use%20of%20time%20of%20death% 20estimates%20based%20on%20heat%20loss%20from%20th e%20body

My reading of the guidance is that whichever model of temperature based estimation of time of death is used, the estimation cannot be relied upon. The guidance explains why and importantly states that a pathologist should:

c. Advise that the estimate should not be used to:
i. Define the period in which death occurred;
ii. Assign probabilities to likely periods of death;
or iii. Include or exclude a suspect from the investigation.

As a result of reading the document, I have to agree with Herlock's assertion that Phillips' estimate is of no value, not because Phillips was in any way incompetent, but because we have better understanding now than then.

[John G]

Just found this extremely detailed article on individual differences in body temperature: https://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j5468 Only had chance to skim through it, however, the range was between 35.3 and 37.7 degrees centigrade (95.4 to 99.86 degrees Fahrenheit.) Mean average was 36.6 degrees centigrade ( 97.88 Fahrenheit) This means a difference of 2.48 degrees Fahrenheit between the lowest and average temperatures, equating to an adjustment of over 1.5 hours in a time of death estimate (assuming a 1.5 degree per hour drop in body temperature, which can be influenced, up or downwards, by many factors: see my earlier posts.

I would note that an individual's body temperature is not constant throughout the day. Thus, a "normal" body temperature of 98.6 degrees, may be as low as 97 degrees early in the morning, or a high of 99 degrees in the evening. See: http://www.medguidance.com/thread/No...mperature.html

I believe around 4:00am is when body temperature is at its lowest, so if 97 degrees at that time, this is 1.6 degrees below average, the equivalent of one hour in our post mortem time adjustment (assuming a 1.5 degree drop per hour, variable depending on numerous factors.)

[The Baron]

Phillips' estimate is of no value

Great conclusion etenguy!

Let's depend on 'He must have seen her' instead!

because we have better understanding now than then.

I believe they had better understanding back then than some of 'us' today.



The Baron

[etenguy]

Great conclusion etenguy!

Let's depend on 'He must have seen her' instead!

Or let us find and use reliable information rather than snipe.

I believe they had better understanding back then than some of 'us' today.

The Baron

Then you would be wrong. Like most science understanding grows over time.