Tweet
Originally posted by John G
View Post
Wolf Vanderlinden has been referred to on more than one occasion, so I thought it would be useful to evaluate his conclusions.
Unfortunately, he seems to rely somewhat on Dr Phillips' conclusions. As discussed previously, Dr Phillips was not a forensic expert and he didn't have the advantage of modern research. To underline his lack of knowledge in this area, he relied on touch alone to assess the temperature of the victim, even though it had been known since at least the 1860s that this is a completely inadequate if you're striving for any degree of accuracy, and therefore a rectal body temperature should have been taken.
So why do you think the doctors relied on touch, if they all knew that rectal body temperatures by way of thermometer was so verty much more reliable? Any thoughts on that one? Were they obstructing the course of justice, all of them? Twenty yers had passed, and that is an eternity in medical sciences that wee under swift development. And why is it, do you think, that even today medicos use hand palpation for warmth and rely on what they feel? It´s 150 years down the line now. Shouldn´t they know better?
To put things into perspective, imagine you're a modern forensic expert being grilled by the defence barrister on a trial. You're being questioned on your time of death estimate, which relied largely on body temperature, and the barrister says, "Of course you took a rectal temperature." You reply, "Oh no, I couldn't be bothered with that faff. I just touched the body and then made a guess." Your response wouldn't go down too well, would it?
Then again, no forensic expert who used hand palpation would say that he "took a guess", would he? And any thermometer-lacking personel first on site in a murder case WILL feel the body for warmth; it is common procedure, for the simple reason that there is a wish for important information not to go lost while waiting for a medico. many cases will be settled even today by way of acknowledging the value of hand palpation - if somebody has been killed and found by a policeman who says that the body was quite warm, the jury and judge will accept that death had not occurred many hours before the palpation was carried out. But this is what we are expected to believe in Phillips´ case: that he may have misjudged the time catastophically and mistaken a warm body for a cold one.
Now, it's been suggested on a number of occasions that Dr Phillips, by touch alone, could have been accurate and within a "degree or two."
No, it has been proven that in 75 per cent plus of the cases, hand palpation can tell temperatures of one or two degrees apart even if it is carried out by laymen. If we are to extrapolate this knowledge to Phillips, we may see that he is not likely to have mistaken warm for cold, quite simply. And we know that Eddowes was described as "quite warm, some 445 minutes after death, just as we know that there was still fluid blood on the site whereas Chapmans blood was desfribed by Phillips as "well clotted". We aLso know that there were no signs whatsoever of rigor in Eddowes´ case, wheras there was in Chapmans. All of this points unanimously towards a TOD numerous hours away, unless we are dealing with a victim who never read the manuals.
This may not seem a lot but, as I've pointed out before, I'm afraid it makes a great deal of difference: just 0.87 degrees C is equivalent to around one hour in respect of cooling rates post mortem, so being a "degree or two" out would equate to the TOD estimate being wrong by over an hour as a minimum, and over two hours as a maximum.
And - again - after around one hour there will not have been any significant loss of temperature at all, as clearly shown in the Eddowes case. Stride and Nichols were also "quite warm", in spite of how doctors cited by Herlock claim that the skin goes cold in 10-20 minutes. So either it did NOT do so in these three cases - or medicos pick up on the underlying core temperature while palpating.
Dr Phillips also failed to take into consideration Chapman's severely undernourished state when making his estimate: he's not really culpable here as he didn't have the advantage of modern research: Happily, that's not the position today.
No, he did not. He very clearly stated that she had been badly fed. And he would be very aware that fat people retain heat in a more efficient way than meagre ones. Insulation is not a modern idea.
Thus, whilst the average rectal body temperature of a healthy adult female is 37 degrees C, that's not the case for someone who is several undernourished: In the Biosphere 2 study, which I've referred to before, individuals who were subject to severe calorie restrictions started off in the normal range, 37 C, but following the calorie restriction their body temperature was often in the 35.5 to 36 range, and sometimes below 35.5. (walford et al. 1999).
But we don´t know that Chapman suffered calory restrictions on the night she died. And fuel is fuel. Once again, we are seemingy trying to make Chapman a very odd figure, with a body temperature bordering on hypothermia - who nevertheless was able to develop an extremly quick rigor! There are factors that speak IN BOTH DIRECTIONS, John, let´s be fair now!
To put that into perspective,can severely undernourished Chapman, with a body temperature of, say, 36 degrees, would have the same initial temperature, I.e. whilst alive, as a person of "normal" body temperature more than one hour after death.
Yes, she could have. There is - as I have said a zillion times - an initial plateau during half an hour to an hour, during which the temperature does not fall within the body core! It is a chemically induced matter and there are actually those who get a RAISED temperature in this phase. And if Chapman was 36 degrees (although we should work from 37,2 degrees, since that is the normal temperature), she would still be warm to the touch. It is not until 4-6 hours have elapsed that medicos say that the body has become cold to the touch, and at that stage, some 5 degrees will have gone lost, making the body arounbd 32 degrees. And THAT - or lower - is the kind of temperature Phillips will have recognized in Chapmans body. She was LONG DEAD, John, and Long and Cadosch should never have been allowed to pollute the inquest.
Of course, there are also environmental factors, such as the victim being partially clothed,and the surface the victim was lying on, that could impact on body temperature, none of which Dr Phillips analysed in any sort of detail.
And this yoou know, since...? Why would Phillips NOT know that clothing insulates, for example? WOuld he not be aware that his own clothes kept HIM warm? Really, John!
Based upon the above analysis I would conclude that Dr Phillips' assessment must be regarded as unreliable and cannot stand.
Based on my analysis of your analysis, I´d say that your take on things is irrational. Sorry, but there you are.
As an aside, Wolf also refers to the rigor mortis issue. Unfortunately, this is a very unreliable way of estimating time of death, due to the many variables. For instance, as discussed previously, both cut-throat and wasting diseases, like tuberculosis, both of which applied to Chapman, rigor will have an early onset: Kori, 2018. I would therefore further conclude that the rigor mortis issue is of little value to the present case.
Unfortunately, he seems to rely somewhat on Dr Phillips' conclusions. As discussed previously, Dr Phillips was not a forensic expert and he didn't have the advantage of modern research. To underline his lack of knowledge in this area, he relied on touch alone to assess the temperature of the victim, even though it had been known since at least the 1860s that this is a completely inadequate if you're striving for any degree of accuracy, and therefore a rectal body temperature should have been taken.
So why do you think the doctors relied on touch, if they all knew that rectal body temperatures by way of thermometer was so verty much more reliable? Any thoughts on that one? Were they obstructing the course of justice, all of them? Twenty yers had passed, and that is an eternity in medical sciences that wee under swift development. And why is it, do you think, that even today medicos use hand palpation for warmth and rely on what they feel? It´s 150 years down the line now. Shouldn´t they know better?
To put things into perspective, imagine you're a modern forensic expert being grilled by the defence barrister on a trial. You're being questioned on your time of death estimate, which relied largely on body temperature, and the barrister says, "Of course you took a rectal temperature." You reply, "Oh no, I couldn't be bothered with that faff. I just touched the body and then made a guess." Your response wouldn't go down too well, would it?
Then again, no forensic expert who used hand palpation would say that he "took a guess", would he? And any thermometer-lacking personel first on site in a murder case WILL feel the body for warmth; it is common procedure, for the simple reason that there is a wish for important information not to go lost while waiting for a medico. many cases will be settled even today by way of acknowledging the value of hand palpation - if somebody has been killed and found by a policeman who says that the body was quite warm, the jury and judge will accept that death had not occurred many hours before the palpation was carried out. But this is what we are expected to believe in Phillips´ case: that he may have misjudged the time catastophically and mistaken a warm body for a cold one.
Now, it's been suggested on a number of occasions that Dr Phillips, by touch alone, could have been accurate and within a "degree or two."
No, it has been proven that in 75 per cent plus of the cases, hand palpation can tell temperatures of one or two degrees apart even if it is carried out by laymen. If we are to extrapolate this knowledge to Phillips, we may see that he is not likely to have mistaken warm for cold, quite simply. And we know that Eddowes was described as "quite warm, some 445 minutes after death, just as we know that there was still fluid blood on the site whereas Chapmans blood was desfribed by Phillips as "well clotted". We aLso know that there were no signs whatsoever of rigor in Eddowes´ case, wheras there was in Chapmans. All of this points unanimously towards a TOD numerous hours away, unless we are dealing with a victim who never read the manuals.
This may not seem a lot but, as I've pointed out before, I'm afraid it makes a great deal of difference: just 0.87 degrees C is equivalent to around one hour in respect of cooling rates post mortem, so being a "degree or two" out would equate to the TOD estimate being wrong by over an hour as a minimum, and over two hours as a maximum.
And - again - after around one hour there will not have been any significant loss of temperature at all, as clearly shown in the Eddowes case. Stride and Nichols were also "quite warm", in spite of how doctors cited by Herlock claim that the skin goes cold in 10-20 minutes. So either it did NOT do so in these three cases - or medicos pick up on the underlying core temperature while palpating.
Dr Phillips also failed to take into consideration Chapman's severely undernourished state when making his estimate: he's not really culpable here as he didn't have the advantage of modern research: Happily, that's not the position today.
No, he did not. He very clearly stated that she had been badly fed. And he would be very aware that fat people retain heat in a more efficient way than meagre ones. Insulation is not a modern idea.
Thus, whilst the average rectal body temperature of a healthy adult female is 37 degrees C, that's not the case for someone who is several undernourished: In the Biosphere 2 study, which I've referred to before, individuals who were subject to severe calorie restrictions started off in the normal range, 37 C, but following the calorie restriction their body temperature was often in the 35.5 to 36 range, and sometimes below 35.5. (walford et al. 1999).
But we don´t know that Chapman suffered calory restrictions on the night she died. And fuel is fuel. Once again, we are seemingy trying to make Chapman a very odd figure, with a body temperature bordering on hypothermia - who nevertheless was able to develop an extremly quick rigor! There are factors that speak IN BOTH DIRECTIONS, John, let´s be fair now!
To put that into perspective,can severely undernourished Chapman, with a body temperature of, say, 36 degrees, would have the same initial temperature, I.e. whilst alive, as a person of "normal" body temperature more than one hour after death.
Yes, she could have. There is - as I have said a zillion times - an initial plateau during half an hour to an hour, during which the temperature does not fall within the body core! It is a chemically induced matter and there are actually those who get a RAISED temperature in this phase. And if Chapman was 36 degrees (although we should work from 37,2 degrees, since that is the normal temperature), she would still be warm to the touch. It is not until 4-6 hours have elapsed that medicos say that the body has become cold to the touch, and at that stage, some 5 degrees will have gone lost, making the body arounbd 32 degrees. And THAT - or lower - is the kind of temperature Phillips will have recognized in Chapmans body. She was LONG DEAD, John, and Long and Cadosch should never have been allowed to pollute the inquest.
Of course, there are also environmental factors, such as the victim being partially clothed,and the surface the victim was lying on, that could impact on body temperature, none of which Dr Phillips analysed in any sort of detail.
And this yoou know, since...? Why would Phillips NOT know that clothing insulates, for example? WOuld he not be aware that his own clothes kept HIM warm? Really, John!
Based upon the above analysis I would conclude that Dr Phillips' assessment must be regarded as unreliable and cannot stand.
Based on my analysis of your analysis, I´d say that your take on things is irrational. Sorry, but there you are.
As an aside, Wolf also refers to the rigor mortis issue. Unfortunately, this is a very unreliable way of estimating time of death, due to the many variables. For instance, as discussed previously, both cut-throat and wasting diseases, like tuberculosis, both of which applied to Chapman, rigor will have an early onset: Kori, 2018. I would therefore further conclude that the rigor mortis issue is of little value to the present case.
it is time to wake up now!
Is it because it sits well with your convictions? Because it is not in any way likely.
Comment