Was John Richardson A Reliable Witness?

[drstrange169]

Reasons for early onset of Rigor Mortis:

Emaciation - tick
Chronic illness - tick
Medication - possible tick
Violent struggle just prior to death - possible tick

[Herlock Sholmes]

These charts are not to be relied upon as being correct. No two bodies will ever be the same, because there are so may variations with how the body was left, the air temperature the extent of the exposure, the body mass etc.

Chapman was not left totally naked, her body was clothed from the waist up, thus retaining some body heat, and slowing down rigor

If she had been killed at 5.20am where had she been until then? she had no money for lodgings, walking around in the cold night air?

Her body was found in a sheltered part of the yard protected from the elements and if she was killed at 5.20am. I doubt that there would be any signs of rigor that early

Finally with regards to the witness testimony and how unsafe it is, in another post I showed how unsafe it is but that seems to have been ignored, I wonder why. So I will set it out again. Cadosh stated he heard the noises before 5.30am. Mr Long says she saw Chapman after 5.30am which of them is wrong, or are they both wrong?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Is anything on this planet reliable except your opinion Trevor?

You have not shown how unsafe Cadosch’s statement was because it wasn’t unsafe. Yes Long could have been mistaken but that doesn’t impact on Cadosch. Could Long simply have been out with her timing...yes she could. Could both Long and Cadosch have both been slightly out with there timing.....yes they could.

What we have shown, and we’ve shown it time and time and time again with numerous expert testimony is that Phillips was using unsafe methods. So, what you should be saying is that Phillips TOD is unsafe. We have no way of checking it or evaluating it so we are forced to disregard it it. So why do you favour Phillips? It’s a position that’s completely devoid of logic and reason. It’s like backing a coin toss over an experiment. The witnesses however can be evaluated. Questioned arise of course but they cannot be dismissed as unsafe simply because they aren’t perfect. So yet again....all that we have to go on is the witnesses. And they point to a likelihood that Chapman being murdered around 5.30. It’s simple really.

[Trevor Marriott]

I've grabbed the data from the article to plot it to show just how widely distributed, meaning how inaccurate they are when trying to estimate the ToD for a single case. Also, do not forget, these data were collected under ideal conditions, and necessary values (like the external air temperature) were recorded, and so forth. All measurements were readings from a thermometer, removing any subjective aspect to the assessment of "warm/cold" (remember, for all we know, had a different doctor examined Annie Chapman, they may have described her as being "slightly warm" rather than "cold", but presumably any doctor can read a thermometer and get the same value).

What I've done is start at 5:45 am, and then set cut offs every 30 minutes (so, 5:45-6:15; 6:15-6:45, etc), and I just count how many of the 32 cases are in each of those 30 minute time windows. (Time is shown as "minutes after midnight", so 300 would be 5:00 am). The actual ToD is 8:15, and as we can see, the estimated values show a wide range, indicating that even under optimal circumstances, body temperature does not provide anything other than a wide window of estimates. The filled circles are the actual data, the solid line is a normal distribution based upon the mean and standard deviation of the sample (and basically, it looks like estimated ToD is normally distributed). The black series is for the readings taken at 2pm and the blue for the series taken at 4pm.

This isn't my opinion. These are facts, actual measurements of what we're talking about (the accuracy of estimating ToD based upon body temperature). Now, add to the situation that Annie Chapman's case is anything but optimal conditions, and the fact that necessary values (like the actual air temperature) were not recorded, and the fact that body temperature was based upon touching the surface of the body (which was exposed to the cold morning air), and it should be manifestly obvious that Dr. Phillips estimate for the ToD cannot be viewed as ruling out the time indicated by the rest of the evidence we have, namely the witnesses. In other words, the medical evidence does not refute the witnesses and to say it does is incorrect.




- Jeff

These charts are not to be relied upon as being correct. No two bodies will ever be the same, because there are so may variations with how the body was left, the air temperature the extent of the exposure, the body mass etc.

Chapman was not left totally naked, her body was clothed from the waist up, thus retaining some body heat, and slowing down rigor

If she had been killed at 5.20am where had she been until then? she had no money for lodgings, walking around in the cold night air?

Her body was found in a sheltered part of the yard protected from the elements and if she was killed at 5.20am. I doubt that there would be any signs of rigor that early

Finally with regards to the witness testimony and how unsafe it is, in another post I showed how unsafe it is but that seems to have been ignored, I wonder why. So I will set it out again. Cadosh stated he heard the noises before 5.30am. Mr Long says she saw Chapman after 5.30am which of them is wrong, or are they both wrong?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Oops, sorry about that. I had meant to remove the image with just the 2pm data. Also, I just noticed the 4pm normal curve still has markers on it, which makes it look like there's 2 data points per time bin. The ones right on the line can be ignored. Here's the figure sorted out a bit better.



Also, the way estimates like this are used properly, is to indicate a time window, which is called the 95% Confidence Interval. For normally distributed measures, like these estimates are, it's basically +- 1.96 times the standard deviation (if you're not familiar with statistics, you can think of the standard deviation as the average amount by which a given case is different from the overall group mean - it basically represents how spread out the values are).

Below I've centred the two normal curves (without the data points, in order to reduce clutter) on 0, which you can use as the estimated ToD derived from your test (i.e. Dr. Phillips estimated ToD is 4:30ish, so 4:30 would be at 0 - zero minutes from our estimated time). Given the variablity (and remember, this variability comes from far more reliable and objective measures of temperature, and based upon having a lot more information that would be important to know, like air temperature, etc), we can see that the witness based ToD (5:20-5:25; or about 50 to 55 minutes later, falls well inside the 95% CI (the vertical dashed lines).



In other words, given the variability of ToD estimates based upon body temperature, and Dr. Phillips estimate of a ToD of 4:30, that means, based upon medical information, that should be reported as Dr. Phillips places the ToD between 2:53 and 6:06 am, or 2:28 and 6:31 am, pending on which series you want to use. In either case, though, the 95% Confidence Interval spans the times indicated by the witnesses.

Therefore, the arguement that Dr. Phillips estimated ToD is contradicts the witness statements is false. His estimated ToD, once properly reported (and I'm being generous, as I'm using the far smaller variability of estimates based upon reliable thermometer readings and when other critically important information is known and recorded), includes the time we get from the witnesses.

So, even though I still maintain that Dr. Phillips is using a method that is nothing more than guess work, if we give him the reliability of a more accurate estimation procedure his Estimated ToD does not actually conflict with the witness statements.

That's not an opinion. Those are the numbers.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

I've grabbed the data from the article to plot it to show just how widely distributed, meaning how inaccurate they are when trying to estimate the ToD for a single case. Also, do not forget, these data were collected under ideal conditions, and necessary values (like the external air temperature) were recorded, and so forth. All measurements were readings from a thermometer, removing any subjective aspect to the assessment of "warm/cold" (remember, for all we know, had a different doctor examined Annie Chapman, they may have described her as being "slightly warm" rather than "cold", but presumably any doctor can read a thermometer and get the same value).

What I've done is start at 5:45 am, and then set cut offs every 30 minutes (so, 5:45-6:15; 6:15-6:45, etc), and I just count how many of the 32 cases are in each of those 30 minute time windows. (Time is shown as "minutes after midnight", so 300 would be 5:00 am). The actual ToD is 8:15, and as we can see, the estimated values show a wide range, indicating that even under optimal circumstances, body temperature does not provide anything other than a wide window of estimates. The filled circles are the actual data, the solid line is a normal distribution based upon the mean and standard deviation of the sample (and basically, it looks like estimated ToD is normally distributed). The black series is for the readings taken at 2pm and the blue for the series taken at 4pm.

This isn't my opinion. These are facts, actual measurements of what we're talking about (the accuracy of estimating ToD based upon body temperature). Now, add to the situation that Annie Chapman's case is anything but optimal conditions, and the fact that necessary values (like the actual air temperature) were not recorded, and the fact that body temperature was based upon touching the surface of the body (which was exposed to the cold morning air), and it should be manifestly obvious that Dr. Phillips estimate for the ToD cannot be viewed as ruling out the time indicated by the rest of the evidence we have, namely the witnesses. In other words, the medical evidence does not refute the witnesses and to say it does is incorrect.




- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

I had my suspicions.

- Jeff

Yup. Al gave me a pm a couple of days ago suggesting it was Fishy. The more I read the more I agreed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"Can you leave my office please?"

[JeffHamm]

Nope. The one impaired in his understanding is not me, I´m afraid. Measures can vary very much, and they certainly DO at times - but they do not vary THAT much. You are trying to use a generalistic statement as if it entailed ALL variations, and it does not work that way.

Fisherman, it's not my opinion that ToD estimates vary that much, it's demonstrated in the actual measurements (and those are based upon using a thermometer, and also knowing important values like the air temperature, and so forth). Even with all of that additional, and necessary, information, the estimated ToD has a standard deviation of close to an hour. It can only get more variable when we use even less reliable measurements, which touch is. But even if, for the sake of argument, we go with the variability of the more reliable measurement that alone is enough to make Dr. Phillips estimate sufficiently unreliable that it does not contradict the witnesses; in fact, given the variability, his estimate would be considered consistent with them.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Fishy1118. Try again.

JM

I had my suspicions.

- Jeff

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi Fishy1118. Try again.

JM

You too then?

[jmenges]

i think ill ask my local g.p the same question , i bet i know what the answer will be.

Hi Fishy1118. Try again.

JM

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

i think ill ask my local g.p the same question , i bet i know what the answer will be.

"Can you leave my office please?"

[Herlock Sholmes]

thanks jeff but seriously i think you know the real answer





Because anyone who thinks that the above couldn't have be determined by brown and sequeria should probably be avoided when it comes to the chapman t.o.d subject.

i think ill ask my local g.p the same question , i bet i know what the answer will be.

Ask your GP about the mountain of unarguable medical expertise that tells us without a single, solitary smidgeon of a shadow a doubt that TOD estimation in 1888 was little more than guesswork.

If you want to go with guesswork to pursue an agenda then that’s up to you. Jeff and I will stick to facts, reason, logic and likelihood.

[Herlock Sholmes]

My feeling is that any further debate is useless.

Your probably right. Witnesses over the Doctor. It should be obvious to all.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The medical testimony, once viewed objectively, tells us why the police favoured Phillips. because his evidence tells us that the witnesses must have been wrong.

But in 2019 we know that the Doctor was more likely to have been wrong.