Was John Richardson A Reliable Witness?

[Trevor Marriott]

Then in your conclusion that Chapman was murdered prior to Richardson's arrival, where have you included the information from the witness statements? You don't, you ignore them, which is to say, you've dismissed them. If you were to argue she could have been murdered at any time between 1:45 and when she was found, then that would be different, but you're not, your pushing for a "pre-Richardson's arrival", which can only be argued for if you dismiss the witness statements.

- Jeff

You are being pedantic now if she was killed between 1.45am and 5.45am then is that not pre Richardsons arrival ?

Open the box look at the bigger picture, carefully scrutinize the witness statements, look at what questions could and should have been asked of them which were not asked and may well have tested their accuracy.

We dont have the original inquest testimony reports so all there is to rely on are the newspaper reports, and as has been seen when comparing the Eddowes original inquest testimony reports with newspaper reports, there are significant discrepancies. So how can it be said in this case they are safe to totally rely on?

Its not rocket science, if you or anyone else wants to believe a specific time of death, then that is you prerogative and nothing anyone will say is going to change that, equally the same applies to those who think differently are never going to change its all a matter of opinion, and my opinion is that based on the MO of the killer in relation to other murders she was not killed as late as 5.30am.

Have a nice day

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

And who - to a degree - contradict each other, plus the medical evidence AND the circumstancial evidence relating to the other cases is - ALL of it - against the idea. If there had been some little indicator that the witnesses were right, it would have been another matter for me, but:

Phillips says the body is cold, and tells us that two hours is the LEAST amount of time

Phillips points out that rigor has set in

The murder deviates from the others by being committed in daylight

Weīve been over it before. It hasnīt changed. I simply do not think it is "very possible" that Phillips was wrong. I think it is QUITE possible that he was a ittle wrong, but nigh on impossible that he was as wrong as you need him to be.

Let me ask you two questions:

How late a time would you be ready to accept? Would Baxters idea that Phillips allowed for a later time invole any suggestion? Davies had tea at a quarter to six, before going into the yard. Would you accept that Chapman had died then, if Long and Cadosh had spoken about 5.40-ish? I mean, Baxter did n ot say how much he thought Phillips was willing to deduct from the two hours, the coroner gave himself carte blanche on that score...?

Once again - why do you think Cadosh says that the sound he heard was a "fall"? What pointed to the saound representing a fall?

The only aspect of the witness statements that are in conflict are the times stated by Long and Cadosche. As given, both cannot be correct. Cadosche verified his time passing the clock on his way to work as being 5:32, and the distance from there to his home is about a 2 or 3 minute walk at an average walking pace. That would suggest he left home around 5:30, which is the time Long gives for her sighting, however Cadosche also states he didn't see anyone outside #29 at that time. That could be a misrecollection on his part of course, but it goes towards suggesting Long's time is out. She recollected the time based upon hearing the chimes of the Brewers clock, and if she's the one with the misrecollection, then she may be misremembering the 5:15 chimes as the 5:30 (which would not be atypical of such memories). If that were the case, there's no conflict at all.

Of course, Long may also have seen two people unrelated to the case, but she does identify Annie in the morgue, so resolving that is important. If we suggest she heard the 5:45 chime, that would put the murder too close to the time of discovery, which suggests again she heard the 5:15.

The testimony of Dr. Phillips with regards to the ToD is set aside because his method doesn't work. Of course she was cold, she had been laying, exposed to the elements, with her body cut open, for about an hour. Being cold to the touch is hardly surprising under those circumstances, but it's not a way to estimate ToD with any degree of accuracy. But even if touching a body could do that, given the variability of even more reliable measures, puts the 5:20-5:25 suggested window inside the margin of error, so if you are uncomfortable dismissing his ToD, then you have to at least accept such measurements are highly variable, to the point the time window offered by the witnesses is also considered consistent with his methodology.

Basically, all of the evidence is consistent with 5:20-5:25, and where it conflicts those conflicts are easily accounted for given the nature of human memory and the unreliability of feeling a body to estimate ToD.


- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Has it occurred to you that they are mutually contradicting, Jeff?

If Phillips was right, then Richardson was wrong. If Richardson was right, then Phillips was wrong.

It is not as if you take stock of what Phillips says, is it? In your world, he was wrong, because Richardson was right. In Trevors world, it is the other way around.

Not quite, Phillips' opinion as to ToD is ignored by me because the method by which he based his opinion is not capable of determining ToD with any degree of precision, particularly under the circumstances of Annie Chapman's murder. That's why I think he's wrong. I don't think he's wrong because I think Richardson is right. However, given that a separate evaluation of Richardson's testimony provides to reason to dismiss what he reports, his testimony is consistent with my conclusion that Phillips' ToD should not be viewed as accurate.

Trevor has previously stated that he recognizes that Dr. Phillips' method is guess work, which makes his arguing in favour of his guess difficult to understand.

He relies on the medical testimony, you dismiss it.

You rely on the witness tetimony, he dismisses it.

What else can you do?

Do you want him to say "Unless Phillips was wrong, Richardson was"? If so, is that not what he IS saying?

I have yet to see Trevor make that point, although he does hint at it at times, he has yet to say that he thinks it is possible that Dr. Phillips' could be wrong and that the witnesses could be right. All he ever says are variations on "the witnesses are unsafe" and "Dr. Phillips may have guessed right". So if he is saying what you suggest he is saying, it would be helpful to clearing up what he means if he simply said that he though that too was possible. But I don't think he does think that, though you think he does.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Jeff, I am perfectly aware that the method is inexact. But if I understand you correctly here, what you say is that the temperatures that were suggested after a TOD established at 08.15 were 8.31 at 14.00 and 8.38 at 16.00? And the timings were based on rectal temperature taking?

After that, there is a standard deviation time frame to add, allowing for a broader scope?

And? The initial timings of 8.31 and 8.38 are close enough. The rest is precaution, is it not?

Remember, 8:31 and 8:38 were the average time estimate. There might not have been a single case where the estimated time was 8:31 and/or 8:38. The standard deviation is a measure of how variable the individual case estimates are, and Annie Chapman is an individual case so that variablity is critical to understanding how reliable the estimate is. And even under extremely controlled, and simlilar, conditions, rectal temperature readings produce very very variable estimates for the ToD, although they vary around the correct time (which is why when you average a bunch of those estimates together the average approaches the correct time). The group average value may be "correct", but the accuracy of the individual measurements can still be highly inaccurate.

I would say the real differences between this and the Chapman case are two:

Phillips used a less exact method, feeling by hand. (I noticed you originally spoke of "touchy-feely", but the method is still employed by medicos and the justice system to a large degree).

Right, Phillips method is even less exact, and will be even more variable, and the rectal temperature measurements are already variable enough that Dr. Phillips ToD and the window of error around it would actually include the time that the witnesses suggest. In other words, if you are willing to go with Dr. Phillips' estimate then the margin of error associated with it means his estimate is not inconsistent witih the witnesses.

I would be interested in hearing what recent court cases accept estimates of ToD based upon touching the body, without noting the external air temperature, instead of taking rectal temperatures. That would be news to me.

Phillips saw the victim at a time that the coroner suggested was only an hour removed from the TOD!

The latter point is crucial. Becasue one hour after death, the temperature should be more or less the exact same as when the victim died, owing to the platform effect.

Rectal temperatures stay fairly constant for about 45 minutes, not surface body temperature, that starts to cool pretty quickly, especially when the clothing has been hauled up and the skin exposed. My hands don't stay warm for an hour when I go out in the winter without gloves.

What do we do when our children come to us and say the feel sick? Yes, we put a palm against the forehead. And then we may say "Oh dear, you are running a fever!" What does that mean? It means that we can identify a difference of a degree celsius or two only. As can doctors.

We cannot tell their exact temperature, which is what you need the thermometer for, and what you need in order to estimate ToD (and even then, the estimates are not particularly accurate)

So this is a different kettle of fish than working from rectal temperatures taken long after a body has grown cold to the touch and no remaining heat CAN be felt. In Chapmans case, it SHOULD be felt if Baxter was right. Ergo he was not, that is what I say.

Skin exposed to the cold will get cold in less than an hour. There's no reason to expect Chapman to have been warm to the touch after an hour. Perhaps if she was found within minutes.

When we accept that, we understand why there was rigor - there SHOULD be, it was in line with the standard outcome. And we understand that the murder was committed in darkness, as were the other murders: that was how the killer worked.

A very small added pointer: When Phillips spoke of the blood, he described it as "well clotted" at some stage. Not clotted. "Well clotted". That would have been a further effort on his behalf to rub in that he knew that Chapman was well dead at 6.30. Well clotted = many hours clotted, that was what he aimed to explain.

Clotted blood is mentioned at both Eddoes and Strides crime scene as well. It doesn't take all that long for the blood to form a clot. It would easily be well clotted within an hour.

And yes, I know that blood clots in an hour. But give it two MORE hours, and perhaps the blood will appear older?

I cannot tell, but I presume perhaps Phillips could.

That would be remarkable if he could tell by visual inspection the difference between 1 hour blood and 2 hour blood.

Anyway, there you are. In the circumstances you desribe, it would have been much more hard to determine a TOD by feeling for warmth by hand, although the conditions were constant. And that owes to the time that had passed.
In Chapmans case, it was a far easier task: Phillips could not tell with exactitude when she died. but he could be pretty damn certain when she did NOT die: an hour only before he saw her.

I'm not really sure I agree that Dr. Phillips was all that sure - he does point out it is important to note it was a chilly morning, which does suggest he's indicating caution of his own estimate.

Regardless, we can be sure of things and still be wrong. He might have believed the method was reliable, but it isn't. So we have the benefit of knowing that any confidence Phillips might have had is unfounded.

[]

If Baxter had had the decency to ask Phillips whether that short a window of time was possible, Phillips would have fevently denied it, Iīm sure.

[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure he would, and in fact, I rather suspect Phillips would agree there is a wide margin of error. In fact, if he didn't, I would be concerned about his testimony even more.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Basically what Trevor is saying here is that even though we cannot put any weight on Phillips TOD estimation and that it was akin to guesswork he still would rather go with that than the witnesses! How is this a reasonable position to take? The answer of course is that it’s not. Anyone can see this. So on one hand Trevor is willing to go with a completely unreliable estimate (and one that we know was arrived at by using unsafe methods) and yet when we come to Albert Cadosch Trevor suddenly becomes The Spanish Inquisition. Again, there is absolutely nothing suspicious or questionable about Cadosch’s statement. Zero. Only if Phillips was absolutely correct can he be called a liar.

Of course we should scrutinise and evaluate but this is ridiculous. Cadosch might have lied - though there’s absolutely no reason to think that he did. In fact his caution points strongly away from this. He could have heard a “no” from a distance and mistaken it as coming from 6 feet away - but this isn’t particularly believable. If the police checked the neighbours no one was reported as being outside and s possible source for the “no.” So how far away could it have come from to be mistaken for a word spoken 6 feet away. He could have imagined a noise against the fence - no need to comment on that one.

So Cadosch hears a “no” that he immediately thinks came from number. On reflection and under police questioning he naturally starts to question himself. He becomes more cautious. This doesn’t sound like an attention seeker to me. He then hears a noise. He’s absolutely certain about this and that it came from number 29. He heard nothing else because he was at the steps when he heard it and immediately entered the house and went to work. If Phillips was correct then the noise occurred whilst a mutilated corpse lay on the other side.

So we have the “no” and the sound against the fence coming from a yard where the murder took place at approximately the time of the murder with no one else going into the yard and from a man of whom there is no evidence of lying or any signs of suffering from hallucinations.

[Trevor Marriott]

Basically what Trevor is saying here is that even though we cannot put any weight on Phillips TOD estimation and that it was akin to guesswork he still would rather go with that than the witnesses! How is this a reasonable position to take? The answer of course is that it’s not. Anyone can see this. So on one hand Trevor is willing to go with a completely unreliable estimate (and one that we know was arrived at by using unsafe methods) and yet when we come to Albert Cadosch Trevor suddenly becomes The Spanish Inquisition. Again, there is absolutely nothing suspicious or questionable about Cadosch’s statement. Zero. Only if Phillips was absolutely correct can he be called a liar.

Of course we should scrutinise and evaluate but this is ridiculous. Cadosch might have lied - though there’s absolutely no reason to think that he did. In fact his caution points strongly away from this. He could have heard a “no” from a distance and mistaken it as coming from 6 feet away - but this isn’t particularly believable. If the police checked the neighbours no one was reported as being outside and s possible source for the “no.” So how far away could it have come from to be mistaken for a word spoken 6 feet away. He could have imagined a noise against the fence - no need to comment on that one.

So Cadosch hears a “no” that he immediately thinks came from number. On reflection and under police questioning he naturally starts to question himself. He becomes more cautious. This doesn’t sound like an attention seeker to me. He then hears a noise. He’s absolutely certain about this and that it came from number 29. He heard nothing else because he was at the steps when he heard it and immediately entered the house and went to work. If Phillips was correct then the noise occurred whilst a mutilated corpse lay on the other side.

So we have the “no” and the sound against the fence coming from a yard where the murder took place at approximately the time of the murder with no one else going into the yard and from a man of whom there is no evidence of lying or any signs of suffering from hallucinations.

No one is saying Cadosh lied, he was trying to be helpful, but it is what he said that is an issue because there are so many other explanations for what he is supposed to have heard, and from where the sounds came from and, who could have made those sounds. You are saying outright that the sounds must have come from the killer and Chapman that is un-proveable, and therefore his testimony is unsafe to totally rely on having regards to the cnflict with the other witnesses in their testimony.

To have heard all that he is supposed to have heard he must have been stood still but he says he was on the move going to use the outhouse on two occasions near to each other.

As to Mrs Long what sort of an ID is that in a mortuary when she only got a brief glimpse of the woman she says was Chapman. I am sure by then the body had been stripped and so she could not identify her by clothing. and also it was not quite light at that time of the morning another issue to question as to who she saw and the Id she made.

If she saw Chapman in the street after 5.30am then Cadosh could not have heard her with the killer after that because he went into the yard at around 5.25am and then again at around 5.29am. If she was alreday dead at that time then Richardson must have missed the body at 4.45am when it would have been still dark.

The fence between his house and No 29 was only 5 feet tall how could Cadosh have missed seeing someone when he opened the door on two occasions and walked onto the steps because the height of the steps might have put him in a position to see over the fence. He was on the move making it difficult to pinpoint where any noise might emenate from or hear any noise clearly

So if the killer was there at 5.25am then he would have made a quick exit on hearing movement.

The whole witness testimony from these witnesses is unsafe !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[The Baron]

Regardless, we can be sure of things and still be wrong. He might have believed the method was reliable, but it isn't.

Richardson could have been sure the body was not there and still be wrong!

Wonder why your argument works only one-way and not the other.



The Baron

[Fisherman]

Richardson could have been sure the body was not there and still be wrong!

Wonder why your argument works only one-way and not the other.



The Baron

I donīt.

[Fisherman]

Remember, 8:31 and 8:38 were the average time estimate. There might not have been a single case where the estimated time was 8:31 and/or 8:38. The standard deviation is a measure of how variable the individual case estimates are, and Annie Chapman is an individual case so that variablity is critical to understanding how reliable the estimate is. And even under extremely controlled, and simlilar, conditions, rectal temperature readings produce very very variable estimates for the ToD, although they vary around the correct time (which is why when you average a bunch of those estimates together the average approaches the correct time). The group average value may be "correct", but the accuracy of the individual measurements can still be highly inaccurate.



Right, Phillips method is even less exact, and will be even more variable, and the rectal temperature measurements are already variable enough that Dr. Phillips ToD and the window of error around it would actually include the time that the witnesses suggest. In other words, if you are willing to go with Dr. Phillips' estimate then the margin of error associated with it means his estimate is not inconsistent witih the witnesses.

I would be interested in hearing what recent court cases accept estimates of ToD based upon touching the body, without noting the external air temperature, instead of taking rectal temperatures. That would be news to me.



Rectal temperatures stay fairly constant for about 45 minutes, not surface body temperature, that starts to cool pretty quickly, especially when the clothing has been hauled up and the skin exposed. My hands don't stay warm for an hour when I go out in the winter without gloves.



We cannot tell their exact temperature, which is what you need the thermometer for, and what you need in order to estimate ToD (and even then, the estimates are not particularly accurate)



Skin exposed to the cold will get cold in less than an hour. There's no reason to expect Chapman to have been warm to the touch after an hour. Perhaps if she was found within minutes.



Clotted blood is mentioned at both Eddoes and Strides crime scene as well. It doesn't take all that long for the blood to form a clot. It would easily be well clotted within an hour.



That would be remarkable if he could tell by visual inspection the difference between 1 hour blood and 2 hour blood.


I'm not really sure I agree that Dr. Phillips was all that sure - he does point out it is important to note it was a chilly morning, which does suggest he's indicating caution of his own estimate.

Regardless, we can be sure of things and still be wrong. He might have believed the method was reliable, but it isn't. So we have the benefit of knowing that any confidence Phillips might have had is unfounded.

[]

If Baxter had had the decency to ask Phillips whether that short a window of time was possible, Phillips would have fevently denied it, Iīm sure.

I'm not sure he would, and in fact, I rather suspect Phillips would agree there is a wide margin of error. In fact, if he didn't, I would be concerned about his testimony even more.

- Jeff

[/QUOTE]

I donīt think any long epistles are called for, Jeff. The example you used was one where the bodies had long since grown cold, Chapman was a case where the body simply could not have grown cold in one hour only. End of. Bodies donīt do that.

You say that the skin grows cold to the touch quickly, and yes it does - but that does not mean that the underlying warmth cannot be felt! Remember that Eddowes was QUITE WARM to the touch 40-45 minutes after she died! And the skin will grow cold on the surface in twenty minutes - or less. So how on earth could Brown feel that Eddowes - whose skin had had TWICE the required time to grow surface cold! - was still "quite warm"? Why did not HER skin grow cold to the touch? Or did it? And Brown goofed up...?

For three hours after death, doctors will pick up on the temperature from inside the body, recogninzing that it tapers away over time. A body does not go warm - warm - warm - warm - cold. It goes warm - a little less warm - even lesser warm - slightly cold - more cold - all cold. That is how a rough opinion can be formed by feeling for warmth. And Chapman was COLD.

I will not go to the lenghts of finding a case where somebody saying that a body was cold to the touch has convicted a criminal - but I am certain it has happened and is still happening. Once I work up the will to argue more with you, I will look it up, though. I am slightly tempered, just to show you. It may take some time, however. X-mas coming up, and all.

This is the simple truth as far as I am concerned: Phillips was unlikely in the extreme (I would say it is virtually impossible) to mistake a still warm body (as Chapman WOULD have been if she died at 5.30) for a totally cold one, but for that small warmth in the belly. And he apparently felt INSIDE the body too, so it is not just about skin warmth.

You are comparing pineapples to carrots here (itīs worse than apples and pears, they are more closely related), as far as Iīm concerned. If you want to look away from the obvious facts of the matter on account of a belief that three unreliable witnesses is enough to rule unreliability out, then do so. Personbally, I think three bad witness would take things in the other direction.
I am a hundred per cent sure that it is wrong to favour the witnesses in this case - but equally certain that people are free to make their own calls, whether I find them unrealistic or not.

So be my guest. You bring a lot of sense to the boards on numerous other matters, and I salute you for that. But in this particular case, my personal take is that you fail to understand the implications. Since you will certainly feel the same about me, all I can say is that it would have been better if you didnīt...

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm not sure he would, and in fact, I rather suspect Phillips would agree there is a wide margin of error. In fact, if he didn't, I would be concerned about his testimony even more.

- Jeff

I donīt think any long epsistles are called for, Jeff. The example you used was one where the bodies had long since grown cold, Chapman was a case where the body simply could not have grown cold in one hour only.

You say that the wskin grows cold to the touch quickly, and yes it does - but that does not mean that the underlying warmth cannot be felt! Remember that Edsdowes was QUITE WARM to the touch 40-45 minutes after she died! And the skin will grow cold on the surface in twenty minutes - or less. So how on earth could Brown feel that Eddowes - whose skin had had TWICE the required time to grow surface cold! - was still "quite warm"?

Magic, eh? Not so - for three hours after death, doctors will pick up on the temperature from inside the body, recogninzing that it tapers away over time. A body does not go warm - warm - warm - warm - cold. It goes warm - a little less warm - even lesser warm - slightly cold - more cold - all cold. That is how a rough opinion can be formed by feeling for warmth.

I will not go to the lenghts of finding a case where somebody saying that a body was cold to the touch has convicted a criminal - but I am certain it has happened and is still happening. Once I work up the will to argue more with you, I will look it up, though. It may take some time, however.

This is the simple truth as far as I am concerned: Phillips was unlikely in the extreme (I would say it is virtually impossible) to mistake a still warm body (as Chapman WOULD have been if she died at 5.30) for a totally cold one, but for that small warmth in the belly. And he apparently felt INSIDE the body too, so it is not just about skin warmth.

You are comparing pineapples to carrots here (itīs worse than apples and pears, they are more closely related), as far as Iīm concerned. If you want to look away from the obvious facts of the matter on account of a belief that three unreliable witnesses is enough to rule unreliability out, then do so. I am a hundred per cent sure that it is wrong, but equally certain that people are free to make their own calls, unrealistic or not.

Be my guest. You bring a lot of sense to the boards on numerous other matters, and I salute you for that. But in this particular case, my personal take is that you fail to understand the implications. Since you will certainly feel the same about me, all I can say is that it would have been better if you didnīt... [/QUOTE]

Not forgetting that her body was found in a relatively sheltered spot in the garden, not exposed to the elements !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

No one is saying Cadosh lied, he was trying to be helpful, but it is what he said that is an issue because there are so many other explanations for what he is supposed to have heard, and from where the sounds came from and, who could have made those sounds. You are saying outright that the sounds must have come from the killer and Chapman that is un-proveable, and therefore his testimony is unsafe to totally rely on having regards to the cnflict with the other witnesses in their testimony.

No I’m not saying that the sounds must have come from the killer only that this is overwhelmingly the likeliest explanation. As I’ve said before, if someone suggests that Phillips was correct and that Annie was already dead at the time that Cadosch heard the noise then what are the chances of an innocent explanation for someone moving around in that yard when there was a horrifically mutilatedcorpse lying there. There is no innocent explanation. If he heard something against the fence then the chances of it being unconnected to the murder are simply not worth consideration.

To have heard all that he is supposed to have heard he must have been stood still but he says he was on the move going to use the outhouse on two occasions near to each other.

Really? The word no - less than a second. The noise - a second. Your point makes no possible sense.

As to Mrs Long what sort of an ID is that in a mortuary when she only got a brief glimpse of the woman she says was Chapman. I am sure by then the body had been stripped and so she could not identify her by clothing. and also it was not quite light at that time of the morning another issue to question as to who she saw and the Id she made.

How do you know that she wasn’t shown the clothes that Annie was wearing at the time?

If she saw Chapman in the street after 5.30am then Cadosh could not have heard her with the killer after that because he went into the yard at around 5.25am and then again at around 5.29am. If she was alreday dead at that time then Richardson must have missed the body at 4.45am when it would have been still dark.

We know about the discrepancy between the timings of Long and Cadosch. Long could indeed have seen a different couple. It’s certainly possible. But it’s also plausible that either she or Cadosch or both were slightly out with their timings. We know the difficulty of getting accurate times at a time when most didn’t own watches or clocks.

The fence between his house and No 29 was only 5 feet tall how could Cadosh have missed seeing someone when he opened the door on two occasions and walked onto the steps because the height of the steps might have put him in a position to see over the fence. He was on the move making it difficult to pinpoint where any noise might emenate from or hear any noise clearly

I haven’t checked but I’m sure that it was between 5’ and 6’? The police who were actually in the yard felt that it was impossible for Cadosch to have missed seeing someone over the fence. It’s interesting that you see it as an issue.

So if the killer was there at 5.25am then he would have made a quick exit on hearing movement.

The whole witness testimony from these witnesses is unsafe !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Imperfect but not unsafe. It’s instructive to notice that when faced with a choice between a) a doctor using known unsafe methods to do something that we know was little more than guesswork, and b) 3 witnesses, one of them (Cadosch) we have zero reason to consider unsafe, you still go for Phillips.

You might as well try solving the case by tossing a coin.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Richardson could have been sure the body was not there and still be wrong!

Wonder why your argument works only one-way and not the other.



The Baron

Because it’s unlikely in the absolute extreme. It’s also interesting that none of the posters who favour the witnesses over the doctors guesswork have theories to defend for which an earlier TOD is extremely helpful.

[JeffHamm]

Richardson could have been sure the body was not there and still be wrong!

Wonder why your argument works only one-way and not the other.


The Baron

The argument (as in the logic) can be applied to any statement, it's a general principle of life, we can believe something despite that something being untrue. What we, as researchers, have to try and do is evaluate the basis upon which that belief is made. Given the location of the body, and Richardson's position when sitting on the steps, the only conclusion is that his belief is well founded. When viewing Dr. Phillips belief concerning the ToD estimate, when the same is done, we recognize his belief is based upon a method that does not provide reliable evidence, therefore we draw a different conclusion on that. In fact, for those uncomfortable setting Dr. Phillips' ToD completely aside, they can at least add in what Dr. Phillips did not know, which is how variable the time estimate can be. Once we do that, even Dr. Phillips estimate does not conflict with the witnesses.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

I donīt think any long epistles are called for, Jeff. The example you used was one where the bodies had long since grown cold, Chapman was a case where the body simply could not have grown cold in one hour only. End of. Bodies donīt do that.

The exposed surface of a body does do exactly that, particularly if there's any breeze which causes the surface to cool more quickly. Fully clothed bodies will cool more slowly as the clothing acts as insulation (the rate of cooling is based upon the difference in temperature between the body jst below the skin and the air surrounding the skin. The greater that difference, the faster the heat transfers from the internal side to the external. Chapman's midsection was exposed, and the cavity opened, creating a greater surface area than normal, resulting in a faster rate of heat loss. This aspect is basic physics, and we don't get to change that. Bodies, in fact all objects, cool this way. As the volume of matter near the surface transfers heat to the environment, that starts creating a temperature gradient within the body, and heat is drawn from the core towards the surface, to eventually exit into the surrounding atmosphere.

The reason rectal temperatures are used is because it takes longer for the internal heat to dissipate. Internal temperatures tended to be stable for about 45 minutes in the study I mentioned earlier because it takes that long under those conditions for the internal temperature gradient to reach the core of the body. But since that study was conducted at warmer temperatures than Annie Chapman's body was found, that duration of stability would be longer in the study than for Chapman because the rate of heat transfer for Chapman would be faster due to the larger temperature difference between her body and the external air, and because her body was directly exposed removing any insulating influence of her clothes. She was also cut open, so there was a greater surface area from which heat loss would occur.

It's not an opinion, it's how the physical universe works, these are facts.

You say that the skin grows cold to the touch quickly, and yes it does - but that does not mean that the underlying warmth cannot be felt! Remember that Eddowes was QUITE WARM to the touch 40-45 minutes after she died! And the skin will grow cold on the surface in twenty minutes - or less. So how on earth could Brown feel that Eddowes - whose skin had had TWICE the required time to grow surface cold! - was still "quite warm"? Why did not HER skin grow cold to the touch? Or did it? And Brown goofed up...?

Brown also says she must have been dead within the half hour, and he states he arrived at 2:18, placing her ToD after she was found dead.

Each person's perceptions are different, each person's criterion for describing something as warm/cold is different, this is why thermometers are used. It removes all the variation due to these types of subjective aspects.

Also, we have no description of where these touches were made on the two bodies, if Brown felt under a layer of clothing, and Phillips is not, for example, that would make a huge difference. But we don't know the important details, we do know that touch is not reliable where ever those touches were made though, we don't know the temperature of the air on the two occasions, so it doesn't matter why different people people report different things based upon touch. The variation between the situations is so large the entire ToD by touch estimations are not only unsafe, they are unreliable.

For three hours after death, doctors will pick up on the temperature from inside the body, recogninzing that it tapers away over time. A body does not go warm - warm - warm - warm - cold. It goes warm - a little less warm - even lesser warm - slightly cold - more cold - all cold. That is how a rough opinion can be formed by feeling for warmth. And Chapman was COLD.

This is a bit of a diversion from our topic, since Dr. Phillips didn't take internal temperatures with a thermometer, he touched the surface of it.

I will not go to the lenghts of finding a case where somebody saying that a body was cold to the touch has convicted a criminal - but I am certain it has happened and is still happening. Once I work up the will to argue more with you, I will look it up, though. I am slightly tempered, just to show you. It may take some time, however. X-mas coming up, and all.

This is the simple truth as far as I am concerned: Phillips was unlikely in the extreme (I would say it is virtually impossible) to mistake a still warm body (as Chapman WOULD have been if she died at 5.30) for a totally cold one, but for that small warmth in the belly. And he apparently felt INSIDE the body too, so it is not just about skin warmth.

You are comparing pineapples to carrots here (itīs worse than apples and pears, they are more closely related), as far as Iīm concerned. If you want to look away from the obvious facts of the matter on account of a belief that three unreliable witnesses is enough to rule unreliability out, then do so. Personbally, I think three bad witness would take things in the other direction.
I am a hundred per cent sure that it is wrong to favour the witnesses in this case - but equally certain that people are free to make their own calls, whether I find them unrealistic or not.

So be my guest. You bring a lot of sense to the boards on numerous other matters, and I salute you for that. But in this particular case, my personal take is that you fail to understand the implications. Since you will certainly feel the same about me, all I can say is that it would have been better if you didnīt...

So, Dr. Phillips is basing his ToD, according to your explanation, by feeling the "underlying warmth" that is on the other side of the cold surface of her body. I have no idea how he could have done that because if you expose a living body to cold temperatures, it will feel cold to the touch quite quickly - one can't "feel through" to the internal temperature just like one can't see through a wall, but it doesn't matter if I don't understand what you're getting at, let's for the sake of discussion go with the the idea that Dr. Phillips can sense the internal temperature through the cold surface.

We know the variation in internal temperatures would produce a time window spanning hours, so even if the variation of this less reliable method were the same, rather than far larger (which would be the case), by estimating a ToD around 4:30, the margin of error for that estimate spans the time derived from the witness statements.

The medical testimony, once viewed objectively, does not contradict the witnesses.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

You are being pedantic now if she was killed between 1.45am and 5.45am then is that not pre Richardsons arrival ?

? That's not being pedantic, that is describing the pre-Richardson time that you're arguing for. And for you to argue for that you have to dismiss the witness statements because those statements preclude all of that time window.

Open the box look at the bigger picture, carefully scrutinize the witness statements, look at what questions could and should have been asked of them which were not asked and may well have tested their accuracy.

I have. I agree, there's a lot of further questioning that one would do if this were an active investigation, but it isn't, we can't do that. Ironically, by asking further questions we no doubt would get information from the witnesses that they had not mentioned before, and by getting more information you seem to argue that would make their statements even more unsafe since your basis for that claim is that they added details.

We dont have the original inquest testimony reports so all there is to rely on are the newspaper reports, and as has been seen when comparing the Eddowes original inquest testimony reports with newspaper reports, there are significant discrepancies. So how can it be said in this case they are safe to totally rely on?

Nobody is totally relying upon them, and the minutia of their statements are viewed as likely to be incorrect. However, unless there is evidence to indicate the gist of their statements are incorrect, we have to consider them as a source of information to be accounted for. This is what everyone has been doing.

As I've said a few times, Dr. Phillips estimation for the ToD, once viewed with the margin of error even of a more reliable measure (which itself is shockingly bad), does not contradict the gist of the witnesses. Meaning, all of the evidence we have is consistent with a ToD corresponding to the times derived from the witness statements. It's not relying on any one piece of evidence, it's the picture we get from all of the evidence combined.

Pre-Richardson arguments require throwing out the witness statement information entirely.

Its not rocket science, if you or anyone else wants to believe a specific time of death, then that is you prerogative and nothing anyone will say is going to change that, equally the same applies to those who think differently are never going to change its all a matter of opinion, and my opinion is that based on the MO of the killer in relation to other murders she was not killed as late as 5.30am.

It's your choice to ignore the information from the witness statements, and to ignore the variability associated with estimating ToD by temperature, whether gathered by objective measures using thermometers with all the other environmental variables measured, or by touch alone without any of the other necessary information collected.

Have a nice day

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

you too Trevor. Always a pleasure (and that is sincerely meant, just in case it seems otherwise). I do admire your insistence that the evidence be re-evaluated to examine the standard conclusions, although I don't agree that the standard conclusions are necessarily wrong. Rather, in this situation, I think it's the only conclusion one can derive from the evidence we have. Either that's what the evidence says, or one is simply left with no basis to suggest any particular ToD (which means, either one ends up at a ToD somewhere around 5:20-5:25, or one ends up saying while that might be possible, the window is much wider - I can't see one getting to "ithe evidence suggests pre-Richardson and excludes times after him).

- Jeff