Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Yes, let’s see if we can find a modern day forensic expert who will look at the evidence and then stand up and say that Dr Phillips was likely to have been correct in his estimate range and that the chances of Chapman dying at around 5.20-5.25 are very, very unlikely or even very likely or even likely.

    We may have a very, very, very, very long wait.
    I don't think you understood what F. M was saying , but I'm sure he'll respond ., as far as t.o.d is concerned between the witnesses and dr Phillips its still very ,very uncertain as the evidence shows.
    'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      Yes, let’s see if we can find a modern day forensic expert who will look at the evidence and then stand up and say that Dr Phillips was likely to have been correct in his estimate range and that the chances of Chapman dying at around 5.20-5.25 are very, very unlikely or even very likely or even likely.

      We may have a very, very, very, very long wait.
      I do normally not post out here, but I check what is going on every now and then. And when a modern day forensic expert speaking for Phillips being correct is asked for, I am a bit amazed. I have already provided that exact thing. Professor Ingemar Thiblin, a very experienced and senior expert in the field of forensic medicine, expanded on the matter at my request some months ago, and I put what he said out here. Maybe it has already been ruled out by the in house ”experts”?

      Basically, he said that if the core of the body can be compared to the surface temperature, and if there is a significant difference between the temperatures in these regions, then it speaks for a longer period of death. This was in response to how I told him that Phillips had put his hand inside the abdominal cavity and found warmth remaining under the intestines, wheras the surface of the body was all cold. Having heard that, Thiblin stated that it spoke for a number of hours having passed instead of just a single hour. And he stated that the other parameters of the case were in sync with this, reinforcing the overall impression of an early TOD.

      Having read this thread extensively, I am pleased to say that I will make no further posts on it. I just wanted to point out that the expert statement you believe would take forever to surface has actually already been posted, Herlock.

      I now look forward to any other expert making the claim that a late TOD is the likely solution. Not perhaps possible, but likely.

      I am looking forward to the balanced and informed debate this information should start.

      Goodbye.

      Comment


      • Before anybody asks: Yes, Thiblin was very well aware of medical history, the methods of the victorian times, the circumstances surrounding Chapmans death, ambient temperatures and all we know, generally speaking, about Annie Chapmans death.

        There, done. And off I go.

        Have a refreshing autumn, everybody!
        Last edited by Fisherman; 08-24-2022, 08:20 AM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

          I do normally not post out here, but I check what is going on every now and then. And when a modern day forensic expert speaking for Phillips being correct is asked for, I am a bit amazed. I have already provided that exact thing. Professor Ingemar Thiblin, a very experienced and senior expert in the field of forensic medicine, expanded on the matter at my request some months ago, and I put what he said out here. Maybe it has already been ruled out by the in house ”experts”?

          Basically, he said that if the core of the body can be compared to the surface temperature, and if there is a significant difference between the temperatures in these regions, then it speaks for a longer period of death. This was in response to how I told him that Phillips had put his hand inside the abdominal cavity and found warmth remaining under the intestines, wheras the surface of the body was all cold. Having heard that, Thiblin stated that it spoke for a number of hours having passed instead of just a single hour. And he stated that the other parameters of the case were in sync with this, reinforcing the overall impression of an early TOD.

          Having read this thread extensively, I am pleased to say that I will make no further posts on it. I just wanted to point out that the expert statement you believe would take forever to surface has actually already been posted, Herlock.

          I now look forward to any other expert making the claim that a late TOD is the likely solution. Not perhaps possible, but likely.

          I am looking forward to the balanced and informed debate this information should start.

          Goodbye.
          Where is this, Fisherman? I've looked and can't find it. I can find threads with references to Professor Thiblin but not the post itself.

          In the event you're kind enough to post this yet again, on this thread, are you able to include Professor Thiblin's credentials. I understand he is a professor of forensic medicine, but for the benefit of us laymen what exactly does this mean in terms of his expertise in the field of estimating TOD.

          Thanks in advance.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

            Where is this, Fisherman? I've looked and can't find it. I can find threads with references to Professor Thiblin but not the post itself.

            In the event you're kind enough to post this yet again, on this thread, are you able to include Professor Thiblin's credentials. I understand he is a professor of forensic medicine, but for the benefit of us laymen what exactly does this mean in terms of his expertise in the field of estimating TOD.

            Thanks in advance.
            It may be that I only posted this on JTR; it could be that I had given up posting on Casebook as I did so.

            Nevertheless, Thiblin is a professor in forensic medicine at the Institution for Surgical Science at Uppsala University. He became a PhD at Karoliska Institutet, Stockholm in 1999. The same year, he became a speciaist in forensic medicine. He made the grade of professor in 2009.

            When I originally asked him about Chapman, he said that it is very hard to establish body temperature by way of feeling for warmth with the hand, and said that the internal temperature of the body is what is important in the context. Which was when I told him that Phillips had felt inside the body too. He then replied to me like this:

            "Det var en annan femma. Mer centralt än så kan det ju inte bli. Om han kände tydlig skillnad mellan kroppen yttre och centrala delar anser jag att det talar för PMI 3-4 h snarare än 1 h."

            My translation:

            "That´s a very different matter. It cannot get more central than that. If he felt an obvious difference between the outer and central parts of the body, I am of the meaning that it speaks of a PMI of 3-4 hours rather than 1 hour." ( He knew that these were the rough alternatives involved).

            Thiblin added, as I pointed out before that the other parameters (such as rigor) were in keeping with a TOD 3-4 hours removed.

            He also wrote:

            "Det mesta om kroppstemperatur post mortem handlar om rektalt uppmätt temp eller temp i inre organ. Tumregeln är att temperaturen sjunker 1 grad per timme. När man vänder på det brukar man säga 1 timme per grad plus/minus 2 timmar. Något långsammare i början och mot slutet (innan kroppen antagit omgivningens temperatur).

            Men flera studier visar att den centrala temperaturen kan ligga stilla runt 37 i flera timmar. Finns t.o.m. indikationer på att den centrala temperaturen kan gå upp något tiden närmast döden. Trolig mekanism antas vara aktivitet av mikroorganismer.

            Således är det fullt möjligt att inre organ känns varma flera timmar efter döden. Något som jag själv upplevt efter flera dygns kylförvaring hos kraftigt överviktiga individer."


            My translation:

            "Most things aboout body temperature post mortem revolvews aaround rectally established temperatures or temperatures of inner organs. The rule of thumb is that body temperature decreases by a degree per hour. If we turn it arund, one can say one hour per degree plus/minus 2 hours. Somewhat slower initially and towards the end (before the body takes on ambient temperature).

            But there are many studies that show us that the internal temperature kan remain at around 37 degress for seveeral hours. There are even indications that the central temperature can rise somewhat during the first time after death. The probale reason for this is microorganism activity.

            Therefore, it is perfectly possible for inner organs to feel warm many hours after death. This is something I have experienced myself after several days aming severely obese individuals, stored in cool conditions."

            Thiblin essentially tells us that the reamining warmth under the intestines in Chapmans abdomen is arguably a warmth that has subsided over a significant number of hours.

            I hope this answers your questions. Not least since this is my final post on the matter!
            Last edited by Fisherman; 08-24-2022, 10:04 AM.

            Comment


            • Hi Christer,

              I miss the insight and original thought of your posts, but can empathise with your decision to leave.

              I wish you all the best,
              George
              They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
              Out of a misty dream
              Our path emerges for a while, then closes
              Within a dream.
              Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

              ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                "That´s a very different matter. It cannot get more central than that. If he felt an obvious difference between the outer and central parts of the body, I am of the meaning that it speaks of a PMI of 3-4 hours rather than 1 hour." ( He knew that these were the rough alternatives involved).

                I hope this answers your questions. Not least since this is my final post on the matter!

                It's certainly useful. Thanks for posting. I don't want to labour the questions/points as I'm sure you've been through all of this a good few times.

                While I wasn't claiming Dr Phillips must be reasonably accurate when viewing a body with a supposed PMI of 1 hour, nor was I taking it for granted he must be inaccurate on the basis of some links to other sites that held little relevance to Dr Phillips' situation.

                As a result of your post, I would sum up the position as this:

                We have someone qualified in forensic medicine who agrees with Dr Phillips' interpretation based on his observations during his examination. In other words, experience in the field is telling us that Dr Phillips had sufficient information and was quite correct/reliable when he stated: "at least two hours", meaning the minimum time possible in the English language, "and probably more".

                In order to counter this, I think someone would have to come forward with one of two bits of evidence:

                1) Evidence to suggest Professor Thiblin is not qualified to give this statement.

                2) Evidence that Professor Thiblin is in a small minority in his belief and there are other experts who have looked at Dr Phillips' situation and disagree with him.

                It's certainly not concluded, but as at stands it's as I suspected: Dr Phillips was capable of estimating a window of TOD based on his observations/information at his disposal.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                  It is quite clear that the police did look into this thoroughly. To quote Swanson (yet again), "there was not a shred of evidence,suspicion could not rest upon him, although police specially directed their attention to him." If the police "specially directed their attention to him", they must have carefully checked out every aspect of his story in some detail. Unfortunately, as is the norm, we don't have his detailed witness statement, nor the report and views of the interviewing officers. But they reckon they checked his account thoroughly and cleared him. They had evidence which we don't have, so I am inclined to accept that they probably did their job. We certainly don't have the evidence to dispute it.
                  Echo, 19 Sep 1888:
                  Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon, has had another consultation with the police authorities respecting certain theories advanced. There are three points upon which there is agreement - that Annie Chapman was lying dead in the yard at 29 Hanbury street, when John Richardson sat on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot, his failure to notice the deceased being explained by the fact that the yard door, when opened, obstructed his view;

                  Hi Doc,

                  I know this is an old post, but beg your indulgence. Given that the police considered JR as a suspect, would you rate it as "the bleeding obvious" that the police would have done a re-enactment of JR's boot cutting story. They had the opportunity, and I can't think of a reason for their passing up that opportunity. IMO, the result of such a re-enactment would be the basis of the Echo's report "his failure to notice the deceased being explained by the fact that the yard door, when opened, obstructed his view".

                  Cheers, George
                  Last edited by GBinOz; 08-24-2022, 11:20 AM.
                  They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
                  Out of a misty dream
                  Our path emerges for a while, then closes
                  Within a dream.
                  Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

                  ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                    Echo, 19 Sep 1888:
                    Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon, has had another consultation with the police authorities respecting certain theories advanced. There are three points upon which there is agreement - that Annie Chapman was lying dead in the yard at 29 Hanbury street, when John Richardson sat on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot, his failure to notice the deceased being explained by the fact that the yard door, when opened, obstructed his view;

                    Hi Doc,

                    I know this is an old post, but beg your indulgence. Given that the police considered JR as a suspect, would you rate it as "the bleeding obvious" that the police would have done a re-enactment of JR's boot cutting story. They had the opportunity, and I can't think of a reason for their passing up that opportunity. IMO, the result of such a re-enactment would be the basis of the Echo's report "his failure to notice the deceased being explained by the fact that the yard door, when opened, obstructed his view".

                    Cheers, George
                    Hi George,

                    The more information people find, the more confusing and contradictory our evidence becomes!

                    Here we apparently have an experienced police surgeon firstly telling Chandler "at least two hours", then conducting his post mortem which seems to have caused him to make a slight U-turn, sufficient for him to feel he had to advise the coroner of the possible error in his estimate, and then allegedly, a further U-turn back to his original estimate! We act on the assumption, of course, that this newspaper report is 100% accurate, and the information post-dates the inquest, while the previous evidence is from official sources. Do we have any other corroborating evidence of Phillips' alleged change of heart? I ask this, because Swanson's report, which does not indicate that he agrees with the Echo report, was written on Sept 19th, the same day as the Echo account.

                    Yes, given that the police thought Richardson to be a suspect, and with Swanson specifying that they checked thoroughly, I have to assume that they checked every part of his statement from regularly visiting to check the lock, to sitting on the steps, to borrowing a knife when he arrived at the market. Very few witnesses had that sort of checking done to their story. So we have the police apparently now saying that they checked his story, they believe it to be correct in so much as to what he claimed he did, but deciding that the body was there, and he couldn't see it. This is despite the fact that it was inches from his boot which he was working on, and both he and Chandler reported that if the body was there, he must have seen it. In view of the fact that the police suspected that Richardson might have been JtR, I can't imagine that they would have waited till after the inquest to check his story. I believe they must have done it straight away, which is why Chandler seemed to be clearly advising the coroner that he was a reliable witness. So, yes I believe they checked, and no, I can't believe that they didn't check till after the inquest.

                    Is the new story influenced by the idea that it was too dark for Richardson to see the body at his feet, and yet earlier, in even darker conditions, JtR carried out a silent, ruthlessly efficient murder, complete with extensive mutilations? Surely not! Who needed most light, Richardson or JtR? Did they ask him if he tried to repair the boot with the door banging against his arm, or whether he closed it? Either way, I really find it impossible to believe that he sat on the step and didn't see the body at his feet. For me, either his account of events is a lie, or the body was not there. I find it impossible to accept that he was telling the truth, but made a genuine mistake.

                    Comment


                    • I'm not surprised that Christer has done a "post and run".

                      Three years ago he repeatedly told me (in the "Chapman's death" thread ) that a body could not possibly feel cold one hour after death. He literally said it was "physically impossible".

                      But he admitted recently on JTR Forums that:

                      "Thiblin sees no problem with how Chapmans body felt cold to the touch on the outside - that could well occur in an hour, depending on the elements."

                      He quoted Professor Thiblin as saying:

                      "I can accordingly not rule out that the skin will feel cold already after some hour in a body that has been outside in September".

                      So the physically impossible has now become possible!

                      In the same post, Christer also quoted the professor as saying:

                      "The likelihood for the skin feeling cold is higher if the skin the doctor felt was exposed to the elements."

                      Here is a link to that post: https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...y-street/page2

                      Christer now provides some further opinion from the professor based on additional information he has provided to him. In this respect, I don't actually know how Christer was able to tell the professor that,"Phillips had put his hand inside the abdominal cavity" to find warmth under the intestines when this is not in evidence and is an assumption on his part. Nor did Dr Phillips say in evidence that "the surface of the body was all cold." According to the Morning Advertiser, he merely said, "The left side of the body was cold, excepting a remaining heat under the intestines in the body" (or one can take the Daily News which has him saying, "The body was cold, but there was a certain amount of heat under the intestine that remained in the body" but that still doesn't use the expression "all cold"). I have no idea why Christer continually changes the evidence and then reports that change of evidence to his experts. Presumably the actual evidence as stated by Dr Phillips is too uncertain for Christer. The very fact that Thiblin was not provided with accurate information about the evidence is reason alone to disqualify his opinion.

                      But in terms of Thiblin's actual opinion, what is extraordinary is that Christer's summary of what Thiblin said in his original post does not match what it transpires Thiblin actually said, not surprisingly because Christer's summary makes no sense. Here is how Christer summarized Thiblin's opinion:

                      "Basically, he said that if the core of the body can be compared to the surface temperature, and if there is a significant difference between the temperatures in these regions, then it speaks for a longer period of death."

                      Now we know from Christer's second post that this was not what he said at all. That would be nonsensical. After all, if the skin of the body feels cold and a murder has occurred within an hour (which, as Thiblin has admitted, is entirely possible) one would EXPECT there to be warmth in the core, and thus a significant difference between the (warm) core and the (cold) surface. It is only if there is no warmth in the core that this would point to a conclusion of a longer PMI.

                      What we discover from Christer's second post is that Thiblin was saying something else, namely (as summarized by Christer):

                      "Thiblin essentially tells us that the reamining warmth under the intestines in Chapmans abdomen is arguably a warmth that has subsided over a significant number of hours."

                      Now we don't, for some reason, have Thiblin's own words for this, just Christer's summary, but what Thiblin can ONLY be saying is that IF Dr Phillips felt that the body was cold on the surface and that there was some warmth under the intestines in the body but not as much warmth as he would have expected from a recently deceased body, it would speak to a PMI of 3 or 4 hours, rather than one hour. But that's not what Dr Phillips actually said as a basis for his estimate. Nowhere did he say that he took into account the lack of warmth of the heat under the intestines as being a reason for calculating at least 2 hours as opposed to 1 hour. It's just not there. So Thiblin's opinion can, at best, only be a theoretical one in which he is saying that, hypothetically, Dr Phillips could have estimated a time of death of 3 or 4 hours earlier if there wasn't as much warmth in the intestines as he was expecting. It's not, in other words, an evidence-based conclusion. The natural reading of what Phillips said is that the heat under the intestines was telling him that Chapman was NOT murdered 4, 5 or 6 hours earlier (or longer) because he wouldn't then have expected any heat to be remaining in the body, which is why he selected 2 hours, despite the body feeling cold on the surface (at least on the left hand side!). Because, of course, a cold body on its own, without any internal heat, would normally have indicated to a Victorian doctor a body that has been dead many hours, not just two hours or so.

                      As to that estimate of 3 or 4 hours which Christer tells us is one of "the rough alternatives involved", this is again a fantasy going beyond the stated evidence. What Dr Phillips said was "at least two hours, probably more" which could mean 2 to 2.5 hours for all we know. Nowhere did he say 3 or 4 hours which is Christer's fantasy in order to take the time of death back to 3.30 when Lechmere left his house. You might as well say 3, 4 or 5 hours and why stop there?

                      Virtually everything Thiblin said as quoted by Christer is irrelevant and already known to us. Yes of course there is a so-called "rule of thumb" that the body temperature decreases by a degree per hour after death (or some say 1.5 degrees an hour) but all the experts in this field tell us that is not accurate and cannot be relied upon. The fact that Thiblin cites it, and seems to rely on it, reflects very badly on him. Yes, we all know that the internal temperature can rise after death What's the point of him mentioning it? Well, he tells us that "it is perfectly possible for inner organs to feel warm many hours after death". Yes, we know. But it's equally possible for inner organs to feel warm within an hour of death, so what is he actually telling us that assists in estimating the time of Chapman's death?

                      Let us not be distracted by sleight of hand. The key information IS actually found in Christer's post when he summarized Thiblin as saying:

                      "it is very hard to establish body temperature by way of feeling for warmth with the hand."

                      And, as I've already mentioned, Thiblin admitted that a dead body can feel cold within an hour of death. That's all we need to know.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        Now we don't, for some reason, have Thiblin's own words for this, just Christer's summary, but what Thiblin can ONLY be saying is that IF Dr Phillips felt that the body was cold on the surface and that there was some warmth under the intestines in the body but not as much warmth as he would have expected from a recently deceased body, it would speak to a PMI of 3 or 4 hours, rather than one hour. But that's not what Dr Phillips actually said as a basis for his estimate. Nowhere did he say that he took into account the lack of warmth of the heat under the intestines as being a reason for calculating at least 2 hours as opposed to 1 hour. It's just not there. So Thiblin's opinion can, at best, only be a theoretical one in which he is saying that, hypothetically, Dr Phillips could have estimated a time of death of 3 or 4 hours earlier if there wasn't as much warmth in the intestines as he was expecting. It's not, in other words, an evidence-based conclusion. The natural reading of what Phillips said is that the heat under the intestines was telling him that Chapman was NOT murdered 4, 5 or 6 hours earlier (or longer) because he wouldn't then have expected any heat to be remaining in the body, which is why he selected 2 hours, despite the body feeling cold on the surface (at least on the left hand side!). Because, of course, a cold body on its own, without any internal heat, would normally have indicated to a Victorian doctor a body that has been dead many hours, not just two hours or so.

                        As to that estimate of 3 or 4 hours which Christer tells us is one of "the rough alternatives involved", this is again a fantasy going beyond the stated evidence. What Dr Phillips said was "at least two hours, probably more" which could mean 2 to 2.5 hours for all we know. Nowhere did he say 3 or 4 hours which is Christer's fantasy in order to take the time of death back to 3.30 when Lechmere left his house. You might as well say 3, 4 or 5 hours and why stop there?

                        This part seems to be the crux of the argument. The whole post appears to me to be an attempt to bombard the reader with so many words and points that you simply cannot respond to it: you'd be on all day.

                        Firstly, the author doesn't place him/herself in a good light. Suggesting that Professor Thiblin's comments are redundant due to Fisherman's theory is bad form, argument ad hominem and is indicative of someone who likes to win arguments on a message board first and foremost.

                        Secondly, can you summarise exactly what the counter argument is in a few brief sentences. I'm reading that and it's all over the place and lacking coherence.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                          This part seems to be the crux of the argument. The whole post appears to me to be an attempt to bombard the reader with so many words and points that you simply cannot respond to it: you'd be on all day.

                          Firstly, the author doesn't place him/herself in a good light. Suggesting that Professor Thiblin's comments are redundant due to Fisherman's theory is bad form, argument ad hominem and is indicative of someone who likes to win arguments on a message board first and foremost.

                          Secondly, can you summarise exactly what the counter argument is in a few brief sentences. I'm reading that and it's all over the place and lacking coherence.
                          If you can’t understand English that’s not my problem (your twisting of the caveat confirms this issue). And I’m not interested in your feeble accusations after the comments received by you recently and from someone who stoops to trying to goad by misusing a username.

                          Continue with your blatantly biased attempt to bolster Phillips if that’s all that your desperate to do. No skin off my nose. Obfuscate away.

                          And, as I've already mentioned, Thiblin admitted that a dead body can feel cold within an hour of death. That's all we need to know.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            If you can’t understand English that’s not my problem (your twisting of the caveat confirms this issue). And I’m not interested in your accusations after the comments received by you recently and from someone who stoops to trying to goad by misusing a username.

                            Continue with your blatantly biased attempt to bolster Phillips if that’s all that your desperate to do. No skin off my nose.

                            As I suspected. Just a load of words in an attempt to obfuscate.

                            Good day!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                              This part seems to be the crux of the argument. The whole post appears to me to be an attempt to bombard the reader with so many words and points that you simply cannot respond to it: you'd be on all day.

                              Firstly, the author doesn't place him/herself in a good light. Suggesting that Professor Thiblin's comments are redundant due to Fisherman's theory is bad form, argument ad hominem and is indicative of someone who likes to win arguments on a message board first and foremost.

                              Secondly, can you summarise exactly what the counter argument is in a few brief sentences. I'm reading that and it's all over the place and lacking coherence.
                              I must say your second point sums things up pretty much spot on.. .
                              'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                              Comment


                              • Point proven. In depth, Using facts. No response.

                                Game over.

                                Off ya go.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X