John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

I must say your second point sums things up pretty much spot on.. .

Surprise, surprise.

[Herlock Sholmes]

For those with reading and comprehension difficulties, here is my counter argument in a nutshell:

1. The professor wasn't provided with accurate information about the case (garbage in, garbage out).

2. The professor's opinion hasn't been clearly presented (being partly quoted in translation and partly summarized by Christer) and isn't capable of being understood in its current form. He can't possibly be saying that a cold surface and warm core indicates a longer time of death than one hour, so what is he actually saying?

3. The professor has already told us that a dead body can feel cold on the surface within an hour, especially one found outdoors on a cool September morning.

That's it.

[Fisherman]

If anybody has wondered why I do not want to post on Casebook, it should be very clear now.

I am currently waiting to pick my daughter up at the local train station. Tomorrow, me, my wife, my daughter, my eldest son and his fiancee will travel to Iceland, where my middle son lives. So I have time on my hands to make a final post, and I will do so by answering Herlocks three points in post 2192.
First of all, we should be wary of how we have a poster who, as I understand it, has no training in either medicine or forensics, but who nevertheless will have us believe he is a better judge of Chapmans TOD than professor Thiblin. That is arrogant and false.

Now, the three points:

1. ”Garbage in, garbage out”.
No. Professor Thiblin was thoroughly informed about the circumstances surrounding Chapmans death. Accordingly, Herlocks argument is not only a disgrace. It is an unfounded disgrace.

2. Thiblin cannot be understood. Well, that is what comes from pitting a laymans poor understanding of the facts against a professor in forensic medicine. If Herlock does not understand, it is not professor Thiblins problem.

3. Thiblin says that a body can feel cold to the touch within an hour. Actually, I have pointed out how other medicos have spoken of how this may come about in fifteen minutes only. However, it does not refer to all of the skin. What Thiblin acknowledges is that skin subjected to the cold surrounding air can feel cold to the touch rather quickly. As we need to understand, this effect can therefore be deceptive, tricking us into accepting that a body that has been dead for fifteen minutes only could have been dead for much longer.
But a discerning doctor knows this, and therefore, he will also check the areas of the skin that have not been subjected to the cold surrounding air - for example the armpits and the groins, where body warmth will be present even if exposed skin areas feel cold.
In the Chapman case, Phillips tells us that the body was all cold to the touch, meaning that there was no area of skin that gave away any warmth. That in itself speaks of a TOD well removed in time.
Furthermore, Phillips felt the core of the body, where warmth will be present much longer than it will be in exposed skin. He put his hand under the intestines, into the abdominal cavity, and there, under the insulation provided by the intestines, a certain warmth remained.

So what Phillips had was a body where all of the skin, exposed skin as well as unexposed skin, had gone cold. And he had some little warmth in the abdominal cavity, under insulating intestines. It was apparently the last of the discernable body warmth, leaving the body.

The conclusion is easy enough to see: hours had passed, allowing every square inch of the skin to grow cold, but the remaining warmth in the abdominal cavity told Phillips that life had not been extinct for more that some three or four hours.

At the inquest, Phillips gave an absolute minimum of two hours of death. He did not believe in that number, and he pointed that disbelief out by saying that the two hour suggestion was probably too short a time - to his mind it was probably more, taking us to three or four hours. But as the night was cold and the body exposed, he was willing to accept that the cooling process had perhaps taken Chapmans temperature to a low level, leaving some warmth only in the abdominal cavity, in two hours only.

He did not believe it, he believed that three or four hours would likely have passed, but as an absolute extreme, he was willing to accept two hours only.

Again, professor Thiblin understands these things far better than any upset and desperate layman with a closed agenda out here. In Herlocks case, he has failed to grasp why cold skin in exposed positions does not present the whole picture. And he has failed to understand the importance of the temperature differences between core and surface of the body.

Iceland tomorrow. Over and out.

[FISHY1118]

If anybody has wondered why I do not want to post on Casebook, it should be very clear now.

I am currently waiting to pick my daughter up at the local train station. Tomorrow, me, my wife, my daughter, my eldest son and his fiancee will travel to Iceland, where my middle son lives. So I have time on my hands to make a final post, and I will do so by answering Herlocks three points in post 2192.
First of all, we should be wary of how we have a poster who, as I understand it, has no training in either medicine or forensics, but who nevertheless will have us believe he is a better judge of Chapmans TOD than professor Thiblin. That is arrogant and false.

Now, the three points:

1. ”Garbage in, garbage out”.
No. Professor Thiblin was thoroughly informed about the circumstances surrounding Chapmans death. Accordingly, Herlocks argument is not only a disgrace. It is an unfounded disgrace.

2. Thiblin cannot be understood. Well, that is what comes from pitting a laymans poor understanding of the facts against a professor in forensic medicine. If Herlock does not understand, it is not professor Thiblins problem.

3. Thiblin says that a body can feel cold to the touch within an hour. Actually, I have pointed out how other medicos have spoken of how this may come about in fifteen minutes only. However, it does not refer to all of the skin. What Thiblin acknowledges is that skin subjected to the cold surrounding air can feel cold to the touch rather quickly. As we need to understand, this effect can therefore be deceptive, tricking us into accepting that a body that has been dead for fifteen minutes only could have been dead for much longer.
But a discerning doctor knows this, and therefore, he will also check the areas of the skin that have not been subjected to the cold surrounding air - for example the armpits and the groins, where body warmth will be present even if exposed skin areas feel cold.
In the Chapman case, Phillips tells us that the body was all cold to the touch, meaning that there was no area of skin that gave away any warmth. That in itself speaks of a TOD well removed in time.
Furthermore, Phillips felt the core of the body, where warmth will be present much longer than it will be in exposed skin. He put his hand under the intestines, into the abdominal cavity, and there, under the insulation provided by the intestines, a certain warmth remained.

So what Phillips had was a body where all of the skin, exposed skin as well as unexposed skin, had gone cold. And he had some little warmth in the abdominal cavity, under insulating intestines. It was apparently the last of the discernable body warmth, leaving the body.

The conclusion is easy enough to see: hours had passed, allowing every square inch of the skin to grow cold, but the remaining warmth in the abdominal cavity told Phillips that life had not been extinct for more that some three or four hours.

At the inquest, Phillips gave an absolute minimum of two hours of death. He did not believe in that number, and he pointed that disbelief out by saying that the two hour suggestion was probably too short a time - to his mind it was probably more, taking us to three or four hours. But as the night was cold and the body exposed, he was willing to accept that the cooling process had perhaps taken Chapmans temperature to a low level, leaving some warmth only in the abdominal cavity, in two hours only.

He did not believe it, he believed that three or four hours would likely have passed, but as an absolute extreme, he was willing to accept two hours only.

Again, professor Thiblin understands these things far better than any upset and desperate layman with a closed agenda out here. In Herlocks case, he has failed to grasp why cold skin in exposed positions does not present the whole picture. And he has failed to understand the importance of the temperature differences between core and surface of the body.

Iceland tomorrow. Over and out.

Thats a very informative post fisherman.

Thanks for providing such a detailed analysis of Dr Phillips t.o.d. it certainly looks a lot more likely now that Chapman was killed earlier than some would have us believe. When there has been so much evidence that's been provided on this topic about the uncertainty and ambiguous nature of all the witnesses testimonies, is astonishing to say the least that one person could still believe that a 5.30 t.od was a done deal and that we should just except that as gospel.

Well done ,

[GBinOz]

If anybody has wondered why I do not want to post on Casebook, it should be very clear now.

Again, professor Thiblin understands these things far better than any upset and desperate layman with a closed agenda out here. In Herlocks case, he has failed to grasp why cold skin in exposed positions does not present the whole picture. And he has failed to understand the importance of the temperature differences between core and surface of the body.

Iceland tomorrow. Over and out.

Hi Christer,

Informative and definitive post. Enjoy your trip to Iceland.

Best regards, George

[GBinOz]

So, yes I believe they checked, and no, I can't believe that they didn't check till after the inquest.

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.

Hi Doc,

My suggestion is that it was his inquest testimony placing him at the scene with a knife that raised suspicions about him. It certainly caught the coroner's attention. But he may have had that covered in advance with the rabbit story and the dessert knife. But the police were working from the assumption that the body was there and questioning the fact of how Richardson could possibly have missed it when it was so close to his feet.

I think that rather than asking him, they would have requested he show them what he did via a re-enactment. The police dropped him from suspicion because they discovered that what he did could have resulted in him missing the body. If he showed them that the door was only partially open and that he was rotated to the right to repair his boot, then it would become apparent that he may have missed the body, and he would have been given the benefit of the doubt.

If Richardson was innocent I imagine he would have been relieved at this conclusion in that it released him from being investigated. If guilty, he would have been VERY relieved.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Hi Doc,

My suggestion is that it was his inquest testimony placing him at the scene with a knife that raised suspicions about him. It certainly caught the coroner's attention. But he may have had that covered in advance with the rabbit story and the dessert knife. But the police were working from the assumption that the body was there and questioning the fact of how Richardson could possibly have missed it when it was so close to his feet.

I think that rather than asking him, they would have requested he show them what he did via a re-enactment. The police dropped him from suspicion because they discovered that what he did could have resulted in him missing the body. If he showed them that the door was only partially open and that he was rotated to the right to repair his boot, then it would become apparent that he may have missed the body, and he would have been given the benefit of the doubt.

If Richardson was innocent I imagine he would have been relieved at this conclusion in that it released him from being investigated. If guilty, he would have been VERY relieved.

Cheers, George

Which might also explain why when Richardson realized when he was cleared by the police from being a suspect , that he later included the boot cutting incident knowing full well he was in the clear. Just one answer to the question that annoyingly keeps popping up on this thread ,''Why would Richardson put himself voluntarily at a murder scene with a knife'' ? .Guess that one can be put to bed . [the question i mean]

[Fleetwood Mac]

So what Phillips had was a body where all of the skin, exposed skin as well as unexposed skin, had gone cold. And he had some little warmth in the abdominal cavity, under insulating intestines. It was apparently the last of the discernable body warmth, leaving the body.

The conclusion is easy enough to see: hours had passed, allowing every square inch of the skin to grow cold, but the remaining warmth in the abdominal cavity told Phillips that life had not been extinct for more that some three or four hours.

Cheers Fisherman.

I for one now have a better understanding of the argument underpinning Professor Thiblin's conclusion.

It's pretty clear that some posters will not be willing to take these points on board, we have the experience of 147 pages to tell us that, but who knows: there may be someone reading who is beginning to think that the reliability of Dr Phillips' assessment is not quite as 'useless' as what was claimed ad nauseam.

[GBinOz]

Which might also explain why when Richardson realized when he was cleared by the police from being a suspect , that he later included the boot cutting incident knowing full well he was in the clear. Just one answer to the question that annoyingly keeps popping up on this thread ,''Why would Richardson put himself voluntarily at a murder scene with a knife'' ? .Guess that one can be put to bed . [the question i mean]

Hi Fishy,

That could only be a bed of nails.

I would feel sure that JR had revealed his boot cutting prior to the police investigation. Why would he do that? I've been back-reading threads on the subject, so here are a few conjectures to supplement Herlock's 8 stone tablets.

1. It is true.
2. He wanted his 15 minutes of fame and felt the story he told Chandler wasn't going to achieve it. So he added the knife and boot cutting because
(a) He was a dope.
(b) He was very clever and realised that he would probably come under suspicion so he adds the boot cutting, but describes a dessert knife, rabbit, carrot etc to insure that, while he can admit to carrying a knife, it cannot be thought of as a dangerous weapon.
3. This one I read in another thread but I can't remember the author. JR was JtR and while mutilating Annie he hears a sound in the building next door and fears he may have been seen. He thinks the body may have been hidden behind the fence so needs a reason for leaning forward with a knife and comes up with the boot cutting. Petty flimsy after the body is found, but if he were seen he would have been desperate.

As I said previously, I can't think of a reason for the police not asking him to re-enact his story. Far more conclusive than just verballing him. Proof that he could have missed the body, along with a lack of other evidence, is what cleared him.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

That could only be a bed of nails.

I would feel sure that JR had revealed his boot cutting prior to the police investigation. Why would he do that? I've been back-reading threads on the subject, so here are a few conjectures to supplement Herlock's 8 stone tablets.

1. It is true.
2. He wanted his 15 minutes of fame and felt the story he told Chandler wasn't going to achieve it. So he added the knife and boot cutting because
(a) He was a dope.
(b) He was very clever and realised that he would probably come under suspicion so he adds the boot cutting, but describes a dessert knife, rabbit, carrot etc to insure that, while he can admit to carrying a knife, it cannot be thought of as a dangerous weapon.
3. This one I read in another thread but I can't remember the author. JR was JtR and while mutilating Annie he hears a sound in the building next door and fears he may have been seen. He thinks the body may have been hidden behind the fence so needs a reason for leaning forward with a knife and comes up with the boot cutting. Petty flimsy after the body is found, but if he were seen he would have been desperate.

As I said previously, I can't think of a reason for the police not asking him to re-enact his story. Far more conclusive than just verballing him. Proof that he could have missed the body, along with a lack of other evidence, is what cleared him.

Cheers, George

No problem George , My point simply was an answer to that dreadful question that tends to pop up now and then . At least now, for me anyway that could be an answer[ Remember , he was basically cleared from being a suspect pretty right after they searched him and the premises so he knew he was safe .So the knife story need not have worried him ] , i just like to keep it simple .

[GBinOz]

Cheers Fisherman.

I for one now have a better understanding of the argument underpinning Professor Thiblin's conclusion.

It's pretty clear that some posters will not be willing to take these points on board, we have the experience of 147 pages to tell us that, but who knows: there may be someone reading who is beginning to think that the reliability of Dr Phillips' assessment is not quite as 'useless' as what was claimed ad nauseam.

Come now FM. You know very well that the opinion of one poster's expert friend is the only one deigned worthy to be countenanced, all others having to be put to the sword. (joking!).

[Fleetwood Mac]

Come now FM. You know very well that the opinion of one poster's expert friend is the only one deigned worthy to be countenanced, all others having to be put to the sword. (joking!).

Aye, I think it's fair to say there is a touch of selectivity going on in terms of which posts are challenged. A case of the tail wagging the dog, i.e the information being made to fit the overriding theory.

I can think of one good thing that has come out of this thread (I'm sure there are others but this is the one that springs to my mind): we shouldn't casually throw around claims, such as Dr Phillip's estimate being useless based on a series of links that lack relevance to Dr Phillips' situation, and take them for granted.

[GBinOz]

Hi FM,

While I agree that there is selectivity taking place, I think I should make it clear that I am not dismissive of Jeff's research. He has consistently stated that his conclusions do not exclude either ToDs. He has assessed the medical and witness evidence and leans toward the later ToD. I have done the same and, at this stage, lean toward the earlier ToD. Jeff is fine with that, and so am I. Neither of us talk in absolutes (not aimed at you). I am a little taken aback that convictions can be so strongly held that resort is made to posting a thread that presumes to denigrate opponents knowledge of the English language, which in it's very title contains a misuse of the English language. It should be noted that Wynne Baxter used the word "qualification", not "caveat" in his comment on Phillip's PMI. But he was a solicitor and would have known the actual meaning of the word "caveat", unless his knowledge of the English language was also sub-standard. It should be remembered by all that with the current state of evidence for these topics, no-one can be proved right or wrong, so we can only debate, with a proportion of speculation thrown in, which doesn't allow for the practice of infallible pontification. ..............Rant button disengaged.

Cheers, George

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi FM,

While I agree that there is selectivity taking place, I think I should make it clear that I am not dismissive of Jeff's research. He has consistently stated that his conclusions do not exclude either ToDs. He has assessed the medical and witness evidence and leans toward the later ToD. I have done the same and, at this stage, lean toward the earlier ToD. Jeff is fine with that, and so am I. Neither of us talk in absolutes (not aimed at you). I am a little taken aback that convictions can be so strongly held that resort is made to posting a thread that presumes to denigrate opponents knowledge of the English language, which in it's very title contains a misuse of the English language. It should be noted that Wynne Baxter used the word "qualification", not "caveat" in his comment on Phillip's PMI. But he was a solicitor and would have known the actual meaning of the word "caveat", unless his knowledge of the English language was also sub-standard. It should be remembered by all that with the current state of evidence for these topics, no-one can be proved right or wrong, so we can only debate, with a proportion of speculation thrown in, which doesn't allow for the practice of infallible pontification. ..............Rant button disengaged.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Not really a rant at all there, seems perfectly reasonable.

The bits left to us allow us to create a number of possible scenarios, we have a delve and see what we think is the likely outcome. We do need to understand though, the less likely outcomes are still possible. Individual preference.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi FM,

While I agree that there is selectivity taking place, I think I should make it clear that I am not dismissive of Jeff's research.

Hi George,

Jeff is free to adopt whatever approach he sees fit in order to try and shed some light on things.

I think his mathematical statistical approach to four witnesses having to be 'wrong' is flawed for the reasons I stated.

I think the PMI/blood temperature posts were interesting, they were a good read.

In the end though, it's not about accepting or dismissing the research that Jeff puts forward out of hand, at least not for me anyway; it's a case of exactly what weight it lends to the scenarios being proposed.

Everyone has their own criteria for that which carries weight.

Mine is that the research undertaken must have relevance to the scenario being discussed. As an example: Jeff provided a peer reviewed paper which is a good start, the flaw being that the dead bodies under consideration had a PMI of 5 to 50 hours, i.e. some of those bodies will have been dead for at least a day and possibly 2 days, as of yet we don't know how many bodies were in the research nor the PMI specific to each one.

That research is simply not enough for me to carry the same conclusion into Dr Phillip's situation and that's without considering the other observations from Dr Phillips, e.g. 'rigor commencing of the limbs'.

And then we have the views of a professor in forensic medicine suggesting Jeff's conclusions based on the research he presented are premature.

In the event other people see it differently, then that's fine. Equally, I'm sure Jeff won't have a problem with my views on the research he presented.