John Richardson

[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. 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

To add some perspective to the previous post, George.

I believe Annie was murdered much earlier than 5.30am. But, it's not about building a theory around anything presented which I can use to prop up that theory, but rather a reasonable assessment of that being presented in order to arrive at a reasonable scenario.

To illustrate utilising John Richardson, who is the subject of the thread:

It has been suggested that there were gaps in the fence. I can't go along with that given that the entire coroner/Richardson exchange clearly indicates that in the event a murder was taking place over the other side of the fence, Richardson would have needed to look over the fence to see it happening.

It has been suggested that Richardson was not telling the truth in his exchange with Inspector Chandler. I do not discount Richardson's statement on this basis. Richardson did state to Chandler that he felt sure the body was not there, which means Richardson essentially stated he could see into that part of the yard. I think it's reasonable to suggest that in a brief exchange with Chandler, there could well have been a slight divergence in terms of recalling what was said.

But, Richardson's knife tale is a genuine problem, and I think that's a very reasonable interpretation. This compromises his entire statement.

[Doctored Whatsit]

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

Hi George,

Yes, we just don't know enough, do we! We all make what we think are reasonable assumptions from the known data.

Personally, I take the view that Richardson immediately offered himself to Chandler as a witness, which suggests the behaviour of a responsible citizen with relevant information needed by the police. He then made a detailed statement which we don't have, and we all inevitably have different ideas about what he said. I stress that the police believed him, so we do not have any evidence that his first statement was not complete. The police would probably have been suspicious immediately, because of Phillips' ToD estimate. They must have questioned him thoroughly to identify how he could be sure that there was no body in the yard, so his boot story must have been part of his original statement, surely.

The way I read the events is that his original statement was pretty thorough and complete, the police were suspicious because of the estimated ToD, and checked thoroughly at once, hence the check for blood on his clothing. If they did this, then Richardson would still have been carrying the old dessert knife, and this might explain the item in some papers about an impounded knife. I think that the police checked out his story, and failed to find any flaws, and accepted he was a reliable witness. However, the coroner, having Richardson's statement, but not the full knowledge of the police enquiries, played detective, was suspicious of Richardson, and gave him a hard time in the witness box. Later, Chandler seems to have made it clear to the coroner that Richardson was deemed reliable, and the coroner seemed to accept this, especially after Phillips added a little doubt to his own evidence.

The suspicion that Richardson could have been basically telling the truth, but genuinely missed the body is the product of the Echo report, which has no basis in reality as far as I can see. Richardson said he could not have missed the body, and Chandler agreed. There is no evidence that I am aware of which suggests that the police believed he missed seeing the body. As I pointed out, the Echo report and Swanson's summary were both dated 19th Sept, and were quite different. Swanson did not accept Phillips' estimated ToD. He clearly even expressed the possibility of doubt about the reliability of Long's evidence being regretted due to Phillips' ToD, which indicated that he hadn't even absolutely accepted a ToD before 5. 30 am! So, I see no evidence that the police believed that Richardson missed the body, or that the police even believed it was there at 4. 45 am. Even if he fiddled with his boot with the door banging against his arm, which is unlikely, there was a big gap between the bottom of the door and the ground, and Richardson would have been looking down to take off his boot, and then to put it on again. He couldn't have missed it!

On the debate about the word "caveat", it is Latin for "let him beware", and is correctly used, as by Herlock, before any words of caution about a previous statement

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

A story about a knife that he hadn’t needed to employ in the first place? And a re-enactment that we have no evidence for? A lot of effort is being used to create a mystery around Richardson when everything that he said rings true George.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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!).

Or the opinions and interpretations of a journalist?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

One bad thing that’s come out of this thread is the re-emergence of conspiracy theory thinking and bias. Some posters have just got it into their heads that a doctor can’t be wrong and then have tried all manner of waffle and manipulation to try a demonise witnesses. Absolutely nothing has changed. When the thread began it was likelier that Chapman died later. The case is now stronger.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I posted a detailed response to Christer/Thiblin in #2185 and then, in response to some posters complaining it was too long, I posted a short nutshell summary in #2192.

Which one did Christer reply to? Why, the nutshell summary of course!

As a result, he avoids even acknowledging that I set out in detail what the misinformation he had given to the expert was. Worse, he even repeats it in his own post suggesting that "every square inch of the skin" had grown cold. Dr Phillips didn't say this so we should not be putting words into his mouth.

Similarly, while avoiding any discussion of the detailed explanation of the problems I gave with what Thiblin had said, Christer uses the obvious trick of not responding to any of that but of referring to a "layman's poor understanding". I wouldn't mind but in the post to which Christer actually responded, I complained that part of Professor Thiblin's opinion has been (apparently) summarized by Christer, who is a layman. The fact of the matter is that, of everything Christer posted from Thiblin, we only have a single sentence directly from the professor that is relevant to the question we are dealing with but that sentence is obviously out of context (because it makes no sense on its own, requiring Christer to explain it to us) and is based on the wrong information provided.

We are then treated to Christer's own idiosyncratic belief that "a discerning doctor" knows that he will be deceived if he simply feels the skin for warmth. We are given the fiction that Dr Phillips obviously checked the armpits and the groin despite this not being the evidence. It is a mere assumption. How can Christer and Thiiblin possibly know that Phillips checked the armpits and groin?

Worse is that Christer, in his make-believe world, detached from the facts of this case, tells us that, "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". But Dr Phillips didn't say that the body was "all cold to the touch" did he? And when Christer says "all cold to the touch" he does this deliberately because he is including the armpit and the groin. Why is he doing this? Because Thiblin told him:

The likelihood for the skin feeling cold is higher if the skin the doctor felt was exposed to the elements. If he felt the armpits and groins, it is another matter."

So Christer now has to twist the evidence so that Phillips DID feel the armpits and groins, hence he changes Dr Phillips' statement that the body was cold (in one report he only said the left side of the body was cold) to ALL the body, meaning every square inch, meaning the armpits and groin. No part of Chapman's body, apparently, was left untouched by Dr Phillips, despite her armpits being covered by her clothing and the area around her groin having been mutilated. But don't worry, Christer somehow knows that Phillips, "had a body where all of the skin, exposed skin as well as unexposed skin, had gone cold". This is nothing more than a hypothetical scenario in which Dr Phillips has examined every part of Chapman's body including all the areas covered by clothing. The possibility that all Phillips did was check one or two parts of Chapman's exposed body with his hand is discarded.

But even if Christer can show that Phillips checked the armpits and groin with his hands (which he can't) it doesn't help him. All we would have is Thiblin saying "it is another matter" which tells us nothing. And it ignores that Thiblin told us "it is very hard to establish body temperature by way of feeling for warmth with the hand."
Christer simply ignores this warning. It was easy for Dr Phillips to do it, apparently,

The fiction is complete when Christer tells us that Dr Phillips "believed that three or four hours had passed" and understood that "life had not been extinct for more than some three or four hours". Not only is that NOT at all what Dr Phillips said in his evidence (and if that was what he would have learnt from the warmth of the intestines, why didn't he say it?) but he actually qualified his evidence of "at least two hours, probably more" by noting that it was a cold morning and that this fact could have deceived him. From this qualification, the coroner understood Dr Phillips to be accepting that Chapman could have been murdered as late as 5.30am. Christer ignores this completely.

Let's come to the nub of Christer's argument based on Thiblin. It's this, according to Christer:

"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."

These are the words of Christer Holmgren, a layman, based on Thiblin having said, "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.". Why don't we have the interpretation Christer gives of this sentence directly from Professor Thiblin?

All the professor has said is that an obvious difference between the outer and central parts of the body will lead to a PMI of 3 to 4 hours. Christer must know that, on its own, this is nonsense. As I have already said, what would you expect of the central parts of a body which feels cold on the outer surface one hour after death? The answer is that you would expect it to be warm. So an obvious difference between the outer and central parts of the body MUST lead to a possible PMI of 1 hour. Sure, it could also be 3-4 hours but you can't possibly rule out 1 hour on the basis of a mere difference between the outer and central parts of the body, which difference you would expect.

So Christer has to fill in the gaps from what his expert has actually said. We are told that when Dr Phillips found some "little warmth in the abdominal cavity" despite those NOT being the words of Dr Phillips who never said anything about "little warmth" nor did he refer to "the abdominal cavity". He only spoke of "remaining heat under the intestines in the body". My own interpretation of what Thiblin was saying is that that Phillips could have made an estimate of 3-4 hours if he had found the intestines to be less warm than he expected. Christer has his own interpretation. He tells us that Dr Phillips would have discovered that the heat under the intestines was: "apparently the last of the discernable body warmth". The use of the word "apparently" means that Christer is guessing. What is he (and Thiblin) suggesting Phillips did? Groped around with his hands inside Chapman's body touching every part of her internal organs to feel for warmth? And is he saying that the only warmth left in her body (the core) was in the intestines? And is he saying that because the only warmth left inside the body was in the intestines the doctor was able to estimate a PMI of 3-4 hours? If that is what Thiblin was saying, it is so detached from the evidence as to be unbelievable. All we know is that Phillips detected warmth under the intestines. He didn't say that this was the only warmth at the core of the body, as Christer now appears to be suggesting in order to make what Thiblin said make some kind of sense.

This entire argument is absurd. Christer has latched onto a single sentence of Thiblin to construct an entire fictional examination conducted by Dr Phillips at 29 Hanbury Street based on zero evidence.

Instead of being provided with a detailed opinion from an expert, we are essentially back to Christer's own beliefs about Dr Phillips' amazing ability to accurately estimate time of death simply from feeling the body of Chapman.

But the facts are these:

1. It's not possible for a doctor to accurately assess the temperature of a dead body using one's hands, especially outdoors on a cool morning.

2. From feeling the temperature of a dead body, whatever that is believed to be, it's not possible for a doctor to accurately estimate the time of death, especially outdoors on a cold morning where the deceased has been suffering from a wasting disease.

3. A dead body can feel cold within an hour (Christer now tells us it's within 15 minutes, having flatly told me this was impossible three years ago!).

Conclusion: It wasn't possible for Dr Phillips to say whether Chapman had been murdered one hour before his examination or two, three or four hours.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Worse is that Christer, in his make-believe world, detached from the facts of this case, tells us that, "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". But Dr Phillips didn't say that the body was "all cold to the touch" did he? And when Christer says "all cold to the touch" he does this deliberately because he is including the armpit and the groin. Why is he doing this? Because Thiblin told him:

The likelihood for the skin feeling cold is higher if the skin the doctor felt was exposed to the elements. If he felt the armpits and groins, it is another matter."

There's a flaw in your expert friend's reasoning.

That being, Dr Phillips stated this at the inquest:

The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body

Dr Phillips is telling your friend exactly what Fisherman presented to Professor Thiblin, including the only part of the body where there was warmth.

[Aethelwulf]

There's a flaw in your expert friend's reasoning.

That being, Dr Phillips stated this at the inquest:

The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body

Dr Phillips is telling your friend exactly what Fisherman presented to Professor Thiblin, including the only part of the body where there was warmth.

but also annie had quite possibly been out on the streets for several hours after the potatoe meal and her core temperature could have already been quite cold. she is then opened up and innards removed and lying on cold stone flags. P tells us it was a cold morning. she was also very unwell - was her circulation poor? has fisherman's expert dealt with such a case? no i suspect.

[DJA]

One bad thing that’s come out of this thread

One bad thing

[Herlock Sholmes]

There's a flaw in your expert friend's reasoning.

That being, Dr Phillips stated this at the inquest:

The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body

Dr Phillips is telling your friend exactly what Fisherman presented to Professor Thiblin, including the only part of the body where there was warmth.

It’s not just my friends reasoning it’s mine too. I’ve discussed it with him and trust his judgment and opinions, but the words are mine.

……

It's impossible to know exactly what Dr Phillips said. We have these five versions:

"The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body - Daily Telegraph

"The body was cold, but there was a certain amount of heat under the intestine that remained in the body - Daily News

"The left side of the body was cold, excepting a remaining heat under the intestines in the body" - Morning Advertiser

"The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat internally" - Morning Post

"The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat under the intestines that remained in the body" - Daily Chronicle

But we have Christer saying that he told Dr Phillips something very different, namely:

"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"

As I've already said, there is no mention by Dr Phillips in the evidence of him putting his hand inside the abdominal cavity, nor is he quoted as saying in any of the the press reports that that "the surface of the body was all cold". The word "all" has been surreptitiously slipped in to improve upon what the doctor actually stated in evidence.

Thiblin should have been given the words of Dr Phillips as reported in the press, not a slightly different version of what Christer thought he might have said.

As for the actual evidence in the case, taking any of the press versions as accurate, I'm not sure what you think the doctor was saying.

My interpretation would be that he felt the body of Chapman (at some unspecified place or places) and it felt cold to him. Still using his hands he found that there was some heat under the intestines.

So he found a cold body with heat under the intestines.

That's it. It doesn't help us because why could that not be a finding for a body that has been dead for only an hour?

In the absence of a statement by Thiblin addressing that exact question, we do not have any expert opinion that assists us, just layman waffle.

[Elamarna]

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!

Of course once again we read subjective opinion, presented as objective.

There is no way you can make an assesment of the difference in temperatures between external and internal that is in anyway meaningful, by touch alone.
Here we have a 134 year old statement, based on touch by one Doctor, with no temperatures, just the subjective ideas of warmer and colder.

However, this apparently allows Thiblin to reach a conclusion

To claim an apparently very well qualified expert would lend his name to such a subjective assesment is simply unrealistic, in the way it is presented

[Elamarna]

It’s not just my friends reasoning it’s mine too. I’ve discussed it with him and trust his judgment and opinions, but the words are mine.

……

It's impossible to know exactly what Dr Phillips said. We have these five versions:

"The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body - Daily Telegraph

"The body was cold, but there was a certain amount of heat under the intestine that remained in the body - Daily News

"The left side of the body was cold, excepting a remaining heat under the intestines in the body" - Morning Advertiser

"The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat internally" - Morning Post

"The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat under the intestines that remained in the body" - Daily Chronicle

But we have Christer saying that he told Dr Phillips something very different, namely:

"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"

As I've already said, there is no mention by Dr Phillips in the evidence of him putting his hand inside the abdominal cavity, nor is he quoted as saying in any of the the press reports that that "the surface of the body was all cold". The word "all" has been surreptitiously slipped in to improve upon what the doctor actually stated in evidence.

Thiblin should have been given the words of Dr Phillips as reported in the press, not a slightly different version of what Christer thought he might have said.

As for the actual evidence in the case, taking any of the press versions as accurate, I'm not sure what you think the doctor was saying.

My interpretation would be that he felt the body of Chapman (at some unspecified place or places) and it felt cold to him. Still using his hands he found that there was some heat under the intestines.

So he found a cold body with heat under the intestines.

That's it. It doesn't help us because why could that not be a finding for a body that has been dead for only an hour?

In the absence of a statement by Thiblin addressing that exact question, we do not have any expert opinion that assists us, just layman waffle.

unfortunatly this is what we often get from some members.

for people truly intererested in determining TOD in the 19th Century, there are many scientific papers about such avaliable on the web.

Indeed we have a good thread Here with various links

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/witnesses/718125-chapman

Sadly it seems that many have either forgotten this thread or not read it.

[Fleetwood Mac]

It's impossible to know exactly what Dr Phillips said. We have these five versions:

.

So, now that your friend's statement has been challenged and it turns out that Casebook's interpretation is what Fisherman relayed to Professor Thilbin, you do an about turn and shift the discussion to: "we can't know what Dr Phillips said". Your fallback position.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So, now that your friend's statement has been challenged and it turns out that Casebook's interpretation is what Fisherman relayed to Professor Thilbin, you do an about turn and shift the discussion to: "we can't know what Dr Phillips said". Your fallback position.

Can’t you read???

Perhaps you should listen to Steve (Elemarna) who does have a medical background. I’m tired of reading your desperation.

[Fleetwood Mac]

unfortunatly this is what we often get from some members.

for people truly intererested in determining TOD in the 19th Century, there are many scientific papers about such avaliable on the web.

Indeed we have a good thread Here with various links

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/witnesses/718125-chapman

Sadly it seems that many have either forgotten this thread or not read it.

I think you should post a pertinent part, complete with medical expertise, that argues against Professor Thilbin.

Nobody in their right mind is going to go on a wild goose chase because you post a link, without any supporting commentary, and claim you're talking to the stupid.

On the other hand, in the event you post something interesting from your link, I'm sure it will catch the attention of those 'some other members' and then they'll have a look.