John Richardson

[Fleetwood Mac]

I take it to mean "quickly" and "without warning" - as opposed to something leaning or scraping against the fence, or something that might scrape across the fence as it falls.
Imagine a branch moving in the wind and scraping across the fence - such a sound might not be described as "suddenly", as there is a certain build-up in the sound.
So in my opinion the sound was not of something that leaned and then tipped over, falling slowly or in a staccato fashion while scraping the fence.

This is what I think is most likely too although I've never been fully convinced. The fact Cadosch mentions one noise supports what you're saying also.

'Pure speculation, but I'd imagine it wouldn't have been easy to keep Annie from falling down the fence, I believe Annie was described as stout. Then again, I suppose it could have been a leg or a foot banging against the fence as she was laid down.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Point out where he was asked directly if Annie was likely killed earlier.

No, Thiblin wasn't asked that which is why he never said it!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here you go Trevor,

"In some cases, rigor mortis appears within a few minutes, which is said that accelerated rigor mortis, and in rare cases, it appears immediately after death which is called the cadaveric spasm. The cadaveric spasm occurs without primary loosening. This situation can be seen in deaths that have occurred after a serious physical or emotional stress."

Saukko P, Knight B. KNIGHT's Forensic Pathology. 4th ed. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC; 2016. pp. 62–6.

Cheers Dusty,

I have another quote or 2 as well in case you get accused of inventing it. Which wouldn’t surprise me to be honest.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On rigor mortis and Annie Chapman:

We are getting into a discussion that was touched upon earlier in this thread.

That being, the outliers in terms of when rigor can begin, and these outliers are being used to make a case surrounding Dr Phillips' observation: "commencing of the limbs".

I for one base my opinions on that which is most likely. Others are free to go with outliers but I'm sure they will accept that these outliers aren't the most likely scenario.

Dr Strange posts from a thesis. What Dr Strange fails to mention is that in the same thesis it is stated that rigor appears on average 1.5 to 4 hours after death. Bear in mind that rigor had 'commenced of the limbs' in Annie's case and so this was a more advanced stage of rigor than first appearing.

Here is the link:

Accelerated rigor mortis: A case letter - PMC (nih.gov)

Here is the full quote from that link:

Rigor mortis appears on an average within 1.5–4 hours postmortem and spreads to all body muscles within 6–12 h. The full rigor mortis remains 18–36 h and will then collapse within 24–50 h in the same order that it first appeared. Rigor mortis may rarely persist for up to 6 days. This time is so variable depending on different places of living.[1,2,3]

Here are the 1,2,3 footnotes for anyone wishing to challenge this:

1. Saukko P, Knight B. KNIGHT's Forensic Pathology. 4th ed. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC; 2016. pp. 62–6. [Google Scholar]
2. Shkrum MJ, Ramsay DA. Forensic Pathology of Trauma. Totowa, New Jersey: Humana Press Inc; 2007. pp. 24–8. [Google Scholar]
3. Shepherd R. Simpson's Forensic Medicine. 12th ed. Euston Road, London: Arnold, a Member of the Hodder Headline Group; 2003. pp. 38–9. [Google Scholar]

Ultimately, the average is far more likely than outlier cases. That average being appearing between 1.5 to 4 hours. Add in that in Annie's case this was not rigor first appearing, it was 'commencing of the limbs' which is a more advanced stage, and add in the cold environmental temperature which delays the onset of rigor.

If rigor appears "on average 1.5 to 4 hours after death" then in some cases it will be less than that (in other cases more). That's what the "average" means! If Chapman's case wasn't an "average" one, because, for example, she was sick and malnourished when she was murdered, and/or was engaged in a violent struggle, an average doesn't help!

[Herlock Sholmes]

The cadaveric spasm you cited is a rare phenomenon as cited in your citation and you quote "however, this phenomenon often occurs only in a group of muscles such as muscles of a limb and does not involve all the muscles in the body." so Phillips states that stiffness in the limbs so by that can we rightly or wrongly assume that all the limbs were showing signs of rigor?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"Francis E. Camps stated that.Ordinarily the rigor mortis appears between 2-4 hours, but sometimes it is seen within 30 minutes of death and sometimes the onset is delayed for 6 hours or more."

"Bernard Knight described the method of testing the rigor mortis by attempting to flex or extend the joints though the whole muscle mass itself becomes hard, and finger pressure on quadriceps or pectoralis can also detect the changes. The stiffness may develop within half an hour of death or may be postponed indefinitely."

“Werner Uri Spitz (1993), a German-American forensic pathologist, "reported that in temperate climate, under average condition, rigor becomes apparent within half an hour to an hour, increases progressively to a maximum within twelve hours, remains for about twelve hours and then progressively disappears within the following twelve hours."

“From the English physiologist Sir Andrew Fielding Huxley (1974), who lived and worked in a temperate climate, we get this: 'the rigor mortis, which is cadaveric rigidity, starts developing within 1 to 2 hours after death and takes around 12 hours after death for complete development.'”

“Furthermore, according to K.S. Narayan Reddy, author of 'Essentials of Forensic Medicine', "In death from diseases causing great exhaustion and wasting e.g. cholera, typhoid, tuberculosis and cancer and in violent deaths as by cut throats, firearms or electrocution, the onset of rigor is early and duration is short".The paper alsostates that,according to W.G. Aitcheson Robertson, author of 'Aids to Forensic Medicine and Toxicology', in "death followed by convulsions, muscular exertion, racing, the rigor mortis will appear earlier". We are told thatMason JK stated "The onset of rigor will be accelerated in conditions involving high ante-mortem muscle lactic acid e.g. after a struggle or other exercise.". So a struggle could bring on rigor earlier than the average, just like a cut throat. Then what about the physical condition of the deceased? Well according to S.C. Basu, author of the Handbook of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, rigor is "hastened or accelerated in feeble, fatigued and exhausted muscles"

“Simpson's Forensic Medicine, updated 13th edition by Jason Payne James, Richard Jones, Steven Karch and John Manlove (2011):

"The only use of assessing the presence or absence of rigor lies in the estimation of the time of death, and the key word here is estimation, as rigor is such a variable process that it can never provide an accurate assessment of the time of death. Extreme caution should be exercised in trying to assign a time of death based on the very subjective assessment of the degree and extent of rigor."


How much more evidence is required on the unreliability of Rigor Mortis?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree.

And what's more, the evidence, as opposed to "what I find hard to believe" and outlier medical examples, strongly points towards an earlier TOD.

Have you found that quote yet?

[Herlock Sholmes]

''Perhaps i could explain but it wont make any difference in regards to yours or my interpretation of Dr Phillips estimate of t.o.d'' .

Or translated , '' youve had it explained to you more than once already, but your unwilling to accept what most people on this topic have being saying regarding dr phillips t.od . So why on earth would we want to explain it to you again for the umpteenth time? .

See, the difference here herlock is, at least i tried to be a little diplomatic as not to offend, but when you reply with a smart-alec comment like that its no wonder this thread has turn to shite.

So if you want to go on for ever and a day with your little game so be it ill more than happy to oblige , or you can just tone it done a touch and maybe, just maybe this thread can continue on with some positive debate.

youve had it explained to you more than once already, but your unwilling to accept what most people on this topic have being saying regarding dr phillips t.od

In fact, only Fisherman in this entire thread has attempted to explain what Thiblin meant. Everyone else has bottled it, presumably because they haven't got a clue.

This was Fisherman's first attempt at explaining what Thiblin meant (in #2180):

"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".

So his understanding was that Thiblin was talking about warmth that had subsided.

He had another attempt in #2193:

"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."

So here was talking here about "the last of the discernable body warmth".

In other words, if we follow our understanding of the English language, for Thiblin, according to Fisherman:

Cold outer, warm core = possible 1 hour PMI

Cold outer, less warm (i.e. cooling) core = unlikely 1 hour PMI, speaks more of 3-4 hours PMI.

The problem with Fisherman's explanation is that what Thiblin actually said was that it is "an obvious difference" between the outer and the core which results in a 3-4 hour PMI.

There is surely more of an obvious difference after 1 hour, than after 3-4 hours. In fact, after 3-4 hours, if heat is subsiding, there will be LESS of an obvious difference than after 1 hour.

Like I've said, this is all hypothetical because Dr Phillips didn't indicate to the coroner whether the intestines were warmer or less warm than he would have expected from a body dead for an hour. Nor did he say that the amount of heat of the intestines formed the basis of his opinion. So all Thiblin could have been saying is that there might have been enough information in the heat of the intestines for Dr Phillips to estimate a 3-4 hour PMI but we can't possibly know if that's what he did.

All we know is that Dr Phillips accepted that his estimate of "at least 2 hours, possibly more" might be wrong due to the circumstances and that the coroner believed that he was wrong.

From the medical information alone, death could have been at 4.30 or it could have been at 5.30. The official finding was 5.30 but we can't know for sure which one was right. Why are we wasting time on this?

Please try and understand this.

[GBinOz]

I'm sorry George, but I really don't understand why you say this.

Are you answering in this way because you can't answer my question with any reasoned response?

I thought that my suggestion was entirely consistent with both human anatomy and the English language.

Let's see:

1. The rectum and anus are part of the large intestine? Yes or no?

2. They are both clearly beneath or under the intestines? Yes or no?

2. You objected in #2397 that some "warmth under the intestines" is an internal measurement. Doesn't my suggestion involve an internal measurement which doesn't have Dr Phillips uniquely sticking his hand into Chapman's bloody and probably faecal covered insides at the crime scene?

So why isn't my suggestion at least possible?

Hi Herlock,

I used that little bit of humour to illustrate that the answer is so obvious to me that my failure to explain it to you makes me suspect we are talking about a different species in a different language. So

1. Yes
2. Yes and No. Yes if the subject is standing up. No if the subject is lying on her back. As you know, much of the lower intestines were removed from the abdominal cavity and placed on the shoulder. Of what remained with the body horizontal, under is towards the spine, not towards the feet.
Other 2. Phillips would have had to describe your suggestion as: "Your Honour, I brought the victim into sitting position and worked my hand between her skin and her clothes around to her back opposite where the remaining intestines would have been had they not fallen out when I sat her up.". And it still would have been an external measurement.

I hope this has sorted out the misunderstanding. If not..back to the home planet (for one of us).

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

No, Thiblin wasn't asked that which is why he never said it!

So your initial question was pointless then.

[FISHY1118]

youve had it explained to you more than once already, but your unwilling to accept what most people on this topic have being saying regarding dr phillips t.od

In fact, only Fisherman in this entire thread has attempted to explain what Thiblin meant. Everyone else has bottled it, presumably because they haven't got a clue.

This was Fisherman's first attempt at explaining what Thiblin meant (in #2180):

"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".

So his understanding was that Thiblin was talking about warmth that had subsided.

He had another attempt in #2193:

"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."

So here was talking here about "the last of the discernable body warmth".

In other words, if we follow our understanding of the English language, for Thiblin, according to Fisherman:

Cold outer, warm core = possible 1 hour PMI

Cold outer, less warm (i.e. cooling) core = unlikely 1 hour PMI, speaks more of 3-4 hours PMI.

The problem with Fisherman's explanation is that what Thiblin actually said was that it is "an obvious difference" between the outer and the core which results in a 3-4 hour PMI.

There is surely more of an obvious difference after 1 hour, than after 3-4 hours. In fact, after 3-4 hours, if heat is subsiding, there will be LESS of an obvious difference than after 1 hour.

Like I've said, this is all hypothetical because Dr Phillips didn't indicate to the coroner whether the intestines were warmer or less warm than he would have expected from a body dead for an hour. Nor did he say that the amount of heat of the intestines formed the basis of his opinion. So all Thiblin could have been saying is that there might have been enough information in the heat of the intestines for Dr Phillips to estimate a 3-4 hour PMI but we can't possibly know if that's what he did.

All we know is that Dr Phillips accepted that his estimate of "at least 2 hours, possibly more" might be wrong due to the circumstances and that the coroner believed that he was wrong.

From the medical information alone, death could have been at 4.30 or it could have been at 5.30. The official finding was 5.30 but we can't know for sure which one was right. Why are we wasting time on this?

Please try and understand this.

Ill leave this up to you and Fisherman to debate. Ive covered it enough already . ill stick with the evidence at hand .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I used that little bit of humour to illustrate that the answer is so obvious to me that my failure to explain it to you makes me suspect we are talking about a different species in a different language. So

1. Yes
2. Yes and No. Yes if the subject is standing up. No if the subject is lying on her back. As you know, much of the lower intestines were removed from the abdominal cavity and placed on the shoulder. Of what remained with the body horizontal, under is towards the spine, not towards the feet.
Other 2. Phillips would have had to describe your suggestion as: "Your Honour, I brought the victim into sitting position and worked my hand between her skin and her clothes around to her back opposite where the remaining intestines would have been had they not fallen out when I sat her up.". And it still would have been an external measurement.

I hope this has sorted out the misunderstanding. If not..back to the home planet (for one of us).

Cheers, George

The basics of human anatomy, I believe, assume that a person's head is at the top of their body and their feet are at the bottom George. That doesn't actually change just because a person might be standing on their head one day.

But, in any case, we don't know whether or not Dr Phillips brought Chapman into a sitting position to test her temperature. He doesn't need to have mentioned that to the coroner, just like he didn't mention putting his hand into Chapman's her abdominal cavity.

As for your characterisation of my argument that Phillips worked his hand "between her skin and her clothes around to her back opposite where the remaining intestines would have been had they not fallen out" you might want to read what I've said more closely. I'm not now suggesting he did that. I'm suggesting he felt for warmth in her rectum, just like he would have done with a thermometer if he had one, and, in terms of sticking a finger up there, just like he would have no doubt been very experienced in doing with his living patients if he needed to check any medical issues they had in that area.

Unless you can tell that this is not possible and that you cannot possibly be wrong in your own interpretation whereby Dr Phillips apparently decided not to check the actual warmth of the intestines, or of the kidneys or the liver, when he plunged his hand into the gaping wound in Chapman's body, then I think you should admit, in fairness, that it might have happened.

[Varqm]

If were going to use that arguement to say Doctors cant help, then where does that leave us with the witnesses ?




This was Georges post #1320 My highlighted part in red. Notice the Doctors in 3 other Ripper cases were pretty much spot on. Drs do help.

Jeff has pointed out also that its his opinion the difficulty for an Victorian Dr to give a t.o.d from 0 to 30 mins [such as the case was with these doctors] is more or less the same as 2 hours or more as in Phillips case. Yet no one seems to question their t.o.d. opinion.



I accept that that the estimates for the interval of time elapsed from ToD until time of examination can be considered unreliable using the techniques employed at the time. However, looking at Llewellan's estimate for Polly, Blackwell and Phillip's estimate for Stride, and Brown and Sequeira's estimate for Eddowes, I question the magnitude of the error involved with Phillip's estimate for Chapman. Modern medical opinion dictates that Phillip's could have been wrong, but by how much? Can we know for sure?

But can we look at the other side of the coin? Modern opinion on the reliability of eye witnesses. Let's look at some statements on the modern theory in that regard gleaned from a Google search on "can eyewitnesses be wrong".

How reliable is an eye witness?
Studies have shown that mistaken eyewitness testimony accounts for about half of all wrongful convictions

List of Cons of Eyewitness Testimony

• Eyewitness testimony may not always be accurate. ...
• Eyewitness testimony rely only on people's memory. ...
• Eyewitness testimony can have parts that are made up by the witness due to nervousness or fear. ...
• Eyewitness testimony can convict the wrong person.

How reliable is your memory?
Human memory is notoriously unreliable, especially when it comes to details. Scientists have found that prompting an eyewitness to remember more can generate details that are outright false but that feel just as correct to the witness as actual memories.

Most false memories aren't malicious or even intentionally hurtful. They're shifts or reconstructions of memory that don't align with the true events. However, some false memories can have significant consequences, including in court or legal settings where false memories may convict someone wrongfully.

There is currently no way to distinguish, in the absence of independent evidence, whether a particular memory is true or false. Even memories which are detailed and vivid and held with 100 percent conviction can be completely false.

Cadosch's original statement to the press was that he heard voices from which he distinguished only the word "no", a rustle of clothing and a scuffle and a noise of something falling against the fence, all as one incident. Then he remembered they occurred at different times, some on his way to the toilet, and the last on his return. At the inquest his recollection was of two trips to the toilet with no rustle or scuffle, only the "No" on one trip, and the noise against the fence on the second trip some 3-4 minutes later. He summarised by saying that he didn't look over the fence because what he heard was nothing out of the ordinary.

Long stated that she saw many people and couples on the street that morning, but picked out one couple of whom she stated she took no notice. Four days after the event she identifies Chapman, a woman she had never seen before, in the morgue, as the woman she had seen on that morning.

Richardson told Chandler and the press that he had checked the lock on the cellar door that morning by the method he had been using for two months. Two days later he remembered that he sat on the step to cut leather from his boot. At the inquest he told the coroner he sat on the step and cut leather from his boot, but after retrieving the knife he said he used, then remembered in wasn't sharp enough and that the leather removal was actually achieved afterwards at his work with a borrowed knife.

Is it reasonable to suggest that in the discussions of the reliability, or otherwise, of Phillip's testimony, the same consideration must be given to that of the witnesses?

Best regards, George

Read this https://coronertalk.com/28
TOD is a range.Anything within that range could be the one.And that is with more science.There might have been something in the Nichols and Eddowes case that appeared they have been killed more recently when the doctor examined the body in-situ.Besides the policemen's testimonies\talks might have helped them.
Cadosche and Longs testimonies at the very least put the time of murder at past 5:00 am even if their times was screwed by 15 to 20 minutes.There is nothing to base it on before that,unless your basis is "just because".
As for Richardson he knew that house,been there many times and he could determine if he could see the body from where he was that early morning.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So your initial question was pointless then.

Excellent.

So you agree that Fleetwood Mac was talking nonsense when he said in #2394:

"He gave his professional opinion that Annie wasn't murdered at 5.30am...Do you want to comment on Professor Thilbin's statement that what Fisherman relayed to him suggests Annie was murdered hours prior to 5.30am?"

AND in #2410

"What is being scrutinised is Dr Thilbin's conclusion that it is likely Annie was murdered hours prior to 5.30am."

Dr Thiblin never said any such thing, did he? He wasn't asked about it and he never said it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ill leave this up to you and Fisherman to debate. Ive covered it enough already . ill stick with the evidence at hand .

That's going to be rather difficult because Fisherman posted then ran away. Funny that!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Some people, who wish to be taken seriously, are still claiming that Dr. Phillips possessed forensic skills that elude modern day experts with 130 years of advanced knowledge and advanced technology.

Staggering, embarrassing and extremely sad.