John Richardson

[Doctored Whatsit]

In my opinion there is no other primary medical evidence which supports an earlier or later time of death to that end I have again contacted Dr Biggs who is a modern day forensic patholgist and below is his comments on establishing and accurate TOD

"It is not possible to be accurate when it comes to estimating time of death, as there are simply too many variables. Even if core body temperature and ambient temperature had been objectively measured at the time, any calculations would still give an estimation that would necessarily spread far wider than the “two hours or more ago” estimate quoted. In other words, a more “accurate” estimation ends up being less precise (i.e. saying the time range was “between 12 hours and one minute ago” would definitely be more accurate, in that it is far more likely to include the “true” answer… it’s just so imprecise as to be useless. Similarly, “47.5 minutes ago” is a precise time, but is much much more likely to be wrong.) When it comes to bodies “feeling” cold, the estimations are even less reliable – live people can feel cold, and dead people can still feel warm, depending on the circumstances.

Blood can clot very soon after it has left the body, and the onset of stiffness is a highly variable phenomenon that can also be over-estimated by examiners. A modern scenario that we frequently encounter is when paramedics arrive at a scene of death, and state that a person has been dead for several hours because they feel “stiff”. In reality, someone who is unaccustomed to manipulating dead bodies can interpret the “dead weight” of a limb as “stiffness”, giving a false impression of when stiffening actually started. In reality, it can be many hours (especially in cold conditions) before this is truly noticeable.

So, whilst not criticising Dr Phillips, or anyone else involved with the cases at the time, I would have to say that this particular victim could have died considerably more than 2 hours before discovery, but also could potentially have been killed as recently as 05.30 as suggested by the (unreliable) witness account. Of course, I’m not saying that she was killed earlier or later, I’m just saying that all would have been possible and there is no way of being certain (either back then or here and now).

So we are left with the balance of probabilities do we believe the witnesses, or do we say that a later TOD is not consitent with the TOD of the other victims, and ask why would the killer take such a risk at killing in that location at that later TOD

Sadly none of the answers to the above issues are going to prove conclusivley an accurate TOD

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thank you Trevor. That really should end any debate suggesting that Phillips must be right, but equally there is definitely some doubt about the reliability of witness evidence, especially Cadosch and Long. You have split the case wide open! Back to square one, almost!

This is where I am with the issue -

Phillips is an expert witness, expressing his opinion as to ToD, which should be accepted as reasonable but approximate - there is scope for earlier or later times, perhaps (just for illustration) between 3. 30 am and 5. 30 am.

Of the witnesses, Richardson was thoroughly checked by the police, and if they are to be believed, he is thought to be reliable. On balance, I am more inclined to believe him than disbelieve him.

However, Cadosch tells a fairly vague tale, and may be wrong, as could Long. Their times don't tally, but in 1888, clocks didn't use GMT and often varied considerably in their accuracy. They referred to using two different clocks, and Long only hearing a clock striking, could be mistaken, so this is less important than it would be today. These are "maybe" as far as I am concerned.

We have Richardson being certain that he shut the front door at about 4. 50 am, and Davis reporting it to be wide open at about 5. 50 am. As no other resident movement has positively been identified by the police, that is not proof by any means, but is in keeping with someone leaving, possibly in a hurry, between 4. 50 am and 5. 50 am. It proves nothing, but provides a bit of a steer towards the witnesses evidence.

Against the 5. 30 am murder, we have the higher risk that JtR would have been taking with the light improving, and people starting to move around, even next door.

So, I have no firm decision, but lean towards a ToD between 4. 50 am and 5. 30 am but not necessarily as late as 5. 30 am.

[FISHY1118]

Eratosthenes, 2,200 years ago, calculated the polar diameter of the earth to be 7,850 miles-only 50 miles short of the true polar diameter. He did this using only a well shaft, a wooden staff and a man employed to pace a distance. Crude methods, remarkable result.

Cheers, George

Wow George ,your getting good at this

[FISHY1118]

In my opinion there is no other primary medical evidence which supports an earlier or later time of death to that end I have again contacted Dr Biggs who is a modern day forensic patholgist and below is his comments on establishing and accurate TOD

"It is not possible to be accurate when it comes to estimating time of death, as there are simply too many variables. Even if core body temperature and ambient temperature had been objectively measured at the time, any calculations would still give an estimation that would necessarily spread far wider than the “two hours or more ago” estimate quoted. In other words, a more “accurate” estimation ends up being less precise (i.e. saying the time range was “between 12 hours and one minute ago” would definitely be more accurate, in that it is far more likely to include the “true” answer… it’s just so imprecise as to be useless. Similarly, “47.5 minutes ago” is a precise time, but is much much more likely to be wrong.) When it comes to bodies “feeling” cold, the estimations are even less reliable – live people can feel cold, and dead people can still feel warm, depending on the circumstances.

Blood can clot very soon after it has left the body, and the onset of stiffness is a highly variable phenomenon that can also be over-estimated by examiners. A modern scenario that we frequently encounter is when paramedics arrive at a scene of death, and state that a person has been dead for several hours because they feel “stiff”. In reality, someone who is unaccustomed to manipulating dead bodies can interpret the “dead weight” of a limb as “stiffness”, giving a false impression of when stiffening actually started. In reality, it can be many hours (especially in cold conditions) before this is truly noticeable.

So, whilst not criticising Dr Phillips, or anyone else involved with the cases at the time, I would have to say that this particular victim could have died considerably more than 2 hours before discovery, but also could potentially have been killed as recently as 05.30 as suggested by the (unreliable) witness account. Of course, I’m not saying that she was killed earlier or later, I’m just saying that all would have been possible and there is no way of being certain (either back then or here and now).

So we are left with the balance of probabilities do we believe the witnesses, or do we say that a later TOD is not consitent with the TOD of the other victims, and ask why would the killer take such a risk at killing in that location at that later TOD

Sadly none of the answers to the above issues are going to prove conclusivley an accurate TOD

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Ok perhaps a better way of putting it , do you support Dr Phillip explanation and or opinion,[ how ever way you like it] with his estimate of Chapmans t.o.d or Dr Biggs explanation regarding t.o.d estimates that may be right or wrong in regards to Chapmans murder ?

Just a simple answer if i may please. Thanks Trevor

[Herlock Sholmes]

Phillips was a witness,but in his case it was expert evidence that was given,or if you prefer expert opinion.It would be the same today.
There is a difference between Knowledge and skill.One can be knowledgable but not skillfull,and the opposite occurs.In the case of Phillips,both ,according to some posters were lacking.
One arguement is that in 1888 there wasn't the knowledge that is available today.On that basis,where did the skills and knowledge to build the great cathedrals of Europe come from.Where did the knowledge and skills to defeat the likes of Yellow fever,come from?
Surgeons like Phillip,he also had a private practice,saved countless lives,but it seems did not have the skill or knowledge to tell how long a person had been dead.Only modern knowledge can do that it appears.

Your point about the building of cathedrals isn’t relevant. It’s like saying “well the Egyptians built those incredible pyramids so surely a bit of kidney transplanting wasn’t beyond them.” Different disciplines advance at different rates. Every single expert that is consulted, every single textbook, absolutely everyone Harry, tells us that even these days TOD estimating isn’t as accurate as is being claimed for a Doctor 134 years ago. Look at the quote I posted about the OJ Simpson case. The medical excimer arrived and took the air temperature then made an incision in the body and inserted a probe to take the temperature and the very best that she would say was a TOD range of around 4 hours. 108 years after Phillips and with 21st century tech.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You didn't read my post properly, thiblin agreed with Phillips evidence and assessment of 2 hour probably more explaining why .

So a modern day doctor supported that evidence ,as was what fisherman showed in his post .

Speaking of picking out the points you like ......... wow kettle ⚫

No he didn’t Fishy.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Yes, it does offer some support to Phillips's t.o.d, but is most definitely isn't an agreement and it does not give us an answer.

To recap on the discussion surrounding Dr Phillips' estimate:

Much earlier in the thread there were claims that Dr Phillips' estimate is completely useless, of no consequence and should be ignored. This went on for a good while and eventually these claims were challenged.

As far as I'm aware nobody suggested that Dr Phillips must have been correct in his assessment.

The main reason I challenged the claims was not an attempt to prove Dr Phillips correct, but to make the point that we really shouldn't throw around these claims, use a series of links not specific to Dr Phillips' situation to justify them, accept the claims as fact and then use those claims to prop up some run-away-horse theory built upon shaky foundations.

And, as reminder, we have three useful observations left by Dr Phillips:

"Little food in the stomach", rigor mortis "commencing of the limbs" and the discussion we have been having surrounding a cold body and warmth under the intestines.

While far from conclusive, Dr Phillips had three very useful pieces of information at his disposal and could quite conceivably have been correct in his assessment of: "at least two hours and probably more".

[Herlock Sholmes]

In my opinion there is no other primary medical evidence which supports an earlier or later time of death to that end I have again contacted Dr Biggs who is a modern day forensic patholgist and below is his comments on establishing and accurate TOD

"It is not possible to be accurate when it comes to estimating time of death, as there are simply too many variables. Even if core body temperature and ambient temperature had been objectively measured at the time, any calculations would still give an estimation that would necessarily spread far wider than the “two hours or more ago” estimate quoted. In other words, a more “accurate” estimation ends up being less precise (i.e. saying the time range was “between 12 hours and one minute ago” would definitely be more accurate, in that it is far more likely to include the “true” answer… it’s just so imprecise as to be useless. Similarly, “47.5 minutes ago” is a precise time, but is much much more likely to be wrong.) When it comes to bodies “feeling” cold, the estimations are even less reliable – live people can feel cold, and dead people can still feel warm, depending on the circumstances.

Blood can clot very soon after it has left the body, and the onset of stiffness is a highly variable phenomenon that can also be over-estimated by examiners. A modern scenario that we frequently encounter is when paramedics arrive at a scene of death, and state that a person has been dead for several hours because they feel “stiff”. In reality, someone who is unaccustomed to manipulating dead bodies can interpret the “dead weight” of a limb as “stiffness”, giving a false impression of when stiffening actually started. In reality, it can be many hours (especially in cold conditions) before this is truly noticeable.

So, whilst not criticising Dr Phillips, or anyone else involved with the cases at the time, I would have to say that this particular victim could have died considerably more than 2 hours before discovery, but also could potentially have been killed as recently as 05.30 as suggested by the (unreliable) witness account. Of course, I’m not saying that she was killed earlier or later, I’m just saying that all would have been possible and there is no way of being certain (either back then or here and now).

So we are left with the balance of probabilities do we believe the witnesses, or do we say that a later TOD is not consitent with the TOD of the other victims, and ask why would the killer take such a risk at killing in that location at that later TOD

Sadly none of the answers to the above issues are going to prove conclusivley an accurate TOD

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Cheers for that Trevor and thank Dr. B.

So there we have it. Unless certain posters on here who have desperately resisted this hold their hands up and accept this fact then there’s just no hope.

btw Trevor, I’m guessing that you added the word ‘unreliable’ in brackets to the word ‘witnesses?’

[FISHY1118]

>>... thiblin agreed with Phillips evidence and assessment of 2 hour probably more explaining why <<

Actually that's not true.

According to Christer's account, he told Professor Thiblin,

"I pointed out to him that Dr Phillips felt for warmth in the abdominal cavity, under the intestines, and discerned some little warmth there"

But that was incorrect information. (Incorrect information, in incorrect information out). Phillips's actual quote was,

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

How much is "a certain remaining heat"?

What modern forensic department would accept that as an accurate measurement good enough to base a a solid opinion on?
I realise some may call that nitpicking, but I can assure you it would not get through any present day courtroom unchallenged. Christer made a judgement on what Phillips meant and supplied Thiblin with corrupted information.

Thiblin's answer, quite rightly, allows for a longer time, but does not commit to it or dismiss an earlier time.

"If Phillips felt a clear difference between surface and core, then it speaks for the option of a PMI of 3-4 hours instead of one of 1 hour only.

As to Thiblin explaining his opinion, he never did, in so far as Mrs Chapman's case is concerned.

He just agreed that feeling for internal body heat was better than feeling cold skin. He then explained the "rule of thumb" about the rate a body losses temperature after death. That "rule of thumb" he referred to is the heat dissipation from a body that has no blood loss or disembowelment. What we really want an expert to tell us is how the injuries Mrs Chapman sustained would affect body heat loss.


>>So a modern day doctor supported that evidence ,as was what fisherman showed in his post<<

Because he was give selected information, some of which was Christer's personal interpretation of Phillips actual testimony, Thiblin's opinion must be treated with great care. I refer again to the disastrous comments by the three experts in the documentary I posted a link to earlier, as to how experts can give misinformation if they are not fully conversant with all the facts of the case.

Yes, it does offer some support to Phillips's t.o.d, but is most definitely isn't an agreement and it does not give us an answer.

I must say that word ''Nitpicking'' is getting bandied about lately with good reason , if what Fisherman relayed to Thiblin and what Phillips actually said is getting pulled apart [unjustly in my oininon for obvious reasons] at the seems. Just imagine what them Chapman witnesses would go through in that same courtroom by a half decent cross examination Lawyer !! , cmon guys lets stop the nitpicking .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fascinating example George , i wonder if there are more like this that posters would like to add to. Just for interest sake .

Or we could stop with the excuses and look at what Dr. Biggs tells us…..posted by a person who goes for an earlier TOD so hats off to Trevor.

[FISHY1118]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n794059]


.What excuses ?

[FISHY1118]

Or we could stop with the excuses and look at what Dr. Biggs tells us…..posted by a person who goes for an earlier TOD so hats off to Trevor.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok perhaps a better way of putting it , do you support Dr Phillip explanation and or opinion,[ how ever way you like it] with his estimate of Chapmans t.o.d or Dr Biggs explanation regarding t.o.d estimates that may be right or wrong in regards to Chapmans murder ?

Just a simple answer if i may please. Thanks Trevor

What kind of question is this?

Biggs has confirmed what we’ve been saying all along.

Simple question……do you concede that Dr. Biggs, a modern day expert, is correct?

[Herlock Sholmes]

To recap on the discussion surrounding Dr Phillips' estimate:

Much earlier in the thread there were claims that Dr Phillips' estimate is completely useless, of no consequence and should be ignored. This went on for a good while and eventually these claims were challenged.

As far as I'm aware nobody suggested that Dr Phillips must have been correct in his assessment.

The main reason I challenged the claims was not an attempt to prove Dr Phillips correct, but to make the point that we really shouldn't throw around these claims, use a series of links not specific to Dr Phillips' situation to justify them, accept the claims as fact and then use those claims to prop up some run-away-horse theory built upon shaky foundations.

And, as reminder, we have three useful observations left by Dr Phillips:

"Little food in the stomach", rigor mortis "commencing of the limbs" and the discussion we have been having surrounding a cold body and warmth under the intestines.

While far from conclusive, Dr Phillips had three very useful pieces of information at his disposal and could quite conceivably have been correct in his assessment of: "at least two hours and probably more".

I said that Phillips estimation was of no use days ago and guess what……I was 100% correct.

[FISHY1118]

What kind of question is this?

Biggs has confirmed what we’ve been saying all along.

Simple question……do you concede that Dr. Biggs, a modern day expert, is correct?

You have conceded that Dr Phillips could have been correct , same as me, so ill leave you to that

[FISHY1118]

Unless of course we just go over the same old line again and again and again . Who know this thread could go on for ever