Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    What’s really weird (and there’s much that’s weird) is the claim to know what did or didn’t happen in a period where Chapman’s movements are completely unknown. How can this position be at all tenable? It’s baffling.

    There appears to be an opinion that Chapman and women like her took a very casual, laid back approach to food. As if they could pick and choose due the abundance of dining options. Phillips noted:

    “…but there were signs of great deprivation, and he should say she had been badly fed.”

    So solid evidence that food was in short supply.

    We also know that Chapman, like the other women, were forced to carry all of their possessions with them (Eddowes had tea and sugar in her possessions) so why is it remotely strange that if she did acquire some item of food she would have carried it with her? Where else could she have put it if she wasn’t going to eat it straight away?

    Then we get the pointless argument that she could only have acquired food from a purchase in the earlier hours when there were no vendors open? Could anything make less sense? As I said above, and as others have pointed out, she could have had food with her in the lodging house but only ate the potato. She could have picked up a bit of food there and pocketed it. She could have been give some food….although these women were desperately poor they were also human beings. They had friends, and those friends had concern for each other. So why is it so ridiculous that while trudging the streets she ran into a friend who offered to share a bit of food with her. Then there’s the fact that some women sold themselves for food on occasion. Yes, of course her priority was earning money but if she walked for ages without a client then finally a bloke appears, who is willing but has no cash but he had food, would a woman utterly desperate, never knowing where the next meal would come from, turn him down for the sake of two minutes.

    There are numerous ways that Annie could have eaten after 1.45 and we also have to remember that lung illnesses can also affect digestion. A simple bit of Googling shows this.

    So basically digestion can only be used toward estimating ToD if we know for certain when the victim ate last….and we don’t in Annie’s case no matter how some try to manufacture this point. One question still stands out for me….

    Why are some so desperate to achieve an earlier ToD that they will greatly exaggerate a Victorian Doctor’s skills, they will assume that they know what occurred in a period of unknown activity and they will go to extraordinary lengths to denigrate witnesses. I’ve said it before but there is no better witnesses in this case than Richardson and Cadosch. If we dismiss them then we should dismiss all witnesses.
    hi herlock.
    Why are some so desperate to achieve an earlier ToD
    it is baffling. im starting to think we have some closet Lechmerians lol

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

      hi herlock.


      it is baffling. im starting to think we have some closet Lechmerians lol
      You could be right Abby. There has to be some reason for it.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

      “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

        Steve says "Body temperature, no matter how it was taken, by touch or by thermometer could not fix TOD to within 30-40 minutes.
        Neither could Livor Mortis or Rigor Mortis.​".

        But we are not talking about 30-40 minutes. We're talking about 13 hours.
        Excuse me George, any attempt at estimating time of death through body temperature is done at the crime scene, not in a mortuary.
        The temp. of the body, one internal, the other external, are then compared with the ambient temp. of the crime scene.
        If you change the ambient temp. (by changing the location of the body) the calculations are spoiled.


        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

          Because it's absurd, as explained over the last couple of pages.

          We'll just have to disagree.
          It's not absurd, and I've seen nothing that amounts to an explanation. Regardless, we do agree that we disagree, so there's that at least.

          - Jeff

          Comment


          • I went back to the research data I have on internal body temperatures after death. The data set contains all sorts of information and conditions, making it a very useful set. I've selected the cases where the environmental temperatures was close to 10C, which I believe was the temperature on the morning Chapman was found. In the table below I list all the cases, starting at 7.5C and out to under 13C. Given the rate of cooling depends upon the difference in the starting temperature and the external temperature, focusing on the cases between 9 and 11 (10 +-1 C could be preferable; in blue). I extracted the internal temperature reading for each of these cases as close to 2 hours as possible (a couple are a bit on the long side; note the case highlighted in yellow had the first reading taken over 15 hours after death, so it's not much use to us, but I've included it for completeness). The data set itself has close to 100 cases in it, but these are just the ones with environmental temperatures close to what we're dealing with.

            One of the problems in estimating ToD from internal body temperature is related to the fact that the cooling rate is based upon the difference of the starting temperature (the person's temperature when alive) and the external temperature. While we tend to think 98.6F is the normal temperature, people are not all the same, and the range of the normal temperature is roughly from 97 to 99F. Of course, one doesn't know a victim's starting body temperature, so we fill in this unknown value with 98.6. But already, we've created error; if the person's actual temperature was 97, for example, our estimate is going to overestimate the time because it will include time to account for that 1.6 degrees of difference; and if their temperature was actually 99, then we will underestimate the true time as there was 0.6 degrees of temperature loss that we're not accounting for). I believe in the 1800s the rule was 1 degree F per hour, so our error, just from not knowing the actual starting temperature is already 2 hours wide. Of course, in reality, cooling profiles aren't linear, but these are just estimates to give a rough idea, yet we're treating them as if they are high precision calculations.

            Excluding the 15 hour case, going with all of the others, the Minimum and maximum internal body temperature readings span from 91.86 to 100.23 (an interesting fact is that sometimes, but not always, the body temperature will initially rise before it starts to fall). That's a range of roughly 8 degrees, and if one based their estimate for the ToD on 1 hour per degree F lost, we now have a range of 8 hours between but those two cases actually only differ by 0.12 hours. If I just take the max and minimum from the restricted range (the blue cases), we have a range of 3.6.

            Another source of error comes from the fact that in some cases, but not all, the internal body temperature will rise for a short period (an hour or so) before it starts to cool, while in other cases it just declines from the beginning. Of course, we don't know if that happened in our cases, like Chapman and Eddowes, so if one did show this rise while the other did not, the estimates will differ quite a bit due to, you got it, the error that gets introduced because our ToD estimation doesn't account for everything that actually happened.


            Click image for larger version

Name:	image.png
Views:	121
Size:	39.6 KB
ID:	818161

            The other issue, of course, is that the estimation of the PMI (Post-mortem interval, or Time since death), is based upon equations derived from data collected from intact human bodies. When you cut open the abdomen, and remove the intestines, etc, you drastically change the internal rate of heat loss​ (cold air gets inside the body). That means, even if one had highly sophisticated equations, rather than using a rather crude linear function, those equations are going to be fairly useless because the cooling rate value used will be wrong. Mutilated bodies will cool at a faster rate than the intact ones, so it will take less time to reach a given temperature drop than the equations predict (because the equations use a slower cooling rate).

            And that is what Dr. Phillips' tells us. When he made his estimation for Annie, he had to try and guess what the cooling rate would be for her, and he's saying if he guessed wrong, and used a rate of cooling that is too slow, then he's overestimated the time interval. There's no need for him to include that statement if he only thinks he's used a rate that is too fast because he had already said "probably more". Rather, he re-draws our attention to the fact it was a cool morning, and then warns us that his estimated ToD is based upon some assumptions on his part that he may have got wrong. He is directly telling us how he may have overestimated the time interval.

            Anyway, in the end, estimations of the ToD from internal temperature readings cannot be viewed as precise. There will always be error in the range of multiple hours simply because there is critical information required to get it "right" that we do not have - the person's starting body temperature for one, and whether or not there was an initial temperature rise, and if so, how much and for how long? Sure, sometimes the estimate will be bang on for some cases, but other cases it will grossly underestimate the PMI and in other cases again it will grossly overestimate the PMI.

            We have no way of knowing which of those is the case, so we have to consider the range of times that get produced, and that is why Dr. Phillips' estimate of the ToD as being around 4:30 is not actually in conflict with the witnesses, whose testimony would place the ToD around 5:20-5:25ish.

            Dr. Phillips estimate is not in conflict with the witnesses.

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
              Anyway, in the end, estimations of the ToD from internal temperature readings cannot be viewed as precise. There will always be error in the range of multiple hours simply because there is critical information required to get it "right" that we do not have - the person's starting body temperature for one, and whether or not there was an initial temperature rise, and if so, how much and for how long? Sure, sometimes the estimate will be bang on for some cases, but other cases it will grossly underestimate the PMI and in other cases again it will grossly overestimate the PMI.

              - Jeff
              Hi Jeff,

              Thank you for again providing us with an overview from the perspective of statistics. I would like to take the liberty of making a few comments.

              While your original sample was of 100 cases, the environmental samples highlighted in blue number only six, none of whom were disembowelled. As you are aware, I am of the opinion that we have at our disposal an almost perfect comparison in Eddowes. The environmental factors seem to be as close as we are ever likely to get, and I think that you will agree that Phillip's so called caveat would equally apply to Eddowes. As Jon rightly pointed out, once the body is moved the environmental factors change, but I wonder how different the ambient temperature might have been in the mortuary. From the Chapman Inquest, the mortuary that her body was taken to was unheated, and besides, the nurses found her outside.

              Brown requested that Phillips attend due to his unique experience with the Chapman case. I would be surprised if temperature subjectivity was not a topic discussed by police surgeons and a methodology formulated to minimise its effect, but of course we are not in a position to be privy to such. I think you would agree that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the average case would be reasonable to accept rather than outlier exceptions, i.e. rule of thumb rather than "in some cases". So while I agree that Phillip's PMI doesn't rule out the witnesses, using the comparison with Eddowes in my opinion shifts the probability to "at least two hours, probably more" being the more likely case. JMO.

              Best regards, George
              It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. It shall be life. - Ten Bears

              All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

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

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                Dismissed by every single forensic expert on the planet. But hey, what would they know eh Fishy.
                I see you failed to provide any ''Inquest Testimony Evidence'' to show that any witness provided any Doctors with information that assisted them with t.od . But hey what else is new

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                  I think you have answered that yourself, both above and below.

                  If you believe that Brown fixed TOD on medical evidence alone, what method did he use to arrive at that conclusion

                  Body temperature, no matter how it was taken, by touch or by thermometer could not fix TOD to within 30-40 minutes.
                  Neither could Livor Mortis or Rigor Mortis.

                  So just how did he arrive at the TOD?



                  Agin what method would allow him to fix a TOD so pricisely , if he not using the information provided by the police.?



                  Again if he does not use the evidence of the police, what method does Blackwell use to establish TOD of under an hour?

                  To say, we don't have documented evidence that he was told she wasn't present x minutes before, is proof he wasn't told is unreasonable and unrealistic.
                  The doctors were not working in a vacuum.
                  .


                  It's very simple just tell me what method any doctor could use, to fix TOD in under an hour.

                  Steve
                  Ill tell you whats even more simpler ,is the fact no one has been able to show any of the Doctor used any witnesss information at the crime scene when making t.o.d estimates . Yet Brown with Eddowes and Backwell with Stride were very accurate with their medical opinions.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                    No. The fact is that his estimate is far too precise. We cannot, even today, make estimates of the ToD with such narrow ranges of time. So, given his narrow range corresponds to what must have happened (unless you want to argue PC Watkins lied about doing his patrols), then either he knows about PC Watkins' patrol, and is including that in his evaluation, or he's unaware of PC Watkins' patrol and is just unduely confident in his abilities (and therefore, the fact he's accurate is luck, and nothing more, because even today we cannot narrow things down as much as he has). Given he's clearly accurate, it appears he must have known PC Watkins' patrol information and what he's doing is confirming that she likely was killed during his last patrol and not, for example, killed elsewhere and then dumped in the square (which is also consistent with the crime scene evidence, so he's probably got it right, but not because in 1888 they were better at estimating the ToD than we are today - he appears to have information over and above that).

                    Again, Dr. Blackwell's estimate is overly precise, which either reflects the ignorance of doctors in 1888 (because we hadn't learned what we now know), or reflects his knowledge of other information. I know it is tempting to grasp at the straws the medical testimony, as stated, provide. But those straws are, sadly, unreliable. Where they look good, and look precise, always comes from cases where there are witnesses who narrow things down. If that doesn't make you stop, sit up, and think, nothing will.

                    The doctors' testimonies are not being "dismissed" at all. They are simply being evaluated, and while nobody disputes where the doctors place their estimate, the argument is about taking into account the error of those estimates. While the doctors do not go into error ranges, their statements (as you've posted above), do lead the the impression that they thought they could be more precise than we now know is the case. That increased precision, though, also only occurs in cases where there is other (non-medical) information that limits the time range, and low and behold, those are the cases where the doctors do well. That pattern creates the evidence that the doctors appear to have used outside information (beyond the medical), when formulating their opinion.


                    Do you think it weird that people will incorporate stuff they know even if it is not part of the "equation"?

                    - Jeff
                    Ill respectfully disagree Jeff. My take on the case revolves around the Inquest Testimonies alone as i see it , the information provided in the case determineds how i see different outcomes and possibilities . Anything outside these perimeters is of little if no value as they have no direct link to murders . Imo

                    Put simply . Lets stick to what we know , what was said, what was written, when evaluating all the inquest evidence as a whole regarding the JtR murders.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                      Ill respectfully disagree Jeff. My take on the case revolves around the Inquest Testimonies alone as i see it , the information provided in the case determineds how i see different outcomes and possibilities . Anything outside these perimeters is of little if no value as they have no direct link to murders . Imo

                      Put simply . Lets stick to what we know , what was said, what was written, when evaluating all the inquest evidence as a whole regarding the JtR murders.
                      That three witnesses prove an earlier ToD (unless you want an earlier ToD for some reason.)
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                      “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        That three witnesses prove an earlier ToD (unless you want an earlier ToD for some reason.)
                        Its a common misconception that the any of the witnesses in the Chapman murder 'Prove' beyond doubt the murder took place at 5.30 am

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                          Its a common misconception that the any of the witnesses in the Chapman murder 'Prove' beyond doubt the murder took place at 5.30 am
                          Not as ‘common’ as the ‘common’ misconception that a Victorian Doctor could perform miracles though.
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                          “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            Not as ‘common’ as the ‘common’ misconception that a Victorian Doctor could perform miracles though.
                            They werent required to perform ''miracles'' ,wrong profession . Im afraid youll have to start a Jesus thread for that . They only had to give their Expert Medical opinion, which they did with exceptional accuracy when all the evidence in the case is asscessed.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                              Hi Jeff,

                              Thank you for again providing us with an overview from the perspective of statistics. I would like to take the liberty of making a few comments.

                              While your original sample was of 100 cases, the environmental samples highlighted in blue number only six, none of whom were disembowelled. As you are aware, I am of the opinion that we have at our disposal an almost perfect comparison in Eddowes. The environmental factors seem to be as close as we are ever likely to get, and I think that you will agree that Phillip's so called caveat would equally apply to Eddowes. As Jon rightly pointed out, once the body is moved the environmental factors change, but I wonder how different the ambient temperature might have been in the mortuary. From the Chapman Inquest, the mortuary that her body was taken to was unheated, and besides, the nurses found her outside.

                              Brown requested that Phillips attend due to his unique experience with the Chapman case. I would be surprised if temperature subjectivity was not a topic discussed by police surgeons and a methodology formulated to minimise its effect, but of course we are not in a position to be privy to such. I think you would agree that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the average case would be reasonable to accept rather than outlier exceptions, i.e. rule of thumb rather than "in some cases". So while I agree that Phillip's PMI doesn't rule out the witnesses, using the comparison with Eddowes in my opinion shifts the probability to "at least two hours, probably more" being the more likely case. JMO.

                              Best regards, George
                              Hi George,

                              I presented the cases where the temperatures were similar as those would be of the most interest. However, what I was illustrating carries over to the entire sample, meaning, bodies at the same environmental temperature will result in quite different internal temperature readings after the same time post-death. Therefore, when using an average based calculation to revert those internal temperatures to time, you will get different estimates of the post mortem interval even though we know the PMI is actually the same - that is the margin of error. And yes, the cases I presented are very few, but even in that small sample we can see a wide range already.

                              The point is, that Eddowes and Annie could very easily have different temperature readings even if those readings were taken at the same time after death. Of course, this assumes internal temperature readings were actually taken, of course. We have to remember that we have no evidence that they were, rather this is yet another assumption we are making because we find it hard to believe they wouldn't have. I agree that it is difficult to imagine that the doctors wouldn't take a reading because we know they are necessary, but in the end, nowhere in the surviving records do we have anything that confirms that was done. Our belief, or inability to believe, isn't evidence it was done.

                              And yes, as I also pointed out, none of these bodies were disembowelled. I have never found such a study, so the function that would relate temperature to time, and the variability of that prediction, is probably still unknown even today. Therefore, any estimate of ToD, even if based upon internal temperature readings, in such cases is going to be highly unreliable as the person making the estimate has to guess at the parameters of the prediction equation. I think Phillips is pointing that out in his caveate, and he himself is basically saying he doesn't object to the ToD that gets derived from the witness statements.

                              Furthermore, there are other factors that will influence the cooling rate. Eddowes appears to have been wearing more clothing than Annie, and while both had their abdomens and lower bodies exposed, Eddowes upper body seems to have been more covered and so she may have retained more heat as a result. Basically, the relationship between internal temperature readings and time since death is a very complicated relationship, and using an average based model (which is typical) to make a prediction about a specific case will somewhat accurate, with same range of error. No two cases are exactly the same, and so while it is tempting to think Annie and Kate would follow the same pattern, that temptation must be avoided because it is highly probable they would not.

                              We would want to consider things like how Annie was ill, and in much poorer health than Eddowes, and as far as we know Annie was outside in the cold for many hours, while Eddowes was inside the jail cell. While unlikely to be a spa, it would be warmer than being the outside. Annie's ill health, combined with being tired from walking the streets all night (presuming she's killed at 5:20 of course), would be more prone to developing mild hypothermia, resulting in a lower starting body temperature to begin with.

                              Seriously, what the study I showed some data from shows is that two bodies, under similar circumstances (similar environmental temperatures) can show very different internal readings at the same time after death, which is where the error range of the predictions come from. This is why we have to consider the estimated time +- 3 hours, it is that variable. As such, the medical information, in my view, should not be seen as favouring either an earlier or later ToD. It is compatible with either option.

                              - Jeff

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                                I see you failed to provide any ''Inquest Testimony Evidence'' to show that any witness provided any Doctors with information that assisted them with t.od . But hey what else is new
                                I know that you won’t read it Fishy because previous threads have shown that you only read things that support what you believe at the time but….if you took the time to read The Temperature of Death by David Barrat you would see the evidence that he provides of cases where the Doctor involved altered his estimated ToD to fit witness evidence. Probably the clearest case of this kind involved Professor Keith Simpson (and there aren’t many bigger names in the field than him) This is simply a fact Fishy. We have no way of knowing in how many cases this occurred but occur it did.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                                “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X