John Richardson

[jmenges]

Hi folks,
I hope you've all had a good week, thankfully its nearly over.
Just reading this thread...with interest.



JM

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Chapmans body is in the wrong spot.

i was wondering about that too.

[GBinOz]

Hi Hair Bear,

I would firstly like to compliment you on you proficiency with graphic software (Photoshop?).

As the previous posters have pointed out you have Annie's body slightly out of position. There are confusing definitions by Chandler and Phillips but it would seem that her head was directly opposite one of the edges of the bottom step, so probably the fairest depiction would be her nose opposite the middle of the bottom step.

When I suggested that Tricky Dickey should be turned anticlockwise, I wasn't meaning quite that far. So, he puts his left foot on the big step and his right foot on the edge of the bottom step so that his heel is next to the corner of the big step, puts the other foot on the bottom step and sits down with the door closing on his left arm.

Cheers, George

[A P Tomlinson]

I have yet to read a convincing explanation as to how rigor mortis could have begun to set in so quickly in this case.

As I pointed out on another thread some time ago, the estimate that rigor mortis starts to set in after two hours or more, to which doctor Phillips adhered, has not changed since 1888.

Well, lets start with blood loss, elevation of limbs and livor mortis and move on to more if we need to.
But first, that statement that "rigor mortis starts to set in after two hours" needs correcting.
It CAN start to set in as early as an hour, and can often set in at 2 hours, but can also start far later at up to 6 hours. Though rarely. But stiffening of muscles and joints post mortem is not always attributable to the phenomenon of rigor mortis.

The stiffening of smaller muscles will begin over the earliest parts of rigor. Commencing between one and six hours after death and the majority of actual rigor mortis generally occuring over about 8 hours before gradually receding.
The only time period rigor is all but guaranteed to be noticed is between the 6th and 12th hours. (though almost inevitably noticed earlier) And even those can be variable to some degree.
Stiffening of limbs would be unlikely to occur due to rigor in the one to two hour period. Fingers? Yep. Legs and arms? Not so much.
But there are other causes of stiffening of limbs over that period of time that can emulate rigor. (It's why modern forensic examinations use more than the "back of the hand" test for algor mortis or body temp, and trying to bend an elbow to check for rigor.)
Including variables like; muscle density, temperature, blood loss and lividity etc, etc... (Smaller muscles move into rigor and general stiffness quicker, hastened by blood loss, warmer temperatures speed up rigor, but cold temperatures can induce similar effects to rigor that are not based on chemical changes in the calcium levels, but rather the general stiffening due to loss of temperature, and obviously blood loss/pooling will have an impact as blood leaves an area, that area begins to constrict on itself.)
It's not like TV cop shows where "stiff limb = rigor" well... not any more.
Livor Mortis or "Lividity" as we generally refer to it today, would have begun to set in straight away after the heart stopped pushing blood under positive pressure, as gravity took over and the walls of the various heavier red blood cells seep down through the lighter plasma, and becomes noticeable after an hour or so. If Chapman had been laying there for two hours, because of the position of her legs her lower buttocks, and the lower backs of her thighs, along with the... areas between... would have been purple due to livor mortis.
I don't notice that on the ME report?

The position of her legs, with the knees raised would increase the potential rate of stiffness in joints around the legs. (It may have taken more effort than simply "laying her out" to straighten the legs fairly quickly. And that might have had nothing to do with the very specific phenomenon of rigor mortis.)

Livor is a more reliable method for short term estimation of ToD than Rigor, (gravity, while still impacted by external factors, is a more reliably consistent measure) and is STILL not particularly accurate on its own.
Coming to a fresh body without initially having an idea of ToD to work from, and no modern analytical paraphernalia would require a good understanding of both rigor and livor mortis, and measuring the distinct changes in both over set periods of time, and not just one brief observation in situ (that seems to have been spent examining the cime scene as much as the body), followed by a full post mortem beginning almost eight hours later, with no monitoring of changes in the intervening hours by which time rigor would have been at its peak at either a 4.30 ToD or a 5.30 (ish) ToD and indistinguishable.

It's not like in the cop shows where the no-nonsense, badass cop demands a ToD from the ME on site and the ME says things like "I need to get the body back to the morgue and run more tests..." and the cop says, "I want your best guess" and because 42 minute police procedurals need resolution quickly, the ME is inevitably right. (That's just storytelling shorthand.) No... they WOULD need to get the body back to morgue and run more tests, otherwise its no more than a guess based on incomplete evidence.

Philips assessment of ToD was nothing more than an edcuated guess.
And in this one regard of specific medical science... not a very well educated one.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Thanks for your erudite explanation, APT.

But Phillips saw and examined the body.

We didn't.

[GBinOz]

You pretend to use all the evidence, but you are not, so who's really lying?


Why don't you use the Daily News:
"Witness told him that he did not go to the bottom of the steps leading to the cellar. He went to the top, and looked down".

You keep using the Daily Telegraph:
"If Richardson were on the top of the steps he might not have seen the body. He told me he did not go down the steps".

Or, why not use the Morning Advertiser:
"Richardson only told me that he went to the top of the steps and looked down into the cellar. He said nothing about having sat on the top step".

You have the answer right in front of you, but you choose to ignore the sources that prove you wrong.

Hi Jon,

Sorry, but I see only one report (Daily News 14 Sep) to which you are applying your interpretation. To me, for your interpretation to be valid he needed to have qualified his descriptions of the cellar steps with something like:
"Witness told him that he did not go down to the bottom of the steps leading to the cellar. He went to the top of the cellar steps, and looked down".

AFAIK there is no mention in any account of "cellar steps", it is all "back door steps", or just "steps". Of course the back door steps lead to the Loo, and the wood shed, and the yard, and to the top of the cellar steps which in turn lead to the cellar door with the lock. But there is, as far as I can see, only your interpretation of Chandler's interpretation of what Richardson said being used to claim proof that Richardson stood at the top of the cellar steps rather than the back door steps.

Both Richardson and his mother specifically nominated the "back door steps" and the steps from which the lock could be seen. The canopy would have required a little crouching or bending, but these details were not sought because the boot cutting story took precedence. Is there anyone, apart from Richardson that claimed that the body could not be missed from his position sitting on the steps. I am not aware of anyone saying that, but I am aware of Chandler suggesting that the door may have prevented his seeing the body during the procedure that was related to him, and questions to that effect being raised by the jury. I am also aware of the account in the Echo that stated that the police had determined that the door would have obstructed his view even from his sitting position. Are there any accounts that report to the contrary?

Cheers, George

[Lewis C]

As the previous posters have pointed out you have Annie's body slightly out of position. There are confusing definitions by Chandler and Phillips but it would seem that her head was directly opposite one of the edges of the bottom step, so probably the fairest depiction would be her nose opposite the middle of the bottom step.

Hi George,

If that's true, it would mean moving the body about 18 inches closer to the house, right? It looks to me like it would be just as hard for Richardson to miss seeing the body if it were there as it would be in the spot that Hair Bear's picture shows.

[JeffHamm]

Thanks for your reply, Jeff, but I cannot agree with you that detection of rigor mortis is in any way subjective.

I honestly cannot imagine two doctors examining the same body and disagreeing about whether a certain limb has started to stiffen.

The question I haven't seen answered by those who favour a later time of death is why rigor mortis set in within an hour in this case, and the body was almost completely cold, whereas in Mitre Square, about 42 minutes after death, no rigor mortis was detected and the body was still warm.

I have seen two explanations given: that in Hanbury Street the morning was cold and the victim had a lung disease.

In Mitre Square, however, weather conditions were similar and the victim was noticeably thinner than the earlier victim.

There is therefore no reason to expect rigor mortis to set in much earlier in Chapman's case.

It seems to me that it is accepted that it did set in much earlier in order to accommodate the witness testimony - and not on the strength of the medical evidence.

Hi PI,

There is no objective measure, like there is with temperature where you use a thermometer to measure it. Rigor Mortis is based upon the doctor deciding if the limb, or whatever, feels stiff. That is why it is a subjective measurement, and why two doctors may disagree, particularly on deciding if rigor has just started.

There is every reason to expect rigor progression to differ between the two cases, the main one being that rigor mortis progression is highly variable between two bodies, even when kept under similar conditions. It's not a constant timeline, so the idea that two cases would not differ is far more improbable than for them to differ.

It's not that it is "accepted that it did set in earlier" (which implies people are saying it definately set in earlier), rather, it is the fact that simply because it has set in (barring, of course, a mistake on the doctor's part) by some time after 6:30 does not rule out the later ToD; it's pointing out that rigor onset does not preclude a later ToD, or put another way, it is not definitive of an earlier ToD.

A lot of posters are overly optimistic about the ability of medical forensics to pinpoint the ToD, probably in part due to the long history now of TV shows making it look like it is some sort of exact science (the CSI effect they used to call it; maybe still do). However, the reality of the situation is that medical information like this gives rough approximations even today, and as such, differences of under an hour (as we're dealing with; 4:30 vs 5:25ish) are just too small of a time difference to separate with any degree of reliability.

- Jeff

[Indian Harry]

Have you been talking to Andrew over on the Stride thread RD? He once suggested that Mrs Richardson was running a brothel from the cellar of number 29 (which I named The Pink Pussycat)

Oh boy, in that case 'mildewed' must be a euphemism for something else.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

If that's true, it would mean moving the body about 18 inches closer to the house, right? It looks to me like it would be just as hard for Richardson to miss seeing the body if it were there as it would be in the spot that Hair Bear's picture shows.

Hi LC,

You could very well be correct. I don't claim to have a monopoly on wisdom or clairvoyance....oops... I am not even claiming clairvoyance.. I just examine alternatives to the commonly held beliefs. At this stage my analysis is for an earlier ToD, but not by much. But I could be wrong. I'm certainly not one of the 98% sure, and don't even bother to disagree because it is so obvious brigade.

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

There the same reports of the same event reported differently ,

Great you just proved my point , look at all the press reports there conflicting as to what was really said .

You wanted to use the daily news as the one you said we should trust this befor other,

So you deal with pal.

The source you choose to keep repeating has the reference to the cellar edited out of it.
Does someone need to hold your hand to guide you through this?
You have no idea how to investigate anything Fishy.

[Wickerman]

Thanks for your reply, Jeff, but I cannot agree with you that detection of rigor mortis is in any way subjective.

I honestly cannot imagine two doctors examining the same body and disagreeing about whether a certain limb has started to stiffen.

The question I haven't seen answered by those who favour a later time of death is why rigor mortis set in within an hour in this case, and the body was almost completely cold, whereas in Mitre Square, about 42 minutes after death, no rigor mortis was detected and the body was still warm.

I have seen two explanations given: that in Hanbury Street the morning was cold and the victim had a lung disease.

In Mitre Square, however, weather conditions were similar and the victim was noticeably thinner than the earlier victim.

There is therefore no reason to expect rigor mortis to set in much earlier in Chapman's case.

It seems to me that it is accepted that it did set in much earlier in order to accommodate the witness testimony - and not on the strength of the medical evidence.

You may find your answer if you look up how intense physical activity can hasten the onset of rigor mortis.
Much boils down to internal body temperature brought on by things like fighting for your life, or having an infection.

[Wickerman]

But your problem is how did Richardson get to the paving stone standing at the too of the cellar step if he said this to Chandler " he told me he did not go down the steps" ? Did he jump with one big leap from the back door clearing the steps with one mighty bound.?

Like others your ignoring conflicting evidence. .

Like you have been told time & time again - the brief quote you hang your argument on (he told me he did not go down the steps) refers to the cellar steps

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Sorry, but I see only one report (Daily News 14 Sep) to which you are applying your interpretation. To me, for your interpretation to be valid he needed to have qualified his descriptions of the cellar steps with something like:
"Witness told him that he did not go down to the bottom of the steps leading to the cellar. He went to the top of the cellar steps, and looked down".

AFAIK there is no mention in any account of "cellar steps", it is all "back door steps", or just "steps". Of course the back door steps lead to the Loo, and the wood shed, and the yard, and to the top of the cellar steps which in turn lead to the cellar door with the lock. But there is, as far as I can see, only your interpretation of Chandler's interpretation of what Richardson said being used to claim proof that Richardson stood at the top of the cellar steps rather than the back door steps.

George.

You are taking the argument full circle, back to the beginning.

It is precisely because there are two sets of steps (fact?), that these brief quotes can be so confusing.
However, as the lock is on the cellar door (fact?), and the cellar door in at the bottom of the cellar steps (fact?).
We can clarify many of the references to "looking down the steps" as being applicable to the second set of steps - the cellar steps.

Why anyone chooses to repeat & promote an interpretation that is impossible, is totally baffling!

It is impossible to see a lock on a door that is installed on the inside of a door frame from the top house step that is greater than 180 deg away to the side.
From the second step - better chance, from the third step - even better. From the paving slab beyond the bottom step - very possible.
Viewing the cellar door from the paving slab, which is next to the top step of the cellar steps is the preferred position in order to see the lock.
In order to realize this we must recognize some of the references to "steps" are to cellar steps not house steps.

I can't explain why some prefer to wander around in a permanent fog of confusion, while others prefer to seek a practical solution - perhaps it's something in the water?

[GBinOz]

George.

You are taking the argument full circle, back to the beginning.
It is always good to return to basics, before all the assumptions have been made.

It is precisely because there are two sets of steps (fact?), that these brief quotes can be so confusing.
I don't find them confusing at all. Quite the contrary.
However, as the lock is on the cellar door (fact?), and the cellar door in at the bottom of the cellar steps (fact?).
Agreed.
We can clarify many of the references to "looking down the steps" as being applicable to the second set of steps - the cellar steps.
No, we can't. There is no reference anywhere to the cellar steps.

Why anyone chooses to repeat & promote an interpretation that is impossible, is totally baffling!
I am somewhat baffled myself.

It is impossible to see a lock on a door that is installed on the inside of a door frame from the top house step that is greater than 180 deg away to the side.
Obviously! I don't even regard the floor of the house as a step.
From the second step - better chance, from the third step - even better.
No need to proceed beyond this point. Mission accomplished.
From the paving slab beyond the bottom step - very possible.
Viewing the cellar door from the paving slab, which is next to the top step of the cellar steps is the preferred position in order to see the lock.
No it isn't. The optimum position is standing at the bottom of the cellar steps in front of the cellar door and the lock. But this is never even suggested in the testimony.
In order to realize this we must recognize some of the references to "steps" are to cellar steps not house steps.
That is a logical fallacy based on an interpretation of a single report rather than on the bulk of the testimony recorded at the inquest.

I can't explain why some prefer to wander around in a permanent fog of confusion, while others prefer to seek a practical solution - perhaps it's something in the water?

Neither can I, but my water is from a mountain spring and is perfectly fine, certified to contain no hallucinogens.

Hi Jon,

I mean no disrespect in my comments. You are obviously convinced of your point of view, and I can appreciate that fact. However, I have my own point of view and am unable to countenance what I consider to be a series of illogical assumptions. I fully appreciate that you do not see that to be the case, but there we have it.

Presented with all due respect, George