John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here are some questions I think are important in the debate about Chapman's time of death.

Why would the murderer have committed a murder so late in the morning in this case but not in any of the other murders he committed?

We have no way of knowing the mind of a serial killer. Disembowelling a woman isn’t logical and yet he still did it. They don’t play by the same rules that we do PI.

Just a suggestion……the poor in those days often took work when they could get it so what if the killer got a weeks work somewhere but it involved working nights?

Why would he still have been out in the open with a murder victim so much later than in any other case?

Same answer as above.

Why would a murderer who in every other case went into a dark place in order to commit the murder, this time go somewhere where it was beginning to get light?

He saw Chapman and had the urge to kill. Chapman would have decided on the location for business. Why wouldn’t a woman desperate for cash have have lied, saying - I’ve used this yard regularly at this time, no one has ever disturbed me. Would a serial killer with the urge to kill have needed much persuading?

Why would he have failed to see the supply of water with which to clean his hands, when he was about to go out into the street, where his blood stains might be seen by other people?

Maybe hearing Cadosch spooked him. Or maybe heard something else. Killers are often ‘in the zone’ when killing so when he was done perhaps he just decided that he needed to get out of there immediately? If Long was correct then he was wearing a coat. Is it so unlikely that he took off his coat to perform the mutilations then put it back on when he’d finished hiding any blood staining, hands in pockets and off he went.

Why would Chapman's body have been almost completely cold, with rigor mortis beginning to set in, within an hour of her having been murdered?

Because the world’s experts conclusively tell us that this can be the case.

In spite of all the protestations that rigor mortis could have set in unusually quickly, that her body could have cooled unusually quickly, and that the murderer could have decided to commit a murder much later than in the other cases, the odds are against all three things happening together.

No more unlikely than three witnesses all pointing conclusively to a later ToD all being wrong. Why do you place a Doctors estimate which was little more than a guess over these. It makes no sense. Trying to claim to know how a serial killer should or shouldn’t have acted is an exercise in futility. Everything points to a later ToD. It’s not even worthy of a debate. It should simply be accepted. Later ToD by a mile.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We don't know whether Eddowes had diseases which didn't show up in the autopsy, but we do know that she was thin.

The fact that Chapman had more fat on her than Eddowes had would tend to cancel out the effect of the lung disease on the relative timing of the setting in of rigor mortis.

It seems that the temperatures at the two murder sites were similar.

Why was Eddowes' body still warm?

If the coolness of the morning really did have an effect on Chapman, then it would have slowed down the onset of rigor mortis and not speeded it up.

There is no reason to suppose that Philips' estimate is unsafe.

It’s pointless discussing this because in you we have yet another armchair ‘Forensic expert.’ You don’t know what you are talking about PI and to be honest I’m sick and tired of talking to people like you who keep claiming to know more than the worlds authorities.

The REAL experts however tell us that bodies don’t react in the same way.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Everything points to a later ToD. It’s not even worthy of a debate. It should simply be accepted. Later ToD by a mile.

It is not true that everything points to a later time of death.

The time of death is worthy of debate.

That is why discussion forums exist.

One point of view does not have to be accepted except in a totalitarian state.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It’s pointless discussing this because in you we have yet another armchair ‘Forensic expert.’ You don’t know what you are talking about PI and to be honest I’m sick and tired of talking to people like you who keep claiming to know more than the worlds authorities.

Thank you for acknowledging that I am not alone.

I am left wondering why, in that case, you are such a prolific poster.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thank you for acknowledging that I am not alone.

I am left wondering why, in that case, you are such a prolific poster.

There are a small band of posters who appear to think that their opinions on forensic medicine trumps that of the worlds authorities PI. Why would anyone take that position? We are all laymen on this subject (although we do have posters with a medical background) so what qualifies any of us to second guess the experts?

The authorities don’t tell us that ToD estimation by these methods were sometimes unreliable. They were unreliable methods full stop. Even in the modern era we have numerous examples of ToD estimates being proven inaccurate and sometimes massively inaccurate so why would anyone, in the face of what the authorities tell us, assume that Dr. Phillips had a level of estimating skills that he just couldn’t possibly have had. Why? And before you say it, yes of course they sometimes got it right, but 135 years later we can’t get a modern day expert to re-examine her and give his/her opinion.

And of course we can’t just compare two different bodies. The experts tell us this. So I’ll ask again, and I’m tired of asking it, we do you or others feel that you are qualified to say “yes but….” There are no “yes buts.” It should be accepted without question……because the experts tell us without a single exception, that these methods were not reliable.

And as we can’t check Phillips work using modern methods his estimation his estimate doesn’t help us. And he himself admitted that the ToD could have been later when he added his caveat…..which was understood perfectly well by Baxter who said it in black and white.

Later ToD overwhelmingly the most likely. This isn’t my opinion. I’m stating a fact.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is not true that everything points to a later time of death.

The time of death is worthy of debate.

That is why discussion forums exist.

One point of view does not have to be accepted except in a totalitarian state.

It’s not MY point of view PI. It’s the point of view of every single Forensic authority in the world. Without exception.

But hey, what do they know, perhaps we should all ignore them and listen to you and Fishy?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It’s not MY point of view PI. It’s the point of view of every single Forensic authority in the world. Without exception.

But hey, what do they know, perhaps we should all ignore them and listen to you and Fishy?

Are you saying that every single forensic authority in the world is of the opinion that Chapman died as late as 5:30 AM?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Later ToD overwhelmingly the most likely. This isn’t my opinion. I’m stating a fact.

You are not stating a fact.

You are stating an opinion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Are you saying that every single forensic authority in the world is of the opinion that Chapman died as late as 5:30 AM?

Of course not. They all tell us that the methods used by Phillips were unreliable and fraught with the possibility of error.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are not stating a fact.

You are stating an opinion.

A neutral ToD estimate versus three witnesses.

Fact.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Of course not. They all tell us that the methods used by Phillips were unreliable and fraught with the possibility of error.

That does not prove that Phillips was wrong.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

A neutral ToD estimate versus three witnesses.

Fact.

That is not a fact, either.

That too is an opinion.

[Wickerman]

How is that relevant to the question of why the doctor's findings in the two cases were so different?

I understood you to have raised this question....

"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."

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I understood you to have raised this question....

"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."

And you replied:


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.


What reason is there to suppose that Chapman fought for her life any more than Eddowes?

You did not take into consideration body fat.

Chapman obviously had more fat than Eddowes.

I believe my question remains unanswered.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Of course not. They all tell us that the methods used by Phillips were unreliable and fraught with the possibility of error.

They don't.

What you've done is read somewhere that giving a precise TOD is difficult, even more so in a prior age. From there you use that to state: Dr Phillips didn't know what he was talking about.

Dr Phillips didn't attempt to give a precise time of death.

He simply said that he knew a dead body that had been dead for two hours when he saw one. That's very different to the difficulties in estimating a precise TOD that you repeat ad nauseam.