John Richardson

[Doctored Whatsit]

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

Er, actually Phillips himself told the inquest that his ToD might be unsafe.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Er, actually Phillips himself told the inquest that his ToD might be unsafe.

Aye, because of course, when Dr Phillips stated: "at least two hours", which in the English language means the minimum time possible; he didn't mean that.

[A P Tomlinson]

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.

No reason?
Apart from 135 years of improvements in estimation of ToD that still only "approximate" a ToD, by using medical equipment to establish the exact temperature, along with lividity and palor, in controlled study of the body by experts over time. None of which were available or even widely understood in 1888

Almost everything about his understanding and practices are unsafe in terms of accuracy.
He's working from body temp without even using a thermometre.
The back of the hand technique only tells the diffference in temperature between the back of the hand and the skin of the victim.
If Philips had done something as innocent as removing a glove moments before touching the body, the skin would have felt far colder, setting back time of death by an hour or more. While if Brown had attended Eddowes and his hands were cold, the perceived difference has literally just been explained.
The body had been opened up and insides removed. Reducing core temperature.
The temperature taken at the time is irrelevant unless the rate of delcine is measured over a period, and charted, and then using an understanding of the rate of decline a better estimate can be made.
One check for either body temp or lividity do not reveal anything substantive, unless further monitoring is done to establish the continued decline over time it's at best a guess.

Its... EVERYTHING is unsafe about his estimate.
The Victorian methodolgy is not even as good as the broken clock situation. The broken clock is GUARANTEED to be right at least twice a day. But without another more accurate clock you will never know when!
There's no reason to trust his estimate. The best you might say about it is that "It might be right, but it's most probably wrong" Because using the methodology of the time will always result in that outcome.

The principal difference between the two?
No one needs to push Eddowes' ToD back to suit a suspect, or the same arguments we are making over Chapman would apply to Eddowes' estimated ToD as well, only the other way round, and people would be accusing watkins of skiving and not doing a proper job, (or more likely standing excatly in the entrance to Mitre Square and not going into the square and contriving reasons why he wouldn't have seen the area where the "Body would have been" They would be making the exact points that Im making about Philips but about Brown. And they'd be right to!
I believe multiple corroborating witnesses over a Victorian doctors estimated ToD.
Brown had the luxury of a Policeman giving him a fairly clear window. He did not need to be a genius to say "Within the same time frame as the officer said." in order to give a more accurate estimate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That does not prove that Phillips was wrong.

I haven’t claimed that it does. In fact I specifically said that the unreliability of the methods doesn’t mean they Doctors couldn’t get it right. Only that we can’t rely on them getting it right. We can’t say that she must have been killed at 4.30 or earlier just because that’s what Phillips estimated it.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

No reason?

Almost everything about his understanding and practices are unsafe in terms of accuracy.

EVERYTHING is unsafe about his estimate.

Dr Sequeira testified to the effect that he estimated Eddowes' time of death to have been somewhere around 1.40 a.m.


Would you state that his estimate is unsafe too?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

You are clueless. I haven’t just read it somewhere as if some I got it from an Agatha Christie novel or from some bloke in the pub I’ve read it time and time and time again from every single source that we can find for every authority. From people who write and revise the standard text books on the subject. If you keep denying this it’s just an example of a dishonest self-serving approach to the topic. It’s also quite stunning arrogance to assume that you know more than the authorities on the subject.

Phillips made an estimation. He added that the body could have cooled quicker than he’d estimated though and so a later ToD was possible. And I’ll keep repeating this ad nauseum until this childishly obvious fact finally sinks in to the terminally biased.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dr Sequeira testified to the effect that he estimated Eddowes' time of death to have been somewhere around 1.40 a.m.


Would you state that his estimate is unsafe too?

No. The witnesses support this too.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Aye, because of course, when Dr Phillips stated: "at least two hours", which in the English language means the minimum time possible; he didn't mean that.

Baxter understood what he meant. It appears to escape you though. Why. Because you’re doing it deliberately.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Er, actually Phillips himself told the inquest that his ToD might be unsafe.

He did not tell the inquest that he thought it possible, let alone likely, that Chapman had died as late as 5:30 AM.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

No. The witnesses support this too.

So, Lawende is a reliable witness in your opinion?

[Fleetwood Mac]

I haven't just read it somewhere

You have. That's what you generally do. Whether it's TOD, clocks or whatever. You read something and then you use it dogmatically rather than consider the nuances of the situation.

You've read that it is difficult to give a precise TOD and from there you've supposed two and two = five, i.e. nobody knew what they were talking about.

As I said to you, Dr Phillips did not attempt to give a precise time of death. He leaves us with the claim that he could discern a body that had been dead for at least two hours when he saw one. In contrast to Liz.

Dr Phillips stated 'at least two hours and probably more' which by anyone's standards is not an attempt to give a precise TOD.

[Wickerman]

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.

That's my answer to your question.

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

With Chapman, her finger nails were turgid, she had vertical scratches down the side of her neck, indicative of her trying to remove something tight, like a cord?
Swollen tongue, clenched fingers, black blood (blood without oxygen) in her brain, all indications of her being strangled.
Not the kind of death someone accepts without a fight.
Perhaps Dr Brown did not offer the same amount of details on Eddowes?

You did not take into consideration body fat.

'We' can't.
Due to the fact we need a number - it's a mathematical calculation, so we would need a number. (wght)

Chapman obviously had more fat than Eddowes.

How much more?

I believe my question remains unanswered.

See, you did get something right

[A P Tomlinson]

Dr Sequeira testified to the effect that he estimated Eddowes' time of death to have been somewhere around 1.40 a.m.


Would you state that his estimate is unsafe too?

Yes, for all the reasons I explained. If he had the opportunity to check for palor, the 15 or 20 minutes after death would have actually been a useful tool, but given the light that's doubtful.
You can list all manner of reknowned surgeons. I don't doubt them and their medical expetise. As far as they knew, they were accurate. They were using practices they believed in. It's only subsequently that those systems were shown to be unreliable.
It's the methodology that is flawed not the men.
If they were using the same techniques, then it's flawed.
It's bad science, and that's why it is no longer a practical method of establishing ToD.

I would doubt the ToD estimates of Bell himself if he had nothing more than the Victorian scene of crime examination protocols by which to reach his conclusions.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Dr Phillips did not attempt to give a precise time of death. He leaves us with the claim that he could discern a body that had been dead for at least two hours when he saw one. In contrast to Liz.

Dr Phillips stated 'at least two hours and probably more' which by anyone's standards is not an attempt to give a precise TOD.

The doctors' estimate in the cases of Nichols, Stride, and Eddowes was that they had died minutes earlier, not hours earlier.

In the case of Mary Kelly, the doctors' estimate was that she had died hours earlier.

They were right in all four cases.

That does not suggest incompetence.

[GBinOz]

A specious conclusion drawn from apocryphal data. I believe the expression is "garbage in, garbage out".

And I’m the one that gets called insulting.

Hi Herlock,

I'm surprised that you should find this insulting, unless you are unfamiliar with the computer jargon meaning that you can't get a good result from incorrect data.

Cheers, George