John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yet again someone replies to a discussion surrounding what Dr Phillips actually stated with an argument that Dr Phillips may have been inaccurate.

Nobody is claiming Dr Phillips couldn't have been inaccurate. This is not what is being discussed. What is being discussed is this: was Dr Phillips confident Annie had been murdered by 4.30am at the latest. As opposed to: could Dr Phillips have been inaccurate in that assertion.

There are at least a couple of you who seem completely incapable of reading that which is put before you. I'd imagine you're not reading the posts, to which you're replying, in full and you're merely skimming them.

Dr Phillips stated that Annie had been dead at least two hours and that is supported by Inspector Chandler's statement when Dr Phillips pronounced life extinct and is supported by the coroner also who stated: Dr Philips believes at least two hours but assuming the witnesses are to be believed he underestimates the effects of the cold morning and he has miscalculated.

Whether or not Dr Phillips was correct in that assertion is not what was/is being discussed and it follows your link on 'changes in the temperature of the body' is not relevant to the conversational equivalent of a slow, painful death I was having with Sherlock Holmes.

Being accused of being incapable of reading by someone that can’t read a username. Ok.

Phillips was believed that his estimation of 2 hours plus was correct but he added a caveat which allowed for error, however remote he might have felt the chances. We know what is being discussed. We know what your interpretation is. And we disagree with you. It can’t be simpler.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I quote what Dr Biggs says, it is a quote that fits Chapmans lifestyle, and it is something Victorian doctors would not have been aware of and so it has to be seriously considered when accepting or rejecting Phillps estimated time of death

,"If the victim is a malnourished, slight, alcoholic female then rigor mortis may be less pronounced than might be expected, and so detection of rigor mortis in such an individual may indicate a longer time has elapsed since death.”

Phillips stated that there was an onset of rigor

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Phillips didn't merely state there was 'onset of rigor'.

He specifically stated 'in the limbs'.

My reading of rigor is that it typically sets in 2 to 3 hours after death. That is at room temperature.

But, rigor begins in the facial area. Later it spreads to the limbs, how much later is not clear from what I have read but the consensus seems to be around four hours.

So, it is quite easy to see how Dr Phillips has weighed up the fact rigor has spread to the limbs with the morning temperature and concluded at least two hours. It seems he has knocked off a bit of time to account for the temperature.

By the way, I've had a look at the weather for Whitechapel on September 7th and 8th, 1888. It's far from freezing. Around 10 degrees celsius at its lowest, and by 5.30am presumably a touch warmer.

[DJA]

Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing.

Agreed.

But, it remains a stage on from 'the onset of rigor', given that rigor occurs in the facial area first and foremost.

From what I have read: four to six hours in the limbs, at room temperature, four hours being onset in the limbs and during the next couple of hours rigor becomes marked.

[Wickerman]

I quote what Dr Biggs says, it is a quote that fits Chapmans lifestyle, and it is something Victorian doctors would not have been aware of and so it has to be seriously considered when accepting or rejecting Phillps estimated time of death

,"If the victim is a malnourished, slight, alcoholic female then rigor mortis may be less pronounced than might be expected, and so detection of rigor mortis in such an individual may indicate a longer time has elapsed since death.”

Phillips stated that there was an onset of rigor

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Where did Phillips say there was an onset of Rigor?

He didn't.

Does it matter? - absolutely it does.

Rigor begins in the smaller muscles, eyelids, facial muscles, fingers, toes... it only later begins in the thighs, buttocks & upper limbs (larger muscles).

As usual Trevor, you are arguing blind because the truth is, you know nothing of the subject matter.
If you had known what your Dr Biggs was talking about you could have asked him to be more precise. Or better yet - read up on the subject yourself.

By the way, did you tell your Dr Biggs that Chapman was 'slight'?
You do know Slight means Slim & Delicate?

Chapman, slim & delicate of build?

I'll give you that she was malnourished, and was more a user of alcohol (though Phillips said she hadn't had any recently).
but, she was also ill, she had some infection, was it a tumor on her liver? - something like that.
She had also fought for her life in those last few seconds (her finger nails were turgid).

Did you tell your Dr Biggs this?

You should have, it matters.
Internal body heat due to infection can speed-up the onset of Rigor.
Muscular stress prior to death has the same effect.

All these facts, and they are FACTS, means the conclusion your Dr Biggs arrived at is false.
He did not have sufficient details with which to draw an informed opinion.

[DJA]

TB had gotten into her brain,hence her low body temperature.

"Stiffness of the limbs was not marked,but it was commencing" ..... Dr. Phillips.

Two different things.

[Wickerman]

Has this poster been following the thread?......

Yet again someone replies to a discussion surrounding what Dr Phillips actually stated with an argument that Dr Phillips may have been inaccurate.

Doctor Phillips admitted he may have been inaccurate in his estimate.
All we have here is a few posters who can't understand why he provided that caveat.
Had you read the contemporary medical literature I posted, it should be quite clear why he said what he did.

Nobody is claiming Dr Phillips couldn't have been inaccurate. This is not what is being discussed. What is being discussed is this: was Dr Phillips confident Annie had been murdered by 4.30am at the latest...

And the answer to that is, No, he was not confident.

As opposed to: could Dr Phillips have been inaccurate in that assertion.

The posted literature is there to help you understand why he was unsure.

There are at least a couple of you who seem completely incapable of reading that which is put before you. I'd imagine you're not reading the posts, to which you're replying, in full and you're merely skimming them.

It looks more like a refusal on your part to accept Phillips was essentially saying - 'the murder could have occurred later than my estimate'.

Dr Phillips stated that Annie had been dead at least two hours and that is supported by Inspector Chandler's statement when Dr Phillips pronounced life extinct...

All Chandler's words do is support the words of Phillips - he heard Phillips, but not the conclusion reached by Phillips. Chandler is not qualified to do that.

...and is supported by the coroner also who stated: Dr Philips believes at least two hours but assuming the witnesses are to be believed he underestimates the effects of the cold morning and he has miscalculated.

As you struggle to understand the basics, we can't trust your interpretation above. Lets use the actual words from the press report.

Coroners Summary.

"It is true that Dr. Phillips thinks that when he saw the body at 6.30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours,....

(Meaning) Dr Phillips thinks the murder took place at least 2 hours prior to 6:30am.

"...but he admits that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood may affect his opinion";...

(Meaning) Yet, the Doctor qualifies the "at least 2 hours" by suggesting the cold temperature, and the great loss of blood, may have affected the standard calculation, by making it appear the murder took place earlier than it really did.
In other words, in less than 2 hours.

"...and if the evidence of the other witnesses be correct, Dr. Phillips has miscalculated the effect of those forces."

(Meaning) If we lay trust in the other witness testimony, it merely confirms that Dr Phillips has miscalculated the time of death.

And yes, these debates concerning Dr Phillips are especially relevant to the testimony of John Richardson.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

While I hold your opinions in high regard, in this case I will have to beg to differ.

Phillip's stated at the inquest that when he arrived at the yard and did his examination "The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body. Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing.". Chandler's report, dated on the day of the murder, said, "The Doctor pronounced life extinct and stated the woman had been dead at least two hours." (MEPO 3/140, ff. 9-11). Is there any evidence that the doctors would impugn their integrity by, in effect, cheating with their estimates, as it appears not to be the case here. Further medical evidence was available to Phillips by the time of the inquest in the form of the results of the examination of the stomach contents. To me it makes no sense for Phillips to give his estimate and then immediately second guess it. My view is that the "caveat" referred only to the extent of the time after the two hours.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

I don't think the doctor's were "cheating" just because they were probably aware of the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the body. That would be important information for the doctor to consider. If, for example, they were told the body was definitely not there 30 minutes ago, but their examination suggested a time of death 5 hours previous, then I'm sure they would say "The victim could not have died within that time frame", leading to the conclusion that either the body was missed over multiple patrols (improbable) or the body was dumped there.

And I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Try to make the caveat apply to the "probably more" only part of his testimony just leads to an irrational intent. It's him saying she was probably dead longer, but if she was dead longer then she should have felt even colder. Pointing out the rapid cooling is pointing out she may have been dead less time, but feels colder than an earlier ToD would suggest. It just doesn't make sense for it to be the other way, at least not to me.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

From: Forensic Biology For The Law Enforcement Officer by Charles Grady Wilber,1974

'The stiffening of the body or rigor mortis develops usually within an hour or two hours after death.'

……..

From: EstimationOf Time Of Death by Ranald Munro and Helen M.C. Munro.

"The time of onset is variable but it is usually considered to appear between 1 and 6 hours (average 2-4 hours) after death.'

…..


"Francis E. Camps stated that.Ordinarily the rigor mortis appears between 2-4 hours, but sometimes it is seen within 30 minutes of death and sometimes the onset is delayed for 6 hours or more."

….

"Bernard Knight described the method of testing the rigor mortis by attempting to flex or extend the joints though the whole muscle mass itself becomes hard, and finger pressure on quadriceps or pectoralis can also detect the changes. The stiffness may develop within half an hour of death or may be postponed indefinitely."

……

Werner Uri Spitz (1993), a German-American forensic pathologist, "reported that in temperate climate, under average condition, rigor becomes apparent within half an hour to an hour, increases progressively to a maximum within twelve hours, remains for about twelve hours and then progressively disappears within the following twelve hours."

…….

From the English physiologist Sir Andrew Fielding Huxley (1974), who lived and worked in a temperate climate, we get this: 'the rigor mortis, which is cadaveric rigidity, starts developing within 1 to 2 hours after death and takes around 12 hours after death for complete development.'

…..

Furthermore, according to K.S. Narayan Reddy, author of 'Essentials of Forensic Medicine', "In death from diseases causing great exhaustion and wasting e.g. cholera, typhoid, tuberculosis and cancer and in violent deaths as by cut throats, firearms or electrocution, the onset of rigor is early and duration is short".The paper alsostates that,according to W.G. Aitcheson Robertson, author of 'Aids to Forensic Medicine and Toxicology', in "death followed by convulsions, muscular exertion, racing, the rigor mortis will appear earlier". We are told thatMason JK stated "The onset of rigor will be accelerated in conditions involving high ante-mortem muscle lactic acid e.g. after a struggle or other exercise.". So a struggle could bring on rigor earlier than the average, just like a cut throat. Then what about the physical condition of the deceased? Well according to S.C. Basu, author of the Handbook of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, rigor is "hastened or accelerated in feeble, fatigued and exhausted muscles"

……

From the Textbook Of Forensic Medicine And Toxicology:

The time of onset and duration of Rigor is varied by multiple factors as will be discussed shortly but in general it is likely to be apparent in about 1-2 hours after death,

…..

Simpson's Forensic Medicine, updated 13th edition by Jason Payne James, Richard Jones, Steven Karch and John Manlove (2011):

"The only use of assessing the presence or absence of rigor lies in the estimation of the time of death, and the key word here is estimation, as rigor is such a variable process that it can never provide an accurate assessment of the time of death. Extreme caution should be exercised in trying to assign a time of death based on the very subjective assessment of the degree and extent of rigor."

…..

Should we ignore all of the above, and the god-knows-how-many others that we could quote, simply so that we can persist in trying to tip the balance in favour of Phillips TOD estimation? And should we as a result try and dismiss witnesses on the same basis?

Or should we just accept the fact that Phillips TOD estimate was unreliable? How desperate would we have to be to deny and dismiss all of this? I’m sorry but it beggars belief.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Herlock, really, do you have to introduce facts into the debate? You know people can't cope with facts, or English lessons.

[Wickerman]

Phillips didn't merely state there was 'onset of rigor'.

He specifically stated 'in the limbs'.

Yes, but fingers are "in the limbs", so it may have been just starting.

So, it is quite easy to see how Dr Phillips has weighed up the fact rigor has spread to the limbs with the morning temperature and concluded at least two hours. It seems he has knocked off a bit of time to account for the temperature.

By the way, I've had a look at the weather for Whitechapel on September 7th and 8th, 1888. It's far from freezing. Around 10 degrees celsius at its lowest, and by 5.30am presumably a touch warmer.

Right, well, no-one mentioned 'freezing'.
The body will loose temperature from roughly 98.4 (the standard), down to whatever the ambient temperature was, and that is what we don't know.
If, it was 10 Deg. C., then the Ambient was 50 Deg. F. so the body will drop from 98.4 to 50, at roughly 1 Deg F. per hour. - using 19th century figures, as Phillips would.
Yet, to address Dr Phillips's caveat - those figures are in a controlled environment, and do not include a body torn open, with massive blood loss, found on cold stone flags. Such a body looses heat by Conduction, Convection & Radiation, rapidly.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff.

I know this idea has been suggested before, but I don't think it is right.

As early as 1882 the book Legal Medicine began by making it clear that all temperatures taken on a body must be thermometric (by thermometer), due to the fact that temperature changes on the body are so minute as to be imperceptible by the hand.

Phillips had to have used a thermometer, apart from that he must record the ambient temperature at the murder scene.

Hi Wickerman,

True, they were aware that taking actual temperatures is better, but the doctor's themselves would hold on to older techniques because they are familiar, etc. Basically, those advancing forensic techniques and working on improvements in methodology would be aware of better methods, but the practicing doctors will also be, as people are, loath to change how they do things if they think they are 'good enough.' I don't see any of the cases being examined with a thermometer but all appeared to just use touch. As such, they appeared to believe it was a useful and reasonably reliable method.

But yes, I agree that the "state of knowledge" was beyond that point, but I'm not sure it had made its way into practice just yet, which is what I was getting at but wasn't clear about. Similar to how fingerprints were a known way to identify someone, but the police in London hadn't yet started using them.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, really, do you have to introduce facts into the debate? You know people can't cope with facts, or English lessons.

Yet some choose to ignore them or believe that they know better than these authorities. I just find it strange Doc that some still can’t help with the “yes buts” or with “Phillips was there,” or “Phillips was an experienced Doctor,” as if we’re somehow maligning the reputation of a beloved and respected ancestor and they feel duty-bound to defend his honour. And certainly no one is saying that he couldn’t have been correct. It’s just a fact that he was using unreliable methods that we can’t confirm or deny so, in effect, Phillips is a neutral witness. He gets us nowhere so we’re left to assess the witnesses and this isn’t, as has been claimed, simply by accepting them at face value. There are questions of course but we should dismiss witnesses just because they’re imperfect. Unlike Phillips, we can at least assess them; weigh up the points for and against. We can disagree of course but to assume that Richardson was lying would be just a great a fault as assuming that he must have been correct; or ‘relying on him’ as Trevor puts its it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And I’ll just post one quote on the estimation of TOD using temperature.


From Simpson's Forensic Medicine, 13th edition (updated by Jason Payne James and others)

'...a body is not a uniform structure: its temperature will not fall evenly and, because each body will lie in its own unique environment, each body will cool at a different speed, depending on the many factors surrounding it.'


The examples given of factors affecting the rate of cooling of a body are:

1. Mass of the body

2. Mass surface area

3. Body temperature at time of death

4. Site of reading of body temperature

5. Posture of the body - extended or in a fetal position

6. Clothing - type of material, position on body - or lack of it

7. Obesity - fat is a good insulator

8. Emaciation - lack of muscle bulk allows a body to cool faster

9. Environmental temperature

10. Winds, draughts, rain, humidity

[Fleetwood Mac]

Yes, but fingers are "in the limbs", so it may have been just starting.

Rigor is first observable in the small muscles and most of those are in the head.

When Dr Phillips states: "limbs" it is highly unlikely that he is talking of fingers given that there are no muscles in your fingers (the muscles that control the fingers are in the palm and the forearm). It follows that rigor is not observed in the fingers in the early stages.

On a side note: I think it would benefit everyone in the event we keep with the exact language that is in the statements.

Dr Phillips did not state: "fingers in the limbs", nor "in the limbs". He stated: "the limbs".

I've read a few threads in the last few days where people manipulate the language in the statements and use that manipulation to create 'run-away-horse' theories. That serves only to dismantle threads and leave people disinterested.