John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

We could discus this case entirely with acrimony if we didn’t persist in trying to dismiss a mountain of expert knowledge in favour of trying to find ever more inventive ways of trying to increase the knowledge of a Victorian doctor, however competent and honest he undoubtedly was. We can’t recreate those conditions so we have no way to assess Phillips estimation. And because of that all that we can say is that it’s possible that he could have got it right and it’s possible that he could have got it wrong. Why are we, as laymen, trying to second guess the accepted experts in the field unless we are determined to skew the evidence one way or another. I accept the possibility of both options. So why are some trying to push it one way? We can only assume that there’s an underlying reason.

Typo - should have read “….entirely without acrimony…”

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

“Second-guessing oneself is a form of insecurity, anxiety and lack of self-confidence about whether you have made the right decision or not”

Translation 1: My ToD is 2 hours, and probably longer, but there is this extra factor which means I could be totally wrong and the ToD could be anything, even shorter, I just don't know. This is what I mean by second guessing and I don't think it is what he meant, but it is what many posters think he meant.

Translation 2: My ToD is 2 hours and probably longer, but there is this extra factor, which I have taken into account for my ToD, which makes it difficult to estimate how much longer. This is what I think he meant.

JMO

Best regards, George

Or, is this George dancing on hot coals, to avoid the simplest interpretation?

[Wickerman]

I’m finding some of the comments on here pretty difficult to credit to be honest. We have seen mountains of evidence on here (and there is much, much more out there) on the reliability/unreliability of estimating TOD’s (especially 134 years ago) and yet we still have posters who for some (almost) inexplicable reason just can’t bring themselves to accept the known facts........

So do I.
One failing I see here is, etiquette demands that arguments exchange points in kind.
Which means, whether experienced or not, opinion is exchanged with opinion.
You offer your opinion, they offer their opinion.

However, when one side produces authoritative evidence by way of direct quotes, fully referenced. The opposing side is required to do the same, or their argument is lost.
To come back with more inexperienced opinion ("Well, I think") just shows they cannot substantiate their case.
It doesn't matter what "they think", they need to up their game, or lose their argument.

[Wickerman]

Medical experts agree that estimating TOD is not wholly reliable, but that is not the same as saying estimating TOD is unreliable.

Isn't that just semantics though?
If it isn't reliable, then it is unreliable, or not wholly reliable.
Whether some estimate is reliable or not is pretty black or white.

If Rigor Mortis cannot pinpoint the time of death, and I've never read any authority who say it can. Then you cannot rely on it.
I see Phillips makes mention of both Algor & Rigor, as temperature plays a role in both estimates. Yet he applies a caveat that informs the coroner his estimate has deficiencies.

The position is that TOD can be estimated but not with certainty.

Which is what Herlock said.

[GBinOz]

Or, is this George dancing on hot coals, to avoid the simplest interpretation?

Hi Jon,

I'm not known for dancing, and hot coals produce hot potatoes, which is maybe why this thread is going in circles. Were it not for Richardson's story, no-one would have any doubt about Phillip's ToD. There are advocates for both arguments, both now, and historically. My view is not as absolute as others, and I try to refrain from hyperbole in its presentation. I have gained a lot from this thread and the opinions I take away have been formed by my judgement of the preponderance of evidence. I can accept that others have different opinions, without feeling the need to attempt to minimalise their views.

Best regards, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Jon,

I'm not known for dancing, and hot coals produce hot potatoes, which is maybe why this thread is going in circles. Were it not for Richardson's story, no-one would have any doubt about Phillip's ToD. There are advocates for both arguments, both now, and historically. My view is not as absolute as others, and I try to refrain from hyperbole in its presentation. I have gained a lot from this thread and the opinions I take away have been formed by my judgement of the preponderance of evidence. I can accept that others have different opinions, without feeling the need to attempt to minimalise their views.

Best regards, George

George, I know this post was a response to Wick but I’d just like to add your point in reverse. If we didn’t have Phillips quote would anyone give Richardson’s evidence a second look? I don’t think that anyone would be thinking that he hadn’t told the truth. They would just read of him saying that he couldn’t possibly have missed a body had it been there and accepted it.

And I’m not having a dig George but when you speak of minimalising posters views I do hope that includes Trevor saying that I’m incompetent?

[Herlock Sholmes]

For some reason I missed this post until I saw the response by Wulf.

We have an experienced, well respected doctor who assesses the body shortly after being murdered. This doctor takes into account the conditions on the morning of the 8th September, 1888. He provides valuable insight such as: stiffness of the limbs, little food in the stomach and so on. He estimates a TOD of at least two hours and probably more, taking account of the environmental conditions and the condition of the body.

No one is disputing this.

Meanwhile, I suspect Sherlock Holmes is not an authority on Victorian medical procedure nor an authority on estimating TOD. Yet, Sherlock Holmes is confident Dr Phillips' insight is of no consequence. Sherlock Homes implores us to listen to him and ignore Dr Phillips, devoid of any hint of modesty.

My conclusion is that the poster known as Sherlock Holmes is smoking at least a boatload of weed and probably more.

Im no more an expert in Victorian medical procedure than is Meetwood Flac and I’ve never claimed anything like it. If you’d read and understood what I’d said instead of charging on with your crusade you might of understood the very obvious point that I was making. The point that I wa making is that 134 years later we have no way of assessing Phillips estimate either way. We know that there were affecting factors that in 1888 Phillips wouldn’t have been aware of (I can’t remember how many or which they were but I seem to recall it being shown on a previous thread that there were a couple of factors that were unknown to Victorian doctors, I’m not pressing that particular point to heavily because I freely admit that I can’t recall the details) And so the only sensible conclusion is that because we can’t assess accurately, and we know that the methods used were categorically unreliable, then all that we are left with is the a) Phillips might have got it right, or b) Phillips might have got it wrong. So how does that get us any further forward? It doesn’t. Therefore Phillips TOD is, to use Trevor’s favourite word, unreliable. And any attempt to push it either way would be futile or fuelled by an agenda.

Sherlock Holmes is repeating ad nauseam that estimating TOD is unreliable and therefore it is a redundant exercise. Yes, it's understood. You're falling back on this position. You have nothing to learn from reading about these things even though I suspect you don't know a great deal about estimating TOD, and your mind is made up.

I repeat that estimating the TOD is unreliable Meetwood because it’s a fact that you keep ignoring in your mission to try and skew the evidence in favour of the Doctor. I say he could be right he could be wrong. You keep trying to prove that he was right. I think we can all see which of our two positions is the reasonable one.

In reality, TOD is always estimated, including in the modern age. It is not wholly unreliable as you claim. It was not wholly unreliable in the Victorian age. There are limiting factors that mean Dr Phillips may not be correct, but that doesn't render estimating TOD wholly unreliable. In actual fact, rigor mortis remains one of the used means to estimate TOD today which tells you that while rigor, and any other mechanism for estimating TOD, is not foolproof; nor is it wholly unreliable.

And I’ll keep posting this and other things until you stop trying to establish your own version of events. Please write to Messrs Payne James, Jones, Karch and Manlove and explain to them that you know something that they don’t know. I’ll be more than happy to read the response.

]“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."

It appears that you've made your mind up, 'nothing to learn by reading about these things with Dr Phillips' statement in mind. In that event, it's probably best you move on to another discussion because the only possible outcome for you is that you simply repeat ad nauseam post after post: "estimating TOD is unreliable, nothing to learn here, Dr Phillips doesn't give us any insight of note".

Although you might fantasise about being a moderator you’ll have to excuse me if I don’t just move to another thread at your command (and you accuse me of immodesty.) I’ve made up my mind because, unlike you Meetwood, I don’t see myself as knowing more on this subject than the worlds foremost authorities. When all of the experts tell me this is unreliable can you guess what I tend to think? Yup, you guessed it.

Meanwhile, others on the board are intrigued by all of this. We know estimating TOD is not wholly reliable, we probably quite like what we've read about Dr Phillips, we know what John Richardson stated; so, what is going on here? And, from there we start to read a bit and try to piece together just how likely it was that Dr Phillips miscalculated.

And the others on the boards who, like me, don’t feel that they know more on this subject than the worlds leading experts will continue. If you want to waste your own time by trying every single desperate measure in the book to try and make it likely that Phillips was correct then your free to do so. You won’t change the fact that we can advance no further on Phillips than ‘he might have been wrong, he might have been right.’ And of course we have the witnesses to consider but oh yeah, we can just dismiss them as liars can’t we?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Stunning arrogance from someone who posts such self-serving waffle. Learn to read, it might help in your understanding of the childishly obvious. Just for you, again…

“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."

It can NEVER provide an accurate assessment. NEVER. And these are experts talking about modern times.! Did the Victorians have some arcane knowledge that’s been lost to the mists time? Or are you spouting biased nonsense? I think we can all answer that one. What you should be doing, apart from fantasising about being a moderator, is to stop bending over backwards, performing unseemly and embarrassing contortions, and read what the genuine medical experts tell us. This constant attempt to bolster Phillips purely to discredit the witnesses is pathetic.

You don't even understand what you're posting in your own links.

When they are talking of an accurate assessment, they mean 100% accuracy.

They are telling you in your own quote/link: 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.

In effect they are telling you that the assessment of rigor in estimating the time of death is useful but it is an estimate. We know it's an estimate, everyone knows. Dr Phillips knew that.

When they go on to say: "can never provide an accurate assessment of time of death". They mean 100% accuracy. We know, everyone knows, Dr Phillips knew.

Earlier in this thread you posted: so in effect his evidence is neutral as far as we’re concerned, when talking of Dr Phillips.

It is not. Dr Phillips is at the scene giving you an estimate (as opposed to suggesting he is 100% accurate) based on his wealth of experience, the condition of the body and the environmental conditions. His opinion is to be valued. He may not be correct but it doesn't follow that Dr Phillips assessment is of no consequence and should be taken as 'neutral' (whatever that means in English in this context).

As I said, will you stop peddling your monumental levels of nonsense claiming Dr Phillips' estimate is meaningless. You're clogging up the boards with nonsense.

Here is a link for you. It tells you what everyone already knew except you.

Time of Death | Encyclopedia.com

It tells you the following: 1) estimating time of death is crucial for forensic investigators 2) the time of death can never be determined with 100% accuracy 3) rigor mortis is one of the components involved in estimating the time of death.

As said in my previous post, there would be no point in estimating the time of death, which happens in every country in the world, in the event it didn't act as a gauge. That much should be obvious to even a small, malnourished burrow owl.

You seem to believe that estimating the time of death is a lottery and pretty much pointless. It's not. It's an estimate utilising science and the experience of those who have gone before us. It is a vital tool in crime resolution.

In sum: modern forensics places great importance on estimating the time of death, Dr Phillips estimated the time of death, Dr Phillips was well qualified to estimate the time of death, Dr Phillips did not suggest his estimate is certain, the well qualified Dr Phillips's opinion should be taken as valuable but open to being incorrect, anyone on this board with a reasonable mind will conclude that Dr Phillips is worth listening to.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You don't even understand what you're posting in your own links.

When they are talking of an accurate assessment, they mean 100% accuracy.

They are telling you in your own quote/link: 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.

In effect they are telling you that the assessment of rigor in estimating the time of death is useful but it is an estimate. We know it's an estimate, everyone knows. Dr Phillips knew that.

When they go on to say: "can never provide an accurate assessment of time of death". They mean 100% accuracy. We know, everyone knows, Dr Phillips knew.

Earlier in this thread you posted: so in effect his evidence is neutral as far as we’re concerned, when talking of Dr Phillips.

It is not. Dr Phillips is at the scene giving you an estimate (as opposed to suggesting he is 100% accurate) based on his wealth of experience, the condition of the body and the environmental conditions. His opinion is to be valued. He may not be correct but it doesn't follow that Dr Phillips assessment is of no consequence and should be taken as 'neutral' (whatever that means in English in this context).

As I said, will you stop peddling your monumental levels of nonsense claiming Dr Phillips' estimate is meaningless. You're clogging up the boards with nonsense.

Here is a link for you. It tells you what everyone already knew except you.

Time of Death | Encyclopedia.com

It tells you the following: 1) estimating time of death is crucial for forensic investigators 2) the time of death can never be determined with 100% accuracy 3) rigor mortis is one of the components involved in estimating the time of death.

As said in my previous post, there would be no point in estimating the time of death, which happens in every country in the world, in the event it didn't act as a gauge. That much should be obvious to even a small, malnourished burrow owl.

You seem to believe that estimating the time of death is a lottery and pretty much pointless. It's not. It's an estimate utilising science and the experience of those who have gone before us. It is a vital tool in crime resolution.

In sum: modern forensics places great importance on estimating the time of death, Dr Phillips estimated the time of death, Dr Phillips was well qualified to estimate the time of death, Dr Phillips did not suggest his estimate is certain, the well qualified Dr Phillips's opinion should be taken as valuable but open to being incorrect, anyone on this board with a reasonable mind will conclude that Dr Phillips is worth listening to.

Simply wrong and frankly self-serving.

You’re 100% comment is purely an invention by you to try and shoehorn your own biased opinion into place. They say EXACTLY what they mean. Medical textbooks aren’t written so as to be open to interpretation. They don’t write things thinking “it’s ok, our readers will simply read between the lines and realise that when we say “never provide an accurate assessment” we actually mean a 100% accurate assessment.” How can an adult suggest such piffle as if it’s somehow acceptable.

We cannot accurately assess, verify or dismiss Phillips estimation. All that we need to know is that he could easily have been wrong but one thing that we can say for certain is that neither you nor anyone else can claim that he was accurate with such a level of confidence as to be able to discredit or dismiss the witness. Therefore all discussion of Phillips achieves nothing except as an exercise in massaging your ego.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Simply wrong and frankly self-serving.

I'm not interested in going round nonsensical arguments with you, even though it is obvious from your own quote in your link that they conclude rigor is useful in estimating TOD. In the event I respond to this with the same comments we will merely serve to obfuscate that which you're saying (which of course is in your interests).

What I want to ask you is this: is Dr Phillips's TOD estimate valuable?

[JeffHamm]

While I agree with your earlier post that Dr Phillips did not state that he estimated TOD based upon rigor, nor does he state he estimated TOD based upon body temperature.

What Dr Phillips stated is this:

I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.

There is nothing in that which suggests Dr Phillips must have concluded TOD based upon body temperature (or rigor for that matter). The pertinent section of his statement is: the body would be more apt to cool rapidly. Dr Phillips doesn't elaborate on that and we are left to infer.

In Victorian times, both rigor mortis and body temperature were regarded as indicators of TOD, and so the reasonable conclusion is that the experienced doctor considered both when estimating a TOD.

Hi FM,


Personally, given he points to the rate of body cooling in his caveat, I think the reasonable conclusion is that he is indicating what he based his estimate upon. His lack of any mention of rigor with regards to his statements on ToD means, as you pointed out (we must stick to what he actually said, not what we wish he said), that we cannot presume he used his rigor observation in his estimate. Since he mentions the rate of cooling, we can see that he says this in relation to ToD.

But, if you feel there is nothing in his statement that indicates he based his estimate on either body temperature or rigor mortis, then you can't say he considered both since, in your view, he says neither and following your insistance we only interpret what he says, then you should conclude he based his estimate of the ToD upon nothing, making it nothing more than a guess. I disagree with your view that he doesn't indicate he used the body temperature, as I mention above, but your simultaneous claim that he states neither so used both seems to go against the rule you think we are to follow.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jon,

I'm not known for dancing, and hot coals produce hot potatoes, which is maybe why this thread is going in circles. Were it not for Richardson's story, no-one would have any doubt about Phillip's ToD. There are advocates for both arguments, both now, and historically. My view is not as absolute as others, and I try to refrain from hyperbole in its presentation. I have gained a lot from this thread and the opinions I take away have been formed by my judgement of the preponderance of evidence. I can accept that others have different opinions, without feeling the need to attempt to minimalise their views.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Hmmm, I'm not sure I agree with the claim that "Were it not for Richardson's story, no-one would have any doubt about Phillip's ToD." I think Cadoshe's statements would raise similar doubts, and there's also Long's statement of seeing Annie alive, and outside Hanbury Street, both of which are well after Phillip's estimate. Those result in the same conflict with Dr. Phillip's, although they are consistent with Richardson. Yes, there are concerns with each of them individually, but there are always concerns with eye-witness testimony (as there is with Dr. Phillip's estimate of the ToD, and as there is with Richardson's statements, which are what is being discussed). Eye-witness, and expert opinions, are not objective measurements, and so they are always open to concern. But it is all we have.

Richardson is just one of 3 witnesses that all suggest Annie was alive an hour after the time Phillip's state. Personally, given the error range of ToD estimates, being out by an hour isn't really a big thing, it's an estimate after all and estimates have an associated range of error. Given that, I don't even see Dr. Phillip's estimate as being inconsistent with the 3 witnesses, but people seem to have a hard time with accepting that the error range associated with estimating ToD by touching the body and subjectively deciding how warm or cold it is. I'm not sure why people think that could possibly give one sufficient information to narrow the time down so much that being out by an hour seems unreasonable to consider.

Basically, while individually all of the 4 people concerned can be problematic, when we take them all into account, and take into account the range of error associated with the expert testimony, all are consistent with a ToD somewhere around 5:25 ish (I think that's the usual time people suggest for a post-Richardson visit murder).

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Hi George,

Hmmm, I'm not sure I agree with the claim that "Were it not for Richardson's story, no-one would have any doubt about Phillip's ToD." I think Cadoshe's statements would raise similar doubts, and there's also Long's statement of seeing Annie alive, and outside Hanbury Street, both of which are well after Phillip's estimate. Those result in the same conflict with Dr. Phillip's, although they are consistent with Richardson. Yes, there are concerns with each of them individually, but there are always concerns with eye-witness testimony (as there is with Dr. Phillip's estimate of the ToD, and as there is with Richardson's statements, which are what is being discussed). Eye-witness, and expert opinions, are not objective measurements, and so they are always open to concern. But it is all we have.

Richardson is just one of 3 witnesses that all suggest Annie was alive an hour after the time Phillip's state. Personally, given the error range of ToD estimates, being out by an hour isn't really a big thing, it's an estimate after all and estimates have an associated range of error. Given that, I don't even see Dr. Phillip's estimate as being inconsistent with the 3 witnesses, but people seem to have a hard time with accepting that the error range associated with estimating ToD by touching the body and subjectively deciding how warm or cold it is. I'm not sure why people think that could possibly give one sufficient information to narrow the time down so much that being out by an hour seems unreasonable to consider.

Basically, while individually all of the 4 people concerned can be problematic, when we take them all into account, and take into account the range of error associated with the expert testimony, all are consistent with a ToD somewhere around 5:25 ish (I think that's the usual time people suggest for a post-Richardson visit murder).

- Jeff

hey jeff
good post. i was about to post basically the same thing. his estimate dosnt even preclude the later 5:30 ish tod.
hopefully this moots any further needless debate. theyre all right to some extent.

[JeffHamm]

Here's a link to a summary report on estimating ToD. Basically, researchers in Amsterdam developed a new method for estimating ToD using thermal cameras, and by incorporating a lot of environmental factors (i.e. is the body in water, amount of clothing, ambient temperature, body structure, mass, etc).

After taking into account all sorts of specific factors about the physical size and build of the victim, of the surrounding environmental conditions, and so forth, they have been able to get the estimated ToD down to be within 45 minutes of the actual ToD (so "real time +- 45 min" is how good we can do now, but only after factoring in all of those above variables - none of which Dr. Phillips did, or knew to do).

Compared to the existing methods, which involves taking a rectal temperature reading (which Dr. Phillip's did not do), the the victim's weight (not used), and ambient temperature (as in degrees, not "it was cool that morning), one looks up on a table the estimated hours passed. But, as the article points out "Existing methods can only give a window of several hours; the new method reduces this to less than an hour."

Now look at that, bold bit: Existing methods only give a window of several hours...", and that's using modern existing methods, with proper temperature readings (from the body and the environment) and factoring in the victim's weight (the new method also factors in their "build", someone who is 130 lbs but short and stocky will show a different temperature pattern than someone long and lean; even the current methods don't factor that into their calculations).

Dr. Phillip's didn't take a temperature reading, he touched the body. He didn't record the ambient temperature, he just noted it was cool. And he didn't take into account Annie's weight. But even if he had better quality information to work with his estimate would still have a window of several hours!

I don't care how many years experience he may have with touching bodies for temperature - even if he could do better, and actually measure the body temperature, he still can't be more accurate than "real time +- several hours".

As I say, his "estimate of 4:30", once you factor in the error (+- several hours), is not at odds with a ToD at 5:25 (ish). This isn't my opinion, it is a description of how reliable the method is in determining the ToD - and frankly, in my opinion, it's pretty awful. If he had the fancy new method, then we're starting to get to the point where we might be able to separate 4:30 from 5:25 ish (but they only claim that +- 45 minutes for bodies dead at least 5 hours, so it is either more or less reliable for shorter time intervals).

- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

As I say, his "estimate of 4:30"

- Jeff

That wasn't the estimate of Dr Phillips. He specifically stated: "at least two hours and probably more".