John Richardson

[Fleetwood Mac]

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).

Hi Jeff,

Yes, I can see the link.

Thanks for taking the time to find and post this by the way, because it does add something to the discussion.

What I have been able to understand is the following:

1) This research was published in the Science Advances Journal, which I believe is an American publication concerned with research in any area of science.

2) It is a peer reviewed publication requiring at least two reviews.

One caution here is that this is a multidisciplinary journal as opposed to one specifically associated with anatomy or the field of estimating time of death. When they say 'peer reviewed' it is not clear by whom, i.e. is it someone well versed in the ins and outs of estimating time of death, given it is a multidisciplinary journal it is not necessarily the case. What it does state on the Science Advances Journal website, is that bringing in expertise in the field that is being reviewed is at the editors discretion. Given it's your link/post/article, I'm hoping you can clarify whether or not this has been peer reviewed by someone with expertise in the field of estimating time of death.

3) The pertinent part of the article in your link is this: existing methods can only give a window of several hours. This is what we're discussing in this thread. Based on your link/article, it appears that the people have who have written the article are making that statement. It is not a direct quote from the researchers (whereas they do quote the researchers in other parts of the article).

4) Following on from the above point, it is not clear what exactly was published in the Science Advances Journal. Did they simply publish the research or did the Science Advances Journal claim that existing methods can only give a window of several hours also. In the event it's the former, then we do not have a peer reviewed assessment of the claim existing methods can only give a window of several hour. Given it's your link/article to support an argument, I'm hoping you can tell me who exactly is claiming existing methods can only give a window of several hour (as far as I can tell it's the person who has written the article and I don't know who that is) and whether or not the Science Advances Journal repeated this claim when they published the research. Clearly it is an important point because it tells us whether or not that claim was peer reviewed, although it won't tell us whether or not peer reviewed by people with expertise in the field of estimating time of death (because according to the Science Advances Journal, drafting such expertise is at the editor's discretion).

What may be of interest, however, is that Dr Phillips agreed with the person making the claim existing methods can only give a window of several hours when assessing Mary's body, between 2am and 8am, but not when assessing Annie's body.

The article you have posted is useful because it begins to lead the discussion where it should go, i.e. looking at the science behind estimating TOD. Having said that, it in no way constitutes 'proof' that existing methods can only give a window of several hours, see the reasons I have mentioned in this post.

Feel free to add some meat to the bones in terms of the questions I've asked in this post.

As I said though Jeff, thanks for posting this. It's definitely piqued my curiosity and I'm going to start having a look at this to try and determine just how unreliable estimating TOD is and how that is impacted by the time interval from death to assessing the body. When I say determine, quite frankly I don't have the scientific apparatus sat around in my loft to be able to do this myself, but there must be studies out there and they may offer a consensus among experts in that field. I do quite a bit of photography in my spare time and it's the first day we've had in ages where there is sun and little wind combined and so I'll be out all day and not looking for studies. At some point over the weekend I'm going to start looking and it certainly deserves its own thread.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi all,

I've located the article that is summarized above (found here, but I'm not sure if it will be available to everyone and I may just have access through work).

Just to give more details on the reliability of their new approach, they indicate "We found the maximum and average error of these reconstructed PMIs to be as low as ±3.2 hours and ±38 min, respectively. Moreover, 83.3% of the reconstructed PMIs deviate no more than ±1 hour from their corresponding true PMIs.", so even with their improved technique the error can still be +- 3.2 hours (that was their maximum, so such large deviations are rare), with the average being +- 38 minutes (which is pretty impressive). They report an 83.3% Confidence interval of +-1 hour, which is a non-standard thing to do, usually one reports a 95% range, which will be some amount more than +-1 hour, but it's not clear by how much.

They also report "Errors of the reconstructed PMIs induced by parameter-specific uncertainties remain within ±2.5 hours for true PMIs ranging from 6 to 40 hours.", so once they factor in some other unknowns, their estimates are +-2.5 hours (so even their method might not be able to distinguish Dr. P's estimated ToD from the witness based one). For example, in their study they know the initial body temperature of the deceased, but once one admits that they don't know the initial body temperature of a murder victim and has to include that as an "unknown parameter", their calculations produce estimates with error ranges much more than the +-1 hour and we're looking at +-2.5 hours.

But, as they say, "Notwithstanding, these results represent a notable improvement over the current gold standard (Henssge’s nomogram) where uncertainties range from ±3 to ±7 hours." - That's the current "gold standard", which is far more advanced than Dr. Phillips had available to him. And reports on the accuracy of the current "gold standard" mean at a minimum one has to consider the estimate "ToD +-3 hours", though others will argue for as much as "ToD +- 7 hours".

Basically, Dr. Phillips' estimate in many ways is rather impressive. Using nothing more than a touch to obtain a subjective impression of her surface temperature, and noting the coolness of the day, he produces an estimate that even the gold standard of today (and even the "new improved method" when having to deal with some unknown values, like Annie's body temperature at the time she was killed), once coupled with it's margin of error, fits with the witness statements. Meaning, he seems to have done as well as a modern set of measurements could do, so hats off to him for that. But when we look at his estimate, we have to recognize that his estimate has a very very large window around it, and it is one that encompasses the witnesses.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I can access this link also.

I'll have a full read of this one at some point over the weekend.

My initial thoughts are: 1) Has the article been peer reviewed by experts in the field of estimating time of death (drafting expertise in the field is discretionary according to the Science Advances Journal website) 2) The interval 3/7, how is that impacted by the time interval between death and assessment of the body (this may be in the publication, I don't know as I haven't looked at it yet) 3) Do other studies agree with the Amsterdam researchers 4) Thanks for posting, 'will make interesting reading.

[Aethelwulf]

Hi Jeff,

I can access this link also.

I'll have a full read of this one at some point over the weekend.

My initial thoughts are: 1) Has the article been peer reviewed by experts in the field of estimating time of death (drafting expertise in the field is discretionary according to the Science Advances Journal website) 2) The interval 3/7, how is that impacted by the time interval between death and assessment of the body (this may be in the publication, I don't know as I haven't looked at it yet) 3) Do other studies agree with the Amsterdam researchers 4) Thanks for posting, 'will make interesting reading.

On comment 1 it is a peer reviewed and Science AAAS looks like it is related to the main Science journal. For a researcher, publishing in one of Science or Nature journals is the pinnacle, largely irrespective of topic, and not often reached by most researchers. I'm not sure how it works with Science (having not reached those heights) but normally when you submit an article you can advise on relevant experts to review. The journal may then contact some of those and ask if they have time to review, if not recommend someone with the same expertise. The actual review is often done double blind these days. Bottom line is, you don't need to worry about quality, although some people do fake things but you'd expect that to be picked up. I seem to remember a case 10 or more years ago where a researcher had faked a whole of raft of stuff to do with genetics and Alsatians!

[Herlock Sholmes]

I mentioned Spilsbury,Herlock,because you hadn't,not because you had.So read properly and stop your accusations.

. A funny thing I noticed,is that posters who condemn the knowledge available in 1888.,quote from sources of a latter time.Sir Bernard Spilsbury was born in1877,and must have had a victorian teaching background,and his practice took him through the 1920/30's,long before modern technology made things easier

I fail to see how anyone could have got that explanation from your original post Harry. Spilsbury’s career did stretch into the 20’s and 30’s and he, like Phillips, had the medical knowledge available at the time.

For good measure it might help the cause of those using lack of knowledge,if they quoted word for word,what it is that modern day people are saying regarding lack of knowledge,especially in the case of estimation of how long a person had been dead.You know how to use quotes,and the information is there you claim.

Jeff has provided full quotes with links to the full articles.

I do not question Phillip's times as I have no qualification to do so.

Neither do I Harry. As I’ve said many times on here, but naturally it gets ignored, Phillips could have got it right, he could have got it wrong. We have no way of assessing either way.

I do know he was a surgeon,and had years of experience.others have proved that.That there were teaching hospitals and universities ,in Victorian times,where doctors gained knowledge,I have no doubt.

And Sir Isaac Newton had many years of knowledge and experience of scientific matters and many consider him the greatest mind ever, yet scientists now know far, far more than he ever could. As Jeff has shown in his article where medical science has only just managed to get some TOD estimates to a degree of accuracy of + or - 45 minutes; and that’s using equipment that wasn’t invented in Phillips’ time. This should tell you all that you need to know Harry when considering that Phillips was working 134 years ago. How can believe that somehow Dr. Phillips had a level of medical knowledge that would have been the absolute pinnacle of medical achievement today? Surely you can see that Harry?

That Phillips could estimate,with some degree of acuracy how long Chapman had been dead I do not question.

Some degree of accuracy, yes. But not to 50 minutes. If he could have done that Harry then he would have changed the course of forensic medicine. It would have been like Alexander Graham-Bell inventing the mobile phone but not bothering to tell anyone about it.

That he could be fifty per cent,or an hour out I do not believe.

Then you are absolutely contradicting todays authorities in Forensic Medicine Harry. But you’re entirely free to do that of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'll give you a small amount of credit for not backtracking.

Let's be clear about this:

1) While estimated TOD can never be certain, estimating TOD is critical to crime resolution. Modern forensics commentators tell you that and the fact they actually undertake this exercise on a routine basis all over the world tells you that.

Id never doubt that fact.

2) Dr Phillips was a well respected, experienced doctor estimating the time of death.

Ive said the same thing many times.

3) It should follow that while Dr Phillips couldn't say with certainty, he could provide a reasonable estimate (open to being inaccurate, however).

Yes. But what is ‘reasonable.’ He would have been unlikely to have been miles out but what would we mean by ‘miles out.’ As Jeff has shown, there’s just no way on earth that he could have predicted the TOD to the degree required to dismiss the witnesses with any acceptable level of confidence.

'Just out of idle curiosity, do you disagree with anything in points 1 and 2?

So the overriding questions are: how can we possibly favour an unknown element like the possibly inaccurate but certainly unreliable TOD estimate? And how can we expect it to have been as accurate as it would have needed to have been in order to cast doubt on the witnesses when we know that that level of accuracy is barely achievable in 2022 (and then only by using very specialist equipment?)

[Herlock Sholmes]

In your opinion , not mine. or others for that matter, he could, as others people have accepted been correct. .

Ill leave the Phillips debate to others as this is more a richardson thread, which going by the number of post back and fourth the conflicting evidence also leads people to a number of different possibilites . All based on the evidence.

I’ve also accepted that he ‘could’ have been correct.

There aren’t a number of possibilities. There is only one. You can’t dismiss a witness on the basis that a Doctor might or might not have been correct. That would make no sense. As we can see being confirmed by the piece posted by Jeff even today, with the advances in technology and knowledge, todays doctors really struggle for the level of accuracy being required of a Victorian Doctor. Saying “I favour Phillips,” is just meaningless Fishy. It’s not a matter of my opinion or yours. We have to go with the real experts. Surely you would agree with that?

[harry]

Jeff's article,and I had seen it previously,is concerned mainly with deaths that had occured from a 5 - 50 hour period,and has a plus or minus error of 38 minutes.
No where does the article relate to Phillips 2 hour base.So where Herlock,is my contradiction? How does a 5-50 hour period prove Phillips to have been incorrect?

[Herlock Sholmes]

My objective for participation in this forum is to learn from the views of others without any compulsion to conform to those views. Nothing in my objective persuades me that I am entitled to belittle the opinions of others. I have observed that some posters do not seem to feel constrained by that basic courtesy. I am now wondering if, as suggested by Scott Nelson on a different thread, my time may be better dedicated to reading back issues of Ripperologist.

Cheers, George

And that’s reasonable of course George but it has to apply all round and to all. I tend to think that this comment is based mainly at myself after reading your previous post? You criticised me in an earlier post for somehow belittling Trevor’s job. I didn’t do that imo, all that I said was, in effect, I don’t think that Trevor should be assumed correct just because he is a former police officer. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think that Trevor’s opinion shouldn’t be considered and I also have absolutely no issue with posters taking Trevor’s position in a debate. I also said that I favour my own judgment over Trevor’s. That doesn’t mean that I think that everyone should agree with me. All through life we trust our own judgment. Well, I do to.

Trevor also accused me of being incompetent. That’s an insult. It doesn’t bother me in the slightest and it’s not something I hold against Trevor but it was still said, I simply responded at the time. Things are said in the cut and thrust of debate George but why is it that I got criticised by you but you ignored Trevor’s personal insults against me. Surely rules of behaviour apply to all.

I accept that we should all avoid acrimonious debate and that we should avoid getting too personal. I hold my hands up, as I have done in the past George, to the fact that I can get frustrated in debate and as a consequence I can be sarcastic and mocking. I think that we all have our faults though. But if we think that we can get to a stage where there is never a cross word then I don’t think that’s a reasonable possibility or aim. It my opinion only, but I think that we have to be adults and accept that comments get made. If it gets too personal or if it gets nasty or if the thread just descends to a trade in insults then the mods will step in. I’ve seen nothing of that kind on this thread

That said George, Im perfectly willing to take a deep breath, and try to be less irritable or sarcastic but this should apply to all posters George and I would certainly say that I’m not solely to blame for this.

And I’d be frankly amazed if the lack of a new Ripperologist was down to debates on these boards George. It’s ok to focus on and criticise the threads on here but anyone is free to start new threads. Threads discussing Ripperologist articles or absolutely anything. We can only discuss current subjects.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Jeff's article,and I had seen it previously,is concerned mainly with deaths that had occured from a 5 - 50 hour period,and has a plus or minus error of 38 minutes.
No where does the article relate to Phillips 2 hour base.So where Herlock,is my contradiction? How does a 5-50 hour period prove Phillips to have been incorrect?

I wave the white flag.

Its just impossible to discuss things sensibly with you with comments like that. Have it your way Harry. Dr. Phillips was a genius who was 100+ years ahead of his time.

[FISHY1118]

I’ve also accepted that he ‘could’ have been correct.

There aren’t a number of possibilities. There is only one. You can’t dismiss a witness on the basis that a Doctor might or might not have been correct. That would make no sense. As we can see being confirmed by the piece posted by Jeff even today, with the advances in technology and knowledge, todays doctors really struggle for the level of accuracy being required of a Victorian Doctor. Saying “I favour Phillips,” is just meaningless Fishy. It’s not a matter of my opinion or yours. We have to go with the real experts. Surely you would agree with that?

Well im going with the overall conflict of witness testimony and the evidence on hand, which as i said and in my opinion leads me and others according to the many post on this topic to more than one possibility .''If'' phillips was correct, then there isnt only one .





People will no doubt have formed their own opinions on the evidence ,so it will always be a your, theirs , mine , thats just where the evidence leads .

[harry]

Didn't take too long for you to spit the dummy Herlock.Jeff will no doubt reply and tell me if I am wrong,but it is clear in the lead up summary to the article in question,that there were four cases discussed,the lenghth of timeof death was 5-50 hours,and the mean average of error was 38 minutes.
What is so difficult to understand"

[Herlock Sholmes]

But surely you would agree that on the subject of the reliability of Phillips estimated we have to go with the authorities? Our opinions as laymen are largely irrelevant; we can only look to theirs. So, in effect, Phillips doesn’t get us any further forward. There’s no point in constantly going over this of course though, I certainly agree on that point. My position is that all that we can do is to sideline Phillips and evaluate the witnesses. Yes that might annoy some but I’m not saying it because of any suggestion of incompetence on Phillips part but just that when we’re faced with an estimation that might or might not have been correct and we have no way of evaluating/assessing it we can’t use it in any meaningful way. If, for example, we could say that a Victorian Doctor would have been 75% likely to have got it right within an hour then the balance would tip in favour of Phillips but we cant. So we can’t dismiss the witnesses on the strength of Phillips estimate. Therefore we have to assess the witnesses on their own merit and not say that they were ‘likely’ to have been wrong because Phillips was ‘likely’ to have been correct.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Didn't take too long for you to spit the dummy Herlock.Jeff will no doubt reply and tell me if I am wrong,but it is clear in the lead up summary to the article in question,that there were four cases discussed,the lenghth of timeof death was 5-50 hours,and the mean average of error was 38 minutes.
What is so difficult to understand"

You are wrong of course. And the fact that you repeatedly are on this particular topic certainly is ‘difficult to understand.’ As long as you keep claiming that Phillips could have made a TOD estimate as accurately as you claim that he could have and to such a high level of probability of being correct 130 years before modern science could even get close to doing so, then reasonable discussion is impossible.

[Herlock Sholmes]

People will no doubt have formed their own opinions on the evidence ,so it will always be a your, theirs , mine , thats just where the evidence leads .

My opinion on medical science is irrelevant Fishy. As is the opinion of every layman. The evidence of modern forensic scientists are there in black and white. Why should we question it? On what grounds do we question it? This isn’t a question of opinion or interpretation like in a discussion on the witnesses. This is scientists versus laymen. I go with the scientists, why others favour their own opinion is something I can’t begin to explain apart from in terms of bias. It’s the only explanation that I can think of.

[FISHY1118]

My opinion on medical science is irrelevant Fishy. As is the opinion of every layman. The evidence of modern forensic scientists are there in black and white. Why should we question it? On what grounds do we question it? This isn’t a question of opinion or interpretation like in a discussion on the witnesses. This is scientists versus laymen. I go with the scientists, why others favour their own opinion is something I can’t begin to explain apart from in terms of bias. It’s the only explanation that I can think of.

As ive stated, the only thing that i see that is black and white is the conflicting evidence of witness testimony, that can and has shown to lead to a number of possibilities in regards to the Chapman murder . Which as this thread has shown over and over the likelyhood of said possibilities .