John Richardson

[harry]

The site you referred to Jeff talk about Models,and specifically a late model.Might there not have been a Model that Philips was guided by? We are only discussing Phillips,but lets not forget there were thousands of cases in England,in that era,where time of death became a factor.Were all the medical people involved simply working from a lack of common knowledge,and the authorities acting on their findings,blindly accepting their results? I do not think so.

[FISHY1118]

So do you think that the modern day forensic medicine experts could be wrong about how accurate Dr. Phillips could have been?

As far as F..M.E goes, strickley speaking whether they could be wrong or right as to how accurate Dr Phillips was, is of less importants[imo] in this case as the conflicting witness testimony and different interpretations regarding t.o.d of Chapmans murder.

AS you have already stated, he may have been correct or may have been wrong, one shouldnt just rely on f.m.e to assume/judge one way or the other . We all share the same information and its there in black and white , whom ever wishes to determine what he/ she belives is the true version of events is entire up to the individual based solely on the evidence at hand . One version does by no means prove the other wrong .imo

[JeffHamm]

The site you referred to Jeff talk about Models,and specifically a late model.Might there not have been a Model that Philips was guided by? We are only discussing Phillips,but lets not forget there were thousands of cases in England,in that era,where time of death became a factor.Were all the medical people involved simply working from a lack of common knowledge,and the authorities acting on their findings,blindly accepting their results? I do not think so.

Hi harry,

Hmmm, maybe I'm not being clear, but there is a limit on how accurate estimating ToD from body temperature can be when one does not have the deceased's actual body temperature at the time of death, which is pretty safe to say is the usual circumstance in a murder case; and it is definitely the case with Annie Chapman.

Because body temperature ranges between 96 and 99 F (more common around 97.7, it's not a flat distribution, but 95% of the population fall in that range), if you don't know the starting actual temperature you have to include that range of possible starting temperatures (and even then you'll be wrong 5% of the time; or more, since some people will be running a fever at the time of their murder).

If we apply the rule of thumb of 1 hour per 1.5F decrease, then a body found to have an internal temperature of 94.5, is somewhere between 1 and 3 hours dead, with more clustering around 2 h 8 m than at the extremes, but that range is what one would consider as probable range for ToD.

The rule of thumb, though, doesn't account for different external temperatures, and clearly a body found in a warm room will cool more slowly than one in a freezer. So if you don't know the actual external temperature (and there is no indication Dr. P. did, nor was the mathematical model available for him to do anything with it available at the time), you add more error, widening that range.

Dr. P. did not take any actual temperatures, and what he did note was her surface temperature (although he points out there was residual heat under the intestines in the body; but what temperature is residual heat? I have no idea) so he doesn't know either the start or the end reading that is even necessary to make even a rule of thumb calculation. His estimate will have an even wider range of error than one that is based upon actual readings using the proper methods.

Annie's body was exposed to the cool air, the surface will cool rapidly. Her abdomen was opened, so her internal temperature will also drop more rapidly because the cold air gets inside. She lost a lot of blood, and blood being liquid normally holds a lot of heat, so again, as Dr. P rightly notes, she will have cooled more quickly (but he only guessed at by how much, increasing again his error range).

Whether or not the Victorian's had some equations they could use, Dr. P. did not take any readings, he touched her and made a subjective interpretation of temperature, so he couldn't use any equation the Victorian's may have had. Subjective sense of temperature will not be as reliable as actual temperature readings, and even actual temperature readings, as we see, are associated with large amounts of error; his will have more - it has to because his measurements are less reliable by definition - they're subjective not objective.

Anyway, seriously, it's not a criticism of him, in fact, I'm pretty impressed really. He seems to be well within the range one would expect with more reliable readings (you know, from a thermometer), so maybe that is his experience showing through. But to simply think that being out by an hour is beyond belief is, I'm afraid, not a belief based upon the reality of the problem. Estimating ToD by temperature drop, which is what we're dealing with, is not precise and the value obtain by the calculations (even the ones Dr. P. did in his head) have to be viewed in conjunction with the error range.

And the error range for this problem is such that Dr. P. and the witnesses do not conflict - there is no problem with the testimonies, all of them are consistent with a ToD around 5:25. Basically, there's nothing in the testimony that says we have a problem to solve.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

Respectfully Jeff i see multiple areas of conflict where Long , Cadosch , Richardson Chandler and Phillips are concerned , but i need not go over the 1000 or so post again to point out such descrepancies.


'

'Basically, there's nothing in the testimony that says we have a problem to solve''.

If that was the case why so many difference of opinions in relation to t.o.d ?, Surely after all were seen and read on this topic as to its uncertainty, is it
really as clear cut as that to you ?

[Fleetwood Mac]

And the error range for this problem is such that Dr. P. and the witnesses do not conflict - there is no problem with the testimonies, all of them are consistent with a ToD around 5:25. Basically, there's nothing in the testimony that says we have a problem to solve.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Can you respond to these points in turn. It seems some posters have taken your research link for granted. I have not, but perhaps you'll come up with something which can explain the apparent discrepancies in the research undertaken and Dr Phillips' situation.

I'm still looking around the internet for other studies and helpful information, but these are my observations on the research published in the Science Advances journal:

1) The Amsterdam research was undertaken on dead bodies with a PMI (time interval of death to assessment) of 5 to 50 hours.

2) The Amsterdam research is wholly based on body temperature to estimate TOD.

3) In Dr Phillips' situation: in the event 5.30am was the time of death then the PMI is 1 hour. It is widely accepted that the shorter the PMI, the more accurate the assessment.

4) In Dr Phillips' situation: he was not relying solely on body temperature, he had the added luxury of rigor mortis to help him. Rigor had progressed beyond commencing but not observable, and beyond in the facial area, to: "commencing in the limbs, but not marked".

Conclusion at this stage prior to looking around the internet for more studies and any other useful information:

1) The Amsterdam research is undertaken in a situation that doesn't apply to Dr Phillips.

2) There is evidence that Dr Phillips agreed with their approach in that when it comes to Mary's death, i.e. within the 5-50 hours PMI range, Dr Phillips concluded 2am to 8am.

3) It follows that the Amsterdam research body would conclude that Dr Phillips is competent.

4) With all of the above in mind, your post in no way suggests Dr Phillips was not qualified to provide an estimate that could in all reasonability be correct.

5) Your post is valuable in that it leads enquiring minds to do a spot of digging around the internet but it is not valuable as a means of concluding Dr Phillips' estimate is unlikely to have been about right.

[GBinOz]

Dr. P. did not take any actual temperatures, and what he did note was her surface temperature (although he points out there was residual heat under the intestines in the body; but what temperature is residual heat? I have no idea) so he doesn't know either the start or the end reading that is even necessary to make even a rule of thumb calculation. His estimate will have an even wider range of error than one that is based upon actual readings using the proper methods.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I am having some difficulty in imagining why Phillips would not have used a thermometer to take internal and air temperatures. Thermometers had been in use for medical purposes since 1867 and it seems to me that those temperatures would form part of the basic information to be used in assessing ToD, and a basic tool in any physician's medical bag. Did any of the doctors attending the crime scenes specifically state that they did not employ a thermometer, or is there other evidence to conclude that they would not have employed this device?

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

Respectfully Jeff i see multiple areas of conflict where Long , Cadosch , Richardson Chandler and Phillips are concerned , but i need not go over the 1000 or so post again to point out such descrepancies.


'

'Basically, there's nothing in the testimony that says we have a problem to solve''.

If that was the case why so many difference of opinions in relation to t.o.d ?, Surely after all were seen and read on this topic as to its uncertainty, is it
really as clear cut as that to you ?

Hi Fishy,
The opinions vary in part because we've been assuming that the margin of error associated with Dr. P's estimate for the ToD is so small that it conflicts with the witness testimony; many do not even really acknowledge that Dr. P's opinion has a margin of error, other than in the direction of the death being more than 2 hours.

While I've always suspected the error margins were much larger, and probably overlapped with the witnesses, I hadn't found any research articles to determine if my assumptions were valid or not, but I really hadn't tried very hard as I've been busy with other things. Having had the time recently, I did a search and found the one I posted. And sure enough, even modern methods based upon temperature readings, etc have very large error ranges, in the +-3 hours and more type thing. Even the new and improved method is effectively +-2.5 hours as one cannot know many of the required parameters (starting body temperature, for example).

As Dr. P's methods are even less accurate (they have to be, he's estimating temperature, not measuring it), the associated error has to be larger.

Given that, his estimate does not conflict with the witnesses, which basically removes any real conflict. The differences between the witnesses are in the matter of minutes, which is well within the range of different clocks = different times (and that's not even taking into consideration witnesses genuinely misremembering the time; i.e. Long may have misremembered a 5:15 chime as being the 5:30 chime, and that's all it takes to account for the difference in stated times between her and Cadoche). In short, their discrepancies, while literally there in the statements, are not really so large that they definitely result in incompatible stories. Richardson, being well before both, doesn't create a problem either. And if Dr. P's stated estimate, once it's error range is included, also does not conflict, then, well, where's the problem?

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

Can you respond to these points in turn. It seems some posters have taken your research link for granted. I have not, but perhaps you'll come up with something which can explain the apparent discrepancies in the research undertaken and Dr Phillips' situation.

I'm still looking around the internet for other studies and helpful information, but these are my observations on the research published in the Science Advances journal:

1) The Amsterdam research was undertaken on dead bodies with a PMI (time interval of death to assessment) of 5 to 50 hours.

2) The Amsterdam research is wholly based on body temperature to estimate TOD.

3) In Dr Phillips' situation: in the event 5.30am was the time of death then the PMI is 1 hour. It is widely accepted that the shorter the PMI, the more accurate the assessment.

4) In Dr Phillips' situation: he was not relying solely on body temperature, he had the added luxury of rigor mortis to help him. Rigor had progressed beyond commencing but not observable, and beyond in the facial area, to: "commencing in the limbs, but not marked".

Conclusion at this stage prior to looking around the internet for more studies and any other useful information:

1) The Amsterdam research is undertaken in a situation that doesn't apply to Dr Phillips.

2) There is evidence that Dr Phillips agreed with their approach in that when it comes to Mary's death, i.e. within the 5-50 hours PMI range, Dr Phillips concluded 2am to 8am.

3) It follows that the Amsterdam research body would conclude that Dr Phillips is competent.

4) With all of the above in mind, your post in no way suggests Dr Phillips was not qualified to provide an estimate that could in all reasonability be correct.

5) Your post is valuable in that it leads enquiring minds to do a spot of digging around the internet but it is not valuable as a means of concluding Dr Phillips' estimate is unlikely to have been about right.

I look forward to seeing what you find. I've more or less said the same (your #3). As for #1, well, the research was much more controlled than Annie's case, so the margin of error in Annie's case would therefore be even larger, so to that extent I agree with you. If you could show me research that indicates there is a different pattern for PMI <5 hours, I would appreciate that.

- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

If that was the case why so many difference of opinions in relation to t.o.d ?, Surely after all were seen and read on this topic as to its uncertainty, is it
really as clear cut as that to you ?

It's not clear cut by any stretch of the imagination.

Nothing has been posted on this thread that negates Dr Phillips' ability to provide a decent estimate.

The Amsterdam research is based solely on PMI of 5-50 hours and body temperature as a means to estimate TOD.

In the event we believe that Annie was murdered at 5.30am, then that's a 1 hour PMI and it is widely accepted that the estimated TOD is more reliable the closer the examination is to the time of death.

Furthermore, Dr Phillips had rigor mortis to help him in his assessment. He observed that rigor was not merely commencing. Rigor commences in all of the muscles simultaneously but is not initially observable. It is first observable in the eyelids, neck and jaw. Dr Phillips observed that rigor was commencing 'of the limbs'.

In addition, while there are variables that impact the rate of body cooling, both speeding it up and slowing it down; Annie was wearing some clothes, the temperature was around 11/12 degrees celsius. In the event we accept a TOD of 5.30am, then just how much would the body have cooled in that first hour and in those conditions.

What we really need is some source data that is relevant to the stage of rigor observed by Dr Phillips, the conditions, e.g. temperature, and a very short PMI, i.e. 1 hour.

As it stands, Dr Phillips' estimate is certainly valuable. This is an experienced doctor drawing on what he observes in the body, e.g. rigor commencing 'of the limbs'. Furthermore, this is not a doctor who goes out on a limb, he understands the difficulties in estimating TOD, which is why he suggests between 2am and 8am for Mary when there is a longer PMI. Yet Dr Phillips is unequivocal in stating 'at least 2 hours' when he views a body with a much shorter PMI.

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,
The opinions vary in part because we've been assuming that the margin of error associated with Dr. P's estimate for the ToD is so small that it conflicts with the witness testimony; many do not even really acknowledge that Dr. P's opinion has a margin of error, other than in the direction of the death being more than 2 hours.

While I've always suspected the error margins were much larger, and probably overlapped with the witnesses, I hadn't found any research articles to determine if my assumptions were valid or not, but I really hadn't tried very hard as I've been busy with other things. Having had the time recently, I did a search and found the one I posted. And sure enough, even modern methods based upon temperature readings, etc have very large error ranges, in the +-3 hours and more type thing. Even the new and improved method is effectively +-2.5 hours as one cannot know many of the required parameters (starting body temperature, for example).

As Dr. P's methods are even less accurate (they have to be, he's estimating temperature, not measuring it), the associated error has to be larger.

Given that, his estimate does not conflict with the witnesses, which basically removes any real conflict. The differences between the witnesses are in the matter of minutes, which is well within the range of different clocks = different times (and that's not even taking into consideration witnesses genuinely misremembering the time; i.e. Long may have misremembered a 5:15 chime as being the 5:30 chime, and that's all it takes to account for the difference in stated times between her and Cadoche). In short, their discrepancies, while literally there in the statements, are not really so large that they definitely result in incompatible stories. Richardson, being well before both, doesn't create a problem either. And if Dr. P's stated estimate, once it's error range is included, also does not conflict, then, well, where's the problem?

- Jeff

Hi Jeff , So can i ask this hypothetical question , if Long Cadosh and Richardson were not part of the Chapman murder, and phillips gave his t.o.d as two hours probably more 4.00/4.30 are you saying based on his opinion we should still except that she could just as well been killed at 5.25am?

[Fleetwood Mac]

I look forward to seeing what you find. I've more or less said the same (your #3). As for #1, well, the research was much more controlled than Annie's case, so the margin of error in Annie's case would therefore be even larger, so to that extent I agree with you. If you could show me research that indicates there is a different pattern for PMI <5 hours, I would appreciate that.

- Jeff

I'll have a look to see what I can find.

But, whatever I find, let's be clear about this:

1) The Amsterdam research was based on assessing bodies that had been dead a lot longer than Annie.

2) The Amsterdam research was based wholly on body temperature. Dr Phillips had rigor mortis to help him in his assessment.

In the event there is no research out there that is relevant to Dr Phillips' situation, then that in no way validates your contention that the Amsterdam research is relevant to Dr Phillips' situation. It simply means this:

1) There is no research out there that is relevant to Dr Phillips' situation.

2) Therefore, there is no evidential basis for concluding that Dr Phillips' estimate is likely to have been significantly wide of the mark.

3) The Amsterdam research could be of use when looking at a victim such as Mary, with a PMI within the interval used by the Amsterdam researchers, but even in that event it remains uncertain because we don't know whether or not their research was peer reviewed by an expert in the field and nor have we seen a critical evaluation of the research by experts in the field. As it stands, it remains the research of a small body of individuals as opposed to a widely accepted view.

I am confident I can find you statements to the effect that it is widely accepted that a shorter PMI, such as 1 hour, is more likely to result in a more accurate TOD than the PMI interval used by the Amsterdam researches. Let's not forget that we're talking 5-50 hours here and so some of those bodies used in the Amsterdam research will have been dead for more than a day. Whether or not I can find research that is relevant to Dr Phillip's situation is another matter, 'suppose it depends on whether or not it exists.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But you are never wrong are you? Mr Perfect

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Of course I can be wrong Trevor. These are just opinions and different interpretations. My interpretation of Richardson could be wrong of course just as yours could. But if that’s the conclusion that I draw and I can’t change it just so that it concurs with another poster. Only new information or a previously not considered point could do this. On the subject of the Doctors I go with the modern day experts who naturally know more than us and they certainly knew more than Phillips. I cant see anything wrong with that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Jeff,

Can you respond to these points in turn. It seems some posters have taken your research link for granted. I have not, but perhaps you'll come up with something which can explain the apparent discrepancies in the research undertaken and Dr Phillips' situation.

I'm still looking around the internet for other studies and helpful information, but these are my observations on the research published in the Science Advances journal:

1) The Amsterdam research was undertaken on dead bodies with a PMI (time interval of death to assessment) of 5 to 50 hours.

2) The Amsterdam research is wholly based on body temperature to estimate TOD.

3) In Dr Phillips' situation: in the event 5.30am was the time of death then the PMI is 1 hour. It is widely accepted that the shorter the PMI, the more accurate the assessment.

4) In Dr Phillips' situation: he was not relying solely on body temperature, he had the added luxury of rigor mortis to help him. Rigor had progressed beyond commencing but not observable, and beyond in the facial area, to: "commencing in the limbs, but not marked".

Conclusion at this stage prior to looking around the internet for more studies and any other useful information:

1) The Amsterdam research is undertaken in a situation that doesn't apply to Dr Phillips.

2) There is evidence that Dr Phillips agreed with their approach in that when it comes to Mary's death, i.e. within the 5-50 hours PMI range, Dr Phillips concluded 2am to 8am.

3) It follows that the Amsterdam research body would conclude that Dr Phillips is competent.

4) With all of the above in mind, your post in no way suggests Dr Phillips was not qualified to provide an estimate that could in all reasonability be correct.

5) Your post is valuable in that it leads enquiring minds to do a spot of digging around the internet but it is not valuable as a means of concluding Dr Phillips' estimate is unlikely to have been about right.

As I’ve said on here regularly I’m certainly not what you would call scientifically-minded. Others on here might be of course though. So I tend to avoid detailed scientific/medical stuff and just go with the experts. That said I have a friend who is. He’s not a scientist or a medical but his job requires analysis of these kinds of documents. I’ve sought his opinion many times so I thought that I’d ask him to take a look in relation to your points. This isn’t an exercise in point scoring, it’s purely a different viewpoint. This is what he wrote to me in an email.

The Amsterdam paper says that the current "gold standard" is the Henssge model but that, "the uncertainties of PMIs determined using Henssge’s nomogram vary broadly from ±3 to ±7 hours on a 20-hour time scale."

That "20 hour time scale" = the time of death followed by 20 hours after death. In other words, estimating time of death within 20 hours of death leads to a margin of error from minimum plus or minus three hours to as much as plus or minus 7 hours.

Now there has been mention of the 5 to 50 hours but that's only because the experiment referred to in the 2020 paper could only test corpses which had been dead a minimum of 5 hours and a maximum of 50 hours (or at least that all they did test). So their work has literally no relevance to a case (like Nichols) where the victim had been murdered within 5 hours of the body having been examined by a medical examiner. Or rather, we have no idea if their new method using skin thermometry would be able to work when examining a recently murdered dead body.

In any case, if you look at their results, even they admit that, while their average margin of error was plus or minus 38 minutes, nevertheless 26.7% of cases deviated by more than one hour from their true time of death!! So even today, if they had been examining the body of Nichols five hours after her murder (at say 11am) they wouldn't have been able to conclude with any real degree of certainty if she had been murdered at 4.30am or 5.30am. Their test is just not that reliable. And that is them exceeding the "gold standard" in 2020!!

I don’t understand the point that is made re that Dr Philips agreed with their approach "when it comes to Mary's death"? Dr Phillips didn't give an estimated time of death in the Kelly case that we know of. Does he mean Dr Bond? His comment that because the doctor concluded "2am to 8am" that this is in the 5-50 hours PMI range means that he hasn't understood the Amsterdam paper at all. Sure, Dr Bond examined the body more than five hours after Mary had died - that is certain - but his estimate was based on temperature and stomach contents. It has nothing to do with the Amsterdam method of skin thermometry and, moreover, that fact that he might have given a wide range of 6 hours as to when death occurred has no bearing on the Amsterdam approach (which claims to have got the margin of error down to below 3 hours).

The only real relevance of the Amsterdam paper is that it contains a clear admission that even the best modern tests to estimate the time of death up to 2020 have been literally unable to reliably narrow it down to an hour or even close. Thus Dr Phillips could not possibly have done what he thought in ignorance in 1888 that he could do.

[Trevor Marriott]

Of course I can be wrong Trevor. These are just opinions and different interpretations. My interpretation of Richardson could be wrong of course just as yours could. But if that’s the conclusion that I draw and I can’t change it just so that it concurs with another poster. Only new information or a previously not considered point could do this. On the subject of the Doctors I go with the modern day experts who naturally know more than us and they certainly knew more than Phillips. I cant see anything wrong with that.

Ok so do you accept what Dr Biggs says and that it could apply to Chapmans lifestyle and could go to indicate an earlier TOD of Chapman. So we have a modern day forensic pathologist giving his opinion which has to be considered and goes some way to corroborate Phillips

I quote

"As an aside, 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"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok so do you accept what Dr Biggs says and that it could apply to Chapmans lifestyle and could go to indicate an earlier TOD of Chapman. So we have a modern day forensic pathologist giving his opinion which has to be considered and goes some way to corroborate Phillips

I quote

"As an aside, 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"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

He said may, but yes. I’ve never said that Phillips couldn’t have been correct or even close Trevor. But it’s also the case that he could have been wrong and that the methods used by him were certainly unreliable ones. The top and bottom of this is that we have no way of assessing or knowing if he got it right or not. So, in regard to the witnesses, how do we use what Phillips said? I certainly can’t say “well Phillips was wrong so the witnesses were probably right.” And no one can say “well Phillips must have been right so the witnesses must have been wrong.” So my question is the same, in regard to the witnesses, how does Phillips testimony help us or get us any further forward? It can’t. Therefore we have to assess the witnesses by weighing up the pro’ and con’s. Your interpretation of them is that they were mistaken or lying (and others agree with you). Mine is that they weren’t (and others agree with me.)Discrepancies and questions exist of course but I don’t think that they come close to requiring them to be dismissed.