John Richardson

[FISHY1118]

Yes Fishy. we would have to say, given the error, a Tod estimated at 4 am means she was killed somewhere between 1 am and 7 am Since the body was found before 7, we can rule out some of that range.

- Jeff

Another question ,If Dr Phillips gave his t.o. d at 45/55 mins from when he arrived, do the same principles apply?, In other words based on the condition of the body at 45/55mins, would/could the same argument be then used against Phillips .

If not, what then makes Phillips assessment correct at 45 that makes him wrong at 3 hours ? [sorry two questions]

Now i know some will say he could have been right so as to sit on the fence , but lets face it a lot of posters think he was wrong but just want to come out and say it, thats fine . So for the sake of argument lets say he was wrong then apply my question to try and prove otherwise .

Just to be clear ill put in in another way , is it just as hard, risky, unsafe, accept,[ you know the drill by now Victorian Doctors and pretty much was guesswork and all ] for a doctor in 1888 to determind a t.o.d from 0 to 45 as it is from 2 to 3 hours ?

[harry]

Did Phillips have to state everything in order to be believed? Even today.if a person gives expert opinion,some things are not questioned,except if they are disputed by another expert.

[JeffHamm]

Another question ,If Dr Phillips gave his t.o. d at 45/55 mins from when he arrived, do the same principles apply?, In other words based on the condition of the body at 45/55mins, would/could the same argument be then used against Phillips .

If not, what then makes Phillips assessment correct at 45 that makes him wrong at 3 hours ? [sorry two questions]

Now i know some will say he could have been right so as to sit on the fence , but lets face it a lot of posters think he was wrong but just want to come out and say it, thats fine . So for the sake of argument lets say he was wrong then apply my question to try and prove otherwise .

Just to be clear ill put in in another way , is it just as hard, risky, unsafe, accept,[ you know the drill by now Victorian Doctors and pretty much was guesswork and all ] for a doctor in 1888 to determind a t.o.d from 0 to 45 as it is from 2 to 3 hours ?

Hi Fishy,

The same principles apply, though I can't say for sure the same error range would apply. It is possible that the error associated with very short PIM estimates is smaller, and it is possible it is larger, and it's possible the same range applies; it's an empirical question not an intuitive one, so without seeing some studies on very short intervals I'm not sure.

What I have seen are references to how some bodies will increase their core temperature following death before they start to cool, but not all. That influence adds to the uncertainty (error range) of estimating ToD based upon temperature readings - things may have happened that you don't know about - did it increase or not, if you don't know then you don't know what the initial temperature profile was so you can't work out a precise amount of time for the cooling.

Surface temperature readings, like Dr. P took, are far more influenced by the specifics of the environmental conditions than the internal readings (though the latter are not unaffected of course). Annie Chapman's condition at the scene make it very likely her surface temperature will have dropped pretty quickly (her clothes were opened, her body exposed, and so forth), and without doing some very precise calculations it's going to be a very imprecise estimate. Notice how at other crime scenes, the Dr's note how hands may be cold but upper arms warm (because the upper arms are protected by clothing, slowing he cooling profile, etc; forgive me if I've misremembered the precise body locations; I think it was hands and upper arms mentioned in one of the other cases? Stride or Nichols maybe?) Anyway, we also have to remember that it appears Annie was probably walking around much of the night, and she could have caught a bit of chill too, making her cooler to the touch. I know she had a lot of clothing, but if she sweated due to overdress she could easily later have chilled if her clothing was not great for the conditions - who knows, certainly not I, but we have to consider these things as they, again, are unknowns, and so our estimates get less and less precise (the margin of error gets wider and wider with each thing we do not know; and so does Dr. P's).

It really isn't a high precision estimate, and it narrows down to a range of hours, not minutes. The difference between Dr. P's estimated ToD and the witnesses is something like 1.5 hours, and that is going to fall within the error range of Dr. P's estimate because the technique, due to the influence of all these unknown factors, is simply not capable of being more precise.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

A read of Ripperologist no71,September 2006 might be of help.An article written by Karyo Magellan.

Hi harry,

Thank you very much for that reference. Magellan's article answered my question and provided a wealth of other information. There are also fascinating articles on Mitre Square and Smith's Beat in the same addition.

I'm just starting to read Part 2, here: https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio...autopsy-2.html

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

Forgive me if you have answered previously and I have missed it, but can you explain why you believe that Doctors didn't use thermometers at murder sites please.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Because Dr. P. specifically mentions touching the body and found it cold to the touch, and never at any point mentions taking temperature readings with a thermometer. Everything he says is about touch and feeling cool/cold/residual heat, etc. None of the doctors at any of the crime scenes mention taking actual temperature readings. So, unless there is evidence he took such readings, consulted some formula or set of tables, then it is just an unsupported speculation. We know he touched the body, we know he decided it felt cold, and we know those are the things he mentions when he talks about estimating the ToD (well, technically he estimates the Post Mortem Interval - PMI - as he says dead at least 2 hours, not dead at x o'clock. What he doesn't say is 2 hours earlier than what time specifically, so what time he means is something we have to estimate as well; does he mean 2 hours prior to his arrival or 2 hours prior to the time he did his examination - and if the latter, what time was that? I don't know, he doesn't say).

So, unless there is something recorded that shows he used a thermometer, everything we have points to him not using one.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Because Dr. P. specifically mentions touching the body and found it cold to the touch, and never at any point mentions taking temperature readings with a thermometer. Everything he says is about touch and feeling cool/cold/residual heat, etc. None of the doctors at any of the crime scenes mention taking actual temperature readings. So, unless there is evidence he took such readings, consulted some formula or set of tables, then it is just an unsupported speculation. We know he touched the body, we know he decided it felt cold, and we know those are the things he mentions when he talks about estimating the ToD (well, technically he estimates the Post Mortem Interval - PMI - as he says dead at least 2 hours, not dead at x o'clock. What he doesn't say is 2 hours earlier than what time specifically, so what time he means is something we have to estimate as well; does he mean 2 hours prior to his arrival or 2 hours prior to the time he did his examination - and if the latter, what time was that? I don't know, he doesn't say).

So, unless there is something recorded that shows he used a thermometer, everything we have points to him not using one.

- Jeff

Thanks Jeff,

I've just read the article in Ripperologist #65 on harry's suggestion. The author is of the opinion that thermometers were not used at either the murder site or the autopsy. He, like me, expressed surprise that they did not do so.

Best regards, George

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

The same principles apply, though I can't say for sure the same error range would apply. It is possible that the error associated with very short PIM estimates is smaller, and it is possible it is larger, and it's possible the same range applies; it's an empirical question not an intuitive one, so without seeing some studies on very short intervals I'm not sure.

What I have seen are references to how some bodies will increase their core temperature following death before they start to cool, but not all. That influence adds to the uncertainty (error range) of estimating ToD based upon temperature readings - things may have happened that you don't know about - did it increase or not, if you don't know then you don't know what the initial temperature profile was so you can't work out a precise amount of time for the cooling.

Surface temperature readings, like Dr. P took, are far more influenced by the specifics of the environmental conditions than the internal readings (though the latter are not unaffected of course). Annie Chapman's condition at the scene make it very likely her surface temperature will have dropped pretty quickly (her clothes were opened, her body exposed, and so forth), and without doing some very precise calculations it's going to be a very imprecise estimate. Notice how at other crime scenes, the Dr's note how hands may be cold but upper arms warm (because the upper arms are protected by clothing, slowing he cooling profile, etc; forgive me if I've misremembered the precise body locations; I think it was hands and upper arms mentioned in one of the other cases? Stride or Nichols maybe?) Anyway, we also have to remember that it appears Annie was probably walking around much of the night, and she could have caught a bit of chill too, making her cooler to the touch. I know she had a lot of clothing, but if she sweated due to overdress she could easily later have chilled if her clothing was not great for the conditions - who knows, certainly not I, but we have to consider these things as they, again, are unknowns, and so our estimates get less and less precise (the margin of error gets wider and wider with each thing we do not know; and so does Dr. P's).

It really isn't a high precision estimate, and it narrows down to a range of hours, not minutes. The difference between Dr. P's estimated ToD and the witnesses is something like 1.5 hours, and that is going to fall within the error range of Dr. P's estimate because the technique, due to the influence of all these unknown factors, is simply not capable of being more precise.

- Jeff

That being the case then Jeff , in relation to Dr Blackwell [stride] , Dr LLewelyn [nichols[, and Dr Brown [eddowes] ,[ same rules apply] taking away all the witnesses, we are left with Drs t.o.d after they examined the bodies at the scene. I know i dont have to tell you just how accurate their ''Estimates'' were
.
Now for me, im going to give Phillips the same courtesy as the other 3 and suggest he too was also accurate in his time of death estimate based on what you have described regarding this part of my last post.

Just to be clear ill put in in another way , is it just as hard, risky, unsafe, accept,[ you know the drill by now Victorian Doctors and pretty much was guesswork and all ] for a doctor in 1888 to determind a t.o.d from 0 to 45 as it is from 2 to 3 hours ?

[Same principles apply?]


Some would suggest the 3 other Drs relied on the witnesses present at the murder scenes to corroborate or make it easy for the Drs to give an accurate time. I fine that extrodinary to even think the Drs on the night of Stride, Nichols , Eddowes murder would turn to a witness and ask what time they discovered the body so they can make a t.o.d assessment .

In other words one example , Dr Blackwell didnt ask Schwartz what time he witnessed the Stride assault so he could say 20 to 30min t.o.d based on Schwartzs 12.45am account !. Im fairly sure he examined the body at 1.16 right after he consulted his watch and gave his estimate as did Brown with Eddowes and LLewelyn with Nichols .

Having said all that, my point is this. If we have to, in this exercise give the same consideration to Dr Phillips as the other 3 doctors, and in my opinion there is no reason not to , then i dont think its all just plain sailing as far the witnesses testimony in the chapman case goes that makes Dr Phillips t.o.d ''less likely'' to be correct than incorrect .

As others and i have already posted and made a reasonable case for, the amount of conflicting evidence and uncertainty surrounding chapmans murder and t.o.d is just this .

One side does not and should not be viewed as a better , correct, more likely, truthful series of events than the other.

That might just be all i have to say abourt that .IMO

[Fleetwood Mac]

It really isn't a high precision estimate, and it narrows down to a range of hours, not minutes. The difference between Dr. P's estimated ToD and the witnesses is something like 1.5 hours, and that is going to fall within the error range of Dr. P's estimate because the technique, due to the influence of all these unknown factors, is simply not capable of being more precise.

- Jeff

Except we know Dr Phillips had rigor mortis to aid in his examination and he leaves us a valuable observation: "commencing of the limbs".

Dr Phillip's belief is 3.30am or 2.30am. Dr Phillips' window is either 4.30am to 3.30am or 4.30am to 2.30am.

Rigor typically is first observed between 2 to 3 hours in the facial area.

Cold environmental temperature delays the onset of rigor.

In order to believe the 5.30am TOD, then we have to believe that Dr Phillips' belief was at least 2 hours out and possibly 3, when examining a body with a PMI of 1 hour; and his window of possibility was inaccurate also. Bear in mind he was empathic when he stated at least two hours, that's unequivocal by anyone's standards.

Dr Phillips leaves us his observation that rigor was commencing 'of the limbs'. Meaning rigor had spread beyond the facial area and was not in its immediately observable phase which in turn takes us beyond the typical 2 hours when rigor is first observed. In addition, it was something approaching 11/12 degree celsius which would delay the onset of rigor.

I think there is a good case there, built upon medical expertise, to suspect that 5.30am was not the TOD.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Dr. Phillips began checking for the TOD at 6.30 (which isn’t at all certain due to the fact that he mentions doing other things too, which might have meant that he didn’t check the TOD until 6.40) then his minimum TOD was 4.30 (it could have been 4.40, but I’ll stick with 4.30 for this point.)

If we go with Cadosch we might estimate a time 5.20 when Chapman met her death.

This means that all that is being suggested is that Dr. Phillips could have been out by 50 minutes - but this might very reasonable estimated at 40 minutes.

We know that it’s impossible even for modern forensic specialists to be anything like this accurate. Why is this debate continuing?

[Herlock Sholmes]

To reiterate the facts. We have a Doctor in 1888, with the knowledge that existed at that time, and we have posters accepting that he could have made an accurate TOD estimate from simply touching the body when modern day experts tell us that this kind of accuracy couldn’t be achieved in 2022 even if a thermometer had been used!…which it wasn’t! And from a standard textbook of today edited by modern day experts they tell us, in language that isn’t up for interpretation:

'...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.'

I honestly can’t understand why such efforts are being make to give a Victorian Doctor powers that modern experts tell us that we don’t have in 2022.

And on the subject of rigor, again we have experts telling us that rigor can commence in an hour or less after death and yet we keep focusing a range of between 2-4 hours. And also

"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."

I don’t think that I’ve ever known of any subject here on Casebook where so much effort is being expended on such a black and white subject. Phillips could have been wrong. This is not an opinion. It’s a fact.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.Now for me, im going to give Phillips the same courtesy as the other 3 and suggest he too was also accurate in his time of death estimate based on what you have described regarding this part of my last post.

Some would suggest the 3 other Drs relied on the witnesses present at the murder scenes to corroborate or make it easy for the Drs to give an accurate time. I fine that extrodinary to even think the Drs on the night of Stride, Nichols , Eddowes murder would turn to a witness and ask what time they discovered the body so they can make a t.o.d assessment .

It’s not about courtesy Fishy, it’s about facts provided by experts and whether or not we choose to ignore them or not. No one is suggesting that Victorian Doctor’s always got it wrong and we also can’t assume that they always got it right either. Expert evidence has been piled upon expert evidence telling us, without equivocation, without the need to interpret or read between the lines, that the methods that Phillips employed were inaccurate and were fraught with the possibility of error. And yet you are determined to support a Doctor who simply touched a body to estimate the TOD when he couldn’t even have achieved anything like accuracy had he used a thermometer! Even modern day experts can’t do this. Why do you assign these special skills to Phillips? It’s pointless saying things like “well he was there,” or “well he was a trained and competent Doctor.” Or “Doctors sometimes got it right.” He was a trained and competent Doctor in 1888 but can’t have had knowledge that didn’t exist or skills that have never existed.

If Stephen Hawking made some point about Black Holes would we feel competent to dispute them? If an architect was discussing the problems with designing a cathedral would we tell him that he didn’t know what he was talking about?

So will someone please explain why we are in the ‘way beyond bizarre’ situation where we have non-medical men trying to tell us that the worlds experts are wrong?! There are so many possible topics that are debatable on this subject as a whole and yet here we are trying to overturn 134 of forensic medical knowledge and experience! Just so that 3 witnesses can be dismissed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

To top it off….even if we could say with confidence that Phillips was 90% certain of being accurate (and of course we can’t get anywhere near saying that) then it STILL wouldn’t eliminate the witnesses. It would favour an earlier TOD of course (and we might even say ‘strongly favoured) that’s all. So not only are some arguing against the facts they are doing it for no real reason. We’re down the rabbit-hole again.

[Joshua Rogan]

Did Phillips have to state everything in order to be believed? Even today.if a person gives expert opinion,some things are not questioned,except if they are disputed by another expert.

What? A witness giving extra details that they didn't mention at first?
Surely that would mean he was changing his story, and thus be a clear indication that he was lying. That way madness lies. Next thing you know people will be accusing Phillips of being the murderer!
Mind you, that would explain why he was so confident about the time of death.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What? A witness giving extra details that they didn't mention at first?
Surely that would mean he was changing his story, and thus be a clear indication that he was lying. That way madness lies. Next thing you know people will be accusing Phillips of being the murderer!
Mind you, that would explain why he was so confident about the time of death.

[FISHY1118]

It’s not about courtesy Fishy, it’s about facts provided by experts and whether or not we choose to ignore them or not. No one is suggesting that Victorian Doctor’s always got it wrong and we also can’t assume that they always got it right either. Expert evidence has been piled upon expert evidence telling us, without equivocation, without the need to interpret or read between the lines, that the methods that Phillips employed were inaccurate and were fraught with the possibility of error. And yet you are determined to support a Doctor who simply touched a body to estimate the TOD when he couldn’t even have achieved anything like accuracy had he used a thermometer! Even modern day experts can’t do this. Why do you assign these special skills to Phillips? It’s pointless saying things like “well he was there,” or “well he was a trained and competent Doctor.” Or “Doctors sometimes got it right.” He was a trained and competent Doctor in 1888 but can’t have had knowledge that didn’t exist or skills that have never existed.

If Stephen Hawking made some point about Black Holes would we feel competent to dispute them? If an architect was discussing the problems with designing a cathedral would we tell him that he didn’t know what he was talking about?

So will someone please explain why we are in the ‘way beyond bizarre’ situation where we have non-medical men trying to tell us that the worlds experts are wrong?! There are so many possible topics that are debatable on this subject as a whole and yet here we are trying to overturn 134 of forensic medical knowledge and experience! Just so that 3 witnesses can be dismissed.

Hmmm, Not really sure thats a answer to my question in relation to the subject matter of my post to Jeff , so untill i get one i will extend the same courtesy to Dr Phillips as the other 3 docters . Of course being the gentleman i am i will allow you your opinion .