John Richardson

[JeffHamm]

Hi George,

The low for the 29th was 55.4 degrees, so the coldest it could be at midnight was 55.4. While the low for the 30th was 44.7, that couldn't have been reached until well after the murders, so at the time of discovery the temperature for Eddowes was probably slightly warmer than for Annie (presuming the low was reached by the morning, rather than a cold front move in through that day, etc).

And if the mortuary for Eddowes was 55, as Dr. Brown Stated, then Eddowes was probably kept at a constant temperature the whole time, around 55ish.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say the low of 44.7 was reached by the time of the murder, making the difference between Chapman and Eddowes temperatures close enough to be considered the same. (in fact, I would be happy to consider the 55 as similar enough for current purposes)

How then, after 13 hours, is Eddowes still described as being not quite cold by Dr. Brown while Chapman is described as being cold by Dr. Phillips?

We've been presuming they are taking temperature readings and using some sort of standardized language that translates a measured temperature to a phrase (i.e. 80F is not quite cold, 70F is cold, etc), although there's no indication they did. Rather, the simplest explanation is that both are describing how the bodies felt, meaning they are subjective descriptions, Dr. Brown's "not quite cold" and Dr. Phillips' "cold" are not standardized measurements and so cannot be directly compared. Moreover, even if Annie were in the backyard, at the given temperature, for 3 or 4 hours, her internal temperature reading should not have been "cold" (cold relative to alive, of course, but she would not have reached the environmental temperature and would still measure within a few degrees of an alive body) - although I'm basing that on the fact she was disembowelled doesn't drastically change the time profile of those readings, and I suspect it is possible it would. Her surface temperature, of course, would be cold.

But regardless, if they are taking internal temperature readings then there is no way* that Eddowes, after 13 hours in a shed at 55 could be warmer than Annie who was in a backyard at 47.4 for 3 or 4 hours. It doesn't work that way, particularly as Annie was more stout than Kate. Therefore, due to the physical impossibility of Eddowes' internal temperature being colder than Annie's in the true sense (measured by objective temperatures), the difference in the descriptions of their temperatures must reflect a subjective measurement, which is what touching the body gives us. This goes against our assumption they measured the internal temperatures in the first place, and that suggests our assumption is wrong.

- Jeff
* I shouldn't be so definite but I can't think of any way for this to occur at the moment other than for Kate so have a slow cooling rate, but that seems to require a larger BMI, and Kate's BMI seems to be lower than Annie's.

Just to double check on a hypothesis I suggested, that the cooling rate might be faster for Eddowes than Chapman due to a difference in their BMI, I went back to the article and got the BMI for the 6 cases for which I estimated their cooling rates. And there seems to be a systematic relationship (the small sample size is, of course, a worry, but the relationship looks really interesting and potentially useful).



for smaller BMI the cooling rate does appear to be faster.

Now, don't forget, these are based upon intact bodies, and no doubt the injuries to both Kate and Annie would speed up their cooling functions, but in the end, there's no basis to suggest that Kate might have cooled more slowly than Annie other than the slight difference in temperatures at the time of the murders. Those differences would not offset the difference between the statement of "not quite cold" after 13 hours compared to "cold" after the hypothesized 3-4 hours, leading to the conclusion these are subjective descriptions from two different people and therefore they are not directly comparable the way objective measurements are.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fascinating, Sherlock.

But, what does 'a minimum' mean?

For the benefit of doubt, from the Oxford English Dictionary: the smallest or lowest amount that is possible.

That's what Dr Phillips is telling you: two hours is the least time possible.

I’m not interested in your deliberate misinterpretation of the obvious.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Mrs Richardson tells you she would have heard. She was the person in that position.

Are you saying this witness was mistaken?

She was far, far more likely to have been mistaken than her son.

The evidence points to a later TOD.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

The low for the 29th was 55.4 degrees, so the coldest it could be at midnight was 55.4. While the low for the 30th was 44.7, that couldn't have been reached until well after the murders, so at the time of discovery the temperature for Eddowes was probably slightly warmer than for Annie (presuming the low was reached by the morning, rather than a cold front move in through that day, etc).

And if the mortuary for Eddowes was 55, as Dr. Brown Stated, then Eddowes was probably kept at a constant temperature the whole time, around 55ish.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say the low of 44.7 was reached by the time of the murder, making the difference between Chapman and Eddowes temperatures close enough to be considered the same. (in fact, I would be happy to consider the 55 as similar enough for current purposes)

How then, after 13 hours, is Eddowes still described as being not quite cold by Dr. Brown while Chapman is described as being cold by Dr. Phillips?

We've been presuming they are taking temperature readings and using some sort of standardized language that translates a measured temperature to a phrase (i.e. 80F is not quite cold, 70F is cold, etc), although there's no indication they did. Rather, the simplest explanation is that both are describing how the bodies felt, meaning they are subjective descriptions, Dr. Brown's "not quite cold" and Dr. Phillips' "cold" are not standardized measurements and so cannot be directly compared. Moreover, even if Annie were in the backyard, at the given temperature, for 3 or 4 hours, her internal temperature reading should not have been "cold" (cold relative to alive, of course, but she would not have reached the environmental temperature and would still measure within a few degrees of an alive body) - although I'm basing that on the fact she was disembowelled doesn't drastically change the time profile of those readings, and I suspect it is possible it would. Her surface temperature, of course, would be cold.

But regardless, if they are taking internal temperature readings then there is no way* that Eddowes, after 13 hours in a shed at 55 could be warmer than Annie who was in a backyard at 47.4 for 3 or 4 hours. It doesn't work that way, particularly as Annie was more stout than Kate. Therefore, due to the physical impossibility of Eddowes' internal temperature being colder than Annie's in the true sense (measured by objective temperatures), the difference in the descriptions of their temperatures must reflect a subjective measurement, which is what touching the body gives us. This goes against our assumption they measured the internal temperatures in the first place, and that suggests our assumption is wrong.

- Jeff
* I shouldn't be so definite but I can't think of any way for this to occur at the moment other than for Kate so have a slow cooling rate, but that seems to require a larger BMI, and Kate's BMI seems to be lower than Annie's.

Hi Jeff,

Dr Brown at inquest: Before we removed the body Dr. Phillips was sent for, as I wished him to see the wounds, he having been engaged in a case of a similar kind previously. He saw the body at the mortuary.

Phillips was specifically asked to attend and contribute to Eddowes necropsy because of his experience with Chapman. I would image that they would have conferred on their understanding of body temperature, and that Phillips would have had an input, being in a position to make direct comparisons, that be his reason for being there.

I am a little confused with your reference to 3 to 4 hours in relation to Annie. I am saying that Chapman's residual body heat could not have fallen in 1 hour to be similar to that of Eddowes after 13 hours. I am not looking at possibilities. I am looking at probabilities. Statistics and medical theory both have to quote possibilities, but they are outnumbered by probabilities.

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

Dr Brown at inquest: Before we removed the body Dr. Phillips was sent for, as I wished him to see the wounds, he having been engaged in a case of a similar kind previously. He saw the body at the mortuary.

Phillips was specifically asked to attend and contribute to Eddowes necropsy because of his experience with Chapman. I would image that they would have conferred on their understanding of body temperature, and that Phillips would have had an input, being in a position to make direct comparisons, that be his reason for being there.

I am a little confused with your reference to 3 to 4 hours in relation to Annie. I am saying that Chapman's residual body heat could not have fallen in 1 hour to be similar to that of Eddowes after 13 hours. I am not looking at possibilities. I am looking at probabilities. Statistics and medical theory both have to quote possibilities, but they are outnumbered by probabilities.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Ah, I was saying the same only in reference to the proposed earlier ToD, that Annie's internal body temperature could not have fallen in 3-4 hours to be that of Eddowes after 13, so even the earlier option doesn't work if those temperatures are objective measurements.

If, however, those temperatures are subjective impressions of the surface body temperature made at the time, then the difference in the qualitative descriptions is nothing more than different people using language in their own way to describe their subjective impressions. None of that is directly comparable.

And because it is physically impossible for Annie's internal temperature (at either 1 or 4 hours PM) to be lower than Eddowes' internal temperature (after 13 hours PM) given the injuries and environmental temperatures were similar, combined with the fact that Annie's BMI appears greater than Kate's (meaning, if anything, Annie should cool more slowly), I think we can rule out those statements referring to objective measures of internal body temperature, and it therefore appears they are non-comparable subjective statements.


On a side note, I've been playing around with trying to see if I can work out the "change in cooling rate over time", to try and deal with the early PMI issues. And while not great, there does appear to be some rough correspondence to BMI and how long it takes for "k" to stabilise. But, at the moment I'm just eyeballing some things, so it's more of a "hmmmm, maybe" type thing. Sadly, even if I were to get something worth looking at, we can never apply it to these cases as all the data I have are for intact bodies, and also we lack the measurements we would need to even do anything. But that doesn't mean it won't be interesting to know anyway.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

And we know that she wasn’t killed earlier Wulf because John Richardson wasn’t blind, a liar or a complete numskull and he was 100% certain that if there had been a body there he couldn’t fail to have missed it. This just isn’t as difficult as people try to make out.

Pray tell, how do we ''know'' she wasnt killed earlier? . We speculate , We make assessments , We in our opinions, We can say probably, we evaluate the evidence, we cross reference withness and medical testimony.

But what we cant say for a fact is we ''KNOW''.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Fascinating, Sherlock.

But, what does 'a minimum' mean?

For the benefit of doubt, from the Oxford English Dictionary: the smallest or lowest amount that is possible.

That's what Dr Phillips is telling you: two hours is the least time possible.

I’m not interested in your deliberate misinterpretation of the obvious.

Whenever you're ready to comment, Sherlock.

From the Oxford English Dictionary: the smallest or lowest amount that is possible.

[Fleetwood Mac]

She was far, far more likely to have been mistaken than her son.

The evidence points to a later TOD.

I see.

You believe Mrs Richardson was mistaken.

I think your posts should be read in this context.

It's not the case that you rely on witness statements as they are presented, it's the case that you pick and choose which ones are of importance to fit your theory.

Actually, Mrs Richardson did not mislead the coroner, unlike her son, so I'll go with her being the more trustworthy of the two.

[Fleetwood Mac]

But what we cant say for a fact is we ''KNOW''.

Clearly.

Yet, the evidence suggests an earlier TOD:

1) Rigor 'commencing of the limbs', rigor is delayed as a result of a cool environmental temperature.
2) Annie's known last meal: an easily digested potato at 1.45am.
3) Mrs Richardson stated that no one went through the passage after 3am.
4) Annie left the lodging house to get her doss money and left instructions not to let her bed, in her own words, i.e. she wasn't planning on being long.
5) The close proximity: Dorset Street/Hanbury Street.
6) In the event a 5.30am TOD is to be believed, then nobody saw Annie for almost 4 hours. You could understand maybe between 3am and 5am, but that half an hour between 5am and 5.30am is a problem given that people are coming alive again.
7) Richardson misled the coroner, and so his entire statement is compromised. It would have been dismissed in a court of law.
8) Long and Cadosch contradict one another. They were both confident they knew the time.
9) Cadosch didn't claim to hear a murder. He heard noises at a time when people were coming alive in that area.

Those are the facts taken from the evidence we have.

In order to believe the 5.30am TOD, you have to ignore Dr Phillips' valuable observations, you have to believe Annie and her murderer found somewhere to eat when there is absolutely no evidence nor reason to suggest this, you have to ignore/bend the glaring contradictions and outright misleading in the witness statements. i.e. turn them into something which they didn't state.

Quite clearly, there is no way to prove it, but a reasonable mind would conclude that an earlier TOD is considerably more likely.

[FISHY1118]

Clearly.

Yet, the evidence suggests an earlier TOD:

1) Rigor 'commencing of the limbs', rigor is delayed as a result of a cool environmental temperature.
2) Annie's known last meal: an easily digested potato at 1.45am.
3) Mrs Richardson stated that no one went through the passage after 3am.
4) Annie left the lodging house to get her doss money and left instructions not to let her bed, in her own words, i.e. she wasn't planning on being long.
5) The close proximity: Dorset Street/Hanbury Street.
6) In the event a 5.30am TOD is to be believed, then nobody saw Annie for almost 4 hours. You could understand maybe between 3am and 5am, but that half an hour between 5am and 5.30am is a problem given that people are coming alive again.
7) Richardson misled the coroner, and so his entire statement is compromised. It would have been dismissed in a court of law.
8) Long and Cadosch contradict one another. They were both confident they knew the time.
9) Cadosch didn't claim to hear a murder. He heard noises at a time when people were coming alive in that area.

Those are the facts taken from the evidence we have.

In order to believe the 5.30am TOD, you have to ignore Dr Phillips' valuable observations, you have to believe Annie and her murderer found somewhere to eat when there is absolutely no evidence nor reason to suggest this, you have to ignore/bend the glaring contradictions and outright misleading in the witness statements. i.e. turn them into something which they didn't state.

Quite clearly, there is no way to prove it, but a reasonable mind would conclude that an earlier TOD is considerably more likely.

Yes "clearly",, just not to some.

As I already said, the evidence is uncertain ,ambiguous at times to contradictory, to just say we ""know" 5.30am was more likely t.o.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Whenever you're ready to comment, Sherlock.

From the Oxford English Dictionary: the smallest or lowest amount that is possible.

Are you going keep on with this waste of time word play? Try looking in the dictionary at the word estimate. Phillips was estimating. He estimated at what he thought was the minimum TOD. He estimated that 2 hours was the minimum time. But he also accepted that it was possible, due to the conditions, that his estimation might have been wrong.

If I said to a friend “it should take me a minimum of 2 hours to get to your house but probably less but the traffic might have an effect on that estimate,” how would we interpret that? There’s only one way (as with Phillips) That I’d given a minimum but was accepting that the journey might have taken longer than the minimum due to traffic.

Give up with the wordplay. Context tells us that there can only be one interpretation. It’s just another example of you trying to manipulate everything in support of Gandalf.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Mrs Richardson tells you she would have heard. She was the person in that position.

Are you saying this witness was mistaken?

I'm generally a bit reluctant to wade into the quagmire that is Chapman's TOD, but I'll chip in a thought.

It's a personal bugbear of mine that so many arguments revolve around witnesses lying and/or doing strangely dangerous things like placing themselves under suspicion for no apparent reason.

Mrs Richardson claimed that she would have heard if anyone came into the yard. I don't doubt that she genuinely felt this to be the case. So do we have any grounds to question her certainty? Well, yes. She wasn't fully conscious by her own admission. So regardless of what she believed, it clearly wasn't cast iron. A coroners inquiry skims over the details, leaving many questions unasked unfortunately for us.

Any reliance on Mrs Richardson is trying to push the TOD to before 3am, from whence her vigil began, but she didn't hear anyone until the alarm was raised, so like the nightwatchman in the Nichols inquest, I suggest her attention was somewhat short of vigilant. She's pretty much the definition of an unsafe witness. Not a liar though.

I feel Long and Cadosch have similar circumstances. They were not paying any great attention and nothing at the time struck them as significant. But they were at least awake, so we can question any certainty they had based on a lack of attention to detail, but nothing as catastrophic as not actually being awake. Again, not lying, not glory hunting, feeling certain in their own beliefs, but leaving scope for us to question that certainty.

John Richardson is a bit different though, we know he was awake, and was not just in passing of the scene but located at it, he had far more opportunity to detect if something wasn't right. Our grounds for questioning his certainty starts with him missing the body as a result of the door, but this seems highly implausible knowing what we do of the location of the body in relationship to the steps. Without a reasonable grounding to question his certainty, we move into the realm of him lying to police and the coroner, placing himself at a murder scene needlessly and putting himself in danger. And what are we suggesting? Why, when it was put to him that he may have missed the body, did he dig in and start to fabricate statements that put him at the scene with a knife? What was he hoping to achieve? A lynch mob?

For me, JR missing the body is only possible because of Dr Phillips's TOD estimation. I don't think he was gravely mistaken, as Jeff pointed out, he was remarkably accurate given the circumstances. But this discrepancy was picked up on at the time. Doubt was equally cast on Dr Phillips. But I'm with Jeff on this one, there's no great mystery to solve. The testimony of JR and Phillips are compatible, if we accept and understand that the TOD estimation was fallible, it had a margin of error that easily accommodates JR. No one needs to be lying, embellishing stories, blind or stupid.​​​​​​

[Herlock Sholmes]

Pray tell, how do we ''know'' she wasnt killed earlier? . We speculate , We make assessments , We in our opinions, We can say probably, we evaluate the evidence, we cross reference withness and medical testimony.

But what we cant say for a fact is we ''KNOW''.

Fair enough, ‘know’ was the wrong choice of word.

The evidence points overwhelmingly to a later TOD and the alternatives require desperate manipulations of the evidence and baseless accusations of lying and stupidity. Ok.

[FISHY1118]

Fair enough, ‘know’ was the wrong choice of word.

The evidence points overwhelmingly to a later TOD and the alternatives require desperate manipulations of the evidence and baseless accusations of lying and stupidity. Ok.

To you it does ,to mac the evidence points to an earlier t.o.d. as his last post explains..

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm generally a bit reluctant to wade into the quagmire that is Chapman's TOD, but I'll chip in a thought.

It's a personal bugbear of mine that so many arguments revolve around witnesses lying and/or doing strangely dangerous things like placing themselves under suspicion for no apparent reason.

Mrs Richardson claimed that she would have heard if anyone came into the yard. I don't doubt that she genuinely felt this to be the case. So do we have any grounds to question her certainty? Well, yes. She wasn't fully conscious by her own admission. So regardless of what she believed, it clearly wasn't cast iron. A coroners inquiry skims over the details, leaving many questions unasked unfortunately for us.

Any reliance on Mrs Richardson is trying to push the TOD to before 3am, from whence her vigil began, but she didn't hear anyone until the alarm was raised, so like the nightwatchman in the Nichols inquest, I suggest her attention was somewhat short of vigilant. She's pretty much the definition of an unsafe witness. Not a liar though.

I feel Long and Cadosch have similar circumstances. They were not paying any great attention and nothing at the time struck them as significant. But they were at least awake, so we can question any certainty they had based on a lack of attention to detail, but nothing as catastrophic as not actually being awake. Again, not lying, not glory hunting, feeling certain in their own beliefs, but leaving scope for us to question that certainty.

John Richardson is a bit different though, we know he was awake, and was not just in passing of the scene but located at it, he had far more opportunity to detect if something wasn't right. Our grounds for questioning his certainty starts with him missing the body as a result of the door, but this seems highly implausible knowing what we do of the location of the body in relationship to the steps. Without a reasonable grounding to question his certainty, we move into the realm of him lying to police and the coroner, placing himself at a murder scene needlessly and putting himself in danger. And what are we suggesting? Why, when it was put to him that he may have missed the body, did he dig in and start to fabricate statements that put him at the scene with a knife? What was he hoping to achieve? A lynch mob?

For me, JR missing the body is only possible because of Dr Phillips's TOD estimation. I don't think he was gravely mistaken, as Jeff pointed out, he was remarkably accurate given the circumstances. But this discrepancy was picked up on at the time. Doubt was equally cast on Dr Phillips. But I'm with Jeff on this one, there's no great mystery to solve. The testimony of JR and Phillips are compatible, if we accept and understand that the TOD estimation was fallible, it had a margin of error that easily accommodates JR. No one needs to be lying, embellishing stories, blind or stupid.ââââââ

I don’t think that the situation could have been summed up in abetter or fairer way Al.