John Richardson

[DJA]

[The Macdonald Triad]

What does any of this have to do with Jack? Let's have a poll on a word "The." What does it actually mean?

[FISHY1118]

I responded to Fisherman's #2180 at some length in #2185 but no-one, including Fisherman, has rebutted anything I said.

If all you got out of #2180 is that Phillips "may have been correct" with his T.O.D. estimate, it was a waste of time because I've always admitted he might have been correct. The whole point is that he equally might have been wrong (as the coroner concluded he was and as he himself admitted he might have been).

The only relevant sentence from Thiblin quoted by Fisherman in his #2180 - the one which FM seems to be too scared to reproduce in its entirety - was this:

"If he [Dr Phillips] felt an obvious difference between the outer and central parts of the body, I am of the meaning that it speaks of a PMI of 3-4 hours rather than 1 hour."

As there is no evidence that Phillips "felt an obvious difference" between the outer and central parts of the body (nor did he speak of a PMI of 3-4 hours) this can only be a hypothetical comment.

But let's say that Phillips HAD said in his evidence that he felt an obvious difference between the outer and central parts of the body, why does Thiblin think this would speak of a PMI of 3-4 hours rather than 1 hour?

I have literally no idea.

You see, Thiblin was also quoted by Fisherman in #2180 as saying:

"there are many studies that show us that the internal temperature can remain at around 37 degress for several hours"

If that is correct, one would anticipate the the internal temperature of Chapman at her core (i.e. the central part of her body including the intestines) could have been 37 degrees at the moment of her death, 37 degrees one hour after death, 37 degrees two hours after her death and 37 degrees four hours after her death.

So the intestines could have been just as warm an hour after her death as four hours after her death, while her skin might have felt cold an hour after her death and four hours after her death.

As we know, Thiblin confirms that a body can feel cold within an hour of death.

So, where the body is cold an hour after death, would we not expect an obvious difference between the outer and central parts of the body at that time? i.e. cold skin, warm intestines.

Well, perhaps we find the answer in Thiblin telling us: "There are even indications that the central temperature can rise somewhat... after death...Therefore, it is perfectly possible for inner organs to feel warm many hours after death."

So, did he mean to say that, if Dr Phillips had felt that the intestines were WARMER than he would have expected for a recently deceased body, this would indicate that Chapman had been dead some hours? Odd, if so. Furthermore, Thiblin also said of warm organs many hours after death that, "This is something I have experienced myself after several days aming severely obese individuals, stored in cool conditions." Chapman wasn't severely obese, so I don't know how that could help.

The final possibility is that he was saying that Phillips could have estimated a 3-4 hour PMI if the intestines were NOT AS WARM as he would have expected, thus indicating the passing of many hours? That's certainly how I understood him.

The problem for all of these possibilities is that Phillips didn't tell the coroner how warm the intestines (or, more strictly, the area under the intestines) were. Were they very warm, moderately warm or not very warm? We have no idea. Nor did Phillips say that the lack of warmth, or unexpected increase in warmth, in the intestines was his reason for a 2 hour minimum time estimate (note, NOT 3-4 hours!) For that reason, Thiblin cannot possibly have been giving us an opinion about the actual PMI involved in Chapman's case. It can only be hypothetical.

And I haven't even started on Thiblin having been told things about the case which aren't in evidence.

Personally, I don't think Fisherman even understood what Thiblin was saying. Do you? If so, perhaps you could explain it to me.

I think Fisherman has covered it pretty much, and im sure his understanding of what Thiblin was saying is obvious . Perhaps i could explain but it wont make any difference in regards to yours or my interpretation of Dr Phillips estimate of t.o.d .

His is just one of many reasons why, and this thread if full them , that due to the contradictory , ambiguious and unreliable witness testimony, together with the uncertainty one way or the other of medical advice . There just can be know way of knowing for sure that 5.30 am was any more likely than an eariler t.o.d ....... Placed around 4.00 /4.30am as Dr Phillips suggested.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi FM,

It is good for us to share some common-ground - I don't see the light as an issue. It may have been reasonably light, it might have been fairly dark, but a body at Richardson's feet must have been visible. The relevance of the London smog that morning is an unknown, as you say.

Eddowes was murdered where there was some street lighting, albeit not very close. Asked a direct question whether JtR had sufficient light to perform his tasks where he was, Dr Sequeira said that he did. There would have been no lighting in the yard at no. 29, of course.

I wouldn't agree that Annie's body must have been visible to Richardson. Where I do agree is in that we do not have enough to claim he wouldn't have been able to see Annie's body.

George's post from The Echo is an interesting one and a good find. The issue with it is that 5.23am was sunrise and it is inconceivable that during the entire the half an hour prior, i.e. the period of civil dawn, it would have been pitch-black. And then we have the exchange with the coroner where Cadosh indicates he would have been able to see had he looked over the fence. Mind you, this is approx. 5.15am.

Then again, it depends on how you interpret the quote from The Echo:

On Saturday the sun rose at twenty-three minutes past five; for half an hour previously the light would be such as to render it difficult for anyone to distinguish even near objects.

I have interpreted this to mean that The Echo is talking of the entire period 4.53am to 5.23am. The Echo states 'for half an hour previously', in the event the author did not mean the duration of that half an hour but rather 4.53am, then it would be an entirely different matter and should catch people's attention.

As for Catherine, Watkins and Morris certainly needed a lantern to see Catherine's body. Having said that, I take your point on Dr Sequeira which simply cannot be ignored. I believe this is a subject that is disputed and well worn and so I'll leave it there.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Echo: 10 Sep 1888:
On Saturday the sun rose at twenty-three minutes past five; for half an hour previously the light would be such as to render it difficult for anyone to distinguish even near objects.

George,

I've replied to this post with some additional information, others may find it interesting also.

On the morning of Catherine's murder dawn was at 5.26am.

Constable Long had this to say:

It was rubbed out in my presence at half-past five. It was nearly daylight when it was rubbed out.

Charles Warren had this to say in his memorandum to Henry Matthews:

I accordingly went down to Goulston Street at once before going to the scene of the murder; it was just getting light, the public would be in the streets in a few minutes, in a neighbourhood very much crowded on Sunday mornings by Jewish vendors and Christian purchasers from all parts of London.

I believe that upon his arrival, Warren immediately ordered the writing to be erased.

I appreciate that more than one interpretation is possible.

Mine is as follows:

1) The writing was erased at 5.30am.
2) At that time the first light was appearing.
3) Dawn was at 5.26am.

Given that John Richardson claimed to be in the yard between 4.45am and 4.50am, and he claimed that he could see all over the yard, and dawn was at 4.51am that morning; then Long and Warren should give pause for thought.

[Trevor Marriott]

As we know, Thiblin confirms that a body can feel cold within an hour of death.

But that cold to the touch example can be said of any body whether dead or alive if you are outside for an hour or more with a limited amount of exterior clothing and it is a cold morning unless you are engaged in any physical excercise to keep warm your body will feel the cold. There is a difference here in as much as Phillips states there was an onset of rigor. I am sure Phillips knew the difference between a cold body and a body with the onset of rigor setting in.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

George,

I've replied to this post with some additional information, others may find it interesting also.

On the morning of Catherine's murder dawn was at 5.26am.

Constable Long had this to say:

It was rubbed out in my presence at half-past five. It was nearly daylight when it was rubbed out.

Charles Warren had this to say in his memorandum to Henry Matthews:

I accordingly went down to Goulston Street at once before going to the scene of the murder; it was just getting light, the public would be in the streets in a few minutes, in a neighbourhood very much crowded on Sunday mornings by Jewish vendors and Christian purchasers from all parts of London.

I believe that upon his arrival, Warren immediately ordered the writing to be erased.

I appreciate that more than one interpretation is possible.

Mine is as follows:

1) The writing was erased at 5.30am.
2) At that time the first light was appearing.
3) Dawn was at 5.26am.

Given that John Richardson claimed to be in the yard between 4.45am and 4.50am, and he claimed that he could see all over the yard, and dawn was at 4.51am that morning; then Long and Warren should give pause for thought.

Hi FM,

I posted the extract without comment as to its importance. Comparisons with other mornings are theoretical. The extract would have been more interesting if a qualifier had been added such as "due to the fog". But such a qualifier wasn't, AFAIK, added for any of the time/light statements so, despite London in that era having a reputation for being foggy, I don't think that any conclusions can be drawn. I just found it sufficiently interesting to share.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

But that cold to the touch example can be said of any body whether dead or alive if you are outside for an hour or more with a limited amount of exterior clothing and it is a cold morning unless you are engaged in any physical excercise to keep warm your body will feel the cold. There is a difference here in as much as Phillips states there was an onset of rigor. I am sure Phillips knew the difference between a cold body and a body with the onset of rigor setting in.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And rigor can set in just after death so this proves nothing.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi FM,

I posted the extract without comment as to its importance. Comparisons with other mornings are theoretical. The extract would have been more interesting if a qualifier had been added such as "due to the fog". But such a qualifier wasn't, AFAIK, added for any of the time/light statements so, despite London in that era having a reputation for being foggy, I don't think that any conclusions can be drawn. I just found it sufficiently interesting to share.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

I agree.

I think it's interesting that John Richardson claims: it was getting light, but I could see all over the place, at a time which would appear to be contradicted by Long and Warren.

Having said that, the timeframe is so short, i.e. we're talking of 10 minutes; that it would be dishonest to claim that it follows Richardson was lying and wasn't in the yard.

On a related note, I'm not talking about fog, rather the general quality of the air due to heavy industrial pollution. Perhaps we mean the same thing and it's merely a difference in how we're expressing it.

Edited to add: for clarity, such was the poor quality of the air in cities during that period, it would impede nautical twilight on any given day.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think Fisherman has covered it pretty much, and im sure his understanding of what Thiblin was saying is obvious . Perhaps i could explain but it wont make any difference in regards to yours or my interpretation of Dr Phillips estimate of t.o.d .

His is just one of many reasons why, and this thread if full them , that due to the contradictory , ambiguious and unreliable witness testimony, together with the uncertainty one way or the other of medical advice . There just can be know way of knowing for sure that 5.30 am was any more likely than an eariler t.o.d ....... Placed around 4.00 /4.30am as Dr Phillips suggested.

We can translate the emboldened part as “no I can’t explain it so I’ll pretend that there’s no point in doing so.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

OK Herlock.....you're onto me. I'm actually an alien from Proxima Centauri B and have no understanding of human anatomy or the English language. Best direct your hypothesis to the learned and erudite voters from your poll.

Cheers, George

I'm sorry George, but I really don't understand why you say this.

Are you answering in this way because you can't answer my question with any reasoned response?

I thought that my suggestion was entirely consistent with both human anatomy and the English language.

Let's see:

1. The rectum and anus are part of the large intestine? Yes or no?

2. They are both clearly beneath or under the intestines? Yes or no?

2. You objected in #2397 that some "warmth under the intestines" is an internal measurement. Doesn't my suggestion involve an internal measurement which doesn't have Dr Phillips uniquely sticking his hand into Chapman's bloody and probably faecal covered insides at the crime scene?

So why isn't my suggestion at least possible?

[Fleetwood Mac]

There is a difference here in as much as Phillips states there was an onset of rigor.

For clarity, and I think this is an important point, Dr Phillips stated: "commencing of the limbs". This was not the onset of rigor, it was more advanced than that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

For clarity, and I think this is an important point, Dr Phillips stated: "commencing of the limbs". This was not the onset of rigor, it was more advanced than that.

I can’t seem to see where you’ve cut and pasted the part where Thiblin claimed that it was likely that Annie was killed in the hours prior to 5.30. You said that this what what he’d said. Have I missed it or is it just taking you a long time to locate it it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I know that proper quotes are frowned upon but here are just a few on Algor Mortis taken from Corpse: Nature, Forensics and the Struggle to Pinpount Time of Death by Jessica Snyder Sachs:

“….they settled on the deceptively simple formula still used by many pathologists today: that of adding one hour since death for every 1.5 degree drop below normal body temperature. Over the next century, this misleading bit of arithmetic would send countless murder investigations down cold trails, set free an unknown number of killers, and conceivably spell life imprisonment—even death—for a comparable number of innocents.”

“As researchers began to understand this complex ebb and flow of life in the hours after death, they at last understood the vagaries of body temperature in the early postmortem period. “There are outposts where clusters of cells yet shine, besieged little lights in the advancing darkness,” wrote the surgeon-poet Richard Selzer in 1974. “Doomed soldiers, they battle on. Until Death has secured the premises all to itself.”

“Even if they could agree on a standard location for cadaver temperature readings, forensic pathologists faced humankind’s mind-boggling variability in size and shape, as well as proportional differences in fat and muscle. On top of this, they had to deal with the insulating effect of clothing—cotton versus wool, wet versus dry, layered, torn, and so on. Each variable affected the rate at which a corpse lost heat, as did the environment in which the body was found. A body lying atop pavement or tile, for example, would tend to lose heat more quickly than one on thick, insulating carpeting or grass. A breeze would accelerate cooling, whereas high humidity would have the opposite effect.”

“In the 1960s, pathologists found additional evidence that a blow to the head could produce a dramatic spike in body temperature, stemming from damage to the heat-regulating center of the brain. Some scholars claimed that strangling victims experienced a similar sort of brain damage and temperature elevation from oxygen deprivation.”

“The best that forensic pathology could do was bolster the questionable accuracy of temperature-based death estimates with the lesser clocks of rigor and livor mortis. But these markers, too, lacked anything resembling a reliable time schedule.”

And yet it’s still being claimed by laymen that a Doctor in 1888 could do better! That he could give a minimum TOD estimate that couldn’t have been out by a matter of 50 minutes or so! And this claim expects to be taken seriously?

[FISHY1118]

We can translate the emboldened part as “no I can’t explain it so I’ll pretend that there’s no point in doing so.”

''Perhaps i could explain but it wont make any difference in regards to yours or my interpretation of Dr Phillips estimate of t.o.d'' .

Or translated , '' youve had it explained to you more than once already, but your unwilling to accept what most people on this topic have being saying regarding dr phillips t.od . So why on earth would we want to explain it to you again for the umpteenth time? .

See, the difference here herlock is, at least i tried to be a little diplomatic as not to offend, but when you reply with a smart-alec comment like that its no wonder this thread has turn to shite.

So if you want to go on for ever and a day with your little game so be it ill more than happy to oblige , or you can just tone it done a touch and maybe, just maybe this thread can continue on with some positive debate.