John Richardson

[Varqm]

Well, as has already been discussed many times, the witness testimony is unrelieble due to the ambiguious , uncertain and at times contradictory nature of the inquest testimony . Im also pretty sure the drs didnt use any police talks for advice when givin their t.o.d estimates .

When we add all that up, its still no certainty that 5.30 was the time of death ,it just as well could have been 4.00 /4.30. am imo

There is a practical side\explanation to it which changes nothing, Chapman was killed as Cadosche was witnessing something.
But I see that you need a cctv footage level of standard.

[drstrange169]

>>I for one have no wish to go down a rabbit of hole of what he observed during the post mortem.<<

That's kinda what forensic pathology is all about!

It is during the autopsy that modern forensics determines the t.o.d and possible causes and clues. Observations at the scene are just guesswork awaiting the autopsy's actual findings.

It's not Alice's rabbit hole, it's Sherlock's magnifying glass. Imagine what a loss to our knowledge it would be if Bond's report on Mary Kelly was never found.

[drstrange169]

>>That's 10 Aussie posts in a row.<<

Aussies toil whilst the world sleeps.

[Fleetwood Mac]

To recap:

On page 146, Fisherman gave us this quote from Professor Thilbin:

That´s a very different matter. It cannot get more central than that. If he 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.

Within the following 23 pages much merriment has ensued: "cold" versus "all cold"; "under" versus "in"; " estimating the appropriate intestinal warmth"; and so on and so forth.

It may be useful to remind ourselves that regardless of Dr Phillips' methods and how he arrived at this, Dr Phillips stated: the body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body.

As it stands, we have no competing statement from someone with experience in this field. It would be useful and interesting to hear an authoritative statement disagreeing with Professor Thilbin.

[drstrange169]

>>Was the doctor adding "but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood." in reference to the time the body spent in/outside the mortuary shed? The effect of the qualifier would be to accelerate the body temperature differential but to retard the progress of the rigor.<<

Since Phillips found the body in the shed and had no contact with nurses and since the only people he did have contact with, the police and Mann, claimed the body was in the shed from 7:00a.m. onwards, I think we can safely say, no.

[drstrange169]

>> Fisherman gave us this quote from Professor Thilbin ...<<

Fisherman told us, with regard to Professor Thiblin,

"Professor Thiblin was thoroughly informed about the circumstances surrounding Chapmans death .."

but he also said,

"When I originally asked him about Chapman, he said that it is very hard to establish body temperature by way of feeling for warmth with the hand, and said that the internal temperature of the body is what is important in the context. Which was when I told him that Phillips had felt inside the body too."

Clearly Thiblin was not "thoroughly informed about the circumstances surrounding Chapmans death", he was just given small pieces of information. I would like to read a detailed account about what information Thilbin was giving his opinion on.

Did he know a significant number of the internal organs were not in place?
Did he know the amount of blood missing from the body?
Did he know the ambient temperature that morning?
Did he know what medication Mrs Chapman had been taking?
Did he know she was severely undernourished?
Did he know she was very unwell?
So on and so on.

This is the problem, when you have an expert we need to know exactly what he was asked and exactly what he was replying to. A example of a more correct way, is Trevor's posts about Dr Biggs, in which he details exactly what he asked, and hence we know exactly what he was relying to.

[Fleetwood Mac]

>> Fisherman gave us this quote from Professor Thilbin ...<<

Fisherman told us, with regard to Professor Thiblin,

"Professor Thiblin was thoroughly informed about the circumstances surrounding Chapmans death .."

but he also said,

"When I originally asked him about Chapman, he said that it is very hard to establish body temperature by way of feeling for warmth with the hand, and said that the internal temperature of the body is what is important in the context. Which was when I told him that Phillips had felt inside the body too."

Clearly Thiblin was not "thoroughly informed about the circumstances surrounding Chapmans death", he was just given small pieces of information. I would like to read a detailed account about what information Thilbin was giving his opinion on.

Did he know a significant number of the internal organs were not in place?
Did he know the amount of blood missing from the body?
Did he know the ambient temperature that morning?
Did he know what medication Mrs Chapman had been taking?
Did he know she was severely undernourished?
Did he know she was very unwell?
So on and so on.

This is the problem, when you have an expert we need to know exactly what he was asked and exactly what he was replying to. A example of a more correct way, is Trevor's posts about Dr Biggs, in which he details exactly what he asked, and hence we know exactly what he was relying to.

In Fisherman's post he does specify certain information relayed to Professor Thiblin and so you do know that Professor Thiblin was replying to that information at the very least, and that information was the meat of Dr Phillips' observation no matter how he arrived at his estimate. It follows I don't think it's fair to conclude that 'he was just given small pieces of information'.

Having said that, it is fair to say that any opinion is built upon stronger foundations when it is made from all of the available information. I agree with you here.

I'd say we have cause to think Professor Thiblin supports Dr Phillips' estimate, but for the rounded picture we could do with knowing that Professor Thiblin was aware of all of the available information. In short: not conclusive but valuable in countering the notion that Dr Phillips' estimate must be unreliable (which was repeated on this thread ad nauseam).

[drstrange169]

>>In Fisherman's post he does specify certain information relayed to Professor Thiblin ...<<

That's the point, "certain information" is not enough.


>>In short: not conclusive but valuable in countering the notion that Dr Phillips' estimate must be unreliable (which was repeated on this thread ad nauseam).<<

I wouldn't necescarily disagree with the above statement, but I have read posts where it seems to have been claimed that Thilbin offers conclusive proof, and that I would disagree with.

[drstrange169]

A great example of what I'm writing about is the documentary, Jack the Ripper: 5 Victims.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWd_4zWAK0g

Three indisputable experts in their various fields talking about the case.
Yet, they make basic and numerous mistakes, simply because they were not given FULL details to work with. Despite their accumulated qualifications, many here are better versed in this case than they.

[Dickere]

Sorry Herlock, but I don’t agree with your argument at all. There’s a 0% chance, rounded up, of Philips behaving that way.
It makes no sense. Using a rectal thermometer was a way of measuring core body temperature on LIVE patients. Why would a 19th century doctor put his finger in a dead body’s anus at a crime scene?? It makes no sense, sorry

If a rectal thermometer was used on live patients but there wasn't one to hand, he improvised. It wasn't something he wished to publicise though.

[Kattrup]

Well now, come on, in fairness to me, he doesn't describe anything of the sort! He doesn't actually describe what he did, either when feeling that the surface of the body was cold or when feeling the area "under" the intestines (which, like George, I assume you think by that he meant the floor of abdominal cavity?).

Kattrup, here's one thing that I'm prepared to accept about the doctor's use of the word "under" which certainly is strange considering he had at least two other words, "in" and "on", available to him to describe the heat of the intestines.

What if the intestines that he was talking about were actually exposed. Not the ones over the shoulder but the ones remaining in the body, but now uncovered and exposed to the elements.

Perhaps those intestines, because they were essentially in the open, were cold, with no heat. Perhaps what he meant is that he quickly slipped his hand - not in the wound so much - but under the exposed intestines and felt some heat under those cold intestines.

That, in my opinion, would have told him nothing about the time of death because there never have been studies about the temperature in the core after death when the core is exposed to cold air.

But it would explain why he didn't report any heat in the intestines themselves. There just wasn't any.

What do you think? Possible or not?

Hello Herlock

That is exactly what happened, though I don't understand your distinction between "those" intestines that were exposed or not. Philips examined the corpse, which had a gaping wound down the front and part of the intestines had been lifted out. He examined the body, feeling among other things for body heat, and in the course of his examination he felt inside the wound, placing his fingers and hands around and under the intestines and other organs.
Therefore, he was able to testify that there was some remaining heat under the intestines.

[Fleetwood Mac]

[I]


>>In short: not conclusive but valuable in countering the notion that Dr Phillips' estimate must be unreliable (which was repeated on this thread ad nauseam).<<

I wouldn't necescarily disagree with the above statement, but I have read posts where it seems to have been claimed that Thilbin offers conclusive proof, and that I would disagree with.

It's unfortunate that this is the second thread, in a very short space of time, on which the meaning of "conclusive proof" and "fact" is being debated.

Were I you, I'd start from the premise that nobody is claiming 'conclusive proof' given that it's not possible. That way it will save everyone time and not serve to cloud the pertinent discussion points.

[DJA]

If a rectal thermometer was used on live patients but there wasn't one to hand, he improvised. It wasn't something he wished to publicise though.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Whats is excellent is Dr Thilbin agreed with Dr Phillips findings that he ''could'' have been right , that Chapman was dead'' 2 hours pobably more'' based on Dr Phillips assessment at the crime scene . Adding weight to the arguement that modern day medical experts agree that Victorian Drs t.o.d is not as unreliable as one would have us think .

So im more than happy to use the modern day medical expert line to support Dr Phillips findings , Thanks to Fishermans detailed research on the subjet ,we can now put that to bed .

Making things up won’t help you Fishy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes because he made his point ,no need for him to go over and and over it again . Very clever .

When you’ve made a dodgy point scarpering is certainly the best option.