Tweet
Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit
View Post
Now, just to get things correct here. I believe the report in which Swanson spoke about which side was correct was the 19th of October report, not the 19th of September ditto. And in it, it said:
"If the evidence of Dr. Phillips is correct as to time of death, it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body when he went into the yard at 4:45 a.m. but as his clothes were examined, the house searched and his statement taken in which there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him, although police specially directed their attention to him."
"Up to the present the combined result of those inquiries did not supply the police with the slightest clue to the murderer". "Again if the evidence of Mrs. Long is correct that she saw the deceased at 5:30 a.m. then the evidence of Dr. Phillips as to probable time of death is incorrect. He was called and saw the body at 6:20 a.m. [sic] and he then gives it as his opinion that death occurred about two hours earlier, viz: 4:20 a.m. hence the evidence of Mrs. Long which appeared to be so important to the Coroner, must be looked upon with some amount of doubt, which is to be regretted."
As we may see, Swanson clearly takes the stand that Long was wrong and that Phillips was right - the evidence of Mrs Long MUST be looked upon with doubt. Must! No if involved.
We may of course also see that the Home Office agreed with Swanson:
"doubtful evidence points to some thing between 5:30 and 6: - but medical evidence says about 4 o'cl."
The testimony given by Cadosch, Long and Richardson is jointly described as "doubtful", whereas no criticism at all is directed towards Phillips.
In fact, once we look at all the evidence that touces on these matters, it is obvious that much as there are many pointers to how the witnesses were disbelieved, there is no such evidence when it comes to Phillips. Baxter of course buys into the witnesses view, but not by dismissing Phillips. He instead makes a logical summersault and claims that Phillips would have allowed for any time at all on account of the cold conditions Chapman was found it. So he does what coroners and various commission have always done - he tries to come up with scenario that accepts ALL the evidence from BOTH sides. He adjusts as well as he can. We saw it in the Kennedy murder and in the Palme murder commissions respective works.
There is nobody stating that the witnesses will have been correct and Phillips wrong. Instead, there is the Echo report from the 19th, Swansons pointing out that Long MUST be doubted - and the Home Office also goes with Phillips.
The idea that three witnesses cannot all be mistaken or telling porkies is a latter day invention. The sentiment of the day back in 1888 favored Phillips whenever we find that one side is favored.
Of course, it can be said that this was because people were unware of how unreliable victorian doctors were, and had they known, they would never have trusted the experienced police surgeon. Fair enough. But once we look at the realities, we can see that the side that criticizes Phillips has to do a lot of work and rely on unlikelier suggestions.
A body that has been dead for an hour only will normally be quite warm inside the core, in fact retaining the temperature it had an hour ago. Normally, body temperature does not start to fall until after an hour has passed. - and Phillips felt the inside of the abdominal cavity.
A body that has been dead for an hour only will normally not develop rigor, least of all if it lies in cold conditions. And it did in our case.
A body that has been dead for an hour only, allowing for some four hours of digestion, will normally have made a potato disappear long since.
Contrary to this, a body that has been dead for three or four hours will have lost a significant part of its heat, quite likely to a degree where it cannot be discerned on the surface of the body, but where it will remain in the core.
A body that has been dead for three or four hours is liekly to have onsetting rigor.
A body that has been dead for an hour only after having taken in a potato meal, will likely have some little left of that meal in the abdomen.
So much as we have a situation that dovetails with the normal behaviour of a dead body in Chapmans case IF PHILLIPS WAS CORRECT, the ones who think that three (not even mutually corroborating) witnesses must be right are left with speculation. They offer extreme examples of where exotic diseases would have lowered Chapmans body temperature double quick, they offer other strange ailments that would somehow speed up rigor (although they suggest that Chapmans body was much colder than normal and rigor sets in quicker with heat, not chill) and they add a potato here and there to the stomach contents.
As far as I can see, the general sentiment in 1888 was always that Phillips was correct. It is not the other way around.
And the medical implications were all in line with a TOD three or four hours removed. It is not the other way around.
Just thought this needed to be pointed out before I go again.
Oh, and of course: Did the naysayers ever get around to finding an expert that disagreed with Thiblin? No?
Didnīt think so.
Farewell for some time now, Casebook.
Comment