John Richardson

[JeffHamm]

Hi FM,

I agree, Jeff, in that possibly is about right.

Either way, I think the initial comment suggested that the A.F. article supports a 12.45am TOD when in fact it is merely another opinion and it doesn't support anything.

Sure, a report in a newspaper isn't support in the sense of determining ToD. However, it was listed as a source that reported the discovery of Stride being at 12:45, and that was really my point. The A.F. doesn't report the discovery as being at 12:45, they say that occurred when Deimshitz arrived at 1. The A.F. reports the murder as being at 12:45, not the discovery.

Since the A.F. doesn't indicate where they get the information about the murder being at 12:45 we cannot evaluate that report further. But the main point I was originally making wasn't on the accuracy of the report itself so much as whether or not it is a source that lists the discovery at 12:45, which it doesn't.

Dr Blackwell is important to the whole thing because as you say, he had a watch to check his time and he was a medical professional qualified to give a professional assessment. 'Much better than the various people running 'round: we can't be sure of their times, eye witness accounts are known to demand caution, we don't even know whether or not witness statements were implied as opposed to a verbatim transcript of that which they stated and we don't know how many of these witnesses embellished their account out of a desire to be a local celebrity (we know that these people stood around discussing the murders and that knowledge of a murder would afford somebody a few hours of attention, and we know that people charged money to view murder scenes).

In terms of estimates being reliable, modern day professionals are convinced that some are more reliable than others and there is one factor that has a huge impact on that reliability: time lapse from loss of life to estimated TOD. So, Dr Blackwell isn't in a bad position there to give his estimate (possibly).

Having said that, there is something in Dr Blackwell's testimony that I find interesting. That being his reasoning:

From twenty minutes to half an hour when I arrived. She would have bled to death comparatively slowly on account of vessels on one side only of the neck being cut and the artery not completely severed.

Obviously, the windpipe was severed also.

I don't think there is enough there to draw a conclusion that it must have been 20 minutes to half an hour. It is possible for a person to die within a few minutes of having the windpipe severed due to a lack of oxygen supply to the brain and/or blood flowing into the lungs, influenced by factors such as the severity of the cut and how much air remains in the lungs. It could take a lot longer by the way, hours rather than minutes. And then, there is the issue of blood flowing after the heart has stopped. An open would would still bleed after death due to gravity, which would be a slow oozing, but for how long?

I've looked at a bunch of research papers looking at the accuracy of ToD estimates, and sadly, even short intervals end up with very wide error margins of +-3 hours. One small study, which isn't enough to draw certainty from but included very short intervals of under an hour, pointed towards the possibility that such estimates will be even more error prone (wider ranges) despite "common sense" suggesting it should be easier. As I often tell my students, common sense is what we think when we don't actually know how things work. And these are modern studies, using up to date state of the art methods and calculations. So basically, while we shouldn't dismiss the estimates given by the doctors entirely, they are probably no more reliable than witnesses statements of the time despite their mask of authority. In short, they are just another opinion.

- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi FM,


So basically, while we shouldn't dismiss the estimates given by the doctors entirely, they are probably no more reliable than witnesses statements of the time despite their mask of authority. In short, they are just another opinion.

- Jeff

Aye, and the last time we went down this rabbit hole, modern day forensic pathologists' views were posted. They stated that the closer you are to the time of death when assessing the body, the more reliable your estimate is likely to be. Forensic people on the OJ Simpson case were quoted, for example, due to them being denied access to the body for 13 hours. They specifically stated that it meant they could not give a reasonable TOD timeframe as a result, but had they had access to the body when they should have done, within a couple of hours, they were confident they could have come up with a reasonable timeframe.

But, I've no desire to go down this rabbit hole again. Let's just say we disagree.

[JeffHamm]

Aye, and the last time we went down this rabbit hole, modern day forensic pathologists' views were posted. They stated that the closer you are to the time of death when assessing the body, the more reliable your estimate is likely to be. Forensic people on the OJ Simpson case were quoted, for example, due to them being denied access to the body for 13 hours. They specifically stated that it meant they could not give a reasonable TOD timeframe as a result, but had they had access to the body when they should have done, within a couple of hours, they were confident they could have come up with a reasonable timeframe.

But, I've no desire to go down this rabbit hole again. Let's just say we disagree.

Not a problem. It's always important to remember that an expert opinion is still just that, one person's opinion, which itself will come from a distribution of opinions hence lawyers look for experts whose opinion supports their argument, and they can always be found (lawyers will know of experts whose opinions tend to lean one way or the other. Data, on the other hand, is the information on the issue from which our opinions are derived and you don't need to be an expert in an area in order to evaluate the distributions of a measurement, you just need to understand distributions of measurement. It boils down to what one draws their own views from, and being a numbers guy, I focus on measurements and data if they are available.

- Jeff

[Doctored Whatsit]

I think the ToD estimates in the Nichols, Stride and Eddowes murders are likely to be more accurate than others because they had fresh, barely congealed or even uncongealed blood on site, which made them clearly very recent deaths. Chapman and Kelly are much more problematical.

[Elamarna]

I think the ToD estimates in the Nichols, Stride and Eddowes murders are likely to be more accurate than others because they had fresh, barely congealed or even uncongealed blood on site, which made them clearly very recent deaths. Chapman and Kelly are much more problematical.

I agree those 3 are more likely to be more accurate, but I suggest for another reason.

All 3 were on police beats
In Nichols and Stride, the police had seen no body on the last beat, 30 minutes before.
Once convinced that murder occurred where found, that gave a window, provided by the police which the doctors used.
In the Eddowes case It's a window of 15 minutes.

Chapman and Kelly, not on police beats(one in back yard , no police checking there , other inside a room, again no police witness)

Without police witnesses, the doctors were left with nothing but the very limit methods to determine TOD.

Steve

[Doctored Whatsit]

I agree those 3 are more likely to be more accurate, but I suggest for another reason.

All 3 were on police beats
In Nichols and Stride, the police had seen no body on the last beat, 30 minutes before.
Once convinced that murder occurred where found, that gave a window, provided by the police which the doctors used.
In the Eddowes case It's a window of 15 minutes.

Chapman and Kelly, not on police beats(one in back yard , no police checking there , other inside a room, again no police witness)

Without police witnesses, the doctors were left with nothing but the very limit methods to determine TOD.

Steve

I agree. My comment was based purely on the potential accuracy of the doctors' estimates - fresh uncongealed blood means very recent - other factors obviously could also confirm the ToD. The doctors' estimates were aided massively by such clear evidence, which was not available in the Chapman and Kelly cases.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree. My comment was based purely on the potential accuracy of the doctors' estimates - fresh uncongealed blood means very recent - other factors obviously could also confirm the ToD. The doctors' estimates were aided massively by such clear evidence, which was not available in the Chapman and Kelly cases.

On the accuracy of ToD estimates, in his new book David Orsam quotes examples where Doctor’s clearly changed their estimates to suit other evidence like witnesses. ToD estimates at that time was close to guesswork. This is absolutely proven.

[Abby Normal]

On the accuracy of ToD estimates, in his new book David Orsam quotes examples where Doctor’s clearly changed their estimates to suit other evidence like witnesses. ToD estimates at that time was close to guesswork. This is absolutely proven.

pretty much still is. absolutely correct,herlock and anyone interested in the subject should check out his new book.

this is one area where i definitely part from tje lechmerians, chapman was undoubtedly killed at the later time.

[Fleetwood Mac]

fresh uncongealed blood means very recent

This would be an interesting discussion.

Can you add some more details to this (in relation to Liz Stride).

[JeffHamm]

I think the ToD estimates in the Nichols, Stride and Eddowes murders are likely to be more accurate than others because they had fresh, barely congealed or even uncongealed blood on site, which made them clearly very recent deaths. Chapman and Kelly are much more problematical.

Hi Dr. Whatsit,

Not really disputing what you suggest above, but I thought I would note that Dr. Blackwell in the Stride case testifies:

...The blood was running down the gutter into the drain in the opposite direction from the feet. There was about 1lb of clotted blood close by the body, and a stream all the way from there to the back door of the club.

While there was also a stream of blood described, he doesn't say it was fresh, or moving, etc, so all we know is that by the time he arrived there was a lot of clot formed and he noted that. Curiously, throughout the Stride testimony, there are different people who use descriptions of the blood that seem to suggest the clotting is occurring over the period between discovery and the arrival of Dr. Blackwell. But if Dr. B. is only using his own observations, and not factoring in other information, his observation is that clot had already formed. He never indicates the amount of clot increased, so there's no indication he used it as part of his ToD estimation.

Anyway, just thought I would mention that, in part because a few years ago I noted the change in how the blood was described over time by different witnesses in the Stride case, and was wondering if there was any point in trying to incorporate that. Like most things medical, though, knowing the variability of "clotting time lines" is hard to find, and also knowing how that time line might be affected by rain water, etc, is also critical. I ended up setting it aside, but may return to it if I can find any of the information I would need.

- Jeff

[Doctored Whatsit]

This would be an interesting discussion.

Can you add some more details to this (in relation to Liz Stride).

I am not medically qualified to develop the issues beyond the basic fact that blood congeals fairly quickly, so that uncongealed blood means a very recent death - I make no attempt to define "very recent", that is for an expert.

PC Lamb, for example, said that some of Stride's blood was congealed, and some was not. Clearly, the doctors could work on this information, which would have been very valuable in reaching a reasonably accurate ToD. In this context, I mean "accurate" compared with other deaths where no such guide is available. Kelly's ToD was very much a reasoned guess in comparison.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Dr. Whatsit,

Not really disputing what you suggest above, but I thought I would note that Dr. Blackwell in the Stride case testifies:

...The blood was running down the gutter into the drain in the opposite direction from the feet. There was about 1lb of clotted blood close by the body, and a stream all the way from there to the back door of the club.

While there was also a stream of blood described, he doesn't say it was fresh, or moving, etc, so all we know is that by the time he arrived there was a lot of clot formed and he noted that. Curiously, throughout the Stride testimony, there are different people who use descriptions of the blood that seem to suggest the clotting is occurring over the period between discovery and the arrival of Dr. Blackwell. But if Dr. B. is only using his own observations, and not factoring in other information, his observation is that clot had already formed. He never indicates the amount of clot increased, so there's no indication he used it as part of his ToD estimation.

Anyway, just thought I would mention that, in part because a few years ago I noted the change in how the blood was described over time by different witnesses in the Stride case, and was wondering if there was any point in trying to incorporate that. Like most things medical, though, knowing the variability of "clotting time lines" is hard to find, and also knowing how that time line might be affected by rain water, etc, is also critical. I ended up setting it aside, but may return to it if I can find any of the information I would need.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Please see my previous note AT #3776 also.

It isn't clear from the testimonies of Blackwell and Phillips whether they used information from others, like PC Lamb, in reaching their estimates, but Blackwell did say "the blood was running down the gutter into the drain," and that suggests that it was moving. If it was not still flowing, I assume he would have said "the blood had run down the gutter...". I believe therefore that he saw reasonably fresh uncongealed blood, although it is just possible that congealed blood was dissolving in rainwater and then flowing.

As I wrote in #3776, I leave the interpretation of what was seen to the experts, who in this case were Blackwell and Phillips.

My comment originally was never anything more than the fact that Nichols, Stride and Eddowes were "recent" murders with fresh blood, and Chapman and Kelly were not. I have never disputed the fact that ToD estimates can be very approximate, but I think that fresh uncongealed blood makes the ToD perhaps less approximate!

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

Please see my previous note AT #3776 also.

It isn't clear from the testimonies of Blackwell and Phillips whether they used information from others, like PC Lamb, in reaching their estimates, but Blackwell did say "the blood was running down the gutter into the drain," and that suggests that it was moving. If it was not still flowing, I assume he would have said "the blood had run down the gutter...". I believe therefore that he saw reasonably fresh uncongealed blood, although it is just possible that congealed blood was dissolving in rainwater and then flowing.

As I wrote in #3776, I leave the interpretation of what was seen to the experts, who in this case were Blackwell and Phillips.

My comment originally was never anything more than the fact that Nichols, Stride and Eddowes were "recent" murders with fresh blood, and Chapman and Kelly were not. I have never disputed the fact that ToD estimates can be very approximate, but I think that fresh uncongealed blood makes the ToD perhaps less approximate!

Hi,

Yah, I get that, and it makes sense. As I say, I wasn't really disputing anything only noting that there was a substantial amount of clot formed by the time Dr. B arrived at the Stride scene, which in turn makes one wonder if, as you suggest above, any "flow" in the stream was due in part to the rain water, etc. Also, we have no indication that the state of the blood at the scene was used by the Dr's in their estimations, but then, we don't really know how they came to them at all, other than hints at temperature readings from the Chapman case. Other factors may, or may not, have entered into their consideration. I suspect, though, they would be using temperature and following a set protocol, although we have no mention of actual temperature readings being taken so even that could be an erroneous assumption.

Anyway, I just thought it an interesting bit to mention as it related to the topic of the state of the blood at the scene.

- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

I am not medically qualified to develop the issues beyond the basic fact that blood congeals fairly quickly, so that uncongealed blood means a very recent death - I make no attempt to define "very recent", that is for an expert.

PC Lamb, for example, said that some of Stride's blood was congealed, and some was not. Clearly, the doctors could work on this information, which would have been very valuable in reaching a reasonably accurate ToD. In this context, I mean "accurate" compared with other deaths where no such guide is available. Kelly's ToD was very much a reasoned guess in comparison.

Aye, I wasn't suggesting that you should readily quantify 'very recent'. 'Simply thought it was an interesting discussion point and in the event we went on medical testimony alone, is it possible that Liz was murdered prior to 12.30am.

Dr Phillips' testimony adds to this: the cause of death had been undoubtedly the loss of blood from the left carotid artery and the division of the windpipe.

My understanding is that a severed carotid artery would cause a very, very quick death, which would then beg the question: for how long would a body bleed from a wound in the neck after death?

On a side note, it is often assumed that Liz's death was silent, but surely Liz would have been coughing, spluttering and gargling blood.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Aye, I wasn't suggesting that you should readily quantify 'very recent'. 'Simply thought it was an interesting discussion point and in the event we went on medical testimony alone, is it possible that Liz was murdered prior to 12.30am.

Dr Phillips' testimony adds to this: the cause of death had been undoubtedly the loss of blood from the left carotid artery and the division of the windpipe.

My understanding is that a severed carotid artery would cause a very, very quick death, which would then beg the question: for how long would a body bleed from a wound in the neck after death?

On a side note, it is often assumed that Liz's death was silent, but surely Liz would have been coughing, spluttering and gargling blood.

Which raises a further question.

In the event Dr Blackwell was correct when he said this was a comparatively slow death, then there is a very good chance that Liz was conscious after the cut to her neck, which may be further supported by the blood smearing on her hand, i.e. it was after the killer left that Liz had the ability to reach up to her neck. That being the case, Liz wouldn't have been dying silently: she would have been spluttering and gurgling.

In addition, in the event this was Jack and Jack was interrupted, then whoever interrupted Jack would have found and heard a spluttering, gurgling Liz. That would suggest to me that Louis Diemschutz did not interrupt Jack and it would further suggest that whoever interrupted Jack, he or she did not go into the yard; otherwise he or she would have heard a spluttering, gurgling, dying Liz.

I do believe this was a Jack murder by the way and so I'm not attempting to diminish the argument that Jack was interrupted. What I would say however, is that Dr Blackwell's testimony suggests Jack wasn't interrupted by Louis.