John Richardson

[A P Tomlinson]

Thanks for your erudite explanation, APT.

But Phillips saw and examined the body.

We didn't.

Thanks, I just read it back and realised it may have come over as sarcastic, which wasn't the intention.

But we still know that he used a deeply, deeply flawed method to estimate ToD, under extreme circumstances. I seriously doubt he had ever had to do anything approaching that sort of work, with a body laid bare and open, eviscerated and missing a LOT of blood.
Simply by removing so much of the subcutaneous fat from around the abdomen the killer opened up the core to drop in temperature far quicker than would normally occur.
So much of the stuff that keeps a body warm after death was destroyed or removed, it HAD to have a major impact on ToD.

Using the Victorian standard methodology, I'm kind of impressed that he didn't put it even earlier than 2 hours. But I just don't think it's any more reliable than guesswork.

[A P Tomlinson]

Hi George,

If that's true, it would mean moving the body about 18 inches closer to the house, right? It looks to me like it would be just as hard for Richardson to miss seeing the body if it were there as it would be in the spot that Hair Bear's picture shows.

Yes, because it would have put the intestines that were placed over her right shoulder even closer to the step. When he sat on the step and looked down at the boot in his hands he would see that horror.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks for your reply, Jeff, but I cannot agree with you that detection of rigor mortis is in any way subjective.

I honestly cannot imagine two doctors examining the same body and disagreeing about whether a certain limb has started to stiffen.

The question I haven't seen answered by those who favour a later time of death is why rigor mortis set in within an hour in this case, and the body was almost completely cold, whereas in Mitre Square, about 42 minutes after death, no rigor mortis was detected and the body was still warm.

I have seen two explanations given: that in Hanbury Street the morning was cold and the victim had a lung disease.

In Mitre Square, however, weather conditions were similar and the victim was noticeably thinner than the earlier victim.

There is therefore no reason to expect rigor mortis to set in much earlier in Chapman's case.

It seems to me that it is accepted that it did set in much earlier in order to accommodate the witness testimony - and not on the strength of the medical evidence.

I’ve pirated these a few times but here are just a few examples of what the authorities tell us:


From: Forensic Biology For The Law Enforcement Officer by Charles Grady Wilber,1974

'The stiffening of the body or rigor mortis develops usually within an hour or two hours after death.'

———

From: EstimationOf Time Of Death by Ranald Munro and Helen M.C. Munro.

"The time of onset is variable but it is usually considered to appear between 1 and 6 hours (average 2-4 hours) after death.'

———

"Francis E. Camps stated that.Ordinarily the rigor mortis appears between 2-4 hours, but sometimes it is seen within 30 minutes of death and sometimes the onset is delayed for 6 hours or more."

———

"Bernard Knight described the method of testing the rigor mortis by attempting to flex or extend the joints though the whole muscle mass itself becomes hard, and finger pressure on quadriceps or pectoralis can also detect the changes. The stiffness may develop within half an hour of death or may be postponed indefinitely."

———

Werner Uri Spitz (1993), a German-American forensic pathologist, "reported that in temperate climate, under average condition, rigor becomes apparent within half an hour to an hour, increases progressively to a maximum within twelve hours, remains for about twelve hours and then progressively disappears within the following twelve hours."

———

From the English physiologist Sir Andrew Fielding Huxley (1974), who lived and worked in a temperate climate, we get this: 'the rigor mortis, which is cadaveric rigidity, starts developing within 1 to 2 hours after death and takes around 12 hours after death for complete development.'

———

Furthermore, according to K.S. Narayan Reddy, author of 'Essentials of Forensic Medicine', "In death from diseases causing great exhaustion and wasting e.g. cholera, typhoid, tuberculosis and cancer and in violent deaths as by cut throats, firearms or electrocution, the onset of rigor is early and duration is short".The paper alsostates that,according to W.G. Aitcheson Robertson, author of 'Aids to Forensic Medicine and Toxicology', in "death followed by convulsions, muscular exertion, racing, the rigor mortis will appear earlier". We are told thatMason JK stated "The onset of rigor will be accelerated in conditions involving high ante-mortem muscle lactic acid e.g. after a struggle or other exercise.". So a struggle could bring on rigor earlier than the average, just like a cut throat. Then what about the physical condition of the deceased? Well according to S.C. Basu, author of the Handbook of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, rigor is "hastened or accelerated in feeble, fatigued and exhausted muscles"

———

What does Fisherman's own favourite expert, Jason Payne James, have to say about using rigor to estimate the time of death? We only have to look in Simpson's Forensic Medicine, updated 13th edition by Jason Payne James, Richard Jones, Steven Karch and John Manlove (2011):

"The only use of assessing the presence or absence of rigor lies in the estimation of the time of death, and the key word here is estimation, as rigor is such a variable process that it can never provide an accurate assessment of the time of death. Extreme caution should be exercised in trying to assign a time of death based on the very subjective assessment of the degree and extent of rigor."

———

From the Textbook Of Forensic Medicine And Toxicology:

The time of onset and duration of Rigor is varied by multiple factors as will be discussed shortly but in general it is likely to be apparent in about 1-2 hours after death,

———

It’s not about what we as layman can imagine PI. We have to rely on the authorities tell us and even with this cross-section of quotes we can see how unreliable and varied the onset of rigor is. The most telling is the one from Simpson’s Forensic Medicine (2011). If rigor is so unreliable even today how much more unreliable was it 135 years ago.

———

Its the same with temperature. I’ll just quote one….again from So]Im-son’s Forensic Medicine (2011):

'...a body is not a uniform structure: its temperature will not fall evenly and, because each body will lie in its own unique environment, each body will cool at a different speed, depending on the many factors surrounding it.'

———

For more on this subject I highly recommend David Barrat’s recent The Temperature Of Death which explains the unreliability of this method of assessing ToD.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh boy, in that case 'mildewed' must be a euphemism for something else.

The Victorians loved a euphemism Harry.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Like you have been told time & time again - the brief quote you hang your argument on (he told me he did not go down the steps) refers to the cellar steps

And of course, in the same quote, we have Richardson saying that he’d put his feet on the flags of the yard so that he could sit on the middle step. So how could he have got to the bottom of those steps to sit down if he hadn’t gone down those steps? It makes no sense. We would have to accept that Richardson was just uttering gibberish. But it does make sense if he meant that he didn’t go down the cellar steps because he didn’t need to, he could see the lock from the back door steps.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another superb post my friend, not that it is likely to change anything.
Fishy chooses to not listen to reason.

Cheers Jon. It’s natural to have differences in interpretation of course but it’s frustrating when even the simplest most obvious points are disputed. You just can’t help suspecting the deliberate rather than just error.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why ? This is the conflicting evidence you pretend doesn't matter, or doesn't mean what it plainly says .

It should be and will continue to be posted until you at least admit that there is conflict with witness testimony.

And what you should realise Fishy as these quotes come from different reporters. All through this case we see numerous examples of this so we have to take a bigger picture view of what was said or we would simply have to dismiss virtually every piece of witness testimony due to alleged discrepancies. We have to apply a common sense approach. We shouldn’t read something that doesn’t make sense and assume “this doesn’t make sense so clearly this witness wasn’t telling the truth,” because we are hearing there words from fallible reporters.

What you are claiming by using that particular quote is that John Richardson said that he sat on the steps but he didn’t go down them to do that. This is physically impossible of course. He must have gone down the steps in the first place in order to have sat on them. So was Richardson talking gibberish and neither the coroner or the jury spotted or commented on this obvious piece of nonsense or was he actually saying that he hadn’t needed to go down the cellar steps to see the lock because he could see it from the steps?

There’s only one sensible answer and it’s certainly not the one that you’re proposing Fishy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your general tone in your responses just like this one are nasty .

Proven.

What do you mean ‘proven.’ I’ve said nothing remotely ‘nasty.’ Unlike you very kindly calling me ‘a fist class twat’ in an earlier post. (And yes, I can prove that you said it) Focus on the discussion and not on me. Hypocrisy is easy to spot Fishy, you should avoid it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve pirated these a few times but here are just a few examples of what the authorities tell us:


From: Forensic Biology For The Law Enforcement Officer by Charles Grady Wilber,1974

'The stiffening of the body or rigor mortis develops usually within an hour or two hours after death.'

———

From: EstimationOf Time Of Death by Ranald Munro and Helen M.C. Munro.

"The time of onset is variable but it is usually considered to appear between 1 and 6 hours (average 2-4 hours) after death.'

———

"Francis E. Camps stated that.Ordinarily the rigor mortis appears between 2-4 hours, but sometimes it is seen within 30 minutes of death and sometimes the onset is delayed for 6 hours or more."

———

"Bernard Knight described the method of testing the rigor mortis by attempting to flex or extend the joints though the whole muscle mass itself becomes hard, and finger pressure on quadriceps or pectoralis can also detect the changes. The stiffness may develop within half an hour of death or may be postponed indefinitely."

———

Werner Uri Spitz (1993), a German-American forensic pathologist, "reported that in temperate climate, under average condition, rigor becomes apparent within half an hour to an hour, increases progressively to a maximum within twelve hours, remains for about twelve hours and then progressively disappears within the following twelve hours."

———

From the English physiologist Sir Andrew Fielding Huxley (1974), who lived and worked in a temperate climate, we get this: 'the rigor mortis, which is cadaveric rigidity, starts developing within 1 to 2 hours after death and takes around 12 hours after death for complete development.'

———

Furthermore, according to K.S. Narayan Reddy, author of 'Essentials of Forensic Medicine', "In death from diseases causing great exhaustion and wasting e.g. cholera, typhoid, tuberculosis and cancer and in violent deaths as by cut throats, firearms or electrocution, the onset of rigor is early and duration is short".The paper alsostates that,according to W.G. Aitcheson Robertson, author of 'Aids to Forensic Medicine and Toxicology', in "death followed by convulsions, muscular exertion, racing, the rigor mortis will appear earlier". We are told thatMason JK stated "The onset of rigor will be accelerated in conditions involving high ante-mortem muscle lactic acid e.g. after a struggle or other exercise.". So a struggle could bring on rigor earlier than the average, just like a cut throat. Then what about the physical condition of the deceased? Well according to S.C. Basu, author of the Handbook of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, rigor is "hastened or accelerated in feeble, fatigued and exhausted muscles"

———

What does Fisherman's own favourite expert, Jason Payne James, have to say about using rigor to estimate the time of death? We only have to look in Simpson's Forensic Medicine, updated 13th edition by Jason Payne James, Richard Jones, Steven Karch and John Manlove (2011):

"The only use of assessing the presence or absence of rigor lies in the estimation of the time of death, and the key word here is estimation, as rigor is such a variable process that it can never provide an accurate assessment of the time of death. Extreme caution should be exercised in trying to assign a time of death based on the very subjective assessment of the degree and extent of rigor."

———

From the Textbook Of Forensic Medicine And Toxicology:

The time of onset and duration of Rigor is varied by multiple factors as will be discussed shortly but in general it is likely to be apparent in about 1-2 hours after death,

———

It’s not about what we as layman can imagine PI. We have to rely on the authorities tell us and even with this cross-section of quotes we can see how unreliable and varied the onset of rigor is. The most telling is the one from Simpson’s Forensic Medicine (2011). If rigor is so unreliable even today how much more unreliable was it 135 years ago.

———

Its the same with temperature. I’ll just quote one….again from So]Im-son’s Forensic Medicine (2011):

'...a body is not a uniform structure: its temperature will not fall evenly and, because each body will lie in its own unique environment, each body will cool at a different speed, depending on the many factors surrounding it.'

———

For more on this subject I highly recommend David Barrat’s recent The Temperature Of Death which explains the unreliability of this method of assessing ToD.

‘Pirated’,should read ‘posted’ of course.

[FISHY1118]

The source you choose to keep repeating has the reference to the cellar edited out of it.
Does someone need to hold your hand to guide you through this?
You have no idea how to investigate anything Fishy.

Someone needs to hold yours i see ,for you can see the the evidence from the Daily News report i posted between Richardson and the coroner has no edit and you just ignore it . Richardson did not go down the back door steps , so in your thinking Richardson is a liar.

You can't pick and chose one piece of evidence to suit your theory and dismiss all others that don't.

Oh good you've resorted to the Herlock school of thinking , everyone else is misrepresenting and misunderstanding the evidence . Your tho you've got it down pat tho hey ? . In your dreams .
you lot are truly amazing , you think you know it all when you've got the same evidence as me to refer to all you have is an opinion nothing more .

[FISHY1118]

Like you have been told time & time again - the brief quote you hang your argument on (he told me he did not go down the steps) refers to the cellar steps

Its cleary does not.

Not according to the inquest testimony reports

[Herlock Sholmes]

Could Richardson have seen the cellar door from a position standing in the doorway?


The missing bricks give us a good guide as to the height of the canopy and we can also see from photographs (looking toward the door) the outer edge of the missing brick on the right hand side is only 2 or 3 inches or so from the edge of the step. So we can get a minimum width of the canopy (it could have been wider of course which would lessen the view from the step further)

We can also see the a canopy just below the level of the window sill would have been knee level to a man of average height (it’s at around that level in the photograph of the woman with the old man)

From the same photograph it’s also obvious that the top step is recessed in regard to the wall of the house where the window is (not by much but recessed nonetheless)

We can’t be certain if the cellar door was recessed or not but it’s a very real possibility (I think it very likely but I won’t assume it for the purpose of this post)

Therefore a man standing on the top step looking downwards and to his right would have seen the top of the canopy down around the level of his knees and a very few inches in front of him. So we can say with absolute confidence that the cellar door couldn’t be seen by a man standing on the steps. It would have been physically impossible.

So could he have contrived to have seen it? Again, look at the photograph of the couple. He’d have had to have stood with his feet over the edge of the step then leaned forward bent double until his head was somewhere around the level of the canopy (causing him serious balance problems.) Even then we couldn’t be sure that he’d have been able to have seen the lock because we have no way of knowing what side of the cellar doors the lock was on. If it was on the right then he would certainly have been unable to have seen it.

So to sum up we can say that he definitely wouldn’t have been able to have seen the lock from a position standing on the steps. It was simply physically impossible. He might have been able to have seen it by bending double and hanging out from the doorway but no matter how many newspaper reports we read we see no mention of any contortions/balancing acts from Richardson. Therefore, with a very high level of confidence we can say that we have only three options: 1. Richardson could only have seen the lock by either walking into the yard or 2. from standing at the bottom of the back door steps and bending over slightly or 3. from a position sitting on the steps.

Richardson of course said that he didn’t go into the yard. He only stood on the flags and then sat down. So we are left with options 2 or 3.

So John Richardson went down the steps and stood on the flags of the yard (which he didn’t consider actually going into the yard) he then either looked beneath the canopy and down the steps to check the lock or he sat down then looked to his right to check the lock.


This is about as close to a certainty that we can get without producing CCTV footage to confirm it. I really can’t understand why it’s disputed?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Its cleary does not.

Not according to the inquest testimony reports

How do you think that John Richardson got to a position where he could have sat on that middle step?

[Hair Bear]

Chapmans body is in the wrong spot.

Explain, please.

[FISHY1118]

How do you think that John Richardson got to a position where he could have sat on that middle step?

Well if your saying that because Richardson stepped from inside the house to the first step and sat down to fix his boot [theres only two steps btw] that according to you that means he went down the steps ? Is that what your saying.?