John Richardson

[FISHY1118]

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.

Yes and i have apologized for the Twat comment. move on .

But lets not gloss over the fact, the many post back and forth over the last few years youve been on the hypocritical bus more than once .

[FISHY1118]

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?

Your Misrepresenting the evidence to support a theory that goes against the known facts . .

This is what Richardson did and you shouldnt be messing with it . Your ''sum up'' paragraph is utter nonsense when compared to the facts of the case that are known and right there in black and white .Your inventing a story that never happened.



Daily News
United Kingdom
13 September 1888


[Coroner,] Did you go into the yard at all?-Not at all, sir.!!!!!!!!!!!

I thought you went there to see that the cellar was all right?- [Richardson] Yes; ''but you don't need to go into the yard'' to see that. You can ''see the padlock'' of the cellar door ''from the back door steps.''!!!!!!!!!!
.



[Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - I saw him about a quarter to seven o'clock. He told me he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work


Because Richardson told him he ''came to the back door and looked down to the cellar'', that means he was on the back steps of the house !


By the Jury: The back door opens outwards into the yard, and swung on the left hand to the palings where the body was. If Richardson were on the top of the steps he might not have seen the body. He told me he did not go down the steps.

Which steps do you think they meant? . Seriously do i even have to ask .

[FISHY1118]

Explain, please.

Shes to far forward from the back of the house.

[GBinOz]

Could Richardson have seen the cellar door from a position standing in the doorway?
No!
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)
From that photograph it can be seen that the woman has one foot in the passageway and the other foot on what is being called a step. The "top step" is nothing more than a stone edging. A step is a means of passing from one level to another. The stone edging is at the same level as the passage, so its status as a step is at best only nominal.

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)
Given the position of the hole in the wall of the cellar, which would most likely have been used to secure a door jamb to the wall, I would venture to say that it is highly unlikely that the door was recessed. We don't know which to which side of the door the lock was affixed, but it could have been the left side making it more visible from the actual steps.
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.
You are relying on the logical fallacy that "steps" was confined to the stone edging on the passage level. There were two lower steps available for standing, which voids your conclusion.
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.
Once again you are promoting the logical fallacy that "back yard steps" was confined to the stone edging on the passage level. The bend and lean technique is entirely plausible from the actual steps. You are suggesting that the lock may have been on the right, but Richardson and his mother agreed that the lock was visible from the (real) back door steps, and they lived and worked there.
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.
A specious conclusion drawn from apocryphal data. I believe the expression is "garbage in, garbage out".
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.
Where does he say he stood on the flags. AFAIK he said he sat on the step with his feet on the flags. He does not elaborate on how he achieved his sitting position any more than he elaborated on how he bent or crouched to see the lock, the latter because he went straight to his sitting and boot cutting story.
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.
Or he stood on the actual steps faced towards the cellar door and crouched down to view 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?
I don't think so. Far from it.

Hi Herlock,

No one is in doubt as to your opinion, which is supported by others, but there are those that subscribe to different assessments of the testimony that feel that you, and others, are taking some liberties with the facts. It appears that we reached a Mexican stand-off many, many posts ago, and that all parties involved are now engaged only in repetitive statements of opinion. Time to say "That's all Folks"?

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.?

This has to be the most unbelievable question of the year Fishy (if not ever)

He got from the top of some steps to the bottom of some steps so how could he have achieved this without going down the steps?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes and i have apologized for the Twat comment. move on .

But lets not gloss over the fact, the many post back and forth over the last few years youve been on the hypocritical bus more than once .

Not once Fishy. I’ve never said anything remotely nasty. Sarcastic….yes, at time mocking…..yes. Often with an air of irritation and exasperation….yes. But never nasty.

And if I’ve made an error, and it’s been pointed out to me (as it has done many times over the years) I’ve always owned up to it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your Misrepresenting the evidence to support a theory that goes against the known facts . .

This is what Richardson did and you shouldnt be messing with it . Your ''sum up'' paragraph is utter nonsense when compared to the facts of the case that are known and right there in black and white .Your inventing a story that never happened.



Daily News
United Kingdom
13 September 1888


[Coroner,] Did you go into the yard at all?-Not at all, sir.!!!!!!!!!!!

I thought you went there to see that the cellar was all right?- [Richardson] Yes; ''but you don't need to go into the yard'' to see that. You can ''see the padlock'' of the cellar door ''from the back door steps.''!!!!!!!!!!
.



[Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - I saw him about a quarter to seven o'clock. He told me he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work


Because Richardson told him he ''came to the back door and looked down to the cellar'', that means he was on the back steps of the house !


By the Jury: The back door opens outwards into the yard, and swung on the left hand to the palings where the body was. If Richardson were on the top of the steps he might not have seen the body. He told me he did not go down the steps.

Which steps do you think they meant? . Seriously do i even have to ask .

He meant the cellar steps. It’s impossible that he could have meant anything else because he’d already told them that he’d sat on the middle step with his feet on the flags! Therefore he had to have gone down those steps. So why are you claiming that he’d basically said ‘I went down the steps but I didn’t go down the steps!!!?’

Keep up Fishy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

No one is in doubt as to your opinion, which is supported by others, but there are those that subscribe to different assessments of the testimony that feel that you, and others, are taking some liberties with the facts. It appears that we reached a Mexican stand-off many, many posts ago, and that all parties involved are now engaged only in repetitive statements of opinion. Time to say "That's all Folks"?

Cheers, George

Could Richardson have seen the cellar door from a position standing in the doorway?
No!

So we agree on one thing at least George.

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)
From that photograph it can be seen that the woman has one foot in the passageway and the other foot on what is being called a step. The "top step" is nothing more than a stone edging. A step is a means of passing from one level to another. The stone edging is at the same level as the passage, so its status as a step is at best only nominal.

Sorry George but this is England. She is standing on the top step. I don’t know about Oz but as you know, what’s considered the 2nd floor in the USA is considered the 1st floor here. I don’t know if it’s the same down under. She’s on the top step.

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)

Given the position of the hole in the wall of the cellar, which would most likely have been used to secure a door jamb to the wall, I would venture to say that it is highly unlikely that the door was recessed. We don't know which to which side of the door the lock was affixed, but it could have been the left side making it more visible from the actual steps.

I disagree George. AP gave a very detailed explanation as to why the cellar door was probably recessed which I agree with. But I accept that we have no way of knowing for sure without additional evidence (which we are unlikely to get at this late stage.)

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.

You are relying on the logical fallacy that "steps" was confined to the stone edging on the passage level. There were two lower steps available for standing, which voids your conclusion.

I made the point George because I’ve never seen anyone suggest that he’d stood on the middle step. Even if he had stood on the middle step (without there being even a hint of this btw) the canopy would still have come around 6 inches above his knee which would still have required him to have bent over almost double. Why would he have done these kind of contortions? Surely it can’t be claimed that he’d have gone to these lengths just to avoid taking a further step down onto the flags?

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.

Once again you are promoting the logical fallacy that "back yard steps" was confined to the stone edging on the passage level. The bend and lean technique is entirely plausible from the actual steps. You are suggesting that the lock may have been on the right, but Richardson and his mother agreed that the lock was visible from the (real) back door steps, and they lived and worked there.

Its not a logical fallacy George. In England this is called the top step. It’s just a fact. You are claiming that he performed a ridiculous balancing act rather than take two step down. It’s simply not plausible George.


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.

A specious conclusion drawn from apocryphal data. I believe the expression is "garbage in, garbage out".

And I’m the one that gets called insulting. I’ve followed the evidence George. Whereas you and Fishy are trying to come up with ever more imaginative ways of trying to denigrate Richardson whilst promoting a Doctors knowledge to provably impossible levels of accuracy.

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.

Where does he say he stood on the flags. AFAIK he said he sat on the step with his feet on the flags. He does not elaborate on how he achieved his sitting position any more than he elaborated on how he bent or crouched to see the lock, the latter because he went straight to his sitting and boot cutting story.

I was surprised when Fishy made this point but I’m amazed that you have made it George. Really? If he put his feet on the flags then he stood on the flags. Unless you’re suggesting that he stood on the top step, leapt into the air and landed backside first on the step before placing his feet on the flags?!

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.

Or he stood on the actual steps faced towards the cellar door and crouched down to view the lock.

So not only does Richardson tell the stupidest of lies whilst ignoring simpler more effective ones, you have him performing acrobatics just to avoid going down two steps. We then have him telling everyone that he’d sat on the middle step with his feet on the flags hoping that no one would notice that he’d have had to have gone down those steps to have been able to have sat on the middle one in the first place?!!!!!

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?

I don't think so. Far from it.

Its game over George. Or at least it should be. There should never really have been much doubt (if any) that Annie was killed at 5.30.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You may find your answer if you look up how intense physical activity can hasten the onset of rigor mortis.
Much boils down to internal body temperature brought on by things like fighting for your life, or having an infection.

How is that relevant to the question of why the doctor's findings in the two cases were so different?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

Thanks for the quotes Herlock, and as you may recall, I provided a selection of a dozen of my own in a post several months ago.


Of course it is possible that rigor mortis began to set in in Chapman's case within an hour of her death.

What you have not addressed is my question as to why the findings in the two cases were so different in spite of similar conditions.

It is true that Chapman was suffering from a lung disease, but it is also true that Eddowes was much thinner than Chapman.

Chapman was almost completely cold whereas Eddowes was still warm.

Rigor mortis had begun to set in in Chapman's case, but not in Eddowes' case.

These facts suggest an earlier time of death for Chapman then 5:30 AM.

[Hair Bear]

Shes to far forward from the back of the house.

Hi fishy, thank you for replying. According to Chandler the top of her head is 6 inches beyond the plain of the bottom step, which is roughly where I placed her (the blue line is about six inches). According to Phillips she was between 6 and 9 inches, so I would have to move her another three inches away from the house. If you want to discard their measurements and just move her closer to the house anyway, I think diagram two is what you are suggesting? Wherever she is, his foot would be swimming in the viscera over her right shoulder, and all he has to do is stand up to leave and he sees her.

[Wickerman]

It is always good to return to basics, before all the assumptions have been made.

Ah, ok, so long as that was your intention.

No, we can't. There is no reference anywhere to the cellar steps.

That, is what I believe is the root of the problem. The inability or refusal to acknowledge the witnesses were talking about two different sets of steps.
It is also clear, to me at least, that the journalists attending the inquest were confused over which steps the witnesses were talking about.
The somewhat casual editing did not help matters.

It is just not physically possible to see a lock on a cellar door from the top of the house steps. Either, some need a lesson in geometry, or better, need to understand the inquest testimony has been edited.

It is impossible to see a lock on a door that is installed on the inside of a door frame from the top house step that is greater than 180 deg away to the side.
Obviously! I don't even regard the floor of the house as a step.
From the second step - better chance, from the third step - even better.
No need to proceed beyond this point. Mission accomplished.

George !!!
Richardson is reported in the D.Telegraph as saying he saw the padlock from the doorstep - you've just admitted he couldn't!
In the D.News he says he could see the padlock from the back door steps, which could mean from any point on, or around the steps.
Now, you seem to be saying he could see the padlock from the second step, or further forward.

It was Chandler who says Richardson looked at the lock from the top step.

In the D.News Chandler says, he (Richardson) did not go to the bottom of the steps leading to the cellar. He went to the top and looked down.

Now, be honest - what does that suggest to you?
You tried to tell me there is no reference to any cellar steps, if the above isn't referring to cellar steps, then I don't know what is.

Viewing the cellar door from the paving slab, which is next to the top step of the cellar steps is the preferred position in order to see the lock.
No it isn't. The optimum position is standing at the bottom of the cellar steps in front of the cellar door and the lock. But this is never even suggested in the testimony.

Then lets not assume something that no-one is talking about - I was talking about the ground level, as you should know. And, because the various testimonies are confused between the three house steps & the yard-level paving stone, I am saying the preferred viewing spot would be next to the top step of the cellar steps.

In order to realize this we must recognize some of the references to "steps" are to cellar steps not house steps.
That is a logical fallacy based on an interpretation of a single report rather than on the bulk of the testimony recorded at the inquest.

What does that even mean George?
Of course it's an interpretation of one of the reports, that means it is not speculation, an interpretation must always be based on something.
And, none of the existing reports contest that interpretation

Hi Jon,

I mean no disrespect in my comments.

I know George, there's no disrespect either way. We can be direct without disrespect.

You are obviously convinced of your point of view, and I can appreciate that fact. However, I have my own point of view and am unable to countenance what I consider to be a series of illogical assumptions. I fully appreciate that you do not see that to be the case, but there we have it.

Presented with all due respect, George

I'm intrigued to learn what you see as "illogical", why people think the way they do is a never ending fascination for me.
It can be beneficial to figure out what some people think is important in any debate.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It can be beneficial to figure out what some people think is important in any debate.

Here are some questions I think are important in the debate about Chapman's time of death.

Why would the murderer have committed a murder so late in the morning in this case but not in any of the other murders he committed?

Why would he still have been out in the open with a murder victim so much later than in any other case?

Why would a murderer who in every other case went into a dark place in order to commit the murder, this time go somewhere where it was beginning to get light?

Why would he have failed to see the supply of water with which to clean his hands, when he was about to go out into the street, where his blood stains might be seen by other people?

Why would Chapman's body have been almost completely cold, with rigor mortis beginning to set in, within an hour of her having been murdered?

In spite of all the protestations that rigor mortis could have set in unusually quickly, that her body could have cooled unusually quickly, and that the murderer could have decided to commit a murder much later than in the other cases, the odds are against all three things happening together.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks for the quotes Herlock, and as you may recall, I provided a selection of a dozen of my own in a post several months ago.


Of course it is possible that rigor mortis began to set in in Chapman's case within an hour of her death.

What you have not addressed is my question as to why the findings in the two cases were so different in spite of similar conditions.

It is true that Chapman was suffering from a lung disease, but it is also true that Eddowes was much thinner than Chapman.

Chapman was almost completely cold whereas Eddowes was still warm.

Rigor mortis had begun to set in in Chapman's case, but not in Eddowes' case.

These facts suggest an earlier time of death for Chapman then 5:30 AM.

It doesn’t work like that PI:

'...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.'

Chapman had a lung disease that Eddowes didn’t have and we don’t know if Chapman had other I’ll eases which didn’t show up on the autopsy. We can’t compare the two.

Also, in David Barrat’s The Temperature of Death he cites two cases where the doctor altered his original ToD estimate in line with witness statements (and one of those doctors was Bernard Knight who is a big name in forensic medicine.)

On temperature too David notes a case where the victim was absolutely stone cold when the doctor arrived and yet he was still alive.

The facts categorically tell us that Phillips ToD estimate was, to steal Trevor’s favourite phrase, unsafe to rely on. Phillips also added a caveat noting that the situation could have resulted in Annie’s body cooling more rapidly leading to a shorter gap of time between death and examination. Baxter accepted this as indicating that the ToD could have been later that Phillips 4.30 minimum.

So we have a ToD estimation arrived at using provably unreliable methods. Then we have three witnesses which push the likelier ToD overwhelmingly toward 5.30. This should be beyond any requirement for dispute.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

We don't know whether Eddowes had diseases which didn't show up in the autopsy, but we do know that she was thin.

The fact that Chapman had more fat on her than Eddowes had would tend to cancel out the effect of the lung disease on the relative timing of the setting in of rigor mortis.

It seems that the temperatures at the two murder sites were similar.

Why was Eddowes' body still warm?

If the coolness of the morning really did have an effect on Chapman, then it would have slowed down the onset of rigor mortis and not speeded it up.

There is no reason to suppose that Philips' estimate is unsafe.