John Richardson

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff.

We are all debating the complete sentence from Phillips, when it is most likely the caveat is an afterthought, a reaction to what Chandler said.

So, Phillips full statement as he prepared it, on paper or in his mind, was simply:
"I should say at least two hours, and probably more".
That is all he had been prepared to say.

However, he now feels obliged to ad-lib a qualifier, it was not part of his original testimony.
We are here debating the two sentences as if they are one, when in reality they are two. So, he never originally planned to offer a caveat, he had no need until Chandler took the stand.
Some have complained why should he say the caveat at all, just revise his initial statement.
He can't, he does not fly by the seat of his pants, he's a professional, he came prepared with his scientific conclusions and he cannot change that.
He did not expect contesting testimony, he can only offer his best response to the apparent conflict.
Phillips obviously could not offer a revised time of death, that requires further calculations he has not come prepared with.

Hi Wickerman,

That sounds like a very reasonable interpretation to me. That, after hearing Richardson's testimony, he added his qualifier/caveat. It may, in part, also have been to signal to the jury that they should not automatically ignore the witnesses based upon his assessment. If he was 100% confident, though, I can't see any reason for him to add the qualifier. If questioned as to the difference with regards to Richardson's visiting time, one might expect him to say something along the lines of "Based upon my examination it is my opinion that she was murdered no later than 4:30, and that she was murdered where found. My determination of the ToD is based on the medical information alone, and I cannot offer any explanation as to how Richardson failed to see her body. That is the job of the police."

But I agree that it seems very unlikely he went to the inquest planning on suggesting there might be limitations to his estimation as that might just be seen as confusing the issue. The limitations, however, became worthy of note in light of the witness testimony.

Personally, given he's within an hour of the witness based time, I still think he did a very good job of it, far better than most probably would, even if the murder was at 5:25-5:30.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Hi George, so you're checking every word I write with a dictionary?
Slow day down under?

Not every word. I have a back injury at the moment, so every day is a slow day.

Are you questioning why the police did not take the knife from him on the morning of the murder?
We don't know if he had the knife with him when he returned to see who had been murdered. We don't have a copy of his statement to see if he mentioned the knife, it doesn't look like he did mention it.
He does say he kept the knife at his home address in John St.
What is it that you are unsure about?

Hi Jon,

Your post #5851
Swanson writes, (Richardson)..."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".

And that was before the inquest, then the coroner required his presence, so it seems the authorities had a very different view of Richardson.

I am unsure about why you think this took place before the inquest. My impression is the above took place because of his testimony at the inquest. I think that his brief statement to Chandler was his only contact with the police on the day of the murder, and his only other statement before the inquest was the one required for the inquest. I think the knife and the boot cutting story took Chandler, Phillips and the Coroner by surprise.

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

Since we're back on the topic of things like Rigor Mortis, I thought I would put together a few bits of information from actual research into rigor mortis. I will list the sources and the bits that seem relevant to various discussions we've been having, and after that I will put some of my own comments in italics, and start and end them with *** so they don't get confused with the source information.

Estimation of Time since Death
Ranald Munro BVMS, MSc, DVM, Dip Forensic Medicine, DipECVP, MRCVS, Helen M.C. Munro BVMS, MRCVS, in Animal Abuse and Unlawful Killing, 2008
Rigor mortis
Fully developed rigor mortis is an easily identifiable and reliable indicator that death has occurred. The time of onset is variable but it is usually considered to appear between 1 and 6 hours (average 2–4 hours) after death. Depending on the circumstances, rigor mortis may last for a few hours to several days.

***
Ok, here we see that rigor onset is considered to appear between 1 and 6 hours post mortem, however, we also see the "average" of 2-4" hours that often gets mentioned. When dealing with a specific case, you have to consider the full range whenever possible. A death at 5:25-5:30, combined with the time at which Dr. Phillips actually tested for rigor mortis, would mean that detection of rigor mortis at the crime scene would fall in that 1-6 hour range. It's on the short side, but that has never been disputed, the argument has been that 1 hour is too short. It is not.
***

Forensic Taphonomy
Amy E. Rattenbury, in Forensic Ecogenomics, 2018
…
Since rigor mortis occurs in a somewhat predictable pattern, it has been suggested that it can be used to estimate the PMI in combination with body temperature. Knight and Saukko (2004) presented a timeline allowing for bodies categorized as stiff/flaccid and warm/cold to be dated as dead for less than 3 h, 3–8 h, 8–36 h, and more than 36 h. However, due to the variations in both algor and rigor mortis this method is best not used for anything more than a primary indication.

***
Note the crudeness of the ranges that are associated with estimating ToD based upon rigor mortis descriptions (things like "<3 hours", which means anywhere in that 3 hour period, or 3-8 hours (so anywhere in there), and so forth. Rigor mortis is not used to provide a "pin point" type of estimation for the ToD, rather it suggests ranges - that span hours. Moreover, even when combined with body temperature readings (following modern standards obviously), it is best not to be used as anything other than a primary (meaning initial) indication.

That's a clear warning to us.
***

Supravital Reactions in the Estimation of the Time Since Death (TSD)
Jarvis Hayman, Marc Oxenham, in Human Body Decomposition, 2016
Rigor Mortis
….
At very low temperature (6°C), development was very slow at 48–60 hours and resolution very prolonged to 168 hours. This contrasted with a temperature of 37°C when development occurred at 3 hours and resolved at 6 hours. In a mortuary where corpses were kept refrigerated at 4°C, rigor was found to completely persist for 10 days in all corpses, became partial by 17 days, and resolved after 28 days (Varetto and Curto, 2005).

***
Ok, this I thought of interest. Rigor mortis, when the body was at 6C (which is admittedly 4C cooler than I believe it was in Annie's case, but all the same), showed a very slow development (48 hours or more!), presumably until full rigor mortis was reached. Unless we've crossed a threshold that exists between 10 and 6 C (which is entirely possible), then this would suggest that whether or not Annie was killed at 5:25-5:30 or even at 2:00 am (almost immediately after leaving the doss hours), then we wouldn't expect Dr. Phillips to even detect rigor mortis, which questions whether or not the stiffness he did note was indeed rigor mortis!

However, I believe that when he later goes to the mortuary to perform his proper examination he does mention rigor mortis was well established (or am I thinking of another case?) and I also have this memory of someone noting that the mortuary was at 10C, so the existing of some critical temperature threshold necessary to impart this large slowing of rigor mortis seems the most likely explanation to me. Still, this could be an interesting aspect to follow up to clarify if, given the temperature, that rigor should not have been detectable at any of the times under consideration.
***

… (from the same source)
Objective measurement of the force required to break the rigidity of rigor mortis was attempted for many years, the first attempt being made in 1919 by Oppenheim and Wacker, but the difficulty in measuring this force is that the strength of the force varies with the stage of development and resolution of the rigor mortis (Krompecher, 2002). The forces involved are initially small, rising rapidly to a maximum, and then reducing gradually over time until resolution occurs. One measurement at one period of time in the duration of the rigor will not reveal any useful information concerning the estimation of the TSD.

***
I just wanted to include this to highlight how there still isn't really an objective measure for rigor mortis. There have been attempts, as indicated above, but they have not been widely accepted or utilised. Obviously, since establishing an objective measure was only first attempted in 1919, Dr. Phillips cannot even be suggested as perhaps utilising such at thing, and so this confirms that his measurements of rigor mortis are entirely subjective.

Also, I want to point out, that the "one measurement at one period of time" bit, where this reveals no useful information concerning the estimation of the ToD (TSD; time since death) is referring, of course, to the objective measurements. But, given the subjective measurement is simply a more crude method of measuring force, the same would apply.
***
…
Because of the subjective nature of the assessment of rigor mortis and the number of variable factors determining its onset, duration, and resolution, it should only be used in conjunction with other methods when estimating TSD (Henssge and Madea, 2002).

***
Again, pointing to the subjective aspects of rigor mortis "measurements", and how they have to be used in conjunction with other methods, when estimating TSD, but as we saw earlier, even then it is best to use these as a first ball park estimate, not as a definitive final call.
***

POSTMORTEM CHANGES
M. Tsokos, in Encyclopedia of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 2005
…
Muscle relaxation immediately after death with opening of the eyes and the mouth and subsequent fixation in rigor mortis often occurs after death, giving the face the appearance of grimacing. However, despite common belief, the face of a deceased does not reflect whether the individual's last moments were of fear or fright.

***

Ok, this isn't about rigor mortis so much, but I recall reading some discussions about Nichol's eyes being open when she was found? Apparently, upon death, eyes will tend to open (as will the mouth), so I thought I would include this for those who might have been involved in that discussion.

***

Anyway, I hope it is becoming clear that estimating ToD (or TSD) is simply not an exact science. I know we've all been inundated with shows like CSI, and movies, where based upon some tiny medical observation the exact time of the crime gets revealed and the suspect is apprehended as a result. Sadly, the real world doesn't have such clever script writers, and the stories it tells are a lot messier, and the camera is out of focus.

- Jeff

[A P Tomlinson]

In general at all the autopsies?
Yes, but was it necessary, because the doctor is not present to argue his conclusions, he is only there to provide a professional opinion, not how he arrived at that opinion.
At a trial he may need to be more precise because he can be challenged, but an inquest only requires his conclusions.

As far as comparing evidence for a trial goes, Baxter talks about that in the inquest in regard to Philips' reluctance to disclose the nature of the post mortem mutilation.

The Coroner: The object of the inquiry is not only to ascertain the cause of death, but the means by which it occurred. Any mutilation which took place afterwards may suggest the character of the man who did it. Possibly you can give us the conclusions to which you have come respecting the instrument used.
The Witness: You don't wish for details. I think if it is possible to escape the details it would be advisable. The cause of death is visible from injuries I have described.
The Coroner: You have kept a record of them?
Witness: I have.
The Coroner: Supposing any one is charged with the offence, they would have to come out then, and it might be a matter of comment that the same evidence was not given at the inquest.
Witness: I am entirely in your hands.

I agree, though on McKenzie's post-mortem record Phillips does observe the temperature of the air at the crime scene, but only recorded as "moderate".

I wonder, if it is already established when the murder took place, as with McKenzie, he did not require himself to follow procedures so exactly?

With Chapman, there was a genuine question of 'time of death', yet if we look at the accepted procedures known at the time, not too different than today. We see in order to use body temperature as a means of measure, we need precise times. First, the air at the crime scene, then second, two examples of body temperature, before the body is removed. The math is then applied, but we have no mention of these required temperature measurements, but we must accept we have no surviving examples of a post-mortem from any of the victims.

Conversely, you mention not taking a temp. via the mouth, yet I would have thought that was the most accessible and acceptable spot to take a temperature when you are at the crime scene, even if the throat has been cut.
Virchow writes that the brain & anal locations are best suited because they are the most solid body mass to retain accurate body temperatures, in most cases.
Though, these can only be made at the post-mortem, which can be many hours after the murder, and the ambient temperatures surrounding the body have fluctuated up and down in the intervening hours. I think Stride's autopsy was about 38 hours following the murder, Eddowes about 13 hours later, you cannot determine a time of death after so many hours have passed. I wonder why the need unless it's just for record purposes, incase they discover drugs or some other time dependent substance.

I think there's enough of a difference between cutting the throat and the damage caused to the necks of Jacks victims to create enough disparity as to be noticeable in a more detailed analysis. (In this case, simply using a device to measure the actual temnperature)
In a more typical thorat cut, blood would be the only thing that would spill, but with the sort of wounds he inflicted, there is also a likelihood that fuids from the skull would also seep. Enough of probability (in my opinion) to give a variance in temperature.

One of the most efficient way to do it these days is the rather basic, but effective use of a meat thermometre stuck thrugh the body and into the liver. IR Thermal Scanners can do skin temp without having to touch the body. (ever get "Beeped" on the forehead during CoVid?)

The thing is, with the condition of both abdomen and neck, Philips wasn't aplying any external factors to the temperature taken anyway. So even with an accurate reading he'd still be comparing it with a normal death that didn't include massive blood loss, and internal organs pulled out and placed outside the body. It still would require monitoring of the drop over time to get a better idea.
Based on temp alone a modern ME is very unlikely to give anything as a professional opinion. They may well offer a window (and that would involve a more detailed measure of riogr and lividity) and all the victims bar Kelly would most likely have fallen into the modern window of "Under three hours" because there are so many variables that can only be discovered by further examination at autopsy.
Browns ten minute window of certainty should have had him on the stage, or travelling the world making money at fairgrounds on the "Guess my weight/age/beans in a jar" games.

MEs on site also use the supporting evidence at the scene to assist their initial estimation. Which is undoubtedly what Brown was doing with Eddowes. He knew the window for death was the 15 minutes of Watkins' beat. (According to Watkins...) that's how he was able to narrow it down so tightly.
One thing that they all secretly do when approaching a sudden and unexpected death scene is whisper a silent prayer... (which wouldn't have been a thing in 1888)
"please have a wrist watch, please have a wrist watch, please have a wrist watch..."
In the hope that when they died, the watch broke as they fell... They know it's not scientifically accurate, (it could have been broken prior to death) but gives them a place to start from.

[Paul Sutton]

The importance behind claiming 'Dr Phillips stated he could have been wrong when giving his TOD range' is that it is an attempt to claim Dr Phillips wasn't firm in his belief of 'at least two hours and probably more'. From there, it is used to negate the likelihood of an earlier TOD.

The question put to Dr Phillips was not 'could you be wrong?', rather it was: 'how long had the deceased been dead when you saw her?'. Whether or not Dr Phillips 'could have been wrong' was irrelevant given that we can all be wrong in any and every situation.

Of course Dr Phillips could have been wrong, of course Dr Phillips knew he could have been wrong. There are no absolute truths in this world and Dr Phillips was an educated man who would have known that.

In the context of this discussion, however, there is a big difference between Dr Phillips knowing he could have been wrong and Dr Phillips stating he could have been wrong in that sentence. The reason being, it manipulates his firm belief of 'at least two hours' into something entirely different and far more whimsical and more easily brushed aside.

I'm way out of my depth with this discussion (having not read from the start) but it's superb to read. Exactly why I joined this board. I only wish my late father was still here, to question on the pathological aspects. I do remember talking at length about David Kelly's death (which occurred just up the road from me) and the post-mortem reports. His point was how time of death was often so difficult, for any pathologist. Sadly, I remember none of the specifics.

On Stevie Nicks' point 'There are no absolute truths in this world' (my bold in their post):

1. Is this statement meant to be an absolute truth? If not, then it can be ignored. If so, it's saying 'don't believe me' - so don't.

2. And one should not! The Law of Gravity is an absolute truth (though later physics, post-Newton, has refined it in terms of quantum mechanics etc). So are many other scientific laws/rules. For example, the atomic number of hydrogen is 1. That's an absolute truth - and not just a definition either. One proton and so one electron. It profoundly affects hydrogen's chemistry.

3. As someone pithily observed, no one is a relativist at 30,000 feet up in a jet-plane! And if one really believes there are 'no absolute truths in this world', then go up the Shard and jump off, to show that there's no absolute truth about gravity.

You may feel this is pedantry. It is the opposite - without a belief in external objective absolutes, completely outside of our beliefs and feelings, there is no science.

[Doctored Whatsit]

It's not like he had a choice, Chandler had already told the court about Richardson saying he was there at 4:45, and no body was in the yard then.
Phillips was asked how long the body had been dead when he saw her - Phillips is on the spot now. He can't screw up his testimony and put it in his pocket. He has to carry on regardless and speak of his conclusions. The best he can do is offer the caveat.
He's bound to be feeling embarrassed, the coroner will expect him to respond to the apparent conflict of his opinion as opposed to Richardson's testimony.

Hi Wick,

I understand what you are saying, and it seems to be perfectly plausible, except for one thing which bothers me. Chandler knew before 7 am on the morning of the murder that there was a major serious contradiction. Phillips had stated a ToD of 4. 30 am or earlier, and Richardson said that the body was not there at 4. 45 am. Are we to assume that the police did not ask Phillips about this worrying discrepancy between the 8th and the 13th of September, and that Phillips didn't read a newspaper either?

It really does seem to me that Phillips must have been aware of the issue before he gave his evidence, or if not, the police were incompetent beyond belief.

[A P Tomlinson]

Hi Wick,

I understand what you are saying, and it seems to be perfectly plausible, except for one thing which bothers me. Chandler knew before 7 am on the morning of the murder that there was a major serious contradiction. Phillips had stated a ToD of 4. 30 am or earlier, and Richardson said that the body was not there at 4. 45 am. Are we to assume that the police did not ask Phillips about this worrying discrepancy between the 8th and the 13th of September, and that Phillips didn't read a newspaper either?

It really does seem to me that Phillips must have been aware of the issue before he gave his evidence, or if not, the police were incompetent beyond belief.

I think it is as simple as Philips believing in the methodology he had used throughout his professional career.
He knew deep down there was some degree of inaccuracy and guesswork going on, and he may have simply realised that he had not taken into acount the environmental factors. He trusted himself and the method. If he had known how badly flawed it was he may have been honest enough to say, "But these are only very rough estimates and the window would be three hours prior to examination" but he didn't know.
And that's not a failing on his part, even Tidy's recent book wasn't revolutionary enough to meet modern standards.
It may have been as simple as a student doctor asking him how he had estimated those external conditions impact on the ToD, and Philips had an "Oh... ****!" moment and therefore added his caveat. We know from his seeking the support of the police that he was firmly of the belief that he was right regardless of what the other evidence said.
He believed he was right, but medical science has shown us in the intervening years that he was at the very least just as likely to have been wrong.

I said in an earlier post that there was a decent possibility Baxter, in his capacity as a London coroner, would have read a new book called "Legal Medicine" in the 6 years since it had been printed, and was aware that Philip's estimate was flawed. But he would never have said so in an open courtroom because it would have caused uproar in the papers and the professsion.

the PolTce didn't need to ask him about the query. Baxter simply moved on and acccepted the witnesses testimonies.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Since we're back on the topic of things like Rigor Mortis, I thought I would put together a few bits of information from actual research into rigor mortis. I will list the sources and the bits that seem relevant to various discussions we've been having, and after that I will put some of my own comments in italics, and start and end them with *** so they don't get confused with the source information.

Estimation of Time since Death
Ranald Munro BVMS, MSc, DVM, Dip Forensic Medicine, DipECVP, MRCVS, Helen M.C. Munro BVMS, MRCVS, in Animal Abuse and Unlawful Killing, 2008
Rigor mortis
Fully developed rigor mortis is an easily identifiable and reliable indicator that death has occurred. The time of onset is variable but it is usually considered to appear between 1 and 6 hours (average 2–4 hours) after death. Depending on the circumstances, rigor mortis may last for a few hours to several days.

***
Ok, here we see that rigor onset is considered to appear between 1 and 6 hours post mortem, however, we also see the "average" of 2-4" hours that often gets mentioned. When dealing with a specific case, you have to consider the full range whenever possible. A death at 5:25-5:30, combined with the time at which Dr. Phillips actually tested for rigor mortis, would mean that detection of rigor mortis at the crime scene would fall in that 1-6 hour range. It's on the short side, but that has never been disputed, the argument has been that 1 hour is too short. It is not.
***

Forensic Taphonomy
Amy E. Rattenbury, in Forensic Ecogenomics, 2018
…
Since rigor mortis occurs in a somewhat predictable pattern, it has been suggested that it can be used to estimate the PMI in combination with body temperature. Knight and Saukko (2004) presented a timeline allowing for bodies categorized as stiff/flaccid and warm/cold to be dated as dead for less than 3 h, 3–8 h, 8–36 h, and more than 36 h. However, due to the variations in both algor and rigor mortis this method is best not used for anything more than a primary indication.

***
Note the crudeness of the ranges that are associated with estimating ToD based upon rigor mortis descriptions (things like "<3 hours", which means anywhere in that 3 hour period, or 3-8 hours (so anywhere in there), and so forth. Rigor mortis is not used to provide a "pin point" type of estimation for the ToD, rather it suggests ranges - that span hours. Moreover, even when combined with body temperature readings (following modern standards obviously), it is best not to be used as anything other than a primary (meaning initial) indication.

That's a clear warning to us.
***

Supravital Reactions in the Estimation of the Time Since Death (TSD)
Jarvis Hayman, Marc Oxenham, in Human Body Decomposition, 2016
Rigor Mortis
….
At very low temperature (6°C), development was very slow at 48–60 hours and resolution very prolonged to 168 hours. This contrasted with a temperature of 37°C when development occurred at 3 hours and resolved at 6 hours. In a mortuary where corpses were kept refrigerated at 4°C, rigor was found to completely persist for 10 days in all corpses, became partial by 17 days, and resolved after 28 days (Varetto and Curto, 2005).

***
Ok, this I thought of interest. Rigor mortis, when the body was at 6C (which is admittedly 4C cooler than I believe it was in Annie's case, but all the same), showed a very slow development (48 hours or more!), presumably until full rigor mortis was reached. Unless we've crossed a threshold that exists between 10 and 6 C (which is entirely possible), then this would suggest that whether or not Annie was killed at 5:25-5:30 or even at 2:00 am (almost immediately after leaving the doss hours), then we wouldn't expect Dr. Phillips to even detect rigor mortis, which questions whether or not the stiffness he did note was indeed rigor mortis!

However, I believe that when he later goes to the mortuary to perform his proper examination he does mention rigor mortis was well established (or am I thinking of another case?) and I also have this memory of someone noting that the mortuary was at 10C, so the existing of some critical temperature threshold necessary to impart this large slowing of rigor mortis seems the most likely explanation to me. Still, this could be an interesting aspect to follow up to clarify if, given the temperature, that rigor should not have been detectable at any of the times under consideration.
***

… (from the same source)
Objective measurement of the force required to break the rigidity of rigor mortis was attempted for many years, the first attempt being made in 1919 by Oppenheim and Wacker, but the difficulty in measuring this force is that the strength of the force varies with the stage of development and resolution of the rigor mortis (Krompecher, 2002). The forces involved are initially small, rising rapidly to a maximum, and then reducing gradually over time until resolution occurs. One measurement at one period of time in the duration of the rigor will not reveal any useful information concerning the estimation of the TSD.

***
I just wanted to include this to highlight how there still isn't really an objective measure for rigor mortis. There have been attempts, as indicated above, but they have not been widely accepted or utilised. Obviously, since establishing an objective measure was only first attempted in 1919, Dr. Phillips cannot even be suggested as perhaps utilising such at thing, and so this confirms that his measurements of rigor mortis are entirely subjective.

Also, I want to point out, that the "one measurement at one period of time" bit, where this reveals no useful information concerning the estimation of the ToD (TSD; time since death) is referring, of course, to the objective measurements. But, given the subjective measurement is simply a more crude method of measuring force, the same would apply.
***
…
Because of the subjective nature of the assessment of rigor mortis and the number of variable factors determining its onset, duration, and resolution, it should only be used in conjunction with other methods when estimating TSD (Henssge and Madea, 2002).

***
Again, pointing to the subjective aspects of rigor mortis "measurements", and how they have to be used in conjunction with other methods, when estimating TSD, but as we saw earlier, even then it is best to use these as a first ball park estimate, not as a definitive final call.
***

POSTMORTEM CHANGES
M. Tsokos, in Encyclopedia of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 2005
…
Muscle relaxation immediately after death with opening of the eyes and the mouth and subsequent fixation in rigor mortis often occurs after death, giving the face the appearance of grimacing. However, despite common belief, the face of a deceased does not reflect whether the individual's last moments were of fear or fright.

***

Ok, this isn't about rigor mortis so much, but I recall reading some discussions about Nichol's eyes being open when she was found? Apparently, upon death, eyes will tend to open (as will the mouth), so I thought I would include this for those who might have been involved in that discussion.

***

Anyway, I hope it is becoming clear that estimating ToD (or TSD) is simply not an exact science. I know we've all been inundated with shows like CSI, and movies, where based upon some tiny medical observation the exact time of the crime gets revealed and the suspect is apprehended as a result. Sadly, the real world doesn't have such clever script writers, and the stories it tells are a lot messier, and the camera is out of focus.

- Jeff

I tell you what Jeff………I’m beginning to get the impression that Rigor Mortis (and Algor Mortis for that matter) aren’t exactly reliable methods of estimating ToD.

[GBinOz]

Hi Wick,

I understand what you are saying, and it seems to be perfectly plausible, except for one thing which bothers me. Chandler knew before 7 am on the morning of the murder that there was a major serious contradiction. Phillips had stated a ToD of 4. 30 am or earlier, and Richardson said that the body was not there at 4. 45 am. Are we to assume that the police did not ask Phillips about this worrying discrepancy between the 8th and the 13th of September, and that Phillips didn't read a newspaper either?

It really does seem to me that Phillips must have been aware of the issue before he gave his evidence, or if not, the police were incompetent beyond belief.

Hi Doc,

[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.
[Coroner] Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.
[Coroner] Did he say that he was sure the woman was not there at that time? - Yes.
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.
The Foreman of the Jury: Reference has been made to the Sussex Regiment and the pensioner. Are you going to produce the man Stanley? Witness: We have not been able to find him as yet.
The Foreman: He is a very important witness. There is evidence that he has associated with the woman week after week. It is important that he should be found. Witness: There is nobody that can give us the least idea where he is. The parties were requested to communicate with the police if he came back. Every inquiry has been made, but nobody seems to know anything about him.

A possible explanation might be that after Richardson left, Chandler re-enacted what Richardson had told him that he did, and decided that the door would have hidden the body. Phillips had departed #29 before Richardson spoke to Chandler, and Chandler left the mortuary before Phillips arrived. Chandler was involved in trying to find the pensioner Stanley, who was considered to be of some significance, so it is possible that Chandler relegated Richardson's story to being of less significance. Richardson did not start telling his boot story until two days after the murder.

Cheers, George

[Hair Bear]

Hi Wickerman,

That sounds like a very reasonable interpretation to me. That, after hearing Richardson's testimony, he added his qualifier/caveat. It may, in part, also have been to signal to the jury that they should not automatically ignore the witnesses based upon his assessment. If he was 100% confident, though, I can't see any reason for him to add the qualifier. If questioned as to the difference with regards to Richardson's visiting time, one might expect him to say something along the lines of "Based upon my examination it is my opinion that she was murdered no later than 4:30, and that she was murdered where found. My determination of the ToD is based on the medical information alone, and I cannot offer any explanation as to how Richardson failed to see her body. That is the job of the police."

But I agree that it seems very unlikely he went to the inquest planning on suggesting there might be limitations to his estimation as that might just be seen as confusing the issue. The limitations, however, became worthy of note in light of the witness testimony.

Personally, given he's within an hour of the witness based time, I still think he did a very good job of it, far better than most probably would, even if the murder was at 5:25-5:30.

- Jeff

"If he was 100% confident, though, I can't see any reason for him to add the qualifier."

An indication to his being less than certain is his opening "I should say". If I asked you the time and you then looked at your watch, you would answer with whatever it said. You wouldn't start you sentence with "I should say..." The only reason you would add that is if you were not wearing a watch and decided to take a guess at the time. Lots of people on here seem to forget that Phillips was guessing. It's based on his experience but still a guess. On that note, only yesterday I was walking with no clue of the time and stopped a couple and asked them. Neither had a watch but the fella started faffing in his bag for his phone. In the meanwhile his partner said "It's probably [i.e. "I should say"] 11.30". When he pulled his phone out it was 12.15.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm way out of my depth with this discussion (having not read from the start) but it's superb to read. Exactly why I joined this board. I only wish my late father was still here, to question on the pathological aspects. I do remember talking at length about David Kelly's death (which occurred just up the road from me) and the post-mortem reports. His point was how time of death was often so difficult, for any pathologist. Sadly, I remember none of the specifics.

On Stevie Nicks' point 'There are no absolute truths in this world' (my bold in their post):

1. Is this statement meant to be an absolute truth? If not, then it can be ignored. If so, it's saying 'don't believe me' - so don't.

2. And one should not! The Law of Gravity is an absolute truth (though later physics, post-Newton, has refined it in terms of quantum mechanics etc). So are many other scientific laws/rules. For example, the atomic number of hydrogen is 1. That's an absolute truth - and not just a definition either. One proton and so one electron. It profoundly affects hydrogen's chemistry.

3. As someone pithily observed, no one is a relativist at 30,000 feet up in a jet-plane! And if one really believes there are 'no absolute truths in this world', then go up the Shard and jump off, to show that there's no absolute truth about gravity.

You may feel this is pedantry. It is the opposite - without a belief in external objective absolutes, completely outside of our beliefs and feelings, there is no science.

Hello Paul,

Welcome to Casebook. I’m certain that you’re not out of your depth on this topic and you certainly don’t need to read back through the whole thread to get up to date. (I wouldn’t wish that on anyone)

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Phillips had departed #29 before Richardson spoke to Chandler, and Chandler left the mortuary before Phillips arrived.

Cheers, George

Hello George,

You appear to be saying that Phillips arrived at number 29 at 6.30 and was gone before 6.45?

[Paul Sutton]

Hello Paul,

Welcome to Casebook. I’m certain that you’re not out of your depth on this topic and you certainly don’t need to read back through the whole thread to get up to date. (I wouldn’t wish that on anyone)

Thanks, I'm trying, but also busy with other stuff!

To be a pain, is the gist that some claim Chapman's death must have been earlier, due to Phillips' qualification of his later estimate of time of death? But if it were earlier, then why wasn't it spotted by Richardson on the steps?

And your position is that Phillips was aware of the range (naturally) but his best and expert view was the later time?

[GBinOz]

Hello George,

You appear to be saying that Phillips arrived at number 29 at 6.30 and was gone before 6.45?

Hi Herlock,

The Daily Telegraph reported that Richardson spoke to Chandler at 6:45, but most of the other news reports say a little before seven. That said, I was sure that I read that Richardson spoke to Chandler after Phillips had left, but I can't for the life of me relocate it.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks, I'm trying, but also busy with other stuff!

To be a pain, is the gist that some claim Chapman's death must have been earlier, due to Phillips' qualification of his later estimate of time of death? But if it were earlier, then why wasn't it spotted by Richardson on the steps?

And your position is that Phillips was aware of the range (naturally) but his best and expert view was the later time?

No I accept that Phillips opinion was that 2 hours or more was likeliest but accepted that due to the unusual condition of the body that it could have been later than 4.30.