John Richardson

[GBinOz]

Yes, that's bang on! I'm very guilty of it. The problem is that - all of us - rightly see this as partly performative. So, we read for content, but also can't help judging other things. Oddly, i think this happens less in social face to face discussion.

Perhaps because it could result in facial disruption?

[GBinOz]

Good God, he's not the Ripper is he? But surely he'd then be a hero, for providing such activity? I'm intrigued - what can he have done, to 'get buckled'?

Political affiliations.

[A P Tomlinson]

Thanks. This area is fraught with massive uncertainty.

I think (but could be wrong) that pathologists don't treat it as that reliable and would look on this discussion as largely pointless. Before I get my head kicked in - and not to be dismissive - my father was a Prof of Pathology, and did regular Home Office PMs. I read the excellent book on David Kelly An Inconvenient Death, and was astounded that the pathologist there didn't even use a thermometer (and this was in 2003). Dad told me it's a layman's myth that this is always done, and although an omission, he wasn't as critical as I expected.

I'm sure what you say makes sense, and obviously the body would cool more quickly. But I think so many other factors would also affect that, that the whole thing cannot be given the centrality it is here. I certainly know from my own field (gas kinetics) that single measurements are not to be relied on so heavily.

All they were working from was a difference in temperature between their own hand and the skin of the deceased. Don't get me wrong, he would have a better idea of that difference in terms of post mortem deterioration than I would ever dare claim. But if something had caused a faster deterioration of even 1.5 degrees C then that would make a difference of one hour in the determination. (If he'd only jst taken his glove off before testing... THAT would have caused a difference in what he felt the temp of the skin was.)
It would shift from about 2 hours to about 1 hour.
Modern pathologists don't even make that sort of specific estimate when they DO use thermometres, and also measure lividty or rigor on scene.
I don't need to tell you, if your dad did the job, that with a murder victim they would get them back to the table and measure decline in temp and advancement in lividity and rigor, as well as many other observations (including evidence from witnesses and lucky finds like a broken wristwatch) that would help put a full picture together.

A subjective guess based on skin temp in situ was NOT an effective means of determining ToD.
Ergo, Philips' 4.30 estimate is very unreliable. And almost certainly incorrect. (I've refered to the stopped clock analogy several times now.)
Now that doesn't necessarily mean any other specific time is accurate, but it DOES add credence to the three witnesses whose stories combine to make a very plausible case for the time that Cadosche hears the goings on in the yard fo number 29. And explains the potential for discrepancy between Richardson and the ME far better than flat dismissals like"Witnesses are unreliable" and "Memory is flawed".


I've asked several times from the proponents of the 4.30 timeline to provide anything at all that actually supports Philips estimate. While providing many examples, and explanations for why Philips WAS unreliable in his estimate.
I don't have a pet theory for who the Ripper was. I'm not tied to a time to make it fit a suspect. If there was enough evidence to support a 4.30 time, I'd be right behind it.
There isn't. The evidence, such as it is, is that Philips misjudged his estimate because he didn;t understand the science as well as we do now when faced with the most horrendous attack and evisceration of the victim tahtwould undoubtedly alter the parametres of his frame of reference, and the witnesses who put the death later are probably right.

If you'd like to step in on behalf of Fishy, PI1 and Trevor, please... but I'm not looking for things that attempt to make witnesses and memory an unreliable source of evidence.
That's alll been argued, and its insubstantial in suppporting Philips, only in attempting to dismiss Long, Cadosche and (in this thread in particular) Richardson.
I'm looking for something of substance that suppports Philips ToD.

I KNOW that Philips estimate was unreliable. Claiming that all three witnessess MIGHT be unreliable is not NEAR enough to tip the scales back toward flawed science.
So, show me something real that supports it and I'll be happy to re-evaluate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Hi Herlock,

I don't think Trevor's opinions trump everyone else's, nor that he or anyone else, including myself is fault free. I don't agree with some of his opinions, but others I find have a validity that is unnecessarily panned. There is much to be learned from a newbie (Paul) on unbiased opinion on observed entrenched hostility.

You didn't address my main comment, that being:
It's a bit rich to be citing absolute fact of modern forensics over an 1888 surgeon for the Chapman case, but when Trevor cites modern forensics experts (on his video) on the Eddowes case you suddenly revert to quoting Brown and Sequeira.

IMO one of the keys to legitimate debate is consistency.

Cheers, George

I can’t recall the details George. If it’s about how long it would have taken to remove the organs then there are also modern day experts who have no issue with Brown and Sequiera’s estimations. The late Nick Warren for example, who was a surgeon. I just don’t find the suggestion that the organs were stolen in the mortuary persuasive at all.

[Paul Sutton]

All they were working from was a difference in temperature between their own hand and the skin of the deceased. Don't get me wrong, he would have a better idea of that difference in terms of post mortem deterioration than I would ever dare claim. But if something had caused a faster deterioration of even 1.5 degrees C then that would make a difference of one hour in the determination. (If he'd only jst taken his glove off before testing... THAT would have caused a difference in what he felt the temp of the skin was.)
It would shift from about 2 hours to about 1 hour.
Modern pathologists don't even make that sort of specific estimate when they DO use thermometres, and also measure lividty or rigor on scene.
I don't need to tell you, if your dad did the job, that with a murder victim they would get them back to the table and measure decline in temp and advancement in lividity and rigor, as well as many other observations (including evidence from witnesses and lucky finds like a broken wristwatch) that would help put a full picture together.

A subjective guess based on skin temp in situ was NOT an effective means of determining ToD.
Ergo, Philips' 4.30 estimate is very unreliable. And almost certainly incorrect. (I've refered to the stopped clock analogy several times now.)
Now that doesn't necessarily mean any other specific time is accurate, but it DOES add credence to the three witnesses whose stories combine to make a very plausible case for the time that Cadosche hears the goings on in the yard fo number 29. And explains the potential for discrepancy between Richardson and the ME far better than flat dismissals like"Witnesses are unreliable" and "Memory is flawed".


I've asked several times from the proponents of the 4.30 timeline to provide anything at all that actually supports Philips estimate. While providing many examples, and explanations for why Philips WAS unreliable in his estimate.
I don't have a pet theory for who the Ripper was. I'm not tied to a time to make it fit a suspect. If there was enough evidence to support a 4.30 time, I'd be right behind it.
There isn't. The evidence, such as it is, is that Philips misjudged his estimate because he didn;t understand the science as well as we do now when faced with the most horrendous attack and evisceration of the victim tahtwould undoubtedly alter the parametres of his frame of reference, and the witnesses who put the death later are probably right.

If you'd like to step in on behalf of Fishy, PI1 and Trevor, please... but I'm not looking for things that attempt to make witnesses and memory an unreliable source of evidence.
That's alll been argued, and its insubstantial in suppporting Philips, only in attempting to dismiss Long, Cadosche and (in this thread in particular) Richardson.
I'm looking for something of substance that suppports Philips ToD.

I KNOW that Philips estimate was unreliable. Claiming that all three witnessess MIGHT be unreliable is not NEAR enough to tip the scales back toward flawed science.
So, show me something real that supports it and I'll be happy to re-evaluate.

I won't be joining the fray - but I'm going to be annoying and say that the uncertainties make either position, based on Philips, unreliable. In which case it sways towards later, from witnesses, except that it feels wrong. And - without wishing to appear biased towards 'experts' - an ex-Old Bill (Trevor) will carry more weight, with me.

But I'm also worried by why Mr Boot-Scraper didn't smell the woman, if her bowels had been torn out (or whatever). So that says later too. Unless the infamous outside loo was so blocked and reeking that this wouldn't be unusual.

[Wickerman]

Wickerman's observation is too obvious to need making, and renders analysis pointless. Sometimes the obvious is useful, but not something so banal and patronising. Perhaps I shouldn't have reacted.

For a newcomer, it's obvious there are so many simmering hatreds here!......

Some who contacted me off-list also thought you prejudged the exchange.
Which I agreed because you are new, so I let it go. You're response appeared to make fun of the well known fact some serial killers love the risk. Not all do, some are genuinely avoiding being caught, while other's throw caution to the wind.

On the matter of hatred, let me put your mind at rest, nothing even close is taking place here, don't prejudge until you get to know the personalities.
In the recent past I have cautioned some for making remarks too personal towards Trevor, I'm sure you are familiar with the phrase - play the ball not the man.

Off-list Trevor has approached me for information which I happily shared with him, there is no animosity here. All the sarcasm he gets is because of his opinions, for an ex-detective he surely hides it well. If you took the time to read his theory on the case, I suspect for a teacher you would (should) be aghast at the logic he expresses on a public forum.
Many will give & take a dash of sarcasm every now and then, it's all because we know each other and in many cases have done so for years, even decades.

Rest at ease, this can be lively forum between posters that can & do shift sides as often as the wind blows, and as the topics change.

By the way - welcome to hell
(inside joke)

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That's alll been argued, and its insubstantial in suppporting Philips, only in attempting to dismiss Long, Cadosche and (in this thread in particular) Richardson.

I'm looking for something of substance that suppports Philips ToD.

I KNOW that Philips estimate was unreliable. Claiming that all three witnessess MIGHT be unreliable is not NEAR enough to tip the scales back toward flawed science.

So, show me something real that supports it and I'll be happy to re-evaluate.

If Davies had felt the body when he found it and it had already been cold, would that have been enough?

I suspect not, because he would not have used a thermometer and was not even a medical man.

Is it reasonable to expect to find something of substance?

The supporting evidence is circumstantial: in none of the other murders in the series did the murderer commit the murder as it was getting light; there was no sighting of Chapman after 1.50 a.m.

Nichols was sighted four times during the five and a half hours preceding her death, Eddowes was sighted about half an hour after her release from the police station, and Stride was sighted twice during the 25 minutes or so preceding her death.

The murderer could have washed his hands with water from the tap, but seems not to have noticed it.

There was still food in Chapman's stomach, even though the last food she is known to have eaten was only potato at about 1.45 a.m.

I have seen arguments that the murderer may just this once have felt like murdering in daylight in a potential trap, it may just have happened that no-one noticed Chapman for three hours and forty minutes, the murderer may have had wet wipes with him which he preferred to tap water, and that the food found may have been hard-to-digest potato skins, or she may have been given food for free, or she may have found a client, spent her money on more food, and then looked for another customer to earn her bed money.

But is it likely that all these things happened?

[Wickerman]

Hi George.

Hi Jon,

If the text that you boldened is examined the words "standardized curves" is mentioned. As you would know, charts that are produced from empirical data are statistically shown to confirm to a bell curve with standard deviations that represent 68%, 95% and 99.7% degrees of certainty. Chandler's notebook tells us that Phillips decided at the crime scene that Annie's TSD fell under the curve in the region of 2 hours or more. This would I think, according to "standardized curves", be a result derived from a standardised bell curve rather than a tick the box chart. Following the autopsy he has re-assessed his opinion and shifted the time on the curve rather than unticking one box and ticking another. As Herlock suggested, this is a case that has never before been included on a bell chart sample....

The charts I have seen are simple tables expressed in graph form showing as time progressed how the body temp. drops, but the tables are based on a fixed ambient, different graphs for different a ambient. None of the experiments considered a torso opened to the air, or a torso so deficient in blood, so it is understandable that Phillips had to adjust the numbers, something that he could only advise was required, but left him without an estimate to offer the coroner. All he could suggest was "less than the standard tables suggest".

I try to find examples I can post, a picture is worth...etc...etc. I notice no-one has tried to post an example of this 'splitting the standard' theory proposed here. I have to wonder if an example really exists, or is it merely a theory?

There is no pot of gold at either end of the rainbow, and we are, after all, debating the verbal expression of a ToD estimate which is acknowledged as inaccurate anyway.

True, it's all hypothetical, nothing can or will be proved. I think it's the universal requirement that an explanation should make sense, and hardly likely to be so unique as to not exist somewhere as an example that can be offered in support of a theory.

[Wickerman]

Once a witness has given their testimony they can be released they do not have to sit around unless they choose to do so

The article you have posted relates to a criminal trial not a coroners court and in this day and age that would not be permitted in any criminal trial and back then as is shown at the discretion of the court, and I would imagine a situation that would apply and still does today is that if a witness was called to give evidence and that evidence was not disputed and accepted by the defence and was to simply be read out then the witness could sit in court and listen to the proceedings.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thats true, I said it was for a trial, so not a good example. It was actually a surprise to me to read that witnesses could hear testimony, even in 1914.
On the other hand it seemed odd that at the Kelly inquest 6 female witnesses were kept outside the courtroom. Which raises questions, foremost of which is - where are the men?
Are they in the court, or held in a separate room (class issues?), or were they permitted to be present in the courtroom.
The most prevalent question for this exchange was - where was the doctor?

[Paul Sutton]

Some who contacted me off-list also thought you prejudged the exchange.
Which I agreed because you are new, so I let it go. You're response appeared to make fun of the well known fact some serial killers love the risk. Not all do, some are genuinely avoiding being caught, while other's throw caution to the wind.

On the matter of hatred, let me put your mind at rest, nothing even close is taking place here, don't prejudge until you get to know the personalities.
In the recent past I have cautioned some for making remarks too personal towards Trevor, I'm sure you are familiar with the phrase - play the ball not the man.

Off-list Trevor has approached me for information which I happily shared with him, there is no animosity here. All the sarcasm he gets is because of his opinions, for an ex-detective he surely hidest well. If you took the time to read his theory on the case, I suspect for a teacher you would (should) be aghast at the logic he expresses on a public forum.
Many will give & take a dash of sarcasm every now and then, it's all because we know each other and in many cases have done so for years, even decades.

Rest at ease, this can be lively forum between posters that can & do shift sides as often as the wind blows, and as the topics change.

By the way - welcome to hell
(inside joke)

The issue on risk needs to be more nuanced than 'Serial killers love the risk'. That's inherent in the activity - it's like saying 'Mountaineers get an adrenaline kick,' as if some point is being made. I think we're all aware of that, and would bridle at some lengthy post tutoring us on it. Then another, saying one hasn't understood.

The distinction I'd make is between inherent risk, as a central attraction, and then claiming that they'd add to that risk, as a result of the first. I don't see that as plausible - the addition. The first is obvious. You haven't made this distinction, and assumed I didn't understand the first element (hence my annoyance).

Similarly, a mountaineer may be very attracted to climbing, and even to a specific dangerous peak, because of the overall risk. But it would be unlikely they'd fray their ropes and sabotage kit, because 'they're in it for the risk, so might as well turn up the dial.' (my quotes).

At heart, this is a discussion about the dichotomy of someone acting rationally whilst performing an irrational act.

I reject the elision of the two types of risk. There's abundant evidence JtR acted rationally and manged the risk, whilst on the job - not adding to it. I think this extends to where he performed.

My great interest is in location, and I find the 'he liked risk' especially unhelpful in this. My view is that - along with times and dates - the best evidence we have is location. It's not just chance that he got away.

If you respond, please do so on the points I've made and your view now, not on your history etc.

[Wickerman]

Well, if the viscera is removed, a part of the stuff keeping the body warm is removed.
If there is a lot of blood removed, the same.
That reduces the size and volume of the "core" and means it has less heat storage capacity....

From reading these reports it isn't clear how much they may have believe cold plays in the onset of rigor mortis.
We know today cold will delay the onset, but reading between the lines it appears they thought cold increased the onset.
It isn't always clear whether Phillips, or any other doctor for that matter, was relying on the onset of rigor or the rapid temperature loss.
They seem to have been walking the plank between Algor Mortis & Rigor Mortis. I'm pretty sure in the 19th century they did not know Rigor was the result of chemical reaction not rapid cooling.

[Wickerman]

Sorry Herlock, but I must dispute this theory. My grandparents were born around the turn of the 19/20th century and they used to speak of the chamber pot (much to the revulsion of their younger descendants) as a means of avoiding the outdoor toilet in the hours of darkness. At sunrise there would be traffic to the outside Loo, including the emptying of said chamber pots.

Cheers, George

"Guzunder", as my father used to call it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Davies had felt the body when he found it and it had already been cold, would that have been enough?

I suspect not, because he would not have used a thermometer and was not even a medical man.

Theres no evidence that Phillips used a thermometer. He mentions no temperatures.

Is it reasonable to expect to find something of substance?

The supporting evidence is circumstantial: in none of the other murders in the series did the murderer commit the murder as it was getting light; there was no sighting of Chapman after 1.50 a.m.

Nichols was sighted four times during the five and a half hours preceding her death, Eddowes was sighted about half an hour after her release from the police station, and Stride was sighted twice during the 25 minutes or so preceding her death.

How can we compare individuals? We don’t have a clue what she did or where she went.

The murderer could have washed his hands with water from the tap, but seems not to have noticed it.

Perhaps he just wanted to get out of there as soon as he was finished?

There was still food in Chapman's stomach, even though the last food she is known to have eaten was only potato at about 1.45 a.m.

Digestion is only of use if we know that the victim had no conditions that can slow down digestion Lung disease can have that effect and Annie had a lung disease) and if we know for certain when the victim last ate. We don’t know when Annie last ate, only her last observed and recorded meal. We also don’t know what food was in Annie’s stomach. So digestion doesn’t help us at all. These are simply facts.

I have seen arguments that the murderer may just this once have felt like murdering in daylight

And making it sound like a whim doesn’t help. We cannot possibly know the killers circumstances. This is also a fact.

in a potential trap,

Mary Kelly’s room was a potential trap. Dutfield’s Yard was a riskier location. Bucks Row was an open street with no cover except shadows.

it may just have happened that no-one noticed Chapman for three hours and forty minutes,

This was a poverty stricken east end prostitute out in the early hours PI not Lady Gaga strolling around at midday. That no one saw her means nothing. Also we have to consider that many people mistrusted the police, especially fellow prostitutes, so if someone had spent time with her they might have felt reluctant to come forward.

the murderer may have had wet wipes with him which he preferred to tap water, and that the food found may have been hard-to-digest potato skins, or she may have been given food for free, or she may have found a client, spent her money on more food, and then looked for another customer to earn her bed money.

And I get criticised for sarcasm?

But is it likely that all these things happened?

Extremely likely. Far more likely that John Richardson not seeing a disembowelled corpse a foot away, or Albert Cadosch hearing things, or someone moving around in the yard of number 29 while a corpse was lying there.

The problem is that you have to work far, far harder to dismiss witnesses than you do to show that Phillips was out in his estimation by an hour or less. This is why you have to resort to the points that you’ve tried to make above.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you respond, please do so on the points I've made and your view now, not on your history etc.

What’s strange Paul is that you’ve made strong comments about the attitudes or tone of certain posters. Wickerman has responded in a friendly manner (even attaching a welcome) and yet you’ve responded with this frankly stand-offish and quite rude response. Does the requirement of a better attitude apply only to others?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It is not true that the fact that no-one saw Chapman during the three and three-quarter hours she is supposed to have been alive after leaving Crossingham's means nothing.