|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 449
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 1:59 am: | 
|
Wolf, if you've found your way to this thread I'd like to ask you about your research into this matter.
From a comment you made in another thread I wonder if you and your pathologists were under the assumption that the remnants of the meal were at least partially found in Mary's intestines. I don't think this is the case. In his post mortem report, Dr. Bond states:
In the abdominal cavity was some partially digested food of fish & potatoes & similar food was found in the remains of the stomach attached to the intestines.
This indicates to me that the stomach was mutilated as only "remains" of the stomach were found, remains of the end attached to the intestines. In his letter to the Home Office, Dr. Bond says that the remnants of the meal were found "in the stomach and scattered about over the intestines." I think what happened was that the stomach had been cut open and some of the fish and potato remains were spilled into the abdominal cavity and over the intestines, i.e. not "in" the intestines.
I just don't see how a 21st Century perspectives makes us any wiser as to how long it takes to digest fish and chips! Surely Dr. Bond would have known this. He saw what we didn't, i.e. the kind of fish, the kind of potatoes, how they were cooked, how big a meal it was, etc.
Dr. Bond is careful to make only approximations. He says it is "pretty certain" that the woman must have been dead "about" 12 hours when he saw her body at 2PM. This places Bond's estimate of the time of death at around 2AM, a bit earlier than most would think. But if you are right in that he has overestimated the amount of time it would take to digest this meal and if she indeed had the meal while in the pub sometime shortly before midnight (or perhaps on her way home), then her time of death works out to be right when Dr. Bond estimates. In other words, if the digestion would have only taken, say 2 hours, and Mary had eaten at midnight, then she died just when Dr, Bond said she died! Did your pathologists give a more precise estimate of the amount of time before her death that Mary ate her meal?
Andy S. |
Wolf Vanderlinden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 72
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 6:46 pm: |
|
Hi Andy.
No, we were not under the assumption that any of the food was found in the intestines. The working assumption was, as you have said, that the food was found in the remains of the stomach as well as scattered elsewhere on the body.
Modern forensic pathology has made incredible advancements since the days of the late Victorian period. I can't think of one area that has not seen some sort of leap in knowledge or understanding. As an example it used to be thought that digestion stopped immediately at death but it is now known that digestion will slow down dramatically at death before actually stopping. It also used to be thought that the body starts to cool right from the time of death but under certain conditions, lets say someone dying in their home and out of the elements, there is little change in body temperature for the first hour or so.
Dr. Bond's Victorian education as a surgeon can't really compare to modern experts who are trained specifically in the science of forensic pathology. Stating that Bond had at least seen the kind of fish, the kind of potatoes, how they were cooked, how big a meal it was, etc. is actually kind of meaningless. Type of fish or type of potatoes makes little difference here. Fish and potatoes are easily digested no matter what kind they are. Of course the actual amount of food will make a difference with the time it takes for digestion, as will several other factors, but it is unlikely that Kelly would have had a large gut busting feast of fish and chips.
Bond's assessment that death had taken place twelve hours before he had examined the body at 2:00 pm is also not supported by the rigor evidence, nor was it supported by Dr. Phillips apparently. Bond's statement that "the period varies from 6 to 12 hours before rigidity sets in" is not very credible. It takes roughly 2 to 4 hours for rigor to begin, depending on conditions, and so Kelly's body would have most likely been in full rigor after twelve hours. It is more likely, based on Bond's observation that rigor had set in but was still increasing during the examination, that death had occurred sometime between four to eight hours before the examination. Thus Kelly probably died sometime between 6:00 and 10:00 am. As the meal only likely took between 1 to 2 hours to reach partial digestion she therefore possibly ate her last meal sometime between 4:00 and 9:00 am.
Forensic pathologists are perhaps the most conservative tight lipped people on the planet. Practically none of them wanted to be tied down to definite and concrete assertions about time of digestion for Kelly. Some of them refused point blank to answer any of my questions simply because they didn't know who I was or what I was going to do with any information that they might provide. Others would only answer questions if I promised them that their names would not be mentioned. I was also told by more than one of them that the state of the stomach contents is rather meaningless in a hundred plus year old case especially since I told them that we have no idea exactly when Kelly ate her last meal.
Wolf. |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 236
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 7:49 pm: |
|
Hi,
And, to complicate things, external body temperature will actually rise at death because the processes that result in decomposition give off heat. This is why modern investigations use only internal measures of body temperature. I'm not entirely sure why these measures are not influenced by decomposition, but from all reports I've read discussing this matter, internal measures are more stable. External meausures, especially those based upon touch, are much less reliable.
Environment variables of temperature can slow the onset of rigor, with colder temperatures delaying its onset. Since Kelly was found in a room with broken windows, it's possible that this happened. But, since there was a fire, her room may have been warm, speeding up the onset of rigor, or balancing it out, or ... who knows. Without any of these measurements taken, we have no idea what to expect. In otherwords, because of the lack of understanding at the time, there was no reason for these important measurements to be taken. And without them, the information we do have is not really of much use. There are too many bits of vital information missing to make any kind of useful statement. It's tatalising and frustrating, but there you go.
- Jeff |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 451
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 11:47 pm: |
|
Hi Wolf,
I'm beginning to understand your points. But I am still having trouble with the idea that Victorians were not capable of making simple observation regarding stomach contents of the deceased. This is not something that technology would really help us with very much. It's a mater of observation.
I can accept a modern pathologist's assessment of 1-2 hours for partial digestion as opposed to Bond's 3-4, however, for there is not that much difference. In recognition of the fact that Bond actually observed the body and your pathologists did not, let's take the smallest possible variance: Bond's 3 vs. modern pathologist's 2 hours. That's only a difference of one hour! No big deal to me.
I think that body temperature is totally unreliable in this case due to the extensive mutilation. I believe liver temperature is commonly used. Well, Mary's liver was outside her body when found!
The other measure would be rigor, and this seems to be the determining factor here by default. Hard to say how the mutilation would have effected that (was this considered by your pathologists?). I'll have to say that I'm really stumped on that one. Did you pathologists indicate that rigor is a reliable measure of time of death? I presume Bond had seen dozens, if not hundreds, of recently dead bodies and must have been familiar with the progression of rigor. Again, technology is not an issue here. It is basic observation.
To me it is very, very unlikely that Mary was killed after daylight for primarily two reasons:
1. This would be much too risky for a killer.
2. If Mary was killed later in the morning, then she is certainly the woman Maxwell spoke to. If that is the case, then Mary was in Ringer's that morning. Surely the police would have been able to confirm this with the bartender or other patrons, which they quite obviously did not do.
Andy S. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 747
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 3:42 am: |
|
Hi Andy,
It was commonly thought in that area after the millers court murder, that she was killed in daylight hours, by the locals. Why?.
I do not think that it is impossible, for the police to have also believed that assumption.
The statement, 'In this murder , there were circumstances, found wanting in the others, that make it more likely that the killer, was assisted, if not during the murder afterwards'
I would suggested that Mary consumed her food, shortly before her death, mayby a sort of last supper, before she was butchered.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 575
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 4:01 pm: |
|
Hi Richard,
Here we go again....the 'fish and chips' and the rigor mortis.....well Fish and Chips or at least some sort of fish and potatoes,eels maybe! is quite acceptable But the body temperature thing....I can never quite get my head around the fact that the body was ripped to bits.....big time cooling,cold night,broken window etc and the 'huge' fire!!!! certainly the possibility that some sort of balancing effect was being put into action here.Have to say that I IMHO still think Mrs M would not have been mistaken......far too nosey!!!!
Cheers Suzi
|
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 8:21 am: |
|
Hi Richard
Actually, the fish and chips (assuming that's what is was for a moment) is to me a strong indication she was killed earlier in the night rather than later. Why? Because fish and chips is something you buy, and the people you buy it off operate from midday to midnight (generally speaking). It is an extremely odd meal to have for breakfast and a pain to cook yourself - probably impossible in Kelly's room.
I'm assuming she earned enough money from her earlier trick to go out and buy something to eat and some booze, returned about midnight (reportedly drunk), and then went out again to find blotchy face man. Possibly she wanted more drink. The killer (if he wasn't BFman) saw her returning with him, waited for BFman to leave, and then sneaked in - it may even have been obvious at that point how to get in, or he may have been observing her for some time. (Or, if you insist, it could even be Barnett.)
You will see I discount Hutchinson's statement completely - so (after a time) did the police. Unless Hutcinson was Anderson's witness which I think we can presume is not the case.
I have no particular evidence for this scenario as against others, but it is both possible and 'fits' Kelly's situation and surroundings.
I don't know what Maxwell saw, but I tend to think she was talking about the wrong Mary.
Regards
Pete
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 240
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 10:57 pm: |
|
The onset and progression of rigor mortis is not a “one rule fits all” progression. There are environmental factors, and individual factors, that can and do influence the process. If one is given no more than the time at which rigor has reached it’s maximum state, one should not automatically assume that the time of death must have been some specific number of hours earlier.
In 1872, Niderkorn examined the progression of rigor in 113 cadavers. What follows are his observations.
Hours since death 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
# cases in full rigor 2 14 31 14 20 11 7 4 7 1 1 2
(note, no case is counted twice, so the 14 cases at 3 hours does not include the previous 2 that had reached full rigor in 2 hours).
It should be noted that Niderkorn’s data is still quoted today in many textbooks.
What this is telling us is that if one notes full rigor, the time of death could be anywhere from two to thirteen hours previous. By six hours after the time of death, only 72% of the cases had reached full rigor.
However, this data is not much use by itself because other factors will greatly change the progression of rigor. Rigor begins and develops more slowly in cool temperatures. If the temperature drops below 10 degrees C (approx 52 degrees F), rigor is unlikely to set in at all, unless the temperature is then raised at which point it will follow it’s normal progression. Furthermore, rigor is delayed in asphixial deaths and if death is immediately preceded by severe haemorrhage.
For a more complete coverage of this information, which I’ve summarised from the University of Dundee’s Forensic Medicine’s website visit: www.dundee.ac.uk/forensicmedicine/llb/timedeath.htm
What I would like to point out is that the 2 factors that delay the onset and progression of rigor, low temperature and “type of death”, are both applicable in the case of Mary Jane Kelly.
The room in which she was murdered has a broken window. It is Novemeber in London England. So, I looked up the average temperature for November in London England. According to the following website:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/weather/longterm/historical/data/london_unitedkingdom.htm
The average high for November is 10 degrees C, with the average low of 4 degrees C, and an overall average temperature of 7 degrees C (data collected over 21 years; although it does not say, I’m assuming the average “high” is the average daily high, rather than the average monthly high). The highest recorded temperature is 18 degrees C, and the lowest was -6. Unfortunately, I don’t have the recorded temperature on the night of Mary Kelly’s death, so what follows could easily be proven wrong by demonstrating that the following premise is, in fact, incorrect.
I am going to accept the premise that the temperature on the night of MJK’s death was not exceptional; meaning the temperature was somewhere between 4 and 10 degrees C.
The second premise is that most of the heat from the fireplace goes up the chimney, especially with the incoming draft from the broken window (creates an airflow in through the window and out through the chimney). Meaning, that the fire did not substantially change the temperature in the room, at least in the location of the bed where her body was found.
With those premises in mind, it follows that if MJK was killed during the night, the temperature in her room at the position of her body was cool enough to greatly delay or even prevent the onset and progression of rigor. Moreover, given the possibility she was strangled, and most certainly suffered severe haemorrhage just prior to death (arterial spray on the wall next to the bed indicates her heart was still pumping at the time her throat was cut), then these factors also indicate rigor should be delayed relative to the normal progression.
In other words, from the reported progression of rigor we have from the doctors, there is nothing that contradicts the notion that Mary Kelly was killed in the very early hours of the morning; 2 – 4 am. Even the average high temperature for November is just low enough to prevent rigor from setting in.
- Jeff
|
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 500
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 6:09 am: |
|
Forensic pathologists are perhaps the most conservative tight lipped people on the planet. Practically none of them wanted to be tied down to definite and concrete assertions about time of digestion for Kelly. Some of them refused point blank to answer any of my questions simply because they didn't know who I was or what I was going to do with any information that they might provide.
I'm starting to know how you feel Wolf. I have a long document detailing the post mortem reports and asking a detailed list of questions which my friend in the Histo-Pathology department of St James Hospital agreed to get answered for me. I gave her this document before Christmas. Since then I have been sending it to a whole list of people as each pathologist in turn insists that they are not the right person to answer the questions and recommends me to someone else. I am convinced in the end the whole thing is going to come full circle and I am going to be recommended back to the person I started from! Infuriating, ain't it? |
Wolf Vanderlinden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 74
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 10:34 pm: |
|
Andy.
Yes, it is a matter of observation but observation backed by education and knowledge. If Dr. Bond had merely stated that in his opinion Mary Kelly had been murdered 12 hours before he had examined the body and left it at that we would, perhaps, have to respect his opinion. Bond, however, did not merely offer a time of death he also gave us his reasons for coming to this conclusion and his reasons are a bit iffy when reexamined by modern experts.
This is something that I can't stress enough; these aren't my opinions regarding Dr Bond's competence and knowledge these are the opinions of several modern experts. I will also add that Dr. Phillips, who also saw the body of Mary Kelly in situ and performed the post mortem examination, did not apparently agree with Bond's time of death. He felt that she had been murdered sometime after Bond's estimate, (perhaps as late as 8:30am but that is a debatable point).
As for the rate of digestion it should be remembered, Andy, that I was told that the time would be closer to 1 hour than to 2 and that is a conservative estimate. Dr. Bob Court, who used to post on these boards, told me that potatoes would be completely digested after half an hour. After three hours digestion should have been pretty much complete, under normal conditions, and the fish in her stomach wouldn't have been described as being only "partially digested." I was told by one pathologist that "3 to 4 hours seems too overly cautious an estimate and is not credible"
You are right about the body temperature as given by Bond being "unreliable." I was told that it was virtually meaningless under the circumstances.
All the pathologists were provided with the complete medical notes, or at least those that are still in existence, along with the picture of Chapman and the two pictures of Kelly's body. They were also given diagrams of the murder sites along with information such as when they were found, how they were positioned, who found them, weather conditions for the day and the day before, and copies of certain police documents. What they were not given were any eyewitness reports or any hint that eyewitnesses might have seen the women at certain times before they were found dead. All opinions, therefore, were based solely on the medical evidence and not on what Mrs. Maxwell or Mrs Long claimed to have seen.
The state of Rigor is not very reliable when attempting to fix the time of death. Internal temperature and the rate that that temperature declines is a better indication but that, as you have pointed out, was not, could not, be taken. But, once again, we have Bond give a pathological opinion that is overconfident. Regarding the onset of rigor mortis he states that "the period varies from 6 to 12 hours before rigidity sets in." As Jeff has shown, this is not exactly true and many things can cause it to speed up or slow down. It has been pointed out on the boards in the past that Bond appears to using the old medical rule of thumb regarding the rate of rigor: 6 hours coming, 6 hours staying, 6 hours going. This is woefully inaccurate and yet it appears that this is what Bond is using to base his opinion on.
Allow me to once more stress a point. The findings from the forensic scientists were based solely on the medical evidence. I do not wish to fall into the trap of arguing wether fish and potatoes are the type of meal eaten only at night or wether the killer would be more safe or less safe on the morning of the 9th of November. These types of opinion aren't going to scientifically aid in attempting to approximate the time of death of Mary Kelly.
Having said that, Andy, I would like to point out that after the murder the police rigorously investigated the claims of the eyewitnesses. They could find no trace of any blotchy faced man with a carroty moustache nor could they find anyone, other than Mary Ann Cox, who had seen such a man. The police also couldn't find any pub which had sold this man a pail of beer nor could they find any one, other than Maurice Lewis and he's an untrustworthy witness, who claimed to have seen Kelly at any pub on the night of the 8th. Does this mean, therefore, that the absence of direct corroborating eyewitness evidence proves that Kelly did not leave her room that night?
I am not an expert only one who is semi-educated himself in some aspects of forensic pathology. That is why I did the research and contacted experts because I wanted answers to some questions I had about the time of death of Annie Chapman and Mary Kelly. Jeff has offered us his opinion regarding the time of death of Mary Kelly and I will only point out that his opinion is contradicted by the forensic pathologists that I consulted and, apparently, Dr. Phillips. Is Jeff wrong? Am I wrong? There is not enough evidence either way to claim who is right or wrong here. The medical evidence is too vague to come to any absolute opinion as to when Kelly died. Some of the statements that Bond made do not add up, such as the digestion question, but in the end there is absolutely nothing that rules out a time of death in the late morning of the 9th.
Wolf. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 458
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 11:33 pm: |
|
Wolf wrote:
You are right about the body temperature as given by Bond being "unreliable." I was told that it was virtually meaningless under the circumstances.
Bond gave a body temperature? Where? I don't recall it. I only recall him saying that the body was "comparatively cold" at 2PM, which only mean that death was not recent. Bond did not base his estimate of 2 AM TOD on body temperature at all, so don't pin that one on him!
Regarding the onset of rigor mortis he states that "the period varies from 6 to 12 hours before rigidity sets in." As Jeff has shown, this is not exactly true and many things can cause it to speed up or slow down.
I agree that according to Jeff's data, 4-10 hours would seem to be more accurate, with the caveat of extraneous factors possibly causing delay. Let's see...10 hours before 2PM is...4AM (Hmmm). Of course, 4 hours before 2PM is 10AM. So as you say, we can't determine TOD from rigor. But it is not inconsistent with a 4AM TOD.
With regard to the digestion issue, let's assume for the sake of argument that your pathologists are correct. That still doesn't give us a TOD. That only says that Mary ate a meal shortly before she died -- perhaps rather more shortly before than estimated by Bond, in deference to your experts. [Your earlier statement about digestion continuing after death is, I think, inapplicable here since Mary's stomach was cut apart and contents found outside the stomach where they could hardly have continued to be digested].
So, what do we have on a scientific basis? Body temperature meaningless. Rigor inconclusive. Stomach contents showing evidence of a recent meal but not when that meal was taken. We obviously have to go beyond the medical data to estimate a TOD.
Like it or not, we must evaluate the likelihood of a killer performing his act in daylight hours and effecting his escape in daylight, which if the killer was Jack he had never done before. We have to weigh Mrs. Maxwell's statement in light of police activity. Certainly the police must have tried to corroborate her story. Mary was a frequent customer at Ringer's. She certainly would have been seen there by the barkeeper if no one else. The fact that she was unwell would have made her stand out all the more. We can only conclude that Mary was not in Ringer's Friday morning during daylight hours, which discredits Mrs. Maxwell's statement. This line of reasoning does not apply to the blotchy-faced man. They were not seen together in a crowded place. There is no indication that we should expect other witnesses, as one would certainly expect in Ringer's.
Now this does leave us with a problem, that is, if we accept your experts over against Dr. Bond. If Mary ate fish and potatoes only an hour or so before death, then she had a dinner meal at a very unusual time, ranging anywhere from the middle of the night to the early morning daylight hours. (You do have to approach the question also using this line of reasoning -- it's not a "trap".) However, if Dr. Bond is right on the digestion issue, Mary at a dinner meal at around midnight, which is not so odd. Just an observation.
Enlightening discussion!
Andy S.
(Message edited by Aspallek on March 09, 2004) |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 252
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 4:18 pm: |
|
Hi,
Just wanted to clarify something. It wasn't my intention to suggest that the rigor evidence is only consistent with a TOD between 2 and 4 am and not with a later time frame, such as 9:30 am.
Rather, I was trying to demonstrate that because of all the unknown factors that are known to influence the progression of rigor, etc, we can draw no conclusion about the TOD with regards to the two disputed time windows of debate. The data does not differentiate them and can fit with death occurring between say 2 am (maybe even earlier?) and probably quite late in the am (let's put 10 am as our latest).
It was my mistake to close with only indicating that there was nothing inconsistent with an estimate between 2 and 4 am (the usual "night time window). Since I was under the impression that the rigor is one bit of evidence often used to suggest an "early morning" time, I figured everyone was familiar with the arguements how the rigor evidence "fits" with that time window already.
Also, I'm absolutely no expert on forensics! And, if asked, I would suggest that if my opinion differs from a forensic pathologist, who has the same data to work from that I do, then the error is most likely mine. I will happily stand corrected. If possible, I would appreciate it if my error of reasoning could be pointed out (or, it's more likely an error of interpretation of the information I've read or an error of fact in the information I've read).
Sorry about that.
- Jeff
|
RipperHistorian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 2:12 pm: |
|
Jeff,
Are you trying to suggest that a lit fireplace could not keep a 12 x 12 foot room warm?
I find this hard to swallow. Have you ever built an indoor fire? Broken window or not, even a moderate to small sized fire in a 12 x 12 room would keep it amply warm. Also, it is noted that there was a jacket in front of the broken window, there would have been no "air flow" like there would be if there was a direct, uninterrupted line of airflow from the window to the fireplace.
Based on my experience with indoor fires, which I have built many, a 12 x 12 foot room is easily heated with a moderate fire.
Tim |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 603
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 4:57 pm: |
|
Hi
Serious rigor stuff going on here!!!
Ok I presume that as there is noe record from Phillips there was not rectal temperature taken!.OK fron Newtons Law of cooling...it all depends on the temperature of the enviroment ..could be within 1-3 hrsrapid cooling could be seen as a result of the heat in the room versus the broken window versus Marys broken body!!!! just a thought!!
Suzi |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 271
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 5:52 pm: |
|
Hi RipperHistorian,
I'm saying we don't know if the fire in the fireplace in Mary's room was sufficient to raise the temperature of the room for a long enough time to allow rigor to progress normally. I've built many an indoor fire (in a fireplace), and have found that some fireplaces will cast heat into the room quite well, others not so well, some to the point of being pretty bad actually.
Having no idea about the quality of the flue, or the draft, or how well MJK's fireplace worked to heat her room, all I can continue to say is that I don't know.
Unless there is some documented evidence that indicates that MJK's room was above 10 degrees C for a prolonged period of time, we cannot be sure that it was; fire or no fire.
Why? Because:
We don't know how long the fire lasted.
We don't know how well her fireplace cast heat.
We don't know how hot the fire actually was (did the kettle melt on a different occasion? Did the clothes burn hot and fast, or cooler in a slow and smoldering manner?).
We don't know how drafty her room actually was.
We don't know what the actual temperature was that night.
There are so many things we don't know, that to confidently say her room was well heated above the average high for November by the fire would be an over confident assertion.
But let's look at the possibilities. If the fire was hot enough to keep the room "well heated", then this would suggest a hot burning fire. If this were the case, it's reasonable to suggest the clothes would burn up quickly. This in tern suggests the fire would not last very long, and the source of the heat would be removed from the room. At which point, given the known draft through the broken window, the liklihood of the room being generally drafty as well, the ambient temperature probably quite cool, we again come to the reasonable possibility the room would cool down to the point where the progression of rigor would be greatly slowed, or even halted.
Of course, if the fire burned more slowly, getting around the short fire problem, then the fire is unlikely to be generating enough heat to get the room all that warm anyway. So, the same tentative conclusion is reached, rigor could have been slowed or even halted.
So, yes, I'm suggesting that unless it can be shown that the fire was hot enough to keep MJK's room warm enough to allow the normal progression of rigor all night long, the rigor data is not inconsistent with a TOD at anytime after 2 am (in fact, it's not inconsistent with a TOD after midnight either, but that's not usually listed as one of the options).
- Jeff |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 797
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 2:09 pm: |
|
I was in a motel last nite because of Rita so I got to watch cable TV which I don't normally.
On the "Forensic Files" I saw a story about a man who was murdered and the autopsy showed potatoes and onions in his stomach. They went to the restaurant where he had had hash browns for breakfast and were able to find out about what time he was in there eating.
This provoked a question in my mind. Where did Mary get her fish and potatoes? With all the excitement in the district, wouldn't you think that every fish and potatoes vendor in the area would have been wracking his brain, trying to remember if she came in that night? Wouldn't such a person come forward? Wouldn't the police have interviewed every seller of fish and potatoes for miles around? If not, why not?
If nobody remembered selling Mary fish and potatoes could it be because her killer bought it and brought it to her room? Doesn't seem likely to me because I can't picture Jack sitting there and letting her eat it. Plus there were no remains of such a meal found in the room.
I think Mary must have gone out for her meal and I can't for the life of me figure out why we don't know where she got it. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
