in the smaller ones of the hand. Because it's a chemical process, rigor can be affected by a number of variables: environmental temperature, body temperature, illness, activity before death, the physical conditions in which the corpse is left. Typically, a body that is described as cold and stiff has been dead between twelve and thirty-six hours, and one that is described as cold but
Because of these variables, rigor is a poor indication of time of death. In Grace's case, there are conflicting factors. She was a large lady, but her metabolic rate must have been high in the hour before her death as she tried to avoid her tormentor. It was summer and the ambient temperature outside was warm; however, her curtains had been pulled to shut out the sunlight and police described the house as 'chilly' when they entered. Loss of blood would have lowered blood pressure, while fear would have heightened metabolic activity.
The only records we now have of Dr. Studeley's findings come from newspapers:
'The pathologist detailed the postmortem results and said they were consistent with Mrs. Jefferies having been dead some forty-eight hours before he examined the body ... In cross-examination, counsel for the defense challenged some of his conclusions. 'Isn't it true,' he asked, 'that the staining of the abdomen suggests decomposition was of longer duration than two days?' Dr. Studeley denied this. 'The process is faster when a body is exposed to air.' Fanshaw then asked why he'd found no evidence of rigor mortis. 'Grace Jefferies was a heavy woman. Wouldn't you have expected lingering stiffness in the larger muscles?' 'By no means,' said Dr. Studeley. The weather was warm and Mrs. Jefferies suffered horribly before she died. In such circumstances the onset and completion of rigor would be comparatively quick' ' (
Dr. Foyle's testimony for the defense put the death twenty-four to thirty-six hours earlier. However, he faltered under cross-examination.
'The pathologist for the defense argued that putrefaction was too advanced for the forty-eight-hour estimate. 'Green staining appears on the right side of the abdomen in the first couple of days. Thereafter the discoloration spreads and the abdomen begins to swell with gas.' He pointed out that Dr. Studeley's notes from the postmortem mentioned 'pervasive staining and some bloating.' 'This is more consistent with three to four days,' he concluded. When asked by prosecuting counsel if he'd examined the body himself, Dr. Foyle admitted he hadn't' (
Interestingly, it was the prosecuting counsel, Robert Tring, QC, who referred to Dr. Studeley's 'slip of the pen.'
'Robert Tring asked the witness why he had written four days in his postmortem notes if he was now claiming that Mrs. Jefferies had been dead only two days. Dr. Studeley said it was 'a slip of the pen' which he corrected on the official report' (
It's hard to understand why Adam Fanshaw didn't challenge this error when his own pathologist was arguing that three to four days was a more likely estimate. One explanation is that he planned to recall Studeley after his own pathologist had successfully established the night of June 1/day of June 2 as a possibility, and/or use the mistake as the main focus of his summing-up. Another explanation is that he didn't want to alienate the jury by badgering an elderly pathologist for a lapse of concentration, and intended to infer that Studeley had changed his mind under pressure from the police. In either event, the ground was cut from under his feet when Dr. Foyle agreed that Studeley's findings were 'not beyond the bounds of possibility.'
There was no reason why Foyle should have examined the body. Cause of death wasn't the issue; it was
The significant factors in establishing time of death-ambient temperature, rigor mortis, algor mortis (body temperature), livor mortis (settling of the blood), autolysis and putrefaction (indicators of decomposition)-are useful only when the body is first examined, not after a week's refrigeration. Nor was there any reason to assume Studeley's data was wrong. An important fact brought out at the trial was the reference to 'pervasive staining and bloating' of the abdomen. If, as Foyle claimed, this was more consistent with three to four days of decomposition, then the algor-mortis readings were important (After death, body temperature cools until it reaches the level of its surroundings. This process takes between eight and twelve hours on the skin, and twenty-four to thirty-six hours in the center of the body. Once putrefaction begins-about two days after death-the temperature rises again due to the metabolic activity of bacteria.) and may explain why he was confident Grace had died 'much earlier.' In simple terms, if hourly readings showed an increase, then Grace's body had already cooled to the ambient temperature and was on the rise again.
Without more information, we can only guess what the debate was about, but the fact that it took place at all does seem to indicate the data was open to interpretation.
Who Killed Grace Jefferies? And Why?
Despite prosecution claims that Stamp rifled his grandmother's drawers for money, or set out to pretend someone else had, there's no evidence that Grace had anything worth stealing. Wynne thought she 'kept some cash in a shoe box,' but couldn't suggest anything else that might have been stolen. The obvious person to ask was Stamp himself, since he knew Grace's house better than anyone, but as he was the main suspect, asking him was never in the cards.
The house was described as 'vandalized' and a brief description was given by the policeman who broke in through the front door.
''I knew something was wrong when I saw the downstairs rooms. The place was a mess. Everything was broken: chairs, mirrors, even the plants had been torn out of their pots. It looked as if a kid had had a tantrum. I became alarmed when I saw blood on the stairs'' (
The prosecution alleged that Stamp lost his temper and started breaking things, and when his grandmother remonstrated with him he pursued her upstairs with a carving knife from the kitchen. But if Stamp was innocent, then what does the destruction in the house tell us? Was it done for fun? Out of frustration? Anger? What kind of
