The English Language and the purpose of a caveat.

[FISHY1118]

Hi Herlock,

I know next to nothing about this whole case compared to you and your fellow Ripper experts. However, as a company secretary for many years, I know a bit about minuting meetings at which some invited specialist has spoken where I've struggled to follow the exact drift of his words. ''Sometimes such a speaker might be characteristically nervous and/or intimidated by the unusual setting he finds himself in resulting in ambiguous or even contradictory comments''. A friendly query during the meeting or an informal word at the end can often sort out such uncertainties.

I recognise such a solution is sadly long gone as regards the words of Doctor Phillip which I find to be unclear. However, I would not get too hung up on exactly what he said as there is no guarantee that is exactly what he meant!

Meant helpfully although probably not.

Best regards,
OneRound

Such would also be the case with the witnesses .

[Herlock Sholmes]

This would explain the confusion about Richardson’s testimony regarding the knife. Clearly it would have been nonsense for him to have said, in effect, ‘I cut a piece of leather from my boot with this knife but I couldn’t cut a piece of leather from my boot with this knife because it wasn’t sharp enough.” It’s not even a lie that served a purpose and it certainly wasn’t something that the coroner wouldn’t have noticed and pulled him up on. So it’s obvious that he’d meant that he cut a piece of leather but couldn’t do a good enough job so he had to complete the job at the market using a sharper knife. He’d first used the old knife, a) because he had it with him, and b) he wouldn’t have known that it wouldn’t do a good enough job until he tried it. We even have it written that he’d already tried unsuccessfully the previous day to repair his boot only to find that it still hurt when he began his walk to work. Proving that an attempted repair could be unsuccessful.

Just by allowing for transcription error or omission and by using common sense we can arrive at a sensible, realistic answer that doesn’t require a witness saying something that would have been gibberish or a Coroner and his jury being idiots.

[Dickere]

The "I should say" seems to have been overlooked here. It suggests to me that he is immediately not committing to the two hours minimum, it's almost another caveat before he starts.

I should say two hours, but I'm not. The subsequent caveat explains why.

So he's giving an opening statement to lay the foundation of not committing to his upcoming estimate. He then gives his estimate. He then explains why he isn't committing.

[Abby Normal]

The "I should say" seems to have been overlooked here. It suggests to me that he is immediately not committing to the two hours minimum, it's almost another caveat before he starts.

I should say two hours, but I'm not. The subsequent caveat explains why.

So he's giving an opening statement to lay the foundation of not committing to his upcoming estimate. He then gives his estimate. He then explains why he isn't committing.

bingo! even a child could understand.

[GBinOz]

The "I should say" seems to have been overlooked here. It suggests to me that he is immediately not committing to the two hours minimum, it's almost another caveat before he starts.

I should say two hours, but I'm not. The subsequent caveat explains why.

So he's giving an opening statement to lay the foundation of not committing to his upcoming estimate. He then gives his estimate. He then explains why he isn't committing.

Hi Dickere,

In modern times it might be interpreted that way, but in 1888 it meant quite the opposite.
From the Cambridge dictionary:

Meaning of I should hope/say/think so/not in English

Used to emphasize your agreement or your opinion:
"Will Beth be there?" "I should hope not! She was so horrible to you."
"She loved the gift." "I should think she did - you paid enough for it!"

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

bingo! even a child could understand.

Quick, find a child and have them explain it to you. (An oldie but a goodie, I couldn't resist).

[Dickere]

Hi Dickere,

In modern times it might be interpreted that way, but in 1888 it meant quite the opposite.
From the Cambridge dictionary:

Meaning of I should hope/say/think so/not in English

Used to emphasize your agreement or your opinion:
"Will Beth be there?" "I should hope not! She was so horrible to you."
"She loved the gift." "I should think she did - you paid enough for it!"

Cheers, George

I see what you're saying, George, but the scenarios aren't the same.

Those are responsive answers within a normal conversation, well examples of such. At the inquest, there was no need for an opening "I should say". If he was certain of two hours minimum he would have simply said so, but he didn't. He got his caveat in first, and explained why later.

[GBinOz]

I see what you're saying, George, but the scenarios aren't the same.

Those are responsive answers within a normal conversation, well examples of such. At the inquest, there was no need for an opening "I should say". If he was certain of two hours minimum he would have simply said so, but he didn't. He got his caveat in first, and explained why later.

Hi Dickere,

Those are only examples, and it is your prerogative to believe what you like, but my readings from the time indicate that "I should say" or "I should think" is the author saying "of this I am certain". It's a matter of knowledge of the language at the time it was spoken, particularly by the upper classes.

Cheers, George

[Abby Normal]

Hi Dickere,

Those are only examples, and it is your prerogative to believe what you like, but my readings from the time indicate that "I should say" or "I should think" is the author saying "of this I am certain". It's a matter of knowledge of the language at the time it was spoken, particularly by the upper classes.

Cheers, George

aww so your the expert on victorian language now george and Dickere hasnt a clue? lol.

[Dickere]

aww so your the expert on victorian language now george and Dickere hasnt a clue? lol.

Yes, and this is why I don't post much. At best you get something along the lines of you're wrong, with nothing to back it up. And it's all downhill from there.

I appreciate George's view differs, no problem.

[GBinOz]

Yes, and this is why I don't post much. At best you get something along the lines of you're wrong, with nothing to back it up. And it's all downhill from there.

I appreciate George's view differs, no problem.

Hi Dickere,

Apologies if I have insulted you. That was not my intention. As I said, I have read literature from the period, and my grandparents were born in the late 1800s, so I grew up hearing these expressions which, at the time, didn't seem odd at all. I thought to give you the benefit of my experience, but it is your choice as to whether you accept it.

Cheers, George

[Dickere]

Hi Dickere,

Apologies if I have insulted you. That was not my intention. As I said, I have read literature from the period, and my grandparents were born in the late 1800s, so I grew up hearing these expressions which, at the time, didn't seem odd at all. I thought to give you the benefit of my experience, but it is your choice as to whether you accept it.

Cheers, George

Not insulted at all George, no problem. Your input always seems fair.

I still feel conversation differs from giving factual inquest evidence where additional flowery words would be omitted.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, it’s a close run thing.

[Bridewell]

The "I should say" seems to have been overlooked here. It suggests to me that he is immediately not committing to the two hours minimum, it's almost another caveat before he starts.

I should say two hours, but I'm not. The subsequent caveat explains why.

So he's giving an opening statement to lay the foundation of not committing to his upcoming estimate. He then gives his estimate. He then explains why he isn't committing.

He's making it clear that what he is about to say is his opinion. He's an expert witness and, as such, is able to give evidence of opinion within his field of expertise. "I should say" is, I think, a statement by a man giving his opinion, aware that others may disagree, but reminding those listening that his is expert testimony and should be given due weight.

[Michael W Richards]

A modern explanation of estimating TOD by a coroner is ;

"There are several times of death. Let me repeat that—there are several times of death. Time of death seems to be a simple and straightforward term that obviously means the exact time that the victim drew his last breath. Unfortunately, it’s not quite that simple.

There are actually three different times of death:

• The physiologic time of death, when the victim’s vital functions actually ceased.
• The legal time of death, the time recorded on the death certificate.
• The estimated time of death, the time the medical examiner estimates that death occurred.

It is important to note that the estimated time of death can vary greatly from the legal time of death and the physiologic time of death."

Worth considering in this instance.