Time of Death Analyzation

[Supe]

Lynn,

Keep the textbooks moldering wherever they are, this isn't an exercise in classroom logic. Rather, it is an exercise in making sense of witness testimony. You are free to interpret it however you wish, but to apply the rules of formal logic is not, in my opinion, the way to understand the events of the morning at 29 Hanbury Street.

Don.

[perrymason]

Richardson isnt the only Canonical witness that by some accounts should have seen a body, but he did state pretty unequivocally Lynn that he didnt see one.

All the best

[lynn cates]

Richardson

Hello Mike and Supe. He did state that. I take his testimony on a par with Matthew Packer's.

No, I do not think he was making it up, but I don't think he EVER went into the yard--in spite of his avowal. He looked out and to the right. Lock secure, and so he left. Of course, it made him important to have sat there and not seen the body. Therefore, it almost jibes with Long who "saw" Annie at 5:30 going into the yard and Albert who "heard" Annie at 5:15--ostensibly meeting her fate and already IN the yard.

Cheers, chaps.
LC

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Mike and Supe. He did state that.

The problem is, Lynn, we don't know that he did, because the official inquest records have not survived (and even those aren't ideal). The best we have are what the courtroom journalists (a) managed to hear; (b) managed to scribble down; and (c) what remained after their editors/typesetters had finished with them. The end product of this process is all that remains of Richardson's testimony, documented in often wildly variant newspaper reports - many of them little more than a potted précis written in the third person.

[lynn cates]

Phillips

Hello Sam. Even better. Hence, I cast my lot with Dr. Phillips for fixing time of death.

The best.
LC

[Chris]

The problem is, Lynn, we don't know that he did ...

Can you quote any newspaper report of Richardson's testimony that leaves any room for doubt about whether he testified that he didn't see the body?

[Sam Flynn]

Can you quote any newspaper report of Richardson's testimony that leaves any room for doubt about whether he testified that he didn't see the body?

My point was simply that nobody can say that "Richardson DID state [X or Y]". There's no need to get uppity.

Edit: Besides, my point had nothing to do with Richardson's not seeing the body. I was commenting on the confused accounts of whether he'd trimmed the leather off his boot.

[Supe]

Lynn,

Hence, I cast my lot with Dr. Phillips for fixing time of death.

Aye, that is logical since Phillips touched the body to gauge its temperature and took a quick glance to judge the onset of rigor. Are you at all aware of how inaccurate time-of-death estimates are today, even though all manner of tests are applied and things that could affect those findings like ambient temperature, the physical state of the body and what ailments from which the deceased may have have suffered are factored in?

On the topic of consistency, it is interesting that when writers seemed to endorse your notions about the knife that killed Stride you were ready to believe them as speaking with infallibility, yet in this instance, when both the A-Z and Sugden strongly accept Richardson's testimony, not a cry peep from you on their views.

Don.

[lynn cates]

doxastic states

Hello Supe. You ask:

"Are you at all aware of how inaccurate time-of-death estimates are[?]"

I am indeed. But compare to the other deaths and both time and temperature. Are we to suppose that she cooled that much differently from the others given similar temperatures? She was all but totally cold when the doctor examined her (one small pocket of warmth under the intestines).

Next:

"On the topic of consistency, it is interesting that when writers seemed to endorse your notions about the knife that killed Stride you were ready to believe them as speaking with infallibility . . ."

Well, I'm not sure about infallibility. But I see much in their caveats that make me ask questions. All 4 knives have similar descriptions--one does not.

Finally:

"when both the A-Z and Sugden strongly accept Richardson's testimony, not a cry peep from you on their views."

I totally agree that most of the authors side with the 5:30 analysis. But think what all one would have to believe to accept that.

1. AC left just after 1:30 looking for doss money. If she hasn't found a trick by 5:30, what is the point? Wait until the next night.

2. Jack would have to be totally fearless. He waits until 7 minutes after sunup to do his deed--and that on a market day. Meanwhile Albert is walking about to the privy. If Jack startles and retires at Diemschutz, why not Cadosch? Yet Jack goes on to rifle her belongings and mutilate. Did I mention perform surgery to remove a uterus?

I start with an open mind and look at the evidence. If the authors do not offend common sense, it helps form my doxastic states. (Incidentally, the AC story was posited by Wolf Vanderlinden. I cannot take credit for it.)

In sum, I prefer Phillips to the testimony of Long and Cadosch--and, a fortiori, Richardson.

The best.
LC

[Chris]

My point was simply that nobody can say that "Richardson DID state [X or Y]". There's no need to get uppity.

Edit: Besides, my point had nothing to do with Richardson's not seeing the body. I was commenting on the confused accounts of whether he'd trimmed the leather off his boot.

I wasn't being "uppity". You were disagreeing with Lynn's "He did state that", which I read (and still read) as referring to perrymason's comment "he did state pretty unequivocally Lynn that he didnt see one [body]" in the previous post. In response I simply asked whether you could quote any report of the inquest that left any room for doubt in that respect. Surely it was a natural enough question? (Though I'm pleased to hear that's not what you meant.)

[Sam Flynn]

I wasn't being "uppity".

Sorry, Chris - I was, though, evidently Thanks for the clarification.

You were disagreeing with Lynn's "He did state that", which I read (and still read) as referring to perrymason's comment "he did state pretty unequivocally Lynn that he didnt see one [body]"

I was actually referring to Lynn's quoting the two statements by Richardson: "I cut the leather from my boot", and "I couldn't cut the leather from my boot - the knife was blunt" (I paraphrase for the sake of brevity). My fault for not citing the relevant post.

[perrymason]

"John Richardson, living in the house, states that he, in accordance with his usual practice, entered the place when on his way to work at Leadenhall Market, and at that time, 4.50, he was certain no one was in the yard."

Daily News, Spetember 10th, 1888.

His mother corroborates the story late in the same article.

Theres your report of a statement, any other questions related to my comments Chris?

regards

[lynn cates]

adamant

Hello Mike. Indeed, Richardson was adamant that he saw no body at that time.

The best.
LC

[Chris]

perrymason

I agree that all reports have Richardson saying he saw no body. I was asking if there was any report that didn't say that. I thought it was being suggested that this point was in doubt, but evidently I had misunderstood.

[Tom_Wescott]

Richardson was also adamant that he read no post by Jane Coram.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott