Who's talking Cobblers ? John Richardson ?

[Tom_Wescott]

Very interesting, Debs. I've been reading about forms of epilepsy which, in fact, cause people to kill in moments of rage.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Debra A]

That's probably because I had access to army records at the exact time Neal Shelden posted his biographical details, Archaic.
Although a physical illness, it does manifest in different ways. I believe there is a milder form that involves a trance-like possible time loss state but no fitting?

[Archaic]

Richardson & Possible Epilepsy

Or afflicted...
Funny you should say that, Dave.
Would it alter anyone's views at all to know that John Richardson was an epileptic of some sort? I have no idea of the type, just that (if I have the right man) he was discharged from the army due to it,in the 1870s.

That's interesting, Debs; I don't think I've heard that before.

It might help to keep in mind that Epilepsy is a physical rather than a mental illness.

I wonder if Richardson feared having a seizure of some sort when he was testifying? Poor man, that couldn't have helped his nerves. Epilepsy was not understood in the 1880's and most people believed it was a mental illness.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Debra A]

Depends on the witness...I see him as weak willed, possibly dominated by his mother, maybe even a tad simple or afflicted...

Or afflicted...
Funny you should say that, Dave.
Would it alter anyone's views at all to know that John Richardson was an epileptic of some sort? I have no idea of the type, just that (if I have the right man) he was discharged from the army due to it,in the 1870s.

[Cogidubnus]

There's worse than that Bridewell... see the Scottish Fingerprint Service scandal...arising out of HM Advocate v McKie and in which it is finally conceded that fingerprint evidence is expressed scientific opinion and NOT scientific fact...

Dave

[Bridewell]

There have been terrible miscarriages of justice based on mistaken eyewitness testimony

Fair point, but there have also been terrible miscarriages of justice based on supposedly expert testimony which turned out to be nothing of the sort:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4685511.stm

Regards, Bridewell.

[Cogidubnus]

Observer

I have to admit that yours is easily the most sensible and balanced post I've seen lately regarding this particular murder...As you'll be aware, although I totally distrust Richardson as a witness, I find I can't simply dismiss Long and Cadosch...

I can believe Long was "on autopilot" for part of her walk to work and perhaps mistook the quarter hour strike for the half hour, but not the rest...it was a Saturday and probably stuck in her mind as being that little bit different...else the clock strike or something else woke her up to her surroundings (both have happened to me)...either way, I'm pretty well convinced she saw Chapman...

Rereading the evidence (in the Ultimate JtR Sourcebook and elsewhere) it becomes clear you're right - the doctor based his evidence primarily on body temperature (with rigor mentioned, only in some accounts and then almost as an afterthought)...and although the later TOD is something I'm instinctively still not entirely comfortable with, I'm at least now more relaxed with the reduction in conflict beween medical and witness evidence...

Thanks mate

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Bridewell.
There is a difference though, layperson's are not permitted to offer conclusions in a court unless asked to do so. An eyewitness is generally supposed to convey what they saw or heard, whereas a professional witness (Doctor?) is expected to provide his conclusions but not expected to explain how he arrived at them, unless asked to do so.

So while both are "witnesses" they are of a completely different level.
Whether the jury accept an eyewitness over a medical witness is obviously beyond the control of the Judge/Coroner.
Sadly, eyewitness testimony due to its simplicity can appear stronger than complicated medical testimony which many juror's may be unable to comprehend.

Interesting!
A murder such as this and so late in the morning would be fuel for the fire in any proposal that Kelly was not a Ripper victim.
I'm intrigued by Maxwell & Lewis but I resist from taking their words over medical opinion. The team of medical experts assembled in Millers Court were not novices and certainly the majority were well aquainted with the uncertainties of their task, especially with respect to establishing a ToD.

Regards, Jon S.

Good god Jon...that's three times in a week I've agreed with you outright! Have you turned over a new leaf? (I know I haven't!)

All the best

Dave

[Observer]

Hi Moonbegger

First off where does Dr Philips equate great loss of blood, and cool weather conditions with rigor mortis? It is you who puts words into Philips mouth.

Now pay attention, it's really quite simple. This is what Dr Philips said at the inquest

[Coroner] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.

The operative words here are "but it is right to say". Now to me, this implies that Dr Philips recognised that the great loss of blood and the fairly cold morning meant that his arrival at the TOD was based on the temperature of the body, and the surrounding cool air. He does not mention rigor mortis in the above passage. And it has been pointed out earlier in this thread that rigor can set in after as little as one hour after death. This is what Dr Philips said regarding rigor. I quote.

"The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body. Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing."

Commencing not marked. Would there have been "a certain amount of heat under the intestines" if Annie Chapman had been murdered more than two hours prior to Dr Philips examination? I don't know. Dr Philips seemed to think so, and this taking into account the fact that she'd lost most of her blood.

Also, taking in mind that I and others have pointed out to you that Inspector Chandler orderered the constables arriving at the scene not to touch the body, when are you going to address the assertion that you believe that a member of the police force arranged the scrap of muslin and two combs at Annie Chapmans feet? I only ask this as you seem to be avoiding the issue.

All the very best old chap

Observer

[moonbegger]

Hi Moonbegger

And it's plain to everyone bar your good self that Dr Philips stated that the great loss of blood, plus the cold early morning air could actually mean that the TOD could have been less than the two hours he at first stated. He was obviously relying heavily on the temperature of the body to determine TOD, the colder the body the longer between TOD and discovery. The fact is he realised this, and stated as such.

Who instructed Green and Kent where to look? And why would Richardson not fully open the door to look into the yard?

And as I've already said, Richardson's statement is infinitely more believable than you own **** and bull story of a prostitute and her client finding and robbing Annie Chapman of her two rings.

Also I see you make no comment regarding the placing of the piece of muslin, and two combs at Annie Chapman feet. I think I and other posters have provided enough evidence to suggest that the killer performed that ritual, not the policeman that you envisaged performing the task.

Regards

Observer

Hello Observer ..

You are really not getting this are you

Just because YOU put words in the mouth of Dr Phillips .. it doesn't mean he actually said them ! Now i may speculate about the bits in between the lines , the grey areas ,that are open for speculation ( and rightly so ) But as for ..

" Dr Philips stated that the great loss of blood, plus the cold early morning air could actually mean that the TOD could have been less than the two hours he at first stated"

i would really appreciate if you could show me where [ Less than 2 hours ] bit came from . I am sure it is out there somewhere and you just didn't make it up to add weight to your opinion

DR Phillips was only relating weather conditions , He stood firm by his original TOD .. in-fact it should be noted that the cold weather conditions and cold surface of the ground would in-fact slow down the onset of Rigor mortis , not speed it up . The onset had just began , that's why Dr Phillips said "she was dead at least 2 hours , if not longer " .

Guess this highlights Curious's Post about witness's making stuff up and sounding convincing about it ..

" Your only Suppose to blow the bloody doors off "

Moonbegger .

[Archaic]

Hi, Everyone,

This thread is a perfect example of what studies are showing: how extremely persuasive witness testimony is.

It seems that juries have always believed prosecution witnesses over any other kind of testimony and over defense witnesses. Apparently one strong prosecution witness (such as Mrs. Long saying she definitely remembered the face) is always going to be believed -- even here on Casebook.

However, one study has shown that of the people now being exonerated by DNA evidence 78 percent were wrongly convicted by a single strong eye witness who was totally wrong.

Just saying, gang, if you are counting on these witnesses against medical testimony, I personally believe (see how I qualified that and made it less strong?) you are 100 percent wrong. Qualifiers such as Dr. Phillips' discussion of the cold and loss of blood apparently always has the effect of weakening testimony so that it is not believed.

Just out of curiosity -- how many here who insist on the witness testimony being stronger than the evidence of Annie's body do NOT believe Caroline Maxwell and Maurice Lewis in Kelly's death?

I suspect that the myth of Jack the Ripper is stronger even that a strong witness, but am not sure.

I would love to hear how many people who insist the witness testimony is right here, don't think it is right in Kelly's case. Any takers?

curious

Hi Curious.

Great post!! Eyewitness testimony is not all it's cracked up to be, though it tends to be quite persuasive to juries. There have been terrible miscarriages of justice based on mistaken eyewitness testimony, often honestly mistaken at that.

We all have a tendency to pick and choose from the myriad of witness statements, inquest testimony, medical opinion, adhering to some and excluding others that we don't find persuasive... or that don't fit our personal theories of what really happened.

I think we just all need to be aware of that.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Wickerman]

All the accounts, including that of the police surgeon, are witness testimony.

Hi Bridewell.
There is a difference though, layperson's are not permitted to offer conclusions in a court unless asked to do so. An eyewitness is generally supposed to convey what they saw or heard, whereas a professional witness (Doctor?) is expected to provide his conclusions but not expected to explain how he arrived at them, unless asked to do so.

So while both are "witnesses" they are of a completely different level.
Whether the jury accept an eyewitness over a medical witness is obviously beyond the control of the Judge/Coroner.
Sadly, eyewitness testimony due to its simplicity can appear stronger than complicated medical testimony which many juror's may be unable to comprehend.

i also prefer Maxwell & Lewis's testimony as to fact over the evidence of opinion as to TOD and length of time necessary to inflict the injuries provided by Dr Bond. I do so because both claimed to have known MJK and both claim to have seen her on the morning when she died. Bond said that rigor mortis commences after 6 to 12 hours. It can be as little as 1 hour in the right circumstances, according to other sources.

Regards, Bridewell.

Interesting!
A murder such as this and so late in the morning would be fuel for the fire in any proposal that Kelly was not a Ripper victim.
I'm intrigued by Maxwell & Lewis but I resist from taking their words over medical opinion. The team of medical experts assembled in Millers Court were not novices and certainly the majority were well aquainted with the uncertainties of their task, especially with respect to establishing a ToD.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

admission

Hello Don. Yes, and Dr. Phillips pretty much admitted all this at inquest.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

I would love to hear how many people who insist the witness testimony is right here, don't think it is right in Kelly's case. Any takers?

All the accounts, including that of the police surgeon, are witness testimony. So is your question: how many people prefer the eye witness testimony as to fact over the police surgeon's evidence of opinion as to time of death?

Either could be mistaken, but the coroner - who heard the evidence and saw the witnesses - preferred Mrs Long's testimony to that of Bagster Phillips. Having not had the benefit of doing so, I'm going to conclude that Wynne Baxter knew his job and had his reasons.

i also prefer Maxwell & Lewis's testimony as to fact over the evidence of opinion as to TOD and length of time necessary to inflict the injuries provided by Dr Bond. I do so because both claimed to have known MJK and both claim to have seen her on the morning when she died. Bond said that rigor mortis commences after 6 to 12 hours. It can be as little as 1 hour in the right circumstances, according to other sources.

Regards, Bridewell.

[curious]

Hi, Everyone,

This thread is a perfect example of what studies are showing: how extremely persuasive witness testimony is.

It seems that juries have always believed prosecution witnesses over any other kind of testimony and over defense witnesses. Apparently one strong prosecution witness (such as Mrs. Long saying she definitely remembered the face) is always going to be believed -- even here on Casebook.

However, one study has shown that of the people now being exonerated by DNA evidence 78 percent were wrongly convicted by a single strong eye witness who was totally wrong.

Just saying, gang, if you are counting on these witnesses against medical testimony, I personally believe (see how I qualified that and made it less strong?) you are 100 percent wrong. Qualifiers such as Dr. Phillips' discussion of the cold and loss of blood apparently always has the effect of weakening testimony so that it is not believed.

Just out of curiosity -- how many here who insist on the witness testimony being stronger than the evidence of Annie's body do NOT believe Caroline Maxwell and Maurice Lewis in Kelly's death?

I suspect that the myth of Jack the Ripper is stronger even that a strong witness, but am not sure.

I would love to hear how many people who insist the witness testimony is right here, don't think it is right in Kelly's case. Any takers?

curious