Who's talking Cobblers ? John Richardson ?

[Hunter]

Well said, Don.

In most cases, divisional surgeons did not have to deal with time of death as a critical factor. Usually, there were witnesses to the crime or the body was found very soon after the homicide occurred. The detectives could normally determine TOD by interrogating witnesses or suspects.

The other cases involved discovery of bodies already badly decomposed where, at best, TOD might be measured only in days.

Surgeons like Phillips and Houchin dealt with infanticide more than anything else.

Wouldn't want their jobs for one minute... no matter how much money it earned.

[Wickerman]

Even as eminent and experienced a doctor as Bagster Phillips did no more with Annie Chapman in situ than the usual "grope and a guess." He didn't take her temperature or that of the ambient temperature in the yard.

As taking the temperature of the body as well as the ambient temperature at the crime scene is part of the protocol, we have no reason to assume Phillips was negligent in his duties.
We also have no need to assume Dr. Phillips felt obliged to explain every detail of the proceedure, neither should we expect a hurried pressman to record every word.
Because a particular detail was not mentioned does not allow us to assume rigid protocol was not followed, we should allow that Dr. Phillips new what was required of him.

Even during the post mortem he simply guessed at how far rigor had progressed without, it seems clear, taking into account any other physical factors that might have influenced the broad range of timings inherent in the development of rigor mortis.

I'm sure Dr. Phillips was well aware of the inadequacies of the process.
Doctors at the inquest are not required to explain how they arrive at a conclusion, they are only required to provide that conclusion when asked to do so.

In 1888, determingToD and simply determining the time (as in "what time is it?") were not readily given to being answered with any real accuracy. And anyone who builds a theory about JtR that depends heavily upon both is building it upon sand (and I don't mean the sands of time).

Oh so true....

Regards, Jon S.

[Supe]

Even as eminent and experienced a doctor as Bagster Phillips did no more with Annie Chapman in situ than the usual "grope and a guess." He didn't take her temperature or that of the ambient temperature in the yard. Even during the post mortem he simply guessed at how far rigor had progressed without, it seems clear, taking into account any other physical factors that might have influenced the broad range of timings inherent in the development of rigor mortis.

Despite great advances in forensic science,Time of Death is hardly a scientific certainty even today unless outside events intervene to limit severely the parameters of time.

In 1888, determingToD and simply determining the time (as in "what time is it?") were not readily given to being answered with any real accuracy. And anyone who builds a theory about JtR that depends heavily upon both is building it upon sand (and I don't mean the sands of time).

Don.

[Archaic]

This may be somewhat off-topic, but Richardson makes the comment "Thomas Pierman had told me about the murder in the market."

Could someone else have found out about Chapman and informed Richardson so early? Or was there another (unrelated, I presume) murder earlier that morning or previous evening?

-- CF Leon

Hello C.F., and welcome to Casebook.

There was not another murder that night or early morning that I am aware of.

Richardson was informed of the murder shortly after it was discovered, and as I understand it he returned to No.29 in time to see the body of Annie Chapman before it was taken away.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was an uproar in the market that morning due to word of the murder starting to go around, but according to Richardson it was Thomas Pearman (spelling?) who informed him that the murder had occurred in his mother's backyard.

Best regards,
Archaic

PS: I just realized that the news of a murder at No. 29 must have scared the hell out of Richardson, because for all he knew the dead body could have been his mother! Don't know why that never occurred to me before. Poor Richardson, yet another reason for him to be emotionally upset by the event.

[Observer]

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

[C. F. Leon]

This may be somewhat off-topic, but Richardson makes the comment "Thomas Pierman had told me about the murder in the market."

Could someone else have found out about Chapman and informed Richardson so early? Or was there another (unrelated, I presume) murder earlier that morning or previous evening?

-- CF Leon

[moonbegger]

Hello again Observer ..

First thing's First ..

" The fact that he himself qualified that his time of death should not be strictly adhered to? I quote Dr Philips
"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."

This is too funny .. You are actually making my point for me .. What Dr Phillips is stating here is ( it could actually be a lot longer than the 2 hours he gave ) you see the Cold temperature , and lack of warm blood would actually work to slow down the onset of rigor mortise , NOT speed it up ..

As far as Richardson ( cobblers ) story goes , like i already posted , it wouldn't even make it past a committal hearing today , let alone being a pivotal piece of evidence .. having said that i do believe he took a quick boo to his right and didn't see her low to his left ... Unlike Kent and Green who had the door fully open and knew where to look and what to find ..

God bless us , each and every one of us .

moonbegger .

[Observer]

Hi Moonbegger

I really do think that Dr Phillips TOD was discounted due to

The fact that he himself qualified that his time of death should not be strictly adhered to? I quote Dr Philips

"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."

Regarding the visibility of the body from the entrance into the yard, James Kent testified.

"James Green and I went together to 29, Hanbury-street, and on going through the passage, standing on the top of the back door steps, I saw a woman lying in the yard between the steps and the partition between the yard and the next. Her head was near the house, but no part of the body was against the wall. . I did not go down the steps, but went outside and returned after Inspector Chandler had arrived."

Even if John Richardson did not enter the yard, the body was plainly visible from the top of the back door steps. It was also Inspector Chandler who seemed to contradict Richardson's story, he stating at the inquest that Richardson had informed him that he did not go down the steps. Strictly speaking he told the truth, he actually stated that he sat on the steps. It could well be that Richardson misinterpreted Chandler's question, thinking that Chandler was inferring whether he actually descended into the yard. Of course he didn't, he sat on the step, and he stated as such.

Inspector Chandler was the first officer at the scene,he stated

"When the constables arrived I cleared the passage of people, and saw that no one touched the body until the doctor arrived."

so no one touched the body including the constables who arrived at the scene.

It was he, Chandler, who discovered the piece of muslin and comb arranged near Annie Chapman's feet. The general consensus at the time was that the killer arranged those items, no one refuted this fact, certainly not the police.

Regards

Observer

[moonbegger]

Hindsight - Interesting. What is it that we know in hindsight which wasn't known to the inquest?

Regards, Bridewell.

That if we spend too much time on here, it can give you a bloody headach

[moonbegger]

That is not how Inspector Chandler or Mr. Phillips described the scene... unless both are liars. Chandler was the first policeman at the scene and he waited there until the divisional surgeon arrived. Both men inspected the area around the body, the yard and the passageway for evidence.

"I examined the yard, and found a piece of coarse muslin, a small tooth comb, and a pocket hair comb in a case. They were lying near the feet of the woman. A portion of an envelope was found near her head, which contained two pills" ( no mention of a neat little pile by the fence )

Ok .. so he Found all of the above and placed them all together in a neat pile by the fence ? ( Dare i say i'm venturing into the dark recess of speculation Here , but bare with me, the path is not to far away! if we all hold hands i'm sure we can make it through )

Dr Phillips shows up .. and describes a neat little pile by the fence ..

Mmmm.. wonder how that got there ? Better call in the A team

Answers to www. knowyourfactsbeforeyoujumponabandwagon.com

cheers
moonbegger

[Bridewell]

it seems like the wise route to take . But we are not handicapped by the same time restrictions , or lack of oversight . Infact we are blessed with heinsight .

Hindsight - Interesting. What is it that we know in hindsight which wasn't known to the inquest?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Observer]

Good post
Moonbegger would have us believe that all the witnesses were morons, thieves and liars.

Hi Abby thanks. I'm begining to wonder if our cages are being rattled.

Regards

Observer

[moonbegger]

Hi Moonbegger,

The coroner was so impressed with Mrs Long's evidence that he preferred it to that of the police surgeon as to the time of death. You think she was wrong or confused. I think Wynne Baxter, an experienced lawyer might have picked up on that if she had been. Where Long was uncertain - colour of the man's coat etc - she said as much. Where she was certain, she stuck to her guns. Yes, a witness can be certain and still be wrong, but IMHO her evidence should not be cast aside.

Regards, Bridewell.

Hello Bridewell ,

Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.
[Coroner] At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them.
[Coroner] You are certain about the time? - Quite.
[Coroner] What time did you leave home? - I got out about five o'clock, and I reached the Spitalfields Market a few minutes after half-past five.

So Given her certainty on the time Bridewell , and the fact she see's people standing outside 29 all the time .. is it so inconceivable that she may have seen Annie the day before at 5.30am .. and just tied it all in with the couple she saw standing there that morning .. also baring in mind it was a few days before she actually came forward .. And then that line of thought could possibly even clear up the decomposing Annie ID .

I really do think that Dr Phillips TOD was discounted due to .. the multiple witness statements combined , And maybe a little bit of attitude bettween Phillips and Baxter . And for sure when you look at it at first glance , it seems like the wise route to take . But we are not handicapped by the same time restrictions , or lack of oversight . Infact we are blessed with heinsight .

cheers
moonbegger .

[Cogidubnus]

Sorry Moonbegger but I still end up butting my head against the constraints I described in post #148 - Even disregarding Richardson (who, like you, I believe to be flawed) I cannot dismiss Long and Cadosch so easily...

Regarding your theory of a second prostitute/client combo robbing the body, as previously stated, I believe the time intervals between "No" and the thump are enough to cast significant doubt...moreover others here have commented upon the inherent unlikelihoods of this occurring...

In many ways I'd like to go along with you, but still feel unable...it's an evidence thing you understand! This doesn't leave me feeling any better about the discrepancies in timing between the medical opinion and the witnesses, but until something firmer comes along...

All the best

Dave

[Hunter]

Oh ... one more thing , Observer .. you mentioned the neat pile of Annies unstealable junk .. Does it not even register that maybe the policeman on the scene may have put it together after collecting from around her person ?

That is not how Inspector Chandler or Mr. Phillips described the scene... unless both are liars. Chandler was the first policeman at the scene and he waited there until the divisional surgeon arrived. Both men inspected the area around the body, the yard and the passageway for evidence.