Who's talking Cobblers ? John Richardson ?

[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]

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 .

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[lynn cates]

admission

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

Cheers.
LC

[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.

[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

[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 .

[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