Long v Cadosch. Seeing vs Hearing.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, I am aware of the suggestion that some of the mutilations may have been carried out at the mortuary by persons unknown. None of the many police surgeons involved in the post mortems seem to have thought this.

Just to put the record straight I am not postulating that mutilations were carried out at the mortuary, but extra cuts could have been made at the mortuary to facilitate the removal of the organs.

What I am suggesting is that the abdomens of Eddowes and Chapman had been ripped open in such a manner and to great extent so that it would have been easy for the organs to have been removed at the mortuary from their abdomens un-noticed, so that when the doctors carried out the post mortems on both victims, the missing organs were attributed to the killer having taken them.

But having to repeat for the umpteenth time the fact that these two victims were the only two that were found missing organs, they were taken to different mortuaries and the uteri of both was removed using two different procedures, not withstanding that out of all the victims which if you include them all amount to double figures were the only two that showed any signs of organs being taken.

Whether the mutilations were done swiftly or not, I cannot believe that "the deliberate, successful, and apparently scientific manner" in which they were performed was achieved in near total darkness.

I totally agree that the degree of difficulty required in not only locating the organs but being able to grip them to be able to remove them in almost total darkness is beyond comprehension and those who belive the killer removed the organs needs a reality check

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Doctored Whatsit]

Well, similar controversy surrounds the mutilations committed in Mitre Square, but unless the mortuary attendants were involved, the murderer somehow managed it.

If you find it impossible to envisage this being done swiftly, then perhaps it was not done swiftly but at such a time that the murderer was much less likely to have been disturbed.

No, there is no similar controversy about the Mitre Square murder. Dr Sequeira clearly stated on oath that there was sufficient light for the deed to be accomplished. You envisage the same deed with Chapman, but with no light whatever.

Yes, I am aware of the suggestion that some of the mutilations may have been carried out at the mortuary by persons unknown. None of the many police surgeons involved in the post mortems seem to have thought this. I believe that doctors were of the opinion that the same knives that committed the murders also removed the organs. But that is an assumption, based on the fact that they didn't report otherwise.

Whether the mutilations were done swiftly or not, I cannot believe that "the deliberate, successful, and apparently scientific manner" in which they were performed was achieved in near total darkness.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Please see my reply below.

But that is the whole point that you are deliberately ignoring. At the inquest he specifically chose to testify, in effect, that his original ToD may have been incorrect, by saying "but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood".

He chose to offer this information voluntarily, and without it his ToD was firmly and positively stated, but after he had offered this additional information, there was doubt about the reliability of his estimate.

[JeffHamm]

It is reported that Dr Phillips estimated that Kelly was murdered between six and twelve hours before he began her post-mortem, based on the degree of rigor mortis, i.e. between 2 3/4 and 8 3/4 hours before her body was discovered.

That is nowhere near one hour, either.

Notice that his states a 6 hour spread (+-3 hours), which is today's gold standard for the accuracy of such predictions. So you are correct, it is nowhere near 1 hour as it is the same as saying 9 hours previous with a +- 3 hour spread of times to consider. While I don't know the reasons for his choice to report as such, it could be that he realized that it was important to emphasize the variability rather than the centre point of the range due to the confusion that doing the opposite may have led to during the Chapman inquest.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It is reasonable, given the error associated with estimating ToD, for Annie to have been killed at 5:25 and for Dr. Phillips to have made the statement he did. Moreover, given Dr. Phillips himself points to factors that we should consider when evaluating his statement, I think it is reasonable to suggest that Dr. Phillips would not argue against a ToD around 5:25.

- Jeff

It is reported that Dr Phillips estimated that Kelly was murdered between six and twelve hours before he began her post-mortem, based on the degree of rigor mortis, i.e. between 2 3/4 and 8 3/4 hours before her body was discovered.

That is nowhere near one hour, either.

[JeffHamm]

But is it reasonable to say that Phillips could have meant an hour and five minutes rather than two hours, when his estimate was actually probably more than two hours?

It is reasonable, given the error associated with estimating ToD, for Annie to have been killed at 5:25 and for Dr. Phillips to have made the statement he did. Moreover, given Dr. Phillips himself points to factors that we should consider when evaluating his statement, I think it is reasonable to suggest that Dr. Phillips would not argue against a ToD around 5:25.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I do not think that pointing out that Dr. Phillips' 2 hour estimation might be out by 55 minutes or so is to disparage him in any way, rather it is to agree with him as he himself tells us that we should view that estimate as simply that, an estimate, with a range of acceptable values. Since his time we are fortunate enough to be able to put values to that range, and given how large the error is, being out by only 55 minutes is in fact pretty impressive.

- Jeff

But is it reasonable to say that Phillips could have meant an hour and five minutes rather than two hours, when his estimate was actually probably more than two hours?

[JeffHamm]

And why should he have been?

If he lived not far from there, in Spitalfields, had only minutes before left his lodgings, met Chapman in a deserted street in the early hours, and murdered her, before going straight back home, why should anyone have noticed him?

I have no idea why he should be. I just know that to suggest there was such a person you have to show that there is evidence that he was.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

[QUOTE=FISHY1118;n809222]

Hi Fishy,

I'm not critizing Dr. Phillips, nor questioning his skills. I'm pointing out that ToD estimation is simply something that is highly inexact in terms of it's accuracy - even today when we have 130+ more years of research trying to improve the precision. Estimates made today, even by the very best medical professionals, still have a +-3 hour range around the estimated ToD. It was not better in 1888; that's not Dr. Phillip's fault, it is just what happens when you have to make an estimate without knowing some very important values (like the person's temperature at the time of death, which obviously Dr. Phillip's cannot know, so if he did any calculations he would use 98.6, and already we have something that will result in a range of error from the true ToD depending upon how much, and in which direction, Annie's actual body temperature differed from that value).

It's not Dr. Phillip's fault that estimating ToD is simply a highly inexact estimate. To give him "credit" would be to suggest that he was capable of something that he has no reason to be capable of.

- Hi Jeff yes I'm well aware of this side of the debate which was covered extensively on the John Richardson thread ,

However we still must give credit to the knowledge the Dr's opinions at the time when offering a t.o.d

3 doctors got their estimate medical opinions pretty spot on in the case of Eddowes, stride, Nichols,

Phillips may just as easily been right in his estimate based on his medical knowledge after examining Chapmans body. So it would be reckless to discount his evidence entirely .

Hi Fishy,

Dr. Phillip's himself effectively cautions us to treat his estimate as inexact, so to ignore the variation is to deny him that credibility and to suggest he was claiming to make an exact point in time statement. He wasn't, hence his pointing out the temperature conditions and the loss of blood (showing that he does indeed have the knowledge to understand what sort of things influence ToD estimations). We have the ability now to put time ranges on such estimations. If Annie was indeed killed at 5:25, then his estimation would in fact be considered a very good one.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I'm unaware of any 30 year old male, with a fair moustache, with the appearance of a sailor being seen in the vicinity of Hanbury Street on the night in question.


- Jeff

And why should he have been?

If he lived not far from there, in Spitalfields, had only minutes before left his lodgings, met Chapman in a deserted street in the early hours, and murdered her, before going straight back home, why should anyone have noticed him?

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff.

Cadoche said he heard something fall against the fence, not that he heard something brush up against the fence.

Hi PI,

Ah, yes, his wording was "While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly."

Regardless, he was unequivocal as to where the sound came from, and any sound from the backyard at #29 at that time is difficult to explain without having somebody alive in the backyard at that time.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Back to the question I asked some time ago - if Phillips was still standing firmly by his original ToD, why would he decide to advise the inquest "but it was right to mention" the coldness of the morning and the extreme loss of blood? This could only be interpreted as introducing a reason for possible error. He did not discuss potential errors based on loss of blood and the morning cold air when he spoke to Chandler, did he? He was quite positive at the crime scene. The reason for a little flexibility didn't get mentioned till the inquest, and it was totally voluntary. No-one was cross questioning him and doubting his word. He chose to introduce the doubt.

He decided to mention some reservations which he then had, and which he hadn't previously mentioned. What had happened in the meantime was the post mortem which identified several crucial and relevant issues not evident to him when he first examined the body. He made this very clear in his evidence. You are right that he didn't mention them as the reason for his change of heart, but they would have been very relevant reasons for expressing a reservation about his original ToD.

Dr. Phillip's stated estimate of 2 hours or more would be his estimate based upon the measurements he took (whether they be objective temperature reading via a thermometer or subjective temperature readings based upon touch we do not know; also, deciding there was stiffening commencing is, by definition, a subjective measure because there is no object measure of it available to him). In short, he makes an estimate based upon a calculation. That calculation has to factor in many variables, such as the starting body temperature, external temperature and its change over the post-mortem interval, air currents, blood loss, clothing, body mass, and so forth. The "values" he assigns to the measurements he does not know (i.e. assigns the average body temperature as the starting point, etc), will impact upon the outcome of the calculation. His statement pointing out the coolness of the morning and the blood loss is indicating that he recognizes the importance of these factors, and he's pointing out that he had to guess their influence on his estimation - so if his best guess was not correct then the outcome of those calculations will likewise be off. He's basically saying that his time should not be viewed as definitive, which in my view is highly responsible of him. Moreover, it shows an appreciation for the variation associated with ToD estimates that I think points to the degree of his professionalism. As such, I do not think that pointing out that Dr. Phillips' 2 hour estimation might be out by 55 minutes or so is to disparage him in any way, rather it is to agree with him as he himself tells us that we should view that estimate as simply that, an estimate, with a range of acceptable values. Since his time we are fortunate enough to be able to put values to that range, and given how large the error is, being out by only 55 minutes is in fact pretty impressive.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi Jeff.

Cadoche said he heard something fall against the fence, not that he heard something brush up against the fence.

[FISHY1118]

[QUOTE=JeffHamm;n809212]

Hi Fishy,

I'm not critizing Dr. Phillips, nor questioning his skills. I'm pointing out that ToD estimation is simply something that is highly inexact in terms of it's accuracy - even today when we have 130+ more years of research trying to improve the precision. Estimates made today, even by the very best medical professionals, still have a +-3 hour range around the estimated ToD. It was not better in 1888; that's not Dr. Phillip's fault, it is just what happens when you have to make an estimate without knowing some very important values (like the person's temperature at the time of death, which obviously Dr. Phillip's cannot know, so if he did any calculations he would use 98.6, and already we have something that will result in a range of error from the true ToD depending upon how much, and in which direction, Annie's actual body temperature differed from that value).

It's not Dr. Phillip's fault that estimating ToD is simply a highly inexact estimate. To give him "credit" would be to suggest that he was capable of something that he has no reason to be capable of.

- Hi Jeff yes I'm well aware of this side of the debate which was covered extensively on the John Richardson thread ,

However we still must give credit to the knowledge the Dr's opinions at the time when offering a t.o.d

3 doctors got their estimate medical opinions pretty spot on in the case of Eddowes, stride, Nichols,

Phillips may just as easily been right in his estimate based on his medical knowledge after examining Chapmans body. So it would be reckless to discount his evidence entirely .

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

A problem that I have always had with proposals of a murder in that yard in the middle of the night is that the murder and such specific mutilations would have to have been carried out in pitch black darkness. I don't find that plausible. It would have been very possible in twilight.

Phillips is said to have revealed details of "the deliberate, successful, and apparently scientific manner" of the mutilations, and that he himself could not have done this in under 15 minutes. It is impossible to envisage this being done swiftly and in complete darkness. I can only believe that this murder was carried out with at least some early morning light.

Well, similar controversy surrounds the mutilations committed in Mitre Square, but unless the mortuary attendants were involved, the murderer somehow managed it.

If you find it impossible to envisage this being done swiftly, then perhaps it was not done swiftly but at such a time that the murderer was much less likely to have been disturbed.