Was John Richardson A Reliable Witness?

[Herlock Sholmes]

So can i ask jeff, if just for argument sake only, lets say Drs Brown and Sequeria stumbled upon Eddoews body at 1.45 ,after they examined the body, what do you think they would have suggested to each other as to her T.O.D ? given she was killed at 1.30 [even tho they didnt know that ]
Do you honestly think that they couldn't have roughly [ i.e in at least 15 /20 mins] determined she had been killed in in that time frame . ?

Because if the answers yes then that leaves me a little confused as to why the coroner would have even bothered to ask their medical opinions as to Eddowes t.o.d when when he already knew from the police reports and patrol times just a thought .

Coroners asked because they thought that TOD estimation was accurate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Simply because when codosh by his own admission said he couldn't be sure that the ''No'' came from number29 ,which allows one to successfully argue that the ''No'' didn't come from number 29. Therefor there was nobody in the yard of 29 at that time to notice a mutilated corpse, and again the thud against the fence was just a noise from the other side that codosch heard, it doesn't mean that there any human presents in the yard that made the thud . So the above quote is of little importance in relation to Chapmans murder .

Are you being serious? Cadosch initially felt that the “no” came from number 29. When questioned some doubt crept in. I’d maintain that you cannot think back accurately about a sound. Your first impression is the only relevant one. When you think back on anything doubts creep in especially on something as important as this and with the police questioning him. So it’s more likely that his initial impression was correct and that the no came from number 29. Just because Cadosch was cautious it doesn’t mean that we can dismiss him. The police would rather a witness be cautious than state something as a fact if they weren’t really sure. And if you are pushing the argument that the noise could have been a cat or a dog then you are really getting desperate.

[chameleon1]

I'll just say I think they would say she was killed at 9. Why? Because what I think they would say is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact their confidence is unwarranted

thanks jeff but seriously i think you know the real answer

Do you honestly think that they couldn't have roughly [ i.e in at least 15 /20 mins] determined she had been killed in in that time frame . ?

Because anyone who thinks that the above couldn't have be determined by brown and sequeria should probably be avoided when it comes to the chapman t.o.d subject.

i think ill ask my local g.p the same question , i bet i know what the answer will be.

[Fisherman]

There isn't a debate as to whether or not ToD can be accurately determined by touch. It can't, that's a fact.

Yes, that is a fact. And I have never disputed that fact for one single second. However, it is in your interest to make it look as if I have.

We're stuck here because you (and others) won't accept that for some reason.

No, we are not stuck here because I wonīt accept it. I just told you - for the umpteenth time - that I always accepted it. But what we are discussing here is not whether or not Phillips could estimate the TOD for Chapman. Maybe he could, maybe he could not (most of the time, the medicos will have made useful suggestions, based as they were on empirical knowledge), but the latter matter is why we should never rely 100 per cent on any such estimation.
Then again, he MADE no estimation of a TOD. He never said "she died at 3,45 or thereabouts". What he DID say was that he could not be sure of any exact time of TOD, and therefore he could only offer the certainty that it was no less than two hours away. After that, it could have been two and a quarter hours, three hours, three and a half and so on. So he took GREAT care to tell us what applied, and GREAT care to inform us that there will be uncertainty - to a degree. He was every bit as discerning as one could hope and ask for.

I find that strange since it is such a small point to your bigger picture,

Every little bit should be scrutinized and established as best as we can REGARDLESS of whether it reinforces or contradicts our beliefs. And we should never let a coroner, intent on trying to make ends meet, come what may, govern our critical abilities of afterthought. Baxter has done you and many others a great disservice.

You rely heavily on three witnesses who cotradict the medical evidence, because you speculate that Phillips may have been wrong. You do not, however, speculate that the witnesses may have been wrong. That is off.

Think of it this way: There are three witnesses speaking for Chaoman dying around 3 AM:

The temperature of the body.

The rigor onset.

The general apparition of the body, with the "well clotted" blood, etcetera.

These three witnesses are unable to lie. They can have no such intentions. They are, taken together, far more reliable than three witnesses we KNOW contradict each other, and we KNOW have been recorded as saying different things on different occasions, and we KNOW were swaying at times.

Then ask yourself whether you are able to feel that your child runs a fever by feeling his/her forehead. I know I always could do that, and that I never was wrong. I easily told 38 degrees from 37, and I suspect you could work that same magic too. Most, if not all parents, can.

Annie Chapman was killed at the same approximate time as the other C5 victims in the area. To believe in Long, Cadosh and Richardson, we must abandon that thought. Just as we must accept that Phillips was twohundred per cent off the mark and that Chapman attracted quick rigor like rotten meat attracts flies.

Letīs not discuss whether it is impossible to ensure exactitude when establishing TOD by means of feeling for warmth. We agree that it is. But one can agree about that matter without accepting that people can grow cold to the touch in an hour or less, because they simply cannot. And an experienced medico like Phillips would never make a mistake as humongous as suggested.

These are related matters, but nevertheless different matters altogether. Trying to deny that is not helpful.

This is a far as we will get, Jeff. If you want to falsely reiterate once more that I believe that TOD can always be established be feeling for warmth, then do so, by all means. I can only pray that those who read the thread will see what you are doing.
Iīm off for now.

[Fisherman]

You don't seem to understand what the implications of variability has. Pretty much everything you put forth is rebutted by "the measures vary the much"in one way or another.

Nope. The one impaired in his understanding is not me, Iīm afraid. Measures can vary very much, and they certainly DO at times - but they do not vary THAT much. You are trying to use a generalistic statement as if it entailed ALL variations, and it does not work that way.

[JeffHamm]

So can i ask jeff, if just for argument sake only, lets say Drs Brown and Sequeria stumbled upon Eddoews body at 1.45 ,after they examined the body, what do you think they would have suggested to each other as to her T.O.D ? given she was killed at 1.30 [even tho they didnt know that ]

Do you honestly think that they couldn't have roughly [ i.e in at least 15 /20 mins] determined she had been killed in in that time frame . ?

Because if the answers yes then that leaves me a little confused as to why the coroner would have even bothered to ask their medical opinions as to Eddowes t.o.d when when he already knew from the police reports and patrol times just a thought .

I'll just say I think they would say she was killed at 9. Why? Because what I think they would say is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact their confidence is unwarranted

[JeffHamm]

My feeling is that any further debate is useless.

There isn't a debate as to whether or not ToD can be accurately determined by touch. It can't, that's a fact. We're stuck here because you (and others) won't accept that for some reason. I find that strange since it is such a small point to your bigger picture,

[JeffHamm]

The medical testimony, once viewed objectively, tells us why the police favoured Phillips. because his evidence tells us that the witnesses must have been wrong.

You don't seem to understand what the implications of variability has. Pretty much everything you put forth is rebutted by "the measures vary the much"in one way or another.

[Fisherman]

My feeling is that any further debate is useless.

[Fisherman]

The exposed surface of a body does do exactly that, particularly if there's any breeze which causes the surface to cool more quickly. Fully clothed bodies will cool more slowly as the clothing acts as insulation (the rate of cooling is based upon the difference in temperature between the body jst below the skin and the air surrounding the skin. The greater that difference, the faster the heat transfers from the internal side to the external. Chapman's midsection was exposed, and the cavity opened, creating a greater surface area than normal, resulting in a faster rate of heat loss. This aspect is basic physics, and we don't get to change that. Bodies, in fact all objects, cool this way. As the volume of matter near the surface transfers heat to the environment, that starts creating a temperature gradient within the body, and heat is drawn from the core towards the surface, to eventually exit into the surrounding atmosphere.

These are all truths - exaggerated beyond any likelihood. Why did not Eddowes body respond to these demands of yours? Why did not SHE cool down very rapidly? Why was SHE quite warm three quarters of an hour after being killed?

Because things do not move along as quickly as you need them to to explain how Chapman accomplished the inaccomplishable, thatīs why. And you can go on for a lifetime about how they were different cases, because that will not help you cool Chapman down the way you need to.

I can ask you what I asked Herlock: Baxter produced a carte blanche, seemingly, when he said that Phillips allowed for a quicker cooling. He allowed for Phillipsīsuggested TOD of perhaps three hours to be shaved down to an hour - or less!! He allowed for the absolute minimum Phillips gave to be HALVED!!!

If Long and Cadosh had said that they made their observations five mninutes before Davies found the body, would you have accepted that? What are you ready to allow for? Anything?

The reason rectal temperatures are used is because it takes longer for the internal heat to dissipate. Internal temperatures tended to be stable for about 45 minutes in the study I mentioned earlier because it takes that long under those conditions for the internal temperature gradient to reach the core of the body. But since that study was conducted at warmer temperatures than Annie Chapman's body was found, that duration of stability would be longer in the study than for Chapman because the rate of heat transfer for Chapman would be faster due to the larger temperature difference between her body and the external air, and because her body was directly exposed removing any insulating influence of her clothes. She was also cut open, so there was a greater surface area from which heat loss would occur.

Eddowes was much MORE exposed. Eddowes was ALSO cut open. Eddowes is a prime example of where we KNOW the aproximate TOD and where we KNOW just how much exposed conditions and cool temperatures affect a dead body. Bodes-cannot-grow-all-cold-in-an-hour, regardless if they are people we need to produce a theory of sorts. Iīm sorry, but you are fantazising.

It's not an opinion, it's how the physical universe works, these are facts.

Then somebody should have told Eddowes that she needed to adjust to those rules. Apparently, she did not know them.

Brown also says she must have been dead within the half hour, and he states he arrived at 2:18, placing her ToD after she was found dead.

Meaning that after 40 or so minutes, she was so warm that Brown thought she had only been dead for half an hour. Meaning that she retained more heat than he would have expected from somebody who had been dead for 40 minutes. Anyway, he made an error of 25 per cent timewise. You think Phillips made on of 200 per cent. Can you see why I will not touch that kind of reasoning with a ten feet pole?

Each person's perceptions are different, each person's criterion for describing something as warm/cold is different, this is why thermometers are used. It removes all the variation due to these types of subjective aspects.

And each doctor is aware of how he thinks 37 degrees on a forehead feels, and adjusts the rest after that. Thermometers are much more reliable, but hand palpations is not as unrelaibale as you need it to be. Itīs the exact same problem as it always was, and the exact same exaggerations as has always been produced. To the exact same avail.

Also, we have no description of where these touches were made on the two bodies, if Brown felt under a layer of clothing, and Phillips is not, for example, that would make a huge difference. But we don't know the important details, we do know that touch is not reliable where ever those touches were made though, we don't know the temperature of the air on the two occasions, so it doesn't matter why different people people report different things based upon touch. The variation between the situations is so large the entire ToD by touch estimations are not only unsafe, they are unreliable.

I tend to thinik the doctors actually knew how to go about their business, but hey, maybe they had no idea, and freelanced as best as they could. Good point!

This is a bit of a diversion from our topic, since Dr. Phillips didn't take internal temperatures with a thermometer, he touched the surface of it.

As he had done thousands of times, being extremely well versed in how these things work.

So, Dr. Phillips is basing his ToD, according to your explanation, by feeling the "underlying warmth" that is on the other side of the cold surface of her body. I have no idea how he could have done that because if you expose a living body to cold temperatures, it will feel cold to the touch quite quickly - one can't "feel through" to the internal temperature just like one can't see through a wall, but it doesn't matter if I don't understand what you're getting at, let's for the sake of discussion go with the the idea that Dr. Phillips can sense the internal temperature through the cold surface.

Oh dear. Please, PLEASE go back and read about skin temperature variations. The suyrface of the skin WILL grow cold to the touch in twenty. minutes or thereabouts when we die. But the core temperature does not disappear in twenty minutes on account of that. And core temperature can be picked up THROUGH the skin for around three hours or so after death. Plus core temperature will not drop the first 30-60 minutes. Although ths skin is cool on the surface it allows for underlying warmth to be felt through the skin. Ergo if Chapman was 37,0 Celsius in the core when she died, then she was around 37,0 Celsius in the core an hour after her death too. "Quite warm". Like Eddowes.

We know the variation in internal temperatures would produce a time window spanning hours, so even if the variation of this less reliable method were the same, rather than far larger (which would be the case), by estimating a ToD around 4:30, the margin of error for that estimate spans the time derived from the witness statements.

The medical testimony, once viewed objectively, does not contradict the witnesses.

- Jeff

The medical testimony, once viewed objectively, tells us why the police favoured Phillips. because his evidence tells us that the witnesses must have been wrong.

[chameleon1]

Sorry but I’m not going back through the Phillips TOD again but if you read back you will see. That Phillips could have been wrong is an indisputable fact. The witnesses make it overwhelmingly likely that he was. I’ve had enough of contortions and efforts to credit Phillips with superpowers and desperate efforts to discredit witnesses on the flimsiest of grounds.

That the killer killed at 5.30 ish is not unlikely in the slightest. It happened.

Yes but describe if you will just how Phillips could not have told the difference from a body that was 1 hour deceased from one that he believed to be 2 hours probably more. if his trying to suggest that the body was 2 hours and more when it was actually 1, would not Chapmans body in her MORE RECENT state prove otherwise ?

ill repeat that

Chapmans body in her MORE RECENTLY DECEASED state prove otherwise.... You dont have to Chapmans body does that.

[chameleon1]

I think they would. Basically, they would have been informed of all relevant details, including patrol times, and they would be using that to form their opinion. Nothing obviously contradicted that possibiity (i.e. it's not skeletal remains, as an extreme example), so they are just stating that yes, death at that time is, in their opinion, reasonable. There is no method to determine ToD to the degree of precision that would allow them at that time, or even them at this time, to state a ToD to within a 15 minute window.

So can i ask jeff, if just for argument sake only, lets say Drs Brown and Sequeria stumbled upon Eddoews body at 1.45 ,after they examined the body, what do you think they would have suggested to each other as to her T.O.D ? given she was killed at 1.30 [even tho they didnt know that ]
Do you honestly think that they couldn't have roughly [ i.e in at least 15 /20 mins] determined she had been killed in in that time frame . ?

Because if the answers yes then that leaves me a little confused as to why the coroner would have even bothered to ask their medical opinions as to Eddowes t.o.d when when he already knew from the police reports and patrol times just a thought .

[chameleon1]

No I’m not saying that the sounds must have come from the killer only that this is overwhelmingly the likeliest explanation. As I’ve said before, if someone suggests that Phillips was correct and that Annie was already dead at the time that Cadosch heard the noise then what are the chances of an innocent explanation for someone moving around in that yard when there was a horrifically mutilatedcorpse lying there. There is no innocent explanation. If he heard something against the fence then the chances of it being unconnected to the murder are simply not worth consideration.

Simply because when codosh by his own admission said he couldn't be sure that the ''No'' came from number29 ,which allows one to successfully argue that the ''No'' didn't come from number 29. Therefor there was nobody in the yard of 29 at that time to notice a mutilated corpse, and again the thud against the fence was just a noise from the other side that codosch heard, it doesn't mean that there any human presents in the yard that made the thud . So the above quote is of little importance in relation to Chapmans murder .

[chameleon1]

[QUOTE]You cannot ignore Phillips he was called as a witness just like all the others, so his evidence is there to be tested, and what fault is there with his testimony, was he consistent with his testimony, did it differ from any of the other witnesses, because the other witnesses certainly conflicted with each other. The issue has been created by those who question his estimated TOD, and as there are other witness conflicts, which raise questions that remain unanswered.

For a start we have no evidence of any other victim being murdered as late as 5.30am when it was almost daylight. Now I know there are those who will say serial killers dont stick to times but rely on opportunity. Well I am sure if the killer was looking to kill, there would have been endless opportunities to find a victim long before 5.30am, when he was risking being seen, or captured red handed that scenario is not logical in the grand scheme of the murders.

Richardson could have missed the body, in his testimony he stated it was not light but getting light. John Davis stated the body was lying between the steps and the fence which means that when the door was opened it could have hidden the body from view (take a look at the door and where it would have been, and how it could have obscured the body from someone standing on the steps who was looking to his right to see that the cellar lock was secure as was Richardson.

Insp Chandler states her head was towards the back wall of the house 2 feet from the wall, and the body not more than 6-9 inches from the steps. and parallel with the fencing and the legs drawn up !

Dr Phillips "The stiffness of the limbs was not marked but commencing" which I would suggest would not start to occur within 60 minutes, but on an average between 2-6 hours depending on the conditions.

Chapman was last seen alive at 1.45am when she said she was going to get money for her lodgings, that could only have meant by prostitution. Are we expected to believe she was wandering the streets for 3.30 more hours looking for customers. The later it got the less people who would have been on the streets, and besides had she not got her money by that time she would have been looking to find somewhere to try to sleep, had she been killed much earlier than 5.30am would explain the onset of rigor as described by Phillips. Now please don't quote all the charts about the time it takes for rigor to commence. no two case are the same. So any chart is just as unreliable as you would say Phillips TOD is.

So you see it is not as clear cut as you and Herlock suggest that she was killed at 5.30am and that Phillips was wrong in his TOD, and that I still maintain that the supporting witness testimony is unsafe to totally rely on. So we have reached an impasse. You pays your money and you takes your choice


Thats probably the most common sense approach to the whole Chapman murder , which i agree also . Very well put Trevor. Thankyou.

[JeffHamm]

You are being pedantic now if she was killed between 1.45am and 5.45am then is that not pre Richardsons arrival ?

? That's not being pedantic, that is describing the pre-Richardson time that you're arguing for. And for you to argue for that you have to dismiss the witness statements because those statements preclude all of that time window.

Open the box look at the bigger picture, carefully scrutinize the witness statements, look at what questions could and should have been asked of them which were not asked and may well have tested their accuracy.

I have. I agree, there's a lot of further questioning that one would do if this were an active investigation, but it isn't, we can't do that. Ironically, by asking further questions we no doubt would get information from the witnesses that they had not mentioned before, and by getting more information you seem to argue that would make their statements even more unsafe since your basis for that claim is that they added details.

We dont have the original inquest testimony reports so all there is to rely on are the newspaper reports, and as has been seen when comparing the Eddowes original inquest testimony reports with newspaper reports, there are significant discrepancies. So how can it be said in this case they are safe to totally rely on?

Nobody is totally relying upon them, and the minutia of their statements are viewed as likely to be incorrect. However, unless there is evidence to indicate the gist of their statements are incorrect, we have to consider them as a source of information to be accounted for. This is what everyone has been doing.

As I've said a few times, Dr. Phillips estimation for the ToD, once viewed with the margin of error even of a more reliable measure (which itself is shockingly bad), does not contradict the gist of the witnesses. Meaning, all of the evidence we have is consistent with a ToD corresponding to the times derived from the witness statements. It's not relying on any one piece of evidence, it's the picture we get from all of the evidence combined.

Pre-Richardson arguments require throwing out the witness statement information entirely.

Its not rocket science, if you or anyone else wants to believe a specific time of death, then that is you prerogative and nothing anyone will say is going to change that, equally the same applies to those who think differently are never going to change its all a matter of opinion, and my opinion is that based on the MO of the killer in relation to other murders she was not killed as late as 5.30am.

It's your choice to ignore the information from the witness statements, and to ignore the variability associated with estimating ToD by temperature, whether gathered by objective measures using thermometers with all the other environmental variables measured, or by touch alone without any of the other necessary information collected.

Have a nice day

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

you too Trevor. Always a pleasure (and that is sincerely meant, just in case it seems otherwise). I do admire your insistence that the evidence be re-evaluated to examine the standard conclusions, although I don't agree that the standard conclusions are necessarily wrong. Rather, in this situation, I think it's the only conclusion one can derive from the evidence we have. Either that's what the evidence says, or one is simply left with no basis to suggest any particular ToD (which means, either one ends up at a ToD somewhere around 5:20-5:25, or one ends up saying while that might be possible, the window is much wider - I can't see one getting to "ithe evidence suggests pre-Richardson and excludes times after him).

- Jeff