Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I think what I take away from Phillips comments is this, he could not be certain when the death occurred. He believed that based on what his experience told him the body was in a state that was consistent with the death being about 2 hours prior to his arrival, however he acknowledges that because the body was almost drained of blood, and was cut wide open with internal organs removed, and because it was a "cool morning" ...he felt "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."

Lets be clear about this, Phillips had no experience quite like this to draw from. The body was in such a state that its inconceivable he would have had to make a similar TOD "estimate" in his entire career. He did add the line I highlighted though, which to me translates to...by the state of the remains I would presume a death a few hours prior to my examination of it, but that estimate may be incorrect due to this unusual state and the environmental conditions.

He is saying it could have been sooner than 2 hours if he didnt factor the conditions of this cold and the bloodless body correctly...which is perfectly understandable under those circumstances, and it shows him to be a man of honest appraisal, rather than speaking from ego.

The relevancy of Phillips' estimate not only relates to John, Albert & Elizabeth, but to Amelia also...

On Saturday morning I called Mr. Thomson at ten minutes or a quarter to four o'clock.

Amelia is very awake, no later than 3:45, and probably 3:30.
Do you really suppose that Annie, in her state, managed to tip-toe into the backyard without being heard?
I think it likely that Amelia knew full well the two were there.
Why do you suppose she raised the leather apron subject? What was the relevancy?

[Fisherman]

Most of what we are hearing about Cabosch is hearsay.What other persons said of him. What is important is that from the little he imparts,only one person can be placed in the yard of 29 at the time he(Cabosch) was in the adjoining yard.Accept those two pieces of information,then the truthfulness of Richardson,Long and Cadosch is more easily understood.

Yes, that is correct. One person only can be safely placed in the backyard of no 29 at the time Cadosch claimed to be doing the toilet rounds. And that person is Annie Chapman. And she was dead.

To make Cadoschīs story true, TWO persons, not one, must be placed in the backyard of no 29.

As for the level of truthfulness we may ascribe to Cadosch, Iīve already commented extensively on that point.

[Fisherman]

Can we stop suggesting that Phillips said that Chapman had been dead AT LEAST (meaning absolutely no less than) two hours and probably more - and that he by saying that actually meant that he could be totally wrong about it, and one hour only could be just as realistic?

It is well documented that no body grows all cold in an hour only. It cannot happen.

It is well documented that rigor is totally unlikely to set in after an hour only, and that this becomes even unlikelier in cold conditions.

It is also well documented that blood dries up over time, not like a gunshot.

The warmth of a human body is typically discernible for a period of four hours after death. When we reach those four hours, the last remaining heat tapers off and disappears. Not surprisingly, the body starts out being completely warm, and then the temperature gradually falls. Itīs not rocket science. What IS rocket science is that we now know that the temperature fall does not start until after half an hour or an hour. Before that, it stays on itīs original plateau and can even RISE somewhat.

After two hours only, Chapmans body should have been reasonably warm in many places. But since Phillips allowed for the possibility that the temperature fall could increase the speed at which the body lost itīs warmth, he accepted that possibly, the small warmth that he could feel and that would normally point to a TOD three hours of more away, could perhaps have come about earlier in Chapmans body.

Taken together with the rigor and the clotting of the blood, he was certain that two hours was an absolute minimum. He did not per se believe that it WAS as little as two hours, he thought it was significantly more than so, but in order to establish a minimum of time, he laid down that this absolute minimum was two hours.
Now, when we say "at least" two hours, we donīt mean to say "probably one hour only". We actually mean to say "two hours OR MORE".

Phillips said that he expected more than two hours, but added that it was fair to say that it was a cold morning and that the damage done was so large that this could perhaps - but only perhaps - have quickened the cooling off process to a degree that allowed for two hours only.

He never thought that is was in any way likely, but he admitted that it was perhaps possible. Perhaps.

To infer from this that he ALSO thought that one hour was possible is beyond ignorance. Meaning that coroner Baxter was a man who showcased this exact attitude at the inquest. He tried his darnedest to put together a sscenario in which the three witnesses were correct, and in doing so, he did history a huge disservice, because he invited people with as little contact with reality as he himself had to join him on his crusade.

And 132 years on, they are still marching, sword in hand, brain at a standstill and a blindfold over the eyes.

[Kattrup]

Can we stop suggesting that Phillips said that Chapman had been dead AT LEAST (meaning absolutely no less than) two hours and probably more - and that he by saying that actually meant that he could be totally wrong about it, and one hour only could be just as realistic?

Could you point out where people have said this, it doesn’t really ring a bell.

What people have said is that it’s possible that Philips was mistaken, and that he, in his own testimony, allows for that possibility.

[Fisherman]

Could you point out where people have said this, it doesn’t really ring a bell.

What people have said is that it’s possible that Philips was mistaken, and that he, in his own testimony, allows for that possibility.

For Phillips to have been enough wrong to allow for Long and Cadosch to be correct, he would have to have allowed for a TOD a mere hour removed in time. This is what is suggested by those who do not understand the basics or who uses Phillips wording to try and circumnavigate his intentions. It fails miserably.

What Phillips in his own testimony allows for is a TOD removed a mere two hours in time, nothing else. It is not as if he hands people a carte blanche, Iīm afraid. Nor is he admitting that the two hour limit is something he could be mistaken about. It is a time minimum he offers so as to be certain that he is NOT mistaken.

Others are mistaken though, epically so - and they can be found on this very forum.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

The Rigor Mortis matter seems a fair point for opting for an earlier TOD, sinces Annie's muscle tissue wasn't damaged, as was the case with Mary Kelly.

Digestion is affected by many things and alone isn't a strong argument, but tied to Rigor Mortis, it could help establish time if the two seem to tally up, which in this case they appear to, notwithstanding that both are variable in and of themselves.

The reliance on body temperature and blood clotting is undoubtedly the weakest of the arguments. Phillips determined it by hand as I recall? By feeling under the organs? Even if accurate equipment was used, it's totally irrelevant. An intact body is not going to be the same as one cut open and bled out. I'll grab my sword and blindfold, but basic physics suggests that any liquid with an ambient temperature of around 36°c is going to cool rapidly when exposed to a cold open environment and cold ground. And Annie was cut open, intestines removed, uterus removed, blood drained, but hey, her temp might have even increased, because that's what might happen in a recently deceased individual who's intact, and probably indoors. Seriously, of all the parameters, the body temp is the least reliable.

Yes, I'll face the wrath of Fisherman, but what I'm suggesting is that Phillips' four indisputable factors are more like three. Phillips allows for this in his own testimony. By being cautious.

[Fisherman]

The Rigor Mortis matter seems a fair point for opting for an earlier TOD, sinces Annie's muscle tissue wasn't damaged, as was the case with Mary Kelly.

Digestion is affected by many things and alone isn't a strong argument, but tied to Rigor Mortis, it could help establish time if the two seem to tally up, which in this case they appear to, notwithstanding that both are variable in and of themselves.

The reliance on body temperature and blood clotting is undoubtedly the weakest of the arguments. Phillips determined it by hand as I recall? By feeling under the organs? Even if accurate equipment was used, it's totally irrelevant. An intact body is not going to be the same as one cut open and bled out. I'll grab my sword and blindfold, but basic physics suggests that any liquid with an ambient temperature of around 36ðc is going to cool rapidly when exposed to a cold open environment and cold ground. And Annie was cut open, intestines removed, uterus removed, blood drained, but hey, her temp might have even increased, because that's what might happen in a recently deceased individual who's intact, and probably indoors. Seriously, of all the parameters, the body temp is the least reliable.

Yes, I'll face the wrath of Fisherman, but what I'm suggesting is that Phillips' four indisputable factors are more like three. Phillips allows for this in his own testimony. By being cautious.

None of the factors are per se indisputable. Taken together they make for certainty, though. And although there is uncertainty built into the temperature factor, Phillips had twenty years plus experience of judging it, presumably in all kinds of weather and temperature and with very varying damage done. The real drawback was that the Victorians were not aware of the initial temperature plateau. If Phillips had know about it, he would perhaps have felt even more certain of a TOD hours removed.

What Phillips allows for is a TOD a mere two hours away, nothing else. And that was being super cautious. He does NOT allow for a death 1.59 away only.

If he had allowed for anything, a carte blanche, why is it that the police did not even trust Richardson on the timings, who was there 1.45 before Phillips? Because, of course, the doctor made it very clear that two hours was a minimum. An absolute one. At. 4.45, Chapman was lying dead in the yard, as far as Phillips was concerned.

There, how did my wrath hit you?

[harry]

Fisherman,
How does it have to be two persons in the backyard to make Cadosch story true? Could have been Chapman alive and alone that he heard.He heard one person utter a single word,and regardless of anything else he was reported as saying,that is the essential circumstance of his testimony.If the reporting is to be believed,and that circumstance alone is why Richardson,Long,and Cadosch is and was , favoured over that of Phillips.

[Kattrup]

For Phillips to have been enough wrong to allow for Long and Cadosch to be correct, he would have to have allowed for a TOD a mere hour removed in time. This is what is suggested by those who do not understand the basics or who uses Phillips wording to try and circumnavigate his intentions. It fails miserably.

What Phillips in his own testimony allows for is a TOD removed a mere two hours in time, nothing else. It is not as if he hands people a carte blanche, Iīm afraid. Nor is he admitting that the two hour limit is something he could be mistaken about. It is a time minimum he offers so as to be certain that he is NOT mistaken.

Others are mistaken though, epically so - and they can be found on this very forum.

What you said was that “we” should “stop suggesting” - meaning you think that it was done often and repetitively - that Philips meant something other than what he said, and that he thought TOD within one hour was “just as realistic” as what he actually said.

Would you please point out where posters have asserted this opinion, is what I asked.

Because, as I explained, what some people have pointed out is that Philips could have been mistaken.
Not that HE meant that one hour was just as realistic as two.

Now, you may feel that this is a small point, nitpicking. But as I recall, you yourself dislike having your arguments twisted or exaggerated so they appear senseless or ridiculous.

The argument that Philips could have been mistaken, and that he allowed for this in his testimony, is neither.

Let us recall that Philips begins his statement “I should say”, which already indicates a softer estimate, not an absolute.

You also claim that Philips “but”-clause applies only to the part of his testimony stating that TOD was “probably” more than two hours.

That is incorrect in my opinion; at best it is an interpretation that may be discussed, but equally the interpretation that it applies to his entire statement regarding TOD is valid.
Grammatically, the “and” means both parts of his statement form a whole, which is modified by his “but”-clause.

Therefore, the certainty with which you claim that Philips never allowed for less than two hours ought to be restrained.

In fact, Philips was enough of an expert to realize that he could be mistaken. Just as is expected today, I believe, when estimates of TOD should not be used to exclude possible suspects.

[Herlock Sholmes]

4 concurring unreliables = completely reliable.

Witness + any form of discrepancy ( no matter about possible explanations) = complete dismissal.

Witness + police disagree = police must be correct.

If a witness sees a face they are probably mistaken but if they tell the time by hearing a clock chime then they are undoubtedly correct.

If a witness is confident about A but cautious about B then A can be dismissed.

In the absence of a reason the ‘fifteen minutes of fame’ argument should be deployed.

Serial killers only get the urge to kill at consistent times.

Remarkable stupidity can be assigned to a witness if convenient to make a point.

These appear to be the rules.

[caz]

In short, black = white when there's a theory to defend.

Do I win Ģ5, Herlock?

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

In short, black = white when there's a theory to defend.

Do I win Ģ5, Herlock?

Love,

Caz
X

Call it a tenner Caz

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
How does it have to be two persons in the backyard to make Cadosch story true?

Could have been Chapman alive and alone that he heard.He heard one person utter a single word,and regardless of anything else he was reported as saying,that is the essential circumstance of his testimony.If the reporting is to be believed,and that circumstance alone is why Richardson,Long,and Cadosch is and was , favoured over that of Phillips.

He said he herd a conversation and a scuffle, so unless a single person spoke to him- or herself and started a brawl with him- or herself, there were two people in the backyard of no 29.

[DJA]

He said he herd a conversation and a scuffle, so unless a single person spoke to him- or herself and started a brawl with him- or herself, there were two people in the backyard of no 29.

Absolute nonsense.

[Fisherman]

What you said was that “we” should “stop suggesting” - meaning you think that it was done often and repetitively - that Philips meant something other than what he said, and that he thought TOD within one hour was “just as realistic” as what he actually said.

Would you please point out where posters have asserted this opinion, is what I asked.

You will have to do the search all by yourself, Iīm afraid. Start with Baxter.

Because, as I explained, what some people have pointed out is that Philips could have been mistaken.
Not that HE meant that one hour was just as realistic as two.

And if he only allowed for a five minute mistake - which he never did - why is that interesting?

Now, you may feel that this is a small point, nitpicking. But as I recall, you yourself dislike having your arguments twisted or exaggerated so they appear senseless or ridiculous.

Then letīs point out how you claim that I would have stated that somebody has SAID that Phillips held this view, but in fact I said that it has been SUGGESTED. Meaning that you are misquoting me. And yes, I dislike such things.

The argument that Philips could have been mistaken, and that he allowed for this in his testimony, is neither.

The argument that Phillips allowed for less than two hours - and that is another argument that is there, but that you will have to look up yourself - is ridiculous. The argument that he allowed for less than two hours in his testimony is equally ridiculous. If you donīt know what "at least" means, you need to look it up.

Let us recall that Philips begins his statement “I should say”, which already indicates a softer estimate, not an absolute.

I should say that is not necessarily true. It would equally be taken as "My view is" and that has nothing to do with anything but professional pride.

You also claim that Philips “but”-clause applies only to the part of his testimony stating that TOD was “probably” more than two hours.

Clearly, this is so.

That is incorrect in my opinion; at best it is an interpretation that may be discussed, but equally the interpretation that it applies to his entire statement regarding TOD is valid.

No, it is invalid. If it had applied to the entire statement, he would not be able to say "at least two hours". You seem to think he dismissed his own professional verdict - in the same sentence when he gave it!

When he examined Chapman, she had a body temperature that was consistent with having been dead 3-4 hours. What Phillips did was to offer learoom down to 2 hours only. That is why he says that it is fair to say...etc. The sequence in his sentence is clear: 1/ At least two hours. 2. But it is probably more than that. 3 But since it was cold, I allow for two hours as the extreme point.

Your take is another one: A/ At least two hours. B/ Probably more than two hours. C/ Forget what I said, it could be anything.

You DO understand that "at least" does not mean "around", donīt you?

Grammatically, the “and” means both parts of his statement form a whole, which is modified by his “but”-clause.

But to that grammar of yours, "at least two hours" cannot be joined.

Therefore, the certainty with which you claim that Philips never allowed for less than two hours ought to be restrained.

No, I am not the one who needs restraining. That particular jacket belongs to the view that Phillips did not know what "at least" means.

In fact, Philips was enough of an expert to realize that he could be mistaken. Just as is expected today, I believe, when estimates of TOD should not be used to exclude possible suspects.

That differs from case to case. There are cases when TOD estimates cannot be so wrong as to risk a faulty conviction, and there are cases where they are at risk to do so - and thereīs a greyzone inbetween. Our case is a certain one - Annie Chapman was dead at 4.30 AND PROBABLY BEFORE!

You really should not try to sound discerning and openminded when you close your ears to facts you dislike. Itīs unbecoming.