Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[Fisherman]

I disagree with that assessment.
This is Phillips in the Tele:

Baxter: How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her?
Phillips: 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.

Now in the Evening Standard, Sep 14:

Baxter: How long had the deceased been dead when you first saw the body?
Phillips: I should say at least two hours, and probably more, but it is right in connection with that opinion 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.

With respect to the principle; the most detail, wins - we have to base our judgment of Phillips estimate, on the words recorded by the reporter for the Standard, not the Telegraph.
Thus, Phillips is saying it would not only be valid to suppose that the combined effect of ambient temperature and blood loss on body cooling, could reduce his minimum time since death, but indeed, these variables should be factored into his own estimate.
In other words, Phillips' minimum estimate is actually 2 hours, minus the effect of blood loss on the rate of cooling.

"That opinion" means "and probably more". End of.

I´ll ask you the same question as I pout to our learned Danish friend: You presumably know what "at least" means?

[Fisherman]

Absolute nonsense.

Yes, that´s why I corrected Harry.

[Fisherman]

4 concurring unreliables = completely reliable.

Yes. If it was not like that, then why check multiple parameters in the first place? For pastime?

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

You are misrrepresenting me again, naughty you. Any form of discrepancy is not enough for dismissal, only major discrepancies are.

Witness + police disagree = police must be correct.

Another lie. I never said that, did I? What I am saying is that the police are more LIKELY to be correct, generally speaking, than amateur witnesses. But I would not want to try and quantify it.

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.

Next lie. All we can say is that witness psychology tells us that facial identification is a very unsafe business.

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

Next lie. It all binges on the circumstances.

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

More untruths and fall accusations. If a witness gives two very doifferent versions of his or her testimony in a high profile case, the risk of attention-seeking must be factored in as a possibility.

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

Whereas you have an urge to misrepresent me 24/7.

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

If a witness IS remarkably stupid then this wil be recognized by those hearing his or her testimony, and they will draw whatever conclusions they find apt from it. It´s much the same in many walks of life.

These appear to be the rules.

If they appear to be the rules to you, then I find it convenient to make the point that you are remarkably wrong.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

I disagree with that assessment.
This is Phillips in the Tele:

Baxter: How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her?
Phillips: 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.

Now in the Evening Standard, Sep 14:

Baxter: How long had the deceased been dead when you first saw the body?
Phillips: I should say at least two hours, and probably more, but it is right in connection with that opinion 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.

With respect to the principle; the most detail, wins - we have to base our judgment of Phillips estimate, on the words recorded by the reporter for the Standard, not the Telegraph.
Thus, Phillips is saying it would not only be valid to suppose that the combined effect of ambient temperature and blood loss on body cooling, could reduce his minimum time since death, but indeed, these variables should be factored into his own estimate.
In other words, Phillips' minimum estimate is actually 2 hours, minus the effect of blood loss on the rate of cooling.

[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, I´m 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 let´s 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 don´t 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", don´t 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 there´s 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. It´s unbecoming.

[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]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Do I win £5, Herlock?

Love,

Caz
X

Call it a tenner Caz

[caz]

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

Do I win £5, Herlock?

Love,

Caz
X

[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.

[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, I´m 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.

[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.

[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?

[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]

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, I´m 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.