Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I thought 29 Hanbury St was a semi slum yard with a mouldy apron under a tap.

    Apparently it rivalled the Moulin flippin' Rouge. "Too upmarket!"
    Thems the Vagaries.....

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
      I thought 29 Hanbury St was a semi slum yard with a mouldy apron under a tap.

      Apparently it rivalled the Moulin flippin' Rouge. "Too upmarket!"
      Almost anything would be luxurious compared to that backyard. There's also the privacy aspect.

      Why was the apron under the tap?
      Mold is due to dampness, so what is the point of putting a moldy apron under a tap and leaving it there for days?
      Why wasn't the leather apron hung up to dry?
      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

        Where in the quote is it mentioned that the police doubted or mistrusted Richardson?
        If at first you donīt succeed, try, try again.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          I still don’t think he missed a body Fish.
          I know. And thatīs fine, as long as you understand that he could have. Without being blind or imbecile.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

            Almost anything would be luxurious compared to that backyard. There's also the privacy aspect.

            Why was the apron under the tap?
            Mold is due to dampness, so what is the point of putting a moldy apron under a tap and leaving it there for days?
            Why wasn't the leather apron hung up to dry?
            My initial hunch would be 'bone idleness' followed by a total lack of toss' given about it by Richardson.

            But the real question is how are you factoring in this apron with Madame Richardson's high class massage parlour?
            Thems the Vagaries.....

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

              Prove to me that Phillips was less aware about what he didnīt know than todays doctors are, please. My take on things are that we are not the crown of creation, we are passers-by who will be laughed at in a hundred years, for being so very ignorant. At that stage, people will say "They did not know that they did not know!" in the exact same way that you say it about Phillips.

              Chapman should have been around 36-37 degrees Celsius when she was found if she was killed at 5.30. But she had taken on ambient temperature, but for the little remaining heat under her intestines.

              Chapman should not have developed rigor when she was found, if she died at 5.30 - but rigor had reached to the limbs already, and it typically starts in the face.

              Chapmans blood should not have dried up at 6.30 if she died at 5.30 - but it had done precisely that.

              Itīs not as if these things were the other way around in 1888. Maybe you donīt realize that you donīt realize that, Cazzie?
              A good doctor, in 1888 or 2020, should always be able to admit that they don't have all the answers, and that an estimate, or opinion, is just that. Phillips acknowledged that TOD was not an exact science back then, and it's not an exact science today, so I am in no way criticising him or trying to suggest he got it wrong. For all I know, he could have been as right as it was possible for anyone to be, and Chapman died in accordance with his estimate.

              All I was trying to say is that without reliable independent support for that estimate, it could have been wrong. I have no preferred TOD for Chapman, so I couldn't really care less if Phillips was right or wrong. But I wouldn't use his estimate to support or reject a ripper suspect theory.

              You also wrote:

              Technically, when a doctor says that a mortally ill patient is going to die, it is also "guesswork" and an opinion.
              Bad example, if I may say so, Fish. My late mother-in-law was told by her consultant that in his opinion she had lung cancer and was advised to have the appropriate treatment. That diagnosis alone could have finished her off as she was always a terrible worrier. She was too scared to undergo any further treatment or xrays, and believed she would soon die anyway. But she lived without getting any worse for another four years, and when she finally died following a bout of flu which turned to pneumonia, it was found that she didn't have cancer after all, and had worried needlessly because the consultant's opinion had been wrong.

              Similarly, Dr Harold Shipman told one of his patients that he had terminal cancer, and the patient sued him for medical negligence when it turned out that he got it wrong. Mind you, Shipman thought and acted like he was God.

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


              Comment


              • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

                Where in the quote is it mentioned that the police doubted or mistrusted Richardson?
                Fisherman’s original post ( part of it )

                As per the Star, the police did not trust Richardson, so claiming that no one jumped on the issue is not something we can do: "Considerable doubt is being thrown on the evidence of John Richardson, who stated that he was almost on the exact spot where the body was found at a quarter to five on Saturday morning, and no signs of the murder were then apparent. It is now beginning to be believed that the woman was brought to the backyard in Hanbury-street some time earlier."

                Its a good spot Kattrup. In the quote it doesn’t actually say who was doing the doubting.
                Regards

                Herlock




                “...A yellow fog swirls past the window-pane
                As night descends upon this fabled street:
                A lonely hansom splashes through the rain,
                The ghostly gas lamps fail at twenty feet.
                Here, though the world explode, these two survive,
                And it is always eighteen ninety-five.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                  My initial hunch would be 'bone idleness' followed by a total lack of toss' given about it by Richardson.

                  But the real question is how are you factoring in this apron with Madame Richardson's high class massage parlour?
                  If he mentions a whip I’m off
                  Regards

                  Herlock




                  “...A yellow fog swirls past the window-pane
                  As night descends upon this fabled street:
                  A lonely hansom splashes through the rain,
                  The ghostly gas lamps fail at twenty feet.
                  Here, though the world explode, these two survive,
                  And it is always eighteen ninety-five.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by caz View Post

                    A good doctor, in 1888 or 2020, should always be able to admit that they don't have all the answers, and that an estimate, or opinion, is just that. Phillips acknowledged that TOD was not an exact science back then, and it's not an exact science today, so I am in no way criticising him or trying to suggest he got it wrong. For all I know, he could have been as right as it was possible for anyone to be, and Chapman died in accordance with his estimate.

                    You used the word "guesswork" to describe Phillips efforts. I found that respectless then, and I find it respectless now. It is belittling, and uncalled for. Of course, he was aware of how establishing a TOD is a difficult discipline, but he would be just as keenly aware that the signs are clearer the closer to the death we come. Somebody who has been dead for a day or two will have taken on ambient temperature whereas somebody who has only been dead for an hour will not. That sort of stuff.

                    All I was trying to say is that without reliable independent support for that estimate, it could have been wrong.

                    That depends on how we define "could have" and "wrong". Much as I have no problems accepting that his 3- 4 AM verdict should perhaps have been 2.45 - 4.15, I donīt accept that his 3 - 4 AM verdict should ( or could) have been 5.20 - 5.30. He could simply not go that wrong, using the parameters he did and getting the results he got.

                    I have no preferred TOD for Chapman, so I couldn't really care less if Phillips was right or wrong. But I wouldn't use his estimate to support or reject a ripper suspect theory.

                    I donīt need to use his estimate to support my theory, and IF Chapman died at 5.30 (but she did not), it would not reject my theory. What annoys me is that an idea as nutty as a TOD at 5.30 has been allowed to become the more prevalent thinking. And so I try to set things right, silly me. And that does not mean that I claim that Chapman must have died at the exact time Charles Lechmere passed on his route (although I think she did precisely that), because we should leave some learoom. But that room should not be the Cape Canaveral rocket construction site, but instead a room that is spacious but not ridiculously spacious. An open mind is good, but if it open enough for the brains to go lost through the hole, then we have deceived ourselves. And that is precisely what has happened on this point in ripperology, if you ask me.


                    Bad example, if I may say so, Fish.

                    You may say whatever you want. And I may disagree as much as I want.

                    My late mother-in-law was told by her consultant that in his opinion she had lung cancer and was advised to have the appropriate treatment. That diagnosis alone could have finished her off as she was always a terrible worrier. She was too scared to undergo any further treatment or xrays, and believed she would soon die anyway. But she lived without getting any worse for another four years, and when she finally died following a bout of flu which turned to pneumonia, it was found that she didn't have cancer after all, and had worried needlessly because the consultant's opinion had been wrong.

                    Thatīs all very good to hear - but in my post I spoke of a mortally ill patient, and when I did, I actually meant a mortally ill patient. Itīs a die-hard habit of mine, meaning what I say.

                    Similarly, Dr Harold Shipman told one of his patients that he had terminal cancer, and the patient sued him for medical negligence when it turned out that he got it wrong. Mind you, Shipman thought and acted like he was God.

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    Once again, fascinating stuff, but not so very well suited as a counterpoint.
                    Last edited by Fisherman; 10-28-2020, 06:32 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      Fisherman’s original post ( part of it )

                      As per the Star, the police did not trust Richardson, so claiming that no one jumped on the issue is not something we can do: "Considerable doubt is being thrown on the evidence of John Richardson, who stated that he was almost on the exact spot where the body was found at a quarter to five on Saturday morning, and no signs of the murder were then apparent. It is now beginning to be believed that the woman was brought to the backyard in Hanbury-street some time earlier."

                      Its a good spot Kattrup. In the quote it doesn’t actually say who was doing the doubting.
                      Could it have been the Nottingham guild of tin foil hat makers, perhaps?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post


                        Its a good spot Kattrup. In the quote it doesn’t actually say who was doing the doubting.[/I]
                        Exactly. One would not want anyone to be misled by the ill founded suggestions of an irresponsible journalist.
                        Last edited by Kattrup; 10-28-2020, 07:04 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

                          Exactly. One would not want anyone to be misled by the ill founded suggestions of an irresponsible journalist.
                          i see what you did there.
                          "Is all that we see or seem
                          but a dream within a dream?"

                          -Edgar Allan Poe


                          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                          -Frederick G. Abberline

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

                            Exactly. One would not want anyone to be misled by the ill founded suggestions of an irresponsible journalist.
                            I wouldnīt be so hard on irreponsible journalists if I were you - they seem to be the very lifeblood of those who speculate in the witnesses being right...

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by harry View Post
                              In the case of Phillips,he expressed an opinion which has never been shown to be true and would require other medical opinion to prove it's value. None has been forthcoming.
                              Strictly speaking that's not right. What Phillips gave the inquest was, as you rightly say, his opinion. In British law evidence of opinion is admissible, but only from an expert in the field in which that opinion is expressed. Therefore the evidence of Bagster Phillips requires no other medical opinion to 'prove' its value because no other expert witness was called. His expertise was unchallenged. Cadosch's evidence is problematic but does not directly contradict that of the police surgeon. I think it more likely than not that Mrs Long was mistaken in identifying the woman she saw as the same one as she saw in the mortuary (Chapman). The Turnbull case (see earlier post) underpins my thinking on this.
                              "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Bridewell View Post

                                Strictly speaking that's not right. What Phillips gave the inquest was, as you rightly say, his opinion. In British law evidence of opinion is admissible, but only from an expert in the field in which that opinion is expressed. Therefore the evidence of Bagster Phillips requires no other medical opinion to 'prove' its value because no other expert witness was called. His expertise was unchallenged. Cadosch's evidence is problematic but does not directly contradict that of the police surgeon. I think it more likely than not that Mrs Long was mistaken in identifying the woman she saw as the same one as she saw in the mortuary (Chapman). The Turnbull case (see earlier post) underpins my thinking on this.
                                Now thereīs a post Caz needs to read ...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X