Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[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]

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.

[Fisherman]

Absolute nonsense.

Yes, that´s why I corrected Harry.

[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]

Morning Advertiser: "At least two hours, probably more, but the morning was fairly cold, and the body would have become cold sooner in consequence."

How this reads:

I think that Annie Chapman had been dead for at least two hours. That is the extreme I allow for. I actually think that she had been dead for significantly longer, three or four hours, but the morning was fairly cold, and so she would perhaps have grown cold somewhat quicker than that.

How it does not read:

I think that Annie Chapman could not possibly have been dead any less than two hours. That is the absolute minimum of time since her death. Actually, two hours is almost certainly too short a time span, because what I genuinely believe is that she will probably have been dead for three, perhaps four hours. But to be fair, it could have been much less than two hours. It was cold, see. I forgot to weigh that in when I said that she could not have been dead for less than two hours. Please forget about my mentioning of an even longer time span. Silly me.

[Kattrup]

Well, Fisherman, I do think you’re clearly wrong here.
”at least two hours and probably more” is a single entity, modified and partly negated by the following “but”-clause.

”End of.” as you so fondly write whenever you express an opinion.

Since you’re unlikely to change your opinion, and since your posts contain the usual penchant for haughty replies, I’ll leave you to it for the time being.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Morning Advertiser: "At least two hours, probably more, but the morning was fairly cold, and the body would have become cold sooner in consequence."

That is part quote, part paraphrase.

We must go by the principle; the most detail, wins - especially given the information-poor nature of this subject.
Consequently, the winner is this:

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.

Therefore we are well within our rights to shift Phillips' minimum time since death, substantially downward, and thus provide some validation for the testimonies of Richardson and Cadosch.

[Fisherman]

Well, Fisherman, I do think you’re clearly wrong here.
”at least two hours and probably more” is a single entity, modified and partly negated by the following “but”-clause.

Nope. I am not wrong, I am right, regardless of what you may or may not think. The fact of the matter is that the only negation there is, is Phillips saying "at least". THAT is a negation, an absolute borderline. After that, the two hour limit is not up for grabs, but the 3-4 hour span is.

I can easily see how you are trying to put the grammar to use, it´s not that - it´s that it can´t be done. If Phillips had said "My personal opinion is that she had been dead between two and three, perhaps three and a half hours, but is it fair rto say that the morning was cold..." etc, THEN you would have had a case, and a very good case too. As it stands, all you have is overreaching into grammar in order to reach a goal that remains illusive to you.

”End of.” as you so fondly write whenever you express an opinion.

It works much better for me, actually.

Since you’re unlikely to change your opinion, and since your posts contain the usual penchant for haughty replies, I’ll leave you to it for the time being.

I´d say that there are other posters out there that would have a better point about the "haughty replies". You are kind of stiff collared yourself, although you may not be able to see it. Me, I´m happy about my language. And grammar.

[Fisherman]

That is part quote, part paraphrase.

We must go by the principle; the most detail, wins - especially given the information-poor nature of this subject.
Consequently, the winner is this:

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.

Therefore we are well within our rights to shift Phillips' minimum time since death, substantially downward, and thus provide some validation for the testimonies of Richardson and Cadosch.

The meaning is the exact same in both versions, though. And both versions are adamant in pointing out that Phillips said that it was AT LEAST two hours. That detail scarce though it may seem, wins. The rest looses out.

As a piece of advice, it is often good to take a look at how papers choose to condense matters. The purpose in doing so is to sift away unneccesary information. The idea that "we must go by the principle the most detail wins" is a dangerous one at times since long and garbled sentences often have more detail than. short, succinct ones. And when it comes to deciding the matter, we must only go by the principle "at least" means "at least.

Here´s a quickie for you: The Star reported on the 13:th on the matter, writing:

"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."

Now, why would the police be of the opinion that Chapman was brought to the murder spot some time earlier than 4.45? Clearly, that time was only 15 minutes shy of the time Phillips said was the minimum, and if the doctor had generously opened up for being wrong on the point (as per you and a few others), then why don´t the police simply believe Richardson? Which is the reason? Had they aquired a copy of Bramble & Winterbottom´s Time Table for Whitechapel Murders? Had somebody stepped forward and said that he or she saw Chapman enter the yard at 4.00? Or something such?
Which could be the reason, NBFN?

[Fisherman]

This is from the East London Observer from the 15:th of September 1888. I don´t know how it fares in the "The Most Detail Wins"-competition, but I think it is of interest nevertheless:

"One other important fact was the surgeon able to glean, which discounted the groundless stories of the murdered woman having been seen at five o'clock that morning, and that was that death had taken place fully two hours before the first discovery of the body - probably between three and four o'clock on the Saturday morning."

They really must have misunderstood the whole thing, eh?

[Joshua Rogan]

Let's not forget Coroner Baxter's germaine words to Dr Phillips (on another matter) which Phillips himself accepted;

"The Coroner - That is your opinion. I can quite imagine that it is correct, but after all it is only opinion, and it may be rebutted. In the opinions of other medical men we often see this"

[Fisherman]

Let's not forget Coroner Baxter's germaine words to Dr Phillips (on another matter) which Phillips himself accepted;

"The Coroner - That is your opinion. I can quite imagine that it is correct, but after all it is only opinion, and it may be rebutted. In the opinions of other medical men we often see this"

That relates to Phillips´ reluctance to share all the evidence with the audience in the inquest room. I´m not sure how that impacts the discussion we are having, so you are going to have to help me out on it. As for Phillips "accepting" what Baxter said, he really had no choice but to give the evidence Baxter requested, did he? I´d say far from "accepting" it, he reluctantly followed orders, but not before parts of the public had been ushered out of the room.

[Fisherman]

It´s strange how quiet this formerly so lively thread has gone after the quotation from the East London Observer...? Surely it must be interesting that we can see that the papers were able to report from the inquest proceedings that Phillips´ verdict was not one that allowed for gnawing away at the two hour borderline he stipulated, that he apparently spoke for a TOD at around 3 - 4 AM, and that there was a sentiment that it "discounted the groundless stories" served up by our witnesses?

Unless it is all an invention from an enterprising journalist? That suggestion seems to crop up at times like these, but so far - nothing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As you dismiss Cadosch because of the existence of a more detailed statement then I’d suggest that we can now dismiss Phillips on the same grounds.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As for the ‘statements’ in The Daily News of September 10th and The Morning Advertiser and The Manchester Guardian it’s plain to see that these aren’t directly quoted words from Cadosch. They are the words of a journalist who no doubt spoke to Cadosch and then wrote up the article later on with all the possibilities of error and all of the temptations of embellishment. Therefore it’s the journalists accuracy that should be called into question.

And so so the reality is that Cadosch heard a ‘no’ which his very first impression told him came from the yard of number 29 ( and reason tells us that someone is far less likely to have mistaken a word from several yards away for one emanating from within 6 feet or so. The argument that the ‘no’ could have come from a distance away is feeble at best) He then heard the sound of something brushing against the fence of number 29 (not number 25 or number 31) Something that he had absolutely no doubt of.

He did hear something. Annie and her killer.