Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

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

  • Bridewell
    replied
    Originally posted by harry View Post
    'In some cases a party may retain a person who is a specialist in a subject for the purpose of providing his/her expert opinion on an aspect of the case.Such people may become an expert witness if they are qualified in their area of expertise,training and specialised knowledge.'
    The above is not my personnel opininion by the way,but take it as written by someone who knows,and it refers to the requirements at a court appearance.
    So,attending as the police surgeon,in itself did not qualify Phillips,and I have seen no information that he submitted any such requirements to the Coroner or to the inquest,as to his expertise on the aspect of time of death.Of course,as the only medical person present his opinion had to be accepted,but it cannot be classed as expert in relation to time of death.Then again,perhaps I am off course and someone,expoliceman or journalist ,may surprise and produce such information that qualifies Phillips.Should be easy,as Fisherman has stated Phillips would have attended many such deaths.
    Expert witness:
    a person who is a specialist in a subject, often technical, who may present his/her expert opinion provided that the expert is qualified by evidence of his/her expertise, training and special knowledge.


    MBBS = Bachelor of Medicine Bachelor of Surgery. The coroner allowed Bagster Phillips to give evidence of opinion. Evidence of opinion is allowed only from someone deemed to be an expert in the relevant field. You may hold the opinion that Bagster Phillips should not have been allowed to give evidence as an expert and you may find his evidence hard to accept or just plain wrong. It matters not; the coroner took the view that Bagster Phillips be allowed to give evidence of opinion. Therefore he was an expert witness. That is a matter of fact.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Rookie Detective
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert St Devil
    replied
    [QUOTE=The Rookie Detective;n745244]
    Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post

    And as you can see, I still can’t grasp the Quote and Paste on this site, apologies for my ineptness there, no intention on my behalf at plagiarism.
    {whistle} 10 yard penalty. Offsides. The Rookie Detective. For putting a kibosh on Cadosch with a self aware comment.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Rookie Detective
    replied
    [QUOTE=The Rookie Detective;n745243][QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n

    It seems that there are fewer active threads these days. So I’d say that we need new threads with either new angles or with aspects of the case that may not have been discussed for some time.

    Well said Herlock, it’s precisely the reason why I have actively tried to start several threads; to stir things up a bit and bring some stimulus to the various areas of debate.

    most of the threads have proven fruitless but it’s the effort to initiate discussion that i particularly enjoy


    this thread has been a brilliant example of discussion though and I must commend you for your respective stances.

    TRD

    [/QUOTE]

    And as you can see, I still can’t grasp the Quote and Paste on this site, apologies for my ineptness there, no intention on my behalf at plagiarism.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Rookie Detective
    replied
    [QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n

    It seems that there are fewer active threads these days. So I’d say that we need new threads with either new angles or with aspects of the case that may not have been discussed for some time.

    Well said Herlock, it’s precisely the reason why I have actively tried to start several threads; to stir things up a bit and bring some stimulus to the various areas of debate.

    most of the threads have proven fruitless but it’s the effort to initiate discussion that i particularly enjoy


    this thread has been a brilliant example of discussion though and I must commend you for your respective stances.

    TRD

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    I’m happy to leave the thread with my position more or less unchanged. I believe that Phillips was more likely to have been wrong than right. I believe (after taking advice that I trust) that Forensic experts confirm that he could have been wrong. And, although I accept that witnesses should be treated with caution they should not be dismissed unless proven to have been wrong.

    ......

    I do understand the points about repetition though but no one is forced to view this thread and in any crime case up for discussion it’s difficult not to go over old angles.

    It seems that there are fewer active threads these days. So I’d say that we need new threads with either new angles or with aspects of the case that may not have been discussed for some time.

    ....

    That said, with my hat off to Fish, I’m done.
    The advice I have taken - and that I trust - comes from a professor of forensic medicine, who is also a senior doctor at the Unit of Forensic Medicine of Rttsmedicinalverket, the expert medical forensics authority serving the Swedish judicial system. Needless to say, his assessment is that the 3-4 hour suggestion is the likely one.

    My hat goes off to you too, Herlock. I really hope that we may agree on the next point where we take part in a discussion.


    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    I’m happy to leave the thread with my position more or less unchanged. I believe that Phillips was more likely to have been wrong than right. I believe (after taking advice that I trust) that Forensic experts confirm that he could have been wrong. And, although I accept that witnesses should be treated with caution they should not be dismissed unless proven to have been wrong.

    ......

    I do understand the points about repetition though but no one is forced to view this thread and in any crime case up for discussion it’s difficult not to go over old angles.

    It seems that there are fewer active threads these days. So I’d say that we need new threads with either new angles or with aspects of the case that may not have been discussed for some time.

    ....

    That said, with my hat off to Fish, I’m done.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Rookie Detective
    replied
    Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
    Gor' Blimey, this one's going on a bit. I'll chuck in a last tuppence.

    I don't really see why Cadosch merits such scrutiny, he's not the key witness. Richardson is. No JR, and I don't think there's much debate. Alb and Lewis join the ranks of other witnesses accepted as mistaken. See poor old Schwartz for details.

    So, assume that the Phillips TOD is right. If your pro Lechmere, then it places him on Hanbury St at the right time, assuming he did walk that way, but it's as near as a damn is to cussing. Great.

    Not a fan of CL? No issue. The earlier TOD doesn't alter the fact that this is another Jack murder. If Richardson kept quiet, would we think it was anything other? So either way, there's no disputing Annie was a victim of Jack (calm down Mr Wood! I'm making a generalised point about the perception of case).

    So 35 pages of Cadosch Vs Phillips is probably 30 pages too much. It's Richardson who flys in his face. So what does Richardson Vs Phillips change? Again, if JR is totally ruled out, Annie's still dead at Jack's hand. If Phillips was that wrong, same applies, just at a different time. Neither should be a massive problem, one was wrong. The result is tragically the same. The way I see it, the TOD, aside from historical house cleaning and seeking overall accuracy, only becomes a point of contention to the extent that it has, when a suspect theory is involved.

    For example, say I was 100% Cohen. Either TOD works. I could sway from witnesses to doctor. Doesn't matter. It's not a great way to seek accuracy and interpret historical data, but 35 pages of debate could be avoided.

    Mrs Long is always going to be a shaky witness. MJK was 'seen' alive after her TOD, no one's arguing that's a valid witness statement. And even if AC went on record as saying he was absolutely certain, he didn't sit on top of the body. He didn't see anything.

    Seriously, chaps, agree to disagree. There's good arguments both ways, nothings guaranteed, nothing more can be added to make each case stronger or the opposing one weaker. The jury's out, the reader can make his verdict.

    Time to let this one go.
    Couldn't agree more, well said.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

    We neither can nor should.

    All factors mentioned by Philips and others are within the parameters established by modern forensic science for a later TOD.
    Philips of course acknowledged that he could be mistaken.
    The police expressed some reservation about accepting Philips’ estimate.
    What I find odd is that Herlock pushes for a one hour and ten minutes estimate. Why not an hour only? Or thirty minutes. Or five. Im sure its all "within the parameters established by modern forensic science for a later TOD". Is not as if there is a limit, it seems, but if there is, then maybe you could present it?

    Phillips DID acknowledge that he could be mistaken, in the sense that it could be not three or four hours but instead two hours only. But why would you care, if one hour is "within the parameters established by modern forensic science for a later TOD"?

    You could just say "Screw Phillips" and be done with it, couldnt you? Modern science urges you on in that noble quest, doesnt it?
    Last edited by Fisherman; 10-31-2020, 10:37 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Al Bundy's Eyes
    replied
    Originally posted by harry View Post
    Don't you see Al,its accepting a time of death as set by Phillips,that is the bugbear.Let us instead accept that long was correct,and start from there.Would that be acceptable?
    If it results in 35 pages of the same points being repeated then no.

    Leave a comment:


  • harry
    replied
    Don't you see Al,its accepting a time of death as set by Phillips,that is the bugbear.Let us instead accept that long was correct,and start from there.Would that be acceptable?

    Leave a comment:


  • Kattrup
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Phillips called a 2 hour minimum range. Could it have been around 1 hour and 10 minutes or so? I don’t think that we can or should discount this possibility.
    We neither can nor should.

    All factors mentioned by Philips and others are within the parameters established by modern forensic science for a later TOD.
    Philips of course acknowledged that he could be mistaken.
    The police expressed some reservation about accepting Philips’ estimate.

    Leave a comment:


  • Al Bundy's Eyes
    replied
    Gor' Blimey, this one's going on a bit. I'll chuck in a last tuppence.

    I don't really see why Cadosch merits such scrutiny, he's not the key witness. Richardson is. No JR, and I don't think there's much debate. Alb and Lewis join the ranks of other witnesses accepted as mistaken. See poor old Schwartz for details.

    So, assume that the Phillips TOD is right. If your pro Lechmere, then it places him on Hanbury St at the right time, assuming he did walk that way, but it's as near as a damn is to cussing. Great.

    Not a fan of CL? No issue. The earlier TOD doesn't alter the fact that this is another Jack murder. If Richardson kept quiet, would we think it was anything other? So either way, there's no disputing Annie was a victim of Jack (calm down Mr Wood! I'm making a generalised point about the perception of case).

    So 35 pages of Cadosch Vs Phillips is probably 30 pages too much. It's Richardson who flys in his face. So what does Richardson Vs Phillips change? Again, if JR is totally ruled out, Annie's still dead at Jack's hand. If Phillips was that wrong, same applies, just at a different time. Neither should be a massive problem, one was wrong. The result is tragically the same. The way I see it, the TOD, aside from historical house cleaning and seeking overall accuracy, only becomes a point of contention to the extent that it has, when a suspect theory is involved.

    For example, say I was 100% Cohen. Either TOD works. I could sway from witnesses to doctor. Doesn't matter. It's not a great way to seek accuracy and interpret historical data, but 35 pages of debate could be avoided.

    ​​​​​​Mrs Long is always going to be a shaky witness. MJK was 'seen' alive after her TOD, no one's arguing that's a valid witness statement. And even if AC went on record as saying he was absolutely certain, he didn't sit on top of the body. He didn't see anything.

    Seriously, chaps, agree to disagree. There's good arguments both ways, nothings guaranteed, nothing more can be added to make each case stronger or the opposing one weaker. The jury's out, the reader can make his verdict.

    Time to let this one go.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post


    Fish believes either that either he couldn’t have been mistaken or that he was extremely unlikely to have been mistaken (it’s down to Fish of course as to what degree of certainty he holds) I believe that he could have been mistaken. Phillips called a 2 hour minimum range. Could it have been around 1 hour and 10 minutes or so? I don’t think that we can or should discount this possibility.

    Could Phillips be wrong? Yes.

    Could he be THAT wrong? No.

    Thats it.

    I think I have made this clear before?


    Then we have three imperfect witnesses. Whatever our own individual interpretations we have a brick wall in terms of the words ‘unreliable’ and ‘unsafe.’ It’s my belief that, as no one’s life is on the line, we should explore the likelihood’s. Any witness might lie. Police officers can lie. They can also be honestly mistaken. Journalists can exaggerate or simply make things up (not Swedish ones of course) And so if we have differing versions I think that they should be left on the table rather than potentially throwing the baby out with the bath water. Fish believes that they should be discounted. How many possible avenues might be closed down which, for all that we know, might lead somewhere. Saying that a witness ‘might’ have been truthful or correct doesn’t cause any issues at all. We aren’t in court.

    I don’t know if the thread will continue much longer TRD. It’s certainly not down to me.

    Ill challenge Fish (or should I say Fishypoo) to start a new thread on another aspect of the case. As we’ve only really debated Chapman’s TOD and Lechmere perhaps he’ll be able to find a topic where we are on the same side of the debate?

    Now that might be a newsworthy story for a Journalist
    My aim is and always has been to pull the rug out from under the feet of those who have for decades claimed that we can be certain that Phillips must have been wrong, because three witnesses can not possibly be wrong. I am fully aware that some will never change their minds, regardless of the quality of the evidence put forward to dispell the old notions. I can only point to how another take is not only possible, but even far more probable. And thats exactly what I will do when the matter comes up.

    Its not as if I have a pathological urge to do so, however, and Im fine with resting my case.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Rigor can commence after 30 minutes Fish. How many times have we showed experts saying between 1 hour and x. And not only in tropical conditions and not under freak conditions.

    Annie ticked every box for early onset rigor. Rigor is out.
    No, she did not "tick every box" for early onset rigor. She was lying exposed in cold conditions, for example. Since when does that tick a box for early onset rigor...?

    Further to this, "early onset rigor" starts in the involuntary muscles of the face, like any other rigor.

    Rigor of the limbs becomes evident a lot later. It typically starts to show after 2-4 hours.

    But ooooh, I forgot - Chapman was DIFFERENT in all of these aspects. She was TRULY one of a kind!
    Last edited by Fisherman; 10-31-2020, 06:50 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X