John Richardson

[Fleetwood Mac]

I’ll remind you what Dr. Phillips said at the inquest:

“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“

The part in blue is called a caveat; a definition of which is:

“a modifying or cautionary detail to be considered when evaluating, interpreting, or doing something.”

Ok

So if the part written in blue meant what you apparently think it did, as opposed to how the rest of the human race interpret it, then what Dr. Phillips would have been saying, in effect, would have been:

’I should say at least two hours, and probably more, but due to the conditions at the time I’d say two hours….or probably more!’

The entire caveat part, which clearly exists, would have been entirely unnecessary, and not only unnecessary but totally nonsensical. It’s nothing short of staggering that you have the nerve to use this kind of tactic. How desperate are you to discredit witnesses and promote Gandalf Phillips?

And did anyone at the time agree with our interpretation as opposed to your blatant attempt at a manipulation of the facts? Oh yeah, THE CORONER HIMSELF.


“The Foreman remarked that the time stated by the witness (Long) was not consistent with that stated by the doctor. The CORONER observed that Dr. Phillips had since qualified his statement.”

This is all fascinating, Sherlock. Manipulation of statements ad nauseam.

Were I you, I'd take a moment to stop, think and reflect.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is all fascinating, Sherlock. Manipulation of statements ad nauseam.

Were I you, I'd take a moment to stop, think and reflect.

Ive simply posted facts and if you showed integrity then you’d accept them.

You could be the most lacking in reason poster I’ve ever come across. Top three definitely.

[etenguy]

The caveat around the environmental temperature absolutely, undeniably, irretrievably relates to "and probably more". A small, malnourished weasel would grasp this.

Hi Fleetwood Mac

Not being a small, malnourished weasel, I am struggling to grasp how you reach your interpretation of the caveat made by Phillips. I would genuinely like to understand how you reach that conclusion if you would care to share. Especially in light of the advice given by the coroner to the jury - ie

She was found dead about six o'clock. She was not in the yard when Richardson was there at 4.50 a.m. She was talking outside the house at half-past five when Mrs. Long passed them. Cadosh says it was about 5.20 when he was in the backyard of the adjoining house, and heard a voice say "No," and three or four minutes afterwards a fall against the fence; but if he is out of his reckoning but a quarter of an hour, the discrepancy in the evidence of fact vanishes, and he may be mistaken, for he admits that he did not get up till a quarter past five, and that it was after the half-hour when he passed Spitalfields clock. It is true that Dr. Phillips thinks that when he saw the body at 6.30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admits that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood may affect his opinion; and if the evidence of the other witnesses be correct, Dr. Phillips has miscalculated the effect of those forces.

[etenguy]

that's a very sensible comment and but you'll no doubt get a barrage of stick from the usual jokers about Phillips' caveat and some twisted use of English.

Hi Aethelwulf

Nice to meet you. It seems your warning of challenge was quite correct, but I fail to follow the logic of the challenge I have received so far.

[etenguy]

Hi Eten,

Good to here from you, it’s been a while. Yes, Phillips caveat was a honest admittance that, whilst he favoured an earlier TOD, he accepted the possibility of the later due to the conditions. The problem is that on here some people have a rather strange definition of the word ‘caveat.’

Hi Herlock

My focus has been on family issues recently, but they are abating. It is good to catch up with you again in the midst of a heated debate - though the point at issue about the meaning of Dr Phillips' words regarding TOD seem to me the least contentious point with which to take issue.

[DJA]

[Aethelwulf]

I would genuinely like to understand how you reach that conclusion if you would care to share.

don't encourage him.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Dr Phillips stated 'at least two hours'.

What exactly does at least two hours mean? At least two hours but possibly less? That is what you're suggesting, and it's clearly a nonsensical statement. He may as well have said: "**** knows".

When he says: "at least two hours", why are people bending a perfectly understandable diction associated with the English language?

At least two hours means at least two hours. "At least" being the operative phrase. No caveat, no compromise, no anything apart from: "at least".

The caveat around the environmental temperature absolutely, undeniably, irretrievably relates to "and probably more". A small, malnourished weasel would grasp this.

At this point, it's not even about two differing opinions underpinned by a spot of evidence and a bit of inference: it's about one group who are taking the witness statements as read and the other group simply bending and manipulating statements in order to have them say whatever imaginary scenario they desire.

This entry is intended only for the consumption of English speaking residents on Planet Earth. As far as I am aware, small malnourished weasels don't speak and comprehend good English.

According to The Times, Phillips stated at the inquest,"He should say that the deceased had been dead at least two hours, and probably more, when he first saw her; but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from having lost a great quantity of blood."

This is clearly two totally separate statements, firstly what "he should say .... when he first saw her", and secondly his totally voluntary caveat which he decided he should share with the coroner, as to why there could be some doubt as to his estimate. The caveat must apply to the whole of the first statement, because there is no indication whatever to suggest that the caveat only applies to part of his estimate. They are two separate statements. Phillips was a very experienced police surgeon, well accustomed to giving evidence. If he had wished to make it clear that the caveat applied only to part of his estimate, he would have said so, as in, " I therefore consider that my revised estimate is ..." or whatever. He deliberately chose not to do so, knowing full well - because he was so very experienced - that he was opening up the time scale to allow the witnesses to be considered as valid and unopposed.

Phillips chose to offer the caveat, and he chose not to offer a revised ToD. Nobody was challenging him.

[DJA]

[FISHY1118]

Fishy, I’m not going to go back and count how many times, but I must have said that the possibility exists that Phillips got it right and that there might have been an earlier TOD at least 20 times on this very thread. How many times does it need saying?

Its also a fact that for around 100 pages we’ve had posters repeatedly and emphatically stating that because Phillips was a competent doctor then that would have made it likely that he was correct. An ongoing refusal to accept the facts which only now appears to be finally accepted by all but 2 people. This is what we have been up against.

Then we’ve been up against people disputing the English language by trying to deny what Doctor Phillips actually said.

Then we’ve had people claiming a non-existent discrepancy between what Richardson and Chandler said at the inquest. A figment of the imagination.

Then Fishy, we’ve had you claiming that 3 woefully and provable inaccurate rough sketches are valuable evidence when the facts tell us otherwise.

All the sense, reason, fair-mindedness, common sense, logic and respect for evidence has come almost solely from the one side.

As Jeff has shown, without going anywhere near to certainty, the evidence clearly favours a TOD of around 5.20/5.20. Personally, my opinion is a minimum of 90%. A doctor guessing and 3 witnesses pointing to a later TOD? Not a difficult decision.

You should have just stopped after the first paragraph, at least its good to see you admit dr Phillips could have have right therefore the witnesses being wrong which I have done with Phillips . The rest is just pointless really as I said all along . The evidence doesn't prove one way or the other a accurate t.o.d. .not a difficult decision to come by really .As for the sketches, you can't prove they were inaccurate thats just your opinion ,they are evidence just like all the evidence in this case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

“ It is true that Dr. Phillips thinks that when he saw the body at 6.30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admits that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood may affect his opinion; and if the evidence of the other witnesses be correct, Dr. Phillips has miscalculated the effect of those forces.”

The coroner, who had heard every single word of what Phillips had said, was under no illusions as to what Phillips had meant. Neither should we be. Only someone desperately clinging to the hope that Dr. Phillips possessed such knowledge and skills that it raised his forensic expertise to above that of an expert a 130 years later could try and claim otherwise. Many things are debatable. This shouldn’t be.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You should have just stopped after the first paragraph, at least its good to see you admit dr Phillips could have have right therefore the witnesses being wrong which I have done with Phillips . The rest is just pointless really as I said all along . The evidence doesn't prove one way or the other a accurate t.o.d. .not a difficult decision to come by really .As for the sketches, you can't prove they were inaccurate thats just your opinion ,they are evidence just like all the evidence in this case.

No Fishy, I can prove that they were inaccurate and I have proved that they were inaccurate. And that’s no great boast on my part because anyone with eyes could see it. The step is completely the wrong type of step, the window is the wrong shape and it’s too far off the ground. The gap in the wall for the door of the cellar is at least twice as high as it is in the photographs. The hole for the cellar steps extends out too far.

They then add a fence with huge gaps in it that no policeman ever notices. And we have a member of the press pointing out a single gap. Why would he mention a single gap if there were dozens of them all along the length of the fence.

You really should give this one up Fishy. The sketches are useless. You’re clinging to them to make a point.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You should have just stopped after the first paragraph, at least its good to see you admit dr Phillips could have have right therefore the witnesses being wrong which I have done with Phillips . The rest is just pointless really as I said all along . The evidence doesn't prove one way or the other a accurate t.o.d. .not a difficult decision to come by really .As for the sketches, you can't prove they were inaccurate thats just your opinion ,they are evidence just like all the evidence in this case.

Theres no need to ‘admit’ anything Fishy. If you’d paid attention you’d have known that I’d said this numerous times.

The evidence favours the witness by a considerable amount. It’s not close. This is perfectly clear. Or at least it should be.

[FISHY1118]

"IF" the evidence of the other witnesses be correct.

We now have 1780 post based on that if , its not as simple as that.

[FISHY1118]

Theres no need to ‘admit’ anything Fishy. If you’d paid attention you’d have known that I’d said this numerous times.

The evidence favours the witness by a considerable amount. It’s not close. This is perfectly clear. Or at least it should be.

Yes its perfectly clear to you herlock , but not to others , the point being all along, the witness testimony is uncertain , ambiguous , unclear as to determine an accurate t.od.
to quote you " we just don't know" do we.