Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
    Daily News 5 Nov 1888:Inquest:
    Dr Brown: The witness, continuing his evidence, said - A post mortem examination was made in the mortuary in Sunday afternoon. Rigor mortis was strongly marked, but the body was not quite cold.
    Times 5 Nov 1888: Inquest: A post mortem examination was made at 2:30 on Sunday afternoon. The temperature of the room was 55 deg. Rigor mortis was well marked.

    The throat cuts and evisceration of Chapman and Eddowes were made by the same man and were close to identical. Phillips testified that Chapman's body was cold except for some residual warmth under the intestines. The so called caveat concerned the cold ambient temperature, but the ambient temperature was slightly colder for Eddowes than for Chapman. This is nothing to do with the reliability or otherwise of medical PMI's. It is to do with the bodies of two women being similarly mutilated and left in similar positions, one not quite cold after 13 hours and the other, cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, we are being asked to believe, after one hour. Even allowing for an increase in ambient temperature after Eddowes was taken to the shed that was being used as a mortuary, there is no way to countenance this magnitude of this difference under any form of logic or common sense. This is not a statistical study or a treatise on medical history. This is a direct comparison between two murders from the same time period by the same man using the same M.O. and the same signature. This points to Phillips under estimating his PMI, with his "probably more" being accurate, and the murder likely occurring between 2 and 3AM, when Amelia Richardson was asleep.

    Cheers, George
    This is the sort of post we need. A meaningful comparison based on closely related events.

    'Just one correction, however. In the event of a TOD of 2.30am, Dr Phillips would not have underestimated. "At least two hours and probably more....." means Dr Phillips did not believe Annie was murdered at 4.30am. He believed either 3.30am or 2.30am (he doesn't clarify which of the two is most likely in his mind).

    Given what we know of Annie's last meal, Dorset Street/Hanbury Street distance, 'rigor commencing of the limbs', Annie's knowledge of Hanbury Street as a place for 'immoral purpose'; it wouldn't be a huge surprise to find that Annie found her way to Hanbury Street not long after leaving Dorset Street.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      If there’s one thing that we can say is certain George is that there can only be one interpretation of Phillips caveat. He can’t have meant ‘ but probably more but because of the conditions at the time probably more.’ So he was clearly applying the caveat to the ‘2 hours’ part. And this is exactly how the coroner interpreted it:

      “ 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.”

      Sorry George but I fail to see how this obvious fact can be disputed.
      Herlock, just for a moment forget about Phillip's PMI at Hanbury St and the "caveat", it is totally irrelevant to the point being made. What you are suggesting is that while Eddowes body took 13 hours, on a colder morning, to loose body heat, Chapman's body took only 1 hour to reach the same level? This is just too big a difference by several orders of magnitude. This is a straight examination and comparison of the medical facts, with no estimates involved whatsoever.

      Cheers, George
      They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
      Out of a misty dream
      Our path emerges for a while, then closes
      Within a dream.
      Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

      ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

        surely the rogue mortician's game was a profitable one so where are the other examples apart from JtR victims? Are there any or did he just confine himself to these?
        There was an active and profitable trade in body parts and bodies in the LVP especially in an around Whitechapel and female organs were in great demand

        Comment


        • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

          Herlock, just for a moment forget about Phillip's PMI at Hanbury St and the "caveat", it is totally irrelevant to the point being made. What you are suggesting is that while Eddowes body took 13 hours, on a colder morning, to loose body heat, Chapman's body took only 1 hour to reach the same level? This is just too big a difference by several orders of magnitude. This is a straight examination and comparison of the medical facts, with no estimates involved whatsoever.

          Cheers, George
          When Jeff gets excited over this George then I’ll consider it. I haven’t seen Jeff conceding any points yet.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            There was an active and profitable trade in body parts and bodies in the LVP especially in an around Whitechapel and female organs were in great demand

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            that's not what i'm asking and you know it, so cough up on the other examples from whitechapel mortuaries

            Comment


            • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

              Herlock, just for a moment forget about Phillip's PMI at Hanbury St and the "caveat", it is totally irrelevant to the point being made. What you are suggesting is that while Eddowes body took 13 hours, on a colder morning, to loose body heat, Chapman's body took only 1 hour to reach the same level? This is just too big a difference by several orders of magnitude. This is a straight examination and comparison of the medical facts, with no estimates involved whatsoever.

              Cheers, George
              I wasn’t going to bother asking my friend about anything else on this subject but I decided to as I trust his judgment. He says:

              “Firstly, to say a body is or feels cold is meaningless. A living body can feel cold! There are all kinds of degrees of coldness. He's trying to compare Eddowes being "not quite cold" during the indoor post-mortem, with Chapman feeling cold at the crime scene outdoors. You can't do that.

              Secondly, we know that dead bodies can feel cold within an hour of death. Even Christer Holmgren’s expert has admitted that.

              Perhaps more to the point is that there is no controversy that a body can feel cold after two hours. That's what Dr Phillips said about Chapman!

              So poster George's point is absurd. Essentially, he must be saying that because Eddowes was not quite cold after 13 hours, Chapman couldn't possibly have been cold (other than remaining heat under intestines) in two hours after death. Yet that is exactly what Dr Phillips said.

              Is he trying to say that Eddowes being not quite cold after 13 hours rewrites the entire rules of forensic pathology? And that a body which is found to be cold must have been dead more than 13 hours? It's crazy.

              It's really very simple. Forget Eddowes. It is known to medical science that a body can feel cold within an hour of death. It is known to medical science that a body outdoors in cold weather will cool faster than normal. It is known to medical science that some people with certain diseases such as TB will cool faster than normal. There is also a theory, which to my knowledge has never been proved or disproved, that someone who loses a lot of blood may feel colder than normal. It is, therefore, entirely possible for Chapman's body to have felt cold outdoors (with some heat under the intestines) about an hour after she was murdered. That's really all there is to say.”

              So nothing has changed as far as I’m concerned George. The TOD was much likelier to have been 5.20/5.25 because of witnesses. Mainly John Richardson despite the failed attempts by some to try a discredit him.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                I wasn’t going to bother asking my friend about anything else on this subject but I decided to as I trust his judgment. He says:

                “Firstly, to say a body is or feels cold is meaningless. A living body can feel cold! There are all kinds of degrees of coldness. He's trying to compare Eddowes being "not quite cold" during the indoor post-mortem, with Chapman feeling cold at the crime scene outdoors. You can't do that.

                Secondly, we know that dead bodies can feel cold within an hour of death. Even Christer Holmgren’s expert has admitted that.

                Perhaps more to the point is that there is no controversy that a body can feel cold after two hours. That's what Dr Phillips said about Chapman!

                So poster George's point is absurd. Essentially, he must be saying that because Eddowes was not quite cold after 13 hours, Chapman couldn't possibly have been cold (other than remaining heat under intestines) in two hours after death. Yet that is exactly what Dr Phillips said.

                Is he trying to say that Eddowes being not quite cold after 13 hours rewrites the entire rules of forensic pathology? And that a body which is found to be cold must have been dead more than 13 hours? It's crazy.

                It's really very simple. Forget Eddowes. It is known to medical science that a body can feel cold within an hour of death. It is known to medical science that a body outdoors in cold weather will cool faster than normal. It is known to medical science that some people with certain diseases such as TB will cool faster than normal. There is also a theory, which to my knowledge has never been proved or disproved, that someone who loses a lot of blood may feel colder than normal. It is, therefore, entirely possible for Chapman's body to have felt cold outdoors (with some heat under the intestines) about an hour after she was murdered. That's really all there is to say.”

                So nothing has changed as far as I’m concerned George. The TOD was much likelier to have been 5.20/5.25 because of witnesses. Mainly John Richardson despite the failed attempts by some to try a discredit him.
                i had feeling it wasn't going to be anything like as straightforward GB is trying to make out, otherwise it would be really simple, which it isn't! good to have it explained.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

                  that's not what i'm asking and you know it, so cough up on the other examples from whitechapel mortuaries
                  You need to expand on your original question, and perhaps in a not so demanding manner!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    I wasn’t going to bother asking my friend about anything else on this subject but I decided to as I trust his judgment. He says:

                    Firstly, to say a body is or feels cold is meaningless. A living body can feel cold! There are all kinds of degrees of coldness. He's trying to compare Eddowes being "not quite cold" during the indoor post-mortem, with Chapman feeling cold at the crime scene outdoors. You can't do that.
                    I was quoting doctors who were there and experts in their field, dealing with the realities of their profession. I wasn't there, and neither were you.

                    Secondly, we know that dead bodies can feel cold within an hour of death. Even Christer Holmgren’s expert has admitted that.
                    There are always outliers on every Bell Curve.

                    Perhaps more to the point is that there is no controversy that a body can feel cold after two hours. That's what Dr Phillips said about Chapman!
                    That's what I said too, but Herlock disagrees with you, me and Dr Phillips. He's dug in at one hour.

                    So poster George's point is absurd. Essentially, he must be saying that because Eddowes was not quite cold after 13 hours, Chapman couldn't possibly have been cold (other than remaining heat under intestines) in two hours after death. Yet that is exactly what Dr Phillips said.
                    That's what I said too, but Herlock disagrees with you, me and Dr Phillips. He's dug in at one hour, so you are saying his point is absurd.

                    Is he trying to say that Eddowes being not quite cold after 13 hours rewrites the entire rules of forensic pathology? And that a body which is found to be cold must have been dead more than 13 hours? It's crazy.
                    No! The doctors said that Eddowes was not quite cold after 13 hours, and I didn't say the rest either. Perhaps you are failing to comprehend what is actually being said? Are you saying that rules of forensic pathology always provide a single accurate answer with no Bell Curve? Look at the cases in hand.

                    It's really very simple. Forget Eddowes. Ahh, forget the evidence in the real life case. It is known to medical science that a body can feel cold within an hour of death. It is known to medical science that a body outdoors in cold weather will cool faster than normal. Applies to both bodies. It is known to medical science that some people with certain diseases such as TB will cool faster than normal. 1300% faster? There is also a theory, which to my knowledge has never been proved or disproved, that someone who loses a lot of blood may feel colder than normal. Again, applies to both bodies. Have you read nothing of the medical reports? It is, therefore, entirely possible for Chapman's body to have felt cold outdoors (with some heat under the intestines) about an hour after she was murdered. Bell curve theory outliers again. Here we have a real life comparison. That's really all there is to say.”

                    So nothing has changed as far as I’m concerned George. The TOD was much likelier to have been 5.20/5.25 because of witnesses. Mainly John Richardson despite the failed attempts by some to try a discredit him.
                    Sorry Herlock, with all due respect to your friend, he seems to have misread my post or failed to comprehend. It is otherwise difficult to understand why he would distort my words by claiming I disagreed with Phillips two hour PMI - that's your contention, not mine. As you saw with Jeff's presentations, there is no right answer, only a range, and the norm is under the dome of the bell curve, not the "is possibles" on the edges.

                    Cheers, George
                    Last edited by GBinOz; 08-19-2022, 03:16 PM.
                    They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
                    Out of a misty dream
                    Our path emerges for a while, then closes
                    Within a dream.
                    Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

                    ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                      Sorry Herlock, with all due respect to your friend, he seems to have misread my post or failed to comprehend. It is otherwise difficult to understand why he would distort my words by claiming I disagreed with Phillips two hour PMI - that's your contention, not mine. As you saw with Jeff's presentations, there is no right answer, only a range, and the norm is under the dome of the bell curve, not the "is possibles" on the edges.

                      Cheers, George
                      I don’t think that he’s misunderstood anything George. All that I’ve suggested was that Phillips could have been wrong in his lower estimate by around 40 or 50 minutes and the Eddowes case is irrelevant to that.

                      I haven’t dug in at an hour. I’m simply stating as fact that Chapman could have been killed at t.20/5.25 and there’s not a single piece of evidence that comes close to putting the mildest of dents in that possibility.

                      So Phillips had 2 hours as his lower limit - he admitted that the conditions could have meant less - we know that science tells us that those conditions could have occurred in a shorter period - we know for a fact that TOD estimation was very unreliable. Simple.

                      Nothing has changed. Phillips TOD tells us nothing accept that he accepted that under 2 hours was possible. So Phillips is irrelevant but we have 3 witness who easily tip the balance. John Richardson on his own would tip the balance.

                      Later TOD. Close to no doubt at all.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

                        that's not what i'm asking and you know it, so cough up on the other examples from whitechapel mortuaries
                        And we know that she wasn’t killed earlier Wulf because John Richardson wasn’t blind, a liar or a complete numskull and he was 100% certain that if there had been a body there he couldn’t fail to have missed it. This just isn’t as difficult as people try to make out.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          And we know that she wasn’t killed earlier Wulf because John Richardson wasn’t blind, a liar or a complete numskull and he was 100% certain that if there had been a body there he couldn’t fail to have missed it. This just isn’t as difficult as people try to make out.
                          I almost wish fisherman would come back so we can go around the houses on the blood evidence etc

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                            Sorry Herlock, with all due respect to your friend, he seems to have misread my post or failed to comprehend. It is otherwise difficult to understand why he would distort my words by claiming I disagreed with Phillips two hour PMI - that's your contention, not mine. As you saw with Jeff's presentations, there is no right answer, only a range, and the norm is under the dome of the bell curve, not the "is possibles" on the edges.

                            Cheers, George
                            George,

                            I'm not convinced you're onto something, given the narrow window of time being discussed: 1 hour to 3 hours. But, that doesn't matter. A bit more light will be shed on these murders as a result of posters making connections based on the evidence, as opposed to posters repeating the same lines over and over again for the sake of argument. Perhaps this one doesn't move us forward, but the next one may do. As for Sherlock's friend and his claims of absurdity, with a nod to his living body comment, postmortem observations are undertaken with a dead body in mind, not a living body.

                            Where you did make a very meaningful point, George, is in relation to Mrs Richardson and her claim she was awake from 3am. I noticed this one was swerved by all and sundry. The obvious reason being that they would have to suggest Mrs Richardson was lying or mistaken, which of course would hammer a nail in their fall back position: "why would John Richardson lie and how could he be mistaken".

                            In addition, you're talking with people who refuse to accept that "at least two hours" means a minimum of two hours, even though it is there for all to see according to the standards of the English language. Far be it for me to tell you what to think and consider, but based on that alone I'm pretty confident that it doesn't matter what you come up: you will not be changing these minds and they won't accept your points.

                            Were I you, I'd be asking the question: why exactly has Mrs Richardson's statement been swerved, the one that goes something like: "I would have heard someone passing through after 3am".

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                              George,

                              I'm not convinced you're onto something, given the narrow window of time being discussed: 1 hour to 3 hours. But, that doesn't matter. A bit more light will be shed on these murders as a result of posters making connections based on the evidence, as opposed to posters repeating the same lines over and over again for the sake of argument. Perhaps this one doesn't move us forward, but the next one may do. As for Sherlock's friend and his claims of absurdity, with a nod to his living body comment, postmortem observations are undertaken with a dead body in mind, not a living body.

                              Where you did make a very meaningful point, George, is in relation to Mrs Richardson and her claim she was awake from 3am. I noticed this one was swerved by all and sundry. The obvious reason being that they would have to suggest Mrs Richardson was lying or mistaken, which of course would hammer a nail in their fall back position: "why would John Richardson lie and how could he be mistaken".

                              In addition, you're talking with people who refuse to accept that "at least two hours" means a minimum of two hours, even though it is there for all to see according to the standards of the English language. Far be it for me to tell you what to think and consider, but based on that alone I'm pretty confident that it doesn't matter what you come up: you will not be changing these minds and they won't accept your points.

                              Were I you, I'd be asking the question: why exactly has Mrs Richardson's statement been swerved, the one that goes something like: "I would have heard someone passing through after 3am".
                              Ok.

                              Amelia testified that she was awake, but for dozing, from 3 AM, and didn't hear anyone in the passage. She was very insistent that she would have heard anyone if they had been there
                              So she was awake, but she wasn’t really awake, because she was nodding off. And she couldn’t have been wrong but it’s quite sensible to say that John Richardson missed a mutilated copse less than a foot away from him. Ok.

                              In addition, you're talking with people who refuse to accept that "at least two hours" means a minimum of two hours, even though it is there for all to see according to the standards of the English language
                              You plumb the depths again and again I’ll remind you of the fact that the coroner, who was there at the time and heard what he’d said:

                              “ 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.”

                              Further ignoring, or deliberate misinterpretation of the caveat is not worth the effort of a response. It’s a disgrace to the subject that you continue to stoop so low as to continue with this feeble attempt at deception.

                              ​​​​​​……

                              The arguments for an earlier TOD are feeble and take us beyond the boundaries of reason. It requires blatant inventions, deliberate misinterpretations of the English language and a palpable bias against the witnesses. It’s a joke but a sad one.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post


                                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 tells you in your own quote: "Dr Phillips thinks....the deceased had been dead at least two hours".

                                At least two hours in the English language means a minimum of two hours. So, whatever follows from the coroner's statement, the coroner understood that Dr Phillips believed that Annie had been dead for a minimum of two hours.

                                The coroner then goes on to say: "but he admits the coldness of the morning........may affect his opinion". Dr Phillips was not prepared to give an exact time when he said "probably more". That is the link, i.e. an acknowledgment between the two that Dr Phillips couldn't say for certain when exactly this "probably more" landed in terms of time. This is what the coroner was referring to when he said: "his opinion was affected by the coldness of the morning".

                                The coroner went on to say: "miscalculated the effects of those forces", i.e. Dr Phillips understood the forces but miscalculated the extent when he said a minimum of two hours.

                                There are two pertinent points here:

                                1) At least two hours in the English language means a minimum of two hours. The coroner understood that as he repeated: "at least two hours".
                                2) The coroner said "miscalculated". In the event the coroner believed Dr Phillips meant: "at least two hours....but possibly less", then Dr Phillips couldn't have miscalculated.

                                A minimum of two hours in anyone's language means a minimum of two hours. There is no caveat associated with a minimum. It is a minimum.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X