Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    She was very insistent that she would have heard anyone if they had been there
    Aye, Mrs Richardson was insistent she would have heard someone go through the passage after 3am. What do you think about that, Sherlock?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

      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.
      Rubbish. He said at least 2 hours but probably more. He set a minimum time (in his opinion) and no maximum time (again in his opinion) This in itself is clear. There was no need to add anything to this but he did. So unless you treat adding caveats for no reason as you do witnesses lying for no reason then the only question worth asking (apart from “are you sure that you’re not related to Phillips?”) is why did he add the last part about the conditions? It must have been toward some point or he wouldn’t have bothered saying it.

      Did he add it in relation to the ‘upper time?’ Well if he did, then what he was saying was ‘at least 2 hours but probably more but because of the conditions probably more!” I know that you accuse Richardson of gibberish but do you really expect people to accept that Phillips used it too.

      So very clearly he was talking about the minimum time. Not only is this the only thing that makes sense linguistically it’s the only thing that makes sense logically. He was suggesting a caveat to the only part of his statement that he could have made a caveat on.

      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.
      Congratulations as I’d have to vote this sentence as one of the slipperiest bits of sleight-of-hand that I’ve read on here for a long time. Listen to yourself! For Christ sake give it up.

      Everyone knows what Phillips meant. He believed that Chapman had been dead for a minimum of 2 hours but probably longer. That was his estimated range - 2 hours plus. But (caveat) the conditions were such that it might have been less (longer makes no sense on Planet Earth)

      Theres no point discussing this further. You hear what you want to hear because you’re quite willing to continue scraping the barrel in defence of a piece of provably unreliable guesswork by Phillips.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes

      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

        Aye, Mrs Richardson was insistent she would have heard someone go through the passage after 3am. What do you think about that, Sherlock?
        Even though she was dozing? Did she know what she could and could here when asleep? Do we know how much noise the killer and her victim made? I’m assuming that the killer wasn’t carrying a trombone at the time? Did Emma Green hear Nichols being killed?

        And……Richardson was insisting that he couldn’t have missed a body……but you don’t mind dismissing him with no basis.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes

        “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          He said at least 2 hours but probably more.
          I agree. So, what does "at least" mean in the English language, Sherlock? A minimum?

          What does a minimum mean?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            Even though she was dozing? Did she know what she could and could here when asleep?
            Mrs Richardson tells you she would have heard. She was the person in that position.

            Are you saying this witness was mistaken?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

              It doesn't.

              You're looking at London as a whole.

              Look father down and you'll find Whitechapel.
              Ah, I stand corrected. I didn't see the 2nd table for Whitechapel, where it lists 47.4F (so 8.56C), for the daytime low on the 8th. Thanks again.

              - Jeff

              Comment


              • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                Hi Jeff,

                Dr Brown stating an ambient temperature for the mortuary indicates to me that perhaps thermometers were more in use at the time than is being anticipated here. While I have the greatest respect for your work and will be voting in favour of your receiving the aforementioned award, I am unable to accept the magnitude of the error being proposed for two so similar circumstances. I now firmly believe that it is a case of the unreliability of the memories of the witnesses. I have been thinking about how much risk Richardson incurred by admitting to being in possession of a knife at the crime scene. How likely could it have been for him to be suspected of cutting a woman's throat and disembowelling her with a dessert knife that would have lost the battle with a piece of cheddar stored in a fridge. As soon as he presented the knife it was labelled as "a very ineffective weapon". Being the owner of a set of Victorian dessert knives I can say that I wouldn't even attempt to cut leather with them as all I could achieve would be a quite nasty series of friction burns. Anyway, all just my opinion, but as Herlock says, the right one.

                Best regards, George
                Hi George,

                Where does Dr. Brown state the temperature for the mortuary? I'm glad to see we have the outside temperatures, but if we know the mortuary temperatures, then we're putting together some of the bits needed. Mind you, the methods of 1888 didn't include environmental temperature and were based upon using a constant over time (Wickerman posted evidence that it might have been 1F/hour, which is far too slow for the colder conditions at the time; I've seen 1.5F/hour as the current "rule of thumb", but again, these linear functions are pretty unreliable).

                - Jeff

                PS: Never mind, I found it in a previous post of yours!
                Last edited by JeffHamm; 08-19-2022, 08:02 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                  I agree. So, what does "at least" mean in the English language, Sherlock? A minimum?

                  What does a minimum mean?
                  I’ve explained this. He gave his estimated range but accepted that the conditions could have led to a later TOD. It’s very clear.
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes

                  “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    I’ve explained this. He gave his estimated range but accepted that the conditions could have led to a later TOD. It’s very clear.
                    What does 'a minimum' mean in the English language, Sherlock?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                      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.
                      a caveat on the caveat. nice.

                      gi yer hed a shake

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                        Mrs Richardson tells you she would have heard. She was the person in that position.

                        Are you saying this witness was mistaken?
                        I’m saying that this was a woman who was dozing. That means that she was drifting in and out of sleep. So she was relying on what she might or might not have heard. We also can’t know how loud the killer and her victim was but we can assume that they weren’t trying to draw attention to their activities. So her claim is hardly in the same category as her son’s. He was actually in that yard a foot or less away from where the body would have lain.

                        Is Mr. Richardson now acquiring the same status of infallibility as Phillips?

                        Long sees a woman in the street and identifies her as Chapman - cries of “unreliable,” “dismiss her!”

                        Mrs. R reluctantly takes a quick look and identifies Chapman as a trinket seller - accepted by some without question.

                        John Richardson sits less than a foot from where the corpse would have been and said that he couldn’t have missed her - cries of “mistaken” or “liar!”

                        Mrs. R was dozing in bed and didn’t hear 2 people sneaking into the yard - this somehow proves an earlier TOD.

                        Nice to see that impartiality isn’t dead.

                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes

                        “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                        Comment


                        • 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
                          Hi George,

                          The low for the 29th was 55.4 degrees, so the coldest it could be at midnight was 55.4. While the low for the 30th was 44.7, that couldn't have been reached until well after the murders, so at the time of discovery the temperature for Eddowes was probably slightly warmer than for Annie (presuming the low was reached by the morning, rather than a cold front move in through that day, etc).

                          And if the mortuary for Eddowes was 55, as Dr. Brown Stated, then Eddowes was probably kept at a constant temperature the whole time, around 55ish.

                          But, for the sake of argument, let's say the low of 44.7 was reached by the time of the murder, making the difference between Chapman and Eddowes temperatures close enough to be considered the same. (in fact, I would be happy to consider the 55 as similar enough for current purposes)

                          How then, after 13 hours, is Eddowes still described as being not quite cold by Dr. Brown while Chapman is described as being cold by Dr. Phillips?

                          We've been presuming they are taking temperature readings and using some sort of standardized language that translates a measured temperature to a phrase (i.e. 80F is not quite cold, 70F is cold, etc), although there's no indication they did. Rather, the simplest explanation is that both are describing how the bodies felt, meaning they are subjective descriptions, Dr. Brown's "not quite cold" and Dr. Phillips' "cold" are not standardized measurements and so cannot be directly compared. Moreover, even if Annie were in the backyard, at the given temperature, for 3 or 4 hours, her internal temperature reading should not have been "cold" (cold relative to alive, of course, but she would not have reached the environmental temperature and would still measure within a few degrees of an alive body) - although I'm basing that on the fact she was disembowelled doesn't drastically change the time profile of those readings, and I suspect it is possible it would. Her surface temperature, of course, would be cold.

                          But regardless, if they are taking internal temperature readings then there is no way* that Eddowes, after 13 hours in a shed at 55 could be warmer than Annie who was in a backyard at 47.4 for 3 or 4 hours. It doesn't work that way, particularly as Annie was more stout than Kate. Therefore, due to the physical impossibility of Eddowes' internal temperature being colder than Annie's in the true sense (measured by objective temperatures), the difference in the descriptions of their temperatures must reflect a subjective measurement, which is what touching the body gives us. This goes against our assumption they measured the internal temperatures in the first place, and that suggests our assumption is wrong.

                          - Jeff
                          * I shouldn't be so definite but I can't think of any way for this to occur at the moment other than for Kate so have a slow cooling rate, but that seems to require a larger BMI, and Kate's BMI seems to be lower than Annie's.
                          Last edited by JeffHamm; 08-19-2022, 08:32 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                            What does 'a minimum' mean in the English language, Sherlock?
                            I understand it. Wulf understands it. Jeff understands it. Abby understands it. Doc understands it. The Coroner understood it.

                            Thats good enough for me.

                            The fact that you deliberately attempt another bit of manipulation is irrelevant.

                            Facts are facts. He added a caveat and we know what it could only have meant.

                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes

                            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              I understand it. Wulf understands it. Jeff understands it. Abby understands it. Doc understands it. The Coroner understood it.

                              Thats good enough for me.

                              The fact that you deliberately attempt another bit of manipulation is irrelevant.

                              Facts are facts. He added a caveat and we know what it could only have meant.
                              Fascinating, Sherlock.

                              But, what does 'a minimum' mean?

                              For the benefit of doubt, from the Oxford English Dictionary: the smallest or lowest amount that is possible.

                              That's what Dr Phillips is telling you: two hours is the least time possible.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                I’m saying that this was a woman who was dozing.
                                You are.

                                You are swerving my question also.

                                Mrs Richardson was adamant she would have heard someone go into the passage after 3am. Was she lying or mistaken?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X