John Richardson

[Doctored Whatsit]

Aye, the 'probably more' part of his statement.

Not the "at least two hours" part. The minimum time possible, his caveat did not relate to this part of his statement.

Sorry Fleetwood Mac, but you have an "Albatross" around your neck! You cannot interpret simple English, and I cannot keep visiting you in Cloud Cuckoo Land every day - life is too short.

For the last time, Phillips made two simple linked statements, his estimate that he thought "the deceased had been dead at least two hours and probably more, when he first saw her;". That is one complete self-contained statement, and then, "but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body was apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great deal of blood". That is a second statement qualifying all of the first, and not just part of the first statement. As you have told us several times, Phillips was a very experienced police surgeon, who knew his job. Indeed he did, and here he illustrated that knowledge and experience by telling the coroner the fresh information that cast doubt on his original estimate to Chandler.

Furthermore, he was perfectly capable of telling the coroner that as a result the doubt caused by the great loss of blood, he wished to withdraw the "and probably more" part of his estimate, but to stand by the "at least two hours" part. He could easily have done this, but he didn't. Therefore this very experienced man did not mean what you claim he meant, because he never said it.

And now I really have had enough of this nonsense. The subject is fascinating, but the debate can be absolutely crazy, and totally pointless.

[Mark J D]

... He was there...

What Is Wrong With This Picture?

M.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sorry Fleetwood Mac, but you have an "Albatross" around your neck! You cannot interpret simple English, and I cannot keep visiting you in Cloud Cuckoo Land every day - life is too short.

For the last time, Phillips made two simple linked statements, his estimate that he thought "the deceased had been dead at least two hours and probably more, when he first saw her;". That is one complete self-contained statement, and then, "but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body was apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great deal of blood". That is a second statement qualifying all of the first, and not just part of the first statement. As you have told us several times, Phillips was a very experienced police surgeon, who knew his job. Indeed he did, and here he illustrated that knowledge and experience by telling the coroner the fresh information that cast doubt on his original estimate to Chandler.

Furthermore, he was perfectly capable of telling the coroner that as a result the doubt caused by the great loss of blood, he wished to withdraw the "and probably more" part of his estimate, but to stand by the "at least two hours" part. He could easily have done this, but he didn't. Therefore this very experienced man did not mean what you claim he meant, because he never said it.

And now I really have had enough of this nonsense. The subject is fascinating, but the debate can be absolutely crazy, and totally pointless.

10 out of 10 so far Doc, all misinterpreting the obvious apparently.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What Is Wrong With This Picture?

M.

I don’t know.

[Herlock Sholmes]

10 out of 10 so far Doc, all misinterpreting the obvious apparently.

12 out of 12 people all misinterpreting.

[Fleetwood Mac]

No specific research is required.

Not for you, Sherlock, because your standards of appraisal aren't up to scratch.

I think more than enough time has been wasted reading your sweeping generalisations with no supporting evidence/data nor reason, and a link with no associated substantiation doesn't qualify.

'Time to knock this on the head.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not for you, Sherlock, because your standards of appraisal aren't up to scratch.

I think more than enough time has been wasted reading your sweeping generalisations with no supporting evidence/data nor reason, and a link with no associated substantiation doesn't qualify.

'Time to knock this on the head.

I couldn’t care less. Your nonsense and manipulations have been exposed and are a matter of record.

(12-0 btw Meetwood)

[Herlock Sholmes]

13-0

[GBinOz]

I’m confident that if we put this case in front of a jury, giving the case for and against a later time of death, it wouldn’t be a close verdict. If it was 8-4 in favour of a later TOD I’d be disappointed that it was that close. I’d go 10-2 or 11-1.

Sorry to disappoint you Herlock, but the poll here : https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...-of-death-poll
has 28 votes distributed 14/14.

Cheers, George

[The Macdonald Triad]

Sorry to disappoint you Herlock, but the poll here : https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...-of-death-poll
has 28 votes distributed 14/14.

Cheers, George

Good poll. I opted for earlier in darkness.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sorry to disappoint you Herlock, but the poll here : https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...-of-death-poll
has 28 votes distributed 14/14.

Cheers, George

Old hat George. To favour the Doctor is unreasonable. He has to be dismissed. It’s all about the witnesses. Richardson can’t be faulted. Unless by invention of course.

[JeffHamm]

Sorry to disappoint you Herlock, but the poll here : https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...-of-death-poll
has 28 votes distributed 14/14.

Cheers, George

The other poll is asking a different question, though. Herlock's poll is about whether or not the caveat means Dr. Phillips was indicating that a later time (after 4:30) could be viable if he's miscalculated the influence of the temperature and she cooled faster than he's presumed or if Dr. Phillips caveat should be interpreted as him indicating something else and that his view was a hard 2 hours minimum.

The other poll, conducted in 2012, was asking people if they thought the murder was around 5:25ish or pre-4:30. That's not the same thing. One might agree that Dr. Phillips was allowing for a murder after 4:30, but still believe in the end it was before 4:30.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Old hat George. To favour the Doctor is unreasonable. He has to be dismissed. It’s all about the witnesses. Richardson can’t be faulted. Unless by invention of course.

Echo 19 Sep:
Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon, has had another consultation with the police authorities respecting certain theories advanced. There are three points upon which there is agreement - that Annie Chapman was lying dead in the yard at 29 Hanbury street, when John Richardson sat on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot, his failure to notice the deceased being explained by the fact that the yard door, when opened, obstructed his view; that the poor creature was murdered in the yard, and not in a house, as had been at one time suggested; and that the person who committed the deed was a man with some knowledge of human or animal anatomy.

Swanson said the police suspected Richardson and thoroughly investigated him. There is no reason why they wouldn't have required a re-enactment. No evidence was found for his guilt, only that he was mistaken.

Old hat?....a current poll that is fairly worded?.....not devised by Sir Humphrey Appleby?

[JeffHamm]

Hmm,

In this post where we get talking about "The Bethnal Green Botherer", Wickerman mentions:

...Then there's the man seen by Thimbleby at 6:00am on the morning of the Chapman murder, running from Hanbury to Brick Lane, he had a "peculiar gait", and was about 30 yrs old. ...

Davies says he woke up at 5:45, had a cup of tea, then went to the backyard and found Annie.

Henry John Holland, a boxmaker, stated: As I was passing 29, Hanbury-street, on my way to work in Chiswell-street, at about eight minutes past six on Saturday. I spoke to two of Bayley's men. An elderly man came out of the house and asked us to have a look in his back yard. I went through the passage and saw the deceased lying in the yard by the back door....

The elderly man is presumably Davies, and Davies appears to get them between 6:05 and 6:10, consistent with Davies having his tea before going to the backyard. As it seems unlikely his exiting the building would be greatly delayed, it would place the time of discovery after 6:00, and so at first blush there's no obvious conflict with Thimbleby's story.

But I'm not sure who Thimbleby is, or where this comes from. Presumably it is in the press as it's not an inquest statement, and obviously could be entirely unrelated to the murder, but I would be interested in looking over the whole presentation of this if it's available somewhere? There might be something in the full presentation that makes this more or less interesting (or perhaps there's nothing more, leaving us with another tantalizing possibility that could be absolutely meaningless as well).

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

The other poll is asking a different question, though. Herlock's poll is about whether or not the caveat means Dr. Phillips was indicating that a later time (after 4:30) could be viable if he's miscalculated the influence of the temperature and she cooled faster than he's presumed or if Dr. Phillips caveat should be interpreted as him indicating something else and that his view was a hard 2 hours minimum.

The other poll, conducted in 2012, was asking people if they thought the murder was around 5:25ish or pre-4:30. That's not the same thing. One might agree that Dr. Phillips was allowing for a murder after 4:30, but still believe in the end it was before 4:30.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I've just looked at Herlock's poll. "The English Language and the purpose of a caveat."

A caveat is a legal term mostly used to register an interest for land titles. It is a warning that particular things need to be considered before something can be done. Phillips never said it was a caveat, that is a recent description.

Looking at Herlock's poll, I'm sure that Sir Humphrey Appleby was the author. One answer to give the desired result and the other generalised and distorted. A nice little mouse trap. How does one vote for Phillips adding a qualification on how much over the minimum the PMI might be?

Best regards, George