Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post


    I'm perfectly happy to accept, as a summary, that Phillips said that the body was cold and that there was heat under the intestines. What he certainly didn't say, according to the reports, was that the body was "all cold" nor did he say that he put his hand "inside the abdominal cavity". If you disagree please point me to the evidence where he said those things.
    The issue remains:

    Dr Phillips stated the only remaining warmth was under the intestines. Fisherman relayed this to Professor Thilbin from which he drew a conclusion.

    That is the crux of it.

    Are you suggesting Professor Thilbin was incompetent when he drew that conclusion from Dr Phillips' statement?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Parisi North Humber View Post
      As a relative newbie please may I ask if all the above heated discussion regarding time of death is soley reliant on Philip's estimation due to how the body felt to his touch? i.e no other factors such as thermometer readings or comparison temperatures etc. From all I've read it seems temperature (ergo estimated TOD) was based soley on 'hand feel". Sorry if I've missed something blindingly obvious.

      Helen x
      What we do have tho Helen is a doctor giving his expert opinion on t.o.d, which may have been accurate or may not. No one can say for sure either way, just as we have the witnesses in this case being uncertain and ambiguious with their testimony which doesnt help us much either.

      That ultimately, as we now know leads to a far from certain time of 5.30am t.o.d which some would have you believe .

      No magic required.

      I suggest you read this thread or at least some of it to get up to speed on this topic and make your mind up. cheers
      'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

      Comment


      • I'm not suggesting magic just a mere mortal called out of an upper middle class home would be nice and warm so his sense of hot or cold would be different to if he'd been outside say for a couple of hours or in a cold post mortem or disecting room. Just thinking that his sense of touch detecting temperature would have depended to a certain extent on his own temperature at the time. Sorry if I'm not explaining myself very well.

        Helen x

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Parisi North Humber View Post
          I'm not suggesting magic just a mere mortal called out of an upper middle class home would be nice and warm so his sense of hot or cold would be different to if he'd been outside say for a couple of hours or in a cold post mortem or disecting room. Just thinking that his sense of touch detecting temperature would have depended to a certain extent on his own temperature at the time. Sorry if I'm not explaining myself very well.

          Helen x
          'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Parisi North Humber View Post
            I'm not suggesting magic just a mere mortal called out of an upper middle class home would be nice and warm so his sense of hot or cold would be different to if he'd been outside say for a couple of hours or in a cold post mortem or disecting room. Just thinking that his sense of touch detecting temperature would have depended to a certain extent on his own temperature at the time. Sorry if I'm not explaining myself very well.

            Helen x
            Hi Helen,

            You're quite right. I was astonished to find that, while thermometers were available in 1888, they were not usually used by doctors either at the scene or in the mortuary. There are dissertations here:
            https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio...n-autopsy.html
            https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio...autopsy-2.html
            by Karyo Magellan who says "I have examined the standards of forensic medical examination that prevailed in Victorian England at the time of the Whitechapel murders, from 1888 to 1891, and found them to be rather more impressive than is generally believed.".
            If you look at the ToDs for the other victims they are not too far off, in some cases very close considering the knowledge available at the time. (they're warlocks, burn them ).

            Cheers, George
            Last edited by GBinOz; 08-26-2022, 12:03 AM.
            “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

            “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

              The issue remains:

              Dr Phillips stated the only remaining warmth was under the intestines. Fisherman relayed this to Professor Thilbin from which he drew a conclusion.

              That is the crux of it.

              Are you suggesting Professor Thilbin was incompetent when he drew that conclusion from Dr Phillips' statement?
              Patience FM,

              It is yet to be grasped that the intestines are located inside the abdominal cavity unless they have been removed during evisceration, or is that just nit-picking.

              Cheers, George
              “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

              “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                Patience FM,

                It is yet to be grasped that the intestines are located inside the abdominal cavity unless they have been removed during evisceration, or is that just nit-picking.

                Cheers, George
                Hi George,

                No, that's not nit-picking at all. If he's talking about intestines that are on the ground, rather than inside the body, then the fact they have not cooled completely points to a far shorter time of cooling (so shorter PMI) than if they are inside the body. The cold ground would pull heat away faster than the body cavity, which itself has to cool.

                With her body cavity opened, of course, it would cool faster than for an intact body, but it would still not be as cold as the ground itself.

                - Jeff
                Last edited by JeffHamm; 08-26-2022, 02:41 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                  Hi George,

                  Yes, we just don't know enough, do we! We all make what we think are reasonable assumptions from the known data.

                  Personally, I take the view that Richardson immediately offered himself to Chandler as a witness, which suggests the behaviour of a responsible citizen with relevant information needed by the police. He then made a detailed statement which we don't have, and we all inevitably have different ideas about what he said. I stress that the police believed him, so we do not have any evidence that his first statement was not complete. The police would probably have been suspicious immediately, because of Phillips' ToD estimate. They must have questioned him thoroughly to identify how he could be sure that there was no body in the yard, so his boot story must have been part of his original statement, surely.

                  The way I read the events is that his original statement was pretty thorough and complete, the police were suspicious because of the estimated ToD, and checked thoroughly at once, hence the check for blood on his clothing. If they did this, then Richardson would still have been carrying the old dessert knife, and this might explain the item in some papers about an impounded knife. I think that the police checked out his story, and failed to find any flaws, and accepted he was a reliable witness. However, the coroner, having Richardson's statement, but not the full knowledge of the police enquiries, played detective, was suspicious of Richardson, and gave him a hard time in the witness box. Later, Chandler seems to have made it clear to the coroner that Richardson was deemed reliable, and the coroner seemed to accept this, especially after Phillips added a little doubt to his own evidence.

                  The suspicion that Richardson could have been basically telling the truth, but genuinely missed the body is the product of the Echo report, which has no basis in reality as far as I can see. Richardson said he could not have missed the body, and Chandler agreed. There is no evidence that I am aware of which suggests that the police believed he missed seeing the body. As I pointed out, the Echo report and Swanson's summary were both dated 19th Sept, and were quite different. Swanson did not accept Phillips' estimated ToD. He clearly even expressed the possibility of doubt about the reliability of Long's evidence being regretted due to Phillips' ToD, which indicated that he hadn't even absolutely accepted a ToD before 5. 30 am! So, I see no evidence that the police believed that Richardson missed the body, or that the police even believed it was there at 4. 45 am. Even if he fiddled with his boot with the door banging against his arm, which is unlikely, there was a big gap between the bottom of the door and the ground, and Richardson would have been looking down to take off his boot, and then to put it on again. He couldn't have missed it!

                  On the debate about the word "caveat", it is Latin for "let him beware", and is correctly used, as by Herlock, before any words of caution about a previous statement



                  [Coroner] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - Dr Phillips 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.

                  One might also be correct that Phillips words At least two hours'' stands alone without the advent of such a word as ''caveat'' . He said at least 2 hours thats should be taken as such , was he right? thats debateable and weve certainly seen throughout this thread the arguments for and against .

                  Now if one want to say the ''Probabaly more''[as he gives reasons/conditions ] part of what he said, then that would be open to the use of a ''caveat''

                  So now, imo that should clear up the use of the word ''caveat'' and where it should and shouldnt be used When quoting Dr Phillipps above paragraph.


                  Lilely scenario in this case , killers murders Chapman at 4.15am , spends 15 mins mutilating her corpse ,leaves the scene of the crime . Richardson enters checks the lock from the doorstep [his words] turns back and goes off to work ,body is discovered around 6.00am.

                  The evidence available and amount of post so far that support this theory shouldnt be ignored .IMO
                  'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                    Hi George,

                    No, that's not nit-picking at all. If he's talking about intestines that are on the ground, rather than inside the body, then the fact they have not cooled completely points to a far shorter time of cooling (so shorter PMI) than if they are inside the body. The cold ground would pull heat away faster than the body cavity, which itself has to cool.

                    With her body cavity opened, of course, it would cool faster than for an intact body, but it would still not be as cold as the ground itself.

                    - Jeff
                    Hi Jeff,

                    Umm, err, this is a bit embarrassing. Much as I regret having to turn down an opportunity to appear brilliant (no fear of that I hear from the chorus), I was actually referring to the objection being raised to Christer that Phillips did not say that he put his hand "inside the abdominal cavity" and found warmth remaining under the intestines. I was suggesting that since the abdominal cavity is the usual place for the finding of intestines, that perhaps the statement was nit-picking. I threw in the evisceration part without actually contemplating that temperature alternative. Wow. This really is a lesson on the mysteries of interpretations. Despite my catastrophic attempt at sarcasm, and dazzling myself with footwork, I do think it would be pushing the envelope to suggest that he was talking about the removed intestines rather than those that remained in the body.

                    Best regards, George
                    “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                    “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Parisi North Humber View Post
                      I'm not suggesting magic just a mere mortal called out of an upper middle class home would be nice and warm so his sense of hot or cold would be different to if he'd been outside say for a couple of hours or in a cold post mortem or disecting room. Just thinking that his sense of touch detecting temperature would have depended to a certain extent on his own temperature at the time. Sorry if I'm not explaining myself very well.

                      Helen x
                      That's a very good point I think!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Dickere View Post

                        That's a very good point I think!
                        I think it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

                        Dr Phillips was an experienced, professional man. He understood that it was incumbent upon him to record his observations in a meaningful sense.

                        This is what the experienced Dr Phillips tells us and it's unequivocal:

                        The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body.

                        Comment


                        • "The small intestines and a flap of the wall of the stomach, also the cover of the intestines, were lying on the right side of the body on the ground above the right shoulder, and were attached to the remainder of the intestines in the body by a coil of intestine. Two flaps of the wall of the stomach were lying in a large quantity of blood above the left shoulder. I searched the yard, and found a small piece of coarse muslin and the other articles mentioned by Inspector Chandler. The muslin and combs had apparently been arranged, or placed in order, where I found them. The left side of the body was cold, excepting a remaining heat under the intestines in the body."

                          I see no doubt in the fact, Phillips felt under the intestines "in the body".

                          The considerable doubt about the importance of the warmth Phillips felt, arises in the fact that "the small intestines", "the flap of the wall of the stomach", "the cover of the intestines", "a coil of the remaining intestine", "two flaps of the wall the stomach" and that further unspecified "portions had been taken out from the abdomen".

                          Indisputably, the amount of viscera taken out of the body cavity, plus the skin flaps, will affect the speed of the cooling process. How many bodies had Phillips examined with this amount of viscera missing? Without knowing this, and we don't, we cannot say how accurate his estimation was, let alone anyone, medical or not, well over a century later.

                          Given the doubt over Phillips's judgement, the witnesses attain a greater importance.
                          dustymiller
                          aka drstrange

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                            Patience FM,

                            It is yet to be grasped that the intestines are located inside the abdominal cavity unless they have been removed during evisceration, or is that just nit-picking.

                            Cheers, George
                            No it's not nitpicking, George.

                            The focus on the abdominal cavity is an attempt to send the discussion down a rabbit hole (true to form in certain quarters), and I'm not a huge fan of the meat of discussions being lost due to page after page being devoted to secondary issues:

                            As I posted earlier, but didn't get a response beyond something like "we don't know exactly what the newspapers said":

                            Dr Phillips stated the only remaining warmth was under the intestines. Fisherman relayed this to Professor Thilbin from which he drew a conclusion.

                            That is the crux of it.

                            Are you suggesting Professor Thilbin was incompetent when he drew that conclusion from Dr Phillips' statement?


                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post




                              [Coroner] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - Dr Phillips 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.

                              One might also be correct that Phillips words At least two hours'' stands alone without the advent of such a word as ''caveat'' . He said at least 2 hours thats should be taken as such , was he right? thats debateable and weve certainly seen throughout this thread the arguments for and against .

                              Now if one want to say the ''Probabaly more''[as he gives reasons/conditions ] part of what he said, then that would be open to the use of a ''caveat''

                              So now, imo that should clear up the use of the word ''caveat'' and where it should and shouldnt be used When quoting Dr Phillipps above paragraph.


                              Lilely scenario in this case , killers murders Chapman at 4.15am , spends 15 mins mutilating her corpse ,leaves the scene of the crime . Richardson enters checks the lock from the doorstep [his words] turns back and goes off to work ,body is discovered around 6.00am.

                              The evidence available and amount of post so far that support this theory shouldnt be ignored .IMO
                              Sorry, but this total misuse of the English language is simply nonsensical.

                              To quote from The Times report, Phillips said that, "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 its having lost a great quantity of blood."

                              That is, beyond argument, two simple statements, both complete in themselves. Firstly his etimated ToD when he saw the body, and secondly his expressed reservations about the accuracy of that estimate. The second statement qualifies the first. To pretend that his clearly stated doubts about the accuracy of the estimate refers only to part of the estimate totally defies all sanity. Phillips was a very experienced police surgeon who was perfectly capable of giving his evidence clearly. If he had intended that his explanation of potential error only applied to part of his estimate, then he would have said so, in words that the coroner and everone else could understand. This was a seasoned professional giving evidence for permanent record under oath.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                                No it's not nitpicking, George.

                                The focus on the abdominal cavity is an attempt to send the discussion down a rabbit hole (true to form in certain quarters), and I'm not a huge fan of the meat of discussions being lost due to page after page being devoted to secondary issues:

                                As I posted earlier, but didn't get a response beyond something like "we don't know exactly what the newspapers said":

                                Dr Phillips stated the only remaining warmth was under the intestines. Fisherman relayed this to Professor Thilbin from which he drew a conclusion.

                                That is the crux of it.

                                Are you suggesting Professor Thilbin was incompetent when he drew that conclusion from Dr Phillips' statement?

                                Hi FM,

                                Certainly not. I actually corrected that notion in my post #2244.

                                I was actually referring to the objection being raised to Christer's comment to Thilbin, that Phillips did not say that he put his hand "inside the abdominal cavity" and found warmth remaining under the intestines. I was suggesting that since the abdominal cavity is the usual place for the finding of intestines, that perhaps that statement was nit-picking.

                                Both you and Jeff interpreted what I said differently to what I meant. Entirely my fault. Humble apologies.

                                Cheers, George
                                “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                                “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X