John Richardson

[FISHY1118]

No, we should dismiss him entirely because his estimation is worth nothing (as Biggs and the rest of the experts tell us)

Then we assess the witnesses. The two are not connected. One is worth assessing, one can’t be. Simple.

No that's not the case , dr Phillips has been supported by modern day medical experts. ,refer to fisherman post , and George 1320 post for clarification about the witnesses, also modern day expert assessment.

[FISHY1118]

Why can’t you understand this Fishy. It’s soooooo simple.

Yes we should dismiss Phillips because he could have been right, he could have been wrong.

The witnesses are not the same. We have to assess them because we can assess them. We can’t assess Phillips guess.

If you dismissed witnesses just because witnesses can be wrong then you would have to dismiss every single witness ever..

Please try and get this - or is this another case of you actually understanding it but you continue to post it simply to derail the debate?

What nonsense herlock, if theres one person who's trying to derail this thread its you. ,your refusal to leave others to their own opinion when assessing all the evidence to come to a t.o.d based on that evidence, it is you can't get this simple fact.

Why can't you understand that.

[FISHY1118]

Why can’t you understand this Fishy. It’s soooooo simple.

Yes we should dismiss Phillips because he could have been right, he could have been wrong.

The witnesses are not the same. We have to assess them because we can assess them. We can’t assess Phillips guess.

If you dismissed witnesses just because witnesses can be wrong then you would have to dismiss every single witness ever..

Please try and get this - or is this another case of you actually understanding it but you continue to post it simply to derail the debate?

''If you dismissed witnesses just because witnesses can be wrong then you would have to dismiss every single witness ever.''.


Classic Herlockism,

The topic is on the witnesses in regards to the Chapman murder, not every single witness in every crime , Richardson, long , Cadosch should be judged on the evidence as a whole. If one decides to eliminate them based his or her opinion and interpretation of that evidence which is ambiguious , uncertain and contradictory , and shown many many times over thousands of post now. Then they are free to do so. You really should let it go


Just the same way as Israel Schwartz testimony has been eliminated be some of those posters youve mentioned.

[Fleetwood Mac]

But, as Dr Phillips didn't say how warm the area under the intestines that he felt was (i.e. he didn't say it was very warm or only a little warm)

You're wilfully ignoring the fact that Professor Thiblin drew his conclusion on that which Dr Phillips stated, i.e. the body was cold except for some remaining warmth under the intestines. You're casually ignoring the fact that Professor Thiblin didn't ask for clarification on the 'warmth', which should tell you that it wasn't necessary. The fact there was warmth was sufficient information for Professor Thiblin. As I said to you previously, Sherlock, you're engaged in preposterous and irrelevant scrutiny such as: "cold" versus "all cold" and "the appropriate intestinal warmth", all of which is a redundant exercise and designed to evade that which Professor Thiblin put before you.

And then we have Dr Biggs. I have absolutely no idea what you mean in your previous post, it's garbled. When you read Trevor's post it again, you will see that Dr Biggs stated that a wider timeframe should prove more accurate, and so there is an acknowledgement that some estimates are more accurate than others. What Dr Biggs is telling you, is that Dr Phillips was more likely to have been right in the event he said between 2 and 3 hours or 2 and 4 hours as opposed to 5.20am to 5.30am which you're proposing. As I said, you can only assess the value of an option by comparison with other options.

Ultimately, Professor Thiblin commits to 3-4 hours being more likely, while Dr Biggs doesn't commit to either of the two scenarios.

And then of course, we have a real-life example to support Professor Thiblin's conclusion. That being Catherine, whose body was quite warm with no sign of rigor and murdered in a similar manner in similar environmental conditions. You're proposing that Annie had been dead only 20 minutes longer than Catherine when first examined, yet Annie's body was cold except for some remaining warmth under the intestines and rigor was 'commencing of the limbs'. It doesn't add up, Sherlock, and of course this difference in body temperature (comparing Annie and Catherine) tells you exactly what Professor Thiblin meant when he made a distinction between the central and outer parts of the body and that your focus on the "appropriate intestinal warmth" is of no consequence.

[Fleetwood Mac]

She has to be assessed as all witnesses do. Her son certainly entered the passage and she didn’t hear him so what does she prove?

That's not assessment, Sherlock.

This is you fanatically arguing that Richardson's statement was accurate, and it follows any other piece of information that contradicts Richardson must be discarded.

Do you want to try assessing Mrs Richardson in a reasonable manner or is she simply too inconvenient for your 5.30am proposal?

[GBinOz]

And what in heaven's name has the Home Office got to do with this? They contributed nothing to the investigation except a desire to blame a foreigner. They aren't relevant to the police opinion.

Hi Doc,

Police opinion:
Inspector Walter Andrews: "The police are perfectly powerless, no one ever having seen the murderer except the victims."

Macnaghten: "no one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer unless possibly it was the City P.C. who was a beat [sic] near Mitre Square."

"no one" includes Long.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

You're wilfully ignoring the fact that Professor Thiblin drew his conclusion on that which Dr Phillips stated, i.e. the body was cold except for some remaining warmth under the intestines. You're casually ignoring the fact that Professor Thiblin didn't ask for clarification on the 'warmth', which should tell you that it wasn't necessary. The fact there was warmth was sufficient information for Professor Thiblin. As I said to you previously, Sherlock, you're engaged in preposterous and irrelevant scrutiny such as: "cold" versus "all cold" and "the appropriate intestinal warmth", all of which is a redundant exercise and designed to evade that which Professor Thiblin put before you.

And then we have Dr Biggs. I have absolutely no idea what you mean in your previous post, it's garbled. When you read Trevor's post it again, you will see that Dr Biggs stated that a wider timeframe should prove more accurate, and so there is an acknowledgement that some estimates are more accurate than others. What Dr Biggs is telling you, is that Dr Phillips was more likely to have been right in the event he said between 2 and 3 hours or 2 and 4 hours as opposed to 5.20am to 5.30am which you're proposing. As I said, you can only assess the value of an option by comparison with other options.

Ultimately, Professor Thiblin commits to 3-4 hours being more likely, while Dr Biggs doesn't commit to either of the two scenarios.

And then of course, we have a real-life example to support Professor Thiblin's conclusion. That being Catherine, whose body was quite warm with no sign of rigor and murdered in a similar manner in similar environmental conditions. You're proposing that Annie had been dead only 20 minutes longer than Catherine when first examined, yet Annie's body was cold except for some remaining warmth under the intestines and rigor was 'commencing of the limbs'. It doesn't add up, Sherlock, and of course this difference in body temperature (comparing Annie and Catherine) tells you exactly what Professor Thiblin meant when he made a distinction between the central and outer parts of the body and that your focus on the "appropriate intestinal warmth" is of no consequence.

So it seems now Dr Biggs and professor Thiblin are both in some away in agreement dr Phillips .

It's that how you see it Mac?

[Aethelwulf]

Convenient = Mrs Richardson: half asleep, heard nothing and taken as gospel.

Inconvenient = Harriet Lilley: probably heard Polly being murdered. I'm sure the train time estimate can be allowed to vary a lot and other other timings must be exact.

Apart from being half asleep, why would Mrs R hear anything? Chapman was going through to the yard for prostitution, so chances are she'd have been quiet, the ripper was going there to murder her, so he would have been very quiet.

[GBinOz]

So no witness in any case can ever be used because witnesses ‘might’ lie or they ‘might’ be mistaken.

The justice system collapses.

Good logic.

Herlock, really. Do you actually believe that the justice system is built on the premise that witnesses never lie and are never mistaken. You should try to be a little less hyperbolic with your assertions.

Cheers, George

[Fleetwood Mac]

So it seems now Dr Biggs and professor Thiblin are both in some away in agreement dr Phillips .

It's that how you see it Mac?

Not really, Fishy.

I couldn't go as far as saying Dr Biggs agreed with Dr Phillips.

What Dr Biggs does tacitly acknowledge is that some estimates will be more accurate than others (he said a wider timeframe is more likely to be accurate).

It follows that had Dr Phillips stated: "5.20am to 5.30am", Dr Biggs is telling us this is less likely to be accurate than: "at least two hours and probably more".

We can only assess the value of an option in relation to the other options.

And then of course, Dr Biggs makes reference to someone "unaccustomed to manipulating dead bodies". What does this mean in relation to Dr Phillips? We have no idea because the question goes unanswered. We're left with no good reason as to why Dr Phillips was unable to discern the stage of rigor he observed.

In the end though, Dr Biggs doesn't commit to either scenario, whereas Professor Thiblin commits to 3-4 hours being more likely. So, 1 expert in favour of an earlier TOD and the other non-committal.

The claim that a Victorian doctor couldn't possibly have been correct, is a logical fallacy. Dr Phillips tells us the least time possible is two hours. The other option was the most time possible is two hours. One of these options is correct and so logically Dr Phillips could quite conceivably have been correct depending on which option he chose and when Annie was murdered.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Doc,

Police opinion:
Inspector Walter Andrews: "The police are perfectly powerless, no one ever having seen the murderer except the victims."

Macnaghten: "no one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer unless possibly it was the City P.C. who was a beat [sic] near Mitre Square."

"no one" includes Long.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

I wrote that the Home Office contributed nothing to police opinion, so this observation doesn't relate directly to my comment.

If you simply meant that the police were generally of the opinion that there was never a confirmed sighting of JtR, then of course I agree. I assume that you meant that therefore the police didn't regard Long's evidence as a positive sighting. It certainly was not a confirmed sighting, just a possible one. I have made it clear on several occasions that I have never claimed that Long should be regarded as a definite witness.

For me it is the accumulation of "possibles" that makes the witness situation interesting. The independant stories of Richardson plus Cadosch plus Long plus Davis saying the front door was wide open, when Richardson said that he closed it. Nowhere near conclusive, but all pointing seamlessly to a distinctly possible ToD between about 4. 50 am and 5. 50 am. I don't insist on it, but it fits perfectly.

[etenguy]

Hi Doc,

Police opinion:
Inspector Walter Andrews: "The police are perfectly powerless, no one ever having seen the murderer except the victims."

Macnaghten: "no one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer unless possibly it was the City P.C. who was a beat [sic] near Mitre Square."

"no one" includes Long.

Cheers, George

And yet the police are said to have taken an eye witness (possibly Lawende or Schwartz) to ID a suspect,

[Fleetwood Mac]

6. That neither the Coroner or 18 posters on here can understand the English language and that Dr. Phillips added a caveat that literally makes no sense.

The coroner understood exactly what Dr Phillips intended, which is why he said "miscalculated". Your interpretation leaves no room for Dr Phillips miscalculating.

As for the 18 posters:

I haven't looked at your poll but given it is irrelevant I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll accept that you worded the poll in a manner whereby everyone understood the options and the implications.

The conclusion from your poll is simply this: there are another 17 posters on the board who think like you.

What you're proposing is Dr Phillips intended this: the least time possible is two hours but possibly less.

That is a contradiction in terms and nonsensical. In the event another 17 posters agree with you, it simply means they, like you, are unable to grasp a contradiction in terms and a nonsensical statement.

You could have 18 posters on here claiming the moon is hoisted up into the sky every night at 9pm and taken down at 6 in the morning. As with your poll, it would merely be indicative of the way 18 people think as opposed to any reflection on reality.

[GBinOz]

For me it is the accumulation of "possibles" that makes the witness situation interesting. The independant stories of Richardson plus Cadosch plus Long plus Davis saying the front door was wide open, when Richardson said that he closed it. Nowhere near conclusive, but all pointing seamlessly to a distinctly possible ToD between about 4. 50 am and 5. 50 am. I don't insist on it, but it fits perfectly.

Hi Doc,

For you it is the accumulation of "possibles", for me of "probables". You said previously that you lean towards your opinion, and I lean towards mine. I see no call to challenge the linguist capabilities of others because they have a different opinion, or engaging in extreme hyperbole (not you in either case). I have no problem with your opinion. One day I might be persuaded, but not today.

Cheers, George

[Fisherman]

Hi George,

I wrote that the Home Office contributed nothing to police opinion, so this observation doesn't relate directly to my comment.

Since this concerns itself with my posts, I should add that I never said or inferred that the Home Office contributed to police opinion. What I said was that we have three sources dismissing the three witnesses in favour of Phillips, but no sources dismissing Phillips in favour of the three witnesses. In fact, the more independent of each other the three sources dismissing the witnesses are, the more likely it becomes that the sentiment was wide-spread and the general take on things.