Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by Parisi North Humber View Post
    I've read through this thread (twice now) going back to Fishy's original post regarding Richardson and the open door, and I would like to ask if there is ANY consensus from the major protagonists debating on this thread as to Annie's ToD? For instance I assume there is AGREEMENT that her ToD was between the sighting of Annie as she left the kitchen after/whilst eating her potatoes and when she was discovered butchered in the back yard of Hanbury street. Are there any other broad terms of agreement that we can go forward with?

    Helen x
    An unidentified murderer.

    Annie was murdered at 29 Hanbury Street.

    There is a general consensus that Dr Phillips is not bound to be "inaccurate" or "accurate". Not everyone subscribes to this; it seems most do.

    Outside of that, not much. Even among those of us who believe the witness statements are compromised, we don't necessarily agree as to why.

    I'll take a wild stab in the dark and claim that another 200 pages would see much of the same back and forth.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      I love the way you omit Annie's wasting disease and extreme malnutrition even though these are potentially crucial factors regarding both warmth and rigor.

      And fyi we simply don't know the environmental temperatures of Hanbury Street and Mitre Square those nights at those times because they are not recorded. They may well not have been the same as what we find in the records for the whole of London during the entire night.
      It wasn't omitted, Sherlock, it merely hasn't been discussed at this point. I agree that it is a factor.

      We do know the environmental temperature, they are recorded. There is a difference of approx. 1C.

      I think at this point it will be worth looking at all of the factors that impact rigor mortis, but before we do that can you clarify exactly what you mean when you say: "Annie's wasting disease".

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Parisi North Humber View Post
        I've read through this thread (twice now) going back to Fishy's original post regarding Richardson and the open door, and I would like to ask if there is ANY consensus from the major protagonists debating on this thread as to Annie's ToD? For instance I assume there is AGREEMENT that her ToD was between the sighting of Annie as she left the kitchen after/whilst eating her potatoes and when she was discovered butchered in the back yard of Hanbury street. Are there any other broad terms of agreement that we can go forward with?

        Helen x
        Hi Helen,

        The difference is basically down to the reliability of Dr. Phillips estimate of the TOD (and an assessment of the witnesses of course.)

        None of us on here are experts on forensic medicine so we have to go to the experts and they all, without exception, tell us that TOD estimation isn’t even that accurate today as there are too many contributing factors and there are some of those factors that Dr. Phillips wouldn’t even have been aware of as having an effect. There’s a very long list of contributing factors. Basically he noted a bit of stiffening and found some residual heat and that parts of the body was cold by using his hand. Even today with thermometers and probes and 134 years of accumulated scientific advancement a Forensic Scientist wouldn’t have been able to say 2 hours minimum with the Police taking that as an inarguable fact. It’s simply not possible.So the best that we can say is that, for all that we know, the Doctors minimum estimate might have been correct or it might have been wrong. We have absolutely no way of judging it’s accuracy. Even if we took a modern day forensic expert back in a time machine he wouldn’t be able to tie the TOD to an exact minimum of 2 hours.

        So my position (and the position of the majority on here) is that ‘might have been accurate/might not have been accurate, gets us nowhere and can never get us anywhere. Therefore we’re left to assess the 3 witness who contradict this earlier TOD. So unless FM concedes that Phillips estimate can’t be considered reliable and has to be sidelined I see no way forward. He wants to try and skew this so that he can somehow say that it was either impossible for a less than 2 hour TOD to have occurred or that an earlier TOD was overwhelmingly likely. Even if we could say that there was a 75% of Phillips being right it still wouldn’t eliminate the witnesses so not only is he trying to achieve the impossible he’s doing it by ignoring every single forensic expert that ever put pen to paper.

        My apologies for the long reply Helen.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes

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

        Comment



        • There are all kinds of other differences that one can point to if we try and compare Eddowes to Chapman…

          For example, if Annie was murdered at 5.30 it means she was possibly on the cold streets for about four hours whereas Eddowes had just come out of a relatively warm police station. It's not known if such things can affect how the body reacts after death but it would certainly have made Annie's skin feel cold while she was alive.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes

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

          Comment



          • But if you want to compare Catherine to Annie, try this:

            Catherine Eddowes was arrested at 8.30pm and put into a cell. Sergeant James Byfield testified that nothing was given to her while she was in the cell. So she couldn't have eaten anything for at least five hours before her death at about 1.40. Yet Dr Brown testified that there was "partly digested farinaceous (starchy) food" in her stomach. That surely proves that food CAN remain in the stomach for more than the three or four hours needed in respect of Annie's starchy potato. So that's the stomach contents point dead in the water.
            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 Parisi North Humber View Post
              I've read through this thread (twice now) going back to Fishy's original post regarding Richardson and the open door, and I would like to ask if there is ANY consensus from the major protagonists debating on this thread as to Annie's ToD? For instance I assume there is AGREEMENT that her ToD was between the sighting of Annie as she left the kitchen after/whilst eating her potatoes and when she was discovered butchered in the back yard of Hanbury street. Are there any other broad terms of agreement that we can go forward with?

              Helen x
              Hi Helen, Indeed there is a lot to digest on this topic as you are well aware . I think the most important thing to take away from it tho is this.

              That when one weighs up all the evidence, wether it be witness or expert medical opinion, is that one side is no more certain than the other in so much to claim a 5.30 or earlier t.o.d

              As has been shown right throughout this topic many problems with witness testimony v the accuracy of medical opinion . Both of course sould be taken into account

              The point is, what ever stance you decide is up to you, , i just happen to support an earlier t.o.d based on my interpretation of All the inquest testimony provided, some of which ive judged to be problematic. .You of course are free to make up your own mind.
              '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 Herlock Sholmes View Post
                But if you want to compare Catherine to Annie, try this:

                Catherine Eddowes was arrested at 8.30pm and put into a cell. Sergeant James Byfield testified that nothing was given to her while she was in the cell. So she couldn't have eaten anything for at least five hours before her death at about 1.40. Yet Dr Brown testified that there was "partly digested farinaceous (starchy) food" in her stomach. That surely proves that food CAN remain in the stomach for more than the three or four hours needed in respect of Annie's starchy potato. So that's the stomach contents point dead in the water.
                1.00am to 1.40 am

                How do we know she didnt eat during this time .?
                '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


                • Btw, genuine question .
                  '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 FISHY1118 View Post

                    1.00am to 1.40 am

                    How do we know she didnt eat during this time .?
                    We just don't know.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                      But if you want to compare Catherine to Annie, try this:

                      Catherine Eddowes was arrested at 8.30pm and put into a cell. Sergeant James Byfield testified that nothing was given to her while she was in the cell. So she couldn't have eaten anything for at least five hours before her death at about 1.40. Yet Dr Brown testified that there was "partly digested farinaceous (starchy) food" in her stomach. That surely proves that food CAN remain in the stomach for more than the three or four hours needed in respect of Annie's starchy potato. So that's the stomach contents point dead in the water.
                      It's game over again.

                      It's always game over, Sherlock, isn't it; except you keep popping back up to continue 'the game'.

                      Your absolute best quality is that you post something and don't bother waiting for the discussion to ensue before proclaiming: "game over".

                      If it helps, Dr Brown didn't state that which you claim.

                      You may want to try revisiting the inquest testimony. Upon reflection, 'the game' could well remain in progress.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                        1.00am to 1.40 am

                        How do we know she didnt eat during this time .?
                        Highly unlikely given Catherine left the police station at 1am and was murdered approx. 1.40am.

                        By the way, Sherlock isn't quite giving you an accurate reflection of the circumstances.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                          Highly unlikely given Catherine left the police station at 1am and was murdered approx. 1.40am.

                          By the way, Sherlock isn't quite giving you an accurate reflection of the circumstances.
                          Regardless tho Mac

                          Its still 40 mins isnt it ?


                          Herlock suggest ''So she couldn't have eaten anything for at least five hours before her death at about 1.40.''

                          She could had eaten something in that time , we just dont know or cant say for sure. unlikely? yes /possibly? yes, both equal in this debate i should think. But ''couldnt have''.... hmmm pretty big call if you ask me .
                          Last edited by FISHY1118; 09-05-2022, 11:41 AM.
                          '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 FISHY1118 View Post

                            Regardless tho Mac

                            Its still 40 mins isnt it ?
                            There is the time to meet her murderer, decide to get some food, find that food and then eat it.

                            I'd say 20 minutes at the least.

                            That leaves 20 minutes to fully digest in the stomach.

                            'Seems unlikely to me.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                              1.00am to 1.40 am

                              How do we know she didnt eat during this time .?
                              Because Dr Brown found "very little" food in the stomach. That is inconsistent with a very recent meal.

                              But if Eddowes could have eaten food in the short time between her release and her murder, so could Chapman in the three hours and thirty minutes between 2am and 5.30. Either way, the comparison shows that the stomach contents point is dead in the water.

                              The fact that the very small amount of food found in Eddowes stomach was partially digested indicates that she had eaten some time prior to her death to allow for the partial digestion
                              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

                                It's game over again.

                                It's always game over, Sherlock, isn't it; except you keep popping back up to continue 'the game'.

                                Your absolute best quality is that you post something and don't bother waiting for the discussion to ensue before proclaiming: "game over".

                                If it helps, Dr Brown didn't state that which you claim.

                                You may want to try revisiting the inquest testimony. Upon reflection, 'the game' could well remain in progress.
                                “There seemed very little in it in the way of food or fluid but from the cut end partly digested farinaceous food escaped.”

                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes

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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X