John Richardson

[FISHY1118]

Another masterpiece.

Yep

[Fleetwood Mac]

Dusty (DrStrange)
Wickerman
Aelric
Abby Normal
Colin (Bridewell)
Jeff Hamm
Azarna
Pat (PC Dunn)
Kattrup
Me
Erobitha
Ms Diddles
Enigma
Al Bundy’s Eyes
Dickere
Friedkidne
Aethelwulf
RManny
Milchmanuk

Yes, because of course your polls on a message board 150 years after the event constitutes evidence in the Jack the Ripper case.

Can I just point out that this supposed evidence includes the whims of people calling themselves Dr Strange, Dickere, Al Bundy's Eyes and Me (as per your list of adherents), and this poll was undertaken by someone calling himself 'Herlock Sholmes'.

You may say that I'm being conservative in my estimate when I say I'm not convinced, but I think I'm being sensible.

[FISHY1118]

A link?

Feeble Fishy.

Even without you having the common decency to post a link to this post (expecting me to trawl through months of posts) I know for a fact that no one would say that witnesses that can’t be right. You’re claiming that someone would have is another embarrassment. How can anyone think this.

Add this to Trevor’s ‘may not’ post.

A man who doesn’t know that ‘may’ doesn’t mean uncertainty and man who thinks that all witnesses are wrong.

A link you say ?

Well you know what, go find it yourself.

We spent many post asking you to read and you just ignored it .

But I've a sneaking suspicion you did, you just didn't like what you read because it showed your dr Phillips argument to be same for the witnesses .

[Lewis C]

You’re clueless, utterly riddled with bias and incapable of reason.

The People 30th September

It is true that Dr. Phillips thinks that when he saw the body at 6.30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admits that the coldness of he morning and the great loss of blood may affect his opinion; and if the evidence of the other witnesses be correct, Dr. Phillips has miscalculated the effect of those forces

The People understood it too.

Yes, Baxter first used the phrase "but he admits", meaning that Phillips is granting that he could be mistaken. There's then a reference to the evidence of the other witnesses, who all point toward a later time of death, and that is related to Phillips' statement about coldness and loss of blood.

This should be put to bed not only because it's clear enough what Baxter is saying, but also because in the TOD question, it doesn't even matter. We know that doctors of the time lacked the ability to determine TOD with any kind of precision regardless of what Baxter or Phillips said.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The full inquest quote is repeatedly ignored by you. He said "that the deceased had been dead at least two hours, and probably more, WHEN HE FIRST SAW HER". He was telling the Coroner what he said at the murder site, then he added his caveat which explained his present reservations about it.

As you did previously, you have quoted an incomplete statement as your evidence, and have ignored the correct version when it is pointed out to you. Phillips said of his ToD that his estimate was in respect of "when he first saw her".

In other words, and I'll say it yet again, what he told the Coroner was, in effect, when he first saw the body he gave a ToD of at least two hours and probably more, but he must point out that due to the coldness of the morning and the massive loss of blood, it could have been later.

I keep telling you that his original ToD and its meaning have never been in dispute. You keep ignoring the fact that he told the Coroner his original ToD, and then said that it could be wrong. So I am not ignoring what he said, but you are. The full quote from the inquest is important, and you keep quoting an incomplete version.

I think that is quite wrong.

Phillips did not say that he thought only at the time that he examined the body that Chapman had been dead for at least two hours and that subsequently, on reflection, he decided otherwise.

He was expressing his opinion at the time that he was asked for it!


Coroner: How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her?

Phillips: I should say at least two hours, and probably more;

The coroner used the words saw her only in order to fix the time that had elapsed between death and the examination.

He did not mean to ask Phillips what he thought at that time rather than at the time that he was being asked!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, because of course your polls on a message boards 150 years after the event constitutes evidence in the Jack the Ripper case.

Can I just point out that this supposed evidence includes the whims of people calling themselves Dr Strange, Dickere, Al Bundy's Eyes and Me (as per your list of adherents), and this poll was undertaken by someone calling himself 'Herlock Sholmes'.

You may say that I'm being conservative in my estimate when I say I'm not convinced, but I think I'm being sensible.

Well you’re maths is pretty poor for a start.

Ok, so you’re now denigrating people because they they use names other than their own? I’m quite willing to believe that you were christened Fleetwood Mac but if you weren’t I wouldn’t assess denigrate your judgment because you’ve assumed the name of a band.

The time period isn’t relevant. Language is language. The effect of more rapid cooling remains the same.

I might also ask why you have no issue with attributing skills to a Doctor working 135 years ago that Doctors today don’t have. Methods that experts today tell us explicitly were not reliable. Is that being reasoned?

[Fleetwood Mac]

The full quote from the inquest is important, and you keep quoting an incomplete version.

Well, this is unexpected.

Feel free to post the 'full quote' and I'll reply to that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A link you say ?

Well you know what, go find it yourself.

We spent many post asking you to read and you just ignored it .

But I've a sneaking suspicion you did, you just didn't like what you read because it showed your dr Phillips argument to be same for the witnesses .

Deja vu.

For the umpteenth time Fishy makes a claim then refuses to back it up.

Par for the course.

[FISHY1118]

And Fishy now tops of the madness.

ATTENTION ALL POSTERS!!

Fishy actually thinks that a man can get from the passageway to a position where he’s sitting on the middle step with his feet on the flags ‘without actually going down the steps.’

Has anyone ever heard anything like this?

Again……people wonder why I get irritated. Because I’m constantly faced with points like this!!

Oh how you twist things around to try and concoct a completely different context and what was been discussed .

Your irritation come from not listening and reading properly , a little cream will help

[GBinOz]

Id say that we can’t really be certain on that point…..and I wasn’t expressing it as a certainty. Most tend to consider The Times the most reliable as it uses direct quotes although no one should expect them to have been anything like verbatim. The Times version is the one used in the documents section on here. In that version it says:

“I found the body of the deceased lying in the yard on her back, on the left hand of the steps that lead from the passage. The head was about 6in in front of the level of the bottom step, and the feet were towards a shed at the end of the yard. The left arm was across the left breast, and the legs were drawn up, the feet resting on the ground, and the knees turned outwards. The face was swollen and turned on the right side, and the tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips; it was much swollen. The small intestines and other portions were lying on the right side of the body on the ground above the right shoulder, but attached. There was a large quantity of blood, with a part of the stomach above the left shoulder. I searched the yard and found a small piece of coarse muslin, a small-tooth comb, and a pocket-comb, in a paper case, near the railing. They had apparently been arranged there. I also discovered various other articles, which I handed to the police. The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat,”

Hi Herlock,

I think you meant to say that the Daily Telegraph is the one used in the documents section on here, not The Times. Your quote is actually from the Daily Telegraph. Casebook's Inquest documents are very expediate as they assemble every day's proceedings into one document, but they are all from the Daily Telegraph.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think that is quite wrong.

Phillips did not say that he thought only at the time that he examined the body that Chapman had been dead for at least two hours and that subsequently, on reflection, he decided otherwise.

He was expressing his opinion at the time that he was asked for it!


Coroner: How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her?

Phillips: I should say at least two hours, and probably more;

The coroner used the words saw her only in order to fix the time that had elapsed between death and the examination.

He did not mean to ask Phillips what he thought at that time rather than at the time that he was being asked!

Do you have a record of what Phillips said about the ToD on the morning of the murder PI?

No.

End of discussion. You can’t know when he added his caveat. Just that he did. And what he meant by it.

[Lewis C]

To remind ourselves what he said:


I should say at least two hours, and probably more; (that’s all that he needed to say)


but it is right to say (so he feels obliged to disclose the full facts and all possibilities; to add additional information)


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. (rapid cooling can only mean that the time between death and eximation could have been shorter than the time given in the estimation)

There was no other possible reason for adding that caveat.


So you think the opposite is obvious and that those that disagree are somehow idiots?

How many agree with you? PI maybe. Possibly George. Fishy. So 4.

Against you, we have Coroner Baxter who was there at the time. Newspapers like The People who also interpreted correctly.

Then all these people that you dismiss and deride…..most of whom haven’t even been involved in the thread and so have no ax to grind.


Dusty (DrStrange)
Wickerman
Aelric
Abby Normal
Colin (Bridewell)
Jeff Hamm
Azarna
Pat (PC Dunn)
Kattrup
Me
Erobitha
Ms Diddles
Enigma
Al Bundy’s Eyes
Dickere
Friedkidne
Aethelwulf
RManny
Milchmanuk

The person that’s being blinkered and biased is you. You have dogmatically decided that Annie must have been killed at 4.30 (in the teeth of all of evidence to the contrary) and you’re then willing to manipulate to try and desperately hold on to a clearly lost position. There have been so many embarrassing points made on here over the last few days by the Dr George Phillips Fan Club.

You may add me to that list.

The irony here is that Phillips lacked the ability to accurately estimate the TOD because that knowledge didn't exist, so it's to his credit that he recognized that he could be wrong. So you might say that I'm in his fan club for that reason.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I think you meant to say that the Daily Telegraph is the one used in the documents section on here, not The Times. Your quote is actually from the Daily Telegraph. Casebook's Inquest documents are very expediate as they assemble every day's proceedings into one document, but they are all from the Daily Telegraph.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

You spotted the ‘deliberate, error then? I was just making sure that you were paying attention.

Cheers.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You may add me to that list.

The irony here is that Phillips lacked the ability to accurately estimate the TOD because that knowledge didn't exist, so it's to his credit that he recognized that he could be wrong. So you might say that I'm in his fan club for that reason.

Cheers Lewis.

But we’re all idiots according to FM.

[FISHY1118]

Deja vu.

For the umpteenth time Fishy makes a claim then refuses to back it up.

Par for the course.

Your getting desperate now

Once you've had enough of discussion of the evidence and the Chapman t.o.d this is the way you carry on