John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

No ‘context’ is required. If you can explain how Richardson managed to put his feet on the flags to sit down without going down the steps then a Nobel Prize might be heading your way.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

You made a point on the subject.

I asked you to back it up.

You refused.

Not my issue Fishy. Yours. Again.

[Doctored Whatsit]

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!

If Phillips meant for his original ToD to stand, then why did he feel the need to add the caveat, and what do you claim that he meant by it? I think that the Coroner fully understood it, and he was there at the time. We are only reading various accounts from the newspapers.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If Phillips meant for his original ToD to stand, then why did he feel the need to add the caveat, and what do you claim that he meant by it? I think that the Coroner fully understood it, and he was there at the time. We are only reading various accounts from the newspapers.

I do not know what you mean by an original time of death.

He gave only one estimate, together with a qualification.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Well, this is unexpected.

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

I meant that the "when he first saw her" must be taken into consideration, because it preceded the caveat. The caveat therefore is an afterthought which must be viewed as applying to the ToD. Everyone understands that if someone makes a statement, and then says "but....", they are adding an alternative opinion. If Phillips chose to give the Coroner an alternative opinion, he must have felt that it was relevant and important. You seem to wish to ignore it. The Coroner, as we all know, chose to accept it as valid.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I meant that the "when he first saw her" must be taken into consideration, because it preceded the caveat. The caveat therefore is an afterthought which must be viewed as applying to the ToD. Everyone understands that if someone makes a statement, and then says "but....", they are adding an alternative opinion. If Phillips chose to give the Coroner an alternative opinion, he must have felt that it was relevant and important. You seem to wish to ignore it. The Coroner, as we all know, chose to accept it as valid.

If the coroner thought that Phillips meant that he estimated that death could have occurred within one hour of his examination of the body, then he made a mistake.

[Trevor Marriott]

No, no, I get what you're trying to say.
It's the word "indicate", you mean "obscure" - because rigor is the result of a chemical process within the body and alcohol may dilute that chemical process, then the onset of rigor may be slowed by the alcohol. The effect of alcohol may obscure an earlier time of death.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm not agreeing either because Chapman had taken no alcohol, so this quote is hypothetical.
But, it is the word "indicate", you should revise it to say "obscure", then it would be clearer.

So, yes, although what your Dr. Biggs says will be correct, it does not apply in a victim like Chapman who had taken no alcohol in the hours prior to her death.
Alcohol dissipates in the body very quickly, once it reaches the liver it is essentially removed from your system. It can take anything from 10 minutes to an hour to reach the liver, much depends on their body weight, what they may have eaten, and how much.
So, although Chapman had an illness, we can't assess to what degree that infection may have delayed the onset of rigor.

Thats not quite correct Timothy Donovan was asked by the coroner " [Coroner] "Was she the worse for drink when you saw her last?" - Donovan "She had had enough; of that I am certain"

Dr Phillips stated "I am convinced she had not taken any strong alcohol for some hours before her death" He falls short of saying no alcohol.
So if Donovan is correct she had consumed alcohol, which leads us back to Dr Biggs comments which now again becomes relevant

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Doctored Whatsit]

I do not know what you mean by an original time of death.

He gave only one estimate, together with a qualification.

His original ToD was the one quoted. He then told the Coroner that it could have been later, but didn't put any time to it.

[Wickerman]

...On the other hand, you are suggesting that Dr Phillips meant this:

At least two hours and probably more but possibly less than at least two hours.

There are two monumental flaws with your conclusion:

1) You are suggesting a nonsensical statement from an educated man.
2) You are ignoring the fact, not an opinion, but a fact: that Dr Phillips stated 'at least two hours', which in the English language means the minimum time possible, regardless of whatever else Dr Phillips stated.

I hope you would agree Phillips was a well experienced professional. I'm pretty sure he would have been well acquainted with Nysten's tables (the onset of Rigor), published about 1811.
My thinking is his reply to the coroner was based on his academic education - "at least two hours, probably more". This was as a result of his assessment of the body, however outside of Nysten's Law would be the temperature of the environment, this is the ambient temperature which is why Phillips is correcting his academic opinion.


In other words Phillips is saying, according to standard guidelines she must have been dead for at least two hours, probably more.
However, the temperature of the morning, and the extent of the mutilation of the body can affect those standard guidelines, which means her body could have cooled much faster than the normal estimation will permit.
Therefore, she could have died later.

Nysten's Tables do not allow for extreme ambient temperatures, nor extensive mutilations of the corpse.
Sorry if that sounds like more bollocks, but it is commonly regarded as 'education'.

[Doctored Whatsit]

If the coroner thought that Phillips meant that he estimated that death could have occurred within one hour of his examination of the body, then he made a mistake.

Are you sure? Phillips did not give a revised ToD. So we would all be guessing what he thought.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Thats not quite correct Timothy Donovan was asked by the coroner " [Coroner] "Was she the worse for drink when you saw her last?" - Donovan "She had had enough; of that I am certain"

Dr Phillips stated "I am convinced she had not taken any strong alcohol for some hours before her death" He falls short of saying no alcohol.
So if Donovan is correct she had consumed alcohol, which leads us back to Dr Biggs comments which now again becomes relevant

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well, according to Jon Wickerman's standard, if Eddowes was drunk five hours before she met her murderer, and Chapman was drunk about 3 hours 40 minutes before her supposed time of death, then Chapman should have been nice and warm when Phillips examined her.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If the coroner thought that Phillips meant that he estimated that death could have occurred within one hour of his examination of the body, then he made a mistake.

No he didn’t make a mistake. It meant that he could understand the English language perfectly well. And as an experienced Coroner he had years of listening to Doctors and understanding what they meant. He understood exactly what Phillips meant. That he couldn’t possibly have added a caveat if it had no affect on his estimation. People don’t add caveats for no reason PI. Phillips added his caveat for a reason and that reason can only have been that he was making allowances for a later ToD whilst still favouring an earlier one.

It really is very simple if people stop performing logical acrobatics to make it mean something illogical.

We also have to ask why, if Baxter was wrong, did Phillips allow this misinterpretation of his professional opinion to go unchallenged? It appears all over the Press and he just keeps quiet? Is that believable?

[Trevor Marriott]

Cheers Lewis.

But we’re all idiots according to FM.

Not all of us

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I hope you would agree Phillips was a well experienced professional. I'm pretty sure he would have been well acquainted with Nysten's tables (the onset of Rigor), published about 1811.
My thinking is his reply to the coroner was based on his academic education - "at least two hours, probably more". This was as a result of his assessment of the body, however outside of Nysten's Law would be the temperature of the environment, this is the ambient temperature which is why Phillips is correcting his academic opinion.


In other words Phillips is saying, according to standard guidelines she must have been dead for at least two hours, probably more.
However, the temperature of the morning, and the extent of the mutilation of the body can affect those standard guidelines, which means her body could have cooled much faster than the normal estimation will permit.
Therefore, she could have died later.

Nysten's Tables do not allow for extreme ambient temperatures, nor extensive mutilations of the corpse.
Sorry if that sounds like more bollocks, but it is commonly regarded as 'education'.

That should be a case of ‘enough said’ Wick, but we both know that it won’t be. It’s simply a case of preconception. A few are just dogmatically convinced that the ripper wouldn’t have killed at 5.30 and so the evidence must be made to fit that preconception. On and on it goes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not all of us

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Only the ones that agree that Phillips was unreliable but then still agree with him.