John Richardson

[GBinOz]

The police always prefer to believe the medical evidence, this is why Swanson wrote that they questioned Richardson intently, and they couldn't break his story, which caused the dilemma. Swanson left the matter an open question.

Hi Jon,

I've raised this question before. How could the police have broken Richardson's story when they had only his statements, and no evidence to the contrary? Do you believe that if the police fail to break a witnesses' story, then the story must be true? That wasn't your opinion regarding Abberline saying he was unable to break Maxwell's story, and her story never varied.

Just as an example, suppose Richardson was the Ripper. The police wouldn't have broken his story, but that doesn't mean that he didn't do it. It is thought that the police probably interviewed the Ripper at some stage in their investigations, maybe even more than once. They didn't break his story on those occasions, but he was still the guilty party.

Cheers, George

[A P Tomlinson]

How can Phillips have mistaken a cadaveric spasm for early onset rigor mortis, about an hour after death, when

Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing

whereas

Cadaveric spasm, also known as postmortem spasm, is a rare form of muscular stiffening that occurs at the moment of death and persists into the period of rigor mortis. Cadaveric spasm can be distinguished from rigor mortis as the former is a stronger stiffening of the muscles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaveric_spasm

If only one muscle group such as a the left lower arm were affected, as it was on top of the body and he noticed it there first, but the legs were easy to lower and the right arm flaccid it woud be an easy mistake to make. When my Mrs was training and on an ambluance ride along, she saw a Doctor make the same (honest) mistake when they were called to pronounce on a sudden death at home, and that was just over 20 years ago. Guy had choked on something, it was suspicious so got bumped up the autopsy queue, and was noted by the pathologist.
And guess what the pathologist was able to do after a proper autopsy? Bring the estimated time of death a little later.
That incident was the reason she mentioned it to me in the first place.

[Trevor Marriott]

Just because the reporting of events and testimony are inaccurate it doesn’t mean that the witnesses were wrong or lying.
We need reason and common sense.

Did Richardson have reason to lie?

No.

Therefore he didn’t.

But he did if Chandler is to be believed

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

Just because the reporting of events and testimony are inaccurate it doesn’t mean that the witnesses were wrong or lying.
We need reason and common sense.

Did Richardson have reason to lie?

No.

Therefore he didn’t.

It means there conflicting and thus unsafe to rely on or determind an accurate or specific t.o.d at 5.30am

[Doctored Whatsit]

Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon, has had another consultation with the police authorities respecting certain theories advanced. There are three points upon which there is agreement - that Annie Chapman was lying dead in the yard at 29 Hanbury street, when John Richardson sat on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot, his failure to notice the deceased being explained by the fact that the yard door, when opened, obstructed his view; that the poor creature was murdered in the yard, and not in a house, as had been at one time suggested; and that the person who committed the deed was a man with some knowledge of human or animal anatomy.


[/url]

This is newspaper speculation, not evidence. If we want to know what the police believed after talking again to Phillips - if that happened - we can check what the police decided. Swanson reported to the Home Office on 19th October, and he clearly did not say that Phillips was correct, that Chapman was dead when Richardson was at the scene, nor that the yard door obscured his vision. His report demonstrated that the police were keeping an open mind as to the ToD because of the conflicting evidence. He wrote that if Phillips was correct, then Richardson was wrong, but if Long was right then Phillips was mistaken. So there was no agreement that Phillips was correct. As for Richardson's evidence being incorrect, and the door obstructing his view, Swanson wrote that if Phillips was right "it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body..". So there is also no decision by the police Richardson was mistaken or that the door hid the body.

[FISHY1118]

I don’t care what he said on the 19th PI. I know what he said on the 13th at the Inquest. So what did he know on the 19th that he didn’t know on the 13th? I think the doctor was doing what a few have done on here……he simply dug his heels in and claimed that Richardson was wrong.

Richardson wasn’t wrong. It’s impossible.

Chapman was still alive at 4.45. All else is nonsense and dishonesty.

The fact you have to resort to using such words like ''Dishonesty'' when all someone is trying to do is give their opinion based on the same evidence that yourself use, Tells us all a lot .

[Herlock Sholmes]

5.30 "is not"" the overwhelmingly likely t.od despite you accusing posters of denigrating the witnesses testimony ,

As you have been shown on many occasions that witness testimony is unsafe to rely on. You seem to think your opinion trumps modern day experts that tell us that is the case

Your basically accusing your self of sinking to the same depth you accuse others of. Astonishing.!

My opinion is simple. That three witnesses with no reason lie corroborate each other in pointing to a later ToD. Against this we have a doctor using provable unreliable methods who, when giving his estimate, favoured an earlier ToD whilst accept ion the possibility of a later one.

Faced with that situation we have no other option but to say that a later ToD is the likelier.

[FISHY1118]

My opinion is simple. That three witnesses with no reason lie corroborate each other in pointing to a later ToD. Against this we have a doctor using provable unreliable methods who, when giving his estimate, favoured an earlier ToD whilst accept ion the possibility of a later one.

Faced with that situation we have no other option but to say that a later ToD is the likelier.

I think we put paid that argument like 4900 post ago , i dont see much point replying .This has gone on far too long.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no conflict between what Phillips said at the inquest on the 13th and his opinion published on the 19th.

On the 13th he gave it as his opinion that Chapman died at or before 4:30 AM.

On the 19th he gave it as his opinion that Chapman died before 4:45 AM.

That you should describe his opinion as being dishonest is to be regretted, as is your remark that you don't care what he said.

You argued earlier that Phillips must have accepted the coroner's conclusions because he didn't contradict them in public.

He evidently did just that on the 19th, proving you wrong, and now you say you don't care.

I wasn’t implying dishonesty on Phillips part.

Even a more patient posters than myself (Wickerman AP, Doc, Lewis etc) are losing the will to live on this point! This is why I can’t help thinking that some people are just deliberately doing this. Arguing simply for the sake of it.

Phillips caveat, when we consider the scientific content, can only mean later. Why isn’t this dinking in PI. ‘More rapid cooling’ would result in the body getting colder quicker than originally assumed. This would give the person making the examination the impression that the victim had been dead for longer than he/she actually had be. Therefore the death would have occurred later rather than earlier.

So Phillips estimate was 2 hours or probably more

but he added his BUT…

BUT the more rapid cooling could have given him the mistaken impression that she had been dead for longer than he had originally considered.

So…unless you or anyone else believes that Phillips meant ‘I think that she had been dead for 2 or probably more but then again probably just 2’ then there can be no other interpretation than ‘ I think that she had been dead for 2 hours or probably more although, due to the possibility of the condition of the body she had cooled more rapidly that I’d accounted for, she might have died for less than 2 hours.’

There can be no other interpretation PI. It’s the only interpretation that makes sense both medically and grammatically. So why is this being disputed?

[A P Tomlinson]

Hi Jon,

I've raised this question before. How could the police have broken Richardson's story when they had only his statements, and no evidence to the contrary? Do you believe that if the police fail to break a witnesses' story, then the story must be true? That wasn't your opinion regarding Abberline saying he was unable to break Maxwell's story, and her story never varied.

Just as an example, suppose Richardson was the Ripper. The police wouldn't have broken his story, but that doesn't mean that he didn't do it. It is thought that the police probably interviewed the Ripper at some stage in their investigations, maybe even more than once. They didn't break his story on those occasions, but he was still the guilty party.

Cheers, George

At the risk of "statin' the bleedin' onbvious..." (delivered in a bad Basil Fawlty voice) wouldn't Philips' ToD count as such evidence to the contrary, if they accepted it above Richardson's testimony?
This is the thing that I can't seem to get my head round about the early ToD proposition. Why didn't anyone on the jury, or the coroner, call back and further question the witnesses who showed a later ToD, in order to address the discrepancy between their forensic expert and the testimonies.
Especially Richardson?
Unless they accepted that the ToD could have been out, and that the three witnesses who put ToD later were probably right?
They may not have broken his story, but woudn't they have at least tried if they considered it important?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh my goodness, FM has already thrown the towel in, and now you raise such technical subjects as Science & Grammar. You're really trying to confuse the he11 out of them.

I never understood the choice to dumb-down an argument. In the past when someone doesn't understand basic English they will often gracefully back out of the discussion. These days they choose to come up with a nonsensical response as if they never graduated school.
Most people never choose to voluntarily embarrass themselves in public, not in my day anyway.

Honestly Wick I just don’t get it. There can only be one interpretation of what Phillips said. I think it’s a case of some (not all) losing sight of the purpose of a discussion. It’s not simply to say ‘I believe in an earlier ToD and I’ll defend it at all costs. No matter if I have to overrule the worlds forensic authorities, no matter if I have to tear up the rules of grammar, no matter if I have to ignore what a medical point actually means, no matter if I have to resort to generalities like ‘witnesses can be wrong.’

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Do you know what Phillips said on the morning of the 8th?

From Wolf Vanderlinden's dissertation:
Chandler's report, dated on the day of the murder, said, "The Doctor pronounced life extinct and stated the woman had been dead at least two hours." ³⁰ Later at the inquest he responded to a question about the time of death of Annie Chapman by stating "I should say at least two hours, and probably more" but there was a caveat to this statement, which has been used to explain away Dr. Philips' estimation. The doctor added "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." Does this disqualify Dr. Phillips' time frame for the murder? No, it doesn't. The doctor was merely stating the obvious and not changing his estimate of time of death.

At the inquest both the "probably more" and the caveat were added to his assessment of the 8th, together, as though they were meant to be read together. The Echo report shows that Phillips thought the same on the 13th as on the 19th, that Annie was dead before 4:45 am. And the police agreed with him and reported that fact to their superiors:
" doubtful evidence points to some thing between 5:30 and 6: - but medical evidence says about 4 o'cl." - Home Office Files²⁷

Impossible, nonsense and dishonest. These are not words normally used in an impartial assessment of evidence.

Cheers, George

And as I’ve explained above George, there can only be one interpretation of the caveat. So at the inquest at least Phillips was allowing that the conditions could have made the body cool quicker than he’d estimated and this could only have put the ToD later and not earlier. This doesn’t mean that Phillips didn’t strongly favour 2 hours or more because he clearly did. But he allowed for a later one even though he believed it much less likely.

That he firmed up his earlier ToD opinion can’t have been based on medical evidence of course because no further medical evidence could have surfaced. So the explanation for Phillips digging his heels in more firmly is that he’d heard the suggestion that Richardson might have missed a body hidden by the door (which Richardson said that he couldn’t have done of course)

Frustration certainly surfaces in these debates George but to me and 16 or more posters the meaning of the caveat isn’t even debatable. It’s black and white. The caveat part can only have allowed for a shorter time period between death and examination. So it should be clear that Phillips couldn’t possibly have meant ‘two hours but probably more but probably two.’ This can’t be accepted but it’s exactly what some must be proposing.

I know that you haven’t commented much on the caveat George but I’ll tell you how this aspect of the debate feels to me (and I’m guessing to others too.) It feels like discussing evolution with a religious fundamentalist. We know that evolution doesn’t disprove the existence of god but some just can’t bring themselves to accept this because it contradicts parts of religious text. Even the Pope accepts it. In this case Phillips caveat doesn’t prove a later ToD in itself but some appear unwilling to accept what should be obvious. I wasn’t accusing you of dishonesty George but yes, it would be better if I avoided using that word no matter how frustrating the debate often gets.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But he did if Chandler is to be believed

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And why couldn’t Chandler have been wrong?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It means there conflicting and thus unsafe to rely on or determind an accurate or specific t.o.d at 5.30am

Thank you Trevor…I mean..Fishy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think we put paid that argument like 4900 post ago , i dont see much point replying .This has gone on far too long.

No. Very weak points were put forward 4900 posts ago. They were weak then and they remain weak now.

It has gone on too long. It’s way past time that you accepted that you are wrong in your interpretation of events and that a later ToD is easily the likelier.