John Richardson

[Lewis C]

Unbelievable isn’t it?

Indeed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But it does matter.

For it not to matter, the clocks have to be wrong by just the right number of minutes, and if it means a later time of death than Cadoche's evidence suggests, which is what the coroner suggested, then that means that Phillips would have had to have seen the body less than an hour after the murder.

Its not a matter of adjusting clocks PI. We can’t know how accurate or synchronised clocks were. This is just a fact that you should accept without question. An insistence on clocks being spit on just makes you sound desperate I’m afraid. The only reasonable position is to allow from a possible + or - in all timings.

That is farfetched.

Youre suggestion that we should treat clocks as correct and well synchronised is what is far-fetched.

And we are asked to believe that in this one case, the murderer chose to commit a murder as it was getting light even though he was in a location where he would be unable to sense anyone's approach, that the victim's body cooled unusually quickly, that rigor mortis set in unusually quickly, and that the murderer chose not to wash his bloodstained hands with the water from an easily visible tap.

Yes. That’s exactly what we’re being asked to believe. If you think that’s Star Wars-level fantasy then I’m afraid you’re way off.

I am surprised you cannot see how unlikely that is.

And I’m surprised that you can keep saying this stuff. Honestly PI. Step back and think. Stop twisting criteria to fit. Stop trying to make the perfectly normal seem like fantasy.

That Annie exhibited the onset of rigor is entirely consistent with the conditions. Experts tell us that rigor can commence in under an hour. This is just a fact unless you are another one that thinks that they know better than the worlds authorities?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If it's dark and you hear voices, and a bump against a fence.
When looking over both fences (No.29 & No.25), and find a dead body beside the fence of No.29 - that is circumstantial evidence.
It is sufficient to ascribe the bump & voices to No.29.

I do not recall that Cadoche heard voices.

I do not recall that he looked over the fence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Those who seem to think, judging by remarks made in this thread, that those who are sceptical about the value of assertions made here that Chapman must have been murdered at about 5.30 a.m. must be suffering from some mental defect,

By the way PI. Don’t ever make comments about the tone of my posts when you can accuse posters on here of having a mental defect.

There is so much hypocrisy going on. People whining about ‘tone’ who go on to make nasty personal insults like this.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

And I’m surprised that you can keep saying this stuff. Honestly PI. Step back and think. Stop twisting criteria to fit.

I have not twisted anything.

You twisted what I wrote.

I did not insist on clocks being spot on.

I wrote that in order for Long's and Cadoche's evidence to be reconciled, the clocks have to be wrong by just the right number of minutes.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

By the way PI. Don’t ever make comments about the tone of my posts when you can accuse posters on here of having a mental defect.

There is so much hypocrisy going on. People whining about ‘tone’ who go on to make nasty personal insults like this.

I did nothing of the kind.

I suggest you reread what was, admittedly, a rather long sentence.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I'm claiming that your awkward phrasing of "at least two hours and probably more but possibly less than at least two hours" does semantically mean the same thing as if he said "at least two hours and probably more, but I am not firm on that" (note, given you are not presenting his actual words, I'm also presenting an example that doesn't quote him exactly; the quote marks are to denote the phrasings we are each using, although I've used others, such as "at least two hours and probably more, but I wouldn't bet on it", for example).

You're projecting your own 'sophistry' onto someone else. You have acknowledged it has the same meaning, but you continue to argue that it's somehow different, and you put it down to 'semantics'.

The 'semantics' argument, is commonly used by those who aim to distract by virtue of an appeal to 'semantics'. What you mean is that your argument is valid without needing to explain it, you merely have to appeal to 'semantics'.

In actual fact, the words we use are ideas. There is no way to communicate an idea other than through language, and language and thoughts go hand in hand.

And of course, we're not talking about 'semantics' given that we fundamentally disagree on Dr Phillips' intention.

In order to illustrate the fundamental disagreement, I don't believe for a second that Dr Phillips intended: "at least two hours and probably more, but I am not firm on that".

He leads us through his statement and his estimate:

1) At least two hours. Firm and categorical, it means the minimum time possible in the English language.
2) And probably more. Not certain.
3) Therefore, I will explain that not certain.

There is no need to qualify 'at least', meaning the 'minimum time possible'. It's a categoric statement.

No amount of sophistry, however, negates the fact that it is par for the course for people to give qualified opinions

You're presenting an argument in opposition to a point that I haven't made.

You're replying to my posts but are you reading them?

We are all aware that Dr Phillips qualified his opinion. The disagreement is in that you believe he qualified 'the minimum time possible' whereas I and a few more don't believe he did, but rather he specifically qualified 'and probably more'.

It is also clear this is how it was taken at the time, as pointed out by the coroner's summing up of Dr. Phillips testimony on this point.

This time you're appealing to authority.

There's a problem: Baxter wasn't an authority.

Baxter was a lawyer. He wasn't a medical man, nor a policeman, nor an expert in analysing statements.

His opinion is no more valid than yours or mine, given he was no authority.

In the same way that a geneticist is no more qualified than you or I when he or she comments on mathematics.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Those who seem to think, judging by remarks made in this thread, that those who are sceptical about the value of assertions made here that Chapman must have been murdered at about 5.30 a.m. must be suffering from some mental defect, which prevents the truth - which it is claimed has been established beyond any reasonable doubt - from sinking in, are expecting readers to believe that the murderer was prepared to go into a back yard as it was starting to get light, knowing he could easily be seen by a third party and that it was a potential trap.

I wrote:

Those who seem to think ... that those who are sceptical [about a later TOD] must be suffering from some mental defect ...


I did not accuse anyone else of having a mental defect!

[Lewis C]

And the problem for those who are committed to such a late time of death is that the murderer chose the time and whether to go with a prospective victim, and moreover that he is not known to have committed a murder anything like that late any other time.

In fact, it appears that the latest he committed a murder was 3.45 a.m., or perhaps 4 a.m., and that was two months later, when it got light rather later and when he was indoors.

The sample size is rather small though. He killed Nichols earlier, and since Stride and Eddowes were the same night, I would count that as one instance. I would count Tabram too, but not Kelly in this case, because being inside makes it a rather different situation. So that's Tabram, Nichols, Stride/Eddowes, and possibly McKenzie. Three nights when he killed outside earlier and possibly four. I think that's too small a sample size to draw any conclusions that we can be confident in.

[Paul Sutton]

Hi Paul,

I think that the problem for JtR with the locations would be that the victim would be the likely one to choose the place from her previous experience.

Hi Whatsit,

I wonder - since I imagine it was a 'buyer's market'! Provided he appeared timid and shy, I'd have thought he could approach various ladies until he was happy with the location. Or be more assertive about it.

One thing we've never heard about - correct me if wrong - is any reports from these women of weird customers, given to the police. I guess they just didn't co-operate at all. Nor have I ever heard much about how many were run by pimps - I assume since this was the very lowest rung, not many. More likely, the numerous landlords took a cut of their earnings (say in the case of MJK).

Indeed, what I've been able to find on the criminal networks then working in the East End is very scant. I'm sure people in those had ideas about what was going on, to say the least.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have not twisted anything.

You twisted what I wrote.

I did not insist on clocks being spot on.

I wrote that in order for Long's and Cadoche's evidence to be reconciled, the clocks have to be wrong by just the right number of minutes.

So what? That doesn’t make it less likely by any stretch. If that’s what happened then that’s what happened. There is no time issue.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

By the way PI. Don’t ever make comments about the tone of my posts when you can accuse posters on here of having a mental defect.

There is so much hypocrisy going on. People whining about ‘tone’ who go on to make nasty personal insults like this.

I have not made any nasty personal insults.

I have not made any accusations against other posters.

I have not accused anyone of having a mental defect.


Here, on the other hand, is what you have written about me:


Irrelevant… Absolute rubbish... Utterly pathetic. ... More nitpicking... You are simply trying to manipulate evidence .... Could you come up with any sillier points...

(Herlock Shomes, # 5824)

[Herlock Sholmes]

I wrote:

Those who seem to think ... that those who are sceptical [about a later TOD] must be suffering from some mental defect ...


I did not accuse anyone else of having a mental defect!

You accused us of treating people as if they had a mental defect. As if I or anyone else would accuse someone of mental illness.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

So what?

You accused me of twisting something when I had done nothing of the kind.

Then you twist what I did write.

And then your response to my complaint is So what?

Don't you care about what is true and what is not?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have not made any nasty personal insults.

I have not made any accusations against other posters.

I have not accused anyone of having a mental defect.


Here, on the other hand, is what you have written about me:


Irrelevant… Absolute rubbish... Utterly pathetic. ... More nitpicking... You are simply trying to manipulate evidence .... Could you come up with any sillier points...

(Herlock Shomes, # 5824)

Yup. Nothing nasty there. No mention of mental illness. Just opinions on comments and opinions.

Stick to the case.