John Richardson

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

I was not referring to mental illness but an intellectual deficit.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

Yes. This is why I don’t make false claims. Unlike you.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

To Fleetwood Mac re: # 5992:

There is no need to analyse the punctuation in the court record nor exactly what Phillips may have meant to modify.

He simply felt under pressure to cast doubt on his own opinion in order not openly to be in conflict with the witness testimony.

His comments about the environmental temperature and loss of blood look like a contrivance.

It is hardly likely that he had not thought of them before and suddenly thought of them when he was about to give evidence.

I would be interested to know whether in any later case he attached importance to those considerations.

I doubt it.

[JeffHamm]

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.



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'.



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.

Hi FM,

Clearly you've missed the point. I'm not debating the "semantics", as I have said, we agree on the semantic aspect of the topic : That Dr. Phillips was offering his estimation of at least 2 hours or more, and that he also added a qualifier where he effectively says he allows for an earlier time given his estimation may be in error.

What the point is, and where you're using sophistry, is how you phrase those semantics. You continuously present the "idea" using language that is awkward and unusual in order to try and make the "meaning" appear nonsensical. You are using grammar to try and influence the interpretation of the semantics, and that is sophistry. My examples, where I express effectively the same underlying meaning as your clumsy grammatical construction, illustrate that the meaning is not nonsensical. That's not sophistry, that is logic targeting the truth of your claim that it is nonsensical for someone to give a qualified opinion.

Moreover, Baxter doesn't need to be a medical expert to give an opinion on the meaning of an English statement. He's a native English speaker of the time. He is very aware, as is everyone, that people will express an opinion and may at times qualify that. And he is capable of recognizing it when they do.

I fully understand you believe Dr. Phillips qualifier has a different meaning than I do. That's an entirely different issue from the one you've swerved, which is your deliberate use of a bizarre grammatical construction to try and persuade people that the underlying semantics are bizarre. And again, by demonstrating that the same underlying semantic idea can be expressed using less bizarre sentence structures, and when doing so reveals that the underlying meaning is clearly not bizarre, I have proved my point that the bizarreness has nothing to do with the idea but the grammar and word choice.

I've seen various people offer alternative ideas as to the underlying meaning of Dr. Phillips' statement and the qualifier. None of them, however, make sense. The alternative semantic interpretations end up making Dr. Phillips using a very awkward and bizzare way to express the alternative idea, and people do not speak that way. Clearly, Baxter interpreted things as I and others have put forth as well, which also removes any appeal to the idea that subtle changes in language usage between 1888 and now are the problem.

Anyway, it is fine if you wish to believe Dr. Phillips meant something other than the obvious meaning. But to claim that the obvious meaning is nonsensical is simply false. It is neither nonsensical, nor is it even unusual. You will have to find another argument, one that is not false, in order to elevate your interpretation to be considered better than the most obvious interpretation.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

To Fleetwood Mac re: # 5992:

There is no need to analyse the punctuation in the court record nor exactly what Phillips may have meant to modify.

He simply felt under pressure to cast doubt on his own opinion in order not openly to be in conflict with the witness testimony.

His comments about the environmental temperature and loss of blood look like a contrivance.

It is hardly likely that he had not thought of them before and suddenly thought of them when he was about to give evidence.

I would be interested to know whether in any later case he attached importance to those considerations.

I doubt it.

So you were either there at the time or you’ve conducted a sceance to learn what Phillips was thinking? Interesting. Could you do the same and tell us who the ripper was please?

[Paul Sutton]

Hi Paul,

On rigor mortis, the gist is that its onset is so variable that it won't help us much in determining the TOD.

At one time, I believed in the earlier TOD, largely because of what you said here, that it would have been safer to for him to have done it earlier, and the earlier time is more consistent with when the other murders were committed. I've converted to the later view, because I now think that the testimony from Richardson and Cadosch outweighs my reasons for formerly favoring the earlier time. I don't see any way Richardson could have failed to see Chapman's body if it were there when he sat on the step, and I see no reason to think that he was lying. Then we have Cadosch hearing a bump against the fence at around 5:25, for which by far the most likely explanation is either the killer or Chapman bumping the fence.

Hi Lewis,

The bump against the fence is the key one for me, but it's all so unbelievable, operating in non-darkness. The response to that is - 'yes, but everything about JtR is'. One can't argue with him getting away...

Luck is always the answer given. But he can't have planned to be so lucky. Which implies he just didn't care, perhaps had some messianic complex and believed he had divine protection. Maybe - though the 'move indoors' for MJK shows he did review things!

I think Stride was his, for the next one, so he clearly had no near-misses in Hanbury Street. And being disturbed with Stride didn't phase him either.

[Wickerman]

I do not recall that Cadoche heard voices.

I do not recall that he looked over the fence.

You're focusing on the wrong point.
It doesn't matter who looks over the fence, the point is a body is found on the other side of one fence.
"Voice" or "voices" makes no difference, either one means someone was there.
This is circumstantial evidence, you're still looking for proof, you're not going to find it.

It's like we have a saying over here - you're trying to catch the pennies while the dollar bills are blowing away.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

His original opinion, given at 6.20 a.m. and backed up by 22 years as a police surgeon, was that Chapman had been dead "for two hours, probably more." When a witness said that he had not seen Chapman's body in the yard when he went there at 4.45 – when by Phillips' original estimate she would have been dead for over half an hour – the doctor qualified this by saying that with the coldness of the morning and the amount of blood that she had lost, the victim might have appeared to have been dead for longer than she was. This gave credence to the dubious evidence of Mrs Elizabeth Long, who claimed to have seen Chapman alive at 5.30.

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

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You're focusing on the wrong point.
It doesn't matter who looks over the fence, the point is a body is found on the other side of one fence.
"Voice" or "voices" makes no difference, either one means someone was there.

It does matter who looks over the fence.

Cadoche did not do so.

It does matter whether he heard a voice or heard voices.

He heard only one voice, was unsure where it came from, and saw no-one.

[GBinOz]

Hi Wick,

Yes, I think I must have misremembered something! Chandler, I thought, gave evidence that Phillips had said "at least two hours" or something similar at the site, but I can't find it - either I am wrong (probably) or it was in a different newspaper account.

'Considerable Doubt' and the Death of Annie Chapman
By Wolf Vanderlinden

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." Ref. MEPO 3/140, ff. 9-11

[Fleetwood Mac]

But to claim that the obvious meaning is nonsensical is simply false. It is neither nonsensical, nor is it even unusual. You will have to find another argument, one that is not false, in order to elevate your interpretation to be considered better than the most obvious interpretation.

I don't mind approaching in it in another fashion.

You settled on: "at least two hours and probably more, but I am not firm on that". Those are your words in an attempt to demonstrate my interpretation is 'strange'.

"At least" means the minimum time possible. How could he not be firm when talking of 'the minimum time possible'?

Can you give me an example of a more firm view than the 'minimum time possible' when talking of time? There isn't one. It is at one end of the spectrum in terms of firmness.

Put simply, it is the same strange interpretation on your part no matter how you phrase it and how much you appeal to semantics and sophistry.

Moreover, Baxter doesn't need to be a medical expert to give an opinion on the meaning of an English statement.

Clearly he doesn't.

But, that's not the point.

You're appealing to him as an authority to support your point of view, which is entirely different to claiming: "Baxter was entitled to give an opinion".

As I said, Baxter was no authority on this subject. His opinion is no more valid than yours or mine. It is simply another opinion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Would anyone care to hazard a guess at how often Dr. Phillips would have been called to estimate the ToD of a person that had been ripped to shreds as Annie had been? What was his level of experience for this kind of estimate?

I don’t know about anyone else but I’d say zero. He’d have usually dealt with natural causes, or beatings, or stabbing or the occasional throat cutting.

But despite this and despite the fact that we KNOW how unreliable estimating ToD by rigor and algor is and was it’s still disputed. It’s hard to credit but it’s true. It’s STILL questioned. Some still just can’t bring themselves to accept that the worlds authorities on the subject just might be right. That the standard textbooks just might not be misprints. And NONE of those disputing these absolute facts has anything remotely like a qualification to do so. So on and on and on we go with the same….dishonesty….yes, I agree with George that we should avoid this word if possible but sometimes no other word will do. It’s simply dishonest and massively arrogant for any of us as laymen to keep trying to second guess medical knowledge just because what it tells us is inconvenient to our own opinion. We should accept what the authorities tell us without question. No ‘yes but’s,’ or ‘what if’s’ or ‘but I don’t think’s.’ I call for everyone who is doing it to stop and to stop now. It’s an absolute embarrassment to the subject.

So….no ‘maybe’s,’ no ‘yes but’s,’ no ‘perhapses’ no ‘but that doesn’t seem right to me’s,’ no ‘surely if this was the case for this body then…..’ Just stop….for the sake of integrity. Say that you favour an earlier ToD if you want to but DON’T claim that the worlds experts or wrong and DON’T claim that the medical evidence favours an earlier ToD. And while you’re at it….stop trying to manipulate and twist te English language or medical facts. Phillips caveat can ONLY have meant that he was allowing for a later ToD due to the fact that the body had been disembowelled and he had absolutely nothing to compare it to.

There’s enough to dispute without desperately claiming that black is white.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It does matter who looks over the fence.

Cadoche did not do so.

It does matter whether he heard a voice or heard voices.

He heard only one voice, was unsure where it came from, and saw no-one.

Why was he unsure where it came from?

[Wickerman]

Hi Lewis,

The bump against the fence is the key one for me, but it's all so unbelievable, operating in non-darkness. The response to that is - 'yes, but everything about JtR is'. One can't argue with him getting away...

Luck is always the answer given. But he can't have planned to be so lucky. Which implies he just didn't care, perhaps had some messianic complex and believed he had divine protection. Maybe - though the 'move indoors' for MJK shows he did review things!

I think Stride was his, for the next one, so he clearly had no near-misses in Hanbury Street. And being disturbed with Stride didn't phase him either.

If you were to select your own place to murder a woman, would you have picked an alley beside an active club where people are coming and going?

[Herlock Sholmes]

As I said, Baxter was no authority on this subject. His opinion is no more valid than yours or mine. It is simply another opinion.

And the opinions of the world’s authorities on forensic medicine are of more value than ours and yet you appear to think that you know something that they’ve missed.