John Richardson

[Doctored Whatsit]

But, whatever was said to Phillips, it did not change his mind.

He maintained his opinion that death had occured at least two hours before he examined the body.

The qualification was a concession to the witness evidence, but did not reflect a change of opinion.

Hi PI,

This comment related to the suggestion that Phillips did not know about any contradictory witness evidence until the inquest. The point being that Chandler was aware of the contradictory evidence while still at the murder site. The police should have attempted to resolve this major discrepancy quickly, so advising Phillips would seem to have been a priority.

[Wickerman]

In the event you assume he was able to waltz those women around to wherever he wanted, then he had those choices.

But, it's a big assumption. I would say an unlikely one.

Unlikely?
Ok, yet Richardson told the court he found the yard was used for immoral purposes. So there could have been another couple in that yard that same morning.
Not an unlikely occurrence then, so equally not so unlikely that he would have had to turn around and go somewhere else, or abandon the plan altogether.

I happen to think it was the victim who chose the spot, but they were not all that particular, another couple in the same yard wouldn't have put Chapman off, but his plans would be scuttled.
The point is he had choices, and the choices he made are not likely to be the same as you or I would make.
He is after all intent on committing an irrational act, so why would we limit his actions as if he is a rational thinker, when we know he isn't

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

there’s only one honest approach in these circumstances and that is to agree 100% with the only people that know what they are talking about.

Whatever you say.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

He is after all intent on committing an irrational act, so why would we limit his actions as if he is a rational thinker, when we know he isn't

Of course he limited his actions, which is why he committed only five murders in ten weeks.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi PI,

Can you source your quote please? It would be interesting to know what could have happened to change Swanson's mind to the point where identification rose to "reasonable".

I'm still looking for the source.

I usually make a note of it.

[Wickerman]

All of the locations seem nuts. But the activity itself is none too sane, either. To me, the locations are the most underdiscussed - or certainly underexplained - aspect of the whole thing. That's why I keep boring on about there being some other factor which both makes them less nuts than they ostensibly seem, and that even perhaps explains them: were they chosen or opportunistic?

Waterloo made a good suggestion, on categorising them, on the thread which specifically addresses the riskiness of the sites.

I wondered if you were aware of the fact a number of serial killers find excitement in risk, it is a turn on much the same as the act itself.

A rational thinking individual would not, I suggest, pick a place like Dutfields Yard, especially at that moment. Or, the back of No.29, at that time.
But, we are missing the risk factor coupled with the irrational state of mind, he's taking things to the edge each time he kills.

Even the darkest corner of Mitre Square was a small portion of an open stage, he performed on an open stage but in the smallest dark corner.
Bucks Row was as open as you can hope for, there was no hideaway unless there was a wicket door in that gateway like there was at Dutfields Yard.
Even Millers Court was a trap, Bowyer said that himself, one way in and one way out, much like Hanbury St.

I think our discussions often overlook the risk factor, it's an essential part of the thrill. Why would he kill that late in the morning, when the streets were beginning to fill with men going to work?
Foolish?, no...thrilling! it brings on an adrenaline thrill.

[Hair Bear]

This is a map of No.29 showing a single storey structure at the back end of the yard - dated 1890.

Also...

[Wickerman]

Thanks George,

I was certain I had seen it somewhere, but thought it was at the inquest! This therefore re-opens my question. Chandler had two conflicting reports by 7 am at the site. How could the police have failed to advise Phillips of this major issue before the inquest? It needed to be resolved as quickly as possible. I feel certain that they must have done so.

Yes, that is on pg 50 in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook.
All we can deduce is sometime between him arriving & leaving for the mortuary Dr Phillips theorized the body had been dead "at least two hours".
Chandler says he spoke to Richardson about 6:45, so the question is did Phillips know the time Richardson came to the back door that morning?
No doubt Chandler knew both times, but that is not the issue.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi PI,

This comment related to the suggestion that Phillips did not know about any contradictory witness evidence until the inquest. The point being that Chandler was aware of the contradictory evidence while still at the murder site. The police should have attempted to resolve this major discrepancy quickly, so advising Phillips would seem to have been a priority.

Point taken, Dr W.

I, of course, do not know at what point Phillips was made aware of the contradiction.

[Wickerman]

Hi Doc. I forgot to respond to this.

.... Chandler had two conflicting reports by 7 am at the site. How could the police have failed to advise Phillips of this major issue before the inquest? It needed to be resolved as quickly as possible. I feel certain that they must have done so.

On the contrary, it is the responsibility of police to gather information and opinion. They are the investigation body, there is no requirement for Scotland Yard to debate the evidence with Dr Phillips.
I hope you would agree the police would not discuss a competing medical opinion with Richardson, in just the same way as they wouldn't discuss Richardson's evidence with Phillips.

The potential for one to change their mind would be disastrous, it only stands to reason the educated 'professional' will insist he is right and the uneducated layperson will feel like backing down.
The courts do not permit witnesses to sit in the courtroom for the same reason, they may hear something that could cause them to change their minds. In the waiting room witnesses have to sit together but a court usher is in the room with them to ensure no-one talks about the case.

What you suggest is an issue for a jury to decide on.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That is untrue. You just can’t help yourself can you PI. What evidence do you have that Phillips made his caveat in light of witnesses? And even if he had done why would he have unless he’d felt that the witnesses might have been correct? Think it through PI and stop digging holes for yourself.

The Doctor ... stated the woman had been dead at least two hours.

(Inspector Chandler)


I should say at least two hours, and probably more

(Dr Phillips)


He did not change his opinion.

[JeffHamm]

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.



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.

Hi FM,

You keep swerving. I didn't say your "interpretation" is strange, provided we're both referring to your interpretation of the idea that Dr. Phillips is saying "I estimate the ToD to be 2+ hours, but I may have overestimated"; I recognize you believe his actual words means something else, but we're not discussing your idea of what you think his actual words mean.

We're discussing your presentation of the idea that Dr. Phillips actual words mean "I estimate the ToD to be 2+ hours, but I may have overestimated". You rephrase his actual words into a very bizarre sentence structure, with an awkward word choice, and while the semantics of your presentation do lead to the same underlying concept, your stylistic choice is what makes it bizarre sounding - it is not the underlying idea that Dr. Phillips has simply given his estimation for the ToD, and follows up with a statement that he recognizes that estimation may be wrong. If it's wrong, then obviously the only way it could be wrong is for the actual death to have occurred prior to his stated minimum.

My attempt at getting this idea through to you involved presenting a number of different ways people give qualified statements, you don't like my example of "but I'm not firm on that", ok, I've given more. But you are zooming in on a single word, and inappropriately applying it. The "but I'm not firm on it" is referring to the entire first statement, and is not referring to the fact that his first statement contains a "firm" aspect.

It appears that your misunderstanding of the whole idea of a qualified statement is not limited to Dr. Phillips' statement only as you've entirely misunderstood mine as well. Perhaps qualified opinions are not something you are personally familiar with? If so, that could explain why the idea seems strange to you, but for what it is worth, I assure you that people very often will make a statement, that in isolation looks very definite, and then provide a qualification that reflects that the entire first part is not presented as a 100% guarantee.

Again, someone could even say "I am definitely going to go to the gym tomorrow, but I've been wrong before." (trying another phrase that illustrates the point - there's lots of them because it is not bizarre nor uncommon). Again, if someone is definite then presumably you have a problem with the follow on qualifier to suggest they could be wrong - if they are definite they must surely believe they are correct after all!

I think it would help you if you stepped back and looked at the statement as a whole rather than looking at individual words and connecting them in isolation. You're missing the forest for the trees, so to speak.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

The courts do not permit witnesses to sit in the courtroom for the same reason, they may hear something that could cause them to change their minds. In the waiting room witnesses have to sit together but a court usher is in the room with them to ensure no-one talks about the case.

What you suggest is an issue for a jury to decide on.

Whoa Jon,

Back up a few clicks. Previously you advanced a theory that Phillips was put on the spot by the evidence of Richardson. What you are saying now is that Phillips would not have had the opportunity to be put on the spot because he could not have been in the court to hear Richardson's evidence. So Phillips could only have conferred with the police regarding Richardson's evidence after Phillips concluded his own evidence? Have I got this straight? If so, what was reported in the Echo on the 19th would seem to be his likely next step.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

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.

Hi Herlock,

I see this as a two part discussion. The first is the modern assessment of the reliability of ToD estimates. I am entirely in agreement with the proposition that they were unreliable then, and are still unreliable today, although to a lesser extent. When placing this factor on my evidence scales I include a consideration as to the probability of Phillips ToD being sufficiently unreliable to include a TSD of only one hour.

The second part of the discussion is what Phillips actually meant in the wording of his ToD, and the previous part of the discussion has no relevance to this part, as Phillips was not at all concerned with the opinions of forensic experts 130 years in the future.

For consideration of this second part, I am in entire agreement with your analysis of Phillip's, or any other surgeon's of the times, experience with murder victims who suffered the injuries inflicted on Chapman. When Eddowes was murdered, Phillips was called in in the role of the only experienced surgeon available anywhere on this category of murder.

So to come back to his ToD, I think that his initial statement - "at least two hours, and probably more" required him to add a qualifier to acknowledge that he had no previous experience with the effect of the injuries visited upon Annie's body. Jeff might phrase it "that it had no place in any previously established statistical sample" (apologies to Jeff if I have presumed to take a presumptuous liberty). That said, it remains to consider to which part of the initial statement did Phillips intend his qualifier to apply. In my considered opinion think that he meant it to apply to the "probably later", and to preserve the meaning of "at least two hours" as "not less than". That is just my opinion as to his intention. Whether or not he could have been correct is another factor to add to the evidence scale. JMOs

Cheers, George

[Paul Sutton]

I wondered if you were aware of the fact a number of serial killers find excitement in risk, it is a turn on much the same as the act itself.

A rational thinking individual would not, I suggest, pick a place like Dutfields Yard, especially at that moment. Or, the back of No.29, at that time.
But, we are missing the risk factor coupled with the irrational state of mind, he's taking things to the edge each time he kills.

Even the darkest corner of Mitre Square was a small portion of an open stage, he performed on an open stage but in the smallest dark corner.
Bucks Row was as open as you can hope for, there was no hideaway unless there was a wicket door in that gateway like there was at Dutfields Yard.
Even Millers Court was a trap, Bowyer said that himself, one way in and one way out, much like Hanbury St.

I think our discussions often overlook the risk factor, it's an essential part of the thrill. Why would he kill that late in the morning, when the streets were beginning to fill with men going to work?
Foolish?, no...thrilling! it brings on an adrenaline thrill.

Yes - like anyone - I'm aware of that. But it's unlikely 'it is a turn on much the same as the act itself'. Simply because the act itself is - if not unique - utterly bizarre, whereas there are almost countless ways of getting a thrill from risk. He could have taken up tight-rope walking.

This is another version of the 'oh well, serial killers are just like that' argument. It can be brandished to basically justify any behaviour. It ultimately renders analysis pointless.

What you're saying is: 'He's not rational, so rationalisation can be dismissed.' Then you proceed to rationalise. It's the fallacy of relativism: 'All truths are relative (except my one here)'.