John Richardson

[Wickerman]

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

Hi George.
Yes, actually that is a good point.
It also occurred to me to ask where is the doctor in these proceedings.
I considered if, as this was a heavily class-based society at the time, the doctor was given special dispensation to sit in the court. After all he is there to give medical opinion as a professional witness.
So I had spent some time looking at courtroom drawings in the press to see if the artists show the doctors. They do show the press and the jury, coroner, etc.

Not necessary, as it turns out.
Richardson gave his evidence the previous day (Wednesday) where he said he arrived at the yard about 4:45-4:50 am. As the inquest only began in the afternoon, the proceedings, and Richardson's testimony was published in the Thursday morning papers.
Thursday's inquest where Dr Phillips was to attend began as usual in the afternoon, so Dr Phillips could easily have read Richardson's testimony over his morning cup of tea.
Sorry for that, I didn't think it through.

[Wickerman]

Yes - like anyone - I'm aware of that possibility. 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.

But this is another version of the 'oh well, serial killers are just like that' argument. It can be brandished to basically justify any behaviour and negate any point. In fact, it ultimately renders any analysis pointless. And with any serial killer, we can't (unless we're one ourselves) know what you claim.

Sorry Paul, it doesn't sound like you are aware of it at all.

[Wickerman]

.... 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

Hi George.

Phillips didn't say "probably later", he said "probably more", so could you explain why Phillips would think it appropriate to imply "less than probably more", instead of less than two hours, when his estimate is being compared with about 1 hour?

I have another question I'll post separately, if you don't mind.

[Paul Sutton]

Sorry Paul, it doesn't sound like you are aware of it at all.

I'm aware you made the most banal and obvious of comments.

Dishonest too - you didn't 'wonder' that. Even DS William Thick would have been aware of it.

I shouldn't have responded, but your attempted patronisation is comical.

No need to apologise - silence would have been better; please observe it in future.

[GBinOz]

Thursday's inquest where Dr Phillips was to attend began as usual in the afternoon, so Dr Phillips could easily have read Richardson's testimony over his morning cup of tea.

Hi Jon,

I could be wrong, but I thought modern witnesses are warned against resort to the media for the duration of their evidence period?

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

George, I'll try explain this question the best I can.

If you look up the tables available to Phillips in the mid 1800's you will find works by Nysten and Niedercorn. They conducted extensive tests and experiments on bodies to create tables that demonstrate the progression of rigor mortis.
Davy, about 1840 conducted the same types of experiments to determine the progression of body cooling - Algor mortis.

Charts, tables and formula's were available to Phillips that he could commit to memory which would help him estimate how fast a body will cool, or how fast rigor may appear based on an assumption of steady ambient temperatures.
That being the case, is it only to be expected that he has the ability to estimate "two hours, probably more", regarding how long Chapman had been dead.
The figures are fixed, and can be committed to memory, but only if the ambient temperature is constant.

So I am at a loss to understand how you can, without sufficient explanation, arbitrarily split the "two hours" from "probably more", and believe that his caveat which introduces the problem of cooler temperatures, and extraordinarily mutilated body (not normal), c/w extensive blood loss, for which tables & calculations do not exist, does not apply to the established tables as a whole.

Imagine a table of formulas, where the vertical & horizontal lines meet, the square reads 2+ hours.
You are saying Phillips's caveat separates the "2" from the "+", instead of referring to the entire table, this is what I do not understand.

Can you explain?

[GBinOz]

Hi George.

Phillips didn't say "probably later", he said "probably more", so could you explain why Phillips would think it appropriate to imply "less than probably more", instead of less than two hours, when his estimate is being compared with about 1 hour?

I have another question I'll post separately, if you don't mind.

Hi Jon,

Just a mental typo.

I think that he was considering that he was in uncharted territory with the application of the normal procedures to the profoundly different circumstances of Annie's injuries. I think that as an educated man he was aware of the meaning of "at least", and that if he had in his mind that his qualification should apply to that portion of his statement that he would have adjusted his minimum period accordingly. As to it being compared to about one hour, I think that the jury is still out as to whether Phillips would have even been permitted to have known that there was a comparison to be made which would affect his deliberations.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Hi Jon,

I posted my last post as you were posting yours, but it seems that I may have anticipated your question. I think that I have provided an explanation for my thinking but, as I am not privy to the thoughts that Phillips had in mind at the time, I am unable to comment as to why he formed his estimate , only as to how I think he expressed it.

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I could be wrong, but I thought modern witnesses are warned against resort to the media for the duration of their evidence period?

Cheers, George

We don't use modern guidelines to judge 19th century society, today's standards, are precisely that - today's standards.

[Wickerman]

.... I think that as an educated man he was aware of the meaning of "at least", and that if he had in his mind that his qualification should apply to that portion of his statement that he would have adjusted his minimum period accordingly.

Are you suggesting he goes against the contemporary standard which begins at "2 hours"?
On what grounds would he stand in order to suggest 60 minutes, if the standard is written for 120 minutes?

As to it being compared to about one hour, I think that the jury is still out as to whether Phillips would have even been permitted to have known that there was a comparison to be made which would affect his deliberations.

I might agree with you if you were to produce the 19th century caution from 1888, or is this a sort of hail Mary pass?

[A P Tomlinson]

Hi Doc. I forgot to respond to this.



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.

Richardson didn't work for the Police. Philips did. He was the Police Surgeon for H Division. Not an independent Witness.
It would be a matter of course to discuss pertinent information and evidence with him. He had acccess to the reports, if he wanted to read them. His job was to help them detrmine the cause, means and time of death along with the circumstances that led to it.

Are you suggesting that the Police wouldn't give him further information that may help him in that endeavour, while allowing him to sift round the the scene of crime in order to find clues?
It wouldn't be about him changing his mind, it would be about giving him as much information as possible to work with during the initial investigation.

You really think that if the Police have evidence that disputes his ToD that they would hold it from him (The POLICE Surgeon...) and spring it on him at the inquest to deal with on the stand in order to avoid him changing his mind???
No. That would not happen.

I know I've made a point of how antiquated and out of date the ME's methodology was, but the Police were not so backward as to deny the Police's own Medical Examiner access to information and evidence that may help (or, unfortunately for him, hinder) his initial findings. They were trying to establish facts.


In a hypothetical situation, an ME has given an initial (pre inquest) window of "three to eight hours" and the Police find corrobarative, reliable evidence from multiple sources that place the vicim alive an hour and a half or two hours prior. The Police would WANT the medical opinion on ToD to match. Or they would want to know why something that will be important to both the inquest and any subsequent trial may cause issues for the prosecution down the line.
They would give the information to the ME and hope they can sort it out, maybe one of the witnesses talks of the victim doing or consuming something that the ME might then realise had an impact on the condition of the body. The Police would share that information in order to get to the truth. Regardless of whether that was a convenient, or inconvenient truth. If the Police find evidence of drugs or compounds after the ME has pronounced, they will tell the ME so they know to test for that compound. It may skew the post mortem time scale. But they would absolutely tell that ME if evidence was coming to light that disputed their estimate.
Particularly if that is three witnesses whose combined testimony does throw considerable doubt on it.

Any information such as "Someone claims to have seen the victim alive after you said she was dead! And another fellow says he was in yard after you said she was dead and didn't see a body" would be key to not only establishing the circumstances of death from the MEs point of view but also from the Investigators. They would want to know as soon as possible if ME thought that the body could have been dumped, or if the ToD may be off. In order to get their ducks in a row prior to presenting the case to the inquest.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Dutfields yard only becomes a risk factor if you accept that Stride was killed by JTR and I personally don't subscribe to that theory.

There was no other risk factor other than 29 Hanbury Street with the later TOD.

If I recall correctly Chapman knew all about the layout of 29 Hanbury Street it is documented that she used to go there to try to sell items. So she cleary was responsible for taking her killer to that location and it is likely as not that she would have been made aware of the 17 person who occupied No 29. That being said would she have risked taking someone to that location for sex at that later time of the morning-Not a chance.

Thus evidence just add more weight to tip the scales in favour of an earlier TOD

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Doctored Whatsit]

Richardson didn't work for the Police. Philips did. He was the Police Surgeon for H Division. Not an independent Witness.
It would be a matter of course to discuss pertinent information and evidence with him. He had acccess to the reports, if he wanted to read them. His job was to help them detrmine the cause, means and time of death along with the circumstances that led to it.

Are you suggesting that the Police wouldn't give him further information that may help him in that endeavour, while allowing him to sift round the the scene of crime in order to find clues?
It wouldn't be about him changing his mind, it would be about giving him as much information as possible to work with during the initial investigation.

You really think that if the Police have evidence that disputes his ToD that they would hold it from him (The POLICE Surgeon...) and spring it on him at the inquest to deal with on the stand in order to avoid him changing his mind???
No. That would not happen.

I know I've made a point of how antiquated and out of date the ME's methodology was, but the Police were not so backward as to deny the Police's own Medical Examiner access to information and evidence that may help (or, unfortunately for him, hinder) his initial findings. They were trying to establish facts.


In a hypothetical situation, an ME has given an initial (pre inquest) window of "three to eight hours" and the Police find corrobarative, reliable evidence from multiple sources that place the vicim alive an hour and a half or two hours prior. The Police would WANT the medical opinion on ToD to match. Or they would want to know why something that will be important to both the inquest and any subsequent trial may cause issues for the prosecution down the line.
They would give the information to the ME and hope they can sort it out, maybe one of the witnesses talks of the victim doing or consuming something that the ME might then realise had an impact on the condition of the body. The Police would share that information in order to get to the truth. Regardless of whether that was a convenient, or inconvenient truth. If the Police find evidence of drugs or compounds after the ME has pronounced, they will tell the ME so they know to test for that compound. It may skew the post mortem time scale. But they would absolutely tell that ME if evidence was coming to light that disputed their estimate.
Particularly if that is three witnesses whose combined testimony does throw considerable doubt on it.

Any information such as "Someone claims to have seen the victim alive after you said she was dead! And another fellow says he was in yard after you said she was dead and didn't see a body" would be key to not only establishing the circumstances of death from the MEs point of view but also from the Investigators. They would want to know as soon as possible if ME thought that the body could have been dumped, or if the ToD may be off. In order to get their ducks in a row prior to presenting the case to the inquest.

Thank you A P T, I was about to write more or less the same. Phillips wasn't an independant witness, he was the official police surgeon. They were investigating a murder, and desperately needed to know whether the other witness evidence, all of which contradicted his ToD, should be considered seriously or rejected. This massive contradiction needed to be resolved for a proper investigation to continue. They wouldn't have been telling Phillips he was wrong, they would have been advising him of the contradictory evidence, and asking his professional advice. Keeping the witness evidence from him until the inquest would have been deliberately creating a huge and unnecessary potential embarassment.

[A P Tomlinson]

Dutfields yard only becomes a risk factor if you accept that Stride was killed by JTR and I personally don't subscribe to that theory.

There was no other risk factor other than 29 Hanbury Street with the later TOD.

If I recall correctly Chapman knew all about the layout of 29 Hanbury Street it is documented that she used to go there to try to sell items. So she cleary was responsible for taking her killer to that location and it is likely as not that she would have been made aware of the 17 person who occupied No 29. That being said would she have risked taking someone to that location for sex at that later time of the morning-Not a chance.

Thus evidence just add more weight to tip the scales in favour of an earlier TOD

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You don't consider Mitre Square risky? I'd consider any of them pretty risky, with beat coppers and late/early workers walking about the place, but Mitre Square was dangerous. And if we believe the scene of crime and inquest reports, he escaped by a matter of seconds.
Brown puts the ToD at no earlier than 1.40 with CERTAINTY. And also declares that it would have taken five minutes for the killer to do his post mortem work. (Now, I think that's a load of old bollocks, but you seem to trust these guys.)

PC Harvey is down Church Passage to the top of Mitre Square at 1.40. The earliest time of death in Doc Brown's CERTAIN time scale. He doesn't look into Mitre Square, but we have to agree that if his beat took him there, if he had heard something, he would have investigated. Remember, according to Brown she was either still alive or in the process of dying at that time. (And again, I don't believe that estimate for a second, but you rely on Philips' estimate, so... why would you agree with one and not the other? Especially when one is described as being certain.)

PC Watkins comes the other way and enters the Square from Mitre Street at 1.44 (I presume he had a pocket watch or heard one of the clocks strike the third quarter as he was viewing the body to have such a degree of specificity...) and finds the body. (Which gives less than the 5 minutes Brown's "expertise" allows for the mutilations)
If he's going in there knowing the Police beat routine then he knows the risk he's taking by performing the further mutilations, if he's going in there without knowing them that's a bigger risk.


Even when we apply the "around" a certain time factor, that's still cutting it pretty bloody close, (pardon the pun).

[GBinOz]

We don't use modern guidelines to judge 19th century society, today's standards, are precisely that - today's standards.

Sorry Jon, but I beg to differ. Today's standards of the British justice system, which are observed in Australia, are heavily steeped in the traditions of the past from which it evolved. The members of the establishment, such as Phillips would have been the most dedicated to the purpose of its preservation IMO.

Cheers, George