John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

I haven’t said that he changed his opinion PI so I don’t really understand why you posted that.

Your partial quote from Phillips is apt. He clearly favoured 2 hours or more but….

That sentence is perfectly clear, he didn’t need to add anything. And if he did want to add anything it would have been some medical reason why it was likelier in his opinion that the ToD was more than 2 hours. Logically he wouldn’t have said ‘two hours and probably more but more like two’ of course. So what does he actually add?

“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.”

The ‘but’ means that he’s adding something that contrasts to the original statement. This is what a ‘but’ means PI. You can’t say ‘but’ then go on to say exactly the same thing because it renders the ‘but’ redundant. He then mentions the body losing so much blood causing it to cool more rapidly. Remember, how likely is it that Dr. Phillips would have had experience of a body this badly damaged, so to some extent he’s slightly into unknown territory. So he gives an estimate based on his own knowledge and experience but admits that the exceptional nature of the situation might have placed the ToD outside of his estimated range and ‘more rapid cooling’ can only have moved the ToD one way. And that was later than 4.30.

The coroner Baxter, interpreted this exactly as I and others do because it’s the only way that it can be interpreted.

[Trevor Marriott]

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).

This knowing the police beats is a complete invention, even if prostitutes knew the workings of police beats how were they to know that the officer in question might be delayed by something or someone on his beat thus affecting the time of the beat.

As to Mitre Square and the other crime scenes to my mind, these locations were chosen by the victims and not the killer

How long would it have taken the killer to simply murder and mutilate less than 60 seconds I would guess

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

It’s a good point Wick. I often get wary when thinking of the level of risk in a particular location but your point should definitely be kept in mind. Especially as I often finding myself repeating how we are on slippery ground when we try and second guess a serial killers though processes. Just because we would think a certain way in a certain situation it doesn’t mean that a complete maniac would think the same way.

[A P Tomlinson]

This knowing the police beats is a complete invention, even if prostitutes knew the workings of police beats how were they to know that the officer in question might be delayed by something or someone on his beat thus affecting the time of the beat.

As to Mitre Square and the other crime scenes to my mind, these locations were chosen by the victims and not the killer

How long would it have taken the killer to simply murder and mutilate less than 60 seconds I would guess

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That's kind of my point as to the element of risk to the killer.
Risk as far as the women was concerned was an occupational hazard and ran the risk of a fine and maybe a short period of incarceration.
The risk to the killer was the noose.
Like I said if he's going in there to murder and mutilate someone and NOT knowing when the police might turn up that's even riskier than if he HAD known.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Hello George,

I couldn’t help smiling as I read you post because I was think “ok, I’m waiting for the ‘but.’”

The only problem is that the part about the ‘more rapid cooling’ could only have affected his estimate in the direction of a later rather than an earlier ToD.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Do you think that these women were so prim and proper that she would have been horrified at the thought of being interrupted? A woman so desperate for cash that she couldn’t pay for a bed for the night? You are scrambling around trying to find points in favour of an earlier ToD Trevor.

[GBinOz]

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?


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?

Hi Jon,

I would suggest that he recognised that the case he was dealing with was considerably outside the contemporary standard to the point where he was uncertain as to to the applicability of its application. As I indicated, I am not privy to his mental processes in determining how to overcome the singular application of contemporary standards to a statistical outlier. My comments were directed at the interpretation of the expression of his decision.

I have to confess only a passing familiarity with American football, but Google informs me that a Hail Mary pass is a very long forward pass in American football, typically made in desperation, with an exceptionally small chance of achieving a completion. I am not unduly concerned with convincing others of my opinion, being content to just contribute to the general discussion.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

This knowing the police beats is a complete invention, even if prostitutes knew the workings of police beats how were they to know that the officer in question might be delayed by something or someone on his beat thus affecting the time of the beat.

Hi Trevor,

Didn't the PCs on beat often reverse the direction of their beats to counter such an eventuality?

Cheers, George

[A P Tomlinson]

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

I think the key word there, George, is "modern" we know how often the witnesses talked to the press.
it kind of follows that there was nothing said to tell them to not read the paper if they weren't told by the police to not talk to the papers.

It was quite possible that some of the antics of witnesses in the Whitechapel Murders period of policing are part of what led to the reforms that are now in place.

[Wickerman]

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

The question is not the heritage of the British legal system, but the fact you suggest a caution was imposed on witnesses for an inquest in the 19th century.
I think you are confused with Juror's, a similar restraint can be imposed on modern juror's but if you read The Coroner's Inquest for 1887 you will find no such restraint was imposed on a witness.
No witness was restrained from reading newspapers.

There was a restriction imposed on the publication of Inquest procedings before an inquest was terminated, but as we see that was completely ignored by the media.

So Phillips could easily have been aware of Richardson's testimony before he took the stand.

[Trevor Marriott]

Do you think that these women were so prim and proper that she would have been horrified at the thought of being interrupted? A woman so desperate for cash that she couldn’t pay for a bed for the night? You are scrambling around trying to find points in favour of an earlier ToD Trevor.

I am not scrambling around I am stating what appears to be the obvious that the victims knew the locations where they could take their clients for sex away from prying eyes and have to ask would Chapman knowing the location and the number of residents took a client to this location at the later time of the morning when she would have realised that at any time she could have been seen.

I`m afraid your later TOD is looking to be highly unlikely

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Didn't the PCs on beat often reverse the direction of their beats to counter such an eventuality?

Cheers, George

Yes you are right but the timings of the beat would be affected by events that occurred during their beat i.e. finding an insecurity/stopping to talk to someone/being involved in an arrest.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Chandler spoke to Richardson at 6.45 and the body was removed around 7.00. Chandler would have spoken to the Phillips before the Doctor left number 29. How unlikely can it be that Chandler said something to the Doctor along the lines of ‘I just spoke to someone who said that body wasn’t there at 4.45?’

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am not scrambling around I am stating what appears to be the obvious that the victims knew the locations where they could take their clients for sex away from prying eyes and have to ask would Chapman knowing the location and the number of residents took a client to this location at the later time of the morning when she would have realised that at any time she could have been seen.

I`m afraid your later TOD is looking to be highly unlikely

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And I’m afraid that your talking nonsense as ever. We have a woman desperate for cash and a serial killer with urge to kill. Not a particularly good recipe for caution is it? Then we have the obvious fact that East End prostitutes were hardly prim and proper.

How would Chapman have known how many residents were living there?

Your attempts to desperately manipulate the evidence the ToD are little short of appalling Trevor. You have taken a preconception (earlier ToD) and then you view everything in light of this as if it’s a fact. You have to dismiss three witnesses without cause or actual reason for doing so, you then elevate a Doctors opinion which you yourself have admitted was unsafe and now you are claiming to know how a desperately poor Victorian prostitute would think and behave; likewise a serial killer.

What next…..tea leaves, a crystal ball?

[Wickerman]

Richardson didn't work for the Police. Philips did. He was the Police Surgeon for H Division. Not an independent Witness.

Phillips was the police surgeon for H Div. yes, but he was also assigned charge by the coroner (who often contests police procedure) to conduct a post-mortem, and present his findings as an independent witness.
The coroner pays the medical witness a fee for his attendance.
Phillips is wearing several 'hats' here, he can discuss evidence that comes under his eyes, but this is not the case with an eye witness. Without actually being specific the police are at liberty to make a general statement to Phillips that they have witnesses that are prepared to say she was alive when you say she should have been dead.
One of the reason's witness statements should not discussed in detail is to keep the statement from being contaminated, and the witness from being intimidated.

Lets not forget we are debating a hypothetical situation here, we do not know if Phillips knew of Richardson's testimony before the inquest. We can only hypothesize why he may or may not have known.
If he did know he certainly made no effort towards that end by saying "at least two hours, possibly more", unless his subsequent caveat was intended to be applied to the his opinion as a whole, not just the latter half of 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.

Yes, without discussing the witness statement in detail, I agree.

Consider this.
If the police do discuss and compare witness testimony, they decide Richardson is wrong. Then on what grounds did they send his statement to the coroner for consideration?
Why waste his time, the rapport between the coroner's office and the Met. was often contentious. Baxter would have a very good case to complain to the Home Office about the Met. wasting his time.
If Phillips's ToD estimate was deemed to be wrong, why would he raise it at the inquest?
Either Phillips was not aware of the specific time discrepancy between the witness statement and his own conclusions, or he thought his professional opinion would be regarded as defacto.