John Richardson

[Trevor Marriott]

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?

I will leave the tea leaves and crystal balls to you because you are clearly getting your facts from somewhere outside of reality

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

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.

How do you work that out?
Murdering a woman mere feet from an open side door of a busy club of about 30? revelers should be a risky move for any killer, regardless who it is.

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.

Sure she did, it was one of her places of business. You're trying to judge her life of desperation as if she didn't need the money. Being seen giving a customer a quick knee-trembler is nothing for her to be concerned with. What are the neighbors going to do, shout at her, call her names?

[Wickerman]

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.

The inspector would patrol the beats making sure the constables kept to the schedule.

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

No argument there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I will leave the tea leaves and crystal balls to you because you are clearly getting your facts from somewhere outside of reality

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

From the man who says “the Doctors ToD was unreliable but I still rely on it.”

[Wickerman]

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.

Yes, it's been a widely acknowledged factor of serial killings, not for all, but for many the risk is just as important as the kill itself. The chance of being seen increases the adrenaline, it's like a drug. I think it its presence in the Ripper killings can be identified either by the sites alone or the time of the killings.

By increasing the risk factors in their murders, such as killing during the daytime rather than at night, serial killers can enhance their excitement but such increased risk can also lead to their apprehension by law enforcement authorities if/when they make mistakes or the unexpected occurs.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/wicked-deeds/201610/serial-killer-truth-most-do-not-want-get-caught

[Wickerman]

...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

Hi George.

I thought it was more of universal terminology - a reach in desperation

Outside of that, I'd like to know if that is truly required of witnesses in Auz, it seems a stretch to me but you would likely know better than I do. It certainly was not expected under British coroner's rules in the 19th century.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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

Broadly:

I suggested: "at least two hours and probably more but possibly less than at least two hours", is nonsensical.

You replied by saying: he did mean that but his meaning appears nonsensical due to my 'sophistry'.

You gave a more appropriate way of putting it in your view, which goes: "at least two hours and probably more, but I cannot be firm on that".

I replied: how much firmer can you be than "at least", which means the minimum time possible in the English language. There is nothing more firm than: 'the minimum time possible', in terms of assessing time. It is at one end of the spectrum.

Here's a second chance: how much firmer could he have been than 'the minimum time possible'?

You're suggesting he wasn't firm when he stated: "at least". It's a contradiction in terms.

[Wickerman]

Broadly:

I suggested: "at least two hours and probably more but possibly less than at least two hours", is nonsensical.

So you think that "at least two hours and probably more, but possibly less than more" makes more sense?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If Phillips had meant to concede that the qualification he added could mean less than two hours, then he would not have used the words at least.

His qualification was a concession to the eyewitness evidence, but it did not reflect any change of opinion on his part.

[A P Tomlinson]

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.


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.

I'm at a bit of a loss now, and sick of persuing arguments that change shape more than Odo from Star Trek.
Are you saying that you agree that the Police would have pointed out to Philips that there were witnesses who said that he was wrong, and that there was no body there at 4.50?
Because that's the bit that matters? I don;t care how many hats he wore or in what capacity he was testifying at any given point.
He was a Police Surgeon... we're agreed. He helped them solve crimes? Right?
To do that they would give him the evidence they had collected in order to help him do that. Right?

He would have known before giving his statement at the inquest that three witnesses provided a story that contradicted his ToD.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Phillips had meant to concede that the qualification he added could mean less than two hours, then he would not have used the words at least.

His qualification was a concession to the eyewitness evidence, but it did not reflect any change of opinion on his part.

And if his caveat was intended to be connected to an earlier ToD he wouldn’t have added a medical qualification that could only have implied a later one.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Unlikely?

Aye, 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.

The fact Richardson stated the yard was 'used for immoral purposes', is neither here nor there in the context of what we're talking about given all of them bar one was intent on killing people.

And of course, had there been someone else in the yard, he couldn't have killed Annie in that yard.

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.

Aye, abandon the plan. That doesn't mean Annie would have waltzed around with him until the murderer found a suitable spot for him. Annie was soliciting, not looking to be murdered, and so she had no reason to wander around until the murderer was happy with the location.

I happen to think it was the victim who chose the spot

I reckon too much is made of who chose the location. Serial killers watch and approach, and from there they'll have gone into the nearest spot. In a fashion, they probably both chose the location. 'Nothing more complicated than that.

You have to bear in mind that the cover of darkness was very good cover in those days. In that dark, he could step back into the shadows and unless somebody actually stumbled upon him, he wasn't gonna be seen. And without modern day forensics and CCTV, there's not much else that was going to link him to the crime providing he had the cover of darkness.

The point is he had choices, and the choices he made are not likely to be the same as you or I would make.

Clearly, these are strange people. I'm pretty sure Ted Bundy banged someone over the head with a Christmas tree in broad daylight when people were around. They'e acting on many instincts and emotions, such as impulse.

Outside of a club with people nearby, seems odd to us, but that's due to the age in which we live. But then, according to you Annie Chapman was murdered when it was light and people in those days were up and about at half five in the morning either going to work, going to the pub, or they just couldn't sleep. The optimum sleeping pattern in Victorian days, was going to bed for a few hours, getting up for a few hours to do whatever (chores including in the backyard, pub, work, and so on) and so you can be absolutely certain that Jack would have known that killing some in daylight at half 5 in the morning was a huge risk. A much bigger risk than beside a club in a dark spot at half twelve at night, simply because he could have stepped back into the shadows and as a result there was no way of being identified. At half five in the morning when it was light, he was bang to rights in the event anyone got anywhere near him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Broadly:

I suggested: "at least two hours and probably more but possibly less than at least two hours", is nonsensical.

You replied by saying: he did mean that but his meaning appears nonsensical due to my 'sophistry'.

You gave a more appropriate way of putting it in your view, which goes: "at least two hours and probably more, but I cannot be firm on that".

I replied: how much firmer can you be than "at least", which means the minimum time possible in the English language. There is nothing more firm than: 'the minimum time possible', in terms of assessing time. It is at one end of the spectrum.

Here's a second chance: how much firmer could he have been than 'the minimum time possible'?

You're suggesting he wasn't firm when he stated: "at least". It's a contradiction in terms.

He couldn’t have been clearer that he favoured a ToD of 2 hours or more previous to his examination. Therefore no extra comment was needed.

If he was trying to say that the ‘probably more’ was more likely then any mention of ‘more rapid cooling’ has the opposite effect because it would have reduced the time between death and examination and so pointed to a later ToD.

If he was trying to say that he couldn’t be exact on how much more than 2 hours it probably was he would have used language that conveyed that. By saying something like ‘but probably more because….’ ‘I can’t say exactly how much because…’ but certainly not ‘probably more due to the more rapid cooling’ which points in the opposite direction.

Only one interpretation makes any sense literally or medically. The fact that he added a ‘but’ and that a ‘but’ (according to the dictionary) means “used to introduce a phrase or clause contrasting with what has already been mentioned.” Proves that the caveat had to have meant something that contrasted with what was written in the main clause. You’re suggestion wasn’t in contrast. It’s emphasis or conformation and therefore illogical.

So unless you believe that the dictionary writers are as useless as the writers of textbooks on forensic medicine there can only be one interpretation.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

you can be absolutely certain that Jack would have known that killing some in daylight at half 5 in the morning was a huge risk. A much bigger risk than beside a club in a dark spot at half twelve at night, simply because he could have stepped back into the shadows and as a result there was no way of being identified. At half five in the morning when it was light, he was bang to rights in the event anyone got anywhere near him.

It has always been speculated that the murderer escaped from Dutfield's Yard after being disturbed by Diemschutz.

We know that if he was there at the moment that Diemschutz arrived, he could not be seen by him.

If the murderer was the man seen by Mrs Long, then he knew that people were up and about and going to the market nearby, and that at that time, people must be up and about in the house nearby.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Outside of a club with people nearby, seems odd to us, but that's due to the age in which we live. But then, according to you Annie Chapman was murdered when it was light and people in those days were up and about at half five in the morning either going to work, going to the pub, or they just couldn't sleep. The optimum sleeping pattern in Victorian days, was going to bed for a few hours, getting up for a few hours to do whatever (chores including in the backyard, pub, work, and so on) and so you can be absolutely certain that Jack would have known that killing some in daylight at half 5 in the morning was a huge risk. A much bigger risk than beside a club in a dark spot at half twelve at night, simply because he could have stepped back into the shadows and as a result there was no way of being identified. At half five in the morning when it was light, he was bang to rights in the event anyone got anywhere near him.

So a maniac with an urge to kill is probably assure by a prostitute desperate for money that they’re unlikely to be disturbed in the yard. She probably told him that she’d used the yard at this time before and hadn’t been disturbed. So how long did he expect to have been there? 10 minutes or so. A risk of course but not exactly a tightrope walk over the Grand Canyon and as Wick said a certain amount of risk can add to the thrill serial killer.

Was the yard of number 29 more risky than Dutfield’s Yard? How could it possibly have been? What was the worst that could have happened in that Yard? Someone opens the door and starts down the steps to see the ripper next to a corpse. An impossible situation? Difficult but not impossible for a madman with a big knife.

More difficult than half a dozen men coming out of the club to see the killer attacking Stride. How confident could he have been of escaping when faced with them? How would he have coped with PC Smith passing and seeing him attacking Stride?

Dutfield’s Yard doesn’t compare in terms of risk.