John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

As ive stated, the only thing that i see that is black and white is the conflicting evidence of witness testimony, that can and has shown to lead to a number of possibilities in regards to the Chapman murder . Which as this thread has shown over and over the likelyhood of said possibilities .

So do you think that the modern day forensic medicine experts could be wrong about how accurate Dr. Phillips could have been?

[Trevor Marriott]

So do you think that the modern day forensic medicine experts could be wrong about how accurate Dr. Phillips could have been?

If the murder had ocurred today a medical expert at the scene would have been asked to give an estimated time of death whatever that estimation was it should not be totally disregarded becasue that estimation forms an integral part of the police investigation, because the first 24 hours of a murder investigation is one of the most important parts of the whole investigation. The senior investigating officer would not dismiss it outright just because that procedure should not be used as evidence in court.

The same applies to Phillips TOD it should not be dismissed just because in this day and age it is of no evidnetial value, but is invaluable to the whole of the investigation

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

If the murder had ocurred today a medical expert at the scene would have been asked to give an estimated time of death whatever that estimation was it should not be totally disregarded becasue that estimation forms an integral part of the police investigation, because the first 24 hours of a murder investigation is one of the most important parts of the whole investigation. The senior investigating officer would not dismiss it outright just because that procedure should not be used as evidence in court.

The same applies to Phillips TOD it should not be dismissed just because in this day and age it is of no evidnetial value, but is invaluable to the whole of the investigation

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why, when we can’t assess it’s accuracy? What use is “he might have been right but he might have been wrong?” We can all do what we like Trevor. From now on, I’m not interested in Phillips. His opinion is irrelevant and waste of time talking about.

[Trevor Marriott]

Why, when we can’t assess it’s accuracy? What use is “he might have been right but he might have been wrong?” We can all do what we like Trevor. From now on, I’m not interested in Phillips. His opinion is irrelevant and waste of time talking about.

But you keep saying Phillips should be dismissed because modern day experts tell us that estimating times of death in todays world is frowned upon but even in todays world a doctor can still give evidence of an estimated time of death in a trial.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Why, when we can’t assess it’s accuracy? What use is “he might have been right but he might have been wrong?” We can all do what we like Trevor. From now on, I’m not interested in Phillips. His opinion is irrelevant and waste of time talking about.

hey herlock
thyve moved the goal post to start talking about the value of TOD estimate today, since they lost the argument about Phillips. and when they lose this one too theyll move the goal post again and start talking about the value of medical opinion in general. you see its pointless i hope.

[Abby Normal]

If the murder had ocurred today a medical expert at the scene would have been asked to give an estimated time of death whatever that estimation was it should not be totally disregarded becasue that estimation forms an integral part of the police investigation, because the first 24 hours of a murder investigation is one of the most important parts of the whole investigation. The senior investigating officer would not dismiss it outright just because that procedure should not be used as evidence in court.

The same applies to Phillips TOD it should not be dismissed just because in this day and age it is of no evidnetial value, but is invaluable to the whole of the investigation

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

yes it should, especially since there is corroberated witness testimony that tod was later. same thing would happen today, you out of anyone should know that. you should also know any method, modern or not, can only estimate within a few hours at most. even by todays standard it wouldnt preclude the eyewitnesses from being wrong.

and besides, stop moving the goal posts, were talking about the accuracy and value of phillips, a 19th century doctor.

[Abby Normal]

But you keep saying Phillips should be dismissed because modern day experts tell us that estimating times of death in todays world is frowned upon but even in todays world a doctor can still give evidence of an estimated time of death in a trial.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

of course they can-but nobodies arguing that-you just keep moving the goal posts.

[Dickere]

How about everyone is right ? She was killed elsewhere but not brought to the scene until after Richardson's visit ?

[Fleetwood Mac]

1) While estimated TOD can never be certain, estimating TOD is critical to crime resolution. Modern forensics commentators tell you that and the fact they actually undertake this exercise on a routine basis all over the world tells you that.

Id never doubt that fact.

2) Dr Phillips was a well respected, experienced doctor estimating the time of death.

Ive said the same thing many times.

Long story short:

1) You're acknowledging that estimating TOD is critical to crime resolution.
2) You must then accept that estimating TOD is not meaningless, otherwise they wouldn't do it.
3) You accept that Dr Phillips was a well respected, experienced doctor.
4) You have posted in the last couple of pages that Dr Phillip's estimated time of death is, in your own words, "of no value".

You may want to stop and think about what you're posting as generally it is illogical.

You're running around the thread posting the literary form of Jack The Ripper in Mary Kelly's room seemingly hacking away with no discernible purpose.

Meanwhile, Jeff has posted a link to an article that may be instructive but is there to be critically evaluated. Clearly, you're intrigued by this case and have a lot of time on your hands (judging by the prolificacy of your posting habits). You could add something of value to what is a very important piece in the puzzle. You could look at the article and try to understand how many people formed the sample, you could look to see the post mortem interval of those in the sample, you could look to see whether or not the Amsterdam researchers have been critically evaluated by qualified persons, you could look to see whether or not there are other bodies that support the Amsterdam researchers' position, you could look to see who has peer reviewed the article.

You could look to see so many things that would help the evaluation of this case but you would rather add to Jeff's post with something like: "game over" (I don't recall the exact words, but they were to that effect). Quite clearly you're not interested in adding a bit of critical thinking and doing a bit of digging around on the internet. You'd rather just run 'round the boards repeating the same nonsense ad nauseam.

Jeff has posted an interesting article undertaken by a small body of researchers that is there to be critically evaluated. At this juncture, it is a million miles away from 'the proof' you have deemed it to be. Do something useful. Do some digging 'round the internet, see what you can find that lends weight or otherwise to Jeff's post and post it.

The objection isn't that you believe Annie was murdered at 5.30am. That could well be the case. It is the way you go about it.

Here's an idea: I'm about to have a look at the article/research and have a look 'round the internet for any other helpful information in relation to that research, why don't you do the same. When all's said and done, it doesn't matter what time Annie was murdered. What matters is that we have a most likely time, whatever that time is, and in the event you come up with something that sheds some light on this you'll find that you'll get a lot of credit and thanks.

[Abby Normal]

How about everyone is right ? She was killed elsewhere but not brought to the scene until after Richardson's visit ?

oh god here we go. any way thats impossible because that would mean long was wrong. besides there was blood spray on the wall next to her head, indicating she was killed there. and absolutely no evidence she was killed elsewhere and brought there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But you keep saying Phillips should be dismissed because modern day experts tell us that estimating times of death in todays world is frowned upon but even in todays world a doctor can still give evidence of an estimated time of death in a trial.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’ve said no such thing Trevor. Why make things up?

Ive never said that estimating TOD’s is frowned up or even hinted at it. What I’ve said is that we cannot know if Phillips was right in his estimate or wrong in his estimate. We know that the methods used by him were unreliable because modern experts tell us this.

So if we cant know if he was right or wrong and we can’t even suggest a likeliness of him being right or wrong then what use is the information that we have from him? In terms of deciding whether the witnesses should or shouldn’t be overruled in favour of him…..absolutely none. This is why I say that Phillips is pretty much neutral. We have to focus on the witnesses (accepting of course that the witnesses could have been wrong)

[Fleetwood Mac]

Click on the red words "summary report", that's the link. The report is summarizing the findings of their peer reviewed article, which can be found here. I have access to it at least, but that may be through work, so I'm not sure if it's available to everyone or if it is behind a paywall.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I'm still looking around the internet for other studies and helpful information, but these are my observations on the research published in the Science Advances journal:

1) The Amsterdam research was undertaken on dead bodies with a PMI (time interval of death to assessment) of 5 to 50 hours.

2) The Amsterdam research is wholly based on body temperature to estimate TOD.

3) In Dr Phillips' situation: in the event 5.30am was the time of death then the PMI is 1 hour. It is widely accepted that the shorter the PMI, the more accurate the assessment.

4) In Dr Phillips' situation: he was not relying solely on body temperature, he had the added luxury of rigor mortis to help him. Rigor had progressed beyond commencing but not observable, and beyond in the facial area, to: "commencing in the limbs, but not marked".

Conclusion at this stage prior to looking around the internet for more studies and any other useful information:

1) The Amsterdam research is undertaken in a situation that doesn't apply to Dr Phillips.

2) There is evidence that Dr Phillips agreed with their approach in that when it comes to Mary's death, i.e. within the 5-50 hours PMI range, Dr Phillips concluded 2am to 8am.

3) It follows that the Amsterdam research body would conclude that Dr Phillips is competent.

4) With all of the above in mind, your post in no way suggests Dr Phillips was not qualified to provide an estimate that could in all reasonability be correct.

5) Your post is valuable in that it leads enquiring minds to do a spot of digging around the internet but it is not valuable as a means of concluding Dr Phillips' estimate is unlikely to have been about right.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Long story short:

1) You're acknowledging that estimating TOD is critical to crime resolution.
2) You must then accept that estimating TOD is not meaningless, otherwise they wouldn't do it.
3) You accept that Dr Phillips was a well respected, experienced doctor.
4) You have posted in the last couple of pages that Dr Phillip's estimated time of death is, in your own words, "of no value".

You may want to stop and think about what you're posting as generally it is iillogical.


You're running around the thread posting the literary form of Jack The Ripper in Mary Kelly's room seemingly hacking away with no discernible purpose.

Meanwhile, Jeff has posted a link to an article that may be instructive but is there to be critically evaluated.


Clearly, you're intrigued by this case and have a lot of time on your hands (judging by the prolificacy of your posting habits). You could add something of value to what is a very important piece in the puzzle. You could look at the article and try to understand how many people formed the sample, you could look to see the post mortem interval of those in the sample, you could look to see whether or not the Amsterdam researchers have been critically evaluated by qualified persons, you could look to see whether or not there are other bodies that support the Amsterdam researchers' position, you could look to see who has peer reviewed the article.

You could look to see so many things that would help the evaluation of this case but you would rather add to Jeff's post with something like: "game over" (I don't recall the exact words, but they were to that effect). Quite clearly you're not interested in adding a bit of critical thinking and doing a bit of digging around on the internet. You'd rather just run 'round the boards repeating the same nonsense ad nauseam.

Jeff has posted an interesting article undertaken by a small body of researchers that is there to be critically evaluated. At this juncture, it is a million miles away from 'the proof' you have deemed it to be. Do something useful. Do some digging 'round the internet, see what you can find that lends weight or otherwise to Jeff's post and post it.

The objection isn't that you believe Annie was murdered at 5.30am. That could well be the case. It is the way you go about it.

Here's an idea: I'm about to have a look at the article/research and have a look 'round the internet for any other helpful information in relation to that research, why don't you do the same. When all's said and done, it doesn't matter what time Annie was murdered. What matters is that we have a most likely time, whatever that time is, and in the event you come up with something that sheds some light on this you'll find that you'll get a lot of credit and thanks.

Heres an idea, why don’t you keep your arrogant, self serving, time wasting waffle to yourself?

I don’t have ‘a lot of time on my hands,’ I work from home, plus I’ve until recently been caring for my terminally ill father and I’m now partially caring for an 84 year old aunt who suffers from chronic depression whilst working, so you can leave off the amateur Sherlock Holmes crap. Posting doesn’t take long to do especially when I tend to be hearing the same old illogical hogwash from you!

….

This subject is a done deal. I’ll now watch with interest as you try to wriggle, and twist and obfuscate in an attempt to construe from this article that Phillips somehow ‘must have been correct.’

…….

Phillps made an estimation - we know that those estimations were unreliable because experts have told us so over and over and over again but some people believe that their gut feelings are somehow more reliable, and that Merlin Phillips somehow possessed levels of genius in 1888 that simply didn’t exist.

So I’ll explain it again (perhaps if I type slowly you might understand?)

Phillips could have been wrong - ok, do you accept that .
Phillips could have been correct - ok, so far?
We can’t go back in time and check the conditions applying modern methods or equipment - yup?
And modern experts explicitly explain that these methods were unreliable and that only in very, very recent years have advances been made to increase the accuracy of such estimations - not too difficult for you?

Therefore we have no (none, zero, zilch) way of accurately evaluating Phillips estimation. So I’m not saying that TOD estimates should be discontinued or that they are, or ever have been, a complete waste of time, but that - and I’ll repeat it for you…

…..as we CANNOT evaluate, assess or quantify in terms of likelihood of being correct, Phillips TOD. Therefore, logically, it is of no help to us when trying to assess the witness. We cannot say that the witnesses were wrong because Dr. Philips said……

Keep your condescension to yourself because if you think that you can keep doing it and that I’ll just go along with it then you have the wrong person.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I work from home, plus I’ve until recently been caring for my terminally ill father and I’m now partially caring for an 84 year old aunt who suffers from chronic depression whilst working

I can sympathise with that. 'Not nice, 'not easy. In whatever way it works out for you I sincerely hope it is the best possible outcome for you.

In terms of this thread, let's endeavour to keep it to the facts/statements/most likely as we know it with the minimal amount of invention. All of us. That way we'll get a long way farther.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can sympathise with that. 'Not nice, 'not easy. In whatever way it works out for you I sincerely hope it is the best possible outcome for you.

In terms of this thread, let's endeavour to keep it to the facts/statements/most likely as we know it with the minimal amount of invention. All of us. That way we'll get a long way farther.

There has been no invention on my part. All that I’ve stated and re-stated is what the experts on the subject tell us. A subject that, as far as I can see, none of us are qualified to gainsay. I don’t understand the resistance that I see (not just from you) on this?

The discussion on Phillips in relation to this thread is as to how it impacted on our assessment of the witnesses. If we could say for example that medical knowledge tells us that a doctor estimating a time of death in 1888 was overwhelmingly likely to have been correct then the balance would be tipped in his favour but we can’t say that. We can’t even get close to saying that. Even if we could give a 75% certainty level of accuracy it still would eliminate the witnesses but we just can’t do that or anything near it. And allowing for a minimal amount of leeway he might only have been out by 40-50 minutes. How can a Victorian Doctor be held to a kind of accuracy that even modern doctors with recent scientific advances would consider an achievement?

So I’m not saying that Phillips TOD estimate was the work of an incompetent or that it was a pointless exercise in itself because it wasn’t. It was the work of a man doing the best with the knowledge available at the time. But what I don’t understand is why my suggestion that his TOD is of little or no use to us has caused so much irritation? If we can’t assess it accurately and decide how accurate or inaccurate it was, then basically it’s little better than a guess in this case (and I’m not saying that he was actually guessing of course) In effect, it’s neutral.