Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Sterling work Mr. Hamm. If I was wearing a hat I’d take it off to you. Without wishing to sound like I’m gloating (much) this really is the final nail-in-the-coffin for the suggestion that we can dismiss the witnesses on the basis of Phillips estimate. Your research and post had proved this beyond any doubt at all. I’m not easily amazed but if anyone now stands up and tries to dispute this I’ll be gobsmacked. So from some one poster we’ve had the “well Phillips was a competent Doctor” argument, we’ve even had it suggested that we should accept Phillips estimate via some kind of courtesy. We seen and heard all manner of desperation now surely the only honest response to your information should be an unconditional concession….

    We cannot dismiss the witnesses in the basis of Phillips estimate. On this particular point it’s game over.
    Thanks Herlock,

    Obviously, I agree with your final statement. Basically, Dr. Phillip's estimate is not inconsistent with the witnesses statements and therefore cannot be used to suggest the witnesses "lied", "were mistaken", etc. There is no conflict, and therefore his estimate is not something that points to the witnesses being inaccurate in any way.

    Sure, they still could be, the fact that Dr. P's statement is consistent with them doesn't mean they spoke the gospel. There's clearly some fine detail conflict between the statements when one goes over them with a fine toothed comb, but as we know, that too is to be expected even if the overall testimony is correct.

    It is generally more difficult to describe "margins of error" with respect to witness statements because a lot of what a witness states is qualitative in nature. Measurements or estimates of duration are easy things to work with because they are quantitative values, we just do the maths and get values that represent the central tendency and the error ranges, in nice easy numbers. Witness statements tend to be more qualitative (i.e. if they misreport the van as light blue rather than white - it's always a white van isn't it? - then how big is that error? It's the wrong colour, but is it bigger/smaller than someone else who describes it as a silver van? What about a white station wagon? What if they say Ford rather than Chevrolet? Those are errors, but which is the bigger? What colours should we expect as our margin of error if the van is white? what about blue vans? Or red vans? What's the +- range on those? I have no idea. Certainly it is possible to look at the distributions of such errors, but that is a really big project, and would be very time consuming, particularly since one would want different "error ranges" for daylight, twilight, and dark conditions - and what about fog? or ....) These are errors, but they are harder to quantify.

    While I've not looked as much at such types of errors, barring a witness being deliberately misleading, from what I recall the errors tend to be most commonly in the fine details (i.e. colour, make of vehicle, etc), with temporal "re-ordering" of closely occurring events (i.e. I cut up my veggies to go with the roast in the oven, then turned on my computer, and that's when I heard the noise outside .... but it turns out they turned the computer on first, then dealt with the veggies and roast, and heard the noise at that time. If the time the computer was turned on was used to timestamp when they heard the noise, that swap in detail of the order could be very important to the time line. But regardless, that sort of "reordering" happens, but it doesn't mean the witness is lying, nor are the overall events wrong, just an error in temporal sequence. Is that a big or little error though (not the impact on the investigation, just how "big" is a temporal swap compared to misremembering a van colour? How do you quantify those in order to compare them?).

    I have no doubt some of the witness details are wrong. I can't say which, but I see no reason to suspect any of them of deliberately misleading the investigation. I see no basis to suggest Richardson was lying about sitting on the steps and fixing his boot. I see no basis for suggesting Cadoch did not hear the sounds he said he heard, and no basis to suggest he didn't make 2 trips, separated by a short interval. I see no basis to suggest Long didn't see a couple outside Hanbury street somewhere between 5:15 and 5:30, and given she identifies Annie later, odds are in her favour - but of course it's not definitive proof and I'm not suggesting it is. But combined, these witnesses suggest a ToD of around 5:25.

    Dr. Phillips provides an estimate of 2 hours PMI, which Baxter tells us refers to 4:30, just under an hour over the witness ToD. If we presume he used temperature readings and the calculation available to him, then we can use the corrected calculation suggested in the thesis (which he could not), which recalculates his interval to be 1.5 hours, or 5:00 o'clock. That is now only out by 25 minutes, inside the very best we could do today when we have all the necessary information correctly measured. As such, none of the witnesses create such a conflict that we need to dismiss any of them as being clearly unreliable, we just need to tidy up the fine detail issues to try and sort the events into a plausible story. And that's trivial, Richardson checks the backyard, fixes his boot, and leaves. A short while later, Annie and JtR are spotted by Long as they talk outside of Hanbury street. Long passes them and goes on to the market, and shortly thereafter Annie and JtR go to the backyard. At that time, Cadoch is getting up and preparing to start his day. He goes out to the loo and hears Annie and JtR conversing, perhaps continuing negotiations. Cadoch goes back inside. He returns to the loo as he's not particularly well, and then goes back inside and on towards work. JtR, at some point strangles Annie and disembowels her, during which a noise is created against the fence as Cadoch returns back inside and then heads to work. JtR, leaves the scene, failing to close the door as he exits, and dissappears. Cadoch may have left prior to JtR and so does not see him in the street, or JtR leaves first and is out of sight when Cadoch exits for work.

    It's a simple, and tragic, story. And the bits of it we get from the different witnesses create that simple, tragic, story that is so mundane and typical of serial murder that it is treated as implausible, so that in it's place we can have the excitment of a witness who lied, or a body in plane sight overlooked, or a misidentification leading the police astray, or a body carried in from a Royal Coach and deposited in a random backyard. Those are the alternatives, those are the theories that need to get rid of three witnesses, and that need Dr. Phillips to be accurate within minutes so that he can conflict with the witnesses. But the reality is, there are no major conflicts, and the story is mundane, sad, and tragic.

    - Jeff
    Last edited by JeffHamm; 08-09-2022, 02:28 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

      Thanks Herlock,

      Obviously, I agree with your final statement. Basically, Dr. Phillip's estimate is not inconsistent with the witnesses statements and therefore cannot be used to suggest the witnesses "lied", "were mistaken", etc. There is no conflict, and therefore his estimate is not something that points to the witnesses being inaccurate in any way.

      Sure, they still could be, the fact that Dr. P's statement is consistent with them doesn't mean they spoke the gospel. There's clearly some fine detail conflict between the statements when one goes over them with a fine toothed comb, but as we know, that too is to be expected even if the overall testimony is correct.

      It is generally more difficult to describe "margins of error" with respect to witness statements because a lot of what a witness states is qualitative in nature. Measurements or estimates of duration are easy things to work with because they are quantitative values, we just do the maths and get values that represent the central tendency and the error ranges, in nice easy numbers. Witness statements tend to be more qualitative (i.e. if they misreport the van as light blue rather than white - it's always a white van isn't it? - then how big is that error? It's the wrong colour, but is it bigger/smaller than someone else who describes it as a silver van? What about a white station wagon? What if they say Ford rather than Chevrolet? Those are errors, but which is the bigger? What colours should we expect as our margin of error if the van is white? what about blue vans? Or red vans? What's the +- range on those? I have no idea. Certainly it is possible to look at the distributions of such errors, but that is a really big project, and would be very time consuming, particularly since one would want different "error ranges" for daylight, twilight, and dark conditions - and what about fog? or ....) These are errors, but they are harder to quantify.

      While I've not looked as much at such types of errors, barring a witness being deliberately misleading, from what I recall the errors tend to be most commonly in the fine details (i.e. colour, make of vehicle, etc), with temporal "re-ordering" of closely occurring events (i.e. I cut up my veggies to go with the roast in the oven, then turned on my computer, and that's when I heard the noise outside .... but it turns out they turned the computer on first, then dealt with the veggies and roast, and heard the noise at that time. If the time the computer was turned on was used to timestamp when they heard the noise, that swap in detail of the order could be very important to the time line. But regardless, that sort of "reordering" happens, but it doesn't mean the witness is lying, nor are the overall events wrong, just an error in temporal sequence. Is that a big or little error though (not the impact on the investigation, just how "big" is a temporal swap compared to misremembering a van colour? How do you quantify those in order to compare them?).

      I have no doubt some of the witness details are wrong. I can't say which, but I see no reason to suspect any of them of deliberately misleading the investigation. I see no basis to suggest Richardson was lying about sitting on the steps and fixing his boot. I see no basis for suggesting Cadoch did not hear the sounds he said he heard, and no basis to suggest he didn't make 2 trips, separated by a short interval. I see no basis to suggest Long didn't see a couple outside Hanbury street somewhere between 5:15 and 5:30, and given she identifies Annie later, odds are in her favour - but of course it's not definitive proof and I'm not suggesting it is. But combined, these witnesses suggest a ToD of around 5:25.

      Dr. Phillips provides an estimate of 2 hours PMI, which Baxter tells us refers to 4:30, just under an hour over the witness ToD. If we presume he used temperature readings and the calculation available to him, then we can use the corrected calculation suggested in the thesis (which he could not), which recalculates his interval to be 1.5 hours, or 5:00 o'clock. That is now only out by 25 minutes, inside the very best we could do today when we have all the necessary information correctly measured. As such, none of the witnesses create such a conflict that we need to dismiss any of them as being clearly unreliable, we just need to tidy up the fine detail issues to try and sort the events into a plausible story. And that's trivial, Richardson checks the backyard, fixes his boot, and leaves. A short while later, Annie and JtR are spotted by Long as they talk outside of Hanbury street. Long passes them and goes on to the market, and shortly thereafter Annie and JtR go to the backyard. At that time, Cadoch is getting up and preparing to start his day. He goes out to the loo and hears Annie and JtR conversing, perhaps continuing negotiations. Cadoch goes back inside. He returns to the loo as he's not particularly well, and then goes back inside and on towards work. JtR, at some point strangles Annie and disembowels her, during which a noise is created against the fence as Cadoch returns back inside and then heads to work. JtR, leaves the scene, failing to close the door as he exits, and dissappears. Cadoch may have left prior to JtR and so does not see him in the street, or JtR leaves first and is out of sight when Cadoch exits for work.

      It's a simple, and tragic, story. And the bits of it we get from the different witnesses create that simple, tragic, story that is so mundane and typical of serial murder that it is treated as implausible, so that in it's place we can have the excitment of a witness who lied, or a body in plane sight overlooked, or a misidentification leading the police astray, or a body carried in from a Royal Coach and deposited in a random backyard. Those are the alternatives, those are the theories that need to get rid of three witnesses, and that need Dr. Phillips to be accurate within minutes so that he can conflict with the witnesses. But the reality is, there are no major conflicts, and the story is mundane, sad, and tragic.

      - Jeff
      hi jeff
      excellent post as usual. i would just add to your scenario that cadosh leaves for work before the ripper, as the ripper would be taking some time mutilating chapman, and the ripper leaves after cadosh leaving the door open, which davis sees and also then discovers chapmans body immediately upon opening the back door.
      "Is all that we see or seem
      but a dream within a dream?"

      -Edgar Allan Poe


      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

      -Frederick G. Abberline

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

        thanks for all the info and insight Jeff. much appreciated!
        No problem Abby. To be honest, while I knew it was possible the very short interval could be more error prone, I had expected to find that the error margin would tend to narrow a bit (it is not uncommon for smaller predicted values to also have smaller associated errors) although I was thinking they might narrow to the lower limit of +-3 hours. The values in the thesis, while unfortunately a small sample, produced 11 over-estimations and only 1 under-estimation (of 50 minutes from a true PMI of 3.5 hours). Finding that the average overestimation for intervals less than 3 hours was so large (overestimated by 5.6 hours on average) was a bit unexpected. Given the small sample, though, it wouldn't surprise me if that were to come down closer to 3 hours, but at the same time, I also wouldn't be surprised if it is not too far off the mark either.

        I've always known that ToD estimations are considered imprecise, and have substantial margins of error associated with them, but until now I've not really delved into the literature to find some actual numbers to put to those descriptions. I think these are important starting points.

        - Jeff

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
          Now, if Dr. Phillips did take actual body temperature readings, which we have no indication that he did, but going with that assumption then is 2 hour estimate for the PMI means he must have measured a 3 degree drop in temperature (3/1.5 = 2; and that would be the version of the Glaisser Equation he would have access to).

          The thesis found that TempDrop/2 produced a more accurate estimate, so that means we can calculate that more accurate estimate ourselves, producing an estimated PMI of 1.5 hours (3/2 = 1.5 hours)....
          Jeff.

          I posted some pages from Legal Medicine, 1885. post 1087, in Phillips's day it was believed the body drops in temp. about 1 Deg. F per hour. until it reaches the ambient temp. level of the surrounding air.
          https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...439#post791439
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

            hi jeff
            excellent post as usual. i would just add to your scenario that cadosh leaves for work before the ripper, as the ripper would be taking some time mutilating chapman, and the ripper leaves after cadosh leaving the door open, which davis sees and also then discovers chapmans body immediately upon opening the back door.
            Hi Abby,

            Yah, I think I did include the JtR leaves after Cadoch part as one option (and so Cadoch did not have the opportunity to see the open door), but you're right, the final part of the story is Davis arriving to find the door open, and Annie has been murdered in the backyard. From beginning to end it all fits, and where it doesn't correspond exactly to the statements it differs only in specific details of the sort that eye witness testimony is often erroneous with. Really, the only "mistake" of any real note in the whole thing is Long misremembers the time as 5:30 when it was 5:15 at the time of her sighting (or alternatively, that the clock she based her time on was roughly 15 minutes fast compared to the Spitalfields clock, that Cadoch notes the time 5:32 while on his way to work). One statement of the time, compared with an entire story (Richardson), multiple statements of things heard and actions done (Cadoch), and also an identification of the body (Long), only so that a PMI that still cannot differentiate 4:30 from 5:25 can be argued for as if it were reliable. It's not, removing the witnesses does not in any way improve the accuracy of that estimate. It is what it is, an interval with a very wide margin of error, and one that most likely has overestimated the actual true value.

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

              Jeff.

              I posted some pages from Legal Medicine, 1885. post 1087, in Phillips's day it was believed the body drops in temp. about 1 Deg. F per hour. until it reaches the ambient temp. level of the surrounding air.
              https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...439#post791439
              Hi Wickerman,

              Oh, that's interesting. Ok, let's say he used that, so his 2 hours means a 2F drop (1 per hour, he said 2, etc). Using the "more accurate" version then means his 2 degree drop = 1 hour PMI.

              That would mean he is now saying 5:30, which is only 5 minutes off the witness time of 5:25ish.

              And I hope that is a difference nobody wants to suggest makes a difference.

              - Jeff

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                hi jeff
                excellent post as usual...
                What he said!

                Great series of posts Jeff, thanks for all your effort.
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                  What he said!

                  Great series of posts Jeff, thanks for all your effort.
                  Thanks Wickerman. I'm glad to have been able to provide something for people to think about. I feel it's about time I give something back given how much great information I've been given from everyone here.

                  - Jeff
                  Last edited by JeffHamm; 08-09-2022, 03:50 AM.

                  Comment


                  • If long was correct as to time,and Phillips estimate of more than two hours was correct,what then?
                    Certainly Jeff,one can build a theory on possibilities that if true,can support a certain conclusion.All Ripper theories are built that way.It is the proving of the theories that create problems.Doesn't take much to tip the balance.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                      Thanks Herlock,

                      Obviously, I agree with your final statement. Basically, Dr. Phillip's estimate is not inconsistent with the witnesses statements and therefore cannot be used to suggest the witnesses "lied", "were mistaken", etc. There is no conflict, and therefore his estimate is not something that points to the witnesses being inaccurate in any way.

                      Sure, they still could be, the fact that Dr. P's statement is consistent with them doesn't mean they spoke the gospel. There's clearly some fine detail conflict between the statements when one goes over them with a fine toothed comb, but as we know, that too is to be expected even if the overall testimony is correct.

                      It is generally more difficult to describe "margins of error" with respect to witness statements because a lot of what a witness states is qualitative in nature. Measurements or estimates of duration are easy things to work with because they are quantitative values, we just do the maths and get values that represent the central tendency and the error ranges, in nice easy numbers. Witness statements tend to be more qualitative (i.e. if they misreport the van as light blue rather than white - it's always a white van isn't it? - then how big is that error? It's the wrong colour, but is it bigger/smaller than someone else who describes it as a silver van? What about a white station wagon? What if they say Ford rather than Chevrolet? Those are errors, but which is the bigger? What colours should we expect as our margin of error if the van is white? what about blue vans? Or red vans? What's the +- range on those? I have no idea. Certainly it is possible to look at the distributions of such errors, but that is a really big project, and would be very time consuming, particularly since one would want different "error ranges" for daylight, twilight, and dark conditions - and what about fog? or ....) These are errors, but they are harder to quantify.

                      While I've not looked as much at such types of errors, barring a witness being deliberately misleading, from what I recall the errors tend to be most commonly in the fine details (i.e. colour, make of vehicle, etc), with temporal "re-ordering" of closely occurring events (i.e. I cut up my veggies to go with the roast in the oven, then turned on my computer, and that's when I heard the noise outside .... but it turns out they turned the computer on first, then dealt with the veggies and roast, and heard the noise at that time. If the time the computer was turned on was used to timestamp when they heard the noise, that swap in detail of the order could be very important to the time line. But regardless, that sort of "reordering" happens, but it doesn't mean the witness is lying, nor are the overall events wrong, just an error in temporal sequence. Is that a big or little error though (not the impact on the investigation, just how "big" is a temporal swap compared to misremembering a van colour? How do you quantify those in order to compare them?).

                      I have no doubt some of the witness details are wrong. I can't say which, but I see no reason to suspect any of them of deliberately misleading the investigation. I see no basis to suggest Richardson was lying about sitting on the steps and fixing his boot. I see no basis for suggesting Cadoch did not hear the sounds he said he heard, and no basis to suggest he didn't make 2 trips, separated by a short interval. I see no basis to suggest Long didn't see a couple outside Hanbury street somewhere between 5:15 and 5:30, and given she identifies Annie later, odds are in her favour - but of course it's not definitive proof and I'm not suggesting it is. But combined, these witnesses suggest a ToD of around 5:25.

                      Dr. Phillips provides an estimate of 2 hours PMI, which Baxter tells us refers to 4:30, just under an hour over the witness ToD. If we presume he used temperature readings and the calculation available to him, then we can use the corrected calculation suggested in the thesis (which he could not), which recalculates his interval to be 1.5 hours, or 5:00 o'clock. That is now only out by 25 minutes, inside the very best we could do today when we have all the necessary information correctly measured. As such, none of the witnesses create such a conflict that we need to dismiss any of them as being clearly unreliable, we just need to tidy up the fine detail issues to try and sort the events into a plausible story. And that's trivial, Richardson checks the backyard, fixes his boot, and leaves. A short while later, Annie and JtR are spotted by Long as they talk outside of Hanbury street. Long passes them and goes on to the market, and shortly thereafter Annie and JtR go to the backyard. At that time, Cadoch is getting up and preparing to start his day. He goes out to the loo and hears Annie and JtR conversing, perhaps continuing negotiations. Cadoch goes back inside. He returns to the loo as he's not particularly well, and then goes back inside and on towards work. JtR, at some point strangles Annie and disembowels her, during which a noise is created against the fence as Cadoch returns back inside and then heads to work. JtR, leaves the scene, failing to close the door as he exits, and dissappears. Cadoch may have left prior to JtR and so does not see him in the street, or JtR leaves first and is out of sight when Cadoch exits for work.

                      It's a simple, and tragic, story. And the bits of it we get from the different witnesses create that simple, tragic, story that is so mundane and typical of serial murder that it is treated as implausible, so that in it's place we can have the excitment of a witness who lied, or a body in plane sight overlooked, or a misidentification leading the police astray, or a body carried in from a Royal Coach and deposited in a random backyard. Those are the alternatives, those are the theories that need to get rid of three witnesses, and that need Dr. Phillips to be accurate within minutes so that he can conflict with the witnesses. But the reality is, there are no major conflicts, and the story is mundane, sad, and tragic.

                      - Jeff
                      Jeff
                      You keep saying that there is no conflict and that the witnessess support a later time of death but I will refer to Mrs Longs and Cadosh`s testimony from the telegraph and have highlighted the flaws which makes their testimony unsafe

                      Mrs Long

                      "I saw a man and a woman standing on the pavement talking. The man's back was turned towards Brick-lane, and the woman's was towards the market. They were standing only a few yards nearer Brick-lane from 29, Hanbury-street. I saw the woman's face. Have seen the deceased in the mortuary, and I am sure the woman that I saw in Hanbury-street was the deceased.

                      Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.
                      [Coroner] At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them.

                      We dont know how far she was away from the couple for a start to be able to see the womans face, and we dont know how far they were from 29 Hanbury Street, and what was so unusual that she took notice of the woman when she then says that there was nothing unusual in seeing couples standing around at that time of the morning

                      She is shown the body or Chapman at the mortuary this hardly is a good identification having only seen a glimpse of the womans face but from what distance away? and besides in death facial features change. she makes no mention of the clothes the woman was wearing, this would have been a pointer to corroborate her account and a postive pointer to the accuracy of her testimony, and more importantly she says she is sure that the body she was shown was that of Chapman being sure is not being positive there is a difference.

                      Then we have Cadosh who states "It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door.

                      Now we have a conflict, if Mrs Long is to be believed then either the woman she saw at 5.30am was not Chapman, or Cadosh`s noises he heard were not from 29 Hanbury Street.

                      These witnesses cannot be safely relied on to support a later time of death

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk






                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        Jeff
                        You keep saying that there is no conflict and that the witnessess support a later time of death but I will refer to Mrs Longs and Cadosh`s testimony from the telegraph and have highlighted the flaws which makes their testimony unsafe

                        Mrs Long

                        "I saw a man and a woman standing on the pavement talking. The man's back was turned towards Brick-lane, and the woman's was towards the market. They were standing only a few yards nearer Brick-lane from 29, Hanbury-street. I saw the woman's face. Have seen the deceased in the mortuary, and I am sure the woman that I saw in Hanbury-street was the deceased.

                        Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.
                        [Coroner] At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them.

                        We dont know how far she was away from the couple for a start to be able to see the womans face, and we dont know how far they were from 29 Hanbury Street, and what was so unusual that she took notice of the woman when she then says that there was nothing unusual in seeing couples standing around at that time of the morning

                        She is shown the body or Chapman at the mortuary this hardly is a good identification having only seen a glimpse of the womans face but from what distance away? and besides in death facial features change. she makes no mention of the clothes the woman was wearing, this would have been a pointer to corroborate her account and a postive pointer to the accuracy of her testimony, and more importantly she says she is sure that the body she was shown was that of Chapman being sure is not being positive there is a difference.

                        Then we have Cadosh who states "It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door.

                        Now we have a conflict, if Mrs Long is to be believed then either the woman she saw at 5.30am was not Chapman, or Cadosh`s noises he heard were not from 29 Hanbury Street.

                        These witnesses cannot be safely relied on to support a later time of death

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk





                        Very good points Trevor, its fairly obvious from conflicting and uncertainty surrounding ''all' the evidence [witnesses and medical ], that to draw any conclusion as to one outcome as the ''definitive one'' of the chapman murder is unsafe

                        All the back slapping and claiming ''game over '' is all well and good, but the evidence leads to other possibilities that have already been mentioned throught out this topic .
                        'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post


                          These witnesses cannot be safely relied on to support a later time of death

                          After umpteen pages, it may be useful to abbreviate the latest position, for and against, as far as I can tell:

                          1) The experienced Dr Phillips estimated a TOD given a very short PMI and was unequivocal in his belief that Annie had been dead at least two hours.

                          2) Dr Phillips had body temperature and rigor mortis to assist him. Rigor had 'commenced of the limbs'. So, not in the initially observable part of the body meaning this was not the onset of rigor. Furthermore, rigor is delayed when the environmental temperature is cool.

                          3) Dr Phillips had Annie's stomach contents to support his TOD also. Potato is an easily digested food, within 1 hour seems to be the consensus. Having said that, a baked potato is not quite as easily digested as other forms of potato.

                          4) Jeff has provided research based on examining bodies with a PMI of 5-50 hours and utilising solely body temperature. It is not clear how many bodies were used in the research, nor the PMI specific to each, but I think it's reasonable to assume some of those bodies had been dead for more than a day.

                          5) In Long's own words: she did not take much notice of the couple, she regularly saw couples at that time of the morning, and she did not see where they went. It should be said, however, that Mrs Long claimed to have seen Annie's face and was adamant that Annie was the person whom she saw.

                          6) Cadosch heard noises at a time when there is a lot activity in the area. He heard "no" and a noise seemingly against a fence. It should be said that Annie's body was found next to a fence.

                          7) Long and Cadosch are not consistent in terms of time. Both believed they knew what time it was. It follows that in order to claim these two events are linked and both were witness to the Whitechapel Murderer, then you have to perform mental acrobatics and invent scenarios.

                          8) Richardson was sure the body was not in the yard. I infer he could see into that part of the yard. What is far more suspect about Richardson's statement, in my opinion, is that when Richardson took the knife to the inquest, he was challenged and for the first time we hear that he borrowed one from the market. The knife issue is worthy of being a prerequisite for questioning Richardson's credibility.

                          I think that's about the meat of it.

                          On balance, I think the experienced medical man has more to offer.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                            Yes just as he could have been right ,as you yourself have mentioned, . And the same goes for the witnesses. Bingo we agree .

                            Did you get that Abby, the whole point of the topic from my first post.

                            Its not a contest whos wrong or right its only peoples opinions . The truth of the matter can never be determined one way or the other.based on the uncertainty evidence at hand .
                            But the whole argument has been caused by posters trying to cast doubt on the modern experts who told us that Dr. Phillips couldn’t possibly have made a more accurate estimate in 1888 than experts can today in regard to his minimum TOD estimate. A proposition that has been proven absolutely wrong. No one has ever said that Phillips must have been wrong Fishy but there are some who have, at the very least, said that we should consider that Phillips would have been overwhelmingly likely to have been correct because he was a Doctor and because he was competent and because he was there.

                            Ive said all along, without any medical knowledge myself but just by reading what the experts tell us, that Phillips is of no use to us when evaluating the witnesses. I received a lot of criticism for this, as if I was somehow insulting Phillips, but I was right. Phillips cannot help us when evaluating the witnesses. Yes, individuals can certainly still believe that they were dishonest or mistaken, but they can’t do it by saying “the witnesses must have been wrong because Dr. Phillips TOD” tells us so. I also spent weeks arguing with Fisherman on this subject. You and a few others sided with his argument about Phillips. So whilst there’s no point dwelling on the past and I’m not making an issue about this concerning you Fishy, I’m just pointing out why I’m glad that the point has finally been categorically been proven and that we should now be able to move on.

                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes

                            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              Jeff
                              You keep saying that there is no conflict and that the witnessess support a later time of death but I will refer to Mrs Longs and Cadosh`s testimony from the telegraph and have highlighted the flaws which makes their testimony unsafe

                              ...
                              Hi Trevor,

                              No, actually I don't say that. I've pointed out the conflict between Long and Cadoch in my posts, and suggest that may be nothing more than the type of error that is contained within witness testimony (note, I don't say witness testimony is without error). Our job is to try and separate the "truth" from the "error", and that is a complex problem.

                              - Jeff

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                                After umpteen pages, it may be useful to abbreviate the latest position, for and against, as far as I can tell:

                                1) The experienced Dr Phillips estimated a TOD given a very short PMI and was unequivocal in his belief that Annie had been dead at least two hours.

                                His experience is irrelevant.

                                2) Dr Phillips had body temperature and rigor mortis to assist him. Rigor had 'commenced of the limbs'. So, not in the initially observable part of the body meaning this was not the onset of rigor. Furthermore, rigor is delayed when the environmental temperature is cool.

                                Both methods have been shown by experts to have been extremely unreliable.

                                3) Dr Phillips had Annie's stomach contents to support his TOD also. Potato is an easily digested food, within 1 hour seems to be the consensus. Having said that, a baked potato is not quite as easily digested as other forms of potato.

                                I recall that one being answered on another thread but as I have no medical knowledge I can’t comment.

                                But we know when Annie ate one potato. How can we know that she didn’t eat another at some point?


                                4) Jeff has provided research based on examining bodies with a PMI of 5-50 hours and utilising solely body temperature. It is not clear how many bodies were used in the research, nor the PMI specific to each, but I think it's reasonable to assume some of those bodies had been dead for more than a day.

                                Jeff has proven his point conclusively.

                                5) In Long's own words: she did not take much notice of the couple, she regularly saw couples at that time of the morning, and she did not see where they went. It should be said, however, that Mrs Long claimed to have seen Annie's face and was adamant that Annie was the person whom she saw.

                                Mrs Long could have been wrong. I don’t see anyone claiming that she was infallible?

                                6) Cadosch heard noises at a time when there is a lot activity in the area. He heard "no" and a noise seemingly against a fence. It should be said that Annie's body was found next to a fence.

                                He heard a noise and a word coming from a yard where, according to Phillips, there should have been an horrifically mutilated corpse lying.

                                7) Long and Cadosch are not consistent in terms of time. Both believed they knew what time it was. It follows that in order to claim these two events are linked and both were witness to the Whitechapel Murderer, then you have to perform mental acrobatics and invent scenarios.

                                I don’t see how it’s ‘mental acrobatics’ to even suggest possibility that Long heard the quarter past bell and mistook it for the half past one? Especially if she wasn’t waiting to hear it and she was simply walking along lost in her own thoughts.

                                8) Richardson was sure the body was not in the yard. I infer he could see into that part of the yard. What is far more suspect about Richardson's statement, in my opinion, is that when Richardson took the knife to the inquest, he was challenged and for the first time we hear that he borrowed one from the market. The knife issue is worthy of being a prerequisite for questioning Richardson's credibility.

                                He found that his own knife wasn’t sharp enough to complete the tax so he used a sharper one from the market. Where is the mystery? Why would he make up a lie about a knife in the first place when he had no reason to?

                                I think that's about the meat of it.

                                On balance, I think the experienced medical man has more to offer.
                                An absolutely staggering conclusion. You favour the Doctors guess over the witnesses! You will still go to these lengths. You still can’t bring yourself to admit that Jeff has proven the point conclusively. Sad. But I can’t say that I’m surprised in your case.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                                “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X