John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm of the understanding that Catherine had Bright's Disease, which would impact the kidneys and digestion.

Apparently, there was no fluid in Catherine's stomach and this surely would have been the easiest way to her heart.

Furthermore, it would depend on what was eaten.

I'm not convinced the conclusion was 'partially digested food' in the stomach, although I don't rule it out. What exactly is the 'cut end' of the stomach?

Edited to add: it is not beyond the realms of possibility that he fed his victims but what may be instructive is that he didn't need to, prostitution doesn't usually involve the provision of food.

Are you a descendant of Dr. Phillips.

[Trevor Marriott]

Im sorry but I’m just tired of you repeating the same old lines without ever actually listening to anything anyone else says!!!!

Im not RELYING on anything. Try to understand this Trevor. I am not, I repeat NOT relying on anything!

If I was relying on any witness I would be saying - well x MUST be true because y said this.

But I’m not saying that. I’ve never said that. I haven’t hinted at it. Suggested it. Inferred it. Postulated it. Whispered it. Indicated it in sign language or tried to transmit it via telepathy!

Thread after thread. Week after week you say exactly the same thing……I explain it…..and then you repeat three posts later as if I’d never said anything in the first place! Disagree with absolutely everything I say if you want. No problem at all. But stop accusing me of saying something I’ve never said or of thinking something that I’ve never thought.

I am NOT relying on anything.

I’ve assessed the witness using my own mind looking at every angle and possibility and I have formed my own opinion just as everyone else has. I haven’t said that my opinion must be correct. On any conclusion which can’t be 100% proven we rely on interpretation, assessment and opinion. I have formed my own, you have formed yours.

Why the hell is such a simple concept so difficult for you to grasp that you still feel the compulsion to repeat the same thing over and over again?

I repeat it because you are the one who wont listen to what is being said, you clearly have your mind made up as to who you want to belive and that is your perogative but let me ask yout two questions. Simple answers will suffice like yes or no

1. Do you belive that the witness testimony is unsafe because of the conflicts which have been highlighted?
2. Do you think that in view of those conflicts Dr Phillips coule be correct about the TOD?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fleetwood Mac]

First section of his testimony:

“I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door. “

Second part of his testimony:

“produced the knife - a much-worn dessert knife - with which he had cut his boot. He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market.”

Aye, Richardson changed his tune upon producing the knife and being challenged to its capabilities. Disconcertingly, Richardson didn't think to mention the borrowed knife from the market, which is not verified, when he said: "cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old-table knife".

There is a rabbit away, Sherlock.

[Trevor Marriott]

As we know, Richardson said:

“[Coroner] Did you go into the yard? - No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market”

The he was sent to fetch his knife and returned. We don’t know how long he was away but it can’t have been too long as he was recalled on the same day to say:

“produced the knife - a much-worn dessert knife - with which he had cut his boot. He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market.
By the Jury: My mother has heard me speak of people having been in the house. She has heard them herself.
The Coroner: I think we will detain this knife for the present.”

So if it’s being asked - why did he say that he’d used the knife to cut his boot and then say he’d had to use one at the market id say that it’s fairly obvious.

Firstly, do we really thing that between the his first testimony and his second he decided to change his story?

And secondly, we can’t help but notice that no one (coroner or juror) said - hold on, you said you cut your boot with the first knife, why did you need the one at the market?

Clearly he meant that when he cut with the original he managed to cut of a piece of leather but it wasn’t enough to do the job properly (to cut enough off or cut cut off a piece in an awkward location inside the boot). So he used a sharper one at the market to do a proper job. If there was anything suspicious at the time why didn’t they ask him to produce the sharper one. No one at the inquest saw anything suspicious in the knife story. I’d mention that he also have to remember that these transcripts weren’t necessarily verbatim reports. I missed word or a missed sentence can make a perfectly normal statement sound strange to those (us) that didn’t hear the full version. No one else thought it suspicious after hearing it word for word, so why should we?

Stop flanneling !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Again, I didn't say there was no conflict, I said the conflict that there is tends to be in the specific details that are prone to error in eyewitness testimonies; just like I've been arguing that Dr. Phillips' estimated PMI is prone to error, and as I look at the data more will go so far as to say that the tools he had available to him are prone to large overestimations of very short PMI.

I'm also very aware that sometimes the devil is in the detail, and conflict on those specific details are not something we would just want to go "Oh, that's fine, I'm sure it's just a mistake", but re-examine the witness, and look for more objective information to try and sort out the errors from the truths. Sadly, we can't do that anymore. What I'm saying here is I fully understand your concerns and can see how one could conclude there are some issues with the eye-witness statements as made that need resolution. In fact, I agree with that. But since we can't re-investigate or gather new information, all we can do is offer suggestions on how that resolution could be made. I tend to favor the notion that the conflict arises from nothing more than the variation one finds for memory, and how people recount events, etc (annoying stuff, rather than deliberate falsehoods). That may be wrong though, I can't say, it's just one possible solution that ties up everything we have. There are other ways to package things, though, and to each their own.

And as I say, I do believe Phillips gave his opinion. While there's no evidence that he took actual temperature readings, even if he did, the methods he would have available to him would overestimate the PMI, and possible even double it. If we assume he took readings, though, we can reconstruct his values and recalculate the PMI using a more reliable method for short intervals, and in so doing we see that the temperature drop he must have recorded to get his 2 hour PMI recalculates to be much closer (and under one set of possibilities, pretty much exactly) the time we get from the witnesses. So if you think he took temperature readings, don't you think it behooves us to apply his readings to a more reliable method so that we get a better idea of the PMI?

Of course, if he didn't actually take temperature readings, and just estimated the PMI by touch, then really his opinion should just be set aside as being, for all intents and purposes, useless to us as we know that method is associated with such a wide margin of error as to be considered unreliable.

I guess I just don't understand how you get to the notion of an earlier ToD given that if he took actual measurements that would, given the knowledge of the day, lead him to overestimate the PMI, and if he didn't, his estimate is based upon faulty methods. I really don't see how either of those can lead you to the conclusion that the PMI must be greater than what Dr. Phillips suggests?

- Jeff

But we dont know how Phillips arrived at the estimated time of death, and you have done some sterling work on this topic but that being said no two murder victims bodies will react in the same way as far as cooling is concerned there are many factors which will be diffferent in each murder, so the figures you have quoted cannot safely be attributed to Chapman all you are in effect doing is using the figures to guess a likley time of death the same as Phillips did.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

But we dont know how Phillips arrived at the estimated time of death, and you have done some sterling work on this topic but that being said no two murder victims bodies will react in the same way as far as cooling is concerned there are many factors which will be diffferent in each murder, so the figures you have quoted cannot safely be attributed to Chapman all you are in effect doing is using the figures to guess a likley time of death the same as Phillips did.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I agree, we don't know how he arrived at his estimation. We don't even know if he took temperature readings, there's certainly nothing in his testimony to indicate he did. What we do know though, is if he didn't take actual temperatures and just touched the body then his opinion is effectively worthless.

On the other hand, it may be he did take temperature readings and it doesn't get mentioned because it is so standard to do so. That possibility has to be examined.

Now, we know what calculations were available to Dr. Phillips that he might use to make an estimate of the PMI based upon temperature readings. Those equations are fairly simple, and are basically PMI = TempDrop/coolingRate. Generally the cooling rate is considered to be 1.5 degrees F per hour, which would mean if he took a reading his temperature drop must have been 3 to get a PMI of 2. Wickerman, however, has found a reference that in 1888 it is quite possible Dr. Phillips would have used a cooling rate of 1F/hour, in which his TempDrop must have been 2 degrees F.

Modern research indicates that the PMI is overestimated by both of these cooling rates when using this method (which is the only one I am aware of that Dr. Phillips might have known about). So if Dr. Phillips used actual temperature readings, the method he had available to him will overestimate the PMI; that's not an opinion, it's a fact that the method available to him was not as refined as we now know it can be. We can use a more accurate (but still not great) version of the same calculation, where the cooling rate is 2F/hour. That would result in Dr. Phillips PMI being recalculated as either 1.5 or 1 hour, depending upon which rate he used.

Since I don't know which rate he used, and either seems plausible, I present both possibilities. And in the end, it doesn't matter which he uses because the difference between these recalculated PMIs and the one based upon the witnesses end up being sufficiently close to each other in both cases, well within a range that allows both to be considered consistent.

As I say, to the best of my knowledge there are no other calculations that Dr. Phillips would have had available to him to calculated an estimated PMI from temperature readings. Obviously, that doesn't mean there wasn't one, but until someone can present it and show it existed, we can't evaluate it.

And yes, I do consider these calculations as producing a guesstimate because they are associated with such wide margins of error. Even unaltered, Dr. Phillips 2 hour PMI is still close enough to the witness based 1 hour PMI that we cannot say the medical testimony conflicts with the witness testimony; again, that's not an opinion it is a fact. This is really the point I'm trying to make.

Dr. Phillips expert testimony does not conflict with the witnesses because the margins of error associated with estimating ToD from temperature readings are so large that his stated PMI overlaps with the time the witnesses indicate.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

I repeat it because you are the one who wont listen to what is being said, you clearly have your mind made up as to who you want to belive and that is your perogative but let me ask yout two questions. Simple answers will suffice like yes or no

1. Do you belive that the witness testimony is unsafe because of the conflicts which have been highlighted?

No. They could still be correct. And I think that the evidence points to the fact that they were correct.

2. Do you think that in view of those conflicts Dr Phillips coule be correct about the TOD?

Any guess could be correct. But it’s nothing to do with the witnesses.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Phillips probably was correct. He guessed at a minimum of 2 hours but added the caveat that the conditions could have meant less than 2 hours. As Jeff has proven with proper evidence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Stop flanneling !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Too complicated for you is it.

Witness makes a trivial error - bin him!
Witness doesn’t mention something until further questioning - bin him!
Witness disagrees with a Doctors guess - bin him!
Witness disagrees with Trevor set-in-stone opinion - bin him!

Thankfully most posters don’t exist in a black and white world.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Aye, Richardson changed his tune upon producing the knife and being challenged to its capabilities. Disconcertingly, Richardson didn't think to mention the borrowed knife from the market, which is not verified, when he said: "cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old-table knife".

There is a rabbit away, Sherlock.

Are you unable of comprehending the simplest of things? Show me where he ‘changed’ anything. And I don’t mean in your imagination.

Write on this.

[harry]

As the'Models'used give a plus or minus error,it is equally fair to state that Phillips might have underestimated.If the error was as much as one hour,a figure that has been mentioned,then it pushes the time of death well back into the early hours.
Like I mentioned before,the elements of a theory show a possible solution.Those elements have to be proven.to give a correct answer.
One can manipulate Phillips,Long's,and Cadoche's testimony,to show a possibility agreement,but only by refusing to accept there are alternatives.

[FISHY1118]

[QUOTE=FISHY1118;n789045]









.





A further consultation of the detectives engaged in the case was held this morning, and an officer again visited the back-yard of No. 29, Hanbury-street, and made a careful inspection of the palings leading from that house to No. 27, where resides the young man Cadosh, who stated at the inquest that he heard sounds proceed from the spot where the body lay at a quarter-past five on the morning of the murder. An examination of the fence shows that immediately over the place in the yard there is an aperture in the palings by which the dead body could have been plainly visible, while anyone moving in the yard might easily have been seen.14 Echo Sept 20th 1888.[/QUOTE]

Just for those who might be interested, here is a ''3rd'' contemporary sketch of the back yard of 29 handbury st,

My concern with Cadosch is at 5.30am in what must have been now daylight how is it possible he didnt see the killer and Chapman through those fence pickets? . As is also the suggestion of the above newspaper article

[GBinOz]

2. You also seem to feel that it’s somehow suspicious that he said that he’d cut his boot and then mentioned that it wasn’t sharp enough to cut. So your interpretation is that Richardson was saying, in effect - I cut a piece from by boot but the knife wasn’t sharp enough to cut a piece from my boot - which would clearly have been gibberish.

Hi Herlock,

I'm sure that you would have seen a nineteenth century dessert knife. I inherited a set of cutlery from my grandparents, bone handled, made in England in the early 1900's. The dessert knives have rounded points and blunt (Richardson's was also rusty and had the handle missing). They were designed to cut sponge cake or custard tarts. No one in their right mind would imagine that they could cut a tough steak let alone boot leather. He could not have cut the leather with that knife, but he said he did. Human memory can be adjusted without the custodian of that memory being aware of that adjustment. Or, he may have been lying.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Just on the above, and only in light of what this thread discussion is at the moment.

Regarding the accuracy of witnesses testimony solely for the purpose of establishing a definitve t.o.d , I just find it difficult to accept that such testimony is conclusive to that time with this such evidence . imo

[FISHY1118]

Hi Herlock,

I'm sure that you would have seen a nineteenth century dessert knife. I inherited a set of cutlery from my grandparents, bone handled, made in England in the early 1900's. The dessert knives have rounded points and blunt (Richardson's was also rusty and had the handle missing). They were designed to cut sponge cake or custard tarts. No one in their right mind would imagine that they could cut a tough steak let alone boot leather. He could not have cut the leather with that knife, but he said he did. Human memory can be adjusted without the custodian of that memory being aware of that adjustment. Or, he may have been lying.

Cheers, George

For god sake George dont even suggest he was lying. [bit of a joke]

[FISHY1118]

Or evidence of honesty and proper judgment. If he was a liar why didn’t he just say that the ‘no’ definitely came from the yard? Why didn’t he say “I heard a man and a woman arguing but just thought that it was Richardson and his mother so I took no notice?” When someone shows caution it often means that they are cautious by nature and use judgment. Cadosch was confident about the noise though. This makes him likeliest to have been truthful and correct.

He had no reason to lie and what measure of a ‘15 minutes of fame’ would he have got in the LVP with the high level of illiteracy and poor literacy and with the people that he’d have associated with being largely dirt poor with more important things to spend their money on that newspapers (like food) So he would really need a reason for lying.

Im pretty sure my post had little to do with him being a liar herlock ,more to the fact i was merely point out that what cadosch heard might not have been the killer and annie conversing in the back yard, and that the noise agaisnt the fence [ yes he was sure about that i agree] might not have been her or the killer either , based on his uncertainty of the 'no' . imo