John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have continually stated that newspaper reports are unreliable and articles in the various newspaper articles conflict with each other, and this is a classic example, so which one is correct, they both cant be correct? Yet you go for the telegraph as being the corrcet version but that is because it fits with what you believe.

In criminal investigations personal beliefs count for nothing its what the evidence tells us and the evidence you seek to rely on for a later murder time is unsafe to totally rely on Mrs Long gives a time of 5.30am when she purportedly sees Chapman. Cadosh hears the bump and a voice at 5.20am so if the murder was taking place at that time and Dr Phillips arrived and examined the body at 6.30am. If you believe Cadosh then when Phillips examined the body and stated rigor had commenced it would not have set in an hour.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No Trevor I go for The Telegraph because very simple logic supports it. Why would a reporter add a detail like this if it wasn’t actually said:

[Coroner] Did you sit on the top step? - No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard.

Are you suggesting that The Telegraph reporter imagined the above or invented it?

The Times version is just a general run down of what was said without the specific questions contained in The Telegraph version. I’m a little surprised that you would compare the two.

So my opinion is based of very clear logic and reason.

evidence you seek to rely on

Please change the record Trevor.

. Mrs Long gives a time of 5.30am when she purportedly sees Chapman

Mrs Long is a separate issue to the subject of this thread. She might simply have seen a different couple of course. Or she might have got her time wrong. I see nothing that favours either suggestion.

If you believe Cadosh then when Phillips examined the body and stated rigor had commenced it would not have set in an hour.

It’s also possible that by the time Phillips checked her body temperature she’d been dead for around an hour and twenty minutes. Rigor can set in in under an hour by the way. I posted the quotes that showed this Trevor. But as Wickerman pointed out Phillips estimated the TOD by temperature.

Trevor if you really want something that you can use your favourite phrase ‘unsafe to rely on’ on, I’d suggest Phillips TOD estimation which was little more than guesswork. I really can’t understand why, after the mountains of evidence that has been provided, you can still use him as support. On this aspect of the case Phillips helps no one. It’s a bit rich then that you can accuse me of supporting a version of the inquest that supports my position. As I’ve explain, and it should be clear to all, I based it on logic, reason and common sense. Unlike you who very conveniently support the unreliable estimate of Phillips. It’s about time the nonsense that’s been talked about Phillips TOD is put to bed. His estimation is ‘unsafe to rely on.’ And THAT is just a fact Trevor.

[GBinOz]

Hi Herlock,

I am wondering as to your opinion on the ToD of MJK. Two women claimed to have heard cries of murder, one of whom had previously said she heard nothing, but both said such cries were so commonplace that they simply went back to sleep. Then there are two eye witnesses who said they saw her that morning. Since you have nailed your colours to the mast on the total unreliability of Victorian medical opinion, I don't expect you will want to include that in your assessment.

Cheers, George

[harry]

No amount of wriggling will alter what Wickerman posted.He claimed the law presumed witnesses will tell the truth,and Herlock is wrong,there would be a specific law if that were true.So put up or shut up both of you.How would that presumption hold up in a court where evidence is not given on oath?If you want to argue no such court exists/existed under Englsh law,you would be wrong.So do not come up with these bizzare claims Jon,unless you are willing to prove them.
Phillip's testimony cannot be altered.He gave a minimum time of death as two hours,and added a belief that it was probably more.He was there,he touched and observed the body from close up.He was aware of the surroundings,of the air temperature,of the exposure of body parts etc.No advances in medicine can make up for his advantage.His detailed post mortem description of the injuries attest to his skill and knowledge.Of course he addd a comment of a possible error,that shows his honesty,but his principal belief of two hours or more,more than outweigh anything he added.

[DJA]

I am wondering as to your opinion on the ToD of MJK. Two women claimed to have heard cries of murder, one of whom had previously said she heard nothing, but both said such cries were so commonplace that they simply went back to sleep. Then there are two eye witnesses who said they saw her that morning. Since you have nailed your colours to the mast on the total unreliability of Victorian medical opinion, I don't expect you will want to include that in your assessment.

Cheers, George

Ironically the Vestry medical officer who stitched her body together gave her ToD to a reporter at the time.

Guess who!

[GBinOz]

Ironically the Vestry medical officer who stitched her body together gave her ToD to a reporter at the time.

Guess who!

I give up. Who?

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Phillip's testimony cannot be altered.He gave a minimum time of death as two hours,and added a belief that it was probably more.He was there,he touched and observed the body from close up.He was aware of the surroundings,of the air temperature,of the exposure of body parts etc.No advances in medicine can make up for his advantage.His detailed post mortem description of the injuries attest to his skill and knowledge.Of course he addd a comment of a possible error,that shows his honesty,but his principal belief of two hours or more,more than outweigh anything he added.

Well said harry.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Why did he wait until he got to 29 Hanbury Street before deciding to cut this piece of leather, after all we can assume that it was the same pair of shoes he had been wearing the day before, and surely he would have been aware of the need for this repair when he put then on that morning, or even the day before, and at that time he had access to a knife when he first put them on so why wait until he got to Hanbury Street.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Very good point Trevor. Alternatively, why didn't he wait the few minutes until he got to work at the Markets. That's where he says he actually achieved success, when he had an adequate work surface, an adequate knife and more light, rather than sitting in the dark on a damp stone step, juggling the boot on his knee and using a blunt knife.

Cheers, George

[DJA]

I give up. Who?

Cheers, George

Teaching pathologist at The London Hospital

[GBinOz]

Teaching pathologist at The London Hospital

Henry Gawain Sutton? Do you have a link to a newspaper report? What was his ToD?
Any progress on your movie, or a book, or a full reveal of your JtR theory?

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

With respect to the question of Kelly's official time of death, it is probably as well to point out it was never definitely established.
So, playing one side (medical testimony) against the other (witness testimony) produces nothing of value, when neither side could provide a specific time.

On the medical side we have a report written on the Saturday, 10 Nov., Dr Bond following the official post-mortem where he told Anderson:
"....so one or two o'clock in the morning would be the probable time of the murder".

Nothing official is known to have come from Dr Phillips, but on the Sunday in Lloyds Weekly we read that Dr. Bond, Dr Gordon-Brown & Dr Phillips, after closing the official post-mortem on Saturday, concluded:
"...the murdered woman had undoubtedly been dead for some hours when first discovered, and that in all probability the crime was committed as early as two or three o'clock in the morning".

Which also shows how wide open to interpretation the established methodology was in 1888.


From the witness side we have Elizabeth Prater who swore she heard the cry of 'murder' as she was woken by her kitten:
"...at 3:30 to 4, but probably after 4" (official record).

Sarah Lewis who heard a cry of 'murder':
"...a little before 4." (official record).

Mrs Kennedy, heard a cry of 'murder' between:
"...3:30 and a quarter to 4" (press statement).
However, in the Evening News we read that Kennedy had passed Kelly outside the Britannia "about three o'clock" that morning.

Then of course we have Mrs Maxwell who claimed to have seen Kelly twice later Friday morning, first "between eight and eight thirty" outside Millers Court, then "about quarter to nine", outside the Britannia pub.
Against this we have the landlady of the Britannia who told the press Kelly had not been in the pub that morning, it was a slow morning so she was sure.

Although there is no certainty, witness testimony that claims a cry of 'murder' could better identify a time of death is difficult to contest.

Maxwell aside, Kelly must have been murdered between 3:30 - 4:00 am, regardless of the medical testimony.
Accepting a discrepancy of one to two hours in the medical testimony is consistent with what we appear to have with the Chapman case.

[GBinOz]

With respect to the question of Kelly's official time of death, it is probably as well to point out it was never definitely established.
So, playing one side (medical testimony) against the other (witness testimony) produces nothing of value, when neither side could provide a specific time.

On the medical side we have a report written on the Saturday, 10 Nov., Dr Bond following the official post-mortem where he told Anderson:
"....so one or two o'clock in the morning would be the probable time of the murder".

Nothing official is known to have come from Dr Phillips, but on the Sunday in Lloyds Weekly we read that Dr. Bond, Dr Gordon-Brown & Dr Phillips, after closing the official post-mortem on Saturday, concluded:
"...the murdered woman had undoubtedly been dead for some hours when first discovered, and that in all probability the crime was committed as early as two or three o'clock in the morning".

Which also shows how wide open to interpretation the established methodology was in 1888.


From the witness side we have Elizabeth Prater who swore she heard the cry of 'murder' as she was woken by her kitten:
"...at 3:30 to 4, but probably after 4" (official record).

Sarah Lewis who heard a cry of 'murder':
"...a little before 4." (official record).

Mrs Kennedy, heard a cry of 'murder' between:
"...3:30 and a quarter to 4" (press statement).
However, in the Evening News we read that Kennedy had passed Kelly outside the Britannia "about three o'clock" that morning.

Then of course we have Mrs Maxwell who claimed to have seen Kelly twice later Friday morning, first "between eight and eight thirty" outside Millers Court, then "about quarter to nine", outside the Britannia pub.
Against this we have the landlady of the Britannia who told the press Kelly had not been in the pub that morning, it was a slow morning so she was sure.

Although there is no certainty, witness testimony that claims a cry of 'murder' could better identify a time of death is difficult to contest.

Maxwell aside, Kelly must have been murdered between 3:30 - 4:00 am, regardless of the medical testimony.
Accepting a discrepancy of one to two hours in the medical testimony is consistent with what we appear to have with the Chapman case.

Hi Jon,

I was mistaken before when I said two women had heard cries of murder when it was actually three. However, Prater changed her story, and the consensus was that cries of murder were "nothing unusual", and Cox didn't even hear a cry of murder. I can't see how any stock can be put in an occurrence (cries of murder) which occurred so regularly that it was ignored.

Daily Telegraph 10 Nov:
Elizabeth Prater, the occupant of the first floor front room, was one of those who saw the body through the window. She had heard nothing during the night
She first told the police that at about 3:30 or 4:00 a.m. "I heard screams of murder about two or three times,"
At the inquest: A kitten disturbed me about half-past three o'clock or a quarter to four. As I was turning round I heard a suppressed cry of "Oh - murder!" in a faint voice. It seemed to proceed from the court.
[Coroner] Do you often hear cries of "Murder?" - It is nothing unusual in the street. I did not take particular notice.
[Coroner] Did you hear it a second time? - No.

Sarah Lewis:I could not sleep. I sat awake until nearly four, when I heard a female's voice shouting "Murder" loudly. It seemed like the voice of a young woman. It sounded at our door. There was only one scream.
[Coroner] Were you afraid ? Did you wake anybody up ? - No, I took no notice, as I only heard the one scream.

Mary Ann Cox stated: I live at No. 5 Room, Miller's-court.
I returned to my room at three o'clock. The light was then out and there was no noise.
[Coroner] Did you go to sleep ? - No; I was upset. I did not undress at all. I did not sleep at all. I must have heard what went on in the court. I heard no noise or cry of "Murder".

I believe that Maxwell saw Mary outside the Britannia talking to a man, not inside where the landlady might have not noticed her. Abberline said he questioned Maxwell intensively but was unable to break her. The coroner failed to discredit her with his question about what Mary was wearing when Maxwell answered correctly. IMO Maxwell gave the only credible eye witness testimony concerning Mary's time of death.

Back on topic, I believe that the medical assessment of the time of death was far more complicated and difficult in Mary's case than in Annie's. Annie was eviscerated but Mary was in pieces. Bond stated that Kelly died between 1:00 and 2:00 a.m. I have read somewhere that Phillips gave a time between 5 and 6am, but I can't find that reference. From your quote from Lloyds Weekly, they settled on "as early as two or three o'clock in the morning". Were they implying it could be later?

We now have a problem with consistency. Phillip's ToD is discarded in favour of evolving and contradictory evidence from three witnesses at Hanbury St, but Maxwell's rock solid eye witness testimony is discarded in favour of differing medical opinion, which is simultaneously labelled as unreliable.

Maxwell included, someone must have been murdered between 3:30 - 4:00 am, just not Kelly.

Best regards, George

[DJA]

Henry Gawain Sutton? Do you have a link to a newspaper report? What was his ToD?
Any progress on your movie, or a book, or a full reveal of your JtR theory?

Cheers, George

Cannot find the link.Must be on another PC.
Sutton was not named by the reporter,however as Vestry Board Medical Officer,having taken the position when Mary Ann Kelly was quite young,it was almost certainly him.

Still seeking a suitable screenwriter.Health is poor.Bed bound for 3.5 years.

Fair bit of my "theory" is on this forum.

PS.Anyone woken up to Mary Kelly's face mutilations and why her body was sent to St.Leonards?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I am wondering as to your opinion on the ToD of MJK. Two women claimed to have heard cries of murder, one of whom had previously said she heard nothing, but both said such cries were so commonplace that they simply went back to sleep. Then there are two eye witnesses who said they saw her that morning. Since you have nailed your colours to the mast on the total unreliability of Victorian medical opinion, I don't expect you will want to include that in your assessment.

Cheers, George

Hello George,

The way I look at the Chapman murder is just this - Dr. Phillips TOD estimation, for the reasons stated and evidence provided, is impossible to pin down. He could have been wrong he could have been right; so in effect, I treat Phillips as neutral. We then have 3 witnesses who all point to Chapman being alive after Phillips lower estimation. Long is problematic in her timing of course and so, in effect, I treat her in a similar way to Phillips. Should could simply have been mistaken and seen two different people (one of whom resembled Annie to some extent) or she might have been correct and that there was an error in timing, either on her’s or Cadosch’s parts - or perhaps they were both slightly out? Then we have Cadosch and Richardson - neither are perfect witnesses (as few witnesses are of course) but this might have been more to do with how what the said was reported or interpreted. I personally see no reason for either of them to have lied (not, in itself proof, of truth of course) indeed if Richardson had lied about sitting on that step he would have been making things a whole lot worse for himself when he had so many simply ways of strengthening the suggestion that there was no body present.

So my assessment/opinion is that, for me, Richardson alone outweighs Phillips. Cadosch adds weight to this. And Long gives us an intriguing if unverifiable possibility.

……

Its been a fair while since I’ve discussed Kelly, George but the difference is, as Wick pointed out I believe, the difference between the Doctors TOD estimation and the suggested sightings by Maxwell and Lewis were huge. In the Chapman case it’s only being suggested that Phillips might have been out by 40-50 minutes.

[Joshua Rogan]

On Kelly's time of death, there's also this, from the Daily News 13 Nov;

"As to the evidence of the woman Caroline Maxwell, who swore that she saw the deceased at eight or nine o'clock on Friday morning, that is regarded by the police as merely an error of date. No doubt she did see the woman, and spoke to her as she stated, but on Thursday morning instead of Friday. Nothing was said yesterday as to the probable time of the murder, but we have reason to believe that the conclusion arrived at by several medical men who were on the spot shortly after the discovery of the body was that the deed had been done certainly not later than six or seven on Friday morning, and it might have been a good deal earlier."

[Herlock Sholmes]

No amount of wriggling will alter what Wickerman posted.He claimed the law presumed witnesses will tell the truth,and Herlock is wrong,there would be a specific law if that were true.So put up or shut up both of you.How would that presumption hold up in a court where evidence is not given on oath?If you want to argue no such court exists/existed under Englsh law,you would be wrong.So do not come up with these bizzare claims Jon,unless you are willing to prove them.

Wriggling? I’ve rarely heard such bizarre stuff Harry. I’ll wager that you are the only poster on here who ‘can’t’ understand what Wick said. You would be better served by just admitting this point rather than your ‘defend at all costs attitude.’ Wick was very clearly and very obviously talking about the Law in general. And as Abby has pointed out there are also perjury laws which mean that a witness can be prosecuted and potentially imprisoned for being proven to have deliberately lied in court. Surely you can’t be unaware of this Harry?

Phillip's testimony cannot be altered.He gave a minimum time of death as two hours,and added a belief that it was probably more.He was there,he touched and observed the body from close up.He was aware of the surroundings,of the air temperature,of the exposure of body parts etc.No advances in medicine can make up for his advantage.His detailed post mortem description of the injuries attest to his skill and knowledge.Of course he addd a comment of a possible error,that shows his honesty,but his principal belief of two hours or more,more than outweigh anything he added.

I’m sorry Harry but that’s absolutely rubbish that flies in the face of the evidence. Do you really think that you know better that Sir Keith Simpson, Francis Camps, Bernard Knight, Dr. Biggs and the huge parade of top flight modern day medical experts who all (every single one Harry - without exception) tells us that Victorian TOD estimation was unreliable and should be treated with extreme caution.

It doesn’t make an iota of difference how detailed his examination was Harry. No one is questioning his competence or his integrity. He was still a Doctor in 1888. There are factors that affect these estimations that the medical profession have only become aware of in recent years. You do know that smoking is bad for us Harry? Well Dr Phillips wouldn’t have known that - would you claim that because he was such a good professional that he must have known it.

Its long past time we just stopped arguing this point because it’s just a fact Harry and you are clearly just arguing for the sake of it. To be honest, I sometimes think if I posted that Queen Victoria was a woman you would take the opposition position. I think that you are allowing your opinion of me to cloud your judgment.