John Richardson

[Doctored Whatsit]

Dr Phillips very clearly stated that Annie was murdered no later than 4.30am and probably (meaning in his belief) hours before that. It is pretty obvious that the cold morning/condition of the body comment is a clarification as to why he stated 'probably' hours prior to 4.30am rather than 'definitely', his reluctance to be more exact does not relate to the 'no later than 4.30am' part of his statement. He was empathic in his belief that Annie had been by murdered the time John Richardson was at the back door - and that includes a consideration of the cold morning/conditions.

Actually, I disagree - although I understand this possible interpretation. After his "two hours and probably more", Dr Phillips added "but it was right to mention...". It is normal for "but"to be used to explain an alternative possibility, and frankly, totally inappropriate for it to mean "because" or something similar which is your interpretation. Nobody confirms a statement by starting the confirmation with "but"! Furthermore, it was also the opinion of the coroner that he was offering an alternative, and that "he admitted that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood might affect his opinion".

[Abby Normal]

hey varq
good point. not sure why no one has responded. ive brought this up in the past too. if she was dead and lying there and richardson missed her, or was tje killer for that matter, did they miss her too? did cadosh lie too about hearing people?!?

would love to see the richardson doubters explanation for this one lol

what no takers?? cmon richardson doubters whats your explanation? cadosh heard people talking in the yard next door and something brush up against the fence right where chapmans body was.

so did these people also miss the body? is cadosh lying about hearing people talking? what gives?!?

[Trevor Marriott]

what no takers?? cmon richardson doubters whats your explanation? cadosh heard people talking in the yard next door and something brush up against the fence right where chapmans body was.

so did these people also miss the body? is cadosh lying about hearing people talking? what gives?!?

Cadosh heard someone say no. thats hardly people talking. He heard that as he was walking to the khazi he did not stop and listen as to where exactly, and in which direction the voice came from, the voice could have come from anywhere in the immediate location, in the still morning air sound would travel.

Researchers are putting too much faith into the accuracy of these witnesses we see all through these murders conflicting witness testimony and testimony that is clearly unsafe to rely on, yet it seems they are being treated as being the gospel, despite all the flaws in their testimony being highlighted

The sad fact is that the witness testimony was never fully tested as it would have been in a criminal trial, and if it had have been some of these witnesses would have been in for a hard time in the witness box.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Cadosh heard someone say no. thats hardly people talking. He heard that as he was walking to the khazi he did not stop and listen as to where exactly, and in which direction the voice came from, the voice could have come from anywhere in the immediate location, in the still morning air sound would travel.

Researchers are putting too much faith into the accuracy of these witnesses we see all through these murders conflicting witness testimony and testimony that is clearly unsafe to rely on, yet it seems they are being treated as being the gospel, despite all the flaws in their testimony being highlighted

The sad fact is that the witness testimony was never fully tested as it would have been in a criminal trial, and if it had have been some of these witnesses would have been in for a hard time in the witness box.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Early reports say he heard conversation, but "No" was all he could make out.

[Abby Normal]

Cadosh heard someone say no. thats hardly people talking. He heard that as he was walking to the khazi he did not stop and listen as to where exactly, and in which direction the voice came from, the voice could have come from anywhere in the immediate location, in the still morning air sound would travel.

Researchers are putting too much faith into the accuracy of these witnesses we see all through these murders conflicting witness testimony and testimony that is clearly unsafe to rely on, yet it seems they are being treated as being the gospel, despite all the flaws in their testimony being highlighted

The sad fact is that the witness testimony was never fully tested as it would have been in a criminal trial, and if it had have been some of these witnesses would have been in for a hard time in the witness box.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

good lord. is there any witnesses in the whole case trevor that isnt "unsafe"?!? oh yeah Feigenbaums lawyer lol.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Actually, I disagree - although I understand this possible interpretation. After his "two hours and probably more", Dr Phillips added "but it was right to mention...". It is normal for "but"to be used to explain an alternative possibility, and frankly, totally inappropriate for it to mean "because" or something similar which is your interpretation. Nobody confirms a statement by starting the confirmation with "but"! Furthermore, it was also the opinion of the coroner that he was offering an alternative, and that "he admitted that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood might affect his opinion".

In that case it can only be inferred that you're not capable of understanding that which is put before you.

Dr Phillips states: "two hours and probably more".

He does not state: "probably two hours and probably/possibly/maybe more".

He qualifies "more" with the word "probably".

He doesn't qualify "two hours" because there is no qualification necessary. He means two hours. Not probably two hours, not two hours but I could mistaken, not two hours but it's a cold morning.

When he says "probably more", he goes on to mention the cold morning/condition of Annie's body. The two are linked.

He is definite in his two hours so there is no reason to say anymore on that, i.e. no probably, no possibly, no caveats whatsoever; he is probable when he says "more" and so he is compelled to add a comment which puts a bit more meat on the bones, i.e. he couldn't be sure on the 'probably more' due to the cold morning.

[Herlock Sholmes]

good lord. is there any witnesses in the whole case trevor that isnt "unsafe"?!? oh yeah Feigenbaums lawyer lol.

There are ‘safe’ witnesses Abby. They are the witnesses that conform to Trevor’s opinion. Example…

We have Inspector Reid saying, 8 years later, that all of the body parts were accounted for in Miller’s Court (agreeing with Trevor’s ‘body parts stolen in the mortuary theory) - safe

Yet we have PC’s Hutt and Robinson who saw Eddowes up close and spent time with her just before her murder who both swore that she was wearing an apron (disproving Trevor’s apron theory) - unsafe.

And as you say, no one else hears Macnaghten’s private info being received him - unsafe

No one else hears Feigenbaum’s confession to Lawton - safe

Dr. Phillips TOD estimate, with every modern expert saying it’s unreliable it’s still somehow more reliable than Richardson, Cadosch and Long…. (Hanbury Street was a well known meeting place for The Society of Dishonest and Incompetent Witnesses btw Abby)

Im sure that given time I could produce a more extensive list but I think most people would agree that there’s rarely such thing as a perfect witness and we can’t just throw them all out. I think it’s also worth mentioning that the majority of witnesses are honest but they can be mistaken of course.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Actually, I disagree - although I understand this possible interpretation. After his "two hours and probably more", Dr Phillips added "but it was right to mention...". It is normal for "but"to be used to explain an alternative possibility, and frankly, totally inappropriate for it to mean "because" or something similar which is your interpretation. Nobody confirms a statement by starting the confirmation with "but"! Furthermore, it was also the opinion of the coroner that he was offering an alternative, and that "he admitted that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood might affect his opinion".

Sorry, FM this was an incomplete entry. I jumped from basic use of English, to the coroner's reading of it, without inserting my intended comment!

As I wrote, I understand your interpretation, and meant to add that the "but" is after the entire estimated ToD, and must be referring to the whole of it, and not part of it. If he had meant to merely qualify the use of "probably" as you suggest, he would have done just that, for example, he might have said, "I believe she had been dead for two hours, and I probably would have said even longer, but....". As I pointed out, the coroner interpreted the statement as I do.

[Doctored Whatsit]

In that case it can only be inferred that you're not capable of understanding that which is put before you.

Dr Phillips states: "two hours and probably more".

He does not state: "probably two hours and probably/possibly/maybe more".

He qualifies "more" with the word "probably".

He doesn't qualify "two hours" because there is no qualification necessary. He means two hours. Not probably two hours, not two hours but I could mistaken, not two hours but it's a cold morning.

When he says "probably more", he goes on to mention the cold morning/condition of Annie's body. The two are linked.

He is definite in his two hours so there is no reason to say anymore on that, i.e. no probably, no possibly, no caveats whatsoever; he is probable when he says "more" and so he is compelled to add a comment which puts a bit more meat on the bones, i.e. he couldn't be sure on the 'probably more' due to the cold morning.

Sorry, we were both writing at the same time! Please see my last entry at #1043

[Herlock Sholmes]

In that case it can only be inferred that you're not capable of understanding that which is put before you.

Dr Phillips states: "two hours and probably more".

He does not state: "probably two hours and probably/possibly/maybe more".

He qualifies "more" with the word "probably".

He doesn't qualify "two hours" because there is no qualification necessary. He means two hours. Not probably two hours, not two hours but I could mistaken, not two hours but it's a cold morning.

When he says "probably more", he goes on to mention the cold morning/condition of Annie's body. The two are linked.

He is definite in his two hours so there is no reason to say anymore on that, i.e. no probably, no possibly, no caveats whatsoever; he is probable when he says "more" and so he is compelled to add a comment which puts a bit more meat on the bones, i.e. he couldn't be sure on the 'probably more' due to the cold morning.

Coroner] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.

It seems clear what Phillips was saying was, in effect:

‘It’s my opinion that she had been dead for at least 2 hours or probably longer but, as it was a fairly cold morning and this might have caused the body to have cooled more rapidly than I’d estimated, the result of which could have been that she had been dead for less than 2 hours.’

If that wasn’t the case then why did he bother with the ‘cold morning’ caveat? Why didn’t he simply say “at least 2 hours and probably more,” and leave it at that? Surely we can’t believe that he’d meant “at least 2 hours but probably more but due to the cold weather at least 2 hours?” That explanation would make no sense.

[Doctored Whatsit]

It seems clear what Phillips was saying was, in effect:

‘It’s my opinion that she had been dead for at least 2 hours or probably longer but, as it was a fairly cold morning and this might have caused the body to have cooled more rapidly than I’d estimated, the result of which could have been that she had been dead for less than 2 hours.’

If that wasn’t the case then why did he bother with the ‘cold morning’ caveat? Why didn’t he simply say “at least 2 hours and probably more,” and leave it at that? Surely we can’t believe that he’d meant “at least 2 hours but probably more but due to the cold weather at least 2 hours?” That explanation would make no sense.

Agreed. You, I and the coroner have interpreted the doctor's opinion in the same way. Unfortunately you, I and FM have been writing at the same time which is confusing!
We cannot attach the caveat to a selected part of the doctor's expressed opinion, when he made no attempt to do so. Phillips was perfectly capable of expressing himself clearly.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Sorry, FM this was an incomplete entry. I jumped from basic use of English, to the coroner's reading of it, without inserting my intended comment!

As I wrote, I understand your interpretation, and meant to add that the "but" is after the entire estimated ToD, and must be referring to the whole of it, and not part of it. If he had meant to merely qualify the use of "probably" as you suggest, he would have done just that, for example, he might have said, "I believe she had been dead for two hours, and I probably would have said even longer, but....". As I pointed out, the coroner interpreted the statement as I do.

I understand your argument now, still, it does not follow Dr Phillips' statement. He stated: "two hours and probably more". As opposed to "probably two hours and I'd venture more".

This is supported by Inspector Chandler's statement which included something like: Dr Phillips pronounced life extinct and stated the woman had been dead for at least two hours.

Dr Phillips is clearly not meaning: probably two hours.

[Fleetwood Mac]

It seems clear what Phillips was saying was, in effect:

‘It’s my opinion that she had been dead for at least 2 hours or probably longer but, as it was a fairly cold morning and this might have caused the body to have cooled more rapidly than I’d estimated, the result of which could have been that she had been dead for less than 2 hours.’

If that wasn’t the case then why did he bother with the ‘cold morning’ caveat? Why didn’t he simply say “at least 2 hours and probably more,” and leave it at that? Surely we can’t believe that he’d meant “at least 2 hours but probably more but due to the cold weather at least 2 hours?” That explanation would make no sense.

It's obvious. His whole sentence flows:

1) At least two hours.
2) Probably more.
3) I say 'probably more' because I can't be certain on that due to....."

He didn't say 'probably two hours' which means he didn't mean 'probably'. He said 'probably more' because he meant probably.

He then adds a caveat. A caveat is only necessary in a scenario that is 'probable', it would be out of place in a scenario that is not probable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's obvious. His whole sentence flows:

1) At least two hours.
2) Probably more.
3) I say 'probably more' because I can't be certain on that due to....."

He didn't say 'probably two hours' which means he didn't mean 'probably'. He said 'probably more' because he meant probably.

He then adds a caveat. A caveat is only necessary in a scenario that is 'probable', it would be out of place in a scenario that is not probable.

He said “ I should say,” which means “in my opinion.” When someone says “in my opinion,” they aren’t claiming something as a definitely ascertained fact. A caveat only becomes necessary if it allows for a deviation in the originally statement. You wouldn’t say “if x occurred then y would be the outcome but under certain circumstances y would be the outcome.” So why would he have said “ a minimum of 2 hours but probably more but due to the conditions it was probably 2 hours but probably more.”

Its seems clear what he’s saying. He believes that she’d likely been dead for 2 hours probably more but the conditions might have meant less. Because more would make no sense.

[Aethelwulf]

Its seems clear what he’s saying. He believes that she’d likely been dead for 2 hours probably more but the conditions might have meant less. Because more would make no sense.

This is quite clearly what he meant. Anyone with a grain of common sense should be able to understand that.