John Richardson

[Doctored Whatsit]

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.

Hi FM,

I believe that I can follow your reasoning.

I think however that we should agree to disagree, and not make this one of the regrettable endless vendettas that sometimes occur on these pages! Please feel free to comment on my observations, however.

Yes, Chandler repeated Phillips' initial observation of "dead at least two hours". That is not disputed. I think that Phillips had second thoughts later.

I believe you want Phillips to be regarded as having meant something like, "she had definitely been dead for at least two hours, and probably longer, but in view of the coldness of the morning, and the excessive loss of blood, it might not have been much longer than two hours." You want the caveat to apply only to the "probably longer", leaving the "at least two hours" intact and unqueried. I am sure that if that was what he meant, then he would have said it. He didn't.

He is reported as saying that "He should say that the deceased had been dead at least two hours, and probably more, when he first saw her; but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood." That is two separate statements - an estimated time of death, and a caveat to it. It is not, and cannot be, a caveat to part of it.

My view, and the coroner's, is that he didn't say or imply as per your interpretation. He was a very experienced man, and capable of expressing his medical view with total clarity. He seems to have chosen his words carefully. He didn't say he was certain, but chose to say that he "should say .... but....". This appears to me to be a carefully selected choice of words. He seems to be saying "normally I would have said ... but ...". The caveat was added to his entire ToD, and in no way linked it to the "probably more". He said that his estimated ToD might be incorrect and therefore an unqualified over-estimate.

Please add your observations, but hopefully we can then let the matter rest - I, and I think most others here, dislike people repeating the same things endlessly.

[Wickerman]

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.

FM.

I can only assume you are not familiar with the effect cold air has on Algor Mortis?

By offering that caveat Phillips is saying that due to the morning being so cold, the body will cool more rapidly, and it will make a shorter time of death appear longer.
And to him, it had appeared longer.

Doctors in the late 19th century had a table of temperature loss based on a calculation between the ambient temperature and time.
If the ambient temp. is higher it would distort the calculation and make the time of death appear later.
If the ambient temp. is lower it would distort the calculation and make the time of death appear earlier. (which resulted in his 4:15 estimate).

When you understand the effect, you will know what he meant.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

And again we see you hijacking a thread to deflect away from the content of the post you are trying to reply to

The trouble with you Herlock is that you do not have the capabiity to assess and evaluate the witness testimony, If you did have that capabilty then you would be able to see and understand the flaws and the inconsistency with some of the witnessess testimony, and why i refer to some of that testimony as being flawed. Like i have said the witness testimony was not tested and so it has to be taken on face value, but not readily accepted without question just because it fits your specific theory.

Just for your information I spend every day 7 days a week 52 weeks a year assessing and evaluating witness testimony in criminal cases finding flaws in statements. So when I say that the witness testimony of specific witnesses is unsafe it is based on decades of experience and by highlighting the flaws in some of the witness testimony which in my opinion should have been clarified either by the police or the coroner or both, those statements should not be readily accepted as being totally accurate.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

And again we see you hijacking a thread to deflect away from the content of the post you are trying to reply to

The trouble with you Herlock is that you do not have the capabiity to assess and evaluate the witness testimony, If you did have that capabilty then you would be able to see and understand the flaws and the inconsistency with some of the witnessess testimony, and why i refer to some of that testimony as being flawed. Like i have said the witness testimony was not tested and so it has to be taken on face value, but not readily accepted without question just because it fits your specific theory.

Just for your information I spend every day 7 days a week 52 weeks a year assessing and evaluating witness testimony in criminal cases finding flaws in statements. So when I say that the witness testimony of specific witnesses is unsafe it is based on decades of experience and by highlighting the flaws in some of the witness testimony which in my opinion should have been clarified either by the police or the coroner or both, those statements should not be readily accepted as being totally accurate.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That’s your opinion Trevor and from experience we know that your opinions are so far wide of the mark as to be a danger to anyone standing near. I’m not impressed with the ‘I used to be police officer’ line I’m afraid so I’m quite happy to say that I can assess evidence far better than you can, as can many posters on here. You do two things Trevor. Come up with an idea then defend it at all costs no matter how many times they get dismissed and shown to be invalid. Then you seek to discredit and dismiss any witness that doesn’t fit in with your own opinion. Sadly I have to waste time constantly explaining the bleeding obvious to you and it still doesn’t sink in.

[Wickerman]

Just for your information I spend every day 7 days a week 52 weeks a year assessing and evaluating witness testimony in criminal cases finding flaws in statements. So when I say that the witness testimony of specific witnesses is unsafe it is based on decades of experience and by highlighting the flaws in some of the witness testimony which in my opinion should have been clarified either by the police or the coroner or both, those statements should not be readily accepted as being totally accurate.

Excuse me for asking, but surely in modern cases you have both sides of an argument?
How are you able to identify flawed testimony without an opposing statement, or without a full investigation of the circumstances?

In our cases more often than not there is no opposing view, no conflicting testimony. And we certainly cannot subject the testimony to an investigation.
Some testimony is more complete than other's, more detailed, but that does not mean it is in conflict.

In modern cases, do you admit an initial statement from a witness is not expected to be complete?
That following the first statement, the witness is often, either by an investigating officer, or by the court, subject to questioning, after which the resulting witnesses story is more complete than it originally was?


Finally, in the last line of your paragraph you seem to be suggesting that because testimony in these old cases has not been challenged, then they cannot be relied on.
This may be true to a certain extent, but even the coroner's record does not include questions to the witness (happily the press often provide some questions), so you still do not know if the testimony was challenged.
Therefore, if you don't trust the press, and you can't trust the court record, what is the point of your interest in these crimes?

[GBinOz]

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.

Hi FM,

I agree with your interpretation. Rules of grammar dictate that the qualification refers to the last stated subject.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

That’s your opinion Trevor and from experience we know that your opinions are so far wide of the mark as to be a danger to anyone standing near. I’m not impressed with the ‘I used to be police officer’ line I’m afraid so I’m quite happy to say that I can assess evidence far better than you can, as can many posters on here. You do two things Trevor. Come up with an idea then defend it at all costs no matter how many times they get dismissed and shown to be invalid. Then you seek to discredit and dismiss any witness that doesn’t fit in with your own opinion. Sadly I have to waste time constantly explaining the bleeding obvious to you and it still doesn’t sink in.

Am I the only one that finds attacking a man's career on the basis of differing opinions to be appalling? The second half of the post put me in mind of the parable of the Mote and the Beam.

[harry]

No Geoge,you are not the only one.Refering to Trevor that is.
I have yet to read of any medical opinion that would tend to discredit Phillips.Fleetwood has put it in language that is easily understood.
If it was a case of a body having lain for many,many hours,or days or weeks in the open,there could be doubt,but two hours!.I would expect any doctor, Victorian or not,to be pretty accurate to within a two hour base,and Phillips adds.probably more.

[Wickerman]

Hi FM,

I agree with your interpretation. Rules of grammar dictate that the qualification refers to the last stated subject.

Cheers, George

Just hold it there my friend!

George, your rules of grammar will apply to the last stated subject, but there was only one stated subject.

"...at least two hours, or probably longer...." is one statement.

What you mean would apply if Phillips had said:

"....at least two hours, or possibly three hours", that is two statements.

Those rules of grammar apply to the 2nd of two statements, Phillips only made one statement, then extended it.

The reason it is not two statements is because the extension lacks a quantity.
Phillips only really says two, or two and a bit, so slightly longer than two. As the 'bit' has no value it is not a separate statement so cannot be reduced, as we have no idea what it was to begin with.

Which means Phillips's final caveat is applied to the whole.

[GBinOz]

Just hold it there my friend!

George, your rules of grammar will apply to the last stated subject, but there was only one stated subject.

"...at least two hours, or probably longer...." is one statement.

What you mean would apply if Phillips had said:

"....at least two hours, or possibly three hours", that is two statements.

Those rules of grammar apply to the 2nd of two statements, Phillips only made one statement, then extended it.

The reason it is not two statements is because the extension lacks a quantity.
Phillips only really says two, or two and a bit, so slightly longer than two. As the 'bit' has no value it is not a separate statement so cannot be reduced, as we have no idea what it was to begin with.

Which means Phillips's final caveat is applied to the whole.

Objection your Honour. Counsel is attempting to lead the witness.

"or probably longer" contains an assessment of certainty and a nomination of time including a starting point. It's a statement if I ever saw one.

[JeffHamm]

Hi FM,

I agree with your interpretation. Rules of grammar dictate that the qualification refers to the last stated subject.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

It's been mentioned, but I think needs restating. Interpreting the caveate as modifying his uncertainty about "probably more" makes no sense. He's pointing out that the evening was particularly cool, and due to the blood loss the body may cool faster than expected. Given that, he can't say "she was probably dead longer because by touch she felt 2 hours dead" because faster cooling would mean she should feel colder than 2 hours dead at 2 hours, and more than 3 hours dead at 3 hours, etc! The caveat he mentions is an explanation for how she might feel colder than she should, meaning dead a shorter period of time than 2 hours but due to how cold she felt to him he though she felt 2 hours or so dead.

And regardless of what his opinion was, we know that estimating ToD by feel is not reliable although the Victorian's thought it was. They were mistaken, however, so no matter how strong he stated his opinion (which he doesn't even state strongly, but qualifies it), we know that opinion is based upon a flawed methodology.

Sure, some of the other crimes appear to be accurate when compared to police patrol times, but those are also crimes where it is entirely likely the doctor had that information as well. They are effectively examining to determine if there is any reason to suspect the victim was killed elsewhere much earlier and then dumped in that location; Basically, they are just being asked to confirm that death occurred within the time frame of the patrol.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

That’s your opinion Trevor and from experience we know that your opinions are so far wide of the mark as to be a danger to anyone standing near. I’m not impressed with the ‘I used to be police officer’ line I’m afraid so I’m quite happy to say that I can assess evidence far better than you can, as can many posters on here. You do two things Trevor. Come up with an idea then defend it at all costs no matter how many times they get dismissed and shown to be invalid. Then you seek to discredit and dismiss any witness that doesn’t fit in with your own opinion. Sadly I have to waste time constantly explaining the bleeding obvious to you and it still doesn’t sink in.

You are totally wrong, all through my Ripper investigation I have looked at the evidence in an ubiased fashion and I have robustly challenged some of the main evidential aspects of this case, as well as challenging what researchers postulate by continually us the terms "what if" "maybe" "I think" or "perhaps" all of which are personal opinions and of no evidential value.

The main problem with ripperology is that many researchers cannot and will not accept anything that challenges the old accepted theories surrounding these murders. when was the last time anyone posted an alternative explantion and you came out and said "By god you could be right"?

These murders took place 130 years ago when policing was different than in todays world, we can see the police did the best they could but now in todays world we can assess and evaluate what they did or didnt do or should have done. All we are left with in the case of Chapman is conflciting witness testimony as recorded by the press. So because it conflicts, which version is to be belived, we dont know the answer to that so we have to treat that testimony as unsafe because in this case the conflcits become important factors i.e should he have seen the body, or the body was not there? and the timings of the other witnesses which also become major conflicts.

You keep banging on about me defending an idea its not defending an idea its an attempt to make people like you take the blinkers off and consider other alternatives to the old accepted theories becasue 130 years down the line we should not readily accept all matters as being the truth. I dont think that man yof the witnesses delibertaly lied. some were cleary mistaken, and others just trying to be helpful with others having their 15 mins of fame.

And as to you stating you can assess and evaluate evidence better than I can if that be the case I will give up my day job and recommend that you take over, and you would be lucky to last till the end of the first day

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Excuse me for asking, but surely in modern cases you have both sides of an argument?
How are you able to identify flawed testimony without an opposing statement, or without a full investigation of the circumstances?

You dont need an opposing statement the flaws are identifiable within the conflicts.

In our cases more often than not there is no opposing view, no conflicting testimony. And we certainly cannot subject the testimony to an investigation.
Some testimony is more complete than other's, more detailed, but that does not mean it is in conflict.

When the witness testimony is recorded differently in the press which impacts the evidence you and others seek to rely on there has to be a conflict

In modern cases, do you admit an initial statement from a witness is not expected to be complete?
That following the first statement, the witness is often, either by an investigating officer, or by the court, subject to questioning, after which the resulting witnesses story is more complete than it originally was?

In modern case sometimes a statement will be taken and then later on that statement will be elbaorated on in a second statement to clear up any ambiguites that may have arisen from the first statement, or as a result of further evidence being obtained

Finally, in the last line of your paragraph you seem to be suggesting that because testimony in these old cases has not been challenged, then they cannot be relied on.
This may be true to a certain extent, but even the coroner's record does not include questions to the witness (happily the press often provide some questions), so you still do not know if the testimony was challenged.
Therefore, if you don't trust the press, and you can't trust the court record, what is the point of your interest in these crimes?

The challenge has always been to prove or disprove the old accepted theories surrounding these murders because right from day one it became clear that there were major flaws in what reseachers have been reyling on for the past 130 years

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

It's been mentioned, but I think needs restating. Interpreting the caveate as modifying his uncertainty about "probably more" makes no sense. He's pointing out that the evening was particularly cool, and due to the blood loss the body may cool faster than expected. Given that, he can't say "she was probably dead longer because by touch she felt 2 hours dead" because faster cooling would mean she should feel colder than 2 hours dead at 2 hours, and more than 3 hours dead at 3 hours, etc! The caveat he mentions is an explanation for how she might feel colder than she should, meaning dead a shorter period of time than 2 hours but due to how cold she felt to him he though she felt 2 hours or so dead.

And regardless of what his opinion was, we know that estimating ToD by feel is not reliable although the Victorian's thought it was. They were mistaken, however, so no matter how strong he stated his opinion (which he doesn't even state strongly, but qualifies it), we know that opinion is based upon a flawed methodology.

Sure, some of the other crimes appear to be accurate when compared to police patrol times, but those are also crimes where it is entirely likely the doctor had that information as well. They are effectively examining to determine if there is any reason to suspect the victim was killed elsewhere much earlier and then dumped in that location; Basically, they are just being asked to confirm that death occurred within the time frame of the patrol.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

While I hold your opinions in high regard, in this case I will have to beg to differ.

Phillip's stated at the inquest that when he arrived at the yard and did his examination "The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body. Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing.". Chandler's report, dated on the day of the murder, said, "The Doctor pronounced life extinct and stated the woman had been dead at least two hours." (MEPO 3/140, ff. 9-11). Is there any evidence that the doctors would impugn their integrity by, in effect, cheating with their estimates, as it appears not to be the case here. Further medical evidence was available to Phillips by the time of the inquest in the form of the results of the examination of the stomach contents. To me it makes no sense for Phillips to give his estimate and then immediately second guess it. My view is that the "caveat" referred only to the extent of the time after the two hours.

Best regards, George

[Fleetwood Mac]

Well, given this is a thread about John Richardson and not Dr Phillips I don't want to take up any more space. So, last comment from me on Dr Phillips.

It's pretty clear that some of you must have a theory that demands you cynically manipulate what Dr Phillips actually said. Dr Phillips did of course say: "I should think......", which is of course another way of saying: "My opinion is....", but then Dr Phillips is a reasonable man and knows that he cannot possibly offer a verifiable, definitely ascertained fact, particularly as there is no such thing in life (of any generation and any situation). So, "I should think....." adds nothing to and detracts nothing from Dr Phillips' statement.

Dr Phillips stated two hours and probably more (he did not state probably two hours). You can only possibly deduce that upon taking all of the conditions into account, he was confident, in so far as he could be, that Annie was murdered at least two hours before he assessed Annie's body.

Inspector Chandler reported that Dr Phillips pronounced life extinct and stated Annie had been dead for at least two hours.

So, are we really to believe that Dr Phillips meant this: at least two hours but I can't be sure due to the cold morning? That is nonsensical and meaningless. In effect he would have meant: I've no idea, so when I say at least two hours then just ignore that part; look, I know I'm a doctor but I'm only here for the conversation and the buffet, it was a cold morning and so your guess is as good as mine.

Similarly, in the event his 'cold morning' comment relates to both the 'two hours' and 'probably more' then this renders Dr Phillips' distinction between what is more than probable and what is merely probable, completely redundant and meaningless. He would have said something like: "my belief is around 3.30am but I can't be certain due to.....". There is a reason why he distinguishes between 'two hours' and 'probably more' as opposed to simply stating '3.30am'. The reason is that he is confident at least two hours, but he can't be certain beyond that although he believes/it is probable 'hour/s before 4.30am'.

It's a feature of this case that some of the statements contradict some other statements. But, the answer isn't to manipulate what is stated in order to make them fit. It is noticeable also that there are preconceived ideas among some on this board, such as all of the witness statements are flawed or we should take the witness statements as read and anything less is insulting. In all probability, some of these witness statements will be a pack of lies, some will be embellished, some will be genuine but mistaken, others will be spot on. Surely the answer it to take each statement on its merit as opposed to having a theory and then going to work on manipulating the statements in an attempt to add credence to the theory.