John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m finding some of the comments on here pretty difficult to credit to be honest. We have seen mountains of evidence on here (and there is much, much more out there) on the reliability/unreliability of estimating TOD’s (especially 134 years ago) and yet we still have posters who for some (almost) inexplicable reason just can’t bring themselves to accept the known facts. Posters who have no doubt quoted from experts on here in the past regarding other topics are suddenly frozen with doubt when it comes to the medical experts opinion on this particular subject. It’s almost like seeing a desperate husband refusing to admit that his marriage is actually over. Why is this? Why is it that we can produce such a wide range of experts who concur 100% and yet they are suspected of somehow been ‘not quite right?’ I honestly can’t recall an equivalent situation. Has one single medical expert been produced who would say “a Victorian doctor, though not entirely accurate, would have been able to estimate a TOD correctly to within 45 minutes or so?” I haven’t seen one yet. Has anyone else?

I have to say though I’ll no doubt face criticism but this is becoming embarrassing. I’ve never witnessed such desperation. The FACT is that estimating TOD was unreliable; we know this because true experts on the subject repeatedly and consistently tell us this.

This doesn’t suggest that Phillips was incompetent. This doesn’t suggest that Phillips was dishonest. This doesn’t suggest that a Victorian doctor couldn’t have estimated a TOD and later have been proven correct. Of course no one is suggesting that they were 100% wrong but we have to accept the very real possibility of error. So, without us being able to recreate the exact conditions in Hanbury Street and the full general health of Annie Chapman, we have absolutely no way of verifying Dr Phillips estimation. We can say no more than he might have gotten it right; he might have gotten it wrong. So in effect his evidence is neutral as far as we’re concerned.

Why can’t this absolutely, incontrovertible fact be accepted? Black isn’t white.

Favouring Phillips over the witness has no justification and beggars belief.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think thats an interesting point you make George . Just how long Dr Phillips had been a police surgeon for and what he would have been exposed to in all those years, and as you say in a wide range of conditions . A point that is often overlooked by some who have tipped the scales a bit to far one side than the other in regards to his t.o.d assessment .

His level of experience is irrelevant. The level of forensic medical knowledge in the Victorian era is relevant though. Nothing has been overlooked although some have ‘overlooked’ the fact that modern day medical experts are 100% consistent on the fact that TOD estimation is unreliable. Phillips might have been the best Doctor in London for all that we know but it doesn’t matter. There is no tipping of the scales. Phillips should be ignored.

[Fleetwood Mac]

So in effect his evidence is neutral as far as we’re concerned.

We have an experienced, well respected doctor who assesses the body shortly after being murdered. This doctor takes into account the conditions on the morning of the 8th September, 1888. He provides valuable insight such as: stiffness of the limbs, little food in the stomach and so on. He estimates a TOD of at least two hours and probably more, taking account of the environmental conditions and the condition of the body.

Meanwhile, I suspect Sherlock Holmes is not an authority on Victorian medical procedure nor an authority on estimating TOD. Yet, Sherlock Holmes is confident Dr Phillips' insight is of no consequence. Sherlock Homes implores us to listen to him and ignore Dr Phillips, devoid of any hint of modesty.

My conclusion is that the poster known as Sherlock Holmes is smoking at least a boatload of weed and probably more.

Sherlock Holmes is repeating ad nauseam that estimating TOD is unreliable and therefore it is a redundant exercise. Yes, it's understood. You're falling back on this position. You have nothing to learn from reading about these things even though I suspect you don't know a great deal about estimating TOD, and your mind is made up.

In reality, TOD is always estimated, including in the modern age. It is not wholly unreliable as you claim. It was not wholly unreliable in the Victorian age. There are limiting factors that mean Dr Phillips may not be correct, but that doesn't render estimating TOD wholly unreliable. In actual fact, rigor mortis remains one of the used means to estimate TOD today which tells you that while rigor, and any other mechanism for estimating TOD, is not foolproof; nor is it wholly unreliable.

It appears that you've made your mind up, 'nothing to learn by reading about these things with Dr Phillips' statement in mind. In that event, it's probably best you move on to another discussion because the only possible outcome for you is that you simply repeat ad nauseam post after post: "estimating TOD is unreliable, nothing to learn here, Dr Phillips doesn't give us any insight of note".

Meanwhile, others on the board are intrigued by all of this. We know estimating TOD is not wholly reliable, we probably quite like what we've read about Dr Phillips, we know what John Richardson stated; so, what is going on here? And, from there we start to read a bit and try to piece together just how likely it was that Dr Phillips miscalculated.

[Fleetwood Mac]

modern day medical experts are 100% consistent on the fact that TOD estimation is unreliable.

In the interests of not clogging up the board with nonsensical posts, can you stop repeating this fallacy.

Medical experts agree that estimating TOD is not wholly reliable, but that is not the same as saying estimating TOD is unreliable.

The position is that TOD can be estimated but not with certainty.

Why do you think 'medical experts' estimate TOD today? Are they bored and just fancy messing around for a few hours and concluding: "well maybe 4 in the afternoon but take no notice because this is all a waste of time anyway due to me estimate being unreliable"?

Were I a mod, I would be stepping in at this point and politely asking you to refrain from posting nonsensical fallacies ad nauseam.

[Aethelwulf]

Meanwhile, I suspect Sherlock Holmes is not an authority on Victorian medical procedure nor an authority on estimating TOD. Y

He isn't claiming to be though is he? He's referring to all the references to modern day experts on this matter. The material Jeff posted is particularity eye opening I think, in that RM can develop fully in couple of hours or even less. Dr P was the foremost person of the day I think but I doubt he would have come across a case like Chapman before. Didn't DrP also mention residual heat in the abdominal cavity under the organs - I find it unlikely that ties in with you ideas of 2.30-3.30. I also think your reading of the double extra caveat line nonsensical TBH. Richardson + Long + Cadosh + P's own caveat of ToD means the later estimate is far more likely. I don't see that it changes anything apart from in Lech's case.

[Aethelwulf]

Were I a mod, I would be stepping in at this point and politely asking you to refrain from posting nonsensical fallacies ad nauseam.

If I were Herlock I'd be reporting you for suggesting he is taking drugs. I can be a bit rough on certain posters on certain topics but I wouldn't go that low.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Harry,

Just a minor point.

Dr Phillips stated: "and probably more".

Meaning he believed Annie was murdered at the latest 3.30am, possibly 2.30am. Dr Phillips doesn't quantify how many hours exactly, but he certainly does state: "probably more".

From there, in order to arrive at an estimated TOD of 5.30am, we have to believe that an experienced, well respected doctor was at least 2 hours out, possibly 3, upon assessing a body that had been murdered only one hour previously. Not impossible, but what is likely?

We have the issue of the murderer cutting it fine with the mutilations also from the time of murder to the body being found. Yes, I know it isn't conclusive that he couldn't have done it in that length of time, but it's lending a bit of weight given Dr Phillips wasn't convinced he could have done it in that time in those conditions.

Then we have the issue of 'little food' in the stomach. My understanding is that a baked potato takes longer to digest than other forms of potato, although someone with more knowledge on that could maybe clarify. Still, potato is generally considered to be a food that is easily digested.

While not conclusive by any stretch of the imagination, it's not a bad case to say she was murdered prior to 5.30am.

Is it a better case than Long, Cadosch, Richardson? Long/Cadosch would not be remarkable at all in the event Richardson's statement didn't exist. In fact, even with Richardson's statement, Long's statement remains unremarkable: she saw a couple, she didn't take much notice of them, she sees lots of couples at that time of the morning.

Richardson is the obstacle of course, and it is a significant obstacle. I go along with those who think Richardson shouldn't be easily dismissed as lying.

Still, I think the better case rests with the medical opinion.

“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.”

So Phillips opinion was that Chapman had been dead for a minimum of 2 hours…..

If we believe Phillips then we should believe him when he explained his actions on that morning….

He arrived at the scene at 6.30, did he walk straight into the yard or have a brief conversation with the officer in charge? Then he had a general look at the position of the body, the blood, the intestines for example during which time I’d assume that he would have been taking notes. Then he searched the yard and collected up items and handed them to the police. Then he mentions the body being cold. Of course we don’t know the exact order of events or the time taken but I don’t think that it’s all reasonable to suggest that it was possibly 6.40 when he checked the temperature of the body (after all he’d have been fully aware that 10 minutes or so would have made no difference to his estimation as there’s no way anyone could be that accurate.

So if we take a middling view and say that Cadosch first heard his ‘noise’ at 5.20, then we have Phillips minimum estimated TOD at 4.30 when Chapman could actually have been killed at 5.20, giving us a discrepancy of just 50 minutes. Can we be certain that it wasn’t 6.45 when he checked the temperature (events in the yard, watch a very few minutes out, who knows?) Can we be certain that the ‘noise’ that Cadosch heard didn’t actually occur at 5.25 (a very simple and very unremarkable error of timing?) With these possibilities the discrepancy between estimate and reality might have been as little as 40 minutes.

How accurate to we believe that a Victorian Doctor must have been?

[Herlock Sholmes]

In the interests of not clogging up the board with nonsensical posts, can you stop repeating this fallacy.

Medical experts agree that estimating TOD is not wholly reliable, but that is not the same as saying estimating TOD is unreliable.

The position is that TOD can be estimated but not with certainty.

Why do you think 'medical experts' estimate TOD today? Are they bored and just fancy messing around for a few hours and concluding: "well maybe 4 in the afternoon but take no notice because this is all a waste of time anyway due to me estimate being unreliable"?

Were I a mod, I would be stepping in at this point and politely asking you to refrain from posting nonsensical fallacies ad nauseam.

Stunning arrogance from someone who posts such self-serving waffle. Learn to read, it might help in your understanding of the childishly obvious. Just for you, again…

“Simpson's Forensic Medicine, updated 13th edition by Jason Payne James, Richard Jones, Steven Karch and John Manlove (2011):

"The only use of assessing the presence or absence of rigor lies in the estimation of the time of death, and the key word here is estimation, as rigor is such a variable process that it can never provide an accurate assessment of the time of death. Extreme caution should be exercised in trying to assign a time of death based on the very subjective assessment of the degree and extent of rigor."

It can NEVER provide an accurate assessment. NEVER. And these are experts talking about modern times.! Did the Victorians have some arcane knowledge that’s been lost to the mists time? Or are you spouting biased nonsense? I think we can all answer that one. What you should be doing, apart from fantasising about being a moderator, is to stop bending over backwards, performing unseemly and embarrassing contortions, and read what the genuine medical experts tell us. This constant attempt to bolster Phillips purely to discredit the witnesses is pathetic.

[Trevor Marriott]

I’m finding some of the comments on here pretty difficult to credit to be honest. We have seen mountains of evidence on here (and there is much, much more out there) on the reliability/unreliability of estimating TOD’s (especially 134 years ago) and yet we still have posters who for some (almost) inexplicable reason just can’t bring themselves to accept the known facts. Posters who have no doubt quoted from experts on here in the past regarding other topics are suddenly frozen with doubt when it comes to the medical experts opinion on this particular subject. It’s almost like seeing a desperate husband refusing to admit that his marriage is actually over. Why is this? Why is it that we can produce such a wide range of experts who concur 100% and yet they are suspected of somehow been ‘not quite right?’ I honestly can’t recall an equivalent situation. Has one single medical expert been produced who would say “a Victorian doctor, though not entirely accurate, would have been able to estimate a TOD correctly to within 45 minutes or so?” I haven’t seen one yet. Has anyone else?

I have to say though I’ll no doubt face criticism but this is becoming embarrassing. I’ve never witnessed such desperation. The FACT is that estimating TOD was unreliable; we know this because true experts on the subject repeatedly and consistently tell us this.

This doesn’t suggest that Phillips was incompetent. This doesn’t suggest that Phillips was dishonest. This doesn’t suggest that a Victorian doctor couldn’t have estimated a TOD and later have been proven correct. Of course no one is suggesting that they were 100% wrong but we have to accept the very real possibility of error. So, without us being able to recreate the exact conditions in Hanbury Street and the full general health of Annie Chapman, we have absolutely no way of verifying Dr Phillips estimation. We can say no more than he might have gotten it right; he might have gotten it wrong. So in effect his evidence is neutral as far as we’re concerned.

Why can’t this absolutely, incontrovertible fact be accepted? Black isn’t white.

Favouring Phillips over the witness has no justification and beggars belief.

Nothing has changed much at at murder crime scenes, a doctor will always attend and officially pronounce the victim dead. The investigation starts at that point because the police will ask the doctor to give an estimated time of death for obvious reasons, the answer would be based on the state of the body, using Chapman as an example the doctors estimate would be within a 2-3 hours window max given the description of the body and the external elements, and has been stated it was not a particularly an extremely cold morning.

You keep mentioning you favour the witnesses over Phillips, but you are forgetting one important aspect and that is there is no evidence that the killer murdered any of the other victims as late as the time you are suggesting Chapman was killed.

I again refer to Dr Biggs who says

, if the victim is a malnourished, slight, alcoholic female then rigor mortis may be less pronounced than might be expected, and so detection of rigor mortis in such an individual may indicate a longer time has elapsed since death

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

We could discus this case entirely with acrimony if we didn’t persist in trying to dismiss a mountain of expert knowledge in favour of trying to find ever more inventive ways of trying to increase the knowledge of a Victorian doctor, however competent and honest he undoubtedly was. We can’t recreate those conditions so we have no way to assess Phillips estimation. And because of that all that we can say is that it’s possible that he could have got it right and it’s possible that he could have got it wrong. Why are we, as laymen, trying to second guess the accepted experts in the field unless we are determined to skew the evidence one way or another. I accept the possibility of both options. So why are some trying to push it one way? We can only assume that there’s an underlying reason.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

We'll, in response to the original question posed in post No.1:

"Could it be possible Richardson missed the body that was there because he only stood on the step and looked into the yard ? Perhaps giving an earlier t.o.d"

I'd say no, on balance. Even standing on the steps I'd think he'd notice a body. It's not impossible he missed it, it just seems unlikely. Add the fact that Richardson was sure to say that he was there and couldn't have missed her, under oath, and I personally am inclined to go with that.

Could he have lied? Yes, but I'm not sure what that would be meant to achieve.
Could he have embellished his story? Again, yes, but to what end?

For me, it comes down to either Richardson missed the body, or Phillips was wrong with his TOD. Neither of these need any mental contortion or creating scenarios. If Phillips is correct, JR missed Annie. She had to be there. All JR's story needs to support it is the possibility that the estimation of TOD was incorrect, which isn't an unreasonable thing to suggest. Take your pick.

I lean towards JR being honest and Phillips being out, nothing sinister or untowards. Even if he only stood on the steps, anyone opening that door is going to see a corpse at the foot of the stairs.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nothing has changed much at at murder crime scenes, a doctor will always attend and officially pronounce the victim dead. The investigation starts at that point because the police will ask the doctor to give an estimated time of death for obvious reasons, the answer would be based on the state of the body, using Chapman as an example the doctors estimate would be within a 2-3 hours window max given the description of the body and the external elements, and has been stated it was not a particularly an extremely cold morning.

You keep mentioning you favour the witnesses over Phillips, but you are forgetting one important aspect and that is there is no evidence that the killer murdered any of the other victims as late as the time you are suggesting Chapman was killed.

I again refer to Dr Biggs who says

, if the victim is a malnourished, slight, alcoholic female then rigor mortis may be less pronounced than might be expected, and so detection of rigor mortis in such an individual may indicate a longer time has elapsed since death

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Then why do we have experts saying that rigor can appear in an hour or less? How many bodies at crime scenes would have been treated as Chapman had in terms of mutilation? She has to have been on the worst end of the scale Trevor. And I’ll point out again that Dr Biggs said ‘may.’

The fact that I favour the witnesses isn’t significantly affected by the fact that the other murders took place later either. For a start Trevor we’re possibly only talking about 1 in 5. If there were 30 murders and one was significantly different then yes I’d accept that it might be a valid point but 1 in a mere 5? It’s also the case that we can’t assume to be able to second guess a serial killer. They don’t think like us. We also can’t know the circumstances Trevor. What if the killer, like many men in those days, took whatever work that he could get from day to day? And what if the work that he’d got on that occasion was at night and he was passing down Hanbury Street on his way home? How can we know that this wasn’t the case? How can we know that he hadn’t intended to kill but was just on his way somewhere and Chapman propositioned him leading to her death? We can’t know either way. Yours is a point worth mentioning of course but it’s in no way a killer blow.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We'll, in response to the original question posed in post No.1:

"Could it be possible Richardson missed the body that was there because he only stood on the step and looked into the yard ? Perhaps giving an earlier t.o.d"

I'd say no, on balance. Even standing on the steps I'd think he'd notice a body. It's not impossible he missed it, it just seems unlikely. Add the fact that Richardson was sure to say that he was there and couldn't have missed her, under oath, and I personally am inclined to go with that.

Could he have lied? Yes, but I'm not sure what that would be meant to achieve.
Could he have embellished his story? Again, yes, but to what end?

For me, it comes down to either Richardson missed the body, or Phillips was wrong with his TOD. Neither of these need any mental contortion or creating scenarios. If Phillips is correct, JR missed Annie. She had to be there. All JR's story needs to support it is the possibility that the estimation of TOD was incorrect, which isn't an unreasonable thing to suggest. Take your pick.

I lean towards JR being honest and Phillips being out, nothing sinister or untowards. Even if he only stood on the steps, anyone opening that door is going to see a corpse at the foot of the stairs.

We couldn’t get a fairer assessment of the situation than that Al.

[Abby Normal]

I’m finding some of the comments on here pretty difficult to credit to be honest. We have seen mountains of evidence on here (and there is much, much more out there) on the reliability/unreliability of estimating TOD’s (especially 134 years ago) and yet we still have posters who for some (almost) inexplicable reason just can’t bring themselves to accept the known facts. Posters who have no doubt quoted from experts on here in the past regarding other topics are suddenly frozen with doubt when it comes to the medical experts opinion on this particular subject. It’s almost like seeing a desperate husband refusing to admit that his marriage is actually over. Why is this? Why is it that we can produce such a wide range of experts who concur 100% and yet they are suspected of somehow been ‘not quite right?’ I honestly can’t recall an equivalent situation. Has one single medical expert been produced who would say “a Victorian doctor, though not entirely accurate, would have been able to estimate a TOD correctly to within 45 minutes or so?” I haven’t seen one yet. Has anyone else?

I have to say though I’ll no doubt face criticism but this is becoming embarrassing. I’ve never witnessed such desperation. The FACT is that estimating TOD was unreliable; we know this because true experts on the subject repeatedly and consistently tell us this.

This doesn’t suggest that Phillips was incompetent. This doesn’t suggest that Phillips was dishonest. This doesn’t suggest that a Victorian doctor couldn’t have estimated a TOD and later have been proven correct. Of course no one is suggesting that they were 100% wrong but we have to accept the very real possibility of error. So, without us being able to recreate the exact conditions in Hanbury Street and the full general health of Annie Chapman, we have absolutely no way of verifying Dr Phillips estimation. We can say no more than he might have gotten it right; he might have gotten it wrong. So in effect his evidence is neutral as far as we’re concerned.

Why can’t this absolutely, incontrovertible fact be accepted? Black isn’t white.

Favouring Phillips over the witness has no justification and beggars belief.

absolutely herlock.
phillips could have actually been right on tod, but when you have three witnesses, one who says the body wasnt there earlier and two who corroberate a later killing then that should push it over the top in favor of the witnesses later tod. added to that tod estimation is sketchy a d the person who did discover the body noticed it immediately.
its a no brainer chapman was killed at the later time.

Theres just a group of people on here that just want to be contrary, and try to find any thing wrong, blow up any discrepency, however minor. for what reason i cant fathom, but its gotten so ridiculous on here lately.

[Abby Normal]

We'll, in response to the original question posed in post No.1:

"Could it be possible Richardson missed the body that was there because he only stood on the step and looked into the yard ? Perhaps giving an earlier t.o.d"

I'd say no, on balance. Even standing on the steps I'd think he'd notice a body. It's not impossible he missed it, it just seems unlikely. Add the fact that Richardson was sure to say that he was there and couldn't have missed her, under oath, and I personally am inclined to go with that.

Could he have lied? Yes, but I'm not sure what that would be meant to achieve.
Could he have embellished his story? Again, yes, but to what end?

For me, it comes down to either Richardson missed the body, or Phillips was wrong with his TOD. Neither of these need any mental contortion or creating scenarios. If Phillips is correct, JR missed Annie. She had to be there. All JR's story needs to support it is the possibility that the estimation of TOD was incorrect, which isn't an unreasonable thing to suggest. Take your pick.

I lean towards JR being honest and Phillips being out, nothing sinister or untowards. Even if he only stood on the steps, anyone opening that door is going to see a corpse at the foot of the stairs.

well said al, well said