John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

Again, stripping out the nonsense:

I was about to reply for the final time but I've thought better of it, Sherlock Holmes.

You have nothing accept your increasingly childish refusal to use my username. Not very well mannered is it Flathead Mick?

My final conclusion is that you have one fact, and you've cynically manipulated that one fact in an attempt to bolster a theory devoid of any facts

I have no theory. I accept that Phillips could have been right. I accept that Phillips could have been wrong. You however seek to skew it one way. And you do that because you have a starting point - Richardson must be dismissed - hence your embarrassing contortions.

Ah, you were about to reply for the ‘final’ time were you? I suspected that you wouldn’t answer my questions.

[JeffHamm]

Hi,

I've put together something as a visual. Baxter, when summing up, points out that Dr. P's examination was at 6:30, indicating that Dr. P's "2 hours earlier" indicates an estimated ToD at 4:30, which precedes Richardson's visit at around 4:50 ish. Based upon today's gold standard's error margin, which I've seen stated as being a minimum of +-3 hours, out to a maximum of +-7, I've chosen the narrowest of those windows. Note, that error window requires the estimate to have internal body temperature readings, the actual temperature of the environment, and the weight of the victim. We have no evidence that those objective measures were used by Dr. Phillips, but giving him the benefit of the doubt I'm using an error window that presumes he did. If he didn't, the window just gets wider.

That means, if all we had was Dr. P's estimate that the ToD was at 4:30, then all we could really state is that, given the error of the technique, that means she died somewhere between 1:30 and 7:30. Other evidence, however, might allow us to rule out parts of that time window.

We have 4 witnesses who are important, there's Davies, who finds the body. He testifies he woke up at 5:45, had a cup of tea, then found the body. (from his testimony: I was awake from three a.m. to five a.m. on Saturday, and then fell asleep until a quarter to six, when the clock at Spitalfields Church struck. I had a cup of tea and went downstairs to the back yard.) I'm using +- 15 minutes as the error range for us to consider for witnesses stating the time, as that's the interval between chimes they could hear. I've been looking for studies that evaluate the error margin from witnesses with regards to their recollection of the time, but so far no luck. I suspect I'm being overly generous, but maybe not.

Anyway, Davies States he woke up at 5:45, and while it would take about 5 minutes to make a cup of tea, I've not factored that in (as I'm plotting time in 15 minute intervals), so I've marked off between 5:30 and 6:00 for his time of discovery of the body. That means we know we can rule out the part of Dr. P's error window from 5:45 (ish) +- 15 minutes (and given I've left out the cup of tea, I think we could argue for from 5:50ish or so onwards).

That leaves us with 1:30 until roughly 5:50ish as being possible ToD that are consistent with Dr. P.

Now, we have Richardson, who says "I went to 29, Hanbury-street, between 4,45 a.m. and 4.50 a.m. on Saturday last.", and he states that he is certain the body was not there. So giving a +- 15 minute margin of error for his time, it appears that Annie is not dead yet, leaving roughly 4:45/5:00 until 5:50ish for the murder, all of which falls inside of Dr. P.'s error window.

Long says she saw Annie alive at 5:30, so giving +- 15 minutes, that means she sighted outside Hanbury Street, narrowing the murder to between 5:15 and 5:50ish.

And Cadosche's testimony of hearing noises in the backyard, etc who states: "On Saturday, Sept. 8, I got up about a quarter past five in the morning, and went into the yard. It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door." (so the implication is Annie and JtR are in the yard now, but Annie is still alive) around 5:20ish, which, given the error for both Cadosch's and Long's stated times, means they are not really in conflict. Cadosch goes on to say "I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards. While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly." (so a murder around 5:25 ish, if this is the murder in progress). And finally he states "I then went into the house, and from there into the street to go to my work. It was about two minutes after half-past five as I passed Spitalfields Church." I've placed Cadosche at roughly 5:30 +-15 using his "sound on the fence" time as that seems most relevant to the possible ToD.

Now, notice, Long and Cadoche's time windows overlap, meaning, either could in reality come first - therefore there is no evidence of conflict in their statements.

Also, Davies finds the body in a time window, while overlapping with Long and Cadosch, is still later in time, allowing for the murder to occur after Cadosch and before Davies arrival - no evidence of conflict.

Richardson's visit precedes the other witnesses, and so again, no conflict.

And all of this falls within the window we have to consider as "the murder would have happened in this time frame: 1:30 to 7:30", and sure enough, the witness based ToD that one comes to falls inside that window. Again, no conflict, there's nothing to explain here, and the testimony that we have is all consistent.




- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

I am not offended, but I am confused. I have no idea why my post #1283 is so unclear to you. Perhaps some other obliging reader would take a look at it, and tell us both why it is apparently impossible to understand. Someone "liked it", so someone understood it.

Sorry FM, but that claim above must be challenged.

It would be useful to clarify exactly what you're challenging. 'Happy to discuss it with you.

It could well be the case that your point has been lost due to the length of your post. No offence intended.

There's a chance you're saying this: initially Dr Phillips was confident 'at least two hours' (Inspector Chandler), but later had doubts on that which is why 'and probably more' was part of his inquest testimony. Is this a fair reflection?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Ah, you were about to reply for the ‘final’ time were you? I suspected that you wouldn’t answer my questions.

'Happy to answer your questions, Sherlock Holmes.

I can confidently state your 'facts' are not in place as a result of your response, 'only fair to offer you the same opportunity.

Mind you, I prefer a reasonable conversation and so providing it's kept reasonable I've no problem with answering your questions.

[JeffHamm]

I'm happy to explain why I think it's likely that Dr Phillips used rigor mortis as one of the tools in his estimation.

Before that, can you clarify what you mean when you say: "it doesn't even matter if he did".

You see, I think your whole proposition rests on body temperature being the sole means of estimating TOD, but in the above you state: "it doesn't matter even if he did".

Can you clarify. Happy to respond after the clarification.

I'm not sure how to clarify that as it's such a straight forward statement other than to say even he did as you assume, and used his Rigor Mortis observation when estimating ToD, it changes nothing with regards to the precision of his estimate as far as we're concerned; basically, it doesn't matter if he did or did not factor in his subjective observation of Rigor Mortis.

I know he mentions his observation early in his testimony, but he lists many observations in that section and makes no mention of what he subsequently did with that information. So, could you please point me to Dr. Phillip's statement where he indicates he used Rigor Mortis when estimating the ToD? Otherwise you are just making an assumption that he did, and while I think it's a valid thing to consider, it is nonetheless an assumption so we have to consider that he may not have as well.

The part of my post you edited out even contains my explanation of why even if he did factor in his Rigor Mortis observation, it would make no real difference as that measure is no more precise than using temperature (and in fact is probably less precise).

Anyway, I would be interested in the studies you allude to about the error range of very short PMI being very small. I've never seen them, so if you could post a link to them so I could have a look that would be much appreciated.

- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

basically, it doesn't matter if he did or did not factor in his subjective observation of Rigor Mortis.

I see. Well, my opinion is it does matter. I've laid out my reasons in previous posts in this thread.

Anyway, I would be interested in the studies you allude to about the error range of very short PMI being very small. I've never seen them, so if you could post a link to them so I could have a look that would be much appreciated.

- Jeff

I didn't allude to any studies being in existence. That is a misrepresentation of what I said. I did say I would look to see what I can find.

I've had a look for a few hours on and off over the last couple of days and I can't find any studies which support my argument or your argument, i.e. whether or not Dr Phillips is likely to have been so wide of the mark with a PMI of 1 hour.

[JeffHamm]

I see. Well, my opinion is it does matter. I've laid out my reasons in previous posts in this thread.

And I disagree with your opinion, as you do with mine. I too have laid out the information upon which my opinion is based, so I guess we just have to agree to disagree.

I didn't allude to any studies being in existence. That is a misrepresentation of what I said. I did say I would look to see what I can find.

Oh, but you most certainly did in your post 1220

In point 3 where you say:

3) In Dr Phillips' situation: in the event 5.30am was the time of death then the PMI is 1 hour. It is widely accepted that the shorter the PMI, the more accurate the assessment.

To say "It is widely accepted ..." is to allude to studies that show the shorter the PMI the more accurate the assessment" is to allude to studies upon which that statement is made. As you were critiquing the study I presented as dealing with PMI that are too long (they examined 5-50 hours PMI), by implication you are suggesting you are aware of studies that deal with shorter intervals.

If that is not what you meant, then please clarify the basis of that statement. I would be interested in where you got that information as I would like to see the relationship between the PMI and the error margin, as that relationship would be very useful to know.

I've had a look for a few hours on and off over the last couple of days and I can't find any studies which support my argument or your argument, i.e. whether or not Dr Phillips is likely to have been so wide of the mark with a PMI of 1 hour.

Ah, so are you now saying you had no basis for the point you made above?

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

'Happy to answer your questions, Sherlock Holmes.

I can confidently state your 'facts' are not in place as a result of your response, 'only fair to offer you the same opportunity.

Mind you, I prefer a reasonable conversation and so providing it's kept reasonable I've no problem with answering your questions.

You have the nerve to talk about being reasonable when you persist in childishly getting my name wrong. Your position has already crumbled but that was never in doubt because it was based on your bias and not facts.

Ive already posted my questions. I see no answers yet.

[Fleetwood Mac]

In point 3 where you say:

3) In Dr Phillips' situation: in the event 5.30am was the time of death then the PMI is 1 hour. It is widely accepted that the shorter the PMI, the more accurate the assessment.

To say "It is widely accepted ..." is to allude to studies that show the shorter the PMI the more accurate the assessment" is to allude to studies upon which that statement is made. As you were critiquing the study I presented as dealing with PMI that are too long (they examined 5-50 hours PMI), by implication you are suggesting you are aware of studies that deal with shorter intervals.

If that is not what you meant, then please clarify the basis of that statement. I would be interested in where you got that information as I would like to see the relationship between the PMI and the error margin, as that relationship would be very useful to know.

Ah, so are you now saying you had no basis for the point you made above?

- Jeff

Again, you are misrepresenting what I said.

It is widely accepted that the shorter the PMI, the more accurate the assessment.

This is widely accepted.

But, it doesn't follow that I suggested there are studies which apply to Dr Phillips' situation to prove that point.

The below is the first website I came across.

Determining Time of Death (coronertalk.com)

He is talking of body temperature being used and states this: as a general rule, the sooner after death the body is found, the more accurately time of death can be assessed by this method.

I'd ask you: are you saying that a shorter PMI does not increase the prospect of a more accurate estimate?

[Herlock Sholmes]

3) In Dr Phillips' situation: in the event 5.30am was the time of death then the PMI is 1 hour. It is widely accepted that the shorter the PMI, the more accurate the assessment.

To say "It is widely accepted ..." is to allude to studies that show the shorter the PMI the more accurate the assessment" is to allude to studies upon which that statement is made. As you were critiquing the study I presented as dealing with PMI that are too long (they examined 5-50 hours PMI), by implication you are suggesting you are aware of studies that deal with shorter intervals.

……

He’s just floundering around and making things up as he goes along. It’s a joke.

[Abby Normal]

3) In Dr Phillips' situation: in the event 5.30am was the time of death then the PMI is 1 hour. It is widely accepted that the shorter the PMI, the more accurate the assessment.

To say "It is widely accepted ..." is to allude to studies that show the shorter the PMI the more accurate the assessment" is to allude to studies upon which that statement is made. As you were critiquing the study I presented as dealing with PMI that are too long (they examined 5-50 hours PMI), by implication you are suggesting you are aware of studies that deal with shorter intervals.

……

He’s just floundering around and making things up as he goes along. It’s a joke.

it really is herlock. and a bad one at that. you guys have incredible patience trying to educate the other side, but im afraid its a lost cause.

[harry]

I do not understand your post (1273) Joshua.Who changed their testimony? Phillips attended the inquest and made his statement.I cannot find a previous statement of his,so how could he have changed anything. He would of course have made a written account of what transpired,but I do not believe that still exists.
Phillips evidence to the inquest was not questioned,either by the coroner or the jury,and not as far as I know by any medical authority of that time.
The question is,was there sufficient knowledge at that period of history for Phillips to have given a figure of two hours or more,and been right.
Between two to three hours might be more correct,as I feel sure phillips would have stated three hours instead of two,had he felt that was the case,
How big an error,plus or minus,for that amount of time is yet to be established.

[JeffHamm]

Again, you are misrepresenting what I said.

It is widely accepted that the shorter the PMI, the more accurate the assessment.

This is widely accepted.

But, it doesn't follow that I suggested there are studies which apply to Dr Phillips' situation to prove that point.

The below is the first website I came across.

Determining Time of Death (coronertalk.com)

He is talking of body temperature being used and states this: as a general rule, the sooner after death the body is found, the more accurately time of death can be assessed by this method.

I'd ask you: are you saying that a shorter PMI does not increase the prospect of a more accurate estimate?

No, I'm not misrepresenting what you said, you were just not being clear with your intent. Moreover, you've not provided any evidence for this being "widely accepted", as that would require studies to back up that claim. Even the link you provided only states "As a general rule..." and also that the estimate is more accurate than later times of death (as in many hours later, as he points out once the body has reached the environmental temperature, all bets are off - and according to his table at the end that requires 24 hours).

He also cautions, "As you can see, heat loss is fraught with inaccuracies. Still, with early and careful measurement of the core body temperature and consideration for the conditions surrounding the corpse, a reasonably accurate estimate can often be made."; but what does he mean by "reasonably accurate estimate"? As we know, the gold standard has an error of +-3 hours, and for a murder investigation, that may be considered "reasonably accurate".

I see his table at the end lists this:
5-7 hours: ………Rigor mortis begins in face.

8-12 hours: …….Rigor mortis established throughout the body, extending to arms and legs

so according to that, given that Rigor Mortis was commencing in the limbs, Annie would have to have been dead at least 5 hours, but Dr. P. thinks 2, etc. And the data I've seen from peer reviewed studies suggests this table is simply wrong.

Given the site you've directed me to is not a peer reviewed site, so I'm not sure how much of what he claims would survive scrutiny by other experts in the field, but noting some claims that are clearly refuted by the research literature, I'm not all that impressed with the more general statements. Not that I think he doesn't know what he's talking about, but the page is for general consumption, not for investigative practice.

I rather doubt there will be studies examining situations identical to Annie Chapman's situation, but that doesn't mean we can't evaluate what we do know, and assess the likely impact of Annie's situation, so you'll always have that as an out.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

I am not offended, but I am confused. I have no idea why my post #1283 is so unclear to you. Perhaps some other obliging reader would take a look at it, and tell us both why it is apparently impossible to understand. Someone "liked it", so someone understood it.

Hi Doc,

"He should say that the deceased had been dead at least two hours, and probably more,"

Can you tell us please, what was the Time of Death using only this part of his statement? Phillips was stating an interval, so he had to qualify it by reference to a starting point for that interval. Without that qualification, the statement makes no sense.

It seems to me that posters are differing in their interpretation as to which part of the above statement the "caveat" refers, the whole or the only later part.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

So, that said, is their any poster who will stand up and claim that Dr. Phillips couldn’t have been wrong? Remember none of us who favour the witnesses are saying that Phillips couldn’t have been correct. It’s an important point. All that we are saying is that the evidence is that he could have been wrong.

So if no one will say that they can prove that Phillips can’t have been wrong then the witnesses could have been right.

And as we have no way of assessing or confirming Phillips estimation then we are clearly left with an unknown.

So who on here will support a point that says - if x might have been the case then we can say that y was definitely the case?

Hi Herlock,

I accept that that the estimates for the interval of time elapsed from ToD until time of examination can be considered unreliable using the techniques employed at the time. However, looking at Llewellan's estimate for Polly, Blackwell and Phillip's estimate for Stride, and Brown and Sequeira's estimate for Eddowes, I question the magnitude of the error involved with Phillip's estimate for Chapman. Modern medical opinion dictates that Phillip's could have been wrong, but by how much? Can we know for sure?

But can we look at the other side of the coin? Modern opinion on the reliability of eye witnesses. Let's look at some statements on the modern theory in that regard gleaned from a Google search on "can eyewitnesses be wrong".

How reliable is an eye witness?
Studies have shown that mistaken eyewitness testimony accounts for about half of all wrongful convictions

List of Cons of Eyewitness Testimony

• Eyewitness testimony may not always be accurate. ...
• Eyewitness testimony rely only on people's memory. ...
• Eyewitness testimony can have parts that are made up by the witness due to nervousness or fear. ...
• Eyewitness testimony can convict the wrong person.

How reliable is your memory?
Human memory is notoriously unreliable, especially when it comes to details. Scientists have found that prompting an eyewitness to remember more can generate details that are outright false but that feel just as correct to the witness as actual memories.

Most false memories aren't malicious or even intentionally hurtful. They're shifts or reconstructions of memory that don't align with the true events. However, some false memories can have significant consequences, including in court or legal settings where false memories may convict someone wrongfully.

There is currently no way to distinguish, in the absence of independent evidence, whether a particular memory is true or false. Even memories which are detailed and vivid and held with 100 percent conviction can be completely false.

Cadosch's original statement to the press was that he heard voices from which he distinguished only the word "no", a rustle of clothing and a scuffle and a noise of something falling against the fence, all as one incident. Then he remembered they occurred at different times, some on his way to the toilet, and the last on his return. At the inquest his recollection was of two trips to the toilet with no rustle or scuffle, only the "No" on one trip, and the noise against the fence on the second trip some 3-4 minutes later. He summarised by saying that he didn't look over the fence because what he heard was nothing out of the ordinary.

Long stated that she saw many people and couples on the street that morning, but picked out one couple of whom she stated she took no notice. Four days after the event she identifies Chapman, a woman she had never seen before, in the morgue, as the woman she had seen on that morning.

Richardson told Chandler and the press that he had checked the lock on the cellar door that morning by the method he had been using for two months. Two days later he remembered that he sat on the step to cut leather from his boot. At the inquest he told the coroner he sat on the step and cut leather from his boot, but after retrieving the knife he said he used, then remembered in wasn't sharp enough and that the leather removal was actually achieved afterwards at his work with a borrowed knife.

Is it reasonable to suggest that in the discussions of the reliability, or otherwise, of Phillip's testimony, the same consideration must be given to that of the witnesses?

Best regards, George

P.S. You do realise my friend, that the repeated misquoting of your username is an attempt to goad you to cry havoc, and let loose the dogs of war?