John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

And although the meaning of the caveat is still being questioned (by someone who has an obvious reason for it to mean one thing) we now have 15 agreeing with the obviously correct interpretation and none the other way. Whatever Trump-like criticism the poll gets I’m happy that the result shows how simple this is. 15 English speakers all find it obvious.

Maybe it’s a conspiracy?

[DJA]

Heat radiates from a dead body in cold weather.

Nothing to do with blood loss which carries it's own heat away from the body.

[DJA]

Maybe it’s a conspiracy?

Could be

[Wickerman]

Heat radiates from a dead body in cold weather.

Nothing to do with blood loss which carries it's own heat away from the body.

Also the cold ground conducts heat away from the body.

[GBinOz]

Thats because they are not in victims, but in witness. you are looking in the wrong place

Thanks, I realise that, but I wasn't looking for polls, I was looking for threads on Chapman and the other poll just happened to be there.

Cheers, George

[DJA]

15 people here would not pass a Year 8 Physics exam.

[DJA]

[DJA]

Professor Julius Sumner Miller "Why Is It So" 1960's. - YouTube

[GBinOz]

And although the meaning of the caveat is still being questioned (by someone who has an obvious reason for it to mean one thing) we now have 15 agreeing with the obviously correct interpretation and none the other way. Whatever Trump-like criticism the poll gets I’m happy that the result shows how simple this is. 15 English speakers all find it obvious.

Phillips spoke English and was also doctor. As a doctor he wouldn't have used the word caveat in the context of a medical estimate. When Forensic experts quote examples that "can" be, such as a case where rigor started immediately, they are talking about possibilities, exceptions to the norm. Virchow set out a methodology for autopsies and there were standard formulae for deducing estimates using temperature decline, rigor, and digestion of stomach contents. These were designed to produce probabilities, not possibilities, the norm vs the exception. The Bell diagram shows the possibilities on each end that are small in number, and the probabilities group together in the centre of the sample and are large in number. Speaking as a doctor, Phillips gave a estimate of a minimum of 2 hours, then added "probably more". Not possibly, probably...Doctor-speak for the norm being usually more than 2 hours.

Phillips was an experienced police surgeon, but he may not have seen many, if any, victims before that had been eviscerated to the extent visited upon Chapman. Brown wouldn't have either, so he asked Phillips to give him the benefit of his experience with Chapman. Looking at Chapman as a case that may not conform to the "norm", he added a qualification for the "norm". Otherwise he would have said 2 hours, or possibly less due to .....

Error theory was a major topic when I did my Surveying Degree, and it is complicated, but a very basic principle concerns sample sizes. Two gross errors in a sample size of 12 will provide a meaningless result. In a sample size of 12,000 they will appear on the fringe and have no effect on the result.
IIRC Jeff said his error study produced a possible ToD range of 1AM to 7 AM, but qualified his result with the fact that he was using a small sample unrelated to the subject. The error range is large because the sample size is small. A poll on these two times would have a zero return as there is no suitable option presented. The probable would be at the centre of the extremes with the probability decreasing as the interval from the centre is increased or decreased.

This is all very well, but of no real use in this case as we are looking at an individual murder so the statistical sample size is one.

While medical evidence is currently decried, Karyo Magellan in The Victorian Medico-Legal Autopsy Part II: The Whitechapel Murders -Autopsies and Surgeons hadthis to say: I have examined the standards of forensic medical examination that prevailed in Victorian England at the time of the Whitechapel murders, from 1888 to 1891, and found them to be rather more impressive than is generally believed.

Looking through many of the Chapman threads, they all seem to run the same gauntlet, but sometimes posters are persuaded from their original assessments. At one time Herlock believed that Long was an unreliable witness, strangely for the same reasons that I have now.

Finally, I do not participate in this forum to demean or minimise the opinions of others, but to listen to those opinions on the basis that they may persuade me to modify my own opinion. Insults and snide remarks won't achieve that result. I also participate because, just occasionally, someone presents new material into the pot. That's it, sorry for the length of the post.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Professor Julius Sumner Miller "Why Is It So" 1960's. - YouTube

Those were the days Dave. I used to be glued to the TV set when he presented his show.

Cheers, George

[DJA]

Rigor mortis - Wikipedia

Have a look at timeline which shows Rigor Mortis possibly setting in at 1 hour with a body temperature of 37F.
Chapman's could have been as low as 33F due to TB.

Mrs. Elizabeth Long said: I live in Church-row, Whitechapel, and my husband, James Long, is a cart minder. On Saturday, Sept. 8, about half past five o'clock in the morning, I was passing down Hanbury-street, from home, on my way to Spitalfields Market. I knew the time, because I heard the brewer's clock strike half-past five just before I got to the street. I passed 29, Hanbury-street. On the right-hand side, the same side as the house, I saw a man and a woman standing on the pavement talking. The man's back was turned towards Brick-lane, and the woman's was towards the market. They were standing only a few yards nearer Brick-lane from 29, Hanbury-street. I saw the woman's face. Have seen the deceased in the mortuary, and I am sure the woman that I saw in Hanbury-street was the deceased. I did not see the man's face, but I noticed that he was dark. He was wearing a brown low-crowned felt hat. I think he had on a dark coat, though I am not certain. By the look of him he seemed to me a man over forty years of age. He appeared to me to be a little taller than the deceased.
[Coroner] Did he look like a working man, or what? - He looked like a foreigner.
[Coroner] Did he look like a dock labourer, or a workman, or what? - I should say he looked like what I should call shabby-genteel.
[Coroner] Were they talking loudly? - They were talking pretty loudly. I overheard him say to her "Will you?" and she replied, "Yes." That is all I heard, and I heard this as I passed. I left them standing there, and I did not look back, so I cannot say where they went to.
[Coroner] Did they appear to be sober? - I saw nothing to indicate that either of them was the worse for drink.
Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.
[Coroner] At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them.
[Coroner] You are certain about the time? - Quite.
[Coroner] What time did you leave home? - I got out about five o'clock, and I reached the Spitalfields Market a few minutes after half-past five.
The Foreman of the jury: What brewer's clock did you hear strike half-past five? - The brewer's in Brick-lane.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Phillips was an experienced police surgeon

In addition to your post, George, Dr Phillips understood the pitfalls of estimating TOD perfectly, as seen through his much wider time window for Mary who had been dead much longer than Annie.

It follows it is instructive when considering his unequivocal statement: a minimum of two hours. He understood the pitfalls and yet taking these pitfalls into account he was confident Annie had been dead for a minimum of two hours.

[DJA]

Hi George.

If you don't mind me saying, that's splitting hairs.

All Richardson meant is he didn't go into the yard, like walk around the yard, he stayed at the steps.
We can't make a mountain out of a mole-hill, that's my take anyway, sorry.

143 pages later

[Herlock Sholmes]

Phillips spoke English and was also doctor. As a doctor he wouldn't have used the word caveat in the context of a medical estimate. When Forensic experts quote examples that "can" be, such as a case where rigor started immediately, they are talking about possibilities, exceptions to the norm. Virchow set out a methodology for autopsies and there were standard formulae for deducing estimates using temperature decline, rigor, and digestion of stomach contents. These were designed to produce probabilities, not possibilities, the norm vs the exception. The Bell diagram shows the possibilities on each end that are small in number, and the probabilities group together in the centre of the sample and are large in number. Speaking as a doctor, Phillips gave a estimate of a minimum of 2 hours, then added "probably more". Not possibly, probably...Doctor-speak for the norm being usually more than 2 hours.

Phillips was an experienced police surgeon, but he may not have seen many, if any, victims before that had been eviscerated to the extent visited upon Chapman. Brown wouldn't have either, so he asked Phillips to give him the benefit of his experience with Chapman. Looking at Chapman as a case that may not conform to the "norm", he added a qualification for the "norm". Otherwise he would have said 2 hours, or possibly less due to .....

Error theory was a major topic when I did my Surveying Degree, and it is complicated, but a very basic principle concerns sample sizes. Two gross errors in a sample size of 12 will provide a meaningless result. In a sample size of 12,000 they will appear on the fringe and have no effect on the result.
IIRC Jeff said his error study produced a possible ToD range of 1AM to 7 AM, but qualified his result with the fact that he was using a small sample unrelated to the subject. The error range is large because the sample size is small. A poll on these two times would have a zero return as there is no suitable option presented. The probable would be at the centre of the extremes with the probability decreasing as the interval from the centre is increased or decreased.

This is all very well, but of no real use in this case as we are looking at an individual murder so the statistical sample size is one.

While medical evidence is currently decried, Karyo Magellan in The Victorian Medico-Legal Autopsy Part II: The Whitechapel Murders -Autopsies and Surgeons hadthis to say: I have examined the standards of forensic medical examination that prevailed in Victorian England at the time of the Whitechapel murders, from 1888 to 1891, and found them to be rather more impressive than is generally believed.

Looking through many of the Chapman threads, they all seem to run the same gauntlet, but sometimes posters are persuaded from their original assessments. At one time Herlock believed that Long was an unreliable witness, strangely for the same reasons that I have now.

Finally, I do not participate in this forum to demean or minimise the opinions of others, but to listen to those opinions on the basis that they may persuade me to modify my own opinion. Insults and snide remarks won't achieve that result. I also participate because, just occasionally, someone presents new material into the pot. That's it, sorry for the length of the post.

Cheers, George

Firstly George, I’m not claiming that that Long couldn’t have been mistaken. Of course she could have been mistaken but when it’s claimed (correctly) that all witness should be viewed fairly and with the same rigour then I have to point out the way Mrs Richardson was viewed (by one poster at least) because it highlights what I mean. It was claimed that Long should be eliminated as a witness but Mrs Richardson, who could barely bring herself to look at Chapman’s face (so we can assume a short look) believed that she was the women who sold items at the door. Now for all that we know this woman might have resembled Chapman. But she might have been correct of course. But in this case we get - Long should be eliminated but Mrs. R should be trusted. Is this a fair approach?

Secondly George, I can’t see any insults. A bit of sarcasm, yes but nothing that even approaches nastiness. The fact that I’ve been on the receiving end usually gets ignored though I’m afraid. If I’m minimising the opinions of others George, my own opinions certainly have been minimised too. That’s life. The fact is though George, that we have a thread where a Mount Everest of evidence has been provided to show that a Victorian Doctor’s TOD estimate cannot be relied upon. It might or might not have been accurate but we’ve had page after page after page of people desperately disputing this in an attempt to skew the evidence in the Doctors favour when it’s simply impossible to do so. Most have now accepted this but resistance is still occurring. Do you believe that it’s fair? I’m not the one challenging the worlds authorities. What hope for reasoned discussion when laymen believe that they know better? How much time has been wasted on having to dispute the indisputable. It reminds me of how often on other threads that some people were utterly resistant to the suggestion that a reason margin for error has to be allowed for with timings because most at the time wouldn’t have owned watches or clocks. When I see the obvious and provable being disputed it’s difficult not to see an agenda at work]

Finally, we have the caveat (whether or not Phillips would have used the term or not) We know that Phillips said:

. I should say at least two hours, and probably more;

Now that’s all that he needed to say. His opinion couldn’t have been clearer. He opinion was a minimum of 2 hours but that it was probably more. So no need to add anything. But he goes on to add something. He would only have done that unless it suggested a possible variation to his estimated range. And why would he add to ‘and probably more?’ Notice that he doesn’t say “and probably more because…..” he says “and probably more but…”

. 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.

“But it’s right to say…..” He’s clearly saying - I’ve given my estimate but to be entirely fair I have to say…..

This really couldn’t be clearer. Nothing else makes sense George and I’ve presented this question in the poll and 15 out of 15 agree. And many of these haven’t posted on this thread and so aren’t on any particular side of the debate and some have only made very occasional posts. There’s no point in pursuing this as it’s as clear as day as far as I and the large majority are concerned.

[Mark J D]

It’s a pity that we have no police record of any interview with the residents. Only a few of them ‘might’ have gone out that morning (it could have been as little as 3 or 4 possibles but we have no way of getting an accurate figure) If the police had questioned and eliminated them then we would have the door being left open after Richardson left and before he arrived.

Does anyone know if the inhabitants have been researched more closely to see who might have been too old or too young to have been ‘possibles’ for leaving the door open?

Wouldn’t a non-resident have been more likely to have done that?

Does anyone recall which of No. 29's residents was a carman? According to a newspaper quoted in a new Richard Jones video, there was one...



M.