John Richardson

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi FM,

Certainly not. I actually corrected that notion in my post #2244.

I was actually referring to the objection being raised to Christer's comment to Thilbin, that Phillips did not say that he put his hand "inside the abdominal cavity" and found warmth remaining under the intestines. I was suggesting that since the abdominal cavity is the usual place for the finding of intestines, that perhaps that statement was nit-picking.

Both you and Jeff interpreted what I said differently to what I meant. Entirely my fault. Humble apologies.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

A bit of confusion here, I'd imagine it's because I didn't make it clear in my post.

That was the question I posed to others, and simply repeated it with the others in mind (as opposed to asking you specifically).

I agree with your interpretation on the abdominal cavity, although I think the purpose of some others asking this question is to then reply with something like: "Dr Phillips didn't say that, and so how do we know what else Fisherman interpreted and relayed to Profession Thilbin", which is why I wasn't keen to get involved in that particular secondary issue.

As said, we'll end up down a rabbit hole with the main point being lost: i.e. the words/observations of Dr Phillips were relayed to Professor Thilbin (as per Fisherman's post).

No bother, mate!

[Fleetwood Mac]

Without knowing this, and we don't, we cannot say how accurate his estimation was, let alone anyone, medical or not, well over a century later.

What we do have is an experienced doctor who was aware of the state of the body and it follows he took those conditions into account before casting judgement. And, he had other observations to support his conclusion.

Given the doubt over Phillips's judgement, the witnesses attain a greater importance.

I disagree with the premise and the conclusion.

The strength of the witness statements should be considered on their own merit, as Dr Phillips' estimate should be.

Leaving Dr Phillips aside, the witnesses do not provide a compelling case.

[FISHY1118]

Sorry, but this total misuse of the English language is simply nonsensical.

To quote from The Times report, Phillips said 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 that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood."

That is, beyond argument, two simple statements, both complete in themselves. Firstly his etimated ToD when he saw the body, and secondly his expressed reservations about the accuracy of that estimate. The second statement qualifies the first. To pretend that his clearly stated doubts about the accuracy of the estimate refers only to part of the estimate totally defies all sanity. Phillips was a very experienced police surgeon who was perfectly capable of giving his evidence clearly. If he had intended that his explanation of potential error only applied to part of his estimate, then he would have said so, in words that the coroner and everone else could understand. This was a seasoned professional giving evidence for permanent record under oath.

I didnt think youd like the that simple explaination ,im not surprized . How do you know the second statement qualifies the first ? , you dont .

His expressed reservation is the second sentence only , but as ive pointed out people have suggested he ment if for the first '' At least two hours ' . not so.

Like Mac has pointed out time and time again, which mean at least two hours . Simple .

No English misuse and no nonsense just read what it says .

[GBinOz]

Sorry, but this total misuse of the English language is simply nonsensical.

To quote from The Times report, Phillips said 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 that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood."

That is, beyond argument, two simple statements, both complete in themselves. Firstly his etimated ToD when he saw the body, and secondly his expressed reservations about the accuracy of that estimate. The second statement qualifies the first. To pretend that his clearly stated doubts about the accuracy of the estimate refers only to part of the estimate totally defies all sanity. Phillips was a very experienced police surgeon who was perfectly capable of giving his evidence clearly. If he had intended that his explanation of potential error only applied to part of his estimate, then he would have said so, in words that the coroner and everone else could understand. This was a seasoned professional giving evidence for permanent record under oath.

Hi Doc,

I won't attempt to impugn your knowledge of the English language, or question your sanity. I'll just suggest you are misinterpreting his statement.

"He should say that the deceased had been dead at least two hours, and probably more" is a post mortem interval (PMI). To convert it to a Time of Death, you need a starting point. Phillips saw the body at the crime scene and in the mortuary. Phillips need to define to which of of those occasions he was referring. He did that by adding that it was from "when he first saw her body" at the crime scene, about 6:30. That was to be the time to which to add "at least two hours, and probably more".

I asked you this question before, but you didn't reply. Please tell me the Time of Death from this statement alone: "the deceased had been dead at least two hours". Without the starting point, this statement is meaningless.

Phillip's was a seasoned professional, but he probably hadn't seen a case with this degree of mutilation, so it was outside his experience. Likewise with Brown and Eddowes, which is why Brown called on Phillips. IMO, "but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood." was an acknowledgement that this circumstance was outside his experience, so his qualification would apply to how much more over two hours. That is my opinion. It agrees with that of others, but conflicts with yours, and others. Let's just leave it at that.

Cheers, George

[drstrange169]

" ... was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood."

Which is very telling.

It tells us Phillips's "dead at least two hours" was based on his experience of a body full of blood and with no viscera removed.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I didnt think youd like the that simple explaination ,im not surprized . How do you know the second statement qualifies the first ? , you dont .

His expressed reservation is the second sentence only , but as ive pointed out people have suggested he ment if for the first '' At least two hours ' . not so.

Like Mac has pointed out time and time again, which mean at least two hours . Simple .

No English misuse and no nonsense just read what it says .

Fishy,

Removing all of the drama, obfuscation, verbosity and gamesmanship; this is essentially what they are claiming Dr Phillips said and meant:

The least time possible is two hours but possibly less.

A monumental contradiction in terms and a nonsensical statement from an educated man.

[drstrange169]

>> ...it follows he took those conditions into account before casting judgement<<

But his statement, "it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood."

Tells us explicitly that he didn't.

[Fleetwood Mac]

" ... was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood."

Which is very telling.

It tells us Phillips's "dead at least two hours" was based on his experience of a body full of blood and with no viscera removed.

I disagree.

Rigor mortis was widely used in Victorian Times to support a TOD estimate.

Dr Phillips observed rigor was commencing 'of the limbs'.

A colder environmental temperature would delay the onset of rigor.

Therefore, it is reasonable that Dr Phillips took his range of observations into account and his one qualifier associated with: "at least two hours and probably more", is that which relates to body temperature. There would be no point in using the 'coldness of the morning' in relation to rigor to qualify his statement, given that it delays the onset.

Ultimately, we can dispute the words and the meaning but your suggestion is that an experienced doctor did not take into account a piece of observation, i.e. rigor, that was widely used in Victorian times. I for one find this to be a less than compelling argument.

[Fleetwood Mac]

>> ...it follows he took those conditions into account before casting judgement<<

But his statement, "it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood."

Tells us explicitly that he didn't.

See previous post.

[Fleetwood Mac]

To expand upon the idea that Dr Phillips did not take rigor mortis into account when forming his conclusion:

It has been suggested that because Dr Phillips qualified his estimate with a point on the body cooling, it follows that Dr Phillips' conclusion was formed solely on body temperature.

My suggestion is that the reason body cooling was mentioned was because this is the only qualifier he considered to be appropriate. It doesn't follow that Dr Phillips did not take his range of observations into account when forming a conclusion. Rather, it follows that he took the range of observations into account but from that range the one qualifier that need to be stated was the body cooling, i.e. he didn't deem it necessary to state a qualifier in relation to rigor because quite simply he didn't have one of any significance.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[Coroner] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - Dr Phillips 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.

One might also be correct that Phillips words At least two hours'' stands alone without the advent of such a word as ''caveat'' . He said at least 2 hours thats should be taken as such , was he right? thats debateable and weve certainly seen throughout this thread the arguments for and against .

Now if one want to say the ''Probabaly more''[as he gives reasons/conditions ] part of what he said, then that would be open to the use of a ''caveat''

So now, imo that should clear up the use of the word ''caveat'' and where it should and shouldnt be used When quoting Dr Phillipps above paragraph.

Lilely scenario in this case , killers murders Chapman at 4.15am , spends 15 mins mutilating her corpse ,leaves the scene of the crime . Richardson enters checks the lock from the doorstep [his words] turns back and goes off to work ,body is discovered around 6.00am.

The evidence available and amount of post so far that support this theory shouldnt be ignored .IMO

Then try telling that to the 16 English speakers on the poll who all disagree with you. The earlier TOD supporters are looking increasingly desperate and some of them are become increasingly biased.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"The small intestines and a flap of the wall of the stomach, also the cover of the intestines, were lying on the right side of the body on the ground above the right shoulder, and were attached to the remainder of the intestines in the body by a coil of intestine. Two flaps of the wall of the stomach were lying in a large quantity of blood above the left shoulder. I searched the yard, and found a small piece of coarse muslin and the other articles mentioned by Inspector Chandler. The muslin and combs had apparently been arranged, or placed in order, where I found them. The left side of the body was cold, excepting a remaining heat under the intestines in the body."

I see no doubt in the fact, Phillips felt under the intestines "in the body".

The considerable doubt about the importance of the warmth Phillips felt, arises in the fact that "the small intestines", "the flap of the wall of the stomach", "the cover of the intestines", "a coil of the remaining intestine", "two flaps of the wall the stomach" and that further unspecified "portions had been taken out from the abdomen".

Indisputably, the amount of viscera taken out of the body cavity, plus the skin flaps, will affect the speed of the cooling process. How many bodies had Phillips examined with this amount of viscera missing? Without knowing this, and we don't, we cannot say how accurate his estimation was, let alone anyone, medical or not, well over a century later.

Given the doubt over Phillips's judgement, the witnesses attain a greater importance.

Another sensible poster. Cheers Dusty

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sorry, but this total misuse of the English language is simply nonsensical.

To quote from The Times report, Phillips said 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 that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood."

That is, beyond argument, two simple statements, both complete in themselves. Firstly his etimated ToD when he saw the body, and secondly his expressed reservations about the accuracy of that estimate. The second statement qualifies the first. To pretend that his clearly stated doubts about the accuracy of the estimate refers only to part of the estimate totally defies all sanity. Phillips was a very experienced police surgeon who was perfectly capable of giving his evidence clearly. If he had intended that his explanation of potential error only applied to part of his estimate, then he would have said so, in words that the coroner and everone else could understand. This was a seasoned professional giving evidence for permanent record under oath.

If you hadn’t read it on here you wouldn’t have believed it if someone had told you that people were genuinely trying to skew the language like this simply to try and make a point.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I didnt think youd like the that simple explaination ,im not surprized . How do you know the second statement qualifies the first ? , you dont .

His expressed reservation is the second sentence only , but as ive pointed out people have suggested he ment if for the first '' At least two hours ' . not so.

Like Mac has pointed out time and time again, which mean at least two hours . Simple .

No English misuse and no nonsense just read what it says .

16-0

[FISHY1118]

Hi Doc,

I won't attempt to impugn your knowledge of the English language, or question your sanity. I'll just suggest you are misinterpreting his statement.

"He should say that the deceased had been dead at least two hours, and probably more" is a post mortem interval (PMI). To convert it to a Time of Death, you need a starting point. Phillips saw the body at the crime scene and in the mortuary. Phillips need to define to which of of those occasions he was referring. He did that by adding that it was from "when he first saw her body" at the crime scene, about 6:30. That was to be the time to which to add "at least two hours, and probably more".

I asked you this question before, but you didn't reply. Please tell me the Time of Death from this statement alone: "the deceased had been dead at least two hours". Without the starting point, this statement is meaningless.

Phillip's was a seasoned professional, but he probably hadn't seen a case with this degree of mutilation, so it was outside his experience. Likewise with Brown and Eddowes, which is why Brown called on Phillips. IMO, "but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood." was an acknowledgement that this circumstance was outside his experience, so his qualification would apply to how much more over two hours. That is my opinion. It agrees with that of others, but conflicts with yours, and others. Let's just leave it at that.

Cheers, George

Do you think youll get this reply too george ?.''Sorry, but this total misuse of the English language is simply'' nonsensical........ ill be dissapointed if you dont

''defies all sanity'' even our opinions regarding the interpretation of what DR Phillips ment is being called Insane!!!!! .....Getting desperate