John Richardson

[Fleetwood Mac]

Echo: 10 Sep 1888:
On Saturday the sun rose at twenty-three minutes past five; for half an hour previously the light would be such as to render it difficult for anyone to distinguish even near objects.

For clarity, George, is the entire quote from The Echo?

Edited to add: I can see your comment in another post that it's a direct quote.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Doc,

I posted the quote without comment. I am well aware of the mechanics of sunrise, but this is from the time. I recall someone else commenting that the pollution in London at that time that produced the London fogs may have also affected the light levels. It's just another piece for the jigsaw.

Cheers, George

That was me George.

A few of us got into a discussion about nautical and civil twilight (what we understand as dawn).

Dawn on the morning of Annie's murder was at 4.51am.

You'll know this: nautical twilight refers to the the time the sky becomes discernible from land (the time when sailors are able to navigate, but we have to remember it becomes discernible at sea where the sky is clear).

It is widely accepted that nautical twilight is impeded by air pollution and the height of air pollution in this country was at the end of the 19th century.

Put it this way, at the Polly Nichols inquest Dr Bond stated it was dark half an hour before dawn and that was with a street lamp at the end of Buck's Row. This was during nautical twilight.

Where I got to with it, is while not conclusive there isn't sufficient to claim John Richardson would not have been able to see the body due it being dark at the back of 29 Hanbury Street.

[rjpalmer]

Cadosch merely stated he heard noises at a time the place is coming alive.

That's not at all what he stated.

[Fleetwood Mac]

That's not at all what he stated.

Would you like to post what you believe is significant and its significance in terms of lending weight to Cadosch hearing a murder.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Echo: 10 Sep 1888:
On Saturday the sun rose at twenty-three minutes past five; for half an hour previously the light would be such as to render it difficult for anyone to distinguish even near objects.

The obvious obstacle with this, George, is that when Cadosch was asked about looking over the fence he didn't mention that it would have been too dark to see.

It's similar to the gaps in the fence: the exchange between Cadosch and the coroner tells us Cadosch would have needed to look over the fence to see a murder taking place.

Having said that, this was 5.15am. It may well have been much darker between 4.45am and 4.50am.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Where was Phillips supposed to have gained these amazing powers of estimating the appropriate intestinal warmth under these specific conditions?

He didn't 'estimate the appropriate intestinal warmth'.

He made a distinction between a cold body and a certain remaining heat under the intestines.

Can you expand upon why you feel Dr Phillips was unable to discern 'a certain remaining heat' from an otherwise cold body.

To reduce it to its bare bones: discerning warmth from cold.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fishy,

I would go farther and suggest that the evidence, reasonably assessed, points towards an earlier TOD.

Biased rubbish of course.

And, I don't think we need modern day experts to show that witnesses can be mistaken. The holes in their statements are there for all to see: Richardson misleading the coroner with his knife tale lie; Long and Cadosch contradicting one another lie, they have a slight timing discrepancy of around 10 minutes which, as research shows, is nothing in the LVP; Long didn't get take a great deal of notice of the couple nor saw where they went; Cadosch merely stated he heard noises at a time the place is coming alive And someone is apparently walking around in a yard without noticing the mutilated corpse lying there.Leaving Dr Phillips aside, they do not present a compelling case. To a clown maybe.

Discussing this with Sherlock is futile. He'll swerve question after question, and when he does reply it's obfuscation. And how many times have I asked you to simply cut and past the part where Thiblin agrees with an earlier TOD? And have you? No, because we all know that it doesn’t exist. It appears to me he has taken a side and is arguing for that side at all costs. That's why he appears to me to be an American. Oh, so you’ve changed your tune have you. Yesterday I was definitely an American. Now I just post like one. That's not a slight on the United States. I think you’ll find that it most certainly is. I've visited the country a few times and been made to feel welcome. Mind you, I have only been to the Southern states and so I don't know what they're like in the North. It's a country with a fascinating political history, and for anyone who is a fan of boxing and music it is a country that has given pleasure to a lot of people (who live outside of that country). Having said that, it is a feature of a section of the United States population that they love taking a side and arguing for that side like fanatics. The sort of people who state Liberalism is a disease and refer to Republicans as repubtards. I put it down to the fact there are more of them and so it follows they're going to have a larger lunatic fringe than most other countries. And that’s not insulting of course That minority of the United States population are childish and Sherlock displays all of the same signs. And the FACET that I’m provably not American doesn’t bother you? Perhaps in should throw in a few Black Country phrases?

At the same time, we probably don't want this to get into message board bullying. Like stating that I’m on drugs or that, see below, that there’s something wrong with my mind. Sherlock waltzes 'round insinuating people are idiots and by extension he's willing to take a bit back, but you (general you as opposed to you specifically) just don't know what is going on in people's mind. Nice.

What is much more interesting is that a 5.30am TOD appears to be the consensus among those who know the case and the source documents inside out. And who is that consensus? Something else you won’t enlighten us with? Fisherman? You? Fishy? Yeah right? I find that baffling and difficult to get my nut around.

Accusations of drug taking, insults to the USA, accusations that I’m pretending to be English, insinuations that there might be some issue with my mind, refusing to post evidence that you claim exists.

Read Jeff’s poem because I’ll tell you one thing….it wasn’t aimed at me, and you won’t find a more fair-minded, difficult to rattle poster than him. It was a bad day for the Forum when you joined.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Accusations of drug taking, insults to the USA, accusations that I’m pretending to be English, insinuations that there might be some issue with my mind, refusing to post evidence that you claim exists.

Read Jeff’s poem because I’ll tell you one thing….it wasn’t aimed at me, and you won’t find a more fair-minded, difficult to rattle poster than him. It was a bad day for the Forum when you joined.

And I refuse to refer to you by your 'proper name'. You should have thrown this one for the full set.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[Herlock Sholmes]

Indeed Mac , Probably the two most significant and Important post of this entire thread. 1st Fishermans #2180 and GBinOz #1320.

Proof that a modern day medical expert supporting that phillipps may have been correct with his t.o.d estimate. Also modern day experts showing that witnesses can be incorrect . Which imo is what the uncertain ,ambiguious contradictory evidence suggest.


Thanks to both those guys for their research.

There can surely be no doubt now as the t.o.d regarding the chapman murder is yet to be determine.

I responded to Fisherman's #2180 at some length in #2185 but no-one, including Fisherman, has rebutted anything I said.

If all you got out of #2180 is that Phillips "may have been correct" with his T.O.D. estimate, it was a waste of time because I've always admitted he might have been correct. The whole point is that he equally might have been wrong (as the coroner concluded he was and as he himself admitted he might have been).

The only relevant sentence from Thiblin quoted by Fisherman in his #2180 - the one which FM seems to be too scared to reproduce in its entirety - was this:

"If he [Dr Phillips] felt an obvious difference between the outer and central parts of the body, I am of the meaning that it speaks of a PMI of 3-4 hours rather than 1 hour."

As there is no evidence that Phillips "felt an obvious difference" between the outer and central parts of the body (nor did he speak of a PMI of 3-4 hours) this can only be a hypothetical comment.

But let's say that Phillips HAD said in his evidence that he felt an obvious difference between the outer and central parts of the body, why does Thiblin think this would speak of a PMI of 3-4 hours rather than 1 hour?

I have literally no idea.

You see, Thiblin was also quoted by Fisherman in #2180 as saying:

"there are many studies that show us that the internal temperature can remain at around 37 degress for several hours"

If that is correct, one would anticipate the the internal temperature of Chapman at her core (i.e. the central part of her body including the intestines) could have been 37 degrees at the moment of her death, 37 degrees one hour after death, 37 degrees two hours after her death and 37 degrees four hours after her death.

So the intestines could have been just as warm an hour after her death as four hours after her death, while her skin might have felt cold an hour after her death and four hours after her death.

As we know, Thiblin confirms that a body can feel cold within an hour of death.

So, where the body is cold an hour after death, would we not expect an obvious difference between the outer and central parts of the body at that time? i.e. cold skin, warm intestines.

Well, perhaps we find the answer in Thiblin telling us: "There are even indications that the central temperature can rise somewhat... after death...Therefore, it is perfectly possible for inner organs to feel warm many hours after death."

So, did he mean to say that, if Dr Phillips had felt that the intestines were WARMER than he would have expected for a recently deceased body, this would indicate that Chapman had been dead some hours? Odd, if so. Furthermore, Thiblin also said of warm organs many hours after death that, "This is something I have experienced myself after several days aming severely obese individuals, stored in cool conditions." Chapman wasn't severely obese, so I don't know how that could help.

The final possibility is that he was saying that Phillips could have estimated a 3-4 hour PMI if the intestines were NOT AS WARM as he would have expected, thus indicating the passing of many hours? That's certainly how I understood him.

The problem for all of these possibilities is that Phillips didn't tell the coroner how warm the intestines (or, more strictly, the area under the intestines) were. Were they very warm, moderately warm or not very warm? We have no idea. Nor did Phillips say that the lack of warmth, or unexpected increase in warmth, in the intestines was his reason for a 2 hour minimum time estimate (note, NOT 3-4 hours!) For that reason, Thiblin cannot possibly have been giving us an opinion about the actual PMI involved in Chapman's case. It can only be hypothetical.

And I haven't even started on Thiblin having been told things about the case which aren't in evidence.

Personally, I don't think Fisherman even understood what Thiblin was saying. Do you? If so, perhaps you could explain it to me.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi George,

The Echo may well have printed that quote, but it is not accurate. Daylight is quite reasonable about 30 mins before sunrise - certainly good enough to identify a body inches from your feet. Dawn isn't like switching a light on and off.

Every time someone suggests that it was too dark for Richardson to have seen the body, they are suggesting that it was sufficiently light even earlier for JtR to murder Chapman swiftly, silently and effectively, and complete his mutilations. Too dark for Richardson but when it was even darker, there was sufficient light for JtR. This seems very doubtful to me!

The issue with this is that Catherine was murdered and mutilated in the dark.

It is well established that 'dawn isn't like switching a light on and off'. Nobody is claiming that.

When John Richardson claimed to have been in the yard, it was during nautical twilight. It is debatable as to whether or not he would have been able "to see all over the yard" (in his own words). Mind you, there isn't enough to claim it is likely he couldn't.

19th century London was heavily polluted, nautical twilight is impeded by air pollution. What we can't say is just how much nautical twilight would have been impeded.

As it stands, I'm prepared to say it's a non-issue because it just can't be proven but there is a realistic possibility that at the time John Richardson claimed to be in the yard, he would not have been able 'to see all over the yard'.

[The Macdonald Triad]

More quibbling. I picked a bad week to stop sniffing glue.

[Doctored Whatsit]

The issue with this is that Catherine was murdered and mutilated in the dark.

It is well established that 'dawn isn't like switching a light on and off'. Nobody is claiming that.

When John Richardson claimed to have been in the yard, it was during nautical twilight. It is debatable as to whether or not he would have been able "to see all over the yard" (in his own words). Mind you, there isn't enough to claim it is likely he couldn't.

19th century London was heavily polluted, nautical twilight is impeded by air pollution. What we can't say is just how much nautical twilight would have been impeded.

As it stands, I'm prepared to say it's a non-issue because it just can't be proven but there is a realistic possibility that at the time John Richardson claimed to be in the yard, he would not have been able 'to see all over the yard'.

Hi FM,

It is good for us to share some common-ground - I don't see the light as an issue. It may have been reasonably light, it might have been fairly dark, but a body at Richardson's feet must have been visible. The relevance of the London smog that morning is an unknown, as you say.

Eddowes was murdered where there was some street lighting, albeit not very close. Asked a direct question whether JtR had sufficient light to perform his tasks where he was, Dr Sequeira said that he did. There would have been no lighting in the yard at no. 29, of course.

[GBinOz]

Okay George, let me try something different and I'll be interested in your views. I want to modify my argument as to what Dr Phillips might have done.

Firstly, a reminder of how the Daily Telegraph reported the evidence of Dr Phillips.

"The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body".

For the purpose of my argument, we need to assume that this is exactly what Dr Phillips said, with that punctuation, to the exclusion of all the other reports which are slightly different (although noting that the Daily News report says "under the intestine", singular).

In other words, to rephrase it slightly, the doctor said that there was a certain remaining heat in the body, under the intestines.

Now let's look at this definition of the large intestine:

"The large intestine includes the colon, rectum and anus. It’s all one, long tube that continues from the small intestine as food nears the end of its journey through your digestive system."

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/healt...arge-intestine

So, in order to test for warmth of the large intestine itself (which, remember, anatomically and medically speaking, includes the rectum and anus), why could Dr Phillips not simply have stuck his finger up Chapman's anus, into the rectum, to see whether there was any heat there?

After all, with a thermometer, that is the standard test for finding heat in the body's core, i.e. you stick it up the anus into the rectum.

Would that not have been far less messy than sticking his hand inside the exposed mutilated body? Would it not have produced the same result, i.e. a finding of warmth under the intestines?

And might not Dr Phillips, to avoid having to say at a public inquest "I stuck my finger up her arse and it was warm" express himself in am more polite way by simply noting "heat under the intestines"?

Are we able to say that he definitely did not do this?

OK Herlock.....you're onto me. I'm actually an alien from Proxima Centauri B and have no understanding of human anatomy or the English language. Best direct your hypothesis to the learned and erudite voters from your poll.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

OK Herlock.....you're onto me. I'm actually an alien from Proxima Centauri B and have no understanding of human anatomy or the English language. Best direct your hypothesis to the learned and erudite voters from your poll.

Cheers, George

At least I don’t tell you that you’re not from Australia, George.