John Richardson

[Aethelwulf]

[Coroner] Was it light? - It was getting light, but I could see all over the place.
[Coroner] Did you sit on the top step? - No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard.
[Coroner] You must have been quite close to where the deceased was found? - Yes, I must have seen her.

None of the Backslapping Chums have provided a credible argument as to why this wasn't the case and why Richardson would have lied under oath. There is the sum total of nowt to say that Richardson was lying.

Phillips was ready to entertain a minimum of two hours (and less if you have any sense). Even at two hours the condition of Chapman would have been outside his experience and that of Fisherman's Friend.

Furthermore, were there any circumstances associated with Chapman that would have been unusual at the time, and today for modern experts to deal with? Yes: Chapman was poorly, malnourished, and she was lying on cold flags with her abdomen cut open and internal organs taken out and there had been a great loss of blood. Obviously, she had suffered a very unusual and traumatic death. It was a cool morning.

Is it realistic that if Phillips was happy with a minimum of two hours he could have been out by under an hour, taking into account the unusual death and the appraisals we've heard about related to the use of temperature and RM to estimate ToD? Yes.

Take anything Fisherman says on this with a big pinch of salt because an early ToD is critical for his case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But you are deliberatley ignoring the context of what he stated "He uses the term "I should say at least two hours, and "probably more" So it is right to accept that baased on that 2 hours was the earliest TOD and that could have been even longer. He doesnt say 2 hours or less and even mentioning that the cooling of the body he is not suggesting that his estimated TOD is wrong in effect he is stating that it simply a cold morning, no where does he infer that his estimated TOD could be wrong based on that cold morning he describes.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Wrong again Trevor. It’s not right to accept that 2 hours was the earliest TOD because that’s only going on Phillips estimation and we know that his estimation was an unreliable one (for the facts stated and quoted on here numerous times)

On your second point….are you really suggesting that Phillips gives his estimate and then just mentions the weather in passing?!

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.

He gave that but for a reason. Any suggestion that he just mentioned it in passing is ludicrous.

You don’t add a but to a statement if that but doesn’t introduce the possibility of some variation or else why didn’t he simply leave it at “ I should say at least two hours, and probably more..?” So he clearly added the part after the but (the caveat) for a reason, and one that offered a caveat to the main part - which can only have been a possible variant at either the minimum or maximum end his estimate.

It couldn’t have been the maximum end because the maximum wasn’t a set time. It was “probably more.” He couldn’t have meant therefore “……. , and probably more; but it’s 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 his blood, so it was probably more than probably more.”

You surely can’t believe that the above comes close to making sense? Therefore he was undoubtedly talking about the minimum time and that due to the conditions and the condition of the corpse death might have occurred less than 2 hours previous to his examination. This is so obvious that it’s a sad reflection that we still have to discuss it. And do you know what Trevor? Not only do we have it in black and white that the coroner interpreted Phillips words in exactly the same way but, of the 17 people that voted on the poll, every single one of them interpreted it the same way to. The only people that disagree are the ones that are intent on discrediting the witnesses. Isn’t that a coincidence.

This point is a dead duck. Proven beyond doubt.

[GBinOz]

The basics of human anatomy, I believe, assume that a person's head is at the top of their body and their feet are at the bottom George. That doesn't actually change just because a person might be standing on their head one day.

But, in any case, we don't know whether or not Dr Phillips brought Chapman into a sitting position to test her temperature. He doesn't need to have mentioned that to the coroner, just like he didn't mention putting his hand into Chapman's her abdominal cavity.

As for your characterisation of my argument that Phillips worked his hand "between her skin and her clothes around to her back opposite where the remaining intestines would have been had they not fallen out" you might want to read what I've said more closely. I'm not now suggesting he did that. I'm suggesting he felt for warmth in her rectum, just like he would have done with a thermometer if he had one, and, in terms of sticking a finger up there, just like he would have no doubt been very experienced in doing with his living patients if he needed to check any medical issues they had in that area.

Unless you can tell that this is not possible and that you cannot possibly be wrong in your own interpretation whereby Dr Phillips apparently decided not to check the actual warmth of the intestines, or of the kidneys or the liver, when he plunged his hand into the gaping wound in Chapman's body, then I think you should admit, in fairness, that it might have happened.

Hi Herlock,

When you are conducting these head standing rituals, does the blood flow down to your head, or up to your head?

I read what you said in the post you referenced very closely and answered the question you asked in that post as requested.

I shall admit that it might have happened only if, and after, Russell's Teapot and Sagan's Dragon are located and verified.

Cheers, George

P.S. Kattrup, run away, save yourself while there is still time.

[drstrange169]

>>What Dr Strange fails to mention is that in the same thesis it is stated that rigor appears on average 1.5 to 4 hours after death. <<

I didn't "fail to mention" anything. I simply responded to Trevor's comment,

" I am not aware of anything that corroborates that, just after death ..."

nothing more.

[drstrange169]

>>The cadaveric spasm you cited is a rare phenomenon as cited in your citation and you quote "however, this phenomenon often occurs only in a group of muscles such as muscles of a limb and does not involve all the muscles in the body." so Phillips states that stiffness in the limbs so by that can we rightly or wrongly assume that all the limbs were showing signs of rigor?<<

The quote I cited mention TWO forms of early onset of rigor mortis, accelerated rigor mortis (which is what the article was actually about and the part that is most relevant to this discussion) and cadaveric spasms.

[drstrange169]

Since some are obsessed with averages, when it comes to rigor mortis, it is worth pointing out that the average for full rigor fortis is variously quoted as, 6 to 8 or 8 to 12 hours after death.

When Phillips conducted his post mortem, 8 hours after first seeing the body and over 12 hours after he estimated the body to have been dead for, full rigor had yet to kick in.

Rigor mortis commences in the face and fingers, Phillips noted that,

"The stiffness was more noticeable on the left side, especially in the fingers"

So full mortis had not yet been attained, when he conducted the autopsy.

[FISHY1118]

Read this https://coronertalk.com/28
TOD is a range.Anything within that range could be the one.And that is with more science.There might have been something in the Nichols and Eddowes case that appeared they have been killed more recently when the doctor examined the body in-situ.Besides the policemen's testimonies\talks might have helped them.
Cadosche and Longs testimonies at the very least put the time of murder at past 5:00 am even if their times was screwed by 15 to 20 minutes.There is nothing to base it on before that,unless your basis is "just because".
As for Richardson he knew that house,been there many times and he could determine if he could see the body from where he was that early morning.

Well, as has already been discussed many times, the witness testimony is unrelieble due to the ambiguious , uncertain and at times contradictory nature of the inquest testimony . Im also pretty sure the drs didnt use any police talks for advice when givin their t.o.d estimates .

When we add all that up, its still no certainty that 5.30 was the time of death ,it just as well could have been 4.00 /4.30. am imo

[FISHY1118]

Excellent.

So you agree that Fleetwood Mac was talking nonsense when he said in #2394:

"He gave his professional opinion that Annie wasn't murdered at 5.30am...Do you want to comment on Professor Thilbin's statement that what Fisherman relayed to him suggests Annie was murdered hours prior to 5.30am?"

AND in #2410

"What is being scrutinised is Dr Thilbin's conclusion that it is likely Annie was murdered hours prior to 5.30am."

Dr Thiblin never said any such thing, did he? He wasn't asked about it and he never said it.

Whats is excellent is Dr Thilbin agreed with Dr Phillips findings that he ''could'' have been right , that Chapman was dead'' 2 hours pobably more'' based on Dr Phillips assessment at the crime scene . Adding weight to the arguement that modern day medical experts agree that Victorian Drs t.o.d is not as unreliable as one would have us think .

So im more than happy to use the modern day medical expert line to support Dr Phillips findings , Thanks to Fishermans detailed research on the subjet ,we can now put that to bed .

[FISHY1118]

That's going to be rather difficult because Fisherman posted then ran away. Funny that!

Yes because he made his point ,no need for him to go over and and over it again . Very clever .

[FISHY1118]

Some people, also who wish to be taken seriously are still doubting when it has been shown that a modern day medical expert have essentially agreed that Dr Phillips ability to give an accurate t.o.d

Also staggering , embarrassing and extremely sad

[GBinOz]

Since some are obsessed with averages, when it comes to rigor mortis, it is worth pointing out that the average for full rigor fortis is variously quoted as, 6 to 8 or 8 to 12 hours after death.

When Phillips conducted his post mortem, 8 hours after first seeing the body and over 12 hours after he estimated the body to have been dead for, full rigor had yet to kick in.

Rigor mortis commences in the face and fingers, Phillips noted that,

"The stiffness was more noticeable on the left side, especially in the fingers"

So full mortis had not yet been attained, when he conducted the autopsy.

Daily Telegraph account of inquest - Dr Phillips regarding autopsy:
"The stiffness of the limbs was then well-marked. The finger nails were turgid". "On the left side the stiffness was more noticeable, and especially in the fingers, which were partly closed".

As has been noted, many factors affect rigor, privation, stress etc, that can lead to it's acceleration or retardation. One factor is that cold temperature retards the progress of rigor. The custody of Annie's body after it was removed from the yard was certainly less than ideal.

Chandler "said he reached the mortuary a few minutes after seven. The body did not appear to have been disturbed. He did not stay until the doctor arrived. Police-constable 376 H was left in charge, with the mortuary keeper. Robert Marne, the mortuary keeper and an inmate of the Whitechapel Union Workhouse, said he received the body at seven o'clock on Saturday morning. He remained at the mortuary until Dr. Phillips came. The door of the mortuary was locked except when two nurses from an infirmary came and undressed the body. No one else touched the corpse. He gave the key into the hands of the police".

"Sarah Simonds, a resident nurse at the Whitechapel Infirmary, stated that, in company of the senior nurse, she went to the mortuary on Saturday, and found the body of the deceased on the ambulance in the yard. It was afterwards taken into the shed, and placed on the table. She was directed by Inspector Chandler to undress it, and she placed the clothes in a corner."
"Inspector Chandler: I did not instruct the nurses to undress the body and to wash it". Chandler was later vindicated on this point, the mortuary keeper having given that order.

There are several anomalies here. How did the nurses find the body in the mortuary yard when the mortuary keeper said he locked it the shed? When did the nurses arrive to undress the body and wash it? Was the body lying in the yard for seven hours, or lying naked on the table in the unheated shed for seven hours, or a combination of the two? Remember that at Hanbury St "The Doctor pronounced life extinct and stated the woman had been dead at least two hours."(no qualifier),and at the inquest "I should say at least two hours, and probably more". Was the doctor adding "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." in reference to the time the body spent in/outside the mortuary shed? The effect of the qualifier would be to accelerate the body temperature differential but to retard the progress of the rigor.

It is accepted that doctor's ToDs were unreliable in Victorian times, and witness testimony has always been unreliable. Phillips rigorously applied the techniques available at the time, techniques that were applied to the other murders with not so unreliable results. One witness kept changing his story and the other two testified that they weren't really paying attention. I'm still only leaning towards towards my opinion, so I won't be the least bit annoyed, upset or belligerent at the disagreement of other posters.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Yes because he made his point ,no need for him to go over and and over it again . Very clever .

The Joseph Goebbels school of debating technique.

[DJA]

That's 10 Aussie posts in a row.

Dept of DeFence

[Fleetwood Mac]

When Phillips conducted his post mortem, 8 hours after first seeing the body and over 12 hours after he estimated the body to have been dead for, full rigor had yet to kick in

The pertinent point is what Dr Phillips observed at 6.30am. I for one have no wish to go down a rabbit of hole of what he observed during the post mortem.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Have you found that quote yet?

No. I'm still contemplating two of your more lucid and compelling posts.

Post 2023 in which you stated this:

Total

And post 2439 in which you stated this: