John Richardson

[The Macdonald Triad]

Does anyone have the clip from I think it was the Illustrated Press that shows an inset of Mrs Richardson quarrelling with Chapman? I saw it in a recent documentary but can't find it online.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What Phillips supposedly admitted is another matter.

'Surprised to see you now agree what the coroner intended when he said: "miscalculated". 'Never too late, I suppose.

Which can only be because you don't understand what is going on.

That Dr Phillips miscalculated the estimated time of Chapman's death is what I've been saying all along.

[Fleetwood Mac]

An estimate of 2.30 to 5.30 would have been the most accurate. Exactly as I've been saying all along and exactly as Dr Biggs has said.

Which is irretrievably meaningless. Nobody is putting forward a timeframe of between 2.30am and 5.30am. 'Certainly not you given you've argued for the best part of 200 pages that the TOD is 5.20am to 5.30am. To remind you, we're assessing the options being put forth on this thread, which broadly speaking fall into around 5.30am and prior to 4.30am.

Nor does it add anything to my points to which you were responding.

To recap:

1) Dr Biggs stated that a wider timeframe is more likely to be accurate.
2) By extension, Dr Biggs believes some estimates are more likely to be accurate than others.
3) Dr Phillips gave a timeframe of 2 to 3 hours or 2 to 4 hours which is a wide timeframe given the most that can reasonably have been said is 1 to 4 hours.
4) By extension, Dr Biggs believes Dr Phillips had a decent chance of being accurate.
5) Your logical fallacy that Dr Phillips couldn't have been accurate. The inference being that whatever timeframe Dr Phillips stated, he couldn't possibly have been correct unless he had given a time from last sighting to examination.
6) Your estimated TOD is 5.20am to 5.30am. Had Dr Phillips stated this it would have been far less likely to have been accurate than 2 to 3 hours or 2 to 4 hours. Assessing the value of an option by comparison to the other options.
7) Your claim that the only relevant TOD estimate is from last sighting to examination, which of course wouldn't be a TOD estimate and would render the efforts of forensic pathologists to be a monumental waste of time.

[Fleetwood Mac]

No, you do not have it right, as I've told you on multiple occasions.

Based on the witness testimony, I think that Chapman was likely murdered around 5.20am to 5.20am. But, based on the medical evidence, I'm saying that Dr Phillips should have given the coroner a time estimate of 2.30 to 5.30. That's what Dr Biggs is saying too.

But I repeat that this is based on the medical evidence.

I know what you're saying, you've said it over 200 pages. You believe Annie was murdered approx. 5.30am.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Which can only be because you don't understand what is going on.

That Dr Phillips miscalculated the estimated time of Chapman's death is what I've been saying all along.

To remind you:

Your point was surrounding the coroner's use of the word 'miscalculation' as opposed to whether not Dr Phillips was accurate in his assessment.

You really should discuss with integrity rather than do an about turn on the subject matter when you feel backed into a corner.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Which is irretrievably meaningless. Nobody is putting forward a timeframe of between 2.30am and 5.30am. 'Certainly not you given you've argued for the best part of 200 pages that the TOD is 5.20am to 5.30am. To remind you, we're assessing the options being put forth on this thread, which broadly speaking fall into around 5.30am and prior to 4.30am.

What does that even mean?

For starters Dr Biggs is putting forward a timeframe of between 2.30am and 5.30am.

I'm also saying that Dr Phillips SHOULD have put forward a timeframe of between 2.30am and 5.30am.

So you are utterly wrong in saying that.

Nor does it add anything to my points to which you were responding.

To recap:

1) Dr Biggs stated that a wider timeframe is more likely to be accurate.

Okay, but you've just agreed that 2.30 to 5.30 is more likely to be accurate than the timeframe which Dr Phillips put forward in September 1888!!!

So Chapman could easily have been murdered at 5.30, in line with the best and most accurate medical estimate of TOD.

2) By extension, Dr Biggs believes some estimates are more likely to be accurate than others.
3) Dr Phillips gave a timeframe of 2 to 3 hours or 2 to 4 hours which is a wide timeframe given the most that can reasonably have been said is 1 to 4 hours.
4) By extension, Dr Biggs believes Dr Phillips had a decent chance of being accurate.
5) Your logical fallacy that Dr Phillips couldn't have been accurate. The inference being that whatever timeframe Dr Phillips stated, he couldn't possibly have been correct unless he had given a time from last sighting to examination.
6) Your estimated TOD is 5.20am to 5.30am.

Will you stop this nonsense. That's based on the eye-witness testimony.

My TOD based on the medical testimony is 2.30 to 5.30. In other words, that is the only sensible TOD that a medical examiner could have given in September 1888.

Had Dr Phillips stated this it would have been far less likely to have been accurate than 2 to 3 hours or 2 to 4 hours. Assessing the value of an option by comparison to the other options.

There is no way that Dr Phillips would have stated a TOD within a ten minute range. That's insane.

You are confusing an actual time of death based on eye-witness testimony with an estimated time of death based on medical evidence.

You've admitted that an estimated TOD of 2.30 to 5.30 is more accurate than the TOD given by Dr Phillips.

7) Your claim that the only relevant TOD estimate is from last sighting to examination, which of course wouldn't be a TOD estimate and would render the efforts of forensic pathologists to be a monumental waste of time.

It's game over, mate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I know what you're saying, you've said it over 200 pages. You believe Annie was murdered approx. 5.30am.

That's right, based on the eye-witness testimony only.

I'm not saying that the medical evidence only points to a TOD of 5.30. I'm saying that, contrary to Dr Phillips, a TOD of 5.30 is consistent with the medical evidence, but so is a TOD of 2.30. so that the medical evidence doesn't assist us on this issue.

You are confusing eye-witness and medical evidence, which are two very different things, and getting yourself into a hopeless muddle.

[Herlock Sholmes]

To remind you:

Your point was surrounding the coroner's use of the word 'miscalculation' as opposed to whether not Dr Phillips was accurate in his assessment.

You really should discuss with integrity rather than do an about turn on the subject matter when you feel backed into a corner.

Your posts have become so incoherent that I literally have no idea what you are twittering on about.

I can only remind you of what the coroner said in his summing up to the jury:

"It was true that Dr. Phillips thought that when he saw the body at 6:30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admitted that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood might affect his opinion, and if the evidence of the other witnesses was correct, Dr. Phillips had miscalculated the effect of those forces."

I fully agree with the coroner that, if the evidence of the other witnesses was correct (which I believe it was), Dr Phillips had miscalculated the effect of the forces mentioned by the coroner (and other things too. such as the effect of Chapman's wasting disease).

What point is it you think you are making?

[The Macdonald Triad]

I used to think I couldn't let stuff go like a pit bull on a poodle but you boys take the cake, seriously. I've got to get pissed up just to read this insane non sequitur quibbling.

[The Macdonald Triad]

So the documentary I was referring to is the one of the more sensationalized I've seen in a grip. The skinny JTR with shoe polish around his eyes and the creepy narrator thinking he's Ian McDermott. Jack the Ripper: London's Most Notorious Killer. There is an Illustrated Press of Mrs Richardson fighting with Chapman. For those that know what I am driving at. You're welcome.

-catch me when you can

[Fleetwood Mac]

You've admitted that an estimated TOD of 2.30 to 5.30 is more accurate than the TOD given by Dr Phillips.

I said it is more likely to be accurate.

Which is the equivalent of stating that a football match played for 120 minutes is more likely to produce a goal than one played for 90 minutes. I would have thought this would have been obvious to you rather than come as some hitherto unimaginable revelation which you would then use to state: "game over".

By some strange freak of nature, you are then using this statement to add credence to the idea that Annie was murdered around 5.30am.

What is it that leads you to take that statement and suggest it is more likely Annie was murdered around 5.30am? There is no connection.

None of this detracts from the medical evidence:

1) 1.45am last known meal, easily digested food.
2) Catherine's body compared with Annie's, quite warm and no rigor, supposedly only 20 minutes apart PMI.
3) Rigor commencing of the limbs.

This is the medical evidence that suggests an earlier TOD.

[The Macdonald Triad]

I said it is more likely to be accurate.

Which is the equivalent of stating that a football match played for 120 minutes is more likely to produce a goal than one played for 90 minutes. I would have thought this would have been obvious to you rather than come as some hitherto unimaginable revelation which you would then use to state: "game over".

By some strange freak of nature, you are then using this statement to add credence to the idea that Annie was murdered around 5.30am.

What is it that leads you to take that statement and suggest it is more likely Annie was murdered around 5.30am? There is no connection.

None of this detracts from the medical evidence:

1) 1.45am last known meal, easily digested food.
2) Catherine's body compared with Annie's, quite warm and no rigor, supposedly only 20 minutes apart PMI.
3) Rigor commencing of the limbs.

This is the medical evidence that suggests an earlier TOD.

What am I missing here? Are you and Derlock completely devoid of reason? It's a troll, right?

[Fleetwood Mac]

"It was true that Dr. Phillips thought that when he saw the body at 6:30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admitted that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood might affect his opinion, and if the evidence of the other witnesses was correct, Dr. Phillips had miscalculated the effect of those forces."

Well, at least you're back to discussing the evidence as opposed to talking about an estimated TOD from death to examination, which of course is not an estimated TOD.

The word 'miscalculated' tells the story. In your scenario, possibly less than two hours, Dr Phillips couldn't have miscalculated.

[The Macdonald Triad]

Well, at least you're back to discussing the evidence as opposed to talking about an estimated TOD from death to examination, which of course is not an estimated TOD.

The word 'miscalculated' tells the story. In your scenario, possibly less than two hours, Dr Phillips couldn't have miscalculated.

What evidence exactly? From 1888? Pack it in.

[The Macdonald Triad]

You two are cluttering minds in an attempt to see has the biggest todger. No one doubts either of your knowledge but you're playing troll games.