John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

With all due respect, ALL I see is an unrealistic faith in the medical ability and knowledge of doctors in 1888.

The reason the doctors give a different time scale is I submit largely due to the presence of a policeman some thirty minutes before the body is found in Berner Street, and no such report from Hanbury street.

I am sorry my friend, but you are assigning skills to the doctors that they simply did not have.


Steve

It baffling Steve. When Christer tries it we know that it’s because he realises how much weaker a later ToD makes the case for Cross. But when people try it who as far as I can see have no theory or suspect to prop-up I simply don’t understand the total lack of respect for evidence on display. Doctor using provably unreliable methods versus three witness with no reason to lie. It’s not difficult stuff is it?

And as Jeff has pointed out, Phillips estimation range still allows for a later ToD.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The witnesses and the medical evidence do not conflict. I find it odd that people want to throw out evidence when there is no indication of it being wrong, other than the fact it must be thrown out in order to provide a window wide enough to place the murder before 4:30. There's a lot of entirely consistent evidence being tossed just to be left with medical testimony that still doesn't even rule out 5:20-5:30ish as the ToD.

- Jeff

Exactly Jeff.

[Fleetwood Mac]

You talk of medical evidence, so I wonder would you care to explain what method the doctors used to determine TOD.

A method that is know to be reasonable accurate and avaliable in 1888.

Steve

Three important pieces of information which when put together tell a story.

Added to those 3 pieces of information we have the improbability of Annie sourcing food at 3 or 4 in the morning, given the lack of options and that she had eaten at 1,45am.

And then of course, Dr Phillips had Liz down as within an hour TOD and Annie entirely different, suggesting he observed enough to differentiate within an hour and not within an hour. Two bodies acting as comparators.

Likewise, Steve, I'm not wholly sold on your 35 years of experience. Stating that is certainly not enough to convince me that the said information is worthless.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The witnesses and the medical evidence do not conflict. I find it odd that people want to throw out evidence when there is no indication of it being wrong, other than the fact it must be thrown out in order to provide a window wide enough to place the murder before 4:30. There's a lot of entirely consistent evidence being tossed just to be left with medical testimony that still doesn't even rule out 5:20-5:30ish as the ToD.

- Jeff

The witnesses aren't convincing at all.

One misled the coroner, thereby compromising his entire statement. The other simply heard a noise. The other simply saw a couple. And the timings don't fit.

And we know witness evidence is often unreliable.

The medical evidence on the other hand: some very interesting bits of information supported by Annie eating at 1.45am and Liz Stride 'within an hour' (the same doctor who clearly observed the difference).

[Elamarna]

It baffling Steve. When Christer tries it we know that it’s because he realises how much weaker a later ToD makes the case for Cross. But when people try it who as far as I can see have no theory or suspect to prop-up I simply don’t understand the total lack of respect for evidence on display. Doctor using provably unreliable methods versus three witness with no reason to lie. It’s not difficult stuff is it?

And as Jeff has pointed out, Phillips estimation range still allows for a later ToD.

The problem is two fold:

The doctors in 1888, actually believed they could set TOD pricisely. However, since that time period, medical science and pathology as realised that such ideas are deeply flawed.

People speak of medical evidence , when what they mean is the opinion of an individual doctor.

And of course Phillips actually qualified his opinion, saying he could be mistaken, because the air temperature may have caused the body to cool quicker than he expect.
However, the temperature of the body he is talking about was generalised to warm, cool or cold. Those categories being arrived at by simple touch. NO actual temperature was recorded.

In addition it was not known at what speed and by what amount core body temperature falls, and of course no core temperatures were taken.

In reality the terms used by Phillips and others tell us next to nothing. They cannot be used to establish a time of death, that is even reasonably accurate .

Steve

[Elamarna]

Three important pieces of information which when put together tell a story.

Added to those 3 pieces of information we have the improbability of Annie sourcing food at 3 or 4 in the morning, given the lack of options and that she had eaten at 1,45am.

Actually WE have no idea when she last ate. True we know she ate around 1.45.
However, I do not think we can state that was last time she ate.

It's been mentioned she could have taken food with her from the kitchen.
But you apparently reject that.

It's been mentioned that digestion is not a pricise method of fixing death, but again you apparently do not accept that.

It's also been mentioned that you do not know there was nowhere to get food , that's simply an assumption on your part.

Finally we have no record of her from 1.45 , until she is found dead. We cannot know if she during that time.
Yes we can speculate, but that's all.

And then of course, Dr Phillips had Liz down as within an hour TOD and Annie entirely different, suggesting he observed enough to differentiate within an hour and not within an hour. Two bodies acting as comparators.

I have already given a reason why Stride, Nichols and Eddowes are all given TODs that are not disputed.
That is all 3 of those murders have police witnesses who say the body was not present on the last beat.
That's 30 minutes for Stride and Nichols and 15 minutes for Eddowes.

However, you claim he saw differences between the two bodies.
Would you care , in broad terms , to explain what those differences could be?

And of course the wounds are different in the extreme, no mutilations to the body.
Such makes comparisons between the bodies, questionable to say the least.

Likewise, Steve, I'm not wholly sold on your 35 years of experience. Stating that is certainly not enough to convince me that the said information is worthless.

I suggest you check modern peer reviewed papers or text books on pathology. These clearly allow even those without a background in science or medicine to see that the methods used in the 19th were inaccurate and flawed.

FM, maybe you missed my question, but I asked what methods do you believe Phillips, in this particular case, used to establish TOD?
And are those methods, ones we would rely on today?


Steve

[Fleetwood Mac]

And then of course there is a notable difference between a witness and a doctor.

A witness has no reason to take notice of what is going on around them, given that they have no indication that a crime has been or is about to be committed. They recollect events that they weren't really taking a great deal of notice of.

A doctor on the other hand, knows a crime has been committed and he or she has the time to observe and record after the event.

As an example of how wrong witnesses can get it, a cold case was solved here recently. A witness certainly saw the killer given the circumstances. The killer was convicted on DNA evidence. According to the witness, the killer was clean shaven and 5'7. It turned out that the killer who she saw, was actually 6'0 and had a moustache.

UK crime statistics demonstrate that 75% of false convictions are caused by inaccurate eyewitness statement.

[JeffHamm]

The witnesses aren't convincing at all.

One misled the coroner, thereby compromising his entire statement. The other simply heard a noise. The other simply saw a couple. And the timings don't fit.

None of the witnesses are known to have misled the coroner, that is a theory proposed for the sole purpose of removing a witness whose statement doesn't fit a desired outcome.

And the timings are entirely consistent, once evaluated by considering the appropriate margins of error associated with them. One doesn't even have to argue that Long misremembers the 5:15 chime as the 5:30 chime given the known inaccuracies of the clocks at the time.

And we know witness evidence is often unreliable.

And yet you are dismissing the very real possibility that it is Long's statement of it being the 5:30 chime as being the possible bit that is unreliable.

The medical evidence on the other hand: some very interesting bits of information supported by Annie eating at 1.45am and Liz Stride 'within an hour' (the same doctor who clearly observed the difference).

There is nothing at all in the medical evidence that is inconsistent with a ToD of 5:20ish nor with an earlier one. The medical evidence, as is the case with such information, is associated with very wide margins of error even today. The point, of course, is that means the medical evidence and the witness statements cannot accurately be said to conflict. Moreover, given the error associated with witness statements, they themselves are sufficiently similar in the story they produce, they cannot accurately be said to conflict.

In short, none of the testimony can accurately be said to conflict, and when combined it points to a ToD around 5:20-5:25 type thing. So, while one might still argue that it is possible the witnesses are all wrong (which of course is possible, but so what, anything can be said to be possible, even the improbable does happen some times), one cannot argue that is based upon any major conflict in the testimony because there is no actual conflict. It's like the Dad joke of "How many legs would a dog have if you called its tail a leg? A: Four, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one."

The testimony we have, when combined, points towards a ToD around the time Cadosche was going to and from the loo, probably after his first visit and killed before his 2nd, with JtR still in the yard at that time. If that was the case, it tells us something about JtR and his risk evaluation. Perhaps he gets so into it that he didn't realise Cadosche returned the 2nd time and only realises he's there as Cadosche is returning to the house? perhaps he's in such a state of overconfidence that he doesn't care? perhaps he is psychotic and thinks he's incapable of being spotted somehow, etc; who knows, I certainly don't.

Trying to work out what a serial killer is thinking is simply guess work, but given the evidence suggests that he appears to have been in the yard at the time Cadosche is going back and forth next door then we want to consider why he did that and what doing that might tell us about JtR, rather than starting with "I can't fathom him doing that and so will reject all the evidence that points to him doing that very thing!"

- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

Actually WE have no idea when she last ate. True we know she ate around 1.45.
However, I do not think we can state that was last time she ate.

It's been mentioned she could have taken food with her from the kitchen.

It's rejected because it's absurd and forms part of the 'we just don't know however absurd' school of discussion.

[Elamarna]

The witnesses aren't convincing at all.

One misled the coroner, thereby compromising his entire statement. The other simply heard a noise. The other simply saw a couple. And the timings don't fit.

And we know witness evidence is often unreliable.

The medical evidence on the other hand: some very interesting bits of information supported by Annie eating at 1.45am and Liz Stride 'within an hour' (the same doctor who clearly observed the difference).

So let me get this right the "medical evidence" is

1. That she ate at 1.45.

Sadly digestion is not as pricise as many seem to think. It's affected by many thinks such as health and environment.
In addition, While you may speculate she did not ear after 1.45, it is only speculation FM.

2. That Phillips saying Stride was within the hour is some how based purely on something he saw.

He would have been aware that the police had seen no body when they passed at around 12.30.
That clearly allowed him to fix a window.
The same is true for Nichols and Eddowes.

It's not a coincidence that the two TODs that are disputed, are the same for which there is no police record.

Steve

[Fleetwood Mac]

None of the witnesses are known to have misled the coroner, that is a theory proposed for the sole purpose of removing a witness whose statement doesn't fit a desired outcome.

The idea stands or falls on the idea, as opposed to on your imposition of some other idea amounting to 'a removing witness'. That's what called moving the discussion, or distraction.

The reason why John Richardson is weak is not because of your imposition, but because he clearly misled the coroner which in turn compromises his entire statement.

[Elamarna]

It's rejected because it's absurd and forms part of the 'we just don't know however absurd' school of discussion.

It's NOT absurd, it simply does not comply with your opinion.

I submit it far more absurd to suggest Doctors could fix accurate TODs without either witnesses or methods that simply were not avaliable in 1888.

Steve

[Fleetwood Mac]

While you may speculate she did not ear after 1.45, it is only speculation FM.

Some opinions are built upon stronger foundations than others, and the idea that Annie ate after 1.45am has no foundation apart from: "we just don't know" even though it is very, very unlikely given the circumstances.

[Fleetwood Mac]

It's NOT absurd, it simply does not comply with your opinion.

I submit it far more absurd to suggest Doctors could fix accurate TODs without either witnesses or methods that simply were not avaliable in 1888.

Steve

Dr Phillips didn't attempt to give you an 'accurate TOD'. He stated at least two hours and probably more. There, he was acknowledging the pitfalls but observed enough to know the difference between 'within an hour' Liz and 'at least two hours' Annie.

[Elamarna]

I note no attempt is made to explain what methods avaliable in 1888, and accurate could have been used to determine TOD.

I asked this on a separate thread to another individual, and again no response.

Above It was suggested that Phillips saw differences between Stride and Chapman.
I asked what these differences could be.



Steve