John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I would not dispute that statement, however the environments were not all that unique. The factors surrounding the bodies of Chapman and Eddowes are:
Only three weeks apart
Within a mile in location
Very similar injuries
Both in the corner of an enclosed area
Both lying on paving

Steve says "Body temperature, no matter how it was taken, by touch or by thermometer could not fix TOD to within 30-40 minutes.
Neither could Livor Mortis or Rigor Mortis.".

But we are not talking about 30-40 minutes. We're talking about 13 hours. Phillips said Chapman had been dead two hours, probably more. What is usually called his caveat would apply equally to Eddowes. Two hours is a long way from the 13 hours that it took for Eddowes body to achieve a similar level of cold. Also, with medical opinions, I feel that we should be confining ourselves to averages rather than the extremes on the edge of the bell curve, as there is no evidence for the latter.

We have agreed to disagree. I trust that you can appreciate my difficulty in reconciling a time elapsed since death of only one hour when in a very similar case the body took about 13 hours to reach a similar state.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

No problem. For me this issue is close to black and white but we differ on this point.

[Trevor Marriott]

No. The fact is that his estimate is far too precise. We cannot, even today, make estimates of the ToD with such narrow ranges of time. So, given his narrow range corresponds to what must have happened (unless you want to argue PC Watkins lied about doing his patrols), then either he knows about PC Watkins' patrol, and is including that in his evaluation, or he's unaware of PC Watkins' patrol and is just unduely confident in his abilities (and therefore, the fact he's accurate is luck, and nothing more, because even today we cannot narrow things down as much as he has). Given he's clearly accurate, it appears he must have known PC Watkins' patrol information and what he's doing is confirming that she likely was killed during his last patrol and not, for example, killed elsewhere and then dumped in the square (which is also consistent with the crime scene evidence, so he's probably got it right, but not because in 1888 they were better at estimating the ToD than we are today - he appears to have information over and above that).

Again, Dr. Blackwell's estimate is overly precise, which either reflects the ignorance of doctors in 1888 (because we hadn't learned what we now know), or reflects his knowledge of other information. I know it is tempting to grasp at the straws the medical testimony, as stated, provide. But those straws are, sadly, unreliable. Where they look good, and look precise, always comes from cases where there are witnesses who narrow things down. If that doesn't make you stop, sit up, and think, nothing will.

The doctors' testimonies are not being "dismissed" at all. They are simply being evaluated, and while nobody disputes where the doctors place their estimate, the argument is about taking into account the error of those estimates. While the doctors do not go into error ranges, their statements (as you've posted above), do lead the the impression that they thought they could be more precise than we now know is the case. That increased precision, though, also only occurs in cases where there is other (non-medical) information that limits the time range, and low and behold, those are the cases where the doctors do well. That pattern creates the evidence that the doctors appear to have used outside information (beyond the medical), when formulating their opinion.


Do you think it weird that people will incorporate stuff they know even if it is not part of the "equation"?

- Jeff

Dr Phillips states "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 is making an honest guess and gives his reasons, he is not trying to provide a precise time of death even allowing for the body cooling the TOD takes it way before the later time of death which some seem to want to rely on.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Dr Phillips states "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 is making an honest guess and gives his reasons, he is not trying to provide a precise time of death even allowing for the body cooling the TOD takes it way before the later time of death which some seem to want to rely on.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

They were talking about the TODs for Eddowes and Stride Trevor.
Not Chapman.

Yes, Phillips clearly believes what he says, but knows it's not pricise, and also knows that he may be wrong because of the temperature that morning.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dr Phillips states "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 is making an honest guess and gives his reasons, he is not trying to provide a precise time of death even allowing for the body cooling the TOD takes it way before the later time of death which some seem to want to rely on.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It’s jaw-dropping!

You sit there on your high-horse talking about what other people rely on then here you are, Mr. Detective, saying that he made a ‘guess,’ and you favour that guess over three witnesses.

That just about sums up the standard of the case for an earlier ToD.

[Fleetwood Mac]

What was she eating at 1.45?
Potato.
It reads as if she had returned to the lodging house with one.
Why is it absurd that she may have still had some left when she left , and eatern it later?

Steve

I've explained over the last couple of pages why it is absurd. We'll just have to disagree on this, Steve, in the interests of avoiding repetition.

[Fleetwood Mac]

He believed what he said, but because of the lack of knowledge, his assessment was incorrect.

Fine. We agree that when Dr Phillips said: "at least two hours and probably more", he meant it.

Correct, he does mention that limb stiffening had commenced but was not marked, but RM is notoriously unreliable.

One piece of a few bits of important information that when put together tell a story.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Why do you dismiss the idea that someone as impoverished as Annie might have carried some amount of food with her?

Because it's absurd, as explained over the last couple of pages.

We'll just have to disagree.

[Fleetwood Mac]

They were talking about the TODs for Eddowes and Stride Trevor.
Not Chapman.

Yes, Phillips clearly believes what he says, but knows it's not pricise, and also knows that he may be wrong because of the temperature that morning.

Steve

This is a monumental corruption of Dr Phillip's statement. When he said: "at least two hours", that is categoric, no caveat. "At least".

When he said: "probably more", probably more does in fact mean: "probably more" in any language in the world.

The temperature of the morning clearly meant he wasn't confident in quantifying that "probably more", i.e. how much more.

[Trevor Marriott]

It’s jaw-dropping!

You sit there on your high-horse talking about what other people rely on then here you are, Mr. Detective, saying that he made a ‘guess,’ and you favour that guess over three witnesses.

That just about sums up the standard of the case for an earlier ToD.

When are you going to accept that the witness testimony you seek to rely on to prove a later TOD is unsafe? and it has been well documented as to how unsafe it really is but you seem to want to accept this witness testimony without question

In fact, in an earlier post, I went to great lengths to highlight once again the flaws in Mrs Longs statement.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

This is a monumental corruption of Dr Phillip's statement. When he said: "at least two hours", that is categoric, no caveat. "At least".

When he said: "probably more", probably more does in fact mean: "probably more" in any language in the world.

The temperature of the morning clearly meant he wasn't confident in quantifying that "probably more", i.e. how much more.

Hi FM,

Your interpretation is also my interpretation of Phillip's statement.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

When are you going to accept that the witness testimony you seek to rely on to prove a later TOD is unsafe? and it has been well documented as to how unsafe it really is but you seem to want to accept this witness testimony without question

In fact, in an earlier post, I went to great lengths to highlight once again the flaws in Mrs Longs statement.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Never. Because I don’t accept the legitimacy of your assessments. I find them as biased as ever. A man who is open about supporting a ‘guess’ is hardly reliable.

I accept absolutely nothing without question. Nothing. Ever.

You however just seek to dismiss everything that doesn’t conform to your preconceptions.

Three witnesses outweigh a guess. In the real world that is.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi FM,

Your interpretation is also my interpretation of Phillip's statement.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

It's blatant.

There is no other reasonable conclusion.

"At least two hours and probably more", is exactly what it means in any language.

At least, means the minimum, i.e. guaranteed, not open to debate.

Probably more means that in his view more than two hours but not guaranteed, but at the very least 2 hours.

Dr Phillips understood the English language and the importance of not getting out of his depth and over-egging it.

We can reasonably conclude that when he stated: "at least two hours", he meant: "at least two hours". No ifs, no buts.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is a monumental corruption of Dr Phillip's statement. When he said: "at least two hours", that is categoric, no caveat. "At least".

When he said: "probably more", probably more does in fact mean: "probably more" in any language in the world.

The temperature of the morning clearly meant he wasn't confident in quantifying that "probably more", i.e. how much more.

It’s irrelevant anyway because we know as an absolutely incontrovertible, inarguable, rock solid, evidence-led certainty that the methods that he was using were unreliable. So his opinion can’t be relied on. And he’s easily and massively trumped by three witnesses even though three aren’t needed. Richardson alone kicks an earlier ToD into touch. There should be no need for debate. A later ToD should simply be accepted.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi George,

It's blatant.

There is no other reasonable conclusion.

"At least two hours and probably more", is exactly what it means in any language.

At least, means the minimum, i.e. guaranteed, not open to debate.

Probably more means that in his view more than two hours but not guaranteed, but at the very least 2 hours.

Dr Phillips understood the English language and the importance of not getting out of his depth and over-egging it.

We can reasonably conclude that when he stated: "at least two hours", he meant: "at least two hours". No ifs, no buts.

No one makes a caveat that means nothing.

[Fleetwood Mac]

No one makes a caveat that means nothing.

Nobody suggested otherwise. You're arguing against a point that has not been made.