John Richardson

[Doctored Whatsit]

That's repeating he didn't actually mean it.

Seems you believe that in the time it took him to say: "at least two hours and probably more.......cold morning", we're talking a couple of seconds here, he changed his mind.

It's just not reasonable.

No, wrong again! Are you deliberately looking for things to misunderstand?

Obviously Dr Phillips was giving his up to date revised opinion, and equally obviously he had plenty of time to think about it. As I wrote previously, he gave the inquest, as he was expected to do, his initial ToD estimate which he made at the murder scene. At the time, in the yard at number 29, he gave his honest opinion. No problem. At the inquest he was expected to report what he had said, and he did so.

After first sight of the body, he carried out his post mortem, at which he discovered the full extent of the eviscerations, and the fact that Chapman was in fact ill and dying, all factors which might affect the ToD estimate. Or he might simply have had second thoughts because of the witness evidence, or the knowledge that Victorian ToD estimates were not especially accurate - we don't know what went through his mind. What we do know for certain, is that sometime between 6. 30 am on September 8th, when he examined the body, and September 13th when he gave his evidence, he decided that the inquest should receive his revised observation. That is clearly several days and not "a couple of seconds" to change his mind!

So, at the inquest, he basically added, after quoting his original ToD, what amounts to "But I could be wrong, the ToD could be later". He chose not to stick with his original ToD, and allowed for possible error. However, he did not give a revised ToD, nor did he say he was definitely wrong. He simply chose to allow the possibility of a later ToD to be considered.

[GBinOz]

So, at the inquest, he basically added, after quoting his original ToD, what amounts to "But I could be wrong, the ToD could be later". He chose not to stick with his original ToD, and allowed for possible error. However, he did not give a revised ToD, nor did he say he was definitely wrong. He simply chose to allow the possibility of a later ToD to be considered.

Hi Doc,

That's the best explanation that I've seen. Well said.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

[Coroner] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more;

So he’s saying 4.30 and probably earlier. Clear enough……no need for him to comment further.

But, he adds….

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.

So it seems to be being suggested by some that what he really meant was…….I think that she died at 4.30 and probably earlier but because the body had lost a lot of blood, leading it to cool at a quicker rate than under more normal circumstances, then she could have died at 4.30 and probably earlier!

This suggestion makes zero sense. He could only have added a caveat if it made an allowance for a variation in his original estimate. There can be no other reason or there would have been absolutely no point in him making the caveat in the first place. By saying that the body was ‘apt to cool more rapidly’ he was clearly and very obviously saying that the duration between death and the level of coldness in the body that he found could have been less than his lower estimate due to the more rapid cooling (for the reason stated). So less than two hours.

I really don’t see how this can be read any differently. It’s obvious.

[JeffHamm]

So, at the inquest, he basically added, after quoting his original ToD, what amounts to "But I could be wrong, the ToD could be later". He chose not to stick with his original ToD, and allowed for possible error. However, he did not give a revised ToD, nor did he say he was definitely wrong. He simply chose to allow the possibility of a later ToD to be considered.

I agree with George fully. A very nice clear and concise description.

- Jeff

[Doctored Whatsit]

I agree with George fully. A very nice clear and concise description.

- Jeff

Thank you George and Jeff, your observations are much appreciated. Perhaps my point of view is not, as previously suggested, "disingenuous", "nonsensical" or just "not reasonable".

[Fleetwood Mac]

So, at the inquest, he basically added, after quoting his original ToD, what amounts to "But I could be wrong, the ToD could be later". He chose not to stick with his original ToD, and allowed for possible error. However, he did not give a revised ToD, nor did he say he was definitely wrong. He simply chose to allow the possibility of a later ToD to be considered.

More repetition masquerading as something else.

This is what Dr Phillips said at the inquest: 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.

What you're suggesting is that Dr Phillips' statement meant: at least two hours and probably more but due to some other factor, I don't really mean at least two hours and probably more, in fact I've no idea why I just said that.

It is a staggering, nonsensical interpretation.

You're suggesting that he meant: not sure, I can't give you a minimum time due to the fairly cold morning and it could well have been 5.30am, let's say at least two hours and probably more but possibly less than two hours. 'At least' means the minimum time possible in accordance with the English language. As I say, a nonsensical bending of that which was stated by an educated man.

But, you're entitled to you opinion so I reckon this has ran its course.

[JeffHamm]

More repetition masquerading as something else.

This is what Dr Phillips said at the inquest: 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.

What you're suggesting is that Dr Phillips' statement meant: at least two hours and probably more but due to some other factor, I don't really mean at least two hours and probably more, in fact I've no idea why I just said that.

It is a staggering, nonsensical interpretation.

You're suggesting that he meant: not sure, I can't give you a minimum time due to the fairly cold morning and it could well have been 5.30am, let's say at least two hours and probably more but possibly less than two hours. 'At least' means the minimum time possible in accordance with the English language. As I say, a nonsensical bending of that which was stated by an educated man.

But, you're entitled to you opinion so I reckon this has ran its course.

People can, and often do, give opinions of which they are not 100% confident, and they are more than capable of indicating that lack of confidence without it being nonsensical. For example, if someone asked if I think it will rain tomorrow, I might say "Yes, but I wouldn't bet on it", so I've made a statement indicating Yes is my estimate, but also point out that if it doesn't I'm not going to be surprised (I wouldn't bet on it).

Dr. Phillips' statement and caveat basically boil down to him saying "I think she was killed 2 hours or earlier, but I wouldn't bet on it".


- Jeff

[Doctored Whatsit]

More repetition masquerading as something else.

This is what Dr Phillips said at the inquest: 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.

What you're suggesting is that Dr Phillips' statement meant: at least two hours and probably more but due to some other factor, I don't really mean at least two hours and probably more, in fact I've no idea why I just said that.

It is a staggering, nonsensical interpretation.

You're suggesting that he meant: not sure, I can't give you a minimum time due to the fairly cold morning and it could well have been 5.30am, let's say at least two hours and probably more but possibly less than two hours. 'At least' means the minimum time possible in accordance with the English language. As I say, a nonsensical bending of that which was stated by an educated man.

But, you're entitled to you opinion so I reckon this has ran its course.

Gosh, "staggering, and nonsensical" now!

If you cannot understand what I wrote, you could try reading #4412, #4414 and #4417. It might help you to understand the English language, because other people can understand it, and even agree with it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Gosh, "staggering, and nonsensical" now!

If you cannot understand what I wrote, you could try reading #4412, #4414 and #4417. It might help you to understand the English language, because other people can understand it, and even agree with it.

There’s only one possible reading of it Doc. The one that involves the use of the English language and a modicum of sense. That someone should add a caveat which doesn’t affect the initial proposition is kindergarten stuff. Phillips was accepting that, due to the possibility of more rapid cooling, Chapman could have been killed after 4.30.

Three witnesses show that he was right to add his caveat. The evidence points overwhelmingly to a later ToD. All else is waffle.

[FISHY1118]

There’s only one possible reading of it Doc. The one that involves the use of the English language and a modicum of sense. That someone should add a caveat which doesn’t affect the initial proposition is kindergarten stuff. Phillips was accepting that, due to the possibility of more rapid cooling, Chapman could have been killed after 4.30.

Three witnesses show that he was right to add his caveat. The evidence points overwhelmingly to a later ToD. All else is waffle.

Which of course it isn't, thats been shown with all the evidence provided here..

You have your opinion and that's about it.

The witness testimony can't be relied upon as has also been shown

Were back to "overwhelmingly" assurances, when we clearly see ambiguities, inconsistencies, uncertainty and unreliable witness testimony.

Waffle indeed.

[Wickerman]

.... What we do know for certain, is that sometime between 6. 30 am on September 8th, when he examined the body, and September 13th when he gave his evidence, he decided that the inquest should receive his revised observation. That is clearly several days and not "a couple of seconds" to change his mind!

It is also not beyond consideration that he would consult his peers in that time, this is done today. An older surgeon will sometimes seek input from younger experts who are possibly better acquainted with more recent teachings on time of death estimates.

I think you've perfectly understood the situation, and Philips's thinking.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Which of course it isn't, thats been shown with all the evidence provided here..

You’ve obviously been reading another thread.

You have your opinion and that's about it.

Nope. That Victorian Doctors used unreliable methods is a fact that we are aware of by reading what the authorities unanimously tell us.

The witness testimony can't be relied upon as has also been shown

Nonsense. You’re just repeating a generality. You never discus detail do you. You avoid it like the plague whilst si,ply cheering on someone that you’ve chosen to agree with.

Were back to "overwhelmingly" assurances, when we clearly see ambiguities, inconsistencies, uncertainty and unreliable witness testimony.

Waffle indeed.

The evidence favours a later T0D. This isn’t my opinion. It’s a fact.

[FISHY1118]

The evidence favours a later T0D. This isn’t my opinion. It’s a fact.

Its only your ''Opinion'' of the evidence that which you believe favours a later time of death, just as its my opinion of the same evidence that favours an earlier t.o.d.

Neither are facts that have been proven as yet .



''Nope. That Victorian Doctors used unreliable methods is a fact that we are aware of by reading what the authorities unanimously tell us''.

Just as the witnesses have been shown to be unreliable , As per reading what the experts authority tell us . Refer Georges post on the subject, which you ignored.








''Nonsense. You’re just repeating a generality. You never discus detail do you. You avoid it like the plague whilst si,ply cheering on someone that you’ve chosen to agree with''.


Nonsense, Ive supported other members post and opinions on the subject of t.o.d when and where i see fit, in case you havent realized there is enormous amount of post , 100s of which are my thoughts and opinions which ive discussed at lengh throughout the entire thread. [which by the way i started] So spare me the above waffle next time you reply to my post . You argue for arguement sake hHerlock, you alway do .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Its only your ''Opinion'' of the evidence that which you believe favours a later time of death, just as its my opinion of the same evidence that favours an earlier t.o.d.

Neither are facts that have been proven as yet .



''Nope. That Victorian Doctors used unreliable methods is a fact that we are aware of by reading what the authorities unanimously tell us''.

Just as the witnesses have been shown to be unreliable , As per reading what the experts authority tell us . Refer Georges post on the subject, which you ignored.








''Nonsense. You’re just repeating a generality. You never discus detail do you. You avoid it like the plague whilst si,ply cheering on someone that you’ve chosen to agree with''.


Nonsense, Ive supported other members post and opinions on the subject of t.o.d when and where i see fit, in case you havent realized there is enormous amount of post , 100s of which are my thoughts and opinions which ive discussed at lengh throughout the entire thread. [which by the way i started] So spare me the above waffle next time you reply to my post . You argue for arguement sake hHerlock, you alway do .

You fail to see the difference between the comments made about witnesses and doctors. They aren’t the same. Witnesses can be unreliable especially under certain circumstances. The methods that Doctors used were always unreliable. And please don’t say that they could get it right because no one has ever said that they couldn’t.

The relevant point is that Phillips gave his estimate of 4.30 or before but, due to the body cooling more rapidly as a consequence of the huge blood loss, it could have been later. Though he certainly favoured earlier.

So that’s the Doctor involved admitting that the ToD could have been later than his estimate and who was using provably unreliable methods versus three witness. And all that Richardson had to do was to look into a yard and say whether there was a mutilated corpse there strewn with entrails. And it wasn’t. That’s a ‘game over’ witness. Could he have been mistaken? No, it’s impossible as he himself said.

[FISHY1118]

You fail to see the difference between the comments made about witnesses and doctors. They aren’t the same. Witnesses can be unreliable especially under certain circumstances. The methods that Doctors used were always unreliable. And please don’t say that they could get it right because no one has ever said that they couldn’t.

The relevant point is that Phillips gave his estimate of 4.30 or before but, due to the body cooling more rapidly as a consequence of the huge blood loss, it could have been later. Though he certainly favoured earlier.

So that’s the Doctor involved admitting that the ToD could have been later than his estimate and who was using provably unreliable methods versus three witness. And all that Richardson had to do was to look into a yard and say whether there was a mutilated corpse there strewn with entrails. And it wasn’t. That’s a ‘game over’ witness. Could he have been mistaken? No, it’s impossible as he himself said.

I think you'll find all those points have already been cover at length so far on this thread.

In the end we all have a choice to make the decision on earlier or later t.od based on the evidence .

How we interpret that evidence and evaluate its effectiveness is open to debate, as has been shown over 1000s of post

Taking all that into consideration, the argument on both sides imo doesn't favour one time of death over another.