John Richardson

[Wickerman]

I don't think you're talking down to anyone, Dr W, but I cannot see how your essay on punctuation can alter the fact that Phillips thought that Chapman had been dead for at least two hours.

He seems to have thought that she was probably dead for three hours 'before the semi-colon'.

How can he then possibly have conceded that it could have been less than an hour?

Because what was said before the semi colon is covered by the academic literature (Tables, Graphs, etc.).
His caveat, is due to the presence of factors NOT accounted for in the academic literature, like the outside temp. & the mutilated state of the body.

[A P Tomlinson]

Our dearly beloved spouses may be related I get the same bewildered attitude when I'm researching anything related to the Ripper crimes.
One solution is to phone my daughter, "come get your mother, take her shopping", or something like that.

No chance that would work with mine.
My daughter is currently in her 2nd year at Uni studying... Criminology, Forensics. and Counter Terrorism. I wouldn't DARE drag her into it. For fear of feeling like a dribbling moron.
The last time we broached the subject was last Christmas when we were all sitting with egg nog watching Die Hard and she asked, "Have you read some of the bollocks they post on Youtube about Charles Cross?"
The good lady made it very clear that she was watching Alan Rickman so we should both shut the **** up!

When she was moving up to high school and we went on the tour of the facilities, the history department had a big Ripper display as it is one of the main units in the first year up there. She had a look around, (about 10 years old) turned round and said "At least there's nothing about Sickert up there..."
When the other kids in her year group were gooing over Disney Princess mine was watching Doctor Who, Boris Karloff movies and reading True Crime books.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Because of the state of the corpse and the conditions he was admitting that the body could have cooled more rapidly than he’d calculated in his estimation. He made it clear that he still favoured 2+ hours but he was admitting that the gap could have been less.

I agree, but less than what?

Probably more probably means three.

How can less than probably three be reconciled with less than one?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi F.M!

I seem to recall that you and I have discussed this before, but I personally see nothing improbable in the notion that Annie, given access to free food in the lodging house kitchen, would have squirreled away something for later consumption.

On the contrary, if you are so poor that you have no idea where your next meal is coming from, it's exactly what you would do.

Even today people will often take a couple of extra bread rolls from a soup kitchen to save for later, and the hotels and hostels which house homeless people frequently complain about food being stolen at the breakfast buffet and stockpiled in rooms for later.

I have worked in homelessness for around a decade and can absolutely confirm that this happens with great frequency.

Sad in this day and age, but it's human nature.

Hi Ms Diddles,

Before we get into the practicalities, there are three erroneous assumptions in your theory:

1) Annie wasn't homeless. She had the means to source food.
2) It is not human nature to steal food, no matter how desperate you are.
3) In the event it is so easy to steal food from places and it's human nature to do so, as you suggest, then nobody would ever need to buy it; the homeless and every petty criminal from here to Afghanistan would be gorging themselves on all sorts 'til the cows come home, and nobody would ever notice or care.

In terms of the practicalities:

1) No other woman in the series was found with food on their person. Was Annie alone in stealing food in this 'human nature' world of every man and his dog slying bread and whatever else from the dinner table?
2) The doss houses were cess pits, the bare minimum of subsistence. Do you suppose that these places had food lying around at a quarter to two in the morning?
3) Annie had just been out to source food. Why would she need to go out and source food in the event she had a few potatoes or whatever squirrelled away on her person. Moreover, in the event Annie had stolen food earlier, then the probability is that she would have eaten that food that she'd stolen and kept the money that she used on food at half one in the morning for a bed.
4) That was Annie's home. Get on their nerves by stealing their food and Annie would have found herself with a problem, a big problem considering that the police didn't run that area: the landlords did. Annie could well have been left with a problem that she couldn't cope with.

It is absolutely fine to speculate and it's not my business to tell people how to approach this subject and this message board. In the event people want to come up with various possibilities no matter how unlikely, then good luck to them.

But, what you're suggesting is an unlikely event, and of course those of us who do not believe Annie was murdered at half five in the morning will say that you have a monumental gap in your theory in that it is propped up by at least one unlikely event.

In sum: your explanation of how and why Annie was eating more food after two in the morning, is unlikely.

[Fleetwood Mac]

My apologies to everyone for what follows, because it will seem that I am "talking down" to you, but the punctuation of Phillips' statement indicates one meaning and one meaning only.

A semi colon is correctly used to indicate the end of one statement, followed by a related comment, such as a caveat, which applies to that statement.

So, "...at least two hours , and probably more; but it was right to mention ..." is a clear indication that the caveat applies to everything before the semi colon. It can mean nothing else.

What others believe it meant, should have been written as "....at least two hours; and probably more, but it is true to say...". That would put the caveat and therefore the doubt on the "probably more", but leave the "two hours" as agreed.

So anyone who disagrees with me - and you are all welcome to do so - is, as far as I am concerned, arguing with the journalist who wrote the item. He was there, and decided that the relevant pause was after "and probably more", and this can only be correctly interpreted in one way. The Coroner thought so too., and he was also there, and very experienced.

Sorry to be so pedantic, but I can only explain my positive interpretation by doing this.

Aye, we've been 'round all of that.

What I'm asking is, do you believe this is a perfectly ordinary statement:

At least two hours and probably more but possibly less than at least two hours.

Would you like to comment on this as opposed to attempt to send the discussion down a semi-colon rabbit hole?

Incidentally, a semi-colon has more than one usage in English grammatical structure.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree, but less than what?

Probably more probably means three.

How can less than probably three be reconciled with less than one?

Less than his minimum estimate of 2 hours. He considered it likelier that it was 2 hours or more but accepted that possibility that it might have been less than 2 hours due to the unusual circumstances. Let’s face it, he wouldn’t have been faced with a corpse as badly damaged as Annie Chapman’s before so he didn’t have anything solid to go by in by way of experience. He gave the best estimate that he could based on his knowledge, experience and the medical knowledge of the time. He was undoubtedly a competent doctor.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Less than his minimum estimate of 2 hours.

There is still quite a difference between less than two hours and less than one hour.

[A P Tomlinson]

There is still quite a difference between less than two hours and less than one hour.

Not in terms of loss of temperature in a body.
It's roughly 1.5 degrees C per hour in the first part of the death process.
If her body had cooled by 1.5 degrees or more due to the vast quantity of her insides that were now on the outside and the external conditions (which it WILL have done), and natural drop was 1.5 degrees. A guy measuring body temp with the back of his hand MIGHT notice an estimated 3 degree drop, and Ta Da... you get a two hour estimate on a one hour body.
It's not complex. Hence his later caveat about external influences.

[Fleetwood Mac]

From The Encyclopaedia Of Forensic and Legal Medicine 2005

“Thus the two important unknowns in assessing time of death from body temperature are: (1) the body temperature at the time of death, and (2) the length of the postmortem temperature plateau. For this reason assessment of time of death from body temperature cannot be accurate in the first 4–5 h after death when these two unknown factors have a dominant influence”

This is fine. I don't think anyone putting forward an earlier time of death could in all seriousness shy away from this.

So, you've banged on about the inherent flaw in estimating TOD for ages. Now is the chance to prove your point.

Let's remember that Dr Phillips didn't attempt to give an accurate TOD. He simply said: "at least two hours and probably more".

When the people in your quote said: "assessing time of death", what did they mean? To the minute, to the hour, within a range?

What would your people have said, in the event you told them that Dr Phillips did not rely on body temperature alone?

[Doctored Whatsit]

Aye, we've been 'round all of that.

What I'm asking is, do you believe this is a perfectly ordinary statement:

At least two hours and probably more but possibly less than at least two hours.

Would you like to comment on this as opposed to attempt to send the discussion down a semi-colon rabbit hole?

Incidentally, a semi-colon has more than one usage in English grammatical structure.

Sorry, but if you keep asking that question, you clearly don't understand what has been said. Phillips gave his entire estimate, and then said that however,it could be wrong. It really is that simple.

Usage with a caveat is a normal and proper use of a semi colon. Whatever interpretation you attempt, the full estimate will be one side of the semi colon, and the caveat is on the other side.

As I have said, your argument is with the journalist, and the Coroner, and not me.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Ms Diddles,

Before we get into the practicalities, there are three erroneous assumptions in your theory:

None are remotely erroneous.

1) Annie wasn't homeless. She had the means to source food.

Annie Chapman slept in doss houses when she had the cash so, by definition, she was homeless. She had no home. A doss house isn’t a home.

What ‘means’ to source food? She couldn’t pay for her bed for the night, therefore she was penniless. By definition this means that she had no means.

2) It is not human nature to steal food, no matter how desperate you are.

One of the stupidest statements I’ve heard in 35 years of interest in the case! If people desperately need food they will steal.

3) In the event it is so easy to steal food from places and it's human nature to do so, as you suggest, then nobody would ever need to buy it; the homeless and every petty criminal from here to Afghanistan would be gorging themselves on all sorts 'til the cows come home, and nobody would ever notice or care.

Then again, perhaps I was wrong and that this is the stupidest thing I’ve heard? People steal. You can’t try and claim thatits some kind of rarity. Unbelievable!

In terms of the practicalities:

1) No other woman in the series was found with food on their person. Was Annie alone in stealing food in this 'human nature' world of every man and his dog slying bread and whatever else from the dinner table?

Wow. You’re really going for it in this post. Three absolute ‘classics!’ Catherine Eddowes was the only one carrying a tin matchbox so do you think that she probably wasn’t because none of the other women were. Having items of food on them isn’t a defining characteristic of prostitutes. There’s no rule on the subject. Any might have had an item of food on her. She might not have. I don’t know….you don’t know. You’re the one claiming to know what you don’t…..yet again.

2) The doss houses were cess pits, the bare minimum of subsistence. Do you suppose that these places had food lying around at a quarter to two in the morning?

I thought they were ‘homes?’ No one is claiming for certain that she got an item of food there. But you can’t claim that she couldn’t have either. They had kitchens after all.

3) Annie had just been out to source food.

Had she been to Asda? How can you know that she’d been out to ‘source’ food? How do you know how she got that potato? How can you know that she hadn’t been out for some other reason and simply acquired a potato. Given by a friend or found somewhere? How many assumptions are you going to keep making in your transparently desperate attempt to make a weak point?

Why would she need to go out and source food in the event she had a few potatoes or whatever squirrelled away on her person. Moreover, in the event Annie had stolen food earlier, then the probability is that she would have eaten that food that she'd stolen and kept the money that she used on food at half one in the morning for a bed.

You’re piling on the assumptions again. Who is claiming that she somehow had a sack of potatoes? Perhaps she had two? W

What do you mean….the probability is that…..? You really do spout some drivel. How can you or I or anyone claim to know how a desperately pour Victorian prostitute would be thinking? Are you channeling? I’m having to read your post twice to see if you’re actually saying what I’m reading!!!

4) That was Annie's home.

Not a home.

Get on their nerves by stealing their food and Annie would have found herself with a problem, a big problem considering that the police didn't run that area: the landlords did. Annie could well have been left with a problem that she couldn't cope with.

Amelia Palmer said that Annie took a beating from a book-selling woman and she was happy not to return Eliza Cooper’s soap to her. Annie was hardly a Victorian children’s governess. These women were hardened by their lifestyle. Do you think that they didn’t suffer the occasional beating from some drunken animal of a client?

It is absolutely fine to speculate and it's not my business to tell people how to approach this subject and this message board. In the event people want to come up with various possibilities no matter how unlikely, then good luck to them.

After coming up with a torrent of unlikely, illogical, poorly thought out tosh.

But, what you're suggesting is an unlikely event, and of course those of us who do not believe Annie was murdered at half five in the morning will say that you have a monumental gap in your theory in that it is propped up by at least one unlikely event.

And those of us that view the evidence objectively and who don’t start out from a position of ‘knowing’ the ToD and then shaping and manipulating the evidence to ‘fit.’ Ms D has no gap. Everything she said was perfectly reasonable. Unlike your responses.

In sum: your explanation of how and why Annie was eating more food after two in the morning, is unlikely.

Not even remotely unlikely. And even if she didn’t eat again we know that no two peoples digestions aren’t the same. Various things, like illness can have an effect.

How desperate are you to try and shoehorn in an earlier ToD? And why are you?

Later ToD beyond all reasonable doubt. Why? Because that’s what the evidence tells us (sans manipulation of course.)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Aye, we've been 'round all of that.

What I'm asking is, do you believe this is a perfectly ordinary statement:

At least two hours and probably more but possibly less than at least two hours.

Would you like to comment on this as opposed to attempt to send the discussion down a semi-colon rabbit hole?

Incidentally, a semi-colon has more than one usage in English grammatical structure.

That statement is unequivocal

So why did he add the caveat?

According to you…..for no reason whatsoever.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Sorry, but if you keep asking that question, you clearly don't understand what has been said. Phillips gave his entire estimate, and then said that however,it could be wrong. It really is that simple.

"Phillips gave his entire estimate", what on earth does this mean. Of course he gave his 'entire estimate', is there such a thing as 'half an estimate'?

At this juncture, it's clear that you're unwilling to elaborate on your ridiculous assertion that Dr Phillips meant this: at least two hours and probably more but possibly less than at least two hours.

So, let's just leave it there and agree to disagree.

[Fleetwood Mac]

That statement is unequivocal

So why did he add the caveat?

According to you…..for no reason whatsoever.

As it is with your clique, you yet again mispresent what people have said.

You have been told many a time that his caveat had a purpose, and that purpose was to say that he couldn't quantify nor be certain on that 'probably more'.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As it is with your clique, you yet again mispresent what people have said.

Clique? Oh, you mean the overwhelming majority on here who can read and understand. Just like Baxter.

You have been told many a time that his caveat had a purpose, and that purpose was to say that he couldn't quantify nor be certain on that 'probably more'.

Yeah, that makes sense