John Richardson

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

All that we have to allow is a margin for error of around 5 minutes and Cadosch and Long’s times tie up.

The coroner would not agree with you.

He said:

Cadosh says it was about 5.20 when he was in the backyard of the adjoining house, and heard a voice say "No," and three or four minutes afterwards a fall against the fence; but if he is out of his reckoning but a quarter of an hour, the discrepancy in the evidence of fact vanishes, and he may be mistaken, for he admits that he did not get up till a quarter past five, and that it was after the half-hour when he passed Spitalfields clock.

I think I have made this point before: both Long and Cadoche were on trips which they made regularly, Long from her home to the market, and Cadoche from his home to his place of work.

It has been suggested that Long may have mistaken the 5.15 chime for the 5.30 chime.

Assuming the chimes were different, why would she have mistaken one for another, especially as she made the trip regularly?

If Cadoche did not realise that it was actually 1/4 of an hour later than it really was, would he not have arrived at work late and then realised his mistake?

I think someone came up with a rejoinder that the Spitalfields clock may have been a quarter of an hour slow and that Cadoche's colleagues at work may all have been using clocks which were a quarter of an hour slow.

That is obviously far-fetched.

[Herlock Sholmes]

For the terminally predisposed to distortion…..it really can’t be simpler. Unless you deliberately make it otherwise of course.

“I should say at least two hours, and probably more;”

Phillips has made his point perfectly clearly. He has no need for further comment.

but

Ah there’s a ‘but.’ I wonder why? Let’s look at the dictionary definition of ‘but’ shall we chaps?

- used to introduce a phrase or clause contrasting with what has already been mentioned.

Ooooh, contrasting. Let’s see what contrasting means shall we?

- differing strikingly.

Oh, I see……so Dr. Gandalf Phillips is about the tell us something which contrasts to “I should say at least two hours, and probably more;”

All straight forward stuff then.

Now…..here comes the contrasting part.

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 when the body cools quicker than normal it reduces the time between the committal of the murder and the Doctors examination.

Now let’s just be clear shall we? It doesn’t increase the gap……pushing the ToD earlier. It reduces the gap and so pushing the ToD later.

———

Who’d have thought it? By a simple use of standard dictionary definitions and by following the rules of English grammar we arrive at…….exactly where most of us have been telling you is the obvious truth in the first place.

———

No further comment is required.

This is proven.

PI/ Fleetwood Mac……stop digging. You’re simply embarrassing yourselves.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi PI,

As you saw, Herlock responded to your post, and as he said, it's not a question of less than probably 3, but less than 2.

I don't know why you're saying "less than one". Most of us that think the TOD was later would say that the best estimate for TOD was 5:25 or 5:30. So Dr. Phillips would have been making his estimate for TOD at least an hour later.

Phillips' estimate (in hours) was at least two hours, and probably more

I don't think he meant at least two hours and probably 2 1/4 hours.

I think he meant at least two hours and probably three.

That means it is a question of less than probably three, and not less than two.

My reason for saying less than one is that if Long saw Chapman, then she must have been murdered several minutes later than 5:30.

[Doctored Whatsit]

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?

I have never suggested that Dr Phillips conceded that the ToD could have been less than an hour. What I have always said is that Phillips gave an estimated ToD, which seems to have been the one he gave Chandler, but then told the inquest that it could be wrong. I have previously said that he didn't say that he was wrong, only that he could be wrong, and that he didn't give a revised ToD.

We can only guess at what made him express his reservations, maybe the post mortem made him think again, possibly because the extensive eviscerations were more than he had previously seen, and more than reference books considered, or maybe the new info that she was dying. We don't know. But something made him think again. I have previously written that I am slightly surprised that he didn't give a revised ToD, but he didn't.

[Lewis C]

Phillips' estimate (in hours) was at least two hours, and probably more

I don't think he meant at least two hours and probably 2 1/4 hours.

I think he meant at least two hours and probably three.

That means it is a question of less than probably three, and not less than two.

My reason for saying less than one is that if long saw Chapman Ben she must have been murdered several minutes later than 5:30.

I don't know how you got from your 3rd sentence to your 4th.

I, and I think most people, would say that Cadosch is a better witness than Long, so when estimating her TOD, I would either follow Cadosch or at least go with a time that splits the difference between Cadosch and Long.

[Doctored Whatsit]

"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.

When will you grasp the bleeding obvious - "at least two hours and probably more but possibly less than two hours" is something that only you have ever suggested. I certainly haven't, so it is not my "ridiculous assertion". It exists only in your mind. I don't propose any specific revised ToD.

What I have said numerous times, is that Phillips gave his estimated ToD, and then said that it could be wrong, and that he didn't give a revised ToD. Why is that impossible to understand?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The coroner would not agree with you.

He said:

Cadosh says it was about 5.20 when he was in the backyard of the adjoining house, and heard a voice say "No," and three or four minutes afterwards a fall against the fence; but if he is out of his reckoning but a quarter of an hour, the discrepancy in the evidence of fact vanishes, and he may be mistaken, for he admits that he did not get up till a quarter past five, and that it was after the half-hour when he passed Spitalfields clock.

I think I have made this point before: both Long and Cadoche were on trips which they made regularly, Long from her home to the market, and Cadoche from his home to his place of work.

It has been suggested that Long may have mistaken the 5.15 chime for the 5.30 chime.

Assuming the chimes were different, why would she have mistaken one for another, especially as she made the trip regularly?

If Cadoche did not realise that it was actually 1/4 of an hour later than it really was, would he not have arrived at work late and then realised his mistake?

I think someone came up with a rejoinder that the Spitalfields clock may have been a quarter of an hour slow and that Cadoche's colleagues at work may all have been using clocks which were a quarter of an hour slow.

That is obviously far-fetched.

PI, it’s difficult to avoid the impression that you don’t read what others have posted. You repeat this:

“It has been suggested that Long may have mistaken the 5.15 chime for the 5.30 chime.”

That’s not what I’m suggesting. Others have suggested it in the past but you were responding directly to me and I explained in a previous post what I was suggesting and it wasn’t the above.

The talk of 15 minutes is a red herring designed to make any suggestion seem unlikely.

What I, and others, have suggested is that the clock that Long used only had to be 5 minutes or so fast. If you think that a click being fast is the stuff of science fiction then we’re on different planets. This would get the couple into the yard at around 5.25. Cadosch said that he went into the yard at 5.20 but this was an estimate and we don’t know how he arrived at that estimate. It also included a period in the outside loo (because he heard the ‘no’ on the way back) and we have no way of knowing, and Cadosch doesn’t tell us, how long he was in the loo.

I also posted a quote from an expert who told us about clocks being fast or slow in that period.

So unless you can prove that that clock that Long used and the method that Cadosch used for his times aligned perfectly then we have to say that there is no issue with Long and Cadosch’s timings. Three witnesses all telling us that Annie was still alive at close to 5.30.

And this is when the effort has to be made to try and discredit all three.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I have previously said that he didn't say that he was wrong, only that he could be wrong.

In the event somebody at the inquest outright asked Dr Phillips the question: "could your estimate be wrong?", he would certainly have said yes.

The reason being that he was an educated man and he would have known that there are no absolute truths. What he suggested wasn't a scientifically verifiable proposition and he would have known that.

We haven't been discussing whether or not Dr Phillips could have been wrong, nor whether or not Dr Phillips believed he could have been wrong: we have been discussing the meaning of his statement at the inquest.

Yet another exercise in argument by distraction on your part.

Of course Dr Phillips could have been wrong. Of course Dr Phillips knew he could have been wrong.

Neither of those considerations negate the proposition that Dr Phillips believed that Annie had been dead for at least two hours and probably more, as he stated at the inquest.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I don't know how you got from your 3rd sentence to your 4th.

You wrote: it's not a question of less than probably 3, but less than 2.

If Phillips thought that it was probably three hours, then his qualification applies to three hours and not two.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Phillips' estimate (in hours) was at least two hours, and probably more

I don't think he meant at least two hours and probably 2 1/4 hours.

I think he meant at least two hours and probably three.

That means it is a question of less than probably three, and not less than two.

My reason for saying less than one is that if Long saw Chapman, then she must have been murdered several minutes later than 5:30.

What you or I or anyone thinks on this isn’t important PI. Phillips mentioned no specific length of time over two hours.mWe can’t use 3 just because you ‘think’ that’s what he meant. I could say ‘I think he meant 10 or 15 minutes,’ and no one could prove me wrong. We don’t know. He just said that he thought that 2+ hours were likeliest. But less than 2 was possible.

It would make no difference if he’d said that he was certain it was exactly 2 hours though because we know that the methods that he used were unreliable and subject to error.

[Doctored Whatsit]

No, I don't see.

I asked the other poster to explain how: at least two hours, and probably more, but possibly less than at least two hours, is a reasonable statement in the English language. That is his contention and it follows it is perfectly reasonably to ask him to explain that. He declined to answer on more than one occasion, and rather replied with something about semi-colons. You can draw your own conclusion on why he'd decline and turn his attention to a 'semi-colon'.

You've replied on his behalf and it appears that you're reiterating my question. i.e. in the event somebody of education states 'at least', i.e. the minimum time possible, then how can he claim possibly less than the minimum time possible?

I have explained several times what I believe, and you repeatedly ignore it. I have never made the preposterous statement that you keep asking me to explain.

[Fleetwood Mac]

"at least two hours and probably more but possibly less than two hours" is something that only you have ever suggested.

We know he said "at least two hours".

We know he said "and probably more".

What did he mean when he said: "but due to the cold morning...."? That Annie could have been murdered prior to 4.30am?

[Doctored Whatsit]

In the event somebody at the inquest outright asked Dr Phillips the question: "could your estimate be wrong?", he would certainly have said yes.

The reason being that he was an educated man and he would have known that there are no absolute truths. What he suggested wasn't a scientifically verifiable proposition and he would have known that.

We haven't been discussing whether or not Dr Phillips could have been wrong, nor whether or not Dr Phillips believed he could have been wrong: we have been discussing the meaning of his statement at the inquest.

Yet another exercise in argument by distraction on your part.

Of course Dr Phillips could have been wrong. Of course Dr Phillips knew he could have been wrong.

Neither of those considerations negate the proposition that Dr Phillips believed that Annie had been dead for at least two hours and probably more, as he stated at the inquest.

And as you admit, he also believed that he could be wrong, and said so.

[Fleetwood Mac]

And as you admit, he also believed that he could be wrong, and said so.

Let's agree to disagree.

[Doctored Whatsit]

We know he said "at least two hours".

We know he said "and probably more".

What did he mean when he said: "but due to the cold morning...."? That Annie could have been murdered prior to 4.30am?

He didn't give a revised ToD, so we don't know what revised range of times he was prepared to accept. We just know that he was prepared to accept that he could be wrong, and that the ToD could have been later than his estimate. I have never suggested that he meant a specific time, and I still don't propose one.