John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sorry, Herlock, but your assertion that Phillips considered a time of death as late as about 5.30 a.m. to be a reasonable estimate is contradicted by the report in The Echo on 19 September 1888 that Phillips was definite that Chapman was already dead at 4.45 a.m.

I don’t care what he said on the 19th PI. I know what he said on the 13th at the Inquest. So what did he know on the 19th that he didn’t know on the 13th? I think the doctor was doing what a few have done on here……he simply dug his heels in and claimed that Richardson was wrong.

Richardson wasn’t wrong. It’s impossible.

Chapman was still alive at 4.45. All else is nonsense and dishonesty.

[FISHY1118]

Richardson went to the back door. He opened it. He went down the steps and stood on the flags. He sat down on the middle step. He checked the lock. He attended to his boot. He left for work.

He said this on oath at the inquest. The exact same story was reported in the Press less than 48 hours later. He had no reason to lie.

All else is nonsense.

The "all else" are the conflicting other reports from inquest testimony and press reports that contradicts your suggestion .

So maybe its your suggestion that is "nonsense"

[Herlock Sholmes]

The "all else" are the conflicting other reports from inquest testimony and press reports that contradicts your suggestion .

So maybe its your suggestion that is "nonsense"

Just because the reporting of events and testimony are inaccurate it doesn’t mean that the witnesses were wrong or lying.
We need reason and common sense.

Did Richardson have reason to lie?

No.

Therefore he didn’t.

[FISHY1118]

5.30 is overwhelming likely time that she was killed despite the resort to the most deliberate and wilful attempt to denigrate witnesses that I’ve ever heard. Added to this the unbelievably arrogant belief that some on here feel that their opinions trump those of the worlds experts. Those are the depths that have been sunk to.

5.30 "is not"" the overwhelmingly likely t.od despite you accusing posters of denigrating the witnesses testimony ,

As you have been shown on many occasions that witness testimony is unsafe to rely on. You seem to think your opinion trumps modern day experts that tell us that is the case

Your basically accusing your self of sinking to the same depth you accuse others of. Astonishing.!

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I don’t care what he said on the 19th PI. I know what he said on the 13th at the Inquest. So what did he know on the 19th that he didn’t know on the 13th? I think the doctor was doing what a few have done on here……he simply dug his heels in and claimed that Richardson was wrong.

Richardson wasn’t wrong. It’s impossible.

Chapman was still alive at 4.45. All else is nonsense and dishonesty.

There is no conflict between what Phillips said at the inquest on the 13th and his opinion published on the 19th.

On the 13th he gave it as his opinion that Chapman died at or before 4:30 AM.

On the 19th he gave it as his opinion that Chapman died before 4:45 AM.

That you should describe his opinion as being dishonest is to be regretted, as is your remark that you don't care what he said.

You argued earlier that Phillips must have accepted the coroner's conclusions because he didn't contradict them in public.

He evidently did just that on the 19th, proving you wrong, and now you say you don't care.

[Wickerman]

It was a deconstruction of what Phillips said using proper definitions of the words and the grammar and by using the only correct meaning in terms of a medical statement.

There can be no doubt what Phillips meant. None at all. He meant that a later ToD was possible. He cannot have meant anything else because that would fly in the face of the science and the grammar.

Oh my goodness, FM has already thrown the towel in, and now you raise such technical subjects as Science & Grammar. You're really trying to confuse the he11 out of them.

I never understood the choice to dumb-down an argument. In the past when someone doesn't understand basic English they will often gracefully back out of the discussion. These days they choose to come up with a nonsensical response as if they never graduated school.
Most people never choose to voluntarily embarrass themselves in public, not in my day anyway.

[GBinOz]

I don’t care what he said on the 19th PI. I know what he said on the 13th at the Inquest. So what did he know on the 19th that he didn’t know on the 13th? I think the doctor was doing what a few have done on here……he simply dug his heels in and claimed that Richardson was wrong.

Richardson wasn’t wrong. It’s impossible.

Chapman was still alive at 4.45. All else is nonsense and dishonesty.

Hi Herlock,

Do you know what Phillips said on the morning of the 8th?

From Wolf Vanderlinden's dissertation:
Chandler's report, dated on the day of the murder, said, "The Doctor pronounced life extinct and stated the woman had been dead at least two hours." ³⁰ Later at the inquest he responded to a question about the time of death of Annie Chapman by stating "I should say at least two hours, and probably more" but there was a caveat to this statement, which has been used to explain away Dr. Philips' estimation. The doctor added "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." Does this disqualify Dr. Phillips' time frame for the murder? No, it doesn't. The doctor was merely stating the obvious and not changing his estimate of time of death.

At the inquest both the "probably more" and the caveat were added to his assessment of the 8th, together, as though they were meant to be read together. The Echo report shows that Phillips thought the same on the 13th as on the 19th, that Annie was dead before 4:45 am. And the police agreed with him and reported that fact to their superiors:
" doubtful evidence points to some thing between 5:30 and 6: - but medical evidence says about 4 o'cl." - Home Office Files²⁷

Impossible, nonsense and dishonest. These are not words normally used in an impartial assessment of evidence.

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

Sorry, Herlock, but your assertion that Phillips considered a time of death as late as about 5.30 a.m. to be a reasonable estimate is contradicted by the report in The Echo on 19 September 1888 that Phillips was definite that Chapman was already dead at 4.45 a.m.

Phillips never spoke to the press, and he certainly made no such claim.

[Wickerman]

Hi Herlock,

Do you know what Phillips said on the morning of the 8th?
...
At the inquest both the "probably more" and the caveat were added to his assessment of the 8th, together, as though they were meant to be read together. The Echo report shows that Phillips thought the same on the 13th as on the 19th, that Annie was dead before 4:45 am. And the police agreed with him and reported that fact to their superiors:
" doubtful evidence points to some thing between 5:30 and 6: - but medical evidence says about 4 o'cl." - Home Office Files²⁷

The police always prefer to believe the medical evidence, this is why Swanson wrote that they questioned Richardson intently, and they couldn't break his story, which caused the dilemma. Swanson left the matter an open question.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Phillips never spoke to the press, and he certainly made no such claim.

Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon, has had another consultation with the police authorities respecting certain theories advanced. There are three points upon which there is agreement - that Annie Chapman was lying dead in the yard at 29 Hanbury street, when John Richardson sat on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot, his failure to notice the deceased being explained by the fact that the yard door, when opened, obstructed his view; that the poor creature was murdered in the yard, and not in a house, as had been at one time suggested; and that the person who committed the deed was a man with some knowledge of human or animal anatomy.

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/echo/18880919.html

[FISHY1118]

And that’s what he did. He went to the back door. Went down the steps, stood on the flags and then sat on the steps. When he said that he didn’t go down the steps he was talking about the cellar steps. The confusion arises from the clearly inexact reporting of what was said. And the suggestion that he’d have said that he hadn’t gone down the cellar steps whilst, in the same statement, saying that he’d sat on the steps (meaning that he had to have gone down the steps) is obvious nonsense.

Time to drop the cherrypicking Fishy.

Utter garbage .You clearly don't know what a doorstep is Herlock.


Answer the question where is the doorstep at the top of the cellar step ?

. . Your making things up as you go along to suit a theory that the evidence proves you wrong .

Cherrypicking is your M.O, where Richardson is concerned. You just ignored everything he said he did in my post, well done your a genius

[GBinOz]

Oh my goodness, FM has already thrown the towel in, and now you raise such technical subjects as Science & Grammar. You're really trying to confuse the he11 out of them.

I never understood the choice to dumb-down an argument. In the past when someone doesn't understand basic English they will often gracefully back out of the discussion. These days they choose to come up with a nonsensical response as if they never graduated school.
Most people never choose to voluntarily embarrass themselves in public, not in my day anyway.

Hi Jon,

I would not see the use of phrases like "I dont care" about the evidence, or words like "impossible, nonsense and dishonest" to describe opinions as employing "Science & Grammar". I have always thought that to accuse all who disagree with an opinion as lacking an understanding of basic English is a last resort of those that somewhat immodestly insist they have a monopoly on understanding. I graduated school, and University, and have completed many post graduate qualifications, and I did not expect such insulting remarks from you, even if you were trying to be humorous.

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon, has had another consultation with the police authorities respecting certain theories advanced. There are three points upon which there is agreement - that Annie Chapman was lying dead in the yard at 29 Hanbury street, when John Richardson sat on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot, his failure to notice the deceased being explained by the fact that the yard door, when opened, obstructed his view; that the poor creature was murdered in the yard, and not in a house, as had been at one time suggested; and that the person who committed the deed was a man with some knowledge of human or animal anatomy.



https://www.casebook.org/press_repor.../18880919.html

Yes, that is the report.
It says nothing about Phillips being interviewed by the press. He will always consult with the police, it is expected. This is all they are reporting about Dr. Phillips.

The rest of the paragraph is merely a summary of what has been heard at the prior inquests up to the 13th (check it out), the points raised in the paragraph can all be found in the testimonies of Richardson, Chandler & Phillips from the previous inquests.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I would not see the use of phrases like "I dont care" about the evidence, or words like "impossible, nonsense and dishonest" to describe opinions as employing "Science & Grammar". I have always thought that to accuse all who disagree with an opinion as lacking an understanding of basic English is a last resort of those that somewhat immodestly insist they have a monopoly on understanding. I graduated school, and University, and have completed many post graduate qualifications, and I did not expect such insulting remarks from you, even if you were trying to be humorous.

Cheers, George

Hi George.

This was concerning the phrase by Phillips, nothing else, personally I don't recall you casting an opinion on this.

English is not a language where anyone can invent their own meaning for phrases. Disagreement is quite a separate issue, an explanation offered in good faith, in this case by 3 or 4 different members has been met with nonsense. If it were simply a matter of disagreement the reply would have some rational interpretation.
There are times when you have to call a spade, a spade regardless of sentiments.
Pussyfooting around with child-like interpretations is also disrespectful, if respect is your main concern.
There has been a genuine attempt to explain the meaning of his phrase coupled with sound reasoning, by more than one member.
It has even been proven to be the correct explanation by contemporary reviews from a professional journal.
It is clear, to me at least, that some members lacked a degree of knowledge over one or two issues. Instead of respecting the fact they could learn something here they prefer to turn a deaf ear.

[GBinOz]

Hi George.

This was concerning the phrase by Phillips, nothing else, personally I don't recall you casting an opinion on this.

English is not a language where anyone can invent their own meaning for phrases. Disagreement is quite a separate issue, an explanation offered in good faith, in this case by 3 or 4 different members has been met with nonsense. If it were simply a matter of disagreement the reply would have some rational interpretation.
There are times when you have to call a spade, a spade regardless of sentiments.
Pussyfooting around with child-like interpretations is also disrespectful, if respect is your main concern.
There has been a genuine attempt to explain the meaning of his phrase coupled with sound reasoning, by more than one member.
It has even been proven to be the correct explanation by contemporary reviews from a professional journal.
It is clear, to me at least, that some members lacked a degree of knowledge over one or two issues. Instead of respecting the fact they could learn something here they prefer to turn a deaf ear.

Hi Jon,

I find myself at a loss to understand how you have missed my opinion on this subject, as I have expressed it on a number of occasions.

English is considered to be one of the most complex languages in the world and is thus subject to the vagaries of interpretation. Explanations have been offered in good faith by both sides of the argument, with one particularly vociferous member on your side being prone to employing superlatives such as "overwhelming" in his repeated assurances that his opinion is correct to the exclusion of all others. You attributed the use of "Science and Grammar" to his effort to show that any other opinion was "impossible, nonsense and dishonest". You then attributed dissenting opinions to "dumb-down argument" from people lacking in a basic education in their own language. If we are to resort to calling a spade a spade, I would have to, with great reluctance, suggest that such tactics, are dis-respectful, supercilious and condescending. Who is to inform Wolf Vanderlinden that his comments on this topic in his dissertation are child-like, and that he is an un-educated dunce who should be embarrassed to have presented such an opinion, and that he could well benefit from listening to those who know better? Not anyone on my side of the debate.

I believe that I set out a logical rational involving what Phillips may have meant in his estimate set out in Chandler's notes, and the additions made to Phillip's inquest testimony, and PI1 set out those same arguments in a well presented post shortly after. These were proffered in the spirit of discussion but were met with claims that they were dishonest nonsense. This is supported with attempts at logical justification such as "most people agree with me, so I'm right and you're wrong", as Pope Urban VIII explained to Galileo.

I agree that there is a perception by some members that other members lack a degree of knowledge over more than just one or two issues, the point of departure being which members are which. As I've said before, we are all here voluntarily to discuss JtR related matters, and the pillorying of opposing opinions contributes nothing towards that goal. Open minds contribute towards that aim, not 98% convictions.

Cheers, George