John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

On a linked but separate point: do you agree that this location was the oddest of all? I can't see how it would be anything other than a bad choice, notwithstanding that it (hindsight) wasn't? I've long felt Hanbury Street could somehow provide the best lead, as a location.

It might seem a poor choice to us but we can’t know how he was thinking or what Chapman might have told him about how safe the location was. If Stride was a victim I tend to think that Dutfield’s Yard was the oddest.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A bit like the witness testimony

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Nothing wrong with the witness testimony. Unless you make it up of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And no two bodies will react in the exact same way after death so all this posting of quotes from various sources is irrelevant.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It’s absolutely worth pointing out because eventually it might sink in that it’s pointless to keep quoting Phillips estimation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Courts alll over the world still use witnesses.
None that I know of still use the Victorian method of estimating ToD.

[Herlock Sholmes]

They do you are right, but courts are able to identify flaws in witness testimony and then treat that testimony as unsafe to rely on

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, identify flaws….not invent flaws.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You have to be joking Long Cadosh and Richardson statements are all unsafe to rely on to prove conclusively a later TOD

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Only if you are incapable of assessing evidence fairly and without bias of course.

[Paul Sutton]

It might seem a poor choice to us but we can’t know how he was thinking or what Chapman might have told him about how safe the location was. If Stride was a victim I tend to think that Dutfield’s Yard was the oddest.

Yes, Dutfield's was the riskiest in terms of getting seen or caught in the act, but surely Hanbury was in terms of not being able to get away? How would one, other than down the passage, which could easily be blocked. Hopping the fence(s) still traps one in a neighbouring back-yard.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wick,

I understand what you are saying, and it seems to be perfectly plausible, except for one thing which bothers me. Chandler knew before 7 am on the morning of the murder that there was a major serious contradiction. Phillips had stated a ToD of 4. 30 am or earlier, and Richardson said that the body was not there at 4. 45 am. Are we to assume that the police did not ask Phillips about this worrying discrepancy between the 8th and the 13th of September, and that Phillips didn't read a newspaper either?

It really does seem to me that Phillips must have been aware of the issue before he gave his evidence, or if not, the police were incompetent beyond belief.

I think you may have been mislead by the way it is worded.
I don't think Phillips establish, at 6:30 (when he arrived), that the body had been dead for two or more hours. I'd be surprised if the doctor would commit to anything so early in the investigation.
It's not like modern TV detectives where the first question they ask is 'when was she murdered doctor?'

Chandler does say Phillips arrived about 6:30, Richardson came about 6:45, and Chandler went to the mortuary a few minutes after 7:00.
If Chandler took a brief statement from Richardson when he arrived, he certainly spent some time talking to him. He may have been too busy to speak with Phillips, he gives no hint that they spoke for any length except that Phillips had to hand the bits he found in the yard to Chandler.

[Trevor Marriott]

It’s absolutely worth pointing out because eventually it might sink in that it’s pointless to keep quoting Phillips estimation.

But I posted what I believe to be corroboration from Dr Biggs to show an earlier TOD and I have not seen in any posts quoting these experts and their opinions to negate what Dr Biggs stated, just for jollies I have posted it again

"So in summary, rigor mortis could possibly be detected by a trained observer within an hour (or even less) after death, but would not usually be expected to become apparent for a (small) number of hours. In extreme cases (e.g. severe physical exertion before death) this might be even quicker. Ignoring the likely artefact of so-called “cadaveric spasm”, if a body is genuinely stiff at the time of discovery, then it hasn’t died immediately before discovery. The exact time since death cannot be estimated with any degree of accuracy or certainty. (As an aside, if the victim is a malnourished, slight, alcoholic female, then rigor mortis may be less pronounced than might be expected, so detection of rigor mortis in such an individual may indicate a longer time since death.)

The last part specifically applies to Chapman and is an accurate description of how she was described by Dr Phillips when he carried out the original post-mortem

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

A bit like the witness testimony

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Of course, the newspapers are not to be trusted.
Are the Parliamentary speeches fake, the stories of burglaries, railway accidents, foreign wars, ships sinking at sea, how about football scores, are these also all fake?
For some reason the same reporters who are trusted to report on anything from births to deaths & everything in between cannot possibly be relied on to accurately report on inquest testimony.
Either that or, all witnesses are liars.
Or, just perhaps, there is a personal theory that demands everyone else must be wrong?
Nah! it couldn't be....

Our biggest problem with newspapers isn't the witnesses, it isn't the reporters, it is editing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, Dutfield's was the riskiest in terms of getting seen or caught in the act, but surely Hanbury was in terms of not being able to get away? How would one, other than down the passage, which could easily be blocked. Hopping the fence(s) still traps one in a neighbouring back-yard.

I don’t think we really know if a killer could in theory have jumped over a fence at the bottom of the yard but if there was no alley (and I don’t think there was) then it would have been massively risky to land in someone’s yard. Maybe someone could have done this in desperation but we have to assume that the killer left the way he came in. He would have been, in effect, trapped had someone appeared at the back door. Maybe he’d had considered as a fall back that he could have killed the intruder?

[Herlock Sholmes]

But I posted what I believe to be corroboration from Dr Biggs to show an earlier TOD and I have not seen in any posts quoting these experts and their opinions to negate what Dr Biggs stated, just for jollies I have posted it again

"So in summary, rigor mortis could possibly be detected by a trained observer within an hour (or even less) after death, but would not usually be expected to become apparent for a (small) number of hours. In extreme cases (e.g. severe physical exertion before death) this might be even quicker. Ignoring the likely artefact of so-called “cadaveric spasm”, if a body is genuinely stiff at the time of discovery, then it hasn’t died immediately before discovery. The exact time since death cannot be estimated with any degree of accuracy or certainty. (As an aside, if the victim is a malnourished, slight, alcoholic female, then rigor mortis may be less pronounced than might be expected, so detection of rigor mortis in such an individual may indicate a longer time since death.)

The last part specifically applies to Chapman and is an accurate description of how she was described by Dr Phillips when he carried out the original post-mortem

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’m struggling here Trevor. You post a quote from Dr. Biggs and for some inexplicable reason you see it as corroborating an earlier ToD. How have you managed to do this?

“…rigor mortis could possibly be detected by a trained observer within an hour (or even less) after death,”

So Dr. Biggs tells us that rigor can sometimes be detected after an hour or less - like Chapman.

“….but would not usually be expected to become apparent for a (small) number of hours.”

So in most cases it would occur later…..so cases unlike Chapman.

“In extreme cases (e.g. severe physical exertion before death) this might be even quicker.”

Cases like a woman who has had her throat cut and then horrifically mutilated…….like Chapman.

“The exact time since death cannot be estimated with any degree of accuracy or certainty.”

What a surprise Trevor….exactly as I and others have told you a thousand times.

“…if the victim is a malnourished, slight, alcoholic female, then rigor mortis may be less pronounced than might be expected, [U]so detection of rigor mortis in such an individual may indicate a longer time since death.”

And as I’ve pointed out to you Dr. Biggs not only uses the word ‘may,’ he uses it twice.


So Trevor, unless you can produce a quote from Dr. Biggs where he says ‘Victorian Doctors had sufficient knowledge to make unerringly accurate, totally ahead of their time and totally infallible ToD estimations or that Annie Chapman was more likely to have been killed at 4.30 rather than 5.30, I’ll hold back on the applause if you don’t mind.

[Hair Bear]

And no two bodies will react in the exact same way after death so all this posting of quotes from various sources is irrelevant.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hello Trevor. By this am I to assume that you also mean it is pointless comparing Eddowes and Chapman?

[Paul Sutton]

I don’t think we really know if a killer could in theory have jumped over a fence at the bottom of the yard but if there was no alley (and I don’t think there was) then it would have been massively risky to land in someone’s yard. Maybe someone could have done this in desperation but we have to assume that the killer left the way he came in. He would have been, in effect, trapped had someone appeared at the back door. Maybe he’d had considered as a fall back that he could have killed the intruder?

I guess it strongly suggests he was taken there by Chapman and thought 'this is perfect, provided I don't get blocked in.' He felt secure there, which to me (not having followed the timing argument) means it was dark and quiet, not with people getting up for a slash. If it was dark, he may not even have realised how much of a trap it was.

I'm not up to speed on what the rigor mortis argument says, but I think the murder was as early as possible, just from the location.

[A P Tomlinson]

I don’t think we really know if a killer could in theory have jumped over a fence at the bottom of the yard but if there was no alley (and I don’t think there was) then it would have been massively risky to land in someone’s yard. Maybe someone could have done this in desperation but we have to assume that the killer left the way he came in. He would have been, in effect, trapped had someone appeared at the back door. Maybe he’d had considered as a fall back that he could have killed the intruder?

In that regard I'm still intrigued by the gate that's shown in the James Mason film.
It makes a brief appearance, but doesn't look like any work had been done to create a gap and retrofit the ironwork. I have no idea where it leads. I did mention it, (what feels like 8000 pages ago), but I don't think it got picked up.
I was hoping some of the researchers with a better grasp of the geography of the time could have explained it.
If it was a later addition, then great... at least I know.
If not, it could probably tolerate a litle scrutiny.