Lechmere versus Richardson.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think that it’s worth pointing out the problems of wording and how easy it can be for misleading information to creep in.

If we look at The Telegraph we get:

“[Coroner] Did you go into the yard? - No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long.”


And yet in The Times:

“He did not go into the yard, but went and stood on the steps.”

“Witness, continuing, said he could see the padlock was on the door. He did not sit upon the top step, but rested his feet on the flags of the yard.”

If we only had The Times version to go on we would have one sentence stating positively that he only stood on the back step and one sentence where he said that “he did not sit….etc” which, at a push, and taken in conjunction with the first sentence, might be argued as a response to a question “did you actually sit on the step or stand on it?”

Same Inquest and yet we get differences which might be interpreted as significant.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I know that it can’t been seen as a ‘conclusion’ but it’s at least interesting that 84% of votes believe that Richardson was being truthful.

[JeffHamm]

I think that it’s worth pointing out the problems of wording and how easy it can be for misleading information to creep in.

If we look at The Telegraph we get:

“[Coroner] Did you go into the yard? - No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long.”


And yet in The Times:

“He did not go into the yard, but went and stood on the steps.”

“Witness, continuing, said he could see the padlock was on the door. He did not sit upon the top step, but rested his feet on the flags of the yard.”

If we only had The Times version to go on we would have one sentence stating positively that he only stood on the back step and one sentence where he said that “he did not sit….etc” which, at a push, and taken in conjunction with the first sentence, might be argued as a response to a question “did you actually sit on the step or stand on it?”

Same Inquest and yet we get differences which might be interpreted as significant.

Yes, it's the Telegraph version that I've recalled where he says no in response to "going into the yard" but sitting on the steps, although it's the Times that mentions his feet on the flagstones. The Times version doesn't make as much sense to me as if he didn't sit then how can he rest his feet on the flagstones? Also, sitting to work on his boot seems far more natural. The Telegraph appears more transcript reporting, while the Times is more summary reporting, and summarising introduces more errors. It seems to me that in the Times, Stood probably should have read sat, partly because the "did not sit upon the top step ..." seems odd since they original say he was standing. It makes sense if the reporter noted he sat on the 2nd step. Also, with stood, the feet on the flagstones part doesn't make any sense (standing on the flagstones isn't resting one's feet), so that implies he's sitting as well, making the Times bit "...but went and stood on the steps." seem like a misprint to me as it doesn't make sense otherwise. And again, they're not quoting Richardson like the Telegraph does, so the weird wording appears to be the reporter's not the witness's.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Another factor to be considered is the TOD, and the question asked is if were there any other killings as late as 5am

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Richardson testified he was there "between a quarter and 20 minutes to 5" and "It was not light, but was getting so, and was sufficient for him to see all over the place". Where I live 45 minutes after "getting light" is broad daylight. Is it different in London in September? Would JtR be operating in this lack of darkness?

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Richardson testified he was there "between a quarter and 20 minutes to 5" and "It was not light, but was getting so, and was sufficient for him to see all over the place". Where I live 45 minutes after "getting light" is broad daylight. Is it different in London in September? Would JtR be operating in this lack of darkness?

Cheers, George

No , and definitely not at 29 hanbury st with all its occupant .

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

I guess I don't see his adding in the boot repair as contradicting his original statement. He's added an event he didn't mention before, but I see it as him originally focusing in the pertinent details and fixing his boot a trivial aside. It later becomes important, of course, but at the time it wouldn't have been apparent to him. And I think what he says is that he didn't go down into the yard, or maybe down the steps into the yard, and sitting on the top or 2nd step and placing his feet on the flag stones isnt going into the yard and doesn't require going down the steps, so there's no contradiction there as far as I can see. But, if you see things as him contradicting himself then yes, i can see how it makes him suspect. I guess it's a difference of how that appears to us.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I suppose it depends on whether the steps are considered to be in the yard. I wouldn't describe them as being in the house, so are the steps neither one nor the other? Just to complicate matters, the Times says "He did not go into the yard but went and stood on the steps." and "He stood on the steps and cut a piece of leather from off one of his boots."

The coroner seemed to be experiencing a degree of frustration with Richardson:
By the CORONER - He cut the piece of leather off his boot because it hurt him. He took a piece out on the previous day, but that was not sufficient. As a matter of fact that was the only thing he did at Hanbury-street. He did not go into the yard at all. His object principally in going to the house was to see that the cellar was all right, and he looked and found that it was so.
The CORONER-You do not seem to have taken much trouble to see that it was all right.
This seems to have flustered Richardson:
Witness, continuing, said he could see the padlock was on the door. He did not sit upon the top step, but rested his feet on the flags of the yard.

Some physical, and mental, contortions required here. How does one stand on the steps while cutting leather from a boot with one's feet resting on the flags of the yard? If he were standing on the steps looking in the direction of the lock it would seem that the body was behind him. The jury seemed to think so as they raised that possibility. As per usual with the press reports, there are contradictory statements as to whether he was sitting or standing.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

From the photo it seen that that there is really only one substantial step involved between the floor of the building and the step which appears to be only slightly above the flags. To be considered "not in the yard" but on the steps, I would infer that he meant he was standing on the substantial step.

Suppose he opened the door, turned to the right, and stood on that step while facing the cellar. He testified that "He did not close the back door, as it closed itself", so the door is pressing against his back. He can steady himself on the door jamb and raise either foot ( the Times reported he did not sit down) to start to attempt cursory repairs before realising the knife is too blunt, all while facing the cellar with the door against his back. He then does a right turn and the door closes behind him.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, it's the Telegraph version that I've recalled where he says no in response to "going into the yard" but sitting on the steps, although it's the Times that mentions his feet on the flagstones. The Times version doesn't make as much sense to me as if he didn't sit then how can he rest his feet on the flagstones? Also, sitting to work on his boot seems far more natural. The Telegraph appears more transcript reporting, while the Times is more summary reporting, and summarising introduces more errors. It seems to me that in the Times, Stood probably should have read sat, partly because the "did not sit upon the top step ..." seems odd since they original say he was standing. It makes sense if the reporter noted he sat on the 2nd step. Also, with stood, the feet on the flagstones part doesn't make any sense (standing on the flagstones isn't resting one's feet), so that implies he's sitting as well, making the Times bit "...but went and stood on the steps." seem like a misprint to me as it doesn't make sense otherwise. And again, they're not quoting Richardson like the Telegraph does, so the weird wording appears to be the reporter's not the witness's.

- Jeff

Agreed Jeff. It illustrates how easy it might be to begin a bit of ‘weaving’ if we select one version as opposed to another. All that it takes is a bit of unclear wording or one word mistakenly put in place of another. And as you point out in the last line we have to remember to ask “whose actual words are we reading?” Especially when a reporter might make scribbled notes, writing them up for print later on.

[Abby Normal]

From the photo it seen that that there is really only one substantial step involved between the floor of the building and the step which appears to be only slightly above the flags. To be considered "not in the yard" but on the steps, I would infer that he meant he was standing on the substantial step.

Suppose he opened the door, turned to the right, and stood on that step while facing the cellar. He testified that "He did not close the back door, as it closed itself", so the door is pressing against his back. He can steady himself on the door jamb and raise either foot ( the Times reported he did not sit down) to start to attempt cursory repairs before realising the knife is too blunt, all while facing the cellar with the door against his back. He then does a right turn and the door closes behind him.

Cheers, George

Hi George
There is no way he could have missed the body, especially if he sat on the step. Her body would have literally been at his feet. and with Long and cadoshe, it is a near certainty she was killed around the 5;30 time frame.

[Trevor Marriott]

Agreed Jeff. It illustrates how easy it might be to begin a bit of ‘weaving’ if we select one version as opposed to another. All that it takes is a bit of unclear wording or one word mistakenly put in place of another. And as you point out in the last line we have to remember to ask “whose actual words are we reading?” Especially when a reporter might make scribbled notes, writing them up for print later on.

And I have been saying for years now that newspaper articles are unsafe to totally rely on all throught these murders as we see so many conflicting reports of the same event/testimony,and again time and time again we see the cherry picking of reports to suit a theory

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi George
There is no way he could have missed the body, especially if he sat on the step. Her body would have literally been at his feet. and with Long and cadoshe, it is a near certainty she was killed around the 5;30 time frame.

Neithers testimony stands up to close scrutiny

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Hi George,

Hi Jeff,

I suppose it depends on whether the steps are considered to be in the yard. I wouldn't describe them as being in the house, so are the steps neither one nor the other? Just to complicate matters, the Times says "He did not go into the yard but went and stood on the steps." and "He stood on the steps and cut a piece of leather from off one of his boots."

Yes, good point. The steps are outside, but "in the yard", at least how I'm used to using that phrase, would mean out into the backyard itself, so one is inside, outside on the steps, or outside in the yard (having gone down the steps and out onto the grass area. If one considers being on the steps as being "in the yard" it would read differently as the phrase "in the yard" means a different concept). So, I don't see a problem with him saying he was sitting on the steps but simultaneously indicating he was not in the yard. It would be like saying one went out on the deck but not into the yard (meaning onto the grass).

And he would have checked the lock while standing, then sat to trim his boot, then left. That sequence is a bit clearer in the Telegraph's transcript version, but appears a bit muddled in the Times summary version.

The coroner seemed to be experiencing a degree of frustration with Richardson:
By the CORONER - He cut the piece of leather off his boot because it hurt him. He took a piece out on the previous day, but that was not sufficient. As a matter of fact that was the only thing he did at Hanbury-street. He did not go into the yard at all. His object principally in going to the house was to see that the cellar was all right, and he looked and found that it was so.
The CORONER-You do not seem to have taken much trouble to see that it was all right.
This seems to have flustered Richardson:
Witness, continuing, said he could see the padlock was on the door. He did not sit upon the top step, but rested his feet on the flags of the yard.

Some physical, and mental, contortions required here. How does one stand on the steps while cutting leather from a boot with one's feet resting on the flags of the yard? If he were standing on the steps looking in the direction of the lock it would seem that the body was behind him. The jury seemed to think so as they raised that possibility. As per usual with the press reports, there are contradictory statements as to whether he was sitting or standing.

Cheers, George

I agree, but the confusion comes from the Times presentation. The Telegraph, which presents a transcript version and so is closer to Richardson's actual words, is clearer. He checked the lock (probably standing), found it was ok, sat on the steps with his feet on the flagstones (the Times gives that last detail), trimmed his boot, left for work. The coroner, realising the importance of ascertaining the accuracy of his testimony about there being no body, wants more details about exactly what he did. If he just glanced out the door and looked to the cellar then went back inside he might not have seen it even if it was there. Through questioning it becomes clear Richardson did more than just that, including sitting down on the steps for a few minutes.

Again, witnesses will tell their "story" starting with what details they themselves presume to be the details important to the crime. What most people don't realise is that every detail, no matter how trivial it may appear, is important. For example, I'll make something up to illustrate. Let's pretend the police of 1888 did finger printing, and Richardson had a glass of water when he sat on the steps rather than trimmed his boot. He doesn't tell the police about drinking some water while there in the first instance, because it seems trivial and not relevant to the fact he checked the lock (his purpose for being at the house at all). But, he has forgotten that he left the glass on the steps, and the police have found his prints on it. It's going to look a lot more suspicious when he now has to explain why his prints are on a glass on the steps when he said he just looked at the lock because it looks like he's making something up in response to police evidence. Had he mentioned the water in the first place, though, it might still draw attention to him but it would not raise quite so many questions from the police, and he wouldn't appear to be responding to deal with incriminating evidence but rather the evidence would be consistent with what he told. It complicates things for the investigation when incomplete descriptions are given because the "mundane and trivial" events leave their mark, however small, and while the witness can explain them the police are left with having to decide if the witness is "reacting to evidence against them" or "filling in details they had left out before". Richardson's boot story comes across to me like the latter.

Here's why. One could view his boot story similar to the finger print fictional story I presented. So, if he's guilty he's "reacting to evidence against him" but if he's innocent he's either just making something up in response to his previous claim of "no body" being doubted or he's filling in details he originally omitted providing a more complete picture of his actions.

What if he was guilty. Is he reacting to evidence against him? Not really. If the police don't believe him then that means they think the body was already there when he checked the lock; he just didn't see it. That means, of course, they don't suspect him of the murder, so that would be good for him and he has no need to add anything. It's not "evidence against him", rather it would be evidence away from him.

If he's innocent, though, and he is very sure there was no body there (again, his high confidence does not guarantee he's correct), then mentioning what he originally left out as a trivial event (possibly because he's reluctant to mention he had a knife with him, which is understandable even if he's innocent) becomes important. Questioning is how one gets a full and complete description of the events and actions of the different people because people do leave out details (don't recall them at the time of the first telling, skip over them, and so forth).

Alternatively, he could be innocent but also irritated that he's being doubted, and so he makes up a story about trimming his boot. That's possible, some people are very egotistic and not being believed would be unacceptable to them, so they'll lie to try and get people to believe what they think is true! (I know, people are paradoxical). Anyway, that leads us into examining the story and whether or not it comes across as the type of lie one would tell under the circumstances, given one's goal is simply to get the police to believe what he believes (he believes the body was not there, so he thinks it is important for the police to believe that too, so he's willing to lie to get them to "see the truth" - not recognizing the possibility that he might very well be mistaken! Some people really just can't fathom the possibility that they might be mistaken after all). Personally, I don't think a story that involves him using a knife is likely what one would choose (the "had a glass of water" type story might be more along the lines of what one would do; or even just say, he "when he checked the lock he also looked about the yard as well" would do it).

So to me, while obviously one cannot claim with 100% certainty, it appears he was probably telling the truth and just filling in details that he didn't cover in the first instance. I can't see a guilty Richardson drawing attention to himself by claiming he had a knife on him if the police think she was dead when he arrived (and so aren't looking at him as a suspect), and I can't see an innocent Richardson making up a story that involves him with a knife is his goal is simply to come across as accurate (Just say he also looked in that location and there was no body there).

Anyway, I'm really just outlining how I interpret things, and it's important to note that while I think Richardson is just filling in the details of his actions, that doesn't prove his belief is accurate. That's the next step. The first step is to decide what the events were, and only then assess the probable accuracy of Richardson's beliefs. Our difficulty, of course, is that we cannot further question Richardson, so we can only really decide what we think is most probably what the events were, and then assess the probability of his beliefs being correct. We combine probabilities, making it less and less likely that we are still on the one true path.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

And I have been saying for years now that newspaper articles are unsafe to totally rely on all throught these murders as we see so many conflicting reports of the same event/testimony,and again time and time again we see the cherry picking of reports to suit a theory

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I don't think anybody disagrees with you with regards to the fact that taken as is the newspaper reports conflict, and so clearly have errors. But I don't think cherry picking is a fair description. One could level the same accusation against those who emphasize the doctor's estimated ToD after all, as we know that the doctor's ToD estimation are based upon highly inaccurate methods; which were even noted by the doctor himself.

In the end, the conflict is between the doctor's estimated ToD and the statements of 3 independent eye witnesses, who in combination, lead to the conclusion that Chapman was killed sometime after Richardson checked the lock and around the time that Cadosch was going to and fro to the loo. The exact time of Cadosch's and Long's events are not known, and the times they state are not going to be accurate but estimations (we don't even know how Cadosch set his estimate of the time after all), but the sequence of those events would have to be Richardson - Long - Cadosch if they are all recounting otherwise accurate events.

So it boils down to a decision about which "unsafe" estimate one goes with, and once one makes that decision the conclusion (theory) one ends up at becomes determined. If one goes with the unsafe medical estimate, one concludes Long did not see Chapman, Richardson missed the body, and the sounds Cadosch heard did not come from the crime scene. But, if one decides the medical evidence is simply guesswork (or if you prefer, associated with a very wide margin of error), then one only has the eye witness accounts.

If one dismisses all of the eyewitnesses, then one has no evidence to work with and so nothing can be suggested at all - the murder could have occurred at any time at all.

If one accepts Richardson's statement there was no body there when he visited, then the murder must be after his visit.

And if one accepts Long, then it was after her sighting, though what time that occurred cannot be reliably determined.

And if one accepts Cadosch, it appears to be around the time he was in his backyard.

It is entirely possible to accept or reject Long and Cadosch in any combination (though to accept even one of them means Richardson must be accepted).

Regardless of Long's sighting, if one accepts Cadosch's statements of hearing people in the backyard, then it appears the murder happened around that time, and if we could determine what time he was in the backyard we could work out the ToD based upon that. But, his statements as to the time are not easy to nail down.

We also have, if taken at face value, a time given by Long that places her sighting after Cadosch heard his sounds. But, given the known errors about statements of time, the differences on that point between Long and Cadosch are not difficult to reconcile (one simply has to acknowledge the error in these types of statements, which is, of course, not taking the eye witnesses at face value - which is what you're accusing people of doing - they're not, they're in fact recognizing that not all statements are going to be carved in stone).

It's not "cherry picking" unless one makes that initial choice between the unsafe doctor's ToD and the unsafe nature of eyewitness testimony in order to get to a desired conclusion. It's a matter of what unsafe path one chooses to follow at that first decision point, and since that is a matter of opinion (which is the more unsafe) it's hardly surprising that people end up disagreeing. Basically, "cherry picking" describes the intention behind the decision to go with one set of evidence over the other - the choice is made because of the conclusion it leads to.

I don't think that is what most people are doing, rather, they are assessing the relative merits of the information and we come to different conclusions about which statements are more likely to contain information about the ToD.

You have made the choice that the doctor's guesswork ToD is the more safe option than the three eye witness statements. We know both are fraught with problems, so neither is really safe to build upon.
Others, myself included, see the ToD given by the doctor's in 1888 as guesswork, making them meaningless. That leaves one with only the eyewitnesses, and either one also sets them aside because they too are seen as so error prone that they are also meaningless, and which point one must stop, making no statements about the time of the murder (allowing it to be any time after her last known reliable sighting and up to the point of discovery), or one tries to evaluate the eye-witness statements to see if there is enough reliable information to narrow things down.

But again, it's not cherry picking to come to different conclusions based upon which unsafe set of evidence one goes with (doctor vs eyewitnesses), because the conclusion one comes to is determined by the interpretation of the evidence. It's only cherry picking if one decides which set of evidence to go with because it gets you to the point you want to get to, that's when the conclusion is driving the evidence. I always set aside the doctor's estimated ToD's, even though sometimes they happen to agree with what the other evidence suggests as well. That's to be expected, guesses are sometimes right after all, but when the only conflicting evidence is an 1888 doctor's guess as to the ToD, that to me indicates they guessed wrong. Since I never put any stock in it, no big deal. And personally, if the only evidence we had was a doctor's estimated ToD, I would suggest we have no real information to work with (I believe it to be that unreliable that it is not even worth considering). Obviously, you don't see it that way, and while you set aside the doctor's ToD for some crimes (like Nichols), you accept it in this case because he mentions the onset of rigor mortis this time. But given the variability of rigor mortis onset times, even that is not inconsistent with the eye-witness account because rigor mortis can onset within the hour, and although that is on the quicker it is not so unusual that it rules out the eye-witnesses. In that sense, one could argue that the only ToD that fits both the medical and eye-witness testimonies is one that is after Richardson. Trying to be more precise requires dealing with the times stated by Long and Cadosch, and as we know nothing about how they came up with the times they stated, I'm not sure we can do very much there but perhaps go with time windows of +- 10 minutes around their stated times, and if we did that, I think the earlier times in those windows are more probable, but that's just my opinion.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Neithers testimony stands up to close scrutiny

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Neither does the doctor's ToD estimate hold up to close scrutiny, as temperate by touch is garbage, and rigor mortis onset is too variable to rely upon to discount the eye-witnesses. Nothing we have to work with is safe to build upon, so either one makes no attempt to interpret the information (viewing it all as garbage) or one makes a choice about which unsafe path to follow.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

I don't think anybody disagrees with you with regards to the fact that taken as is the newspaper reports conflict, and so clearly have errors. But I don't think cherry picking is a fair description. One could level the same accusation against those who emphasize the doctor's estimated ToD after all, as we know that the doctor's ToD estimation are based upon highly inaccurate methods; which were even noted by the doctor himself.

In the end, the conflict is between the doctor's estimated ToD and the statements of 3 independent eye witnesses, who in combination, lead to the conclusion that Chapman was killed sometime after Richardson checked the lock and around the time that Cadosch was going to and fro to the loo. The exact time of Cadosch's and Long's events are not known, and the times they state are not going to be accurate but estimations (we don't even know how Cadosch set his estimate of the time after all), but the sequence of those events would have to be Richardson - Long - Cadosch if they are all recounting otherwise accurate events.

So it boils down to a decision about which "unsafe" estimate one goes with, and once one makes that decision the conclusion (theory) one ends up at becomes determined. If one goes with the unsafe medical estimate, one concludes Long did not see Chapman, Richardson missed the body, and the sounds Cadosch heard did not come from the crime scene. But, if one decides the medical evidence is simply guesswork (or if you prefer, associated with a very wide margin of error), then one only has the eye witness accounts.

If one dismisses all of the eyewitnesses, then one has no evidence to work with and so nothing can be suggested at all - the murder could have occurred at any time at all.

If one accepts Richardson's statement there was no body there when he visited, then the murder must be after his visit.

And if one accepts Long, then it was after her sighting, though what time that occurred cannot be reliably determined.

And if one accepts Cadosch, it appears to be around the time he was in his backyard.

It is entirely possible to accept or reject Long and Cadosch in any combination (though to accept even one of them means Richardson must be accepted).

Regardless of Long's sighting, if one accepts Cadosch's statements of hearing people in the backyard, then it appears the murder happened around that time, and if we could determine what time he was in the backyard we could work out the ToD based upon that. But, his statements as to the time are not easy to nail down.

We also have, if taken at face value, a time given by Long that places her sighting after Cadosch heard his sounds. But, given the known errors about statements of time, the differences on that point between Long and Cadosch are not difficult to reconcile (one simply has to acknowledge the error in these types of statements, which is, of course, not taking the eye witnesses at face value - which is what you're accusing people of doing - they're not, they're in fact recognizing that not all statements are going to be carved in stone).

It's not "cherry picking" unless one makes that initial choice between the unsafe doctor's ToD and the unsafe nature of eyewitness testimony in order to get to a desired conclusion. It's a matter of what unsafe path one chooses to follow at that first decision point, and since that is a matter of opinion (which is the more unsafe) it's hardly surprising that people end up disagreeing. Basically, "cherry picking" describes the intention behind the decision to go with one set of evidence over the other - the choice is made because of the conclusion it leads to.

I don't think that is what most people are doing, rather, they are assessing the relative merits of the information and we come to different conclusions about which statements are more likely to contain information about the ToD.

You have made the choice that the doctor's guesswork ToD is the more safe option than the three eye witness statements. We know both are fraught with problems, so neither is really safe to build upon.
Others, myself included, see the ToD given by the doctor's in 1888 as guesswork, making them meaningless. That leaves one with only the eyewitnesses, and either one also sets them aside because they too are seen as so error prone that they are also meaningless, and which point one must stop, making no statements about the time of the murder (allowing it to be any time after her last known reliable sighting and up to the point of discovery), or one tries to evaluate the eye-witness statements to see if there is enough reliable information to narrow things down.

But again, it's not cherry picking to come to different conclusions based upon which unsafe set of evidence one goes with (doctor vs eyewitnesses), because the conclusion one comes to is determined by the interpretation of the evidence. It's only cherry picking if one decides which set of evidence to go with because it gets you to the point you want to get to, that's when the conclusion is driving the evidence. I always set aside the doctor's estimated ToD's, even though sometimes they happen to agree with what the other evidence suggests as well. That's to be expected, guesses are sometimes right after all, but when the only conflicting evidence is an 1888 doctor's guess as to the ToD, that to me indicates they guessed wrong. Since I never put any stock in it, no big deal. And personally, if the only evidence we had was a doctor's estimated ToD, I would suggest we have no real information to work with (I believe it to be that unreliable that it is not even worth considering). Obviously, you don't see it that way, and while you set aside the doctor's ToD for some crimes (like Nichols), you accept it in this case because he mentions the onset of rigor mortis this time. But given the variability of rigor mortis onset times, even that is not inconsistent with the eye-witness account because rigor mortis can onset within the hour, and although that is on the quicker it is not so unusual that it rules out the eye-witnesses. In that sense, one could argue that the only ToD that fits both the medical and eye-witness testimonies is one that is after Richardson. Trying to be more precise requires dealing with the times stated by Long and Cadosch, and as we know nothing about how they came up with the times they stated, I'm not sure we can do very much there but perhaps go with time windows of +- 10 minutes around their stated times, and if we did that, I think the earlier times in those windows are more probable, but that's just my opinion.

- Jeff

Jeff

I have set out many times on this topic why the evidence of Cadoch and Long is flawed and I am not going to go over it again. If we remove them from the equation what is left, only Richardson, and as has been stated the accuracy of his testimony is questionable given the fact the lies which have been highlighted.

For my money I will stick with Dr Phillips estimated time of death which is more in line with the other murders.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk