Originally posted by Fisherman
View Post
Some remarks, after having read the discussion about how Long will be likely to have been wrong on account of how the Brewers clock may not have had different chimes on different quarter hours.
I never said likely. I said a possible alternative explanation.
The Times: "She was certain of the time, as the brewers' clock had just struck that time when she passed 29, Hanbury-street."
Just as certain as Richardson was that he couldn’t possibly have missed a corpse.
So the clock had not just struck, it had in fact struck "that time". The implication is clear - it struck the half hour and no other time, not the full hour, not the quarter. "That time" was what it struck.
That in no way categorically precludes the possibility that she might have misheard if she wasn’t paying attention.
Furthermore, it is reasoned out here that the checking point of her arrival at the market may have been an elongation of a mistake at the brewers clock, but since she says that her arrival was in sync, it is reasonable to suggest that she had reason to do so. What is missed in this discussion is that there will have been a further checking point - her departure. If she rose at the same time in the mornings, and left home at the same time too, as we generally do, then the time at the brewers clock will have jibed with the departure too, otherwise she would have had cause to reflect "How strange, I am usually here at 5.15 and now it´s already 5.30" - but she didn´t.
And how would she have managed to wake up at exactly the same time every day without the aid of an alarm clock. She was possibly woken by her husband who in turn was probably knocked up. Couldn’t the ‘knocker up’ have been late? What if it was a Constable who had to deal with an issue on his round which delayed his revival?
The inquest noted that her timings did not jibe with the medical assessment and they accordingly asked her about the matter. In spite of her having been informed how her time was in conflict with the medical evidence, she nevertheless was absolutely certain that she could not have been wrong.
I have no problem with you defending the accuracy of the testimony of a woman who is claiming that Annie Chapman was still alive at 5.30.
That is strong evidence, and it points away from any need to amend her certainty 130 years afterwards.
Of course we have Phillips. A man so ahead of his time that he was infallible when estimating a TOD.
R J Palmer asks why Cadosch did not see Long or her couple if he left when he said he did. Palmer says that this can be seen as an indication of how she may have been wrong, and in isolation, yes that is true. But it can equally be used to bolster a suggestion that Long simply was not around as Cadosch stepped into Hanbury Street. A third, and much simpler, explanation is that it suffices with one of the two clocks the two relied on being a minute wrong, and Long and the couple may have had sufficient time to leave.
Ok
At the end of the day, we must ask ourselves: WHY would we alter the testimony on account of Long? To what avail? Because it will make her and Cadosch corroborate each other? If so, why would this be a desirable goal of it´s own?
Why is it not equally commendable to accept the timings and the witnesses assertions that they knew they were correct - and accept that these witnesses must be discarded?
It’s simply an alternative viewpoint which doesn’t require 3 witnesses to be either honestly mistaken or dishonest. An error of 15 minutes by Long is hardly a massive leave of faith. Hardly an impossibility. Unlikely it may be but stranger errors have occurred.
I’d also add why then is it ok to state that Richardson was either wrong or a liar?
What speaks for either version? Well, if Richardson was correct in thinking that he must have seen Chapman if she was there, then that seems to allow for her being alive and kicking two hours after Phillips said she had died, and by altering Longs testimony, we can then fit all three witnesses together.
And why not?
Then again, if Phillips was correct, then Chapman was long dead when Long and Cadosch said they made their observations, and their testimony must be thrown out.
From your point of view it’s simply a matter of ‘Phillips being spot-on fits my theory.’ And so, despite the mountain of expert testimony as to how estimating TOD was ripe for inaccuracy, you choose to become Chairman Of The Dr Phillips Appreciation Society. Whilst simultaneously having no issue with claiming that Richardson was such an unmitigated dimwit that he could grasp the idea that a door might obscure his view of the yard.
So there is reason to opt for either scenario. But one of them urges us to alter the testimony given, and adjust it in retrospect, whereas the other scenario does not have that problem.
Yup. Phillips was right everyone else were either liars or cretins.
Also, it is odd that the ones voting for accepting the triumvirate Richardson/Long/Cadosch as being on the money, do so by saying that "This is what the witnesses said and we MUST believe them!"
Nope. We say that we should have good reason not to believe them.
Then, next second, they say that we should not believe Long, because she simply MUST have been wrong.
Again, no. All I said was that it’s a possibility that she may have been wrong.
Although she fervently denied it, and gave the reason that the brewers clock had struck the half hour as she arrived at the murder site. And it didn´t just strike, it struck THAT time.
The half Pat not the quarter past. Stop trying to read too much into the wording.
Richardson was equally confident but.....
It is logical and understandable to feel an urge to cut and paste until the witnesses jibe, it´s not that. I can see the attraction. It´s nice to think that we can produce an alternative truth at will and solve the problems inherent in the case. But the truth of the matter is that we must live with these problems and try to make sense of them as they stand. And they actually stand in the way of accepting the witness triumvirate as being entirely correct.
Surprise, surprise. In other words - just accept that Phillips could have been wrong - that Richardson was an imbecile - that Long was delusional - and that Cadosch was a liar. And whoopee Lechmere might not have been at work.
Now I will take a break from this site.
I’ll try and cope.
I never said likely. I said a possible alternative explanation.
The Times: "She was certain of the time, as the brewers' clock had just struck that time when she passed 29, Hanbury-street."
Just as certain as Richardson was that he couldn’t possibly have missed a corpse.
So the clock had not just struck, it had in fact struck "that time". The implication is clear - it struck the half hour and no other time, not the full hour, not the quarter. "That time" was what it struck.
That in no way categorically precludes the possibility that she might have misheard if she wasn’t paying attention.
Furthermore, it is reasoned out here that the checking point of her arrival at the market may have been an elongation of a mistake at the brewers clock, but since she says that her arrival was in sync, it is reasonable to suggest that she had reason to do so. What is missed in this discussion is that there will have been a further checking point - her departure. If she rose at the same time in the mornings, and left home at the same time too, as we generally do, then the time at the brewers clock will have jibed with the departure too, otherwise she would have had cause to reflect "How strange, I am usually here at 5.15 and now it´s already 5.30" - but she didn´t.
And how would she have managed to wake up at exactly the same time every day without the aid of an alarm clock. She was possibly woken by her husband who in turn was probably knocked up. Couldn’t the ‘knocker up’ have been late? What if it was a Constable who had to deal with an issue on his round which delayed his revival?
The inquest noted that her timings did not jibe with the medical assessment and they accordingly asked her about the matter. In spite of her having been informed how her time was in conflict with the medical evidence, she nevertheless was absolutely certain that she could not have been wrong.
I have no problem with you defending the accuracy of the testimony of a woman who is claiming that Annie Chapman was still alive at 5.30.
That is strong evidence, and it points away from any need to amend her certainty 130 years afterwards.
Of course we have Phillips. A man so ahead of his time that he was infallible when estimating a TOD.
R J Palmer asks why Cadosch did not see Long or her couple if he left when he said he did. Palmer says that this can be seen as an indication of how she may have been wrong, and in isolation, yes that is true. But it can equally be used to bolster a suggestion that Long simply was not around as Cadosch stepped into Hanbury Street. A third, and much simpler, explanation is that it suffices with one of the two clocks the two relied on being a minute wrong, and Long and the couple may have had sufficient time to leave.
Ok
At the end of the day, we must ask ourselves: WHY would we alter the testimony on account of Long? To what avail? Because it will make her and Cadosch corroborate each other? If so, why would this be a desirable goal of it´s own?
Why is it not equally commendable to accept the timings and the witnesses assertions that they knew they were correct - and accept that these witnesses must be discarded?
It’s simply an alternative viewpoint which doesn’t require 3 witnesses to be either honestly mistaken or dishonest. An error of 15 minutes by Long is hardly a massive leave of faith. Hardly an impossibility. Unlikely it may be but stranger errors have occurred.
I’d also add why then is it ok to state that Richardson was either wrong or a liar?
What speaks for either version? Well, if Richardson was correct in thinking that he must have seen Chapman if she was there, then that seems to allow for her being alive and kicking two hours after Phillips said she had died, and by altering Longs testimony, we can then fit all three witnesses together.
And why not?
Then again, if Phillips was correct, then Chapman was long dead when Long and Cadosch said they made their observations, and their testimony must be thrown out.
From your point of view it’s simply a matter of ‘Phillips being spot-on fits my theory.’ And so, despite the mountain of expert testimony as to how estimating TOD was ripe for inaccuracy, you choose to become Chairman Of The Dr Phillips Appreciation Society. Whilst simultaneously having no issue with claiming that Richardson was such an unmitigated dimwit that he could grasp the idea that a door might obscure his view of the yard.
So there is reason to opt for either scenario. But one of them urges us to alter the testimony given, and adjust it in retrospect, whereas the other scenario does not have that problem.
Yup. Phillips was right everyone else were either liars or cretins.
Also, it is odd that the ones voting for accepting the triumvirate Richardson/Long/Cadosch as being on the money, do so by saying that "This is what the witnesses said and we MUST believe them!"
Nope. We say that we should have good reason not to believe them.
Then, next second, they say that we should not believe Long, because she simply MUST have been wrong.
Again, no. All I said was that it’s a possibility that she may have been wrong.
Although she fervently denied it, and gave the reason that the brewers clock had struck the half hour as she arrived at the murder site. And it didn´t just strike, it struck THAT time.
The half Pat not the quarter past. Stop trying to read too much into the wording.
Richardson was equally confident but.....
It is logical and understandable to feel an urge to cut and paste until the witnesses jibe, it´s not that. I can see the attraction. It´s nice to think that we can produce an alternative truth at will and solve the problems inherent in the case. But the truth of the matter is that we must live with these problems and try to make sense of them as they stand. And they actually stand in the way of accepting the witness triumvirate as being entirely correct.
Surprise, surprise. In other words - just accept that Phillips could have been wrong - that Richardson was an imbecile - that Long was delusional - and that Cadosch was a liar. And whoopee Lechmere might not have been at work.
Now I will take a break from this site.
I’ll try and cope.
And this from someone who, despite an Everest of testimony, cannot (or more accurately, will not) accept that it’s not at all unlikely that Phillips was in error.
Leave a comment: