Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Richardson's View

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • You called me gloating because you dislike being told that you are wrong. That, at least, is my take on things.

    I could be wrong on anything Fish. I have been wrong on things. I believe, from experience, that it’s you that hates being disagreed with. More than once on these boards I’ve been quite happy to admit that many posters have a better overall knowledge of this case than I do (largely because I pretty much lost interest for the 10 years prior to joining casebook. I’m also quite happy to admit that you yourself have a better overall knowledge of this case, and crime history in general, than I do. I simply debate on aspects and give an opinion. So if that sounds like someone that thinks that they know better than everyone else and who believes that they cannot be wrong then I can do nothing about your opinion.

    That is probably why you speak of all those experts who supposedly pointed me out as being wrong and you as being correct, forgetting in the process that one must understand what an expert says before he or she can be used to oneīs advantage. And you must forgive me for pointing out

    I’m used to your condescension Fish. Whilst I’ve admitted the limitations in my knowledge I’m confident that I’m far from stupid and yet in thread after thread you imply that I am when I give an opinion that differs from your own.

    that this was what your parade of experts amounted to; a sad line of people you misunderstood and misinterpreted, and - yes - gloated about. Which made the exercise so much sadder.

    I misinterpreted nothing because I said at the beginning of the exchange that the information, interpretations and opinions were provided to me by someone else. Someone that I have the highest regard for in terms of knowledge, judgment and accuracy of research. On the Lechmere threads I always avoided medical debates as Steve would confirm (if you yourself couldn’t recall the fact) So I claim no knowledge on medical issues. But I also have to say that I was unaware of any forensic medicine qualifications held by yourself? That person told me that you were conclusively wrong. And so you trust your own opinion; I trust his. Wherever that leaves us?

    No expert is going to tell you that a body that has lost more or less all itīs warmth, that has onsetting rigor in cold conditions, that has well clotted blood around it and that has a stomach full of food that has been subjected to gastric acid for hours will only have been dead for between 45 minutes and an hour. Experts do not provide that kind of service, and there is a reason for it.

    Again I’m afraid, without insulting you (as you do me) I’ll take my friends opinion over yours. You have your own of course.

    Good. You are beginning to see some sense at long last.

    More condescension. No problem.

    Actually, no. Of course, if any medico of the era should be respected, Phillips is a good choice, given his experience. However, it is not Phillips I put my trust in, it is his findings. There WAS onsetting rigor in the limbs, it is not as if he thought that up for fun. There was only a little heat remaining, that was not an invention of his. The blood WAS well clotted, it is not as if he tricked us by stating this. And the food in Chapmans stomach WAS in a state that pointed to a longish time of digestion.
    I do not put my trust in a person, I put my trust in medical science. You are the one who rely on a person, on amateur witness testimony, definitely not me!


    Old ground Fish. A fallible, unreliable TOD that we can neither confirm or refute. Witnesses have been known to be correct and when you have 3 all contradicting Phillips you have to work too hard to refute them. Then we end up trying to discredit Cadosch for example. I can understand the questions for Richardson but there no suggestions of Cadosch lying and that he was mistaken are just too far fetched for my taste. He was next to the fence. He couldn’t have been imagining what he heard and there’s no other reasonable explanation; especially for the sound.

    I would appreciate if you responded to my points only. What Trevor says stands for him, not for me. The crux of the matter is that the feeling for warmth method IS unreliable, but not THAT unreliable. And regardless of how unreliable it is, there are three more parameters to lean against in the medical verdict, ALL of them pointing to an early death. How a flimsy witness like Richardson is supposed to compete with that is wayyyy beyond me.

    And all of them unreliable. It’s very easy Fish. TOD estimations have so many variables; some of which Phillips wouldn’t have even been aware of. Looking into a yard doesn’t. It requires eyesight and a normally functioning brain. Neither of which we have any reason to deny Richardson.

    No, Herlock, it is not as if Phillips verdict needs any support in the shape of me "wanting" it to be correct. There are too many corresponding factors for it NOT to be correct. And that is regardless of what I supposedly want or not. Itīs beyond such matters.

    Again, the person that did the research for me was 100% confident that you are wrong. I go with him.

    Iīll tell you what: I am a hundred per cent certain that Chapman was not seen or heard by either Cadosch or Long. I am very much inclined to think that she was in the yard at 4.45 too, but not as certain as I am about Long and Cadosch. I am nevertheless willing to accept a fifty/fifty decision between you and me. If you accept that it could be either or and that no side has the advantage, Iīll accept the same in my discussions with you, and so we can let this go.
    Deal?

    So I have to accept 100% that Cadosch and Long we’re wrong and that Richardson was 50/50? How is that reasonable. I really, genuinely cannot see how Richardson could have missed the body. I’m 90+% on Richardson. I’m have even less reason to doubt Cadosch. I don’t think that there’s a more reasonable sounding witness in the entire case. As for Long I’m a little undecided but, as we know that people without watches can get timings wrong especially when hearing church bells that they weren’t particularly focused on, it would only have taken her to have been 15 minutes out then we have three witnesses that tie up. It’s not proven of course but it’s no more impossible than Richardson missing the body.

    Fish we are obviously at a brick wall. I could stop posting on this thread or we could try to not have digs at each other. I don’t know Fish? We do tend to wind each other up. You will say that I’m to blame whereas I will say.....and here we would go again. I often wonder if we would discuss the case differently if we were in the same room? Who knows?

    Don't panic Fish. I won’t turn up in Sweden.
    Regards

    Herlock




    “ Herlock is the cleverest man that I’ve ever met.” - Stephen Hawking.
    “ I wish that I could have achieved half as much as Herlock.”- Neil Armstrong.
    “ What a voice Herlock has.” - Luciano Pavarotti.
    “ I wish that I could dump Harry for Herlock.” - Meghan Markle.
    “ I know that it’s not good to be jealous but I just can’t help it.” - John Holmes.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
      By NBFN

      JR: By the Jury: My mother has heard me speak of people having been in the house. She has heard them herself.

      Really?

      Coroner: Did you ever know of strange women being found on the first-floor landing?
      Mrs. R.: No.
      Coroner: Your son had never spoken to you about it?
      Mrs. R.: No.

      Seems he lied about that too. Either that or Mrs. Richardson had a really bad memory.
      Does this sound like someone suffering from poor memory?...

      As per the quote above it appears that Richardson mentioned people. But Mrs Richardson was asked specifically about women. Isn’t it possible that she just went on the defensive when women were specifically mentioned with the association of immoral purposes?

      In your later post you quote this:


      WB: You always hear people going to the back-yard?
      AR: Yes; people frequently do go through.
      WB: People go there who have no business to do so?
      AR: Yes; I daresay they do.

      Here is Mrs Richardson admitted that people go through to the yard who have no business to do so.
      In the Morning Advertiser, John is more specific about these people...

      WB: You must have been quite close to where the woman was found?
      JR: She was found lying just where my feet were. I have been in the passage at all hours of the night.
      WB: Have you ever seen strangers there?
      JR: Lots plenty of them.
      WB: At all hours?
      JR: Yes ; both men and women.
      WB: Have you asked what they were doing there?
      JR: Yes ; and I have turned them out.
      WB: Do I understand you mean that they go there for an immoral purpose?
      JR: Yes, sir ; I have caught them in the act.

      So obviously John wasn't just talking about random people, he was talking about people being in the house for the purpose of prostitution.
      I get the impression that Amelia knew the backyard was used by prostitutes and their clients, and was trying to play this down.
      If it were common knowledge in the neighbourhood that #29 was a safe place for prostitution, JtR may have been aware of this too, and used it to his advantage.
      Assuming Jack was aware of that, and did not just rely on Chapman to take him to a safe place, that might give us a clue as to where he lives - not far from 29 Hanbury Street.
      Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 09-27-2020, 11:15 PM.
      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

      Comment


      • At 4.45 am John Richardson did not see Annie Chapman's body. So, either the body was there and he failed to see it, or the body wasn't there so he couldn't have seen it.

        Forget Cadosch. Following his recent hospital operation he was too busy peeing to make any real sense of his surroundings.

        The person who firms up John Richardson's story is the highly suspicious Mrs. Long, who told the inquest her husband was a cart minder and lived in Church Row, told The Times her husband was a park keeper and lived at 198 Church Row, yet the police in their hand-written statement recorded her address as 32 Church Street.

        And guess what? She vouched for John Richardson. The subtext of her testimony was, I saw Annie Chapman at 5.30 am, so he couldn't have seen her at 4.45 am.

        Dr. Phillips was right about the time of death.
        Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

        Comment


        • [MA0913] John Richardson:

          I found the front door shut, and I lifted up the latch and went through the passage to the yard door. I stood on the steps, but did not go into the yard. The back door was closed. I opened it and sat on the doorstep [...]

          I looked to see if the cellar door was all right, and, although I did not go down into the yard, I could see that it was all right. I saw the padlock in its proper place. The sole object I had in going there was to see whether the cellar was all right. When I come home at night I go down and try if the cellar is all right.



          How plausible is JR's claim to have checked the padlock from the yard door steps, at 4:45-4:50?

          Here are a few more pictures from Cadosch – The Other Side of the Fence

          Click image for larger version

Name:	rip85-photo2.jpg
Views:	152
Size:	34.6 KB
ID:	742753 Click image for larger version

Name:	rip85-photo4.jpg
Views:	144
Size:	29.3 KB
ID:	742754 Click image for larger version

Name:	rip85-photo6.jpg
Views:	147
Size:	58.2 KB
ID:	742755

          The light under that wooden cover at that time, must have been quite poor.
          At night, Richardson tells us that he not only goes right to the cellar door, he actually tries it.
          This is quite a contrast to his supposedly casual glance from the doorstep, in the mornings, under dim dawn light.
          Furthermore, when is the cellar most likely to have been broken into - during the day or early evening, or at night?
          Obviously; at night. Therefore it would be prudent to do the most thorough check in the morning.

          For some reason, Richardson is very keen for it to be believed that he did not go into the yard that morning, any further than the middle step. Why?
          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

            It must not have been 3.30 exactly, as you may gather. 3.15 or 3.45 are equally good bids. And many people close to the murder sites heard nothing although it was found afterwards that victims were killed right next to them. It was one of the significant traits of this killer, and Mrs Richardson admits that if the killer and Chapman walked "purposely quietly", they could have passed unnoticed.
            You're right Fish, it cannot have been 3:30 exactly...

            Baxter: Were you the first down in the house that morning?
            Davies: No; there was a lodger named Thompson, who was called at half-past three.


            And the darkness? Did it stop the killer in Bucks Row, in Dutfields Yard, in Mitre Square? Nope. He CHOSE to work in darkness, going for the darkest corner of Mitre Square for example.
            Well Mitre Square did have some lamp light, and Stride was killed under the illumination of the gas jets, burning in the kitchen.
            Otherwise I agree with you - a daytime murder and rip seems out of the question.
            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
              You called me gloating because you dislike being told that you are wrong. That, at least, is my take on things.

              I could be wrong on anything Fish. I have been wrong on things. I believe, from experience, that it’s you that hates being disagreed with. More than once on these boards I’ve been quite happy to admit that many posters have a better overall knowledge of this case than I do (largely because I pretty much lost interest for the 10 years prior to joining casebook. I’m also quite happy to admit that you yourself have a better overall knowledge of this case, and crime history in general, than I do. I simply debate on aspects and give an opinion. So if that sounds like someone that thinks that they know better than everyone else and who believes that they cannot be wrong then I can do nothing about your opinion.

              That is probably why you speak of all those experts who supposedly pointed me out as being wrong and you as being correct, forgetting in the process that one must understand what an expert says before he or she can be used to oneīs advantage. And you must forgive me for pointing out

              I’m used to your condescension Fish. Whilst I’ve admitted the limitations in my knowledge I’m confident that I’m far from stupid and yet in thread after thread you imply that I am when I give an opinion that differs from your own.

              that this was what your parade of experts amounted to; a sad line of people you misunderstood and misinterpreted, and - yes - gloated about. Which made the exercise so much sadder.

              I misinterpreted nothing because I said at the beginning of the exchange that the information, interpretations and opinions were provided to me by someone else. Someone that I have the highest regard for in terms of knowledge, judgment and accuracy of research. On the Lechmere threads I always avoided medical debates as Steve would confirm (if you yourself couldn’t recall the fact) So I claim no knowledge on medical issues. But I also have to say that I was unaware of any forensic medicine qualifications held by yourself? That person told me that you were conclusively wrong. And so you trust your own opinion; I trust his. Wherever that leaves us?

              No expert is going to tell you that a body that has lost more or less all itīs warmth, that has onsetting rigor in cold conditions, that has well clotted blood around it and that has a stomach full of food that has been subjected to gastric acid for hours will only have been dead for between 45 minutes and an hour. Experts do not provide that kind of service, and there is a reason for it.

              Again I’m afraid, without insulting you (as you do me) I’ll take my friends opinion over yours. You have your own of course.

              Good. You are beginning to see some sense at long last.

              More condescension. No problem.

              Actually, no. Of course, if any medico of the era should be respected, Phillips is a good choice, given his experience. However, it is not Phillips I put my trust in, it is his findings. There WAS onsetting rigor in the limbs, it is not as if he thought that up for fun. There was only a little heat remaining, that was not an invention of his. The blood WAS well clotted, it is not as if he tricked us by stating this. And the food in Chapmans stomach WAS in a state that pointed to a longish time of digestion.
              I do not put my trust in a person, I put my trust in medical science. You are the one who rely on a person, on amateur witness testimony, definitely not me!


              Old ground Fish. A fallible, unreliable TOD that we can neither confirm or refute. Witnesses have been known to be correct and when you have 3 all contradicting Phillips you have to work too hard to refute them. Then we end up trying to discredit Cadosch for example. I can understand the questions for Richardson but there no suggestions of Cadosch lying and that he was mistaken are just too far fetched for my taste. He was next to the fence. He couldn’t have been imagining what he heard and there’s no other reasonable explanation; especially for the sound.

              I would appreciate if you responded to my points only. What Trevor says stands for him, not for me. The crux of the matter is that the feeling for warmth method IS unreliable, but not THAT unreliable. And regardless of how unreliable it is, there are three more parameters to lean against in the medical verdict, ALL of them pointing to an early death. How a flimsy witness like Richardson is supposed to compete with that is wayyyy beyond me.

              And all of them unreliable. It’s very easy Fish. TOD estimations have so many variables; some of which Phillips wouldn’t have even been aware of. Looking into a yard doesn’t. It requires eyesight and a normally functioning brain. Neither of which we have any reason to deny Richardson.

              No, Herlock, it is not as if Phillips verdict needs any support in the shape of me "wanting" it to be correct. There are too many corresponding factors for it NOT to be correct. And that is regardless of what I supposedly want or not. Itīs beyond such matters.

              Again, the person that did the research for me was 100% confident that you are wrong. I go with him.

              Iīll tell you what: I am a hundred per cent certain that Chapman was not seen or heard by either Cadosch or Long. I am very much inclined to think that she was in the yard at 4.45 too, but not as certain as I am about Long and Cadosch. I am nevertheless willing to accept a fifty/fifty decision between you and me. If you accept that it could be either or and that no side has the advantage, Iīll accept the same in my discussions with you, and so we can let this go.
              Deal?

              So I have to accept 100% that Cadosch and Long we’re wrong and that Richardson was 50/50? How is that reasonable. I really, genuinely cannot see how Richardson could have missed the body. I’m 90+% on Richardson. I’m have even less reason to doubt Cadosch. I don’t think that there’s a more reasonable sounding witness in the entire case. As for Long I’m a little undecided but, as we know that people without watches can get timings wrong especially when hearing church bells that they weren’t particularly focused on, it would only have taken her to have been 15 minutes out then we have three witnesses that tie up. It’s not proven of course but it’s no more impossible than Richardson missing the body.

              Fish we are obviously at a brick wall. I could stop posting on this thread or we could try to not have digs at each other. I don’t know Fish? We do tend to wind each other up. You will say that I’m to blame whereas I will say.....and here we would go again. I often wonder if we would discuss the case differently if we were in the same room? Who knows?

              Don't panic Fish. I won’t turn up in Sweden.
              You are very welcome to turn up in Sweden. I have a guest room you may use, just say the word. I would not go around being scared of you, itīs not in my nature.

              What I tried to do was to suggest some way to put an end to the hostilities between you and me, and if you canīt accept that suggestion, then so be it. However, it seems you are also interested in putting an end to it, so I take heart from that. By the way, I am not saying that you alone are the guilty party - I know full well that I have a part in it too, and I am quite willing to go along the lines i suggested in my former post. If you take half of the responsibility, Iīll take the other half.

              It seems to me that a post Joshua Rogan just made about Cadoschīs veracity may hold the key to how Albert actually lied about the whole thing, and I would like for you to read up on it and give me your view. A solution to what it was that happened could well be unveiling itself at long last. Post 29, the parallel Cadosch thread.
              Last edited by Fisherman; 09-28-2020, 05:36 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                You're right Fish, it cannot have been 3:30 exactly...

                Baxter: Were you the first down in the house that morning?
                Davies: No; there was a lodger named Thompson, who was called at half-past three.




                Well Mitre Square did have some lamp light, and Stride was killed under the illumination of the gas jets, burning in the kitchen.
                Otherwise I agree with you - a daytime murder and rip seems out of the question.
                It was actually said that of all the cases, Strides was the one perpetrated in the deepest darkness. Diemshutz could only just make out a shape in the gloom and prodded it with his whip, not being able to make out what it was. So that gas jet illumination cannot have been of much help!
                Anyhow, Iīm glad to hear that you are of the same sentiment as I am about the daytime ripping.

                Comment


                • Herlock Sholmes:

                  ""And all of them unreliable. It’s very easy Fish. TOD estimations have so many variables; some of which Phillips wouldn’t have even been aware of."

                  I must comment on this passage from your post, Herlock. Yes, in every method of establishing the time of death, even todays methods, there is some unreliability. But the thing here is that Phillips used FOUR parameters that were all in sync with a TOD at least two hours and probably more away from his examination. Once we know that, we must also accept that the fpur parameters mutually support each other, and so regardless of how they each and all have some uncertainty built in, once they ALL point to the same conclusion, the case for an early death is very much supported. If at least one of the parameters had been out of sync (if the body was all warm, if there was no rigor, if the food had only been subjected to very little digestion or if the blood had been softish and wet under the coagulated surface), then an opening would appear for making a case of a late death. But this was never the case, and therefore, the medical evidence weighs tons in pointing to an early TOD.

                  We must never stray from logic in these matters.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                    It was actually said that of all the cases, Strides was the one perpetrated in the deepest darkness. Diemshutz could only just make out a shape in the gloom and prodded it with his whip, not being able to make out what it was. So that gas jet illumination cannot have been of much help!
                    Anyhow, Iīm glad to hear that you are of the same sentiment as I am about the daytime ripping.
                    That is what is said and it's a neat story, but if you ever get around to recreating that scene with Diemschitz, pony cart, and Stride, rather like you recreated Lechmere's walk from Doveton Street to Buck's Row, you will see that it does not quite add up.

                    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                      That is what is said and it's a neat story, but if you ever get around to recreating that scene with Diemschitz, pony cart, and Stride, rather like you recreated Lechmere's walk from Doveton Street to Buck's Row, you will see that it does not quite add up.

                      Why would I do that if you already done it and can fill me in...?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                        At 4.45 am John Richardson did not see Annie Chapman's body. So, either the body was there and he failed to see it, or the body wasn't there so he couldn't have seen it.

                        Forget Cadosch. Following his recent hospital operation he was too busy peeing to make any real sense of his surroundings.

                        The person who firms up John Richardson's story is the highly suspicious Mrs. Long, who told the inquest her husband was a cart minder and lived in Church Row, told The Times her husband was a park keeper and lived at 198 Church Row, yet the police in their hand-written statement recorded her address as 32 Church Street.

                        And guess what? She vouched for John Richardson. The subtext of her testimony was, I saw Annie Chapman at 5.30 am, so he couldn't have seen her at 4.45 am.

                        Dr. Phillips was right about the time of death.
                        Hi Simon,

                        I dont think Richardson or Cadosche need be questioned further or discredited, I think that the story with them is that Annie and her killer enter the yard when Richardson goes back inside, they are there when Cadosche comes out to pee, and they make a sound when he comes back to the house to go inside. That noise is a matter of a few feet from where he was. He hears the attack begin. If he starts mutilating immediately that leaves about 45 minutes for Annies splayed open body with internal materials pulled from her abdomen and some organs excised from there, to cool in the morning air. Phillips says essentially that he wouldnt be surprised if he discovered that the TOD estimate he gave was incorrect due to those facts.

                        That for me seems like an entirely plausible storyline, and it only discredits one witness. Mrs Long. I dont count Phillips as wrong because he tempered that estimate with a caution that he might have allowed too much elapsed time due to certain factors. He couldnt be sure...the body was outdoors on a cool morning in a condition rarely seen by medical examiners. He knew the body cooled quicker based on those factors, he just didnt know how quickly.
                        Michael Richards

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                          Why would I do that if you already done it and can fill me in...?
                          Buck's Row is yours, the double event is mine
                          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                            Buck's Row is yours, the double event is mine
                            So you get two cases and I just the one...? Okay.

                            Comment


                            • I'm not even sure Richardson was there at all. And if he was it was likely for 10 seconds tops. His Ma wanted him to check the backyard when he went past on his way to the market. I'm sure he always said he did. But having revisited the 3-volume novel he came up with about the knife & the boot & the rabbit & the carrot I think it's highly possible he didn't. Couldn't be bothered. And then he heard about the body from someone at the market and raced back to see what was what. He arrived just before the doctor. Now what's he going to say? So we hear that he was there. But the body wasn't. Otherwise he's got some explaining to do to his mother and he's like not in the mood for that. The doctor says she was dead 'at least 2 hours and probably more'. And I agree with that. Otherwise Our Boy is killing at a time when people are likely to be around--waking up & going to the privy in an inconvenient fashion--and no way he wants to get caught like a rat in a trap. He's chancy. But not that chancy.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Chava View Post
                                I'm not even sure Richardson was there at all. And if he was it was likely for 10 seconds tops. His Ma wanted him to check the backyard when he went past on his way to the market. I'm sure he always said he did. But having revisited the 3-volume novel he came up with about the knife & the boot & the rabbit & the carrot I think it's highly possible he didn't. Couldn't be bothered. And then he heard about the body from someone at the market and raced back to see what was what. He arrived just before the doctor. Now what's he going to say? So we hear that he was there. But the body wasn't. Otherwise he's got some explaining to do to his mother and he's like not in the mood for that. The doctor says she was dead 'at least 2 hours and probably more'. And I agree with that. Otherwise Our Boy is killing at a time when people are likely to be around--waking up & going to the privy in an inconvenient fashion--and no way he wants to get caught like a rat in a trap. He's chancy. But not that chancy.
                                This makes absolutely no sense.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X