Richardson's View

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Chava,

Cadosch did mention that the reason for his two visits to the loo in such a short space of time was connected to the fact that he’d recently been in hospital though I’m fairly sure that he didn’t say what he was in there for.

We did discus this gap of time on the other thread which seems too long. Possible explanations imo are:

Maybe the ‘no’ wasn’t actually the point at which Annie was attacked
but just part of a brief conversation and the ‘no’ was possibly just spoken slightly louder so that it was all that Cadosch heard. Just as a ‘maybe’ couldn’t the ‘no’ just have been Annie replying to the killer asking something like “aren’t we likely to be disturbed here?” To which Annie emphasises the word “no” to assure her client and Cadosch heard her.

The noise against the fence is usually suggested as being the body falling against the fence or the door, as you said. But it could have simply been the killer brushing against the fence. Possible changing position for access?

So we could have Cadosch exiting his back door when he hears the word ‘no.’ Annie is either killed while he’s in the loo or they both keep quiet until he’s gone back inside (the killer not wanting to be disturbed) and Annie is then killed. Cadosch, on his second loo trip, hears the killer brush an arm or a shoulder against the fence in the act of mutilating Annie.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Cadosch is a bit of a diversion though, isn't he? He could be on record as having heard a voice say "I'm jack the ripper", it has no bearing on Richardson not seeing a body at the time he states. Obviously, Cadosch is part of the overall picture, but he can be used equally to back up or disprove Richardson.

The debate really is how plausible would it be for Richardson not to see Annie, if his statement was given in good faith? Possible, yes, but requiring a convoluted set of conditions all harmonising. For me, it's either no body, or he was outright lying. I opt for the former.

[Trevor Marriott]

O

Cadosch is a bit of a diversion though, isn't he? He could be on record as having heard a voice say "I'm jack the ripper", it has no bearing on Richardson not seeing a body at the time he states. Obviously, Cadosch is part of the overall picture, but he can be used equally to back up or disprove Richardson.

The debate really is how plausible would it be for Richardson not to see Annie, if his statement was given in good faith? Possible, yes, but requiring a convoluted set of conditions all harmonising. For me, it's either no body, or he was outright lying. I opt for the former.

What if he did see the body, and got scared that he might come under suspicion for the murder so he thought the best way was to say it wasn't there and let someone else find it? It is a fact that many of the witnesses in these murders clearly did not tell the whole truth and some just simply made it up for their 15 mins of fame and what a newspaper would pay for a story.

As to Cadosh in a modern-day trial, a barrister would destroy his testimony.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Paddy Goose]

Who was on trial?

[Curious Cat]

Not at that time of night. It's September not May.

It would have been lighter than Harry's pictures suggest. We've been through this in the previous pages.

[Fisherman]

Once again ........

Chronic hypothermia following tuberculous meningitis

DJ Dick,GL Sanders,M Saunders and MD Rawlins

Try pasting that into your browser.

Okidoki - had a (very) quick look, and it seems the paper is about one (1) single patient...? The paper I referred to had a large number of cases, and most of them had a temperature that went up, not down.

Anyway, since we donīt know what kind of damage to the brain Chapman suffered from, I donīt think we can treat is as gospel that she had the kind of ailment you are suggesting. We can always find some more or less exotic disease that makes our dreams come true, but it comes with drawbacks: Cold bodies in cold temperatures will not go into rigor as quickly as warm bodies in warm surroundings. Unless, of course, we couple the tuberculous meningities with some other exotic disease...

Or am I being dishonest now?

[Fisherman]

Richarson's posistion.

... is unknown to us. To claim that this was Richardsons position does not hold up, he could have been turned in any direction. Have a look what happens if he sat like this:

https://content.libraries.wsu.edu/digital/collection/hmcolls/id/1478/

It is however good that you post pictures showing us all that darkness HAS an impact - it has been fervently denied for some time now ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

O

What if he did see the body, and got scared that he might come under suspicion for the murder so he thought the best way was to say it wasn't there and let someone else find it? It is a fact that many of the witnesses in these murders clearly did not tell the whole truth and some just simply made it up for their 15 mins of fame and what a newspaper would pay for a story.

As to Cadosh in a modern-day trial, a barrister would destroy his testimony.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why would a Barrister destroy Cadosch’s testimony in particular? If I remember correctly it’s your thinking that because he expressed a bit of caution about the direction of the word ‘no’ then his testimony about hearing the noise is ‘unsafe.’

To most people, being cautious and accepting the possibility (however slight) of being wrong on one issue would be a sign of trustworthiness and believability in others but you seem to regard this as a detrimental trait?

To be honest Trevor I don’t know why you bother with the case if absolutely everyone involved cannot be trusted to any extent? And that doesn’t mean that which should accept everyone at face value (before you say it again) but no everyone is a compulsive liar.

Theres nothing ‘unreliable’ about Cadosch’s testimony except a presumption of unreliability on your part about everyone.

[Herlock Sholmes]

... is unknown to us. To claim that this was Richardsons position does not hold up, he could have been turned in any direction. Have a look what happens if he sat like this:
https://content.libraries.wsu.edu/di...colls/id/1478/

It is however good that you post pictures showing us all that darkness HAS an impact - it has been fervently denied for some time now ...

But that person is sitting like that so that he’s facing the camera. Richardson had no reason to sit at an angle. When sitting on steps the vast majority sit facing forward unless they have a reason to do otherwise, like sitting next to someone that they’re talking to. Richardson had no reason for sitting at an angle apart from avoiding looking at the mutilated corpse to his left.

[DJA]

Okidoki - had a (very) quick look, and it seems the paper is about one (1) single patient...? The paper I referred to had a large number of cases, and most of them had a temperature that went up, not down.

Anyway, since we donīt know what kind of damage to the brain Chapman suffered from, I donīt think we can treat is as gospel that she had the kind of ailment you are suggesting. We can always find some more or less exotic disease that makes our dreams come true, but it comes with drawbacks: Cold bodies in cold temperatures will not go into rigor as quickly as warm bodies in warm surroundings. Unless, of course, we couple the tuberculous meningities with some other exotic disease...

Or am I being dishonest now?

Hard to tell if you are dishonest,however you are at least incompetent and manipulative.

[Coroner] Was there any disease? - Yes. It was not important as regards the cause of death. Disease of the lungs was of long standing, and there was disease of the membranes of the brain.

All this has been given to you previously.

[DJA]

It would have been lighter than Harry's pictures suggest. We've been through this in the previous pages.

Yep.

Sunrise was 5.25 am with first light 40 minutes earlier.

Up here in the Marsh it is 25 minutes to sunrise with full cloud cover and drizzle/light rain.
I can see everything in my backyard (which is ironically a smidge bigger than Mitre Square) .
The birds have been in song for at least half an hour.

[etenguy]

... is unknown to us. To claim that this was Richardsons position does not hold up, he could have been turned in any direction. Have a look what happens if he sat like this:

https://content.libraries.wsu.edu/digital/collection/hmcolls/id/1478/

It is however good that you post pictures showing us all that darkness HAS an impact - it has been fervently denied for some time now ...

Hi Fisherman

As you know, I believe that if Richardson sat on the step to remove leather from his boot he would have seen the body - had it been there. But there is serious doubt that Richardson did as he said. There's Chandler's version of Richardson's original statement and then the changing of Richardson's story about the knife which then casts further doubt that he sat on the step to remove leather from his boot at all. I think Richardson's unreliability as a witness is a stronger argument to discredit his position than trying to establish that there is a convoluted sitting position with a precisely angled door that might have obscured a body literally at his feet.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman

As you know, I believe that if Richardson sat on the step to remove leather from his boot he would have seen the body - had it been there. But there is serious doubt that Richardson did as he said. There's Chandler's version of Richardson's original statement and then the changing of Richardson's story about the knife which then casts further doubt that he sat on the step to remove leather from his boot at all. I think Richardson's unreliability as a witness is a stronger argument to discredit his position than trying to establish that there is a convoluted sitting position with a precisely angled door that might have obscured a body literally at his feet.

But I am not saying that it is established how he sat. I am simply pointing out that we donīt know. And since I have checked - as has R J Palmer - I know full well that it would have been possible to miss the body from many positions.

In a choice between which is the better option to dismiss Richardson, we have either the possibility that he could have missed the body - which has people claiming that it is a stupid thing to suggest, or that we canīt rely on him - which has Jon saying that we should absolutely not call him a liar.

Thereīs ripperology for you.

[Fisherman]

But that person is sitting like that so that he’s facing the camera. Richardson had no reason to sit at an angle.

Did he have a reason to sit straight?

When sitting on steps the vast majority sit facing forward unless they have a reason to do otherwise, like sitting next to someone that they’re talking to.

"The vast majority"? I must have missed when that was estabished. And what if he did not do as the vast majority? What if he had a reason not to do so, like, say, that he was there to check to the right? Or perhaps that the door swung back towards him? How does the vast majority react to such things in that poll youīve seen?

Richardson had no reason for sitting at an angle apart from avoiding looking at the mutilated corpse to his left.

Richardson has no reason not to do what you want him to do, you mean? Very scientific, that ...

[Fisherman]

Hard to tell if you are dishonest,however you are at least incompetent and manipulative.

[Coroner] Was there any disease? - Yes. It was not important as regards the cause of death. Disease of the lungs was of long standing, and there was disease of the membranes of the brain.

All this has been given to you previously.

And none of it lends itself to proving tuberculous meningitis. It could well have been caused by some other disease. Speaking about dishonesty, incompetence and manipulativeness.

Oh, and you (understandably) forgot to comment on the rigor issue.

For me, that ends our rather sad (thanks for that) exchange on this particular matter.