Richardson's View

[Trevor Marriott]

B

Hi Trevor

From my perspective, I think Richardson's testimony is sufficiently confusing that there is reason to question what he told the inquest. However, he was really clear about two important issues, that he could see the whole yard and there was no body there while he was working on his boots. Some are content that the clarity on those two issues is sufficient, but I, like you, approach his statement with caution. I have no issue with Cadosch and Long. I find them both reliable and have no reason to question their honesty or integrity. Just what they saw and heard though is up for question. So I think there is sufficient doubt that I would prefer to rely on the professional opinion of an experienced medic - (but I concede that he could have made a mistake given the inherent difficulties in estimating the time of death). I think that is a long way of saying I agree with you that the TOD cannot be firmly established.

This, I think is quite compelling. We know that JTR took risks, but in a yard of a house with only one exit and with multiple residents who would have been starting to go about their business is exceptionally risky. Though having said that, Stride's murder was in the yard of a busy club while people were in there.

But was Stride a ripper victim?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

However, I would say that one pointer as to what the correct time of death was, is the fact that no other murders were committed as late as 5am when it was almost light in a location where he was likely to have been seen from a window, or disturbed by another from the house who was looking to use the WC. At a time when others were getting up and moving about, and when street prostitutes plying their trade would have likely as not been off the streets by then.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I concur on the whole, Trevor. Any explanation that puts the Chapman level with the rest in terms of chronology is well worth pondering. And as you know, my personal take is that we can safely rule out Long and Cadosch, whereas Richardson is a tad more tricky; he only requires a quarter of an hour or so to fit in with Phillipsī estimations. Then again, my money is of course on Chapman having been in place in the backyard for an hour or so when Richardson claimed to have been there. That would put her TOD to around 3.45, and it would fit in very nicely with how the temperature in a dead body is discernible by way of hand for around 4 hours at most and also with how rigor mortis would have had 2 hours and 45 minutes to start developing when Phillips examined the body. Medically, it all fits quite well this way. And I donīt think it was a fluke that Phillips described the blood not as clotted, but as "well clotted" in the backyard. Time would have passed, the way I see it. Others may and will disagree, but that does not take away from the medical logic offered by this perspective. Thereīs also the fact that no observation was made of Chapman during these hours, although, as the papers put it, she really should have been seen and recognized if she had wandered the streets for such a long time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So to conclude all these exchanges we can safely say that having regards to the unsafe testimony of Richardson and Cadosh the TOD cannot be firmly established.

However, I would say that one pointer as to what the correct time of death was, is the fact that no other murders were committed as late as 5am when it was almost light in a location where he was likely to have been seen from a window, or disturbed by another from the house who was looking to use the WC. At a time when others were getting up and moving about, and when street prostitutes plying their trade would have likely as not been off the streets by then.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No! That’s not the case and it’s certainly not what I was saying. I was simply proposing a potential explanation about the knife confusion. That’s all. I have no issue at all with Richardson’s statement that he sat on that step and couldn’t possibly have missed a body had it been there.

Cadosch has even less reason to be doubted. There’s absolutely zero to show that Cadosch was a liar or mistaken apart from your bizarre twists of logic.

No one in this case is trustworthy apart from Feigenbaum’s solicitor I assume? It would be good if you applied the same criteria to all.

[Michael W Richards]

When anyone puts Annies death at anytime prior to 5am you still have human voices in the yard at 5:10-5:20. Cadosche heard that when he was just a few feet from the actual spot. Ignoring that simple fact doesnt make it go away.

[Herlock Sholmes]

However, I would say that one pointer as to what the correct time of death was, is the fact that no other murders were committed as late as 5am when it was almost light in a location where he was likely to have been seen from a window, or disturbed by another from the house who was looking to use the WC. At a time when others were getting up and moving about, and when street prostitutes plying their trade would have likely as not been off the streets by then.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But as we don’t know who the killer was and therefore nothing about his life there might have been any number of reasons for the time. Maybe he’d been disturbed whilst trying earlier? Who can know?

[Herlock Sholmes]

When anyone puts Annies death at anytime prior to 5am you still have human voices in the yard at 5:10-5:20. Cadosche heard that when he was just a few feet from the actual spot. Ignoring that simple fact doesnt make it go away.

It’s always baffled me Michael when Cadosch is called ‘unreliable.’ (Except when Trevor says it of course because he thinks everyone was unreliable) I’d go so far as to say that there’s no more reasonable sounding witness in the entire case. And so unless he lied (something we have zero evidence for) Or that the noise from the fence right next to him was the noise from a fence three streets away. Or that the noise was a blind man leaning on next doors fence, what else could it have been? Any effort to discredit Cadosch leaves me wondering ‘what’s the real reason for it?’

[Trevor Marriott]

When anyone puts Annies death at anytime prior to 5am you still have human voices in the yard at 5:10-5:20. Cadosche heard that when he was just a few feet from the actual spot. Ignoring that simple fact doesnt make it go away.

You have the sound of a voice which Cadosche believes came from 29, the emphasis is believes that is not conclusive testimony, and the other sound some rely heavily on could have emanated from anywhere close by, sound carries in the stillness of the silent morning air.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

It’s always baffled me Michael when Cadosch is called ‘unreliable.’ (Except when Trevor says it of course because he thinks everyone was unreliable) I’d go so far as to say that there’s no more reasonable sounding witness in the entire case. And so unless he lied (something we have zero evidence for) Or that the noise from the fence right next to him was the noise from a fence three streets away. Or that the noise was a blind man leaning on next doors fence, what else could it have been? Any effort to discredit Cadosch leaves me wondering ‘what’s the real reason for it?’

Because in the real world where evidence is closely scrutinized his testimony is unsafe to totally rely on its as simple as that, but in your world you seem to readily accept the witness testimony without question.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Because in the real world where evidence is closely scrutinized his testimony is unsafe to totally rely on its as simple as that, but in your world you seem to readily accept the witness testimony without question.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And in your world you simply assume unreliability without evidence of unreliability. Cadosch can be scrutinised and there’s zero.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s interesting to note that in the two threads that I started on the witnesses 89% of posters felt Richardson reliable whilst 93% found Cadosch reliable.

[Fisherman]

It’s interesting to note that in the two threads that I started on the witnesses 89% of posters felt Richardson reliable whilst 93% found Cadosch reliable.

... and 99,9 per cent found Galilei a liar. Polls reflect sentiments, not facts.

One fact is that Cadosch was unable to tell where the spoken "No" came from, and he did not establish whether it was a man or woman who supposedly uttered it. Another fact is that a woman falling against a fence will make a heavu thud and then you wil hear her falling to the ground, clothes rustling in the process. Whatever it was Cadosch heard, it was not Chapman and her killer, unless the killer was celebrating the two hour anniversary of her death. I know you disagree, but as you can see, the police realized that even Richardsons timing was not compatible with the medical evidence, and that says a lot about Long and Cadosch.

Before this is realized, no real insight can be had about the murder, if you ask me (and you ALWAYS do, donīt you? Well, you should! ). Once there are two options (Phillips or the timeless triumvirate), we should look to how the murder fares in a comparison with the others. And the others all died in darkness, in the wee hours of the morning.

Not that we are ever going to agree, and not that you are going to stay away from trying to mock the ones who disagree, but thereīs the rub, Herlock.

Over to cooking now! Cod, mushrooms, port and herb sauce, oven grilled potatoes and sweet peas, together with a New Zeeland chardonnay. Cheers!

[Herlock Sholmes]

... and 99,9 per cent found Galilei a liar. Polls reflect sentiments, not facts.

One fact is that Cadosch was unable to tell where the spoken "No" came from, and he did not establish whether it was a man or woman who supposedly uttered it. Another fact is that a woman falling against a fence will make a heavu thud and then you wil hear her falling to the ground, clothes rustling in the process. Whatever it was Cadosch heard, it was not Chapman and her killer, unless the killer was celebrating the two hour anniversary of her death. I know you disagree, but as you can see, the police realized that even Richardsons timing was not compatible with the medical evidence, and that says a lot about Long and Cadosch.

Before this is realized, no real insight can be had about the murder, if you ask me (and you ALWAYS do, donīt you? Well, you should! ). Once there are two options (Phillips or the timeless triumvirate), we should look to how the murder fares in a comparison with the others. And the others all died in darkness, in the wee hours of the morning.

Not that we are ever going to agree, and not that you are going to stay away from trying to mock the ones who disagree, but thereīs the rub, Herlock.

Over to cooking now! Cod, mushrooms, port and herb sauce, oven grilled potatoes and sweet peas, together with a New Zeeland chardonnay. Cheers!

When you accuse me of mockery Fish are you being ironic? Pot...kettle etc.

Telegraph version:

. As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29.I, however, cannot say on which side it came from. I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards. While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.

Times version:

. As he returned across the yard, to the backdoor of his house, he heard a voice say quite close to him, “No.”As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from. I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards. While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly. He went into the house, and returned to the yard 3 or 4 minutes afterwards. He then heard a sort of a fall against the fence, which divided his yard from No. 29. Something seemed suddenly to touch the fence. He did not look to see what it was. He did not hear any other noise.

From Swanson’s report on 19th Oct.

....had occasion to go into the yard at the rear of number 27, separated by a wooden fence about 5 feet high, and he heard words pass between some persons apparently at No. 29 Hanbury Street, but the only word he could catch was “No.” On Cadosch going back into the yard again he heard a noise as of something falling falling against the fence on the side next to No. 29 Hanbury Street, but he did not take any notice.

Its fairly clear that Cadosch’s first impression was that the ‘no’ came from number 29. Why else would he have mentioned it in the first place? But when pressed he exhibited the caution that he showed in his Inquest statement. And if he did mention ‘which side’ it was from I’m sure that the police would have checked and eliminated number 25.

Can we really believe that a word heard from under 6 feet away could actually have come from yards away? I think Cadosch was being extremely over cautious.

~~~

Fish, that Richardson’s evidence doesn’t tie in with Phillips virtual guesswork is hardly an issue. They might as well have gotten Old Mother Richardson to check the tea leaves.

~~~

Fish quote:

. Another fact is that a woman falling against a fence will make a heavu thud and then you wil hear her falling to the ground, c

A straw man argument. I’ve not suggested that the noise was Annie falling against the fence. I don’t think it was. I think it was the killer brushing against the fence.

~~~

Theres no escaping the fact that Cadosch heard the ‘no’ and a noise from number 29 at a time when Annie was supposed to have been dead. There’s an issue though that causes chagrin amongst some.....Annie simply wasn’t there.

We we know that Phillips was using unreliable methods.

We know that Richardson wasn’t blind or a complete moron and that he had no reason to lie.

We know that Cadosch had no reason to lie and that he wasn’t subject to hallucinations.

And even if Long saw Annie and her killer the possibility of her being 15 minutes out (or even of her and Cadosch being 7 or 8 minutes out) is more likely that Richardson missing a mutilated corpse.

The weight is in favour of the witnesses. A combination of bunny stories and weird logic won’t change that.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Over to cooking now! Cod, mushrooms, port and herb sauce, oven grilled potatoes and sweet peas, together with a New Zeeland chardonnay. Cheers!

Beats my Pot Noodle for one seasoned with my own tears of loneliness.....

[Joshua Rogan]

Beats my Pot Noodle for one seasoned with my own tears of loneliness.....

You know you can get pot noodles for two, nowadays?
They're harder to over-season.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

You know you can get pot noodles for two, nowadays?
They're harder to over-season.

I tried, but half sat uneaten, mocking me.