Richardson's View

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Quote by NotBlamedForNothing

I find this very difficult to believe.

Because you’re thinking like a conspiracy theorist.

I believe a slightly conspiratorial mindset is optimal.
Like salt, a little bit is good for you.
It's just the extremes that should be avoided - too much leads to paranoia, while too little results in naiveté.
Sure there are a lot of paranoid people in the world, but so too are there many (and perhaps growing numbers of) people, who avoid dealing with inconvenient information by dismissing those talking about it, as conspiracy theorists.

[Fisherman]

The above post was a messed up attempt to respond by me.

That there’s no point going over the medical arguments I couldn’t agree more. We went over this on the other thread and (as I was posting with the assistance of someone that really knows what he’s talking about) you were proven wrong. Over and over again with quote after quote and evidence piled upon evidence. The debate ended with you storming off to investigate, intending to return in a blaze of glory with refutations. Have you? Of course you haven’t because there are none. You are wrong.

You see, it is when you resort to this kind of argumentation that everything goes awry. You have never proven me wrong on this matter and you won´t be able to do so either, and you really need to see that. if I had said that the doctors were infallible and that the method of feeling for warmth was exact and always correct, you would, culd and should prove me wrong. But I never said that and I never will. What I said is that the combined weight of Phillips´ evidence in combination with the very short time Chapman would have been dead if the witnesses were to be correct makes for an equation that the proposal of a TOD at 5.30 cannot solve. And that stands.

Now, I’ve never said that Phillips couldn’t have gotten it right or that he was in any way incompetent.

No, you only said that he can be dismissed and that his bid was a toss-up.

No, you said that There were affecting circumstances which, at that time, he would have had no way of knowing could have affected his estimation. We have no way of validating his TOD because we weren’t there to verify anything. So we have a TOD which might or might not have been right or wrong. What possible use is that? We can’t evaluate it but we can evaluate witnesses because that’s all that we have. Witnesses say later TOD. Only a desperation for Phillips to have been correct would push someone to argue so strongly for something so inconclusive.

There are four (4) different parameters weighed in by Phillips, and he was a police surgeon of 23 years standing, with a solid reputation. That is what you throw in the waste, replacing it with three witnesses, two of whom contradicted each other and a third who we know was doubted by the police after having produyced a testimony that was as stable as a leaf on the Pacific Ocean.
That´s your way of doing things, and you afre welcome to it. Just don´t claim that you are in any way more likely to be correct and we shall be fine.

The fact of this ‘missing’ time of Chapmans is a complete red herring. This was a middle aged, east end prostitution that sadly very few people cared less about. This wasn’t Kim Kardashian disappearing from social media for a week. We don’t know where Annie was. So what?

So what...? That´s really top class detective work on your behalf, Herlock. You have earned your moniker. The papers at the time considered it a riddle, but you know better, as always. A red herring, that we should not take to the protocol. God forbid!

Let´s just say that I have a very different approach to these things. And that it was not only your former post you messed up.

[Fisherman]

Nice summary, but there is a problem with 3:30-ish; Mrs Richardson heard nothing around that time...

WB: Which room do you occupy?
AR: The first floor front, and my grandson slept in the same room on Friday night. I went to bed about half-past nine, and was very wakeful half the night. I was awake at three a.m., and only dozed after that.
WB: Did you hear any noise during the night?
AR: No.
...
WB: Did you ever see anyone in the passage?
AR: Yes, about a month ago I heard a man on the stairs. I called Thompson, and the man said he was waiting for market.
WB: At what time was this?
AR: Between half-past three and four o'clock. I could hear anyone going through the passage. I did not hear any one going through on Saturday morning.
WB: You heard no cries?
AR: None.
WB: Supposing a person had gone through at half-past three, would that have attracted your attention?
AR: Yes.
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.
WB: On Saturday morning you feel confident no one did go through?
AR: Yes; I should have heard the sound.
WB: They must have walked purposely quietly?
AR: Yes; or I should have heard them.


Another problem with 3:30 is the lack of light. It would have been almost completely dark then, would it not?
A bit of dawn light would have helped immensely.

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.

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.

[Joshua Rogan]

Like salt, a little bit is good for you.
It's just the extremes that should be avoided - too much leads to paranoia, while too little results in naiveté.

You hear that Al? No more crying in your pot noodle, or you'll get paranoid

[Joshua Rogan]

]
So how did this Thomas Pearman at the market find out about the murder soon enough that Richardson was able to return to Hanbury St before Phillips arrived, which itself was only a little more than half an hour after the time of discovery?

Spitalfields market was only 200 yards from no.29. Henry Holland went there to try to find a policeman, and was back at the house before Inspector Chandler arrived. I dare say he was overheard telling the policeman there had been a murder.

Daily News 13 Sept
"Henry J. Holland testified that he was one of the persons who saw the deceased lying dead in the yard behind 29, Hanbury-street. He went into the yard, but did not touch the body. Then he went for a policeman, whom he found in Spitalfields Market. The officer said he could not come, and the witness must get a constable outside the market. The witness went back, but could not find any other policeman. Inspector Chandler arrived soon after"

[Herlock Sholmes]

I believe a slightly conspiratorial mindset is optimal.
Like salt, a little bit is good for you.
It's just the extremes that should be avoided - too much leads to paranoia, while too little results in naiveté.
Sure there are a lot of paranoid people in the world, but so too are there many (and perhaps growing numbers of) people, who avoid dealing with inconvenient information by dismissing those talking about it, as conspiracy theorists.

Unfortunately the main piece of ‘inconvenient ‘ information that people are dismissing is the fact that Richardson said that - he could not have missed the body had it been there. That is the most relevant point. He knew exactly where the body was and how much floor space it took up and the position he took on the step and how light or dark it was and what areas of the yard he could or could not see. He had no reason to lie on that particular issue. And what do we have against this. Disputed wording, rabbits and an unreliable TOD estimation.

And then, even worse we have the frankly desperate attempt to dismiss Cadosch. A sensible sounding and cautious witness. Is it likely that a word emanating from a couple of feet away could actually have come from yards away? We should dismiss all of this blather and say no of course it’s not. This was obviously Cadosch being over cautious when pressed. Then he heard a noise. ( Oh of course he was lying according to Fish) but if he wasn’t then will someone please - and I’ve asked this a few times - tell us what else it could have been if Annie was already dead?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Spitalfields market was only 200 yards from no.29. Henry Holland went there to try to find a policeman, and was back at the house before Inspector Chandler arrived. I dare say he was overheard telling the policeman there had been a murder.

Daily News 13 Sept
"Henry J. Holland testified that he was one of the persons who saw the deceased lying dead in the yard behind 29, Hanbury-street. He went into the yard, but did not touch the body. Then he went for a policeman, whom he found in Spitalfields Market. The officer said he could not come, and the witness must get a constable outside the market. The witness went back, but could not find any other policeman. Inspector Chandler arrived soon after"

Thanks for that Joshua.

[Fisherman]

Unfortunately the main piece of ‘inconvenient ‘ information that people are dismissing is the fact that Richardson said that - he could not have missed the body had it been there.

I don´t think anybody has dismissed that he said so, Herlock. The problem is another one - you diosmissing that he could have been wrong about it or that he may even have misiformed the police. Whow doubted the veracity of Ricardson on very fair grounds.
So you are wrong on this point.

That is the most relevant point.

Only if it is true, I´m afraid. Otherwise it is the most irrelevant one.

He knew exactly where the body was and how much floor space it took up and the position he took on the step and how light or dark it was and what areas of the yard he could or could not see.

Yes, he did. After having looked at it, he would, sort of.

He had no reason to lie on that particular issue.

No particular reason? And people with no particular reason to lie, don´t do so? Ever? In high profile murder cases? And you KNOW that he felt he had no reason? Or is it a case of you not being able to identify any reason for him?

And what do we have against this. Disputed wording, rabbits and an unreliable TOD estimation.

Unreliable according to you. Not according to me. Nowhere near it.

And then, even worse we have the frankly desperate attempt to dismiss Cadosch. A sensible sounding and cautious witness. Is it likely that a word emanating from a couple of feet away could actually have come from yards away? We should dismiss all of this blather and say no of course it’s not. This was obviously Cadosch being over cautious when pressed. Then he heard a noise. ( Oh of course he was lying according to Fish) but if he wasn’t then will someone please - and I’ve asked this a few times - tell us what else it could have been if Annie was already dead?

Cadosch does not have to be dismissed. He never saw or identified Chapman, so what he heard or thought he heard may have been anybody or anything. It´s Long we should dismiss.

Can you feel it slipping through your fingers yet? No?

[Fisherman]

I have forgotten, Herlock, how do you explain away the onsetting rigor less than an hour after death? Was it some tropical ailment? It CAN happen, sort of?

And the food digestion? Maybe she had the gastric juices of a seagull? Or? It CAN happen?

And why is it that Phillips speaks of well clotted blood? Which he will have tested in situ? Is he frightened to be revealed by you as a toss-up medico, having no idea what he is doing? It CAN dry very quickly?

Why are all four parameters in sync with an early time of death when you know that she must have died at 5.30 at the earliest? And when you have proven me wrong, time and time again (ehrm ...)?

Why is it that these parameters are all in support of an early TOD? Is it ... you know ... well ... just coincidence?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[etenguy]

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.

You seem to have hit on a Richardson family trait.

[The Baron]

Unfortunately the main piece of inconvenient information that people are dismissing is the fact that Richardson said that - he could not have missed the body had it been there. That is the most relevant point. He knew exactly where the body was and how much floor space it took up and the position he took on the step and how light or dark it was and what areas of the yard he could or could not see. He had no reason to lie on that particular issue. And what do we have against this.

We have this:

Chandler:

If Richardson were on the top of the steps he might not have seen the body. He told me he did not go down the steps.


Chandler was in a better position to judge this than you



The Baron

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

If Chapman was loitering for the purposes of prostitution in that location, and at that later time of the morning, no one came forward to having seen her or any other female, bearing in mind that had she been so, as likely as not she would have propositioned almost every male that had a pulse who passed by and yet no one came forward having seen her or any other female soliciting.

On another point do you have any evidence to show that prostitutes were still plying their trade as late or as early as 5am?

I presume it would have been standard police procedure to ask if anyone was in that vicinity at 5am as it would be the case today, but I have seen no evidence to show that, so perhaps the police believed the TOD was as Phillips had stated.

I think you need to take a step back and be not so insistent that all the witness testimony you so doggedly rely on is safe to rely on.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

You have a point, Trevor:

From the net:

"Eyewitnesses statements often play a vital role in securing criminal convictions – police surveys show that eyewitness testimony is the main form of evidence in more than 20% of cases. But that doesn’t mean the evidence is always reliable.

In fact research shows that 75% of false convictions are caused by a inaccurate eyewitness statement. This means up to 100 innocent people could be wrongfully convicted each year of a violent or sexual crime in the UK because of these false eyewitnesses."
Link: https://theconversation.com/new-rese...itnesses-67663

and

"SUGGESTED LESSON PLAN
Eyewitness testimony is historically among the most convincing forms of evidence in criminal trials (e.g. Benton, Ross, Bradshaw, Thomas, & Bradshaw, 2006). Probably only a suspect’s signed confession can further convince a jury about that individual’s guilt. That iconic moment when a testifying witness points to the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime is iconic, and has been dramatized often on television and movies. It is easy to understand why it is so convincing. We trust our own perception and experience. “I’ll believe it when I see it” isn’t just a cliché, it is a statement of the most persuasive form of evidence we allow.

But being convincing isn’t the same as being accurate. Eyewitness testimony is more fallible than many people assume. The advent of DNA analysis in the late 1980s revolutionized forensic science, providing an unprecedented level of accuracy about the identity of actual perpetrators versus innocent people falsely accused of crime. DNA testing led to the review of many settled cases. According to the Innocence Project , 358 people who had been convicted and sentenced to death since 1989 have been exonerated through DNA evidence. Of these, 71% had been convicted through eyewitness misidentification and had served an average of 14 years in prison before exoneration. Of those false identifications, 41% involved cross-racial misidentifications (221 of the 358 people were African American). And 28% of the cases involved a false confession.

The claim that eyewitness testimony is reliable and accurate is testable, and the research is clear that eyewitness identification is vulnerable to distortion without the witness’s awareness. More specifically, the assumption that memory provides an accurate recording of experience, much like a video camera, is incorrect. Memory evolved to give us a personal sense of identity and to guide our actions. We are biased to notice and exaggerate some experiences and to minimize or overlook others. Memory is malleable.

Why the Myth Persists
So why, despite all the news about misidentifications and wrongful convictions, do people continue to put such profound faith in eyewitness testimony?

Several reasons are likely. First, in popular media and literatary depictions, detectives (for example, Sherlock Holmes) and witnesses possess highly detailed and accurate memories. Second, crimes and accidents are unusual, distinctive, often stressful, and even terrifying events, and people believe those events therefore should automatically be memorable. In fact, stress and terror can actually inhibit memory formation, and memories continue to be constructed after the originating event on the basis of information learned afterward. People underestimate how quickly forgetting can take place. Third, eyewitnesses are often sincere and confident, which makes them persuasive but not necessarily correct. Memory distortion often happens unconsciously. Witnesses truly believe their version of events, no matter how inaccurate they may be."
Link: https://www.psychologicalscience.org...-evidence.html

and

It’s human nature to report what we see and remember. Not surprisingly, criminal investigations and prosecutions have long relied upon the accounts of eyewitnesses. In adjudication, judges and juries have similarly long embraced self-assured reports of what was seen. This bubble of complacency has been burst in recent years, however, by two pointed facts: (i) postconviction DNA analyses reveal that eyewitnesses sometimes identify the wrong people, and (ii) the sciences of vision and memory indicate that wrongful conviction based on eyewitness testimony is likely a priori, given conditions of uncertainty, bias, and overconfidence. The NAS report on eyewitness identification (4) has led to practical reforms (25), but the larger message of the report is the promise of a long-overdue partnership between science and law. This is a case in which modern science is now having a profound influence over a critical matter of public policy, legal practice, and judicial standards, and in doing so brings our society to a place of greater justice.
Link: https://www.pnas.org/content/114/30/7758

The green underlined wording is my work, by the way. So are the purple ones.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Cadosch does not have to be dismissed. He never saw or identified Chapman, so what he heard or thought he heard may have been anybody or anything. It´s Long we should dismiss.

Can you feel it slipping through your fingers yet? No?

Fish, you lost this argument months ago over the space of around a week where you wriggled embarrassingly on the hook in the face of a Mount Everest of evidence showing the inaccuracy of TOD estimates. I seem to recall one expert using the phrase ‘wildly inaccurate.’ I also recall one expert, wasn’t it Jason Payne-Jones (the guy you used in your documentary?) saying that these methods shouldn’t be relied upon. But you kept wriggling and distorting and performing contortion after contortion in the face of expert testimony. So no, I don’t feel anything slipping away. I’m quite happy to let all of that expert opinion stand. I also seem to recall posters Elamarna and Sam (both of whom I believe have medical backgrounds) and others who all disagreed with you. But you are just desperate to have Phillips correct. I wonder why?

And so we are left, at best, with a doctors TOD which may or may not have been correct. And as we can’t go back in time to the crime scene I fail to see how this helps.

But we have witnesses (those people that are always unreliable according to Trevor) that we can evaluate. Three of them who all contradict the doctor and two who contradict each other by the hardly disastrous (in Victorian times) 15 minutes. Richardson has to be a moron who couldn’t deduce that a door might impede his view of a corpse and who opened a door, went down a couple of steps holding a door open and then sat on a step rigidly facing right. Or Cadosch hearing a ‘no’ from 20 yards away and mistaking it for 2 feet away. He then ‘imagines’ a noise against a fence, again a matter of less than 6 feet away. Either that or the noise was made by someone else that didn’t see the corpse or perhaps a particularly heavy and clumsy cat (or maybe it was the rabbit Baron?)

So no, I see nothing ‘slipping away.’ The reasoned, calm, common sense view is that the likelihood is that Annie wasn’t there at 4.45. Notice that I say likelihood btw.

So so you can continue your silly gloating whilst waiving your empty sack. I’m used to your methods by now Fish.