Richardson's View

[Fisherman]

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.

Richardson was disbelieved by the police. He gave different versions of what he had done.

But he cannot have been wrong, he had no reason to lie, and his testimony trumps any medical evidence that is in disagreement with what he said.

That is your line of investigation, Herlock. Maybe you should let that sink in before you call me gloating and wawing an empty sack.

You need to sit down and think things over. In the best of worlds, it may save you further embarrasment.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Richardson was disbelieved by the police. He gave different versions of what he had done.

But he cannot have been wrong, he had no reason to lie, and his testimony trumps any medical evidence that is in disagreement with what he said.

That is your line of investigation, Herlock. Maybe you should let that sink in before you call me gloating and wawing an empty sack.

You need to sit down and think things over. In the best of worlds, it may save you further embarrasment.

I wonder why I called you ‘gloating?’ Maybe it’s because there, in black and white, you were gloating. Now we’ve got that little mystery cleared up....

You don’t listen Fish. I’ve repeatedly said that almost anything is possible. Of course Richardson ‘could’ have been wrong or lying like any witness could. Phillips on the other hand is touched with almost Papal Infallibility according to you. To illustrate how distorting this debate can be I recall Trevor on the other thread saying something like ‘yes Phillips estimate was unreliable but I still back him over the witnesses!’ That’s the kind of logic that we have here.

I could respond to your points individually but its pointless. You want Phillips to be right so you simply stonewall.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Richardson was disbelieved by the police.

And Phillips was doubted by the Coroner.

[Fisherman]

And Phillips was doubted by the Coroner.

... who had no or little idea about medical science, but a great wish to make ends meet. That is the nature of a coronerīs work.

[Joshua Rogan]

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

Daily News 14 Sept
"The Coroner closely questioned the inspector as to the visit of young Mr. Richardson to the backyard in Hanbury-street. Evidently Mr. Baxter had not been quite satisfied with the circumstances attending that visit, but from Inspector Chandler's tone and manner, he had himself apparently no doubt that this young man's evidence was reliable."

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Nice bit of selective quoting Baron. Desperate as ever.

The Telegraph records that as coming from The Jury but The Times is more specific and says The Foreman.

Chandler himself simply said that Richardson didn’t mention working on his boot. There’s a big difference.

~~~~

And as Richardson is described by some as ‘unreliable’ it’s said that he should be trusted over Richardson on whether he mentioned this or not. You’ve even tried using epilepsy as stick to beat him with even though it’s not certain that he suffered from it.

Inspector Chandler was a paragon of virtue though. Err......

[/QUOTE]. Joseph Chandler was demoted to Sergeant in 1892 as a consequence of being drunk on duty. [/CODE]

But it only counts when it comes to witnesses of course. I nearly forgot the rules.

[Fisherman]

I wonder why I called you ‘gloating?’ Maybe it’s because there, in black and white, you were gloating. Now we’ve got that little mystery cleared up....

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

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.

You don’t listen Fish. I’ve repeatedly said that almost anything is possible. Of course Richardson ‘could’ have been wrong or lying like any witness could.

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

Phillips on the other hand is touched with almost Papal Infallibility according to you.

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!

To illustrate how distorting this debate can be I recall Trevor on the other thread saying something like ‘yes Phillips estimate was unreliable but I still back him over the witnesses!’ That’s the kind of logic that we have here.

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.

I could respond to your points individually but its pointless. You want Phillips to be right so you simply stonewall.

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.

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?

[The Baron]

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




The Baron

[Simon Wood]

Hi Christer,

I, too, am a 100% certain that Chapman was not seen or heard by either Cadosch or Long, and also believe she was in the yard at 4.45 am.

Stay well,

Simon

[Michael W Richards]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Check his location when he says he heard the "no" Trevor, he is just a few feet from where Annie is found. His hesitancy is refreshing in fact, when put side by side with witnesses who were "certain" they saw who they said they saw, at the time they said they saw said person. Cadosche heard the cry as he was going back inside...look where his entrance to the house was.

[Michael W Richards]

This is becoming a guessing match, the fact is that not one shred of evidence has been presented in all these long winded posts that either Richardson or Cadosche are unreliable witnesses. If they are not incorrect, then Long was. Ergo, maybe you all should really be questioning why Long was so "certain" of her id and her facts when on the face of the evidence presented by Richardson and Cadosche, she couldnt have been.

Opinions to the contrary are fine, but trying to discredit statements based solely on those personal opinions, is not.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,

I, too, am a 100% certain that Chapman was not seen or heard by either Cadosch or Long, and also believe she was in the yard at 4.45 am.

Stay well,

Simon

Thatīs good to hear, Simon - and I donīt see anybody claiming anytime soon that you only choose that path because you favour Lechmere as the killer!

[Herlock Sholmes]

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




The Baron

When 2 witnesses disagree like Chandler and Richardson does it automatically have to be Richardson that was wrong or lying? After all this wasn’t a proper interview was it? It took place in the passageway of a busy crime scene. Chandler took no notes and so relied on memory. In saying that Richardson told him that he didn’t go down the steps Richardson might have just told him that he didn’t go into the yard. These things aren’t always verbatim. Richardson doesn’t appear to have been pressured into saying that he sat on the step.
If I remember correctly didn’t Philip Sugden believe that Chandler simply got it wrong?

The same Chandler that later got demoted for being drunk?

[Trevor Marriott]

This is becoming a guessing match, the fact is that not one shred of evidence has been presented in all these long winded posts that either Richardson or Cadosche are unreliable witnesses. If they are not incorrect, then Long was. Ergo, maybe you all should really be questioning why Long was so "certain" of her id and her facts when on the face of the evidence presented by Richardson and Cadosche, she couldnt have been.

Opinions to the contrary are fine, but trying to discredit statements based solely on those personal opinions, is not.

Lets re phrase it shall we for the benefit of one and all.

The witnesses were reliable it was the evidence that they gave which was unreliable !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Joshua Rogan]

When 2 witnesses disagree like Chandler and Richardson does it automatically have to be Richardson that was wrong or lying? After all this wasn’t a proper interview was it? It took place in the passageway of a busy crime scene. Chandler took no notes and so relied on memory. In saying that Richardson told him that he didn’t go down the steps Richardson might have just told him that he didn’t go into the yard. These things aren’t always verbatim. Richardson doesn’t appear to have been pressured into saying that he sat on the step.
If I remember correctly didn’t Philip Sugden believe that Chandler simply got it wrong?

The same Chandler that later got demoted for being drunk?

As I posted earlier, some reports have Chandler saying Richardson told him he didn't go down the steps of the cellar. Not the steps from the house to the yard, but from the yard to the cellar. I think this may be at the root of the misunderstanding.
When Chandler asked if Richardson went down "the steps" he may have been referring to the door steps, but when
Richardson replied "no" he was referring to the cellar steps. Thus both could have been telling the truth, as they saw it.

Just my take on it.