Time Factor

[Phil H]

But PROVE Richardson was ever in the yard at al on that morning, until after the discovery of the body.

Phil

[Damaso Marte]

But PROVE Richardson was ever in the yard at al on that morning, until after the discovery of the body.

Phil

PROVE any witness testimony

[Phil H]

PROVE any witness testimony

Precisely.

But Richardson's story EVOLVES and good reasons have been advanced for mistrusting what he says. So, given his testimony is uncorroborated, I don't believe it is any longer sensible to use it as "gospel" in considering timeframes.

Phil

[Wickerman]

But PROVE Richardson was ever in the yard at al on that morning, until after the discovery of the body.

Phil

The police specifically tried to shake his story and couldn't, according to Swanson.

So why not just accept it?

[Michael W Richards]

The police specifically tried to shake his story and couldn't, according to Swanson.

So why not just accept it?

Because many students of these crimes would rather revise the perspective on the evidence rather than their own preconceptions.

Best regards Jon

[curious]

The police specifically tried to shake his story and couldn't, according to Swanson.

So why not just accept it?

It doesn't match up with the body.

[Wickerman]

It doesn't match up with the body.

Hi Curious.

Ok, on the one hand we have one witness, Richardson, who's testimony was subjected to intense scrutiny, and his story could not be shaken.

On the other hand we have a medical professional, Phillips, who does make a concession that his estimate could be in error due to the cold temperature of the morning.

So because there does appear to be a discrepancy in the time of death, in which direction should we look?

.

[Phil H]

It is not reasonable to "rationalise away" inconvenient evidence, and I don't think you'll find I indulge in that.

It is, on the other hand, perfectly reasonable to question and probe evidence. with Richardson, I find his testimony at odds with logic and likelihood. He may well be absolutely truthful, but given the inconsistencies of his evidence (which were clearly recognised at the time) and ther way it evolved, I would myself no longer use his record as a foundation for any assumptions.

Phil

[curious]

Hi Curious.

Ok, on the one hand we have one witness, Richardson, who's testimony was subjected to intense scrutiny, and his story could not be shaken.

On the other hand we have a medical professional, Phillips, who does make a concession that his estimate could be in error due to the cold temperature of the morning.

So because there does appear to be a discrepancy in the time of death, in which direction should we look?

.

How about looking at the reported condition of the body?

How about researching everything you can find about how quickly changes take place, then form your own opinion?

[Wickerman]

How about looking at the reported condition of the body?

Are they sufficiently complete for a modern surgeon to make an accurate determination?
(You'll need to ask one)

How about researching everything you can find about how quickly changes take place, then form your own opinion?

Because 'we' are not medically trained to do that!

We don't know what the body temperature was at ToD, nor the ambient temperature. Both play a significant role.
Then we cannot guess at the amount of blood loss.

All makes for a pointless pursuit, simply because we cannot justify any conclusions we arrive at.

So, we revert back to the only medical professional who was present.

.

[curious]

Are they sufficiently complete for a modern surgeon to make an accurate determination?
(You'll need to ask one)



Because 'we' are not medically trained to do that!

We don't know what the body temperature was at ToD, nor the ambient temperature. Both play a significant role.
Then we cannot guess at the amount of blood loss.

All makes for a pointless pursuit, simply because we cannot justify any conclusions we arrive at.

So, we revert back to the only medical professional who was present.

.

Actually, I trust that better than trying to figure out which witness might have been correct -- if any -- especially when we know how extremely unreliable witness testimony is even from the most diligent and honest people around. They just get it wrong.

But apparently everyone's mind works differently. While I think looking at the condition of the body is the most reliable way to approach things, you appear to prefer the testimony.

You're allowed:-)

[Observer]

Thats all very well, but what of those with an agenda here in this forum? They adhere only to the section of witness testimony that suit their pet theories. Thus in one breath Richardson is an unreliable witness, and in the next breath they are telling us that prostitutes and their clients frequented the passage and landings of 29 Hanbury Street. They are of course basing this assumption on the testimony of John Richardson

[Wickerman]

Actually, I trust that better than trying to figure out which witness might have been correct -- if any -- especially when we know how extremely unreliable witness testimony is even from the most diligent and honest people around. They just get it wrong.

But apparently everyone's mind works differently. While I think looking at the condition of the body is the most reliable way to approach things, you appear to prefer the testimony.

You're allowed:-)

You're too kind

I prefer the testimony because the condition of the body has already been deduced by a professional who was present. We (who are not present) are in no position to second guess him (Phillips), but as he is uncertain about his conclusions then we have little choice but to accept the words of Richardson.

On the subject of witness testimony, yes no question about it they can be wrong, but so can doctors. Does that mean we should tar them all with the same brush?
As a woman I'm sure you would not appreciate a man saying "All blonds are...", or "all woman are...etc."
Even though witnesses are made up of both men and women, it is equally wrong to assume "all witnesses are....".

Witness testimony is sometimes dismissed here because it conflicts with rigidly held theories, not because there is anything particularly wrong with their testimony. Then we hear the old excuse, "well, you know how unreliable they can be", and it is only an excuse.

If you go to the police with a story that, you saw a man, give a description, what he did & when. The police do not reject your claim, they will investigate it.
The police will only question your story if and when they find something contradictory about it. If they do not, then they accept your story verbatim.

Why should we set up a higher standard?

In Richardson's case we have potentially contradictory medical evidence. Which I may say the police were at pains to accept, but they were hampered by the caution from Phillips himself when he admitted, he could be wrong.
Whereas Richardson's story was tested, according to Swanson, and he could not be faulted.

The police were at an impass, and so are we.
Richardson's testimony wins the day.

.

[curious]

You're too kind



.

you're right about that.

As for the rest of it . . . .

[Phil H]

The police will only question your story if and when they find something contradictory about it. If they do not, then they accept your story verbatim.

Why should we set up a higher standard?

Because the police have been known to be wrong - take Sutcliffe who was interviewed (was it?) three times and let go.

We should all ask ourselves these question, every time we log on to Casebook, every time we pick up a Ripper-related tome:

Do I accept certain evidence because it is convenient and supportive of my wider theories; or because it is rock solid?

Am I wholly consistent in my approach to weighing evidence?

Do I question EVERYTHING and do I have an open mind to new ideas, new combinations of evidence, new avenues of thought?

Am I open to new ideas?

For myself, I've given up theories in relation to JtR - they take us nowhere. It's much more interesting and rewarding to question and see what happens. So much stimulating debate, new material and convincing argument appears in these threads that membership of Casebook has frankly made me an iconoclast in terms of Ripperology, and I am grateful for it.

Phil