Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was John Richardson A Reliable Witness?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    Cadosche mentioned hearing things from that yard before...so, how unsure about which yard was he really? We have evidence that says prostitute business was conducted in that particular yard before, and that vagrants had slept back there. Any stories you are aware of for the yard on the other side of him? And he specifically mentions the thud against the fence between him and 29. Likely that the "no" and the thud were by the same party? Yep. So what...that party switched backyards between 5:10 and 5:20? Nope.
    Michael, take it from me, there was no backyard on EITHER side where it was impossible to utter the word "No".

    Comment


    • Originally posted by chameleon1 View Post
      Im still curious how Dr Phillips pronounced a corpse that had been dead for only 1 hour,..... to 2 hours probably more. hmmmmm

      And that from 5.30 to 5.45 the killer was mutilation and removing organs in broad daylight, and yet this seems perfectly acceptable to many Ripperoligist [ if cadosche is to be believed of course ], But i For one see a few obvious obstacles with this theory.

      It’s quite easy. Phillips was overwhelmingly likely to have been mistaken, inconvenient though this fact is for some. All of the authorities on the subject concur on this point. There is not a solitary shred of doubt that he could have been mistaken. His TOD can and should be completely dismissed as irrelevant. We have the witnesses and nothing else. The fact that the murder took place as it was getting light is utterly irrelevant. Do serial killers only kill at night? They take risks. So what?

      There are only obstacles for those desperate to prove that Phillips was correct and that all three witnesses were either liars or idiots. It really is very simple. The witnesses outweigh Phillips.
      Regards

      Herlock






      "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        A massive exaggeration.

        There are no grounds to question Cadosch as a witness.
        Correction: YOU dont think there is.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post


          It’s quite easy. Phillips was overwhelmingly likely to have been mistaken, inconvenient though this fact is for some. All of the authorities on the subject concur on this point. There is not a solitary shred of doubt that he could have been mistaken. His TOD can and should be completely dismissed as irrelevant. We have the witnesses and nothing else. The fact that the murder took place as it was getting light is utterly irrelevant. Do serial killers only kill at night? They take risks. So what?

          There are only obstacles for those desperate to prove that Phillips was correct and that all three witnesses were either liars or idiots. It really is very simple. The witnesses outweigh Phillips.
          Has it occured to you that witnesses who get things wrong can be mistaken, Herlock? Maybe you should add that to the list, because unless you do, you make me and a lot of other people sound like some sort of modern witch doctors.

          If you cannot discuss the matter in a calm and factually based manner, maybe you should not discuss it at all?

          PS. Not a single authority claims that they think that Phillips was wrong. What they say is that determining the TOD by means of feeling for warmth and checking rigor has itīs risks. And we all know that. Whether that risk encompasses what Phillips did to a degree that ensures that he was likely to be as wrong as he must have been to make you correct is an entirely different matter. But I have pointed this out before!
          Last edited by Fisherman; 12-05-2019, 05:25 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

            Beginning from the end, no, Cadosh is not an entirely reliable witness. We certainly canīt tell, and there are things speaking for the contrary opinion.

            No there aren’t.

            You are correct that Cadosh did. not say that the sound reminded him of a packing case. But he DID say that he did not take much notice of it, since he was used to the sound of packing cases against the fence. And per se, if the sound had differed, he SHOULD have taken notice of it, so what he practically says is that the sound did not differ much from that kind of sound.

            This is wish-thinking. It was an insignificant sound. You surely can’t expect Cadosch to have been thinking “hold on, that didn’t sound like a packing case. I’d better investigate.”

            You feel he has points deducted for "being reasonable". Iīm afraid that is how it goes - if you say one thing one second and another one the next, you compromise your credibility. It can of course boild down to him not wanting to be too sure (your version), but it may equally be that he told porkies and forgot to keep track of what he had said (the version any barrister would use).

            Where did he say one thing one second and another one the next? He just didn’t. He was cautious about the “no” but confident about the noise . So what?

            There is one question I would like you to answer for me:

            Cadosh said that the sound he heard sounded as if "something had touched the fence suddenly". How does that translate into a knowledge that whatever touched the fance had actually fallen against it? There was no further sound, no crash against the ground, no rustle of clothing etcetera. So why does Cadosh say that a sounbd that could have been produced by an elbow knocked on the fence, by somebody throwing something at the fence, by a blind cat running into the fence etcetera, sounded as if something actually fell against it?

            Where does that insight enter the equation?

            So were reduced to questioning Cadosh’s descriptive powers? He heard a noise of something against the fence. He didn’t hear anything else because he was at the steps at the time and consequently disappeared into the house. This is simple stuff.


            Cadosch is probably the most reliable sounding witness in the entire case. The level of effort exhibited in an attempt to discredit him speaks volumes. There’s not a single, solitary thing that even hints at Cadosch being dishonest.
            Regards

            Herlock






            "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

              Plus rigor had set in, yes. We need to have a very curious combination of medical circumstances ruling the day to believe Phillips was monumentally off. Some like to think so, and they rest their case on how three witnesses cannot be wrong. But they can. And they WERE, at least to a degree. Cadosh and Long cannot be made to jibe chronologically, for example. And they were absolutely certain of their respective timings.

              Swanson says it is a pity that Longs information muyst be looked upon with skepticism. He does not even mention Cadosh. Make of that what you will.


              The case for the medical evidence is long over. Expert after expert after expert has been produced to prove absolutely certainly that Phillips could easily have gotten it wrong. The chances of all three witnesses being wrong are vanishingly small. This argument is done.
              Regards

              Herlock






              "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                I realize that guesswork is hit and miss, but when you make a guess sometimes you guess right, so is it right to dismiss Phillips because he made a guess, when two other doctors in another murder also made guesses and were almost spot on, and in the case of Chapman the other witness testimony is questionable?

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                The other cases their estimates are contrained based upon police patrol times, making the time window so narrow even modern techniques couldn't pinpoint the ToD to that precision (there's only a 14 minute window for Eddowes). The fact the doctors "got it right" for Eddowes, for example, is because given they only had 14 minutes to work with, they could hardly get it wrong. The ToD for those cases is determined by the police testimony. For Chapman Phillips did not have that, and so had to make an uninformed guess. So yes, his estimate can be set aside as it is based upon unreliable and inaccurate methods. The others we can set aside as well because they add nothing to the evidence we have from the police reports.

                - Jeff

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post


                  Swanson says it is a pity that Longs information muyst be looked upon with skepticism. He does not even mention Cadosh. Make of that what you will.
                  He also says that it was definitely Kosminski and he was identified at the Seaside Home.
                  Not trying to be smart, just pointing out that seemingly every source can be contradicted in some way. Which is the frustrating bane of the whole case really. We just have to put together what bits we have and see how things fit.
                  I stand by though, I don't really see why Cadosch is scrutinised so much, his individual testimony doesn't change anything, he didn't see anyone or not see something he should have.
                  In the Chapman case, it's Richardson and Long that we can pick the bones out of.
                  Your evening of swing has been cancelled.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                    He also says that it was definitely Kosminski and he was identified at the Seaside Home.

                    I would have thought they were different matters, though, one of them taking place in the midst of the murder sequence and the other one many years after. Plus we donīt know whether Swanson thought it was Kosminski or whether he simply voiced Andersons take on it.

                    Not trying to be smart, just pointing out that seemingly every source can be contradicted in some way.

                    You can say that again. Itīs all about sorting the what from the chaff therefore.

                    Which is the frustrating bane of the whole case really. We just have to put together what bits we have and see how things fit.

                    There you go!

                    I stand by though, I don't really see why Cadosch is scrutinised so much, his individual testimony doesn't change anything, he didn't see anyone or not see something he should have.
                    In the Chapman case, it's Richardson and Long that we can pick the bones out of.
                    Or try to. It seems people come up with diofferent bones all the time. And some of them were not even present at the anatomy lesson...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post



                      Cadosch is probably the most reliable sounding witness in the entire case. The level of effort exhibited in an attempt to discredit him speaks volumes. There’s not a single, solitary thing that even hints at Cadosch being dishonest.
                      There is no effort to discredit him, Iīm afraid. Thatīs just your paranoia speaking. I am pointing out that we cannot take his word as gospel, because we do not know what level of knowledge/honesty we shoud expect in his case. There is nothing controversial about that, it is simple and basic caution that should ALWAYS be applied, not least when a witness is not consistent - or not in line with other witnesses.
                      Last edited by Fisherman; 12-05-2019, 08:14 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post



                        The case for the medical evidence is long over. Expert after expert after expert has been produced to prove absolutely certainly that Phillips could easily have gotten it wrong. The chances of all three witnesses being wrong are vanishingly small. This argument is done.
                        To be fair, your take on expert input is about the worst I have seen out here. Can you point me to which of the experts it is that commented SPECIFICALLY on Phillips? Because I would not want to buy your interpretation of what they said. They are probably as reliable as Baxter, who took it upon himself to claim that Phillips would have allowed for being totally wrong. Not a little wrong, not markedly wrong - epically and totally wrong.
                        It would resemble somebody saying that it is fifteen degrees Celsius outside, while in fact it is thirty. Yes, it IS hard to determine temperatures. But no, that difficulty will not result in as ridiculous miscalculations as you need on all scores, the rigor included (she may have had some odd tropical disease, or she may have injected glue into her veins!I swear! And the experts ALL agree with me! Honest!)

                        If you think the debate is over, you are sadly deluded. Unless you are taking your leave from it? In which case it would end on a high. Sorry, but it had to be said.

                        Me, I will be taking the odd leave from this coop of headless thinking - but that does not mean that the debate is in any way over, Iīm afraid.
                        Last edited by Fisherman; 12-05-2019, 08:14 PM.

                        Comment


                        • It’s quite easy. Phillips was overwhelmingly likely to have been mistaken, inconvenient though this fact is for some. All of the authorities on the subject concur on this point. There is not a solitary shred of doubt that he could have been mistaken. His TOD can and should be completely dismissed as irrelevant. We have the witnesses and nothing else. The fact that the murder took place as it was getting light is utterly irrelevant. Do serial killers only kill at night? They take risks. So what?

                          There are only obstacles for those desperate to prove that Phillips was correct and that all three witnesses were either liars or idiots. It really is very simple. The witnesses outweigh Phillips.
                          Yes but describe if you will just how Phillips could not have told the difference from a body that was 1 hour deceased from one that he believed to be 2 hours probably more. if his trying to suggest that the body was 2 hours and more when it was actually 1, would not Chapmans body in her MORE RECENT state prove otherwise ?

                          Yes killers do kill in the day and night im not saying they don't, just in this case it would be highly unlikely , utterly irrelevant ? again in this case i should think not.

                          Comment


                          • The other cases their estimates are contrained based upon police patrol times, making the time window so narrow even modern techniques couldn't pinpoint the ToD to that precision (there's only a 14 minute window for Eddowes). The fact the doctors "got it right" for Eddowes, for example, is because given they only had 14 minutes to work with, they could hardly get it wrong. The ToD for those cases is determined by the police testimony. For Chapman Phillips did not have that, and so had to make an uninformed guess. So yes, his estimate can be set aside as it is based upon unreliable and inaccurate methods. The others we can set aside as well because they add nothing to the evidence we have from the police reports.
                            Hi Jeff are you suggesting that police reports and testimony form the bases for

                            Dr Brown and Sequeria,s t.o.d opinion?. so that their medical opinion is only made correct because of those police report and said testimony ?

                            If so, i don't see Dr Brown and Dr Sequeria agreeing with you on that point.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by chameleon1 View Post

                              Hi Jeff are you suggesting that police reports and testimony form the bases for

                              Dr Brown and Sequeria,s t.o.d opinion?. so that their medical opinion is only made correct because of those police report and said testimony ?

                              If so, i don't see Dr Brown and Dr Sequeria agreeing with you on that point.
                              I think they would. Basically, they would have been informed of all relevant details, including patrol times, and they would be using that to form their opinion. Nothing obviously contradicted that possibiity (i.e. it's not skeletal remains, as an extreme example), so they are just stating that yes, death at that time is, in their opinion, reasonable. There is no method to determine ToD to the degree of precision that would allow them at that time, or even them at this time, to state a ToD to within a 15 minute window.

                              - Jeff

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                                Has it occured to you that witnesses who get things wrong can be mistaken, Herlock? Maybe you should add that to the list, because unless you do, you make me and a lot of other people sound like some sort of modern witch doctors.

                                If you cannot discuss the matter in a calm and factually based manner, maybe you should not discuss it at all?

                                PS. Not a single authority claims that they think that Phillips was wrong. What they say is that determining the TOD by means of feeling for warmth and checking rigor has itīs risks. And we all know that. Whether that risk encompasses what Phillips did to a degree that ensures that he was likely to be as wrong as he must have been to make you correct is an entirely different matter. But I have pointed this out before!
                                You’re twisting what I’ve said Fish. I’ve never said that the authorities have said that Phillips was wrong. Only that it was very possible. It also has to be pointed out that there were affecting factors that Phillips wouldn’t have even been aware of. And so we are at a point where no weight can be placed on Phillips. The witnesses are easier to evaluate. Not perfect of course but witnesses never are yet we still have three that point to a later TOD.
                                Regards

                                Herlock






                                "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X