Was John Richardson A Reliable Witness?

[chameleon1]

Only if one was to believe Cadosch and Richardsons testimony would this be true..... i for one do not.

[Michael W Richards]

I can only say that Cadosche makes Phillips TOD estimate wrong. Its that simple. Someone in that yard alive at 5:15 can only be the killer and victim, there is no reasonable explanation for someone other than them to be there at that time and not notice Annie lying there. And that is why Phillips was/is wrong. There is no reason to suspect Richardson of any falsification, yes, he expanded on certain comments, but nothing in that/those statement(s) seems to be for any other purpose other than to recall his activities and the times. There is your TOD window.....between 15 min to 5, and 5:20.

[Harry D]

Richardson walks into the yard. He is horrified to see the body. Just then he sees the Ripper of whom he knows as a bad hombre in the hood. The ripper points a gun at him and says. "You know me and I know your mother. If you want her to not end up like this whore you will keep your mouth shut." Richardson makes up a story to protect his mother and the Ripper. He is protecting the Ripper/Mother when he contradicts his mother at the inquest.

Cool story, bro.

[chameleon1]

.I

f you put those witnesses in a witness box in a trial they would get torn to shreds,

Agreed.

[Leather_Apron]

Richardson walks into the yard. He is horrified to see the body. Just then he sees the Ripper of whom he knows as a bad hombre in the hood. The ripper points a gun at him and says. "You know me and I know your mother. If you want her to not end up like this whore you will keep your mouth shut." Richardson makes up a story to protect his mother and the Ripper. He is protecting the Ripper/Mother when he contradicts his mother at the inquest.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.If you put those witnesses in a witness box in a trial they would get torn to shreds,

Or if Richardson had been put in the box and asked if he’d mentioned sitting on the steps to Chandler he might have said “he’s got it wrong because I did tell him that I’d sat on the steps.”

Unfortunately we cannot retrospectively cross-examine witnesses but you are doing exactly what you are accusing others of, and that is being biased. You are assuming that, under cross examination, witnesses would all have shown to have been liars or idiots, when it’s just as likely that, given the opportunity of explaining further (and given more accurate transcribing) that they might have been able to have given plausible explanations. But it’s convenient for you to assume the worst.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I don’t think it’s online but I took it from the Ultimate sourcebook.
Swanson’s report to the Home Office is on pages66-69, this quote is on page 68.

Cheers. Interesting statement. Rules out Richardson as a suspect, which honestly he never was. Doesn't say much about the veracity of his statement, but it appears it was looked into.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Will you kindly stop trotting out your "propping up the old theory" nonsense? People are not doing that; they're appraising the evidence and coming to their own logical conclusions based on it.

We're not all brainwashed cultists trying to adhere to some ripperological creed, you know.

Well said Sam.

[Kattrup]

Hi kattrup, can you link the source for this please?

I don’t think it’s online but I took it from the Ultimate sourcebook.
Swanson’s report to the Home Office is on pages66-69, this quote is on page 68.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

”If the evidence of Dr. Philips is correct as to time of death, it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body when he went into the yard at 4.45 a.m. but as his clothes were examined, the house searched and his statement taken in which there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest on him, although police specially directed their attention to him.”
Swanson, 19th oct.

Hi kattrup, can you link the source for this please?

[Kattrup]

”If the evidence of Dr. Philips is correct as to time of death, it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body when he went into the yard at 4.45 a.m. but as his clothes were examined, the house searched and his statement taken in which there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest on him, although police specially directed their attention to him.”
Swanson, 19th oct.

[Sam Flynn]

Will you kindly stop trotting out your "propping up the old theory" nonsense? People are not doing that; they're appraising the evidence and coming to their own logical conclusions based on it.

We're not all brainwashed cultists trying to adhere to some ripperological creed, you know.

[Trevor Marriott]

I really don’t get this Trevor? If you were investigating a case in your days in The Force and you came across a seemingly important witness but you subsequently found that he or she had made an error (say he identified someone as being near to a crime scene but he got his/her height wrong or the colour of his/her trousers wrong) would you simply have discarded that witness or would you have considered that the error might not have been fatal to his/her value as a witness?

The witness would have been re interviewed long before it got to the stage of considering prosecuting someone based on that witness testimony. In the case of these witnesses, it seems very little steps were taken to try to clear up the conflicting evidence. It would seem that the coroner believed Phillips.

When posters like Jeff, Sam, myself and others look at “what if’s’” “maybe’s” and “perhapses” we are simply trying to weigh up alternatives. Of course we cannot be certain of events that occurred 130 years ago and so we attempt to gauge likelihoods. If we dismissed every aspect of the case where there is doubt or conflict or error the boards would fall silent.

You are not trying to do that, you are simply trying to prop up the old accepted theory, along with your own personal beliefs, and do what you can to dismiss all that goes against that. If you put those witnesses in a witness box in a trial they would get torn to shreds, and a defense counsel would tell the jury that their statements are unsafe to rely on.

We aren’t trying to show anything really. The evidence of authorities tell us that Phillips TOD was unsafe to rely on but, as you said, this in itself doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have been correct. And so we are left with three witnesses to evaluate, all of whom point to a later time of death but of course one doesn’t tally up time wise. So we have three witnesses who all have to have been mistaken or lying for an earlier TOD. I’d say that even the odds are against this. Not impossible of course but a large majority of posters appear to go with the witnesses over the Doctor so far.

Three witnesses whose testimony is unsafe and conflicting

Or perhaps Phillips was lucky and got it right? Or maybe Chandler was correct and Richardson didn’t mention sitting on the steps? It works both ways so we try to evaluate and thats what we are doing. I see nothing wrong with that.

That depends on your conclusions after doing that.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Richardson was less than economical with the truth surrounding his actions that is a fact, and 130 years later we are no nearer establishing the truth. So all we are left with are many modern day researchers readily accepting the conflicting witness testimony, and who keep coming out with their own explanations and beliefs from a list made up of "What if`s" "maybe`s" "I think" "perhaps" "Could have" all seen when someone challenges the conflicting evidence which they seek to rely on.

We have seen countless posters wanting to show that Phillips got the time of death wrong. We know that TOD were in those days nothing more than guesswork. But who knows he might have guessed right.

If it is accepted that there is a conflict in the witness testimony, then that testimony has to be ruled as unsafe, because 130 years later those conflicts cannot be proved to be right or wrong. I say unsafe and not totally disregarded.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I really don’t get this Trevor? If you were investigating a case in your days in The Force and you came across a seemingly important witness but you subsequently found that he or she had made an error (say he identified someone as being near to a crime scene but he got his/her height wrong or the colour of his/her trousers wrong) would you simply have discarded that witness or would you have considered that the error might not have been fatal to his/her value as a witness?

When posters like Jeff, Sam, myself and others look at “what if’s’” “maybe’s” and “perhapses” we are simply trying to weigh up alternatives. Of course we cannot be certain of events that occurred 130 years ago and so we attempt to gauge likelihoods. If we dismissed every aspect of the case where there is doubt or conflict or error the boards would fall silent.

We aren’t trying to show anything really. The evidence of authorities tell us that Phillips TOD was unsafe to rely on but, as you said, this in itself doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have been correct. And so we are left with three witnesses to evaluate, all of whom point to a later time of death but of course one doesn’t tally up time wise. So we have three witnesses who all have to have been mistaken or lying for an earlier TOD. I’d say that even the odds are against this. Not impossible of course but a large majority of posters appear to go with the witnesses over the Doctor so far.

And when you talk of “what if’s” isn’t that exactly what you are doing with Cadosch? What if the ‘no’ came from elsewhere? What if the noise was something else? Or Fish with Richardson, what if the door obscured the body. And what if he didn’t realise this?

Or perhaps Phillips was lucky and got it right? Or maybe Chandler was correct and Richardson didn’t mention sitting on the steps? It works both ways so we try to evaluate and thats what we are doing. I see nothing wrong with that.

[JeffHamm]

Richardson was less than economical with the truth

There is no proof of this. His statements, individually, and taken as a whole, are entirely internally consistent. There is no independent evidence to suggest what he states was untrue. There may be some wording conflicts in the newspapers, but as they all are supposed to be reporting what he said, if there's conflict between them with regards to specific wording that only points to the unreliability of the newspapers.

surrounding his actions that is a fact, and 130 years later we are no nearer establishing the truth. So all we are left with are many modern day researchers readily accepting the conflicting witness testimony,

We're not discussing potential conflicts between witnesses here, just Richardson's statements. Conflict between witness statements are inevitable, because no two people will describe or remember the same event in exactly the same way.

and who keep coming out with their own explanations and beliefs from a list made up of "What if`s" "maybe`s" "I think" "perhaps" "Could have" all seen when someone challenges the conflicting evidence which they seek to rely on.

Interesting, so we won't see any of these from you

We have seen countless posters wanting to show that Phillips got the time of death wrong. We know that TOD were in those days nothing more than guesswork. But who knows he might have guessed right.

Oh dear, very next statement you end with "he might have guessed right.", even after pointing out that it was "nothing more than guesswork." Yes, guessing has a chance level of being right, but any guess has a chance level of being right. You could pick a time out of a hat, right now, and have the same chance level of being right. Are you advocating we put stock in your hat?

If it is accepted that there is a conflict in the witness testimony, then that testimony has to be ruled as unsafe, because 130 years later those conflicts cannot be proved to be right or wrong. I say unsafe and not totally disregarded.

Which is what examining the statements, and where conflicts occur, requires one to examine things objectively, neither with the goal of accepting it nor with the goal of rejecting it. If the conflict can be resolved with minimal, and unexceptional, "tweaks" (for lack of a better word) to the statements, then the testimony can be viewed as safe in other regards, but the specific details surrounding the "tweaked bit" might be open for concern. I hate to dredge up the ToD example again, but as you mentioned it above I'll use it here to illustrate what I mean (even though this is a conflict between witnesses and not within a witness statement). Phillips' stated ToD was guesswork, as you stated above. His time conflicts with Richardson and Cadosche's times (and Long's, but her statement is more removed and for many reasons more open to concern; it's also not necessary for the present purposes). Since you and I agree Phillips' ToD is guesswork, then given the nature of guesses it's more likely he's wrong than right. Now, given Cadosche didn't guess the time he passed the Spitalfields clock (5:32), we know his time for that event is safe, and given we know the distance from his house to the cloks would only require 2 or 3 minutes to walk, that indicates the times he gives are also safe. I'm not sure what Richardson based his times on, so they could be viewed as somewhat suspect with regards to their precision, but as he left #29 to go to work, and his start time would be known (presumably recorded somewhere? I don't have source material with me at the moment, sorry), it's probably ok to afford his time a reasonable level of accuracy - though one might want to suggest some sort of +-5 minute time window let's say, unless we have something that justifies something more or less then that - something other than "he might have got it wrong" of course. From those two witnesses, the ToD is narrowed down to between 4:50ish (when Richardson leaves) and around the time Cadosch here's the bump on the fence (around 5:30ish). That conflicts with Phillips' guess, but given that both of those witness statements are internally consistent, with nothing to substatiate the hypothesis "they could be wrong", we are left only with the conclusion that the evidence is in favour of a ToD between 4:50 and 5:30, which further refines to "5:30ish", pending non the precision one wishes to give to Cadoschs time. I would suggest 5:25+-5 minutes to be a reasonably safe inference. However, that is not to say there isn't also reason to remember the over-arching princple that "witness testimony is unwise to rely on completely, no matter how convincing it may seem", and so while the evidence we have points to a ToD around 5:25+-5 minutes type thing, it is not advocated that other avenues be entirely dismissed. They just don't have any real support in the evidence, they only have the standard caution.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

- Jeff