Was John Richardson A Reliable Witness?

[JeffHamm]

...
Chapman was not left totally naked, her body was clothed from the waist up, thus retaining some body heat, and slowing down rigor

If she had been killed at 5.20am where had she been until then? she had no money for lodgings, walking around in the cold night air?

Her body was found in a sheltered part of the yard protected from the elements and if she was killed at 5.20am. I doubt that there would be any signs of rigor that early

Actually, rigor progresses more quickly in warmer environments, so the cold would act to slow it down. However, rigor also is faster following exertion, exercise and so forth, as the body uses up it's energy supplies. We don't know where Annie was between 1:45 when she left the lodging house and when she was found at #29, however, she does not appear to have had any drink in that time period (according to the medial reports), so it doesn't appear she was in a pub or anything. So, I suspect you're right, she probably was wondering the streets all night, and depending upon the quality of her clothing, that might mean she was cold even when alive (unlike Eddowes, who had been inside much of the night until about 45 minutes prior to her discovery in Mitre Square). For someone of Annie's poor health, that would result in her subject to the latter speeding up of rigor. Also, in cases of violent deaths, which hers certainly was, due to the adrenaline rush, and other bodily functions, rigor can even set in immediately in some cases. Clearly it didn't in hers, as it was only detected as onsetting, but the nature of her death, and her overall health, and the fact that rigor can be detected after an hour in normal cases as well all make the fact that rigor was noted as commencing hardly surprising, whether she was killed 1 or 2 hours previously. Rigor, like body temperature, is associated with a very wide margin of error. It's no where near specific enough to differentiate between the times under discussion.

Finally with regards to the witness testimony and how unsafe it is, in another post I showed how unsafe it is but that seems to have been ignored, I wonder why. So I will set it out again. Cadosh stated he heard the noises before 5.30am. Mr Long says she saw Chapman after 5.30am which of them is wrong, or are they both wrong?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You've not been ignored, Trevor, it's just your arguments were not compelling, while others presented counter-arguments that were. Again, and just to be clear, it is of course possible the witnesses are wrong. That does happen. However, we have nothing in the evidence that backs that up (other than the issue between Cadosche and Long's times, which either means Long saw two other people, or of the two, is the one more likely have misremembered the time and her sighting was earlier than she recalls, probably at 5:15 rather than 5:30 - that's not being presented as proven, mind you, it is just presented as a reasoned interpretation of why their times clash - so does the "Long saw two other people" notion. The difference, of course, is in what follows depending upon which of those two possibilities one considers. And of course, there are other possibilities as well, I'm just presenting two here trying to make it clear that everyone is very aware that witness statements can be inaccurate.

But that's a separate issue as to whether or not the medical evidence we have is sufficient to preclude the time one derives from the witness statements. And neither body temperature nor rigor are sufficiently precise to do that, either alone or in conjunction. And that is the focus here. The issue about the reliability of the witness statements is another matter. It's clear the time window for her murder that one comes to from their testimony is 5:20-5:25, that time window cannot be excluded based upon the medical evidence.

Now, whether or not that time window is "safe" is a different matter, which is why that is not the focus of this discussion.

If, in the end, the witness statements are deemed unreliable to the point that we should set them aside, then we have nothing left to base a ToD upon, and all we can say is she was murdered sometime after 1:45 am and before the time of her discovery. That doesn't preclude the 5:20-:525 time window either, but it doesn't preclude any time between those two end points.

In an active investigation, where we could re interview witnesses, then yes, that would most definitely be done. Given we can't, we must examine the evidence we have, try and make the best of it, and see what it suggests. I know you like to consider anything that was presented in the past as being wrong, but that is not always the case. A re-examination of the evidence we have only leads to one possible time window, and that's the 5:20-5:25 one, and if that's not right then we have no idea what time she was killed after 1:45 am. So in the end, we have two options, either 5:20-5:25 or "unable to say".

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Oh dear. Please, PLEASE go back and read about skin temperature variations. The suyrface of the skin WILL grow cold to the touch in twenty. minutes or thereabouts when we die. But the core temperature does not disappear in twenty minutes on account of that. And core temperature can be picked up THROUGH the skin for around three hours or so after death.

The medical testimony, once viewed objectively, tells us why the police favoured Phillips. because his evidence tells us that the witnesses must have been wrong.

Hi Fisherman,

Hmmm, maybe I've misunderstood what you're getting at Fisherman. So do you mean that Dr. Phillips was not feeling the temperature of her skin surface, but because of his training and experience, he was feeling for and detecting her internal temperature, so was basing it off of the same information one would get by taking rectal temperatures only based upon his perception of her core temperature rather than a reading of it via a thermometer?

Sorry if I've not got that right, but from the above, you seem to be saying that yes, her surface will be cold to the touch in 20 minutes, which is clearly less than an hour, but the 2nd part about the core temperature is what leads me to think you mean what I have above, so you're saying he's not basing his ToD on her surface but on her core temperature feeling cold?

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Uh, Trevor, if you read my post you will clearly see that I point out that these charts are grossly underestimating how variable the ToD estimates would be in Chapmans' case; meaning the 95% interval (the window) would be much wider! So, at least you agree with me on that, that these charts are actually giving the benefit of the doubt to those who want to rely on Dr. Phillips ToD estimate - they are a "best case scenerio", if you will, and even then it shows that the margin of error for a ToD estimate based upon body temperature is so wide that Dr. Phillips estimate spans the time the witnesses indicate.

And you do realize don't you, that the data that forms those charts came from a study, where the bodies were all kept at the same temperature, all fit, all pronounced dead at 8:15 am (the executions, by hanging, were all at 8:00), and so forth. So all those environmental variations you mentioned above don't apply to these data. These are far far less variable than real world bodies in the street. So again, these underestimate just how awful the ToD estimates are. These are proof of just how unsafe the evidence is that you seem to have chosen to bet upon.

Whether or not the witness time window is "correct" is an entirely different matter. The window that one derives from those statements is inside the margin of error for the medical evidence.

And if you have to ask which of Long and Cadoshe is wrong, it's clear you've not read any of the posts where that's been discussed. If you had, you would realize that most are not sure whether or not Long actually did see Chapman, though that has to be considered as possible given Long did make a positive ID, so we can't dismiss her entirely. Cadoshe's time is consdered the more reliable because he did look at the clock at 5:32 as he went to work, and working backwards based upon knowng how far the clock is from his house, his other reported times look about right as well, though of course they are going to have some sort of error as well. Long's time of 5:30 is based upon her recalling hearing the chimes of the Brewer's clock while going to the market. It seems there are two reasonable possibilities, 1, she did not see Chapman but someone else, and her identification of Chapman was faulty. If so, whether or not she recalled the time correctly is immaterial. However, if she did see Chapman, it seems the most probable situation is that she's misrecollected what chimes she heard, and her sighting was at 5:15. While other possibilities exist, those seem to be the most likely. But in the end, concern about Long is a diversion because Long's testimony is not really necessary, as Cadosche's activities, his noting the time as he went to work on a clock, and so forth, is more than sufficient to establish his activities since he awoke that morning.

So, whether Long is or is not correct in claiming she saw Annie Chapman, Cadosche's activities can be fairly well time stamped.

- Jeff

Well we have two witnesses one being Mrs Long who was a material witness, and then we have Cadosh who was also a material witness both gave important information which conflicted with each other. Yet it now suggested in order to prop up Cadosch`s testimony that Long may have got her times wrong. Why cant we also say that Cadosch was mixed up, first with his timings, because he went into the yard twice within a short time of each other, and where the noises emanated from?

Why does Longs testimony have to be dismissed in favour of Cadosch, why cant both have been wrong? Because most importantly she then corroborates her own testimony by identifying Chapman at the mortuary, can any of her testimony be completely ruled out, no because there is nothing to be able to do that. All there is are researchers who are making up excuses why she should not be believed and placing the whole weight of evidence on Cadosh when his testimony is also questionable.

Take the blinkers off !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

Trevor, Cadosche has one thing going for him that Long does not, he is next door to the actual murder scene, it was on the other side of his fence. And 2 visits out and hearing things both times is compelling evidence that someone was on the murder site at 5:20. That means there was no body already there at that time, that means that Richardsons statement about 4:45 is somewhat corroborated, and that means that Annie is the most likely female to be in that yard at that time, since she is discovered with all that mutilation completed just before 6. Cadosche made comments about things he head heard in that yard prior to that evening, not the yard on the other side. The fact he hedges might just be like Morris Eagles hedge..." I couldnt be sure if a body was there". Stands to reason you would know, in both cases, why they hedged is up to you.

That's a dramatic contrast to Longs "It was not there" by the by.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well we have two witnesses one being Mrs Long who was a material witness, and then we have Cadosh who was also a material witness both gave important information which conflicted with each other. Yet it now suggested in order to prop up Cadosch`s testimony that Long may have got her times wrong. Why cant we also say that Cadosch was mixed up, first with his timings, because he went into the yard twice within a short time of each other, and where the noises emanated from?

Why does Longs testimony have to be dismissed in favour of Cadosch, why cant both have been wrong? Because most importantly she then corroborates her own testimony by identifying Chapman at the mortuary, can any of her testimony be completely ruled out, no because there is nothing to be able to do that. All there is are researchers who are making up excuses why she should not be believed and placing the whole weight of evidence on Cadosh when his testimony is also questionable.

Take the blinkers off !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The only person with blinkers on here is you I’m afraid Trevor with your obsession with portraying everyone connected with this case as either untrustworthy liars or blundering imbeciles. There’s a difference between being cautious (which is an entirely reasonable approach) and labelling everything as unsafe purely because there are questions unanswered or discrepancies (which isn’t reasonable) Neither Jeff, I and others have ever said that conclusions are 100%. We are talking about likelihoods. And the likelihood overwhelming favours a TOD nearer to 5.30.

No one is using the argument that witnesses might have got times wrong as a prop. It’s purely a plausible possibility which has to be considered and one that was more relevant in those days and in those circumstances than it would be today.

This criticism of Cadosch is unfounded. We can take it as a given that any witness, at any time and in any case could have lied. But, and this is important, if we wish to state this as serious possibility we need evidence for it but there is no evidence that Cadosch lied (unless we accept Phillips TOD as an incontrovertible fact) None. And so we are left to assess the likelihood that he could have been mistaken. And there’s the word Trevor - likelihood. What is the likelihood that Albert Cadosch heard a spoken word, when there was no other noise around, and his initial thought was that it came from a few feet away at the other side of a fence but he was actually wrong and that the word came from untold yards away (and presumably in a raised voice?) Yes he was cautious and allowed for error when talking to the police but it’s impossible to accurately recreate a sound in your head retrospectively. First impression is always going to be more likely to have been correct and his first impression was that it came from number 29. So, when we add this to the fact that (assuming the police spoke to neighbours) no one else was in their yard and could have said the word, the likeliest conclusion is that Cadosch heard the “no” from number 29. Not 100% certain but likely (or even a very possible/probable) As for the noise against the fence Cadosch was absolutely certain were it came from. Desperate stuff like - why didn’t he hear and more are unworthy of consideration. If the sound was made by the killer brushing against the fence why would he expected to have heard more? Especially as he was just stepping into the house. And of course if Phillips was correct then Cadosch heard someone unconnected to the murder moving around in a yard totally impervious to the sight of a mutilated corpse. Come on!

The only unreasonableness going on here Trevor is the utter desperation of posters who say, a) yes I accept that Phillips was pretty much using guesswork, but b) I still think that he was correct and that all three witnesses were either mistaken or liars. This is not a reasoned position. Anyone that favours Phillips over the witnesses is not being reasonable. We are not saying that Phillips couldn’t have been correct and the witnesses mistaken but that the likelihood is overwhelmingly against it. Simply labelling everyone as unsafe is a convenient excuse for dismissing the inconvenient. It’s you that needs to take the blinkers off I’m afraid Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

The only person with blinkers on here is you I’m afraid Trevor with your obsession with portraying everyone connected with this case as either untrustworthy liars or blundering imbeciles. There’s a difference between being cautious (which is an entirely reasonable approach) and labelling everything as unsafe purely because there are questions unanswered or discrepancies (which isn’t reasonable) Neither Jeff, I and others have ever said that conclusions are 100%. We are talking about likelihoods. And the likelihood overwhelming favours a TOD nearer to 5.30.

No one is using the argument that witnesses might have got times wrong as a prop. It’s purely a plausible possibility which has to be considered and one that was more relevant in those days and in those circumstances than it would be today.

This criticism of Cadosch is unfounded. We can take it as a given that any witness, at any time and in any case could have lied. But, and this is important, if we wish to state this as serious possibility we need evidence for it but there is no evidence that Cadosch lied (unless we accept Phillips TOD as an incontrovertible fact) None. And so we are left to assess the likelihood that he could have been mistaken. And there’s the word Trevor - likelihood. What is the likelihood that Albert Cadosch heard a spoken word, when there was no other noise around, and his initial thought was that it came from a few feet away at the other side of a fence but he was actually wrong and that the word came from untold yards away (and presumably in a raised voice?) Yes he was cautious and allowed for error when talking to the police but it’s impossible to accurately recreate a sound in your head retrospectively. First impression is always going to be more likely to have been correct and his first impression was that it came from number 29. So, when we add this to the fact that (assuming the police spoke to neighbours) no one else was in their yard and could have said the word, the likeliest conclusion is that Cadosch heard the “no” from number 29. Not 100% certain but likely (or even a very possible/probable) As for the noise against the fence Cadosch was absolutely certain were it came from. Desperate stuff like - why didn’t he hear and more are unworthy of consideration. If the sound was made by the killer brushing against the fence why would he expected to have heard more? Especially as he was just stepping into the house. And of course if Phillips was correct then Cadosch heard someone unconnected to the murder moving around in a yard totally impervious to the sight of a mutilated corpse. Come on!

The only unreasonableness going on here Trevor is the utter desperation of posters who say, a) yes I accept that Phillips was pretty much using guesswork, but b) I still think that he was correct and that all three witnesses were either mistaken or liars. This is not a reasoned position. Anyone that favours Phillips over the witnesses is not being reasonable. We are not saying that Phillips couldn’t have been correct and the witnesses mistaken but that the likelihood is overwhelmingly against it. Simply labelling everyone as unsafe is a convenient excuse for dismissing the inconvenient. It’s you that needs to take the blinkers off I’m afraid Trevor.

There is ho hope for you, nor is there any point in trying to make you see and accept the flaws.Yet again you fail to accept or acknowledge these flaws in the inquest testimony which have been pointed out to you and others on many occasions. Yet you categorically come out and say she was murdered at 5.30am. The secret to an investigation is to prove or disprove. Can you prove conclusively beyond any doubt that Chapman was murdered at 5.30am-The answer is no you cant. Can I prove Phillips was correct-No I cant so what are we left with to form an opinion as to who may be right and who maybe wrong with regards to the witnesses. what if anything might tip the scales in favour of one or the other. Because one of us has to be right and one wrong.

With any of the murders did the killer murder as late as 5.30am when it was getting late and he risked being seen or captured-No he didnt

Was Dr Phillis wrong when he said it would have taken him 15-60 mins to remove the uterus, so if she was murdered at 5.30am then the killer in order to take the organs would have to have spent a certain amount of time with her after that, and with all the moving about of Cadosh would that have happened-I doubt it very much

What about Cadosh who you put so much faith in "It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from. The man was honest he couldnt say. Yet you and others readily accept what he says. You are clearly obsessed with you own opinion and wont see it any other way.

As I keep saying Mrs Long says she saw them after 5.30am that could not be so if we believe what you suggest that she was killed before 5.30am.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

There is ho hope for you, nor is there any point in trying to make you see and accept the flaws.Yet again you fail to accept or acknowledge these flaws in the inquest testimony which have been pointed out to you and others on many occasions. Yet you categorically come out and say she was murdered at 5.30am. The secret to an investigation is to prove or disprove. Can you prove conclusively beyond any doubt that Chapman was murdered at 5.30am-The answer is no you cant. Can I prove Phillips was correct-No I cant so what are we left with to form an opinion as to who may be right and who maybe wrong with regards to the witnesses. what if anything might tip the scales in favour of one or the other. Because one of us has to be right and one wrong.

With any of the murders did the killer murder as late as 5.30am when it was getting late and he risked being seen or captured-No he didnt

Was Dr Phillis wrong when he said it would have taken him 15-60 mins to remove the uterus, so if she was murdered at 5.30am then the killer in order to take the organs would have to have spent a certain amount of time with her after that, and with all the moving about of Cadosh would that have happened-I doubt it very much

What about Cadosh who you put so much faith in "It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from. The man was honest he couldnt say. Yet you and others readily accept what he says. You are clearly obsessed with you own opinion and wont see it any other way.

As I keep saying Mrs Long says she saw them after 5.30am that could not be so if we believe what you suggest that she was killed before 5.30am.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

yes of course-because no one can simply be off on there times. good lord

[Herlock Sholmes]

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

.
There is ho hope for you, nor is there any point in trying to make you see and accept the flaws.Yet again you fail to accept or acknowledge these flaws in the inquest testimony which have been pointed out to you and others on many occasions. Yet you categorically come out and say she was murdered at 5.30am. The secret to an investigation is to prove or disprove. Can you prove conclusively beyond any doubt that Chapman was murdered at 5.30am-The answer is no you cant. Can I prove Phillips was correct-No I cant so what are we left with to form an opinion as to who may be right and who maybe wrong with regards to the witnesses. what if anything might tip the scales in favour of one or the other. Because one of us has to be right and one wrong.

To put it bluntly Trevor, you seriously need to learn to read. Show me the passage or sentence where I have said that Annie was categorically murdered at 5.30. Take as long as you like. Plough back through all of the relevant threads in your search but I’ll save you some time. I’ve never, ever said that. What I’ve talked about, and it’s a concept that you appear impervious to, is likelihood. This is what we all do. We can do nothing else because we can be certain of very little. So we look at likelihoods. Is something possible? Is it probable? Is it highly probable? Is it close to certain or even certain? So your first paragraph is simply a straw man argument. You are arguing against something that isn’t being proposed as a 100% certainty. And Annie was likeliest to have been killed at around 5.30 unless your someone that thinks that an unanswered question or a slight discrepancy automatically eliminates a witnesses validity. I’m sure you would automatically eliminate a witness if it was found that they’d gotten someone’s eyebrow colour wrong!

With any of the murders did the killer murder as late as 5.30am when it was getting late and he risked being seen or captured-No he didnt

Is the fact that Annie was murdered later than the others a telling point? No. It’s worth noting of course but there could have been any number of reasons why this murder occurred later than the others.

What about Cadosh who you put so much faith in "It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from. The man was honest he couldnt say. Yet you and others readily accept what he says. You are clearly obsessed with you own opinion and wont see it any other way.

Again, in your utter disregard of what anyone else says you have ignored the fact the I’ve repeatedly accepted the fact that Cadosch said that he wasn’t certain. I’ve also said that doubt is understandable with thinking back about a sound. His first impression was that it came from number 29 and so I say again that this was the likeliest to have been correct. Not categorically as you keep falsely claiming but likely.

Was Dr Phillis wrong when he said it would have taken him 15-60 mins to remove the uterus, so if she was murdered at 5.30am then the killer in order to take the organs would have to have spent a certain amount of time with her after that, and with all the moving about of Cadosh would that have happened-I doubt it very much

As if a killer would spend an hour mutilating a corpse. Phillips was obviously mistaken.

As I keep saying Mrs Long says she saw them after 5.30am that could not be so if we believe what you suggest that she was killed before 5.30am.

Yet again. She could have been mistaken of course. How many times do I have to repeat that until you stop ignoring that I’ve said it? I’ve also said - is it impossible that she got her time wrong? Is it a massive leap of faith to say that she might have heard the quarter past chimes and confused it with the half past? No. These are possibilities.


The only person around here with concrete certainties is you. It’s about time you realised that you can’t simply dismiss witnesses on trivialities and that you accepted the possibility of plausible alternative explanations. The whole weight of evidence strongly favours a 5.30 TOD. If you prefer to go with a coin toss TOD from Phillips then that’s up to you. It’s also up to you if you want to look at everything in black and white. Most of us prefer to weigh up the likelihoods and make a reasoned assessment. You should try it.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Just a quick one on the time matter.
Would killing Annie at 5:30 am be considered risk, or more importantly, a greater risk or an unacceptable risk for a man who murdered a woman on an open street, where people were about and patrolling police officers. Maybe there is a relationship between the later time and the fact that the killing was in a back yard.
Likewise, from a C5 point of view, maybe the risky experience in Hanbury St contributed to the double event, as in Jack did not want to wait again and struck quickly after failing to mutilate Stride.
The 5:30am time isn't incompatible with the other killings, it's a bit later but not on the street. I think the other factors of the murder point to the same killer far more than the time points away.
Just a thought.

[FrankO]

Maybe there is a relationship between the later time and the fact that the killing was in a back yard.

Could be, ABE. And perhaps he was so hung up on killing that night and wasn't able to find a suitable victim any earlier. Or maybe he struck while it was getting light as he wanted to see what he liked doing the most.

[Trevor Marriott]

yes of course-because no one can simply be off on there times. good lord

But you all readily accept Richardson and Cadosh`s timings seemingly without question!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Could be, ABE. And perhaps he was so hung up on killing that night and wasn't able to find a suitable victim any earlier. Or maybe he struck while it was getting light as he wanted to see what he liked doing the most.

All wild speculation cases are not solved on that !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Just a quick one on the time matter.
Would killing Annie at 5:30 am be considered risk, or more importantly, a greater risk or an unacceptable risk for a man who murdered a woman on an open street, where people were about and patrolling police officers. Maybe there is a relationship between the later time and the fact that the killing was in a back yard.
Likewise, from a C5 point of view, maybe the risky experience in Hanbury St contributed to the double event, as in Jack did not want to wait again and struck quickly after failing to mutilate Stride.
The 5:30am time isn't incompatible with the other killings, it's a bit later but not on the street. I think the other factors of the murder point to the same killer far more than the time points away.
Just a thought.

Of course there was a heightened risk. On the street he was able to see and hear anyone coming. In a back yard he was effectively corned if anyone came out. He could see nor hear anyone coming along the passage and into the yard.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FrankO]

All wild speculation cases are not solved on that !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Who doesn't sometimes speculate, wildly or otherwise, Trevor?

[Trevor Marriott]

To put it bluntly Trevor, you seriously need to learn to read. Show me the passage or sentence where I have said that Annie was categorically murdered at 5.30. Take as long as you like. Plough back through all of the relevant threads in your search but I’ll save you some time. I’ve never, ever said that. What I’ve talked about, and it’s a concept that you appear impervious to, is likelihood. This is what we all do. We can do nothing else because we can be certain of very little. So we look at likelihoods. Is something possible? Is it probable? Is it highly probable? Is it close to certain or even certain? So your first paragraph is simply a straw man argument. You are arguing against something that isn’t being proposed as a 100% certainty. And Annie was likeliest to have been killed at around 5.30 unless your someone that thinks that an unanswered question or a slight discrepancy automatically eliminates a witnesses validity. I’m sure you would automatically eliminate a witness if it was found that they’d gotten someone’s eyebrow colour wrong!



Is the fact that Annie was murdered later than the others a telling point? No. It’s worth noting of course but there could have been any number of reasons why this murder occurred later than the others.



Again, in your utter disregard of what anyone else says you have ignored the fact the I’ve repeatedly accepted the fact that Cadosch said that he wasn’t certain. I’ve also said that doubt is understandable with thinking back about a sound. His first impression was that it came from number 29 and so I say again that this was the likeliest to have been correct. Not categorically as you keep falsely claiming but likely.



As if a killer would spend an hour mutilating a corpse. Phillips was obviously mistaken.



Yet again. She could have been mistaken of course. How many times do I have to repeat that until you stop ignoring that I’ve said it? I’ve also said - is it impossible that she got her time wrong? Is it a massive leap of faith to say that she might have heard the quarter past chimes and confused it with the half past? No. These are possibilities.


The only person around here with concrete certainties is you. It’s about time you realised that you can’t simply dismiss witnesses on trivialities and that you accepted the possibility of plausible alternative explanations. The whole weight of evidence strongly favours a 5.30 TOD. If you prefer to go with a coin toss TOD from Phillips then that’s up to you. It’s also up to you if you want to look at everything in black and white. Most of us prefer to weigh up the likelihoods and make a reasoned assessment. You should try it.

Its no good you stamping you feet like a big kid, the flaws in the witness testimony are there for all to see,apart from you and several others who clearly have no concept of how to assess and evaluate witness statements, and you look on the flaws highlighted as trivialities, even that shows they they were in conflict with each other and put them all together and ask can you safely rely on what they bring to the table to conclusive say she was murdered at 5.30am important in the grand scheme of things? No is the answer you are looking for

One question if you were on trial for a murder and you were presented with trivialities in the witness testimony against you. Would you not be expecting your lawyer to tell the jury that they were unsafe to rely on, and for the judge to reiterate that when summing up in the case? A jury would then be told they can accept or reject that testimony, and fortunately for you they would likely reject it and you would not hang.