Was John Richardson A Reliable Witness?

[JeffHamm]

..... So we cannot say that his guess was incorrect, having regards to the unsafe witness testimony.

We can forget all the modern day explanations and charts which have been produced. As stated previously no two bodies found at murder scenes will be the same, and no two murder scenes wiil be the same, and no two same types of weather conditions will prevail at murder scenes. Each murder and the body has to be analyzed on its own merits.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You can forget actual research into the question of how bodies cool, and how variabile it is under well controlled similar conditions, but that's ignoring real information. We know, for an established fact, that basing ToD on actual temperature readings, and knowing those conditions you mention, still does not provide a sufficiently accurate ToD estimate. Dr. Phillips method is incapable of providing reliable information - it is far far and away more unsafe than the witness statements. It is so unsafe, we must set it aside. You can retain it, all you want, but that is why your arguments are unconvincing. They are based upon information that is known to be unreliable, and therefore anything built upon it is likewise unreliable.

The witness statements are also to be taken with caution. So nobody is saying it is a 100% proven fact that she was killed at 5:20-5:25, rather, because Cadosche's times in particular appear reliable, and because no convincing argument has been made as to where an alternative source for those noises could have come from, it is generally accepted that his testimony is the most safe, and so the most probable ToD appears to be at that time.

Might the sounds have come from elsewhere? I suppose so, sound can do funny things. But given that Cadosche testifies the sounds came from #29 yard, unless something can show he's wrong, as Dr. Phillips has been shown to have used unreliable methods, then that is what the evidence we have indicates. If, though, Cadosche was wrong, then again, any time after 1:45 is open for grabs by lady luck.

- Jeff

[Sam Flynn]

As to Phillips gueswork I accept it was a guess, but a guess based on his experience

I wonder how many cases he'd experienced of rapid massive blood-loss due to near-decapitation, coupled with the opening of the abdomen with the intestines extruded and splayed over the corpse's shoulder. To say nothing of the fact that the deceased had been been chronically ill, undernourished and subjected to a traumatic, violent end; factors which, in much later studies, have been found to contribute to a faster drop in body temperature after death.

[Michael W Richards]

I wonder how many cases he'd experienced of rapid massive blood-loss due to near-decapitation, coupled with the opening of the abdomen with the intestines extruded and splayed over the corpse's shoulder. To say nothing of the fact that the deceased had been been chronically ill, undernourished and subjected to a traumatic, violent end; factors which, in much later studies, have been found to contribute to a faster drop in body temperature after death.

I mentioned that same point on some earlier discussions Sam, Im quite sure this was a first for him, considering all the variables. I think that goes for most of the officers assigned as well, they were under considerable pressure to be vigilant and to get these killings stopped. Their statements must surely have been influenced to some degree by those circumstances.

[Michael W Richards]

The witness statements are also to be taken with caution. So nobody is saying it is a 100% proven fact that she was killed at 5:20-5:25, rather, because Cadosche's times in particular appear reliable, and because no convincing argument has been made as to where an alternative source for those noises could have come from, it is generally accepted that his testimony is the most safe, and so the most probable ToD appears to be at that time.

Im happy with a formally established window of TOD being approx. 5:15 to 5:30 Jeff. We have witness statements from someone in the yard at a critical time and someone adjacent to the yard during that same 1/2 hour-40 min. There was no dead woman gutted in that yard before 5am, and there was at least one person alive on the murder site at around 5:20.

To my recollection its the only murder that we can estimate with some precision. Maybe Pollys is close. Liz is sometime after she is last seen...12:35 until the alleged time she is discovered, 1am. IF Kate is seen with Sailor Man then that's a close one too..however I believe that is a false sighting myself. Mary is killed sometime during the night, that's about as precise as that gets.

But Richardson, Cadosche and Davis are witnesses that have no horse in this race, and have no reason to tell anything other than what they recalled. And they are Before, During and After witness evidence, on the spot where Annie dies.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is a big difference between incorrect and unsafe, and I will continue to describe some of the witness testimony as being unsafe simply because it has not been fully tested and we are left with many ambiguities which 131 year later we cannot clarify.

And as I said in a previous post I fail to see why Chapmans TOD has become such a big issue.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The problem with the word ‘unsafe’ is that you are applying it to every statement which isn’t perfect then as a consequence of that you dismiss the witness as if there’s no point in even considering that they might have been of value. If there’s a discrepancy or a slight error or an unanswered question then of course we keep that in mind when we come to a judgment. I don’t see why you have such an issue with looking at these discrepancies/errors/questions to see if they can be reasonably explained.

As for Cadosch though there are no such issues apart from the time conflict with Long,

[Trevor Marriott]

The problem with the word ‘unsafe’ is that you are applying it to every statement which isn’t perfect then as a consequence of that you dismiss the witness as if there’s no point in even considering that they might have been of value. If there’s a discrepancy or a slight error or an unanswered question then of course we keep that in mind when we come to a judgment. I don’t see why you have such an issue with looking at these discrepancies/errors/questions to see if they can be reasonably explained.

As for Cadosch though there are no such issues apart from the time conflict with Long,

Which is an important conflict because if she is right then Cadosh`s testimony is suspect. and as I said she corroborates her statement by identifying Chapman at the mortuary, albeit I suggest a suspect ID. But of course if you are analyzing the statements and playing one off against the other, can you dismiss her statement in favour of Cadosh, the answer is no you cant, no matter how much you want to believe Cadosh.

But you or anyone else cannot make a confident judgment based on conflicting statements, you can only give your own opinion.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Which is an important conflict because if she is right then Cadosh`s testimony is suspect. and as I said she corroborates her statement by identifying Chapman at the mortuary, albeit I suggest a suspect ID. But of course if you are analyzing the statements and playing one off against the other, can you dismiss her statement in favour of Cadosh, the answer is no you cant, no matter how much you want to believe Cadosh.

But you or anyone else cannot make a confident judgment based on conflicting statements, you can only give your own opinion.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It’s not a matter of wanting to believe Cadosch. His statement as it stands is believable and could very well been the exact truth. We have no reason to suspect him of lying except for the desire for 15 minutes of fame (which applies to every witness) The only conflict involving him is when you judge him in regard to Phillips and Long. There’s no issue with Phillips because we know that he was possibly/probably mistaken but Long has to be considered. She could have been wrong or lied. Or she could have simply gotten her time wrong.

So as you say Trevor, you pay your money and make your choice. Cadosch or Long.

Either way we have a 5.30ish TOD backed up by Richardson.

[JeffHamm]

Which is an important conflict because if she is right then Cadosh`s testimony is suspect.

and if she's right, then the murder is after 5:30, Cadosche heard others in the backyard, and Dr. Phillips is wrong and the murder itself required very little time since we're now close to her time of discovery. Yet, you punt for Dr. Phillips, whom you admit was guessing.

and as I said she corroborates her statement by identifying Chapman at the mortuary, albeit I suggest a suspect ID. But of course if you are analyzing the statements and playing one off against the other, can you dismiss her statement in favour of Cadosh, the answer is no you cant, no matter how much you want to believe Cadosh.

Her statement isn't being dismissed. It is being considered from both the point of view of how to resolve the conflict. Cadosche's times, as you keep ignoring, have been tested as best we can, so it is felt that his times can be viewed as fairly reliable. That means the conflict between the statements requires working out what aspect of Long's testimony is the main source of that conflict (meaning, what aspect of her testimony is wrong).

And there are two main possibilities,
1) it wasn't Annie that she saw, which would suggest Annie was already in the backyard of #29 and Cadosche heard her.
2) since Cadocshe's past the tests put to them, her time could be wrong. She reports the time based upon recollecting hearing the 5:30 chimes from the Brewers clock.
Like all witness statements based upon memory, details can be wrong while the gist correct. And it is no great stretch of credibility to suggest she may be misremembering hearing the 5:15 chime. And the thing is, that one common memory error results in the only real conflict.

Either of those alone result in every other statement between all witnesses fit together in a flowing and consistent time line of events.

Does that prove that's what happened? No, but it makes for the most plausible, and supported, inferences that we can make. it's like having an out of focus image snap into focus with one minor adjustment. It's not proof, though, but it means that "solution" is highly plausible, fits the vast majority of the evidence, and so is considered the "best hypothesis". Alternatives can be suggested, but unless some new evidence comes to light, those options are hard to beat, so alternatives get viewed as "less well supported, and less probable", but none of that means people are ignoring the fact that these are still probabilities, nothing is stated as 100% definite, which you keep pretending people are doing.

Would one want to investigate and interview more? Yes. Can we? No? So is it proven? No, nobody is saying it is, in fact, those are two possible solutions, and of course, both could be true (she saw two other people at 5:15 for example), giving us a third. Nobody is saying it is proven exactly what happened. But most are not trying to say all of the evidence must be ignored because there is a conflict, of a few minutes, between the statements of two independent witnesses. You, of all people, must know how often witnesses will be out with regards to time of day.

But you or anyone else cannot make a confident judgment based on conflicting statements, you can only give your own opinion.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yah, and just because some try and present the evidence and logic behind their opinion doesn't mean they don't recognize it's an opinion? Theories are just opinions, based upon evidence, reasoned through logic. You're just advising everyone to do what they are doing, but you don't seem to want to recognize that is what we are all doing.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Im happy with a formally established window of TOD being approx. 5:15 to 5:30 Jeff. We have witness statements from someone in the yard at a critical time and someone adjacent to the yard during that same 1/2 hour-40 min. There was no dead woman gutted in that yard before 5am, and there was at least one person alive on the murder site at around 5:20.

To my recollection its the only murder that we can estimate with some precision. Maybe Pollys is close. Liz is sometime after she is last seen...12:35 until the alleged time she is discovered, 1am. IF Kate is seen with Sailor Man then that's a close one too..however I believe that is a false sighting myself. Mary is killed sometime during the night, that's about as precise as that gets.

But Richardson, Cadosche and Davis are witnesses that have no horse in this race, and have no reason to tell anything other than what they recalled. And they are Before, During and After witness evidence, on the spot where Annie dies.

I would say Liz, regardless of whether or not the Church Passage couple was of her, is still pretty well established in the sense it was between 1:30 and 1:44 (PC Watkin's patrol - at 1:30 she's not there, at 1:44 he finds her). But that's for another thread.

And yes, Richardson and Cadosche both seem credible, and so far nothing has shown that what they testify is inaccurate or implausible. Long is a bit less clear, either she's seen other people, or her times appear to be wrong (that latter is because Cadosche's times appear to pass the tests put to them). Her testimony, though, is not necessary to establish ToD, as that is based upon Cadosche's information, which does appear reliable.

The one concern, I suppose, would be if Trevor's suggestion that Long is right, then the murder must occur after Cadosche's back yard visits, and so was after 5:30. Given she's discovered at 5:45, that leaves very little time, but then, there was only 14 minutes in which Eddowes's was killed and mutilated, and no sign of JtR fleeing from the scene, so Trevor's idea is not without merit.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

I would say Liz, regardless of whether or not the Church Passage couple was of her, is still pretty well established in the sense it was between 1:30 and 1:44 (PC Watkin's patrol - at 1:30 she's not there, at 1:44 he finds her). But that's for another thread.

And yes, Richardson and Cadosche both seem credible, and so far nothing has shown that what they testify is inaccurate or implausible. Long is a bit less clear, either she's seen other people, or her times appear to be wrong (that latter is because Cadosche's times appear to pass the tests put to them). Her testimony, though, is not necessary to establish ToD, as that is based upon Cadosche's information, which does appear reliable.

The one concern, I suppose, would be if Trevor's suggestion that Long is right, then the murder must occur after Cadosche's back yard visits, and so was after 5:30. Given she's discovered at 5:45, that leaves very little time, but then, there was only 14 minutes in which Eddowes's was killed and mutilated, and no sign of JtR fleeing from the scene, so Trevor's idea is not without merit.

- Jeff

Is it even within the realm of possibility that Annie was killed after Longs sighting, and then discovered by 6, and then presumed to have been dead for hours before that discovery time anyway by the physician?

I have no issue with presuming that the unique characteristics of the state of the deceased and the open air environment allowed for far more rapid cooling that the physician estimated, but Im much more comfortable assuming she was killed before 5:30 than after it.

[JeffHamm]

Is it even within the realm of possibility that Annie was killed after Longs sighting, and then discovered by 6, and then presumed to have been dead for hours before that discovery time anyway by the physician?

I have no issue with presuming that the unique characteristics of the state of the deceased and the open air environment allowed for far more rapid cooling that the physician estimated, but Im much more comfortable assuming she was killed before 5:30 than after it.

Yes, it is in the realm of possibilities. Your conditions are that if Long did see Annie, then she must have been killed after Long saw her after all. And if Long's time is correct, she must have been killed after 5:30. That only leaves 15 minutes. The same amount of time that was available for Eddowes murder, which did happen in the space of 14 minutes (PC Watkin's patrol time). As far as we know, Annie has been walking around since 1:45, and it was a chilly morning. She may already have felt quite cold or cool to the touch (Eddowes, remember, was in jail only 45 minutes prior to her discovery in Mtire Square - she had been in a warmer location much of the night, Annie has been outside on a cold night). And Dr. Phillips does indicate their was warmth under the intestines still inside Annie, so she hasn't cooled completely, which one might expect if she had been laying there for 2 or 3 hours. So yes, it is absolutely possible.

It just seems very improbable though, which is another reason why Long's statement seems to have something wrong with it. Whether that error is in the identification of Annie (meaning she saw other people) or her time (she misrecallls the chimes, and it was 5:15 when she saw Annie), or even both, we don't know, and can't reinterview her to try and find out. But, we can examine the variations.

If she is mistaken in the identification, well, nothing she says really needs further consideration or time.

If her time is incorrect, and she saw Annie at 5:15, then the rest of her statement seems to fit with the other witnesses, even to the point that the couple appeared to be speaking loud enough to be overheard by others (i.e. Cadosche hearing No from the backyard). As such, a single error in recollection of the time could be the source of the conflict and when something like that brings things into focus, then you have to consider that a very probable solution to the conflict.

It's not proof, though, it is still an assessment based upon the weight of probabilities. But that is all we really can do. The more evidence that one dismisses (by which I mean - saying Long may have misidentified someone else as Annie is to dismiss her evidence because it no longer will constrain us) the less one can say. Oddly, it is very common for arguments to be made that evidence should be dismissed and then rather than reducing the claims of what happened, more complex and elaborate activities are described. Less evidence does not allow more theory. The more evidence one works with, that doesn't create self contradictions (and by saying Long's error is the time removes the contradiction with Cadosche), only then can one argue for more specific events - provided they tie to the evidence.

For example, in the combination of Richardson, Long, and Cadoshe, where one considers Long's stated time to be incorrect and the actual time was 5:15, we have a fairly specific description of events. Richardson comes to check the cellar door, sits on the steps, works on his boot for a while, then heads off to work, at around 4:50 I think it is. Then, around 5:15 Long passes #29 and sees Annie talking to a man, and here's him say "Will you?" and she replies "Yes", and Long moves on to the market. At about that time Cadosche gets up to start his day. Around 5:20 he goes to the loo and hears someone say "No" from the backyard of #29. He goes back inside, and a few minutes later (so we're probably around 5:25 now) returns to the loo, and hears a noise against the fence but pays no mind. Around 5:30 he heads to work, passing the Spitalfield's clock at 5:32, which he checked and noted the time as he was making sure he wasn't late for work.

Now that's not a proven thing, but it is the story derived from the evidence we have, with only 1 statement changed - Long's time shifted to 5:30. We remove Long from that story if we go with the "incorrect identification", and she at most ends up at a later point (i.e. Cadosche heads to work around 5:30, but does not notice Long or the couple, as he heads straight to work, and Long does not see him either, as the events really only need to be a slightly different times for them to miss each other).

And so forth.

There are multiple possible interpretations that one gets from the evidence, but they depend upon how one resolves the conflict in the original statements.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

So you started the first paragraph with "yes" its within the realm of possibilities, and the second with "its seems very improbable". Her sighting is countered by someone else's statement, someone who was in the very next yard to the crime, and someone who was in that yard and heard voices and a sound between 5:10 and 5:20. Even if Longs statement was incorrect and she should have said 5:15 as per your musings above, that neighbors statement invalidates that time too. To accept that 2 or more people were in that yard at 5:20 assures us that Longs ID was incorrect. Phillips TOD is incorrect. And Richardsons statement is entirely plausible.

[JeffHamm]

So you started the first paragraph with "yes" its within the realm of possibilities, and the second with "its seems very improbable". Her sighting is countered by someone else's statement, someone who was in the very next yard to the crime, and someone who was in that yard and heard voices and a sound between 5:10 and 5:20. Even if Longs statement was incorrect and she should have said 5:15 as per your musings above, that neighbors statement invalidates that time too. To accept that 2 or more people were in that yard at 5:20 assures us that Longs ID was incorrect. Phillips TOD is incorrect. And Richardsons statement is entirely plausible.

Something can be possible, if not probable, they are different concepts.

And no, if Long's sighting was of Annie at 5:15, the that gives something like 5 minutes for them to get to the backyard for Cadosche's first hearing of the word No, which is after the time he states he gets up (5:15; I never said 5:10 anywhere in that post as far as I can tell). Cadosche seems to have gone to the loo around 5:20 the first time, so there's nothing contradictory there anymore as 5:15-5:20 gives Annie 5 minutes to move from where Long says she saw her to where we presume Cadosche heard her say no. Richardson's statement is also easy to fit into that scenerio, because, well, he was in the backyard before Long's sighting and he says she wasn't there then, which she can't have been if Long did see her at 5:15.

Dr. Phillips ToD estimate, as is, is known to be based upon faulty methods, so that's not really a problem. The variation surrounding more reliable methods is still large enough that it would cover the 5:20-5:25 or 5:30 time anyway.

Long's ID is only incorrect if we presume her time was correct, and we presume Cadosche was also correct in his times. That's the problem. Cadosche's times have been tested as best we can, and they seem to pass those tests, so we look to Long's time and/or her ID. If her time is wrong, everything else fits easily.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

Something can be possible, if not probable, they are different concepts.

And no, if Long's sighting was of Annie at 5:15, the that gives something like 5 minutes for them to get to the backyard for Cadosche's first hearing of the word No, which is after the time he states he gets up (5:15; I never said 5:10 anywhere in that post as far as I can tell). Cadosche seems to have gone to the loo around 5:20 the first time, so there's nothing contradictory there anymore as 5:15-5:20 gives Annie 5 minutes to move from where Long says she saw her to where we presume Cadosche heard her say no. Richardson's statement is also easy to fit into that scenerio, because, well, he was in the backyard before Long's sighting and he says she wasn't there then, which she can't have been if Long did see her at 5:15.

Dr. Phillips ToD estimate, as is, is known to be based upon faulty methods, so that's not really a problem. The variation surrounding more reliable methods is still large enough that it would cover the 5:20-5:25 or 5:30 time anyway.

Long's ID is only incorrect if we presume her time was correct, and we presume Cadosche was also correct in his times. That's the problem. Cadosche's times have been tested as best we can, and they seem to pass those tests, so we look to Long's time and/or her ID. If her time is wrong, everything else fits easily.

- Jeff

You know Ive been using a 5:10m timing for the initial entry into the yard for some time now, and Ive checked back and don't seem to find that as a reference point anywhere. I thought I had a source, but maybe not. So, I get you. Long doesn't have to be incorrect. I think that if an established 5:15-5:30 for murder is used in conjunction with Richardson, we almost certainly have our couple in that yard when Cadosche is out there. He maybe could have saved her life by being a bit nosier.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, it is in the realm of possibilities. Your conditions are that if Long did see Annie, then she must have been killed after Long saw her after all. And if Long's time is correct, she must have been killed after 5:30. That only leaves 15 minutes. The same amount of time that was available for Eddowes murder, which did happen in the space of 14 minutes (PC Watkin's patrol time). As far as we know, Annie has been walking around since 1:45, and it was a chilly morning. She may already have felt quite cold or cool to the touch (Eddowes, remember, was in jail only 45 minutes prior to her discovery in Mtire Square - she had been in a warmer location much of the night, Annie has been outside on a cold night). And Dr. Phillips does indicate their was warmth under the intestines still inside Annie, so she hasn't cooled completely, which one might expect if she had been laying there for 2 or 3 hours. So yes, it is absolutely possible.

It just seems very improbable though, which is another reason why Long's statement seems to have something wrong with it. Whether that error is in the identification of Annie (meaning she saw other people) or her time (she misrecallls the chimes, and it was 5:15 when she saw Annie), or even both, we don't know, and can't reinterview her to try and find out. But, we can examine the variations.

If she is mistaken in the identification, well, nothing she says really needs further consideration or time.

If her time is incorrect, and she saw Annie at 5:15, then the rest of her statement seems to fit with the other witnesses, even to the point that the couple appeared to be speaking loud enough to be overheard by others (i.e. Cadosche hearing No from the backyard). As such, a single error in recollection of the time could be the source of the conflict and when something like that brings things into focus, then you have to consider that a very probable solution to the conflict.

It's not proof, though, it is still an assessment based upon the weight of probabilities. But that is all we really can do. The more evidence that one dismisses (by which I mean - saying Long may have misidentified someone else as Annie is to dismiss her evidence because it no longer will constrain us) the less one can say. Oddly, it is very common for arguments to be made that evidence should be dismissed and then rather than reducing the claims of what happened, more complex and elaborate activities are described. Less evidence does not allow more theory. The more evidence one works with, that doesn't create self contradictions (and by saying Long's error is the time removes the contradiction with Cadosche), only then can one argue for more specific events - provided they tie to the evidence.

For example, in the combination of Richardson, Long, and Cadoshe, where one considers Long's stated time to be incorrect and the actual time was 5:15, we have a fairly specific description of events. Richardson comes to check the cellar door, sits on the steps, works on his boot for a while, then heads off to work, at around 4:50 I think it is. Then, around 5:15 Long passes #29 and sees Annie talking to a man, and here's him say "Will you?" and she replies "Yes", and Long moves on to the market. At about that time Cadosche gets up to start his day. Around 5:20 he goes to the loo and hears someone say "No" from the backyard of #29. He goes back inside, and a few minutes later (so we're probably around 5:25 now) returns to the loo, and hears a noise against the fence but pays no mind. Around 5:30 he heads to work, passing the Spitalfield's clock at 5:32, which he checked and noted the time as he was making sure he wasn't late for work.

Now that's not a proven thing, but it is the story derived from the evidence we have, with only 1 statement changed - Long's time shifted to 5:30. We remove Long from that story if we go with the "incorrect identification", and she at most ends up at a later point (i.e. Cadosche heads to work around 5:30, but does not notice Long or the couple, as he heads straight to work, and Long does not see him either, as the events really only need to be a slightly different times for them to miss each other).

And so forth.

There are multiple possible interpretations that one gets from the evidence, but they depend upon how one resolves the conflict in the original statements.

- Jeff

Long is not certain where the "no" came from !

The 14 mins you quote for Eddowes is wrong, you have to factor in Pc Harvey, which brings that time down to an almost impossible time frame for the killer to have done all that he is supposed to have done in Mitre Square

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk