Was John Richardson A Reliable Witness?

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no effort to discredit him, I´m afraid. That´s 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.

There’s no paranoia involved. There is of course a possibility that any witness could have been a liar. But there is simply nothing to even suggest that this is the case with Cadosch therefore all we are left with is to admit that it’s not impossible that he lied. Of course it’s not impossible. Very little is. There’s just nothing to point to that. This should be obvious to anyone.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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, I´m afraid.

You have been proven wrong. Weeks ago you said that you were going away to look into the TOD subject more closely. So what have you come up with. Let me guess......zilch. You know that you’ve lost the argument and yet you cannot bring yourself to admit it.

Again from above you continue to twist my words. I’ve never once stated that experts have commented specifically on Phillips. But what they have commented on is that TOD estimations in 1888 were little more than guesswork and that Rigor and Aldor are not reliable methods. But of course, in Phillips case, according to you, they are cast iron.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Sorry but I’m not going back through the Phillips TOD again but if you read back you will see. That Phillips could have been wrong is an indisputable fact. The witnesses make it overwhelmingly likely that he was. I’ve had enough of contortions and efforts to credit Phillips with superpowers and desperate efforts to discredit witnesses on the flimsiest of grounds.

That the killer killed at 5.30 ish is not unlikely in the slightest. It happened.

[JeffHamm]

Sigh,

Ok, here's an older paper I found on using temperature to estimate ToD. It's based upon rectal temperature readings, which are far more accurate than touching an exposed body's surface. The article is from 1956, so while old to us, it's also after many years advancement since 1888. What they did was study rates of rectal temperature drop following executions (all the executions were at 8:00 am, with ToD pronounced at 8:15 am). So they know the actual ToD. Also, unlike Chapman, the bodies were then kept and monitored in rooms, at constant temperatures, no wind, and all similarly clothed and covered with a linen sheet. In other words, these measurements were taken under far more constant conditions than are ever going to occur in a forensic situation. However, that also means these are taken under ideal conditions for us to examine how variable rectal temperature estimations for ToD are even when the conditions are all kept the same, and more simply (fewer external factors to concern ourselves with).

After collecting all their data and measurments, they work out a mathematical formula to best estimate the ToD based upon knowing the rectal temperature (a more accurate measure than touch) and based upon knowing the surrounding air temperature (information they did not have at the time of Chapman's touch based estimation). They do it two ways, once knowing the initial body temperature (which of course is impossible in a forensic case) and once using the average body temperature (99.6 F), which is what a forensic case would have to assume, so that's what I'll be talking about from here on.

They use their formula to then estimate the ToD for each of the bodies based upon their rectal temperature at two different time points. On average, they do pretty well, with a mean estimated ToD of 8:31 and 8:38 for their two different times (rectal temperature at 2 and 4 pm). However, the standard deviation (which indicates how variable the estimates are) were 48 minutes and 61 minutes. Now, when an expert would give an estimation for ToD they give a range of values called the 95% confidience interval (meaning, 95% of cases will fall between these times), and that range is determined by stating your average (so 8:31 for example) +- 1.96 the standard deviation. So the estimated ToD would be given as 8:31 +- 94.08 minutes (so, 6:57 - 10:05 type thing). (check out Table V at the end of the paper), and that was for the less variable of the two testing windows!

Now that gives you an idea of how accurate temperature readings are when measured objectively, under very well controlled and known conditions. Fire in the complications associated with a brutal murder, body outside, unknown ambiant temperature and wind, exposed to the elements, and so forth, and you can start to guess just how incapable it is to estimate ToD by touchy feely.

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwe...2&context=jclc

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

I am off to wonderful Copenhagen today, and so I will not be able to take part of all the praise offered on my behalf until tomorrow. See you then!

[Trevor Marriott]

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 suggestion that he was dishonest, or deliberately lying. It is a question of whether his testimony can be totally relied on when closely scrutinized. The answer is it cannot.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Sigh,

Ok, here's an older paper I found on using temperature to estimate ToD. It's based upon rectal temperature readings, which are far more accurate than touching an exposed body's surface. The article is from 1956, so while old to us, it's also after many years advancement since 1888. What they did was study rates of rectal temperature drop following executions (all the executions were at 8:00 am, with ToD pronounced at 8:15 am). So they know the actual ToD. Also, unlike Chapman, the bodies were then kept and monitored in rooms, at constant temperatures, no wind, and all similarly clothed and covered with a linen sheet. In other words, these measurements were taken under far more constant conditions than are ever going to occur in a forensic situation. However, that also means these are taken under ideal conditions for us to examine how variable rectal temperature estimations for ToD are even when the conditions are all kept the same, and more simply (fewer external factors to concern ourselves with).

After collecting all their data and measurments, they work out a mathematical formula to best estimate the ToD based upon knowing the rectal temperature (a more accurate measure than touch) and based upon knowing the surrounding air temperature (information they did not have at the time of Chapman's touch based estimation). They do it two ways, once knowing the initial body temperature (which of course is impossible in a forensic case) and once using the average body temperature (99.6 F), which is what a forensic case would have to assume, so that's what I'll be talking about from here on.

They use their formula to then estimate the ToD for each of the bodies based upon their rectal temperature at two different time points. On average, they do pretty well, with a mean estimated ToD of 8:31 and 8:38 for their two different times (rectal temperature at 2 and 4 pm). However, the standard deviation (which indicates how variable the estimates are) were 48 minutes and 61 minutes. Now, when an expert would give an estimation for ToD they give a range of values called the 95% confidience interval (meaning, 95% of cases will fall between these times), and that range is determined by stating your average (so 8:31 for example) +- 1.96 the standard deviation. So the estimated ToD would be given as 8:31 +- 94.08 minutes (so, 6:57 - 10:05 type thing). (check out Table V at the end of the paper), and that was for the less variable of the two testing windows!

Now that gives you an idea of how accurate temperature readings are when measured objectively, under very well controlled and known conditions. Fire in the complications associated with a brutal murder, body outside, unknown ambiant temperature and wind, exposed to the elements, and so forth, and you can start to guess just how incapable it is to estimate ToD by touchy feely.

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwe...2&context=jclc

- Jeff

It is in this day and age unreliable, but back then they believed in this process. As has been said before Dr`s Brown and Sequeira got it as near as damm with the Eddowes murder. The other witness testimony in this case which some suggest proves Phillips to have been wrong is unsafe to totally rely on. The flaws in that evidence have been exposed many times on here.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

I am off to wonderful Copenhagen today, and so I will not be able to take part of all the praise offered on my behalf until tomorrow. See you then!

Have a great trip . Make sure you have a pint and soak up the world around you

[JeffHamm]

It is in this day and age unreliable, but back then they believed in this process. As has been said before Dr`s Brown and Sequeira got it as near as damm with the Eddowes murder. The other witness testimony in this case which some suggest proves Phillips to have been wrong is unsafe to totally rely on. The flaws in that evidence have been exposed many times on here.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Believing a method is accurate doesn't make it accurate.

[JeffHamm]

It is in this day and age unreliable, but back then they believed in this process. As has been said before Dr`s Brown and Sequeira got it as near as damm with the Eddowes murder. The other witness testimony in this case which some suggest proves Phillips to have been wrong is unsafe to totally rely on. The flaws in that evidence have been exposed many times on here.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Whether or not Phillips is accurate is entirely and completely unrelated to the witness statements. They are mutually exclusive so stop trying to make them otherwise. Phillips estimate is a guess and therefore neaningless. The witness statements need to be evaluated without reference to Phillips guesswork.

[Trevor Marriott]

Whether or not Phillips is accurate is entirely and completely unrelated to the witness statements. They are mutually exclusive so stop trying to make them otherwise. Phillips estimate is a guess and therefore neaningless. The witness statements need to be evaluated without reference to Phillips guesswork.

Rubbish, all the witness testimony has to be closely analyzed scrutinized, and evaluated, and some of the witness testimony is just as unsafe to rely on as you suggest Phillips testimony is.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no suggestion that he was dishonest, or deliberately lying. It is a question of whether his testimony can be totally relied on when closely scrutinized. The answer is it cannot.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I think I’ve said this before but did you ever have a witness that you didn’t think was unsafe? What is the problem with Cadosch? For the millionth time - he goes into his back yard in the early hours of the morning and hears the word “no.” He feels that it came from number 29 but he can’t be certain and he says this to the police. If he was a lying attention seeker there would have of course been nothing to have prevented him saying “oh yes, it definitely came from number 29. No question.” Of course he wouldn’t have known that this act of honesty would, 130 years later, lead to him being called unreliable! A very few minutes later he hears the sound of something brushing against the fence just as he was re-entering the house. He is certain of this. Where is the problem? I can’t see it because the problem is a manufactured one.

This is something that Fishy tried to say - that because Cadosch was uncertain over the ‘no’ then this somehow makes him unreliable on the noise. Not here on Earth I’m afraid. The only issue that we have have that might go against Cadosch is the TOD estimate of Dr Phillips but, as we know that this could have been wrong, there is no issue.

We should be cautious (as Cadosch was) with witnesses of course but but not to the extent of conveniently considering them worthless because they weren’t perfect.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am off to wonderful Copenhagen today, and so I will not be able to take part of all the praise offered on my behalf until tomorrow. See you then!

And yet again you leave hinting that I’ve somehow insulted you when I haven’t. We have to, of course, recall the fact that you said that I was deluded and engaged in headless thinking and that the thread would be better off without me. But in Fishworld these have to be ignored as you continue to always paint me as the villain of every piece. Nothing changes...sadly.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Rubbish, all the witness testimony has to be closely analyzed scrutinized, and evaluated, and some of the witness testimony is just as unsafe to rely on as you suggest Phillips testimony is.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Can you name a witness (or a senior police officer for that fact) that you don’t dismiss as unreliable. And in the case of your own suspect you have absolutely no problem in giving weight to an utterly uncorroborated statement. How does that work?

[Michael W Richards]

Michael, take it from me, there was no backyard on EITHER side where it was impossible to utter the word "No".

But the thrust of the post was pointing out that BOTH yards didn't have noises and activity recorded by witnesses prior to that night, and activity of street women and clients, only 29 did.