Was John Richardson A Reliable Witness?

[Trevor Marriott]

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

But we are not talking everyday speculation we are talking about those on here who keep dreaming up explanations to negate the real evidence rather than accept it for what it is, and that is unsafe !

I dont know why this TOd is a problem, we know the victim was killed by the same killer as the other victims. Does the TOD alter the facts of the case, or lead us to identify the killer or even a possible suspect- No it doesnt !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

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.

5:30 isn't that much later, either...

Nichols ~ 3:30
Stride ~ 1:00
Eddowes ~ 1:40
Kelly ~ 4:00

Perhaps it would be more pertient to ask why Stride and Eddowes were killed so early.

[JeffHamm]

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

Hi Trevor,

You seem to miscomprehend the presentation of a hypothesis as if one is presenting a conclusion. What I said earlier was that we know that Long and Cadoshe's times conflict and cannot both be correct. That's not debatable, if Cadosche heard Annie say No in the backyard of #29 and noises against the fence around 5:20-5:25, then Long could not have seen Chapman at 5:30 in front of #29. Nobody disputes there's a conflict in the times. The job of a researcher is to resolve that conflict and try and get an idea of what really happened. We can never know for sure if that resolution is correct, so we present hypotheses as to how to resolve the conflict, and those are evaluated with respect to how well that resolution fits the remaining evidence, and also how probable the explanation is.

Resolutions between witness statements tend to take the form of
1) one, or maybe both, of the conflicting sources of data is completely bogus and should just be dismissed entirely (i.e. a witness like Packer is generally ignored because it is believed he was making it up; generally, anything where one concludes "this information will not influence my interpretation of the rest of the evidence" falls here)
2) the statement reflects the witness's error of interpretation (they misunderstood what they saw), so their opinions are set aside, while the more objective aspects of what they report are retained (debate around the Church Passage couple, for example, is on this: Did Lawende and friends mis-identity the woman as Eddowes? - their interpretation that it was her is debated, but I've yet to see anyone argue they didn't actually see a couple)
3) errors of fine details are misremembered but the overall gist is retained. (specific times and so forth, are of this sort, for time one would generally associated margins of error around any stated time, but I won't go there as I know you don't like margins of error, or the fact that clocks were not synced in 1888)

With respect to Long and Cadosche's conflicting times, the hypotheses for resolving that conflict range from your solution of calling them unsafe, and moving on (that would be a form of option 1 above). Could both be wrong? Sure, suggesting Cadosche heard sounds from elsewhere, etc, is a form of option 2.

Others suggest forms of option 2 (i.e. Long misidentified Annie, for example), while another way to resolve the conflict is through option 3 (their stated specific times are wrong). That last one resolves all of the conflict between them, particularly if it is Long that is out. But you're right, Cadosche could be the one that was out, but if he was, then you are saying he must have misread the clock (if Long sees Annie at 5:30, Cadosche still has his two visits to the loo to do, with minutes in between, so he couldn't have passed the Spitalfields clock at 1:32).

What I presented earlier was a collection of ways in which people try to resolve that conflict. You have presented your view in the past, and it is just one of many ways to resolve that conflict. None of them can be proven, of course, and so it is just as unjustified to go option 1 and dismiss or ignore entire sources of information unless one can really demonstrate that's necessary (I think Packer is safely put in that category, but others may not). I generally look for option 3 type solutions, and failing that, option 2, as I don't think some errors in a statement invalidate all of the other information automatically.

Anyway, you have misinterpreted the presentation of hypothesis as if they are conclusions. You're arguements that certain bits are "unsafe" are also only hypotheses, that they are so unsafe they can be ignored (I know you say you don't ignore them, but you set the witnesses aside and argue for Dr. Phillips guessing right - that hypothesis is not compelling, but it does effectively set aside the witness statements and your only justification for doing that is to say they are unsafe - that's not worked to convince people in the past, and it isn't going to work by repeating it). Others have presented far better arguments, generally of the "Long's time was out" variety, or "Long mis-identified Annie" variety, though there are some that place the primary source of the conflict with Cadosche. Those have not been as compelling.

You don't have to agree with a hypothesis that someone puts forth, but to suggest they are trying to "prop up" something requires you to show that they have something to prop up in the first place. You like to say you're showing how "the old ideas need to be re-examined", but really, what you mean is "the old ideas need to be wrong" and every time you present something it is showing that you need to prop up the idea that you've seen the case properly and nobody else has. It's why you argue for no organs taken by the killer (despite all the evidence to the contrary), that Kelly's heart was not missing (despite recorded medical files stating it was absent), why Annie was killed earlier (because most think she was killed around 5:20-5:25), why Eddowes' wasn't wearning an apron (despite multiple witnesses testifying she was), that the killer didn't put the apron in Gouston Street but it was a sanitary pad discarded by Eddowes herself (despite, well, anything reasonable), and I'm sure there's more. While certainly creative, none of the arguments have been convincing because in one way or the other they all rely on option 1 approaches, which is to clear away the conflicting data to allow for the "new out of the box hypothesis" to survive the test that evidence puts to them.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

It’s a good point Al. I’d also suggest that even if we felt that it was risky the point is how risky would the killer have felt it to have been. The spot would have been chosen by Annie who needed the cash so it’s likely that she would have told him that she’d used this spot before and never been disturbed which might have given him a level of confidence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

I’m not stamping my feet as you put it. I’m trying to reason with a brick wall. And one that keeps criticising me for saying things that I’ve never said.

We are not safely relying on anything! why can’t you grasp this? We are not postulating certainties. For the last time (hopefully) we are not saying that the three witnesses definitely prove that Annie was killed at 5.30. Just for once can you please accept that statement? Yes all witnesses have to be treated with caution and evaluated. But your method is to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Cadosch is cautious about the word no therefore he’s unreliable and we should dump his statement.
Long’s timing is 10 or 15 minutes out from Cadosch therefore she’s unreliable and out she goes.
Theres an uncorroborated statement from Chandler therefore Richardson is a liar and so he’s dismissed.
The fence wasn’t particularly high so Cadosch must have lied.

The list is seemingly endless.

We have a Doctor using little more than guesswork saying one thing and three human beings, none of whom can be shown to have been liars or lunatics, who all point to another. And you go for the Doctor! No matter what the questions the weight of evidence is categorically with the witnesses. If you can’t see that then there’s no hope of anyone explaining it to you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

5:30 isn't that much later, either...

Nichols ~ 3:30
Stride ~ 1:00
Eddowes ~ 1:40
Kelly ~ 4:00

Perhaps it would be more pertient to ask why Stride and Eddowes were killed so early.

That’s a good point Sam. The smallest gap (Eddowes and Nichols) is still an hour and fifty minutes. If he’d originally intended to kill at around Nichols/Kelly time any number of things could have occurred to have put the time later.

[Abby Normal]

5:30 isn't that much later, either...

Nichols ~ 3:30
Stride ~ 1:00
Eddowes ~ 1:40
Kelly ~ 4:00

Perhaps it would be more pertient to ask why Stride and Eddowes were killed so early.

I agree. to me it seems like the killer was pretty much active all night

[JeffHamm]

We all have to keep in mind, that all explanations we offer are tentative, they are hypotheses that attempt to explain the evidence we have. In particular, it should be manifestly obvious that when someone presents a couple of differing explanations (i.e. either Long misidentifies Chapman or she got her time wrong, or both, etc), that one is not saying anything with undue certainty, but by definition is indicating that the evidence is too "unsafe" (to use Trevor's word) to totally rely upon. That's what multiple possible explanations mean - you can't draw a definite conclusion because the data is too "unsafe" and therefore open to multiple explanations. But that doesn't mean you should just ignore the evidence. Rather, you present a number of various competing hypotheses, and then try and order them based upon an evaluation of them.

The two examples I mention above are probably both equally sound. Misidentification is not uncommon, but neither is an error in recollecting the time. The implications of the former is that Long's statement becomes irrelevant to the case, while the latter means her statement needs to be considered more important. That we cannot resolve which of those is the case is a shame since if she did see Annie alive, then her description of the man with her (as minimal as it is) requires more scrutiny, and that would be useful to the case as a whole. Sadly, without more evidence from somewhere, we reach an impass, where any theory built upon her correctly identifying Annie is always built upon a weak foundation.

And yes, eye witness testimony is also very unreliable as a general rule. But all of the evidence we have access to is, in one form or another, eye witness statements. We don't have access to the medical evidence directly - we can't go back to the bodies and remeasure anything in order to verify the doctors notes, and so forth. We can measure some things for ourselves, like the distances between locations, and from that we can estimate travel times. That sort of thing can help to compare times stated by witnesses as to where they were at various times given their locations. Cadosche's stated time of waking up (around 5:15), and his estimates of the time for his morning routine, and passing the Spitalfield's clock where he noted the time as 5:32, tend to align pretty well given we know how long it would take, at an average walking speed, to get from his residence to the clock (about 2 minutes). Given that, that analysis tends to lend credence to his stated time line, but of course the times are estimates with margins of error of some amount. Hence, his times have been tested, and passed that test. Long's times cannot be tested as easily as we have less information to work with (it's not entirely clear where she was when she claims to have heard the chimes, and so forth).

But nobody is saying that there is only one possible explanation. And everybody is being clear that if Cadosche (for example) is wrong and the sounds he heard came from somewhere other than #29, then his testimony too isn't case-relevant. But as we have noway of putting that to the test, then we have no reason other than "he might have been mistaken" to set him aside. This is why the ToD of 5:20-5:30 type thing is "the most supported by the evidence", but that is not the same as saying "it is proven it had to be between 5:20-5:30". The former is a probabilistic statement, the latter is a definite one. And it is an error to argue that presenting a probabilistic hypothesis is unwarranted by trying to represent it as if it were made as a definitive conclusion.

There's nothing wrong in calling each other out if we phrase something as definite, I know I will do that sometimes if I'm not careful. It's the nature of how we use language, we present things we think are "most probable" a bit more certain than we should. It is not, however, helpful to ignore someone's response when they admit they might have overstated that certainty, and to continue to say they are not recognizing alternatives if they clearly reply that they do actually mean a probabilistic one. You can argue that someone's estimate of that probability is too high, or too low, or whatever, but to assert they are claiming 100% certainty is incorrect. I don't see people presenting 100% certainty all that often, to be fair, and that's a good thing. There is just not the evidence available for us to do that really.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

But we are not talking everyday speculation we are talking about those on here who keep dreaming up explanations to negate the real evidence rather than accept it for what it is, and that is unsafe !

I dont know why this TOd is a problem, we know the victim was killed by the same killer as the other victims. Does the TOD alter the facts of the case, or lead us to identify the killer or even a possible suspect- No it doesnt !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We know that Annies killer is likely also Pollys killer, anything else is not "known"... its assumed. Th REAL evidence is that Annie was not see at 4;45 by someone in that same yard, no-one was, and that Annie is found just before 6am. That's your window for TOD, and within that time frame its entirely consistent to imagine Annie and her killer in that yard when Cadosche is hearing things. The fact Cadosche hears anything definitively proves that no corpse was yet on that same spot in that same yard.

Usually when people refuse to connect what are obviously connectable dots they prefer to believe something different. Not that they have proof for that belief, its just a choice. So, in this case, Im not sure whether you are clinging to a belief that A) every witness was wrong except Phillips TOD, or B) that Cadosche and Richardson were liars or mentally incompetent.

Problem is I see no proof whatsoever of either.

[JeffHamm]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That's untrue Trevor, which you would know if you followed what people have been saying. Richardson's time has generally been left unexamined but that's because it doesn't really matter if his stated time is out by a 5 or 10 minutes. He simply places an early time stamp, somewhere around 4:50am, at which he states the body is not there. It bears no impact upon Cadosche's later testimony if Richardson was cutting his boot at 4:55 or 4:35, or whatever. And, given there is no other source of information by which we can test his stated time, it's used as is as indicating that Phillip's estimate of before 4:30 is in error. Unless you want to argrue that Richardson's time is off by a sufficient amount that he checked the stoop at 4:15, his time doesn't matter so much.

Cadosche's time, however, has been examined quite closely and put to the test to see if, based upon his statement that he read the Spitalfield's clock at 5:32, and given we know where that was located, and we know where he lived, and we can work out the distance he would have had to walk to traverse that distance, we can see if his claims are unlikely. And they are not, it works out he would have left home around 5:30, and his 2nd leaving of the yard would be about 5:29 at the latest, and using what he claims are his various durations for his comings and goings, it ends up being entirely consistent with him getting up at 515, which he stated. We don't know what he based that 5:15 on, but given a reconstruction of what he says he did, and how long he says it took him to do it, there is nothing in his testimony that does not fit that test of his accuracy. Hence, most people feel his stated times are fairly accurate accounts. Simply because they survive the test does not mean they have been accepted without question - the very fact those tests have been done means it was quested. You seem to be under the impression that questioning something means one must declare it incorrect.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

You seem to be under the impression that questioning something means one must declare it incorrect.

- Jeff

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I suppose it became an issue if your trying to argue she was dumped there by a horse and cart.
Otherwise, I guess it depends on how it fits with specific suspects?

[JeffHamm]

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.

Then nobody disagrees with you, despite your insistance that everybody does. The difference is that everybody else is willing to try and work with what we have because we recognize we cannot go back and reinvestigate the way we all would want to in order to get more data to help decide between the various possibilities. What people are putting forth are possible explanations for why the data conflicts where it does. Some of those explanations are better supported by other evidence, such as the conflict between Dr. Phillip and the witness times. One part of that conflict is due to the incapability of estimating ToD with anything like accuracy based upon the methods he used, given the conditions specific to Annie's murder. Another part could also be witness testimony error, which nobdy denies. Problem is, if the witnesses are also wrong, then we all might as well pack up and stop discussing the case, because we have nothing to work with at all. So, just like we do with Dr. Phillips, we try as best we can 131 years late, to try and test the reliability of their statements. Cadosche's had stood up to those tests so far, so we have some reason to accept that he's at least not too far off in his times. Long is harder to find ways to test, as is Richardson. The consquences of errors with Richardson are less severe, unless he's made the whole thing up, which there is no evidence that he did or reason to suspect that he did, so his accuracy is of less concern, and +-10 minutes type thing is neither here nor there with him. Long requires more scrutiny because of the implications of what she reports, and as you would notice if you read the posts, people are not sure if she's misidentified two other people, or if she's got her times wrong, or what exactly, and most of the discussion is around that - which is more than just saying her testimony is unsafe, it's stating what in particular is unsafe about it, and then trying to work out the implications of various possible interpretations of what did happen. None of it can be proven, but some possible interpretations can still be said to be less probable than others. That is all anyone is able to do, so simply saying "the witnesses are unsafe and take off your blinkers" is missing the fact that we are all discussing the unsafe points and trying to see if we can work anything out. It's not informative because you're not adding anything we all don't already know, and it's not constructive because we're just way beyond that point in the conversation and we're discussing the what and how things are unsafe, and seeing if through discussions we might be able to either resolve some issues (that's rare, but could happen) or at least work out an order of probabilities (this explanation seems most likely, but if that's wrong then this is the next most probable alternative, and so forth). That's probably the best we can do given that we cannot go back and gather the new information that we might want to if this were an active case today.

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

I don't either, mostly because the evidence we have, if not entirely erroneous, only leads to the conclusion she was killed at 5:20-5:25 type thing. If that's not correc then it means the witness evidence must be wrong, which of course it could be as people have mentioned and we all accept that, but if the witness evidence is wrong then we're left with no evidence to work with at all because we already know Dr. Phillips ToD is based upon guesswork. All that would be left is she was killed after 1:45. So far, though, we have little reason to believe the witnesses are all that wrong, other than "it's possible."

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Then nobody disagrees with you, despite your insistance that everybody does. The difference is that everybody else is willing to try and work with what we have because we recognize we cannot go back and reinvestigate the way we all would want to in order to get more data to help decide between the various possibilities. What people are putting forth are possible explanations for why the data conflicts where it does. Some of those explanations are better supported by other evidence, such as the conflict between Dr. Phillip and the witness times. One part of that conflict is due to the incapability of estimating ToD with anything like accuracy based upon the methods he used, given the conditions specific to Annie's murder. Another part could also be witness testimony error, which nobdy denies. Problem is, if the witnesses are also wrong, then we all might as well pack up and stop discussing the case, because we have nothing to work with at all. So, just like we do with Dr. Phillips, we try as best we can 131 years late, to try and test the reliability of their statements. Cadosche's had stood up to those tests so far, so we have some reason to accept that he's at least not too far off in his times. Long is harder to find ways to test, as is Richardson. The consquences of errors with Richardson are less severe, unless he's made the whole thing up, which there is no evidence that he did or reason to suspect that he did, so his accuracy is of less concern, and +-10 minutes type thing is neither here nor there with him. Long requires more scrutiny because of the implications of what she reports, and as you would notice if you read the posts, people are not sure if she's misidentified two other people, or if she's got her times wrong, or what exactly, and most of the discussion is around that - which is more than just saying her testimony is unsafe, it's stating what in particular is unsafe about it, and then trying to work out the implications of various possible interpretations of what did happen. None of it can be proven, but some possible interpretations can still be said to be less probable than others. That is all anyone is able to do, so simply saying "the witnesses are unsafe and take off your blinkers" is missing the fact that we are all discussing the unsafe points and trying to see if we can work anything out. It's not informative because you're not adding anything we all don't already know, and it's not constructive because we're just way beyond that point in the conversation and we're discussing the what and how things are unsafe, and seeing if through discussions we might be able to either resolve some issues (that's rare, but could happen) or at least work out an order of probabilities (this explanation seems most likely, but if that's wrong then this is the next most probable alternative, and so forth). That's probably the best we can do given that we cannot go back and gather the new information that we might want to if this were an active case today.



I don't either, mostly because the evidence we have, if not entirely erroneous, only leads to the conclusion she was killed at 5:20-5:25 type thing. If that's not correc then it means the witness evidence must be wrong, which of course it could be as people have mentioned and we all accept that, but if the witness evidence is wrong then we're left with no evidence to work with at all because we already know Dr. Phillips ToD is based upon guesswork. All that would be left is she was killed after 1:45. So far, though, we have little reason to believe the witnesses are all that wrong, other than "it's possible."

- Jeff

But if its is possible, then there is a doubt, which makes the evidence unsafe both from a witness and medical perspective. But one side has to be right and one wrong.

As to Phillips gueswork I accept it was a guess, but a guess based on his experience, which people seem to want to ignore. He was there he saw the body he examined the body at the crime scene. We were not there, we do not know the weather conditions, the state of the body. We do know that it was clothed from the waist up, and we know it was in a sheltered part of the yard. 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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

But if its is possible, then there is a doubt, which makes the evidence unsafe both from a witness and medical perspective. But one side has to be right and one wrong.

As to Phillips gueswork I accept it was a guess, but a guess based on his experience, which people seem to want to ignore. He was there he saw the body he examined the body at the crime scene. We were not there, we do not know the weather conditions, the state of the body. We do know that it was clothed from the waist up, and we know it was in a sheltered part of the yard. 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

No Trevor, that is an error. Dr. Phillips is guesswork, so he only has a chance level of being right, and then only on the condition that all of Richardson, Long, and Cadosche are wrong.

So if Cadosche heard the No and a noise from a yard other than #29, and Long saw other people, and Richardson missed the body, then Dr. Phillips could be right by guess work.

But if Richardson is right but through guesswork (he actually couldn't see where the body was, but luckily he guessed no and she wasn't actually there), then Dr. Phillips is wrong. And if the murder happened before Cadosche entered the yard, but after Richardson left, both Dr. Phillips and Cadosche are wrong. But if Cadosche heard noises from elsewhere, and the murder was occuring at that time all the same, then Cadosche is right by guesswork.

See, if all our sources of evidence are wrong in what they stated (Cadosche about where noises came from; Long about who she saw; Richardson about his ability to know if a body was there), all we know is she died after 1:45 - Any time, and Dr. Phillips and Cadoshe could both be wrong, or either one of them right by chance.

You can't give Dr. Phillips chance, but nobody else. That's wearing blinkers.

- Jeff