Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was John Richardson A Reliable Witness?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by MK114 View Post
    There have been studies that have shown eye witness testimony is very unreliable. Throw in that it's dark and people aren't really paying attention to things and forget it. It Is best to work with the facts of a case and come back to witness statements later or not at all.

    The police at the time were definitely handcuffed so to speak when gathering evidence. A suspects demeanor and actions while being interviewed or watched is the best thing to look at when there is little evidence.

    Respectfully ,
    MK114
    There are exceptions...people trained to do so. To be vigilant, to pay attention to detail, to make mental notes of things seen, facial features, heights, builds...policemen.

    Leave a comment:


  • MK114
    replied
    There have been studies that have shown eye witness testimony is very unreliable. Throw in that it's dark and people aren't really paying attention to things and forget it. It Is best to work with the facts of a case and come back to witness statements later or not at all.

    The police at the time were definitely handcuffed so to speak when gathering evidence. A suspects demeanor and actions while being interviewed or watched is the best thing to look at when there is little evidence.

    Respectfully ,
    MK114

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    It’s certainly interesting. Why send the letter to Mrs Hardiman and why a month after Nichols murder? Who is the mysterious Mile End correspondent?
    You know Herlock Im wondering about Lusk, as I said. He has the Mile End connection, he is apparently the recipient of many letters concerning the crimes, and I get the feeling he is scared personally too. Its why he reacts so hesitantly about the package, he waits days before even telling his closest friends. And then they go to get the sample assessed, before going to the Police.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    It’s certainly interesting. Why send the letter to Mrs Hardiman and why a month after Nichols murder? Who is the mysterious Mile End correspondent?

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    That is an interesting snippet. It seems to me that the only way someone could obtain that information is by actually seeing Polly with someone that night, or by a second hand account of a sighting. The certain men line is also interesting, I agree seanr. We know men were out at night in vigilance groups, some from Mile End...is this a letter from someone like Lusk maybe?

    Leave a comment:


  • seanr
    replied
    Originally posted by jerryd View Post

    Hi seanr.

    It was a letter to Mrs. Hardiman.

    Echo
    London, U.K.
    20 September 1888


    A DOCUMENT OF SOME IMPORTANCE.

    Inspector Helson, Inspector Abberline, and Inspector Chandler are now busy making inquiries regarding a letter received this morning by Mrs. Harderman, proprietor of the cat's-meat business carried on at 29, Hanbury-street. The police themselves naturally decline to give any information whatever respecting this document, which is regarded as of some importance, especially as certain men are alluded to, and the writer, who resides in Mile-end, desires his name to be kept a secret. The letter has more special reference to the crime in Buck's-row, for the writer positively asserts: "The poor woman was made tipsy, then murdered, and carried to the spot where she was found." Our reporter called upon Mrs. Harderman, who assured him that she had received the letter in question. The source from which it came she could not at present state.


    Thanks Jerry. That is the report I was remembering, I had misremembered though as the way I recalled it, it had been sent suggesting the murder of Polly Nichols had been carried out at 29 Hanbury Street and then the body moved, but that's not the case at all. The letter was sent to 29 Hanbury Street, but claimed to be giving details about the murder from elsewhere.

    It's an intriguing report. In that the way the Echo tells it, Inspectors Helson, Abberline, and Chandler took the letter's contents seriously. The writer was known but not revealed and I do wonder who the 'certain men' were which the letter identified.

    Leave a comment:


  • jerryd
    replied
    Originally posted by seanr View Post
    I believe there was a poison pen letter sent to 29 Hanbury Street alleging Nichols had been killed there and then moved to Buck's Row.
    Hi seanr.

    It was a letter to Mrs. Hardiman.

    Echo
    London, U.K.
    20 September 1888


    A DOCUMENT OF SOME IMPORTANCE.

    Inspector Helson, Inspector Abberline, and Inspector Chandler are now busy making inquiries regarding a letter received this morning by Mrs. Harderman, proprietor of the cat's-meat business carried on at 29, Hanbury-street. The police themselves naturally decline to give any information whatever respecting this document, which is regarded as of some importance, especially as certain men are alluded to, and the writer, who resides in Mile-end, desires his name to be kept a secret. The letter has more special reference to the crime in Buck's-row, for the writer positively asserts: "The poor woman was made tipsy, then murdered, and carried to the spot where she was found." Our reporter called upon Mrs. Harderman, who assured him that she had received the letter in question. The source from which it came she could not at present state.



    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by seanr View Post
    I believe there was a poison pen letter sent to 29 Hanbury Street alleging Nichols had been killed there and then moved to Buck's Row.
    Thanks Sean.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    I copied this bit from the Inquest Herlock, cant say for sure who the source was...."Mr. Crawford: The theory has been put forward that it was possible for the deceased to have been murdered elsewhere, and her body brought to where it was found. I should like to ask Dr. Gordon Brown, who is present, what his opinion is about that.
    Dr. Gordon Brown: I do not think there is any foundation for such a theory. The blood on the left side was clotted, and must have fallen at the time the throat was cut. I do not think that the deceased moved the least bit after that."

    Crawford didn't believe it, but someone suggested it.
    Thanks Michael.

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffHamm
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    For the final time and I hope you an other listen because so far you and others are not doing that.
    Not buying your arguments doesn't mean people aren't listening Trevor, it means they're not agreeing with your assessment.

    With regards to all the witness timings we cannot say for certain if they were accurate but we have to work with what we have.
    Yes, I agree. Which is why Levy, whom I see you finally mention, also has to be considered. I see you're doing that now, thank you.

    Levy says they came out at about 1.33.1.34 the couple were standing so the earliest they could have moved from that standing point into the square was 1.35am but no one saw them move so it is right to say that when they did move it could have been as early as 1.35am and so calculations have to be made to take in the fact that they could have moved any time between 1.35am any time thereafter.
    Interesting. Nobody saw them move, so you figure you know when they moved? Since Lawende or Levy (I forget which at the moment) testify they did not look back after passing the couple, what makes you so sure the couple didn't move on as soon as Lawende and friends passed them? Nothing that we have indicates when they moved, so we work with what we have, which are the ranges of times stated. And the earliest they could have moved is when Lawende and co. walked past them. That's called "working with what you have", rather than than just "working what you have".

    These time scenarios cannot be proved or disproved. So any scenario thereafter postulated by you and others and myself is potentially possible, until we close scrutinize the evidence.
    And, as you will see, at no point do I say it's proven. I've been calling you out for stating specific times of the various comings and goings and claiming they definitely do not allow sufficient time. Sure, if Eddowes and JtR entered Mitre Square at 1:41, there wasn't enough time. But given we know a certain amount of time must have been available, are the stated times sufficient to allow that? And, yes they are, and they even allow for more time to be available. I'm not saying it's proven which of those times are correct, only that the evidence, that we have, does not, as you claim, disprove the notion that enough time was available. It would really help if you would take that on board.

    So therefore it is right to calculate timings thereafter based on the different scenarios that could have taken place.
    Thank you. That's exactly what I've been doing.

    Based on a 1.35am start what do we have
    Just under a minute to walk slowly from the entrance to Church Passage to the murder spot. I know this is right because I have walked it
    Arriving at the murder scene 1.36am
    Ok, this incredibly slow walk and the unjustified exclusion of the earlier possible times for the entrance into Mitre Square, is setting up the situation. But 1:36 to 1:42 (PC Harvey's arrival) is still 6 minutes, which is more than the 5 minute window required.

    Watkins arrived back in the square at 1.44. He had a watch so we must accpet what he says as being correct, although the nightwatmean says it was 1.43am. So a gap of 8 mins or 7. But i will work with the 8 mins.

    That 8 mins is reduced by Harvey who says he was in Mitre Square at approx 1.38/39 and no doubt disturbed the killer when he came down the passage.
    PC Harvey testifies he patrolled Church Passage (to the Mitre Square end, he didn't enter the square itself) a couple minutes before he heard the whistle, and that he didn't have a watch but timed things based upon the Post Office Clock, which he hadn't been past on this patrol yet so would have noted it on his previous cycle. His time is an estimate, but Watkins, as you note, had a watch, so we hold to that. The Whistle would be at 1:44 or 1:45 (pending on how long it takes Watkins to fetch the Nightwatchman, for him to view the body, get his whistle, and then blow it - that could be a minute, making PC Harvey hearing the whistle at 1:45, so his patrol of Church Passage, stated to be a couple minutes earlier, is somewhere around 1:42 or 1:43, both before Watkins.

    PC Harvey also testifies he estimated the time of his patrol of Church Passage as being 18 or 19 minutes to 2 (which is 1:41-1:42). Given it's an estimate, that fits really well with the 1:42-1:43 based upon the more reliable watch-based time of PC Watkins.

    I don't know where you got the 1:38/39 time from, but I got the above from the Inquest testimony.


    So that leaves a time of only 3-4 mins and if the killer saw and heard Harvey approaching that time is reduced ever so slightly
    which pretty much demonstrates the scenario you've presented is incorrect. it doesn't leave enough time for what did happen to happen, therefore your description fails the test put to it by the evidence.

    If the couple left that spot any later then the time window would be reduced.
    If, of course, the couple was Eddowes and JtR. But going with them being so, all that statement does is rule out a later departure than 1:35 and/or the slow walking speed and/or the earlier arrival of PC Harvey.

    I cant see that the problem is with what I have written, well I can because those who want to believe the old accepted theory and for them to be able to believe in that they need to be able to show a time window of at least 5 mins.
    The problem is that the evidence shows that what you presented could not have happened. What you want us to do is decide the evidence didn't happen because it does fit your "what if" story. It doesn't work that way, the evidence must be explained by the theory, not the theory gets to decide what evidence to consider. You only get to consider how the testimonies are wrong when they create a paradox.
    But of course Dr Brown says at least 5 mins, and then we have Dr Phiilps whay says that for him to have removed the uterus and the fallopian tubes attache it would have taken him almots 3 times that time.
    Dr. Phillips was talking about Chapman, which is a different case. And, as we know, we've had medical experts provide opinions of as little as 2 minutes required. The estimates of times are all over the show.

    So do we have a superhuman killer whose medical skills and expertise far exceeded the medical men of the day ?

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    No, we have a theory presented that is contradicted by the evidence, which means the theory is falsified, but you are arguing that the theory works if we discard the evidence. That line of reasoning doesn't work. I am listening and reading what you're saying. I just don't buy it.

    - Jeff

    Leave a comment:


  • seanr
    replied
    I believe there was a poison pen letter sent to 29 Hanbury Street alleging Nichols had been killed there and then moved to Buck's Row.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Wasn’t it originally suggested by Llewelyn about Nichols? Who made the suggestion about Eddowes Michael?
    I copied this bit from the Inquest Herlock, cant say for sure who the source was...."Mr. Crawford: The theory has been put forward that it was possible for the deceased to have been murdered elsewhere, and her body brought to where it was found. I should like to ask Dr. Gordon Brown, who is present, what his opinion is about that.
    Dr. Gordon Brown: I do not think there is any foundation for such a theory. The blood on the left side was clotted, and must have fallen at the time the throat was cut. I do not think that the deceased moved the least bit after that."

    Crawford didn't believe it, but someone suggested it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    There was suggestion by the contemporary investigators Herlock that she had indeed been killed elsewhere. I don't recall any other Canonical murder where that was suggested either...it was likely due to the smallish amount of blood found around the body and on the front of her clothing.
    Wasn’t it originally suggested by Llewelyn about Nichols? Who made the suggestion about Eddowes Michael?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    I have no issue with quibbling over timings but...

    Why would a killer kill Catherine elsewhere and then lug her corpse into Mitre Square? Anyone questioning the riskiness of killing at that location would surely have to accept the riskiness of being interrupted whilst carrying a corpse (possibly a greater risk considering the movement involved?) Are we suggesting that he carried an horrifically mutilated corpse and yet miraculously left no traces of this gruesome journey? Or are we suggesting that he killed in seclusion and safety but chose to commit the mutilations in the street? Why did the killer suddenly break his habits? Trevor often brings up the fact that killer of Annie Chapman would have changed his habits by killing at a later hour and in the increased daylight but how much greater is the change from killing in situ to killing elsewhere then moving the body? Why is this not an ‘issue?’

    Let’s remember that not one single person that was present that night, whether police officer or Doctor, saw a single thing that lead them to even suspect that Catherine was killed elsewhere. Most of us, I think, believe that Jack the Ripper was a serial killer that killed and mutilated women in the street (except for MJK of course but the killer wouldn’t have known that she’d got her own room) and so there’s no grounds for suspecting that he drastically altered his habits in the case of Eddowes. I can’t help feeling that we’re entering into conspiracy theorist mode when we suggest Eddowes being killed elsewhere. She quite obviously wasn’t.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    There’s no evidence at all that any of the women were killed elsewhere. Specifically with Eddowes there is no evidence of her being killed elsewhere. None of the experts present on that night suspected that she was killed elsewhere. It’s pretty obvious that she was killed by the same man that killed Annie. So however risky the situation was to our eyes or however tight the timing was to our minds this is still what occurred. We have to work far too hard to come up with an alternative. The ripper left the women where he killed them. Eddowes was killed by the ripper. Therefore she was killed where she was found.
    There was suggestion by the contemporary investigators Herlock that she had indeed been killed elsewhere. I don't recall any other Canonical murder where that was suggested either...it was likely due to the smallish amount of blood found around the body and on the front of her clothing.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X