Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[Herlock Sholmes]

But when you call in a medical expert why is it that some choose to ignore that expert opinion?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It’s different to understand Trevor. After all experts have never been wrong have they.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. WB: You have been there at all hours of the night?
JR: Yes.
WB: Have you ever seen any strangers there?
JR: Yes, plenty, at all hours - both men and women. I have often turned them out. We have had them on our first floor as well, on the landing.
WB: Do you mean to say that they go there for an immoral purpose?
JR: Yes, they do.

Quit being naïve, people. John didn't go to #29 to check the padlock - several residents could have managed that trivial task, either alone or collectively.
John was really there to turf out unwanted people - he was effectively the part-time bouncer.

Why would Richardson be turning out potential customers for The Pink Pussycat Club in his moms cellar?

It’s not naivety to believe that Richardson was there to check the cellar it’s that we have zero reason to doubt him. The ‘why didn’t she get someone else to do it’ is irrelevant. How can we know? She didn’t tell Richardson to check the cellar he did it anyway. How is a son being concerned about his mothers livelihood unbelievable?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. They were talking pretty loudly. I overheard him say to her "Will you?" and she replied, "Yes." That is all I heard, and I heard this as I passed. I left them standing there, and I did not look back, so I cannot say where they went to.

You said “and when she looked in there direction a second time.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Apart from Long being impossible to take seriously, she also causes us to too easily suppose that Jack and Annie must have entered #29, together.

Another major exaggeration. She might have been mistaken of course but ‘impossible to to seriously?’ Come on. Unless you take Phillips as gospel then Long has to be at least considered.

So what do we have?

Richardson a lying, part-time bouncer who placed himself at the scene of a murder with a knife in his hand.
Mrs Richardson, packing case maker and Pink Pussycat Madam.
Elizabeth Long, inconvenient passing fantasist.
Cadosch, a carpenter who couldn't distinguish between 5’6” and 4’ who is suspicious because he didn’t peer over a neighbours fence.
Police so mind numbing my dumb that they didn’t notice that the cellar lock couldn’t be seen from the step or that unless there was a dwarf convention going on anyone could have been seen over the fence with no effort required.

Whats next?

[Fisherman]

It’s different to understand Trevor. After all experts have never been wrong have they.

Experts are experts for a reason, that reason being that they know what they talk about since they have extensive training and understanding of their respective trades. Sure enough, being an expert does not guarantee that you are right - but it is as good an assurance as we will get.

If we start regarding experts as people who are just as likely to be wrong as they are to be right, we are entering Behind the Mirror Country.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Why would Richardson be turning out potential customers for The Pink Pussycat Club in his moms cellar?

Because the basement is also used by the packing case workers.
That's why he only needs to check it on work days, and other days 'it looks after itself'.
If you retort that there was negligible business going on at the time, then how do you suppose they can afford to pay for an idle basement?
There may be other reasons for The Pink Pussycat Club being essentially a nighttime operation.

It’s not naivety to believe that Richardson was there to check the cellar it’s that we have zero reason to doubt him. The ‘why didn’t she get someone else to do it’ is irrelevant. How can we know? She didn’t tell Richardson to check the cellar he did it anyway. How is a son being concerned about his mothers livelihood unbelievable?

We can doubt him; him going there just to check the padlock is an inefficient solution - there must be more to it.
He really goes there to remove stragglers, after closing time.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You said “and when she looked in there direction a second time.”

That was in reference to the other quote, in which the couple disappear. I'm pretty sure that wasn't literally so.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Another major exaggeration. She might have been mistaken of course but ‘impossible to to seriously?’ Come on. Unless you take Phillips as gospel then Long has to be at least considered.

So what do we have?

Richardson a lying, part-time bouncer who placed himself at the scene of a murder with a knife in his hand.
Mrs Richardson, packing case maker and Pink Pussycat Madam.
Elizabeth Long, inconvenient passing fantasist.
Cadosch, a carpenter who couldn't distinguish between 5’6” and 4’ who is suspicious because he didn’t peer over a neighbours fence.
Police so mind numbing my dumb that they didn’t notice that the cellar lock couldn’t be seen from the step or that unless there was a dwarf convention going on anyone could have been seen over the fence with no effort required.

Whats next?

Richardson had two goes at getting the knife story right, which you said yourself was an odd story.
Make that three goes if we include him failing to mention it at all, to Chandler.
Baxter quizzed him very hard, and rightly so.
It's an over-simplification to just say I think John was a liar.

Pink Pussycat Madam - the basement has now been metaphorically opened, and that's the way it will stay.

Elizabeth Long - remember that quote I posted yesterday, which referred to the admission that she would not be able to recognize the couple again?

Cadosch - my last post on the fence, mentioned that it's height was probably irrelevant, in Albert's case.

Police - was the padlock mentioned to the police, when at #29, or only at the inquest? ES Oct 14:

Did you see young Richardson? - I saw him later on in the morning, about a quarter to seven o'clock. His name is John. He was in the passage of 29 Hanbury street at the time. He told me he had been at the house at five o'clock.

Did he say what he went there for? - He said he went to the back door and looked round to see that all was right, and then went away to his work at the market.

Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.

Did he say he was sure the woman was not there at the time? - Yes.

So no mention of the padlock to Chandler, however, John 'looked round to see that all was right'.
Looked around for people, perhaps?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Police - was the padlock mentioned to the police, when at #29, or only at the inquest?

Chandler on this in 2 other papers.

MA:

Did he tell you what he was there for? - Yes; he said he came to look if all was right. He told me that he was sure the body was not in the yard about five o'clock.

DN:

Did he say what for? - He said he went into the back yard and down the cellar to see if all was right, and then went away to his work in the market.

By the Foreman - Witness told him that he did not go to the bottom of the steps leading to the cellar. He went to the top, and looked down.


No mention of the padlock. Why did Richardson really go there?

[caz]

Now there´s a post Caz needs to read ...

Don't be like that, Fish.

Of course an expert medical opinion is admissible, but it doesn't automatically mean the opinion is right, does it?

How many times has one forensic expert directly contradicted another, in a court of law, leaving the inexpert jury members to decide between themselves which opinion is more likely to be right? Have there been no cases where an expert got it wrong, and the wrong person was convicted as a result, or the guilty person set free to offend again?

If the jury is given just the one expert opinion, how are they meant to know if 9 other experts would have been of the same opinion, or if 6 of them might have differed?

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

Experts are experts for a reason, that reason being that they know what they talk about since they have extensive training and understanding of their respective trades. Sure enough, being an expert does not guarantee that you are right - but it is as good an assurance as we will get.

If we start regarding experts as people who are just as likely to be wrong as they are to be right, we are entering Behind the Mirror Country.

I accept that experts opinions will sometimes differ, but I see time and time again reseachers who are not experts blatantly disregarding what the experts are telling us in favour of their own personal non expert opinions.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[caz]

That was in reference to the other quote, in which the couple disappear. I'm pretty sure that wasn't literally so.

But the witness was not being quoted. It was described as a statement she made 'to the effect that...'

A very different beast.

We see it all the time on these boards where direct quotes are not used, so someone's words can be interpreted subjectively as being 'to the effect that... [fill in the blank with something more, er, creative]'.

It's what journalists do, and it's not hard to see it in action anywhere.

Love,

Caz
X

[NotBlamedForNothing]

But the witness was not being quoted. It was described as a statement she made 'to the effect that...'

A very different beast.

We see it all the time on these boards where direct quotes are not used, so someone's words can be interpreted subjectively as being 'to the effect that... [fill in the blank with something more, er, creative]'.

It's what journalists do, and it's not hard to see it in action anywhere.

Love,

Caz
X

I used the term 'quote' ambiguously. I meant the quoting of the newspaper itself.
However, since I gave both that quote, and the quote from Long's testimony, it should be obvious enough what I meant by 'the other quote', and that Herlock ignored 'the other quote', when he replied.

I will now quote from the Evening Standard, Oct 12:

A woman named Durrell, who minds carts on market morning in Spitalfields market, stated yesterday that, about half past five o'clock on Saturday morning, she was passing the front door of No. 29 Hanbury street, when she saw a man and a woman standing on the pavement. She heard the man say, "Will you?" and the woman replied, "Yes." They then disappeared. Mrs. Durrell does not think she could identify the couple.

My subjective interpretation of that newspaper quote, is that Mrs Durrell would not be able to identify either of the couple (as one would expect from such a brief witnessing).

[Herlock Sholmes]

I get criticised for questioning expert testimony and yet the opposite appears to occur when it comes to the Press. (And no, I’m not just having a dig at anyone who happens to be a journalist ) We continually see the press giving differing accounts and using varying quotes and it’s often used to discredit a witness or to suggest a version of events. Maybe we should start treating press reports with a much larger pinch of salt?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. My subjective interpretation of that newspaper quote, is that Mrs Durrell would not be able to identify either of the couple (as one would expect from such a brief witnessing).

I disagree.

Firstly, she obviously felt that she could indeed identify her because that’s exactly what she did.

and

Secondly, I’m suspicious when a journalist tells me what a person was supposed to have said when the journalist can’t even get the witnesses name right.