Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

    I can only go by the uncertainty of his testimony herlock the ''NO'' was not definitve as to which yard it came from therefor it just cant be assumed to have come from 29 for certain.

    The noise however was certain , but that noise in itself isnt proof either that it was Annie Chapman or her killler hitting the fence .

    Like i said the witness testmony is to be considered just as uncertain , unsafe in trying to predict a t.o.d as is Dr Phillips .
    Why do we lump Phillips guess in with the witnesses? We know for an absolute fact that the methods Phillips used were unreliable. This is a fact.

    We can suggest reason why we might not believe Cadosch but we can’t say for a fact that anything he did was unreliable. He had eyes, he had ears and when he wasn’t certain of something he showed honesty by admitting it.

    Only in ripperology would someone have caution used against them.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes

    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      The word no on its own causes a problem cadosch was in the yard long enough to have surely heard conversation prior to him hearing the word no or any conversation that followed him hearing the word no.

      He didn’t walk into the yard and stand still though. When you move away from someone they sound quieter. Why you get closer they become louder. And have you never in your life heard someone speaking but one word is emphasised by being louder than the rest? It happens all of the time and I’d have a fair guess the two of the words most often emphasised (and therefore said louder) are ‘yes’ and ‘no.’

      If it were the killer and Chapman then that shows at that point she was still alive, and if someone was being murdered would she not utter other words other than the word no, and she must have likley as not struggled before succumbing to death in which case Cadosch would have surely heard a lot more than no and a bang against the fence, which given the type of fence as has been decsribed he would have been able to see if anybody was the other side of the fence and through it.

      But we can’t know what context the word ‘no’ was used. You are assuming that it was ‘no’ don’t kill me. Why do we have to assume that? For all we know the killer might have might have said to Annie “someone might walk into the yard,” and she said “no, I’ve been here before and it’s safe.”

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      Why do we assume a talkative struggle if she was strangled?
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes

      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

        hi Harry
        i suppose its possible...but that idea covers cadosch but not Long, and besides it involves including a "phantom" witness of which there just isnt any evidence for.
        Does this scenario also explain richardson not seeing the body because the murder happens after hes already been there?
        and what does it say about when the murder took place re phillips TOD?
        Yes, Richardson is still problematic in this scenario.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

          Hi Herlock,

          You have presented a more than adequate sufficiency of references to show how the medical estimates of the time were totally unreliable and inadequate. When asked how the estimates for Nicholls, Stride and Eddowes were anything but unreliable and inadequate, the answer is that the doctors scuttled about finding out what the answer was and then presented that as their estimate. So lets just say that Phillips was wrong with Chapman because he found out the answer in advance and......oh, no, wait.

          Come on George that’s not the whole of what I said. I said that they had other information available to them. But either way there’s no point in using the ‘well the doctors got other TOD’s correct’ approach because the answer is obvious. Of course they can get it right at times. No one, least of all me has suggested otherwise. The top and bottom is that they were provably unreliable. This isn’t ‘Herlock getting something wrong,’ this is information from the worlds experts. I wish someone would tell me why Phillips is still being used. In regard to the witnesses his opinion is no more useful that Wayne Rooney’s.

          I noticed in one of your posts your referred to only two of the witnesses with regard to reliability. Can I take that to mean that you have abandoned Long as a serious witness?

          It’s not a case of endorsing or abandoning any witnesses. She only differs by 15 minutes which, as Jeff will tell you, is next to nothing.

          If we choose to look at Cadosch, which version of his story will we examine. In his first version he heard voices, rustling of clothes, a scuffle and a bump against the fence. This would be the most believable. Annie is attacked and cries "no', a scuffle and she falls against the fence. Version two has the cry of "no" on his trip to the toilet and the bump on the fence on the return to the house. Cadosch said he was ill so he must have spent at least a few minutes sitting on the throne. Did Jack freeze frame waiting for him to return before pushing Annie down on the fence? Version three gets even better. Trip one to the toilet for the cry of "no", return to the house, 3-4 minutes later another trip to the toilet with the fall against the fence as he is entering the door on his return trip to the building. Given that he must have spent some time on his toilet activities, that is a very long scuffle for a killer that garrotted or throat cut his victim and mutilated them in a matter of minutes.

          I don’t really place much trust in the varieties of newspaper reporting George. You never know if it’s the subject who says something or a reported who misinterprets. I go with the inquest testimony. (Which is in itself from the newspapers but more reliable imo)

          And no it’s not a long scuffle. Fishy tried that one a few months ago. It didn’t work then and it doesn’t work now. We don’t have to connect the ‘No’ directly to the noise. It’s only when people wrongly claim that the noise must have been the body falling against the fence. The noise could have been made by the killer brushing against the fence during the mutilations. Maybe with his arm or shoulder. Possible he was changing position for access?


          So why didn't Cadosch just stick to his original story. This is where the unreliability of memory comes into play. I did post examples of modern thinking on this topic but you seem to prefer to present evidence for the lack of confidence in medical testimony rather than addressing this aspect. I will concede that modern opinion is that medical estimates for ToD were limited to the science of the day, but we cannot then make a logic leap to claiming that therefore the witnesses are correct. Nit picking minor differences I hear you say? A series of story changes is symptomatic of the shifting of reality during memory retrieval and can feel like the truth to the person involved. On the other hand they may just be lying. People do that. Have you heard the one about Santa? The thing about Cadosch as a witness is that he didn't think anything unusual was going on, and he was there, and that seemed to exasperate both the coroner and the jury.

          If you want to present every single newspaper version of Cadosch story George how many discrepancies do you think that we would find? I’m guessing at a lot. We could pointlessly spend forever quibbling over them. Which were accurate and which weren’t. If 6 or 7 varied would we assume that Cadosch changed his story 6 or 7 times or that newspapers aren’t always accurate? Of course witnesses can be wrong George. I’ve never denied that. There’s nothing about Cadosch that leads me to believe he lied though (but that just an opinion)

          Cheers, George
          If we dismiss Cadosch though George then there’s absolutely no reason that Long couldn’t have been correct. 5.35 TOD still within range.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes

          “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

            [Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? - They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings. I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over.

            This may of course be one possible alternative ,but lets put it into context ,we dont know the position of such packing cases on that morning or how they were or were not stacked ,were they on a what angle did a piece of one or part of one fall off and hit the fence ? there could be a number of different scenarios relating to any number of forien objects that could have mad that noise, we just dont know for sure what it was just as we cant be sure based on the evidence at hand that it was certainly annie chapman .

            Thats a non-starter Fishy. There were no packing cases in that yard. We can’t just invent them to fill a gap.

            Fwiw , i live in a unit backing on to a group of factorys one such business stackes its palletts and building suppies up against the fence every day, they remove the once a month. Let me tell you from experience, ive heard things fall and make a noise at different hours of the day and night on more than one accasion . Its not as out of the question as you might think .
            So apart from packing cases, which weren’t there, what else could the noise have been?

            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes

            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              Well is nice to see you are finally coming around to my way of thinking, all we want now is Herlock to do the same and its case closed

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk


              I’ll stay on Planet Earth thanks.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes

              “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                I know this theory has been posited before, but perhaps someone encountered Annie's corpse. They tried to move the body, check for signs of life, saw the ghastly mutilations and let go in horror. That would explain the "No!" in disbelief, and the slump against the fence.

                Why did this person(s) never come forward? Well, they might have been venturing into the yard for unsavory reasons themselves and didn't want to be questioned by police.
                Harry, you’ll be accused of re-writing history, or blasphemy or something. It’s similar to what I said in post # 1470

                . If Cadosch wasn’t lying and he heard a noise from the yard of number 29 which wasn’t connected to the murder then we have to consider the possibility that not only can we suggest that Chapman wasn’t killed at 4.30 or earlier but she might have died after 5.20! This then brings Elizabeth Long into play. So the suggestion is (and it’s only a suggestion btw)

                Richardson sits on the step and the body wasn’t there. Cadosch goes into his yard twice (around 5.20 as a general figure encompassing both visits) and hears someone in the yard of number 29 (perhaps a prostitute and her client, perhaps someone from the house?) That person or persons never come forward because they don’t want to get involved by placing themselves at the crime scene or that they were up to something that they shouldn’t have been? They leave. Long sees Chapman and her killer. They go into the yard and Chapman is killed at around 5.35.
                My version has Chapman killed later but yours is certainly a possible too. It allows for Richardson to have missed the body (which I personally don’t believe for a second) but it also allows for Chapman to have been killed between a couple of minutes after 4.45 and say 5.10.

                Good suggestion Harry.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post


                  We have an unaccounted for period of time during which you are claiming to know, quite falsely, to know what she had or hadn’t done. Perhaps you feel that this is a reasonable thing to do but it’s difficult to believe that anyone would agree with this for a second.
                  Sherlock, it is not for me to invent scenarios. What I have put forth is based upon the known evidence.

                  Your case on the other hand is built upon: "we just do not know" followed by invention in large parts.

                  Richardson misled the coroner. 'Lucky he wasn't in a court of law, the beak would have done him for contempt of court.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                    Sherlock, it is not for me to invent scenarios. What I have put forth is based upon the known evidence.

                    Your case on the other hand is built upon: "we just do not know" followed by invention in large parts.

                    Richardson misled the coroner. 'Lucky he wasn't in a court of law, the beak would have done him for contempt of court.
                    But you are certainly inventing evidence. You are claiming to know that Annie Chapman didn’t have anything further to eat after her 1.45 potato. You can’t possibly know that. So it’s an invention on your part.

                    It doesn’t get much simpler Deadwood.
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes

                    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                      Sherlock, it is not for me to invent scenarios. What I have put forth is based upon the known evidence.

                      Your case on the other hand is built upon: "we just do not know" followed by invention in large parts.

                      Richardson misled the coroner. 'Lucky he wasn't in a court of law, the beak would have done him for contempt of court.
                      Prove to me that Richardson misled the court. Go on.

                      Witnesses do testify on oath at an inquest btw. I can only assume that they don’t do so just for a laugh.
                      Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 08-10-2022, 10:07 PM.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes

                      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        But you are certainly inventing evidence. You are claiming to know that Annie Chapman didn’t have anything further to eat after her 1.45 potato. You can’t possibly know that. So it’s an invention on your part.
                        The oxford dictionary definition for evidence : the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

                        'Available' being the operative word, Sherlock.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                          The oxford dictionary definition for evidence : the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

                          'Available' being the operative word, Sherlock.
                          You get worse.

                          So because we have no record of what she did from 1.45 until the time of her death we have to assume that she couldn’t have eaten again? During that period of time for Annie Chapman time simply stood still.

                          Please think before you say things.
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes

                          “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            Well is nice to see you are finally coming around to my way of thinking, all we want now is Herlock to do the same and its case closed

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk


                            Pardon me Trevor, I do my own thinking,i didnt have to come around i was already there !!
                            'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              Why do we lump Phillips guess in with the witnesses? We know for an absolute fact that the methods Phillips used were unreliable. This is a fact.

                              We can suggest reason why we might not believe Cadosch but we can’t say for a fact that anything he did was unreliable. He had eyes, he had ears and when he wasn’t certain of something he showed honesty by admitting it.

                              Only in ripperology would someone have caution used against them.
                              Yes herlock we have all established that about the good Dr , just as it is a fact that witnesses can also be unrealiable . Is not as much a contest between the two, as ive regularly suggested ,one doesnt prove the other wrong or right .

                              In this case we have to try determind each peice of evidence on it own merits and form ones own opinon regarding t.o.d .

                              Some will support the witnesses ,some will support the Dr, thats what the evidence is for so people are free to make up their own minds.
                              'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                So apart from packing cases, which weren’t there, what else could the noise have been?
                                Tha fact remains we dont have any idea what was in the yard that could have been responsible for the noise, As is the fact we cant be sure beyond a doubt it was Annie Chapman. The uncertainty and ambiguious overall evidence you and i and others all rely on makes for that assessment.
                                'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X