Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    How unbelievably stupid would the police have had to have been not to have said “hold on Mr Cadosch, we can clearly see all through this fence via these considerable gaps. Can you explain this?”

    Clearly the fence at the time had no such gaps. It had one gap as mentioned. The clue is in the words Trevor. Why would one gap have been specifically been mentioned if there were loads of them.
    Thats difficult to say Herlock , the reported may have just been told ''a'' [there is no evidence he went to the yard to see for himself that im aware of ] gap in the fence whereby it was sketched by 3 different artist [ who were there btw ] that showed more ,again we have to look at all the evidence and decide for ourselfves what may have been right or not .
    '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

      How can we say that her testimony has no value George? The police took her to see the body in the mortuary and she identified her. Could she have been mistaken? Absolutely. Without a doubt she could have been mistaken. But she might not have been. Would the police today have completely dismissed her testimony? They would have been remiss if they had done. I’ll make this point George….
      The would have treated it as unsafe given the conflicts with other witnesses and especially with regards to the ID at the mortuary given what she said in her statement

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk





      Comment


      • We are advised,that even today there is no exact time of death rule.There are examples that tell us there willl be a plus or minus error margin.We do not know in the case of a recent death how much that error may be.Phillips 33 years of experience with dead bodies would give him some knowledge,so the two hours base he mentions is to me reasonable.What I cannot visualise is that the error in the case of Chapman was one hour,plus or minus.Taking that it was,then the murder was committed between 3.30 am,and 5.30 am.If Phillips underestimated anything less than one hour Long's statement has little relevence.Of course I look to the margin of error in regard to Phillips as being an understatement.I am allowed to.I didn't make the rules.I have no objective.Others see it as an over estimated time interval.They have to,to try and fit Long's testimony as meaning something.They have an objective.

        Comment


        • MA 30. Sept;

          "A Juror - Is she quite correct about the time? Dr. Phillips, who saw the body soon after six o'clock, said the deceased had been dead two hours.

          The Coroner - The doctor very considerably qualified the statement, because he gave reasons why the body would get cold sooner."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

            Thats difficult to say Herlock , the reported may have just been told ''a'' [there is no evidence he went to the yard to see for himself that im aware of ] gap in the fence whereby it was sketched by 3 different artist [ who were there btw ] that showed more ,again we have to look at all the evidence and decide for ourselfves what may have been right or not .
            That’s up to you Fishy of course but this issue for me is a certainty. The fence simply couldn’t have had all of those gaps without anyone mentioning it or questioning it as part of any investigation. And why would one reporter point out one gap if there were loads of gaps?
            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 your suggestion just say ‘something else’ made that noise and w can’t come up with a reasonable suggestion for that apart from Harry’s suggestion. Whereas we know for a fact that Annie and her killer were in that yard.
              But we cannot conclusively prove what time that was

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                The would have treated it as unsafe given the conflicts with other witnesses and especially with regards to the ID at the mortuary given what she said in her statement

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk




                But they wouldn’t have discarded her all together would they Trevor? But here we are at your use of the word ‘unsafe’ again.

                Imagine the evidence is a chair.

                If a chair is obviously damaged and therefore unsafe to sit on then we wouldn’t use it. We would either get it repaired or throw it away.

                All chairs have the potential of collapsing when we sit on them especially if a chair is really old. We might also see imperfections when we look at it.

                So if we consider the chair in the second statement would we just throw it away? No, we would check it first; we would investigate to see if it was safe or if it required repair or could be repaired.

                Witness testimony should be treated the same. Just because we can see imperfections we shouldn’t just chuck a witness out. We assess the pro’s and con’s.

                We keep going around in circles on this point by I’ve tried so many ways of explaining this point to you Trevor but you either don’t understand it or you aren’t willing to concede what’s obvious. You see an imperfect witness (which is pretty much every witness) and label the as ‘unsafe’ which to you appears to mean that they should be dismissed. I can’t keep finding different ways of explaining the obvious.
                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

                  But we cannot conclusively prove what time that was

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  We can only go on what Cadosch said, allowing for a reasonable margin for error.
                  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 View Post
                    We are advised,that even today there is no exact time of death rule.There are examples that tell us there willl be a plus or minus error margin.We do not know in the case of a recent death how much that error may be.Phillips 33 years of experience with dead bodies would give him some knowledge,so the two hours base he mentions is to me reasonable.What I cannot visualise is that the error in the case of Chapman was one hour,plus or minus.Taking that it was,then the murder was committed between 3.30 am,and 5.30 am.If Phillips underestimated anything less than one hour Long's statement has little relevence.Of course I look to the margin of error in regard to Phillips as being an understatement.I am allowed to.I didn't make the rules.I have no objective.Others see it as an over estimated time interval.They have to,to try and fit Long's testimony as meaning something.They have an objective.
                    I can’t believe that you’re still on about this Harry. Phillips knowledge is irrelevant. It is physically impossible for him to have been more accurate than doctors can be 134 years later. That should be the end of it so why are you so resistant to the proven truth?

                    You didn’t make the rules as you say above Harry, but it seems that you’re perfectly happy to keep ignoring them (the medical/scientific ones) because it suits you to do it.
                    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 Joshua Rogan View Post
                      MA 30. Sept;

                      "A Juror - Is she quite correct about the time? Dr. Phillips, who saw the body soon after six o'clock, said the deceased had been dead two hours.

                      The Coroner - The doctor very considerably qualified the statement, because he gave reasons why the body would get cold sooner."
                      Now that’s worth everyone reading. I’ll add the emboldening. Thanks Joshua
                      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

                        How can we say that her testimony has no value George? The police took her to see the body in the mortuary and she identified her. Could she have been mistaken? Absolutely. Without a doubt she could have been mistaken. But she might not have been. Would the police today have completely dismissed her testimony? They would have been remiss if they had done. I’ll make this point George….

                        It appears to be quite acceptable to suggest that a woman, probably with things on her mind as she walked along, briefly saw a couple a mistook the woman for Annie Chapman convincing herself of this over three days ‘thinking time?’

                        Fair enough…

                        But why is it then unacceptable to suggest that after the same 3 days, a woman walking along, probably with things on her mind, couldn’t have misheard or misremember the distant bells that she took her time from?

                        Is it right or fair to accept the possibility of one but not the possibility of the other George?
                        Hi Herlock,

                        I would see her evidence as more favourable if she "mistook" the woman for Annie Chapman, but she had never seen Annie Chapman, so it was a random woman that, after three days, she decided was Annie Chapman. The bells would only be relevant if it had been Chapman.

                        This is something i cut and pasted from here: https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-sironi.html. It had a reference of Baddeley, A.: Human Memory Theory and Practice. :

                        Eyewitness testimony is one of the most widely used types of evidence available. There is a tendency, however, to believe that it is more accurate than it really is. As we will see, eyewitness evidence can be very inaccurate, even when the witnesses are fully confident about what they have seen. Before analyzing in detail the factors that determine the quality of evidence, we will examine the main features of human memory.
                        Memory is not like a video camera, which can capture all the events that are framed in the direction in which it is pointed, record them and replay them. Our memory cannot do this. We do not absorb information passively in order to replay it exactly as received; our memory is an active, creative process that can be inaccurate for a variety of reasons. For an item of information to be remembered it must go through three main stages: it must be encoded into memory, stored in memory and, finally, retrieved from memory. Problems can occur at each of these stages.
                        Encoding
                        Encoding is the process of storing or representing information in memory. What is encoded depends on the direction where an individual’s attention is directed at a particular time and what is taken in or perceived. Owing to our limited capacity to concentrate, we cannot pay attention to, or take in, all the information in our environment at any particular moment, but tend to focus on what is most important for us at the time. This depends both on the person and on the environment. Information to which we do not pay active attention is rarely encoded and, obviously, something that is not encoded in the first place cannot be remembered later on. Even when we pay attention to something there is no guarantee that it will be encoded.
                        Storage
                        Since we do not encode everything that we observe, our memory contains gaps. To make sense of these gaps, we may ‘fill them in’ to fit in with our attitudes, beliefs and expectations about a particular event or person. External sources may also be incorporated into memory. For example, if we are told, incorrectly, that a person we have met had a moustache, this information may be incorporated into memory. We may come genuinely to believe the person had a moustache.
                        Retrieval
                        We may have encoded information and stored it, but obviously we cannot claim to have ‘remembered’ material successfully unless we can retrieve it from memory. Successful retrieval from memory depends not only on adequate encoding and storage but on other things as well. Retrieval cues can have a considerable effect on our ability to ‘call up’ information from memory.


                        I find this interesting, even apart from our discussions. We know that Cadosch was thinking about his work and Long testified that they she did not take much notice. This could have affected the reliability of their memories.

                        Cheers, George
                        “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                        “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          I don’t think that we can be confident of 5 minutes George when we read the research about peoples estimation of times and timing. Did he blitz attack? I don’t think that’s a certainty is it? But as we weren’t there George we can’t know what position he was in or exactly what he did or how he did it. Isn’t it possible that he might for example have moved Annie’s arm which fell against the fence?
                          Hi Herlock,

                          I think we can see from Eddowes that he didn't muck about once the victim was in place.

                          Annie's left arm was across her left breast when the body was found. If it was there previously and fell against the fence, would he have put it back? Not sure this is one of your better suggestions.

                          Cheers, George
                          “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                          “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                            Hi George,

                            I meant that the ToD calculation was different. The cases of Eddowes, Stride, and Nichols had ToD calculated taking into account fresh blood still not coagulated, and so the loss of temperature was relatively unimportant - the murders had to be just minutes previously, not hours.
                            Ahh, sorry Doc, I misunderstood. If we are talking about the early time then I agree.

                            Cheers, George
                            “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                            “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              "A Juror - Is she quite correct about the time? Dr. Phillips, who saw the body soon after six o'clock, said the deceased had been dead two hours.

                              The Coroner - The doctor very considerably qualified the statement, because he gave reasons why the body would get cold sooner."


                              Now that’s worth everyone reading. I’ll add the emboldening. Thanks Joshua
                              Not so fast my friend. If doctor's estimates were so unreliable, how reliable was a solicitor's interpretation of the estimate. Probably about the same as the juror's. So let's call it as one all.


                              Cheers, George
                              “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                              “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                But they wouldn’t have discarded her all together would they Trevor? But here we are at your use of the word ‘unsafe’ again.

                                Imagine the evidence is a chair.

                                If a chair is obviously damaged and therefore unsafe to sit on then we wouldn’t use it. We would either get it repaired or throw it away.

                                All chairs have the potential of collapsing when we sit on them especially if a chair is really old. We might also see imperfections when we look at it.

                                So if we consider the chair in the second statement would we just throw it away? No, we would check it first; we would investigate to see if it was safe or if it required repair or could be repaired.

                                Witness testimony should be treated the same. Just because we can see imperfections we shouldn’t just chuck a witness out. We assess the pro’s and con’s.

                                We keep going around in circles on this point by I’ve tried so many ways of explaining this point to you Trevor but you either don’t understand it or you aren’t willing to concede what’s obvious. You see an imperfect witness (which is pretty much every witness) and label the as ‘unsafe’ which to you appears to mean that they should be dismissed. I can’t keep finding different ways of explaining the obvious.
                                No one is discarding her statement it is in conflict with other witnesses so not just her but the other witnesses must be catergorized in the same way because of the conflicts and we are not able to show which one is corrcet or they are all mistaken

                                You cant compare a witness to a chair which is an inamiate object, you really are struggling with this

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 08-11-2022, 03:15 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X