John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

and are you going to answer them on his behalf

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, because some people on here assume that they know what was said when we have no record of it. So they assume the sinister so that they can manufacture non-existent points to try and dismiss witnesses. Like your non-existent discrepancy between Phillips and Richardson.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We also see sniping being substituted for an absence of content.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, because some people on here assume that they know what was said when we have no record of it. So they assume the sinister so that they can manufacture non-existent points to try and dismiss witnesses. Like your non-existent discrepancy between Phillips and Richardson.

There is no discrepancy as far as I am concerned I think Phillips estimated TOD is not far off and in line with the times we know the killer was prowling the streets looking for victims

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But we have no conclusive evidence other than the sketches as to what type of fence it was. I seem to recall someone suggested that it was easy to see over which again poses a question, and by the time it got to the inquest did anyone else raise the issue of the type of fence, it doesnt appear so,again we are left to highlight flaws in the inquest system back then. Because it is wrong to assume that the actual photos we now have of the fence were 130 years old.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So no one heard Cadosch’s story and asked why he hadn’t seen anything between those very obvious gaps? So one person specifically mentions there being one gap in the fence even though there are gaps all along the fence which he somehow neglects to mention?

How far are you prepared to go, how much blatant barrel-scraping are you prepared to perform simply in your never ending quest to try and promote Gandalf Phillips and denigrate witnesses. Why the hell must witnesses alway be wrong or always be liars?

You’re now even trying to claim that 3 rubbish quick sketches that have 8 or 9 very clear inaccuracies in each somehow prove anything. Ffs Trevor, just for once, give it up.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no discrepancy as far as I am concerned I think Phillips estimated TOD is not far off and in line with the times we know the killer was prowling the streets looking for victims

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But you said this:

.
We cant accept that he told the 100% truth because there is the conflict between Chandler and himslef, and the conflict between Phillips and his estimated time of death. But that doesnt mean he told a deliberate lie

[Fleetwood Mac]

How was he misleading the inquest? The borrowed knife was never in Hanbury Street, he used it at the market. Why would the Coroner have been interested in a knife that was never at the murder scene?

This is the exchange between the coroner and Richardson in relation to the knife:

Richardson: "and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long, I kept the knife upstairs at John-street, after cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market".

At this stage witness was despatched by the coroner to fetch his knife.

Richardson produced the knife - a much-worn dessert knife - with which he had cut his boot. He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market.

My interpretation:

1) Initially, Richardson clearly states he cut the leather off his boot.

2) Initially, Richardson clearly does not state: "but it wasn't sharp enough and so I borrowed one from the market".

3) When Richardson states: "after cutting the leather off my boot, I tied my boot up, and went to the market". There is absolutely no hint of having a problem with his boot that needed fixing with a borrowed knife. Those are Richardson's words.

4) The coroner tells him to get the knife, and at this point there is no mention of the borrowed knife from the market.

5) The knife is observed to be a "much worn dessert knife".

6) Richardson changes his tune: "it wasn't sharp enough, I borrowed a knife".

7) In the event Richardson cut a piece of leather off his boot with the knife he owned and not the knife he supposedly borrowed, which he states in his own words, then Richardson was saying the knife was sharp enough prior to being asked to fetch the knife.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The knife is an easily explained non-issue.

Aye, with your reasoning it is, Sherlock.

I can categorically state that your reasoning will include the words: "we just don't know" and "trivial errors".

[Fleetwood Mac]

Also remembering the scientific evidence, originally posted by John G, showing the unreliability of estimating TOD by digestion, which you have ignored and probably ‘quietly dropped.’

Who is John G and what have I ignored?

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is the exchange between the coroner and Richardson in relation to the knife:

Richardson: "and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long, I kept the knife upstairs at John-street, after cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market".

At this stage witness was despatched by the coroner to fetch his knife.

Richardson produced the knife - a much-worn dessert knife - with which he had cut his boot. He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market.

My interpretation:

1) Initially, Richardson clearly states he cut the leather off his boot.

2) Initially, Richardson clearly does not state: "but it wasn't sharp enough and so I borrowed one from the market".

And why would he have? He was being asked about what went on at number 29 Hanbury Street, not what occurred later at the market. He also didn’t mention what he’d had for breakfast.

3) When Richardson states: "after cutting the leather off my boot, I tied my boot up, and went to the market". There is absolutely no hint of having a problem with his boot that needed fixing with a borrowed knife. Those are Richardson's words.

And why would he have? That information was entirely irrelevant to what the inquest was concerned with.

4) The coroner tells him to get the knife, and at this point there is no mention of the borrowed knife from the market.

And why would there have been? The borrowed knife was never at number 29 and so was entirely irrelevant to the Coroner.

5) The knife is observed to be a "much worn dessert knife".

6) Richardson changes his tune: "it wasn't sharp enough, I borrowed a knife".

There is no change apart from in your manipulation of what was actually said or not said.

7) In the event Richardson cut a piece of leather off his boot with the knife he owned and not the knife he supposedly borrowed, which he states in his own words, then Richardson was saying the knife was sharp enough prior to being asked to fetch the knife.

So what you have brilliantly deduced was that what John Richardson was, in effect, saying was “I cut a piece of leather from my boot but I couldn’t cut a piece of leather from my boot.” I realise that you’ve tried to accuse the witnesses of mind-boggling stupidity in your attempt to deliberately misinterpret what was said and done, but even I’m surprised that you can accuse Richardson of this kind of gibberish.

This isn’t just a different interpretation. It’s a deliberate attempt to manipulate. The coroner, who was there and heard everything verbatim and also wasn’t an idiot, clearly saw nothing suspicious about Richardson. Not once did he question what he said about the knife. Richardson changed nothing. He didn’t mention the second knife because he was at an inquest and they weren’t chewing the fat over a pint. The second knife was utterly meaningless he had absolutely no reason to mention it, and he didn’t, until it was pointed out that the first knife looked blunt. Another non-issue being manipulated.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Aye, with your reasoning it is, Sherlock.

I can categorically state that your reasoning will include the words: "we just don't know" and "trivial errors".

And I can categorically state that your reasoning will be embarrassing and clearly biased in your persistent attempt to promote Gandalf Phillips.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Who is John G and what have I ignored?

He was a poster who on a previous thread posted information about the unreliability of estimating TOD by digestion. I know that more evidence has been posted elsewhere but I can’t locate it. I know you love a good game of ‘manipulating the medical evidence’ so here’s some more to keep you occupied.


" Using it (digestion) as a guide to time of death, however, is theoretically unsound and presents many practical difficulties, although it may have limited applicability in some exceptional instances." (Stomach contents and the time of death. Rexamination of a persistent question, Jaffe FA. AM J Forensic Med Pathol. 1989.)

Kaul et al. 2017 also found wide variations. For instance, in respect of partial gastric emptying in females was found in 24.07% of cases up to 4 hours duration, 37.04% from 4-6 hours, and 54.55% 6-10 hours, 47.33% more than 10 hours.

……

Payne- James, 2003, gives a figure of 1-3 hours for gastric emptying in respect of a small meal. However, there are many physiological and psychological factors "which contribute to the great intra- and inter-individual variability of gastric emptying. Estimations, considering all circumstances, should only be made with great reservation." (ibid)

Thus, Payne-James refers to case where stomach contents were found post mortem 11 days after poly-trauma. See: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...ptying&f=false

[Fleetwood Mac]

2) Initially, Richardson clearly does not state: "but it wasn't sharp enough and so I borrowed one from the market".

And why would he have? He was being asked about what went on at number 29 Hanbury Street, not what occurred later at the market. He also didn’t mention what he’d had for breakfast.

He was being asked about Hanbury Street, and Richardson told the coroner he cut the leather off the boot with a knife he owned, not one he borrowed, at 29 Hanbury Street.

The exchange went:

1) I cut the boot off my leather with a knife I owned.

2) Get the knife.

The coroner was clearly expecting Richardson to turn up with the knife he used to cut his boot at 29 Hanbury Street.

It's weak Sherlock, very weak. 'Trivial errors' and 'we just don't know' can't explain this nonsense.

What? You mean the coroner knew it wasn't really the knife, even though the market hadn't been mentioned, and he just wanted to see a 'worn dessert knife"?

[Fleetwood Mac]

And I can categorically state that your reasoning will be embarrassing and clearly biased in your persistent attempt to promote Gandalf Phillips.

You can't categorically state anything, Sherlock, because your world is full to the brim with: "we just don't know".

[Fleetwood Mac]

He was a poster who on a previous thread posted information about the unreliability of estimating TOD by digestion. I know that more evidence has been posted elsewhere but I can’t locate it. I know you love a good game of ‘manipulating the medical evidence’ so here’s some more to keep you occupied.


" Using it (digestion) as a guide to time of death, however, is theoretically unsound and presents many practical difficulties, although it may have limited applicability in some exceptional instances." (Stomach contents and the time of death. Rexamination of a persistent question, Jaffe FA. AM J Forensic Med Pathol. 1989.)

Kaul et al. 2017 also found wide variations. For instance, in respect of partial gastric emptying in females was found in 24.07% of cases up to 4 hours duration, 37.04% from 4-6 hours, and 54.55% 6-10 hours, 47.33% more than 10 hours.

……

Payne- James, 2003, gives a figure of 1-3 hours for gastric emptying in respect of a small meal. However, there are many physiological and psychological factors "which contribute to the great intra- and inter-individual variability of gastric emptying. Estimations, considering all circumstances, should only be made with great reservation." (ibid)

Thus, Payne-James refers to case where stomach contents were found post mortem 11 days after poly-trauma. See: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...ptying&f=false

Grand. You've posted some links and you claim 'the proof' is here. Do you honestly think you're just going to post some links and others are going to say: "right, Sherlock's posted some links, 'better start reading"? Post a summary including the science and it's relevance.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s also worth pointing out (although witnesses seem to get presumed to be liars when it’s convenient) but John Richardson had no need to mention the second knife. He wasn’t ‘compelled’ to do it to cover any dishonesty. When the coroner mentioned that the knife looked blunt he hadn’t a clue as to the extent of the repair done by Richardson at Hanbury Street. He could simply have said “well it was sharp enough for what I needed to do.” Or “I was only trying to cut off a small piece.” So not only is Richardson being accused of a non-existent lie he is being accused of a non-existent lie that he had absolutely no reason for using. Par for the course really.