Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

    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.

    And that was the knife that he turned up with. Are you reading another case?

    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"?
    Is this really too difficult for you? The coroner wanted to see the knife that he’d used whilst sitting on the step. Not one that he used at the market. Or the one that he’d buttered his toast with. Or the one that he cut a piece of pork pie with two days earlier!

    How can you get confused over this?
    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

      You can't categorically state anything, Sherlock, because your world is full to the brim with: "we just don't know".
      Because I have no objection to admitting when I or we don’t know something. You feel comfortable making things up but that’s your prerogative.

      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

        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.
        I’ll do no such thing. I spend far too much time trying to explain the bleeding obvious to you. The evidence is there. Accept or refute it. Rather than what your previous tactic was….to ignore 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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

          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
          When are you going to realise that quoting all of these figures is simply a "rough guide" no two cases will be the same

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
            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.
            Nobody is suggesting any of the witnessess were liars,more a case of "less than economical with the truth" would be a far better description

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              When are you going to realise that quoting all of these figures is simply a "rough guide" no two cases will be the same

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              When you take a more honest approach to reviewing the case. This shows yet again that these estimations are unreliable so why are you “constantly seeking to rely on them?”

              You’re quite happy to keep mentioning how witness can’t be relied upon (well, not the ones you don’t like) but you’re not willing to concede that these estimates based on Victorian knowledge can’t be relied on.

              Your idea of fairness or reason is a strange one.

              Me - I accept that a doctors estimate could be correct at times. I accept that a witness can lie. I accept that a witness can be mistaken. I accept that we can’t just accept things and that witnesses need to be evaluated and assessed.

              You - Believe that an unreliable estimate is still preferable to a witness. You believe that every single witness discrepancy means that a witness is a liar and should be discarded. You are reluctant to admit that witnesses can get things right. You don’t just believe that we shouldn't rely on witnesses you believe that we should simply dismiss them if they aren’t word perfect.

              You appear to live in a black and white world. I don’t. And neither do most people.

              ​​​​​​…….

              And what about that non-existent conflict between Chandler and Richardson?
              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

                Nobody is suggesting any of the witnessess were liars,more a case of "less than economical with the truth" would be a far better description

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                With no evidence for 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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  Is this really too difficult for you? The coroner wanted to see the knife that he’d used whilst sitting on the step. Not one that he used at the market. Or the one that he’d buttered his toast with. Or the one that he cut a piece of pork pie with two days earlier!

                  How can you get confused over this?

                  No, as pointed out to you and clearly stated at the inquest: the coroner wanted to see the knife that cut the boot at 29 Hanbury Street.

                  Richardson brought the knife, and it turned to be a well worn dessert knife that didn't cut the boot at 29 Hanbury Street.

                  Upon accepting this glaring inconsistency, Richardson said something to the effect: "no, not that knife, I know I said I used it to cut my boot at 29 Hanbury Street but I meant it wasn't that knife and actually I cut my boot using a knife borrowed from the market".

                  Log off, man, and go to bed. 'Spellbinding idiocy.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    With no evidence for it.
                    You wouldnt know the definiton of evidence, or how to assess, and evaluate it if it jumped up at you

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      Because I have no objection to admitting when I or we don’t know something. You feel comfortable making things up but that’s your prerogative.
                      No, Sherlock.

                      Your fall back position is: "we just don't know".

                      A case in point:

                      We have evidence that Annie ate at 1.45. We have no evidence she ate later.

                      Your reply: "we just don't know".

                      Actually, your 'just don't know" isn't even supported by any realism "just don't know" let alone evidence. Annie ate at 1.45, she wants her doss money, she leaves instructions not to let her bed, it's early morning, there is no requirement for providing food in street prostitution. Your conclusion: "aye, they found a shop and sat on a street corner for half an hour at 3 in the morning or whatever eating potatoes and talking about the stars". Not only does it lack any evidence: it defies all belief.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        I’ll do no such thing. I spend far too much time trying to explain the bleeding obvious to you. The evidence is there. Accept or refute it. Rather than what your previous tactic was….to ignore it.
                        Christ. Sherlock is now talking about 'the evidence'. Where's the evidence been for the last 100 pages?! I've seen shitloads of 'trivial errors' and 'we just don't knows' but very little in the way of evidence.

                        That's fine, Sherlock, you crack on. 'Just post some links and don't bother to explain why you've posted those links.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post


                          No, as pointed out to you and clearly stated at the inquest: the coroner wanted to see the knife that cut the boot at 29 Hanbury Street.

                          Richardson brought the knife, and it turned to be a well worn dessert knife that didn't cut the boot at 29 Hanbury Street.

                          Upon accepting this glaring inconsistency, Richardson said something to the effect: "no, not that knife, I know I said I used it to cut my boot at 29 Hanbury Street but I meant it wasn't that knife and actually I cut my boot using a knife borrowed from the market".

                          Log off, man, and go to bed. 'Spellbinding idiocy.
                          More cluelessness.

                          Lets no use ‘to the effect of.’ Let’s use what we have. Richardson said:

                          “I opened it and sat on the doorstep, 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. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market.”

                          Then, when he returned he:

                          “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.”

                          ……

                          So in the first part he talked of cutting his boot. Then he returns with the knife with which he’d cut his hood.

                          Please point out to me where he says ‘I couldn’t cut my boot.’ I can’t see it.

                          Perhaps you can point out where he said ‘it wasn’t sharp enough to cut a piece of leather from my boot.’ I can’t see that either.

                          Very clearly and very obviously he meant that he’d cut a piece of leather from his boot with his own knife but it wasn’t sharp enough to do a sufficient job so he used a sharper one at the market. Could anything be more obvious?

                          Again…..

                          If there was the discrepancy you claim - why the hell didn’t the coroner spot it or mention it. He didn’t because it didn’t exist?

                          Why would Richardson have told a lie that he had absolutely no reason to tell? He had nothing to hide as the sharper knife had never been at number 29?

                          You just need to stop inventing 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 Fleetwood Mac View Post

                            No, Sherlock.

                            Yes, Deadwood,

                            Your fall back position is: "we just don't know".

                            Its called honesty. You should try it.

                            A case in point:

                            We have evidence that Annie ate at 1.45. We have no evidence she ate later.

                            Your reply: "we just don't know".

                            Actually, your 'just don't know" isn't even supported by any realism "just don't know" let alone evidence.

                            So it’s not realistic to admit that we don’t know something when we have absolutely no way of knowing it. Nice reasoning.

                            Annie ate at 1.45, she wants her doss money, she leaves instructions not to let her bed, it's early morning, there is no requirement for providing food in street prostitution.

                            So people can only do something if they have a legal requirement to do so? On what planet does that rule apply? Annie was a poverty stricken women who had to resort to prostitution and who lived such a hand to mouth existence that she wouldn’t have known where her next meal was coming from. These women weren’t all horrible people. It’s not impossible that she might have met a friend who gave her a potato. Or that she found a potato that gad fallen from a cart.

                            Your conclusion: "aye, they found a shop and sat on a street corner for half an hour at 3 in the morning or whatever eating potatoes and talking about the stars". Not only does it lack any evidence: it defies all belief

                            Pathetic. And……even if she hadn’t eaten again WE KNOW that the use of digestion to estimate TOD was unreliable, so your useless reasoning falls at both hurdles.

                            .
                            Can you state that Annie Chapman couldn’t have eaten again? No? Then you should stop making things up.

                            You really are one of the worst reasoners I’ve ever come across and that’s quite an achievement. With every post of yours we see utter desperation. A doctor with magic powers, witnesses telling lies that a child would be embarrassed about and lies that they had no need to tell in the first place. Claims to know what couldn’t have happened during a period of time for which we have zero record.

                            Whats next.

                            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

                              Christ. Sherlock is now talking about 'the evidence'. Where's the evidence been for the last 100 pages?! I've seen shitloads of 'trivial errors' and 'we just don't knows' but very little in the way of evidence.

                              That's fine, Sherlock, you crack on. 'Just post some links and don't bother to explain why you've posted those links.
                              Why explain things to you? It’s like trying to teach the LBW rule to a baby.
                              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

                                Yes we do know Fishy. It’s impossible that the police would have missed this or failed to have mentioned it. Not one single person mentions that there was a see through fence. It’s a ludicrous suggestion. It’s impossible that the coroner would have even bothered to have asked why Cadosch didn’t look over the fence if Cadosch could have seen through those huge gaps. It also makes absolutely no sense that a reporter should have specifically mentioned a single gap in the fence if there were several of them.

                                This is proven. The sketches are a waste of paper and can be dismissed as viable evidence. It gets us no further forward if we simply keep claiming that all evidence is equal. It’s not. This isn’t even close Fishy.
                                Well im not suprized but hey what ever Herlock , the argument you yourself use time and time again could just as easy be used with all witness testimony and evidence surrounding the Chapman murder , its mindblowing you cant see that , but hey again, whatever .

                                The sketchers are indeend evidence and should be included in the dicussion to clarify and compare witness testimony, pretty hard to tell the 3 artist that did them at the time of the murders that there ''not worth the paper there written on'' by someone 134 year in the future!!! , astonising to say the least .
                                '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