Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • This thread is really circling the drain of good manners.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
      I wont go on and on Herlock as its pointless excersize , except to say the'' all'' evidence,[ yes that which you chose to ignore cant accept] allows us to conclude an uncertain t.o.d !! thats just a fact . I agreed with you in some parts in regards to Dr Phillips , you havent shown the same courtesy with the witnesses .

      Georges post #1324 is what im talking about and you know it, at least have the courage to admit it.
      You keep going on about George’s post #1324 ( which isn’t George’s post, it’s your post - George’s post was #1320 btw) but this just tells us that witnesses can be mistaken. We know this Fishy. No one has ever claimed that witnesses can’t be mistaken so I can’t see why you feel that this is a basis for going on about it.

      The witness and the Doctors TOD don’t require a courtesy. I have accepted that Doctors can at times get it right and that witness can get it wrong. The whole dispute about the Doctors was because of you and others trying to claim that a Doctor was more than likely to have been correct. When their unreliability has been proven over and over again. Then we got ‘yes but’s,’ and all manner of twisting and bottom of the barrel scraping to try and show that the Doctor was likely to have been correct.

      The Doctors estimate was, and is, unreliable. There should be no need for further discussion of Phillips but we still get posters dragging him up in desperation.

      The witnesses are a different kettle of Fish. We can’t use anything as certain a science; so things aren’t equal in this case. It’s nothing to do with courtesy.It’s about posters going to absolutely any lengths, offending reason, logic, evidence and the English language to make a point.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

        Excelllent post George , youve clearly demonstrated what some of us have been saying from day one of this thread .

        That the evidence and witness testimony should be treated with just as much caution as Dr Phillips t.o.d estimate.

        As some have pointed out [and yes correct to a point ] , modern day medical experts are often referenced to show Dr Phillips opinion should be taken with a ''grain of salt'' just one such phase off the top of my head im sure there are more .

        Where by what you have posted, also by modern day comparsions your points on ''List of Cons of Eyewitness Testimony'' ''How reliable is an eye eyewitness witness''. Should be viewed the same way.

        Im also pleased you referenced Drs Brown , Blackwell, Llewellan, Sequeira, in much the same way to draw attention to their t.o.d estimates. Did you read my post on that ?



        Thank you again to George for this very important post, lets not forget it. My reply stills stands

        Let it stand as a reminder to everyone that will question DrPhiliips testimony that all the witnesses should be considered the same way . Thats to this post .

        I have accepted both ,some refuse to do the same

        Phillips shouldn’t be treated with caution. He should categorically be dismissed as irreverent. He tells us nothing in regard to the witnesses because his estimate can be rated no more than he could have been right he could have been wrong. And as Jeff has proven (which George appears to agree with btw) a TOD is within the expected range. Any use of Phillips to discredit witnesses isn’t honest. This is a fact.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          You keep going on about George’s post #1324 ( which isn’t George’s post, it’s your post - George’s post was #1320 btw) but this just tells us that witnesses can be mistaken. We know this Fishy. No one has ever claimed that witnesses can’t be mistaken so I can’t see why you feel that this is a basis for going on about it.

          The witness and the Doctors TOD don’t require a courtesy. I have accepted that Doctors can at times get it right and that witness can get it wrong. The whole dispute about the Doctors was because of you and others trying to claim that a Doctor was more than likely to have been correct. When their unreliability has been proven over and over again. Then we got ‘yes but’s,’ and all manner of twisting and bottom of the barrel scraping to try and show that the Doctor was likely to have been correct.

          The Doctors estimate was, and is, unreliable. There should be no need for further discussion of Phillips but we still get posters dragging him up in desperation.

          The witnesses are a different kettle of Fish. We can’t use anything as certain a science; so things aren’t equal in this case. It’s nothing to do with courtesy.It’s about posters going to absolutely any lengths, offending reason, logic, evidence and the English language to make a point.
          Yes and i told you many post ago, im not saying the doctor was more right or wrong than the witnesses am i ?

          What i have i always been saying herlock is , ones doesnt ''prove'' the other wrong . The evidence from the witnesses is uncertain, conflicting ambiguious, unsure, therefor an accurate, certain t.o.d is impossible .
          '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 GBinOz View Post

            Hi Herlock,

            I accept that that the estimates for the interval of time elapsed from ToD until time of examination can be considered unreliable using the techniques employed at the time. However, looking at Llewellan's estimate for Polly, Blackwell and Phillip's estimate for Stride, and Brown and Sequeira's estimate for Eddowes, I question the magnitude of the error involved with Phillip's estimate for Chapman. Modern medical opinion dictates that Phillip's could have been wrong, but by how much? Can we know for sure?

            But can we look at the other side of the coin? Modern opinion on the reliability of eye witnesses. Let's look at some statements on the modern theory in that regard gleaned from a Google search on "can eyewitnesses be wrong".

            How reliable is an eye witness?
            Studies have shown that mistaken eyewitness testimony accounts for about half of all wrongful convictions

            List of Cons of Eyewitness Testimony
            • Eyewitness testimony may not always be accurate. ...
            • Eyewitness testimony rely only on people's memory. ...
            • Eyewitness testimony can have parts that are made up by the witness due to nervousness or fear. ...
            • Eyewitness testimony can convict the wrong person.
            How reliable is your memory?
            Human memory is notoriously unreliable, especially when it comes to details. Scientists have found that prompting an eyewitness to remember more can generate details that are outright false but that feel just as correct to the witness as actual memories.

            Most false memories aren't malicious or even intentionally hurtful. They're shifts or reconstructions of memory that don't align with the true events. However, some false memories can have significant consequences, including in court or legal settings where false memories may convict someone wrongfully.

            There is currently no way to distinguish, in the absence of independent evidence, whether a particular memory is true or false. Even memories which are detailed and vivid and held with 100 percent conviction can be completely false.

            Cadosch's original statement to the press was that he heard voices from which he distinguished only the word "no", a rustle of clothing and a scuffle and a noise of something falling against the fence, all as one incident. Then he remembered they occurred at different times, some on his way to the toilet, and the last on his return. At the inquest his recollection was of two trips to the toilet with no rustle or scuffle, only the "No" on one trip, and the noise against the fence on the second trip some 3-4 minutes later. He summarised by saying that he didn't look over the fence because what he heard was nothing out of the ordinary.

            Long stated that she saw many people and couples on the street that morning, but picked out one couple of whom she stated she took no notice. Four days after the event she identifies Chapman, a woman she had never seen before, in the morgue, as the woman she had seen on that morning.

            Richardson told Chandler and the press that he had checked the lock on the cellar door that morning by the method he had been using for two months. Two days later he remembered that he sat on the step to cut leather from his boot. At the inquest he told the coroner he sat on the step and cut leather from his boot, but after retrieving the knife he said he used, then remembered in wasn't sharp enough and that the leather removal was actually achieved afterwards at his work with a borrowed knife.

            Is it reasonable to suggest that in the discussions of the reliability, or otherwise, of Phillip's testimony, the same consideration must be given to that of the witnesses?

            Best regards, George

            P.S. You do realise my friend, that the repeated misquoting of your username is an attempt to goad you to cry havoc, and let loose the dogs of war?
            YEs this one , and a very good post it is . My apoligies G for getting the post number wrong .
            '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

              You keep going on about George’s post #1324 ( which isn’t George’s post, it’s your post - George’s post was #1320 btw) but this just tells us that witnesses can be mistaken. We know this Fishy. No one has ever claimed that witnesses can’t be mistaken so I can’t see why you feel that this is a basis for going on about it.

              The witness and the Doctors TOD don’t require a courtesy. I have accepted that Doctors can at times get it right and that witness can get it wrong. The whole dispute about the Doctors was because of you and others trying to claim that a Doctor was more than likely to have been correct. When their unreliability has been proven over and over again. Then we got ‘yes but’s,’ and all manner of twisting and bottom of the barrel scraping to try and show that the Doctor was likely to have been correct.

              The Doctors estimate was, and is, unreliable. There should be no need for further discussion of Phillips but we still get posters dragging him up in desperation.

              The witnesses are a different kettle of Fish. We can’t use anything as certain a science; so things aren’t equal in this case. It’s nothing to do with courtesy.It’s about posters going to absolutely any lengths, offending reason, logic, evidence and the English language to make a point.
              Let me ask a hypothetical question, if there were no witnesses and the only evidence we had was Dr Phillips would you still question his estimated TOD ?


              Comment


              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                Yes and i told you many post ago, im not saying the doctor was more right or wrong than the witnesses am i ?

                What i have i always been saying herlock is , ones doesnt ''prove'' the other wrong . The evidence from the witnesses is uncertain, conflicting ambiguious, unsure, therefor an accurate, certain t.o.d is impossible .
                And I agree that one doesn’t necessarily prove the other wrong. So we assess the witnesses but we have to assess them fairly and we shouldn’t assume that all evidence is of equal weight just because they can’t be proven for a certainty. This is all I’m saying.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  Let me ask a hypothetical question, if there were no witnesses and the only evidence we had was Dr Phillips would you still question his estimated TOD ?

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  With what we know about the reliability of TOD estimates (now and in the Victorian) my position would have been they same. He might have been wrong, he might have been right. The reliability of the doctors TOD can only be assessed in terms of what the medication/ scientific experts tell us and not solely in terms of witness statements. And the experts are clear on it (despite the desperate imaginings of certain other posters)

                  But the situation is different. Potentially supporting the earlier TOD is your point that this murder, if correct, was later than the other murders. This can’t be disputed of course and it an entirely reasonable point to raise but we can’t say for anything like certainty that the killers circumstances might not have been different on that day. As an example, he might have been working a night shift on that particular day and was returning home when he ran into Chapman. But I’m still not dismissing your point.

                  Against that though we have 3 witnesses that flat out contradict the earlier TOD estimate. Yes, these witness can’t be assumed correct or honest, but they can’t be proven mistaken or dishonest either. At worst we might describe them as imperfect but most witnesses are. So basically to favour a later TOD we only have to suggest the possibility of a change of circumstances for the killer but to get to an earlier time of death we have to show that all of the relevant witnesses were all mistaken or lying. The first proposition is far easier and safer than the second imo.
                  Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 08-13-2022, 11:26 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                    YEs this one , and a very good post it is . My apoligies G for getting the post number wrong .
                    It is a good post Fishy. But this isn’t correct…

                    .
                    Richardson told Chandler and the press that he had checked the lock on the cellar door that morning by the method he had been using for two months
                    He never mentioned how he had previously checked the locks, only that he could do it without going into the yard..

                    Neither is this….

                    Two days later he remembered that he sat on the step to cut leather from his boot
                    Where has this been proven?

                    or this….

                    but after retrieving the knife he said he used, then remembered in wasn't sharp enough and that the leather removal was actually achieved afterwards at his work with a borrowed knife..
                    Not true. He simply fetched fetched the knife after being requested to do so. It’s apparent lack of sharpness was pointed out and he explained. He had absolutely no reason for mentioning the second knife in the first place because the second knife was never at number 24 so could have had no connection to the crime.

                    Theres nothing suspicious about anything that Richardson said or did.


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      With what we know about the reliability of TOD estimates (now and in the Victorian) my position would have been they same. He might have been wrong, he might have been right. The reliability of the doctors TOD can only be assessed in terms of what the medication/ scientific experts tell us and not solely in terms of witness statements. And the experts are clear on it (despite the desperate imaginings of certain other posters)

                      But the situation is different. Potentially supporting the earlier TOD is your point that this murder, if correct, was later than the other murders. This can’t be disputed of course and it an entirely reasonable point to raise but we can’t say for anything like certainty that the killers circumstances might not have been different on that day. As an example, he might have been working a night shift on that particular day and was returning home when he ran into Chapman. But I’m still not dismissing your point.

                      Against that though we have 3 witnesses that flat out contradict the earlier TOD estimate. Yes, these witness can’t be assumed correct or honest, but they can’t be proven mistaken or dishonest either. At worst we might describe them as imperfect but most witnesses are. So basically to favour a later TOD we only have to suggest the possibility of a change of circumstances for the killer but to get to an earlier time of death we have to show that all of the relevant witnesses were all mistaken or lying. The first proposition is far easier and safer than the second imo.
                      But no one has challenged the TOD`s of the other victims what is so important to tie this one down, we know she was killed by the same killer. I fail to understand the significance other than to argue for the sake of arguing

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        Let me ask a hypothetical question, if there were no witnesses and the only evidence we had was Dr Phillips would you still question his estimated TOD ?

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        Hi Trevor,

                        A very interesting and rather awkward question to answer briefly, as I suppose it was the witnesses that caused the ToD to be queried!

                        Firstly, I would say that we need to recognise that unlike the cases of Nichols, Stride, and Eddowes, where the ToDs were probably quite accurate, being at least partly based on the existence of fresh blood still coagulating, Chapman's estimate was based on loss of body heat, and the early stages of rigor mortis. We know that these are variables, and that modern science is therefore reluctant to accept them as more than reasonable guides pointing to possible or likely answers, but inevitably approximate ones. The level of accuracy would depend on the method of calculation used, and we do not know Phillips' methods. For example, did Phillips use a thermometer? We don't know, but none of the surgeons in these cases used phrases like "from measurements taken", or anything similar. They used phrases like "cold to the touch", "some residual warmth", or "still warm under her clothing".

                        Therefore, I am initially steered towards a cautious proposal of "at least two hours" as Chandler reports, becoming something in the range of perhaps one and a half hours or slightly less, to three hours or a little more. That is actually giving Phillips a little more credit than some modern sources would propose. However, I am also aware that after making his ToD estimate on site, on a clothed body, in less than perfect light, he conducted a post mortem on a naked body in much better light, and with plenty of time to get things right. At the inquest, he was under no pressure from any source, so as an experienced police surgeon he was presumably deliberately providing fresh information which he thought the coroner should know. He said, "but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood." He then made no attempt whatever to qualify this additional information with a consequentially revised ToD. He was a very experienced man, and it seems to me that he must have realised that this fresh information was going to allow credibility to the other witness statements suggesting a more recent death. I get the impression that Phillips made a genuine attempt to provide an estimate on site, and then had real doubts after completing the post mortem, and observing the true extent of the mutilations and loss of blood. He seems to me to have deliberately abandoned his original ToD.

                        Like you, I am not pushing for the acceptance of Cadosch and Long. However I am tempted to go for a ToD based on Richardson saying he closed the front door at about 4. 45 am, and Davis saying it was wide open at appx 5. 45 am, suggesting someone leaving in a hurry. I would not query a suggestion that Cadosch and Long were possibly wrong, and the ToD might have been nearer the earlier time. But that is using two witnesses, of course!
                        Last edited by Doctored Whatsit; 08-13-2022, 12:42 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                          Hi Trevor,

                          A very interesting and rather awkward question to answer briefly, as I suppose it was the witnesses that caused the ToD to be queried!

                          Firstly, I would say that we need to recognise that unlike the cases of Nichols, Stride, and Eddowes, where the ToDs were probably quite accurate, being at least partly based on the existence of fresh blood still coagulating, Chapman's estimate was based on loss of body heat, and the early stages of rigor mortis. We know that these are variables, and that modern science is therefore reluctant to accept them as more than reasonable guides pointing to possible or likely answers, but inevitably approximate ones. The level of accuracy would depend on the method of calculation used, and we do not know Phillips' methods. For example, did Phillips use a thermometer? We don't know, but none of the surgeons in these cases used phrases like "from measurements taken", or anything similar. They used phrases like "cold to the touch", "some residual warmth", or "still warm under her clothing".

                          Therefore, I am initially steered towards a cautious proposal of "at least two hours" as Chandler reports, becoming something in the range of perhaps one and a half hours or slightly less, to three hours or a little more. That is actually giving Phillips a little more credit than some modern sources would propose. However, I am also aware that after making his ToD estimate on site, on a clothed body, in less than perfect light, he conducted a post mortem on a naked body in much better light, and with plenty of time to get things right. At the inquest, he was under no pressure from any source, so as an experienced police surgeon he was presumably deliberately providing fresh information which he thought the coroner should know. He said, "but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood." He then made no attempt whatever to qualify this additional information with a consequentially revised ToD. He was a very experienced man, and it seems to me that he must have realised that this fresh information was going to allow credibility to the other witness statements suggesting a more recent death. I get the impression that Phillips made a genuine attempt to provide an estimate on site, and then had real doubts after completing the post mortem, and observing the true extent of the mutilations and loss of blood. He seems to me to have deliberately abandoned his original ToD.

                          Like you, I am not pushing for the acceptance of Cadosch and Long. However I am tempted to go for a ToD based on Richardson saying he closed the front door at about 4. 45 am, and Davis saying it was wide open at appx 5. 45 am, suggesting someone leaving in a hurry. I would not query a suggestion that Cadosch and Long were possibly wrong, and the ToD might have been nearer the earlier time. But that is using two witnesses, of course!
                          In reality, in todays world of policing they would state she was killed between the last time she was seen alive and the time she was found dead with them being guided by the doctors estimated TOD, of course if there was reliable evidence to show she was killed at a time lower that the original times stated then that would be adjusted. But in a criminal case the witness testiomony would be scrutinized in much greater detail than it was back then, and sadly that didnt happen back then and it should have been carried out by the police before the witnesses were allowed to give their inquest testimony because we can now see the flaws in all of the witnesses testimony which they should have seen and clarified back then.

                          and a doctor would still be able to give evidence of his estimated time of death, just because it is frowned upon it doesnt mean to say he cannot be asked in the witness box.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 08-13-2022, 01:14 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            But no one has challenged the TOD`s of the other victims what is so important to tie this one down, we know she was killed by the same killer. I fail to understand the significance other than to argue for the sake of arguing

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            I have to point out that you’ve argued on this point as much as I have Trevor but I agree that these have gone on too long and I fully accept my part in that. I get many messages from other posters telling me that I’m wasting my time trying to state the obvious and that I should just forget it so I’m at fault for not walking away. But…..

                            We’ve had people insistent, despite the evidence, that the Doctor’s medical knowledge would have been sufficient for us to accept an earlier TOD. Now most posters, apart from 2 I’d say, accept that a Victorian Doctor couldn’t have been so accurate. That is some progress at least, but why did it take so long to accept something that we’ve known all along. Now we have claims of discrepancies and lies that don’t exist. I’ve already explained why we can’t claim a discrepancy between Chandler and Richardson but I notice that this point has been passed over and no doubt this ‘discrepancy’ will re-appear at some point. Basically Trevor I don’t think that everyone (not all) view the witnesses fairly and with the kind of open mind that allows for the possibility of them being correct. There seems to me to be (again, only with some) a real desire to discredit them, as if they have some kind of reason for doing so.



                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              I have to point out that you’ve argued on this point as much as I have Trevor but I agree that these have gone on too long and I fully accept my part in that. I get many messages from other posters telling me that I’m wasting my time trying to state the obvious and that I should just forget it so I’m at fault for not walking away. But…..

                              We’ve had people insistent, despite the evidence, that the Doctor’s medical knowledge would have been sufficient for us to accept an earlier TOD. Now most posters, apart from 2 I’d say, accept that a Victorian Doctor couldn’t have been so accurate. That is some progress at least, but why did it take so long to accept something that we’ve known all along. Now we have claims of discrepancies and lies that don’t exist. I’ve already explained why we can’t claim a discrepancy between Chandler and Richardson but I notice that this point has been passed over and no doubt this ‘discrepancy’ will re-appear at some point. Basically Trevor I don’t think that everyone (not all) view the witnesses fairly and with the kind of open mind that allows for the possibility of them being correct. There seems to me to be (again, only with some) a real desire to discredit them, as if they have some kind of reason for doing so.
                              There is no desire to discredit them but what i have been trying to do is highlight the flaws in their testimony which go to show they could have been mistaken. Mrs Long is a classic case she replied to this question "Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.
                              [Coroner] At that time of the day? - "Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them"


                              So straightaway her Id of Chapman is questionable as she says she didnt take much notice of them

                              Then she goes to the mortuary and it would seem identifies the body of Chapman as the female she saw with the man. How can she make a positive ID of a person who she says she didnt take much notice of. I say again her evidence is unsafe to totally rely on as being accurate



                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                There is no desire to discredit them but what i have been trying to do is highlight the flaws in their testimony which go to show they could have been mistaken. Mrs Long is a classic case she replied to this question "Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.
                                [Coroner] At that time of the day? - "Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them"


                                So straightaway her Id of Chapman is questionable as she says she didnt take much notice of them

                                Then she goes to the mortuary and it would seem identifies the body of Chapman as the female she saw with the man. How can she make a positive ID of a person who she says she didnt take much notice of. I say again her evidence is unsafe to totally rely on as being accurate


                                And I agree. That’s why I’d never totally rely on her. All that I’d say when looking at Long is that it’s not anywhere near impossible that she might have been correct. In actual fact of the 3 witnesses I view Long similarly to how I view Phillips. Could have been correct, could have been mistaken, so we struggle to tip her evidence beyond 50-50 either way (the difference being that it’s not impossible that she just made it up [I don’t really suspect her of it but it’s not impossible] but no one could suggest that Phillips lied.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X