Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post


    Just to correct your reading of the door situations, Richardson said that the back door closed itself but he closed the front door when he left the building. Richardson and his mother said that people were coming and going all the time, but the suggestion is that it was Jack that left it open after Richardson left. That is a possibility, but another possibility is that James Hardiman may have left it open had he picked up supplies for his cat meat vendor job from his mother's shop, which given the fact that it was market day, is probably more likely.

    Cheers, George
    Hi George,
    You are correct about the door misunderstanding. As for James Hardiman collecting supplies early that morning, it seems extremely unlikely, as Annie H. reported that she slept undisturbed til about 6am when there was a commotion due to the discovery of the body.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      If Mrs Long is to be believed how come we have no description of clothing worn by this woman she saw, that would have been conclusive proof the she saw Chapman

      Another failure by the police !!!!!!!

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      Prolly noticed her red and white striped tights from a distance.

      She probably saw them outside 23 Hanbury Street,however the actual address is not mentioned either.

      Click image for larger version

Name:	23 Hanbury Street.jpg
Views:	78
Size:	61.8 KB
ID:	792473
      My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        and you wonder why people confront you time and time again on here, you need to take the blinkers off as far as this murder is concerned because you clearly cant see what I and others see with regards to all of this witness testimony, when i look at what posters post on here what do i see your name constantly replying back in the same old same way. Its getting boring and repetitive to keep going over the same old same with you stamping your feet disregarding everything that is posted in favour of what you belive, there is nothing wrong with that but it is getting boring It would be a lot calmer if this thread was taken down as there is nothing more anyone can say or add to this topic that hasnt already been said a hundred times before.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        You occasionally make posts that beggar belief Trevor and this is one of them. Why people confront me? There’s not a poster on these boards that gets disagreed with as often as you do. Why is that not an issue? Why does that cause you to say “I wonder why so many people disagree with me, perhaps it’s because I’m wrong?” But no, you just assume that you’re right and expect everyone else to agree.

        The thread would be calmer if some people let go of their bias, stopped trying to manipulate evidence, and in your case stopped seeing things in black and white. You claim that you don’t see in black and white but when you’ve falsely accused me of ‘relying’ on evidence I’ve pointed out how you simply try to dismiss and imperfect evidence when it suits you. You’ve denied this but here you are doing it in black and white. I took an entirely reasonable approach to Long and said that her evidence was 50-50. She might have been right, she might have been wrong. But ‘reasonable’ doesn’t work with you does it Trevor? True to form it’s all black and white. We have imperfect witness so do we accept that she might or might not have been correct or mistaken? Nah, of course not in your world. Straight into the bin.

        Using those in relation to Mrs Long you can see why I say her testimony and identification of the body is unsafe so that being said eliminates another witness to a later time of death
        Using your ADVOKATE method.

        1) Amount of time under observation: How long did the witness have the person/incident in view?

        We can’t know exactly but very possibly 4 or 5 seconds as she approached and passed. So it’s not as if she glanced them from a passing car. Does a witness need to have stared at a person for 10 minutes before being able to identify them? So there should be no issue on this one.

        2) Distance: What was the distance between the witness and the person/incident?

        About as close as you can get without embracing. No issue on this one, in fact I’d say…advantageous.

        3) Visibility: What was the visibility at the time? Factors include the time of day/night, street lighting, etc.

        No issues there.

        4) Obstruction: Were there any obstructions to the view of the witness?

        None.

        5) Known or seen before: Did the witness know, or had the witness ever seen, the person before? If so where and when?

        No she didn’t.

        6) Any reason to remember: Did the witness have any special reason for remembering the person/incident? Was there something specific that made the person/incident memorable, clothing etc

        Not as far as we know.

        7) Time-lapse: How long has elapsed since the witness saw the person/incident?

        I don’t think that we know when Long was interviewed by the police do we? So it could have been the same day (unless of course if there’s evidence otherwise)

        8) Error discrepancy: Are there any errors or material discrepancies between descriptions in the first and subsequent accounts of the witness?

        Not necessarily. We know for a fact that the Doctors estimate was unreliable and so can’t be used as a tool to dismiss witnesses and as far as Cadosch is concerned Jeff has provided proper evidence (and not just opinion) of the allowances for timing discrepancies, incorrect clocks, unsynchronised clocks etc that we have to apply - especially in the LVP.
        So 1-4 are favourable to Long.
        5 and 6 are unfavourable.
        7 is a bit of an unknown as far as I can see unless other evidence can be provided.
        8 in total is a 15 minute discrepancy with Cadosch, which taken with hat we know (via Jeff) is pretty much nothing in the LVP

        And you would illuminate Long entirely on the basis of this? Come off it Trevor.
        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

          You occasionally make posts that beggar belief Trevor and this is one of them. Why people confront me? There’s not a poster on these boards that gets disagreed with as often as you do. Why is that not an issue? Why does that cause you to say “I wonder why so many people disagree with me, perhaps it’s because I’m wrong?” But no, you just assume that you’re right and expect everyone else to agree.

          The thread would be calmer if some people let go of their bias, stopped trying to manipulate evidence, and in your case stopped seeing things in black and white. You claim that you don’t see in black and white but when you’ve falsely accused me of ‘relying’ on evidence I’ve pointed out how you simply try to dismiss and imperfect evidence when it suits you. You’ve denied this but here you are doing it in black and white. I took an entirely reasonable approach to Long and said that her evidence was 50-50. She might have been right, she might have been wrong. But ‘reasonable’ doesn’t work with you does it Trevor? True to form it’s all black and white. We have imperfect witness so do we accept that she might or might not have been correct or mistaken? Nah, of course not in your world. Straight into the bin.



          Using your ADVOKATE method.



          So 1-4 are favourable to Long.
          5 and 6 are unfavourable.
          7 is a bit of an unknown as far as I can see unless other evidence can be provided.
          8 in total is a 15 minute discrepancy with Cadosch, which taken with hat we know (via Jeff) is pretty much nothing in the LVP

          And you would illuminate Long entirely on the basis of this? Come off it Trevor.
          You do not know what you are talking about

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            If Mrs Long is to be believed how come we have no description of clothing worn by this woman she saw, that would have been conclusive proof the she saw Chapman

            Another failure by the police !!!!!!!

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            Perhaps because she wasn’t Sherlock Holmes. In the relatively short time that she saw the woman she was looking at her face. In what we have from the inquest it looks like she wasn’t asked about the woman’s clothing so the fact that she didn’t answer what she wasn’t asked is hardly surprising and as we don’t have her police interview we don’t know how far she might have described her clothing. Another non-issue.
            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

              You do not know what you are talking about

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              And your lack of a proper response speaks volumes.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes

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

              Comment


              • Will someone please tell me where these alleged discrepancies or changing of stories are in the case of Richardson?
                Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 08-14-2022, 09:23 AM. Reason: Initially typed Chapman instead of Richardson by mistake.
                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

                  Using your ADVOKATE method.

                  So 1-4 are favourable to Long.
                  5 and 6 are unfavourable.
                  7 is a bit of an unknown as far as I can see unless other evidence can be provided.
                  8 in total is a 15 minute discrepancy with Cadosch, which taken with hat we know (via Jeff) is pretty much nothing in the LVP

                  And you would illuminate Long entirely on the basis of this? Come off it Trevor.
                  Hi Herlock,

                  IMHO 5 and 6 are critical. As for 7, I believe that Long contacted police after three days, and she viewed the body after four days. I don't know that we are entitled to presume what she may or may not have told police. I am quite in agreement with the time sync problems, but that discussion properly belongs after the assessment of the probability of her actually having seen Annie and not some random person.

                  Cheers, George
                  Last edited by GBinOz; 08-14-2022, 09:08 AM.
                  “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


                  • Click image for larger version

Name:	vok-advokaat-liqueur-500ml-17-alc-bottle-liquid-cap-528.jpg
Views:	79
Size:	88.2 KB
ID:	792481 Yummy
                    My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DJA View Post
                      Click image for larger version

Name:	vok-advokaat-liqueur-500ml-17-alc-bottle-liquid-cap-528.jpg
Views:	79
Size:	88.2 KB
ID:	792481 Yummy
                      Add some Creme de Menthe and Kahlua and you have a "Pickled Brains" cocktail.
                      “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 Trevor Marriott View Post

                        , when i look at what posters post on here what do i see your name constantly replying back in the same old same way. Its getting boring and repetitive to keep going over the same old same with you stamping your feet disregarding everything that is posted in favour of what you belive, there is nothing wrong with that but it is getting boring It would be a lot calmer if this thread was taken down as there is nothing more anyone can say or add to this topic that hasnt already been said a hundred times before.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        Reality check - when I respond, I respond to a post made by other posters, so why am I at fault and not other posters that I respond to?

                        Again, why is my disagreeing with certain other posters any worse than them disagreeing with me? It’s another case of you simply demanding to be agreed with. Things would be a lot calmer, if you stopped repeating the same old lines, “unreliable, “ “unsafe to rely on,” “blah, blah.” And if you stopped treating evidence in such a black and white way when it suits you.

                        Finally, no one is forcing anyone to read this thread or to post on it. You may not have noticed but there aren’t many ongoing threads on here. Unless you believe that it’s my responsibility alone to begin new threads? Begin a new thread, discuss any topic that you like. You’re free Trevor. I release you from your imprisonment in this thread. I set you free.
                        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 GBinOz View Post

                          Hi Herlock,

                          IMHO 5 and 6 are critical. As for 7, I believe that Long contacted police after three days, and she viewed the body after four days. I don't know that we are entitled to presume what she may or may not have told police. I am quite in agreement with the time sync problems, but that discussion properly belongs after the assessment of the probability of her actually having seen Annie and not some random person.

                          Cheers, George
                          Hello George,

                          Do we have evidence that she contacted the police after three days? She might have done, I don’t know.

                          I agree that 5 and 6 are important points to remember.

                          So, if Trevor takes note, you accept 5 out of the 8 points. So that’s 62.5%. And Trevor completely eliminates a witness on that basis.

                          Before Trevor introduced ADVOKAT I said that my opinion was that Long was no more or less than 50-50. Not far off.
                          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 GBinOz View Post

                            Add some Creme de Menthe and Kahlua and you have a "Pickled Brains" cocktail.
                            Is that a euphemism for 'roos loose in the top paddock ?

                            Comment


                            • Only if you drink it
                              My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                              Comment


                              • Might try Advokaat , creme de cocoa/Kahlua and cream.

                                Shaken,not stirred
                                My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X