Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • It’s also worth mentioning imo that Trevor had previously questioned why he would have cut a piece of leather when he did, when he could have done it at home or perhaps the previous day? There usually a reasonable explanation for things.

    Evening Standard, 13th September.

    ”When did you determine to cut something off your boot? - I had cut some off the previous day, and it hurt my foot, and I found after I left the house that it wanted a bit more to be cut off. I looked to see if the cellar door was all right, and although I did not go down into the yard, I could see that it was all right”

    In regard to what Richardson said at the inquest can we really doubt that a repair couldn’t have been insufficient after reading the above? Clearly it could be. Richardson wasn’t a professional shoe repairer after all. He was a bloke trying to repair his boot with the only knife that he had to hand at the time when he realised that his boot was still hurting.

    Not only did the coroner and the jury see absolutely nothing mysterious or questionable in anything that he said concerning the knife, we also have newspaper reports where they don’t even bother mentioning the knife at the market because it was so inconsequential.

    From the same paper:

    “The Foreman suggested that the knife to which the witness had alluded should be produced.

    Witness said it was only a small white handled knife. He would fetch it.

    John Richardson now returned with the knife with which he cut his boot on the morning of the murder. It was an ordinary white handled table knife with a short blade.”

    And did he ever ask him to go and fetch the second knife? No, because they saw nothing suspicious or doubtful in anything that he’d said in regard to the knife. If some wish to explain this by saying that they had the most stupid or inattentive coroner, jury (and Press for that matter) then that’s up to the individual. I’ll go for reason and common sense and I think that most others would too.
    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 08-16-2022, 02:54 PM.
    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
      It’s also worth mentioning imo that Trevor had previously questioned why he would have cut a piece of leather when he did, when he could have done it at home or perhaps the previous day? There usually a reasonable explanation for things.

      Evening Standard, 13th September.

      ”When did you determine to cut something off your boot? - I had cut some off the previous day, and it hurt my foot, and I found after I left the house that it wanted a bit more to be cut off. I looked to see if the cellar door was all right, and although I did not go down into the yard, I could see that it was all right” .
      An altogether convulted explantion which shows the differing accounts reported in the press

      He could have simply returned to his house to make the new repair, after all he had the right knife at his house to make that repair having used it the previous night, and he would have known that his intial repair had not been succesful as soon as he put his boots on that morning, or when he made the repair the night before why did he not try his boots on then to ensure he had made the correct repair?

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • Click image for larger version

Name:	que.gif
Views:	61
Size:	61.8 KB
ID:	792638
        My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          An altogether convulted explantion which shows the differing accounts reported in the press

          He could have simply returned to his house to make the new repair, after all he had the right knife at his house to make that repair having used it the previous night, and he would have known that his intial repair had not been succesful as soon as he put his boots on that morning, or when he made the repair the night before why did he not try his boots on then to ensure he had made the correct repair?

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          How could you know that he’d have known as soon as he put his boot on that it hurt Trevor? Your making an unfounded assumption. A boot or shoe can feel ok at first and then begin to hurt after a bit of walking. This must have happened at some point to just about everyone. So I find it a little suspicious that you try to make an issue of it.

          He was on his way to work Trevor. Why would he have turned back increasing the chances of him being late? He had a knife on him so how was he to know if was up to the job or not? Besides which he was on his way to the market where he knew for sure that he’d have been able to access a sharp knife. So while he was at Hanbury Street it would have been perfectly natural for him to have sat down for a minute or so and have a crack at repairing it. If he’d failed to do a good enough job then he goes onto work and the sharper knife. Which is what he ended up doing.

          Its simple stuff. I really can’t believe that this is being turned into yet another ‘mystery.’
          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
            Anyone that still tries to dismiss the witnesses based on Phillips is not worth listening to.
            Hi Herlock and all on this thread.

            I think Phillips testimony lends support to the witnesses statements rather than dismisses them. That does not mean the witnesses were correct, or not mistaken in some way, it simply means that Phillip's own doubt in his TOD estimate, due to the cold weather and loss of blood, means he was willing to accept a later time of death than the 4.30am estimate he provides at the inquest. This is rather refreshing to have an expert be quite open about the issues with the conclusions they draw. But it does also mean that the timings of the witnesses would not necessarily be at odds with Phillip's own views. I am not sure if I am just using more words to say the same as you, Herlock.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              How could you know that he’d have known as soon as he put his boot on that it hurt Trevor? Your making an unfounded assumption. A boot or shoe can feel ok at first and then begin to hurt after a bit of walking. This must have happened at some point to just about everyone. So I find it a little suspicious that you try to make an issue of it.

              He was on his way to work Trevor. Why would he have turned back increasing the chances of him being late? He had a knife on him so how was he to know if was up to the job or not? Besides which he was on his way to the market where he knew for sure that he’d have been able to access a sharp knife. So while he was at Hanbury Street it would have been perfectly natural for him to have sat down for a minute or so and have a crack at repairing it. If he’d failed to do a good enough job then he goes onto work and the sharper knife. Which is what he ended up doing.

              Its simple stuff. I really can’t believe that this is being turned into yet another ‘mystery.’
              No mystery stating the obvious

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                Hi Herlock and all on this thread.

                I think Phillips testimony lends support to the witnesses statements rather than dismisses them. That does not mean the witnesses were correct, or not mistaken in some way, it simply means that Phillip's own doubt in his TOD estimate, due to the cold weather and loss of blood, means he was willing to accept a later time of death than the 4.30am estimate he provides at the inquest. This is rather refreshing to have an expert be quite open about the issues with the conclusions they draw. But it does also mean that the timings of the witnesses would not necessarily be at odds with Phillip's own views. I am not sure if I am just using more words to say the same as you, Herlock.
                that's a very sensible comment and but you'll no doubt get a barrage of stick from the usual jokers about Phillips' caveat and some twisted use of English.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                  it simply means that Phillip's own doubt in his TOD estimate, due to the cold weather and loss of blood, means he was willing to accept a later time of death than the 4.30am estimate
                  Dr Phillips stated 'at least two hours'.

                  What exactly does at least two hours mean? At least two hours but possibly less? That is what you're suggesting, and it's clearly a nonsensical statement. He may as well have said: "**** knows".

                  When he says: "at least two hours", why are people bending a perfectly understandable diction associated with the English language?

                  At least two hours means at least two hours. "At least" being the operative phrase. No caveat, no compromise, no anything apart from: "at least".

                  The caveat around the environmental temperature absolutely, undeniably, irretrievably relates to "and probably more". A small, malnourished weasel would grasp this.

                  At this point, it's not even about two differing opinions underpinned by a spot of evidence and a bit of inference: it's about one group who are taking the witness statements as read and the other group simply bending and manipulating statements in order to have them say whatever imaginary scenario they desire.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                    Hi Herlock and all on this thread.

                    I think Phillips testimony lends support to the witnesses statements rather than dismisses them. That does not mean the witnesses were correct, or not mistaken in some way, it simply means that Phillip's own doubt in his TOD estimate, due to the cold weather and loss of blood, means he was willing to accept a later time of death than the 4.30am estimate he provides at the inquest. This is rather refreshing to have an expert be quite open about the issues with the conclusions they draw. But it does also mean that the timings of the witnesses would not necessarily be at odds with Phillip's own views. I am not sure if I am just using more words to say the same as you, Herlock.
                    Hi Eten,

                    Good to here from you, it’s been a while. Yes, Phillips caveat was a honest admittance that, whilst he favoured an earlier TOD, he accepted the possibility of the later due to the conditions. The problem is that on here some people have a rather strange definition of the word ‘caveat.’
                    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

                      No mystery stating the obvious

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      I just stated the obvious. What you stated was anything but.

                      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 Aethelwulf View Post

                        that's a very sensible comment and but you'll no doubt get a barrage of stick from the usual jokers about Phillips' caveat and some twisted use of English.
                        There’s just an alternative dictionary hidden away that we just don’t have access to Wulf.
                        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

                          The caveat around the environmental temperature absolutely, undeniably, irretrievably relates to "and probably more". A small, malnourished weasel would grasp this.
                          most stupid, unsubstantiated and illogical comment on this thread

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            There’s just an alternative dictionary hidden away that we just don’t have access to Wulf.
                            Dicheadtionary. 2022. Mac, F. (editor). Idiots University Press, Tooltown.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

                              most stupid, unsubstantiated and illogical comment on this thread
                              And that’s coming up against some pretty stiff competition.
                              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

                                Dr Phillips stated 'at least two hours'.

                                What exactly does at least two hours mean? At least two hours but possibly less? That is what you're suggesting, and it's clearly a nonsensical statement. He may as well have said: "**** knows".

                                When he says: "at least two hours", why are people bending a perfectly understandable diction associated with the English language?

                                At least two hours means at least two hours. "At least" being the operative phrase. No caveat, no compromise, no anything apart from: "at least".

                                The caveat around the environmental temperature absolutely, undeniably, irretrievably relates to "and probably more". A small, malnourished weasel would grasp this.

                                At this point, it's not even about two differing opinions underpinned by a spot of evidence and a bit of inference: it's about one group who are taking the witness statements as read and the other group simply bending and manipulating statements in order to have them say whatever imaginary scenario they desire.
                                I’ll remind you what Dr. Phillips said at the inquest:

                                “I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood

                                The part in blue is called a caveat; a definition of which is:

                                “a modifying or cautionary detail to be considered when evaluating, interpreting, or doing something.”

                                Ok

                                So if the part written in blue meant what you apparently think it did, as opposed to how the rest of the human race interpret it, then what Dr. Phillips would have been saying, in effect, would have been:

                                ’I should say at least two hours, and probably more, but due to the conditions at the time I’d say two hours….or probably more!’

                                The entire caveat part, which clearly exists, would have been entirely unnecessary, and not only unnecessary but totally nonsensical. It’s nothing short of staggering that you have the nerve to use this kind of tactic. How desperate are you to discredit witnesses and promote Gandalf Phillips?

                                And did anyone at the time agree with our interpretation as opposed to your blatant attempt at a manipulation of the facts? Oh yeah, THE CORONER HIMSELF.


                                “The Foreman remarked that the time stated by the witness (Long) was not consistent with that stated by the doctor. The CORONER observed that Dr. Phillips had since qualified his statement.”
                                Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 08-16-2022, 06:05 PM.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes

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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X