John Richardson

[FISHY1118]

Theres no need to ‘admit’ anything Fishy. If you’d paid attention you’d have known that I’d said this numerous times.

The evidence favours the witness by a considerable amount. It’s not close. This is perfectly clear. Or at least it should be.

But you did ,so thats thats ,simple

So we can't say for sure who was right can we? , as far as an accurate t.od ,another simple fact . Getting easier as i go along.

[Trevor Marriott]

Theres no need to ‘admit’ anything Fishy. If you’d paid attention you’d have known that I’d said this numerous times.

The evidence favours the witness by a considerable amount. It’s not close. This is perfectly clear. Or at least it should be.

Staying with the TOD debate I read somewhere that Chapman was known to Mrs Richardson and that she had visited 29 on several occasions previous. So if that be the case that shows that the vicitim took the killer to the secluded location, but knowing the location and the likely movements of those frequenting 29 would she have taken the killer to that location at 5.30am ?

Another point to negate a point you raised previoulsy from the inquest testimony of Mrs Richardson

[Coroner] Were the front and back doors always left open? - Yes, you can open the front and back doors of any of the houses about there. They are all let out in rooms. People are coming in or going out all the night.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Fleetwood Mac

Not being a small, malnourished weasel, I am struggling to grasp how you reach your interpretation of the caveat made by Phillips. I would genuinely like to understand how you reach that conclusion if you would care to share. Especially in light of the advice given by the coroner to the jury.

Etenguy,

In the event Dr Phillips meant it could be less than two hours, then this educated man had a sub-standard grasp of the English language. "At least but possibly less......." is a nonsensical statement according to accepted English diction.

From the Oxford Dictionary: least, you use at least to say that something is the minimum that is true or possible.

Nor does the coroner suggest Dr Phillips meant: "at least but possibly less....", take note of the "miscalculated the effects of those forces" part of his statement.

This has all been discussed ad nauseam in this thread and in the event you want a few more details, they are there in my previous posts.

There is the option to seek clarification from assorted English linguists and custodians of English language dictionaries also.

In effect he stated:

1) A minimum of two hours.
2) Probably more.
3) Not prepared to assign an exact time to the probably more due to......

[Fleetwood Mac]

Staying with the TOD debate I read somewhere that Chapman was known to Mrs Richardson and that she had visited 29 on several occasions previous. So if that be the case that shows that the vicitim took the killer to the secluded location, but knowing the location and the likely movements of those frequenting 29 would she have taken the killer to that location at 5.30am ?

Another point to negate a point you raised previoulsy from the inquest testimony of Mrs Richardson

[Coroner] Were the front and back doors always left open? - Yes, you can open the front and back doors of any of the houses about there. They are all let out in rooms. People are coming in or going out all the night.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I think Annie bought or sold a few bits and pieces there, 'can't remember which.

[Fleetwood Mac]

On John Richardson's statement:

It was getting light, but I could see all over the place.

I believe that on the 8th September 1888, dawn was at 4.51am and sunrise was at 5.25am.

Assuming he was there between 4.45am and 4.50am, which he claimed, there wouldn't have been any light.

[FISHY1118]

Staying with the TOD debate I read somewhere that Chapman was known to Mrs Richardson and that she had visited 29 on several occasions previous. So if that be the case that shows that the vicitim took the killer to the secluded location, but knowing the location and the likely movements of those frequenting 29 would she have taken the killer to that location at 5.30am ?

Another point to negate a point you raised previoulsy from the inquest testimony of Mrs Richardson

[Coroner] Were the front and back doors always left open? - Yes, you can open the front and back doors of any of the houses about there. They are all let out in rooms. People are coming in or going out all the night.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Just another small but inportant bit of information to deal with Trevor . With all these witness testimonies which seems to be very much open to interpretation, its a wonder anyone could pinpoint an accurate t.o.d let alone one as certain as 5.30am.

If all we have are the witnesses and Dr phillips, then its pretty much guesswork and opinion when trying to prove a conclusive t.o.d .Imo

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes its perfectly clear to you herlock , but not to others , the point being all along, the witness testimony is uncertain , ambiguous , unclear as to determine an accurate t.od.
to quote you " we just don't know" do we.

We can’t know for 100% certainty of course. But we don’t just have to accept the generality that the witnesses might have been right or they might have been wrong. We can weigh up the pros and cons. And when we do it’s pretty obvious that John Richardson is a very strong witness. One of the strongest in the case imo. If we leave aside the alleged ‘disagreement with Chandler’ (which we know didn’t exist) and we resist the conspiracist thinking on the knife at the inquest (because it’s very silly) then we have a witness that we have no reason for doubting, apart from the old ‘15 minutes of fame’ suggestion which is a convenient tool for suggesting that a witness might have told a pointless, ineffective lie.

If we adopted the ‘might have/ might not have’ approach and left it at that then there would be no need for any discussion on the case because it’s pretty much true for everything Fishy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Staying with the TOD debate I read somewhere that Chapman was known to Mrs Richardson and that she had visited 29 on several occasions previous. So if that be the case that shows that the vicitim took the killer to the secluded location, but knowing the location and the likely movements of those frequenting 29 would she have taken the killer to that location at 5.30am ?

Another point to negate a point you raised previoulsy from the inquest testimony of Mrs Richardson

[Coroner] Were the front and back doors always left open? - Yes, you can open the front and back doors of any of the houses about there. They are all let out in rooms. People are coming in or going out all the night.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’ve never heard that Richardson knew Chapman? I’m not being rude and I’m certainly not accusing you of anything Trevor but can that be proven? If not, there’s no point in responding really. Might you be mixing up the point that her son made about turfing out couples up to no good? I might have forgotten but I just can’t recall any link between Richardson and Chapman.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Etenguy,

In the event Dr Phillips meant it could be less than two hours, then this educated man had a sub-standard grasp of the English language. "At least but possibly less......." is a nonsensical statement according to accepted English diction.

From the Oxford Dictionary: least, you use at least to say that something is the minimum that is true or possible.

Nor does the coroner suggest Dr Phillips meant: "at least but possibly less....", take note of the "miscalculated the effects of those forces" part of his statement.

This has all been discussed ad nauseam in this thread and in the event you want a few more details, they are there in my previous posts.

There is the option to seek clarification from assorted English linguists and custodians of English language dictionaries also.

In effect he stated:

1) A minimum of two hours.
2) Probably more.
3) Not prepared to assign an exact time to the probably more due to......

The only nonsensical statement would have been your bizarre interpretation.

~ She was killed 2 hours earlier but probably more but the conditions at the time meant that it could have been 2 hours earlier but probably more.~

Why does it need repeating that a caveat is only used when the information within the original statement is subject to change. You don’t add a caveat for no reason which is exactly what you’re trying to invent. And he couldn’t have been talking about the ‘and probably more’ part of his statement or his meaning would have been ‘probably more or because of the conditions probably more.’ This is obvious to everyone accept you. Your misinterpretation has to be deliberate because it’s simply impossible that you can’t understand it. After all, the coroner heard it and understood it perfectly. You sound so desperate on this point that you really should let it go.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On John Richardson's statement:

It was getting light, but I could see all over the place.

I believe that on the 8th September 1888, dawn was at 4.51am and sunrise was at 5.25am.

Assuming he was there between 4.45am and 4.50am, which he claimed, there wouldn't have been any light.

How desperate are you?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just another small but inportant bit of information to deal with Trevor . With all these witness testimonies which seems to be very much open to interpretation, its a wonder anyone could pinpoint an accurate t.o.d let alone one as certain as 5.30am.

If all we have are the witnesses and Dr phillips, then its pretty much guesswork and opinion when trying to prove a conclusive t.o.d .Imo

Yes, and no matter how many times it was explained, and no matter how much evidence was piled up, yourself, Harry, Trevor and Flatwood Mic have spent weeks trying to claim that Phillips could do exactly that.

You might wish to dismiss the witnesses that’s up to you. Witnesses over a guessing Doctor by an absolute mile. Put this in front of a Jury and it would be 12-0 in favour of the witnesses.

[FISHY1118]

Yes, and no matter how many times it was explained, and no matter how much evidence was piled up, yourself, Harry, Trevor and Flatwood Mic have spent weeks trying to claim that Phillips could do exactly that.

You might wish to dismiss the witnesses that’s up to you. Witnesses over a guessing Doctor by an absolute mile. Put this in front of a Jury and it would be 12-0 in favour of the witnesses.

If the jury had to read all 1796 of these post as to a definitiv t.o.d at 5.30 for Annie'Chapman based on the witnesses and dr Phillips 8/4

Ambiguous and uncertainty of witness testimony not Phillips being right as such.

Again George's post come to mind.

[Trevor Marriott]

I’ve never heard that Richardson knew Chapman? I’m not being rude and I’m certainly not accusing you of anything Trevor but can that be proven? If not, there’s no point in responding really. Might you be mixing up the point that her son made about turfing out couples up to no good? I might have forgotten but I just can’t recall any link between Richardson and Chapman.

Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper which was published on Sunday September 16th, 1888.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

We can’t know for 100% certainty of course. But we don’t just have to accept the generality that the witnesses might have been right or they might have been wrong. We can weigh up the pros and cons. And when we do it’s pretty obvious that John Richardson is a very strong witness. One of the strongest in the case imo. If we leave aside the alleged ‘disagreement with Chandler’ (which we know didn’t exist) and we resist the conspiracist thinking on the knife at the inquest (because it’s very silly) then we have a witness that we have no reason for doubting, apart from the old ‘15 minutes of fame’ suggestion which is a convenient tool for suggesting that a witness might have told a pointless, ineffective lie.

If we adopted the ‘might have/ might not have’ approach and left it at that then there would be no need for any discussion on the case because it’s pretty much true for everything Fishy.

Alleged disagreement?

Thats a new one ,

[Herlock Sholmes]

Alleged disagreement?

Thats a new one ,

There was no disagreement Fishy.