Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

    I couldn't disagree more with this.

    Which means that it’s probably correct.

    On the one hand we have: Richardson who misled the coroner and as such compromised his entire statement, Cadosh who simply claimed to hear noises at a time when the place was coming alive, Long who didn't take much notice of the couple nor saw where they went, Long and Cadosch whose timings contradict one another, the practicalities of a 5.30am TOD, i.e. getting to the back unseen, murder, mutilation, leaving unseen, at a time when the place was coming alive; all in less than half an hour.

    It's not particularly convincing.

    Repeating untruths won’t make them true. You do realise that don’t you?

    Then we have some indisputable evidence left for us by Dr Phillips: 'rigor commencing of the limbs' in a environmental temperature which would delay the onset of rigor, 'little food in the stomach' when the only evidence we have of Annie eating is at 1.45am and an easily digested potato also, the statement of this experienced doctor: "at least two hours", meaning in the English language: "a minimum of two hours".

    That's not bad. 'Some actual evidence to help us along.

    So we have a provably unreliable TOD desperately being claimed as fact and a childish distortion of the English language (not to mention a complete dismissal of what the coroner said) Not good, but expected.

    In order to discount Dr Phillips and accept Long/Cadosh/Richardson, mental acrobatics, statement manipulation and invention is needed. The statements have to be bended into something that they are not recorded as saying.

    Youve done nothing but invent.

    In order to go with Dr Phillips, it's simply following his evidence and observations left behind and reading their witness statements as they are as opposed to how we want them to be, i.e. misleading the coroner, contradictions between them, impracticalities based on what is known, and noises heard at a time when the place was coming alive again.
    Of course you go with Phillips. Your biased.

    Dr. Phillips opinion can safely be dismissed as irrelevant when judging the witnesses. This has been 100% proven but only you (and possibly Harry) agree with this. You are like the child with his fingers in his ears, jumping up and down shout ‘Phillips was right, Phillips was right.’

    The ship has sailed. Witnesses by a country mile. Anyone who claims impossible accuracy on the part of Gandalf is deluding themselves and is trying to delude others.



    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

      So we might as well never discuss or assess any part of the case Fishy? We can assess and come to positions regarding likelihood. Some things are more likely than others. For example we can’t prove that the ripper wasn’t a woman but very few would disagree that he was likelier to have been a man.
      We can discuss it as much as we like Herlock, what we cant do is determine an accurate t.o.d that is ''more'' likely at 5.30am than earlier. Then use the evidence in such a way to try and prove it.[use to suggest it yes ,prove no ] . It just doesnt work , so what were left with is just ones own personnal opinion and preference as to one or the other . It shouldnt be an issue really.
      '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 FISHY1118 View Post

        We can discuss it as much as we like Herlock, what we cant do is determine an accurate t.o.d that is ''more'' likely at 5.30am than earlier. Then use the evidence in such a way to try and prove it.[use to suggest it yes ,prove no ] . It just doesnt work , so what were left with is just ones own personnal opinion and preference as to one or the other . It shouldnt be an issue really.
        Yes we can. Evidence, logic, reason and common sense point to a TOD after 5.00. Overwhelmingly so.
        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 can. Evidence, logic, reason and common sense point to a TOD after 5.00. Overwhelmingly so.
          Permit me to suggest then for the record, Uncertainty, Ambiguious and at times Contradictory testimony point to an earlier T.O.D. more inline id say with the other victims. Compellingly so.
          Last edited by FISHY1118; 08-18-2022, 10:35 AM.
          '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

            Yes we can. Evidence, logic, reason and common sense point to a TOD after 5.00. Overwhelmingly so.
            I am puzzeld as to where you stand on this topic of TOD in one breath you are stating that you accept that the witnessess could be mistaken, and in the next breath you are stamping your feet stating that the witness testimony is overwhelming!!!!!!!!!!

            And you havent answered a question I posed in a previous post as to why Chapman who was known at that address and sold items there would risk all of that by taking a punter into the back yard at 5am when it was plainly clear that people were starting to move about, and if she had been found she would have lost valuable clients to sell to. I can understand her taking someone into that secluded yard much earlier when there was no fear of being found or discovered but 5am doesnt sit well with me for this reason and several others that have been put forward to try to determine an estimated TOD

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 08-18-2022, 10:31 AM.

            Comment


            • Amelia Richardson:
              [Coroner] Which room do you occupy? - The first floor front, and my grandson slept in the same room on Friday night. I went to bed about half-past nine, and was very wakeful half the night. I was awake at three a.m., and only dozed after that.
              [Coroner] Did you hear any noise during the night? - No.

              I could hear anyone going through the passage. I did not hear any one going through on Saturday morning.

              [Coroner] You heard no cries? - None. Supposing a person had gone through at half-past three, would that have attracted your attention? - Yes.
              [Coroner] You always hear people going to the back-yard? - Yes; people frequently do go through.
              [Coroner] People go there who have no business to do so? - Yes; I daresay they do.
              [Coroner]
              On Saturday morning you feel confident no one did go through? - Yes; I should have heard the sound. They must have walked purposely quietly? - Yes; or I should have heard them.

              Amelia doesn't mention her son John, but is very, very confident that no-one except Thompson used the passage after 3 AM. How can this be? Obviously Jack and Annie were there when she was asleep, before 3 AM. Amelia was a devout Christian woman. Why would she lie?

              Cheers, George
              “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 Ms Diddles View Post

                Hi FM!

                The arrival of dawn is not like someone has flicked a switch though.

                It is a gradual process.

                See attached astronomical definitions;

                Dawn – Definition and Meaning (timeanddate.com)

                Civil dawn is what we would consider to be typical "dawn" however prior to that there is "nautical dawn" when sea and sky would be distinguishable.

                I'd personally consider that a body in the yard right in front of him would be visible during the transition from nautical dawn to civil dawn.
                Hi Ms Diddles,

                So would you agree that 40 minutes later it would have been daylight, and no-one could have missed the basin full of water in which one could have washed his hands? Would you also agree that anyone that looked out of their window would have had more than enough light to make a positive identification of the murderer? And wouldn't Jack, having failed to avail himself of the basin of water, run a huge risk of being observed with blood on his hands in (broad) daylight as he emerged onto the street on market day?

                Cheers, George
                “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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  Yes we can. Evidence, logic, reason and common sense point to a TOD after 5.00. Overwhelmingly so.
                  Not if Richardson was the Ripper. In fact, to me "Evidence, logic reason and common sense" tell me Richardson was in fact the Ripper and possibly TK.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                    Permit me to suggest then for the record, Uncertainty, Ambiguious and at times Contradictory testimony point to an earlier T.O.D. more inline id say with the other victims. Compellingly so.
                    There’s nothing contradictory about 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 GBinOz View Post

                      Hi Ms Diddles,

                      So would you agree that 40 minutes later it would have been daylight, and no-one could have missed the basin full of water in which one could have washed his hands? Would you also agree that anyone that looked out of their window would have had more than enough light to make a positive identification of the murderer? And wouldn't Jack, having failed to avail himself of the basin of water, run a huge risk of being observed with blood on his hands in (broad) daylight as he emerged onto the street on market day?

                      Cheers, George
                      Very good points George , this one and your last post are just the sort of things that should be taken into account regarding t o.d.

                      The more one searchers the more one finds . At the very least this should have alarm bells ringing about 5.30am as an more accurate t.o.d than an earlier one. .
                      '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

                        There’s nothing contradictory about Richardson.
                        We have covered Richardson already, Ambiguity ,''the quality of being open to more than one interpretation; inexactness''.


                        Im talking about the witness testimony as a whole, therefore my point stands Uncertainty, Ambiguious and at times Contradictory
                        '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 Trevor Marriott View Post

                          I am puzzeld as to where you stand on this topic of TOD in one breath you are stating that you accept that the witnessess could be mistaken, and in the next breath you are stamping your feet stating that the witness testimony is overwhelming!!!!!!!!!!

                          I don’t know why you find this so puzzling Trevor. It simply means that of course witnesses in general can be mistaken. It’s not an impossibility. But when we look at them as a whole the evidence is massively in favour of them over the Doctor. If Cadosch and Long didn’t exist, Richardson alone puts it massively in favour of a later TOD. There’s nothing against him except inventions.

                          And you havent answered a question I posed in a previous post as to why Chapman who was known at that address and sold items there would risk all of that by taking a punter into the back yard at 5am when it was plainly clear that people were starting to move about, and if she had been found she would have lost valuable clients to sell to. I can understand her taking someone into that secluded yard much earlier when there was no fear of being found or discovered but 5am doesnt sit well with me for this reason and several others that have been put forward to try to determine an estimated TOD.

                          Firstly we can’t be anything like certain that Chapman had been there before. We don’t know if the police made any efforts to track this woman. It might have been the case that Chapman simply resembled her in some way and Mrs. R in her unenthusiastic look mistook her.

                          It would be interesting for you to actually respond to this point Trevor. In the past I’ve accused you of considering every witness that disagrees with your viewpoint as ‘unsafe to rely on.’ Now you have a witness that you feel supports your viewpoint and ‘strangely’ you ignore any possibilities for error. You want to eliminate Long but accept Mrs. Richardson as infallible. I think that this proves my point perfectly. Those that don’t support your opinion = unsafe, those that do support your opinion - safe. Nice method.


                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          Who can really tell what a woman who is desperate for cash might or might not do? When she bumped into her killer it might have been very close to number 29 and Chapman might just have thought “well I’m only going to be there for 5 minutes tops so what are the chances of Mrs. R herself popping into the yard at exactly that time?” The killer might not have been keen to go walking around looking for another spot?



                          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 FISHY1118 View Post

                            We have covered Richardson already, Ambiguity ,''the quality of being open to more than one interpretation; inexactness''.


                            Im talking about the witness testimony as a whole, therefore my point stands Uncertainty, Ambiguious and at times Contradictory
                            We haven’t ‘covered’ Richardson. Some people have invented discrepancies, that’s all. Remove the fantasies and the bias and there’s no case against him.

                            I know what ambiguity means Fishy. Just because people are coming up with works of fantasy to try and create doubts it doesn’t mean that those doubts are serious ones. Richardson is an exceptionally strong witness. He alone puts it and 80% at the very least. Add Cadosch and add Long and it’s game over. The chances of Phillips being right? Less than 5% being generous.
                            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 Ms Diddles View Post

                              Hi FM,

                              I wouldn't say I was confident!

                              I just lean that way.

                              I agree that this is just one of those things that we're never going to know for sure, so yeah, it's inconclusive.

                              I live in Glasgow BTW so I'm used to constant ambient light at all hours of the day and night!

                              It always comes as a shock on the occasions that I'm in the countryside and I experience actual proper darkness with no light pollution.

                              Great for star gazing, but a little unnerving initially!!

                              It may be that I'm applying my urban C21st perceptions to LVP London.

                              I'm going to do a bit more reading around when I have time....
                              Hi Ms Diddles,

                              What we really need is a witness statement of what it was like at dawn.

                              Between Dr Lewellyn and PC Neil, we hear that is was dark approx. half an hour before dawn when there was a street lamp at the end of Buck's Row.

                              You would have to assume it would have been at least equally dark at the back of 29 Hanbury Street given there was no artificial lighting.

                              That being said, half an hour before dawn doesn't tell us what it was like at dawn.

                              I live in the country, and 'round the back of my house there is no artificial lighting, but using that as a gauge wouldn't tell us anything because it's not Victorian London when air pollution was at its peak.

                              I've been looking around for witness statements at the break of dawn, but so far no luck and I'm a bit busy with stuff, e.g. photo editing wildlife pictures and the like, but it is one I'm going to come back to and do a bit more digging.

                              Edited to add: Ms Diddles, I should have said what it was like just before dawn as opposed to what it was like at dawn.
                              Last edited by Fleetwood Mac; 08-18-2022, 01:01 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by The Macdonald Triad View Post

                                Not if Richardson was the Ripper. In fact, to me "Evidence, logic reason and common sense" tell me Richardson was in fact the Ripper and possibly TK.
                                I wonder how many serial killers in history have found a victim in the streets and then took her back to his own mothers backyard. A backyard that he regularly visited in the early hours and could, for all that he’d have known, been seen entering and exiting, and he then lies to the police by putting a knife into his own hand. It doesn’t sound believable imo.

                                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