Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
John Richardson
Collapse
X
-
Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
-
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.
If he were the Ripper that would, hopefully(?), remove the "why would he lie" defence. And what about that admitting to carrying a knife thing? Well judge, look at the thing. It's only good for cutting carrots for the rabbit, and it could barely do that. It couldn't have been used to butcher a human being! It wasn't even sharp enough to cut leather from my boot - I had to borrow another sharp knife for that. And truly, this is the knife I was carrying that morning....honestly....please believe me...why would I lie?
Cheers, GeorgeThe needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm
Comment
-
If we base the evidence of the Drs in 1888 as being unreliable by using the argument of modern day medical experts ,who are in agreement/suggest that Victorian Drs estimates of t.o.d shouldnt be trusted or labeled ''guesswork'' .
Then by the same token the witnesses in 1888, who by Georges post #1320 in regards to ''Unsafe Testimony'' using the same modern day experts analysis and examples ,should by definition come under the same if not equal scrutiny, should they not ?
How then is is possible using the same modern day experts in both fields for each case , that the witness evidence vs the Drs medical opinion solely in regards to the Chapman murder is judged to be Massively'' in favour over the Drs ?????
Sorry i dont buy that one for a second .'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 Mac3,
If he were the Ripper that would, hopefully(?), remove the "why would he lie" defence. And what about that admitting to carrying a knife thing? Well judge, look at the thing. It's only good for cutting carrots for the rabbit, and it could barely do that. It couldn't have been used to butcher a human being! It wasn't even sharp enough to cut leather from my boot - I had to borrow another sharp knife for that. And truly, this is the knife I was carrying that morning....honestly....please believe me...why would I lie?
Cheers, George
Where did Richardson say specifically that he couldn’t cut leather with that knife?
Why would he lie? It’s not a question worth asking because he transparently didn’t lie.Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
Comment
-
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
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.
My point is and has always been witness testimony as whole in regards to the Chapman murder t.o.d 5.30am is unsafe, unreilable, contradictory in some cases and in J.R case ambiguious. It would be dangerous to claim an accurate t.o.d at 5.30am based in these witnesses statements'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 PostIf we base the evidence of the Drs in 1888 as being unreliable by using the argument of modern day medical experts ,who are in agreement/suggest that Victorian Drs estimates of t.o.d shouldnt be trusted or labeled ''guesswork'' .
Then by the same token the witnesses in 1888, who by Georges post #1320 in regards to ''Unsafe Testimony'' using the same modern day experts analysis and examples ,should by definition come under the same if not equal scrutiny, should they not ?
How then is is possible using the same modern day experts in both fields for each case , that the witness evidence vs the Drs medical opinion solely in regards to the Chapman murder is judged to be Massively'' in favour over the Drs ?????
Sorry i dont buy that one for a second .Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
Comment
-
Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
I dont see anyone inventing discrepancies , i just see the evidence ,nor do i see anyone coming up with any fantasies in regards to Richardson either.
My point is and has always been witness testimony as whole in regards to the Chapman murder t.o.d 5.30am is unsafe, unreilable, contradictory in some cases and in J.R case ambiguious. It would be dangerous to claim an accurate t.o.d at 5.30am based in these witnesses statements
Richardson isn’t ambiguous. He’s not approaching ambiguous.
Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
Comment
-
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Who is saying that witnesses shouldn’t be scrutinised? I’m just saying that they should be scrutinised honestly and without invention or manipulation. But that’s not happening in some quarters by some who, for some inexplicable reason, are determined to try and discredit them in favour of Phillips.'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
What about the invention of a discrepancy between what Chandler said that Richardson had said in the passage way? How often has that one been used on here?
Richardson isn’t ambiguous. He’s not approaching ambiguous.
Richardson... Ambiguous well ill stick with that. As the definition of the word i posted suggest to me just that . You dont agree fine .'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
Where did you get the point that it was barely good enough for cutting carrots George?
Where did Richardson say specifically that he couldn’t cut leather with that knife?
Why would he lie? It’s not a question worth asking because he transparently didn’t lie.
Cheers, GeorgeThe needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm
Comment
-
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
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?
In all my days when I was working in vice did I come across any prostitute plying her trade as late as 5am so I find it hard to accept that Chapman was doing just that at that time of the morning when the streets were filled with people up and out moving about, and given all the other murders took place much earlier why would the killer take such a huge risk by changing his MO? I dont buy a later TOD
www.trevormarriott.co.ukLast edited by Trevor Marriott; 08-18-2022, 02:44 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
Herlock my friend, I was addressing Mac3's suggestion that Richardson may have been the Ripper. Answer honestly, if he were the Ripper do you think he might have lied?
Cheers, GeorgeRegards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
Comment
-
Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
There you go again coming out with nothing more than conjecture lets stick to the facts
In all my days when I was working in vice did I come across any prostitute plying her trade as late as 5am (and I’m guessing that you never came into contact with any Victorian-era prostitutes either? There situation was different from today. There are also no doss houses around.)so I find it hard to accept that Chapman was doing just that at that time of the morning when the streets were filled with people up and out moving about, and given all the other murders took place much earlier why would the killer take such a huge risk by changing his MO? I dont buy a later TOD
www.trevormarriott.co.uk
If Chapman hadn’t managed to find a client to get her doss money then she would have been on the streets. Wherever she was heading for, if she’d bumped into a prospective client do you think that she’d have just walked past him because she’d clocked off? Or would she have tried her luck? And how can you possibly know the killers circumstances on that day? People lived hand-to-mouth often taking a days work here or 2 days there so how can you know that the killer hadn’t just finished a nights work and was on his way home when he bumped into Annie?Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
Comment
-
Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
Well im fully aware what Chandler said at the inquest ,im looking at it right now and i know what Richardson told Chandler he did on the morning as well. ,You wont see me posting anything different when i refer to that meeting on the morning of the murder [ least i hope i havent ].
Because you know that the point has been refuted.
Richardson... Ambiguous well ill stick with that. As the definition of the word i posted suggest to me just that . You dont agree fine .Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post
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.
Comment
Comment