John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

I see.

You believe Mrs Richardson was mistaken.

I think your posts should be read in this context.

It's not the case that you rely on witness statements as they are presented, it's the case that you pick and choose which ones are of importance to fit your theory.

Actually, Mrs Richardson did not mislead the coroner, unlike her son, so I'll go with her being the more trustworthy of the two.

You’re arguments are getting weaker and more desperate. It’s not e that is selective on witnesses. You claim that Mrs. Richardson must have been correct even though this is a woman drifting in and out of sleep and yet you dismiss the fully wide awake Long because she’s inconvenient.

And just to put the final nail in your balsa wood coffin we have to point out that she also didn’t hear her son arrive and leave and she didn’t hear the person that left the door open. Oh, and she didn’t hear the ghost moving around in the yard making the noise that Cadosch was 100% confident that he’d heard.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Are you going keep on with this waste of time word play? Try looking in the dictionary at the word estimate. Phillips was estimating. He estimated at what he thought was the minimum TOD. He estimated that 2 hours was the minimum time. But he also accepted that it was possible, due to the conditions, that his estimation might have been wrong.

At least means the minimum time possible: see any English language dictionary.

The minimum time possible but possibly less, is a contradiction in terms and is nonsensical.

The definition of 'estimate' is not relevant. This is an attempt to circumvent the point being made.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Any reliance on Mrs Richardson is trying to push the TOD to before 3am

I appreciate you're responding to a post solely involving Mrs Richardson.

At the same time, you're putting two and two together and getting five.

My reliance is on the series of evidence, i.e. that which is known, including Mrs Richardson's statement; as opposed to bending what is stated/known into something that is not recorded.

Mrs Richardson's statement is one of around 10 pieces of known information that lend towards an earlier time of death. 1 in 10 being the operative phrase, as opposed to 'relying on Mrs Richardson'.

See post 1974 for more details and feel free to get back to me.

[Fleetwood Mac]

You claim that Mrs. Richardson must have been correct

I'm not.

I'm pointing out that your claim to take the witnesses at their word, a claim you have made an inordinate number of times on this thread, is not what you are doing at all. You have derided posters for suggesting that the witnesses are lying or mistaken, e.g. John Richardson.

Yet, here you are insisting that Mrs Richardson must have been mistaken when she stated she should have heard someone going through the passage after 3am.

My claim is that your theory is built upon an inconsistent approach to the witness statements, and so it can never be deemed to be a reasonable and honest assessment of that which is known.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Clearly.

Yet, the evidence suggests an earlier TOD:

The old jokes are often the best.

1) Rigor 'commencing of the limbs', rigor is delayed as a result of a cool environmental temperature.

“rigor is such a variable process that it can never provide an accurate assessment of the time of death. Extreme caution should be exercised in trying to assign a time of death based on the very subjective assessment of the degree and extent of rigor."

“….in temperate climate, under average condition, rigor becomes apparent within half an hour to an hour.”

"Francis E. Camps stated that.Ordinarily the rigor mortis appears between 2-4 hours, but sometimes it is seen within 30 minutes of death and sometimes the onset is delayed for 6 hours or more."

There are loads more but I’ll spare you as I know how offensive you find anything that shows the infallibility of Gandalf.

2) Annie's known last meal: an easily digested potato at 1.45am.

More of that pesky science. Sorry

" Using it (digestion) as a guide to time of death, however, is theoretically unsound and presents many practical difficulties, although it may have limited applicability in some exceptional instances." (Stomach contents and the time of death. Rexamination of a persistent question, Jaffe FA. AM J Forensic Med Pathol. 1989.)

Kaul et al. 2017 also found wide variations. For instance, in respect of partial gastric emptying in females was found in 24.07% of cases up to 4 hours duration, 37.04% from 4-6 hours, and 54.55% 6-10 hours, 47.33% more than 10 hours.

……

Payne- James, 2003, gives a figure of 1-3 hours for gastric emptying in respect of a small meal. However, there are many physiological and psychological factors "which contribute to the great intra- and inter-individual variability of gastric emptying. Estimations, considering all circumstances, should only be made with great reservation." (ibid)

Thus, Payne-James refers to case where stomach contents were found post mortem 11 days after poly-trauma. See: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...ptying&f=false

….and of course we can add that even though you appear to have some kind of bizarre dictum which states ‘if we have no record of something then it can’t have happened,’ then reasonable people have to accept the very real possibility that she could have eaten again during a time gap of 3 hours plus.

3) Mrs Richardson stated that no one went through the passage after 3am.

And this woman, who admitted that she was dozing at the time, didn’t hear her son arrive and leave and she didn’t hear whoever left the door open. And yet you dismiss the fully awake Long who was simply using her own eyes.

4) Annie left the lodging house to get her doss money and left instructions not to let her bed, in her own words, i.e. she wasn't planning on being long.

Brilliant point. Yes she was only heading for the cash machine and people are never late are they. It’s a wonder that these women were ever short of cash isn’t it because according to your thinking they only had to walk outside and they were tripping over potential clients. Get real. It was after 2am! We don’t know and we can’t know what she did.

5) The close proximity: Dorset Street/Hanbury Street.

Your points get more and more desperate. Why must she have gone directly to Hanbury Street?

6) In the event a 5.30am TOD is to be believed, then nobody saw Annie for almost 4 hours. You could understand maybe between 3am and 5am, but that half an hour between 5am and 5.30am is a problem given that people are coming alive again.

More genius. A penniless, homeless Victorian prostitute goes ‘off grid’ for 4 hours and it’s assumed that it’s not possible that there could be an explanation. This is simply a case of you saying “we don’t have an answer so there can’t be one therefore it can’t have happened.”

7) Richardson misled the coroner, and so his entire statement is compromised. It would have been dismissed in a court of law.

This is a deliberate and childish manipulation of the facts. And what kinds of courts have law have you seen where a barrister casts doubt on a point of evidence and the Judge kicks the witness out of court. Stop inventing things.

8) Long and Cadosch contradict one another. They were both confident they knew the time.

And Jeff has explained god knows how many times about timing (especially in the Victorian era) But you ignore it of course. And anyway, Cadosch and Long are surplus to requirements. Richardson is enough to show a later TOD.

9) Cadosch didn't claim to hear a murder. He heard noises at a time when people were coming alive in that area.

And one of those noises certainly came from a yard where, according to you, there was a mutilated corpse who isn’t a great suspect for our mystery noisemaker.

Those are the facts taken from the evidence we have.

These are your biased inventions.

In order to believe the 5.30am TOD, you have to ignore Dr Phillips' valuable observations (guesses), you have to believe Annie and her murderer found somewhere to eat when there is absolutely no evidence nor reason to suggest this (doesn’t mean that it couldn’t have happened - plus, science tells us that digestion is an inaccurate way to estimate TOD), you have to ignore/bend the glaring contradictions and outright misleading in the witness statements (inventions on your part you mean). i.e. turn them into something which they didn't state. (Like your manipulation of the caveat into an offence to the English language and all reason.



Quite clearly, there is no way to prove it, but a reasonable mind (not you then)would conclude that an earlier TOD is considerably more likely.

It gets more and more desperate and further and further from reality.

[Herlock Sholmes]

At least means the minimum time possible: see any English language dictionary.

The minimum time possible but possibly less, is a contradiction in terms and is nonsensical.

The definition of 'estimate' is not relevant. This is an attempt to circumvent the point being made.

What doesn’t make sense is a Doctor saying “ I’d estimate a minimum of 2 hours but probably more but due to the conditions probably more.”

Or “ I’d estimate a minimum of 2 hours or probably more but due to the conditions a minimum of 2 hours.”

Please stop typing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes "clearly",, just not to some.

As I already said, the evidence is uncertain ,ambiguous at times to contradictory, to just say we ""know" 5.30am was more likely t.o.d.

God, you’re easily impressed Fishy. A logical, reasoned case doesn’t just equate to what you want to hear.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm not.

I'm pointing out that your claim to take the witnesses at their word, a claim you have made an inordinate number of times on this thread, is not what you are doing at all. You have derided posters for suggesting that the witnesses are lying or mistaken, e.g. John Richardson.

Yet, here you are insisting that Mrs Richardson must have been mistaken when she stated she should have heard someone going through the passage after 3am.

My claim is that your theory is built upon an inconsistent approach to the witness statements, and so it can never be deemed to be a reasonable and honest assessment of that which is known.

I take no witness at their word. I make an assessment. You propose Mrs R but dismiss Mrs Long. Why, when she was only saying what she thought that she would have heard even though she was dozing and yet Mrs Long saw someone with her own eyes?

Your claim is based on the Marriott Defence. All witnesses that go against your own theory are to be discredited as idiots or liars.

[FISHY1118]

God, you’re easily impressed Fishy. A logical, reasoned case doesn’t just equate to what you want to hear.

Just stating a fact herlock .

[Fleetwood Mac]

What doesn’t make sense is a Doctor saying “ I’d estimate a minimum of 2 hours but probably more but due to the conditions probably more.”

The problem being, no one is suggesting that. You're making this up (a common feature of your posts).

What I'm suggesting is that Dr Phillips stated: at least two hours but probably more, which is what he stated. And, furthermore: at least two hours and probably more but I can't nail it down to an exact time due to....."

What you're suggesting is: "a minimum of two hours but possibly less". Which, as stated, is clearly nonsensical and a contradiction in terms.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The problem being, no one is suggesting that. You're making this up (a common feature of your posts).

What I'm suggesting is that Dr Phillips stated: at least two hours but probably more, which is what he stated. And, furthermore: at least two hours and probably more but I can't nail it down to an exact time due to....."

What you're suggesting is: "a minimum of two hours but possibly less". Which, as stated, is clearly nonsensical and a contradiction in terms.

Invention.

[Fleetwood Mac]

It gets more and more desperate and further and further from reality.

The problem being, we've been through all of this.

You were asked, more than once, to explain your links, i.e. sample size, food that had been digested and so on. You declined.

We spoke about John Richardson's cutting of the boot, and in the end you resorted to falling back on "we can't be sure the newspapers reported the inquest accurately".

Taking an example from your most recent post, when put to you that Dr Phillips' left us some valuable observations, your reply is: "guesses".

You refuse to acknowledge that "at least two hours" means the minimum time possible, even though this is widely understood according to English diction.

There is no reasoning with you, Sherlock. You carry on bending the witness statements to promote that which they aren't recording as stating.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let me give a perfect example of the biased assessment that we have to endure.

As Mrs. Long didn’t come forward for 3 days the time gap means that she could have been mistaken with her identification and yet when it’s suggested that the same time gap might have resulted in her being wrong on her timing the toys get thrown out of the pram.

So she could have been mistaken in her identification but she couldn’t have been wrong on her time.

There’s even selectivity on being mistaken.

[Dickere]

My interpretation is that he was saying his estimate was two hours plus (under average conditions etc) but in this case his estimate could be wrong. I don't see that meaning two hours still applies, but not the plus. It means two hours plus could be wrong. If he wanted to insist on two hours as an absolute minimum regardless, he'd have said so. He didn't want to as he wasn't sure at all.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I take no witness at their word. I make an assessment.

An assessment based on what?

What is your criteria for assessing them?

The only criteria I see is bending their words to fit a 5.30am TOD.