Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • I think that I’ll try and reward myself with a well earned weekend break from this. In fact you’re probably correct, and so…

    Dr. Gandalf Phillips has been disgracefully treated by history. A Doctor who is 130 years ahead of the curve when it comes to TOD estimations really should have been given the credit that he surely deserved and yet not one expert gives him a shred of recognition. An absolute outrage in my opinion.

    Its also a fact that the English language is long overdue for a complete re-assessment so that the concept of a caveat could mean something different to its current interpretation. I mean, people could easily get confused and jump to the correct conclusion couldn't they? Totally misleading.

    And it’s way past time that history should record John Richardson as a pathological liar and a complete and utter half-wit. After all he not only told a lie that he had absolutely no need to tell but he told an unnecessary lie that brought him to the attention of the police at the scene of an horrific knife murder. It’s obvious isn’t it? And how could a man be anything other than a half wit when he claimed not to have seen an horrendously mutilated corpse less than a foot from his left boot. A what kind of moron wouldn’t have realised a wooden door’s potential to obscure someone’s view? Why would anyone listen to this kind of person. He was clearly up to something.

    Likewise our other pathological liar, Albert Cadosch. A few feet from a fence where he hears a noise of something against him. He was clearly making it up because anyone could have been walking around that yard without spotting that their was a disembowelled corpse there. Obvious stuff. Perhaps the door blocked his view too? And his honesty in admitting that he couldn’t be certain about the ‘no?’ Clearly a ploy to make us think that he was honest. How could we fall for that one?

    And Elizabeth Long too. Anyone can see that after 3 days she simply misidentified Chapman but it would have been absolutely impossible (after 3 days) for her to have been mistaken over time because we know don’t we that the passage of time only affects certain aspects of memory. So that’s sorted then.

    And why do we malign Mrs R would didn’t hear anything while she lay in bed dozing. I mean come on. I hear everything when I’m nodding off. Don’t we all?

    Not forgetting those sketches of the yard that Canaletto or Durer would have been proud of. Just because there were a mere 8 or 9 errors in them why should we dispute their accuracy? Why are we so picky? Clearly we would be biased to do so. And those massive gaps in the fence….it’s entirely possible of course that the police just never noticed them. Passage of time etc? Or perhaps the fence was blocked by the door?

    So it’s all clear to me now….Dr. Phillips was infallible, as was Inspector Chandler, as was Mrs Richardson as were the sketch artists but John Richardson was clearly a moron or a liar, Cadosch was either a liar or he had some kind of selective hearing defect or that he had a poltergeist experience when he heard his noise, and Elizabeth Long was selectively mistaken or a liar. And the coroner and the Jury were either deaf, remarkably inattentive of stupid. Now that’s what I call a fair assessment.

    Im glad that I’ve had this ‘re-think’ and seen the light at last. Cleary I (and Wick and Jeff and Doc and Abby and Joshua and others) are either all liars or we are all mistaken. And we are clearly naive (or stupid) to accept the opinion of the worlds foremost experts on forensic medicine when we have an undiscovered genius in FM to listen to. Perhaps a door was blocking our view of the facts. It can happen without you realising it you know.
    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 08-20-2022, 11:02 AM.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

    “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Dickere View Post

      It's opinion, rather than speculation. Hence the "in my view, ...". It's down to interpretation which is of course subjective. Taking his statement as a whole, mine differs from yours, which is fine.
      The interpretation differs, aye, but some interpretations are built upon stronger foundations than others.

      My interpretation is based on that which Dr Phillips actually stated: "at least two hours".

      And, your interpretation is speculation given it lacks evidence: you're suggesting that Dr Phillips would have stated "at least two hours" on two separate occasions in a very short sentence in the event he meant: "at least two hours". There is no reason to believe that, i.e. speculation.

      You, or anyone else for that matter, can take his words and turn them into whatever you like, but it is inescapable that Dr Phillips stated: "at least two hours", i.e. the minimum time possible, according to standard English diction.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
        I think that I’ll try and reward myself with a well earned weekend break from this. In fact you’re probably correct, and so…

        Dr. Gandalf Phillips has been disgracefully treated by history. A Doctor who is 130 years ahead of the curve when it comes to TOD estimations really should have been given the credit that he surely deserved and yet not one expert gives him a shred of recognition. An absolute outrage in my opinion.

        Its also a fact that the English language is long overdue for a complete re-assessment so that the concept of a caveat could mean something different to its current interpretation. I mean, people could easily get confused and jump to the correct conclusion couldn't they? Totally misleading.

        And it’s way past time that history should record John Richardson as a pathological liar and a complete and utter half-wit. After all he not only told a lie that he had absolutely no need to tell but he told an unnecessary lie that brought him to the attention of the police at the scene of an horrific knife murder. It’s obvious isn’t it? And how could a man be anything other than a half wit when he claimed not to have seen an horrendously mutilated corpse less than a foot from his left boot. A what kind of moron wouldn’t have realised a wooden door’s potential to obscure someone’s view? Why would anyone listen to this kind of person. He was clearly up to something.

        Likewise our other pathological liar, Albert Cadosch. A few feet from a fence where he hears a noise of something against him. He was clearly making it up because anyone could have been walking around that yard without spotting that their was a disembowelled corpse there. Obvious stuff. Perhaps the door blocked his view too? And his honesty in admitting that he couldn’t be certain about the ‘no?’ Clearly a ploy to make us think that he was honest. How could we fall for that one?

        And Elizabeth Long too. Anyone can see that after 3 days she simply misidentified Chapman but it would have been absolutely impossible (after 3 days) for her to have been mistaken over time because we know don’t we that the passage of time only affects certain aspects of memory. So that’s sorted then.

        And why do we malign Mrs R would didn’t hear anything while she lay in bed dozing. I mean come on. I hear everything when I’m nodding off. Don’t we all?

        Not forgetting those sketches of the yard that Canaletto or Durer would have been proud of. Just because there were a mere 8 or 9 errors in them why should we dispute their accuracy? Why are we so picky? Clearly we would be biased to do so. And those massive gaps in the fence….it’s entirely possible of course that the police just never noticed them. Passage of time etc? Or perhaps the fence was blocked by the door?

        So it’s all clear to me now….Dr. Phillips was infallible, as was Inspector Chandler, as was Mrs Richardson as were the sketch artists but John Richardson was clearly a moron or a liar, Cadosch was either a liar or he had some kind of selective hearing defect or that he had a poltergeist experience when he heard his noise, and Elizabeth Long was selectively mistaken or a liar. And the coroner and the Jury were either deaf, remarkably inattentive of stupid. Now that’s what I call a fair assessment.

        Im glad that I’ve had this ‘re-think’ and seen the light at last. Cleary I (and Wick and Jeff and Doc and Abby and Joshua and others) are either all liars or we are all mistaken. And we are clearly naive (or stupid) to accept the opinion of the worlds foremost experts on forensic medicine when we have an undiscovered genius in FM to listen to. Perhaps a door was blocking our view of the facts. It can happen without you realising it you know.
        Well, this is all very interesting.

        Your mind is unravelling, Sherlock.

        Your post got off to a good start: I’ll try and reward myself with a well earned weekend break from this.

        Take your own advice, I think you need a rest.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

          Well, this is all very interesting.

          Your mind is unravelling, Sherlock.

          Your post got off to a good start: I’ll try and reward myself with a well earned weekend break from this.

          Take your own advice, I think you need a rest.
          I've been noticing that for the past couple of weeks. I didn't know Herlock has an actual job? So yes, he deserves a weekend break. At Colney Hatch..

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
            I think that I’ll try and reward myself with a well earned weekend break from this. In fact you’re probably correct, and so…

            Dr. Gandalf Phillips has been disgracefully treated by history. A Doctor who is 130 years ahead of the curve when it comes to TOD estimations really should have been given the credit that he surely deserved and yet not one expert gives him a shred of recognition. An absolute outrage in my opinion.

            Its also a fact that the English language is long overdue for a complete re-assessment so that the concept of a caveat could mean something different to its current interpretation. I mean, people could easily get confused and jump to the correct conclusion couldn't they? Totally misleading.

            And it’s way past time that history should record John Richardson as a pathological liar and a complete and utter half-wit. After all he not only told a lie that he had absolutely no need to tell but he told an unnecessary lie that brought him to the attention of the police at the scene of an horrific knife murder. It’s obvious isn’t it? And how could a man be anything other than a half wit when he claimed not to have seen an horrendously mutilated corpse less than a foot from his left boot. A what kind of moron wouldn’t have realised a wooden door’s potential to obscure someone’s view? Why would anyone listen to this kind of person. He was clearly up to something.

            Likewise our other pathological liar, Albert Cadosch. A few feet from a fence where he hears a noise of something against him. He was clearly making it up because anyone could have been walking around that yard without spotting that their was a disembowelled corpse there. Obvious stuff. Perhaps the door blocked his view too? And his honesty in admitting that he couldn’t be certain about the ‘no?’ Clearly a ploy to make us think that he was honest. How could we fall for that one?

            And Elizabeth Long too. Anyone can see that after 3 days she simply misidentified Chapman but it would have been absolutely impossible (after 3 days) for her to have been mistaken over time because we know don’t we that the passage of time only affects certain aspects of memory. So that’s sorted then.

            And why do we malign Mrs R would didn’t hear anything while she lay in bed dozing. I mean come on. I hear everything when I’m nodding off. Don’t we all?

            Not forgetting those sketches of the yard that Canaletto or Durer would have been proud of. Just because there were a mere 8 or 9 errors in them why should we dispute their accuracy? Why are we so picky? Clearly we would be biased to do so. And those massive gaps in the fence….it’s entirely possible of course that the police just never noticed them. Passage of time etc? Or perhaps the fence was blocked by the door?

            So it’s all clear to me now….Dr. Phillips was infallible, as was Inspector Chandler, as was Mrs Richardson as were the sketch artists but John Richardson was clearly a moron or a liar, Cadosch was either a liar or he had some kind of selective hearing defect or that he had a poltergeist experience when he heard his noise, and Elizabeth Long was selectively mistaken or a liar. And the coroner and the Jury were either deaf, remarkably inattentive of stupid. Now that’s what I call a fair assessment.

            Im glad that I’ve had this ‘re-think’ and seen the light at last. Cleary I (and Wick and Jeff and Doc and Abby and Joshua and others) are either all liars or we are all mistaken. And we are clearly naive (or stupid) to accept the opinion of the worlds foremost experts on forensic medicine when we have an undiscovered genius in FM to listen to. Perhaps a door was blocking our view of the facts. It can happen without you realising it you know.
            When all else fails ,reach for the sarcasism bucket .

            Unfortunatly what you have failed to realize i think is what Mac ,Trevor ,Harry George and myself have been saying all along is.,We just cant assume that all the witnesses did behave or act in a certain way or that their testimony was totally accurate
            just to suit one perticular theory.!!!

            Which in your case is 5.30 t.od it just doesnt work the at way im afaide.

            There is sufficient evidence which you have been shown time and time again that suggest another alternative where t.o d is concerned , its a shame you dont ,wont cant accept that, its no big deal .

            I no longer takes sides in this debate, but seeings how i started this thread /topic i will endeavour to support different views based on the evidence, however i dont think post like the one above add anything positive to the debate and are in poor taste, and only show a lack of respect for other posters opinions.

            Yes perhaps a break .
            Last edited by FISHY1118; 08-20-2022, 11:57 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

              The interpretation differs, aye, but some interpretations are built upon stronger foundations than others.

              My interpretation is based on that which Dr Phillips actually stated: "at least two hours".

              And, your interpretation is speculation given it lacks evidence: you're suggesting that Dr Phillips would have stated "at least two hours" on two separate occasions in a very short sentence in the event he meant: "at least two hours". There is no reason to believe that, i.e. speculation.

              You, or anyone else for that matter, can take his words and turn them into whatever you like, but it is inescapable that Dr Phillips stated: "at least two hours", i.e. the minimum time possible, according to standard English diction.
              Oh dear, we are still repeating the same things! No-one is disputing the meaning of "at least two hours". You are trying to totally ignore the rest of what Phillips actually said. He firstly more or less repeated his original estimate which he gave Chandler, then he qualified this in his very clear second statement when he explained why that estimate might be inaccurate. ToD estimates are not necessarily accurate anyway, even today with greater modern knowledge and improved equipment, but Phillips chose to tell the coroner that his estimate could be wrong, and why. So we have an estimate which is always recognised as approximate anyway, with the added information that it might well be more inaccurate than other estimates usually are.

              Phillips' evidence is certainly something which we must consider as having relevance, but we must accept it for what it is. It is an estimate, and the provider of that estimate voluntarily chose to tell us that it might not be accurate.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                Oh dear, we are still repeating the same things! No-one is disputing the meaning of "at least two hours". You are trying to totally ignore the rest of what Phillips actually said. He firstly more or less repeated his original estimate which he gave Chandler, then he qualified this in his very clear second statement when he explained why that estimate might be inaccurate. ToD estimates are not necessarily accurate anyway, even today with greater modern knowledge and improved equipment, but Phillips chose to tell the coroner that his estimate could be wrong, and why. So we have an estimate which is always recognised as approximate anyway, with the added information that it might well be more inaccurate than other estimates usually are.

                Phillips' evidence is certainly something which we must consider as having relevance, but we must accept it for what it is. It is an estimate, and the provider of that estimate voluntarily chose to tell us that it might not be accurate.
                Phillip's was stating as he had to. His view, based on his observations, was that death occurred around 4:30 or earlier. His caveat is clear instruction to the jury to not consider his view as absolute, basically, he is telling the jury, if you find the witnesses convincing, I would not object.

                - Jeff
                ps future people should ignore my use of commas, i just toss them in every so often

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                  Phillip's was stating as he had to. His view, based on his observations, was that death occurred around 4:30 or earlier. His caveat is clear instruction to the jury to not consider his view as absolute, basically, he is telling the jury, if you find the witnesses convincing, I would not object.

                  - Jeff
                  Exactly. His caveat is his way of "copping out".

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                    Exactly. His caveat is his way of "copping out".
                    Copping out is a bit strong, rather, i think he was just doing a better job than I have in getting across the idea that estimates have error margins. I think Phillips is just saying the witnesses are not outside my error margins.

                    But, that could just be because I dont see a conflict between the witnesses and Phillips

                    - Jeff

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                      When all else fails ,reach for the sarcasism bucket .

                      Unfortunatly what you have failed to realize i think is what Mac ,Trevor ,Harry George and myself have been saying all along is.,We just cant assume that all the witnesses did behave or act in a certain way or that their testimony was totally accurate
                      just to suit one perticular theory.!!!

                      Which in your case is 5.30 t.od it just doesnt work the at way im afaide.

                      There is sufficient evidence which you have been shown time and time again that suggest another alternative where t.o d is concerned , its a shame you dont ,wont cant accept that, its no big deal .

                      I no longer takes sides in this debate, but seeings how i started this thread /topic i will endeavour to support different views based on the evidence, however i dont think post like the one above add anything positive to the debate and are in poor taste, and only show a lack of respect for other posters opinions.

                      Yes perhaps a break .
                      You don’t take a side
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                      “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                        Oh dear, we are still repeating the same things! No-one is disputing the meaning of "at least two hours". You are trying to totally ignore the rest of what Phillips actually said.
                        Which of course is a misrepresentation of what I've been saying over the course of a good few pages.

                        The two parts of his statement are irretrievably linked, obviously.

                        The second part of his statement does not negate: "at least two hours".

                        At least means the minimum time possible, regardless of what followed in his statement.

                        What did follow is: "and probably more hours but....."

                        This is where Dr Phillips is not unequivocal and volunteers that while he believed Annie had been dead for more than two hours, he was unprepared to nail it down to exactly how many hours more. You would have to infer that based on his observations and medical knowledge it would have been a meaningless statement and unprofessional.

                        Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                        ToD estimates are not necessarily accurate anyway. It is an estimate, and the provider of that estimate voluntarily chose to tell us that it might not be accurate.
                        Yes, it is known that estimating TOD is problematic.

                        But, let's be clear on this: Dr Phillips did not give an exact time estimate.

                        Dr Phillips gave a window of between 2 and 3 hours or 2 and 4 hours. We don't which of those two because he didn't quantify how many hours he had in mind when he stated: "and probably more".

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                          Well, this is all very interesting.

                          Your mind is unravelling, Sherlock.

                          Your post got off to a good start: I’ll try and reward myself with a well earned weekend break from this.

                          Take your own advice, I think you need a rest.
                          Just a summing up of the stupidity and manipulations that have been and continue to be used by some. Stick to your Phillips fantasy. You’ve found your level. Best you stick to it.
                          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

                            Which of course is a misrepresentation of what I've been saying over the course of a good few pages.

                            The two parts of his statement are irretrievably linked, obviously.

                            The second part of his statement does not negate: "at least two hours".

                            At least means the minimum time possible, regardless of what followed in his statement.

                            What did follow is: "and probably more hours but....."

                            This is where Dr Phillips is not unequivocal and volunteers that while he believed Annie had been dead for more than two hours, he was unprepared to nail it down to exactly how many hours more. You would have to infer that based on his observations and medical knowledge it would have been a meaningless statement and unprofessional.



                            Yes, it is known that estimating TOD is problematic.

                            But, let's be clear on this: Dr Phillips did not give an exact time estimate.

                            Dr Phillips gave a window of between 2 and 3 hours or 2 and 4 hours. We don't which of those two because he didn't quantify how many hours he had in mind when he stated: "and probably more".
                            Total
                            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

                              Total
                              Good to see you back from your self-imposed break, Sherlock. Don't take it all so seriously, it's only a bit crack on a message board.

                              So, the self-imposed weekend break materialised into approx. 10 minutes abstinence. Never mind, there are no rules here and nobody wants to bully you off the board.

                              I see your break hasn't done much for the quality of your posts. Never mind, it's the taking part that counts.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                                I'm generally a bit reluctant to wade into the quagmire that is Chapman's TOD, but I'll chip in a thought.

                                It's a personal bugbear of mine that so many arguments revolve around witnesses lying and/or doing strangely dangerous things like placing themselves under suspicion for no apparent reason.

                                Mrs Richardson claimed that she would have heard if anyone came into the yard. I don't doubt that she genuinely felt this to be the case. So do we have any grounds to question her certainty? Well, yes. She wasn't fully conscious by her own admission. So regardless of what she believed, it clearly wasn't cast iron. A coroners inquiry skims over the details, leaving many questions unasked unfortunately for us.

                                Any reliance on Mrs Richardson is trying to push the TOD to before 3am, from whence her vigil began, but she didn't hear anyone until the alarm was raised, so like the nightwatchman in the Nichols inquest, I suggest her attention was somewhat short of vigilant. She's pretty much the definition of an unsafe witness. Not a liar though.

                                I feel Long and Cadosch have similar circumstances. They were not paying any great attention and nothing at the time struck them as significant. But they were at least awake, so we can question any certainty they had based on a lack of attention to detail, but nothing as catastrophic as not actually being awake. Again, not lying, not glory hunting, feeling certain in their own beliefs, but leaving scope for us to question that certainty.

                                John Richardson is a bit different though, we know he was awake, and was not just in passing of the scene but located at it, he had far more opportunity to detect if something wasn't right. Our grounds for questioning his certainty starts with him missing the body as a result of the door, but this seems highly implausible knowing what we do of the location of the body in relationship to the steps. Without a reasonable grounding to question his certainty, we move into the realm of him lying to police and the coroner, placing himself at a murder scene needlessly and putting himself in danger. And what are we suggesting? Why, when it was put to him that he may have missed the body, did he dig in and start to fabricate statements that put him at the scene with a knife? What was he hoping to achieve? A lynch mob?

                                For me, JR missing the body is only possible because of Dr Phillips's TOD estimation. I don't think he was gravely mistaken, as Jeff pointed out, he was remarkably accurate given the circumstances. But this discrepancy was picked up on at the time. Doubt was equally cast on Dr Phillips. But I'm with Jeff on this one, there's no great mystery to solve. The testimony of JR and Phillips are compatible, if we accept and understand that the TOD estimation was fallible, it had a margin of error that easily accommodates JR. No one needs to be lying, embellishing stories, blind or stupid.тттттт
                                very well put Al. nice to see another voice of reason

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X