Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by The Macdonald Triad View Post
    John Richardson was Jack the Ripper. Diddle each other silly. Nobody wants this smoke.
    The first serial killer in history to butcher a woman in his own mothers back yard, then lie to place himself at the scene of the crime with a knife without needing to.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by The Macdonald Triad View Post

      John Richardson was Jack the Ripper. Diddle each other silly. Nobody wants this smoke.
      There are less credible candidates. And, he's not too far removed from the George Hutchinson situation who is seen as a credible suspect. I wouldn't go as far as claiming George Hutchinson was the Whitechapel Murderer but I understand exactly why researchers have tried to find out more about him: his tale doesn't sit right.

      I'm convinced Richardson was lying for the reasons I've outlined in this thread. The 1888 police were less than convinced with him.

      So, why is he placing himself on a step with a knife a few feet from a dead body? That could do with some explaining.

      It could be worth starting a thread on Richardson as suspect, and let's see what there is against him and whether or not it stands up to scrutiny.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

        So we have the police authorities and dr Phillips in agreement that Richardson was mistaken, according to that press report.

        I guess 134 years later its just easy ... to say they were wrong.
        Did the police think he was mistaken, Fishy, or lying?

        The fact that suspicion was directed against him suggests to me they thought he was lying.

        In all probability, the suspicion arose from his knife tale and misleading the coroner.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

          Sorry to disappoint you Herlock, but the poll here : https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...-of-death-poll
          has 28 votes distributed 14/14.

          Cheers, George
          Arguing about polls undertaken in the 21st century is a completely redundant exercise. It may be useful to take a look at what exactly is being discussed, i.e. the source material from 1888.

          1) "At least two hours":

          In the English language, this means the minimum time possible. It is universally understood English diction. Upon pronouncing life extinct, Dr Phillips said "at least two hours" also.

          There are only two possible reasons underpinning the notion that Dr Phillips meant: "two hours but possibly less":

          a) Dr Phillips, an educated man, didn't have a grasp of the English language, i.e. when he said "at least" he didn't appreciate this meant the minimum time possible.

          b) Those advocating he meant "at least two hours but possibly less", do not have a grasp of the English language. They do not understand that "at least" means the minimum time possible, in accordance with universally understood English diction.

          2) The caveat:

          Those advocating Dr Phillips allowed for a 5.30am TOD are essentially saying Dr Phillips said this:

          "A minimum of two hours but possibly less". They are suggesting that this educated man made this nonsensical statement.

          3) "Probably more":

          Dr Phillips is talking in terms of hours in the lead up to this part of his statement. In addition, the standard measurement of TOD in Dr Phillips' profession is hours, not time, not later than or whatever.

          So, when Dr Phillips states: "at least two hours and probably more", he is talking of hours. He is measuring TOD in accordance with the hours standard in his profession.

          Conclusion:

          You could have all the polls in the world in 2022, propped up by sub-standard reasoning, but his own words tell us exactly what he said and meant in 1888.

          A minimum of two hours, probably more hours, I can't be certain on how many more hours due to.....

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

            Sorry Fleetwood Mac, but you have an "Albatross" around your neck! You cannot interpret simple English, and I cannot keep visiting you in Cloud Cuckoo Land every day - life is too short.

            For the last time, Phillips made two simple linked statements, his estimate that he thought "the deceased had been dead at least two hours and probably more, when he first saw her;". That is one complete self-contained statement, and then, "but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body was apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great deal of blood". That is a second statement qualifying all of the first, and not just part of the first statement. As you have told us several times, Phillips was a very experienced police surgeon, who knew his job. Indeed he did, and here he illustrated that knowledge and experience by telling the coroner the fresh information that cast doubt on his original estimate to Chandler.

            Furthermore, he was perfectly capable of telling the coroner that as a result the doubt caused by the great loss of blood, he wished to withdraw the "and probably more" part of his estimate, but to stand by the "at least two hours" part. He could easily have done this, but he didn't. Therefore this very experienced man did not mean what you claim he meant, because he never said it.

            And now I really have had enough of this nonsense. The subject is fascinating, but the debate can be absolutely crazy, and totally pointless.
            Never mind all of that grandstanding.

            The meat of the matter is this:

            "At least", meaning the minimum time possible according to the custodians of the English language.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

              Never mind all of that grandstanding.

              The meat of the matter is this:

              "At least", meaning the minimum time possible according to the custodians of the English language.
              I totally agree and as I have said before some researchers who favour an earlier TOD are using it to prop up that earlier TOD, but no one has thought that Phillips could have meant quite the opposite when refrring to the at leat 2 hours, and that could be interpreted to mean that 2 hours was the minimun TOD of death and that she could have been killed much earlier at a time consistent with the other murders.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                I totally agree and as I have said before some researchers who favour an earlier TOD are using it to prop up that earlier TOD, but no one has thought that Phillips could have meant quite the opposite when refrring to the at leat 2 hours, and that could be interpreted to mean that 2 hours was the minimun TOD of death and that she could have been killed much earlier at a time consistent with the other murders.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                Of course he could have - after all it would make perfect sense to say - at least 2 hours but probably more, but due to the conditions probably more than probably more.

                Give it up.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                  In the end, Richardson misled the coroner. That is clear from his his statement. This report from the East London Observer is useful in cementing that point as it sheds light on the state of this knife.

                  As for 'the poll', I'm scratching my head wondering how a poll on a message board lends weight to the source documents from 1888. I haven't looked at 'the poll' as I've seen enough on this thread to know it's going to be nonsense. 'The poll' serves merely to distract from the source documents and is a very good indicator of the type of reasoning being employed here, i.e. some poll on a message board in 2022 lends weights to a murder case theory from 1888.

                  Were this a serious discussion, it would be focused on the source documents.
                  Where it a serious discussion Dr Phillips TOD guess wouldn’t be mentioned because it’s utterly worthless.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                    Not for you, Sherlock, because your standards of appraisal aren't up to scratch.

                    I think more than enough time has been wasted reading your sweeping generalisations with no supporting evidence/data nor reason, and a link with no associated substantiation doesn't qualify.

                    'Time to knock this on the head.
                    Off you go then.

                    Comment


                    • [QUOTE=Fleetwood Mac;n793128]

                      Did the police think he was mistaken, Fishy, or lying?

                      The fact that suspicion was directed against him suggests to me they thought he was lying.

                      In all probability, the suspicion arose from his knife tale and misleading the coroner.

                      Well I won't use the "L" word , out right but the press report make it pretty obvious point.
                      '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 Fleetwood Mac View Post

                        In relation to this case, polls don't tell us anything, it doesn't matter whether it's 14/14 or 1000/0.

                        There will be people in any poll who don't know a great deal about the source material, and/or lack reasoning skills and so on; and so it's merely a repetition of theories, some of which are built upon loose foundations.

                        What should be under discussion is the source material, these polls or whatever merely serve as a distraction.

                        The whole discussion has been hijacked. Argument ad hominem all over the place and it's been led away from the source material to some poll or polls which has/have no significance to a murder case from 1888.

                        I would suggest that the thread loses the childish posts and gets back to its source material, otherwise the thread needs putting out of its misery.
                        When you say ‘childish’ I assume that you’re referring to a poster childishly refusing to use another poster’s correct username purely for the purpose of eliciting a response?

                        And when you say ‘ad hominem’ I assume that you mean the very first suggestion of this in posts involving both of us:

                        “My conclusion is that the poster known as Sherlock Holmes is smoking at least a boatload of weed and probably more.” Not by me.

                        All through these discussions you’ve continued to deliberately get my name wrong purely as a childish attempt at provocation yet you claim to be on some kind of high horse.

                        Your posts aren’t simply honestly given opinions. They are deliberate manipulations to try and defend an indefensible position that you’ve backed yourself into (that Phillips was likely to have been correct)

                        I yearn for the days when you had open opinions, before you had to shape them to fit a theory. Like this….

                        “I'm just wondering what Richardson stood to gain from lying.”

                        adding….

                        “Whenever someone is up to no good, it's because they have something to gain from it. I'm not seeing what Richardson has to gain”

                        Nor can anyone with any sense of reason.

                        or this…

                        “My personal view is that I'm more inclined to go with the estimated TOD by medical experts, particularly as Dr Phillips was on the scene only one hour after Annie's body was found, but I've read both sides of the debate on here and as a result I believe the argument that John Richardson was on the steps is as good an argument as the one suggesting he simply had a quick glance at the cellar and embellished the rest.”

                        You soon had to amend this though to create the myth of the lying Richardson so as to conform the ‘Gandalf was right” theory.

                        So perhaps a look in the mirror might be in order?



                        Comment


                        • [QUOTE=FISHY1118;n793139]
                          Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                          Did the police think he was mistaken, Fishy, or lying?

                          The fact that suspicion was directed against him suggests to me they thought he was lying.

                          In all probability, the suspicion arose from his knife tale and misleading the coroner.

                          Well I won't use the "L" word , out right but the press report make it pretty obvious point.
                          And the Press are always right.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                            Arguing about polls undertaken in the 21st century is a completely redundant exercise. It may be useful to take a look at what exactly is being discussed, i.e. the source material from 1888.

                            1) "At least two hours":

                            In the English language, this means the minimum time possible. It is universally understood English diction. Upon pronouncing life extinct, Dr Phillips said "at least two hours" also.

                            There are only two possible reasons underpinning the notion that Dr Phillips meant: "two hours but possibly less":

                            a) Dr Phillips, an educated man, didn't have a grasp of the English language, i.e. when he said "at least" he didn't appreciate this meant the minimum time possible.

                            b) Those advocating he meant "at least two hours but possibly less", do not have a grasp of the English language. They do not understand that "at least" means the minimum time possible, in accordance with universally understood English diction.

                            2) The caveat:

                            Those advocating Dr Phillips allowed for a 5.30am TOD are essentially saying Dr Phillips said this:

                            "A minimum of two hours but possibly less". They are suggesting that this educated man made this nonsensical statement.

                            3) "Probably more":

                            Dr Phillips is talking in terms of hours in the lead up to this part of his statement. In addition, the standard measurement of TOD in Dr Phillips' profession is hours, not time, not later than or whatever.

                            So, when Dr Phillips states: "at least two hours and probably more", he is talking of hours. He is measuring TOD in accordance with the hours standard in his profession.

                            Conclusion:

                            You could have all the polls in the world in 2022, propped up by sub-standard reasoning, but his own words tell us exactly what he said and meant in 1888.

                            A minimum of two hours, probably more hours, I can't be certain on how many more hours due to.....
                            Nonsense. But everyone knows this already.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post
                              It could be worth starting a thread on Richardson as suspect, and let's see what there is against him and whether or not it stands up to scrutiny.
                              There's one here:
                              https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...son-the-killer

                              Lots of research in that thread.
                              They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
                              Out of a misty dream
                              Our path emerges for a while, then closes
                              Within a dream.
                              Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

                              ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                                There's one here:
                                https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...son-the-killer

                                Lots of research in that thread.
                                Cheers George.

                                I've had a quick scan and I'm not seeing a great deal beyond: "he misled the coroner and was at the murder scene with a knife". That said, that's not a bad start.

                                I'll have a good look tonight when I have more time, within three pages there may well be an unusual and insightful take on it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X