John Richardson

[FISHY1118]

And even if Richardson hadn’t mentioned the boot to Chandler, which is certainly a possibility, this doesn’t mean that he was lying.

No it doesnt, but it Depends i guess if one chooses to believe there was a ''possibility'' he lied, just as some have suggested many of the witnesses in all the murders may possibly have lied or were mistaken with their interpretation of what they saw or heard , its subjective . The reasons in richardsons case for and against have already been suggested . Which ill not go into again for the sake of this thread .

[Dickere]

'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).' - Mark Twain

"The minority is always in the right. The majority is always in the wrong.“ - Mark Twain

The best form of defence is a random literary quote - me.

[Varqm]

Not talking about ToD. Statement refers to Richardson's obstructed view.

Richardson does not say if buts or don't,if it was there he would have seen it.
OK.Caseboik posters are better than science.
The thread is dead.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

The articles by psychologists that I posted what seems to an eternity ago stated that witnesses often hold strong beliefs as to what they saw or heard, but turn out to be mistaken. The Echo report doesn't suggest that Richardson was lying. It stated that the police had determined as a fact that the door would have obstructed his view. Richardson was simply mistaken in thinking that he could not have missed the body.

Cheers, George

Hello George,

Just because the word ‘fact’ was used it doesn’t mean that they proved this as a fact.

his failure to notice the deceased being explained by the factthat the yard door, when opened, obstructed his view

The police, who quite naturally through ignorance, had trouble accepting that the Doctor couldn’t have been wrong (far more forgivable than people assuming the same in 2022) It can’t be said that the door would have obstructed their view by imagining a reconstruction for which there’s no evidence. Why didn’t they mention this reconstruction? Why did no one mention the police returning to number 29 with John Richardson for a reconstruction? Why does no other newspaper mention this?

Id compare this to the news report that some members of the force didn’t believe Schwartz, though it wasn’t the generally held opinion.

Richardson said that he couldn’t have missed a body. Richardson couldn’t have been unaware that a door can possibly obstruct a view. Therefore the body couldn’t have been there but the police might have struggled to accept this because of their overconfidence in Phillips guess.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No it doesnt, but it Depends i guess if one chooses to believe there was a ''possibility'' he lied, just as some have suggested many of the witnesses in all the murders may possibly have lied or were mistaken with their interpretation of what they saw or heard , its subjective . The reasons in richardsons case for and against have already been suggested . Which ill not go into again for the sake of this thread .

He had no reason to lie. The lie he allegedly told very obviously placed him alone at the scene with a knife. Clearly he didn’t lie.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Richardson does not say if buts or don't,if it was there he would have seen it.
OK.Caseboik posters are better than science.
The thread is dead.

Exactly.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Doc,

I respectfully disagree. The Journalist was in agreement with Swanson. I was going to detail my rationale but Christer beat me too it in a later post.

Cheers, George

Hi George and Christer,

Firstly, my apologies, the date of Swanson's report was indeed, 19th October.

However, I disagree totally about the interpretation of Swanson's report. "If the evidence of Dr Phillips is correct ... it is difficult..." and then "if the evidence of Mrs Long is correct ... then the evidence of Dr Phillips ... is incorrect." This is clearly a statement of a man who weighs up both sides of the debate and recognises the contradictions in the evidence and that the truth is uncertain. He expresses no conclusion.

There is nothing in Swanson's report that tells of further discussions with Phillips, nothing to suggest Phillips was utterly insistent about his ToD, nothing that says the doctor's estimated ToD has been accepted and the witnesses must be rejected. Nothing to suggest there is a word of truth in the newspaper article.

This is your apparent version of Phillips behaviour - 13th September he chooses to tell the coroner that his estimated ToD might be unreliable, and why this was so. Then, days later, he tells the police that his ToD was absolutely reliable and the the other witnesses must be wrong, and the police accept this. Then Swanson's report does not indicate that Phillips insists on his ToD being accurate, and he fills his report with "ifs".

[Harry D]

So! I am back from Iceland. Lots of clear and cool air up there.

Now, just to get things correct here. I believe the report in which Swanson spoke about which side was correct was the 19th of October report, not the 19th of September ditto. And in it, it said:

"If the evidence of Dr. Phillips is correct as to time of death, it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body when he went into the yard at 4:45 a.m. but as his clothes were examined, the house searched and his statement taken in which there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him, although police specially directed their attention to him."

"Up to the present the combined result of those inquiries did not supply the police with the slightest clue to the murderer". "Again if the evidence of Mrs. Long is correct that she saw the deceased at 5:30 a.m. then the evidence of Dr. Phillips as to probable time of death is incorrect. He was called and saw the body at 6:20 a.m. [sic] and he then gives it as his opinion that death occurred about two hours earlier, viz: 4:20 a.m. hence the evidence of Mrs. Long which appeared to be so important to the Coroner, must be looked upon with some amount of doubt, which is to be regretted."

As we may see, Swanson clearly takes the stand that Long was wrong and that Phillips was right - the evidence of Mrs Long MUST be looked upon with doubt. Must! No if involved.

We may of course also see that the Home Office agreed with Swanson:

"doubtful evidence points to some thing between 5:30 and 6: - but medical evidence says about 4 o'cl."

The testimony given by Cadosch, Long and Richardson is jointly described as "doubtful", whereas no criticism at all is directed towards Phillips.

In fact, once we look at all the evidence that touces on these matters, it is obvious that much as there are many pointers to how the witnesses were disbelieved, there is no such evidence when it comes to Phillips. Baxter of course buys into the witnesses view, but not by dismissing Phillips. He instead makes a logical summersault and claims that Phillips would have allowed for any time at all on account of the cold conditions Chapman was found it. So he does what coroners and various commission have always done - he tries to come up with scenario that accepts ALL the evidence from BOTH sides. He adjusts as well as he can. We saw it in the Kennedy murder and in the Palme murder commissions respective works.

There is nobody stating that the witnesses will have been correct and Phillips wrong. Instead, there is the Echo report from the 19th, Swansons pointing out that Long MUST be doubted - and the Home Office also goes with Phillips.

The idea that three witnesses cannot all be mistaken or telling porkies is a latter day invention. The sentiment of the day back in 1888 favored Phillips whenever we find that one side is favored.

Of course, it can be said that this was because people were unware of how unreliable victorian doctors were, and had they known, they would never have trusted the experienced police surgeon. Fair enough. But once we look at the realities, we can see that the side that criticizes Phillips has to do a lot of work and rely on unlikelier suggestions.

A body that has been dead for an hour only will normally be quite warm inside the core, in fact retaining the temperature it had an hour ago. Normally, body temperature does not start to fall until after an hour has passed. - and Phillips felt the inside of the abdominal cavity.

A body that has been dead for an hour only will normally not develop rigor, least of all if it lies in cold conditions. And it did in our case.

A body that has been dead for an hour only, allowing for some four hours of digestion, will normally have made a potato disappear long since.

Contrary to this, a body that has been dead for three or four hours will have lost a significant part of its heat, quite likely to a degree where it cannot be discerned on the surface of the body, but where it will remain in the core.

A body that has been dead for three or four hours is liekly to have onsetting rigor.

A body that has been dead for an hour only after having taken in a potato meal, will likely have some little left of that meal in the abdomen.

So much as we have a situation that dovetails with the normal behaviour of a dead body in Chapmans case IF PHILLIPS WAS CORRECT, the ones who think that three (not even mutually corroborating) witnesses must be right are left with speculation. They offer extreme examples of where exotic diseases would have lowered Chapmans body temperature double quick, they offer other strange ailments that would somehow speed up rigor (although they suggest that Chapmans body was much colder than normal and rigor sets in quicker with heat, not chill) and they add a potato here and there to the stomach contents.

As far as I can see, the general sentiment in 1888 was always that Phillips was correct. It is not the other way around.

And the medical implications were all in line with a TOD three or four hours removed. It is not the other way around.

Just thought this needed to be pointed out before I go again.

Oh, and of course: Did the naysayers ever get around to finding an expert that disagreed with Thiblin? No?

Didn´t think so.

Farewell for some time now, Casebook.

Interesting that when critics point out that the contemporary police didn't suspect Lechmere, their judgement is flawed and simplistic.
But at the same time you appeal to their authority when it comes to accepting a TOD based on inexact science, which coincidentally suits your particular suspect

Very fishy indeed.

[Fisherman]

Hi George and Christer,

Firstly, my apologies, the date of Swanson's report was indeed, 19th October.

However, I disagree totally about the interpretation of Swanson's report. "If the evidence of Dr Phillips is correct ... it is difficult..." and then "if the evidence of Mrs Long is correct ... then the evidence of Dr Phillips ... is incorrect." This is clearly a statement of a man who weighs up both sides of the debate and recognises the contradictions in the evidence and that the truth is uncertain. He expresses no conclusion.

What you do here is to hide away the fact that Swanson wrote two sentences, the first one being:

"Again if the evidence of Mrs. Long is correct that she saw the deceased at 5:30 a.m. then the evidence of Dr. Phillips as to probable time of death is incorrect."

... telling us that IF Long was correct, then Phillips was wrong. It is a theoretical proposition.

But then he says about Phillips:

"He was called and saw the body at 6:20 a.m. [sic] and he then gives it as his opinion that death occurred about two hours earlier, viz: 4:20 a.m. hence the evidence of Mrs. Long which appeared to be so important to the Coroner, must be looked upon with some amount of doubt, which is to be regretted."

Here, there is no theoretical proposition and no if, right? Swanson very clearly tells us that since Phillips was able to establish a TOD two hours before Chapman was examined in situ, the evidence of Long MUST be doubted. No caveats, no hesitation. Swanson even points out that the evidence only APPEARED to be important to the coroner, very clearly hinting at how this was a bad mistake on Baxters behalf.

So if we look at the whole text in its original shape and form, the "if" you use to cast doubt goes away when it is crunch time. It is non-existent at that stage.

This is your apparent version of Phillips behaviour - 13th September he chooses to tell the coroner that his estimated ToD might be unreliable, and why this was so. Then, days later, he tells the police that his ToD was absolutely reliable and the the other witnesses must be wrong, and the police accept this. Then Swanson's report does not indicate that Phillips insists on his ToD being accurate, and he fills his report with "ifs".

I have pointed out on numerous occasions that I do not in any shape or form accept that Phillips would have allowed for any shorter TOD than two hours. That is a misinterpretation on Baxters behalf (and we know now how much Swanson relies on Baxter). The caveat Phillips presented was along the lines "I believe that she had been dead for more than two hours, likely two or three, but it is fair to say that it was a cold night and so it could perhaps be that it was merely two hours."

That is the only caveat that makes any sort of sense. The proposition that Phillips would basically have said "It could have been no less than two hours, but it could have been an hour only" does not belong to a serious discussion. Moreover, when the Echo of the 19th tells us that Phillips and the police came to the conclusion that the body must have been in the yard when Richardson was there, it would arguaby have been for this exact reason - if she was killed at 5.30, the body would not have been in place when Richardson was there at 4.45. But since Chapman had been dead for at the very least two hours when Phillips examined her, it follows that she MUST have been in the back yard at 4.45, wherefore Richardson simply missed out on seeing her. And he may well have done so, owing to how the door could have hidden the body from sight, depending on the degree to which it was open and the posture of Richardson.

Oh, and again: It is not true that Swanson filled his report with "ifs". When it was crunch time, he left that word out. Lets not forget about that: Long MUST be doubted, as per Swanson. That is the clearly worded conclusion you falsely claim does not exist.

I note that Harry D has also posted (somewhat childishly) on this matter, but I will not respond to that post or any other posts out here. I only covered this matter on account of how I was irritated by how you got the dates wrong and claimed falsely that there was nothing pointing to Swanson having made his mind up either way.

If you want to prolong the debate, then do so, and I may well answer you, depending on what you bring to the table - but that is as far as it goes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fisherman's "comeback" post (before disappearing again) is as remarkable for what it doesn't say as for what it does say.

In particular, there is no mention of the need for there to be an "obvious" or "significant" difference between the outer and core, something which was always badly expressed twaddle.

It's now clear that all Thiblin told him was the remarkably mundane fact that if there is a lack of warmth in the body's core, it points to a significant number of hours having passed since death.

This has always been known.

That's why forensic pathologists are supposed to take the rectal temperature of a murdered corpse at a crime scene. As Thiblin said, there is "a rule of thumb" (known to be wrong) that the core temperature "decreases by a degree per hour" so that, on his view, one hour after death, the core temperature might be 36 degrees, two hours after death it might be 35 degrees and four hours after death it might be 33 degrees – all temperatures which can reasonably be described as "warm".

The problem with applying this to Chapman's case is fourfold:

Firstly, it is entirely unclear if Dr Phillips can be said to have felt the temperature at the core simply by feeling warmth under the presumably exposed intestines.

Secondly, it is surely impossible for the human hand to distinguish between 36 degrees and 33 degrees.

Thirdly, and obviously, there are no studies about what one would expect the temperature of the core of a mutilated (and, thus, with internal organs exposed to the elements) body to be.

Fourthly, and most importantly, even if what Dr Phillips felt was Chapman's core temperature, all he can be understood to have said to the coroner is that he found warmth at the core. He did not (as some people seem to think) say that there was only a little warmth in the core. He didn't say whether it was very warm or only a bit warm. In fact, on the basis of feeling a cold body alone, many Victorian doctors would have estimated a PMI of about four hours so the fact that Dr Phillips brought it down to a minimum of two hours (of which even that was qualified) might suggest that he found sufficient warmth under the intestines to suggest to him that the core was so warm as to reduce the PMI, not increase it.

But we just don't know.

Fisherman, in his post, then abandons any reliance on Thiblin and, without any sources at all, or expert opinion to support him, goes back to offering his own tired personal amateur opinion that if you factor in a bit of rigor and add in a bit of stomach contents (which Dr Phillips didn't even mention as affecting his own estimate), then, hey presto, as if by magic we can fix a time of Chapman's murder as being 2.30 or 3.30 which, by pure coincidence, just so happens to match the time when Lechmere would have left work.

Let the frame-up begin.

Ignoring all expert advice from every single expert on forensic pathology for at least the last forty years, which categorically tells us that it's not possible to accurately and reliably estimate time of death from any of the type of known facts that we have in the Chapman case, Fisherman wants to tell us what is normal and what time he thinks Chapman is "likely" to have died. He doesn't seem to have learnt anything from this thread, which is that you just can't do it! If the medical profession did this they would end up sending innocent men to prison and letting the guilty go free. There is no "normal" estimation of time of death. Each case is different. An average means that the results can be below or above the average. The desperation is seen in the fact that Fisherman wants to extrapolate from the case of Eddowes to Chapman. You just can't do this type of thing. That's the whole point of scientific studies. It avoids that sort of anecdotal "evidence" which is bound to mislead. The timescale is completely different in any event. Eddowes might well have been murdered at about 1.40am. Dr Brown was on the scene at about 2am when he felt that the body was warm with no stiffening. That's 20 minutes! And Fisherman wants to compare an examination after 20 minutes with one possibly about 60 minutes after death. As Dr Brown himself said in evidence on this very point: "The body had only been there a few minutes" (Times, 5th October 1888). To compare Eddowes to Chapman is really desperate stuff.

The fact of the matter is that the medical opinion in this case cannot possibly help us as to when Chapman died. It's just as likely to mislead as to assist.

Yet, despite saying that it's "fair enough" that "people were unaware of how unreliable Victorian doctors were", Fisherman amazingly wants to focus on the fact that Swanson and the Home Office accepted Phillips's estimate, as if this is some kind of point in his favour. But it's literally the entire argument against him which he is ignoring. The whole point is that not enough was known in 1888 about estimating time of death, so what does it matter if Scotland Yard, the entire Salisbury Government and even Queen Victoria herself swallowed what Phillips said? Fisherman concludes his post by saying that "the general sentiment in 1888 was always that Phillips was correct". That is, of course, rubbish because the coroner discarded the doctor's 2 hour PMI estimate in favour of 1 hour – meaning that a 4.30 TOD is the official finding of history - but, even if it was right, so what? If people in 1888 didn't understand the limitations of estimating time of death, which limitations are now known and confirmed by, for example, Dr Biggs, to name just one expert, what does it tell us? Simply that people in 1888 were ignorant. How can you rely on ignorance to support your argument?

Fisherman says: "And the medical implications were all in line with a TOD three or four hours removed. It is not the other way around". The amazing thing about this statement is that Fisherman is literally telling us that Dr Phillips got it wrong! Because Dr Phillips didn't provide a TOD of "three or four hours" removed. This exists only in Fisherman's imagination. It also just shows that Fisherman has learnt nothing. The fact of the matter is that the "medical implications" are consistent with a body murdered one hour earlier, two hours earlier, three hours earlier and four hours earlier. They are also consistent with a murder five hours earlier. Why don't we conclude that Chapman was murdered five hours earlier? Because she was seen alive five hours earlier, that's why. If she hadn't been seen alive after midnight, from the medical evidence alone, with a cold body, and rigor supposedly commencing, she might have been murdered at 1am. The medical evidence would be consistent with that. That's why the medical evidence is useless. It's consistent with just about everything and anything!

Finally, Fisherman asks "Did the naysayers ever get around to finding an expert that disagreed with Thiblin? No?" As I've already pointed out, Thiblin didn't actually say anything particularly controversial. Everyone agrees that the core temperature would be expected to diminish over time (although, as Thiblin himself tells us, not necessarily over as short a period of four hours). But Thiblin hasn't given an opinion about the time of Chapman's death. So there's nothing for an expert to disagree with Thiblin about!!!! As we've seen, however, Dr Biggs has confirmed the impossibility of anyone, even today, estimating a reliable time of death in the circumstances of the Chapman case. And he has confirmed that she could have been murdered at 5.30.

I imagine some people will complain that I'm repeating myself but those same people don't seem to complain when Fisherman says exactly the same thing over and over again without offering any new sources or information. On the contrary, they congratulate him for his uninformed waffle!

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
A body that has been dead for an hour only, allowing for some four hours of digestion, will normally have made a potato disappear long since

Nearly forgot. Phillips didn’t mention ‘potato,’ he just mentions ‘a little food,’ so he’s wrong about that point too.

[Dickere]

I have pointed out on numerous occasions that I do not in any shape or form accept that Phillips would have allowed for any shorter TOD than two hours. That is a misinterpretation on Baxters behalf (and we know now how much Swanson relies on Baxter). The caveat Phillips presented was along the lines "I believe that she had been dead for more than two hours, likely two or three, but it is fair to say that it was a cold night and so it could perhaps be that it was merely two hours."

That is the only caveat that makes any sort of sense. The proposition that Phillips would basically have said "It could have been no less than two hours, but it could have been an hour only" does not belong to a serious discussion. Moreover, when the Echo of the 19th tells us that Phillips and the police came to the conclusion that the body must have been in the yard when Richardson was there, it would arguaby have been for this exact reason - if she was killed at 5.30, the body would not have been in place when Richardson was there at 4.45. But since Chapman had been dead for at the very least two hours when Phillips examined her, it follows that she MUST have been in the back yard at 4.45, wherefore Richardson simply missed out on seeing her. And he may well have done so, owing to how the door could have hidden the body from sight, depending on the degree to which it was open and the posture of Richardson.

Oh, and again: It is not true that Swanson filled his report with "ifs". When it was crunch time, he left that word out. Lets not forget about that: Long MUST be doubted, as per Swanson. That is the clearly worded conclusion you falsely claim does not exist.

I note that Harry D has also posted (somewhat childishly) on this matter, but I will not respond to that post or any other posts out here. I only covered this matter on account of how I was irritated by how you got the dates wrong and claimed falsely that there was nothing pointing to Swanson having made his mind up either way.

If you want to prolong the debate, then do so, and I may well answer you, depending on what you bring to the table - but that is as far as it goes.

I have a lot of time and interest in your undeniable knowledge in this case, Fisherman.

That's why it disappoints me to read your condescending attitude to what other people may bring to the table. Most of us post according to our interest and thoughts, and with very few exceptions they are clearly better than no post at all.

Your 'gatekeeper of what constitutes an acceptable post' will only lead to fewer posts, which cannot be a good thing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. The caveat Phillips presented was along the lines "I believe that she had been dead for more than two hours, likely two or three, but it is fair to say that it was a cold night and so it could perhaps be that it was merely two hours."

Most people that misinterpreted the caveat (quite deliberately in most cases) interpreted it as “ two hours but probably more but due to the conditions probably more than probably more.”

But Fisherman turns the other way down Nonsense Street by interpreting it as “two hours but probably more but due to the conditions probably two hours.”

There’s only one interpretation…..the correct one…..”two hours but probably more but due to the conditions it could have been less.”

Reason and the English language is getting a serious kicking on this thread. All to try and skew the evidence in favour of Phillips.

[Herlock Sholmes]

When it’s suggested that people can lie why is it only ever suggested that this applies to witnesses? Everyone can lie (unless we perhaps discount those suffering from conditions like autism of course) so why is a police officer exempt from this suggestion? I’m talking of Chandler of course.

I’m not saying that he did lie of course but it’s noticeable that no one appears prepared to even consider the possibility. Apart from the tired old ‘15 minutes of fame’ point neither Richardson, Cadosch or Long had any reason to lie and any lie by Richardson would have served no purpose and would have made the situation worse for himself. Chandler however might have had a reason for lying about what Richardson told him in the passage way. If Chandler hadn’t pushed Richardson for more detail then his superiors might have criticised his handling of events at the crime scene. Or if he’d misheard ‘sat’ on the step for ‘stood’ on the step as another example.

So isn’t it at least possible that Chandler might have been indulging in a bit of a**e covering by saying saying that Richardson said nothing about sitting on the step? Again, I’m not claiming that this is what happened but if it can be suggested that the witnesses lied for no reason why should the possibility be ignored that Chandler lied to cover his own backside in the face of criticism from his superiors?

My personal opinion is that Richardson probably didn’t mention sitting on the step to fix his boot but there’s nothing suspicious or deceitful about this. The interview was unlikely to have been very in depth due to the circumstances. So imo the following is entirely reasonable..

C - So tell me what you did Mr Richardson.
R - I went to the back door at about 4.45 to check my mothers cellar.
C - And what did you see?
R - Nothing. There was nothing in the yard.
C - Are you sure? It couldn’t have been very light after all.
R - It was just getting light so I could see everything.
C - Are you absolutely certain that you couldn’t have missed seeing the body? Couldn’t it have been hidden by the door?
R - Absolutely not. I could see all over the yard from where I was and couldn’t possibly have missed it. It wasn’t there.

Yes, I just made up that conversation before anyone accuses me of manipulation, but that conversation or something very like it would have been entirely plausible and possible. We also know that a day or so after the murder the story about him sitting on the step to repair his boot was already in the papers. So it’s not as if Richardson somehow invented it for the inquest and the press certainly couldn’t have invented so specific a story.

So Richardson ‘could’ have lied but he gained no benefit from doing so (the opposite in fact) Chandler ‘could’ have lied but might have had a reason for doing so. And Richardson not mentioning the boot repair is entirely inconsequential and can’t be viewed as sinister.

The only other point that’s weirdly used against him is the talk of the knife at the inquest. He didn’t mention the sharpness of the knife or the second knife because he wasn’t asked about these things. The Coroner wasn’t interested in a knife that he’d used at the market, he was interested in the knife that he used at the yard. When the coroner points out that the knife looks blunt Richardson tells him that he had to use a sharper one at the market. Yes, the way that it’s worded it sounds like Richardson was saying ‘I cut a piece of leather with my knife but I couldn’t cut a piece of leather with my knife because it wasn’t sharp enough.’ But clearly that would have been complete gibberish and it’s impossible that the coroner wouldn’t have pulled him up on it - “hold on Mr. Richardson that doesn’t make sense!” Or any of the jury either. But nothing is said. Clearly Richardson would have said anything as blatantly nonsensical as this but this is what is being claimed in an obviously desperate attempt to incriminate. This is all that they have on Richardson. Eliminate this transparent piece of gobbledegook and what’s left. Nothing. There’s not a single, solitary thing that even implies dishonesty on the part of Richardson. The only thing left is to imply that he was so colossally, mind-numbing oh dim that he didn’t know that you can’t see through a wooden door!

When you weigh up Richardson fairly and sanely we have nothing against him. He was a strong witness then and he’s a strong witness now. He alone points overwhelmingly to a later TOD.

[The Macdonald Triad]

I have a lot of time and interest in your undeniable knowledge in this case, Fisherman.

That's why it disappoints me to read your condescending attitude to what other people may bring to the table. Most of us post according to our interest and thoughts, and with very few exceptions they are clearly better than no post at all.

Your 'gatekeeper of what constitutes an acceptable post' will only lead to fewer posts, which cannot be a good thing.

I have to agree. His whole trip to Iceland thing leaving it hanging like that and then coming back and saying he's going to post less and less. I do know where he's coming from to be fair and when I first saw that documentary with him I actually believed it because it was very well put on. But I think that's at the root of his patronizing attitude. He's invested into his suspect and could never reverse. Personally, I find a pathway for all good suspects because you just don't know.