John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

To sum up what’s being claimed in order to ‘prove’ an earlier TOD:

1. That the worlds forensic experts (including the standard textbooks, including Dr. Biggs) are all wrong when they tell us how unreliable TOD estimations are….and even more so in the LVP.

2. That John Richardson was unaware of the fact that a wooden door isn’t transparent.

3. That Richardson told an unnecessary lie which placed him at the scene of an horrific knife murder with a knife.

4. That Albert Cadosch was honest when he expressed caution about the ‘no’ but was a liar when he claimed certainty about the noise.

5. That even though we don’t know what Chapman did between 1.45 and her TOD we can assume that she couldn’t have eaten again.

6. That neither the Coroner or 18 posters on here can understand the English language and that Dr. Phillips added a caveat that literally makes no sense.

7. That the fence between numbers 27 and 29 had gaps in it that a cat could have got through and yet the police didn’t notice this.

8. That the Coroner and the jury were either deaf or stupid in completely missing a piece of gibberish that your average toddler would have spotted.

9. The Mrs Long was probably wrong because she only had a fairly brief glance of the woman that she thought was Annie, but Mrs. Richardson who also saw Annie’s face briefly must have been right.

10. That in the LVP we can’t allow for errors and poor synchronisation in clocks and so Long and Cadosch cannot be reconciled and so should both be dismissed.

11. That Cadosch could have heard a noise in the yard but it wasn’t connected to the murder. Someone must have been walking around in the yard without seeing the body.

12. That two murder scenes can be used to show that TOD conditions were the same.

13. That the killer was working to a timetable and so couldn’t have killed Chapman at this time.

14. That we should still talk about the digestion of potatoes even though Phillips never mentioned finding potatoes in Annie’s stomach.

I could have added more but I’m about to go out.

No one can say for certain when she died but we can say for certain that Phillips can’t be used. Therefore we have three witnesses who all point to a later TOD and a lot of desperation in trying to discredit them.

[Fisherman]

There is plenty of evidence that Swanson's account contradicted the Echo article, which claimed that the police had accepted that Richardson had missed the body when he was at Hanbury Street. He wrote that if Phillips was correct (he wrote "if", and not that he was correct!) then it was difficult to understand how Richardson didn't see the body. He doesn't even suggest or hint that the body was definitely there. Then he carries on to state that every aspect of Richardson's statement was checked, and they failed to find a fault with him. The failure to find a fault is hardly a statement that the body was there and he missed it. The evidence says that the police accepted Richardson's account as stated. He does not say, or even suggest that Richardson might have missed the body.

He says that Long MUST (not may, or may perhaps - MUST!) be regarded as a doubtful witness, and he explains why: Because she contradicted Phillips´professional verdict. Once we know that Swanson opted for ruling Long out in favour of Phillips on this score, it follows that he also ruled Cadosch and Richardson out for the exact same reason. Unless you think that he reasoned that Long was wrong and Cadosch/Richardson right?
This is the only conclusive evidence there is, and it is not in contradiction with the Echo article. Nor do any of the other parts of Swansons account do so, since they are theoretical examples only. He said that IF Long was right, then Phillips was wrong, and then he said that Long was the one that MUST be regarded as the doubtful party. So the first sentence was a theoretical construction, and the second was Swansons verdict. And there is nothing of it that contradicts the Echo.

Swanson wrote an "if Phillips was correct" consideration, and an "if Long was correct" version, indicating that he was looking at both sides of the story. He was demonstrating the difference of opinion, and he did not reach a conclusion.

Yes, he DID look at both sides. And he DID rule one out: Long MUST be doubted. How is that not a conclusion? Clearly, it is.

Did Swanson confirm that the police had accepted Phillips' ToD - no! Did he suggest that they had - no! You introduced Long into the discussion, whereas the Echo quote doesn't mention her, so she is irrelevant. However, even so, Swanson didn't even dismiss the possibility of Long being correct, he merely said that Phillips' estimated ToD resulted in doubt about her version. If Swanson only claims to have doubts about a 5. 30 am murder, he cannot under any circumstances be absolutely confirming the acceptance of a pre 4. 50 am murder.

Why do you think he ruled Long out? Why MUST she be doubted and why did the overoptimistic coroner have to be corrected? Any idea? I have one: Because Swanson accepted Phillips verdict and chose it over the doubtful Mrs Long. As did The Echo. As did the Home Office. This we know.
But where, oh where is your evidence to the contrary...?

I don't consider it relevant to the discussion, but you wrote that there was no source that dismissed Phillips' version in favour of the witnesses, but the coroner clearly, after weighing up all of the evidence, seems to have dismissed Phillips' estimate, and he had the advantage of being there at the time to hear all of the evidence.

No, the coroner did not dismiss Phillips estimate. Not as per you, at least. What he did was to alter Phillips estimate into something the doctor never said, so that he (Baxter) could claim that he accepted all the evidence, and ruled nobody out. You of all people should never say that Baxter dismissed Phillips, since you claim persistently that Phillips was willing to concede any TOD, even if it halved his own minimum of time. Surely you can see how that works?

I have said several times that I don't claim that Long was correct, but Swanson doesn't say that she wasn't. I am looking for evidence that the Echo statement was correct, and I see none, and when I look for evidence that Swanson didn't agree, I see that the relevant part of his report suggests this clearly.

Yes, Swanson says that Phillips said that two hours was the minimum, HENCE Mrs Longs testimony must be looked upon with doubt. A leads to B. And it is reflected in the Echo as well as by the Home Office. If you think that is somehow "unclear", it is not my problem. You can lead a horse to water ...

Anyway, now you are mosty repeating yourself, and so if you have nothing further to add, I am hoping to be able to withdraw until further notice.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not at all herlock , read the evidence , he cant say for certain what side of the fence the ''No'' came from , there by causing an element ''doubt', yes he thinks it was 29 but cannot be sure .

''While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.''

He heard a noise against the fence between his yard and 29, ''One option'' only here not two , spot the difference ,it simple , my opinion on this is simple, That the noise doesnt mean a dead body , which has already been discussed .

This makes no sense.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No his making an arguement that which the evidence supports , But of course you dont like that .

Its all about how each person interprets the evidence, even you

It is how you interpret witnesses. Biggs needs no interpretation though. Only blank denial.

[FISHY1118]

This makes no sense.

Im afraid it does .

[FISHY1118]

It is how you interpret witnesses. Biggs needs no interpretation though. Only blank denial.

Georges post #1320 needs no interpretation either as far as the witnesses are concerned . Also only blank denial.

[FISHY1118]

''No one can say for certain when she died but we can say for certain that Phillips can’t be used. Therefore we have three witnesses who all point to a later TOD and a lot of desperation in trying to discredit them''.






Neither can the witnesses be used to prove a more likely t.o,d of 5.30am . Based on all the evidence as a whole, including medical .

Just summing up.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Yes, Swanson says that Phillips said that two hours was the minimum, HENCE Mrs Longs testimony must be looked upon with doubt. A leads to B. And it is reflected in the Echo as well as by the Home Office. If you think that is somehow "unclear", it is not my problem. You can lead a horse to water ...

Anyway, now you are mosty repeating yourself, and so if you have nothing further to add, I am hoping to be able to withdraw until further notice.

Hi Christer,

I don't need to add anything new, because I am saying that Swanson's report provides information contrary to the Echo report, which is a fact, and that the Echo's reliability is therefore doubtful. How can you possibly claim that Swanson agrees with Phillips because he describes Long's evidence as doubtful? He only says doubtful and doesn't exclude it. In any event, her evidence is not part of the Echo article. So how can you possibly say this is conclusive? The article is specifically about Phillips' estimated ToD being applied to Richardson's evidence, resulting in the police deciding that the body was missed by Richardson. Swanson writes about the police thoroughly checking out Richardson's story and being unable to find a fault with it. If Phillips' evidence was accepted by the police, this was the point to say that the body was there and Richardson must have missed it. Was it said, no! Surely this was the time for Swanson to indicate, or even just hint at the possibility that the body was missed by Richardson. He didn't, but if the police thought this was the case, then he certainly should have done so, because this was the official report of his conclusions. He had made no decision so he couldn't give one.

And what in heaven's name has the Home Office got to do with this? They contributed nothing to the investigation except a desire to blame a foreigner. They aren't relevant to the police opinion. Baxter excluded the relevance of Phillips' evidence in his summing up, whether he was right or wrong is not the issue. Again this point was raised and is not relevant.

[Fleetwood Mac]

At the same time you ignore all of the experts including Biggs.

Except Dr Biggs doesn't commit to either. He doesn't tell us which of the two scenarios proposed is more likely.

Whereas Professor Thiblin commits to 3-4 hours being the more likely of the two.

We have the research I put forward also. Rigor mortis appears on average 1.5 to 4 hours after death (see the footnotes I supplied for further details). Annie's body was beyond rigor mortis appearing and in an environmental temperature which would delay the onset of rigor.

So, we have the medical evidence:

1) Last known meal at 1.45am, easily digested food.
2) Rigor mortis commencing 'of the limbs', given the average this would mean far more than 1 hour from death to examination.
3) Catherine's body examined approx. 40 minutes after death. Catherine's body was quite warm and there was no sign of rigor; Annie's body was cold except some warmth under the intestines and rigor had commenced 'of the limbs'. Two women murdered in similar circumstances with more or less the same environmental temperature.
4) Professor Thiblin, expert in the field, commits to 3-4 hours being more likely.
5) Dr Biggs, expert in the field, doesn't commit either way.
6) Dr Phillips tells us the least time possible is two hours.

And then we have the witness statements:

1) Richardson, who misled the coroner with his knife tale. His entire statement was compromised and as a result would have been dismissed in a court of law.
2) Cadosch who didn't claim to hear a murder, and in the event he did hear one then it would be a highly unusual event in those circumstances.
3) Long who didn't claim to take much notice of the couple nor saw where they went.
4) Cadosch and Long, who both claimed to know the time and contradicted one another.
5) Mrs Richardson who tells you she was sure nobody went through that passage after 3am, and it follows contradicts Richardson.

I'm weighing this up and I'm thinking the reasonable interpretation is that Annie and her murderer were in the yard long before 5.30am.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi George,

For the reasons stated, I don't think it took Annie too long to find her way to Hanbury Street. Anywhere between 2.30am and 3.30am TOD. My hunch is closer to 2.30am.

'Interesting that Dr Brown tells us Catherine's body was 'quite warm, no rigor mortis' after approx. 40 minutes of time elapsing from murder to examination.

Whereas Annie's body was cold except some warmth under the intestines and rigor was 'commencing of the limbs', i.e. beyond the onset of rigor.

The environmental temperature on the days in question were similar.

It is stretching credibility to suggest that Annie was murdered at 5.30am, i.e. time between murder and examination only 20 minutes more than Catherine's case. The comparative state of their bodies tells us that is highly unlikely. And, this supports what we were saying all along: leaving outliers aside the medical evidence suggests Annie was murdered much earlier than 5.30am, and here we have a real-life comparison, Catherine, to use as a comparison, murdered in similar circumstances.

You may recall Fisherman admitting that a body can feel cold 15 minutes after death. Think about that.

10 minutes after death it might feel warm. A mere 5 minutes later it feels cold.

Now compare 5 minutes to 20 minutes. A bit of a difference, no?

The idea that it's somehow possible to compare Eddowes to Chapman and draw conclusions is a non-starter.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think it's worth me explaining why Fisherman is pretending not even to have read my response to his post and saying that he's only going to respond to one person (not me).

Well it's obvious really. I nailed the problems with Thiblin's opinion and he knows it and has nothing to say in his defence.

In fact, I nailed the problems in his original post of 24th August, when I replied in detail on the same day, to which he never responded, and I've done so again.

All those who've been championing Thiblin throughout this thread, even though they obviously didn't understand what he was saying, should be ashamed of themselves.

Even worse with Fisherman is that he hasn't even acknowledged the existence of the clear and conclusive opinion by Dr Biggs, let alone challenged it. That opinion turns his world upside down.

He is living in denial. Pretending not to be able to see the fundamental problems with his argument.

When an opponent in a debate refuses to discuss the key issues, the debate is over.

[Trevor Marriott]

You may recall Fisherman admitting that a body can feel cold 15 minutes after death. Think about that.

10 minutes after death it might feel warm. A mere 5 minutes later it feels cold.

Now compare 5 minutes to 20 minutes. A bit of a difference, no?

The idea that it's somehow possible to compare Eddowes to Chapman and draw conclusions is a non-starter.

There is no need to compare Eddowes to Chapman we can within a short period of time calculate her time of death because we know what time she left the police station and what time she was found and the doctors were not asked to give a TOD because of that

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Except Dr Biggs doesn't commit to either. He doesn't tell us which of the two scenarios proposed is more likely.

Whereas Professor Thiblin commits to 3-4 hours being the more likely of the two.

No he doesn’t.

We have the research I put forward also. Rigor mortis appears on average 1.5 to 4 hours after death (see the footnotes I supplied for further details). Annie's body was beyond rigor mortis appearing and in an environmental temperature which would delay the onset of rigor.



So, we have the medical evidence:

1) Last known meal at 1.45am, easily digested food.
Even if she didn't eat any more food during the night, it's not possible to say that any food eaten by Chapman at 1.45 wouldn't still have been in her stomach at 5.30. We don’t even know what that food was. Simply not possible. Don't waste my time.
2) Rigor mortis commencing 'of the limbs', given the average this would mean far more than 1 hour from death to examination.
The "average" is irrelevant because Annie Chapman, malnourished, sick, with a wasting disease, and murdered in a sudden act of violence, was not an average person. It's an established medical fact that rigor can commence within an hour of death. Don't waste my time.
3) Catherine's body examined approx. 40 minutes after death.
So, not the same as Chapman. Don't waste my time.
Catherine's body was quite warm and there was no sign of rigor; Annie's body was cold except some warmth under the intestines and rigor had commenced 'of the limbs'. Two women murdered in similar circumstances with more or less the same environmental temperature.
But "more or less" is not the same. And do you honestly think a single case solves all the issues that forensic pathologists have with estimating time of death? Don't waste my time.
4) Professor Thiblin, expert in the field, commits to 3-4 hours being more likely.
No, he certainly did not. I keep asking you to quote him saying this and you keep failing to do so. Don't waste my time
5) Dr Biggs, expert in the field, doesn't commit either way.
Of course not, because, as you've been told time and time again, including by Dr Biggs, it's not possible for a medical examiner to estimate the time of death outside of a wide range. Don't waste my time.
6) Dr Phillips tells us the least time possible is two hours.
It was impossible for him to state "the least time possible" so he cannot be relied upon. But even he admitted that he might be wrong, as the coroner acknowledged. Seriously, don't waste my time.
And then we have the witness statements:

1) Richardson, who misled the coroner with his knife tale. His entire statement was compromised and as a result would have been dismissed in a court of law.
No he didn’t. This is a desperate invention. Don’t waste my time.
2) Cadosch who didn't claim to hear a murder, and in the event he did hear one then it would be a highly unusual event in those circumstances.
This is one of the stupidest things that I’ve ever heard in my life. Don’t waste my time.
3) Long who didn't claim to take much notice of the couple nor saw where they went.
Doesn't eliminate her as a witness though. Don’t waste my time.
4) Cadosch and Long, who both claimed to know the time and contradicted one another.
As Jeff has posted, using proper research, this time difference presents no issue in the LVP. 10 minutes or so. So what. Don’t waste my time.
5) Mrs Richardson who tells you she was sure nobody went through that passage after 3am, and it follows contradicts Richardson.
The value of a witness in bed nodding off! Don’t waste my time.
I'm weighing this up and I'm thinking the reasonable interpretation is that Annie and her murderer were in the yard long before 5.30am.

Absolutely desperate, dire, embarrassing stuff. I’ll ask again - are you in some way related to Dr. Phillips? It’s the only explanation that I can come up with for why you’ll persist in embarrassing yourself with these efforts. A child could rebut your posts.

Give it up man. Safe at least some dignity.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,

I don't need to add anything new, because I am saying that Swanson's report provides information contrary to the Echo report, which is a fact, and that the Echo's reliability is therefore doubtful. How can you possibly claim that Swanson agrees with Phillips because he describes Long's evidence as doubtful? He only says doubtful and doesn't exclude it. In any event, her evidence is not part of the Echo article. So how can you possibly say this is conclusive? The article is specifically about Phillips' estimated ToD being applied to Richardson's evidence, resulting in the police deciding that the body was missed by Richardson. Swanson writes about the police thoroughly checking out Richardson's story and being unable to find a fault with it. If Phillips' evidence was accepted by the police, this was the point to say that the body was there and Richardson must have missed it. Was it said, no! Surely this was the time for Swanson to indicate, or even just hint at the possibility that the body was missed by Richardson. He didn't, but if the police thought this was the case, then he certainly should have done so, because this was the official report of his conclusions. He had made no decision so he couldn't give one.

And what in heaven's name has the Home Office got to do with this? They contributed nothing to the investigation except a desire to blame a foreigner. They aren't relevant to the police opinion. Baxter excluded the relevance of Phillips' evidence in his summing up, whether he was right or wrong is not the issue. Again this point was raised and is not relevant.

As you note yourself, you add nothing new. Accordingly, I regard our exchange as a thing of the past. And I stand by how your argument is based on a variety of more or less fantastic interpretations of the case facts. Which is and remains the exact opposite of a sound approach.

Good day to you!

[Herlock Sholmes]

''No one can say for certain when she died but we can say for certain that Phillips can’t be used. Therefore we have three witnesses who all point to a later TOD and a lot of desperation in trying to discredit them''.






Neither can the witnesses be used to prove a more likely t.o,d of 5.30am . Based on all the evidence as a whole, including medical .

Just summing up.

So no witness in any case can ever be used because witnesses ‘might’ lie or they ‘might’ be mistaken.

The justice system collapses.

Good logic.