Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    Having read this thread extensively for quite some time now, I am going to abstain from attacking some of the posters who I believe are making a very deplorable impression out here. I will name no names and make no criticism against these posters.

    What I will instead do, is to take you back number of years, and describe what happened on Casebook then. Some will remember it, but to other it will be news.

    Back then, there was a very popular suspect named George Hutchinson doing the rounds out here. He is well known to most of us as a witness in the Mary Kelly case. And among a number of posters, me included, an idea was formed that one of the signatures on the police report signed by the witness George Hutchinson was incredibly similar to the signature of George William Topping Hutchinson, a plumber who had raised a son by the name of Reg, who was to state in an interview that his father was the witness of Ripper fame.

    That idea did not go down well with the ones in favour of George Hutchinson being the Ripper.

    Amongst those who fought the idea that the witness had been identified was foremost a guy who has not posted out here for quite some years now. We can call him B. He was very much the leader of the criticism against the idea of an identification of the witness as Topping. He was well read up on the case, quite intelligent and eloquent. He had a lot of things going for him, but accepting possibly being wrong was not one of them.

    As the debate went on, I contacted the leading forensic document examiner in Sweden, Frank Leander of the SKL (Sveriges Kriminaltekniska Laboratorium, The Laboratory of Criminal Technique of Sweden) and supplied him with the one of the three witness statement signatures that I thought was a very close match to that of Topping Hutchinson, plus, of course, Topping own signature/s. And Leander was able to confirm what I suspected - the signatures were quite likely by the same hand, as far as he was able to tell.

    What Frank Leander made clear was that for him to be able to make a definitive match that could stand up in court, he would have needed ten samples of both mens signatures. Until that happens, all there can be is an indication. This indication can of course be weak or strong, and what Leander said was that he fully anticipated that any forthcoming more signatures would go to confirm his take of a similar originator of the signatures.

    Foolishly, I thought that this material should be enough to clear up the matter - obviously, George Hutchinson the witness and George Hutchinson the plumber were one and the same man, just as Reg Hutchinson had said.

    That was when something very similar to what is going on on this thread erupted. B questioned everything that Leander had said, and claimed that I had misunderstood him totally. Plus I had gone about things in the totally wrong manner. And there was no lack of ingenuity on B:s behalf when it came to thinking up alternative interpretations of what Leander had said. Some of them were outright preposterous, just as is the case here, but the thing is, I could not prove them wrong. Some times preposterous suggestions are proven true, against all odds.

    If we had come no further that time, it would have been a case of a twin matter, compared to the one on this thread. But luckily, I contacted Frank Leander, and he was just as outraged by how B twisted what he had said as I was, and he accordingly agreed to comment further on the matter, dismantling everything B had claimed. And he dubbed B :s posts ”malicious” in the process.

    Eventually, we were able to back B into a corner from which there was no escape. No more alternative suggestions for what Leander meant could be made, since Leander himself had quashed them all.

    Now, guess what B did at this stage? Accept that he had been wrong all along? Oh no; he said ”No, Leander does not agree with you at all, he has simply grown tired of you pestering him and he is now fobbing you off by feigning an agreement with your claims!”

    This, and its latter day ugly offspring, resurfacing again and again, is by and large why I avoid Casebook. When somebody contributes to our joint knowledge by contacting experts and gaining valuable insight and information from them, it should arguably be met by enthusiasm. It should not be met by obfuscation, wriggling and malevolent misinterpretations. I can fully understand why experts who have come into contact with ripperology and its students will not touch it with a ten foot pole afterwards. Which is, for example, why I am not contacting Thiblin again to ask him if what he said was actually what he meant. He had given a clear and valuable piece of information, and he really does not need to be questioned about it any more.

    Now that I have written about this and made my picture clear, I anticipate to have it confirmed by a line of posters who chime in and go:

    ”He cannot defend his rotten ideas, that is why he flies like a coward.”

    ”Of course Ben was correct, anybody would be worn down by Fisherman and want to get rid off him!”

    ”Just listen - he is happy about experts that seem to endorse him, but he scuffs at Biggs!”

    ”He is an expert when it comes to misleading experts!!”

    And

    ”He is trying to use a case that has nothing to do with this one for a comparison, thats what happens when he knows he cannot win the debate!”

    Let it be known that I have seen all of this before, and that I have no problems recognizing it. And let it be known that I find it an utter waste of time spending pages on end in a useless effort to make my point, knowing that no argument I make and no expert I quote, regardless of his or her status, will be listened to. And let it be known that this is why I normally avoid posting here nowadays.

    Many thanks to those who have battled on in such a great and composed style, piling logical points on each other - to no avail at all. Never believe that you cannot win, because you already did. It is the acceptance of this you are deprived of, not the win itself.

    All the best to everybody - and I really, really mean that.

    Now you will not see me out here for quite some time, and that’s a promise.
    The nature of human beings is that they like to choose a side, use that side to argue with strangers on message boards, and once chosen there is no way back for the majority no matter what information is put before them.

    There are very few of us who approach the discussion thinking: all possible scenarios have obstacles, but which of the scenarios requires the least in terms of leap of faith, and from there forming a conclusion as to which one is most likely while not being anywhere near a foregone conclusion.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

      It's about the information and the ability to reasonably interpret it.

      Counts you out then.

      The idea that Dr Phillips intended: the minimum time possible is two hours but possibly less, is simply not reasonable. It is a contradiction in terms and nonsensical. Dr Phillips was an intelligent man with a solid grasp of the English language.

      Then why does the vast majority of people disagree with your biased twisting of the English language? The Coroner too. Give it up.

      Nor can you accept that there are glaring contradictions in the witness statements including Mrs Richardson who tells you her son did not go through the yard.

      Where did she say that her son didn’t ‘go through the yard?’

      Where has anyone suggested that he went ‘through the yard?’


      Your reasoning is to fanatically argue for anything supporting your theory while discarding relevant information which suggests otherwise. In other words, you do not approach the information with an open mind and an intention of reasonably interpreting it.
      Being called biased by you is like being called a danger to women by Peter Sutcliffe.
      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

        I’ve already explained to you in very simply, easy to understand English, that I’m NOT talking about the polls. Ok? Did you see that word in block capitals Fishy? I’ll repeat it for you NOT talking about the polls.

        You said that most people accepted the earlier TOD. This is factually incorrect as only 4 or 5 posters of the ones that have taken part in this discussion (remember Fish…..NOT the polls.) So that’s 4 or 5 out of 20. That’s not ‘most.’ It’s barely ‘some.’ It’s clear that of those that have taken part in this discussion the large majority favour the later TOD.

        I do hope that you’ve understood this as I can’t really see how it could be made easier.
        Remember when you yourself said Dr Phillips could have been right ? Are we going to discuss polls or t.od? or something new you want to detract from the debate to avoid the obvious.

        '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 FISHY1118 View Post

          If i were you id stop commenting full stop, unless your prepared to accept what the evidence in the chapman murder allowes for an earlier t.od

          You have been shown this time and time again from Fisherman and Mac, george and myself ,give it a rest ,

          You yourself have admitted dr phillips could have been right , we all know by georges post that the witnesses could have been wrong and or mistaken due to their ambiguious and uncertain and contradictory testimony ,

          But hey lets keep going on forever wasting time .
          Do you really think I’m going to give up in the face of your drivel?

          Stick to the facts rather that keep parroting the same old stuff about ‘ambiguous’ witnesses.
          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

            No one is saying that Richardson tiptoed but she doesn’t mention hearing him arrive at 4.45. So if she can miss hearing her son
            Mrs Richardson tells you she would have heard someone go through the passage and she didn't hear her son. The only person she heard was Thompson.

            John Richardson says otherwise.

            We're left to ponder which of these two statements is most likely.

            I would be willing to make allowances and attempt to reconcile these statements in most cases.

            The problem with John is that he misled the coroner with his knife tale and so we know he was not telling all that he knew at the inquest.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              You’re clutching at straws on a windy day.
              This has all been explained to you.

              In Annie's case rigor had 'commenced of the limbs', a more advanced stage than appearing. Such cases being evident in under 1 hour are outlier examples. We're talking about that which is most likely.

              What food Annie had in her stomach is not central to the argument. The central tenet is that Annie's last known meal was at 1.45am, easily digested food. In order for Annie to have been murdered at 5.30am, she will have eaten again: we have no evidence for this and nor is it reasonable. The best you could offer on the Annie meal thread was: "we just don't know".

              Catherine and Annie's murders occurred in similar circumstances. I tell you what, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're arguing from an honest position and so why don't you post the similarities and the differences: by doing that the penny may just drop for you.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                The nature of human beings is that they like to choose a side, use that side to argue with strangers on message boards, and once chosen there is no way back for the majority no matter what information is put before them.

                There are very few of us who approach the discussion thinking: all possible scenarios have obstacles, but which of the scenarios requires the least in terms of leap of faith, and from there forming a conclusion as to which one is most likely while not being anywhere near a foregone conclusion.
                The problem as i see it Mac is this whole debate on t.o.d which i started, has got way out of hand for 1 reason and 1 reason only. The Chapman murder allowes for anyone who decides too, based on how they themselves interpret the evidence to form an ''Opinion'' that reaches a conclusion their happy with.

                That one person who denies anyone that opinion and continualy mocks , insults, bullys ,badgers for reaching that opinion is absolutly disgraceful in my veiw .

                That sort of behaviour is more a kin to facebook , twitter , reddit and the like . But i guess were struck with such people arent we





                '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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  Do you really think I’m going to give up in the face of your drivel?

                  Stick to the facts rather that keep parroting the same old stuff about ‘ambiguous’ witnesses.
                  How much of ''your'' drivel have we all had to endure . Well i guess you keep parroting the same old line about phillips and modern medical experts, gee thats like an old worn out record hey , but then Fisherman and mac put paid to that huh

                  '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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    Being called biased by you is like being called a danger to women by Peter Sutcliffe.
                    Again, it has all been explained to you.

                    The notion that Dr Phillips intended: the minimum time possible is two hours but possibly less, is a contradiction in terms and not in line with an education man's grasp of the English language. In the event 17 people agree with you, it doesn't reconcile this glaring contradiction in terms: it simply means that, like you, there are 17 other people on the board who do not understand the concept of a contradiction in terms.

                    And, the coroner understood exactly what Dr Phillips intended. Take note of: "miscalculated". The scenario you're proposing, which includes possibly less than two hours, leaves no room for Dr Phillips miscalculating.

                    Through the passage, not through the yard.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                      This has all been explained to you.

                      In Annie's case rigor had 'commenced of the limbs', a more advanced stage than appearing. Such cases being evident in under 1 hour are outlier examples. We're talking about that which is most likely.

                      What food Annie had in her stomach is not central to the argument. The central tenet is that Annie's last known meal was at 1.45am, easily digested food. In order for Annie to have been murdered at 5.30am, she will have eaten again: we have no evidence for this and nor is it reasonable. The best you could offer on the Annie meal thread was: "we just don't know".

                      Catherine and Annie's murders occurred in similar circumstances. I tell you what, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're arguing from an honest position and so why don't you post the similarities and the differences: by doing that the penny may just drop for you.
                      ''This has all been explained to you.''

                      Thats the problem right there mac , Bingo .
                      '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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        The only thing that should be accepted Trevor is that the witness make it overwhelmingly likely that Chapman was killed later. This is obvious.
                        You are beyond help

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                          The problem as i see it Mac is this whole debate on t.o.d which i started, has got way out of hand for 1 reason and 1 reason only. The Chapman murder allowes for anyone who decides too, based on how they themselves interpret the evidence to form an ''Opinion'' that reaches a conclusion their happy with.

                          That one person who denies anyone that opinion and continualy mocks , insults, bullys ,badgers for reaching that opinion is absolutly disgraceful in my veiw .

                          That sort of behaviour is more a kin to facebook , twitter , reddit and the like . But i guess were struck with such people arent we
                          I don't take any notice of the insults, Fishy. I think Sherlock likes an argument and wants to keep it going, and he thinks baiting is one means of doing this.

                          But I do take notice when someone argues from a position of "it's impossible" when it suits and at other times "we just don't know, anything is possible".

                          In the end, it lacks credibility.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            You are beyond help

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            One thing is for sure for anyone who reads the witnesses testimony , there is nothing ''overwhelming'' all about it , its ambiguious uncertain unsafe to rely on, contradictory. If some wish to use that as 5.30 t.o d.
                            '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

                              I don't take any notice of the insults, Fishy. I think Sherlock likes an argument and wants to keep it going, and he thinks baiting is one means of doing this.

                              But I do take notice when someone argues from a position of "it's impossible" when it suits and at other times "we just don't know, anything is possible".

                              In the end, it lacks credibility.
                              Agreed , It lacks a whole lot more than just credibility i can tell you that. But i cant say those things
                              Last edited by FISHY1118; 09-04-2022, 11:39 AM.
                              '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 FISHY1118 View Post

                                Agreed , It lacks a whole lot more than just credibility i can tell you that. But i cant say those things
                                Aye. In the end, his argument isn't a compelling one.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X