John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thank you Herlock for taking the time to reply. Fishy perhaps a list of what IS in agreement would help. For instance:

Annie was seen eating potatoes at her last confirmed sighting.
Annie was murdered sometime after 1.50am,
Annie died within a 4 hour window,
Richardson claimed to be in the yard at 4.45 am,
Annie's body was discovered at approx 6.am by John Davis Dr Philips examined her body at approx 6.30 am,
Annie was malnourished and had TB.

I think all the above are undisputed ( but please delete if any are). So what else can be inserted into the timeline especially regarding Richardson that all posters are in agreement with?

I know it seems a little retrograde but perhaps if we start from a simpler and methodical approach to undisputed facts a hitherto undiscussed area of agreement may come to light.

Helen x

Although witnesses can be disputed by some we have Cadosch hearing a noise from the yard at 5.25 which, if there was an earlier TOD, couldn’t have had an innocent origin. Cadosch had no reason to lie and was honest enough to be cautious about the ‘No’ which, although his initial impression was that it came from number 29, he admitted that it wasn’t impossible that it could have come from elsewhere. So if he was a liar why be cautious about the ‘no?’ No one could have proved him wrong. We also have Long who claimed to have seen Chapman. She could have been mistaken of course but we can’t assume this. She might have been correct.

So we have 3 witness. None with any reason to lie but we know that witnesses can be mistaken - I just don’t see it as at all likely in this case (although, of the 3, I’d say that Long is the most likely to have been mistaken)

We know that Phillips estimated a TOD of 2 hours or more prior to the time he checked. He arrived at 6.30 but we can’t be certain that he checked TOD immediately as he was listed as doing other stuff like collecting up objects from the yard.

Apart from this there’s very little to agree on.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dr Phillips' examination and observations should be taken on its merit.

You mean on faith?! We know the merit of a Victorian doctors estimation. Little more than a coin toss.

Imposing 'keeping Lechmere in the game' into the discussion is childish and argument ad hominem.

Stop the whimpering Fishy.

Nobody here really cares about Lechmere. You may have a poster who has a theory surrounding Lechmere, but that doesn't negate the argument that Dr Phillips could quite conceivably have been accurate.

Ad I’ve said a thousand times to no effect. He can’t be relied upon as accurate though and that’s all that matters.

Argue the point honestly, fairly and with focus on the merits of the point. Leave Lechmere and whomever else to a thread discussing those suspects.

The problems of honesty are on your side entirely.

[FISHY1118]

It tells her everything Fishy. If when talking about Fisherman I assume you mean Thiblin. I assume that you’re ignoring the part where he said that Annie could have been killed at 5.30?

You keep using these inappropriate words to describe the witnesses. Ambiguous - there’s nothing ‘ambiguous’ about them. If you use conspiracy theorist thinking you can find suspicion in anything. Uncertain - where? Richardson was 100 certain that the body wasn’t there. Cadosch was certain that he heard s noise coming from number 29 and Long appeared certain that the woman that she saw was Chapman. You might disagree with them but they can’t be called uncertain because they were the opposite of that.

Yes Herlock i am aware of that, just as i am aware she could have been killed 4.00/4.30 ? based on the evidence.

There really is nothing conspiratorial about it Herlock, just the interpretation of the witnesses and medical evidence .

Again if the noise that Cadosch heard was Annie hitting the fence at 5.20 am then Mrs L ong is wrong isnt she? , i refuse to get into a debate that somehow the clocks were all skewif or she somehow how heard the 5.15 chimes instead of the 5.30 one . For christ sake the women problably heard that chime at 5.30 everymorning for years, so on the day of the murder she gets its wrong. Cmon seriously ? Anyway i digress , lets stick to the inquest testimony as she told it . So by that definition, its uncertain and contradictory as to who was right Long or Cadosch .

Albert Cadosch , .. yes he did say ''he thinks'' the ''No'' came from 29 but could not be sure what side it came from , nowhere does it say he meant the other side of No 29 ,and just because no one came forward from any other house to verify if the "No" came from there, doesnt mean it didnt !. People may not have wanted to get involved it the murder for what ever reason. It happens.

So if the "no" is uncertain as to it origin, that '''could mean'' there was no one in the yard at 29. So a body might not have been what made the thud agaisnt the fence. Also possible, is it not ? What then was the noise youve asked on occasions ? i dont know for sure, but i know it is possible it wasnt a body based on Cadosch's testimony as i understand and interpret it , again goes to uncertainty in the witness testimony.

Richardson . ill leave that one for now, ive covered him at lenght on a number of occasions .

[Fleetwood Mac]

Albert Cadosch , .. yes he did say ''he thinks'' the ''No'' came from 29 but could not be sure what side it came from , nowhere does it say he meant the other side of No 29 ,and just because no one came forward from any other house to verify if the "No" came from there, doesnt mean it didnt !. People may not have wanted to get involved it the murder for what ever reason. It happens.

It would be highly unusual for a murder to take place in those circumstances.

[FISHY1118]

It would be highly unusual for a murder to take place in those circumstances.

I guess one way of looking at also Mac , lets compare it to the Dr phillips caveat thats been bandied around of late.


Dr Phillips ''2 hours probably more'' ...... [ insert supposed caveat], but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood

Cadosch ''i should think it came from no 29'' [insert supposed caveat] but i cant be sure which side it came from ] not very definitive isnt it .?

Get my Driff ?

QUESTION, How does one side get to use ''2 hours probabaly more'' as including the cavet, but ignores ''i should think it came from 29'' ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes Herlock i am aware of that, just as i am aware she could have been killed 4.00/4.30 ? based on the evidence.

There really is nothing conspiratorial about it Herlock, just the interpretation of the witnesses and medical evidence .

Again if the noise that Cadosch heard was Annie hitting the fence at 5.20 am then Mrs L ong is wrong isnt she? , i refuse to get into a debate that somehow the clocks were all skewif or she somehow how heard the 5.15 chimes instead of the 5.30 one . For christ sake the women problably heard that chime at 5.30 everymorning for years, so on the day of the murder she gets its wrong. Cmon seriously ? Anyway i digress , lets stick to the inquest testimony as she told it . So by that definition, its uncertain and contradictory as to who was right Long or Cadosch .

Not at all Fishy. You can’t just sweep a very real possibility under the carpet simply because it’s inconvenient. You’ve tried this in the past on the subject of timing (so you have form) and it’s just silly. You are suggesting that all clocks in London in the LVP were all perfectly synchronised. All were perfectly correct with no possibility of error. Jeff has produced proper research on here demonstrating the margins for error on timings. They are surprisingly wide. George too has discussed them many times on the Schwartz thread. To suggest that 2 clocks couldn’t have been 5 minutes out is beyond ridiculous. So the ‘discrepancy’ between Long and Cadosch is a non-issue and is completely in line with a very reasonable margin for error. You can’t alter reality just to suit yourself.

If you think that it’s reasonable to state rigidly that all Victorian clocks were perfectly on time and perfectly synchronised with each other then you’re simply not inhabiting the real world.

Albert Cadosch , .. yes he did say ''he thinks'' the ''No'' came from 29 but could not be sure what side it came from , nowhere does it say he meant the other side of No 29 ,and just because no one came forward from any other house to verify if the "No" came from there, doesnt mean it didnt !. People may not have wanted to get involved it the murder for what ever reason. It happens.

So if the "no" is uncertain as to it origin, that '''could mean'' there was no one in the yard at 29. So a body might not have been what made the thud agaisnt the fence. Also possible, is it not ? What then was the noise youve asked on occasions ? i dont know for sure, but i know it is possible it wasnt a body based on Cadosch's testimony as i understand and interpret it , again goes to uncertainty in the witness testimony.

Richardson . ill leave that one for now, ive covered him at lenght on a number of occasions .

Not for the first time you have completely misunderstood my post. I wasn’t debating where the ‘no’ came from. I’ll try and simplify.

If Cadosch was dishonest (as some are suggesting) then we have to ask why he was willing to admit that the ‘no’ might have come from elsewhere? Why the caution? If he was a liar he could simply have said “it definitely came from number 29,” and no one could have proved him a liar so there was nothing preventing him from doing so. He could even have exaggerated and talked about hearing a man and a woman arguing but he thought that it might have been Mrs R and her son? Caution implies honesty.

But when it came to the noise he was absolutely certain that it came from number 29. There was no caution here. So within the same conversation did he go from Mr Honest/Cautious to Mr Confident Liar? The fact that he was cautious about the know but confident about the noise is a very big point in his favour. Added to this of course, he had no reason to lie (even though his ‘lie’ about the noise was a bit pathetic.)

We have nothing against Cadosch. Apart from imaginings.

[FISHY1118]

Not for the first time you have completely misunderstood my post. I wasn’t debating where the ‘no’ came from. I’ll try and simplify.

If Cadosch was dishonest (as some are suggesting) then we have to ask why he was willing to admit that the ‘no’ might have come from elsewhere? Why the caution? If he was a liar he could simply have said “it definitely came from number 29,” and no one could have proved him a liar so there was nothing preventing him from doing so. He could even have exaggerated and talked about hearing a man and a woman arguing but he thought that it might have been Mrs R and her son? Caution implies honesty.

But when it came to the noise he was absolutely certain that it came from number 29. There was no caution here. So within the same conversation did he go from Mr Honest/Cautious to Mr Confident Liar? The fact that he was cautious about the know but confident about the noise is a very big point in his favour. Added to this of course, he had no reason to lie (even though his ‘lie’ about the noise was a bit pathetic.)

We have nothing against Cadosch. Apart from imaginings.

Oh well i see you didnt get it ,thats ok, you keep going over the same old stuff thats been shown to you to be uncertain . Back to the evidence, and we all know what that tells us , well at least some of us do .

The evidence also supports an earlier time of death , due to the ambiguious , uncertain and contradictory nature of the witness testimony as i interpret it, i have explained many times now on this thread.

Fishermans post and George 1320 post both have provided evidence to support this. So there is not much left to say really .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh well i see you didnt get it ,thats ok, you keep going over the same old stuff thats been shown to you to be uncertain . Back to the evidence, and we all know what that tells us , well at least some of us do .

The evidence also supports an earlier time of death , due to the ambiguious , uncertain and contradictory nature of the witness testimony as i interpret it, i have explained many times now on this thread.

Fishermans post and George 1320 post both have provided evidence to support this. So there is not much left to say really .

Why are you so obsessed with George’s #1320 post? The first part simply tells us that witnesses can be mistaken. Well we all know this Fishy. It’s a generic comment that proves nothing. It doesn’t mean that witnesses can never be trusted or that they are always or even usually wrong. Witnesses can be mistaken….yes it’s an entirely fair point…..it proves nothing though.

Then we have the second part…


- Cadosch's original statement to the press was that he heard voices from which he distinguished only the word "no", a rustle of clothing and a scuffle and a noise of something falling against the fence, all as one incident. Then he remembered they occurred at different times, some on his way to the toilet, and the last on his return. At the inquest his recollection was of two trips to the toilet with no rustle or scuffle, only the "No" on one trip, and the noise against the fence on the second trip some 3-4 minutes later. He summarised by saying that he didn't look over the fence because what he heard was nothing out of the ordinary.

What was earlier reported in the Press have to be viewed through a lens of caution. We know as a provable fact that Press can make errors. If we compiled a list of Press errors in this case it would be longer than this thread so we can’t keep assuming that witnesses keep giving different versions to whoever they talked to. We have to take the inquest as likelier to be truth. So what we have is a very clear statement. He heard the ‘no’ which his first instinct told him came from 29 but that as it came out of the blue it might conceivably have come from elsewhere. But when he heard the noise he was already primed. He already believed that there was someone in the yard of number 29 so his attention was drawn. He was totally confident about this. Attempts to prove him a liar are without foundation, contrary to reason and motivated by an agenda to eliminate witnesses to bolster a doctors inaccurate guess.

Long stated that she saw many people and couples on the street that morning, but picked out one couple of whom she stated she took no notice. Four days after the event she identifies Chapman, a woman she had never seen before, in the morgue, as the woman she had seen on that morning.

This doesn’t eliminate her evidence though. It just means that she might have been mistaken in that she just happened to see a woman who looked just like Annie talking to a man just outside the spot where the real Annie was killed and at the right time. We would need strong reasons to dismiss her and no reasons exist apart from the usual and obvious possibility of human error. Some people have better memories for faces than do other people. How do we know that Mrs Long wasn’t one of these people. She saw them up ahead, then walked toward them which implies that she looked at the woman’s face for a few seconds. Mistaken? Possibly. Not mistaken? Possibly. Reasons to dismiss her….none.

Richardson told Chandler and the press that he had checked the lock on the cellar door that morning by the method he had been using for two months.

This isn’t true. He never mentioned that he always checked the lock in the same way. This error is based on reading Mrs R saying that her son could see the lock from the step. But naturally he’d have told her what he’d done that morning so this doesn’t mean that he checked the door in the same way ever time. Maybe he usually stepped into the yard but on this occasion didn’t bother because he’d sat to fix his boot and could see the lock from that position?

Two days later he remembered that he sat on the step to cut leather from his boot.

Not true. There’s no way this can be stated as a fact.

At the inquest he told the coroner he sat on the step and cut leather from his boot, but after retrieving the knife he said he used, then remembered in wasn't sharp enough and that the leather removal was actually achieved afterwards at his work with a borrowed knife.

This is what we repeatedly get. An attempt to make things look sinister when they are anything but. He didn’t mention the work done with the second knife because it didn’t occur at number 29 and the coroner was only interested in events at number 29. He mentioned the second knife only after the coroner mentioned the first knife looking blunt.


….

There’s too much creative fiction required to discredit the witnesses. The chances of 3 witnesses all being liars, morons or mistaken have to be vanishingly small. And those promoting this are the ones that believe that they know more about forensics that the worlds experts so hardly weighty. So keep parroting ‘Fisherman’ and ‘ambiguous’ and all of the nonsense you want Fishy. You made a trumpeting point of saying that most people go for and earlier TOD (something you felt important to post) then when I showed you that your maths was crap to say the least and that 15 out of 20 on here go for a later TOD these figures suddenly became unimportant.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I guess one way of looking at also Mac , lets compare it to the Dr phillips caveat thats been bandied around of late.


Dr Phillips ''2 hours probably more'' ...... [ insert supposed caveat], but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood

Cadosch ''i should think it came from no 29'' [insert supposed caveat] but i cant be sure which side it came from ] not very definitive isnt it .?

Get my Driff ?

QUESTION, How does one side get to use ''2 hours probabaly more'' as including the cavet, but ignores ''i should think it came from 29'' ?

Well, we can interpret Cadosch's inquest statement in more than one fashion and we can discuss the noises, whence they came, the significance and so on. 'Probably going 'round in circles.

In the end, I think it is most instructive that it is highly unusual for a serial killer to commit a murder in those circumstances and the WM did not take the same level of risk at the other crime scenes. The evidence tells us that the WM did not want to be caught.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, we can interpret Cadosch's inquest statement in more than one fashion and we can discuss the noises, whence they came, the significance and so on. 'Probably going 'round in circles.

In the end, I think it is most instructive that it is highly unusual for a serial killer to commit a murder in those circumstances and the WM did not take the same level of risk at the other crime scenes. The evidence tells us that the WM did not want to be caught.

So are you saying that Annie was killed by someone other than the WM?

What about the risk in Berner Street right next to a club with the door open, men singing inside, a ooo just across from the door and an open gate onto a street a few feet away. Get real.

And why do you keep going on about ‘those circumstances?’ How could he have known that someone would turn up in next doors yard? And what else could this other person have been doing apart from going to the loo unless he was some kind of insomniac Alan Titchmarsh? So naturally the killer simply waits for him to go back inside. Every single banal point in this case you try to turn into some great mystery or some remotely unlikely occurrence. Inarguable evidence for an agenda.

[Fleetwood Mac]

What about the risk in Berner Street right next to a club with the door open, men singing inside, a ooo just across from the door and an open gate onto a street a few feet away. Get real.

How does this risk compare to 29 Hanbury Street? You know, assessing the options.

How could he have known that someone would turn up in next doors yard?

Supposedly he did know and carried on with the murder and mutilation regardless. Isn't this a cornerstone of the 5.30am TOD?

[Herlock Sholmes]

How does this risk compare to 29 Hanbury Street? You know, assessing the options.

The risk at Berner Street was far greater. And think of Bucks Row too. An open street with streets running of on either side where anyone could have emerged at any time. There was risk everywhere.

Supposedly he did know and carried on with the murder and mutilation regardless. Isn't this a cornerstone of the 5.30am TOD?

How could he have known that Cadosch would come out to use the loo? Why do you suggest these things? How can it be a stretch of the imagination or in any way difficult to accept that the killer might have entered the yard with Annie and as they were about to get down to business Cadosch comes out - he hears the ‘no’ as a snippet of conversation or simply as an answer to a question. The killer realises that the neighbour is going to the loo and is likely to be no more than a couple of minutes so they wait until he goes back indoors which he does. Then he kills her and whilst mutilating her the killer returns to the loo. The noise is possibly the killer brushing against the fence as he changes position or perhaps he moves her leg (knees spread outward remember) which brushes against the fence.

One thing we know for certain. If Cadosch did hear the noise then there is no innocent explanation.

[Fleetwood Mac]

How could he have known that Cadosch would come out to use the loo?

Because he came out of the door and into the yard, supposedly while a murder was taking place the other side of the fence.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The noise is possibly the killer brushing against the fence as he changes position or perhaps he moves her leg (knees spread outward remember) which brushes against the fence.

Then you're arguing that the WM mutilated a woman with only a 5ft whatever fence separating him from a witness a few yards away.

As I said initially, that would be highly unusual.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Because he came out of the door and into the yard, supposedly while a murder was taking place the other side of the fence.

So your saying that the killer knew that Cadosch would enter the yard? And because of these psychic powers he knew that he was taking a huge risk?

You can’t be saying this. Are you?