Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    But you are the one who keeps stating that the witness testimony should not be dismissed now you say they cant be relied upon due to possible error with the clocks

    Well I disagree with you and Jeff on this issue. Mrs Long`s time can be verified by the clock she heard striking that was 5.30am and the couple were static so with that in mind by my calculations if they were Chapman and the killer the earliest they could have made it into the back yard would have been 5.35am.

    Cadosch stated he was in the yard at 5.20am you cant tell me that the clocks were that much out of sync with each other

    You are simply using the the excuse that the clocks were wrong to prop up the witness testimony to suit, they may have been not in sync but not 15 mins out !!!!!!!!!

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Trevor, the old ''Clock'' argument as to align the witnesses testimony, is about as phony as the Drs medical opinion is ''useless'' arguement .

    What people fail to realize is, its what the witnesses ''Said'' not what the clocks said or didnt say as far as time goes. Few people actually get this concept.
    '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 The Macdonald Triad View Post

      So you listening to a podcast by other people means you win something? Lol. Derlock you definitely are a cut above the rest when it comes to trolling in a so-called intellectual setting.
      Simply responding to a previous, and completely false claim, that the majority of posters favour an earlier TOD. Try reading.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by The Macdonald Triad View Post

        It's your own fault for riding on his roundabout. Wise up.
        Again, try assessing the evidence properly and focus less on swooping in to make these kind of silly digs at me which is all that you appear to be interested in doing. You contribute absolutely zero of use to these discussions. So I’d say that your 30+ posts per year since joining have hardly have achieved much. Oh, and you appear to be the only man in the world that thinks Richardson was the ripper. Quality stuff.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

          And you can show proof they were not ? NO i didnt think so.
          The onus is on those making the claim to provide evidence for it. So those claiming that Cadosch lied need to provide evidence. And when it’s provided, because it hasn’t been so far, I’ll look at it.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

            Trevor, the old ''Clock'' argument as to align the witnesses testimony, is about as phony as the Drs medical opinion is ''useless'' arguement .

            What people fail to realize is, its what the witnesses ''Said'' not what the clocks said or didnt say as far as time goes. Few people actually get this concept.
            This is an absolute classic Fishy. Your post should be preserved for all time. Your actually saying that if the clocks were out, it doesn’t matter, all that matters is what the witnesses ‘said!!!!’ And you say that people can’t get this ‘concept.’ Yes, because it’s mind-boggling nonsense!

            So if we have an ‘actual’ time, but Mr X’s clock is wrong, and Mrs Y’s clock is wrong and Constable Z’s clock is wrong, it only matters that they all said 5.00? Even though Mr X’s 5.00 was in reality 4.55, and Mrs Y’s 5.00 was in reality 4.54 and Constable Z’s 5.00 was actually 5.03.

            Its saying something Fishy, but even I can’t believe that you made that statement.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by The Macdonald Triad View Post

              Love your stuff George. Even how you ignore the trolls; it's almost like you have no conscience. That's a compliment by the way.
              So I make a post, using the inquest evidence and also quoting evidence that George had previously used on here, to prove to Trevor that Mrs Long didn’t need to be 15 minutes out but that it only required Cadosch and Long to have been out in their times by about 5 minutes and you call me a troll?

              Its getting ridiculous on here.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                It's an interesting phenomenon, Trevor.

                I was recently reading a thread on Elizabeth Long. This thread went back to around 2005 and those posting on the thread were a lot of the old posters who know the case and the source documents inside out.

                Somebody had taken the time to do the walk from Long's home to Hanbury Street and concluded it would have taken 12 minutes as opposed to half an hour. All credit to the person who took the time to do that walk and post the results: that's good work.

                The problem is in the way the information is interpreted: I would say it leaves a bit to be desired. The person who did the walk claimed that it follows Long passed the clock at 5.15am. Three pages later everybody on that thread, bar the odd dissenting voice, accepted it as fact and a case was built around it. Amazing to read, and very instructive, how people wedded to a theory casually cast aside all of the other possibilities and proclaim one of the possibilities to be a fact.

                I was reading and thinking, hold up, why aren't you considering that Long left the house later than she claimed or didn't take the same route you did or whatever. I could only conclude that the theory is all important and as a result the possibility that fits the theory becomes perceived wisdom and embedded fact.

                The Long/Cadosch timings are a big thing. It's an obstacle. Both claimed to know the time when they were at Hanbury Street, driven by when they had to be in a certain place. It really shouldn't be casually dismissed as 'someone was wrong'.

                In the event we strip away all of the disingenuity, obfuscation and outright dishonesty, we have this to consider:

                1) Richardson misled the coroner with his knife tale.

                No he didn’t. This is desperate stuff.

                2) Long and Cadosh contradicted one another with their timings.

                To claim that all timing estimates should be taken as exact and that clocks couldn’t have been wrong or that they were all synchronised is simply childish.

                3) In the event Cadosch heard the WM, then it would be highly unusual for a murder and mutilation to take place in those circumstances.

                A meaningless statement.

                4) Mrs Richardson did not hear her son go through the passage and states that she would have had he gone through after 3am.

                So we’re relying on a sleeping woman who accepted at the inquest that she might not have heard someone in the passage if they were quiet.

                Leaving the medical evidence aside, is that really a compelling case? I mean really?

                Leaving aside your inventions yes. Simply repeating falsehoods don’t make them true.

                In order to make it all fit you have to undertake mental acrobatics with Richardson's statement, claim Long or Cadosh was mistaken in a manner whereby their statements can be taken to be solid evidence, claim Mrs Richardson was mistaken in a manner whereby her statement can be discounted and believe that the WM took that risk of murder and mutilation while someone was a few yards away in daylight with only a 5'6 fence or whatever separating them.

                Can you possibly believe this stuff?

                I maintain that the only reason that these witnesses represent a compelling case for some people is that they are wedded to this theory and they have more than likely accepted possibilities as fact, as happened on the thread from 2005.

                Or that you, as has been shown, are utterly desperate to believe that a Victorian Doctor was more scientifically advanced that a Forensic expert in 2022. It beggars belief that you continue to pursue this and then you have the nerve to call me biased!

                Strip it back to its bare bones and there are some serious holes in the collective witness statement picture. In a court of law, it would be ripped to shreds in no time.

                And try telling a Jury that clocks can’t be wrong, or that someone can’t be out by 5 minutes in a time estimate or that Phillips was a miracle worker and see how far you’d get.
                And we have the pot calling the kettle black yet again. You are the one who has consistently refused to accept the opinion of the world experts. You are the one claiming that simply by noting stiffness and by touching the corpse Dr Phillips gave a minimum TOD that couldn’t have been wrong. Something that a forensic expert couldn’t do in 2022. This is all the evidence that we need to see just how biased you really are.

                Comment


                • I note that there is some speculation about how some reach the view that a later time of death for Annie is more likely than an earlier time of death. Rather than allowing the assumption that it is intransigence to go unchallenged, I thought I would share my thought process. Feel free to disagree, but please do not presume there is not good reason for a view alternative to your own.

                  I start with the medical evidence and conclude the following from what information I have been able to consult.
                  Dr Phillips suggests t.o.d was at least two hours prior to his examination at about 6.30am (so 4.30am or earlier) and we know Annie was alive at 1.45am - so I start with a slot between 1.45am and 4.30am but note the lack of confidence the doctor attaches to his own estimate.

                  I then look for any other evidence that might help to refine those first thoughts and in this case that comes from witnesses. Firstly, John Richardson:
                  Richardson claims to have been in the yard attending to his boot at around 4.50am. It was at Dawn and it was getting light. He is emphatic he saw no body at that time and I dismiss the idea that a door could have obscured his view (both because he said it did not and because the logistics do not support such a conclusion (in my view)). I therefore find no reason not to accept his statement as accurate (I appreciate others find it less convincing and take a different view). The tod slot for me is now around 5.00am taking account of Richardson's statement and the doctor's statement of potential error in his estimate.

                  Then Cadosch and Long, who I take together. Both of these witnesses supply less compelling and more debatable information, in my view. We do not know what Cadosch heard and we do not know who Long saw. The fact that both claim to potentially have seen or heard Annie at between 5.20am and 5.30am is more compelling than if we had only one witness with this information. However, of the two statements, Cadosch is the more convincing to me and Long is less reliable.

                  So considering all of the above I conclude the most likely time of death of Annie is between 5.00am and 5.30am - while Cadosch drives my thoughts to t.o.d being closer to 5.30am, the doctor's evidence, even with his self doubt, pulls me nearer to 5.00am but neither sufficiently for me to answer the question 'what was the t.o.d. of Annie Chapman?', with anything more precise than between 5.00 and 5.30.

                  That is just what I think and how I got there - I absolutely appreciate others evaluate the evidence differently and will reach other conclusions.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by etenguy View Post
                    I note that there is some speculation about how some reach the view that a later time of death for Annie is more likely than an earlier time of death. Rather than allowing the assumption that it is intransigence to go unchallenged, I thought I would share my thought process. Feel free to disagree, but please do not presume there is not good reason for a view alternative to your own.

                    I start with the medical evidence and conclude the following from what information I have been able to consult.
                    Dr Phillips suggests t.o.d was at least two hours prior to his examination at about 6.30am (so 4.30am or earlier) and we know Annie was alive at 1.45am - so I start with a slot between 1.45am and 4.30am but note the lack of confidence the doctor attaches to his own estimate.

                    I then look for any other evidence that might help to refine those first thoughts and in this case that comes from witnesses. Firstly, John Richardson:
                    Richardson claims to have been in the yard attending to his boot at around 4.50am. It was at Dawn and it was getting light. He is emphatic he saw no body at that time and I dismiss the idea that a door could have obscured his view (both because he said it did not and because the logistics do not support such a conclusion (in my view)). I therefore find no reason not to accept his statement as accurate (I appreciate others find it less convincing and take a different view). The tod slot for me is now around 5.00am taking account of Richardson's statement and the doctor's statement of potential error in his estimate.

                    Then Cadosch and Long, who I take together. Both of these witnesses supply less compelling and more debatable information, in my view. We do not know what Cadosch heard and we do not know who Long saw. The fact that both claim to potentially have seen or heard Annie at between 5.20am and 5.30am is more compelling than if we had only one witness with this information. However, of the two statements, Cadosch is the more convincing to me and Long is less reliable.

                    So considering all of the above I conclude the most likely time of death of Annie is between 5.00am and 5.30am - while Cadosch drives my thoughts to t.o.d being closer to 5.30am, the doctor's evidence, even with his self doubt, pulls me nearer to 5.00am but neither sufficiently for me to answer the question 'what was the t.o.d. of Annie Chapman?', with anything more precise than between 5.00 and 5.30.

                    That is just what I think and how I got there - I absolutely appreciate others evaluate the evidence differently and will reach other conclusions.
                    Fairly done Eten. It’s the conclusion that the vast majority of people interested in the case arrive at. Once we know that Phillips doesn’t help us here and that we absolutely can’t rely on a minimum of 2 hours (the evidence for this shouldn’t even require discussion because it’s black and white) then we are left with 3 witnesses all pointing to a later TOD. We have absolutely nothing that even hints at them lying so we only have to decide if they could have been mistaken or not. Richardson was absolutely confident that he couldn’t have missed a body had it been there (and no one would have ever questioned this if it wasn’t for Phillips dodgy guess) and Cadosch was absolutely confident that he heard a noise coming from number 29 (for which there can’t be an innocent explanation) And we have Long who was confident that she identified Long although we know that eye witness identification can be mistaken. So we might ask, what are the chances of Elizabeth Long seeing a woman who was the spitting image of Annie Chapman just outside the place that she was killed with a man and at just the right time?

                    I don’t think we can move further because a very few posters have nailed their colours to the mast in their baseless support for Phillips guess and are tied to the process of going to any laughable length to defend their position. So to them an obviously unreliable estimate by a Victorian Doctor trumps 3 witnesses. Luckily the vast majority of sensible posters can see past this.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      Fairly done Eten. It’s the conclusion that the vast majority of people interested in the case arrive at. Once we know that Phillips doesn’t help us here and that we absolutely can’t rely on a minimum of 2 hours (the evidence for this shouldn’t even require discussion because it’s black and white) then we are left with 3 witnesses all pointing to a later TOD. We have absolutely nothing that even hints at them lying so we only have to decide if they could have been mistaken or not. Richardson was absolutely confident that he couldn’t have missed a body had it been there (and no one would have ever questioned this if it wasn’t for Phillips dodgy guess) and Cadosch was absolutely confident that he heard a noise coming from number 29 (for which there can’t be an innocent explanation) And we have Long who was confident that she identified Long although we know that eye witness identification can be mistaken. So we might ask, what are the chances of Elizabeth Long seeing a woman who was the spitting image of Annie Chapman just outside the place that she was killed with a man and at just the right time?

                      I don’t think we can move further because a very few posters have nailed their colours to the mast in their baseless support for Phillips guess and are tied to the process of going to any laughable length to defend their position. So to them an obviously unreliable estimate by a Victorian Doctor trumps 3 witnesses. Luckily the vast majority of sensible posters can see past this.
                      Hi Herlock

                      So mostly I agree with you, I am probably swayed a little more than you by Phillips and a little less than you by Long - but generally similar end point.

                      Richardson is clearly a key witness when it comes to timing - and while I agree with you that he did not negate his evidence, his bit by bit disclosure is a little odd in the circumstances of a murder investigation. There are all sorts of reasons we might speculate about why that was (some suggest it points to a made up story with one embellishment after the other - or that at least it raises suspicions which leads them to discount his version of events). I can understand that approach, but I tend to think it more likely the central aspects of the story are anchored and correct and that Richardson didn't worry about the other inconsequential (to him at least) details, explaining or expanding on them when asked direct questions.

                      Comment



                      • On the subjects of variations in timings that some (for some reason) find difficult to comprehend. We have…


                        James Kent said at the inquest:

                        “He went to his work at 6 o’clock in the morning. He got to work between 10 minutes and a quarter past 6 on Saturday morning. His employer’s gate was open, and he waited for more of the hands to come up. While he was waiting there an elderly man named Davis, who lived two or three doors off, came out of his house and said, “Men, come here.”


                        So according to Kent, John Davis drew his attention to the murder between 6.10-6.15.


                        John Davis said at the Inquest:

                        “He got up about a quarter to 6. Soon afterwards he went across the yard. The front portion of the house faced Hanbury-street. On the ground floor there was a front door, with a passage running through to the back yard.”


                        And from The Telegraph:


                        “until a quarter to six, when the clock at Spitalfields Church struck. I had a cup of tea and went downstairs to the back yard.”


                        So a quick cup of tea has to account for 25 minutes?


                        Then Harriett Hardiman said at the inquest:

                        “I was awakened by the trampling through the passage at about six o'clock.”


                        So was her ‘about 6.00’ the same as Kent’s between 6.10 and 6.15?


                        And Inspector Chandler at the inquest said:

                        “On Saturday morning, at ten minutes past six, I was on duty in Commercial-street. At the corner of Hanbury-street I saw several men running”

                        And yet Henry Holland said at the inquest:

                        “I went outside and could find no constable. Going back to the house I saw an inspector run up with a young man, at about twenty minutes past six o'clock.”

                        So did he arrive at his 6.10 or Holland’s ‘about 6.20?’

                        …….

                        Question: why are none of these estimates and discrepancies treated as ‘impossible’ or ‘unlikely’ or in anyway worthy of mistrust? And yet when it comes to Long and Cadosch and I suggest a tiny margin for error of 5 minutes or so we get responses as if I’d suggested that goblins were involved? Can there be a better example of the plain bias that goes on with a few posters on this subject? All common sense, reason and fairness gets discarded in pursuit of an agenda. Thankfully for the subject the vast majority can see this and we can leave the ‘few’ bleating and twisting on the fringes.
                        Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 09-09-2022, 01:53 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                          Hi Herlock

                          So mostly I agree with you, I am probably swayed a little more than you by Phillips and a little less than you by Long - but generally similar end point.

                          Richardson is clearly a key witness when it comes to timing - and while I agree with you that he did not negate his evidence, his bit by bit disclosure is a little odd in the circumstances of a murder investigation. There are all sorts of reasons we might speculate about why that was (some suggest it points to a made up story with one embellishment after the other - or that at least it raises suspicions which leads them to discount his version of events). I can understand that approach, but I tend to think it more likely the central aspects of the story are anchored and correct and that Richardson didn't worry about the other inconsequential (to him at least) details, explaining or expanding on them when asked direct questions.
                          Hello Eten,

                          When the coroner asked him what he’d done he was only concerned with what he’d done whilst at number 29 so Richardson had no need to mention his use of the second knife at the market. He only did so when the coroner saw his own knife and that it didn’t look very sharp. It’s also worth pointing out that neither the coroner nor the jury pulled him up any anything that might have sounded ‘not quite right.’ Surely if he’d have said something questionable involving the knife at an inquest about a knife murder the coroner would have been all over him. For me it’s clear that Richardson cut some leather from his boot on the step but could do a good enough job due to the knife. Nothing else makes sense unless we assume that Richardson, the coroner and the coroner’s jury were all unfeasibly stupid. Remember, he’d only discovered that his boot was still hurting as he’d set out for work, and so tried to do a bit of repair work with the knife that he had on him. I honestly can’t see a single issue with Richardson. I think that he’s one of the strongest witnesses in the case.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            So I make a post, using the inquest evidence and also quoting evidence that George had previously used on here, to prove to Trevor that Mrs Long didn’t need to be 15 minutes out but that it only required Cadosch and Long to have been out in their times by about 5 minutes and you call me a troll?

                            Its getting ridiculous on here.
                            You need to read the posts more thoroughly before you rush to reply, this is what I originally posted no mention of Mrs Long being 15 mins out !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                            Well I disagree with you and Jeff on this issue. Mrs Long`s time can be verified by the clock she heard striking that was 5.30am and the couple were static so with that in mind by my calculations if they were Chapman and the killer the earliest they could have made it into the back yard would have been 5.35am.

                            Cadosch stated he was in the yard at 5.20am you cant tell me that the clocks were that much out of sync with each other

                            You are simply using the the excuse that the clocks were wrong to prop up the witness testimony to suit, they may have been not in sync but not 15 mins out !!!!!!!!!


                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              You need to read the posts more thoroughly before you rush to reply, this is what I originally posted no mention of Mrs Long being 15 mins out !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                              Well I disagree with you and Jeff on this issue. Mrs Long`s time can be verified by the clock she heard striking that was 5.30am and the couple were static so with that in mind by my calculations if they were Chapman and the killer the earliest they could have made it into the back yard would have been 5.35am.

                              Cadosch stated he was in the yard at 5.20am you cant tell me that the clocks were that much out of sync with each other

                              You are simply using the the excuse that the clocks were wrong to prop up the witness testimony to suit, they may have been not in sync but not 15 mins out !!!!!!!!!


                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Please try and understand Trevor.

                              Cadosch:

                              “and went into the yard. It was then about twenty minutes past five.”

                              So, in black and white, it was ABOUT 5.20 when he went into the yard - ok Trevor?

                              He didn’t hear the ‘no’ until he returned FROM the loo. So we can add a minute or two. So that when he heard the ‘no’ it was ABOUT 5.21 or 5.22 - ok Trevor? Nothing fanciful here.

                              But what is DEFINITELY fanciful is your absolutely ludicrous piece of manipulation in trying to claim that after Long past the couple it took them 4 or 5 minutes to walk the very few yards to number 29. They weren’t on the moon So if Long past them at 5.30 they could have been in that yard at 5.31 (or I might still have been 5.30.)

                              So from 5.22 to 5.31 is just 9 minutes.

                              So all that we have to account for it a piddling 9 minutes (or even 8)

                              So Trevor, can you assure us all that the clock that Mrs Long heard couldn’t have been 5 minutes out? Are you really going to make that ludicrous claim?

                              So it’s entirely plausible that Long might have arrived at number 29 at 5.25 instead of 5.30 - that’s a matter of a mere 5 minutes!!!

                              And then we have Cadosch estimating the time and then estimating the time between him getting up and going outside. So instead of going back across the yard at 5.22 he might instead have crossed at 5.26. So is it impossible or unlikely that he could have been a mere 4 minutes out? You will certainly be doing yourself no favours if you suggest this.

                              So do you think it impossible that Long’s clock could have been around 5 minutes fast and that Cadosch could have been a mere 4 or 5 minutes out? If you believe this then your entirely beyond hope.

                              How the hell can anyone try and claim that two people in the slums of Whitechapel in 1888 couldn’t have both been around 5 minutes out in their times unless they’re in an absolutely unmovable straight jacket of bias?
                              Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 09-09-2022, 03:13 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post


                                Please try and understand Trevor.

                                Cadosch:

                                “and went into the yard. It was then about twenty minutes past five.”

                                So, in black and white, it was ABOUT 5.20 when he went into the yard - ok Trevor?

                                He didn’t hear the ‘no’ until he returned FROM the loo. So we can add a minute or two. So that when he heard the ‘no’ it was ABOUT 5.21 or 5.22 - ok Trevor? Nothing fanciful here.

                                But what is DEFINITELY fanciful is your absolutely ludicrous piece of manipulation in trying to claim that after Long past the couple it took them 4 or 5 minutes to walk the very few yards to number 29. They weren’t on the moon So if Long past them at 5.30 they could have been in that yard at 5.31 (or I might still have been 5.30.)

                                So from 5.22 to 5.31 is just 9 minutes.

                                So all that we have to account for it a piddling 9 minutes (or even 8)

                                So Trevor, can you assure us all that the clock that Mrs Long heard couldn’t have been 5 minutes out? Are you really going to make that ludicrous claim?

                                So it’s entirely plausible that Long might have arrived at number 29 at 5.25 instead of 5.30 - that’s a matter of a mere 5 minutes!!!

                                And then we have Cadosch estimating the time and then estimating the time between him getting up and going outside. So instead of going back across the yard at 5.22 he might instead have crossed at 5.26. So is it impossible or unlikely that he could have been a mere 4 minutes out? You will certainly be doing yourself no favours if you suggest this.

                                So do you think it impossible that Long’s clock could have been around 5 minutes fast and that Cadosch could have been a mere 4 or 5 minutes out? If you believe this then your entirely beyond hope.

                                How the hell can anyone try and claim that two people in the slums of Whitechapel in 1888 couldn’t have both been around 5 minutes out in their times unless they’re in an absolutely unmovable straight jacket of bias?
                                Hi Herlock,

                                This timeline of yours got me thinking rather unsavoury thoughts!

                                Was Cadosche ever asked to give an estimate of how long he was in the loo?

                                I can see that at the inquest he simply gave the time he got up and went to the yard, then the four minutes spent inside before returning to the loo.

                                Could he have been in that loo far longer than we are estimating?

                                I've worked with a few blokes over the years who would disappear every day for unfathomable periods of time.

                                Granted, Cadosche obviously wasn't checking the BBC Sport app on his mobile or reading The Sun, but I have frequently observed that (without wishing to go into detail or theorise about what they're doing in there) bloke's toilet habits are pretty weird.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X