John Richardson

[GBinOz]

I made a long and detailed fact-based post on the evidence. How come no response to that? Generalities and whimpering are preferred.

Biased attention: This is when we selectively focus on information that confirms our views while ignoring or discounting data that doesn't.

[FISHY1118]

So you want an anaemic debate where diplomacy is more importent than truth and where everyone agrees to disagree and any nonsense is simply accepted?

What truth would that be ? the truth that Annie Chapman was killed at 5.30 am ? of course that cant be proven, so yes its back to respectable debate and diplomacy. Or is that to much to ask ?


What you call ''any nonsense'' is the same evidence that leads one to make conclusions as to the time of Annie Chapmans death , thats the same for everyone , so your so called ''nonsense'' is just as good or bad as mine if that how you veiw it .

[DJA]

An outsider's view of Ripperology's premier website .....

The Battle of Pearl Harbor - YouTube

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi FM

As Fishy predicted, your last sentence warrants challenge, but that is not what I wish to post about today, nor do I want to distract from a good point well made.

There absolutely was concern expressed by Warren about the streets coming alive and the need to remove the GSG as a result at around this time. Hanbury street is set back a little further from the main road and not in the same immediate vicinity as Goulston Street, but the general point about people in Whitechapel starting their days would, I think, still hold. I do not think this contradicts Long or makes her statement more questionable, but the WM would have been coming out into increasingly busy streets after the murder if it happened at around 5.15am-5.30am. He may well have done that, and may well have relished the risk he was taking but I wonder if that points to him living or having a place to clean up close by to Hanbury Street. It is certainly close enough to Goulston Street for it not to be a stretch of the imagination that the WM may have been heading to a place close by to both Hanbury street and Goulston street. Pure speculation, but it is what came to mind as I read your post.

There was a pan of water for him in the yard, and had it been 5.30am or whatever it's a decent bet he would have seen it and used it.

I'm not convinced with the place to clean up, given the social status the WM likely belonged to, unless of course there was more than 1 person involved. That would explain a few things, but Mary's murder may argue against that. It looks like Mary was murdered as she lay close to the partition which would suggest somebody was in bed with her. Then again, a pardon was issued after Mary's murder.

[DJA]

A pardon was offered.

[etenguy]

There was a pan of water for him in the yard, and had it been 5.30am or whatever it's a decent bet he would have seen it and used it.

True, unless Cadosch, or someone we don't know about, spooked him.

I'm not convinced with the place to clean up, given the social status the WM likely belonged to, unless of course there was more than 1 person involved.

I think this would more likely apply if it was someone the WM knew in the area or he had access to a workplace - I think you are right that it is unlikely he had a second own place to use.

That would explain a few things, but Mary's murder may argue against that. It looks like Mary was murdered as she lay close to the partition which would suggest somebody was in bed with her. Then again, a pardon was issued after Mary's murder.

Yes, Mary's murder raises more questions, not least was it a punter or someone she knew. Given she had until recently lived with Barnett or had a friend staying, she could not have regularly brought punters back home - but perhaps a very unfortunate first time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The trouble is you dont Challenge you get personnal with your responses , all the challenging is over and done with, it been answered many times over, you dont agree, fine ,you just need to let other express their point of view without being rude, treat others who dont agree with you a little kinder , no one can say they are more right in their opinion than the next guy when we all share the same evidence and make own own conclusions .

I can debate this topic till the cows come home herlock , im more than happy to ,i like other tho just dont want to be treated like an idiot when we do .

In a previous post I went through the entire thread and showed first insult came from you. Do these rules only count for me? Is sarcasm that wounding?

If you debated the specifics rather than repeating generalities to avoid issues then there would be little problem. Also if you avoided disputing what forensic experts tell us that would be a bonus.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your suggestion was than there were only two people in the street because Long didn't mention anyone else.
It’s simple enough. The conversation was about how many people might have been around at the time of Long’s sighting. Varqm said:
Long was alone and there were no other people in the street
George suggested that there might have been other people in the street:

Where is your evidence? You've conveniently ignored Amelia Richardson's statement. There is a considerable difference between "choc full of people" and only two people.

I haven’t suggested that there were only two people in the street George because I wasn’t there so I don’t know how many people were in the street. None of us can know how many people were in the street. A point was made about the market being on. This is a fact which can’t be disputed but it still doesn’t tell us how many people were in that street at the time. I can’t say that there was no one else and you can’t say that there must have been others just because the market was on. It’s an unknown. We can’t make assumptions with the absence of evidence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wasn't it you than labelled Fishy as a "cheer leader"?

Yes it was. What’s wrong with that? Is it any worse than Fishy calling me ‘pompous’ or saying ‘just dont be an as####ss about it.’

The difference is that I don’t call for a safe space to protect me from trivial comments. I’ve said nothing nasty at all. Anywhere. Unlike being accused of being on drugs of course for example. As Abby pointed out George, your criticism seems highly selective. We should stick to the subject and stop moaning of bits of inoffensive sarcasm.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Biased attention: This is when we selectively focus on information that confirms our views while ignoring or discounting data that doesn't.

Like deliberately dismissing the evidence of the worlds authorities then?

[Herlock Sholmes]

What truth would that be ? the truth that Annie Chapman was killed at 5.30 am ? of course that cant be proven, so yes its back to respectable debate and diplomacy. Or is that to much to ask ?


What you call ''any nonsense'' is the same evidence that leads one to make conclusions as to the time of Annie Chapmans death , thats the same for everyone , so your so called ''nonsense'' is just as good or bad as mine if that how you veiw it .

Disputing what the worlds forensic experts tell us is disputing the TRUTH. Their opinions shouldn’t be up for debate or ‘interpretation’ by laymen. It should be accepted without question. So asking for diplomacy regarding people who believe that they know enough to dismiss those experts is too much to ask.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I made a detailed post #3203 based on evidence. Not one person has offered any opinion or debate but they keep focusing on bits of sarcasm (whilst conveniently ignoring what others have said) Why is this? It’s because they just want to keep repeating the same old generalities and bizarre interpretations as if they should be considered as fact.

We have proven that Phillips TOD cannot be relied upon. We have shown that the suggestion that Chandler and Richardson disagreed is just a red herring based on a poor reading of the trial transcript. We have shown that it’s obvious that Richardson didn’t mislead the inquest and that the suggestion is little short of preposterous. We have shown that the time that Long gave was well within a reasonable margin for error leaving 3 witnesses all aligning time wise. We have shown that there was nothing remotely suspicious or doubtful about Cadosch’s evidence.

And yet some still say that the ‘evidence’ favours an earlier TOD. An unreliable guess and a few misinterpretations.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I notice that Mrs. Richardson, who saw the body, didn’t mention recognising Chapman at the inquest.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Biased attention: This is when we selectively focus on information that confirms our views while ignoring or discounting data that doesn't.

Keep telling yourself that George.

[Fleetwood Mac]

True, unless Cadosch, or someone we don't know about, spooked him.

Assuming Cadosch heard a murder take place, then the WM carried on with the mutilation. That wouldn't be spooked.

she could not have regularly brought punters back home - but perhaps a very unfortunate first time.

'Difficult to know really. Mary Ann Cox didn't mention that it was unusual. Mind you, she wasn't asked.