Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    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.
    Again you make things up to suit your reply . stop say and using phases like avoid the issue and repeating generality , that would really be a bonus , God knows you done that countless times , gimmi a break
    '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

      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.
      Whats being disputed is witness testimony herlock. ,medical testimony can be disputed simply because we know have differences of opinion as what modern day medical experts tell us regarding dr Phillips . Thats been shown already . .
      '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
        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.
        As we all have made detailed post on all the evidence, Again, words like preposterous, red herring etc have nothing to do with them , just interpreting the evidence that lets one decide a particular conclusion. . Just exactly as you have done .Fact.
        '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

          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.
          If my criticism seems highly selective it is because the selected criticism is not. You repeatedly enunciate your opinions, which never change, and then label anyone and everyone who doesn't agree as lacking in a basic knowledge of the use and comprehension of the English language, devoid of logical capability and lacking in basic common sense. Then come posts by your followers nodding sagely and deploring those that cannot see the brilliance of your deductions. It is your broad spectrum disparaging aspersions to which Fishy has taken exception, not bits of inoffensive sarcasm.
          Sarcasm: the use of remarks that clearly mean the opposite of what they say, made in order to hurt someone's feelings or to criticize something in a humorous way.
          They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
          Out of a misty dream
          Our path emerges for a while, then closes
          Within a dream.
          Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

          ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
            I notice that Mrs. Richardson, who saw the body, didn’t mention recognising Chapman at the inquest.
            Correct, and son John also saw the body but didn't mention at the inquest that he knew Dark Annie.

            Why do you suppose that might be? I dare say the coroner would have been interested to know she was a regular visitor to the premises.
            They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
            Out of a misty dream
            Our path emerges for a while, then closes
            Within a dream.
            Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

            ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              For someone who dislikes my sarcasm you appear not to mind using it. I simply stated a fact. And it’s a fact that we cannot assume that Hanbury Street was choc full of people just because there was a market on. If you can find some evidence that the street was full then I’ll look at it of course but there’s little point in making claims for which there is none.
              You've already put your spin on Long's description of "Lots of couples", what about this evidence that you've been avoiding?

              Amelia Richardson at the Inquest:
              "But it is evident two people went through on Saturday morning?-Yes; but that being market morning there is such a bustle."

              Baxter is questioning her about two people in the passage of her premises which was a murder site. Are you going to tell us she just made a flippant remark about the bustle down in the Spitalfields Market?
              They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
              Out of a misty dream
              Our path emerges for a while, then closes
              Within a dream.
              Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

              ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

              Comment


              • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                If my criticism seems highly selective it is because the selected criticism is not. You repeatedly enunciate your opinions, which never change, and then label anyone and everyone who doesn't agree as lacking in a basic knowledge of the use and comprehension of the English language, devoid of logical capability and lacking in basic common sense. Then come posts by your followers nodding sagely and deploring those that cannot see the brilliance of your deductions. It is your broad spectrum disparaging aspersions to which Fishy has taken exception, not bits of inoffensive sarcasm.
                Sarcasm: the use of remarks that clearly mean the opposite of what they say, made in order to hurt someone's feelings or to criticize something in a humorous way.
                George, I think you've hit the nail on the head here , its all in the delivery of the responses and there wording, which they are used. Yes they may not seem offensive but Clevely embedded in such a way that plainly show what is intended.
                I like to debate this topic more, however when it gets to this point that which you have suggested there is no reason too.
                '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

                  Again you make things up to suit your reply . stop say and using phases like avoid the issue and repeating generality , that would really be a bonus , God knows you done that countless times , gimmi a break
                  I say it Fishy because it’s the truth. You’ve repeated your “unsafe ,ambiguious , uncertain , contradictory,” mantra at least 6 times but I suspect more. This isn’t debate. I discuss the details and assess them but you repeat the above.

                  And is this comment for real or an error?

                  Also if you avoided disputing what forensic experts tell us that would be a bonus
                  Its not me who is disputing what the forensic experts tell us, it’s you and the few that agree with you. Every single expert quote supports wha I’ve been saying for weeks. You are the one who should be admitting the obvious but you don’t seem to be able to bring yourself to. The medical evidence doesn’t help us in any way Fishy. This isn’t an opinion. It’s a fact.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                    Whats being disputed is witness testimony herlock. ,medical testimony can be disputed simply because we know have differences of opinion as what modern day medical experts tell us regarding dr Phillips . Thats been shown already . .
                    No. The testimony of medical experts cannot and should not be disputed by laymen. The fact that it has been illustrates the desperation of one side.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                      If my criticism seems highly selective it is because the selected criticism is not. You repeatedly enunciate your opinions, which never change, and then label anyone and everyone who doesn't agree as lacking in a basic knowledge of the use and comprehension of the English language, devoid of logical capability and lacking in basic common sense. Then come posts by your followers nodding sagely and deploring those that cannot see the brilliance of your deductions. It is your broad spectrum disparaging aspersions to which Fishy has taken exception, not bits of inoffensive sarcasm.
                      Sarcasm: the use of remarks that clearly mean the opposite of what they say, made in order to hurt someone's feelings or to criticize something in a humorous way.
                      I disagree on many subjects with many people but have no animosity. You have completely ignored the posts made by others in an entirely mocking and supercilious tone aimed at myself as you appear to believe that there should be one standard of behaviour from others and an entirely stricter one for myself.

                      But what have had on this thread George? The main issue for me is this…..we have provided an absolutely immovable Mount Everest of evidence from Forensic experts who all tell us the same thing without a single exception - that Phillips simply could not have given the TOD estimation that he gave that should be regarded as accurate. It is impossible to regard his estimate as reliable or accurate. That absolutely nothing about the medical evidence points to an earlier or a later TOD. And yet we have laymen disputing this. Nothing could illustrate the problem more than this obvious example of bias. How else can we explain George how a small group of laymen take it upon themselves to claim that the forensic medical community, their textbooks, their papers and their individual experts are all wrong on this subject?! I’d say that the levels of incredulity on this subject have been remarkable restrained considering the evidence.

                      You talk of opinions changing George, when will yours? When will you and FM and Fishy finally accept the overwhelming, incontrovertible truth about the medical evidence? Or do we have to continue to endure this?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                        Correct, and son John also saw the body but didn't mention at the inquest that he knew Dark Annie.

                        Why do you suppose that might be? I dare say the coroner would have been interested to know she was a regular visitor to the premises.
                        Nice piece of sleight-of-hand George but it won’t work. He didn’t mention that he knew her because he obviously didn’t know her. Off down the conspiracy route again I see.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                          You've already put your spin on Long's description of "Lots of couples", what about this evidence that you've been avoiding?

                          Amelia Richardson at the Inquest:
                          "But it is evident two people went through on Saturday morning?-Yes; but that being market morning there is such a bustle."

                          Baxter is questioning her about two people in the passage of her premises which was a murder site. Are you going to tell us she just made a flippant remark about the bustle down in the Spitalfields Market?
                          I just don’t see what you are trying to prove on this point. All that Long said was:

                          “Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.”


                          She clearly wasn’t stating that there were a lot of couples their that day; only that she often saw couples in the mornings.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                            George, I think you've hit the nail on the head here , its all in the delivery of the responses and there wording, which they are used. Yes they may not seem offensive but Clevely embedded in such a way that plainly show what is intended.
                            I like to debate this topic more, however when it gets to this point that which you have suggested there is no reason too.
                            That poor high horse. It must be straining under the weight of you and George.

                            Comment


                            • Is anyone going to post about actual evidence or are we just whining?

                              Comment


                              • Chapman's TB of the brain meant her body temperature could have been as low as 33C.
                                Her general ill health/malnourishment meant her ATP levels would have been low,hence early rigor mortis onset.
                                It the brewery tolled 5.15am just before Long saw Chapman and the Ripper, Cadosch's testimony stands.
                                Not that difficult.
                                All been explained before.
                                My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X