John Richardson

[Wickerman]

You don't need a study.

We know from the experience of the serial killers who go 'round murdering women, that it is unusual for them to kill in daylight outdoors at a time and location when they know people in the wider community are active in going about their business.

Which is one of the reason's the 'risk' factor could very well have been important to him.
Back in '72, or thereabouts, I was in Mitre Square as 1:30 in the morning. I've said before it looks like you are on a stage, if full view of anyone coming at you from three corners, and your back is to the wall. You have no escape.
I see the same risk in Hanbury Street, Dutfields Yards, and Bucks Row, and how could he know no-one would come knocking at Mary Kelly's door?

We mostly overlook these factors because most of us don't see the crime from the killer's point of view. There were lots of places in the East End to kill someone and get away, dark alley's where you can just stab & run, but he did much more than that. For various psychological reason's he chose open spaces, or risky locations, he chose to spend time with them, both before the murder and after. He had a need to mutilate, which takes time, although it wasn't necessary - at least not to our way of thinking.
When we add all these points together we can see, or at least I can see, he was not overly concerned about being caught, so there had to be a reason for him to take his time like he did.

He's probably the kind of person who could stand in front of a train, right until the last second before jumping aside, as it blows by, he gets a rush out of it. It's the adrenaline factor.
And of course, if he did ever get caught, he had a mean weapon in his hand that very likely no-one else would have, to enable his escape.

[Paul Sutton]

Why can’t people just stick to the case instead of making it about me? Very childish.

Comedy gold! In my short time here, you've launched more attacks than JtR/Zodiac/Fred West combined. Are you targetting Harold 'Fred' Shipman's numbers?

[Fleetwood Mac]

My position is clear and based on the evidence. Cadosch was telling the truth and want mistaken despite your wish thinking.

This makes no sense.

You've accepted that witnesses can be mistaken in their recollections, and the posts I put up from three articles claim they are often mistaken.

But yet, you believe Albert could not have been mistaken.

Do you see the contradiction?

By the way, I think you've misunderstood the posts I put up from articles talking of witness testimony.

They're talking of memory, how human beings process, store and recollect information; and the pitfalls associated with that.

They're not talking of people lying.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why can’t people just stick to the case instead of making it about me? Very childish.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fine. You understand that Albert's statement is not necessarily what happened.

This does seem at odds with your gazillion posts: "later TOD certainly , stop any other nonsense , GAME OVER!"

I'd conclude that your previous unshakeable conviction, has morphed into accepting that the witness statements are not infallible, and given that the later TOD rests on those witnesses, nor is the later TOD proposition infallible.

My position is clear and based on the evidence. Cadosch was telling the truth and want mistaken despite your wish thinking.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is tragic. Go and join the Old Bill, work there for years, then see how you'd react to a keyboard warrior laying down the law on witness statements.

And produce your own ideas, rather than parasitically feeding on others.

Your true colours emerge again. Oh dear.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I tried to do so, but you kept sending posts to me in your characteristically provocative style, accusing me of inventing things and making things up.

And you have obviously not improved since.

Differences of opinion are to be expected but when something is untrue or made up then it has to be stated as so. I was commuting on two points.

“Chapman has to have been wandering about for about 3 3/4 hours without being seen by anyone, to choose to go into the back yard of a house, the habits of whose occupants she was presumably familiar with,”

This is factually untrue. We cannot say that no one saw her. We can only say that no one came forward to say that they had seen her. There is a difference. So you invented a point which categorically isn’t true. So I was simply stating a literal fact.

“….at about the time people started to get up, and still to have food in her stomach 3 3/4 hours after eating nothing more than potato.“

This is factually untrue. All that we can say for a fact is that her last recorded food was a potato. We also can’t assume what the contents of her stomach comprised of. So your point that she ate nothing more than a potato is an invention. So again, I was simply stating a literal fact.

Inventions proven.

[Paul Sutton]

More hypocrisy. You accuse me of hectoring and then tell me that I can’t think.

Repeating generalities about how witnesses can be mistaken is as pointless as many other useless points that have been made on here. We know that witnesses can be mistaken. No one has ever, to my knowledge, claimed that witnesses can’t be mistaken (unlike those that fatuously claim that Phillips was infallible) So again, yes witnesses can be mistaken. What are the chances of Richardson missing a corpse? Close to zero. And yet people keep coming up with imaginative contortions and theories about ludicrously implausible and pointless lies. This is the problem. A lack of impartiality. The ToD must have been earlier due to Phillips so let’s come up with absolutely any nonsense to eliminate the three witnesses.

If you want to assume that Trevor is always to be assumed correct just because he was a police officer then that’s up to you but I’ll remind you again that the stupidest thing ever said in this case came from a modern day senior police officer. If you believe that Trevor’s opinion should trump all others then that’s up to you but you’ll find yourself in a very small club.

This is tragic. Go and join the Old Bill, work there for years, then see how you'd react to a keyboard warrior laying down the law on witness statements.

And produce your own ideas, rather than parasitically feeding on others.

[Fleetwood Mac]

We know that witnesses can be mistaken.

Fine. You understand that Albert's statement is not necessarily what happened.

This does seem at odds with your gazillion posts: "later TOD certainly , stop any other nonsense , GAME OVER!"

I'd conclude that your previous unshakeable conviction, has morphed into accepting that the witness statements are not infallible, and given that the later TOD rests on those witnesses, nor is the later TOD proposition infallible.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

And I suggest that you stop resorting to this tactic trying to get me censured for personal attacks that I haven’t made. It’s a tactic that Fishy regularly uses.

I suggest that you stick to the details of the case rather than constantly bleating about tone and about other posters. Stick to the case.

You repeatedly and regularly accuse me of 'invention' and 'making things up' and then, when I object, you act all innocent and deny that you have made any personal attack.

You are the one who refuses to 'stick to the case' and everyone here knows it, including you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

At the end of the day that is what these 'graffiti' debates try to establish - was it, or wasn't it, connected to the murders?

Agreed, no I don't think it was either.

It’s simply a device to try and prove something that can’t be proven Wick. Some people have an aversion to using the phrase “we have no way of knowing.”

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Why didn’t you stop responding to me months ago? You would have been doing me a massive favour PI.

I tried to do so, but you kept sending posts to me in your characteristically provocative style, accusing me of inventing things and making things up.

And you have obviously not improved since.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

First off, I trust the witneses who put her in The Police Station and the one who said that she was NOT at the crime scene fifteen minutes before she was found there.

It's YOU who uses the flawed medical science to place ToD at the wrong time and dismiss witnesses.

Brown was pulling magic tricks out of his arse to claim a ten minute window of certainty.
Even YOU must accept that? Please tell me you don't agree with THAT madness???
Like I've said before... If it was PC Richardson who had examined the yard at 29 Hanbury Street at quarter/ten to five, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Or if we were having it people like me would be asking you why PC Watkins is more reliable than PC Richardson.

I showed you before how easy it was to get a better ToD on Eddowes than Brown did using the same simple trick he did, and with exactly the same corroboration that you rely on to accept his ToD as being correct.

I always get uneasy when someone addresses me as YOU.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On witness testimony:

The Certainty of Memory Has Its Day in Court - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Why is a witness’s account so often unreliable? Partly because the brain does not have a knack for retaining many specifics and is highly susceptible to suggestion. “Memory is weak in eyewitness situations because it’s overloaded,” said Barbara Tversky, a psychology professor at Columbia University’s Teachers College in New York. “An event happens so fast, and when the police question you, you probably weren’t concentrating on the details they’re asking about.”

Hundreds of studies have cataloged a long list of circumstances that can affect how memories are recorded and replayed, including the emotion at the time of the event, the social pressures that taint its reconstruction, even flourishes unknowingly added after the fact.

I think there's sufficient in these three posts, that apply to Albert Cadosche's situation, in order to conclude that Albert's statement on his recollection of events that morning, is far from cast-iron.

Constantly repeating something that no one has ever questioned or disputed serves no purpose. We know that witnesses can be mistaken. It doesn’t not mean that we should assume that they were mistaken. The difference should be obvious. We assess rather than assume.

Do you have anymore truisms to add or have you run out?

[Wickerman]

In terms of why it was so small, who knows, we can only guess; but the wider point is that whatever the reason for the writing being small, it is likely that it had no connection to the murders.

At the end of the day that is what these 'graffiti' debates try to establish - was it, or wasn't it, connected to the murders?

Agreed, no I don't think it was either.