John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

You have just accused me four more times of 'invention' or 'making things up' - and that's in just one post.

I will not in future be replying to your posts addressed to me, except to ask you to stop posting these personal attacks on me.

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

I really don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that you are now habitually resorting to making personal remarks rather than relying on reasoned argument.

I have never suggested that anyone changed clock times.

It's not a question of whether some argument I put forward 'will work'.

Your last comment quoted above is an accusation of intellectual dishonesty against me.

I suggest you stop these personal attacks on me and then I won't have to reply to all the nonsense you're writing.

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.

[GBinOz]

Hi Jeff,

Evening Standard Sep 13:
Amelia Richardson - The police took away an empty box used for keeping nails and the steel out of a boy's gaiter.

Cheers, George

[A P Tomlinson]

Similar considerations could be applied to the murder of Eddowes, with the resulting conclusion that she was murdered before she left the police station.

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.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You really should be wary of making things up just to suit your argument PI. It just makes you appear desperate.

You have just accused me four more times of 'invention' or 'making things up' - and that's in just one post.

I will not in future be replying to your posts addressed to me, except to ask you to stop posting these personal attacks on me.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Yes, and wording it to sound as if someone went around changing clock times to fit a later ToD won’t work either PI.



“Nor do I believe that the dark 'foreigner' in his forties was the Whitechapel Murderer.”

This is your preconception that the killer couldn’t have been Jewish shaping your judgment. You start from that point and look for ways of bolstering that opinion.

I really don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that you are now habitually resorting to making personal remarks rather than relying on reasoned argument.

I have never suggested that anyone changed clock times.

It's not a question of whether some argument I put forward 'will work'.

Your last comment quoted above is an accusation of intellectual dishonesty against me.

I suggest you stop these personal attacks on me and then I won't have to reply to all the nonsense you're writing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thank you for that and I have fallen short of saying on here that over the past 25 years and I still do today I am actively involved in assessing and evaluating witness statements in criminal cases. So I think I am more than capable of identifying flaws and inconsistencies in witness statements.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You never stop telling us how your opinions outweigh everyone else’s.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Same old misguided replies

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Cheers

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is something - all the other killings and the likelihood that he'd do it in the dark. That's not binding nor even compelling, but it's not nothing. An experienced murder-squad chap is cautioning about witness statements, how they don't 'prove' this. I'd listen to him.

What is your expertise in this - from actual work?

I've precisely zero - like most here. Doesn't mean 'shut up', but it does mean that your hectoring gets increasingly absurd.

Have you ever worked in a field - scientific research say - which collects, collates and uses empirical facts and data? But which also tries to - haltingly - fit this to a broader theory. It would show if you had, so I'd say no. You seem to have no ability to think conceptually or even in broader terms - so hide behind 'evidence' and semantics. Whereas an actual murder-squad chap knows that the evidence now cannot be given this weight. Doesn't mean it can be ignored, but it shouldn't be unduly valorised, as you do.

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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Its noticeable how, when it suits you to do so, you favour opinions like that of Anderson, Swanson and the Police in general. And yet elsewhere they are both liars.

It 'suits' me to treat as historically significant what police thought and recorded at the time, rather than the racist ramblings of a confused retired policeman, decades later, which when challenged he signally failed to substantiate in any way.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Under these circumstances, why would Chandler find a small spring of any significance?

Cheers, George

Hi George,

If he recognised what it was he might have done. I can’t recall the suggestions of what it might have been but I seem to recall it being suggested (whether in the testimonies or by someone on here) as coming from something than someone might have worn? So Chandler was perhaps thinking that it might have come from the killer in some way? He could have known where a small piece of leather had come from but it would have been unlikely to have come from the killer.

[Fleetwood Mac]

On witness testimony:

Myth: Eyewitness Testimony is the Best Kind of Evidence – Association for Psychological Science – APS

Eyewitness testimony is more fallible than many people assume.

Eyewitness testimony — it’s often thought of as solid evidence in criminal cases, but researchers including Iowa State University’s Gary Wells have found that our memories aren’t as reliable as we think. Sometimes, we can even build false recollections about people we only think we saw.

Psychological scientist Elizabeth Loftus studies memories. More precisely, she studies false memories, when people either remember things that didn’t happen or remember them differently from the way they really were. It’s more common than you might think, and Loftus shares some startling stories and statistics, and raises some important ethical questions we should all remember to consider.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

However, Philips' Victorian estimate of ToD is little better than a guess. And probably worse when he didn't factor in things like ambiant temperature, blood loss and the fact that about three pounds of her insides had been removed and placed on the outside, all of which only needed to contrbute to a drop in body temp of 1.5 degrees C for him to have been out by an hour EVEN IF he had been using a termometre to determine precisely how cold she was rather than the back of his hand.

Similar considerations could be applied to the murder of Eddowes, with the resulting conclusion that she was murdered before she left the police station.

[A P Tomlinson]

In that case, you need to brush up on your understanding of the English language. Clearly, you do not understand the definition of hypocrisy.

Furthermore, you need to brush up on your reasoning skills.

1) It is demonstrable that witness testimony is often incorrect, demonstrable by means of empirical studies.
2) Two witnesses in particular are central to the idea that poor Annie was butchered at half five in the morning.
3) It follows that those two witnesses may well be incorrect in that which they stated.

To add: the studies of actual witness testimony explain why people such as Albert Cadosche, in his situation as we know it, often do not entirely experience that which they later claim they experienced; and why people such as Albert Cadosche arrive at that erroneous belief. So, no, it is not a case of a broad sweep as you claim.

Furthermore, it is not sufficient to claim that we must be able to prove that Albert Cadosche specifically was incorrect in his statement. Clearly, we cannot do that simply because the only information we have at our disposal is Albert's statement as opposed to that which actually happened.

What we do know is that human beings in Albert's position often given inaccurate witness testimony. Given that Albert was a human being, employing the same human thought process and frailties, I think it's safe to say that Albert could well have been wrong in that which is he believed took place, in its entirety.

The human memory does not work in the way many of us assume and it does not have the purpose that many of us assume, and our memory is influenced by various subconscious and conscious factors; and Albert is particularly prone to this fallibility in human memory given that he was going through an unimportant daily routine and had no reason to analyse that which was going on around.

You've two options at this juncture:

1) Mindlessly and relentlessly claim 'hypocrisy', which isn't sensible discussion in this context.
2) Let's have a look at these studies and how they relate to that which we know of Albert's situation. Do you want to do this?

And you should be mindful of the word OFTEN, and how in order to demonstrate the unreliablility in a specific witness you need a helluva lot MORE than that word!

Hypocrisy is (among several other probable definitions you googled) when you do something you say you don't agree with. Like using broad witnesses statements to corroborate something when you claim witnesses are unreliable.
I used the word neither mindlessly nort relentlessly. I used it to point out that if Trevor was GOING TO rely on witnesses to support Philips after basically dismissing the other witnesses NOT on specific grounds but on the basis that "Witnesses are unreliable" then THAT would be hypocrisy. You picked it up and ran with it with one of your "Well... actually if you forensically analyse the meaning..." sojourns.

Show me specifics on why those witnesess (THOSE THREE) WERE unreliable but others are OK.
Not just some bollocks about "Memory is unreliable"
I've shown how medical science, and physics SHOW that Philips' methodolgy WAS badly flawed. Not "possibly" or "maybe" flawed... WAS flawed.
You've posted links to studies that memory and witnesses are "often" unreliable, and even shown case studies that mention that corroborative statements from groups of witnesses increase the likelihood of individual reliability.

I'm not going through anther of your mind numbing lectures on the memory. Once was enough, twice was too much and if you claim that that "science" applies to him then it applies to EVERYONE and we screw the case up and throw it in the bin and you WIN because you proved that nothing is real. What you CAN'T do is apply it to HIM, and then NOT apply it to anyone else. Because THAT would be... wait for it... drum roll... HYPOCRISY!