Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

    We have Richardson saying that the body was not there at about 4. 45 am, and that he closed the front door on leaving. We have Davis saying that the body was there at about 5. 45 am, and the front door was wide open. We have the evidence of Long and Cadosch indicating the activity at about 5. 30 am, and Dr Phillips ensuring that the Coroner knew that his estimated ToD could be wrong. The testimonies paint a very clear picture of someone committing the act at about 5. 30 am, and leaving in a hurry, and the evidence hangs together quite well. We may have reservations about some of it, but there is so much evidence that we cannot dismiss all of it.

    On the other hand, where is "all that evidence" that she was killed earlier? I am still waiting for someone to explain how JtR could carry out his skilled eviscerations in near total darkness! Phillips said "the mode in which the knife had been used seemed to indicate great anatomical knowledge". Could anyone have created this clear impression of near surgical skill while operating in the dark? It is surely almost impossible! "All that evidence" surely points to the later time of death.
    Not only does Dr. Phillips indicate that he accepts that his estimate could be off, examination of the reliability of estimating ToD using today's, more advanced knowledge, shows that the margins of error associated with estimated ToD based upon temperature readings and/or rigor mortis and/or the presence of some residual food material in her stomach, results in Dr. Phillips estimate being wtihin the acceptable range if she was killed at 5:25ish. Meaning, it is incorrect to say his estimate conflicts with the witness testimony. Estimates are considered "correct" if they are within the error range associated with the estimation procedure, and if she died at 5:25, given the error is +-3 hours, his estimate of 4:30 falls well within that time window, therefore is technically considered accurate. In short, he did a good job, and moreover, that means none of the evidence, medical or witness based, actually conflicts with 5:25ish being the ToD. In contrast, to go with an earlier ToD than Richardson's visit, while also consistent with the error range associated with the medical estimate, creates conflict with every witness.

    A ToD around 5:25 also makes it easy to explain the presence of Richardson's legging spring, which supports Richardson's boot repair testimony where he sits on the steps, making it impossible for him to miss the body (I admit, I'm setting aside the strange, almost flat-earth like descriptions of having the door lean against him while he works on his boot in just such a way that he can't see what's at his feet - seriously, would anybody actually do that when all you have to do is, you know, let the door close behind you while you work on your boot - oh no, I'll just prop it awkwardly against me because that's how I roll).

    Personally, my preference is for the explanation that does not conflict with any of the evidence compared with the explanation that conflicts with almost all of it and requires different lines of otherwise unsupported speculations to explain away the witness statements.

    A single explanation that draws together and explains a collection of otherwise apparently unrelated events (as per Dr. Whatsit's list of events, the legging spring, Cadosche's hearing of activity in the yard, Long's potential sighting, the medical testimony once the margins of error are properly taken into consideration, the admission of Dr. Phillips he may have erred) is clearly to be preferred over an explanation that requires multiple, unrelated, explanations for each of those.

    It's fine if people still want to bet on the long-odds horse, but to argue that 5:25 conflicts with the medical testimony is an invalid reason for doing so because 5:25 does not conflict with Dr. Phillips' statement even without considering his admission he may have overestimated the post-mortem interval. To bet on the long-odds horse is to ignore a ToD estimate that is consistent with all of the information we have available in favour of one that creates conflict with much of the information we have.

    - Jeff

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

      (I admit, I'm setting aside the strange, almost flat-earth like descriptions of having the door lean against him while he works on his boot in just such a way that he can't see what's at his feet - seriously, would anybody actually do that when all you have to do is, you know, let the door close behind you while you work on your boot - oh no, I'll just prop it awkwardly against me because that's how I roll).


      - Jeff
      No need to shut the door behind you, Jeff. Take a gander at 0:38. Door stays open. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8Ko2HJoLxA

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Hair Bear View Post

        No need to shut the door behind you, Jeff. Take a gander at 0:38. Door stays open. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8Ko2HJoLxA
        Hi Hair Bear,

        Hmmmm, I think it might be pushing it (pun intended) to equate the door's workings at the time of filming with how it worked in 1888. The flat-earth argument I was thinking of is the one that is based upon the door swinging shut on its own, an assumption that has never been adequately explained as far as I know, but one that is necessary in the "obscured view explanation." As far as I can tell, the reasoning goes "If the body was there, Richardson's view must have been obscured. If his vision was obscured, it must be that the door swung shut on its own! And if the door swung shut on it's own, obscuring his view, the body must have been there and he couldn't see it." Concerns over circular logic need not be raised, for the truth is flat.

        - Jeff

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

          Hi Hair Bear,

          Hmmmm, I think it might be pushing it (pun intended) to equate the door's workings at the time of filming with how it worked in 1888. The flat-earth argument I was thinking of is the one that is based upon the door swinging shut on its own, an assumption that has never been adequately explained as far as I know, but one that is necessary in the "obscured view explanation." As far as I can tell, the reasoning goes "If the body was there, Richardson's view must have been obscured. If his vision was obscured, it must be that the door swung shut on its own! And if the door swung shut on it's own, obscuring his view, the body must have been there and he couldn't see it." Concerns over circular logic need not be raised, for the truth is flat.

          - Jeff
          Hi Jeff,

          Inquest, Wednesday, September 12, 1888:

          John Richardson: "After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door.".

          So the truth is flat....and therefore so is the earth????



          I can't retrieve the reference at the moment, but I recall a newspaper article in which Dr Phillips stated that, after Richardson's testimony, he had conferred with the police regarding Richardson's testimony and the conclusion was that Richardson had missed the body because the door had obscured his view. The most logical way of determining this conclusion would have been a re-enactment, which would have been very easy to conduct at the time.

          Best regards,
          George
          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

            Hi Jeff,

            Inquest, Wednesday, September 12, 1888:

            John Richardson: "After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door.".

            So the truth is flat....and therefore so is the earth????



            I can't retrieve the reference at the moment, but I recall a newspaper article in which Dr Phillips stated that, after Richardson's testimony, he had conferred with the police regarding Richardson's testimony and the conclusion was that Richardson had missed the body because the door had obscured his view. The most logical way of determining this conclusion would have been a re-enactment, which would have been very easy to conduct at the time.

            Best regards,
            George
            Hi George,

            ha ha! I should have known you would find something I overlooked! I admit, I forgot about Richardson stating the back door closed itself, but to be fair, the flat earth reference is with regards to the notion that he would have fixed his boot with the door leaning against himself, not so much the door coming to on its own, although I did present it that way so fair cop. I got a bit carried away there. But it is still circular all the same, it just goes (with the bolded bits added or reworded).

            "If the body was there, Richardson's view must have been obscured. If his vision was obscured, it must be that the door swung shut on its own and he left it leaning against himself! And if the door swung shut on it's own and he left it leaning against himself it would obscure his view. Therefore, he must have left the door against himself and he couldn't see that the body was there."

            It makes absolutely no sense that he would leave the door against himself if he's going to sit down and work on his boot. We know the door wasn't at risk of locking him in the back yard from Davies testimony where he tells us "...Neither of the doors was able to be locked, and I have never seen them locked. ..." (Neither meaning the front door and the back door into the yard), and working on his boot would be awkward and annoying with a door against you.

            I really can't imagine how it is possible for him to enter onto the steps, check out the lock, then sit with his feet on the flagstones, work on his boot, put his boot back on (which requires leaning over to some extent, towards the body), and all the while not see a body that is immediately at his feet! Where is he looking when he gets his boot off and puts it back on after all? Moreover, Davies saw the body as soon as he opened the door, as indicated in his testimony where he states "...Directly I opened the door I saw a woman lying down in the left hand recess, between the stone steps and the fence...."

            So while it may be possible to work out some combination of contortions and gaze aversions by which Richardson failed to see the body that was immediately visible to someone opening the door and was right at his feet when he removes and puts on his boot, I rather suspect that the press report isn't covering any sort of re-creation, but rather (at best) is an idea someone put up trying to reconcile how Richardson missed the body if the estimated ToD prior to his arrival were correct; much like is still being done. Or worse, it's an example of the press "filling in the gaps" after perhaps being told the police were considering the possibility that Richardson missed seeing it (and the reporter included the idea of the door obscuring the view). At the very worst would be the press just making up the whole story, which sadly did happen on some occasions. I'm not pushing any one of those of course, particularly as I would want to read the article first to see how it is presented, but it seems to be almost physically impossible, and goes against the testimony of Davies, for Richardson to somehow fail to see a body if it was there as far as I can tell.

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
              John Richardson: "After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door.".


              I can't retrieve the reference at the moment, but I recall a newspaper article in which Dr Phillips stated that, after Richardson's testimony, he had conferred with the police regarding Richardson's testimony and the conclusion was that Richardson had missed the body because the door had obscured his view.
              If it is the case that Richardson was propping open the door with his body, and therefore could not see Chapman because of the lack of angle, then it is also possible that JtR was stood hiding behind the door.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                Hi George,

                So while it may be possible to work out some combination of contortions and gaze aversions by which Richardson failed to see the body that was immediately visible to someone opening the door and was right at his feet when he removes and puts on his boot, I rather suspect that the press report isn't covering any sort of re-creation, but rather (at best) is an idea someone put up trying to reconcile how Richardson missed the body if the estimated ToD prior to his arrival were correct; much like is still being done. Or worse, it's an example of the press "filling in the gaps" after perhaps being told the police were considering the possibility that Richardson missed seeing it (and the reporter included the idea of the door obscuring the view). At the very worst would be the press just making up the whole story, which sadly did happen on some occasions. I'm not pushing any one of those of course, particularly as I would want to read the article first to see how it is presented, but it seems to be almost physically impossible, and goes against the testimony of Davies, for Richardson to somehow fail to see a body if it was there as far as I can tell.

                - Jeff
                Hi Jeff,

                You are correct in your assumption that a recreation wasn't mentioned in the newspaper. The article concerned Phillips conferring with the police regarding Richardson's testimony which contradicted his TOD. However, logically, what reason could there be for the police not conducting a recreation to resolve the issue. To me it seems the obvious thing to do, as I'm confident that it was at the time.

                Looking again at Cadosche, he himself minimised the significance of his aural observation to the status of not even worthy of a brief glance over the fence. The gap between the observations seems to exceed what was usually considered the time required for Jack to subdue his victims, but let's look at the two incidents and the possibilities:

                1. Jack takes out a knife or garrotte and Annie says "No".
                2. Husband: Are you making me some breakfast? Wife: "No".
                3. Did the landlord come around for the rent? "No".

                Flat earth logic would dictate that #1 must be the case because a murder was committed on the site, but I would have expected a scream or a cry of "murder" (Mary Kelly's response?) rather than just a "No".

                And the "bump".

                1. Jack has taken 4 minutes to complete the garrotting, or is attempting to hide from the expected look over the fence by the witness (Cadosche), having failed to leave after the witnesses initial appearance as he did in the cases of Nichols and Eddowes. Neither seem to fit his established M.O..
                2. A cat has smelled the blood and come to investigate and dislodges a piece of timber which falls against the fence.
                3. A gust of wind dislodges something leaning against the fence at a precarious angle.

                The definition of the phrase "Things that go bump in the night" revolves around assigning sinister connotations to routine harmless occurrences.

                My opinion is that the preponderance of evidence points to a TOD of around 2:30am, but I only slightly lean in that direction and would not be unduly surprised if it were the latter time that proved correct. In the absence of fresh evidence I can't see the controversy being resolved in either direction.

                Best regards, George
                Last edited by GBinOz; 07-11-2023, 05:12 AM.
                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


                • Shall we consider for a moment Richardson's statement ""After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market.".

                  Set aside for the moment the contradiction that he later stated that the blunt butter knife failed to remove any leather and that he finished the job when he arrived at his work. He stated that he tied his boot up, not that he put it back on and tied it up. It would make sense that the offending leather was high up on the boot rather than in the vicinity of the toe or heel, as who would attempt repairs inside a boot with illumination that he described as "starting to get light", particularly as he had already failed to effect said repair at home in, presumably, far more favourable circumstances. So he opens the back door and places his left foot on the second step, and leans to the right and down to inspect the condition on the lock. At this stage he feels the leather rub so he places his right foot on the ground and sits down on the step and swings his left foot onto his right knee. He is effectively facing the away from the direction of the location of the body. He loosens some laces but quickly realises that his knife lacks the capacity to effect the task, re-laces, stands up and turns to his right, up the steps and away.

                  It should be born in mind that Richardson was there to inspect a lock. Only after the event did he realise that there may have been a body to be observed, or that Jack may have been lurking behind the door as suggested by Hair Bear. It should also be noted that several days had passed before Richardson even mentioned to anyone his errant boot leather or his quest to resolve that issue.

                  So, approached by Phillips, who is keen to preserve his reputation, the police ask Richardson to show them what happened while a Constable crouches or lies in the position of the body. It would quickly become apparent as to the extent of his view. Too easy. Not an onerous commitment in time or expense. What other method would the police have used to so positively inform the press that Richardson had missed the body due to his view having been obscured by the door. I have noted the alternatives proposed above by Jeff, but with all due respect, experience some difficulty in finding them to be very likely (IMHO).

                  Cheers, George
                  Last edited by GBinOz; 07-11-2023, 06:15 AM.
                  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

                    Hi Jeff,

                    You are correct in your assumption that a recreation wasn't mentioned in the newspaper. The article concerned Phillips conferring with the police regarding Richardson's testimony which contradicted his TOD. However, logically, what reason could there be for the police not conducting a recreation to resolve the issue. To me it seems the obvious thing to do, as I'm confident that it was at the time.
                    Ah, ok, so there's no mention of a recreation, only the assumption that they would do one. I've seen little evidence of the police engaging in such things that we might now think of as standard procedure and so I suspect they did not do a recreation. That's the thing about the obvious, though, isn't it? What is obvious to one is not to another, and generally reflects where one starts rather than guides one to the finish.
                    Looking again at Cadosche, he himself minimised the significance of his aural observation to the status of not even worthy of a brief glance over the fence. The gap between the observations seems to exceed what was usually considered the time required for Jack to subdue his victims, but let's look at the two incidents and the possibilities:

                    1. Jack takes out a knife or garrotte and Annie says "No".
                    2. Husband: Are you making me some breakfast? Wife: "No".
                    3. Did the landlord come around for the rent? "No".

                    Flat earth logic would dictate that #1 must be the case because a murder was committed on the site, but I would have expected a scream or a cry of "murder" (Mary Kelly's response?) rather than just a "No".
                    Cadoshe minimized the significance of what he heard with regards to himself and at that time. I would be rather surprised if, after hearing of the murder in the yard next door, he continued to think those events were insiginificant!

                    As for the "No", I don't recall any presentation where Cadosche says the speaker was female? How can we be certain the "No" wasn't spoken by JtR?

                    Personally, I don't think the "No" in any way corresponds to the attack, rather, I think at that time Annie and JtR are still in conversation, and Cadosche overhears part of that similar to how Long over hears the "Will you?", etc. As you say, the interval between the "No" and the later "fence noise" seems too long for it to be otherwise.

                    In addition, as you point out, Cadoshe took no interest in the voices, which to me indicates the "No" was not said in any tone of voice that would indicate distress (as you also point out). That again suggests the "No" was part of an ongoing conversation, not a cry for help, not the beginning of an attack, not the unreported discovery of a gruesome murder. It is the fact that to Cadosche that "No" was entirely of no interest that to me indicates that the murder and attack had not yet started, nor had someone discovered a horribly mutilated body, and so points to Annie and JtR both alive and still going through the charade of client and provider.

                    The bump on the fence, however, seems to indicate that the attack had begun. Not knowing exactly why that bump occurs, however, leaves us unsure as to what phase of the attack we're dealing with. Is this the point he lays Annie down? Or, did he attack Annie the moment Cadosche went back into the house the first time, and he's now at the end of the attack and in his surprise at Cadosche's return he's shifted close to the fence to hide from view? If this latter one was the case, perhaps the "No" was spoken by Annie in response to JtR asking if people often come into the yard next door when Cadoseh first arrives, and she says "No", and perhaps goes on to tell him to just wait, once he's gone we'll not be disturbed again - and JtR figures she knows what she's talking about so attacks her the moment Cadoshe closed the door behind himself. Remember, Eddowes murder probably only required 5 or so minutes, and her mutilations were more extensive, and included the face, etc, so Annie's murder could very well have fit within that 4 or so minute window. Again, I'm not saying that "IS" what happened, but I don't see anything inherently wrong with it as a possibility. If we allow me a bit more of an indulgence, then it would also follow that once Cadosche went into the loo the 2nd time, JtR takes that opportunity to bolt up the stairs and out the front door, leaving it open in his haste, .... sort of fits, but many other ideas do too.

                    And the "bump".

                    1. Jack has taken 4 minutes to complete the garrotting, or is attempting to hide from the expected look over the fence by the witness (Cadosche), having failed to leave after the witnesses initial appearance as he did in the cases of Nichols and Eddowes. Neither seem to fit his established M.O..
                    2. A cat has smelled the blood and come to investigate and dislodges a piece of timber which falls against the fence.
                    3. A gust of wind dislodges something leaning against the fence at a precarious angle.

                    The definition of the phrase "Things that go bump in the night" revolves around assigning sinister connotations to routine harmless occurrences.

                    My opinion is that the preponderance of evidence points to a TOD of around 2:30am, but I only slightly lean in that direction and would not be unduly surprised if it were the latter time that proved correct. In the absence of fresh evidence I can't see the controversy being resolved in either direction.

                    Best regards, George
                    As for 2 and 3, I think those improbable given that there is a very different sound made by something like a falling piece of timber against a wooden fence, etc, and the sound a person bumping up against a fence would make. I know that Richardson doesn't say it sounded like a person bumping the fence, but that is the obvious implication of what he's saying as otherwise one would expect him to indicate that he heard an object (i.e. something wooden hit the fence). I am, I admit, now engaging in my own "what seems obvious" here, and so will not fault you if that doesn't sit right with you.

                    I'm not sure I understand how one can say the preponderance of evidence points to 2:30 though? The only evidence that allows for a 2:30 murder is Dr. Phillips estimate, and coupled with its margin of error, that evidence points to somewhere between 1:30am and 7:30am (4:30 +-3 hours). We can narrow that wind a bit since we know she was already dead by 5:45 to 6:00 ish (when found by Davies), and Donovan testifies she left the lodging house around 1:50, so we can remove some of the earliest time as well. As such, only after rejecting most of the evidence, does the medical evidence become the "preponderance" of the evidence (it's all that's left), and that evidence does little more than indicate she was killed after last being seen alive and before she was found dead. That to me doesn't indicate 2:30 should be viewed as anymore likely than 5:25ish; in fact, if the distribution of errors is normally distributed around the estimated time (which I could see arguments both for and against, so don't have an opinion on it really) than 5:25ish (55 minute error) would be more likely than 2:30 (120 minute error). It would take quite an odd distribution to reverse that order of probability, even if the errors aren't normal.

                    We've discussed this before, and we both end up coming to our positions. I'm not saying that 5:25 has to be true, by the way, it is always possible that maybe you are right, and maybe a whole lot of unlikely events did occur to produce evidence that all point to a ToD of 5:25 despite the truth being 2:30. But to convince me that I should go with that improbable though possible explanation rather than the probable and possible explanation would require new evidence. If something turns up that makes 5:25 the less probable, then I will be more than happy to change my view.

                    Anyway, in the end it boils down to our separate evaluations of what seems probable. Given we don't start from the same assessment of the base evidence in that regards (you evaluate Richardson missing the body as easy to do, I see it has almost impossible for him to do, etc) then it is hardly surprising we draw different conclusions from it.

                    Always a pleasure George.

                    - Jeff

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                      Ah, ok, so there's no mention of a recreation, only the assumption that they would do one. I've seen little evidence of the police engaging in such things that we might now think of as standard procedure and so I suspect they did not do a recreation. That's the thing about the obvious, though, isn't it? What is obvious to one is not to another, and generally reflects where one starts rather than guides one to the finish.

                      Cadoshe minimized the significance of what he heard with regards to himself and at that time. I would be rather surprised if, after hearing of the murder in the yard next door, he continued to think those events were insiginificant!

                      As for the "No", I don't recall any presentation where Cadosche says the speaker was female? How can we be certain the "No" wasn't spoken by JtR?

                      Personally, I don't think the "No" in any way corresponds to the attack, rather, I think at that time Annie and JtR are still in conversation, and Cadosche overhears part of that similar to how Long over hears the "Will you?", etc. As you say, the interval between the "No" and the later "fence noise" seems too long for it to be otherwise.

                      In addition, as you point out, Cadoshe took no interest in the voices, which to me indicates the "No" was not said in any tone of voice that would indicate distress (as you also point out). That again suggests the "No" was part of an ongoing conversation, not a cry for help, not the beginning of an attack, not the unreported discovery of a gruesome murder. It is the fact that to Cadosche that "No" was entirely of no interest that to me indicates that the murder and attack had not yet started, nor had someone discovered a horribly mutilated body, and so points to Annie and JtR both alive and still going through the charade of client and provider.

                      The bump on the fence, however, seems to indicate that the attack had begun. Not knowing exactly why that bump occurs, however, leaves us unsure as to what phase of the attack we're dealing with. Is this the point he lays Annie down? Or, did he attack Annie the moment Cadosche went back into the house the first time, and he's now at the end of the attack and in his surprise at Cadosche's return he's shifted close to the fence to hide from view? If this latter one was the case, perhaps the "No" was spoken by Annie in response to JtR asking if people often come into the yard next door when Cadoseh first arrives, and she says "No", and perhaps goes on to tell him to just wait, once he's gone we'll not be disturbed again - and JtR figures she knows what she's talking about so attacks her the moment Cadoshe closed the door behind himself. Remember, Eddowes murder probably only required 5 or so minutes, and her mutilations were more extensive, and included the face, etc, so Annie's murder could very well have fit within that 4 or so minute window. Again, I'm not saying that "IS" what happened, but I don't see anything inherently wrong with it as a possibility. If we allow me a bit more of an indulgence, then it would also follow that once Cadosche went into the loo the 2nd time, JtR takes that opportunity to bolt up the stairs and out the front door, leaving it open in his haste, .... sort of fits, but many other ideas do too.



                      As for 2 and 3, I think those improbable given that there is a very different sound made by something like a falling piece of timber against a wooden fence, etc, and the sound a person bumping up against a fence would make. I know that Richardson doesn't say it sounded like a person bumping the fence, but that is the obvious implication of what he's saying as otherwise one would expect him to indicate that he heard an object (i.e. something wooden hit the fence). I am, I admit, now engaging in my own "what seems obvious" here, and so will not fault you if that doesn't sit right with you.

                      I'm not sure I understand how one can say the preponderance of evidence points to 2:30 though? The only evidence that allows for a 2:30 murder is Dr. Phillips estimate, and coupled with its margin of error, that evidence points to somewhere between 1:30am and 7:30am (4:30 +-3 hours). We can narrow that wind a bit since we know she was already dead by 5:45 to 6:00 ish (when found by Davies), and Donovan testifies she left the lodging house around 1:50, so we can remove some of the earliest time as well. As such, only after rejecting most of the evidence, does the medical evidence become the "preponderance" of the evidence (it's all that's left), and that evidence does little more than indicate she was killed after last being seen alive and before she was found dead. That to me doesn't indicate 2:30 should be viewed as anymore likely than 5:25ish; in fact, if the distribution of errors is normally distributed around the estimated time (which I could see arguments both for and against, so don't have an opinion on it really) than 5:25ish (55 minute error) would be more likely than 2:30 (120 minute error). It would take quite an odd distribution to reverse that order of probability, even if the errors aren't normal.

                      We've discussed this before, and we both end up coming to our positions. I'm not saying that 5:25 has to be true, by the way, it is always possible that maybe you are right, and maybe a whole lot of unlikely events did occur to produce evidence that all point to a ToD of 5:25 despite the truth being 2:30. But to convince me that I should go with that improbable though possible explanation rather than the probable and possible explanation would require new evidence. If something turns up that makes 5:25 the less probable, then I will be more than happy to change my view.

                      Anyway, in the end it boils down to our separate evaluations of what seems probable. Given we don't start from the same assessment of the base evidence in that regards (you evaluate Richardson missing the body as easy to do, I see it has almost impossible for him to do, etc) then it is hardly surprising we draw different conclusions from it.

                      Always a pleasure George.

                      - Jeff
                      Hi Jeff,

                      It is also always my pleasure to engage in our debates. I find almost all of your points to have merit without necessarily agreeing with them. However, I would make a point in regard to this statement:
                      "As for 2 and 3, I think those improbable given that there is a very different sound made by something like a falling piece of timber against a wooden fence, etc, and the sound a person bumping up against a fence would make.".
                      From the inquest:
                      [Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? - (Cadosche) They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings.

                      This, to me, indicates that Cadosche was implying that the sound was like that produced when timber contacts palings.

                      Best regards, George
                      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

                        Hi Jeff,

                        It is also always my pleasure to engage in our debates. I find almost all of your points to have merit without necessarily agreeing with them. However, I would make a point in regard to this statement:
                        "As for 2 and 3, I think those improbable given that there is a very different sound made by something like a falling piece of timber against a wooden fence, etc, and the sound a person bumping up against a fence would make.".
                        From the inquest:
                        [Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? - (Cadosche) They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings.

                        This, to me, indicates that Cadosche was implying that the sound was like that produced when timber contacts palings.

                        Best regards, George
                        Hi George,

                        I have the same view of your points, but that's the key to good discussion, disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable.

                        Anyway, as for his packing crates answer, I've never read his response as indicating he thought the "bump" he heard sounded like a shifting packing crate, but rather his reply comes across like he's acknowledging that does happen only under very different circumstances. Why do I get that impression? Because his answer implies that grate crates bump the fence when there are people working in the back yard who put them up against the fence, and clearly nobody was working at moving crates, great or small, at that time. Moreover, in the description of the crime scene, I don't recall any mention of any great crates being in the back yard either (hopefully I've not overlooked that). That makes it feel to me like he's sort of saying "Yes, but when there are noises against the fence on those occasions there are also people working back there" without directly saying that.

                        - Jeff

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                          Shall we consider for a moment Richardson's statement ""After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market.".

                          Set aside for the moment the contradiction that he later stated that the blunt butter knife failed to remove any leather and that he finished the job when he arrived at his work. He stated that he tied his boot up, not that he put it back on and tied it up. It would make sense that the offending leather was high up on the boot rather than in the vicinity of the toe or heel, as who would attempt repairs inside a boot with illumination that he described as "starting to get light", particularly as he had already failed to effect said repair at home in, presumably, far more favourable circumstances. So he opens the back door and places his left foot on the second step, and leans to the right and down to inspect the condition on the lock. At this stage he feels the leather rub so he places his right foot on the ground and sits down on the step and swings his left foot onto his right knee. He is effectively facing the away from the direction of the location of the body. He loosens some laces but quickly realises that his knife lacks the capacity to effect the task, re-laces, stands up and turns to his right, up the steps and away.

                          It should be born in mind that Richardson was there to inspect a lock. Only after the event did he realise that there may have been a body to be observed, or that Jack may have been lurking behind the door as suggested by Hair Bear. It should also be noted that several days had passed before Richardson even mentioned to anyone his errant boot leather or his quest to resolve that issue.

                          So, approached by Phillips, who is keen to preserve his reputation, the police ask Richardson to show them what happened while a Constable crouches or lies in the position of the body. It would quickly become apparent as to the extent of his view. Too easy. Not an onerous commitment in time or expense. What other method would the police have used to so positively inform the press that Richardson had missed the body due to his view having been obscured by the door. I have noted the alternatives proposed above by Jeff, but with all due respect, experience some difficulty in finding them to be very likely (IMHO).

                          Cheers, George
                          Hello George,

                          When Richardson produced the knife at the inquest and it’s condition was commented on he didn’t say that he’d failed to remove any leather. The transcript says - He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market.

                          This could have meant, and I think that it does as it’s the only interpretation that makes sense, that he just couldn’t do a sufficiently good job with his own knife. That he could cut enough off. I know that we disagree on this point.

                          A question George - If the repair to the boot wasn’t on the inside how could it have been causing him discomfort?
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                          “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post


                            From the inquest:
                            [Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? - (Cadosche) They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings.

                            This, to me, indicates that Cadosche was implying that the sound was like that produced when timber contacts palings.

                            Apologies for again jumping into yours and Jeff's (fascinating) conversation.

                            Firstly, do we know that the sound of timber hitting the fence is materialistically different from that of a falling body?

                            Secondly, I would argue that Cadosche's packing-case referral was little do do with the actual sound but more so to explain that it was not unusual to hear a noise against the fence. If that's not correct I don't see why he would say "I heard a sort of a fall against the fence [...] It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly" rather than something like "I heard a noise that sounded like timber falling against the fence, which is why I didn't pay much attention to it."

                            Lastly, if you believe Cadosche heard timber falling against the fence, what exactly would make this noise (at a time when nobody was in the yard)?


                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                              Shall we consider for a moment Richardson's statement ""After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market.".

                              Set aside for the moment the contradiction that he later stated that the blunt butter knife failed to remove any leather and that he finished the job when he arrived at his work. He stated that he tied his boot up, not that he put it back on and tied it up. It would make sense that the offending leather was high up on the boot rather than in the vicinity of the toe or heel, as who would attempt repairs inside a boot with illumination that he described as "starting to get light", particularly as he had already failed to effect said repair at home in, presumably, far more favourable circumstances. So he opens the back door and places his left foot on the second step, and leans to the right and down to inspect the condition on the lock. At this stage he feels the leather rub so he places his right foot on the ground and sits down on the step and swings his left foot onto his right knee. He is effectively facing the away from the direction of the location of the body. He loosens some laces but quickly realises that his knife lacks the capacity to effect the task, re-laces, stands up and turns to his right, up the steps and away.

                              It should be born in mind that Richardson was there to inspect a lock. Only after the event did he realise that there may have been a body to be observed, or that Jack may have been lurking behind the door as suggested by Hair Bear. It should also be noted that several days had passed before Richardson even mentioned to anyone his errant boot leather or his quest to resolve that issue.

                              So, approached by Phillips, who is keen to preserve his reputation, the police ask Richardson to show them what happened while a Constable crouches or lies in the position of the body. It would quickly become apparent as to the extent of his view. Too easy. Not an onerous commitment in time or expense. What other method would the police have used to so positively inform the press that Richardson had missed the body due to his view having been obscured by the door. I have noted the alternatives proposed above by Jeff, but with all due respect, experience some difficulty in finding them to be very likely (IMHO).

                              Cheers, George
                              looking at the photos of the fence in the rear of 29 Hanbury Stree it seems that the original fence has been replaced because there are other photos in existence which show a completely different fence, a fence that has gaps between panels in which case Cadosh could not have failed to notice anyone in that yard up against the fence.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                there are other photos in existence which show a completely different fence, a fence that has gaps between panels in which case Cadosh could not have failed to notice anyone in that yard up against the fence.
                                provide
                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                Interesting. Can you provide a link, please, Trevor?

                                If the fence was so gap-riddled to be impossible to not notice a body lying there, why was Cadoche allowed to get away with "I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over"? I would also suggest that even if the fence was gap-riddled, if Cadoche thought nothing sinister about the bang it at the time, and was preoccupied with his own business, anything partially on view in 29 would be easy to miss.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X