Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

    Hi Trevor,

    Could you please develop your argument for me. You previously referred to your reasons for rejecting the evidence as being "the conflicting witness testimony" and the "times the rest of the victims were killed".

    The evidence of the witnesses Richardson, Davis, Long, Cadosch and Phillips actually knits together quite well. I understand that we could have reservations about individual statements, but they all gelled together sufficiently well for the coroner to accept them as the likely truth. So we appear to have to reject almost all of the known witness evidence if we don't accept a ToD of about 5. 30 am. The coroner, who had the full detailed witness statements, heard all of the evidence, and who was used to estimated time variations, accepted the evidence, finding the differences "not very great or very important". So no conflicting evidence of significance for the coroner.

    As for the "times the rest of the victims were killed", I am unsure exactly how you are using this information, what ToDs you are using, and to which victims you refer. I believe that you don't accept appx 3. 30 am for Nichols, and there is a huge range of possible times for Kelly. You have a theory, it seems, that for some reason JtR killed all his victims at a particular time?

    You must have some very powerful information, of which I am unaware, to claim that "the balance of probabilities taking into account all the evidence points to an earlier time of death".
    Put it another way there is no evidence of any of the other victims being killed as late as 5.30am.

    I don't know what statements you are reading from to suggest that all those witnesses you refer to gell together nicely, the discrepancies have been highlighted countless times on here and I don't propose to relist them again.

    from memory, the coroner did highlight some of the discrepancies in timings as given by the various witnesses.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      Put it another way there is no evidence of any of the other victims being killed as late as 5.30am.

      I don't know what statements you are reading from to suggest that all those witnesses you refer to gell together nicely, the discrepancies have been highlighted countless times on here and I don't propose to relist them again.

      from memory, the coroner did highlight some of the discrepancies in timings as given by the various witnesses.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      We’re only talking about 5 murders here Trevor so why is it particularly an issue if one occurred later than the others? The gap from Stride (disputed of course) to Nichols was around 170 minutes. The gap from Eddowes to Nichols was probably somewhere around 130 minutes. The gap from Chapman (later TOD) to Nichols was only around 100 minutes.

      In any series there will always be an earliest one and a later one. Where is the problem? Especially when we don’t know the killers mindset or circumstances at the time. Maybe he didn’t set out to kill but the urge came on him when he ran into Chapman? Maybe like many men he took work as and when he could get it and on that particular day he’d had some night time work and he was on his way home when he saw Chapman? I don’t see how this particular point is a very strong factor against a later TOD (which the 3 witnesses point to)
      Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 07-12-2023, 03:27 PM.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        The bump on the fence could have been anything there is no evidence it was the killer and Chapman when the TOD is uncertain.

        Cadosh came out of his house on two occasions both times he would have used the steps which it would seem were identical to those in No 29. It would have been easy for him to have seen anyone in the next garden because he would have been at a height which clearly overlooked No 29.

        Its a pity that you don’t put the same effort into Richardson when considering the 1,000,000 to 1 chances of him not seeing a dead body and a pile of entrails lying a foot from his left boot.


        “…could have been anything….” Is just a classic piece of exaggeration. What could have been innocently moving around in a yard containing an horrifically mutilated corpse Trevor. Even just talking possibilities the suggestion that it was Chapman and her killer aren’t just out in front they’ve disappeared over the horizon in a cloud of dust.

        Three witnesses vs a virtual guess from a Doctor. You choose the guess.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          “…could have been anything….” Is just a classic piece of exaggeration. What could have been innocently moving around in a yard containing an horrifically mutilated corpse Trevor. Even just talking possibilities the suggestion that it was Chapman and her killer aren’t just out in front they’ve disappeared over the horizon in a cloud of dust.

          Three witnesses vs a virtual guess from a Doctor. You choose the guess.
          Three witnesses who are not all singing from the same song sheet. I know where my money lies

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            Three witnesses who are not all singing from the same song sheet. I know where my money lies

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            The three witnesses tie up perfectly and beat a guess hands down.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              Put it another way there is no evidence of any of the other victims being killed as late as 5.30am.

              I don't know what statements you are reading from to suggest that all those witnesses you refer to gell together nicely, the discrepancies have been highlighted countless times on here and I don't propose to relist them again.

              from memory, the coroner did highlight some of the discrepancies in timings as given by the various witnesses.

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              What difference does it make that one victim might have been killed at 5. 30 am? Do you have some evidence that JtR had to commit his murders within a particular time scale? In a series of murders there had to be a murder that was at an earlier time than others, and another later than the rest. How is this relevant, let alone important?

              Richardson said there was no body in the yard at about 4. 50 am, and that he closed the front door when he left. Davis discovered the body shortly after 6 am, and said that the front door was wide open. This suggests someone left in a hurry between those times. Cadosch suggests an incident in the yard about 5. 25 am, and Long identified Chapman as a person she saw picking up a client outside the house at about that time. The slight variation in time between Cadosch's and Long's evidence was accepted as of no consequence by a very experienced coroner. It is well established that in 1888 local clocks were in no way in sync with GMT or each other, and not only did Cadosch and Long use two different clocks to estimate the time, but Long only heard the clock strike, so she could have confused a quarter past the hour with half past. Phillips made it clear to the coroner that his estimated ToD could have been wrong. Theses are the only relevant witnesses, and the coroner accepted their versions as being in keeping with a ToD of about 5. 30 am. Where are the glaring discrepancies?

              The coroner concluded that the murder took place at about 5. 30 am, and about the time discrepancies he said "It was not unusual to find inaccuracy in such details, but that variation was not very great or very important".

              Against this, you argue that "The balance of probabilities taking into account all the evidence points to an earlier time of death", but you only back this up by saying that no other victim was killed as late as 5. 30 am. How can this possibly be on the "balance of probabilities"? It is more of an unexplained opinion than a consideration of "all the evidence".
              Last edited by Doctored Whatsit; 07-12-2023, 06:29 PM.

              Comment


              • Richardson could not have missed seeing Annie if she was there when he trimmed his boot around 4:45, and Cadosche heard someone said "no" at around 20 past 5 when going back in, and then returned to the yard around 5:25 and heard the thud.

                Clearly, Annie wasnt there at 4:45 and someone was there around 5:20. It had to be Annie and her killer. No other conclusion is rational.
                Michael Richards

                Comment


                • Richardson's boot repair requires him to bend over to get his boot. It doesn't matter if he did the repair while the boot is still on his foot or if he removes it. At the end of th repair he testified he ties his boot up, so that means at two points he will have bent over towards the body. Of course, I suppose if he fixes it while it is still on, then we have an extended period of him bent towards his feet. Whether or not the door is against him, there is simply no way for him to avoid seeing Annie's corpse if she were there at that time because her body would be right beside his feet, and he will have bent over which means his head is towards the feet. From that position he simply could not avoid seeing her. But he didn't see her, therefore she couldn't have been there.

                  The only other explanation is that Richardson lied about fixing his boot. There is the legging spring though, which was found in the vicinity of where you would expect if he did as he said. So there is evidence found at the crime scene consistent with his testimony. In addition, making up a lie that places a knife in his posession at a knife murder scene defies belief. If he just wanted his 15 minutes, he could have just said he went out into the yard, but he didn't, so he said he didn't, despite that being a far safer lie to get his fame.

                  In short, we have physical evidence found at the crime scene that corroborates his testimony, which if true makes it all but impossible for Annie to be there. As a counter argument, despite any indication he is lying, it is suggested he made up a story that points suspicion on him in favour of just saying he looked at that very spot when checking the back yard.

                  While questioning witness testimony is a good thing, when the best alternative counter point starts approaching the absurd, my opinion is that the answer to our question is that the testimony is accurate.

                  - Jeff
                  Last edited by JeffHamm; 07-13-2023, 12:00 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                    Richardson's boot repair requires him to bend over to get his boot. It doesn't matter if he did the repair while the boot is still on his foot or if he removes it. At the end of th repair he testified he ties his boot up, so that means at two points he will have bent over towards the body. Of course, I suppose if he fixes it while it is still on, then we have an extended period of him bent towards his feet. Whether or not the door is against him, there is simply no way for him to avoid seeing Annie's corpse if she were there at that time because her body would be right beside his feet, and he will have bent over which means his head is towards the feet. From that position he simply could not avoid seeing her. But he didn't see her, therefore she couldn't have been there.

                    The only other explanation is that Richardson lied about fixing his boot. There is the legging spring though, which was found in the vicinity of where you would expect if he did as he said. So there is evidence found at the crime scene consistent with his testimony. In addition, making up a lie that places a knife in his posession at a knife murder scene defies belief. If he just wanted his 15 minutes, he could have just said he went out into the yard, but he didn't, so he said he didn't, despite that being a far safer lie to get his fame.

                    In short, we have physical evidence found at the crime scene that corroborates his testimony, which if true makes it all but impossible for Annie to be there. As a counter argument, despite any indication he is lying, it is suggested he made up a story that points suspicion on him in favour of just saying he looked at that very spot when checking the back yard.

                    While questioning witness testimony is a good thing, when the best alternative counter point starts approaching the absurd, my opinion is that the answer to our question is that the testimony is accurate.

                    - Jeff
                    There is no absurdity there is a direct conflict in the witness testimony of Long and Cadosh regarding timings

                    Cadosh only heard something he did not identify that noise so as to suggest categorically that it was the killer and Chapman is plain ridiculous

                    Furthermore, the evidence of Dr Phillips should not be dismissed outright and some seem to want to do on the subject of rigor mortis no two bodies will react in the same way.

                    On the subject of the organ removal the coroner states "The organ had been taken by one who knew where to find it, what difficulties he would have to contend with and how he would use his knife so as to abstract the organ without injury to it, there were no meaningless cuts. No unskilled person could have known where to find it or have recognised it when it was found. No mere slaughterer of animals could have carried out these operations. It must have been someone accustomed to the post mortem room"

                    I have postulated for some time that the killer did not remove her uterus but that it was removed from her body while the body lay in situ before the post mortem was conducted perhaps you and others might take note and consider it to be a possibility

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      There is no absurdity there is a direct conflict in the witness testimony of Long and Cadosh regarding timings.

                      Again Trevor, you are working on exact, perfectly synchronised times which is simply not realistic given the circumstances. Cadosch very clearly estimated his times. We don’t even know where he got his original time from? 5.6 or 7 minutes of leeway (entirely reasonable) for Cadosch and Long and they tie up perfectly. And again, what would be the chances of Long seeing a woman who looked just like Chapman with a man a few feet from where she was found dead thirty minutes later, and it was someone else? Yet you ‘dismiss her outright’ for the sake of 5 or 6 minutes. Come on Trevor.

                      Cadosh only heard something he did not identify that noise so as to suggest categorically that it was the killer and Chapman is plain ridiculous.

                      Nothing is categorical…but what certainly is unbelievable is that someone was innocently moving around in a yard that contained a mangled corpse! The likeliest suggestion just has to be that this was connected to Chapman and her killer. It’s hard to credit that you would suggest otherwise.

                      Furthermore, the evidence of Dr Phillips should not be dismissed outright and some seem to want to do on the subject of rigor mortis no two bodies will react in the same way.

                      And it hasn’t been ‘dismissed outright’ Trevor. I clearly said in my previous long post that just because the methods that he used were unreliable it doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have got it right. All that’s been suggested is that we can’t take his estimation as a given. 135 years later we have no way of assessing his opinion and so, in effect, his TOD is fairly neutral. He could have been right; he could have been wrong. What good is that?

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      And so with a ‘could have been right, could have been wrong’ TOD we have to look at the other evidence to try and get to the likeliest TOD and three witnesses very clearly point to a later TOD.

                      Later TOD….95% certain at least imo.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        On the subject of the organ removal the coroner states "The organ had been taken by one who knew where to find it, what difficulties he would have to contend with and how he would use his knife so as to abstract the organ without injury to it, there were no meaningless cuts. No unskilled person could have known where to find it or have recognised it when it was found. No mere slaughterer of animals could have carried out these operations. It must have been someone accustomed to the post mortem room"

                        I have postulated for some time that the killer did not remove her uterus but that it was removed from her body while the body lay in situ before the post mortem was conducted perhaps you and others might take note and consider it to be a possibility

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        It’s been considered and looked into in depth by pretty much everyone on here and only one person supports it….you. But everyone else is wrong of course.
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

                        Comment


                        • Hi Trevor,

                          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          There is no absurdity there is a direct conflict in the witness testimony of Long and Cadosh regarding timings
                          You seem to have not understood my post, where I point out that if one correctly evaluates the witness evidence in regards to the stated times by taking into account the known errors associated with recall of times, then there is not actually a conflict. As such, your statement that there is a direct conflict is incorrect.

                          However, if you are going to treat the witness statements as if evaluating the information from their statements must be viewed as absolutely true as stated, then you must believe that Long saw Annie alive, as she says that the woman she saw in the mortuary was Annie, and she was sure of her identification.

                          If, however, you wish to argue she was mistaken in her identification but correct about her time, then it becomes more difficult to understand why you do not consider the possibility that she may instead have been correct about the identification but mistaken about the time? You hold her time statements as if they cannot be incorrect, and that becomes your argument for conflict, but readily dismiss her identification statements as being an error without explaining why she couldn't have been correct?

                          Of course, I fully recognize that it may be that she was correct about the time, and mistaken about the identification, making her sighting irrelevant. But as I've said a few times in various posts and threads, I see Long as the least important of the witnesses. My view on that is because if she was correct in her identification, it leads to Annie still being alive, but that conclusion is already reached based upon Richardson's evidence that Annie was not dead at the time of his visit. In addition, Cadosche's hearing people in the back yard also supports that conclusion sufficiently that Long's information is just more of the same. But if her identification was wrong, all we lose is the rather minimally detailed description of JtR, and given she only saw him from behind, her description is pretty low value stuff anyway.

                          Cadosh only heard something he did not identify that noise so as to suggest categorically that it was the killer and Chapman is plain ridiculous
                          Alternative ideas have been tossed around, and to date, none of the alternatives are at all convincing. Cadosche hears someone say "No", but he doesn't say if it was a male or female voice. It does not draw his attention though, indicating that it was not a distress cry of any sort. Therefore, there are people in the backyard apparently having a fairly innocuous conversation. Any explanation that involves people having a simple chat while in the presence of Annie's mutilated corpse is, in my opinion, absurd. The only explanation that does not defy reason is that Annie and JtR are still engaged in conversation, and he has not yet attacked her. So the only reasonable explanation is that Annie is still alive during Cadoche's first trip to the loo.
                          Furthermore, the evidence of Dr Phillips should not be dismissed outright and some seem to want to do on the subject of rigor mortis no two bodies will react in the same way.
                          We've been over this a fair number of times. When one properly evalutes the medical evidence by considering the margins of error associated with those measures, then Dr. Phillip's estimated ToD of 4:30 does not conflict with an actual ToD of 5:25ish. His testimony is not being dismissed outright, his testimony is consistent with a ToD of 5:25 because the error associated with ToD judgements is in the order of +- 3 hours even today - and no, we've not gotten worse at it. To say that Dr. Phillips' testimony is being dismissed is incorrect.
                          I've removed your sideline into your theory about organ removal as that played no part in my post, and has nothing to do with the evaluation of the witness testimony. As you know, I do not find your arguments for organ theft at the mortuary to be compelling, and nothing was said that hasn't been said before so I remain unconvinced.

                          In short, whether one includes Long or not, the witness statements, when properly evaluated by including the error associated with statements of time, and the medical evidence, when properly evaluated by including the error ranges associated with estimations of ToD (by temperature, rigor mortis, food in the stomach, etc), are all consistent and do not conflict and when taken as a whole, point towards a ToD around 5:25ish.

                          While I accept it is possible that is incorrect, simply claiming there are conflicts when there are not does not strike me as a tactic that is likely to succeed in changing my (or anyone's) view.

                          - Jeff

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            It’s been considered and looked into in depth by pretty much everyone on here and only one person supports it….you. But everyone else is wrong of course.
                            So how do you explain the coroners summing up?

                            The coroner has ruled out horse slaughters and states that whoever removed Chapmans organs was au fait with the post mortem room and new what he was doing and had the medical knowledge to not only locate the organ but remove not only the uterus but the uterus with the fallopian tubes still attached. That is no mean feat in almost total darkness.

                            Notwithstanding the different methods used to extract the same organ from Eddowes surely the warning bells must be ringing even with you that something is not right with these organ removals or are you so blinkered that you cannot accept that there is another possibility to consider.



                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                              Richardson's boot repair requires him to bend over to get his boot. It doesn't matter if he did the repair while the boot is still on his foot or if he removes it. At the end of th repair he testified he ties his boot up, so that means at two points he will have bent over towards the body. Of course, I suppose if he fixes it while it is still on, then we have an extended period of him bent towards his feet. Whether or not the door is against him, there is simply no way for him to avoid seeing Annie's corpse if she were there at that time because her body would be right beside his feet, and he will have bent over which means his head is towards the feet. From that position he simply could not avoid seeing her. But he didn't see her, therefore she couldn't have been there.

                              The only other explanation is that Richardson lied about fixing his boot. There is the legging spring though, which was found in the vicinity of where you would expect if he did as he said. So there is evidence found at the crime scene consistent with his testimony. In addition, making up a lie that places a knife in his posession at a knife murder scene defies belief. If he just wanted his 15 minutes, he could have just said he went out into the yard, but he didn't, so he said he didn't, despite that being a far safer lie to get his fame.

                              In short, we have physical evidence found at the crime scene that corroborates his testimony, which if true makes it all but impossible for Annie to be there. As a counter argument, despite any indication he is lying, it is suggested he made up a story that points suspicion on him in favour of just saying he looked at that very spot when checking the back yard.

                              While questioning witness testimony is a good thing, when the best alternative counter point starts approaching the absurd, my opinion is that the answer to our question is that the testimony is accurate.

                              - Jeff
                              Hi Jeff,

                              While I can fully appreciate the eloquence of your logical progression, I find myself again at odds with your conclusions. Looking at Richardson's statement regarding the lacing up of his boot, as opposed to putting his boot back on and lacing it up, I have formed the opinion that the offending leather was located in an area above the ankle, thus being easier to access than were it on the darker recesses of his footwear. He could possibly effect his desired repairs by placing his foot on the opposing knee, but this would depend on his seating position on the step.

                              Your narrative defining his foot as being right next to the body requires him to be sitting in a position that would be approximately parallel to the fence line. I submit that this position would pose problems with the door of sufficient magnitude to prompt him to stand up and close the door behind him to remove its interference with his task. But he doesn't say that he did that. I would postulate that, having been turned towards the cellar to check the lock, he would have sat down facing in that direction, consequently looking in the opposite direction to the location of the body. In this position the door would present a minimal obstruction to his task while at the same time providing a shield to his viewpoint in that direction.

                              With regard to the legging spring, I did read one description that described it as being from a child's boot. But either way, this was Richardson's place of business, and the spring could have been lost at any time in the course of his working there. There is nothing that I know of that ties it to being lost on the night in question.

                              Then there is his apparently unsolicited admission to being in possession of a knife on the evening in question. Innocent or guilty, this seems an extraordinary confession to offer to police, but it succeeded in the end. So was it an exceedingly stupid thing to do, or clever reverse psychology?

                              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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                It’s been considered and looked into in depth by pretty much everyone on here and only one person supports it….you. But everyone else is wrong of course.
                                Not so fast my friend.

                                There are anomalies in the chain of custody of Chapman's body and questions posed by the coroner that do not remove the possibility that her body suffered some interference after Baugham (Badham) removed it from #29.

                                In Eddowes case, I have not noted any such anomalies, but there are perhaps periods of unreported time.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X