Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
    Hi Trevor,
    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.

    - Jeff
    Hi Jeff,

    The inaccuracy of clocks is being used to conveniently resolve the conflict of evidence, but logically it could also be possible that the inaccuracies might work in the opposite direction and make the connection of testimonies untenable.

    In evaluating Long's testimony, I note that she took four days to decide that she had seen something of significance, and presented her sighting as though the couple were the only people in the street. Amelia Richardson, in her testimony, made in clear that it was market day and there were many people in the street at the time. We are asked to believe that Long picked a couple out of the crowd and identified a woman she had never seen before. We have no details how many bodies the police presented her with for identification. If it was only one there is considerable reason to be sceptical of her identification, as having committed herself to the proposal that it was Annie she saw, she would hardly fail to perpetuate that position in a one person identification.

    I just don't buy it.

    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,

      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
      Hi George.

      Richardson testifies that he sat on the middle step with his feet on the flagstones. That to me sounds like he's sitting as one would naturally sit on stairs, so facing into the yard. I don't see why the door would block his view, given he would just shut it behind him. No where does he say he had the door propped against himself, rather he indicates he knows she wasn't there. Davies tells us he saw the body as soon as he opened the door to go into the back yard, so he didn't even come down the steps at all.

      I've never seen the legging spring described as such, but seem to recall it had been identified as his. And if it had been lost there on some other occasion, it must have been a stroke of luck for him for it to be found where it would be expected to be if he fixed his boot if he just made up the boot fix to get his 15 minutes! I don't buy that, but yes, I see where you're coming from, and maybe it was just a coincidence, but since we don't know, we are left with physical evidence that is consistent with his testimony - that should increase our confidence in his testimony, not send us searching for ways to now discredit this evidence just so we can go on to discredit his testimony as well.

      It seems to me that that is the wrong way to approach things. Sure, question the evidence, but questioning the evidence can still allow for the answer to be "there's nothing obviously wrong with it". Questioning evidence doesn't mean "If I find a way to negate this evidence then it has to be wrong, or at least ignored". (I know you aren't doing that, I'm just ranting now )

      It does feel a bit much to try and come up with strange sitting positions, with doors against him, his leg up to fix and lace his boot (who ties their laces with their leg on their knee? You put your foot on the ground to aid in pulling the laces tight after all), when the most natural thing for someone to do when sitting on the steps would be to sit facing outwards, and hence pretty much looking right at where the body would be. So unless you think he lied about fixing his boot, I just cannot believe he could have not seen the body. It honestly makes no sense to me, and I think it would pretty much be physically impossible. Maybe I'm wrong, sure, but I can't imagine anything realistic that enables Annie's body to be there while Richardson does his inspection and boot repairs.

      As for the sudden reveal of fixing his boot, I think his boot fixing activities got mentioned as he was questioned more. That's what happens, more details emerge. When he first spoke to the police at the scene he would just give the most critical details - that he was there and there was no body at 4:50 ish type thing, making him someone the police would want to talk to more, which they did. In that first telling, he's not going to recreate his every movement, and at the time I'm sure mentioning that he did a bit fixing up of his boot would have seemed to him to be a highly irrelevant thing to mention, and an awkward one at that given he would be putting a knife in his hand. But, as the police questioned him more a more complete picture of what he did emerges. That's why police interview important witnesses multiple times, more, and different, information gets recalled each time, and sometimes it is an apparently trivial thing that is so very important - and this is a good example of that.

      Your "reverse psychology" quip at the end makes me fear you're going to put him forth as your suspect for JtR! Please sir, we don't need another!

      Anyway, I know you don't go on a quest to discredit at all costs, and that you simply view things differently. I think I'm just getting a bit weary of going round and round in circles. Most of the time I can see how one might come to a different view than I have, but the more I've been thinking about Richardson's and Cadosche's testimonies, the harder it is becoming to understand how anyone could come to any other conclusion. In some ways, I think people are thinking "Ok, yes, a ToD of 5:25 is what the evidence looks to be indicating; but what if it is wrong? What would we think if Cadosche was just wrong about everything he heard? Oh, there's Richardson and Long. Well, what if Long is wrong too, and she didn't see Annie? And what if Richardson is wrong too, and he missed her because the door was in his way when he fixed his boot, and although Davies sees the body when he opens the door but Richardson doesn't because he opens the door and immediately looks to the right, and never shall his gaze go left, but only to the right, and as such he too can be wrong... Then we are left with only Dr. Phillips estimate of 4:30, and even with that because the error range is +-3 hours, even then we cannot actually rule out 5:25! And that's the thing, without the witnesses, we have no idea when she died, other than sometime between leaving the boarding house and being found dead - but often those who discredit all 3 independent witnesses, who are left only with an estimated ToD of 4:30 +-3 hours, go with that to argue that she must have died at 3:00 then! How did we suddenly become so specific given we got rid of almost all the information other than an estimated ToD that has +-3 hours around it? See, if all one has left is the estimated ToD from Dr. Phillips, you cannot be specific, that is wrong - you can't say that he died at 4:30, you can only say "she died at 4:30+-3 hours", so between 1:30 and 7:30 (ok, you can narrow the time window so it starts when she left the lodgings and ends at Davies discovery - unless we decide they are wrong too! )

      Taken as stated, none of the testimonies truly conflict, and as a whole they are all consistent with a ToD around 5:25. There is no conflict to resolve, but people are treating it like there is because they keep forgetting that estimates must be viewed with their ranges. And when people testify, they do sometimes get the details wrong, like the time, but that doesn't mean it's all wrong. Basically, anyone who thinks there is a conflict in the witness testimonies or between the witnesses and the medical testimony, is actually wrong. There is no conflict. That doesn't mean all the details are correct, of course, and that doesn't preclude a witness from being mistaken, but there is no actual conflict, so that means it is entirely possible for all of them to be giving us important information, and that information provides the constrains the medical testimony cannot, and focuses us on a ToD around 5:25.

      - Jeff

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        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.


        Or are you so blinkered to the possibility that the killer might have had medical knowledge? And not all of the experts thought that the murders required medical knowledge so why do you assume that they did?

        There isn’t another possibility. The killer took the organs. Only one person doesn’t agree. You.

        Comment


        • The possible inaccuracy of clocks and their lack of synchronicity is simply a fact. It can’t be ignore. It’s not just being used here either. I’m quite happy that it should be applied everywhere. Even a Doctor with an expensive gold fob watch might find that his was inaccurate or that it wasn’t aligned to others. I’ve never understood why this is considered an issue (as if someone’s trying to cheat and make something fit. We can’t know how accurate the clock was that Long judged her time by. We don’t know how Cadosch estimated his time but we know for a fact that he was estimating. We just can’t quibble over 5 minutes here or there. In another post I noted an experiment that I did with family members. Six modern day clocks and watches gave an 8 minute variance when checked so why the issue when we suggest a margin for error in a Victorian slum?

          If we take a reasonable view of this, Long and Cadosch align…..that’s just a fact. So we have three witnesses versus a Doctor’s unreliable estimation. How much more one-sided could this be?

          What is easier to get wrong…..

          1) a TOD estimation incorporating multiple factors (including some unknown to the Doctor in question) by a Doctor who tried to judge temperature by just the touch of his hand and not with a thermometer? The same Doctor who added a caveat to his TOD?

          or,

          2) a man looks into a yard and says that he could see all of it and categorically did not see a mangled corpse lying a foot from his left boot?

          Come on. Let this go. It couldn’t be clearer. Annie Chapman was killed sometime close to 5.30. The evidence overwhelmingly points to this conclusion.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

            Hi George.

            Richardson testifies that he sat on the middle step with his feet on the flagstones. That to me sounds like he's sitting as one would naturally sit on stairs, so facing into the yard. I don't see why the door would block his view, given he would just shut it behind him. No where does he say he had the door propped against himself, rather he indicates he knows she wasn't there. Davies tells us he saw the body as soon as he opened the door to go into the back yard, so he didn't even come down the steps at all.

            I've never seen the legging spring described as such, but seem to recall it had been identified as his. And if it had been lost there on some other occasion, it must have been a stroke of luck for him for it to be found where it would be expected to be if he fixed his boot if he just made up the boot fix to get his 15 minutes! I don't buy that, but yes, I see where you're coming from, and maybe it was just a coincidence, but since we don't know, we are left with physical evidence that is consistent with his testimony - that should increase our confidence in his testimony, not send us searching for ways to now discredit this evidence just so we can go on to discredit his testimony as well.

            - Jeff
            Hi Jeff,

            Looking at Richardson and Davies I notice a difference in intent. Richardson's purpose was to examine the lock, which could be achieved with a minimal opening of the door. Davies was on his way to the Loo, so he fully opened the door in order to walk down the steps. Richardson testified he didn't go into the yard, and while I have been persuaded that the steps may constitute part of the house rather than part of the yard, to close the door to sit on the steps would require him the be in the yard. He makes no mention of closing the door, perhaps for the reason that he didn't close it?

            I have seen the legging spring on a list of items found in the yard. Is there a reference to exactly where it was found? If it was found anywhere but on or near the steps, to attach significance to it would bring into doubt his testimony that he did not go into the yard. I don't suppose that it was found anywhere near the body, as if that were the case it should have been a subject of interest for the police.

            I trust that you accept that I am not trying to be contrary for the sake of it. I just see things differently, and being part of a minority viewpoint has never presented to me as a matter of concern.

            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
              The possible inaccuracy of clocks and their lack of synchronicity is simply a fact. It can’t be ignore. It’s not just being used here either. I’m quite happy that it should be applied everywhere. Even a Doctor with an expensive gold fob watch might find that his was inaccurate or that it wasn’t aligned to others. I’ve never understood why this is considered an issue (as if someone’s trying to cheat and make something fit. We can’t know how accurate the clock was that Long judged her time by. We don’t know how Cadosch estimated his time but we know for a fact that he was estimating. We just can’t quibble over 5 minutes here or there. In another post I noted an experiment that I did with family members. Six modern day clocks and watches gave an 8 minute variance when checked so why the issue when we suggest a margin for error in a Victorian slum?
              Absolutely agree with the inaccuracy of clock sync at that time, and the fallibility of estimates. But you are assuming a clock compensating error combined with an estimate compensating error to support your theory. There is an equal likelihood that either/both errors were in the other direction, with the aggregated errors making the times further apart.
              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

                Or are you so blinkered to the possibility that the killer might have had medical knowledge? And not all of the experts thought that the murders required medical knowledge so why do you assume that they did?

                There isn’t another possibility. The killer took the organs. Only one person doesn’t agree. You.
                If he had medical knowledge why the different methods of extraction, and why do we see some sub-standards of extraction of organs in some of the victims

                In the case of Eddowes and Chapman two different methods of extraction and two different mortuaries where the bodies were taken, even you must see the failings in these scenarios.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                  Absolutely agree with the inaccuracy of clock sync at that time, and the fallibility of estimates. But you are assuming a clock compensating error combined with an estimate compensating error to support your theory. There is an equal likelihood that either/both errors were in the other direction, with the aggregated errors making the times further apart.
                  It has to work both ways of course George. All I’m saying though is that the times given by Long and Cadosch shouldn’t be used to dismiss either of them.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    If he had medical knowledge why the different methods of extraction, and why do we see some sub-standards of extraction of organs in some of the victims

                    In the case of Eddowes and Chapman two different methods of extraction and two different mortuaries where the bodies were taken, even you must see the failings in these scenarios.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    Why would a killer, who perhaps might have had some anatomical knowledge be expected to have adhered to some rigid methodology?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                      Hi Jeff,

                      Looking at Richardson and Davies I notice a difference in intent. Richardson's purpose was to examine the lock, which could be achieved with a minimal opening of the door. Davies was on his way to the Loo, so he fully opened the door in order to walk down the steps. Richardson testified he didn't go into the yard, and while I have been persuaded that the steps may constitute part of the house rather than part of the yard, to close the door to sit on the steps would require him the be in the yard. He makes no mention of closing the door, perhaps for the reason that he didn't close it?

                      I have seen the legging spring on a list of items found in the yard. Is there a reference to exactly where it was found? If it was found anywhere but on or near the steps, to attach significance to it would bring into doubt his testimony that he did not go into the yard. I don't suppose that it was found anywhere near the body, as if that were the case it should have been a subject of interest for the police.

                      I trust that you accept that I am not trying to be contrary for the sake of it. I just see things differently, and being part of a minority viewpoint has never presented to me as a matter of concern.

                      ​​​​Best regards, George
                      Hi George,

                      Yah, I know you are not trying to be contrary, nor am I.

                      While Davies and Richardson had different purposes, they both had to open and walk through the door. And the idea that Richardson kept his eyes averted the entire time from opening the door, fixing his boot, getting up and leaving, is just untenable. The descriptions of the behaviors he has to engage in to suggest how he missed seeing her are not realistic ones because people don't behave that wat. And given the time suggested by Richardson's evidence of a murder after 5 is consistent with Cadosche's testimony and consistent with the medical estimate I don't understand the need in the first place?

                      I believe there is a report that indicates the legging spring was Richardsons, and that it was found in the vicinity of the body. Not somewhere in the yard.

                      And the phrase "in the yard" as used by Richardson refers to going out into the yard area, not just being outside the house. I could see him him saying "I didn't go into the yard, I just went down the steps and directly into the basement" (had he gone there if course). To you that would seem impossible, but Richardson isn't using the yard to mean outside but to mean ... well the yard! ha ha I understand Richardson's usage as it us how I would say things too and I am realising I don't know how else to describe it. I think you use 'the yard' to mean outside, but to me, outside and the yard are not the same. One can be outside and on your property and yet not have gone into the yard. That makes perfect sense to me, but I think it does not sit well with you.

                      As for not mentioning closing the door, well, why would he? That is hardly the sort if thing one spontaneously mentions, so unless he gets asked directly it is unlikely to ever come up.

                      - Jeff

                      Comment


                      • There’s another point that’s worth making I think. How could the checking of the lock have been done by a minimal opening of the considering that, a) the door of the cellar was at least parallel to the back door and possibly slightly back of that and b) there was the canopy ver the cellar steps. Is it likely that Richardson would have opened the door slightly and then ducked down to see below the canopy? It’s seems a very unnatural act to me.

                        Comment


                        • Hi George,

                          Hmmm, I've been thinking more about the specific issue of Richardson's saying he did not go "into the yard". As a phrase, rather than a strict definition of what constitutes "the yard". To make the discussion have some common ground, let's say that "the yard" is everything outside the house, including the steps even. Richardson didn't go "into the yard" though, rather he remained "on the edge of the yard", much like if someone walked along the borders of a field, they could say "I didn't go into the field" even if technically the path along it is part of the field. So when Richardson sits on the steps, he still hasn't gone "into the yard" anymore than walking a perimeter of a field is going "into the field". I think we've been focused on the definition of "yard", when really we should be discussing the "into" part.

                          So one might be correct in saying Richardson sat at the edge of the yard but he did not go into the yard. I think that is what I've been trying to get at, and why his statements make sense to me. It is such a basic concept tied to how language is used, and language can be used differently in different regions, that maybe that distinction isn't common in Australia? If that's the case, I can understand why it would be confusing and not make sense. Same words, but slightly different underlying concepts are intended.

                          Linguistic Ripperology might just be a new field. (see what I did there? ha ha)

                          - Jeff

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                            Hi Trevor,


                            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.


                            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.

                            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
                            You are entitled to your opinion which is clearly biased towards a later TOD

                            You don't find my arguments for the organ thefts compelling, take the blinkers off Jeff and look at all the facts and evidence. Even the medical evidence in all the murders has issues that are contradictory/ i.e, one doctor says that no anatomical knowledge was show by the killer in removing these organs, and others suggest the killer could have been accustomed to slaughtering animals with the haphazard way the organs were removed, and the coroner in the case of Chapman says the complete opposite. Coupled with we know that there was an illicit trade in organs in and around Whitechapel at the time of the murders, and we know mortuary attendants were complicit in the illicit acquisition of organs from mortuaries.

                            The motive for these murders was simply murder and mutilation



                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                              Hi Jeff,

                              The inaccuracy of clocks is being used to conveniently resolve the conflict of evidence, but logically it could also be possible that the inaccuracies might work in the opposite direction and make the connection of testimonies untenable.

                              In evaluating Long's testimony, I note that she took four days to decide that she had seen something of significance, and presented her sighting as though the couple were the only people in the street. Amelia Richardson, in her testimony, made in clear that it was market day and there were many people in the street at the time. We are asked to believe that Long picked a couple out of the crowd and identified a woman she had never seen before. We have no details how many bodies the police presented her with for identification. If it was only one there is considerable reason to be sceptical of her identification, as having committed herself to the proposal that it was Annie she saw, she would hardly fail to perpetuate that position in a one person identification.

                              I just don't buy it.

                              Best regards, George
                              Hi George,

                              It's not a "convenience" that clocks are were inaccurate, quite the opposite. It would be far more convenient if we didn't have to take into account large error ranges as that would allow us to make finer distinctions. The issue isn't really that the error could make it "worse", of course it could. The issue is that we do not know "the truth", what conflict in testimony means is that the testimony creates a situation where the truth cannot be contained within the constraints of that evidence set. So we have to map out the error ranges, and if truth could fall inside that range, then there cannot be said to be a conflict.

                              There was only one time at which Long actually saw the couple, and only one "time" when Cadosche hears someone say "No". Therefore, most of the times in the range that gets indicated by the error margins are obviously "not the right times". But we cannot know which time that is. What we can do, however, is see if the time window from Long overlaps with the time window from Cadosche such that Long's "True Time" could be earlier than Cadosche's "True Time", which means their testimony, despite the apparent discrepancy, cannot be said to demonstrate one of them "must be wrong" (wrong in the sense that they cannot be incorporated into an account of the events).

                              That isn't to say that Long's sighting must therefore be of Annie and JtR. That's a different issue, and one that I quite readily admit I don't know. Her identification, despite her confidence, could easily be a misidentification, so I suggest great caution (not total dismissal of course), with respect to her description of JtR. It is the fact that her time statements and Cadocshe's time statements do not result in non-overlapping time windows so that allows for the possibility that she did see Annie and JtR - and that means there isn't actually a conflict in their testimonies. Conflict requires that the time windows do not overlap. I don't really build Long into things all that much, actually.

                              It's the same thing with the medical testimony and the witness testimonies. The witnesses' place the time window for the murder somewhere after 5:20ish or so, and before discovery (somewhere after 5:45, when Davies gets up, has his tea, and then goes to the backyard to find the body - so something like what, 5:55 ish? Give him 10 minutes to get up and make a cuppa?) Anyway, the medical estimate of 4:30 has a time window that spans from 1:30 to 7:30, and as we can see, the witnesses' time window falls inside the time window for the estimate of the ToD from the medical, so once again, they do not conflict. Rather, both sources of evidence point to a ToD somewhere between 5:20 and 5:55. I know that's the same as the witness window, but that's only because the witness window falls entirely inside the medical window. If, for example, the medical window ended at 5:40, then when we combined the witness window of 5:20 - 5:55 with the medical window, we would end up truncating the time window of interest to end at 5:40. It's not that I'm giving preference to the witnesses, but rather the medical error margins are so large that the window it creates happens to entirely cover the window from the witness statements.

                              It's not convenient though, it is just what the evidence we have indicates when we put it all together without viewing it through a lens where we a prior decide on what the outcome should be. I'm not starting from the position that the witnesses must be correct, because witnesses often are not. So I look to the evidence to see if there are any indications that what we have creates an impossible situation, and it does not. Error is anything but convenient, and if we can reduce it all the better because when we put everything together with less error prone information we end up with even more precise time windows upon which to focus our investigation.

                              There's nothing wrong with revisiting witness testimony, or medical evidence, and considering the implications of adding and subtracting various witnesses on the basis of "hmmm, while there is not apparent conflict in time, what if Long simply didn't see Annie and JtR?" type thing. Well, not much changes other than her description of JtR is clearly irrelevant. Or, what if we drop Cadosche? If we keep Long, we end up with a similar sort of thing (ToD a bit after 5:30, since without Cadosche there's nothing to indicate we should shift her stated time, though we would still want to remember there's a window around her statement). So again, not much changes. If we drop Richardson, then Cadosche and/or Long still produce the same outcome. It is only when we drop all 3 that the range of possible times expands to cover all of the time we cannot account for Annie's location, but that doesn't justify us now picking and choosing a time at all, other than after she was last seen alive and before she was found dead. That's hardly useful.

                              - Jeff

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                Why would a killer, who perhaps might have had some anatomical knowledge be expected to have adhered to some rigid methodology?
                                Because if he was as expert in anatomical knowledge as the coroner indicates in the Chapman murder, why do we see different methods of extraction of organs in some of the other victims, and why do we see what appears to be the work of someone not so skilled in anatomy?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X