Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post


    Well, you have finally hit the nail on the head the timings of the witnesses are inconsistent with each other and that includes the police officers that being said how can it be firmly suggested and readily accepted that the killer had the time at the crime scene to do all that he is alleged to have done? The answer is it can't and all the good work that you have done on these matters is not worth the time and effort you have put in, because the timings cannot be proved conclusively.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    With that statement even the ultra-patient Jeff is now probably

    Was there a police force in Toytown?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      I am not happy to chuck any witnesses out, I have highlighted the discrepancies in the statements when assessed collectively

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      You favour Phillips guess over 3 perfectly reasonable witness. Richardson is one of the strongest in the case. The chances of him being wrong are from vanishingly minuscule to zero.

      Comment


      • The CPC were seen (using approximate times) as early as 1.33. Harvey arrived at 1.41/1.42.

        Nothing more needs saying unless you can PROVE that there wasn’t enough time (and you absolutely cannot) We, however, can state with confidence that the killer could have had ample time to have done what he did. So there’s absolutely nothing in the evidence to cast doubt on the killer taking the organs.

        That should be the end of it but you keep bringing up silly ‘what if’s.’ The EVIDENCE favours the killer having enough time.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
          The CPC were seen (using approximate times) as early as 1.33. Harvey arrived at 1.41/1.42.

          But as has been said before those are only approximate times if the clock was fast or slow the timings are flawed, The same applies to Harveys times

          Nothing more needs saying unless you can PROVE that there wasn’t enough time (and you absolutely cannot) We, however, can state with confidence that the killer could have had ample time to have done what he did. So there’s absolutely nothing in the evidence to cast doubt on the killer taking the organs.

          That should be the end of it but you keep bringing up silly ‘what if’s.’ The EVIDENCE favours the killer having enough time.
          The evidence is not conclusive due to the timing

          They are not silly what if`s I merely stated that we do not have a time for the killer to enter the square with the victim,and even you must accept that the later that time then the less time the killer had with the victim.

          So why are you so quick to dismiss the fact that it was later than the later time of 1.35am thereby making it impossible for the killer to have done all that he is alleged to have done

          and on one final medical issue can you explain how the killer was able to hold the abdomen open without any retraction to be able to work inside the abdomen and remove these organs from a blood-filled abdomen in almost total darkness

          Take the blinkers off


          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            The evidence is not conclusive due to the timing

            They are not silly what if`s I merely stated that we do not have a time for the killer to enter the square with the victim,and even you must accept that the later that time then the less time the killer had with the victim.

            So why are you so quick to dismiss the fact that it was later than the later time of 1.35am thereby making it impossible for the killer to have done all that he is alleged to have done

            and on one final medical issue can you explain how the killer was able to hold the abdomen open without any retraction to be able to work inside the abdomen and remove these organs from a blood-filled abdomen in almost total darkness

            Take the blinkers off


            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            Just ask yourself this one question Trevor (do it a few times) - “why does no one ever agree with me?”

            Just think about it and just for a second or two try to consider the possibility that the overwhelming majority might just be right and that you might actually be wrong. If you can even consider this possibility it might be a step in the right direction.

            ​​​​​​……

            On the time that they entered the square…..all talk of later times is a pointless waste of breath. All that is required is that it was entirely possible and plausible that the killer had 8 or 9 minutes. He didn’t need that much time but the possibility is all that’s required. For you to throw doubt you would have to be able to prove that they entered much later leaving the killer with not enough time and you can’t do that. Please try and understand this Trevor.

            ….

            Can I explain how the killer…….?

            No, but he managed it somehow. Unless you can produce medical experts that will stand up and say outright that the killer definitely, physically couldn’t have removed organs at the scene then you’re simply wasting everyone’s time with these fairy stories.

            ​​​​​​……

            Why do some people feel the need to add further complications to the case by coming up with plain silliness. Jack the Ripper existed, 100%, he was a serial killer who killed for his own reasons. He removed organs from Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly.

            I’m not religious but ‘god save us from people with theories!!’
            Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 07-23-2023, 05:48 PM.

            Comment


            • Trevor,

              Are you saying that you have proved there must have been organ thieves, or are you saying you are simply providing an explanation that is not proven, and because it is not proven therefore could be wrong?

              In the end, that is what all of these disagreements boil down to. You generally come across as claiming the former, but your posts of late are phrased in ways that indicate the latter. Hence, a bit of clarification on your stance is necessary for everyone to understand you.

              - Jeff

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                Trevor,

                Are you saying that you have proved there must have been organ thieves, or are you saying you are simply providing an explanation that is not proven, and because it is not proven therefore could be wrong?

                In the end, that is what all of these disagreements boil down to. You generally come across as claiming the former, but your posts of late are phrased in ways that indicate the latter. Hence, a bit of clarification on your stance is necessary for everyone to understand you.

                - Jeff
                I think by now people understand but just for you, I will make my position plainly clear.

                After lengthy research and after consulting with modern-day medical experts, and assessing and evaluating all the facts and evidence and I do not intend to repeat it all again, I believe that the killer did not remove the organs from Chapman and Eddowes at their crime scenes, and furthermore, I suggest that he did not take away Kelly's heart, again based on direct evidence from the head of Whitechapel CID and the fact that there is no record of any other official who was involved in these investigations making any statement to confirm the heart was taken away by the killer. I am aware of what Dr Hebbert wrote in his book but I have shown why his comment is hearsay

                I do not subscribe to an earlier TOD of Chapam and believe that the killer could not have removed the organ from Chapman with the medical expertise highlighted in almost total darkness if I am correct about the earlier TOD, The evidence relied upon to show a later TOD is not conclusive a bang on a fence; and a voice from what could be from afar does not prove a conclusive TOD, and Richardsons inquest testimony leaves a lot to be desired.

                I do not believe the killer had enough time in Mitre Square to do all to Eddowes that he is alleged to have done as the times being relied upon cannot be proved to be correct. I fail to see and understand how a lone killer would have been able to be able to work in a blood-filled abdomen in almost total darkness and how he would have been able to hold the abdominal cavity open unaided to be able to facilitate these removals.

                I have fully documented how I believe the organs were removed at the mortuaries before the postmortems as part of the illicit trade in organs from mortuaries involving mortuary attendants who were complicit in this illicit trade.

                The removal of the same reproductive organ from both Chapman and Eddowes is a direct pointer towards them being acquired for research.

                One of the experts in the LVP activities of body dealers is Prof Elizabeth Hurran who has penned several books on the topic of body dealers which contain many examples of the activities of body dealers in the LVP and the use of mortuary attendants to facilitate this illicit trade.

                In conclusion, I will say yet again that there were two different methods of the extraction of the uterus from Chapman and Eddowes from two different mortuaries that to me shows two different hands were responsible at the two different mortuaries so my theory is despite what you think a very plausible explanation.





                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  I think by now people understand but just for you, I will make my position plainly clear.

                  After lengthy research and after consulting with modern-day medical experts, and assessing and evaluating all the facts and evidence and I do not intend to repeat it all again, I believe that the killer did not remove the organs from Chapman and Eddowes at their crime scenes, and furthermore, I suggest that he did not take away Kelly's heart, again based on direct evidence from the head of Whitechapel CID and the fact that there is no record of any other official who was involved in these investigations making any statement to confirm the heart was taken away by the killer. I am aware of what Dr Hebbert wrote in his book but I have shown why his comment is hearsay

                  I do not subscribe to an earlier TOD of Chapam and believe that the killer could not have removed the organ from Chapman with the medical expertise highlighted in almost total darkness if I am correct about the earlier TOD, The evidence relied upon to show a later TOD is not conclusive a bang on a fence; and a voice from what could be from afar does not prove a conclusive TOD, and Richardsons inquest testimony leaves a lot to be desired.

                  I do not believe the killer had enough time in Mitre Square to do all to Eddowes that he is alleged to have done as the times being relied upon cannot be proved to be correct. I fail to see and understand how a lone killer would have been able to be able to work in a blood-filled abdomen in almost total darkness and how he would have been able to hold the abdominal cavity open unaided to be able to facilitate these removals.

                  I have fully documented how I believe the organs were removed at the mortuaries before the postmortems as part of the illicit trade in organs from mortuaries involving mortuary attendants who were complicit in this illicit trade.

                  The removal of the same reproductive organ from both Chapman and Eddowes is a direct pointer towards them being acquired for research.

                  One of the experts in the LVP activities of body dealers is Prof Elizabeth Hurran who has penned several books on the topic of body dealers which contain many examples of the activities of body dealers in the LVP and the use of mortuary attendants to facilitate this illicit trade.

                  In conclusion, I will say yet again that there were two different methods of the extraction of the uterus from Chapman and Eddowes from two different mortuaries that to me shows two different hands were responsible at the two different mortuaries so my theory is despite what you think a very plausible explanation.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  Hi Trevor,

                  While that's a nice summary of your theory, it doesn't answer my question.

                  I'm not asking what information leads you to your theory. I have presented what explanations I "believe" are the best working hypotheses, and because they are hypotheses, I also accept that they could be wrong. That's not a paradox or a contradiction, it's a recognition that the information we have is not sufficient to draw a firm conclusion, and so I present what I think is the explanation that "best fits" the information we have without claiming it is the only explanation that fits the bill.

                  What I asked you before was:

                  Do you also accept that your theory is unproven and so it could be wrong?

                  Simple as that, you don't need to re-explain your theory, that's been done many times. It is whether or not you think your theory is proven (cannot be wrong) or simply is another hypothesis (and so could be wrong, even if you think it is the best one).

                  - Jeff

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                    I do not believe the killer had enough time in Mitre Square to do all to Eddowes that he is alleged to have done as the times being relied upon cannot be proved to be correct. I fail to see and understand how a lone killer would have been able to be able to work in a blood-filled abdomen in almost total darkness and how he would have been able to hold the abdominal cavity open unaided to be able to facilitate these removals.
                    If the times being relied upon cannot be proved to be correct, that doesn't mean that the killer didn't have time to remove the organs. It might mean that IT'S POSSIBLE that the killer didn't have time to remove the organs.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      I think by now people understand but just for you, I will make my position plainly clear.

                      After lengthy research and after consulting with modern-day medical experts, and assessing and evaluating all the facts and evidence and I do not intend to repeat it all again, I believe that the killer did not remove the organs from Chapman and Eddowes at their crime scenes, and furthermore, I suggest that he did not take away Kelly's heart, again based on direct evidence from the head of Whitechapel CID and the fact that there is no record of any other official who was involved in these investigations making any statement to confirm the heart was taken away by the killer. I am aware of what Dr Hebbert wrote in his book but I have shown why his comment is hearsay.

                      As I’ve asked this previously I’d be interested to hear which of your experts will put his or her head above the parapet and say categorically that the killer couldn’t have removed organs at the three crime scenes mentioned above? And if they will do that I’d like to know what evidence you’ve presented them with (for example…have you told them that it was dark when Chapman was killed?)

                      On Kelly, why would the Doctor list all of the organs found in that room but omit the heart? What else could this point to except that the heart wasn’t in the room. And of course, the obvious question, why is it ‘safe’ to rely on Reid’s memory of these medical details eight years later? If Jeff or I had presented a witness who was remembering events from eight years previously you would have been all over us with your “unsafe to rely on” argument. In fact Trevor I’d say that you are using Reid’s fallible memory to ‘prop up’ your theory.


                      I do not subscribe to an earlier TOD of Chapam and believe that the killer could not have removed the organ from Chapman with the medical expertise highlighted in almost total darkness if I am correct about the earlier TOD,

                      I’m assuming that this is a typo Trevor and that what you meant to put is “I subscribe to an earlier ToD…..”?

                      The evidence relied upon to show a later TOD is not conclusive,

                      And despite the evidence from modern day experts on the unreliability of the methods used by Phillips for estimating ToD you believe them conclusive? Or just so strong, for whatever baffling reason, that you are willing to dismiss three witnesses on the strength of it?

                      Remember this Trevor: “….after consulting with modern-day medical experts.” You said it.

                      So the modern day experts that you feel support your theory are trustworthy and can be relied upon. And yet the modern day experts that tell us that Phillips ToD estimation is unsafe due to the use of unreliable methods are complete idiots who can be dismissed?

                      Sound fair?


                      a bang on a fence;

                      At a time when there was, according to you, a mutilated corpse lying there. So was there a blind man moving around in the yard?

                      and a voice from what could be from afar does not prove a conclusive TOD,

                      That Cadosch was completely open and honest about (which very strangely gets used against him by some - including you apparently)

                      and Richardsons inquest testimony leaves a lot to be desired.

                      If by that you mean that it wasn’t absolutely perfect then yes….but find me the witness that can’t be questioned in some way. I’d also put any minor issue down to the wording of the transcript as very clearly neither the coroner or the jury saw anything contradictory at the time. Richardson is a very strong witness and the chances of him missing a mutilated corpse lying a foot from his left boot with blood and entrails on display in a small yard where he could see all around, after he lied and placed himself at the scene and in possession of a knife is a bit of a no brainer imo. There was clearly no corpse there when Richardson arrived at 4.45.



                      I do not believe the killer had enough time in Mitre Square to do all to Eddowes that he is alleged to have done as the times being relied upon cannot be proved to be correct.

                      This is completely illogical. What you are saying is…….we can’t be sure how long the killer had available to him therefore I don’t think that he had enough time. Surely you can do better than this Trevor?

                      I fail to see and understand how a lone killer would have been able to be able to work in a blood-filled abdomen (which has been disputed on here but you ignore it, Trevor) in almost total darkness and how he would have been able to hold the abdominal cavity open unaided to be able to facilitate these removals.

                      “Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity, appeal to common sense, or the divine fallacy, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.​“

                      I have fully documented how I believe the organs were removed at the mortuaries before the postmortems as part of the illicit trade in organs from mortuaries involving mortuary attendants who were complicit in this illicit trade.

                      But you’ve provided zero evidence for it. Just because something exists it doesn’t make it correct to put the blame on it. And as Jeff has noted too…..why is it ok for you to speculate but not others?

                      The removal of the same reproductive organ from both Chapman and Eddowes is a direct pointer towards them being acquired for research.

                      No it’s not Trevor. It could simply indicate a killers fetish or fantasy.

                      One of the experts in the LVP activities of body dealers is Prof Elizabeth Hurran who has penned several books on the topic of body dealers which contain many examples of the activities of body dealers in the LVP and the use of mortuary attendants to facilitate this illicit trade.

                      No one has ever denied that the trade existed Trevor. It’s not proof of anything though. It’s not even a hint.

                      In conclusion, I will say yet again that there were two different methods of the extraction of the uterus from Chapman and Eddowes from two different mortuaries that to me shows two different hands were responsible at the two different mortuaries so my theory is despite what you think a very plausible explanation.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      And you still won’t respond to the point that I made…..if you use the apparent different methods as a pointer toward two different hands why don’t you also use the two different levels of competence at the Eddowes crime scene where the killer removed the difficult to access kidney skilfully and yet he damaged the easier to access uterus. So by your own thinking you should be claiming that two different men stole organs from Eddowes at the mortuary.

                      I’d also ask why you would expect a serial killer to be removing organs as per some surgical textbook? Surely an element of randomness would have been normal for a non-specialist? Maybe he simply read of a different method which he decided to try at his next murder because he felt that it might have been quicker or more efficient and less likely for a non-expert to damage the organ? Who knows?
                      Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 07-24-2023, 07:19 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                        Hi Trevor,

                        While that's a nice summary of your theory, it doesn't answer my question.

                        I'm not asking what information leads you to your theory. I have presented what explanations I "believe" are the best working hypotheses, and because they are hypotheses, I also accept that they could be wrong. That's not a paradox or a contradiction, it's a recognition that the information we have is not sufficient to draw a firm conclusion, and so I present what I think is the explanation that "best fits" the information we have without claiming it is the only explanation that fits the bill.

                        What I asked you before was:

                        Do you also accept that your theory is unproven and so it could be wrong?

                        Simple as that, you don't need to re-explain your theory, that's been done many times. It is whether or not you think your theory is proven (cannot be wrong) or simply is another hypothesis (and so could be wrong, even if you think it is the best one).

                        - Jeff
                        I have answered that question previously by saying that taking into account all the facts and the evidence and on the balance of probabilities I believe my theory as to what happened to the organs is a far more plausible explanation than the killer removing them at the crime scene. Nothing in these murders can be conclusively proven other than the fact that a number of women were murdered by an unidentified killer or killers.



                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          And you still won’t respond to the point that I made…..if you use the apparent different methods as a pointer toward two different hands why don’t you also use the level of competence at the Eddowes crime scene where the killer removed the difficult to access kidney skilfully and yet he damaged the easier to access uterus. So by your own thinking you should be claiming that two different men stole organs from Eddowes at the mortuary.

                          I’d also ask why you would expect a serial killer to be removing organs as per some surgical textbook? Surely an element of randomness would have been normal for a non-specialist? Maybe he simply read of a different method which he decided to try because he felt that it might have been quicker or more efficient and less likely for a non-expert to damage the organ?
                          You keep repeating questions that I have already answered you are clearly not reading all the posts.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            You keep repeating questions that I have already answered you are clearly not reading all the posts.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            Could you point me to the post where you answered the question please Trevor. I must have missed it.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                              I have answered that question previously by saying that taking into account all the facts and the evidence and on the balance of probabilities I believe my theory as to what happened to the organs is a far more plausible explanation than the killer removing them at the crime scene. Nothing in these murders can be conclusively proven other than the fact that a number of women were murdered by an unidentified killer or killers.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              Hi Trevor,

                              Ok, while you seem reluctant to just say you accept your idea could be wrong, your responses above that I've bolded are phrased such it is clear that you do recognize that is the case and that what you are proposing is an alternative possible explanation. That leaves it to each person to then weigh up the various possible explanations and decide which ones they feel more and less plausible. Some will evaluate various alternate explanations by how much of the information they account for compared to how much information is set aside, and how much of the explanation still requires evidence, and so forth. There are lots of criterions by which people judge theories.

                              But since you accept your theory, like all theories in JtR, could be wrong, I do think it's a bit unfair to accuse people of being blinkered just because they feel your theory comes up short in how they evaluate the various options. In the end, I'm sure all theories are wrong in one way or the other, that's the nature of having to deal with such an insufficient set of information that allows for very few, if any, firm conclusions. There will be lots of possible ways to explain things, but only one way happened - and we may not even have thought of that one way!

                              - Jeff

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                                Hi Trevor,

                                Ok, while you seem reluctant to just say you accept your idea could be wrong, your responses above that I've bolded are phrased such it is clear that you do recognize that is the case and that what you are proposing is an alternative possible explanation. That leaves it to each person to then weigh up the various possible explanations and decide which ones they feel more and less plausible. Some will evaluate various alternate explanations by how much of the information they account for compared to how much information is set aside, and how much of the explanation still requires evidence, and so forth. There are lots of criterions by which people judge theories.

                                But since you accept your theory, like all theories in JtR, could be wrong, I do think it's a bit unfair to accuse people of being blinkered just because they feel your theory comes up short in how they evaluate the various options. In the end, I'm sure all theories are wrong in one way or the other, that's the nature of having to deal with such an insufficient set of information that allows for very few, if any, firm conclusions. There will be lots of possible ways to explain things, but only one way happened - and we may not even have thought of that one way!

                                - Jeff
                                The term blinkered you refer to is to be taken in the context of those who are not prepared to remotely consider by reassessing and reevaluating the original evidence and readily accepting it as being correct without question, because whether you like it or not or accept or reject it there are far too many discrepancies and ambiguities in most of the witness testimony for anyone to say that that evidence should be accepted without question, and the reality is that researches will still continue to readily accept both witness and the doctor's statement without question as we see on here by the many quotes continually being made as to what witnesses have stated and some researchers are blinkered because they only see what they want to see.

                                This thread has now run its full course



                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X