John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

There you go again manipulating the facts it has been proven that the witness testimony is unsafe many times on here but you have your head buried in the sand and can't or won't accept what has been put forward to show that the witness testimony is unsafe.

Is there some unwritten rule where I have to accept your opinion Trevor. The witness testimony isn’t unsafe. Phillips is unsafe. The witnesses aren’t. The points that you have put forward are wrong. This is why I reject them. It’s a very simple concept. The points for a later ToD are much stronger than for an earlier.

It has also been shown to you that in this case Chapman led her killer to the rear of No 29

Ive never denied this.

I have also highlighted other facts and testimony which points to an earlier TOD yet you still fail to acknowledge what has been put forward. all of this shows your lack of ability in being able to assess and evaluate in an unbiased fashion all of the facts and evidence.

No. It shows that I prefer my own judgment and Jeff’s and Wick’s and AP’s and Lewis’s and Doc’s (and David Orsam’s for that matter) than yours. It’s another simple concept Trevor. I don’t accept something as true just because you say it. Which is what you constantly promote.

This thread has reached over 6000 posts many of which relate to posters having to reply to your posts and as I have done all trying to make you see some sense but you seem to be hell-bent on propping up a later TOD and not willing to consider all that has been put forward to show and earlier TOD

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Same old nonsense Trevor.

[Fleetwood Mac]

So there’s no ‘empirical’ knowledge then.

Do you understand the meaning of 'empirical' evidence?

The serial killers we are aware of, is empirical evidence/data.

Are you saying you believe it is common for a serial killer running 'round murdering women, to do that in daylight outdoors at a time and location where that serial killer knows the wider community is active in going about their business.

Look on the internet, type in serial killers murdering women, you will get a long list, then report back on those who killed women in that situation.

It's not unheard of, but you won't find many at all, and statistically it is highly unusual.

It's pretty obvious why: they don't want to get caught and the cover of darkness, or four walls, or an isolated area such as the woods; is chosen to enable them to avoid detection.

[Trevor Marriott]

Over the over the duration of the debate on Chapman ToD we appear to have 6 posters who favour an earlier ToD. Three of them (50%) have theories/suspects that require an earlier ToD. Of the 20 or so that go for a later ToD none of them (0%) have a theory/suspect that requires a later ToD.

where do you get these figures from ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

You think that the three witnesses were unsafe.

You've accepted that Phillips was unsafe.

So you’re basing your entire judgment on the fact that this murder was committed later than the others? Ok.

There you go again manipulating the facts it has been proven that the witness testimony is unsafe many times on here but you have your head buried in the sand and can't or won't accept what has been put forward to show that the witness testimony is unsafe.

It has also been shown to you that in this case Chapman led her killer to the rear of No 29

I have also highlighted other facts and testimony which points to an earlier TOD yet you still fail to acknowledge what has been put forward. all of this shows your lack of ability in being able to assess and evaluate in an unbiased fashion all of the facts and evidence.

This thread has reached over 6000 posts many of which relate to posters having to reply to your posts and as I have done all trying to make you see some sense but you seem to be hell-bent on propping up a later TOD and not willing to consider all that has been put forward to show and earlier TOD

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Challenge….find someone that knows nothing about the case…..tell them about Chapman’s body……show them the photo of the yard of number 29…….then ask them if Richardson could have missed a body. I wonder what they would say

[Herlock Sholmes]

You don't need a study.

We know from the experience of the serial killers who go 'round murdering women, that it is unusual for them to kill in daylight outdoors at a time and location when they know people in the wider community are active in going about their business.

So there’s no ‘empirical’ knowledge then.

[Herlock Sholmes]

None of those that support a later ToD have made any claim to superior medical/forensic/scientific knowledge than the worlds authorities.

[Fleetwood Mac]

What ‘empirical data’ do we have that serial killers don’t kill in back yards at 5.30 am? Was there a study done?

You don't need a study.

We know from the experience of the serial killers who go 'round murdering women, that it is unusual for them to kill in daylight outdoors at a time and location when they know people in the wider community are active in going about their business.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Over the over the duration of the debate on Chapman ToD we appear to have 6 posters who favour an earlier ToD. Three of them (50%) have theories/suspects that require an earlier ToD. Of the 20 or so that go for a later ToD none of them (0%) have a theory/suspect that requires a later ToD.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I wonder how many other case we can name where 100% of the witnesses were either lying or mistaken?

Perhaps there was a plot?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I've put my thoughts down on the various forms of information that suggest to me Dr Phillips was correct, throughout this thread. Information that includes, but is not remotely exclusive to, Dr Phillips' medical information left to us. You're more than welcome to have a look at those posts and respond in a sensible manner.

The problem you're going to have is that in the event you appeal to 'hypocrisy' and 'silly questions', they're not going to be taken as serious discussion points. As for 'creating a situation where the witnesses are useless', that's not a serious discussion point either.

On the witnesses, it is widely acknowledged that witness testimony is often incorrect and should be treated with caution. There is a whole series of studies, undertaken by people qualified in that field I may add, that detail the extent to which witness testimony is often incorrect, and this includes empirical data as opposed to that which you or I theorise; and the studies explain why witness testimony is often incorrect, again explained by people qualified in that field.

Assuming you do not agree with those qualified people and their evidence from actual witness testimony that witness testimony is often incorrect, then what you need to do is to explain why in a reasonable manner.

Appealing to 'hypocrisy' and 'silly questions', is not sensible discussion in response to somebody who has put forward these studies of actual witness testimony.

Witness testimony appears to be central to your post and so you may want to start with that. I'll ask you: are you aware of these studies and that these studies are based upon actual witness testimony, and that they're undertaken by people qualified in that field?

As you ignore the worlds authorities on forensics who inform us without exception that Phillips ToD estimation should be regarded has unsafe. That is a fact.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have no theory it is the facts and the unsafe witness testimony, and all the new facts I have presented that in my own personal opinion point to an early TOD.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You think that the three witnesses were unsafe.

You've accepted that Phillips was unsafe.

So you’re basing your entire judgment on the fact that this murder was committed later than the others? Ok.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The good news is that we do have empirical data for that particular discussion.

The empirical data tells us that serial killers are unlikely to kill in that location in daylight. Jack being a serial killer, then the conclusion must be that it is unlikely Jack did. And then of course we have more empirical data from Jack's murder series, in that he didn't kill in daylight and outdoors at any other time. From there, I think it is reasonable to suggest that Jack appreciated the cover of darkness or four walls, and in turn reasonable to suggest that it was his cover, as it is with other serial killers.

And, that's only one point of many that leads away from Annie still being alive at a quarter past five in the morning.

What ‘empirical data’ do we have that serial killers don’t kill in back yards at 5.30 am? Was there a study done?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The murderer has to be out and about looking for a victim at a much later hour than in any other murder in the series,

Perhaps he’d left his timetable at home?

he has to be prepared to commit a murder at a much later hour than in any other murder in the series,

And he clearly was.

he has to be prepared to commit mutilations as it is starting to get light,

And he clearly did.

and he has to forgo the opportunity to wash his hands with the water available.

And he clearly did.

Chapman has to have been wandering about for about 3 3/4 hours without being seen by anyone, to choose to go into the back yard of a house, the habits of whose occupants she was presumably familiar with,

Invention….you can’t assume that just because someone had visited a premises previously that she would have become familiar with their habits.

at about the time people started to get up, and still to have food in her stomach 3 3/4 hours after eating nothing more than potato.

Invention…..you don’t know what was left in her stomach apart from that it was ‘food.’ You also don’t know when she last ate.

Upon being murdered, her body has to cool unusually quickly and rigor mortis has to set in unusually quickly.

Invention………the experts tell us that neither were unusual.

It is farfetched.

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

[Fleetwood Mac]

I'm sorry, but if your argument to dismiss the three witnesses who put Chapmans death later, is due to the general statement of "witness unreliability" without giving more specific reasons for the individual instances, or "memory is bad" and then rely on general witness reliability and memory, without specifying where your witnesses are more reliable than the others, that's hypocrisy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You've two options at this juncture:

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