John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

Interesting that you suggest 3 bystander witnesses outweigh a professional opinion, after suggesting on another thread that 3 corroborative bystander witnesses are outweighed by one non-verified witness account statement.

Diemschitz is verified by a host of people. You just choose the babyish argument that they don’t count because they were all ‘in in it.’

In any case I agree with the statement that suggests there is nothing objectionable about either Richardson or Cadosches accounts, but with Mrs Long claiming her sighting was at 5:30 it would seem almost certainly that she was indeed wrong.

Nope. Her time is well within reason. The clock that she used and the clock that Cadosch used only needed to be around 5 minutes out and they match up perfectly. And we know that we can’t assume accuracy or synchronicity don’t we Michael???

Even though she insisted, (just like other witnesses at other murder sites....), that she was certain of the time. Well, Someone was in that very yard at around 4:45 and saw no-one, then at 5:15am someone adjacent to the yard heard a human say something from that yard, then another sound from that same yard 5-10 minutes later, and when leaving the house at 5:32 Cadosche did not see Mrs Long. Since the body is found approximately between 5:45 and 5:55, and unless someone abruptly left the yard when Cadosche went inside after hearing the second noise and suddenly someone new came into it, the woman found in the yard was probably the woman who cried "no" at around 5:15. The injuries inflicted on her would take a bit of time. And since there is discussion as to what time she was killed, it would seem there are 2 possible answers...if she WAS killed earlier, then she was killed elsewhere and brought there. And if she was the voice that called "no", thats the probable murder time.

The deciding factor might be the arterial spray on the fence that Cadosche heard the voice over, and the later thud from.

You just don’t get it do you Michael! No matter how many times it’s explained to you and no matter how simple the language used you just don’t get it.

Anyone who views this case under the impression that all quoted times have to be assumed to have been correct isn’t worth an opinion. It’s childish. It’s ludicrous. And more than that it’s absolutely DELIBERATE.

[Lewis C]

I am not ashamed of anything I have posted. The posts relate to careful and detailed examination of the original witness statements and as a result, I firmly believe they are unsafe to completely rely on to prove a specific time of death but in view of the unsafe statements in which the testimony of those was never fully tested as to its accuracy and what makes them unsafe I have to side with the Doctor who despite claims made by you and others does not specify a specific time of death but does suggest death could have occurred with a time frame which given all the other factors connected to the series of murders was an early TOD

You need to stop accepting witness statements as being the gospel because we know some sought their 15 minutes of fame and what they say may not be the truth or simply an exaggeration of what they did see.

For far too long now researchers have placed too much importance to the descriptions of persons allegedly seen with Stride Nichols,and also with Catherine Eddowes. To put these descriptions in the right perspective and to judge if they can be relied upon as being accurate we have to look at the current UK law regarding witness identification. The stated case I will refer to is R v. Turnbull 1976; from this case, certain identification guidelines were then adopted. A mnemonic used to remember the various points is ADVOKATE:

Amount of time under observation: How long did the witness have the person/incident in view?

Distance: What was the distance between the witness and the person/incident?

Visibility: What was the visibility at the time? Factors include the time of day/night, street lighting, etc.

Obstruction: Were there any obstructions to the view of the witness?

Known or seen before: Did the witness know, or had the witness ever seen, the person before? If so where and when?

Any reason to remember: Did the witness have any special reason for remembering the person/incident? Was there something specific that made the person/incident memorable?

Time-lapse: How long has elapsed since the witness saw the person/incident?

Error discrepancy: Are there any errors or material discrepancies between descriptions in the first and subsequent accounts of the witness?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

In the part that I bolded, it sounds like you're saying that your reasons for believing in the earlier TOD have little to do with Dr. Phillips' findings. If that's the case, then what are your reasons for believing in the earlier TOD?

[Trevor Marriott]

Unless you’re demanding perfection in every witness that you don’t like there’s nothing wrong with Richardson…ditto Cadosch.

Long might have been wrong, anyone can be wrong, but I think it’s very unlikely that she just happened to see a woman that looked just like Chapman, with a man, just outside the right address at just the right time.

Three witnesses beat a Victorian Doctors estimation by any reasonable judgment.

Change the record !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

In the part that I bolded, it sounds like you're saying that your reasons for believing in the earlier TOD have little to do with Dr. Phillips' findings. If that's the case, then what are your reasons for believing in the earlier TOD?

See Post #4221

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

You just don’t get it do you Michael! No matter how many times it’s explained to you and no matter how simple the language used you just don’t get it.

Anyone who views this case under the impression that all quoted times have to be assumed to have been correct isn’t worth an opinion. It’s childish. It’s ludicrous. And more than that it’s absolutely DELIBERATE.

Sorry to correct you once again....you really should add that to your posts.."to be corrected by anyone who actually follows the evidence",....the times are the witnesses, the quotes are the witnesses and the denials are all yours. Just like the evidence in the Berner Street investigation. If you would rather I be blunt, anyone who believes that Mrs Long actually saw Annie at 5:30 when there is very clear evidence that someone was in that yard around 5:15 and on the very spot where she dies at around 5:20, and is discovered around 5:45, with arterial blood spray on the fence...is an idiot. Cadosche left his house at 5:32 and did not see Mrs Long. But he did hear Annie in the yard.

Is that more clear? You are the most infantile person to discuss these cases with, I surely hope you will have enough people remind you how wrong your deductions are so you can slink back into your chair and go troll another board somewhere, you see most people here want to find truth, not be told by some dimwit what that truth really is and how wrong they are.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sorry to correct you once again....you really should add that to your posts.."to be corrected by anyone who actually follows the evidence",....the times are the witnesses, the quotes are the witnesses and the denials are all yours. Just like the evidence in the Berner Street investigation. If you would rather I be blunt, anyone who believes that Mrs Long actually saw Annie at 5:30 when there is very clear evidence that someone was in that yard around 5:15 and on the very spot where she dies at around 5:20, and is discovered around 5:45, with arterial blood spray on the fence...is an idiot. Cadosche left his house at 5:32 and did not see Mrs Long. But he did hear Annie in the yard.

Is that more clear? You are the most infantile person to discuss these cases with, I surely hope you will have enough people remind you how wrong your deductions are so you can slink back into your chair and go troll another board somewhere, you see most people here want to find truth, not be told by some dimwit what that truth really is and how wrong they are.

More personal insults and not a single one from me.

Please try and get someone to explain this concept to you. It doesn’t matter if the times are from the witnesses because IT DOESNT MEAN THAT THEY ARE CORRECT OR SYNCHRONISED WITH OTHER WITNESSES.

Will you ever get this? Please just try and understand. Surely there’s someone who can explain it to you?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Change the record !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Ill change the record when you stop infecting the threads with the same poorly thought out, biased nonsense.

Unsafe…unsafe….unsafe….blah, blah.

And you might try checking the dictionary because you clearly have trouble using the word ‘rely’ correctly.

[FISHY1118]

It’s impossible to have a normal debate with you Fishy. There’s no ‘could be overwhelmingly wrong’ about it. You are overwhelmingly wrong when you say that the evidence favours an earlier ToD. Why don’t you send an email to the companies that produce the standard textbooks on Forensic medicine and explain to them why they don’t know what they’re talking about? It would be interesting to here how you convince them of your viewpoint.

But it does support an earlier t.o.d , its there in black and white with the inquest testimony of all the witnesses and medical evidence .. its my belief your wrong if you can't except it . So there go.

I don't need to email anyone to see that.

[FISHY1118]

As ever you avoid detail and specifics. The same old ‘it’s been shown…’ it’s because your clearly unable, for whatever reason, to put a logical argument together so you constantly resort to generalities.

Anyone that says that the evidence points overwhelmingly to an earlier ToD is just not worth listening to. A doctors estimate that was not far from a guess versus three corroborating witnesses. Maybe on Planet Fishy this makes an earlier ToD likely but in the real world it doesn’t. I realise that an earlier ToD is better for the fantasy Knight/Sickert/Gull nonsense though.

On Dr. Phillips, I and others have used the knowledge and experience of the worlds experts in Forensics. These experts explain in very clear, very simple to understand language why a Victorian Doctors ToD estimation cannot be completely relied upon and why the methods that they used where unreliable. Could you explain to those reading this what qualifies you to contradicts those authorities?

You clearly haven't been paying attention have you ,? you've played that card far to often herlock and its becoming boring, all the evidence that points to an earlier t.od is here on this thread posted by myself and others who support it , it you that ignored it and won't except it .

Your relying on witness testimony that has shown and ambiguous, unreliable, unsafe , and contradictory . George has shown in previous post and covered witness testimony and how it can't be relied upon by experts who have studied this topic, what qualifies you to ignore them !

[FISHY1118]

You’ve completely ignored Jeff’s patient, perfectly well reasoned post because it doesn’t conform to your bias. We should look at things fairly. So….no….it’s not close…..it’s not a 50-50 decision……and it certainly doesn’t favour an earlier ToD. The evidence points overwhelmingly to a later ToD. If you choose to close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and stamp your feet it’s up to you if course. You’re simply wrong.

Your completely ignoring my post. ,arguing for arguments sake herlock see my previous post for clarity on the subject

Your keep repeating of the same old post asking for explanation when you've been shown where it.

Again one more time just for you ,

The inquest testimony shows just as likely an earlier t.od as a that some would use as a later one.,when all the witness and medical evidence is taken into account . . Now be prepared to hear this again when you carry on next time you ask or dispute this . Its here over 4200 post feel free to go back and read them .

[FISHY1118]

Sorry to correct you once again....you really should add that to your posts.."to be corrected by anyone who actually follows the evidence",....the times are the witnesses, the quotes are the witnesses and the denials are all yours. Just like the evidence in the Berner Street investigation. If you would rather I be blunt, anyone who believes that Mrs Long actually saw Annie at 5:30 when there is very clear evidence that someone was in that yard around 5:15 and on the very spot where she dies at around 5:20, and is discovered around 5:45, with arterial blood spray on the fence...is an idiot. Cadosche left his house at 5:32 and did not see Mrs Long. But he did hear Annie in the yard.

Is that more clear? You are the most infantile person to discuss these cases with, I surely hope you will have enough people remind you how wrong your deductions are so you can slink back into your chair and go troll another board somewhere, you see most people here want to find truth, not be told by some dimwit what that truth really is and how wrong they are.

wow

[Lewis C]

See Post #4221

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Nothing that you said in Post #4221 addresses why you believe in the earlier time of death. It's not enough to say that witness testimony is unreliable. If witness testimony is unreliable, it doesn't follow from that that the opposite of what they're saying is automatically true.

[FISHY1118]

Nothing that you said in Post #4221 addresses why you believe in the earlier time of death. It's not enough to say that witness testimony is unreliable. If witness testimony is unreliable, it doesn't follow from that that the opposite of what they're saying is automatically true.

Not automatically true, of course not . But it opens up the ''Possiblity'' for the oppsite it to be tru, and thats what some posters fail to recognise or at least admit

[Trevor Marriott]

Ill change the record when you stop infecting the threads with the same poorly thought out, biased nonsense.

Unsafe…unsafe….unsafe….blah, blah.

And you might try checking the dictionary because you clearly have trouble using the word ‘rely’ correctly.

You clearly have you heard buried in the sand. It has been explained to you many times why the witness testimony is unsafe to totally rely on but you keep rejecting these reasons despite the explanations as to what makes them unsafe being given to you, and I have never suggested they be dismissed there is a big difference between a statement being unsafe to being dismissed.

You need to get out of this habit you find yourself in of accepting witness testimony from all of these murders as being the gospel truth, because clearly some of them are not.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Nothing that you said in Post #4221 addresses why you believe in the earlier time of death. It's not enough to say that witness testimony is unreliable. If witness testimony is unreliable, it doesn't follow from that that the opposite of what they're saying is automatically true.

But those who propose a later time of death are using the witness testimony to back up that scenario.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk