John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And you need to turn off the record, stop quoting soundbites and treat every topic on an individual basis. Witness testimony isn’t, by definition, unsafe to rely on. It has to be assessed first. It can be found be unsafe or it can be found to be safe. So when approaching witness testimony we have to of course apply caution but if there are discrepancies we can assess their importance and ask ourselves questions and make a judgment (acknowledging any doubts that might exist) You assume that no one else does this but you. And that’s only one of your problems. You think that only you can assess evidence and that when you make an assessment everyone should simply accept your opinion.

Im not just blindly relying on witnesses. I, and many others so I’m far from alone, have assessed them. Elizabeth Long is the easiest for you to brush under the carpet of course because we all know the fragility of witness sightings. So taken in isolation, yes, Long could have been mistaken. I’ve never denied this possibility. Most witnesses are honest though (even if honestly wrong) so I find the 15 minutes of fame argument fairly weak. Not impossible but weak. So it’s much likelier that she was being honest. Note that I said ‘likelier,’ Trevor. Unlike you I’m not being black and white on this issue.

So yes, witnesses like Long can certainly be wrong but they can also be right and some people just have better memories for faces than others do. So we have to factor in a possibility of error. But we have to accept that she could have been right. Are you with me on this so far Trevor?

So we have an eyewitness, with no known reason to lie who identifies a woman but there’s a possibility of error.

But….bigger picture Trevor…..we look at the circumstances. The woman that she identified was seen by her talking to a man in the early hours of the morning, on the pavement a few feet from the address where she was killed and at a time that (accepting very minor clock synchronisation issues) corresponds with a man hearing a noise from that garden.

So what are the chances of having just three witnesses who have an impact on our assessment of ToD (and all three of them point solidly to a time nearer to 5.30) and they are all wrong (and they aren’t connected to each other, had no reasons for lying and they are all wrong in completely different ways?!) Wake up Trevor.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And those proposing an earlier ToD are using a Doctor using provably unreliable methods. You’ve actually admitted this and yet you still choose to support this unreliability over witnesses. Then you have the unmitigated nerve to preach about ‘unsafe’ witnesses! If I took your approach Trevor I’d simply reply “I don’t care if the witnesses are unreliable because I still support them!”

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Exactly Lewis. Trevor is very keen on denigrating witnesses that don’t conform to his preconceptions.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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 .

When someone posts the same nonsense what else can be done but to post the same replies. You keep posting stuff that isn’t true and I’ll keep pointing out the lack of substance in what you are saying. The evidence massively favours a later ToD anything to the contrary is lie.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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 !

As ever, you make no meaningful contribution yourself. You simply parrot what others have said.

You same that I’m relying on ‘unreliable’ witnesses? But I thought that ‘unreliability’ was ok? Dr Phillips methods were ‘unreliable’ (even Trevor admits it) and yet you support him. And the difference is that you can only assume that the witnesses were unreliable but we can prove via the worlds authorities that Phillips was unreliable.

Feel free for you (or anyone else) to explain what qualifies them to tell every single forensic expert in the world that they don’t know what they’re talking about. I look forward to hearing of your qualifications Fishy.

[Trevor Marriott]

And those proposing an earlier ToD are using a Doctor using provably unreliable methods. You’ve actually admitted this and yet you still choose to support this unreliability over witnesses. Then you have the unmitigated nerve to preach about ‘unsafe’ witnesses! If I took your approach Trevor I’d simply reply “I don’t care if the witnesses are unreliable because I still support them!”

But thats exactly what you are saying. You support their testimony even though they could be unreliable

You need to get a grip of yourself you are very confused and only rubbing people up the wrong way with your constant repetitive posts in trying to prop up the witness testimony as being 100% reliable and should not ever be challenged

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

When someone posts the same nonsense what else can be done but to post the same replies. You keep posting stuff that isn’t true and I’ll keep pointing out the lack of substance in what you are saying. The evidence massively favours a later ToD anything to the contrary is lie.

'' the evidence massively favours a later ToD anything to the contrary is lie''. Doesnt get any Dumber than this comment folks





Again one more time just for you , a second time

.
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]

As ever, you make no meaningful contribution yourself. You simply parrot what others have said.

You same that I’m relying on ‘unreliable’ witnesses? But I thought that ‘unreliability’ was ok? Dr Phillips methods were ‘unreliable’ (even Trevor admits it) and yet you support him. And the difference is that you can only assume that the witnesses were unreliable but we can prove via the worlds authorities that Phillips was unreliable.

Feel free for you (or anyone else) to explain what qualifies them to tell every single forensic expert in the world that they don’t know what they’re talking about. I look forward to hearing of your qualifications Fishy.

Wrong again Herlock ,ive made many manY contributing post on the subject , just for the record i started the topic remember ?

If ive repeated what others have said its because youve ignored them as you ignore everything else that doesnt suit your way or the highway mentality .

Ill look forward to your qualifications in regards to disputing experts opinion as far as witness testimony unreliability goes as George clearly pointed out to you many months ago . which you ignored btw.

[Herlock Sholmes]

'' the evidence massively favours a later ToD anything to the contrary is lie''. Doesnt get any Dumber than this comment folks





Again one more time just for you , a second time

.
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 .

Three witnesses versus a guess.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wrong again Herlock ,ive made many manY contributing post on the subject , just for the record i started the topic remember ?

If ive repeated what others have said its because youve ignored them as you ignore everything else that doesnt suit your way or the highway mentality .

Ill look forward to your qualifications in regards to disputing experts opinion as far as witness testimony unreliability goes as George clearly pointed out to you many months ago . which you ignored btw.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But thats exactly what you are saying. You support their testimony even though they could be unreliable

You need to get a grip of yourself you are very confused and only rubbing people up the wrong way with your constant repetitive posts in trying to prop up the witness testimony as being 100% reliable and should not ever be challenged

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, I’ve assessed them.

Im not rubbing Jeff up the wrong way. I’m not rubbing Steve up the wrong way. I’m not rubbing Abby up the wrong way. I’m not rubbing Joshua up the wrong way. Or FrankO or Wickerman. So why do you focus on me as if I’m on my own. More go for a later T0D than go for an earlier one. Who are the most vocal? Fisherman (because he doesn’t want Cross to be at work) Fishy (because of the silly Gull theory) You (because you think that serial killers work to some kind of timetable) I have no theory or suspect that requires a later ToD.

It’s called being unbiased.

[FISHY1118]

Three witnesses versus a guess.

Shown to be unreliable witnesses , contraditory , and unsafe verses a professional medical opinion . More than enough for an eariler t.o.d possibility .

[FISHY1118]

That just might it knock some common sense into you,

[Herlock Sholmes]

Shown to be unreliable witnesses , contraditory , and unsafe verses a professional medical opinion . More than enough for an eariler t.o.d possibility .

Two very simple questions for you to come up with some excuse for not answering…

1. Why do you STILL ignore the clearly and unanimous documented evidence from all of the world’s authorities on this subject of the reliability of Phillips estimate?

2. Tell me what is the evidence for Cadosch being unreliable.

Im just hopining against hope that you don’t employ the usual tactic…….saying that you’ve answered this or expecting me to trawl back through 4000+ posts. For once, can we get a straight answer. Or that you don’t just try changing the subject. I don’t duck any questions btw.

[FISHY1118]

Two very simple questions for you to come up with some excuse for not answering…

1. Why do you STILL ignore the clearly and unanimous documented evidence from all of the world’s authorities on this subject of the reliability of Phillips estimate?

2. Tell me what is the evidence for Cadosch being unreliable.

Im just hopining against hope that you don’t employ the usual tactic…….saying that you’ve answered this or expecting me to trawl back through 4000+ posts. For once, can we get a straight answer. Or that you don’t just try changing the subject. I don’t duck any questions btw.

1.Why do you STILL ignore the clearly and unanimous documented evidence from all of the world’s authorities on this subject of the reliability of witness testimonies?


2, Cadosch couldnt say where the 'NO' came from, or that it was that of Annie Chapman, or that it was the start of a murder . The thud he heard hit the fence cant be proven to have been Annie Chapman s body, his evidence tell us very little if the body was already there earlier . Cadoschs evidence in know way conclusively proves an later t.o.d ,it may be suggested as an opinion, not fact . Just as an earlier t.od. based on all the evidence is just as plausable when researched carefully.