John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think you'll find all those points have already been cover at length so far on this thread.

In the end we all have a choice to make the decision on earlier or later t.od based on the evidence .

How we interpret that evidence and evaluate its effectiveness is open to debate, as has been shown over 1000s of post

Taking all that into consideration, the argument on both sides imo doesn't favour one time of death over another.

Nope. It heavily favours a letter ToD. And Richardson places it close to an absolute certainty. That’s what the evidence tells us.

[Fleetwood Mac]

other people can understand it, and even agree with it.

They may well do.

Either way, in the event you and others think that Dr Phillips meant this at the inquest:

At least two hours and probably more, but possibly less than at least two hours

I would have to put that down to some strange herd instinct, because quite simply it is as impenetrable as the deepest South American rainforest.

I would go as far as to say it is the worst commentary on any aspect of this case I've read, far worse than any Royal conspiracy theory.

[Doctored Whatsit]

They may well do.

Either way, in the event you and others think that Dr Phillips meant this at the inquest:

At least two hours and probably more, but possibly less than at least two hours

I would have to put that down to some strange herd instinct, because quite simply it is as impenetrable as the deepest South American rainforest.

I would go as far as to say it is the worst commentary on any aspect of this case I've read, far worse than any Royal conspiracy theory.

I see that you continue to refuse to deal with what has been said, and choose to repeat the same incorrect interpretation of what has been pointed out to you several times. Others see it and understand it, and you refuse to consider it.

Dr Phillips gave his evidence at the inquest as he was expected to do. He firstly stated clearly the ToD that he estimated for Chapman, "when he first saw her". That was necessary evidence, he gave it, and when he originally said this to Chandler, he meant every word of it. I have never suggested otherwise.

However, between 6. 30 am on September 8th, when he first saw the body, and giving his evidence on 13th September, he had plenty of time to think about his original estimate. Maybe discovering at the post mortem that she was ill and dying, and seeing the full extent of the mutilations made him rethink, maybe knowing the witness evidence affected his thoughts, maybe he consulted reference books, or got a second opinion from others - so much is possible.

What we do know for certain is that if he still agreed with his original statement he needed to say no more. However, he decided that the inquest needed more information than just his original ToD, and he added, of his own volition, an explanation of how he could have been wrong, and how the ToD could have been later than his estimate. This has been stated so many times, and everyone is aware of it.

If he wished to stand by his original ToD, why did he tell the inquest that he could be wrong, and that the ToD could have been later? It makes no sense whatever.

Your reading of the case seems to be that he told the inquest that Chapman had been murdered at least two hours previously, and probably more, and that he was absolutely certain about this, and sticking firmly to this ToD, but he could also be wrong for reasons he stated, and the death could have been later. That makes no sense.

To understand his evidence, we have to consider his caveat and what it meant. You seem reluctant to interpret it at all, and want to pretend it doesn't exist.

[Herlock Sholmes]

They may well do.

Either way, in the event you and others think that Dr Phillips meant this at the inquest:

At least two hours and probably more, but possibly less than at least two hours

I would have to put that down to some strange herd instinct, because quite simply it is as impenetrable as the deepest South American rainforest.

I would go as far as to say it is the worst commentary on any aspect of this case I've read, far worse than any Royal conspiracy theory.

And you think it he meant “ At least two hours and probably more, but of course the condition of the body could have caused it to cool more rapidly in this case……so it could have been at least 2 hours.”

You put it down to a ‘herd instinct’ I put your take down to a propensity to poor judgment and a defend at all costs mentality. You don’t add a caveat if that caveat doesn’t serve a purpose.

Caveat: a modifying or cautionary detail to be considered when evaluating, interpreting, or doing something.

But then…..according to you Phillips was a miracle worker.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I see that you continue to refuse to deal with what has been said, and choose to repeat the same incorrect interpretation of what has been pointed out to you several times. Others see it and understand it, and you refuse to consider it.

Dr Phillips gave his evidence at the inquest as he was expected to do. He firstly stated clearly the ToD that he estimated for Chapman, "when he first saw her". That was necessary evidence, he gave it, and when he originally said this to Chandler, he meant every word of it. I have never suggested otherwise.

However, between 6. 30 am on September 8th, when he first saw the body, and giving his evidence on 13th September, he had plenty of time to think about his original estimate. Maybe discovering at the post mortem that she was ill and dying, and seeing the full extent of the mutilations made him rethink, maybe knowing the witness evidence affected his thoughts, maybe he consulted reference books, or got a second opinion from others - so much is possible.

What we do know for certain is that if he still agreed with his original statement he needed to say no more. However, he decided that the inquest needed more information than just his original ToD, and he added, of his own volition, an explanation of how he could have been wrong, and how the ToD could have been later than his estimate. This has been stated so many times, and everyone is aware of it.

If he wished to stand by his original ToD, why did he tell the inquest that he could be wrong, and that the ToD could have been later? It makes no sense whatever.

Your reading of the case seems to be that he told the inquest that Chapman had been murdered at least two hours previously, and probably more, and that he was absolutely certain about this, and sticking firmly to this ToD, but he could also be wrong for reasons he stated, and the death could have been later. That makes no sense.

To understand his evidence, we have to consider his caveat and what it meant. You seem reluctant to interpret it at all, and want to pretend it doesn't exist.

Honestly Doc, it’s a waste of time trying use reason. There are people on here that seem to genuinely believe that their opinions trump those of the worlds authorities in Forensics. That they know better. Could you ever believe it. Nothing surprises me on here anymore. As soon as someone takes that position then they’re in David Icke territory.

[FISHY1118]

Honestly Doc, it’s a waste of time trying use reason. There are people on here that seem to genuinely believe that their opinions trump those of the worlds authorities in Forensics. That they know better. Could you ever believe it. Nothing surprises me on here anymore. As soon as someone takes that position then they’re in David Icke territory.

Yes, and your one of them where witnesses are concerned.

[FISHY1118]

Nope. It heavily favours a letter ToD. And Richardson places it close to an absolute certainty. That’s what the evidence tells us.

The evidence tells "you" that because you have interpreted it that way , but it also tells us due to uncertainty ,ambiguous unreliable witness statements that experts and world authorities advise caution against , that it was just as likely an earlier t.o.d.

[Damaso Marte]

Some years ago, an airport security officer asked me if I had any gels, liquids, or aerosols in my carry-on luggage. I had woken up early for the flight and I was 99% sure I didn't have any of those things in my hand luggage, but the lingering 1% made me say "I don't think so, but I am a fallible human being and could be mistaken".

Needless to say, I was immediately singled out for additional screening and all of my luggage was checked very thoroughly. Nothing improper was found but every inch was checked.

It's not a good idea to let law enforcement authorities know that you recognize you could be wrong, but some of us are honest enough to do it anyway, because goddamit it's the truth. We are all fallible, we all could be mistaken.

[JeffHamm]

They may well do.

Either way, in the event you and others think that Dr Phillips meant this at the inquest:

At least two hours and probably more, but possibly less than at least two hours

I would have to put that down to some strange herd instinct, because quite simply it is as impenetrable as the deepest South American rainforest.

I would go as far as to say it is the worst commentary on any aspect of this case I've read, far worse than any Royal conspiracy theory.

I think you will find it is also the interpretation the coroner gives to the jury as to what Dr. Phillips meant, and nowhere do we ever hear of Dr. P. objecting.

The interpretation you have offered makes no logical sense as you either ignore the caveat, or you say it means the same as the statement, which is bizarre because it clearly does not.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think you will find it is also the interpretation the coroner gives to the jury as to what Dr. Phillips meant, and nowhere do we ever hear of Dr. P. objecting.

The interpretation you have offered makes no logical sense as you either ignore the caveat, or you say it means the same as the statement, which is bizarre because it clearly does not.

- Jeff

It couldn’t be clearer could it Jeff. It’s probably the clearest evidence of a determination by some to get to an earlier ToD.

Three witnesses who all point to a later ToD versus a Doctor using provably unreliable methods who favoured an earlier ToD whilst accepting the possibility of a later one due to the exceptional circumstances.

On what planet does this favour an earlier ToD?

I think that it’s all about perception. To us (as non-serial killers who weren’t there at the time) a murder at around 5.30 might seem too risky so it’s perhaps easy to fall into the trap of thinking that it can’t be true and then view the evidence with confirmation bias. But we aren’t serial killers and we weren’t there.

We can’t know the killers circumstances at the time. He might have taken work as and when he could get it and was returning from work when he ran into Chapman. Or the urge might have just come on him later than for the other murders and let’s face it we’re not dealing with huge numbers here. If he’d done 20 murders and 19 were all between 12.00 and 2.00 but one was at 5.00 then we might start scratching our chins and wondering. But the Chapman murder might only have been one in four or five or six.

And if he did have a strong urge to kill he also ran into someone utterly desperate for money. The woman would usually guide the punter to a likely spot and so Chapman would have guided him to the backyard of number 29. He might have commented on the spot and the risk at that time of morning but would Chapman have balked at a lie to get her money? “Don’t worry, I’ve used this yard dozens of times at this time and no one ever comes here.” Perhaps he just didn’t care? Perhaps if someone opened the door he’d kill them and escape? Perhaps the ‘no’ that Cadosch heard was part of Chapman’s reassurance? Was he concerned about leaving with blood on him? Perhaps he wore a coat/jacket which he took of for the mutilations?

We can only estimate the ToD by the physical evidence and it very clearly points strongly to a later ToD. Whether it fits perceptions or not.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The evidence tells "you" that because you have interpreted it that way , but it also tells us due to uncertainty ,ambiguous unreliable witness statements that experts and world authorities advise caution against , that it was just as likely an earlier t.o.d.

What is unreliable about Cadosch for example?

[FISHY1118]

What is unreliable about Cadosch for example?

The fact he couldn't say which side the "NO" came from . And there is no evidence whatsoever that he meant either the left or right side of number 29 as some have incorrectly suggested .

There's no wriggling out of this fact .

[Herlock Sholmes]

The fact he couldn't say which side the "NO" came from . And there is no evidence whatsoever that he meant either the left or right side of number 29 as some have incorrectly suggested .

There's no wriggling out of this fact .

Two very simple questions.

1. How do you prove that it’s not what he meant?

2. Why do you ignore the fact that he was absolutely certain where the sound against the fence came from?

[FISHY1118]

Two very simple questions.

1. How do you prove that it’s not what he meant?

2. Why do you ignore the fact that he was absolutely certain where the sound against the fence came from?

1 .You prove that it was ? his testimony only mentions that he couldn't be certain where it came from, your making assumptions that he meant left or right to fit your theory . So your guessing.

You asked for unreliable evidence regarding Cadosch. I gave it .

In Cadoschs case uncertainty = unreliable .that's a fact.

2.Ive never ignored the fact that he heard the noise against the fence.

The question that's never been answered or proved is that no one can say for sure that it was Annie chapmans body that actually made the sound Cadosch heard .

Once again this all has been discussed over and over on this thread by myself and others ,your just going round and round in circles ending up with the same result , t.o.d earlier or later can't be accurately determined one way or the other based on all the evidence when examined as a whole.

[The Rookie Detective]

So...

after nearly 5000 posts, can we just take a beat and evaluate in summary the main points of contention here?


Essentially, am I correct in assuming that the main problem relates to the proposed TOD of Chapman and that it conflicts with multiple witness statements?

And so either all the witnesses are wrong, or the TOD was wrong?


Is that the argument in a nutshell?


I would suggest that compared to the complexities of the subsequent Stride, Eddowes and Kelly cases; this is much more clear-cut. Hence Chapman's murder is the least discussed overall and without this particular thread would be even less so.

This thread does for Chapman what Lechmere does for the Nichol's threads


Okay, so Richardson...he was either a complete moron for not seeing the mutilated dead body of Chapman lying inches away from his left foot...or he lied and was the killer, or covering for osmeone...

OR...he didn't see anyone because...and here it is... she wasn't there.

Bearing in mind that the killer was not a concealment killer and deliberately displayed the bodies to be found in a certain theatrical way. Had Chapman of been covered completely under a dark blanket or dumped in the cellar, then there's scope for Richardson missing her being there.

But unless someone is willing to suggest that he was the murdere, then why not just accept that he never saw Chapman for the reason that she wasn't there and was murdered AFTER Richardson left?


IF the only thing that contradicts Richardson is her initial perceived TOD, then I would suggest that the TOD is wrong..based on the fact that assessing a TOD in 1888 for a mutilated body left exposed to the elements, the scope for being wrong about her TOD is much greater than Richardson not seeing her.


If we discount everything, then it only serves to inflate an inaccurate agenda to support the subjectivity of the person who chooses to disbelieve everything.


So, was Richardson...

Truthful
Lying
Mistaken
Inaccurate
A complete moron


One of the above has to be true... or otherwise, we start questioning whether 1 plus 1 is actually 2, or whether it could be seen as something else.



Bizarre methodology


RD