Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

    Nor has any been provided when asked .

    Hi George

    Ive often mentioned this point as well over the course of this thread . I cant wait for the no doubt kind hearted replies youve become accustomed to now that youve given your opinion on the matter .
    Hi Fishy,

    I have expressed such opinions before and have become accustomed to the fact that not all replies will necessarily be kind hearted. Never the less, I try to observe Jeff's philosophy which now forms part of my signature below.

    Cheers, George
    They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
    Out of a misty dream
    Our path emerges for a while, then closes
    Within a dream.
    Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

    ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Lewis C View Post

      Hi Hair Bear,

      The same video is available on a different Youtube channel, except that instead of having 2 parts, the 2 parts are combined into one long video. You can try it out and see if it's viewable in your country: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8VF4WKmccc
      Sorted, thank you very much!

      Comment


      • Thank you Lewis C​ for the link to this video.

        As frustrating as it was to see that they did not have Richardson's feet where he testified them to be, on the flagstones, I like to think that my point about his standing, lowering himself, and then rising, has been endorsed. This would be wholly unnatural any other way. I have albeit crudely repositioned Richardson where he would have been had his feet be on the flagstones. As you can see he would most definitely have seen Chapman. Of course the video's representation may not have the dimensions correct - the steps are certainly not the same - but it's close enough imo to rule out not being able to see the body due to the door. And as discussed recently with Fleetwood Mac, if the Ripper can see to do the killing at an earlier (darker) hour, then light is also not an issue. So for me any thought of not being able to see Chapman can be ruled out and the choice is whether Richardson was telling the truth about being there or not.
        Click image for larger version

Name:	richardson on the stair3.jpg
Views:	104
Size:	189.6 KB
ID:	820273

        Comment


        • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

          Hi Fishy,

          I have expressed such opinions before and have become accustomed to the fact that not all replies will necessarily be kind hearted. Never the less, I try to observe Jeff's philosophy which now forms part of my signature below.

          Cheers, George
          Just making sure your ''Thinking for yourself'' George
          'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

          Comment


          • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

            Hi LC,

            That's because she wasn't taking much notice of them:
            Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.
            [Coroner]
            At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them.

            Three days after the event she suddenly realises that she saw a woman she had never seen before in a street "bustling" with people, after having not taken much notice of them.

            I don't think so.

            Richardson - I believe what he told Chandler and two press reporters on the day, not the story of the errant leather that he suddenly started mentioning two days later.

            Cadosch - I believe him when he testified that he didn't see or hear anything unusual.

            Phillips - I don't know that any doctor would admit that his methods were unreliable. That's a modern day assessment, but strangely, other ToD's were surprisingly accurate, relatively speaking. I know the common answer to this suggestion is that the others cribbed their ToD's by finding out the answer first, but I see no evidence that the doctor's interrogated beat cops or witnesses before they produced their ToD's so as to ensure they got the right answer.

            Cheers, George
            I totally agree George with all you say

            I can see no reason why Insp Chandler would lie and I am more surprised by the fact that Richardsons testimony was never questioned bearing in mind it was in direct conflict with Insp Chandlers.

            I also think some posters are getting carried away with Dr Phillips testimony with the TOD, he is not categorically stating his estimate is wrong he is stating that it could be, so that is a big difference in the grand scheme of things and does not rule out an earlier TOD, As the witness testimony of all the others is really unsafe to rely on I guess you pays your money and takes your choice, me I go fo an earlier TOD,



            Comment


            • Originally posted by Indian Harry View Post

              Or... do we acknowledge that the strength in numbers argument isn't as strong as first thought once you step outside the specifics of the Chapman murder and look at the evidence from the series as a whole?
              The strength of the later TOD relies upon focusing on three witnesses and discarding many inconvenient, competing details. As you say, events we're aware of from the murder series, but more importantly events that night. Such as Annie found with partially digested food in her stomach, yet we know she ate at 1.45am, we know a bed was on her mind and that's what she went out to secure; we know the vendors weren't selling at three or four in the morning, because quite simply there was no custom and like anyone of any age they needed sleep, and the best time to get that sleep was when they had no custom. When that is put forward, the counter argument is: "Annie had been stealing food and had it on her person", which is an extraordinarily weak reply and tells you that it isn't easily explained away. Then you have Dr Phillips being discredited to the point of harassing the dead. Dr Phillips was able to discern the difference in the condition of Liz: "within an hour" and the condition of Annie: certainly not within an hour. There are many inconvenient details that are simply ignored.

              And then when you look at the three witnesses:

              Elizabeth's and Albert's times do not match. That one is explained away as "all of the clocks were wrong". Very convenient and cheap.

              Albert didn't claim to hear anything suspicious no matter where the noises came from.

              There is reason to question John's reliability.

              In general, witness recollections are known to be somewhat unreliable. Not always by any stretch of the imagination, but caution is exercised due to human experience, i.e. what we know as opposed to what some theorise.

              All in all, it's not that strong an argument. It's quite possible obviously. I wouldn't bet my house on poor Annie being killed earlier than 5.30.

              But, all things considered, I don't think Annie was alive much longer than when she left the doss house. I'd say between 2.30 and 3.30 as being the best bet, and I think what we know of Annie's movements that night and the medical evidence left to us; is a better argument than three witnesses recollecting events which they didn't take a great deal of notice of (why would they when they had no reason to), whose times conflict, who did not claim to have seen or heard anything to arouse suspicion, and has, at the heart of it, a man who leaves us reason to question the veracity of his account.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                No you dont Herlock, you dont accept anything that goes against your theory of a earlier t.o.d, not even remotely, even when the evidence suggest otherwise.

                So ill put it to you a second time seeing how you failed at your first attempt.


                If Annnie Chapman was indeed already dead some time earlier, and a ''noise'' is heard by cadosch an hour or even two later ,whats your point ? How does the ''noise'' prove it was made by chapman or her killer . Based on the inquest testimony by the witness/s in question, it doesnt.


                Avoid and dismiss as you no doubt will .
                I don’t have a theory (unlike yourself of course)

                I never avoid or dismiss questions if they are put to me.

                Can you seriously be asking again what point is being made about a noise from a yard heard at the time that Cadosch did? Do I really have to repeat this? If there was a horribly mutilate corpse already lying there then we can say with confidence that it wasn’t a human being. Therefore what could have made a noise loud enough for Cadosch to have heard from a very few feet away? An animal is extremely unlike to the point of being impossible for obvious reasons - how would one large enough to make a noise have entered and then escaped? - the likeliest animal to have found it’s way into that yard would have been a cat of course, but they are very light, very agile creatures (unlikely to go clumsily bumping into a fence loud enough for Cadosch to have heard) - these feral animals are usual wary of humans and so unlikely to have approached one. So an animal is just not believable. Plus there were no boxes, or packing cases present which could have made the noise. Also there wasn’t even anything like a broom that had been leaning against a fence which had ‘fallen’ over to make a noise.

                None of the above is me making things up Fishy. I’m not inventing far-fetched things to support a ‘theory.’ I’m simply stating the truth. If the nouse is being suggested as something other that Chapman and her killer (just at the time that Cadosch heard the word ‘no’ btw which I assume that you accept was from a human being and not from a stray Mynah bird or a parrot?) then I’ll ask again “what else could it have been?” Plus the follow on “how likely was it that the noise could have been something else?” Why can’t you just admit the extreme unlikeliness of this?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                  Nor has any been provided when asked .

                  Hi George

                  Ive often mentioned this point as well over the course of this thread . I cant wait for the no doubt kind hearted replies youve become accustomed to now that youve given your opinion on the matter .
                  I’ve always admitted to being sarcastic or even mocking at times but these aren’t ‘nasty’ in any way.

                  Unlike this ‘kind hearted’ response from you of course:

                  “You are in fact a first class twat.”

                  It would be good therefore if you could stick to the topic at hand and abandon the hypocritical whining.​​​​​​​

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Indian Harry View Post

                    Now we only have Cadosch and the sounds he's hearing through the fence as the only witness supporting Richardson's innocence.... and as far as that is concerned I don't know that his judgment can be 100% infallible as to where sounds are coming from.
                    In fairness, Albert provides the best argument for a later TOD.

                    It's not clear where exactly Albert was when he heard the 'sudden noise against the fence', but really he should have been able to discern the direction of a noise that came from his left given human beings are conditioned to determine a noise to our left or right by virtue of the sound hitting the left and right ear at different times, it follows thus appearing louder in the left ear on this occasion and therefore the sound originating from his left. Unlike John, there is no reason to question Albert's motive and reliability.

                    Were it not for Albert's second visit to the yard, I would say the later TOD is a weak argument. It's Albert that gives it validity and makes you reluctant to go too far in for the earlier TOD.

                    I believe the yard was reported as being small, 'about 15ft square'. That's pretty small by yard standards.

                    So, it's possible that the noise was from Albert's left but from the next yard given how small the yards were.

                    Either way, Albert's 'noise against the fence' cannot easily be dismissed.

                    Still, in any murder case there is competing information. I'd imagine that all of the unsolved murders discussed on this forum involve conflicting information, and so you have to make a judgement call on which particular argument has more weight behind it. For me, Albert is outweighed by everything else we know from that night, including Annie's movement and food intake, and the medical evidence.

                    The other possibility is this:

                    As I said, it is not clear where exactly Albert was when he heard the noise against the fence. This is his inquest statement:

                    While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29

                    This leaves room for Albert hearing the noise as he exits the bog. In that event, it would put a slightly different complexion on it, because the noise is more in front of him as opposed to being directly to his left, and that would make it more difficult to discern where the noise came from because the sound would have hit both ears at a similar time, unlike a sound coming directly from his left. The most difficult place from which to discern a sound, is when it is front of you for the very reason it hits both ears at almost the same time.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                      The drawings in case you failed to notice are contemporary [ of the present time] drawings of the day ,noticed how they show by two different artist the position of the cellar door ?. Thats called evidence Herlock, which is more than i can say for you when you guessed and speculated and invented that the cellar door was recessed inwards as so Richardson couLdnt possibly see the lock from standing at the back door looking downward . Heres another fact for you , you dont have one single piece of evidence that the cellar door was recessed inwards do you ? just your guesswork , maybe we should elevate you ''caution alert'' when guessing such things, after all the modern day cellar door experts wont take to kindly to your way of thinking .

                      Hows that for engageing in discussion and detail ? I dont evade anything when it comes to the evidence herlock, only your ifs buts, and maybe , and conjecture, there what really gets us nowhere

                      You do yourself no favours either when you accuse me of just copying or pointing out what others have said ,thats just ridiculous and in poor taste , it was my opinion that started this topic herlock , of the 4550 post to date go and count how many times ive posted my thoughts on the matter of t.o.d and the reason that ive come to those conclusions .
                      It would help if you read my posts properly before responding Fishy. I said this:

                      “Look at the first image. If you look at the opening and move your eyes back from the opening (the level of the wall) Move your eyes back around the distance of the width of the middle step (I’d estimate around 8 inches) We see an immediate change from light grey to black. It’s not a gradual fade indicating shade. There’s a clearly defined line at the lower part where it goes from grey straight to back. This at least points to the possibility of the door being recessed which is what I’ve suggested…..and not claimed as a fact.

                      Then if you look left side of the aperture there is an object which also appears in the second photograph. This could be the remains of a door.

                      What we also have to consider about visibility from standing on the step is the fact that there was a canopy there at the time. We have no way of knowing how high this one and we can’t rely on drawings but we know that it had to have been, at the least, the width of the steps leading down to the cellar door. If the canopy was up the the level of the bottom of the window above this would have obscured the view from the steps by all but a child or a dwarf. So the person on the top step would have had to have bent double, and off balance, to see beneath the canopy. Why would anyone have done this? Could any human have done this because they were too last to take two steps down? Would we really make this claim?

                      And if the cellar door was recessed (and note that I’ve said if Fishy) it would have been close to impossible to have seen it from standing on the step.​“


                      I added two photographs and described in detail why I suspected that the door might have been recessed. I also stated twice (emboldened above) how I certainly wasn’t claiming this as a fact. Simply a possibility. Unlike your claim that I’ve been saying that Richardson “couldn't possibly see the lock from standing at the back door looking downward.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        I don’t have a theory (unlike yourself of course)

                        I never avoid or dismiss questions if they are put to me.

                        Can you seriously be asking again what point is being made about a noise from a yard heard at the time that Cadosch did? Do I really have to repeat this? If there was a horribly mutilate corpse already lying there then we can say with confidence that it wasn’t a human being. Therefore what could have made a noise loud enough for Cadosch to have heard from a very few feet away? An animal is extremely unlike to the point of being impossible for obvious reasons - how would one large enough to make a noise have entered and then escaped? - the likeliest animal to have found it’s way into that yard would have been a cat of course, but they are very light, very agile creatures (unlikely to go clumsily bumping into a fence loud enough for Cadosch to have heard) - these feral animals are usual wary of humans and so unlikely to have approached one. So an animal is just not believable. Plus there were no boxes, or packing cases present which could have made the noise. Also there wasn’t even anything like a broom that had been leaning against a fence which had ‘fallen’ over to make a noise.

                        None of the above is me making things up Fishy. I’m not inventing far-fetched things to support a ‘theory.’ I’m simply stating the truth. If the nouse is being suggested as something other that Chapman and her killer (just at the time that Cadosch heard the word ‘no’ btw which I assume that you accept was from a human being and not from a stray Mynah bird or a parrot?) then I’ll ask again “what else could it have been?” Plus the follow on “how likely was it that the noise could have been something else?” Why can’t you just admit the extreme unlikeliness of this?
                        Not sure your following the conversation here Herlock , the noise that Cadosch heard that hit the fence cant be proven or just assumed to have been Chapman or her killer ! no matter which way you slice or dice it . There are too many other factors at play here when you take all the evidence into consideration.

                        What ever the noise was that cadosch heard, [ remembering his words 'something' ,not ''someone'' ] the body imo was already there long befor that incident occured.

                        If youve being paying attention regarding what might have made the ''noise '', George has made several post as have i already which you have dismissed previously . Now like all things regarding peoples personnal opinions, you dont have to agree with them, that doesnt mean your theory is any more correct Especially when it no more provable , which it is not .
                        'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                          Hi LC,

                          That's because she wasn't taking much notice of them:
                          Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.
                          [Coroner]
                          At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them.

                          Three days after the event she suddenly realises that she saw a woman she had never seen before in a street "bustling" with people, after having not taken much notice of them.

                          I don't think so.

                          Richardson - I believe what he told Chandler and two press reporters on the day, not the story of the errant leather that he suddenly started mentioning two days later.

                          Cadosch - I believe him when he testified that he didn't see or hear anything unusual.

                          Phillips - I don't know that any doctor would admit that his methods were unreliable. That's a modern day assessment, but strangely, other ToD's were surprisingly accurate, relatively speaking. I know the common answer to this suggestion is that the others cribbed their ToD's by finding out the answer first, but I see no evidence that the doctor's interrogated beat cops or witnesses before they produced their ToD's so as to ensure they got the right answer.

                          Cheers, George
                          So you believe that Richardson would have seen a body had it been there when he went to check the padlock, like he told Chandler?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            I’ve always admitted to being sarcastic or even mocking at times but these aren’t ‘nasty’ in any way.

                            Unlike this ‘kind hearted’ response from you of course:

                            “You are in fact a first class twat.”

                            It would be good therefore if you could stick to the topic at hand and abandon the hypocritical whining.​​​​​​​
                            Good to see im in the First CLass


                            Ive got the Popcorn and Beer on standby while i await your reply to Georges post below , you know this one where i said exactly the same thing and you went nuts over ?


                            ''Phillips - I don't know that any doctor would admit that his methods were unreliable. That's a modern day assessment, but strangely, other ToD's were surprisingly accurate, relatively speaking. I know the common answer to this suggestion is that the others cribbed their ToD's by finding out the answer first, but I see no evidence that the doctor's interrogated beat cops or witnesses before they produced their ToD's so as to ensure they got the right answer.''
                            'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              It would help if you read my posts properly before responding Fishy. I said this:

                              “Look at the first image. If you look at the opening and move your eyes back from the opening (the level of the wall) Move your eyes back around the distance of the width of the middle step (I’d estimate around 8 inches) We see an immediate change from light grey to black. It’s not a gradual fade indicating shade. There’s a clearly defined line at the lower part where it goes from grey straight to back. This at least points to the possibility of the door being recessed which is what I’ve suggested…..and not claimed as a fact.

                              Then if you look left side of the aperture there is an object which also appears in the second photograph. This could be the remains of a door.

                              What we also have to consider about visibility from standing on the step is the fact that there was a canopy there at the time. We have no way of knowing how high this one and we can’t rely on drawings but we know that it had to have been, at the least, the width of the steps leading down to the cellar door. If the canopy was up the the level of the bottom of the window above this would have obscured the view from the steps by all but a child or a dwarf. So the person on the top step would have had to have bent double, and off balance, to see beneath the canopy. Why would anyone have done this? Could any human have done this because they were too last to take two steps down? Would we really make this claim?

                              And if the cellar door was recessed (and note that I’ve said if Fishy) it would have been close to impossible to have seen it from standing on the step.​“


                              I added two photographs and described in detail why I suspected that the door might have been recessed. I also stated twice (emboldened above) how I certainly wasn’t claiming this as a fact. Simply a possibility. Unlike your claim that I’ve been saying that Richardson “couldn't possibly see the lock from standing at the back door looking downward.”
                              Ok now i got it, why didnt you just say that ,. in your JTR world, everything is a possibility or might have been , and could have been , probably was, highly likely , highly unlikely ? etc , etc . Based on the evidence of course .

                              Dont look now bit were all in that world . [just my sarcasm playing up ]
                              'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                                The strength of the later TOD relies upon focusing on three witnesses and discarding many inconvenient, competing details.

                                And the evidence for an earlier ToD comes from a Victorian Doctor using categorically unreliable methods who admits in black and white the possibility of a later ToD. The Coroner interpreted this in exactly that way and Dr. Phillips appeared to express no concerns about being misquoted if that was the case. Victorian Doctors could get a ToD right or wrong.

                                As you say, events we're aware of from the murder series, but more importantly events that night. Such as Annie found with partially digested food in her stomach, yet we know she ate at 1.45am, we know a bed was on her mind and that's what she went out to secure; we know the vendors weren't selling at three or four in the morning, because quite simply there was no custom and like anyone of any age they needed sleep, and the best time to get that sleep was when they had no custom.

                                Digestion is an notoriously unreliable way of estimating death. Read Time of Death by Jessica Snyder Sachs for examples. It’s especially the case for people with diseases of the lungs which Chapman had. Your point about vendors is a red herring of course because you are desperate to try and convince that Chapman couldn’t have eaten after 1.45. You completely ignore the situation that a malnourished woman like Annie found herself in. That she may have had some small item of food (a crust of bread for example) on her person or that she might have met up with a friend who offered her some food (would a woman who didn’t know where her next meal was coming from have turned her nose up at it by saying ‘no thanks, I’m looking for money not food!?’ Of course not)

                                When that is put forward, the counter argument is: "Annie had been stealing food and had it on her person", which is an extraordinarily weak reply and tells you that it isn't easily explained away. Then you have Dr Phillips being discredited to the point of harassing the dead. Dr Phillips was able to discern the difference in the condition of Liz: "within an hour" and the condition of Annie: certainly not within an hour. There are many inconvenient details that are simply ignored.

                                Its not ‘harassing’ the detain to state a medical fact. You’re not the first to make the ludicrous claim that we should accept Phillips earlier ToD out of respect for his professional standing. Facts are facts. ToD estimation was provably unreliable and fraught with the possibility of error. Even in the modern era there are examples of Doctors getting it wrong and not just by an hour either.

                                And then when you look at the three witnesses:

                                Elizabeth's and Albert's times do not match. That one is explained away as "all of the clocks were wrong". Very convenient and cheap.

                                Its called reason. Your constant espousal of this ‘all clicks were accurate and synchronised’ is just infantile.

                                Albert didn't claim to hear anything suspicious no matter where the noises came from.

                                A noise coming from a yard where you claim that there was a mutilated corpse and there’s nothing suspicious? Seriously? Is that from the Inspector Clouseau book of detection?

                                There is reason to question John's reliability.

                                No there isn’t. There’s gross exaggeration and invention.

                                In general, witness recollections are known to be somewhat unreliable. Not always by any stretch of the imagination, but caution is exercised due to human experience, i.e. what we know as opposed to what some theorise.

                                No one has ever doubted this. Sadly though, certain posters use it to dismiss ‘inconvenient’ witnesses.

                                All in all, it's not that strong an argument. It's quite possible obviously. I wouldn't bet my house on poor Annie being killed earlier than 5.30.

                                Not even close. 95% later ToD. Using evidence and not deliberately trying to bolster an earlier ToD.

                                But, all things considered, I don't think Annie was alive much longer than when she left the doss house. I'd say between 2.30 and 3.30 as being the best bet, and I think what we know of Annie's movements that night and the medical evidence left to us; is a better argument than three witnesses recollecting events which they didn't take a great deal of notice of (why would they when they had no reason to), whose times conflict, who did not claim to have seen or heard anything to arouse suspicion, and has, at the heart of it, a man who leaves us reason to question the veracity of his account.
                                One Doctor using unreliable methods who admits in black and white the possibility of a later ToD even though he clearly favours an earlier one versus three witnesses, none connected to each other, none with any reason to lie, none of whom were blind or subject to hallucinations who all point solidly to a later ToD.

                                No competition.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X