John Richardson

[Fleetwood Mac]

but it's a bump against a fence.

We hear all sorts of sounds from various directions every day, and we don't take notice unless it's highly unusual.

'Could be a result of many things, and when you have no reason to take notice it's just a sound from a broad direction. Albert recollected it was a sound against a fence. In this situation, studies of witness accounts suggest there is a good chance that Albert didn't actually hear a sound against a fence.

[A P Tomlinson]

No, because there's a 00000.1% chance of any of the suspects mentioned being the Whitechapel Murderer.

I reckon it's far more likely that the murderer is in the inquest statements or the press reports somewhere but he's not somebody generally considered to be a suspect.

Which may very well be true, but a lot of the people arguing over such things are doing so in order to forward/preserve the integirty of THEIR prefered suspect.
By the very nature of the word for someone to be a suspect, someone needs to have pointed the finger of suspicion at them. Whether that's the Police in 1888 or subsequent researchers.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Which may very well be true, but a lot of the people arguing over such things are doing so in order to forward/preserve the integirty of THEIR prefered suspect.
By the very nature of the word for someone to be a suspect, someone needs to have pointed the finger of suspicion at them. Whether that's the Police in 1888 or subsequent researchers.

Modern theorists.

The sort of idea that places William Bury 'high up the list' when in fact there is nothing to connect him to the murders. 'Virtually no chance of being the Whitechapel Murderer.

There is far more chance that the murderer is mentioned in the statements somewhere but there's nothing known about him outside of being near the murder site at the right time. 'Just a witness, seemingly innocuous, but there and at the murder scene around the right time with nothing else known about him.

[A P Tomlinson]

We hear all sorts of sounds from various directions every day, and we don't take notice unless it's highly unusual.

'Could be a result of many things, and when you have no reason to take notice it's just a sound from a broad direction. Albert recollected it was a sound against a fence. In this situation, studies of witness accounts suggest there is a good chance that Albert didn't actually hear a sound against a fence.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting he had an hallucination? Or that he remembered a sound that never happened?
Is that specific to this one witness or does it apply to every witness?
If any of that is true, where does that leave every other witness? (And not just JtR elated... ALL of them)
Because the same rule has to apply to everyone right?

I consider myself fairly absent minded these days, (my wife has threatened to staple one of those spring-driven, retractable-wire key fobs to my head so many times now I'm starting to think she's seriously considering doing it) but I remember more sounds than those I consider highly unusual. Like I said before, I often hear people late at night talking in the beer garden on the other side of my fence. I rarely recall the specific conversations, but I do remember if someone or something bumps into the fence. It's not a common occurence, but I wouldn't consider it highly unusual either. I remember because it annoys me. And when the neighbours kids on the otehr side kick a footballl against that fence, I remember it. Not because it annoys me, I enjoy listening to the kids being kidsm but because that fence is far less robust, and I don't want my dogs getting out. But I can always tel which side of the yard each type of noise came from.
From last night, I remember a guy trying to get his dog to stay still. We're near a river, it's a real ale pub... LOTS of dog walkers. I recall that the dog was called Charlie. But the studies say that there's a good chance I never heard that?
I'm sorry, but I don't believe that.

Memory is very tricky and you can rarely if ever be completely, 100%, sure, and I absolutely buy the notion that people forget stuff that is of material importance when questioned at a time of stress or excitement, and then remember it later when their briain is less frazzled. And I'm well aware of such things as the Mandela Effect. But I don't think I buy such a general degree of false memory recollection to the point of it being a "good chance," of not being real unless the memory was of something "highly unusual".
Occasional aberration? Yeah, show me why in that partiular case it's applicable and I'll judge it on its merits.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting he had an hallucination? Or that he remembered a sound that never happened?
Is that specific to this one witness or does it apply to every witness?
If any of that is true, where does that leave every other witness? (And not just JtR elated... ALL of them)
Because the same rule has to apply to everyone right?

I consider myself fairly absent minded these days, (my wife has threatened to staple one of those spring-driven, retractable-wire key fobs to my head so many times now I'm starting to think she's seriously considering doing it) but I remember more sounds than those I consider highly unusual. Like I said before, I often hear people late at night talking in the beer garden on the other side of my fence. I rarely recall the specific conversations, but I do remember if someone or something bumps into the fence. It's not a common occurence, but I wouldn't consider it highly unusual either. I remember because it annoys me. And when the neighbours kids on the otehr side kick a footballl against that fence, I remember it. Not because it annoys me, I enjoy listening to the kids being kidsm but because that fence is far less robust, and I don't want my dogs getting out. But I can always tel which side of the yard each type of noise came from.
From last night, I remember a guy trying to get his dog to stay still. We're near a river, it's a real ale pub... LOTS of dog walkers. I recall that the dog was called Charlie. But the studies say that there's a good chance I never heard that?
I'm sorry, but I don't believe that.

Memory is very tricky and you can rarely if ever be completely, 100%, sure, and I absolutely buy the notion that people forget stuff that is of material importance when questioned at a time of stress or excitement, and then remember it later when their briain is less frazzled. And I'm well aware of such things as the Mandela Effect. But I don't think I buy such a general degree of false memory recollection to the point of it being a "good chance," of not being real unless the memory was of something "highly unusual".
Occasional aberration? Yeah, show me why in that partiular case it's applicable and I'll judge it on its merits.

Exactly right. Judge on merit. Cadosch heard the ‘no’ which he believed came from number 29. So he was already alerted to a presence there. Even if the ‘no’ had come from elsewhere Cadosch still believed it came from number 29. He comes t a second time, aware in his mind that there has been someone in the yard of number 29 but this time he doesn’t here something floating on the breeze like a word. He hears a noise against a wooden fence that he was standing next to. Could he have been wrong. I’d say unlikely in the extreme.

Too much limbo dancing and contortion going on to deliberately try and dismiss witnesses so that the Doctors estimation can be shoehorned into place.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ll very politely ask those that think that John Richardson was a desperate liar to consider exactly what it is being suggested. So, to review.

John Richardson tells us that he’d been having trouble with his boot and had already cut some leather from it to try and cure the problem. That morning, before setting out, he’d been cutting up some carrots for a rabbit and had slipped the knife into his pocket. Nothing remotely unlikely about that of course as we’ve all done something similar at some point. He had possibly intended to leave it in the kitchen when he got back inside the house but got distracted by something or he simply forgot.

When he started walking he discovered that the boot was still causing him some discomfort so clearly he hadn’t done a good enough repair job the day before. He wasn’t a Cobbler of course so it’s entirely understandable that his first attempt might have been too cautious or ineffective. Obviously he would have been very wary of cutting away too much leather and ruining his boot. So too little is always better than too much. We have no way of knowing at what point he decided to try again at his mother’s house but perhaps he initially intended to wait until he’d arrived at work but when he found the knife in his pocket he decided to do it there?

He was going to his mothers to check on the cellar doors. We have absolutely no way of knowing how he usually did this. Whether he did it from standing in the doorway or whether he usually stepped into the yard but, by the time that he arrived he would have known that he was going to try and fix his boot and that it wouldn’t have made sense to have attempted this while standing up. Being aware of the layout he would have known that he could see the lock on the cellar door from a position sitting on the steps so he simply sat down, looked to his right and checked the door then commenced his effort at repair. He does the best that he could with the knife in his possession, puts his boot back on and leaves. As he continues his walk to work he finds that his boot still hurts (possibly because the blade wasn’t sharp enough to cut sufficient leather off or that it was too short) so he intends to do a better job at work where a much sharper knife is available.

After being told about the murder he returns voluntarily to Hanbury Street. Maybe he was concerned that it might have been his mother that had been killed? At some point he sees the body from a neighbours garden. Chandler speaks to him at around 6.45 in the passageway so at a very busy time for Chandler and just 15 minutes after Phillips had arrived. So it’s a short interview (remember Chandler was at the mortuary a few minutes after 7.00) Richardson tells Chandler that he couldn’t possibly have missed a body had it been there - and he knew exactly where it lay and exactly how much floor space it took up and exactly the properties (and position at the time) of the door. Light was also no issue.

At the inquest Chandler (Telegraph version with direct quotes) said, when asked, that Richardson hadn’t mentioned repairing his boot. Can we assume that this was a sinister lie? Why would the reason that he’d sat on the step be in the slightest way relevant to Chandler? Clearly it wouldn’t have been so not mentioning it is a complete non-issue. Richardson did mention it in a newspaper on the 10th though. Probably because the reporter spoke to him at greater length than Chandler had time to and as Jeff pointed out, information doesn’t always come out fully straight away….it often requires further questioning and just because an extra detail might surface later this in no means deception. So why is deception assumed in this case?

Then we have to ask ourselves why he would have lied? How would he have benefitted and why he might have felt the need? Why was it vital for him to show that the body could not to have been there? Did he suspect that Chandler was suspicious about him? It seems unlikely because Chandler was asking him specifically if he could have innocently missed it. So he could have simply agreed that he ‘could’ have missed it with no detrimental effects for him. So what possible reason could there have been for him to have been so desperate that he was willing to lie to the police? And let’s not forget, by the time of the inquest he’d had plenty of time to think, so would he really have wanted to be exposed in the Press as a liar or an idiot if the killer had been caught and it was discovered that Chapman was actually killed before he’d arrived at number 29? This doesn’t sound remotely likely to me. Others will come to their own opinions of course.

We don’t know how intelligent Richardson was so let’s suggest average intelligence. No genius; no moron. So how difficult could it possibly have been for Richardson to have found a way of convincing everyone that he couldn’t have missed a body…..apart from one that, without being in any way forced into it, immediately brings suspicion on himself by placing himself at the scene of a knife murder in possession of a knife? Could he possibly have found a worse way? It’s difficult to come up with one (close to impossible actually) especially when you consider that the alternatives that would have been easily apparent to a moderately intelligent toddler. 1. He’d pushed to door open back to the fence, 2. He stepped onto the flags to check the lock, 3. He gone to the outside loo and couldn’t have missed a body coming back, 4. He’d gone to check the shed, 5. He’d gone into the yard for a smoke.

It’s just not credible that he’d have missed these childishly obvious (and totally effective, unlike sitting on the steps which introduces the possibility of the body being behind the door!) explanations in favour of the most incriminating one possible.

Why would anyone even suspect that this was true but is actually what’s being suggested here. And it’s being suggested simply to make Phillips earlier ToD fit the evidence. It’s not plausible. Not even remotely plausible. I don’t think I’ve ever read such a concerted effort to demonise, denigrate and dismiss witnesses in this case as I’ve read for Richardson and Cadosch.

All witnesses aren’t mistaken. All witnesses aren’t unreliable or unsafe. All witnesses aren’t looking for their 15 minutes of fame. So let’s discard the tedious generalities and assess the evidence as a whole. And it plainly and obviously points to Richardson telling the truth. Could he have missed the body perhaps? I’d say it’s as near to impossible as it’s possible to get.

[A P Tomlinson]

Exactly right. Judge on merit. Cadosch heard the ‘no’ which he believed came from number 29. So he was already alerted to a presence there. Even if the ‘no’ had come from elsewhere Cadosch still believed it came from number 29. He comes t a second time, aware in his mind that there has been someone in the yard of number 29 but this time he doesn’t here something floating on the breeze like a word. He hears a noise against a wooden fence that he was standing next to. Could he have been wrong. I’d say unlikely in the extreme.

Too much limbo dancing and contortion going on to deliberately try and dismiss witnesses so that the Doctors estimation can be shoehorned into place.

Yeah, I might be stating the bleedin' obvious here, but...
He hears a brief conversation whispered in the quiet shadows of the night.
Then he hears a bump against the fence.
And then Lo and Behold... when someone turns up at the place near where he thinks these sounds came from... they find a murdered woman!

At some point, Chapman made a noise when she/her arterial blood came into contact with that fence.
Someone heard a noise coming from that area of the fence.
No one is leaping to any wild, unsubstantiated, hypothetical conclusions when thinking that the two things might just be related.


One day over this last summer I heard a heavy bang on my kitchen window. Turned round, saw nothing. Thought no more about it. Went out an hour or two later... there was a dead sparrow laying beneath the kitchen window.
In over twenty years I'd never found a dead bird at that spot.
Were the two things related?
Perhaps the sound may have come from the fridge, or I subconsciously invented it, or I'm just unreliable because I didn't tell anyone that I crouched down when I found the bird and then later mentioned that I had done so, in order to pick it up.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting he had an hallucination?

I reckon you should read about witness recollection and why it is deemed to be unreliable, particularly those witnesses who have no reason to take notice of an event.

A cursory google search, something like "witness unreliability" will give you page after page, study after study, of witness testimony recalling events that weren't what they experienced at all and were influenced by details they became aware of after the event.

'Worth a read.

[Wickerman]

I reckon you should read about witness recollection and why it is deemed to be unreliable, particularly those witnesses who have no reason to take notice of an event.

A cursory google search, something like "witness unreliability" will give you page after page, study after study, of witness testimony recalling events that weren't what they experienced at all and were influenced by details they became aware of after the event.

'Worth a read.

As unreliable as it may be, the British legal system is based on eye-witness testimony, it's the preferred case for prosecution, second only to signed documents proving guilt.
We can't run eye-witness testimony down to the point of it being a ludicrous means of prosecution. In most cases it works, and I do agree with you about it's fallibility. There are some fascinating cases out there where it failed miserably, but they are the exception, not the rule.

I have to admit, I do accept Cadosche at his word, so maybe I am biased in that respect.

[Fleetwood Mac]

As unreliable as it may be, the British legal system is based on eye-witness testimony, it's the preferred case for prosecution, second only to signed documents proving guilt.
We can't run eye-witness testimony down to the point of it being a ludicrous means of prosecution. In most cases it works, and I do agree with you about it's fallibility. There are some fascinating cases out there where it failed miserably, but they are the exception, not the rule.

I have to admit, I do accept Cadosche at his word, so maybe I am biased in that respect.

Try this, Jon.

"Witness testimony reliable" plugged into google.

Then:

"Witness testimony unreliable" plugged into google.

You will find study after study, of actual cases, of memory failing witnesses for various reasons.

On the the other hand, you will find very few qualified people who claim witness testimony is reliable.

Try it.

[Fleetwood Mac]

As unreliable as it may be, the British legal system is based on eye-witness testimony, it's the preferred case for prosecution, second only to signed documents proving guilt.
We can't run eye-witness testimony down to the point of it being a ludicrous means of prosecution. In most cases it works, and I do agree with you about it's fallibility. There are some fascinating cases out there where it failed miserably, but they are the exception, not the rule.

I have to admit, I do accept Cadosche at his word, so maybe I am biased in that respect.

Here's one such link for you, Jon, which touches on your point.

Myth: Eyewitness Testimony is the Best Kind of Evidence – Association for Psychological Science – APS

It includes:

Eyewitness testimony is historically among the most convincing forms of evidence in criminal trials (e.g. Benton, Ross, Bradshaw, Thomas, & Bradshaw, 2006). The claim that eyewitness testimony is reliable and accurate is testable, and the research is clear that eyewitness identification is vulnerable to distortion without the witness’s awareness. More specifically, the assumption that memory provides an accurate recording of experience, much like a video camera, is incorrect. Memory evolved to give us a personal sense of identity and to guide our actions. We are biased to notice and exaggerate some experiences and to minimize or overlook others. Memory is malleable. Memory doesn’t record our experiences like a video camera. It creates stories based on those experiences.

So why, despite all the news about misidentifications and wrongful convictions, do people continue to put such profound faith in eyewitness testimony? Several reasons are likely. First, in popular media and literatary depictions, detectives (for example, Sherlock Holmes) and witnesses possess highly detailed and accurate memories.

Eyewitnesses are often sincere and confident, which makes them persuasive but not necessarily correct. Memory distortion often happens unconsciously. Witnesses truly believe their version of events, no matter how inaccurate they may be.

People underestimate how quickly forgetting can take place.

[Trevor Marriott]

People underestimate how quickly forgetting can take place.[/I]

I am sure Richardson did not suffer memory loss between the first time he went to No 29 and the short later when he returned and spoke to Chandler.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

And yet when we show expert after expert after expert telling us about the unreliability of ToD estimates used by Phillips they get dismissed. Selectivity even in expertise.

Witnesses aren’t unreliable. They ‘can’ be. But we can’t generalise just because it’s convenient to do so and because we can use it to promote tripe.

Cadosch and Richardson should both be regarded as reliable, honest witnesses. Could Richardson have been wrong? No, he couldn’t.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am sure Richardson did not suffer memory loss between the first time he went to No 29 and the short later when he returned and spoke to Chandler.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No he didn’t. He told Chandler that he’d sat on the step and couldn’t possibly have missed a body. He was perfectly correct of course. Thats why an earlier ToD is totally contrary to the evidence and can very safely be ignored if are to avoid looking at this murder through a fog of bias and silliness.

[Wickerman]

Here's one such link for you, Jon, which touches on your point.

Myth: Eyewitness Testimony is the Best Kind of Evidence – Association for Psychological Science – APS

It includes:

Eyewitness testimony is historically among the most convincing forms of evidence in criminal trials (e.g. Benton, Ross, Bradshaw, Thomas, & Bradshaw, 2006). The claim that eyewitness testimony is reliable and accurate is testable, and the research is clear that eyewitness identification is vulnerable to distortion without the witness’s awareness. More specifically, the assumption that memory provides an accurate recording of experience, much like a video camera, is incorrect. Memory evolved to give us a personal sense of identity and to guide our actions. We are biased to notice and exaggerate some experiences and to minimize or overlook others. Memory is malleable. Memory doesn’t record our experiences like a video camera. It creates stories based on those experiences.

So why, despite all the news about misidentifications and wrongful convictions, do people continue to put such profound faith in eyewitness testimony? Several reasons are likely. First, in popular media and literatary depictions, detectives (for example, Sherlock Holmes) and witnesses possess highly detailed and accurate memories.

Eyewitnesses are often sincere and confident, which makes them persuasive but not necessarily correct. Memory distortion often happens unconsciously. Witnesses truly believe their version of events, no matter how inaccurate they may be.

People underestimate how quickly forgetting can take place.

Where do you think I sit on this issue?
- How about a witness who cannot recall the exact time of an event (Packer - 11:30 or 12:30?), but circumstantial evidence provides the answer.
- Then we have a policeman who apparently described a hard felt hat, but changed it to a Deerstalker - why?
- Finally, we have the suggestion that a witness thought he was in one particular street, when in actual fact he may have been in a different street?

All these issues have the reliability of eye-witness testimony at their root - you'll notice these arguments are not going over too well.
People are reluctant to dismiss eye witness testimony, in some cases so am I, but I have to be selective, because sometimes it happens. So, you might see I do agree with you, but I am also well aware that in most cases it is not advisable, and it goes against the grain.
I don't expect to win over any other members with these views, and if we do find alternate explanations for the above problems I will happily consider them.