John Richardson

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

There were hard felt deerstalkers as well as the soft cloth version. Smith testified to a hard felt deerstalker.

https://www.google.com/search?q=a+hard%2C+felt%2C+deerstalker%2C+dark+hat &rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBAU841AU843&oq=a+hard%2C+felt%2C+deerstalker% 2C+d ark+hat&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64l3&sourceid =chrome& ie=UTF-8

I seem to recall reading that the hard felt version was actually used in country areas when stalking deer, where as the soft cloth version was more often found in the metropolitan areas.

Interesting bit of trivia about Smith. According to the A-Z he was very disillusioned and bitter about the way he was treated in the Ripper case. His son formed the impression that there had been a royal connection and some kind of cover-up which had left a bad taste in his father's mouth.

Cheers, George

Yes George, I made the same type of search, but in every case Google comes up with soft cloth type, as you have in that link.
I fancied there might be an equestrian version of a deerstalker, for those who choose to go riding a horse, but I have not been able to find one.
But then we have the obvious question of why a man dressed as a clerk would wear a riding hat while out on a date at night?

[Herlock Sholmes]

How many times must it be explained to you the flaws in those three witnesses you seek to rely on to prop up a later TOD which make their testimony unsafe to totally rely on

and Phillips may have guessed right

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And how many times do I have to tell you that you’re wrong? Any perceived ‘flaws’ don’t come remotely close to justifying eliminating them as you are constantly seeking to do. And you are doing this to uphold a ToD estimation that even you admit was unsafe.

Great logic Detective Marriott.

[Herlock Sholmes]

How do I compare them? Simple I don't believe for a second that he merely stuck his head round the corner and glanced down for ALL of the reasons I've been trying to explain to you... Physics... the biology of the human eye, balance, algebra... architecture... common sense, police NOT considering hsi story to be "Uncertain". Because all the evidence including his testimony, suggests he was ON the steps not in the doorway.
Neither do I believe he partly opened the door.
Where in ANY of this nonsense has anyone shown that he PARTLY opened the door?
Who said that he only "partly" opened the door?

So let me throw that one back at you. Removing the stuff you made up. ("...only go by what the evidence in the case tells us..." then start talking about parly opened doors... and which way he turned round... blimey...)
"How do YOU compare Richardson opening the door to Davies opening the door?" (Given that neither gave any indication as to how far they opened the door, which way they turned, other than both said they were able to see the spot where the woman was.) ONLY using the evidence in the case mind... Don't start having Richardson pirouetting on that top step so that he can't deliberately see anything west of the privvy... not unless that is the evidence we already have)


You've gone from blithely ignoring that "It was not quite light, but I could see all over the place. I could not have failed to have noticed the deceased, had she been there then". in favour of a made up situation. Because you feel a need to discredit him.

He COUDN'T have seen that the padlock was "all right" from that position unless he stepped out ON to the steps and leaned down a bit. (How is that even still a thing?????)
Or... consider this... SAT on the step and leaned over. Like he said
At which point, unless you can demonstrate severe tunnel vision in his medical history he would have seen the body.
It is LITERALLY the darkest part of the yard as the sky just begins to lighten from the east it's both recessed and under a lean-to roof. It would receive less ambiant skylight than anywhere else in the yard. A glance from the doorway is...
It's just silly and the further you keep pushing him back up the stairs and into the doorway the sillier it gets.

I've done everything possible to show you the way those doors are framed. To the point where you are resorting citing artist's renditions that are so obviously wrong it's annnoying to have to even refer to it.
Do you not see how THAT in and of itself is pure agenda driven grasping for anything that will support your theory?
And then you say you can "Only go by what the evidence in the case tells us."

I could help smiling when I read your very restrained exasperation AP because I’ve experienced this more times than I could possibly list. I can’t resist slightly misquoting John Wayne in True Grit when he sees Maddy Ross taking her horse across the river….”(s)he reminds me of me.”

[FISHY1118]

How do I compare them? Simple I don't believe for a second that he merely stuck his head round the corner and glanced down for ALL of the reasons I've been trying to explain to you... Physics... the biology of the human eye, balance, algebra... architecture... common sense, police NOT considering hsi story to be "Uncertain". Because all the evidence including his testimony, suggests he was ON the steps not in the doorway.
Neither do I believe he partly opened the door.
Where in ANY of this nonsense has anyone shown that he PARTLY opened the door?
Who said that he only "partly" opened the door?

So let me throw that one back at you. Removing the stuff you made up. ("...only go by what the evidence in the case tells us..." then start talking about parly opened doors... and which way he turned round... blimey...)
"How do YOU compare Richardson opening the door to Davies opening the door?" (Given that neither gave any indication as to how far they opened the door, which way they turned, other than both said they were able to see the spot where the woman was.) ONLY using the evidence in the case mind... Don't start having Richardson pirouetting on that top step so that he can't deliberately see anything west of the privvy... not unless that is the evidence we already have)


You've gone from blithely ignoring that "It was not quite light, but I could see all over the place. I could not have failed to have noticed the deceased, had she been there then". in favour of a made up situation. Because you feel a need to discredit him.

He COUDN'T have seen that the padlock was "all right" from that position unless he stepped out ON to the steps and leaned down a bit. (How is that even still a thing?????)
Or... consider this... SAT on the step and leaned over. Like he said
At which point, unless you can demonstrate severe tunnel vision in his medical history he would have seen the body.
It is LITERALLY the darkest part of the yard as the sky just begins to lighten from the east it's both recessed and under a lean-to roof. It would receive less ambiant skylight than anywhere else in the yard. A glance from the doorway is...
It's just silly and the further you keep pushing him back up the stairs and into the doorway the sillier it gets.

I've done everything possible to show you the way those doors are framed. To the point where you are resorting citing artist's renditions that are so obviously wrong it's annnoying to have to even refer to it.
Do you not see how THAT in and of itself is pure agenda driven grasping for anything that will support your theory?
And then you say you can "Only go by what the evidence in the case tells us."

Are you sure
Your not misinterpreting and misunderstanding the evidence?. You seem to be doing a Herlock ,you only see the evidence on way ,thats just not the case im afraid . That its been shown over 1000s of post already how unsafe witnesses can be and the uncertainty surrounding their testimony. Im frankly bored with going over and over again with people who refuse to see the the possibility of a different t.o.d based on the same evidence..

It always amazes me when somehow mine and others use of the evidence that supports an earlier t.o.d is nonsense.
Where by the same evidence is considered accurate and correct when used to convince by other a later one.

Staggering stuff .

[Hair Bear]

Echo Sep 19:
Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon, has had another consultation with the police authorities respecting certain theories advanced. There are three points upon which there is agreement - that Annie Chapman was lying dead in the yard at 29 Hanbury street, when John Richardson sat on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot, his failure to notice the deceased being explained by the fact that the yard door, when opened, obstructed his view; that the poor creature was murdered in the yard, and not in a house, as had been at one time suggested; and that the person who committed the deed was a man with some knowledge of human or animal anatomy.

Absolute stonewall conformation that we can throw out any notion that the police did not believe Richardson had sat on the steps. Here we are, on the 19th Sept, days after Richardson and Chandler gave their evidence, and we have three points upon "which there is agreement". The very first one says: "Annie Chapman was lying dead in the yard at 29 Hanbury street, when John Richardson sat on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot, his failure to notice the deceased being explained by the fact that the yard door, when opened, obstructed his view". They ADMIT that he was being honest and DID sit on the steps to cut leather from his boot!

Further to that I will add what I have already, I do believe, in some ways proven - that whilst it was entirely possible (possible but not very probable in my humble opinion) that he couldn't see the body from his sitting position, what nobody is getting is that he would have been in a standing position prior to and after having sat down. This position takes him past the door. He said he couldn't fail to have seen her. He was spot on.

[A P Tomlinson]

Absolute stonewall conformation that we can throw out any notion that the police did not believe Richardson had sat on the steps. Here we are, on the 19th Sept, days after Richardson and Chandler gave their evidence, and we have three points upon "which there is agreement". The very first one says: "Annie Chapman was lying dead in the yard at 29 Hanbury street, when John Richardson sat on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot, his failure to notice the deceased being explained by the fact that the yard door, when opened, obstructed his view". They ADMIT that he was being honest and DID sit on the steps to cut leather from his boot!

Further to that I will add what I have already, I do believe, in some ways proven - that whilst it was entirely possible (possible but not very probable in my humble opinion) that he couldn't see the body from his sitting position, what nobody is getting is that he would have been in a standing position prior to and after having sat down. This position takes him past the door. He said he couldn't fail to have seen her. He was spot on.

The standing up part is the most obvious one. He's a big fellah, and when he stands up from that middle step he is going to do what everyone does, and lean his weight forward over his knees. The bigger and heavier a person the further forward they need to shift their balance forward.
The other way to stand up from a low seated position is to move your feet backward under your arse. Stones steps don't allow that.

I'm not proud... I'll admit I just went to my side door and tested this with a bloody 1M spirit level. At my mighty 5' 7" inch height, with my arse at about 18 inches on a step, with my back resting against the door and my feet just beyond the second, bottom step, when I stood up my head was at its furthest point from the door at 89cm or about a foot past the reach of the door if it opened outward. I didn;t exaggerate this I just "stood up".
Richardson is described as tall and portly. He's not standing up fron that step and NOT seeing past the end of the door.
It's Physics.

I do not have "research suggests" to back any of this up but if you have legs and an arse... feel free to try it yourself.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Absolute stonewall conformation that we can throw out any notion that the police did not believe Richardson had sat on the steps. Here we are, on the 19th Sept, days after Richardson and Chandler gave their evidence, and we have three points upon "which there is agreement". The very first one says: "Annie Chapman was lying dead in the yard at 29 Hanbury street, when John Richardson sat on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot, his failure to notice the deceased being explained by the fact that the yard door, when opened, obstructed his view". They ADMIT that he was being honest and DID sit on the steps to cut leather from his boot!

Further to that I will add what I have already, I do believe, in some ways proven - that whilst it was entirely possible (possible but not very probable in my humble opinion) that he couldn't see the body from his sitting position, what nobody is getting is that he would have been in a standing position prior to and after having sat down. This position takes him past the door. He said he couldn't fail to have seen her. He was spot on.

Good point HB. I’ve mentioned in the past, more than once, how Richardson would have had to have opened the door as he walked down those steps. For a start no one walks down steps with it on their mind to open the door to the absolute minimum leaving then to descend with the door against their left arm. So even in the act of stepping down one step he would have opened the door close to ninety degrees. Then to get to the flags he would have had to have pushed it open further to more than ninety degrees. And so to have avoided seeing the body he’d have had to have faced to the right through all of that time. Then when he stood up to leave he’d have had to have faced only to the right and not looked toward the door as he pushed it open again to go back up the steps. John Richardson would have had to have acted exactly as if he was deliberately avoiding looking at the spot where the body lay.

How can this be remotely believable?

[Fleetwood Mac]

All these issues have the reliability of eye-witness testimony at their root - you'll notice these arguments are not going over too well.

Pointing out that witness testimony is flawed, particularly when those witnesses have no reason to take notice of an event, as conveyed through professional studies of witness statements; will not go over well, Jon.

The reason being that most want to be armchair detectives 150 years later, pouring over witness statements and press reports in an attempt to put the jigsaw together. Stating a fact, supported by a wealth of research, is going to be pushed to one side so that people can continue to pour over these statements as though they are clues of primary importance in the puzzle.

As said, bodies of research into witness testimony has deemed witness testimony to be flawed, for reasons such as the purpose of the memory and the manner in which memory works.

But, it's not all bad for those who want to theorise.

It means that characters who were dismissed because of some witness testimony, should not necessarily have been dismissed. It certainly does pour cold water over those who base their theories on witnesses, but it opens up doors for the rest of us who understand that witness testimony should not be at the forefront of an idea.

So, when people talk of witness sightings and descriptions that do not fit according to theorists, it should be remembered that witnesses do not necessarily accurately recollect that which they saw. It follows that there is no reliable generic description of the Whitechapel Murderer, to give an example, and that opens up the conversation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Are you sure
Your not misinterpreting and misunderstanding the evidence?. You seem to be doing a Herlock ,you only see the evidence on way ,thats just not the case im afraid . That its been shown over 1000s of post already how unsafe witnesses can be and the uncertainty surrounding their testimony. Im frankly bored with going over and over again with people who refuse to see the the possibility of a different t.o.d based on the same evidence..

It always amazes me when somehow mine and others use of the evidence that supports an earlier t.o.d is nonsense.
Where by the same evidence is considered accurate and correct when used to convince by other a later one.

Staggering stuff .

How can he be misinterpreting evidence?! Try reading it. As ever you only come back with generalities.

‘Witnesses can be unreliable.’

Why does this pointless statement keep getting repeated as if it’s some kind of brilliantly conceived riptide? You might as well say ‘witnesses can sometimes be short-sighted.’ Or ‘witnesses can sometimes be colourblind.’ We know all this. It’s too obvious to be considered a meaningful contribution to any discussion.

Its pointless because it doesn’t mean that ‘witnesses are usually unreliable.’ Let alone ‘witnesses are always unreliable.’

Its also utterly pointless and an offence to reasoning to suggest that witness evidence can be conveniently dismissed because of a trivial error. PI used to be the absolute master of this (mainly in the JFK thread) Get a witness who gives a perfectly good description of some event including a person and PI would suggest it could be dismissed because the guy got the shoe colour wrong. Or was out by 5 or 6 years on his estimation of age. At that point, as occurs here, it goes beyond assessment and well into the grounds of deliberately trying to find excuses to dismiss a witness.

Yes there have been 1000’s of posts but not showing how unreliable witnesses are. They show how unreliable interpretations of witnesses can be. There is nothing….absolutely zero wrong with Cadosch’s evidence for example. The argument that he was mistaken is nothing short of pathetic.

The evidence clearly favours a later ToD. It’s not close and it’s certainly not 50-50. In fact Fishy it shouldn’t require debate. It’s way past time that the absolute undeniable truth is accepted. The truth that a fair and reasoned approach to the evidence leads us inevitably to. That Annie Chapman was absolutely overwhelmingly likely to have been killed at around 5.30.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Pointing out that witness testimony is flawed, particularly when those witnesses have no reason to take notice of an event, as conveyed through professional studies of witness statements; will not go over well, Jon.

The reason being that most want to be armchair detectives 150 years later, pouring over witness statements and press reports in an attempt to put the jigsaw together. Stating a fact, supported by a wealth of research, is going to be pushed to one side so that people can continue to pour over these statements as though they are clues of primary importance in the puzzle.

As said, bodies of research into witness testimony has deemed witness testimony to be flawed, for reasons such as the purpose of the memory and the manner in which memory works.

But, it's not all bad for those who want to theorise.

It means that characters who were dismissed because of some witness testimony, should not necessarily have been dismissed. It certainly does pour cold water over those who base their theories on witnesses, but it opens up doors for the rest of us who understand that witness testimony should not be at the forefront of an idea.

So, when people talk of witness sightings and descriptions that do not fit according to theorists, it should be remembered that witnesses do not necessarily accurately recollect that which they saw. It follows that there is no reliable generic description of the Whitechapel Murderer, to give an example, and that opens up the conversation.

Although you post on here to as an armchair detective you take a position of looking down on others that do the same. Why are your opinions and theories different?

Saying that witness testimony is flawed is like saying that some people are short-sighted; or that some people are colourblind. It’s pointless because no expert in the history of crime has ever said that all witnesses are always unreliable. They have to be assessed individually. Often it’s a case of likeliness rather than certainties.

You speak as if your demanding a ‘reasoned’ approach but look at your approach to Richardson. You talk of experts above but you completely dismiss experts on Forensics because it suits your own theory to do so. We have a man who says that he sat on a step with his left boot around a foot from where the body lay. He had no sight issues and absolutely no reason to lie. And yet you, being ‘reasonable’ choose to completely dismiss the proven unreliability of Victorian Doctors ToD estimates…..you completely dismiss the obvious caveat that we can all easily interpret exactly as Baxter interpreted it………and you completely dismiss Richardson simply to keep Phillips 4.30 as the likelier ToD. How is that a reasoned approached. It’s a case of blatant shoehorning.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Saying that witness testimony is flawed......It's pointless because no expert in the history of crime has ever said that all witnesses are always unreliable

I'm merely the messenger. These are people who have undertaken extensive research and they are telling you that witness recollection is unreliable, particularly in an event where the witness has no reason to take notice.

The reason why people do not understand this, is because memory does not work in the manner that your average person assumes it works.

In an early study of eyewitness memory, undergraduate subjects first watched a slideshow depicting a small red car driving and then hitting a pedestrian (Loftus, Miller, & Burns, 1978). Some subjects were then asked leading questions about what had happened in the slides. For example, subjects were asked, “How fast was the car traveling when it passed the yield sign?” But this question was actually designed to be misleading, because the original slide included a stop sign rather than a yield sign.

Later, subjects were shown pairs of slides. One of the pair was the original slide containing the stop sign; the other was a replacement slide containing a yield sign. Subjects were asked which of the pair they had previously seen. Subjects who had been asked about the yield sign were likely to pick the slide showing the yield sign, even though they had originally seen the slide with the stop sign. In other words, the misinformation in the leading question led to inaccurate memory.

This phenomenon is called the misinformation effect, because the misinformation that subjects were exposed to after the event (here in the form of a misleading question) apparently contaminates subjects’ memories of what they witnessed. Hundreds of subsequent studies have demonstrated that memory can be contaminated by erroneous information that people are exposed to after they witness an event (see Frenda, Nichols, & Loftus, 2011; Loftus, 2005). The misinformation in these studies has led people to incorrectly remember everything from small but crucial details of a perpetrator’s appearance to objects as large as a barn that wasn’t there at all.

These studies have demonstrated that young adults (the typical research subjects in psychology) are often susceptible to misinformation, but that children and older adults can be even more susceptible (Bartlett & Memon, 2007; Ceci & Bruck, 1995). In addition, misinformation effects can occur easily, and without any intention to deceive (Allan & Gabbert, 2008). Even slight differences in the wording of a question can lead to misinformation effects. Subjects in one study were more likely to say yes when asked “Did you see the broken headlight?” than when asked “Did you see a broken headlight?” (Loftus, 1975).

Other studies have shown that misinformation can corrupt memory even more easily when it is encountered in social situations (Gabbert, Memon, Allan, & Wright, 2004). This is a problem particularly in cases where more than one person witnesses a crime. In these cases, witnesses tend to talk to one another in the immediate aftermath of the crime, including as they wait for police to arrive. But because different witnesses are different people with different perspectives, they are likely to see or notice different things, and thus remember different things, even when they witness the same event. So when they communicate about the crime later, they not only reinforce common memories for the event, they also contaminate each other’s memories for the event (Gabbert, Memon, & Allan, 2003; Paterson & Kemp, 2006; Takarangi, Parker, & Garry, 2006).

[A P Tomlinson]

Pointing out that witness testimony is flawed, particularly when those witnesses have no reason to take notice of an event, as conveyed through professional studies of witness statements; will not go over well, Jon.

The reason being that most want to be armchair detectives 150 years later, pouring over witness statements and press reports in an attempt to put the jigsaw together. Stating a fact, supported by a wealth of research, is going to be pushed to one side so that people can continue to pour over these statements as though they are clues of primary importance in the puzzle.

As said, bodies of research into witness testimony has deemed witness testimony to be flawed, for reasons such as the purpose of the memory and the manner in which memory works.

But, it's not all bad for those who want to theorise.

It means that characters who were dismissed because of some witness testimony, should not necessarily have been dismissed. It certainly does pour cold water over those who base their theories on witnesses, but it opens up doors for the rest of us who understand that witness testimony should not be at the forefront of an idea.

So, when people talk of witness sightings and descriptions that do not fit according to theorists, it should be remembered that witnesses do not necessarily accurately recollect that which they saw. It follows that there is no reliable generic description of the Whitechapel Murderer, to give an example, and that opens up the conversation.

As Herlock has pointed out, pretty much ALL types of evidence have some degree of issue. Particularly as we enter the age of AI and "Deep Fake" even.such things as video and CCTV will become more questionable.
But when three pieces of evidence match up, that adds weight.
Richardson: Statement: No body at 4.50: Direct Testimonial Evidence from witness.
Cadosche: Statement: Heard a noise against the fence arround 5.20am: Direct Testimonial Evidence from witness.
Davies: Finds body located on opposite side of fence from where Cadosche reported hearing noise. Corrobarative, Real evidence found in situ.

So it's NOT just a witness being flawed. It's THREE wtinesses who are able to show a timeline that strings together, that supports and corroborates each other element.
THAT level of witness testimony is rarely an issue compared to the sort of eye witness who saw a guy running from a scene and SWEARS it was that guy from the pub.

If a guy tells a cop "I heard something fall against that fence..." and the cop says, "Oh? Well we found a body right where you heard that sound... but are you really REALLY sure... because you could be mistaken? You see we have a Time of Death WAY earlier than your morning ablutions, and the doctor even used the back of his hand to determine Time of Death on this chilly morning, so your flawed memory is the thing at question here matey!" It's time for everyone to pack up and go home.

[Mark J D]

She also failed to say that she heard John arriving and leaving, but he may have been being considerate not to disturb the residents.

He wasn't there. There was no point, so he didn't bother. He just didn't go.

God knows how many days he pretended he'd done the pointless pre-work checking of a padlock to please his nutcase mother. And then, suddenly, there's a day that gets etched into history. And he wasn't there...

M.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm merely the messenger. These are people who have undertaken extensive research and they are telling you that witness recollection is unreliable, particularly in an event where the witness has no reason to take notice.

The reason why people do not understand this, is because memory does not work in the manner that your average person assumes it works.

In an early study of eyewitness memory, undergraduate subjects first watched a slideshow depicting a small red car driving and then hitting a pedestrian (Loftus, Miller, & Burns, 1978). Some subjects were then asked leading questions about what had happened in the slides. For example, subjects were asked, “How fast was the car traveling when it passed the yield sign?” But this question was actually designed to be misleading, because the original slide included a stop sign rather than a yield sign.

Later, subjects were shown pairs of slides. One of the pair was the original slide containing the stop sign; the other was a replacement slide containing a yield sign. Subjects were asked which of the pair they had previously seen. Subjects who had been asked about the yield sign were likely to pick the slide showing the yield sign, even though they had originally seen the slide with the stop sign. In other words, the misinformation in the leading question led to inaccurate memory.

This phenomenon is called the misinformation effect, because the misinformation that subjects were exposed to after the event (here in the form of a misleading question) apparently contaminates subjects’ memories of what they witnessed. Hundreds of subsequent studies have demonstrated that memory can be contaminated by erroneous information that people are exposed to after they witness an event (see Frenda, Nichols, & Loftus, 2011; Loftus, 2005). The misinformation in these studies has led people to incorrectly remember everything from small but crucial details of a perpetrator’s appearance to objects as large as a barn that wasn’t there at all.

These studies have demonstrated that young adults (the typical research subjects in psychology) are often susceptible to misinformation, but that children and older adults can be even more susceptible (Bartlett & Memon, 2007; Ceci & Bruck, 1995). In addition, misinformation effects can occur easily, and without any intention to deceive (Allan & Gabbert, 2008). Even slight differences in the wording of a question can lead to misinformation effects. Subjects in one study were more likely to say yes when asked “Did you see the broken headlight?” than when asked “Did you see a broken headlight?” (Loftus, 1975).

Other studies have shown that misinformation can corrupt memory even more easily when it is encountered in social situations (Gabbert, Memon, Allan, & Wright, 2004). This is a problem particularly in cases where more than one person witnesses a crime. In these cases, witnesses tend to talk to one another in the immediate aftermath of the crime, including as they wait for police to arrive. But because different witnesses are different people with different perspectives, they are likely to see or notice different things, and thus remember different things, even when they witness the same event. So when they communicate about the crime later, they not only reinforce common memories for the event, they also contaminate each other’s memories for the event (Gabbert, Memon, & Allan, 2003; Paterson & Kemp, 2006; Takarangi, Parker, & Garry, 2006).

But none of this means that all witnesses are always unreliable. Only that witnesses can be unreliable or mistaken and that we should assess them (as the police do and have done) What tends to happen on here, from some, is that this gets repeated like a mantra every time they come up against a witness whose evidence contradicts or or detrimentally affects the outcome that they themselves favour. As if it somehow gives us leave to simply sideline a witness. We also should accept that even if a witnesses makes an error (whether proven or suspected) in his/her testimony then that doesn’t mean that the testimony as a whole is useless. Again we would have to weigh things up.

The ‘No reason to take notice’ point is valid in the case of Long but not in the case of Richardson. If you put someone with normal hearing in a yard next to a fence and without him expecting it someone struck the other side of that fence then the person would pick out the correct fence every single time. Even on the ‘no,’ we have Cadosch’s first impression that it came from number 29. If we did the same experiment with someone unexpectedly saying ‘no’ from that close I’d expect them to get it right 8 times out of 10. An error is possible but less likely given the circumstances. If a noise comes from a distance away you can usually tell that it hasn’t come from 3 feet away. Cadosch is simp,y a strong witness who had no reason to lie.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He wasn't there. There was no point, so he didn't bother. He just didn't go.

God knows how many days he pretended he'd done the pointless checking of a padlock to please his nutcase mother. And then, suddenly, there's a day that gets etched into history. And he wasn't there...

M.

More nonsense from someone who desperately wants an earlier ToD because it favours Cross. A fairly typical piece of witness assessment from a Crosstians. “He just wasn’t there because he lied!” “Cross was guilty because he was there!”

So transparent.