John Richardson

[FISHY1118]

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.

If you going to used the Drs unreliable methods then you have to except the witnesses the same way . Conclusion = uncertainty with Chapmans t.o.d .

Discussing and disputing details and evidence that supports this is futile ,just look at where we're at, approaching 5000 post on the subject and were still no closer to a definitive t.o.d one way or the other .

Your use of the evidence and the way you have interpreted it is different to mine and others . That doesn't mean your correct with your assumptions, the fact remains and always will that the evidence in this case is uncertain, contradicts itself, ambiguous and unreliable as to determine any accuracy with a t.o. d for Annie'Chapman.

Its shear madness to go over and over the same information post after post back and forth just for arguments sake ,which is definitely going on here im afraid .

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you going to used the Drs unreliable methods then you have to except the witnesses the same way . Conclusion = uncertainty with Chapmans t.o.d .

Thats just a convenient over-simplification. The method that a Victorian Doctor used to estimate ToD were always unreliable. It wasn’t reliable in some cases but unreliable in others. It was always unreliable. Yes, that doesn’t mean that a Victorian Doctor couldn’t get the ToD correct but it means that we have to accept the possibility of error. And as we can’t go back and apply modern scientific methods we have no way of confirming or denying Phillips accuracy. So all that we are left with is an estimate that might or might not have been accurate.

Witnesses however can be unreliable but they aren’t always unreliable because we can’t just treat them as a general rule (as we can with the general rules of forensics) We can assess them on an individual basis - something that we can’t do with Phillips estimation.

So no, we can’t just brush witness testimony aside by saying that witnesses can be unreliable just because it’s convenient to do it. Witnesses can also be perfectly reliable and accurate. We can, to some extent, test and assess their testimony. We can’t just brush it under the carpet.

Discussing and disputing details and evidence that supports this is futile ,just look at where we're at, approaching 5000 post on the subject and were still no closer to a definitive t.o.d one way or the other .

Thats because you won’t accept what the evidence is very strongly pointing toward. You won’t like me saying that of course but there’s nothing I can do about that. We can’t say for a 100% certainty that she was killed later. But we can say with 100% certainty that the evidence that we have very strongly points to a later ToD. And that’s simply a fact. And to disprove it way too much heavy lifting has to be done.

Your use of the evidence and the way you have interpreted it is different to mine and others . That doesn't mean your correct with your assumptions, the fact remains and always will that the evidence in this case is uncertain, contradicts itself, ambiguous and unreliable as to determine any accuracy with a t.o. d for Annie'Chapman.

And you can say that as often as you want to Fishy it’s your choice but I’ll disagree with you strongly every single time. Cadosch contradicts no one. Richardson contradicts no one. Except Phillips. All that we have ‘against’ Richardson is Chandler’s claim that he didn’t mention the boot repair which, if true (which you and others unquestioningly assume) still doesn’t mean dishonesty in any way. In an argument conjured out of nothing. Simp,y to demonise a witness who doesn’t tell you what you want to hear.

Its shear madness to go over and over the same information post after post back and forth just for arguments sake ,which is definitely going on here im afraid .

It certainly is close to madness. Which should end with those saying that the evidence points to an earlier ToD admitting that they are wrong. Which they clearly are. Again, that comment will annoy some, but I can’t help that. I’m just being honest. What you should perhaps do is to ignore your dislike of me and listen to what Jeff will tell you. There are many good and fair posters on here (who agree and disagree on many topics) but no one is less biased or takes a fairer evidence based approach than he does. He will tell you that the evidence strongly favours a later ToD. David Barrat is a meticulous researcher who has actually written a book on estimating the ToD by temperature and he strongly favours a later ToD. Maybe I’m wrong but I even think that if I wasn’t on here favouring a later ToD some (I’m not saying all) might be more receptive to it.

PS, you previously demanded examples where a doctor had altered his ToD estimation to fit witness testimony. I mentioned two cases where this occurred. You never acknowledged that I’d done what you asked.

[FISHY1118]

It certainly is close to madness. Which should end with those saying that the evidence points to an earlier ToD admitting that they are wrong. Which they clearly are. Again, that comment will annoy some, but I can’t help that. I’m just being honest. What you should perhaps do is to ignore your dislike of me and listen to what Jeff will tell you. There are many good and fair posters on here (who agree and disagree on many topics) but no one is less biased or takes a fairer evidence based approach than he does. He will tell you that the evidence strongly favours a later ToD. David Barrat is a meticulous researcher who has actually written a book on estimating the ToD by temperature and he strongly favours a later ToD. Maybe I’m wrong but I even think that if I wasn’t on here favouring a later ToD some (I’m not saying all) might be more receptive to it.

PS, you previously demanded examples where a doctor had altered his ToD estimation to fit witness testimony. I mentioned two cases where this occurred. You never acknowledged that I’d done what you asked.

Again you do yourself no favours when you spew nonsense like this

" Those who support a earlier t.od should admit their wrong ,which they clearly are ""

You've learned nothing in this entire debate ,and now your just embarrassing yourself for all to see . Shameful.

[GBinOz]

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)

Hi Herlock,

This is something that we can agree on. The British justice system requires evidence. Suspicions are not sufficient. Evidence took the form of witness testimony and, in 1888, doctor's estimates. The police had suspicions about Richardson and investigated his story, but whether they believed him or not, they had no evidence of any ill intent because they had only Richardson's word for what happened, and Chandler's testimony for what Richardson told him happened. BUT, no evidence does not equate to truth or innocence. Phillips called for a conference with the police after Richardson's testimony contradicted the former's estimate. Whether the police believed the boot story or not, and remembering that he was under suspicion of murder at the time, they would have been putting that story to the test by examining the position of the door in relation to how Richardson claimed he was sitting. In their judgement the door would have prevented him seeing the body. The police can not be assumed to have been completely stupid, so such a test would have included the sitting down and standing up. Is anyone here claiming more knowledge than the result of that exercise conducted at the time? I expect that there will be protests that there is no evidence of that exercise other than logical deduction, and I would reply with the question, what reason would the police have to not conduct such and easy and simple exercise to put the matter beyond doubt?

However, as you have pointed out before, the criteria for an inquest are quite different to those of a trial. There is no provision for interrogation by either a prosecuting or a defending barrister, and the jury was there to determine the circumstances of the death, not to judge the guilt or innocence of anyone concerned, or whether they were lying. In a trial the jury is presented with witness evidence and it is their job to assess the reliability of their evidence. In effect, we are the jury in this case, and as jurors we are making our own assessments of the witness reliability from the available testimony.

You will remember the movie "12 Angry Men", and the overwhelming evidence against the young defendant, and the 11-1 vote to convict with no further discussion. Remember the absolutely unique knife found at the scene and alleged to belong to the defendant to the exclusion of all others, subsequently being bought by the Fonda character from a street vendor. Remember the incontrovertible evidence from the man awakened by a passing train who swore he saw the defendant kill the victim through the train windows, until it was discovered that he was short sighted and not wearing his glasses at the time. Had you been part of that jury, would you have been the Fonda character, or one of the 11 in possession of the 100% incontrovertible overwhelming evidence?

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

A common sense approach George , somethng thats been terribly absent throughout this debate .

[GBinOz]

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.”

Hmmm, that thought has crossed my mind. Has Herlock's alter ego escaped his body while he was sleeping and registered as a new member on casebook? Just kidding.

[Hair Bear]

In their judgement the door would have prevented him seeing the body. The police can not be assumed to have been completely stupid, so such a test would have included the sitting down and standing up. Is anyone here claiming more knowledge than the result of that exercise conducted at the time? I expect that there will be protests that there is no evidence of that exercise other than logical deduction, and I would reply with the question, what reason would the police have to not conduct such and easy and simple exercise to put the matter beyond doubt?

You will remember the movie "12 Angry Men", and the overwhelming evidence against the young defendant, and the 11-1 vote to convict with no further discussion. Remember the absolutely unique knife found at the scene and alleged to belong to the defendant to the exclusion of all others, subsequently being bought by the Fonda character from a street vendor. Remember the incontrovertible evidence from the man awakened by a passing train who swore he saw the defendant kill the victim through the train windows, until it was discovered that he was short sighted and not wearing his glasses at the time. Had you been part of that jury, would you have been the Fonda character, or one of the 11 in possession of the 100% incontrovertible overwhelming evidence?

Cheers, George

Hi George

"the police can not be assumed to have been completely stupid". I would argue that your 12 Angry Men analogy actually points away from your suggestion. There were twelve intelligent men in that room and yet only one thought to question what seemed obvious, just as there are several (highly) intelligent people on this thread and yet only one thought to mention Richardson's positioning when lowering and rising. I have been reading these debates for years (often wishing people wouldn't cat call each other, since I've grown rather fond of you all) and to the best of my knowledge never once until I mentioned it has anyone ever talked about where Richardson would be positioning himself before and after sitting on the step - despite years of debate. It is ALWAYS 'would he or would her not close the door behind himself to fettle with his boot' or else 'could he see the body from his sitting position?' I didn't think of it myself until recently, and that's after many years of Ripper reading. So yes, I do believe that the police missed that one.

Moot point (or is it) "Remember the incontrovertible evidence from the man awakened by a passing train" - it was a woman not a man. Note as well that after juror number ten explains that he believes the boy, whom he assumes is a liar because he's "one of them", is guilty based on said woman's testimony, Fonda's character (Davis) says: "I'd like to ask you something. You don't believe the boy's story. How come you believe the woman's? She's one of them, too, isn't she?" This reminds me of your recent "I think that the entire boot repair story was an embellishment". Well, if the police "can not be assumed to have been completely stupid" how come they believed him?

[A P Tomlinson]

Hi Herlock,

This is something that we can agree on. The British justice system requires evidence. Suspicions are not sufficient. Evidence took the form of witness testimony and, in 1888, doctor's estimates. The police had suspicions about Richardson and investigated his story, but whether they believed him or not, they had no evidence of any ill intent because they had only Richardson's word for what happened, and Chandler's testimony for what Richardson told him happened.

But this has been where the "Witness = Unreliable" part isn't standing up to scrutiny in this instance George, because they did have more.

And having subsequently read through this prior to posting it realilsed that most of my point is aimed at THIS, and I didn't want you to think I'm tarring you with this brush

If you going to used the Drs unreliable methods then you have to except the witnesses the same way . Conclusion = uncertainty with Chapmans t.o.d .

Cadsoche's testimony puts the sound of something that could have been a large case hitting the fence after Richardson says he would have seen a body had there been one there... SUPPORTING Richardsons testimony that showed an empty yard prior to Cadosche's "morning jog". And the body found on the other side of the side SUPPORTS Cadosches statement of the sound.
By all means we can say "Witnesses are unreliable" and every year there are thousands of cases where they are wrong... (in many the CPS don't even let it get to court in the UK, but I know the American multi jurisdictional system has issues in that regard) but there are hundreds of thousands of cases where they are right.
And the ones that end up being right are the ones that have supporting evidence from impartial 3rd parties.

It's not the sort of "I got a look at him and his car as he drove off" eye witness testimony, which is the main problem when dealing with the fallibility of witnesses and memory.

For instance, even though Mrs Longs tesimony both supports and is supported by a later ToD. Which is spported by the linked evidence I describe, I would give it no more consideration as substantial evidence than the amount of time it took to write it down. Not unless one or two other people had also seen what she saw and given her story supporting, corroborative credence. Because those are the sort of eye witness testomnies that ARE indeed... unrelibale, (NOT necessarily ALWAYS wrong. But not strong enough on its own to consider probative.
The weight of evidence suggests that something happened between Richardson and Davies visiting the back yard, and that it most likely occured around the time Cadosche was relieving himself. The three witnesses, INDEPENDENTLY tell a simple, plausible story, without having come to it together in conspiracy, it makes sense, and is supported by the physical presence of a BODY.

All of that is demonstrable.
Whats not demonstrable is Richardson's balancing act, his boot fixing with a door between his face and his hands, and his morning bout of Levophobia. Or Cadosches' phantom memory syndrome. THESE things are constructs of the imagination based on a genral handwaving statement that "Witnesses are flawed" and nothing more, so anything goes.

Whereas on the Medical Evidence we have a notoriously bad procedure, being conducted under highly unusual circumstances.
1. It was chilly (not THAT unusual... easy to work into an evaluation) - inceases rate at which the body cools.
2. Body wasn't covered (Again, shouldnt create too much of a problem) - increases rate...
3, Body cavity was OPENED (Oh... that WILL matter!) - increases...
3a. Massive blood loss. (Again... that's going to make a difference!) - increases...
4. internal organs removed and scattered (Jesus Harold Christ!!! Those things help hold the warmth of the body and that's MASSIVELY outside of a city surgeons wheelhouse!)... greatly increases, etc...
5 (potentially) moisture on the skin on chilly morning doesn't impact the core temp, but certainly can impact the surface temp... (which you HAVE to take into account is what he's measuring, not core temp)
6.. Testing with the hand does NOT determine the temperature of what you are touching. It at best gives an indication of the difference between the temperature of the thing you are touching and the part of the hand (usually the back) that is doing the touching. Poor circulation? Quite possibly gives a later ToD, Just taken off your snuggly warm gloves? Quite possibly gives an earlier ToD.
Because the rate at which a body cools is a curve, not a line, dropping the body temperature by only a couple of degrees (between one and two even) through external factors would add over an hour to the EToD.
It is almost impossible using the back of the hand method to determine anything approaching an accurate ToD on a body under ideal conditions within the first hour, unless you take regular checks and notice the point at which it starts to drop off, and work backwards. Because the drop off in the first hour is so minimal and that is why a drop of any kind due to external factors is likely to push the estimate back by roughly an hour. Further back, the more factors and the extremity of those factors creates an even broader range for error.

This generalised, depserate notion of Fishy's to try and apply a false equivalnce, that if we consider the medical evidence bad we must also consider witness evidence bad is nonsense.
Want me to prove it?
OK
a) The law (ALL over the world) STILL uses witnesses as a primary source of evidence to great success.
b) The law no longer relies on the method of determining ToD that is so incredibly unreliable as to be a "Stopped Clock" scenario. It's right at least twice a day... but you can't tell when without a secondary source that's accurate... and for the rest of the time? Good bloody luck.

[Trevor Marriott]

But this has been where the "Witness = Unreliable" part isn't standing up to scrutiny in this instance George, because they did have more.

And having subsequently read through this prior to posting it realilsed that most of my point is aimed at THIS, and I didn't want you to think I'm tarring you with this brush



Cadsoche's testimony puts the sound of something that could have been a large case hitting the fence after Richardson says he would have seen a body had there been one there... SUPPORTING Richardsons testimony that showed an empty yard prior to Cadosche's "morning jog". And the body found on the other side of the side SUPPORTS Cadosches statement of the sound.
By all means we can say "Witnesses are unreliable" and every year there are thousands of cases where they are wrong... (in many the CPS don't even let it get to court in the UK, but I know the American multi jurisdictional system has issues in that regard) but there are hundreds of thousands of cases where they are right.
And the ones that end up being right are the ones that have supporting evidence from impartial 3rd parties.

It's not the sort of "I got a look at him and his car as he drove off" eye witness testimony, which is the main problem when dealing with the fallibility of witnesses and memory.

For instance, even though Mrs Longs tesimony both supports and is supported by a later ToD. Which is spported by the linked evidence I describe, I would give it no more consideration as substantial evidence than the amount of time it took to write it down. Not unless one or two other people had also seen what she saw and given her story supporting, corroborative credence. Because those are the sort of eye witness testomnies that ARE indeed... unrelibale, (NOT necessarily ALWAYS wrong. But not strong enough on its own to consider probative.
The weight of evidence suggests that something happened between Richardson and Davies visiting the back yard, and that it most likely occured around the time Cadosche was relieving himself. The three witnesses, INDEPENDENTLY tell a simple, plausible story, without having come to it together in conspiracy, it makes sense, and is supported by the physical presence of a BODY.

All of that is demonstrable.
Whats not demonstrable is Richardson's balancing act, his boot fixing with a door between his face and his hands, and his morning bout of Levophobia. Or Cadosches' phantom memory syndrome. THESE things are constructs of the imagination based on a genral handwaving statement that "Witnesses are flawed" and nothing more, so anything goes.

Whereas on the Medical Evidence we have a notoriously bad procedure, being conducted under highly unusual circumstances.
1. It was chilly (not THAT unusual... easy to work into an evaluation) - inceases rate at which the body cools.
2. Body wasn't covered (Again, shouldnt create too much of a problem) - increases rate...
3, Body cavity was OPENED (Oh... that WILL matter!) - increases...
3a. Massive blood loss. (Again... that's going to make a difference!) - increases...
4. internal organs removed and scattered (Jesus Harold Christ!!! Those things help hold the warmth of the body and that's MASSIVELY outside of a city surgeons wheelhouse!)... greatly increases, etc...
5 (potentially) moisture on the skin on chilly morning doesn't impact the core temp, but certainly can impact the surface temp... (which you HAVE to take into account is what he's measuring, not core temp)
6.. Testing with the hand does NOT determine the temperature of what you are touching. It at best gives an indication of the difference between the temperature of the thing you are touching and the part of the hand (usually the back) that is doing the touching. Poor circulation? Quite possibly gives a later ToD, Just taken off your snuggly warm gloves? Quite possibly gives an earlier ToD.
Because the rate at which a body cools is a curve, not a line, dropping the body temperature by only a couple of degrees (between one and two even) through external factors would add over an hour to the EToD.
It is almost impossible using the back of the hand method to determine anything approaching an accurate ToD on a body under ideal conditions within the first hour, unless you take regular checks and notice the point at which it starts to drop off, and work backwards. Because the drop off in the first hour is so minimal and that is why a drop of any kind due to external factors is likely to push the estimate back by roughly an hour. Further back, the more factors and the extremity of those factors creates an even broader range for error.

This generalised, depserate notion of Fishy's to try and apply a false equivalnce, that if we consider the medical evidence bad we must also consider witness evidence bad is nonsense.
Want me to prove it?
OK
a) The law (ALL over the world) STILL uses witnesses as a primary source of evidence to great success.
b) The law no longer relies on the method of determining ToD that is so incredibly unreliable as to be a "Stopped Clock" scenario. It's right at least twice a day... but you can't tell when without a secondary source that's accurate... and for the rest of the time? Good bloody luck.

The problem is that because it was a coroner's court and not a crime court and the purpose of that court was simply to determine a cause of death and the witness evidence was never fully tested as it would have been in a criminal court. It is only now that when we closely scrutinize the witness testimony that we can identify major flaws in the witness testimony which were never highlighted in the coroner's court or if they were, they were never clarified, and now these flaws do have a major impact when we are now trying to establish an accurate TOD, which leads me to say yet again that the witness testimony with regards to Richardson. Lomg and Cadosh is unsafe to totally rely on. None of them corroborate each other's account and in fact do conflict with each other.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Herlock,

This is something that we can agree on. The British justice system requires evidence. Suspicions are not sufficient. Evidence took the form of witness testimony and, in 1888, doctor's estimates. The police had suspicions about Richardson and investigated his story, but whether they believed him or not, they had no evidence of any ill intent because they had only Richardson's word for what happened, and Chandler's testimony for what Richardson told him happened. BUT, no evidence does not equate to truth or innocence. Phillips called for a conference with the police after Richardson's testimony contradicted the former's estimate. Whether the police believed the boot story or not, and remembering that he was under suspicion of murder at the time, they would have been putting that story to the test by examining the position of the door in relation to how Richardson claimed he was sitting. In their judgement the door would have prevented him seeing the body. The police can not be assumed to have been completely stupid, so such a test would have included the sitting down and standing up. Is anyone here claiming more knowledge than the result of that exercise conducted at the time? I expect that there will be protests that there is no evidence of that exercise other than logical deduction, and I would reply with the question, what reason would the police have to not conduct such and easy and simple exercise to put the matter beyond doubt?


Cheers, George

Hi George,

I believe that you are once again using a newspaper article as fact, whereas the official report made by Swanson, which is fact, does not say anything about Phillips calling for a conference with the police, nor deciding that the door would have obstructed Richardson's vision.

Swanson actually wrote on 19th October, that if Dr Phillips was correct with his ToD, "it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body". That is clear evidence that the police did not conclude that the door would have obstructed his vision. He stressed that the police investigated Richardson's story thoroughly and could not fault it. Slightly odd if we are expected to believe that Richardson kept changing his story! It is likely, but not firmly established, that their investigation included checking Richardson's line of vision at the site, and that he had borrowed a knife at the market when he arrived there etc.

Swanson basically muses that if Phillips was correct he could not understand that Richardson missed the body, and also that if Mrs Long was correct, then Phillips was incorrect. So, it seems that the police were not persuaded that Phillips was correct, and it seems to be certain that Swanson was keeping an open mind. The ToD was not positively accepted.

[FISHY1118]

The problem is that because it was a coroner's court and not a crime court and the purpose of that court was simply to determine a cause of death and the witness evidence was never fully tested as it would have been in a criminal court. It is only now that when we closely scrutinize the witness testimony that we can identify major flaws in the witness testimony which were never highlighted in the coroner's court or if they were, they were never clarified, and now these flaws do have a major impact when we are now trying to establish an accurate TOD, which leads me to say yet again that the witness testimony with regards to Richardson. Lomg and Cadosh is unsafe to totally rely on. None of them corroborate each other's account and in fact do conflict with each other.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I'll no doubt get called out for cheerleading even tho I've mentioned some of theses points over and over , but I agree with you Trevor 100% "

"There is indeed conflict where witness testimony is concerned . To use such testimony to conclude Chapmans death an overwhelming certainty is pure and simply "reckless" and futile.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The problem is that because it was a coroner's court and not a crime court and the purpose of that court was simply to determine a cause of death and the witness evidence was never fully tested as it would have been in a criminal court. It is only now that when we closely scrutinize the witness testimony that we can identify major flaws in the witness testimony which were never highlighted in the coroner's court or if they were, they were never clarified, and now these flaws do have a major impact when we are now trying to establish an accurate TOD, which leads me to say yet again that the witness testimony with regards to Richardson. Lomg and Cadosh is unsafe to totally rely on. None of them corroborate each other's account and in fact do conflict with each other.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

On those alleged conflicts and ‘major flaws.’

1. Its just bizarre that you can claim that the evidence of Richardson, Long and Cadosch conflict with each other. They just don’t. The only part where there can be considered an insignificant conflict is with the times given by Long and Cadosch but only if we assumed that their individual methods of arriving at times were both synchronised and we can’t claim this. An entirely reasonable margin for error of around 5 minutes would leave them tying up perfectly. The three witnesses corroborate each other against Phillips.

2. Then we have the ‘major flaw’ of Chandler saying the Richardson didn’t mention why he’d sat on the step. A hypothetical:

Mr X tells a police officer that the previous night he’d sat on his from step and as he looked along the street he saw Mr Y leave his house at around 7.30.

Later he’s questioned further: are you sure that you sat on the step Mr X because if you had stood on it you might not have been able to see Mr Y’s front door?

Mr X replies: yes, I always sit on the step when I have a cigarette.

Ok? So should the police then think, a) well that confirms that he could have seen Mr. Y’s front door, or b) hold on, he didn’t mention having a cigarette when I first spoke to him, that makes his statement unreliable?

You’re approach, according to the way that you view Richardson, would be to go for b) whereas I would go for a)

If you call Mr. X’s not mentioning his cigarette a ‘major flaw’ then I’d like to see your version of a minor flaw.

There is no flaw, whether major or minor, in Richardson’s testimony.

3. Cadosch. Nope, I can’t think of a flaw. There’s only the general statement that witnesses can be mistaken.

4. Long. Again, no flaw just the general statement that witnesses can be wrong. But we still have to consider that she saw a woman who she identified as Long (so someone who at least resembled Chapman) at the right time and at the right spot.

Nothing justifies the attempt to portray these three witnesses as being worthy of dismissal.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

This is something that we can agree on. The British justice system requires evidence. Suspicions are not sufficient. Evidence took the form of witness testimony and, in 1888, doctor's estimates. The police had suspicions about Richardson and investigated his story, but whether they believed him or not, they had no evidence of any ill intent because they had only Richardson's word for what happened, and Chandler's testimony for what Richardson told him happened. BUT, no evidence does not equate to truth or innocence. Phillips called for a conference with the police after Richardson's testimony contradicted the former's estimate. Whether the police believed the boot story or not, and remembering that he was under suspicion of murder at the time, they would have been putting that story to the test by examining the position of the door in relation to how Richardson claimed he was sitting. In their judgement the door would have prevented him seeing the body. The police can not be assumed to have been completely stupid, so such a test would have included the sitting down and standing up. Is anyone here claiming more knowledge than the result of that exercise conducted at the time? I expect that there will be protests that there is no evidence of that exercise other than logical deduction, and I would reply with the question, what reason would the police have to not conduct such and easy and simple exercise to put the matter beyond doubt?

However, as you have pointed out before, the criteria for an inquest are quite different to those of a trial. There is no provision for interrogation by either a prosecuting or a defending barrister, and the jury was there to determine the circumstances of the death, not to judge the guilt or innocence of anyone concerned, or whether they were lying. In a trial the jury is presented with witness evidence and it is their job to assess the reliability of their evidence. In effect, we are the jury in this case, and as jurors we are making our own assessments of the witness reliability from the available testimony.

You will remember the movie "12 Angry Men", and the overwhelming evidence against the young defendant, and the 11-1 vote to convict with no further discussion. Remember the absolutely unique knife found at the scene and alleged to belong to the defendant to the exclusion of all others, subsequently being bought by the Fonda character from a street vendor. Remember the incontrovertible evidence from the man awakened by a passing train who swore he saw the defendant kill the victim through the train windows, until it was discovered that he was short sighted and not wearing his glasses at the time. Had you been part of that jury, would you have been the Fonda character, or one of the 11 in possession of the 100% incontrovertible overwhelming evidence?

Cheers, George

Hello George,

I won’t repeat what Doc has already pointed out in his list #4840 but there’s no evidence that the police disbelieved Richardson but it would have been understandable if Dr. Phillips wanted to defend his estimation. And as has been pointed out, that particular story confirms that the police didn’t doubt that Richardson had sat on the steps to repair his boot.

The police can not be assumed to have been completely stupid

I’d agree George but I’d also suggest that John Richardson can’t be assumed to have been completely stupid either. But this is what’s being claimed. For some reason, despite the police simply asking if he could have been honestly mistaken, rather than admitting this he’s absolutely determined to prove to them he couldn’t have. So how would any reasonable person have done this? Without going through my list I’d say that it would have involved being in a position where he either pushed the door close to all of the way back to the fence or by him stepping into the yard and allowing the door to swing such. Can we hand-on-heart say that these would have been beyond anyone with even the meanest of intelligence levels? But what is being suggested is that, at the scene of a particularly horrific knife murder at an address where he’d voluntarily placed himself he comes up with a random story about repairing his boot - thereby adding to his issues by putting a knife in his own hand. How can we believe this George? And we know for a fact that this appeared in a newspaper on the 10th. So the only thing that might be consider worthy of mention is that Chandler said that he had t mentioned the boot repair. Firstly, I’d ask why is it assumed that Chandler must have been correct? And secondly of course, the reason that he’d sat on the step was unimportant and so if he’d not mentioned it it can’t be surprising or an issue. And certainly not one that should be used to dismiss him.

I consider both Richardson and Cadosch very strong, believable witnesses. I accept that Long could have been mistaken but the ‘coincidence’ of her sighting is worth noting imo.

[Trevor Marriott]

On those alleged conflicts and ‘major flaws.’

1. Its just bizarre that you can claim that the evidence of Richardson, Long and Cadosch conflict with each other. They just don’t. The only part where there can be considered an insignificant conflict is with the times given by Long and Cadosch but only if we assumed that their individual methods of arriving at times were both synchronised and we can’t claim this. An entirely reasonable margin for error of around 5 minutes would leave them tying up perfectly. The three witnesses corroborate each other against Phillips.

2. Then we have the ‘major flaw’ of Chandler saying the Richardson didn’t mention why he’d sat on the step. A hypothetical:

Mr X tells a police officer that the previous night he’d sat on his from step and as he looked along the street he saw Mr Y leave his house at around 7.30.

Later he’s questioned further: are you sure that you sat on the step Mr X because if you had stood on it you might not have been able to see Mr Y’s front door?

Mr X replies: yes, I always sit on the step when I have a cigarette.

Ok? So should the police then think, a) well that confirms that he could have seen Mr. Y’s front door, or b) hold on, he didn’t mention having a cigarette when I first spoke to him, that makes his statement unreliable?

You’re approach, according to the way that you view Richardson, would be to go for b) whereas I would go for a)

If you call Mr. X’s not mentioning his cigarette a ‘major flaw’ then I’d like to see your version of a minor flaw.

There is no flaw, whether major or minor, in Richardson’s testimony.

3. Cadosch. Nope, I can’t think of a flaw. There’s only the general statement that witnesses can be mistaken.

4. Long. Again, no flaw just the general statement that witnesses can be wrong. But we still have to consider that she saw a woman who she identified as Long (so someone who at least resembled Chapman) at the right time and at the right spot.

Nothing justifies the attempt to portray these three witnesses as being worthy of dismissal.

How many times do I have to keep telling you I am not dismissing the witnesses all I am doing is pointing out the flaws in their testimony which you cannot seem to see or appreciate the impact the flaws have in determining a TOD.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[A P Tomlinson]

The problem is that because it was a coroner's court and not a crime court and the purpose of that court was simply to determine a cause of death and the witness evidence was never fully tested as it would have been in a criminal court. It is only now that when we closely scrutinize the witness testimony that we can identify major flaws in the witness testimony which were never highlighted in the coroner's court or if they were, they were never clarified, and now these flaws do have a major impact when we are now trying to establish an accurate TOD, which leads me to say yet again that the witness testimony with regards to Richardson. Lomg and Cadosh is unsafe to totally rely on. None of them corroborate each other's account and in fact do conflict with each other.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I think I mentioned that Long was unreliable, and that Cadosche was suppoerted by Richardson and the fairly important foactor of the body being where he thought he heard a noise.
How do Richardson and Cadosche "conflict" with each other?
Richardson says "No body at ten to five" Cadosche says "Bump against fence around half an hour later"
Body found in area where Cadosche heard a noise. And not even Fishy has come up with what may have made that noise, There's no mention of a roof slate above a blood stain or on the body, or broken nearby, with fragments on top of the blood, no cat paw prints in the blood.
There are arguments that it might have come from somewhere else, presumably giving Cadosche an inner ear issue (that no one has shown) but show us WHAT that might be and where!
Or that he just didn't remember what he remembered remembering, because meory is flawed, which from the point of view of examing a cold case is the most nihilist thing I've ever heard. I could understand the police in 1888 not trusting him... he was French. But I'm sure I dont see a conflict.
None of these theories are supported by evidence. Only the sweeping generalisation that "witnesses and memory are flawed".

The coroner and jury had a goal and a purpose but also had a wider remit if they needed it.

The jury could have leveled a charge against any of the witnesses they believed to have been lying or considered a suspect. "Wilful murder against person or persons unknown" was pefectly replaceable by a name in those inquests. At which point the person would have been charged.
And they, or more importantly Baxter could have found a witness to be in contempt, to have commited perjury or been (in Richardsons case had he been lying about his capacity to see a body) perverting the course of justice.