Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by A P Tomlinson View Post

    He met Doctor Who in 1969....
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

    “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by A P Tomlinson View Post

      Is that Nixon???
      Yes, sorry I should have reiterated my earlier comments, which were that George suggested the possibility that Richardson might sit facing to the right (that's not his opinion, merely a suggestion), but as we can see from my doctored attempt this would be nonsensical.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Hair Bear View Post

        Yes, sorry I should have reiterated my earlier comments, which were that George suggested the possibility that Richardson might sit facing to the right (that's not his opinion, merely a suggestion), but as we can see from my doctored attempt this would be nonsensical.
        Very apt that you chose someone who was on the ‘right’ in politics too Hair. Good to see someone taking that bit of extra care to get things spot on.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

        “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Hair Bear View Post

          Hi Jeff, if I recall rightly it was actually + - 4 hours in 1888.
          Possibly, I've not seen that though. The +-3 hours is the current, modern day gold standard, so to give the benefit of the doubt I tend to use that range. However, if you recall where you got that from I would be interested in knowing. Thanks.

          - Jeff

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Hair Bear View Post

            Click image for larger version

Name:	2 pics hanbury.jpg
Views:	183
Size:	54.4 KB
ID:	821545

            Hello George, can you see B & C now? If not try this link.... https://imgur.com/a/JpKoMzd

            Firstly, I have just checked. Yes, it is from CSI Whitechapel. I would be interested to know if you (or anyone else) think the canopy should be higher up covering the window?

            ...
            Hair Bear posted the above, and if the one on the right, the one without Nixon, is at all similar to what things were like in 1888, then it seems to me a person standing on the top door step would have their head roughly mid-window, and so if they looked down from there they would get a great view of the top of the awning, but of the lock, not so much.

            To see the lock, you would go down the steps, and at the corner of the cellar stairs that's at the bottom of the doorsteps, look down to the lock. Depending on how sturdy the posts are, one might use one of those as support to lean in a bit to get a better view.

            Again, none of that requires going into the yard, and one is viewing the lock from the backdoor steps, and also from the top of the cellar steps.

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              READ the text Fishy. READ IT.
              How can you say that x is in conflict with y if we don’t know what x said!!!!!
              Read the evidence herlock ,"coroner" Did you go into the yard"" .... Richardson "NO"

              To be standing at the top of the cellar steps looking at the cellar door , your in the yard buddy . Its as simple as that .

              That's what the evidence tells us its right there in black and white .

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                Utter rubbish! You ignore huge chunks of evidence to cling on to pointless trivialities. Try reading the evidence Fishy. Read the actual lines and don’t simply imagine what you think you can read between them.
                Funny isn't it , you accuse me of what you do yourself ,

                Stop thinking the evidence only means one thing . It doesn't .

                Your misrepresenting , misusing and misinterpreting for a singular outcome at the expense of another you totally ignore. You have a very bias view based on uncertainty, ambiguous, risky contradictory testimony . Your evaluation skills of the evidence need some tweaking . Lots.

                Comment


                • So, in Hair Bear's C photo, all I'm suggesting is that Richardson came out the door, and stood more or less where the orange spot is in order to view the lock. All he's done is walk down the steps, so he's viewing "from the backdoor steps" as he describes in his testimony, and he hasn't "gone into the yard" to do it.

                  Also, when speaking to Chandler on the day of the crime, he clearly indicated to Chandler where he stood. And Chandler reports that Richardson was at the top of the cellar stairs, which again, the orange spot is at the top end of the cellar stairs, and he doesn't have to go down them to see the lock because, as he states, you can see them from the backdoor steps. All of that testimony is entirely consistent with Richardson viewing the lock from the orange spot.

                  None of it conflicts, it is internally consistent, and it also is the most natural behaviour. Bending over to look under a canopy, sitting with doors propped against one, and so forth, while not violating the principles of the universe, are simply very odd and unusual things to do, so while they are possible they are not probable, particularly when compared to the idea he just did what he said - he went to view the lock, he viewed it from the top of the cellar steps (as per what he indicated to Chandler on the day) while standing at the backdoor steps (as per Richardson's inquest statement), then sat on the steps, fiddled with his boot, and then left to go to work without ever venturing into the yard. Given the door closes on it's own, it would have closed while he was checking the lock, so there would be nothing to block his view, explaining why he is definite she was not there at that time.

                  Seriously, all I'm describing above is what Richardson said he did, and when we look at the layout of the area, then I doubt any of us would view the lock from anywhere else, it's the most convenient and natural place to do that. Other locations create all the conflict, so the conflict is not inherent in the information, it is a result of us getting it wrong and trying to place Richardson somewhere else. That's where the conflict comes from, and that is what should be telling us that the "theory" is wrong. The "orange spot theory", does not conflict with the information we have, it does not conflict with normal human behaviour, and as such, it is my opinion that the orange spot is where Richardson stood when he viewed the lock.


                  Click image for larger version

Name:	image.png
Views:	124
Size:	25.0 KB
ID:	821598

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                    Read the evidence herlock ,"coroner" Did you go into the yard"" .... Richardson "NO"

                    To be standing at the top of the cellar steps looking at the cellar door , your in the yard buddy . Its as simple as that .

                    That's what the evidence tells us its right there in black and white .
                    You can’t even respond to the correct point which shows how you simply don’t read things properly. My point was made about the entirely false allegation of conflict between Richardson and Chandler. If you’d have read properly you’d have realised this.
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                    “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                      Funny isn't it , you accuse me of what you do yourself ,

                      Stop thinking the evidence only means one thing . It doesn't .

                      Your misrepresenting , misusing and misinterpreting for a singular outcome at the expense of another you totally ignore. You have a very bias view based on uncertainty, ambiguous, risky contradictory testimony . Your evaluation skills of the evidence need some tweaking . Lots.
                      Utterly clueless, pitiful stuff. Just a repetition of words. It’s a waste of time trying to discus any subject with you Fishy because all that I get is you repeating words parrot-like.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                      “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        You can’t even respond to the correct point which shows how you simply don’t read things properly. My point was made about the entirely false allegation of conflict between Richardson and Chandler. If you’d have read properly you’d have realised this.
                        Stop the shannanigans herlock ,

                        Your like a magician with the 3 cup and ball trick ." Nothing to see here folks ,but wait is over here" . We all know the game herlock ,i just wish you'd stop playing it.

                        The conflict is with Richardsons testimony as whole. Period.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          Utterly clueless, pitiful stuff. Just a repetition of words. It’s a waste of time trying to discus any subject with you Fishy because all that I get is you repeating words parrot-like.
                          Well stop pararading the evidence as fact that the t.od was 5.30 ,when the evidence based on what has been shown already suggests another possible outcome .

                          If you don't like the discussion , leave. . Simple as that.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                            Fishy.
                            I'm afraid the problem lies more with your failure to understand terminology of the time.

                            I worked with a Chinese student many years ago, and he used to ask me all kinds of questions that he couldn't understand, yet westerners take for granted.
                            One thing I remember was, why do people say "top of the street" when the road is flat?
                            He couldn't understand terminology, we have similar expressions here with witnesses talking about going "up" or "down" Berner St., yet it is flat, or relatively so.
                            There are some expressions that we use without really thinking about it. To some a yard will begin at the house wall, but others are accustomed to regarding a yard as a place for leisure, not where you have steps, or rubbish bins, sheds, and such.
                            Even today some will say if it is grass, it is a garden, if it is paved, it is a yard. Yet others still call a grassed area - a yard, you have to understand these differences. None is necessarily right or wrong.

                            A yard is an open space generally not directly connected to a house, but divided from the house by some feature, like a path, fence, shed, or other.
                            The furthest structure that reaches away from the house, but that is still attached to the house is those cellar steps. After them, there is nothing until you reach the toilet in the bottom left corner, at the end of the fence we see in most photographs.
                            The 'yard' will be that same open space beyond the cement cellar steps, to the end of the property.
                            Therefore, when Richardson stands on the paving flags at the bottom of the house steps, which is also beside the cellar steps, in his opinion he is not "in the yard".

                            I think you're trying to make this a black & white issue, different people will have varying opinions. Neither opinion is right or wrong, but it is necessary to understand what some people of the time think, in order for you to understand what they meant.
                            The onus is on you to understand, don't accuse someone of lying because of your failure to understand.
                            No wick , the problem lies with you and others that won't accept what the coroner ask Richardson. Did you go into the yard? ," Not At All "was his reply.

                            You can twist it any way you want. Richardson did not go into the yard, he ought to know, thats what he told the coroner

                            If you and others want to misrepresent that piece of evidence to suit your theory go ahead just dont tell me I'm wrong when my interpretation tell me differently.
                            Last edited by FISHY1118; 10-12-2023, 12:30 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                              Clear, concise, right on the money
                              Only if ones ignores conflicting inquest testimony .

                              Comment


                              • At the risk of beating a dead horse, I want to take a bit to consider the issue of "in the yard" and "going into the yard", but from a slightly different angle than I have before. It seems to me that what is at issue is the apparent conflict between Richardson saying he checked the cellar lock, and when the coroner asked him if he went into the yard, Richardson says "no", and further states that you don't need to go into the yard to see the lock. I've already suggested, in the "orange spot theory", that what Richardson is intending by his statements is to convey the idea that he didn't go further out into the yard, but viewed the lock from where the backdoor steps are. When we view his statements with that intention of meaning, then there is no conflict in his testimony, nor is there any conflict with Chandler's description of Richardson telling him the location he viewed the lock from was at the top of the cellar stairs, because the orange spot is also at the top of the cellar stairs as well as being beside the backdoor steps.

                                The alternative suggestion, however, is that because Richardson is outside, he is therefore in the yard. As such, when he says he didn't go into the yard, he is contradicting himself. Being in the yard in this sense is being used to mean "outside", once you go outside you are in the yard. If that is what Richardson intends by his use of the phrase "going into the yard", then the claim is that Richardson's intended meaning is that he's gone outside.

                                Therefore, the conflict interpretation is claiming that Richardson, in front of the coroner, and the jury, and press, is effectively intending to convey a meaning equivalent to saying "I didn't go outside when I checked the lock." So his testimony has the intentions of "I went outside to the steps, to check the lock on the outside door to the cellar, then sat on the outside steps, fixed my boot. But no sir, I didn't go outside." Richardson would have to be a special kind of stupid to intend on conveying that sort of meaning and I suggest there isn't even a remote chance that is an accurate interpretation of what Richardson's testimony "means". But in order for there to be conflict in his testimony that is effectively the interpretation one has to impart upon Richardson's statements. Imparting that meaning, however, is untenable as I believe it goes beyond any realistic sense of what Richardson is actually trying to say.

                                When Richardson says he didn't have to go into the yard to see the lock, Richardson is not denying "being outside", nor is he denying being "in the yard" per se, he is denying having to go "into the yard", which can only mean he's denying walking further from the steps and house and entering the interior area of the yard. From looking at both Richardson's inquest statements, and the description given by Chandler, then it would appear the orange spot is the location Richardson is describing. And that orange spot location, combined with a realistic interpretation of not "going into the yard", means there is nothing conflicting in Richardson's testimony. Disregarding Richardson on the grounds that his testimony conflicts requires that one insist Richardson is more or less saying "When I went outside I didn't go outside", which is not even worth considering. But without that underlying gist, there is no conflict.

                                Now, I have no problem if, at the end of the day, anyone remains sceptical of my orange spot theory. I've presented it as clearly as I think I can, I've tried to fully outline my reasoning, how it ties to the information we have to work with, and why I think other locations for Richardson's lock viewing do not correspond to the information we have. If you are still unconvinced, then that is fine, as I don't think there's anything else I can add. And to be clear, I remain open to other ideas, of course, but ideas that create conflict with the information we have (such as ignoring Chandler's information and place Richardson somewhere other than a location that can be described as at the top of the cellar steps), or require Richardson to be saying "When I went outside I didn't go outside" in order to view his testimony as self contradictory, will not be viewed by me at least to be suitable alternatives. If, however, one can come up with a location other than the orange spot that fits all of the information we have, then I will concede that perhaps there are two (or more) locations we have to consider.

                                - Jeff

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X