Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • By the way Trevor. Over the years haven’t you been one that suggests that the same person didn’t kill all of the c5?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      No ‘context’ is required. If you can explain how Richardson managed to put his feet on the flags to sit down without going down the steps then a Nobel Prize might be heading your way.
      Your coming from the assumption that Richardson actually sat on the step. ,Thats not what I and others have been saying

      The evidence, as I've and others have also been saying relates directly to Richardson coming to the back door ,checking the lock and going to work .

      Any discussion on my behalf was that Richardson didn't go down the steps or because that's what he told Chandler .

      Chandler also said Richardson didn't mention the boot story.

      Now you took that as to mean " oh how can that be fishy he had to go down them as to sit on them ""

      Now do you see where you cocked it all up?

      It all comes down to the difference and conflicting testimony and press reports

      You and Wick interpret certain sources to mean one thing and that there the correct ones ,where by myself George and Trevor interpret other sources and believe they are correct, or at least can't be shown to be incorrect.

      Everyone that ever posted on this topic can see that except YOU.!!!
      'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        No he didn’t make a mistake. It meant that he could understand the English language perfectly well. And as an experienced Coroner he had years of listening to Doctors and understanding what they meant. He understood exactly what Phillips meant. That he couldn’t possibly have added a caveat if it had no affect on his estimation. People don’t add caveats for no reason PI. Phillips added his caveat for a reason and that reason can only have been that he was making allowances for a later ToD whilst still favouring an earlier one.

        It really is very simple if people stop performing logical acrobatics to make it mean something illogical.

        We also have to ask why, if Baxter was wrong, did Phillips allow this misinterpretation of his professional opinion to go unchallenged? It appears all over the Press and he just keeps quiet? Is that believable?

        Probably three does not mean one.

        The coroner sided with the witnesses and had some brushes with Phillips.

        Phillips left it to others to take his side against that of the coroner.

        I have read that many doctors publicly supported his opinion against that of the coroner.
        Last edited by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1; 10-14-2023, 10:22 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
          By the way Trevor. Over the years haven’t you been one that suggests that the same person didn’t kill all of the c5?
          Yes you are correct, I don't believe Stride to be a Ripper victim

          Comment


          • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

            Your coming from the assumption that Richardson actually sat on the step. ,Thats not what I and others have been saying

            The evidence, as I've and others have also been saying relates directly to Richardson coming to the back door ,checking the lock and going to work .

            Any discussion on my behalf was that Richardson didn't go down the steps or because that's what he told Chandler .

            Chandler also said Richardson didn't mention the boot story.

            Now you took that as to mean " oh how can that be fishy he had to go down them as to sit on them ""

            Now do you see where you cocked it all up?

            It all comes down to the difference and conflicting testimony and press reports

            You and Wick interpret certain sources to mean one thing and that there the correct ones ,where by myself George and Trevor interpret other sources and believe they are correct, or at least can't be shown to be incorrect.

            Everyone that ever posted on this topic can see that except YOU.!!!
            A few obvious points. Chandler did not interview Richardson and take a statement from him at the site. He spoke to him briefly in the passage. Chandler said that he saw Richardson "a little before 7 o'clock", and then says he was at the mortuary "a few minutes after 7 o'clock". So his conversation with Richardson was very brief. He probably just satisfied himself that Richardson had valid evidence. There was no reason, nor was there time for Richardson to go into detail about everything that happened. So Richardson didn't tell him everything, because he couldn't have been asked.

            Richardson's sworn evidence was that he sat on the steps with his feet on the yard flagstones.

            Swanson makes it crystal clear that Richardson's story was checked thoroughly, and that they were unable to find fault with it. No suggestion from Swanson that Richardson changed his story.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

              Your coming from the assumption that Richardson actually sat on the step. ,Thats not what I and others have been saying

              The evidence, as I've and others have also been saying relates directly to Richardson coming to the back door ,checking the lock and going to work .

              Any discussion on my behalf was that Richardson didn't go down the steps or because that's what he told Chandler .

              Chandler also said Richardson didn't mention the boot story.

              Now you took that as to mean " oh how can that be fishy he had to go down them as to sit on them ""

              Now do you see where you cocked it all up?

              It all comes down to the difference and conflicting testimony and press reports

              You and Wick interpret certain sources to mean one thing and that there the correct ones ,where by myself George and Trevor interpret other sources and believe they are correct, or at least can't be shown to be incorrect.

              Everyone that ever posted on this topic can see that except YOU.!!!
              John Richardson sat on the middle step. He didn’t stand on the top step. Whatever he might not have mentioned to Chandler doesn’t matter because we know that he had no sinister reason for doing so. He said that he couldn’t possibly have missed the body had it been there. Again he had no reason to lie and the fact is that the whole story about sitting on the step to repair his boot was in the papers less than 48 hours later. So he might not have mentioned the boot repair to Chandler - nothing at all suspicious about that. But if he did say that he didn’t go down the steps then he must have been talking about the cellar steps otherwise why would he say that he hadn’t gone down the back door steps when he told the Press that he had. How can you interpret this otherwise? It requires Richardson to have been catastrophically stupid.

              Assumptions of stupidity weaken any argument.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                Yes you are correct, I don't believe Stride to be a Ripper victim

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                But surely you’ve also said that the victims in general might have been killed by different killers?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                  Probably three does not mean one.

                  The coroner sided with the witnesses and had some brushes with Phillips.

                  Phillips left it to others to take his side against that of the coroner.

                  I have read that many doctors publicly supported his opinion against that of the coroner.
                  Left it to others? Who?

                  The caveat is self evident. He was allowing for a later ToD whilst preferring an earlier one.

                  There really should be no reason to discus this particular topic. That Phillips was allowing for a later ToD is simply a fact. Baxter understood it. The Press understood it. And the vast majority on here see it.

                  There’s much that’s valid to dispute in this case but this just isn’t one of them. There is no alternative interpretation.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    Exactly. What else could it have been if it wasn’t connected to the murder.

                    Plus, I don’t accept that Cadosch was uncertain about the ‘No.’
                    Of course you don't, even tho he himself said he was .

                    'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      Left it to others? Who?



                      We confess to sharing Mr. Phillips' view that the coldness of the body and commencing rigidity pointed to a far longer interval between death and discovery [than that suggested by the coroner]; but, as he remarked the almost total draining away of the blood, added to the exposure in the cold morning air, may have hastened the cooling down of the body.

                      (The Lancet, 29 September 1888)
                      ​​
                      Last edited by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1; 10-14-2023, 11:19 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        You made a point on the subject.

                        I asked you to back it up.

                        You refused.

                        Not my issue Fishy. Yours. Again.
                        I made a point about a post that on these boards that pertains to the witnesses ,

                        There's nothing to back up ,its there, if you dont go research it that your issue not mine.
                        'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          That should be a case of ‘enough said’ Wick, but we both know that it won’t be. It’s simply a case of preconception. A few are just dogmatically convinced that the ripper wouldn’t have killed at 5.30 and so the evidence must be made to fit that preconception. On and on it goes.
                          Much the same way your using the evidence to convince people on a overwhelmingly 5.30 t.o.d when the same evidence would suggest otherwise.
                          'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                            A few obvious points. Chandler did not interview Richardson and take a statement from him at the site. He spoke to him briefly in the passage. Chandler said that he saw Richardson "a little before 7 o'clock", and then says he was at the mortuary "a few minutes after 7 o'clock". So his conversation with Richardson was very brief. He probably just satisfied himself that Richardson had valid evidence. There was no reason, nor was there time for Richardson to go into detail about everything that happened. So Richardson didn't tell him everything, because he couldn't have been asked.

                            Richardson's sworn evidence was that he sat on the steps with his feet on the yard flagstones.

                            Swanson makes it crystal clear that Richardson's story was checked thoroughly, and that they were unable to find fault with it. No suggestion from Swanson that Richardson changed his story.
                            Thanks doc , .

                            But we do of course have to take in all the inquest testimony and has i shown the coroner and Richardson testimony together with the Chandler and Richardson conversation is very unsafe and conflicting as to what Richardson actually said he did or/and didn't do.

                            'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              John Richardson sat on the middle step. He didn’t stand on the top step. Whatever he might not have mentioned to Chandler doesn’t matter because we know that he had no sinister reason for doing so. He said that he couldn’t possibly have missed the body had it been there. Again he had no reason to lie and the fact is that the whole story about sitting on the step to repair his boot was in the papers less than 48 hours later. So he might not have mentioned the boot repair to Chandler - nothing at all suspicious about that. But if he did say that he didn’t go down the steps then he must have been talking about the cellar steps otherwise why would he say that he hadn’t gone down the back door steps when he told the Press that he had. How can you interpret this otherwise? It requires Richardson to have been catastrophically stupid.

                              Assumptions of stupidity weaken any argument.
                              Refer inquest testimony for further conflicting accounts .
                              'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                                Refer inquest testimony for further conflicting accounts .

                                Talking of conflicting accounts: how could John Richardson have sat on the middle step and cut a piece of leather off his boot when the knife was evidently not sharp enough for that purpose and he had to borrow a sharper one?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X