John Richardson

[Trevor Marriott]

My opinion is simple. That three witnesses with no reason lie corroborate each other in pointing to a later ToD. Against this we have a doctor using provable unreliable methods who, when giving his estimate, favoured an earlier ToD whilst accept ion the possibility of a later one.

Faced with that situation we have no other option but to say that a later ToD is the likelier.

You need to change your opinion because the three witnesses do not corroborate each other, this has been explained to you many times but you can't or won't accept what is being said, and as I have said many times the witness testimony is unsafe to rely on. end of the story, accept it move on and stop trying to win an argument that you are never going to win.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

You need to change your opinion because the three witnesses do not corroborate each other, this has been explained to you many times but you can't or won't accept what is being said, and as I have said many times the witness testimony is unsafe to rely on. end of the story, accept it move on and stop trying to win an argument that you are never going to win.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No. You need to change your opinion.

The three witnesses corroborate each other perfectly. The witnesses weren’t unreliable though the reporting of what they said probably was.

Ill ask you again. Have you ever found a witness that was trustworthy Trevor. Or do you just eliminate them all on the grounds that witnesses can be mistken?

[A P Tomlinson]

Witnesses don't have to give identical testimony to corroborate one another.

If the proposition is "Annie Chapmans muder occured some time after 4.30 and most likely around the time that Albert Cadosche made his visits to the yard."
Cadosche's evidence of people talking in the neighbouring yard followed by the sound of what might have been something like a heavy packing case, (or something far smaller.....) making contact with the fence. Supports that proposition.
Richardson's testimopny that no body was there prior to him leaving at around ten to five. Supports or "corroborates" Cadosche's statement and therby supports the proposition.
Long's testimony that Chapman was alive an well after 4.30 supports Cadosches statement and therefor supports or "corroborates" the proposition.

(And I didn't even need to say that Philips ToD was measured badly using bad science and incomplete data and would not even sit up, let alone stand up, in a modern court room.)

Show me the corroboration for 4.30.
Try and make that actual supporting evidence rather than theory or "Well, witnesses are bad, and memory is no use."

[FISHY1118]

No. Very weak points were put forward 4900 posts ago. They were weak then and they remain weak now.

It has gone on too long. It’s way past time that you accepted that you are wrong in your interpretation of events and that a later ToD is easily the likelier.

Hard to argue with plain English from inquest testimony between Richardson , Chandler and the Coroner , theres no misinterpreting the evidence below.


Again, the fact you have to say George Trevor P.I and Myself are ''wrong'' based on the ''exactly'' the same evidence we all share and interpret and give opinions on is sad and i feel sorry for you .

The hypocrisy is laughable .



It’s not simply to say ‘I believe in an LATER ToD and I’ll defend it at all costs. No matter if I have to overrule the worlds authorities regarding unsafe witness testimony, no matter if I have to tear up the rules of grammar, no matter if I have to ignore what a medical point actually means, no matter if I have to resort to generalities like why would witnesses lie .

The hypocrisy is laughable



Now that we all know [because you couldnt answer to the question below ] Richardson didnt look at the cellar lock from the back yard , im putting this one to bed and moving on .












Can someone show me a Doorstep at the spot where some would have us believe John Richardson was standing in the backyard at the top of the cellar entrance steps.?



John Richardson, ''When I was on the ''doorstep'' I saw that the padlock on the cellar door was in its proper place.''

''WHEN I WAS ON THE DOORSTEP''!!!!!






Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - I saw him about a quarter to seven o'clock. He told me he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. ''He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar'', to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.

''HE SAID HE CAME TO THE BACK DOOR AND LOOKED DOWN TO THE CELLAR''


Chandler confirms what Richardson said he did .


Richardson confirms to the Coroner what he did .




Daily News
United Kingdom
13 September 1888


[Coroner,] Did you go into the yard at all?-Not at all, sir.!!!!!!!!!!!

I thought you went there to see that the cellar was all right?- [Richardson] Yes; ''but you don't need to go into the yard'' to see that. You can ''see the padlock'' of the cellar door ''from the back door steps.''!!!!!!!!!!








Of all the different press reports regarding inquest testimony ,there is no evidence to suggest one was more accurate than another when reporting what was said at any inquest for the whitechapel murders.

The very fact that the wording from one report differs slighty from another which in turn leads some to interpret certain information in a different way , is in itself the very definition of uncertainty.


Doorstep noun [C] (STEP)

a step in front of an outside door: DOORSTEP | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary

[Trevor Marriott]

Witnesses don't have to give identical testimony to corroborate one another.

If the proposition is "Annie Chapmans muder occured some time after 4.30 and most likely around the time that Albert Cadosche made his visits to the yard."
Cadosche's evidence of people talking in the neighbouring yard followed by the sound of what might have been something like a heavy packing case, (or something far smaller.....) making contact with the fence. Supports that proposition.
Richardson's testimopny that no body was there prior to him leaving at around ten to five. Supports or "corroborates" Cadosche's statement and therby supports the proposition.
Long's testimony that Chapman was alive an well after 4.30 supports Cadosches statement and therefor supports or "corroborates" the proposition.

(And I didn't even need to say that Philips ToD was measured badly using bad science and incomplete data and would not even sit up, let alone stand up, in a modern court room.)

Show me the corroboration for 4.30.
Try and make that actual supporting evidence rather than theory or "Well, witnesses are bad, and memory is no use."

We have been discussing this for god knows how long Long`s ID is flawed as is her ID of Chapman at the mortuary and is unsafe to rely on

You should look at the case or R V Turnbull 1976 in which issues of identification were paramount the result from that case were in brief

Turnbull requires judges to remove cases from the consideration of a jury where the witness's view is “fleeting or otherwise unsatisfactory.” This recognises that, in certain circumstances, the quality of an identification may be such that the prosecution cannot prove that the risk of mistake may be excluded.

As to Cadosh he does not stand still but hears this so-called bump when he is on the move and then again he hears the "No" again while he is on the move. Both could have come from anywhere, at that time people were up and moving about.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[A P Tomlinson]

Hard to argue with plain English from inquest testimony between Richardson , Chandler and the Coroner , theres no misinterpreting the evidence below.


Again, the fact you have to say George Trevor P.I and Myself are ''wrong'' based on the ''exactly'' the same evidence we all share and interpret and give opinions on is sad and i feel sorry for you .

The hypocrisy is laughable .



It’s not simply to say ‘I believe in an LATER ToD and I’ll defend it at all costs. No matter if I have to overrule the worlds authorities regarding unsafe witness testimony, no matter if I have to tear up the rules of grammar, no matter if I have to ignore what a medical point actually means, no matter if I have to resort to generalities like why would witnesses lie .

The hypocrisy is laughable



Now that we all know [because you couldnt answer to the question below ] Richardson didnt look at the cellar lock from the back yard , im putting this one to bed and moving on .












Can someone show me a Doorstep at the spot where some would have us believe John Richardson was standing in the backyard at the top of the cellar entrance steps.?



John Richardson, ''When I was on the ''doorstep'' I saw that the padlock on the cellar door was in its proper place.''

''WHEN I WAS ON THE DOORSTEP''!!!!!






Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - I saw him about a quarter to seven o'clock. He told me he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. ''He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar'', to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.

''HE SAID HE CAME TO THE BACK DOOR AND LOOKED DOWN TO THE CELLAR''


Chandler confirms what Richardson said he did .


Richardson confirms to the Coroner what he did .




Daily News
United Kingdom
13 September 1888


[Coroner,] Did you go into the yard at all?-Not at all, sir.!!!!!!!!!!!

I thought you went there to see that the cellar was all right?- [Richardson] Yes; ''but you don't need to go into the yard'' to see that. You can ''see the padlock'' of the cellar door ''from the back door steps.''!!!!!!!!!!








Of all the different press reports regarding inquest testimony ,there is no evidence to suggest one was more accurate than another when reporting what was said at any inquest for the whitechapel murders.

The very fact that the wording from one report differs slighty from another which in turn leads some to interpret certain information in a different way , is in itself the very definition of uncertainty.


Doorstep noun [C] (STEP)

a step in front of an outside door: DOORSTEP | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary

I know you keep pasting this over and over, but you need to understand that as you point out with your link, the doorstep is that big stone block ''in front of" the door.
NOT the doorway itself.
You recall Richardson saying that he sat on the one in the backyard?
Well, THAT is him saying that he could see the padlock, ''WHEN I WAS ON THE DOORSTEP''!!!!!

So yeah... finally you agree that it wasn't from the doorway that he could see the padlock and that he had to have ventured beyond it onto the door step.
How hard is the leap to him sitting down going to be now that you understand what a door step is?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If only one muscle group such as a the left lower arm were affected, as it was on top of the body and he noticed it there first, but the legs were easy to lower and the right arm flaccid it woud be an easy mistake to make. When my Mrs was training and on an ambluance ride along, she saw a Doctor make the same (honest) mistake when they were called to pronounce on a sudden death at home, and that was just over 20 years ago. Guy had choked on something, it was suspicious so got bumped up the autopsy queue, and was noted by the pathologist.
And guess what the pathologist was able to do after a proper autopsy? Bring the estimated time of death a little later.
That incident was the reason she mentioned it to me in the first place.

Sorry, APT, but I do not think you have addressed the points I made directly.

As for your hypothetical one limb example, Phillips mentioned more than one limb and his words could be taken to mean all four.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I wasn’t implying dishonesty on Phillips part.

Even a more patient posters than myself (Wickerman AP, Doc, Lewis etc) are losing the will to live on this point! This is why I can’t help thinking that some people are just deliberately doing this. Arguing simply for the sake of it.

Phillips caveat, when we consider the scientific content, can only mean later. Why isn’t this dinking in PI. ‘More rapid cooling’ would result in the body getting colder quicker than originally assumed. This would give the person making the examination the impression that the victim had been dead for longer than he/she actually had be. Therefore the death would have occurred later rather than earlier.

So Phillips estimate was 2 hours or probably more

but he added his BUT…

BUT the more rapid cooling could have given him the mistaken impression that she had been dead for longer than he had originally considered.

So…unless you or anyone else believes that Phillips meant ‘I think that she had been dead for 2 or probably more but then again probably just 2’ then there can be no other interpretation than ‘ I think that she had been dead for 2 hours or probably more although, due to the possibility of the condition of the body she had cooled more rapidly that I’d accounted for, she might have died for less than 2 hours.’

There can be no other interpretation PI. It’s the only interpretation that makes sense both medically and grammatically. So why is this being disputed?

Phillips said probably more than two hours, not probably less than two hours.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The three witnesses corroborate each other perfectly.

That is not true.

The coroner himself acknowledged that fact.

[A P Tomlinson]

Sorry, APT, but I do not think you have addressed the points I made directly.

As for your hypothetical one limb example, Phillips mentioned more than one limb and his words could be taken to mean all four.

The very specific (or not) description he gives is no less applicable to post mortem rigor in a body dead for 1 hour than for 2, or 3 up to about 6. "Commencing" can be used to apply any of those. He gives more detail on them when he performs the autopsy stating it as being well marked. But this was over 7 hours after his initial examination, and around 10 hours since HE thought she had died.
Making any chance of measuring the rates of decline in body temp and development of rigor impossible.
Because he didn't measure the temperature drop over that time, or the rate at which the rigor set in, OR note at what point rigor deteriorated, OR measure lavidity... as I have tried to explain many times now He had no idea what time of death was.
From his autopsy report he didn't even check the temperature.

I know there is a desperate need to put anything on his exam that lends it credence but please... its silly now. He didn't know what to look for or how to measure the things needed to give anything approximating a ToD.
His methods and those of all the others still practising them were overtaken over the last 135 years by better, more accurate methods, and STILL an ME won;t give the sort of answers that these guys, and YOU believe are on the money.
An ME can NOT turn up, feel a body, lift a limb or two and declare "This person died 2 hours ago!" while ignoring the environmental factors (which he admitted to doing) and damage done to the torso and expect to be believed.
It's nonsense.

If he had taken an axila measurement he would have stated it, he would have given the precise temperature, because it would have shown how clever and good at his job he was, not to mention that information being fairly useful at an inquest into the circumstances surrounding her death. He would have used that measurement to defend his position when challenged! Because it would have been EVIDENCE.
He certainly won't have used his thermometre for a rectal check on core temp at the crime scene, and didn't seem concerned to do even check the temperature at the autopsy. If he had tried an oral check for core temp on a victim that had been all but decapitated, he should have been struck off.

Nothing supports or corroborates his ToD, and he was using badly flawed methodolgy and may as well have rolled a dice and said "That..."

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The very specific (or not) description he gives is no less applicable to post mortem rigor in a body dead for 1 hour than for 2, or 3 up to about 6. "Commencing" can be used to apply any of those. He gives more detail on them when he performs the autopsy stating it as being well marked. But this was over 7 hours after his initial examination, and around 10 hours since HE thought she had died.
Making any chance of measuring the rates of decline in body temp and development of rigor impossible.
Because he didn't measure the temperature drop over that time, or the rate at which the rigor set in, OR note at what point rigor deteriorated, OR measure lavidity... as I have tried to explain many times now He had no idea what time of death was.
From his autopsy report he didn't even check the temperature.

I know there is a desperate need to put anything on his exam that lends it credence but please... its silly now. He didn't know what to look for or how to measure the things needed to give anything approximating a ToD.
His methods and those of all the others still practising them were overtaken over the last 135 years by better, more accurate methods, and STILL an ME won;t give the sort of answers that these guys, and YOU believe are on the money.
An ME can NOT turn up, feel a body, lift a limb or two and declare "This person died 2 hours ago!" while ignoring the environmental factors (which he admitted to doing) and damage done to the torso and expect to be believed.
It's nonsense.

If he had taken an axila measurement he would have stated it, he would have given the precise temperature, because it would have shown how clever and good at his job he was, not to mention that information being fairly useful at an inquest into the circumstances surrounding her death. He would have used that measurement to defend his position when challenged! Because it would have been EVIDENCE.
He certainly won't have used his thermometre for a rectal check on core temp at the crime scene, and didn't seem concerned to do even check the temperature at the autopsy. If he had tried an oral check for core temp on a victim that had been all but decapitated, he should have been struck off.

Nothing supports or corroborates his ToD, and he was using badly flawed methodolgy and may as well have rolled a dice and said "That..."

As far as I can see, you still have not addressed any of the points I made in # 5777, which concerned cadaveric spasm, a subject you yourself introduced.

[A P Tomlinson]

As far as I can see, you still have not addressed any of the points I made in # 5777, which concerned cadaveric spasm, a subject you yourself introduced.

What about it? It may have occured it probablly didn't.
Whether I am right or wrong about a cadaveric spasm does not win points to make Philips' assessment of ToD any clearer.
But I tell you what, I'll give you a win.
There was no cadaveric spasm, forget all about it. I don't want to get into a long winded pointless debate over whether he even bothered to test more than one limb, given the exertions he made over testing for temperature... because the report incluides an S therefore he DID.

Focus instead on showing me any evidence to support Philips' idea of 4.30. Try and do it without simply falling back on the 3 witnesses being wrong and the whole memory = bad thing.

(PLEASE go with "They were right on the others"...)

[Doctored Whatsit]

That is not true.

The coroner himself acknowledged that fact.

I agree, the word "perfectly" applied to the corroboration is incorrect here. However, it must be said that the coroner concluded that the time differences quoted by Long and Cadosche were "not very great or very important". He would have been very experienced in hearing evidence where time estimates varied a little more than would have been ideal. He then accepted the witnesses' evidence.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

What about it? It may have occured it probablly didn't.
Whether I am right or wrong about a cadaveric spasm does not win points to make Philips' assessment of ToD any clearer.
But I tell you what, I'll give you a win.
There was no cadaveric spasm, forget all about it. I don't want to get into a long winded pointless debate over whether he even bothered to test more than one limb, given the exertions he made over testing for temperature... because the report incluides an S therefore he DID.

Focus instead on showing me any evidence to support Philips' idea of 4.30. Try and do it without simply falling back on the 3 witnesses being wrong and the whole memory = bad thing.

(PLEASE go with "They were right on the others"...)

Thanks for accepting, albeit belatedly, that there was no cadaveric spasm.

That was all I wanted to focus on, as it was you who had suggested the possibility that there had been a cadaveric spasm.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I agree, the word "perfectly" applied to the corroboration is incorrect here. However, it must be said that the coroner concluded that the time differences quoted by Long and Cadosche were "not very great or very important". He would have been very experienced in hearing evidence where time estimates varied a little more than would have been ideal. He then accepted the witnesses' evidence.

I have read the coroner's summary of the evidence and I do not think he was entitled to conclude that the man seen by Long was the murderer.

There is no evidence that the couple entered number 29, and they were not even standing in front of number 29. There is nothing in the conversation snippet heard by Long to suggest that they were contemplating entering number 29.

The exchange, "Will you?" and "Yes" hardly suggests a conversation between a prostitute and client, since there was hardly any need to ask such a question in the event that any business was being contemplated.

The discrepancy between the timings given by Long and Cadoche should have alerted the coroner to the likelihood that the man seen by Long had nothing to do with the murder.