Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
    You lost me when you you said that the sketches from two different persons hand who, mind you were almost certain to have been on that very spot just after the murder looking right at the very object they were copying were "flat out wrong". ASTONISHING. please forgive me if I cross you off my " don't bother to reply list ".

    I could reply to the rest of your post but as you missed the whole point of what I was explaining there's really no need is there.
    Surely you can see that those two sketches were dimensionally inaccurate though Fishy?
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      What I cant understand is why everyone is arguing about the time of death, It changes nothing about the murder whether it was early or late and it has no bearing on any suspect because at this time there is no suspect.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      Of course it is important for various reasons, such as: does the TOD add weight to doctors of that period being generally capable of estimating time of death, is the murderer walking the streets all night looking for victims or does he have a set window of opportunity in terms of time, does the time of murder render witness descriptions redundant and it follows remove obstacles to a conflicting witness description at another murder scene, is this an example of witnesses giving false statements and if so can it be construed as an isolated incident or a pointer towards other witness statements (and there are plenty of other reasons).

      Comment


      • I think that we can see from the photograph that those two holes clearly indicate where the canopy was. We can also see on both sides of the doorway that there is a course of bricks which stick out. Also, although we can’t be certain of course but I really do get the impression that the door to the cellar was recessed to some extent. I just don’t think that Richardson would have been able to have seen the cellar door below the canopy from a standing position. Any contortions that he ‘might’ have had to have done to have seen it from there would have been far more difficult (virtually getting on all fours) than simply taking a couple of steps into the yard. I mean, how lazy was Richardson?
        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

          Surely you can see that those two sketches were dimensionally inaccurate though Fishy?


          In comparison to what exactly ?


          We have discussed that herlock, they are what they are as they were drawn at the time , and we have raised the topic about what may have been added and removed after 1888 that could have been responsible for any marking and holes , its impossible to say that such marking and holes were from the canopy of 1888 version in the sketchers .
          Last edited by FISHY1118; 07-25-2022, 09:27 AM.
          '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


          • Another example of how the Press can make errors can be found in The Times version of Richardson’s inquest testimony where it’s stated:

            ”He stood on the steps and cut a piece of leather from off one of his boots.”

            So they get the boot repair part correct (as we know that this is what he’d said in The Telegraph version and to the Press) but claimed that he’d only stood on the step. Then later:

            ”…..said he could see the padlock was on the door. He did not sit upon the top step, but rested his feet on the flags of the yard.”

            So they go from ‘stood on the step,” then they said that he didn’t sit on the (very specifically) top step, but “rested his feet on the flags of the yard.”

            So they had him standing and sitting in the same piece. Surely this shows that when looking at anything coming via a newspaper reporter we have to be aware of error; even a paper like The Times.

            So is it really surprising that Press reports after the murder state that Richardson variously stood or sat? He very clearly sat.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

            Comment


            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

              We have discussed that herlock, they are what they are as they were drawn at the time , and we have raised the topic about what may have been added and removed after 1888 that could have been responsible for any marking and holes , its impossible to say that such marking and holes were from the canopy of 1888 version in the sketchers .
              We can’t say for 100% certainty of course because we don’t have a photograph but we can make the very reasonable and very confident suggestion that these holes were from the canopy. Personally I can think of nothing else that they could have been but I’d be interested to hear other suggestions on what they might have been of course. Apart from the two figures added for artistic reasons we can see that the artist has taken great care on attention to detail when we compare the drawing to the photographs. He has the dimensions correct, the height of the steps and the window for example so I think we can credit the artist with accuracy. He hadn’t exaggerated the height of the canopy in any way, or lowered the door, or anything like that. So, if those holes were from the canopy, and I really do think that they were, then it serves to illustrate that Richardson wouldn’t have been able to have seen the cellar lock (or, to add a bit of caution, let’s say that it would have been unlikely in the extreme)

              I strongly believe that this strengthens the already overwhelming strong case that John Richardson sat on the step. And if he did that it’s my opinion that the chances of him not seeing the corpse was virtually non-existent. Then we can add the fact that he saw the body in situ and was absolutely confident that he couldn’t have missed it. I’m totally confident that the body simply wasn’t there.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

              Comment


              • Like Trevor im not a big fan of press reports or their interuptation of certain events which in this case i was willing to use them as what i saw were two different bits of information . Seeing how weve decended into the realmes of mistakes that may or may not have been reported only leads to nowhere .

                Ill be sticking with actual witness testimony and inquest statements from here on in , Chandler and Richardson own words are only what matters, and the way people decide to interpret them is their own choice. The evidence suggest to me that Ricardsons version of events by no means trumps Chandlers there are too many inconsistancies with all the testimony and theres more than enough evidence after nearly 600 post and counting to suggest otherwise.IMO

                '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


                • The point,Herlock,is that you cannot generalise,as I explained.'The' ,and this is from what my dictionary says ,is refering to a specific thing, and in this case I take it to refer to a law.All I have asked,is which law? Further it is stating this law presumes innocence.From what you have written,it presumes anythig but.Further to that,as all laws have a written content,I mentioned Military law to explain this.The' Manual of military Law'is a written version of that law.So a 'presumption of innocence' law,should have a written version,explaining that law. Refer to where I can find it,if you are unwilling to explain that law. Not hard to understand.
                  There are what are called 'Principles',one of which requires that only truths be spoken.It is not a law,but 'Principled' persons have be known to commit suicide,when breaking it.
                  I haven't manufactured anything.I do not need to, nor sidetracked in any way.Any manufacturing is down to you.You have been asked a simple question,and then spent post after post evading that question.Why not own up that you cannot answer because there is no such law.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    We can’t say for 100% certainty of course because we don’t have a photograph but we can make the very reasonable and very confident suggestion that these holes were from the canopy. Personally I can think of nothing else that they could have been but I’d be interested to hear other suggestions on what they might have been of course. Apart from the two figures added for artistic reasons we can see that the artist has taken great care on attention to detail when we compare the drawing to the photographs. He has the dimensions correct, the height of the steps and the window for example so I think we can credit the artist with accuracy. He hadn’t exaggerated the height of the canopy in any way, or lowered the door, or anything like that. So, if those holes were from the canopy, and I really do think that they were, then it serves to illustrate that Richardson wouldn’t have been able to have seen the cellar lock (or, to add a bit of caution, let’s say that it would have been unlikely in the extreme)

                    I strongly believe that this strengthens the already overwhelming strong case that John Richardson sat on the step. And if he did that it’s my opinion that the chances of him not seeing the corpse was virtually non-existent. Then we can add the fact that he saw the body in situ and was absolutely confident that he couldn’t have missed it. I’m totally confident that the body simply wasn’t there.
                    Theres just one problem with this. That drawing by allen clark 2017 in post #574 is using the markings on the wall and the holes as his starting reference !!!

                    As suggested, for some 70 years after 1888 those markings could have been from any number of different stuctures replacing the original 1888 canopy .

                    We know with the sketchers, ''two'' of them i might add that compliment each other in almost every detail , by two different hands ,done on the sameday/days, right after the murder, by people who were actually in the yard to draw them , some 128 years before alan clarks the drawing .

                    To me it mind blogging that anyone would suggest or question their accuracy as to what was actully there at the time .

                    Evidence at the time of the murder where verbel or in this case ''two'' illustrations should alway be more accepted above something different suggested years later.
                    '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

                      Theres just one problem with this. That drawing by allen clark 2017 in post #574 is using the markings on the wall and the holes as his starting reference !!!

                      As suggested, for some 70 years after 1888 those markings could have been from any number of different stuctures replacing the original 1888 canopy .

                      We know with the sketchers, ''two'' of them i might add that compliment each other in almost every detail , by two different hands ,done on the sameday/days, right after the murder, by people who were actually in the yard to draw them , some 128 years before alan clarks the drawing .

                      To me it mind blogging that anyone would suggest or question their accuracy as to what was actully there at the time .

                      Evidence at the time of the murder where verbel or in this case ''two'' illustrations should alway be more accepted above something different suggested years later.
                      the issue I have is that it seems highly unlikely the canopy would have crossed the window, therefore it must have attached to the wall below the sill, as shown in the two sketches you mention. There are no other holes anywhere on that wall for the canopy to be secured (i think the curved markings are from a different structure altogether). I think both artists in those sketches have misjudged/exaggerated the vertical scale of things with the canopy. Looking at the photo, if the canopy was secured below the window in those holes, as I think it must surely have been, I don't see how anyone could see the lock from standing
                      Click image for larger version

Name:	image_22673.jpg
Views:	196
Size:	129.8 KB
ID:	790412

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                        Of course it is important for various reasons, such as: does the TOD add weight to doctors of that period being generally capable of estimating time of death, is the murderer walking the streets all night looking for victims or does he have a set window of opportunity in terms of time, does the time of murder render witness descriptions redundant and it follows remove obstacles to a conflicting witness description at another murder scene, is this an example of witnesses giving false statements and if so can it be construed as an isolated incident or a pointer towards other witness statements (and there are plenty of other reasons).
                        Well this whole thread is about the accuracy of Victorian Doctors to estimate a time of death there is no way to prove witnesses gave false testimony. It is hoped that sensible reserchers on here will be able to see the flaws in the witness testimony, because not just with this murder but all through the whole murders there are major flaws in witness testimony

                        As to the witness testimony I personally belive it to be unsafe to totally rely on for the reasons that have been stated many times.

                        If the later TOD is to be accepted then that breaks the killers MO because all the other victims were killed much earlier and if the killer had been trawling the streets up unitl 5am and he hadnt found a victim as likley as not he would have given up because as daylight approached would have made him wary of being seen and possibly apprehended.

                        The killer could have been walking the streets night after night and if he had have been we would have seen even more murders but we have to look at other factors if the killer lived locally then he would have had the opportunity to find more victims. But if the killer didnt live locally and was a traveller and only came into Whitechapel on the times that he was in London, then that might explain the long gaps between each of the murders.

                        2 things are certain in Ripperology the first is that these murders are never going to be solved, and secondly the killer will never be identified.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 07-25-2022, 11:08 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                          You lost me when you you said that the sketches from two different persons hand who, mind you were almost certain to have been on that very spot just after the murder looking right at the very object they were copying were "flat out wrong". ASTONISHING. please forgive me if I cross you off my " don't bother to reply list ".

                          I could reply to the rest of your post but as you missed the whole point of what I was explaining there's really no need is there.
                          I actually was going to put you there due to your atrocious English, bad grammar and multiple run-on sentences but since you're willing I agree. And don't you mean you're going to PUT me on "your don't bother to reply list?" Why would you cross me off your "don't bother to respond list." You sir make no sense. Be well.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            Surely you can see that those two sketches were dimensionally inaccurate though Fishy?
                            He really can't. Two sketches by "two hands on the same spot" somehow trumps actual photos. I guess I need to learn patience lol.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post



                              In comparison to what exactly ?


                              We have discussed that herlock, they are what they are as they were drawn at the time , and we have raised the topic about what may have been added and removed after 1888 that could have been responsible for any marking and holes , its impossible to say that such marking and holes were from the canopy of 1888 version in the sketchers .
                              Last comment to you. I thought it was you, the one who thinks the two holes could be from something else since the photos are 70 years later. What were the holes from then? Hitler's V2 rockets? I'm starting to think you're just trolling.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by The Macdonald Triad View Post

                                He really can't. Two sketches by "two hands on the same spot" somehow trumps actual photos. I guess I need to learn patience lol.
                                i just think you missed the whole point of this topic , but then im not surprized. your right about one thing tho you need to learn,

                                Thing is im not sure your capable after your silly post .
                                '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

                                Working...
                                X