John Richardson

[FISHY1118]

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.

yup right on que another silly post .

[The Macdonald Triad]

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

Maybe the building sunk 4 feet or they lowered all the windows randomly? Oh I shouldn't say that, "someone" is going to latch onto it.

[FISHY1118]

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.

Actual photos of a what? marking on a wall with holes !!!, and that somehow proves they were from the same canopy as was there in 1888 ? You see your problem dont you . You dont interpret very well do you ? . Please stop wasting my and this threads time with such silly comments .

[The Macdonald Triad]

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

I like your thought about the curved markings possibly being from another structure, like say an arch? Arch's are nature's weight bearer. I'm inclined to think it's a bit of both, different material and staining from the canopy. If you look to the left of the arch there's a weird stone that almost looks cut that way and matches the "staining" pattern.

[Wickerman]

Hello Fishy,

I trimmed down some of your quote to address what I feel is pertinent. First off you say "In my opinion and others it's quite clear he was more than able to see the lock ACCORDING TO THESE TWO SKETCHERS."

Huh? Your opinion is based from sketches that have obviously falsely raised the canopy several feet and not actual factual photos?

And his Mother testified he could see the lock from which step? The top step? Which top step? The one going into the yard or the one to the cellar? A Mother is incapable of lying under oath? She already did the Bible dance by kissing the Bible at the inquest and lied about prozzies using the public areas to play their trade. And then what you say after that I think only you understand. No offense but I'm having difficulty following what you're trying to say at different points.

Then lastly yes I can agree with that, if he sat on the step he would have seen the body. Except he DID sit on the step, no ifs ands or buts about it. And CLAIMS to not to have seen anything.

I find it odd that you would dwell on such a trivilaity. Why are you so insistent he never sat on the step when he clearly copped to it later on official record at an Inquest? How does this one detail derail your agenda?

Welcome to the Yellow Brick Road......, ha, haa!
I laughed my socks off at this.

[The Macdonald Triad]

Welcome to the Yellow Brick Road......, ha, haa!
I laughed my socks off at this.

I had to put him on ignore unfortunately. I'm all about legitimate debate but I can only suffer so much incognizance. He's distracting and doing my head in.

[Wickerman]

I like your thought about the curved markings possibly being from another structure, like say an arch? Arch's are nature's weight bearer. I'm inclined to think it's a bit of both, different material and staining from the canopy. If you look to the left of the arch there's a weird stone that almost looks cut that way and matches the "staining" pattern.

It strikes me as about the right size of an Anderson shelter, a corrigated tin structure with a curved roof. They were handed out in the war (WWII) for people to set up in their back yards. It's just a shot-in-the-dark sort of guess, I could be way off.
I just doubt it would have caused the stain (like a salt stain?), on the wall, it wouldn't have been there long enough, a year or so at the most?

You'll notice among that wood we see a piece with a round hole. I think it's the remains of a toilet seat. Which means the wood, or some of it might be what is left of a toilet structure that was at the end of the yard.

[Abby Normal]

Neither Wickerman or myself would claim to be experts on the law Harry (far from it my case at least) but I’m confident that we are both aware that the inquest wasn’t conducted under military law (or any other law for that matter apart from the law governing inquests.) Whether other proceedings aren’t conducted under oath or not is irrelevant to this debate because we all know that this particular one certainly was….so basically you have introduced a distraction. As you should have noticed not even the posters who challenge Richardson have come to agree with you on this particular point and it’s because they can see that you are plainly arguing for the sake of it. There’s enough to debate on this subject Harry without manufacturing things.

Witnesses at an inquest swear an oath which tells them 2 things…. 1) that God expects them to tell the truth (an important consideration in a more religious age than our own), and 2) that a witness can be punished in law (even with a term of imprisonment) for lying under oath. Nothing can prevent lying of course and no law can possibly eliminate lies, but your suggestion that Wickerman was claiming such a thing is not believable I’m afraid. Why do you defend that position instead of simply accepting that you misunderstood the point that Wick was making?

exactly herlock. context is everything.. a concept some dont seem to understand.

[Abby Normal]

It's three proposed precursors to serial killers. Cruelty to animals, arson, and bedwetting. I wouldn't doubt it if there are arson cases on the books going back no more than 20 years from 1888 that Jack would be involved.

thanks mac
yes i know about that phenomena, i just forgot what it was called. thanks for the reminder and I agree. especially re the cruelty to animals since the ripper was a post mortem mutilator. ie, i suspect his sick fantasy probably started with catching, killing and mutilating animals.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

This is silly stuff Harry it really is. You are saying that we can’t generalise by saying ‘the law.’ Well everyone does it I’m afraid which should be too obvious for words. How often do people say “it’s against the law.” They don’t say “it’s against The Law Of Property Act, 1925,” for example.

How many times are you going to read my responses to your post then accuse me of not answering? Are my posts invisible on your computer Harry? I’ve explained, in detail, what Wickerman was referring to. He was absolutely correct in what he said as everyone on earth, apart from you, can see. There’s no point in continuing Harry. You are just making irrelevant points.

Inquest witnesses testify under oath - this lets them know that they can be punished by LAW for doing so - clearly this doesn’t mean that this absolutely prevents anyone from lying because it would be an impossibility to do so. Enough of this nonsense.

[GBinOz]

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

Excellent post Trevor. A shame that is has gone un-noticed and attracted no comment.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

I had to put him on ignore unfortunately. I'm all about legitimate debate but I can only suffer so much incognizance. He's distracting and doing my head in.

Now im laughing my a.sss off

Try reading the evidence you just might learn something.

[Abby Normal]

regardless of the size, shape location etc., of the canopy-- he could have seen the lock from the top step by leaning over and looking, no?

all this is really irrelevant because he said he sat on the step, and could have seen it from there no problem. its all a moot point in general anyway, because the important question is, could he have seen the BODY from the steps, and obviously he could. who gives a rats ass if he could see the lock from the top of the steps lol!

just another example of the conspiracy theorists trying to build mountains out of mole hills.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Actual photos of a what? marking on a wall with holes !!!, and that somehow proves they were from the same canopy as was there in 1888 ? You see your problem dont you . You dont interpret very well do you ? . Please stop wasting my and this threads time with such silly comments .

Two holes at exactly the spot where a canopy would have been attached to the wall. The chances of them being for anything else must be thousands to one if not more? Name another thing that they could have been for?

When we compare the Clark drawing with the other two sketches it’s blatantly obvious to all that Clark is the more competent. Am I an expert in drawing? No, but I at least in part, earn my living from drawing so I can claim at least some judgment on this subject. When we compare the 2 older sketches to the actual photographs it is absolutely clear that dimensionally they are all over the place. Whereas it’s absolutely clear that Clark’s isn’t a rough sketch, it’s a finished drawing where he’s shown great attention to detail. The door, the window, the steps etc. Therefore when he adds a canopy, just below the window (aligned with the two holes in the brickwork) we get an accurate (although no one could claim inch perfect) idea of the location of the canopy in relation to the door and the cellar. This is very close to being as good as a photograph and it shows us clearly that Richardson wouldn’t have been able to have seen the cellar door from the top step.

[FISHY1118]

Excellent post Trevor. A shame that is has gone un-noticed and attracted no comment.

Cheers, George

Thats the problem around here George , too many that cant and wont see whats right in front of them .To busy mocking people who genuinely and correctly use the evidence provided to make their own personal case in certain aspects of the murders .
.
While all the time making up what if ,buts ,maybe,s , mistakes ,phantoms etc, and the list goes on and on . Its just a joke to some, a big game. Childish behaviour from those who seek to butcher this thread .