Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    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.

    I cant believe i have to go over this again . ive covered all that in my previous post , so ill just go with the evidence we have from the two sketchers you go with what ever you want
    '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 Abby Normal View Post
      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.
      Looking at the Clark drawing Abby it looks dimensionally accurate to me so I think that it gives us a really good idea about what the canopy would have looked like (especially considering those 2 holes in the wall) so I’m close to certain that he wouldn’t have been able to have seen the lock on the cellar door from standing on the top step. But as you say, it’s a moot point, because we know that he sat on the steps and said that he couldn’t possibly have missed a body. Yet against this there are some that suggest that because Chandler said that Richardson hadn’t mentioned his boot in the passage way interview then he lied and added the detail later. Probably because he thought that it was a better way of incriminating himself.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes

      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

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

        Cheers, George
        oh i dont know george-maybe because it wasnt an excellent post.

        The only thing in trevors post that has a modicum of reason is that the ripper may have been away from London on certian times which would explain the timing of the murders. But not because it was someone like feigenbaum, but a local Englishman, which the ripper probably was, whos work took him away at certain times.

        And BTW, trevors last sentence is actually just ONE point-his two points are the same thing lol
        Last edited by Abby Normal; 07-25-2022, 02:03 PM.
        "Is all that we see or seem
        but a dream within a dream?"

        -Edgar Allan Poe


        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

        -Frederick G. Abberline

        Comment


        • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

          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 .
          Evidence Fishy - given at the inquest under oath - John Richardson said that from where he’d sat he could not possibly have missed a body had it been there.

          Thats the evidence that keeps being either ignored or discredited by having the suggestion of a pointless, self-incriminating lie woven around it.

          Its all very clear and there’s simply no mystery. Annie Chapman wasn’t there when Richardson arrived.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes

          “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            Evidence Fishy - given at the inquest under oath - John Richardson said that from where he’d sat he could not possibly have missed a body had it been there.

            Thats the evidence that keeps being either ignored or discredited by having the suggestion of a pointless, self-incriminating lie woven around it.

            Its all very clear and there’s simply no mystery. Annie Chapman wasn’t there when Richardson arrived.
            So when you ask others to accept the evidence of richardson, why do you ignore the evidence of the sketchers ?

            please try and not used the holes and the marking on the wall, theres no evidence they were from the original canopy . We have been all through that.

            '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

              So when you ask others to accept the evidence of richardson, why do you ignore the evidence of the sketchers ?

              please try and not used the holes and the marking on the wall, theres no evidence they were from the original canopy . We have been all through that.
              i have to say you are wrong on this IMO. the sketches show the canopy fixed just below the sill, exactly where the holes are in the photo. the vertical scale is just a bit out on the sketchers part. this may have been deliberate to render the cellar door visible to readers. the sketch is just that, a sketch, which as far as i can see lines up almost perfectly with the physical evidence of the holes that would have supported the canopy in the photograph.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                So when you ask others to accept the evidence of richardson, why do you ignore the evidence of the sketchers ?

                please try and not used the holes and the marking on the wall, theres no evidence they were from the original canopy . We have been all through that.
                Because I have eyes Fishy. And I can see that these sketches are clearly, inarguably inaccurate, and so can you I imagine. Why are you trying to use blatantly inaccurate sketches to make a point whilst trying to discredit a drawing in which we can see clearly the artists attention to detail.

                And yes I will use those holes. You aren’t deleting these just because they are inconvenient. What else could they be? They are clear evidence of the position of the original canopy. Suggest what else they could be? A child’s slide? The marks of 2 simultaneously charging rhino’s? Maybe a later owner used to practice on the parallel bars? I go for the obvious. A canopy.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

                  i have to say you are wrong on this IMO. the sketches show the canopy fixed just below the sill, exactly where the holes are in the photo. the vertical scale is just a bit out on the sketchers part. this may have been deliberate to render the cellar door visible to readers. the sketch is just that, a sketch, which as far as i can see lines up almost perfectly with the physical evidence of the holes that would have supported the canopy in the photograph.
                  Exactly. It’s inconvenient though.
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes

                  “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                    So when you ask others to accept the evidence of richardson, why do you ignore the evidence of the sketchers ?

                    There's another point I think is necessary to add to Herlocks reply.
                    That is, we know Richardson was there, in that back yard. We do not know if the artist was there, only that he may have been.
                    We do see references to press artists turning up at some sites, but in this case it is quite possible the artist worked from written descriptions.
                    It's a case of the known versus the unknown.
                    So, which is the safest assumption to go with?
                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                      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.
                      This canopy issue is becoming nonsensical if the canopy was there in 1888 I have to ask based on Richardsons testimony where he says he checked the lock on the cellar on a daily basis, is how could he see the lock by just standing on the steps? and in one report he says he simply stood on the step.

                      The whole witness testimony is unsafe to totally rely on

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        This canopy issue is becoming nonsensical if the canopy was there in 1888 I have to ask based on Richardsons testimony where he says he checked the lock on the cellar on a daily basis, is how could he see the lock by just standing on the steps? and in one report he says he simply stood on the step.

                        The whole witness testimony is unsafe to totally rely on

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        It’s strange that you often, and correctly imo, mention the unreliability of Press reports and yet you put weight on the Press report that said that he’d just stood on the steps. We also have Press reports from before the inquest where it’s stated that he sat on the steps to fix his boot. Do you think that Richardson claimed to have stood on the steps but the Press completely invented the story of him sitting on the steps fixing his boot? We can’t rely on Press reports but surely we can rely on an inquest testimony under oath where he said that he’d sat on the steps to fix his boot and couldn’t possibly have missed the body. This is where the weight evidence heavily lies.
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes

                        “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post


                          There's another point I think is necessary to add to Herlocks reply.
                          That is, we know Richardson was there, in that back yard. We do not know if the artist was there, only that he may have been.
                          We do see references to press artists turning up at some sites, but in this case it is quite possible the artist worked from written descriptions.
                          It's a case of the known versus the unknown.
                          So, which is the safest assumption to go with?
                          Another point to add on the subject of accuracy can be seen when we look at how the artists in the 2 sketches have portrayed the fence. We can’t assume that Chandler was Sherlock Holmes but even Inspector Clouseau would have spotted that you could have seen a dwarf over those fences and absolutely anything through them. I’d question if the artist ever entered that yard. Furthermore both artists have suspiciously added a canopy over the back door and a similar structure beneath the window that’s just above the ground floor one. Neither of these features exist in any of the photographs. So we have both sketches duplicating 2 non-existent features. Someone made an inaccurate drawing and these two simply copied the inventions. Those 2 sketches can very safely be discarded in terms of accuracy.
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes

                          “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            It’s strange that you often, and correctly imo, mention the unreliability of Press reports and yet you put weight on the Press report that said that he’d just stood on the steps. We also have Press reports from before the inquest where it’s stated that he sat on the steps to fix his boot. Do you think that Richardson claimed to have stood on the steps but the Press completely invented the story of him sitting on the steps fixing his boot? We can’t rely on Press reports but surely we can rely on an inquest testimony under oath where he said that he’d sat on the steps to fix his boot and couldn’t possibly have missed the body. This is where the weight evidence heavily lies.
                            But it matters not what he said under oath if the newspapers recorded it incorrectly because we dont have to original signed witness depositions

                            I am merely referring to the various newspaper reports on the inquest which conflict with each other. As far as the inquest testimony is concerned it comes down to which report you believe to be the truth and in this instance I am referring to the report that states he simply stood on the step and higlighting the fact that if that report is correct how could he see the lock on the cellar bu simply standing up, a course of action that he highlights as being a daily occurrence.

                            You need to stop citing the inquest testimony you seek to rely on because it cannot be proven to be the truth as to what was said at the inquest

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              not just with this murder but all through the whole murders there are major flaws in witness testimony
                              Quite clearly we do not have all of the source information at our disposal, such information could well fill in a few gaps and explain what appear to be glaring contradictions to the modern eye.

                              I think it's quite possible that some of the witness statements appear to be odd but in actual fact are more or less an accurate version of events. Take John Richardson: it is not much of a leap of faith to suggest that he simply kept his initial discussion with Inspector Chandler to the bare essentials for whatever reason he felt it to be expedient. It does not follow that there is an undoubted flaw in his series of statements. My personal view is that I'm more inclined to go with the estimated TOD by medical experts, particularly as Dr Phillips was on the scene only one hour after Annie's body was found, but I've read both sides of the debate on here and as a result I believe the argument that John Richardson was on the steps is as good an argument as the one suggesting he simply had a quick glance at the cellar and embellished the rest.

                              I think it's a given that some of the witness statements will be unsafe, for various reasons, just as they would be today; but I reckon a decent chunk of them will be straight down the line and that it's a safe bet at least one important witness statement is generally being discounted but in actual fact is an accurate and important version of events. So, I don't think it's wise to discredit witness testimony across the board, but rather to work out with a reasonable mind which ones are more likely to be straight down the line.

                              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              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.
                              I think you're making assumptions here in terms of what he considered a risk worth taking, and when you consider this is an individual who really did take significant risks I wouldn't discount him being prepared to kill at that time of day. I was under the impression that Mary's TOD was very much open to debate also, with Dr Phillips suggesting between 2am and 8am but more likely 5am/6am.

                              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              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.
                              I've always felt that the time gap between Kate and Mary may well tell a story. It could be any one of a number of stories mind you, but something as simple as he bought his victims beer and food as part of his routine and was out of work during that period/didn't have the money - or one of many other possibilities. But, that time gap may well say a lot about him and who he was.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                But it matters not what he said under oath if the newspapers recorded it incorrectly because we dont have to original signed witness depositions

                                I am merely referring to the various newspaper reports on the inquest which conflict with each other. As far as the inquest testimony is concerned it comes down to which report you believe to be the truth and in this instance I am referring to the report that states he simply stood on the step and higlighting the fact that if that report is correct how could he see the lock on the cellar bu simply standing up, a course of action that he highlights as being a daily occurrence.

                                You need to stop citing the inquest testimony you seek to rely on because it cannot be proven to be the truth as to what was said at the inquest

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                And you need to start actually thinking before you keep parroting that same tired old lines Trevor. Every single thread it’s the same. I’m way past tired of hearing you repeat the phrase “unsafe to rely on,” as if you’re sitting on some one-legged pirate’s shoulder.

                                We read what evidence we have available and assess it as individuals. We use our own individual knowledge, experience and judgment. We agree and disagree. If we can’t do that, and we just apply your mantra and dismiss everything, then there would be no point in there being to forums devoted to the subject and there would certainly be no point in you writing 2 books and travelling around the country giving talks on the subject.

                                The fact is Trevor, and yes I mean FACT, is that John Richardson said that he’d sat on the step and all newspaper reports of the inquest say this. Some newspaper reports prior to the inquest say that he stood on the step but equally, some newspaper reports prior to the inquest say that he sat on the steps. So logic tells us that Richardson had also said that he’d sat on the steps before the inquest too. And so reason, logic and the evidence points to John Richardson telling the absolute truth when he said that he’d sat on the steps. Anything else is pretty much nonsense.

                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                                “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X