Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    Sorry Trevor, I just came across that, I couldn't resist
    Its not me that should be wearing the blindfold it should be you and Herlock, if either of you had a brain you would be dangerous

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      Its not me that should be wearing the blindfold it should be you and Herlock, if either of you had a brain you would be dangerous

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      You’re the one using the kind of logic that a toddler would be ashamed of.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Ms Diddles View Post
        FWIW I genuinely see nothing suspicious in Richardson waiting until he's in Hanbury St to fix his boot for a second time.

        It probably doesn't reflect very well on me, but I regularly come in from work knackered, dump all my work stuff and completely forget about it (and any necessary adjustments which are required) until I'm back at work the following day.

        Purely anecdotal of course, but for me this is one of the weaker parts of the anti-Richardson argument.
        You need to be better organized than that to consider a career in serial killing, Diddler.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          Its not me that should be wearing the blindfold it should be you and Herlock, if either of you had a brain you would be dangerous

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          Is that your own work or is it taught at police school ?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Dickere View Post

            You need to be better organized than that to consider a career in serial killing, Diddler.
            Agreed Dickere!

            I'd make a terrible serial killer.

            I'm completely disorganised and faint at the sight of blood!

            Or am I just making that up so that when I finally go rogue and start the slaughter, nobody suspects a thing.......

            Comment


            • Eek
              My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

              Comment


              • Originally posted by The Macdonald Triad View Post

                I would call those gaiter's. Spats wouldn't go all the way up but cover just the shoes.
                Yes, gaiters.
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by harry View Post
                  Exactly Herlock,it is a quote by Wickerman.He is supposedly quoting a law.He and yourself have been challenged to show that law.You cannot becase such a law does not exist.The swearing in is a procedure.It's purpose is to give police the power to act against persons who lie after swearing to tell the truth.If the authorities presumed that only truth would be given there would be no need for such a procedure.
                  The presumtion of innocence and it's meaning,for instance,is well understood ,because there is much written work for guidance.'Presumption of Truth' however,has only Wickerman's quote as to it's existence,but I stand to be corrected if you can show a previous quote,or an origin previous to Wickerman,and it's meaning has not been explained.Wickerman didn't include a description.I wonder why? Truth is not an offence, why does it need a law?

                  Ingemar Thiblin.Never heard of the person.Was He/She directly referring to the Chapman killing? Was He/She directly referring to a time of death with a mean time of 2 hours? Did He/She specifically mention Phillips? What part of September was He/She describing? September in England,as a poster has explained,can be quite mild,and from experience I can say quite changeable.Did Thiblin take that into consideration?I do not know better than Phillips.You Herlock,apparantly do.
                  Two hours,probably more is what Phillips said.Had he said two hours probably less,would you dismiss the probability factor?


                  "CORONERS ACT, 1887" (SIXTH EDITION OF THE TREATISE BY SIR JOHN JERVIS ON THE OFFICE AND DUTIES OF CORONERS)

                  "The coroner, being guided
                  by the information he has received, usually sends a
                  message to those witnesses whom he thinks material.
                  Should they neglect or refuse to attend, the coroner, as
                  incident to his office of judge of a court of record, has
                  authority to issue a summons to compel their appear-
                  ance where he has been credibly informed that they are
                  able to give evidence, and he may if necessary issue a
                  summons to the constable to bring them into court. If
                  a witness refuses without sufficient reason to obey this
                  summons, the coroner may fine him 2 under section 19;
                  and if a witness refuses to give evidence when sworn, or
                  otherwise misconducts himself in court, the coroner has
                  power to commit him for contempt
                  . The coroner has
                  also power to issue a warrant against a witness for con-
                  tempt of the summons, under which the constable may
                  bring up the witness in custody."



                  "The witnesses must be examined upon oath . . . by the Evi-
                  dence Amendment Act of 1869, if any person called
                  to give evidence in any court of justice shall object to
                  take an oath, or shall be objected to as incompetent to
                  take an oath, such person shall, if the presiding judge
                  is satisfied that the taking of an oath would have no
                  binding effect on his conscience, make a solemn promise
                  and declaration, and, then if false evidence be corruptly
                  and wilfully given by him he may be indicted for per-
                  jury
                  . The oath must be administered in the form most
                  binding upon the conscience of the witness; and he is in
                  all cases bound by the oath administered, provided it
                  have been administered in such form and with such
                  ceremonies as he may declare to be binding. A Jew is
                  sworn upon the Pentateuch, a Turk upon the Koran,
                  and each witness according to the peculiar form of his
                  religion."

                  Yours,
                  Caligo
                  Last edited by Caligo Umbrator; 07-27-2022, 05:23 PM.
                  https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...rt/flag_uk.gif "I know why the sun never sets on the British Empire: God wouldn't trust an Englishman in the dark."

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by DJA View Post

                    They are gaiters.
                    You're right of course, it was the Star reporter who called them spats,.."He wore a pair of dark 'spats' with light buttons over button boots,.."
                    Hutch had gaiters.
                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      Its not me that should be wearing the blindfold it should be you and Herlock, if either of you had a brain you would be dangerous

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      C'mon Trevor, several posters have tried to explain how the real world works; whether its trimming your boots, or carrying blood soaked rags, you seem to struggle with the simplest tasks.
                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Caligo Umbrator View Post



                        "CORONERS ACT, 1887" (SIXTH EDITION OF THE TREATISE BY SIR JOHN JERVIS ON THE OFFICE AND DUTIES OF CORONERS)

                        "The coroner, being guided
                        by the information he has received, usually sends a
                        message to those witnesses whom he thinks material.
                        Should they neglect or refuse to attend, the coroner, as
                        incident to his office of judge of a court of record, has
                        authority to issue a summons to compel their appear-
                        ance where he has been credibly informed that they are
                        able to give evidence, and he may if necessary issue a
                        summons to the constable to bring them into court. If
                        a witness refuses without sufficient reason to obey this
                        summons, the coroner may fine him 2 under section 19;
                        and if a witness refuses to give evidence when sworn, or
                        otherwise misconducts himself in court, the coroner has
                        power to commit him for contempt
                        . The coroner has
                        also power to issue a warrant against a witness for con-
                        tempt of the summons, under which the constable may
                        bring up the witness in custody."



                        "The witnesses must be examined upon oath . . . by the Evi-
                        dence Amendment Act of 1869, if any person called
                        to give evidence in any court of justice shall object to
                        take an oath, or shall be objected to as incompetent to
                        take an oath, such person shall, if the presiding judge
                        is satisfied that the taking of an oath would have no
                        binding effect on his conscience, make a solemn promise
                        and declaration, and, then if false evidence be corruptly
                        and wilfully given by him he may be indicted for per-
                        jury
                        . The oath must be administered in the form most
                        binding upon the conscience of the witness; and he is in
                        all cases bound by the oath administered, provided it
                        have been administered in such form and with such
                        ceremonies as he may declare to be binding. A Jew is
                        sworn upon the Pentateuch, a Turk upon the Koran,
                        and each witness according to the peculiar form of his
                        religion."

                        Yours,
                        Caligo
                        Thanks for that Caligo. Although Harry probably won’t accept it unless you produce it in Latin.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Ms Diddles View Post

                          Agreed Dickere!

                          I'd make a terrible serial killer.

                          I'm completely disorganised and faint at the sight of blood!

                          Or am I just making that up so that when I finally go rogue and start the slaughter, nobody suspects a thing.......


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            You are still ducking and diving.and hell bent on protecting Richardson and his account at all costs. All you are doing is coming up with explantions of your own trying to negate what I have posted, which you cant prove. I am not trying to prove anything all I am doing is highlighting potential flaws in his account which in my opinon should have been expanded on either by the police or at the inquest

                            It is quite clear that the police did look into this thoroughly. To quote Swanson (yet again), "there was not a shred of evidence,suspicion could not rest upon him, although police specially directed their attention to him." If the police "specially directed their attention to him", they must have carefully checked out every aspect of his story in some detail. Unfortunately, as is the norm, we don't have his detailed witness statement, nor the report and views of the interviewing officers. But they reckon they checked his account thoroughly and cleared him. They had evidence which we don't have, so I am inclined to accept that they probably did their job. We certainly don't have the evidence to dispute it.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Ms Diddles View Post

                              Agreed Dickere!

                              I'd make a terrible serial killer.

                              I'm completely disorganised and faint at the sight of blood!

                              Or am I just making that up so that when I finally go rogue and start the slaughter, nobody suspects a thing.......
                              You're in my suspect list for something or other already now.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Dickere View Post

                                You're in my suspect list for something or other already now.
                                Muffin thief in the kitchen at work is a pretty safe bet!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X