Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

    Dr Phillips very clearly stated that Annie was murdered no later than 4.30am and probably (meaning in his belief) hours before that. It is pretty obvious that the cold morning/condition of the body comment is a clarification as to why he stated 'probably' hours prior to 4.30am rather than 'definitely', his reluctance to be more exact does not relate to the 'no later than 4.30am' part of his statement. He was empathic in his belief that Annie had been by murdered the time John Richardson was at the back door - and that includes a consideration of the cold morning/conditions.
    Actually, I disagree - although I understand this possible interpretation. After his "two hours and probably more", Dr Phillips added "but it was right to mention...". It is normal for "but"to be used to explain an alternative possibility, and frankly, totally inappropriate for it to mean "because" or something similar which is your interpretation. Nobody confirms a statement by starting the confirmation with "but"! Furthermore, it was also the opinion of the coroner that he was offering an alternative, and that "he admitted that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood might affect his opinion".

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

      hey varq
      good point. not sure why no one has responded. ive brought this up in the past too. if she was dead and lying there and richardson missed her, or was tje killer for that matter, did they miss her too? did cadosh lie too about hearing people?!?

      would love to see the richardson doubters explanation for this one lol
      what no takers?? cmon richardson doubters whats your explanation? cadosh heard people talking in the yard next door and something brush up against the fence right where chapmans body was.

      so did these people also miss the body? is cadosh lying about hearing people talking? what gives?!?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

        what no takers?? cmon richardson doubters whats your explanation? cadosh heard people talking in the yard next door and something brush up against the fence right where chapmans body was.

        so did these people also miss the body? is cadosh lying about hearing people talking? what gives?!?
        Cadosh heard someone say no. thats hardly people talking. He heard that as he was walking to the khazi he did not stop and listen as to where exactly, and in which direction the voice came from, the voice could have come from anywhere in the immediate location, in the still morning air sound would travel.

        Researchers are putting too much faith into the accuracy of these witnesses we see all through these murders conflicting witness testimony and testimony that is clearly unsafe to rely on, yet it seems they are being treated as being the gospel, despite all the flaws in their testimony being highlighted

        The sad fact is that the witness testimony was never fully tested as it would have been in a criminal trial, and if it had have been some of these witnesses would have been in for a hard time in the witness box.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          Cadosh heard someone say no. thats hardly people talking. He heard that as he was walking to the khazi he did not stop and listen as to where exactly, and in which direction the voice came from, the voice could have come from anywhere in the immediate location, in the still morning air sound would travel.

          Researchers are putting too much faith into the accuracy of these witnesses we see all through these murders conflicting witness testimony and testimony that is clearly unsafe to rely on, yet it seems they are being treated as being the gospel, despite all the flaws in their testimony being highlighted

          The sad fact is that the witness testimony was never fully tested as it would have been in a criminal trial, and if it had have been some of these witnesses would have been in for a hard time in the witness box.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          Early reports say he heard conversation, but "No" was all he could make out.


          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            Cadosh heard someone say no. thats hardly people talking. He heard that as he was walking to the khazi he did not stop and listen as to where exactly, and in which direction the voice came from, the voice could have come from anywhere in the immediate location, in the still morning air sound would travel.

            Researchers are putting too much faith into the accuracy of these witnesses we see all through these murders conflicting witness testimony and testimony that is clearly unsafe to rely on, yet it seems they are being treated as being the gospel, despite all the flaws in their testimony being highlighted

            The sad fact is that the witness testimony was never fully tested as it would have been in a criminal trial, and if it had have been some of these witnesses would have been in for a hard time in the witness box.

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            good lord. is there any witnesses in the whole case trevor that isnt "unsafe"?!? oh yeah Feigenbaums lawyer lol.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

              Actually, I disagree - although I understand this possible interpretation. After his "two hours and probably more", Dr Phillips added "but it was right to mention...". It is normal for "but"to be used to explain an alternative possibility, and frankly, totally inappropriate for it to mean "because" or something similar which is your interpretation. Nobody confirms a statement by starting the confirmation with "but"! Furthermore, it was also the opinion of the coroner that he was offering an alternative, and that "he admitted that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood might affect his opinion".
              In that case it can only be inferred that you're not capable of understanding that which is put before you.

              Dr Phillips states: "two hours and probably more".

              He does not state: "probably two hours and probably/possibly/maybe more".

              He qualifies "more" with the word "probably".

              He doesn't qualify "two hours" because there is no qualification necessary. He means two hours. Not probably two hours, not two hours but I could mistaken, not two hours but it's a cold morning.

              When he says "probably more", he goes on to mention the cold morning/condition of Annie's body. The two are linked.

              He is definite in his two hours so there is no reason to say anymore on that, i.e. no probably, no possibly, no caveats whatsoever; he is probable when he says "more" and so he is compelled to add a comment which puts a bit more meat on the bones, i.e. he couldn't be sure on the 'probably more' due to the cold morning.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                good lord. is there any witnesses in the whole case trevor that isnt "unsafe"?!? oh yeah Feigenbaums lawyer lol.
                There are ‘safe’ witnesses Abby. They are the witnesses that conform to Trevor’s opinion. Example…

                We have Inspector Reid saying, 8 years later, that all of the body parts were accounted for in Miller’s Court (agreeing with Trevor’s ‘body parts stolen in the mortuary theory) - safe

                Yet we have PC’s Hutt and Robinson who saw Eddowes up close and spent time with her just before her murder who both swore that she was wearing an apron (disproving Trevor’s apron theory) - unsafe.

                And as you say, no one else hears Macnaghten’s private info being received him - unsafe

                No one else hears Feigenbaum’s confession to Lawton - safe

                Dr. Phillips TOD estimate, with every modern expert saying it’s unreliable it’s still somehow more reliable than Richardson, Cadosch and Long…. (Hanbury Street was a well known meeting place for The Society of Dishonest and Incompetent Witnesses btw Abby)

                Im sure that given time I could produce a more extensive list but I think most people would agree that there’s rarely such thing as a perfect witness and we can’t just throw them all out. I think it’s also worth mentioning that the majority of witnesses are honest but they can be mistaken of course.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                  Actually, I disagree - although I understand this possible interpretation. After his "two hours and probably more", Dr Phillips added "but it was right to mention...". It is normal for "but"to be used to explain an alternative possibility, and frankly, totally inappropriate for it to mean "because" or something similar which is your interpretation. Nobody confirms a statement by starting the confirmation with "but"! Furthermore, it was also the opinion of the coroner that he was offering an alternative, and that "he admitted that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood might affect his opinion".
                  Sorry, FM this was an incomplete entry. I jumped from basic use of English, to the coroner's reading of it, without inserting my intended comment!

                  As I wrote, I understand your interpretation, and meant to add that the "but" is after the entire estimated ToD, and must be referring to the whole of it, and not part of it. If he had meant to merely qualify the use of "probably" as you suggest, he would have done just that, for example, he might have said, "I believe she had been dead for two hours, and I probably would have said even longer, but....". As I pointed out, the coroner interpreted the statement as I do.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                    In that case it can only be inferred that you're not capable of understanding that which is put before you.

                    Dr Phillips states: "two hours and probably more".

                    He does not state: "probably two hours and probably/possibly/maybe more".

                    He qualifies "more" with the word "probably".

                    He doesn't qualify "two hours" because there is no qualification necessary. He means two hours. Not probably two hours, not two hours but I could mistaken, not two hours but it's a cold morning.

                    When he says "probably more", he goes on to mention the cold morning/condition of Annie's body. The two are linked.

                    He is definite in his two hours so there is no reason to say anymore on that, i.e. no probably, no possibly, no caveats whatsoever; he is probable when he says "more" and so he is compelled to add a comment which puts a bit more meat on the bones, i.e. he couldn't be sure on the 'probably more' due to the cold morning.
                    Sorry, we were both writing at the same time! Please see my last entry at #1043

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                      In that case it can only be inferred that you're not capable of understanding that which is put before you.

                      Dr Phillips states: "two hours and probably more".

                      He does not state: "probably two hours and probably/possibly/maybe more".

                      He qualifies "more" with the word "probably".

                      He doesn't qualify "two hours" because there is no qualification necessary. He means two hours. Not probably two hours, not two hours but I could mistaken, not two hours but it's a cold morning.

                      When he says "probably more", he goes on to mention the cold morning/condition of Annie's body. The two are linked.

                      He is definite in his two hours so there is no reason to say anymore on that, i.e. no probably, no possibly, no caveats whatsoever; he is probable when he says "more" and so he is compelled to add a comment which puts a bit more meat on the bones, i.e. he couldn't be sure on the 'probably more' due to the cold morning.
                      Coroner] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.
                      It seems clear what Phillips was saying was, in effect:

                      ‘It’s my opinion that she had been dead for at least 2 hours or probably longer but, as it was a fairly cold morning and this might have caused the body to have cooled more rapidly than I’d estimated, the result of which could have been that she had been dead for less than 2 hours.’

                      If that wasn’t the case then why did he bother with the ‘cold morning’ caveat? Why didn’t he simply say “at least 2 hours and probably more,” and leave it at that? Surely we can’t believe that he’d meant “at least 2 hours but probably more but due to the cold weather at least 2 hours?” That explanation would make no sense.
                      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



                        It seems clear what Phillips was saying was, in effect:

                        ‘It’s my opinion that she had been dead for at least 2 hours or probably longer but, as it was a fairly cold morning and this might have caused the body to have cooled more rapidly than I’d estimated, the result of which could have been that she had been dead for less than 2 hours.’

                        If that wasn’t the case then why did he bother with the ‘cold morning’ caveat? Why didn’t he simply say “at least 2 hours and probably more,” and leave it at that? Surely we can’t believe that he’d meant “at least 2 hours but probably more but due to the cold weather at least 2 hours?” That explanation would make no sense.
                        Agreed. You, I and the coroner have interpreted the doctor's opinion in the same way. Unfortunately you, I and FM have been writing at the same time which is confusing!
                        We cannot attach the caveat to a selected part of the doctor's expressed opinion, when he made no attempt to do so. Phillips was perfectly capable of expressing himself clearly.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                          Sorry, FM this was an incomplete entry. I jumped from basic use of English, to the coroner's reading of it, without inserting my intended comment!

                          As I wrote, I understand your interpretation, and meant to add that the "but" is after the entire estimated ToD, and must be referring to the whole of it, and not part of it. If he had meant to merely qualify the use of "probably" as you suggest, he would have done just that, for example, he might have said, "I believe she had been dead for two hours, and I probably would have said even longer, but....". As I pointed out, the coroner interpreted the statement as I do.
                          I understand your argument now, still, it does not follow Dr Phillips' statement. He stated: "two hours and probably more". As opposed to "probably two hours and I'd venture more".

                          This is supported by Inspector Chandler's statement which included something like: Dr Phillips pronounced life extinct and stated the woman had been dead for at least two hours.

                          Dr Phillips is clearly not meaning: probably two hours.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post



                            It seems clear what Phillips was saying was, in effect:

                            ‘It’s my opinion that she had been dead for at least 2 hours or probably longer but, as it was a fairly cold morning and this might have caused the body to have cooled more rapidly than I’d estimated, the result of which could have been that she had been dead for less than 2 hours.’

                            If that wasn’t the case then why did he bother with the ‘cold morning’ caveat? Why didn’t he simply say “at least 2 hours and probably more,” and leave it at that? Surely we can’t believe that he’d meant “at least 2 hours but probably more but due to the cold weather at least 2 hours?” That explanation would make no sense.
                            It's obvious. His whole sentence flows:

                            1) At least two hours.
                            2) Probably more.
                            3) I say 'probably more' because I can't be certain on that due to....."

                            He didn't say 'probably two hours' which means he didn't mean 'probably'. He said 'probably more' because he meant probably.

                            He then adds a caveat. A caveat is only necessary in a scenario that is 'probable', it would be out of place in a scenario that is not probable.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                              It's obvious. His whole sentence flows:

                              1) At least two hours.
                              2) Probably more.
                              3) I say 'probably more' because I can't be certain on that due to....."

                              He didn't say 'probably two hours' which means he didn't mean 'probably'. He said 'probably more' because he meant probably.

                              He then adds a caveat. A caveat is only necessary in a scenario that is 'probable', it would be out of place in a scenario that is not probable.
                              He said “ I should say,” which means “in my opinion.” When someone says “in my opinion,” they aren’t claiming something as a definitely ascertained fact. A caveat only becomes necessary if it allows for a deviation in the originally statement. You wouldn’t say “if x occurred then y would be the outcome but under certain circumstances y would be the outcome.” So why would he have said “ a minimum of 2 hours but probably more but due to the conditions it was probably 2 hours but probably more.”

                              Its seems clear what he’s saying. He believes that she’d likely been dead for 2 hours probably more but the conditions might have meant less. Because more would make no sense.
                              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

                                Its seems clear what he’s saying. He believes that she’d likely been dead for 2 hours probably more but the conditions might have meant less. Because more would make no sense.
                                This is quite clearly what he meant. Anyone with a grain of common sense should be able to understand that.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X