John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

Very good points Trevor, its fairly obvious from conflicting and uncertainty surrounding ''all' the evidence [witnesses and medical ], that to draw any conclusion as to one outcome as the ''definitive one'' of the chapman murder is unsafe

All the back slapping and claiming ''game over '' is all well and good, but the evidence leads to other possibilities that have already been mentioned throught out this topic .

The whole point though Fishy is that we have never denied the other possibilities. We might strongly favour the witness though. But we have denied the knowledge and authority of the worlds experts simply to prop up Phillips in an attempt to falsely discredit the witnesses. The witnesses have to be assessed on their own merit.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Jeff
You keep saying that there is no conflict and that the witnessess support a later time of death but I will refer to Mrs Longs and Cadosh`s testimony from the telegraph and have highlighted the flaws which makes their testimony unsafe

Mrs Long

"I saw a man and a woman standing on the pavement talking. The man's back was turned towards Brick-lane, and the woman's was towards the market. They were standing only a few yards nearer Brick-lane from 29, Hanbury-street. I saw the woman's face. Have seen the deceased in the mortuary, and I am sure the woman that I saw in Hanbury-street was the deceased.

Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.
[Coroner] At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them.

We dont know how far she was away from the couple for a start to be able to see the womans face, and we dont know how far they were from 29 Hanbury Street, and what was so unusual that she took notice of the woman when she then says that there was nothing unusual in seeing couples standing around at that time of the morning

She is shown the body or Chapman at the mortuary this hardly is a good identification having only seen a glimpse of the womans face but from what distance away? and besides in death facial features change. she makes no mention of the clothes the woman was wearing, this would have been a pointer to corroborate her account and a postive pointer to the accuracy of her testimony, and more importantly she says she is sure that the body she was shown was that of Chapman being sure is not being positive there is a difference.

Then we have Cadosh who states "It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door.

Now we have a conflict, if Mrs Long is to be believed then either the woman she saw at 5.30am was not Chapman, or Cadosh`s noises he heard were not from 29 Hanbury Street.

These witnesses cannot be safely relied on to support a later time of death

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No one is assuming them to be correct. But I’m wasting my time repeatedly trying to explain this point to you because you just can’t understand it.

I can’t help wondering about when you were a police officer Trevor. When you had an important witness who testimony raised a question or two did you a) use your own and your colleagues judgment and come to an opinion (whilst accepting that it wasn’t cast-in-stone due to the questions?) Or, b) did you simply say “unsafe, unsafe, dismiss them?”

Because on here, experience tells us that you tend toward the second approach and expect others to do the same.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

No, actually I don't say that. I've pointed out the conflict between Long and Cadoch in my posts, and suggest that may be nothing more than the type of error that is contained within witness testimony (note, I don't say witness testimony is without error). Our job is to try and separate the "truth" from the "error", and that is a complex problem.

- Jeff

But you have gone out on a limb and stated that there is no conflict between the later time of death and the witness testimony when there cleary is, and of course I didnt mention in my previous post the conflict between Chandler and Richardson

As to Dr Phiips and his estimated time of death I think it is accepted that it was a guess, but his experience and his credibilty over the conflciting witness testimony just might indicate his guess was not far wide of the mark, and I accept that if this matter is discussed from now until eternity we will never know the real truth but other factors in this murder can point to the correct estimated time of death, which in my opinion points to an earlier time of death, but I am sure there are those like you who will still plump for a later time of death.

At the end of the day do we believe a professional witness in Phillips, or do we believe the conflciting witness testimony of Joe public who may well have had ultimate reasons for coming forward?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fleetwood Mac]

An absolutely staggering conclusion. You favour the Doctors guess over the witnesses! You will still go to these lengths. You still can’t bring yourself to admit that Jeff has proven the point conclusively. Sad. But I can’t say that I’m surprised in your case.

Dear Sherlock,

I believe it is time to inject a spot of decorum into the thread. Let's try to keep it civil.

Jeff has argued his point. I have concluded that it is not sufficient for the reasons stated; you have concluded otherwise. That's fine.

You are suggesting that when Long confidently stated it was half past five, she was wrong. In other words, you're inventing a scenario and manipulating Long's statement.

Again, when you state: "how do we know she didn't eat another", you are inventing a scenario. What we do know is she ate one earlier in the morning. I'm sure you appreciate there is a difference between evidence and supposition.

Cadosh heard noise which he supposed was in the yard, at a time when there would have been activity within the immediate area.

The mystery is that when Richardson was asked to produce the knife, he didn't say: "oh, it wasn't that knife, it was one I borrowed from the market". He went home to get the knife, only later when challenged did he claim he borrowed a knife from the market. Something which is not verified by anyone else.

I think the theory may lack some supporting foundations.

[Trevor Marriott]

No one is assuming them to be correct. But I’m wasting my time repeatedly trying to explain this point to you because you just can’t understand it.

I can’t help wondering about when you were a police officer Trevor. When you had an important witness who testimony raised a question or two did you a) use your own and your colleagues judgment and come to an opinion (whilst accepting that it wasn’t cast-in-stone due to the questions?) Or, b) did you simply say “unsafe, unsafe, dismiss them?”

Because on here, experience tells us that you tend toward the second approach and expect others to do the same.

Well you know nothing about my experience, so please do not pass adverse comments on something you know nothing about.

When an ambiguity in a witness statment is highlighted, that witness is revisited and the ambiguity cleared up. that wasnt done in this case and should have been done.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

The whole point though Fishy is that we have never denied the other possibilities. We might strongly favour the witness though. But we have denied the knowledge and authority of the worlds experts simply to prop up Phillips in an attempt to falsely discredit the witnesses. The witnesses have to be assessed on their own merit.

I know what your saying Herlock ,i do , but what im saying is just as relevent. Im not using Dr Phillips testimony to try and ''prove'' the witnesess wrong, theres no need to . I mearly suggest as is my right to, that the conflicting and ambiguous and uncertainty of their evidence leads me to explore and accepted other possibilities regarding Chapmans t.o d.

In the end every single person who gave evidence at the champman murder inquest could be wrong , mistaken or unsure, perhaps even lied thats just a fact. Im sure we all agree with that, its human nature after all no ones perfect .

So to come to a conclusion of certainty[t.o.d] where by phillips is more likey to be wrong than right , doesnt necessarily make the witnesses right.imo.

The phase ''game over'' seems just a bit over the top surely ?


Georges post #1324 is a perfect example of what im saying .

[Varqm]

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

Hey Abs. Yeah I wrote this to Fisherman,no reply too.

[FISHY1118]

Hey Abs. Yeah I wrote this to Fisherman,no reply too.

Well maybe i can reply for him ,

Its quite simple really, seeing how it is often the case where witness testimony gets misconstruded, let me just point out what cadoasch said and what it ''could'' also mean shall we .

Albert Cadosch . As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. ''It was not in our yard'', but I should ''think'' it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, ''cannot say'' on which side it came from.


1 Cadosh did not hear ''people'' he heard ''a'' voice say ''no'' abbys post im implies there was more than one person in the back yard of 29 handbury st having a conversation next to a dead corpse !!!!!! and that somehow these people would have found the body .

2 ''I should think it came from No 29 I, however ''cannot say'' which side it came from''

Seeing how Cadosch stated it didnt come from his yard , but added he ''couldnt say'' which side it came from, the only other side is No 25

Just another example of witness testimony being uncertain and unsafe about the events of that morning when trying to determind a ''positive'' t.o.d .


Long , Richardson , Dr Phillips are all by no means exempt from this simply excersise.

[FISHY1118]

The whole point though Fishy is that we have never denied the other possibilities. We might strongly favour the witness though. But we have denied the knowledge and authority of the worlds experts simply to prop up Phillips in an attempt to falsely discredit the witnesses. The witnesses have to be assessed on their own merit.

Just a follow up ,

''The witnesses have to be assessed on their own merit.''

Shouldnt they then be assessed the same way when we look at them as per Georges post #1342?

If phillips is to be judged by modern day medical experts ,surely the witnesses deserve the same consideration ?

Or is that somehow different ? im curious.

[Varqm]

Well maybe i can reply for him ,

Its quite simple really, seeing how it is often the case where witness testimony gets misconstruded, let me just point out what cadoasch said and what it ''could'' also mean shall we .

Albert Cadosch . As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. ''It was not in our yard'', but I should ''think'' it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, ''cannot say'' on which side it came from.


1 Cadosh did not hear ''people'' he heard ''a'' voice say ''no'' abbys post im implies there was more than one person in the back yard of 29 handbury st having a conversation next to a dead corpse !!!!!! and that somehow these people would have found the body .

2 ''I should think it came from No 29 I, however ''cannot say'' which side it came from''

Seeing how Cadosch stated it didnt come from his yard , but added he ''couldnt say'' which side it came from, the only other side is No 25

Just another example of witness testimony being uncertain and unsafe about the events of that morning when trying to determind a ''positive'' t.o.d .


Long , Richardson , Dr Phillips are all by no means exempt from this simply excersise.

I have to look at other versions of the inquest.In this site's version the "No" he was not so sure but the fall he was.The Coroner did not say it could be from the other side, not 29,to me it sound like the same adjoining house.Dont run away with the suitcase.

[FISHY1118]

I have to look at other versions of the inquest.In this site's version the "No" he was not so sure but the fall he was.The Coroner did not say it could be from the other side, not 29,to me it sound like the same adjoining house.Dont run away with the suitcase.

Yes the fall he was sure about ,however


''While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.''

The Coroner: Did you look to see what it was? - No.

Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? - They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings. I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over.

1 He didnt look to see what it was .

2 He didnt think anything was the matter

3 ''Otherwise i would have been curious enough to look over'' .


I dont see how one could be ''positive'' on this testimony that what cadosch heard was a body let alone Chapmans body hitting the fence.IMO

[Herlock Sholmes]

But you have gone out on a limb and stated that there is no conflict between the later time of death and the witness testimony when there cleary is, and of course I didnt mention in my previous post the conflict between Chandler and Richardson

As to Dr Phiips and his estimated time of death I think it is accepted that it was a guess, but his experience and his credibilty over the conflciting witness testimony just might indicate his guess was not far wide of the mark, and I accept that if this matter is discussed from now until eternity we will never know the real truth but other factors in this murder can point to the correct estimated time of death, which in my opinion points to an earlier time of death, but I am sure there are those like you who will still plump for a later time of death.

At the end of the day do we believe a professional witness in Phillips, or do we believe the conflciting witness testimony of Joe public who may well have had ultimate reasons for coming forward?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Phillips guess is irrelevant. So we judge the witnesses.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dear Sherlock,

I believe it is time to inject a spot of decorum into the thread. Let's try to keep it civil.

It can’t be civil as long as you keep calling me Sherlock.

Jeff has argued his point. I have concluded that it is not sufficient for the reasons stated; you have concluded otherwise. That's fine.

Yes, you have disagreed with expert evidence yet again.

You are suggesting that when Long confidently stated it was half past five, she was wrong. In other words, you're inventing a scenario and manipulating Long's statement.

Wrong again. I’m not manipulating I’m suggesting a possible alternative and reasonable explanation only. I’m not saying that she ‘did’ get it wrong only that she ‘might’ have got it wrong and that we shouldn’t simply dismiss the possibility because we are determined to eliminate witnesses. Jeff has also shown proper research on these boards to show how witness can be seriously in error over timing. A possibility that is heightened in the LVP and in that area when many (or even most) people didn’t own watches or clocks. Are you applying the same level of infallibility to Long that you applied to Phillips? We might also ask why could Richardson have been wrong about missing a body but it’s not possible that Long was a mere 15 minutes out? Isn’t that a bit selective?

Again, when you state: "how do we know she didn't eat another", you are inventing a scenario. What we do know is she ate one earlier in the morning. I'm sure you appreciate there is a difference between evidence and supposition.

She ate one earlier then we have a gap where we don’t know where she went or who she saw or what she did. So you consider ‘inventing a scenario’ just a suggestion that a person might have had something to eat?! Do you call that logical? Chapman was dirt poor and wouldn’t have known where her next meal would have come from. If a friend had offered her a potato do you honestly think that she would have said “no thanks, I had a potato 4 hours ago?”

Cadosh heard noise which he supposed was in the yard, at a time when there would have been activity within the immediate area.

Disingenuous to say the least. Cadosch said that he heard a word. When questioned he admitted that he couldn’t be 100% certain that it came from number 29 but he felt that it had. With the noise he was absolutely certain that it came from number 29. This is a very strange ‘liar’ by any normal standards. A liar who shows caution. If he was simply lying to get attention why didn’t he say “the ‘no’ definitely came from number 29?” The fact of his caution is a point in favour of honesty.

He was close to the fence. If he heard something brush against it (and no one can show that he didn’t, no matter how much they’d like to) then there could be no innocent or alternative explanation. It had to have been connected to the murder in some way.

The mystery is that when Richardson was asked to produce the knife, he didn't say: "oh, it wasn't that knife, it was one I borrowed from the market". He went home to get the knife, only later when challenged did he claim he borrowed a knife from the market. Something which is not verified by anyone else.

He said that he’d done some repair work with his knife. Then when asked, he produced the knife. It was pointed out how blunt it was. He accepted this and explained that he hadn’t been able to repair the boot successfully and so he’d used a knife at the market.

I think the theory may lack some supporting foundations.

Id say that there is nothing suspicious about anything that Richardson did or said. He had no reason to lie and he hadn’t benefitted even if he’d done so. In fact he’d worsened his own situation. We can’t even say that he clashed with Chandler because he had no chance to respond to his statement so for all that we know he might have agreed with what Chandler had said at the inquest.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well maybe i can reply for him ,

Its quite simple really, seeing how it is often the case where witness testimony gets misconstruded, let me just point out what cadoasch said and what it ''could'' also mean shall we .

Albert Cadosch . As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. ''It was not in our yard'', but I should ''think'' it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, ''cannot say'' on which side it came from.


1 Cadosh did not hear ''people'' he heard ''a'' voice say ''no'' abbys post im implies there was more than one person in the back yard of 29 handbury st having a conversation next to a dead corpse !!!!!! and that somehow these people would have found the body .

2 ''I should think it came from No 29 I, however ''cannot say'' which side it came from''

Seeing how Cadosch stated it didnt come from his yard , but added he ''couldnt say'' which side it came from, the only other side is No 25

Just another example of witness testimony being uncertain and unsafe about the events of that morning when trying to determind a ''positive'' t.o.d .


Long , Richardson , Dr Phillips are all by no means exempt from this simply excersise.

Or evidence of honesty and proper judgment. If he was a liar why didn’t he just say that the ‘no’ definitely came from the yard? Why didn’t he say “I heard a man and a woman arguing but just thought that it was Richardson and his mother so I took no notice?” When someone shows caution it often means that they are cautious by nature and use judgment. Cadosch was confident about the noise though. This makes him likeliest to have been truthful and correct.

He had no reason to lie and what measure of a ‘15 minutes of fame’ would he have got in the LVP with the high level of illiteracy and poor literacy and with the people that he’d have associated with being largely dirt poor with more important things to spend their money on that newspapers (like food) So he would really need a reason for lying.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I dont see how one could be ''positive'' on this testimony that what cadosch heard was a body let alone Chapmans body hitting the fence.IMO[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

The problem is though Fishy what else could it have been? If Chapman was killed earlier then would could suggest someone moving around in the yard with a corpse there. And we can surely expect the police to have asked the residents if anyone had entered the yard between the time that Richardson had left and Davis finding the body?