Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

    No problem Abby. To be honest, while I knew it was possible the very short interval could be more error prone, I had expected to find that the error margin would tend to narrow a bit (it is not uncommon for smaller predicted values to also have smaller associated errors) although I was thinking they might narrow to the lower limit of +-3 hours. The values in the thesis, while unfortunately a small sample, produced 11 over-estimations and only 1 under-estimation (of 50 minutes from a true PMI of 3.5 hours). Finding that the average overestimation for intervals less than 3 hours was so large (overestimated by 5.6 hours on average) was a bit unexpected. Given the small sample, though, it wouldn't surprise me if that were to come down closer to 3 hours, but at the same time, I also wouldn't be surprised if it is not too far off the mark either.

    I've always known that ToD estimations are considered imprecise, and have substantial margins of error associated with them, but until now I've not really delved into the literature to find some actual numbers to put to those descriptions. I think these are important starting points.

    - Jeff
    Hi Jeff,

    Thank you for all your hard work. I would beg your indulgence to make a few comments. The sample size for your model is, as you have said, very small and cannot be considered to be statistically significant. I haven't before seen a study with a component sample size of 2. When I did my Surveying Degree I wrote a computer program to compute astronomical observations. I was unable to declare it successful until it had been rigorously tested against known results. We have available a small sample of 5 (or7) PMI's with known results, where projected margins of error obtained from your model can be compared the achieved margins of error. There is 1 sample for Nicholls, 2 for Stride, 2 for Eddows. It would also be interesting to compute the error margin for the PMI for Kelly to see if Maxwell can be dismissed on the basis of Bond's estimate. I read somewhere that Phillips also did a PMI for Kelly but I haven't been able to find a reference.

    Best regards, George
    “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

    “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      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.

      Hi Herlock,

      Just as modern medical theory has evolved on the PMI technique, so have Psychologists evolved their theories on the nature of memory. As I posted earlier "Scientists have found that prompting an eyewitness to remember more can generate details that are outright false but that feel just as correct to the witness as actual memories". "Even memories which are detailed and vivid and held with 100 percent conviction can be completely false". Lying isn't a necessary part of the equation. In Baddeley's book, Human Memory, Theory and Practice he suggests that memory is composed of three parts, encoding, storage and retrieval, and that errors, additions, gap filling and omissions can take place to create a firmly believed memory. IMO the changes over time in Cadosch's and Richardson's stories may point to this process.

      Cheers, George
      “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

      “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        The problem is though Fishy what else could it have been?
        Hi Herlock,

        That is a very good question. Speculated answer: Residents with an open window - "Do you want fish and chips for dinner tonight?"..."No". Cadosch didn't know where the word came from, but used the words "I should think" which I recall you defined in a previous Stride thread as meaning he was guessing.

        The bump against the fence? I don't know, I wasn't there, but Cadosch was there, and he told the coroner it was nothing out of the ordinary - large crates falling against the fence - his words, not mine.

        Cheers, George
        “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

        “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          Phillips guess is irrelevant. So we judge the witnesses.
          and Phillips is a witness is he not? and fully entitled to be judged in the same way as the other witnessess save for the fact that he is a professional expert witness which in view of the unsafe witness testimony given by the witnesses his opinion should not be dismissed outright

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

            Hi Herlock,

            That is a very good question. Speculated answer: Residents with an open window - "Do you want fish and chips for dinner tonight?"..."No". Cadosch didn't know where the word came from, but used the words "I should think" which I recall you defined in a previous Stride thread as meaning he was guessing.

            The bump against the fence? I don't know, I wasn't there, but Cadosch was there, and he told the coroner it was nothing out of the ordinary - large crates falling against the fence - his words, not mine.

            Cheers, George
            Hi George,

            Cadosch did accept a possibility of error when it came to the ‘no’ though but he did feel that it came from number 29 but admitted that he wouldn’t have wanted to swear on it so he was certainly cautious. It seems that his first impression was that it came from 29. He expressed no doubts on the noise though George. He was adamant that it came from number 29. He did mention crates as you say but there was nothing in the yard that could have made that noise (certainly no crates - which I assume were locked in the cellar). It was after Richardson had been there so we’re only left with three options as far as I can see.

            1) If Richardson had missed the body (and we disagree on that point) then it would have meant someone actually in the yard and moving around with a body lying there (which I don’t think that anyone would support) or,
            2)if there was no body there when Richardson arrived, someone went into the yard after he’d left and made that noise that Cadosch heard then left before Chapman arrived with the killer, with the killer leaving sometime before 6. Or,
            3) He heard a noise that was connected to the murder.

            We can disagree of course George but I think that 3 is by far the likeliest imo.

            I could suggest that something large could have brushed against the fence George, like a kangaroo, but you just wouldn’t believe me.
            Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 08-09-2022, 04:01 PM.
            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 Trevor Marriott View Post

              and Phillips is a witness is he not? and fully entitled to be judged in the same way as the other witnessess save for the fact that he is a professional expert witness which in view of the unsafe witness testimony given by the witnesses his opinion should not be dismissed outright

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              He has been judged, on medical/scientific grounds and it has been proven that his estimate is completely irrelevant to whether the witnesses might or might not have been correct. So we dump Phillips (something that should have been done long ago.)

              If we judge Phillips and the witnesses the same does this mean that we accept the ‘possibility’ of him lying? Or of Chandler lying? Or do only non-professional men lie?
              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

                He has been judged, on medical/scientific grounds and it has been proven that his estimate is completely irrelevant to whether the witnesses might or might not have been correct. So we dump Phillips (something that should have been done long ago.)

                If we judge Phillips and the witnesses the same does this mean that we accept the ‘possibility’ of him lying? Or of Chandler lying? Or do only non-professional men lie?
                I dont think anyone intentionally lied, so you should stop suggesting this and focus on proving or disproving the witness testimony of those you seek to rely on, which have todate proved to be unsafe to rely on for the reasons you have been given at least a hundred times, which you cant or wont accept the flaws in their testimony

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • For me, it comes down to suspension of disbelief.

                  In Scenario A: we need to suspend disbelief that John Richardson overlooked a fresh corpse a couple of feet away, and Albert Cadosch heard a separate incident next door.

                  In Scenario B: we need to suspend disbelief that Dr Phillips' rough estimate using inexact science was off the mark.

                  However, by giving Richardson and Cadosch the benefit of the doubt, the corollary is that Annie and the killer were both taking a risk at that hour. Was the killer brazen enough to carry out these mutilations in broad daylight, possibly bloodstained, and set off into the madding crowd?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    I dont think anyone intentionally lied, so you should stop suggesting this and focus on proving or disproving the witness testimony of those you seek to rely on, which have todate proved to be unsafe to rely on for the reasons you have been given at least a hundred times, which you cant or wont accept the flaws in their testimony

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    Im sorry but I’m just tired of you repeating the same old lines without ever actually listening to anything anyone else says!!!!

                    Im not RELYING on anything. Try to understand this Trevor. I am not, I repeat NOT relying on anything!

                    If I was relying on any witness I would be saying - well x MUST be true because y said this.

                    But I’m not saying that. I’ve never said that. I haven’t hinted at it. Suggested it. Inferred it. Postulated it. Whispered it. Indicated it in sign language or tried to transmit it via telepathy!

                    Thread after thread. Week after week you say exactly the same thing……I explain it…..and then you repeat three posts later as if I’d never said anything in the first place! Disagree with absolutely everything I say if you want. No problem at all. But stop accusing me of saying something I’ve never said or of thinking something that I’ve never thought.

                    I am NOT relying on anything.

                    I’ve assessed the witness using my own mind looking at every angle and possibility and I have formed my own opinion just as everyone else has. I haven’t said that my opinion must be correct. On any conclusion which can’t be 100% proven we rely on interpretation, assessment and opinion. I have formed my own, you have formed yours.

                    Why the hell is such a simple concept so difficult for you to grasp that you still feel the compulsion to repeat the same thing over and over again?
                    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 08-09-2022, 06:24 PM.
                    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 Harry D View Post
                      For me, it comes down to suspension of disbelief.

                      In Scenario A: we need to suspend disbelief that John Richardson overlooked a fresh corpse a couple of feet away, and Albert Cadosch heard a separate incident next door.

                      In Scenario B: we need to suspend disbelief that Dr Phillips' rough estimate using inexact science was off the mark.

                      However, by giving Richardson and Cadosch the benefit of the doubt, the corollary is that Annie and the killer were both taking a risk at that hour. Was the killer brazen enough to carry out these mutilations in broad daylight, possibly bloodstained, and set off into the madding crowd?
                      A fair summing up Harry.
                      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 Trevor Marriott View Post

                        I dont think anyone intentionally lied, so you should stop suggesting this….

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        Further evidence that you don’t read posts properly if at all. Numerous posters have suggested that Richardson and Cadosch might have lied. And so we consider and discuss it.
                        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 Trevor Marriott View Post

                          ….which have todate proved to be unsafe to rely on for the reasons you have been given at least a hundred times, which you cant or wont accept the flaws in their testimony

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          Christ Trevor, if you had only mentioned the phrase ‘unsafe to rely on’ to me 100 times I wouldn’t be complaining about it. You virtually mention it in every other post.

                          Ill ask you the question again that you didn’t answer….

                          When you were a police officer and you got what you thought was a useful witness but when he gave his testimony you found one or perhaps 2 things that might not have been correct. And I do mean might. Would you have…..

                          a) weighed up his testimony as a whole, assessing the pro’s and con’s and then come to a conclusion?

                          or,

                          b) dismissed him completely?

                          Because on the evidence of these boards ‘a’ seems the likeliest.

                          …….

                          And again, isn’t it a bit of a coincidence that whenever you come down on one side of a debate Trevor, the witnesses that might support the other side strangely all drop into the ‘unsafe, unreliable’ category.
                          Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 08-09-2022, 06:26 PM.
                          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 Trevor Marriott View Post

                            I dont think anyone intentionally lied, so you should stop suggesting this and focus on proving or disproving the witness testimony of those you seek to rely on, which have todate proved to be unsafe to rely on for the reasons you have been given at least a hundred times, which you cant or wont accept the flaws in their testimony

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            Please give us the reasons why Richardson is unreliable.
                            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 Harry D View Post
                              For me, it comes down to suspension of disbelief.

                              In Scenario A: we need to suspend disbelief that John Richardson overlooked a fresh corpse a couple of feet away, and Albert Cadosch heard a separate incident next door.

                              In Scenario B: we need to suspend disbelief that Dr Phillips' rough estimate using inexact science was off the mark.

                              However, by giving Richardson and Cadosch the benefit of the doubt, the corollary is that Annie and the killer were both taking a risk at that hour. Was the killer brazen enough to carry out these mutilations in broad daylight, possibly bloodstained, and set off into the madding crowd?
                              I'd add two points to this:

                              1) The 'little food' in the stomach.

                              This one hasn't been discussed much on this thread and I'm not sure why.

                              Annie finishes her baked potato somewhere between 1.35am and 1.45am and leaves the lodging house at 1.50am.

                              Potato is digested in the stomach within 1 hour. Baked potato a little longer.

                              Annie leaves the lodging house with the express purpose of getting her doss money and insists on not letting her bed. You would have to infer that having more food is the last thing on her mind, she wants to get back to her bed in the lodging house (in her own words).

                              So, Annie goes out for business. Where does the second meal come into it and why? Annie wants to get back to her bed, is she in the mood for small talk over fish and chips or whatever, all the while not being in her bed? is the Whitechapel Murderer carrying around a spare parcel of fish and chips with him to feed his victim in the off chance he finds one? providing food has never been part of the punter/prostitute transaction so why exactly would the Whitechapel Murderer and Annie be eating together? where exactly does Annie and the Whitechapel Murderer get this food from at that time in the morning? is Annie even hungry given she has just eaten? She goes out to get her doss money from a punter, not eat.

                              In order to believe Annie had another meal not long after 1.45am you have to believe that the Whitechapel Murderer, with murder on his mind, and Annie with her bed on her mind; were quite happy to engage in small talk over a meal in the early hours of the morning when neither needed food to achieve their ambitions. And, where did they get the food from?

                              This would suggest Annie was murdered around 3am and that would tie in nicely with rigor 'commencing of the limbs'.

                              2) Elizabeth Long statement:

                              Long stated at the inquest she was certain of the time. She stated also: "I knew the time, because I heard the brewer's clock strike half-past five just before I got to the street".

                              So, Long supposedly saw Annie at 5.30am. At that point the couple are not entering 29 Hanbury Street.

                              John Davies finds Annie's body around 6am.

                              In the event Long did see Annie: they have to get to the back yard (unseen), the murderer has to kill her and perform the mutilations within say 20 or 25 minutes, the murderer has to escape unseen. This is at a time when the immediate area is alive with activity.

                              I'll add a third point:

                              3) The more I consider this, the more the balance of probability tips in favour of 'at least two hours and probably more'.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                Wrong again. I’m not manipulating I’m suggesting a possible alternative and reasonable explanation only.
                                Ultimately, you are manipulating the witness statements.

                                The parts of the witness statements that don't fit your theory, you are saying they were mistaken.

                                The parts that do fit your theory, you are saying they are the last word on the matter.

                                'Not a good look.

                                In your own words, you're casting doubt on the witnesses by saying they must be mistaken in certain parts of their testimony. In the event they were mistaken in some parts (according to your own words), then can we take the other parts for granted?

                                And, what about Richardson?

                                He was asked to fetch his knife, the one that cut his boot. You would have to believe that it never occurred to Richardson to say: "'not a lot of point, that wasn't the knife I used, I borrowed one from the market" before going home to get his knife.

                                'Lucky for him he wasn't in a court of law.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X