Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

    We would then have to assume that the noise against the fence was in fact made by someone else who entered the yard , that might not nessasarily be the case . As george has suggested it could have been any number of things at that time of the morning, whos to say. I just think its a little unsafe to say categorically it was a person who created the noise .
    But like what Fishy? When you favour that there was a horribly mutilated corpse lying in the yard.

    What animal could it have been though for Cadosch to have heard it a few feet away though Fishy? They’re not heavy, clumsy animals that go around bumping into fences. If it was two dogs fighting then Cadosch would clearly have heard this, likewise two cats or a cat and a dog and when we eliminate a rat or a fox then we’ve pretty much exhausted the local wildlife. It couldn’t have been a human who missed seeing a body. And there was nothing that could have fallen against the fence like empty packing cases which might have blown over in the wind.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes

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

    Comment


    • [QUOTE=FISHY1118;n792170]
      Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post



      Im not sure 3 sketchers from 3 different artist can be claimed as 'inaccurate' when they are identical many ways, in relation to the backyard at 29.
      The press article confirms the gap as do the sketchers. We dont know if the reporter went to the yard or not ,he may have just stated the gap because it was reported to him that way when in fact the whole fence was gapped .

      Im not sure the police at the time had that kind of investigation in mind with any of the witness testimony .

      Perhaps if they did, long and richardson , and even perhaps other witnesses in the c5 would have come under much more scrutiny.

      No Fishy that’s not the case. They mention one specific gap. Can you really believe that the fence looked like the one in the sketches with gaps between each slat? Can you believe that the police wouldn’t have pointed this out and immediately kicked Cadosch into touch? I produced a list of around 8 or 10 ways that one of the sketches was clearly inaccurate. It’s also possible that one guy made a sketch and the others made their versions from that. The sketches can’t be taken seriously.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes

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

      Comment


      • [QUOTE=FISHY1118;n792150]
        Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post









        .





        A further consultation of the detectives engaged in the case was held this morning, and an officer again visited the back-yard of No. 29, Hanbury-street, and made a careful inspection of the palings leading from that house to No. 27, where resides the young man Cadosh, who stated at the inquest that he heard sounds proceed from the spot where the body lay at a quarter-past five on the morning of the murder. An examination of the fence shows that immediately over the place in the yard there is an aperture in the palings by which the dead body could have been plainly visible, while anyone moving in the yard might easily have been seen.14 Echo Sept 20th 1888.[/QUOTE]

        Just for those who might be interested, here is a ''3rd'' contemporary sketch of the back yard of 29 handbury st,

        My concern with Cadosch is at 5.30am in what must have been now daylight how is it possible he didnt see the killer and Chapman through those fence pickets? . As is also the suggestion of the above newspaper article


        I read that report.It does not change anything,something happened.We don't know Cadosche's vantage point.The person was not moving.The light we don't how bright.
        Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
        M. Pacana

        Comment


        • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

          Why? . Georges post 1324 whould be a good start.

          I think ''Discredit'' is to harsh a word Herlock, i like others are simply trying, by the same process that makes Dr Phillips testimony Shakey , unrieliable ,uncertain, how ever one wishes to phase it , to suggest the same considerstion should be given to all the witneses .

          And like i keep saying #post 1324 cant make that point any clearer.
          And I wouldn’t argue of course that we have to assess all witnesses Fishy. But I have to say that I see examples on this thread of bending over backwards to try and dismiss and discredit the witnesses for some reason. Look at the Phillips stuff. How long a have we, me and others, been posting mountains of evidence about the unreliability of TOD estimated? It began with posters simply refusing to accept in accuracy. The whole discussion should have been complete in 10 minutes but it dragged on for months and months because some simply couldn’t bring themselves to accept what they had been shown in black and white and from the worlds experts. And now we still have one or possible two posters that just will not concede the point. And we have one poster on record as saying that even though Phillips can’t be relied on he’d rather trust his guess than consider the witnesses as honest and not mistaken. What hope is there with this kind of intransigence? Another example of this kind of thing Fishy is that we’ve wasted hours and hours on these boards just because some posters refused to accept that we have to allow a margin for error in timings due to the fact that most didn’t own watches and clocks. Countless time has been wasted in trying to convince people of the obvious. So yes, we should consider all angles, but not ignore the inconvenient or dismiss the proven.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes

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

          Comment


          • [QUOTE=Varqm;n792175]
            Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

            I read that report.It does not change anything,something happened.We don't know Cadosche's vantage point.The person was not moving.The light we don't how bright.
            That’s an important point that I missed. The body would not have been moving and so wouldn’t have drawn attention. For all that Cadosch knew, if he’d seen it, it could have been any inanimate object.
            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

              Are you a descendant of Dr. Phillips.
              I think we need to keep the discussion to that which is reasonable and relevant.

              Catherine was let out of the nick at 1am.

              Catherine was murdered at 1.40am at the very latest.

              In order for Catherine to have eaten after being let out of the nick she needed to meet her murderer, decide to get some food, find and walk to wherever was selling food, eat their food. Let's be kind and say 20 minutes for all of that

              The science does not support finishing a meal at 1.20am being murdered at 1.40am and 'there being very little in way of food' as observed by Dr Brown. 20 minutes is simply not enough to digest food in the stomach.

              It is almost certain Catherine did not eat after being let out of the nick at 1 in the morning, and it follows Catherine's case is not relevant to Annie's.

              We know Annie finished a meal at around 1.45am. We know Annie went out specifically to get her doss money. We know Annie was thinking about her bed given her instruction to not let it. We know the provision of food is not an integral part of street prostitution. We know there is no witness statement claiming Annie ate after 1.45am.

              In all probability, Annie's last meal was finished at 1.45am. And, this really is a problem for those who promote the 5.30am TOD.

              Comment


              • Cadosche also was going to the loo,pretty soon work,and per the inquest ,as to the fall,he did not look to see what it was.
                Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
                M. Pacana

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                  I think we need to keep the discussion to that which is reasonable and relevant.

                  Catherine was let out of the nick at 1am.

                  Catherine was murdered at 1.40am at the very latest.

                  In order for Catherine to have eaten after being let out of the nick she needed to meet her murderer, decide to get some food, find and walk to wherever was selling food, eat their food. Let's be kind and say 20 minutes for all of that

                  The science does not support finishing a meal at 1.20am being murdered at 1.40am and 'there being very little in way of food' as observed by Dr Brown. 20 minutes is simply not enough to digest food in the stomach.

                  It is almost certain Catherine did not eat after being let out of the nick at 1 in the morning, and it follows Catherine's case is not relevant to Annie's.

                  We know Annie finished a meal at around 1.45am. We know Annie went out specifically to get her doss money. We know Annie was thinking about her bed given her instruction to not let it. We know the provision of food is not an integral part of street prostitution. We know there is no witness statement claiming Annie ate after 1.45am.

                  In all probability, Annie's last meal was finished at 1.45am. And, this really is a problem for those who promote the 5.30am TOD.
                  I haven’t mentioned Eddowes?

                  We know that Annie had a baked potato at 1.45 and we can take this as reliable.

                  From 1.45 until her death we know nothing accept that she ended up in the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street. This is also a fact.

                  That she went out to get her doss money is also reliable.

                  But any suggestion of what she did or didn’t do after 1.45 would pure speculation by both of us.

                  We can’t prove that she ate again and we can’t prove that she didn’t. This is a fact.

                  That it was somehow unlikely that she would have eaten again is not reliable. If she, under whatever circumstances, had the chance of something else to eat 2 or 3 hours after her last meal (and one potato would hardly have caused her to have been too full to eat) then do we really think that she would have turned it down? A woman who could never be sure where her next meal would come from? Of course not.

                  You are trying desperately to prove x by using something that can’t possibly know or even guess at. What’s the point in that? Unless you are absolutely desperate to dismiss Richardson of course.
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes

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

                  Comment


                  • And with a nod to John G who posted this on a previous thread. More medical expertise to be disputed and dismissed.

                    " Using it (digestion) as a guide to time of death, however, is theoretically unsound and presents many practical difficulties, although it may have limited applicability in some exceptional instances." (Stomach contents and the time of death. Rexamination of a persistent question, Jaffe FA. AM J Forensic Med Pathol. 1989.)

                    Kaul et al. 2017 also found wide variations. For instance, in respect of partial gastric emptying in females was found in 24.07% of cases up to 4 hours duration, 37.04% from 4-6 hours, and 54.55% 6-10 hours, 47.33% more than 10 hours.

                    ……

                    Payne- James, 2003, gives a figure of 1-3 hours for gastric emptying in respect of a small meal. However, there are many physiological and psychological factors "which contribute to the great intra- and inter-individual variability of gastric emptying. Estimations, considering all circumstances, should only be made with great reservation." (ibid)

                    Thus, Payne-James refers to case where stomach contents were found post mortem 11 days after poly-trauma. See: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...ptying&f=false
                    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

                      I haven’t mentioned Eddowes?

                      We know that Annie had a baked potato at 1.45 and we can take this as reliable.

                      From 1.45 until her death we know nothing accept that she ended up in the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street. This is also a fact.

                      That she went out to get her doss money is also reliable.

                      But any suggestion of what she did or didn’t do after 1.45 would pure speculation by both of us.

                      We can’t prove that she ate again and we can’t prove that she didn’t. This is a fact.

                      That it was somehow unlikely that she would have eaten again is not reliable. If she, under whatever circumstances, had the chance of something else to eat 2 or 3 hours after her last meal (and one potato would hardly have caused her to have been too full to eat) then do we really think that she would have turned it down? A woman who could never be sure where her next meal would come from? Of course not.

                      You are trying desperately to prove x by using something that can’t possibly know or even guess at. What’s the point in that? Unless you are absolutely desperate to dismiss Richardson of course.
                      There you go again, inventing scenarios unsupported by any evidence.

                      The only evidence we have regarding Annie eating is 1.45am. The only evidence we have regarding Annie's intentions is that she went out to get her doss money and left a specific instruction to not let her bed. In other words, she wasn't planning on being long. That is the evidence.

                      Your fall back position is: "we just don't know". When putting a case together against a criminal, and assessing the evidence, "we just don't know" doesn't wash.

                      The evidence (as opposed to "we just don't know"):

                      1) Annie's evidentially based last meal, her intentions when leaving the lodging house, rigor 'commencing of the limbs'.

                      2) Annie was most likely murdered some time around 3am.

                      And then of course we have the holes in the witness statements, in your words: "trivial errors". I feel the witness statements have been compromised. After all, both Long and Cadosch can't be right, and Richardson misleads the coroner.

                      It's weak, Sherlock, very weak. The balance has been tipped so far away from the 5.30am TOD that you need a miracle in order to resurrect your theory.

                      Lastly: no you didn't mention Catherine, but you did reply to a conversation between Harry and I, discussing Catherine's last meal; with a load of meaningless nonsense.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        Fair enough Fishy, if you don’t think that he was lying.

                        His uncertainty about the ‘no’ wasn’t applied to the noise though. He was certain about it so we have to ask ourselves - if he showed sensible caution on the ‘no’ that appears to show someone that didn’t make unconsidered pronouncements.

                        If the sound wasn’t connected to Annie’s murder then we have to ask what could it have been. An animal like a cat wouldn’t have made a noise loud enough to have been heard by simply brushing against the fence and it couldn’t have been an innocent person who certainly couldn’t have failed to have seen the body. But you’ve raised a very intriguing possibility Fishy. I don’t think that I has been considered before (as far as I’m aware at least) which is certain to raise the hackles in some quarters.

                        If Cadosch wasn’t lying and he heard a noise from the yard of number 29 which wasn’t connected to the murder then we have to consider the possibility that not only can we suggest that Chapman wasn’t killed at 4.30 or earlier but she might have died after 5.20! This then brings Elizabeth Long into play. So the suggestion is (and it’s only a suggestion btw)

                        Richardson sits on the step and the body wasn’t there. Cadosch goes into his yard twice (around 5.20 as a general figure encompassing both visits) and hears someone in the yard of number 29 (perhaps a prostitute and her client, perhaps someone from the house?) That person or persons never come forward because they don’t want to get involved by placing themselves at the crime scene or that they were up to something that they shouldn’t have been? They leave. Long sees Chapman and her killer. They go into the yard and Chapman is killed at around 5.35.

                        Its only 10 minutes later than if the Cadosch noise was from Annie and her killer and well within the range shown by Jeff’s research.

                        I can already sense the steam coming out of certain ears. I’d suggest this a possibility nothing more.



                        As not to go over old ground again herlock its possible , according the evidence cadoash heard the ''No'' from another direction , remember he couldnt say which yard it came from . The 'noise against the fence could aslo have been from a number of different things, we just dont know ,or can say with any certainty that it was Annie Chapman due to the uncertainty of the all the evidence at hand.
                        '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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          But like what Fishy? When you favour that there was a horribly mutilated corpse lying in the yard.

                          What animal could it have been though for Cadosch to have heard it a few feet away though Fishy? They’re not heavy, clumsy animals that go around bumping into fences. If it was two dogs fighting then Cadosch would clearly have heard this, likewise two cats or a cat and a dog and when we eliminate a rat or a fox then we’ve pretty much exhausted the local wildlife. It couldn’t have been a human who missed seeing a body. And there was nothing that could have fallen against the fence like empty packing cases which might have blown over in the wind.
                          We dont know what herlock, just like we dont know it was Annie Chapman for sure . Like i suggested any number of different things .
                          '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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            And I wouldn’t argue of course that we have to assess all witnesses Fishy. But I have to say that I see examples on this thread of bending over backwards to try and dismiss and discredit the witnesses for some reason. Look at the Phillips stuff. How long a have we, me and others, been posting mountains of evidence about the unreliability of TOD estimated? It began with posters simply refusing to accept in accuracy. The whole discussion should have been complete in 10 minutes but it dragged on for months and months because some simply couldn’t bring themselves to accept what they had been shown in black and white and from the worlds experts. And now we still have one or possible two posters that just will not concede the point. And we have one poster on record as saying that even though Phillips can’t be relied on he’d rather trust his guess than consider the witnesses as honest and not mistaken. What hope is there with this kind of intransigence? Another example of this kind of thing Fishy is that we’ve wasted hours and hours on these boards just because some posters refused to accept that we have to allow a margin for error in timings due to the fact that most didn’t own watches and clocks. Countless time has been wasted in trying to convince people of the obvious. So yes, we should consider all angles, but not ignore the inconvenient or dismiss the proven.
                            Again im not saying we should dismiss them, merely all things considered the same rules for witnesses should apply as to Dr Phillips ,ive already expressed to you my thoughts on Phillips and the caution his t.o.d estimate is to be considered as is the same for Long , Cadoasch , and Richardson .

                            We shouldnt use the witneses to prove Dr Phillips wrong and vice versa , independently they could both be right and both be wrong.

                            I know i keep re posting it but i think Georges post #1324 is a perfect example why .
                            '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 Fleetwood Mac View Post

                              There you go again, inventing scenarios unsupported by any evidence.

                              Please stop saying silly things.

                              The only evidence we have regarding Annie eating is 1.45am. The only evidence we have regarding Annie's intentions is that she went out to get her doss money and left a specific instruction to not let her bed. In other words, she wasn't planning on being long. That is the evidence.

                              Your fall back position is: "we just don't know". When putting a case together against a criminal, and assessing the evidence, "we just don't know" doesn't wash.

                              Please stop saying silly things.

                              We have an unaccounted for period of time during which you are claiming to know, quite falsely, to know what she had or hadn’t done. Perhaps you feel that this is a reasonable thing to do but it’s difficult to believe that anyone would agree with this for a second.

                              The evidence (as opposed to "we just don't know"):

                              1) Annie's evidentially based last meal, her intentions when leaving the lodging house, rigor 'commencing of the limbs'.

                              This is simple factually false. It was evidentially her last recorded meal and not evidentially her last actual meal.

                              2) Annie was most likely murdered some time around 3am.

                              Nonsense. This is simply you stating your biased opinion as if it’s a fact. Try and stick to reason.

                              And then of course we have the holes in the witness statements, in your words: "trivial errors".

                              There is no hole in Richardson’s statement. I’ve explained this to you. I can’t do anymore if it simply disrupts your agenda.

                              I feel the witness statements have been compromised.

                              No you don’t. You are deliberately trying to manufacture reasons to claim them to have been compromised.

                              After all, both Long and Cadosch can't be right, and Richardson misleads the coroner.

                              That Richardson misleads the coroner is provably false. It would certainly take integrity to admit that though of course.

                              It's weak, Sherlock, very weak. The balance has been tipped so far away from the 5.30am TOD that you need a miracle in order to resurrect your theory.

                              Ridiculously poor reasoning.

                              Lastly: no you didn't mention Catherine, but you did reply to a conversation between Harry and I, discussing Catherine's last meal; with a load of meaningless nonsense.
                              You noticeably don’t address the individual points but just resort to biased and poorly thought out generalities fuelled by an agenda. The fact that you appear not to be able to see this is more than a little embarrassing.


                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes

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

                              Comment


                              • [QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n792177]
                                Originally posted by Varqm View Post

                                That’s an important point that I missed. The body would not have been moving and so wouldn’t have drawn attention. For all that Cadosch knew, if he’d seen it, it could have been any inanimate object.
                                .
                                '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

                                Working...
                                X