John Richardson

[FISHY1118]

People can certainly lie under oath of course, no one would deny that, just as they can lie to the Press. The big difference is that there are possible repercussions to lying under oath. I think that it’s also worth pointing out that in a more deferential age like the LVP most average people were extremely nervous about anything to do with the law or bureaucracy. This doesn’t mean they couldn’t lie of course but lying in front of Coroner and a jury might have seemed a daunting prospect - especially when you had nothing to gain by doing it.

Or everything to lose by not . Which doesn't just apply in Richardson case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Jon,
In answer to your request(post339) I will gladly explain when you produce,in written form,the law you allude to in your post (332).
'The law assumes the witness is telling the truth'.That is what you wrote. What law?
I can hardly be expected to reply,untill I know what law you are referring to,and what that law requires.

Harry, why would the Court demand that people swear to tell the truth ‘so help me God’ if they didn’t believe that this was a greater guarantor of truth. This came about in a far, far more religious age of course where people were in fear of their immortal souls. Wick isn’t speaking of a specific ‘law’ but the Law as a whole which expects the oath to be the greatest incentive for truth telling (but of course they accept that some people do lie under oath.)

[FISHY1118]

Sorry Harry but you are simply wrong on this point. Phillips TOD estimation cannot and should not be relied upon so there is zero logical reason for favouring it. Why are you so resistant to this concept? Even Trevor, who favours an earlier TOD, accepts the unreliability of Victorian TOD estimates. He doubts the later TOD based on other criteria.

Chandler didn’t say that Richardson hadn't mentioned sitting on the step, he said that he hadn’t mentioned repairing his boot which is slightly but possibly importantly different. So I’d ask Harry, why should we assume that it was Richardson who was wrong and not Chandler? And why mightn’t Richardson have not mentioned the boot because the reason that he’d sat on the step was unimportant. The fact that he’d stat on the step, seen all over the yard, and seen no corpse was all that was important to him and to Chandler.

I think that should read the fact he "claimed " to sit on the step . Due to the ambiguous nature of all the witnesses in this particular incident , I don't think anyone could say anything was indeed a "fact" on both sides of the argument.

[harry]

How come then Herlock,that time of death was and still is,a vital factor in most murder cases,and who but a medical person was/is best qualified to answer that question?If not Phillips,in the case of Chapman,who would you propose.I'll ask you a question.Why are you opposed to accepting Phillip's timings? Someone had to do it?
Chandler didn't have to point it out,it is apparent from reading Richardson's evidence,that he(Richardson)ommited sitting on the middle step on his first interview.
When a person changes his/her testimony by adding or omitting details,it is logical to question why,and accepting that a lie MIGHT have resulted,is a natural reaction.

[Trevor Marriott]

A very valid point Wick and one that I hadn’t really considered.

Surely when he spoke to Chandler his movements would have been fresh in his mind, and the same would apply to Chandlers recollection of what was said. What Richardson said later should have been more closely scrutinized.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Herlock,
Wickerman spoke of a law.What law? Perhaps you can produce a written copy of that law.All laws,to my knowledge are set out in written form.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think that should read the fact he "claimed " to sit on the step . Due to the ambiguous nature of all the witnesses in this particular incident , I don't think anyone could say anything was indeed a "fact" on both sides of the argument.

Richardson stated as a fact that he’d sat on the steps. No witness said that he hadn’t sat on the step. All that Chandler claimed was that Richardson hadn’t mentioned anything about the reason for his sitting on the step and because Chandler appeared at the inquest after Richardson he never got the opportunity to respond to his statement. He might have claimed that Chandler had been mistaken (which would have been entirely possible) or he might have said that he had no reason to elaborate about the boot repair - he might simply have said that he’d sat on the back step and couldn’t have missed seeing the body. And as Wickerman has said, witnesses don’t always give full details on first being spoken to, for a variety of reasons.

Theres always a possibility that someone can lie. You’re right that we shouldn’t forget that possibility but I see absolutely no reason for Richardson to have lied.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock,
Wickerman spoke of a law.What law? Perhaps you can produce a written copy of that law.All laws,to my knowledge are set out in written form.

He was referring to The Law in general Harry and not a specific law.

[Herlock Sholmes]

How come then Herlock,that time of death was and still is,a vital factor in most murder cases,and who but a medical person was/is best qualified to answer that question?If not Phillips,in the case of Chapman,who would you propose.I'll ask you a question.Why are you opposed to accepting Phillip's timings? Someone had to do it?
Chandler didn't have to point it out,it is apparent from reading Richardson's evidence,that he(Richardson)ommited sitting on the middle step on his first interview.
When a person changes his/her testimony by adding or omitting details,it is logical to question why,and accepting that a lie MIGHT have resulted,is a natural reaction.

Medical knowledge has advanced over the preceding years Harry.

Im opposed to ‘accepting’ Phillips timing Harry because every single modern day medical expert tells us that TOD estimations at that time were unreliable. This isn’t my opinion. It’s a fact. Check the quotes that I’ve provided and the ones that Wick had provided and others that were provided on the other thread. Ask Trevor (who favours an earlier TOD) and he’ll tell you that Dr. Biggs would also tell you that Victorian ToD estimation was unreliable. I’m sorry Harry but you are standing in the face of the medical profession. Why are you refusing to accept this fact. And it is a fact.

We can’t say that Richardson added the detail because we have no way of knowing that it wasn’t Chandler that was mistaken.

[Trevor Marriott]

Richardson stated as a fact that he’d sat on the steps. No witness said that he hadn’t sat on the step. All that Chandler claimed was that Richardson hadn’t mentioned anything about the reason for his sitting on the step and because Chandler appeared at the inquest after Richardson he never got the opportunity to respond to his statement. He might have claimed that Chandler had been mistaken (which would have been entirely possible) or he might have said that he had no reason to elaborate about the boot repair - he might simply have said that he’d sat on the back step and couldn’t have missed seeing the body. And as Wickerman has said, witnesses don’t always give full details on first being spoken to, for a variety of reasons.

Theres always a possibility that someone can lie. You’re right that we shouldn’t forget that possibility but I see absolutely no reason for Richardson to have lied.

Richardson may have lied in fear of the fact that he had discovered a murdered woman in a back yard which he is connected to, and may have thought he would be suspected of being the killer if he had a knife in his possession at that time.

The other alternative is that he didnt do what he later said he did and simply stood on the top step with the door at an angle preventing him seeing the body.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

Richardson stated as a fact that he’d sat on the steps. No witness said that he hadn’t sat on the step. All that Chandler claimed was that Richardson hadn’t mentioned anything about the reason for his sitting on the step and because Chandler appeared at the inquest after Richardson he never got the opportunity to respond to his statement. He might have claimed that Chandler had been mistaken (which would have been entirely possible) or he might have said that he had no reason to elaborate about the boot repair - he might simply have said that he’d sat on the back step and couldn’t have missed seeing the body. And as Wickerman has said, witnesses don’t always give full details on first being spoken to, for a variety of reasons.

Theres always a possibility that someone can lie. You’re right that we shouldn’t forget that possibility but I see absolutely no reason for Richardson to have lied.

Yes its a fact he ''stated'' he sat on the step, we have that in writing from the inquest . My point was that is not been eastablished that it was the truth ,thats what i meant by my post .

[FISHY1118]

Richardson stated as a fact that he’d sat on the steps. No witness said that he hadn’t sat on the step. All that Chandler claimed was that Richardson hadn’t mentioned anything about the reason for his sitting on the step and because Chandler appeared at the inquest after Richardson he never got the opportunity to respond to his statement. He might have claimed that Chandler had been mistaken (which would have been entirely possible) or he might have said that he had no reason to elaborate about the boot repair - he might simply have said that he’d sat on the back step and couldn’t have missed seeing the body. And as Wickerman has said, witnesses don’t always give full details on first being spoken to, for a variety of reasons.

Theres always a possibility that someone can lie. You’re right that we shouldn’t forget that possibility but I see absolutely no reason for Richardson to have lied.

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Richardson stated as a fact that he’d sat on the steps. No witness said that he hadn’t sat on the step.

Just on unrelated topic its also worth noting as i mentioned to wick, that this point you raised about ''no witness said he hadnt sat on the step'' . i just found it rather satifying in a away your use of that line, When i used this reasoning to defend israel schwartz when no one else saw B.S man attack Liz Stride and pull her to the ground , Needless to say if fell on deaf ears over on that thread.

The difference here being im willing to acknowledge Richardson could /might have sat on the step, just as he could have stood on the step to check the lock , but poor I.S never got that benifit.

Such is the complexity of witness testimony in both cases i guess.

Apologies for the change of topic , please continue all.

[Trevor Marriott]

Medical knowledge has advanced over the preceding years Harry.

Im opposed to ‘accepting’ Phillips timing Harry because every single modern day medical expert tells us that TOD estimations at that time were unreliable. This isn’t my opinion. It’s a fact. Check the quotes that I’ve provided and the ones that Wick had provided and others that were provided on the other thread. Ask Trevor (who favours an earlier TOD) and he’ll tell you that Dr. Biggs would also tell you that Victorian ToD estimation was unreliable. I’m sorry Harry but you are standing in the face of the medical profession. Why are you refusing to accept this fact. And it is a fact.

Yes Victorian doctors times of death were unsafe but of course its how you define unsafe. If a victim was found stone dead with full rigor mortis present yes it would be impossible to even guess an estimated time of death but in Phillips case he had more than just a stone cold dead body with full rigor mortis present. He had a body that still retained some heat and rigor mortis was commencing so he is entitled to give an opinion based on his examination but the question is how far out was that opinion or was it acccurate within the time scale stated.

Even in modern day murders the forensic patholgist at the crime scene will always be asked if they can give an estimated time of death, and all they can give is similar to what Phillips gave although in this day and age rectal thermometers are useful in trying to estimate a time of death but I doubt whether Philips had use of one of these otherwise he would have mentioned it.

So taking all the evidence into account and the conflciting witness testimony I am inclined to go with Phillips with a time of death consistent with the murders of the previous victims and the times of death of those who would follow.

The Times report of Richardsons testimony also makes interesting reading

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Richardson may have lied in fear of the fact that he had discovered a murdered woman in a back yard which he is connected to, and may have thought he would be suspected of being the killer if he had a knife in his possession at that time.

The other alternative is that he didnt do what he later said he did and simply stood on the top step with the door at an angle preventing him seeing the body.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But that’s the point I’ve been making Trevor. The knife was only introduced by Richardson himself so why would he have put himself in that position when he could very easily have given other reasons why he couldn’t have missed a body had it been there with putting a knife into his own hand?

[Aethelwulf]

How come then Herlock,that time of death was and still is,a vital factor in most murder cases,and who but a medical person was/is best qualified to answer that question?If not Phillips,in the case of Chapman,who would you propose.I'll ask you a question.Why are you opposed to accepting Phillip's timings? Someone had to do it?

I'm not normally a fan of trying to reinterpret findings from the time but I think on a technical issue like this, where knowledge has increased and there is some good data to work from, it is definitely warranted. Herlock provided some good cases and jeff presented some published peer reviewed data of rigor being fully established in under 4 hours, even 2 hours. What Phillips describes is well inline with those findings. And remember it was Phillips himself who added the caveat to his conclusion (even if some on here seem to think, somewhat bizarrely it wasn't a caveat).