John Richardson

[Trevor Marriott]

[B]I’m sorry Harry but that’s absolutely rubbish that flies in the face of the evidence. Do you really think that you know better that Sir Keith Simpson, Francis Camps, Bernard Knight, Dr. Biggs and the huge parade of top flight modern day medical experts who all (every single one Harry - without exception) tells us that Victorian TOD estimation was unreliable and should be treated with extreme caution.

Treated with caution but not dimissed, because the law of averages with people guessing is that they may just guess right based on years of making guesses after examining dead bodies.

This is really no different to what we see in modern day trials where the prosecution employ an expert to give a professional opinion and the defence employ another expert to negate the prosecution evidence. It is left for the jury to decide who they believe, as is the case here.

But whichever way reserchers decide to go the outcome is not going to change the overall investigation, because it is clear that Chapman was murdered by the Ripper so this argument on TOD isnt going to change that one bit

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Treated with caution but not dimissed, because the law of averages with people guessing is that they may just guess right based on years of making guesses after examining dead bodies.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Obviously Trevor. But would you dismiss two witness on the basis of a guess? Is it logical to say “well Phillips ‘might’ have been correct therefore Richardson and Cadosch must have been liars?” This is the problem. Some posters don’t believe the witnesses….ok, but what can’t be said is “the witnesses must have been wrong because Dr. Phillips was right.”

This very simple, very obvious, very provable point doesn’t appear to be sinking in with some. I can only conclude that it’s because they don’t want to accept it because it doesn’t support a viewpoint.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We can’t know what was said between Richardson and Chandler in that passageway of course but it’s being suggested that if he didn’t mention repairing his boot it would have been suspicious. I don’t see how. I’ll imagine the exchange ….

Chandler - Tell me what happened Mr. Richardson.

Richardson - Well I got there around 4.45 to check the cellar lock. I sat on the steps and there was no body there at the time.

Chandler - It wasn’t fully light though, couldn’t you have missed it?

Richardson - No. it was light enough to see all around.

Chandler - Couldn’t the door have obscured your view of the body?

Richardson - No. From where I sat I could see the whole of the yard. The body definitely wasn’t there.

…….

Of course that’s just an invented conversation but there’s no wild assumptions or stretching of the truth. We have Richardson explaining why the body was there but without mentioning the boot repair. There’s nothing suspicious in the slightest about that ‘omission.’ And to add of course, we can’t even be certain of an omission because it also has to have been possible that he did mention it but Chandler misheard him.

[Aethelwulf]

I can only conclude that it’s because they don’t want to accept it because it doesn’t support a viewpoint.

It is also worth considering that if a poster has already committed their opinions to print (e.g., written a book) it is very unlikely you can influence them because that would be an admission they were wrong in said book - e.g., Trevor and his various fringe theories.

[FISHY1118]

We can’t know what was said between Richardson and Chandler in that passageway of course but it’s being suggested that if he didn’t mention repairing his boot it would have been suspicious. I don’t see how. I’ll imagine the exchange ….

Chandler - Tell me what happened Mr. Richardson.

Richardson - Well I got there around 4.45 to check the cellar lock. I sat on the steps and there was no body there at the time.

Chandler - It wasn’t fully light though, couldn’t you have missed it?

Richardson - No. it was light enough to see all around.

Chandler - Couldn’t the door have obscured your view of the body?

Richardson - No. From where I sat I could see the whole of the yard. The body definitely wasn’t there.

…….

Of course that’s just an invented conversation but there’s no wild assumptions or stretching of the truth. We have Richardson explaining why the body was there but without mentioning the boot repair. There’s nothing suspicious in the slightest about that ‘omission.’ And to add of course, we can’t even be certain of an omission because it also has to have been possible that he did mention it but Chandler misheard him.

To be far, there is no wild assumption or stretching of the truth when we compare the other witness evidence . I need not bother with a different conversation between Richardson an Chandler as above. But im sure when all the inquest testimony is examined, one conclusion could just as easily be reached as the other. Or that one is judged ''less likely'' than the other .

[Herlock Sholmes]

The point that I was making was that, even if Richardson hadn’t specifically mentioned repairing his boot (and we can’t be certain that he didn’t) it still wouldn’t have been anything suspicious or deceitful. When the inquest testimony is examined we see that John Richardson sat on the step and couldn’t possibly have missed a severely mutilated corpse with her intestines chucked over her right shoulder a very few inches from his left foot. And as we know for a fact that Phillips TOD estimate was unsafe the conclusion should be fairly obvious (especially when we add Cadosch - unless they were in cahoots for some reason)

[GBinOz]

We can’t know what was said between Richardson and Chandler in that passageway of course but it’s being suggested that if he didn’t mention repairing his boot it would have been suspicious. I don’t see how. I’ll imagine the exchange ….

Chandler - Tell me what happened Mr. Richardson.

Richardson - Well I got there around 4.45 to check the cellar lock. I sat on the steps and there was no body there at the time.

Chandler - It wasn’t fully light though, couldn’t you have missed it?

Richardson - No. it was light enough to see all around.

Chandler - Couldn’t the door have obscured your view of the body?

Richardson - No. From where I sat I could see the whole of the yard. The body definitely wasn’t there.

…….

Objection your Honour, Council is leading the witness.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is also worth considering that if a poster has already committed their opinions to print (e.g., written a book) it is very unlikely you can influence them because that would be an admission they were wrong in said book - e.g., Trevor and his various fringe theories.

I can’t help but be deeply suspicious when I see anyone basing an opinion on Phillips after what we know about Victorian TOD estimation Wolf. If there’s one thing that we know as a fact is that these estimations were unreliable. Might have or might not have isn’t good enough to influence a decision. Personally I think that he should be ignored and that the witnesses alone should be assessed.

[GBinOz]

But whichever way reserchers decide to go the outcome is not going to change the overall investigation, because it is clear that Chapman was murdered by the Ripper so this argument on TOD isnt going to change that one bit[/B]

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That pretty much sums it up Trevor.

Cheers, George

[harry]

What opinion of you,Herlock,is it I have? You looking for sympathy.You cannot talk about a law in general,without there bing such a law,and what I am aking from you and Jon, is to show the law that presumes witnesses will tell the truth.Show it,and we can discuss it.You talk about Perjury.There is such a law that defines perjury.It is in written form.There is a law concerning the presumption of innocence.One can see and read it,and many other laws too.I know of no law that presumes witnesse tell the truth.How would one police such a law?
I'm sure all those persons you mentioned had some knowledge and experience of TOD.So what?It's not an exact science.Most of the advances have been in cases where the person has been dead months and years,not just a couple of hours.Most doctors,Victorian or otherwise,should be able to judge,with little margin of error,when it is as recent as two hours.
Your last point.Argueing the point.Am i not allowed to do what you are doing.I am not argueing for any other reason than because you and Jon keep directiong posts at me,quoting what I write.Perhaps you believe I should not reply.Are you that conceited?

[GBinOz]

hi fishy
he didnt tell the pc in the beginning he sat on the step to cut leather from his shoe, because it was a detail at the time he just didnt mention to him. its not like it was a full interview or official inquest statement. he probably thought it was important to add later when it was, especially to help show she wasnt there.

Exactly.

[FISHY1118]

The point that I was making was that, even if Richardson hadn’t specifically mentioned repairing his boot (and we can’t be certain that he didn’t) it still wouldn’t have been anything suspicious or deceitful. When the inquest testimony is examined we see that John Richardson sat on the step and couldn’t possibly have missed a severely mutilated corpse with her intestines chucked over her right shoulder a very few inches from his left foot. And as we know for a fact that Phillips TOD estimate was unsafe the conclusion should be fairly obvious (especially when we add Cadosch - unless they were in cahoots for some reason)

Yes but as from the very first post on this subject the debate is and has always been ''IF'' thats the big question , yes i agree if Richardson did infact sit on the step he most certainly would have seen Chapmans body , no argument from me there . However as i mentioned the conflicting evidence from other testimony leaves in my opinion very questionable doubt as to Richardsons claim.

There are just to many variables and witness lack of consistency when giving information, to consider for anyone person to claim that one event was more likey to be the case than the other , I.E. That he simply stood on the step and looked at the lock then turned back and headed off to work .

Based on what we know they both work , we just cant be sure which ones the ''TRUTH''

[FISHY1118]

Exactly.

Well spotted George , Perhaps another questionable variable to add to the mix that might explain Richardsons motive ? . Just a thought .

[Trevor Marriott]

Obviously Trevor. But would you dismiss two witness on the basis of a guess? Is it logical to say “well Phillips ‘might’ have been correct therefore Richardson and Cadosch must have been liars?” This is the problem. Some posters don’t believe the witnesses….ok, but what can’t be said is “the witnesses must have been wrong because Dr. Phillips was right.”

This very simple, very obvious, very provable point doesn’t appear to be sinking in with some. I can only conclude that it’s because they don’t want to accept it because it doesn’t support a viewpoint.

But if the witnesses were wrong then Phillips must have been right, even you must accepty that as fact, and clearly Mrs Long and Cadoche statements cannot be regarded as evidence to rely on for the reasons previoulsy stated. So if we are talking about the balance of probabilty that must fall in favour of Phillips. We cannot prove who was lying if anyone so we have to weigh up the evidence that is before us, and that evidence doesnt bode well in the support of Richardsons testimony or a later time of death

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I can’t help but be deeply suspicious when I see anyone basing an opinion on Phillips after what we know about Victorian TOD estimation Wolf. If there’s one thing that we know as a fact is that these estimations were unreliable. Might have or might not have isn’t good enough to influence a decision. Personally I think that he should be ignored and that the witnesses alone should be assessed.

and when you assess Richardson how can you do that impartially when there are so many conflicting reports about his actions on that morning.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk