Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
John Richardson
Collapse
X
-
'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
-
Originally posted by Abby Normal View Postregardless of the size, shape location etc., of the canopy-- he could have seen the lock from the top step by leaning over and looking, no?
all this is really irrelevant because he said he sat on the step, and could have seen it from there no problem. its all a moot point in general anyway, because the important question is, could he have seen the BODY from the steps, and obviously he could. who gives a rats ass if he could see the lock from the top of the steps lol!
just another example of the conspiracy theorists trying to build mountains out of mole hills.Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
Comment
-
Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
Excellent post Trevor. A shame that is has gone un-noticed and attracted no comment.
Cheers, George
The only thing in trevors post that has a modicum of reason is that the ripper may have been away from London on certian times which would explain the timing of the murders. But not because it was someone like feigenbaum, but a local Englishman, which the ripper probably was, whos work took him away at certain times.
And BTW, trevors last sentence is actually just ONE point-his two points are the same thing lolLast edited by Abby Normal; 07-25-2022, 02:03 PM."Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe
"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. Abberline
Comment
-
Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
Thats the problem around here George , too many that cant and wont see whats right in front of them .To busy mocking people who genuinely and correctly use the evidence provided to make their own personal case in certain aspects of the murders .
.
While all the time making up what if ,buts ,maybe,s , mistakes ,phantoms etc, and the list goes on and on . Its just a joke to some, a big game. Childish behaviour from those who seek to butcher this thread .
Thats the evidence that keeps being either ignored or discredited by having the suggestion of a pointless, self-incriminating lie woven around it.
Its all very clear and there’s simply no mystery. Annie Chapman wasn’t there when Richardson arrived.Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
Comment
-
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Evidence Fishy - given at the inquest under oath - John Richardson said that from where he’d sat he could not possibly have missed a body had it been there.
Thats the evidence that keeps being either ignored or discredited by having the suggestion of a pointless, self-incriminating lie woven around it.
Its all very clear and there’s simply no mystery. Annie Chapman wasn’t there when Richardson arrived.
please try and not used the holes and the marking on the wall, theres no evidence they were from the original canopy . We have been all through that.
'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 FISHY1118 View Post
So when you ask others to accept the evidence of richardson, why do you ignore the evidence of the sketchers ?
please try and not used the holes and the marking on the wall, theres no evidence they were from the original canopy . We have been all through that.
Comment
-
Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
So when you ask others to accept the evidence of richardson, why do you ignore the evidence of the sketchers ?
please try and not used the holes and the marking on the wall, theres no evidence they were from the original canopy . We have been all through that.
And yes I will use those holes. You aren’t deleting these just because they are inconvenient. What else could they be? They are clear evidence of the position of the original canopy. Suggest what else they could be? A child’s slide? The marks of 2 simultaneously charging rhino’s? Maybe a later owner used to practice on the parallel bars? I go for the obvious. A canopy.Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
Comment
-
Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post
i have to say you are wrong on this IMO. the sketches show the canopy fixed just below the sill, exactly where the holes are in the photo. the vertical scale is just a bit out on the sketchers part. this may have been deliberate to render the cellar door visible to readers. the sketch is just that, a sketch, which as far as i can see lines up almost perfectly with the physical evidence of the holes that would have supported the canopy in the photograph.Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
Comment
-
Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
So when you ask others to accept the evidence of richardson, why do you ignore the evidence of the sketchers ?
There's another point I think is necessary to add to Herlocks reply.
That is, we know Richardson was there, in that back yard. We do not know if the artist was there, only that he may have been.
We do see references to press artists turning up at some sites, but in this case it is quite possible the artist worked from written descriptions.
It's a case of the known versus the unknown.
So, which is the safest assumption to go with?
Regards, Jon S.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Abby Normal View Postregardless of the size, shape location etc., of the canopy-- he could have seen the lock from the top step by leaning over and looking, no?
all this is really irrelevant because he said he sat on the step, and could have seen it from there no problem. its all a moot point in general anyway, because the important question is, could he have seen the BODY from the steps, and obviously he could. who gives a rats ass if he could see the lock from the top of the steps lol!
just another example of the conspiracy theorists trying to build mountains out of mole hills.
The whole witness testimony is unsafe to totally rely on
Comment
-
Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
This canopy issue is becoming nonsensical if the canopy was there in 1888 I have to ask based on Richardsons testimony where he says he checked the lock on the cellar on a daily basis, is how could he see the lock by just standing on the steps? and in one report he says he simply stood on the step.
The whole witness testimony is unsafe to totally rely on
www.trevormarriott.co.ukRegards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
Comment
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
There's another point I think is necessary to add to Herlocks reply.
That is, we know Richardson was there, in that back yard. We do not know if the artist was there, only that he may have been.
We do see references to press artists turning up at some sites, but in this case it is quite possible the artist worked from written descriptions.
It's a case of the known versus the unknown.
So, which is the safest assumption to go with?Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
Comment
-
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
It’s strange that you often, and correctly imo, mention the unreliability of Press reports and yet you put weight on the Press report that said that he’d just stood on the steps. We also have Press reports from before the inquest where it’s stated that he sat on the steps to fix his boot. Do you think that Richardson claimed to have stood on the steps but the Press completely invented the story of him sitting on the steps fixing his boot? We can’t rely on Press reports but surely we can rely on an inquest testimony under oath where he said that he’d sat on the steps to fix his boot and couldn’t possibly have missed the body. This is where the weight evidence heavily lies.
I am merely referring to the various newspaper reports on the inquest which conflict with each other. As far as the inquest testimony is concerned it comes down to which report you believe to be the truth and in this instance I am referring to the report that states he simply stood on the step and higlighting the fact that if that report is correct how could he see the lock on the cellar bu simply standing up, a course of action that he highlights as being a daily occurrence.
You need to stop citing the inquest testimony you seek to rely on because it cannot be proven to be the truth as to what was said at the inquest
Comment
-
Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
not just with this murder but all through the whole murders there are major flaws in witness testimony
I think it's quite possible that some of the witness statements appear to be odd but in actual fact are more or less an accurate version of events. Take John Richardson: it is not much of a leap of faith to suggest that he simply kept his initial discussion with Inspector Chandler to the bare essentials for whatever reason he felt it to be expedient. It does not follow that there is an undoubted flaw in his series of statements. My personal view is that I'm more inclined to go with the estimated TOD by medical experts, particularly as Dr Phillips was on the scene only one hour after Annie's body was found, but I've read both sides of the debate on here and as a result I believe the argument that John Richardson was on the steps is as good an argument as the one suggesting he simply had a quick glance at the cellar and embellished the rest.
I think it's a given that some of the witness statements will be unsafe, for various reasons, just as they would be today; but I reckon a decent chunk of them will be straight down the line and that it's a safe bet at least one important witness statement is generally being discounted but in actual fact is an accurate and important version of events. So, I don't think it's wise to discredit witness testimony across the board, but rather to work out with a reasonable mind which ones are more likely to be straight down the line.
Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
If the later TOD is to be accepted then that breaks the killers MO because all the other victims were killed much earlier and if the killer had been trawling the streets up unitl 5am and he hadnt found a victim as likley as not he would have given up because as daylight approached would have made him wary of being seen and possibly apprehended.
Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
But if the killer didnt live locally and was a traveller and only came into Whitechapel on the times that he was in London, then that might explain the long gaps between each of the murders.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
But it matters not what he said under oath if the newspapers recorded it incorrectly because we dont have to original signed witness depositions
I am merely referring to the various newspaper reports on the inquest which conflict with each other. As far as the inquest testimony is concerned it comes down to which report you believe to be the truth and in this instance I am referring to the report that states he simply stood on the step and higlighting the fact that if that report is correct how could he see the lock on the cellar bu simply standing up, a course of action that he highlights as being a daily occurrence.
You need to stop citing the inquest testimony you seek to rely on because it cannot be proven to be the truth as to what was said at the inquest
www.trevormarriott.co.uk
We read what evidence we have available and assess it as individuals. We use our own individual knowledge, experience and judgment. We agree and disagree. If we can’t do that, and we just apply your mantra and dismiss everything, then there would be no point in there being to forums devoted to the subject and there would certainly be no point in you writing 2 books and travelling around the country giving talks on the subject.
The fact is Trevor, and yes I mean FACT, is that John Richardson said that he’d sat on the step and all newspaper reports of the inquest say this. Some newspaper reports prior to the inquest say that he stood on the step but equally, some newspaper reports prior to the inquest say that he sat on the steps. So logic tells us that Richardson had also said that he’d sat on the steps before the inquest too. And so reason, logic and the evidence points to John Richardson telling the absolute truth when he said that he’d sat on the steps. Anything else is pretty much nonsense.
Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
Comment
Comment