John Richardson

[Fleetwood Mac]

Cadosh heard someone say no. thats hardly people talking. He heard that as he was walking to the khazi he did not stop and listen as to where exactly, and in which direction the voice came from, the voice could have come from anywhere in the immediate location, in the still morning air sound would travel.

Researchers are putting too much faith into the accuracy of these witnesses we see all through these murders conflicting witness testimony and testimony that is clearly unsafe to rely on, yet it seems they are being treated as being the gospel, despite all the flaws in their testimony being highlighted

The sad fact is that the witness testimony was never fully tested as it would have been in a criminal trial, and if it had have been some of these witnesses would have been in for a hard time in the witness box.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We know that after say 5am, people were coming alive in greater numbers in that part of the world in that area. The pubs were open again at 5.30am. There are people going to work prior to that and around that time. Cadosch himself is up and about. Elizabeth Long states it was routine to see various couples at that time of the morning. John Richardson testifies that people went there at all hours. It was stated that 'the doors can be entered in the houses about there also'.

There is no reason to doubt Cadosch, but in the context of the activity in that immediate area at that time of the day there is no reason to assume he must have heard Annie being murdered. Long's statement seemingly gives Cadosch's statement greater significance, but then Long states she did not take much notice of the couple.

So, in the event we set aside everything else which took place that early morning and focused on their statements:

Long: I saw a couple but didn't take much notice of them. Cadosch: I heard 'no' and a noise on the fence. How much significance would these two statements have given the activity in that area at that time? Not a lot really. And, there is nothing in these statements that contradicts any other statement.

It is Richardson's statement that is the problem, in that we have an obvious contradiction which can't be reasonably explained away by anything other than either Richardson was lying or Dr Phillips, while confident Annie had been murdered two hours previously, and probably more, was wide of the mark.

[Trevor Marriott]

We know that after say 5am, people were coming alive in greater numbers in that part of the world in that area. The pubs were open again at 5.30am. There are people going to work prior to that and around that time. Cadosch himself is up and about. Elizabeth Long states it was routine to see various couples at that time of the morning. John Richardson testifies that people went there at all hours. It was stated that 'the doors can be entered in the houses about there also'.

There is no reason to doubt Cadosch, but in the context of the activity in that immediate area at that time of the day there is no reason to assume he must have heard Annie being murdered. Long's statement seemingly gives Cadosch's statement greater significance, but then Long states she did not take much notice of the couple.

So, in the event we set aside everything else which took place that early morning and focused on their statements:

Long: I saw a couple but didn't take much notice of them. Cadosch: I heard 'no' and a noise on the fence. How much significance would these two statements have given the activity in that area at that time? Not a lot really. And, there is nothing in these statements that contradicts any other statement.

It is Richardson's statement that is the problem, in that we have an obvious contradiction which can't be reasonably explained away by anything other than either Richardson was lying or Dr Phillips, while confident Annie had been murdered two hours previously, and probably more, was wide of the mark.

But the contradiction is in how the witness inquest testimony conflicted from newspaper to newspaper, so which newpaper reported the testimony verbatim and which report is to be belived and can be relied on. the answer is none of them because we do not have the original depositions to compare them against.

Thats why this thread is as long as it is because no one wants to accept that fact. and why we see some resercahers stamping their feet tryiny to tell us that one specific article is correct and overides all others.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Am I the only one that finds attacking a man's career on the basis of differing opinions to be appalling? The second half of the post put me in mind of the parable of the Mote and the Beam.

Thats seems a pretty one-sided assessment George.

The trouble with you Herlock is that you do not have the capabiity to assess and evaluate the witness testimony

Firstly, I was responding to this comment stating that I was somehow intellectually incompetent to make an assessment which I find insulting. It’s certainly not something that I’d lose sleep over but I felt that it needed responding to and that’s what I did. It was also in response to an entirely unfounded accusation that I was somehow ‘hijacking’ the thread when I simply responded to one post by Abby. And yes, I favour my own judgment over Trevor’s and that’s not because I think that I’m some kind of genius or that I think that I’m cleverer than other people because I don’t, it’s based on my own experience of talking with Trevor. Trevor will disagree of course and some will agree with him and that’s fine. But there are a couple of posters on these boards that would agree with Trevor if he said that the moon was made out of Stilton just because he’s an ex-police officer.

Secondly,

. I’m not impressed with the ‘I used to be police officer’ line I’m afraid so I’m quite happy to say that I can assess evidence far better than you can, as can many posters on here.

This isn’t insulting Trevor’s career. I’ve said on here a few times George that I have every respect for everyone that did such a difficult and important job (and that includes Trevor) but I don’t accept that people that have never been in the police force can’t assess competently. One of the reasons why Trevor and I clash so often is because he often makes a statement/interpretation/opinion as if it’s a fact and as if everyone should simply roll over and accept it just because it comes from Trevor and he was a police officer. Thread after thread I get him saying things like “I’ve told you x but you just don’t listen” despite explaining that I have listened but I just disagree. Trevor doesn’t seem to get this. It’s like “but I’ve said it so why aren’t you accepting it?!”

There are many posters who will disagree with suggestions that I make and that’s fine but few posters on here get disagreed with more often than Trevor does….and not just by me. I don’t enjoy bickering with Trevor but I also don’t like having to keep repeating myself and having one poster constantly giving opinions that he feels should simply be accepted as fact.

Ive re-read my post George and I can’t see where I’ve attacked Trevor’s career because I haven’t.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Excuse me for asking, but surely in modern cases you have both sides of an argument?
How are you able to identify flawed testimony without an opposing statement, or without a full investigation of the circumstances?

In our cases more often than not there is no opposing view, no conflicting testimony. And we certainly cannot subject the testimony to an investigation.
Some testimony is more complete than other's, more detailed, but that does not mean it is in conflict.

In modern cases, do you admit an initial statement from a witness is not expected to be complete?
That following the first statement, the witness is often, either by an investigating officer, or by the court, subject to questioning, after which the resulting witnesses story is more complete than it originally was?


Finally, in the last line of your paragraph you seem to be suggesting that because testimony in these old cases has not been challenged, then they cannot be relied on.
This may be true to a certain extent, but even the coroner's record does not include questions to the witness (happily the press often provide some questions), so you still do not know if the testimony was challenged.
Therefore, if you don't trust the press, and you can't trust the court record, what is the point of your interest in these crimes?

This is my main issue with Trevor and it goes on and on. We all know that we have to weigh up the pro’s and cons of every aspect of the case. We have huge absences of information but if we favour one suggestion over another Trevor keeps accusing people (largely me) of ‘relying’ on certain things that shouldn’t be relied on. It’s so frustrating that he just can’t see this. In his case no one is saying that we should automatically assume that Richardson must have been honest or that his judgment must have been spot on. What we are saying is that we have assessed what we know, incorporated the variable unknowns and assessed them, and arrived at an opinion on the subject. But if you explain that to Trevor he’d just come back with “but you are relying on things to…….!” And on we go….

[Herlock Sholmes]

No Geoge,you are not the only one.Refering to Trevor that is.
I have yet to read of any medical opinion that would tend to discredit Phillips.Fleetwood has put it in language that is easily understood.
If it was a case of a body having lain for many,many hours,or days or weeks in the open,there could be doubt,but two hours!.I would expect any doctor, Victorian or not,to be pretty accurate to within a two hour base,and Phillips adds.probably more.

No one is trying to discredit Phillips, Harry. He was undoubtedly a competent doctor but the doctor that would have treated my great grandmother in the LVP was also a competent professional but I wouldn’t want to be diagnosed by him in 2022.

If you haven’t read the evidence put forward Harry then there’s nothing that I can do about that. If you want to use the ‘I haven’t seen it so it can’t exist’ approach then it’s up to you. But the methods that Phillips used were UNRELIABLE. This is simply a fact and if you won’t accept a fact then you clearly have an ulterior motive for doing so.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And as to you stating you can assess and evaluate evidence better than I can if that be the case I will give up my day job and recommend that you take over, and you would be lucky to last till the end of the first day

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Says the man who built a theory about Catherine Eddowes apron around the location of the apron strings because he thought it proved that it wasn’t a whole apron, until I pointed out that he got the string on the wrong part of the apron because he’d misread the evidence! And who then agreed that he was mistaken but still stuck by his theory no matter what! Then on another thread tried to claim that he hadn’t made a mistake until I posted the quote.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, given this is a thread about John Richardson and not Dr Phillips I don't want to take up any more space. So, last comment from me on Dr Phillips.

It's pretty clear that some of you must have a theory that demands you cynically manipulate what Dr Phillips actually said. Dr Phillips did of course say: "I should think......", which is of course another way of saying: "My opinion is....", but then Dr Phillips is a reasonable man and knows that he cannot possibly offer a verifiable, definitely ascertained fact, particularly as there is no such thing in life (of any generation and any situation). So, "I should think....." adds nothing to and detracts nothing from Dr Phillips' statement.

Dr Phillips stated two hours and probably more (he did not state probably two hours). You can only possibly deduce that upon taking all of the conditions into account, he was confident, in so far as he could be, that Annie was murdered at least two hours before he assessed Annie's body.

Inspector Chandler reported that Dr Phillips pronounced life extinct and stated Annie had been dead for at least two hours.

So, are we really to believe that Dr Phillips meant this: at least two hours but I can't be sure due to the cold morning? That is nonsensical and meaningless. In effect he would have meant: I've no idea, so when I say at least two hours then just ignore that part; look, I know I'm a doctor but I'm only here for the conversation and the buffet, it was a cold morning and so your guess is as good as mine.

Similarly, in the event his 'cold morning' comment relates to both the 'two hours' and 'probably more' then this renders Dr Phillips' distinction between what is more than probable and what is merely probable, completely redundant and meaningless. He would have said something like: "my belief is around 3.30am but I can't be certain due to.....". There is a reason why he distinguishes between 'two hours' and 'probably more' as opposed to simply stating '3.30am'. The reason is that he is confident at least two hours, but he can't be certain beyond that although he believes/it is probable 'hour/s before 4.30am'.

It's a feature of this case that some of the statements contradict some other statements. But, the answer isn't to manipulate what is stated in order to make them fit. It is noticeable also that there are preconceived ideas among some on this board, such as all of the witness statements are flawed or we should take the witness statements as read and anything less is insulting. In all probability, some of these witness statements will be a pack of lies, some will be embellished, some will be genuine but mistaken, others will be spot on. Surely the answer it to take each statement on its merit as opposed to having a theory and then going to work on manipulating the statements in an attempt to add credence to the theory.

Strange comment.

What we have here Mac is a Victorian doctor giving an estimation using methods that every single modern medical expert on the planet without a single exception tells us was unreliable. Yet we have posters going to extraordinary lengths to try and somehow discredit this and show that somehow Phillips was some kind of way ahead of his time genius. If Phillips had estimated that Chapman had been dead for between 1 and 3 hours then we would barely have given Richardson’s testimony a second glance but some feel it necessary to challenge the worlds authorities so that they can do just that. So the only ‘cynical manipulation’ that’s going on is the one where Phillips is being raised to the level of a magician!

I certainly have no theory that requires a later TOD and neither does Wickerman, Jeff, Abby or Doc so perhaps you should ask yourself - why these extraordinary lengths to discredit Richardson in favour of a provably unreliable TOD estimate. And finally we only have to look at the opinion of a man who was there at the time and who heard what Phillips had said verbatim……the Coroner:

“It is true that Dr. Phillips thinks that when he saw the body at 6.30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admits that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood may affect his opinion; and if the evidence of the other witnesses be correct, Dr. Phillips has miscalculated the effect of those forces.

So there we have the coroner stating that Phillips accepted that his opinion might have been out due to the circumstances and that he could have miscalculated. I can’t see why this point is still being argued. Unless someone has a theory to defend at all costs of course?

[Fleetwood Mac]

“It is true that Dr. Phillips thinks that when he saw the body at 6.30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admits that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood may affect his opinion; and if the evidence of the other witnesses be correct, Dr. Phillips has miscalculated the effect of those forces.

So there we have the coroner stating that Phillips accepted that his opinion might have been out due to the circumstances and that he could have miscalculated. I can’t see why this point is still being argued. Unless someone has a theory to defend at all costs of course?

That quote supports my argument as opposed to yours.

if the evidence of the other witnesses be correct, Dr. Phillips has miscalculated the effect of those forces

When the coroner states: "miscalculated the effect of those forces", by extension he is telling you that Dr Phillips took account of/calculated the coldness of the morning when stating "at least two hours".

In the event the coroner assumed that Phillips meant this: my estimate is 4.30am but I acknowledge there are limiting factors such as the coldness of the morning which may mean Annie died earlier, then the coroner couldn't conclude Dr Phillips had miscalculated. The coroner concludes Dr Phillips may have miscalculated because Dr Phillips draws a line in the sand at 'at least two hours'.

[Aethelwulf]

That quote supports my argument as opposed to yours.

if the evidence of the other witnesses be correct, Dr. Phillips has miscalculated the effect of those forces

When the coroner states: "miscalculated the effect of those forces", by extension he is telling you that Dr Phillips took account of/calculated the coldness of the morning when stating "at least two hours".

In the event the coroner assumed that Phillips meant this: my estimate is 4.30am but I acknowledge there are limiting factors such as the coldness of the morning which may mean Annie died earlier, then the coroner couldn't conclude Dr Phillips had miscalculated. The coroner concludes Dr Phillips may have miscalculated because Dr Phillips draws a line in the sand at 'at least two hours'.

if the evidence of the other witnesses be correct, Dr. Phillips has miscalculated the effect of those forces' - i.e., taking into account the witnesses that suggest ToD around 5.30, he has miscalculated those forces by overestimating.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That quote supports my argument as opposed to yours.

if the evidence of the other witnesses be correct, Dr. Phillips has miscalculated the effect of those forces

When the coroner states: "miscalculated the effect of those forces", by extension he is telling you that Dr Phillips took account of/calculated the coldness of the morning when stating "at least two hours".

In the event the coroner assumed that Phillips meant this: my estimate is 4.30am but I acknowledge there are limiting factors such as the coldness of the morning which may mean Annie died earlier, then the coroner couldn't conclude Dr Phillips had miscalculated. The coroner concludes Dr Phillips may have miscalculated because Dr Phillips draws a line in the sand at 'at least two hours'.

As Wulf has pointed out, the Coroner is specifically mentioning the witnesses, and the witnesses point to a later TOD. So the coroner is clearly saying that Phillips could have been wrong (miscalculated) and that the witnesses could have been correct (that she was still alive at 4.45)

The only alternative interpretation is that Phillips was somehow saying ‘It’s my opinion that she likely died at 4.30 but possibly earlier but because of the weather conditions possibly earlier.” The caveat becomes a needless emphasising of something that he’d already said. If you make a statement you only add a caveat if you are expressing the possibility of something within that statement being incorrect or different from what was originally said.

[Trevor Marriott]

Says the man who built a theory about Catherine Eddowes apron around the location of the apron strings because he thought it proved that it wasn’t a whole apron, until I pointed out that he got the string on the wrong part of the apron because he’d misread the evidence! And who then agreed that he was mistaken but still stuck by his theory no matter what! Then on another thread tried to claim that he hadn’t made a mistake until I posted the quote.

i am not surprsied that I made a mistake its wonder I didnt make more with all the crap thats flying around most of it from your direction.

Just goes to show that I am human whats your excuse!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

And regardless of what his opinion was, we know that estimating ToD by feel is not reliable although the Victorian's thought it was. They were mistaken, however, so no matter how strong he stated his opinion (which he doesn't even state strongly, but qualifies it), we know that opinion is based upon a flawed methodology.

Hi Jeff.

I know this idea has been suggested before, but I don't think it is right.

As early as 1882 the book Legal Medicine began by making it clear that all temperatures taken on a body must be thermometric (by thermometer), due to the fact that temperature changes on the body are so minute as to be imperceptible by the hand.

Phillips had to have used a thermometer, apart from that he must record the ambient temperature at the murder scene.

[Trevor Marriott]

This is my main issue with Trevor and it goes on and on. We all know that we have to weigh up the pro’s and cons of every aspect of the case. We have huge absences of information but if we favour one suggestion over another Trevor keeps accusing people (largely me) of ‘relying’ on certain things that shouldn’t be relied on. It’s so frustrating that he just can’t see this. In his case no one is saying that we should automatically assume that Richardson must have been honest or that his judgment must have been spot on. What we are saying is that we have assessed what we know, incorporated the variable unknowns and assessed them, and arrived at an opinion on the subject. But if you explain that to Trevor he’d just come back with “but you are relying on things to…….!” And on we go….

No lets get it right, you continunally stamp your feet stating that you are right and the witnesses could not possibly be wrong and so we should accept their testimony with out question. there lies the differenec between you and I, I simply provide alterernative explantions with facts and evidence to support for researchers to consider, but to do that they must overcome this inherrent need to readily accept that all that it is written and documented from the past is to be readily accepted without question and that is not the case history is there to be challenged.

You need to start acknowledging and accepting the conflciting newspaper reports which now questions the accuracy of the inquest testimony all of which have been pointed out to you many times.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fleetwood Mac]

As Wulf has pointed out, the Coroner is specifically mentioning the witnesses, and the witnesses point to a later TOD. So the coroner is clearly saying that Phillips could have been wrong (miscalculated) and that the witnesses could have been correct (that she was still alive at 4.45)

The only alternative interpretation is that Phillips was somehow saying ‘It’s my opinion that she likely died at 4.30 but possibly earlier but because of the weather conditions possibly earlier.” The caveat becomes a needless emphasising of something that he’d already said. If you make a statement you only add a caveat if you are expressing the possibility of something within that statement being incorrect or different from what was originally said.

I'm starting to wonder whether or not you're on a wind up. I'll tell you why:

You posted the coroner's statement in reply to one of my posts and your conclusion was this: so there we have the coroner stating that Phillips accepted that his opinion might have been out due to the circumstances and that he could have miscalculated. I can’t see why this point is still being argued.

Bear in mind your post above in italics was a response my point that Dr Phillips meant at least two hours when he said that and he took into account the 'coldness of the morning'.

So, in your post above in italics the crux of it is: there we have the coroner stating that Phillips accepted that his opinion might have been out .

My reply was: no, the coroner does not state nor imply that Dr Phillips accepted he may have been out with the earliest TOD of 4.30am, the coroner clearly states that in the event the witnesses are correct then Dr Phillips has miscalculated in the effects of those forces. Meaning: Dr Phillips took into account the effects of the cold morning but maintained Annie had been dead at least two hours, in the event Annie was murdered later than that then Dr Phillips was incorrect in his assessment.

To which you have replied in the quotation above: "so the coroner is clearly saying that Phillips could have been wrong (miscalculated)". I know, of course he is saying such, but this is entirely different to your initial reply which started this chain: "so there we have the coroner stating that Phillips accepted that his opinion might have been out".

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm starting to wonder whether or not you're on a wind up. I'll tell you why:

You posted the coroner's statement in reply to one of my posts and your conclusion was this: so there we have the coroner stating that Phillips accepted that his opinion might have been out due to the circumstances and that he could have miscalculated. I can’t see why this point is still being argued.

Bear in mind your post above in italics was a response my point that Dr Phillips meant at least two hours when he said that and he took into account the 'coldness of the morning'.

So, in your post above in italics the crux of it is: there we have the coroner stating that Phillips accepted that his opinion might have been out .

My reply was: no, the coroner does not state nor imply that Dr Phillips accepted he may have been out with the earliest TOD of 4.30am, the coroner clearly states that in the event the witnesses are correct then Dr Phillips has miscalculated in the effects of those forces. Meaning: Dr Phillips took into account the effects of the cold morning but maintained Annie had been dead at least two hours, in the event Annie was murdered later than that then Dr Phillips was incorrect in his assessment.

To which you have replied in the quotation above: "so the coroner is clearly saying that Phillips could have been wrong (miscalculated)". I know, of course he is saying such, but this is entirely different to your initial reply which started this chain: "so there we have the coroner stating that Phillips accepted that his opinion might have been out".

I tell you what, I’m really starting to think that it’s you that is perpetuating a wind-up by this continued over complication.

[Coroner] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more; (and there is Phillips opinion; that it was likeliest that she was killed at 2.30 or before) but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, (and there is the BUT…..but there is a possibility that the conditions might have made a difference that I hadn’t accounted for) and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood (I had used temperature to arrive at my TOD BUT the body could have cooled more rapidly than I’d accounted for which could result in a variation from my original estimation)

You don’t employ a caveat if if there’s no need. It’s as clear as could be and the coroner saw this too.