John Richardson

[Abby Normal]

Excelllent post George , youve clearly demonstrated what some of us have been saying from day one of this thread .

That the evidence and witness testimony should be treated with just as much caution as Dr Phillips t.o.d estimate.

As some have pointed out [and yes correct to a point ] , modern day medical experts are often referenced to show Dr Phillips opinion should be taken with a ''grain of salt'' just one such phase off the top of my head im sure there are more .

Where by what you have posted, also by modern day comparsions your points on ''List of Cons of Eyewitness Testimony'' ''How reliable is an eye eyewitness witness''. Should be viewed the same way.

Im also pleased you referenced Drs Brown , Blackwell, Llewellan, Sequeira, in much the same way to draw attention to their t.o.d estimates. Did you read my post on that ?

ummm no its not an excellent post, because what george so conveniently left out (and surprising in such a lengthy post!) is that there are THREE witnesses that seperately and independently corroberate each other on the later time of death. the probable correctness of the witnesses goes up exponentially with each independent corroberation of the later tod.
i guess its not surprising you all keep missing that, considering the quality of your analysis and understanding of the subject on this thread so far.

and looking at the folks on either side of the debate and their history and quality of posts:

trevor, fleetwood mac, GbinOz, harry, Fishy on the one hand

and JeffHamm, herlock, dr whatsit, wickerman on the other

one dosnt even need to know the subject of the thread to know what side is correct.

[FISHY1118]

ummm no its not an excellent post, because what george so conveniently left out (and surprising in such a lengthy post!) is that there are THREE witnesses that seperately and independently corroberate each other on the later time of death. the probable correctness of the witnesses goes up exponentially with each independent corroberation of the later tod.
i guess its not surprising you all keep missing that, considering the quality of your analysis and understanding of the subject on this thread so far.

and looking at the folks on either side of the debate and their history and quality of posts:

trevor, fleetwood mac, GbinOz, harry, Fishy on the one hand

and JeffHamm, herlock, dr whatsit, wickerman on the other

one dosnt even need to know the subject of the thread to know what side is correct.

Abby the fact that you mentioned that the witnesses independently corroborate each others story on a later time of death perfectly illustrats what george was sayin in his post.

So ill gladly throw your silly line back at you

i guess its not surprising you all keep missing that, considering the quality of your analysis and understanding of the subject on this thread so far.





The fact that you plainly seemed to have missed his point is exactly why posters such as trevor, mac, harry ,george ,and my self have to continuely remind others of the obvious that is Georges post . If your going to except one side based on modern day experts you must except the the other for the same .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Abby the fact that you mentioned that the witnesses independently corroborate each others story on a later time of death perfectly illustrats what george was sayin in his post.

So ill gladly throw your silly line back at you

i guess its not surprising you all keep missing that, considering the quality of your analysis and understanding of the subject on this thread so far.





The fact that you plainly seemed to have missed his point is exactly why posters such as trevor, mac, harry ,george ,and my self have to continuely remind others of the obvious that is Georges post . If your going to except one side based on modern day experts you must except the the other for the same .

What do modern day experts tell us about Richardson and Cadosch? Apart from the fact that we know that witnesses can be mistaken of course, because no one has ever doubted that as far as I’m aware?

[FISHY1118]

Just for the record there is no correct side abby, only opinions based on the evidence from witnesses and medical persons opinions and inquest testimony,

.People are free to make up their own minds based on that information that we all share. Its not a contest mate.

[FISHY1118]

What do modern day experts tell us about Richardson and Cadosch? Apart from the fact that we know that witnesses can be mistaken of course, because no one has ever doubted that as far as I’m aware?

just that, that they can be ''mistaken''

Precisely the point George was making , witnesess along with Dr phillips could be mistaken, ive excepted that on both sides .

[Abby Normal]

Abby the fact that you mentioned that the witnesses independently corroborate each others story on a later time of death perfectly illustrats what george was sayin in his post.

So ill gladly throw your silly line back at you

i guess its not surprising you all keep missing that, considering the quality of your analysis and understanding of the subject on this thread so far.





The fact that you plainly seemed to have missed his point is exactly why posters such as trevor, mac, harry ,george ,and my self have to continuely remind others of the obvious that is Georges post . If your going to except one side based on modern day experts you must except the the other for the same .

umm no. what George "perfectly Illustrates" in his post is that, par for the course with him, he takes minor in consequential discrepencies and tries to blow them up into something nefarious, and that you and your ilk invariably follow along, and miss the important point that three witnesses independently corroberate a later tod.
Its the exact point that im making, and no surprise that you missed it.

your reply is actually Exhibit A in the case that you dont really understand posts, the subject matter at hand or how to correctly analyze the facts. even when they are served up to you on a platter.

[Herlock Sholmes]

just that, that they can be ''mistaken''

Precisely the point George was making , witnesess along with Dr phillips could be mistaken, ive excepted that on both sides .

That’s fine. You accept that Phillips could have been wrong.

[Abby Normal]

just that, that they can be ''mistaken''

Precisely the point George was making , witnesess along with Dr phillips could be mistaken, ive excepted that on both sides .

dear lord. exhibit B. of course witnesses can be mistaken. no one is disputing that. but we dont have just one eye witness, we have THREE. All who independently corroberate not only each other, but the later TOD. Please tell me you know the difference between one witness and three. lol
this is the point ive been making re georges post and unsurprisingly you keep missing. it really is hopeless with you guys

[Doctored Whatsit]

dear lord. exhibit B. of course witnesses can be mistaken. no one is disputing that. but we dont have just one eye witness, we have THREE. All who independently corroberate not only each other, but the later TOD. Please tell me you know the difference between one witness and three. lol
this is the point ive been making re georges post and unsurprisingly you keep missing. it really is hopeless with you guys

And as I previously pointed out, we have slightly more than the evidence of Richardson, Cadosch and Long here. John Davis, who discovered the body at appx 5. 45 am, reported that the front door was wide open, whereas one hour earlier, Richardson was certain that he closed the door. This is very slight evidence on it's own, but taken with the other three statements, it indicates that some unidentified person left in a hurry between 4. 45 and 5. 45 am.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And as I previously pointed out, we have slightly more than the evidence of Richardson, Cadosch and Long here. John Davis, who discovered the body at appx 5. 45 am, reported that the front door was wide open, whereas one hour earlier, Richardson was certain that he closed the door. This is very slight evidence on it's own, but taken with the other three statements, it indicates that some unidentified person left in a hurry between 4. 45 and 5. 45 am.

And Davis saw the body as soon as he’d opened the back door.

[Abby Normal]

And as I previously pointed out, we have slightly more than the evidence of Richardson, Cadosch and Long here. John Davis, who discovered the body at appx 5. 45 am, reported that the front door was wide open, whereas one hour earlier, Richardson was certain that he closed the door. This is very slight evidence on it's own, but taken with the other three statements, it indicates that some unidentified person left in a hurry between 4. 45 and 5. 45 am.

now thats an excellent post DW. more corroberation from yet another witness. a subtle but important point. good eye!

[Abby Normal]

And Davis saw the body as soon as he’d opened the back door.

bingo, yet more corroboration from another witness.

[Trevor Marriott]

now thats an excellent post DW. more corroberation from yet another witness. a subtle but important point. good eye!

Richardson should be re named John "certain" Richardson

certain about the door
certain that the body wasnt there
certain that his boot was hurting
ceratin that he sat on the step
certain that he didnt kill Chapman

this man is infallible !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and the sad thing is that you and others have been taken in by his certainty

There is no such thing as a certaintiy in these murders as far as the witness testimony is concerned because it was never tested as to its accuracy or the truthfulness of the person giving the testimony

www.trevormarriott.co.u

[Herlock Sholmes]

Richardson should be re named John "certain" Richardson

certain about the door
certain that the body wasnt there
certain that his boot was hurting
ceratin that he sat on the step
certain that he didnt kill Chapman

this man is infallible !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and the sad thing is that you and others have been taken in by his certainty

There is no such thing as a certaintiy in these murders as far as the witness testimony is concerned because it was never tested as to its accuracy or the truthfulness of the person giving the testimony

www.trevormarriott.co.u

For the 698th time I’ll explain it again Trevor. No one has simply assumed that Richardson was right without assessing the points for and against. That’s exactly what they’ve done and come to the obvious and reasonable conclusion that he wasn’t blind, mentally impaired, stupid beyond belief, spatially unaware or a pathological liar. Unlike your method which appears to be - look at a witness statement, find a spelling mistake and conclude that the witness should be dismissed, due to any trivial discrepancies blown out of all proportion. And the most remarkable thing of all Trevor, and it’s such a spooky coincidence, every single witness that is adjudged as unsafe by you (and so dismissed by your method) just happens to be a witness that disagrees with a point or theory that you support. We could write a list of them. Whilst most of us judge witnesses individually, you judge them as to how helpful of unhelpful they are to you!

……

And to be totally honest Trevor only one man is being treated as infallible on here by some and that’s His Holiness Dr. Gandalf Phillips, who magically laid on hands and made a deduction with a level of accuracy that a Doctor in 2022 couldn’t have achieved. Yeah right.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let’s remember this. It’s regularly stated that Richardson and Chandler ‘disagree’ with each other; that there is a discrepancy. When you think about it, this isn’t the case because Richardson never got the opportunity to respond. I’ll explain…

When Inspector Chandler made his inquest statement John Richardson had already given his evidence and so never had the opportunity to respond. For all that we know, if he had be recalled and asked the question he might easily have said: “that’s correct, I didn’t mention repairing my boot to Inspector Chandler.” No discrepancy. An actual discrepancy would only have occurred if Richardson had been asked the question and he responded: “Inspector Chandler is wrong, I did mention repairing my boot.” And we can’t assume that’s what he would have said given the chance.

So we shouldn’t assume that Richardson told a lie based on a ‘discrepancy’ which, for all that we know, might not have existed in the first place. And if Richardson hadn’t mentioned that he’d sat on the step and would that have been such a huge thing? I think that it’s simply a case of exaggeration. Asa simple exercise can we imagine a very normal, everyday, plausible exchange that could have taken place between Inspector Chandler and John Richardson which accepts that he didn’t mention the boot (which isn’t proven in the first place?) Id say that there definitely is, also bearing in mind the situation and location of the conversation between the two:

Chandler - Now Mr Richardson, you arrived here earlier this morning is that true?

Richardson - Yes, I got here about a quarter to five, I went to the back door to check the cellar lock for my mom.

Chandler - Alright, and did you see anything at all in the yard?

Richardson - No nothing.

Chandler - Are you sure, it couldn’t have been very light after all.

Richardson - It was light enough to see and I could see all over the yard. Believe me, if there had been a body there, I’d have seen it.

Chandler - Even though it was located between the door and the fence?

Richardson - Yes I couldn’t possibly have missed it. I’m telling you it wasn’t there.

Chandler - Alright Mr. Richardson thank you. We’ll want to talk to you again at some point later though.

…..

Richardson doesn’t mention siting on the step or the boot. He has no reason to do and there’s nothing suspicious about it. I don’t see the big deal?