John Richardson

[Fleetwood Mac]

Question .If thats the case, should Richardson be accepted as unreliable with his evidence as Dr Phillips is with his.? Just a yes or no will do .

'Yes or No' isn't sufficient here.

Regarding Dr Phillips, I would hold up on that one.

Dr Phillips' evidence hasn't been proven to be unreliable. This seems to have been taken for granted but it's absolutely not the case.

Dr Phillips had rigor mortis to aid his examination. It had progressed to 'commencing of the limbs'. A cold environmental temperature delays the onset of rigor. In addition, we know Annie ate at around 1.45am, there is no evidence of Annie eating after that: potato is easily digested food.

Jeff has produced research that in no way, shape or form negates Dr Phillips' statement. That research was undertaken on bodies with a 5-50 hours PMI, in other words some of those bodies had been dead more than 1 day. We don't know how many bodies formed the research, nor the PMI specific to each one.

Dr Phillips was unequivocal in 'at least two hours'. Now, it's been suggested he didn't quite believe that. Well, let's exclude the 'probably more' part of his statement and what they're claiming Dr Phillips meant is this: 'at least two hours but it could be less than that'. That would be a nonsensical statement. The coroner would have said: "what?! Phillips, what is this impenetrable jibberish?"

In order to go with Dr Phillips' unequivocal 'at least two hours', you merely have to follow the science. You don't need to invent nor manipulate anything he said or observed.

I thought I was clear on Richardson: his injection of the borrowed knife from the market (upon retrieving the knife that Richardson stated at the inquest cut his boot and being challenged on that) means that in any court of law Richardson's entire statement would be disregarded. That should be sufficient for Casebook.Org to deem Richardson to be unreliable.

Conclusion:

The balance of probability, underpinned by his observations and what we actually know, suggests Dr Phillips is reliable; Richardson is absolutely an unreliable witness.

[GBinOz]

No problem George. That's the thing with insufficient information, one has to draw inferences, and there's no way of knowing if one has drawn the correct ones. Obviously, we differ. Personally, when confronted with two explanations, one that accounts for the data as given (including error ranges), and another that requires data to be wrong, I prefer the first. We have no way of knowing if the data is right or wrong, all we have is a very plausible account if the data is correct, with any conflicts accounted for by reasonable error margins, and as that tells a very consistent story, including some odd bits like the leggings spring and the open door, etc, I see that as the most satisfying account. At the same time, I fully accept that it is not proven and could be incorrect. I'm not actually concerned about Long as I don't see her exclusion as fundamentally changing the story, so if her identification is in error for the reasons you suggest, I don't see that as changing anything. I also don't see any reason to think Richardson's boot fixing story is untrue, particularly given his legging spring was found at the scene (a pretty unlikely coincidence if he made up that story; which I also think is an extremely improbable story to make up given the obvious consequences of saying you had a knife with you at the location). I also don't see how he could have missed the body, though I realise there are those that accept that as a reasonable possibility. I see no reason to need to invent memories for Cadoch, and his disinterest in the ongoings next door seem pretty typical, particularly given his illness and need to get to work. Also, given I do not see a 5:25ish ToD as inconsistent with the medical opinion, I end up seeing nothing in the statements that really point to that hypothesis being in need of rejection. All other explanations require "negating" evidence by stating it is wrong despite there being nothing to justify that except for the possibility it could be wrong. And all the witnesses have to be dismissed without any real justification other than they could be wrong. I only see that as an alternative that needs to be kept in mind, but still take 2nd place to the hypothesis that does not require dismissing the evidence as being wrong given that, in my opinion, it doesn't conflict in the first place.

Basically, in my view, erroneous data should produce conflicts that cannot be explained by measurement error. Without that, there is no indication the evidence is false.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I have taken on board your comments and reservations. You have couched your objections to my opinions in the most civil of language and have kindly stopped short of suggesting outright, to use the Australian vernacular, that I have a few roos loose in the top paddock. I'm sure other posters will take up that option.

It seems that I may be more cynical of human nature and its need for attention than are you. I see Cadosch testifying that there was so little that was out of the ordinary in his experience that morning that he didn't even bother to venture a brief glance over the fence, much to the frustration of the coroner and the jury. The coroner asked Long if it was unusual for couples to be on the street at that time of morning and the reply was, I expect to the coroner's amazement, no, there are lots of them, that's why I paid no attention to them. If witnesses are seeing or hearing nothing unusual or different to their every day experience, why do their quite ordinary observations suddenly become important on a single occasion because of the occurrence of a murder on that day?

Richardson is the crucial witness IMO. The spring would take on more relevance had the yard not been his regular workplace - he could have lost it anytime. The front door could have been left open by anyone - for instance, James Hardiman, cat meat street vendor and son of Amelia Hardiman could have left it open in the process of picking up his supplies for market day from his mother's shop at the front of the building. In Australia we have what is called the "Pub test", by which a group ordinary people assess the believability of the story given by someone else. To me, Richardson doesn't quite pass the Pub test.

Best regards, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

There were many things that went unmentioned during the investigation, that doesnt mean they werent so or happened .

His report might have preceded the sketckers by a day, whos knows .We cant say for sure how he came by that information and how he interpreted it, in that way its not important. Im simply just pointing out the fact we have two types of evidence that leads to an inconclusive account of the gaps.

In this case were there gaps all along the fence or were there just one? . I believe the issue of certainty is neither one way or the other ,but i know where my money would be .

So would I. It’s absolutely blatantly obvious that there couldn’t have been gaps all along the fence or the police would have raised the issue if it was the case that the fence couldn’t have concealed 2 people in the next yard. They wouldn’t have given Cadosch a seconds credence. But they very obviously did. We can’t assume idiocy on the part of the police just to make a point Fishy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Memory is not infallible,nor is it constant,The reason I trust Chandler is because I am of the opinion that he would have entered details of his involvement in writing,something the normal public is unlikely to have done.So the accuracy of Chandler's testimony can be viewed as the more reliable.

As an example Harry would you consider it impossible that Richardson might not have mentioned the boot but he might have said “I sat on the steps” and Chandler misheard hit as “I stood on the steps?”

Id also ask how certain would you be that Chandler made notes? After all it wasn’t a proper interview and Chandler would have intended that a witness like Richardson would have been interviewed formally at some point.

If Long's normal practice was to be at or near a certain location at 5.30am,then it might be she was testifying to that practice.Like the doctors,there could have been an error of plus or minus,and while some posters would like that error to be in favour of her having seen Chapman at 5.15,an error could have resulted in seeing another woman at 5.45.That is if Long's memory is associated with the chimes of the church clock,which appears to have chimed the quarter hour.

Its not a case of liking an error to have been earlier Harry it’s just a case of possibilities worth considering. If you can consider the possibility of 5.45 then why not 5.15.

Would you say that Long couldn’t have been wrong though? Jeff has also pointed out how clocks can be out of sync (even today) so don’t you think that might have affected the timings? I’m not suggesting any of these things as a certainty but as a possibility. I’ve often wondered what the chances are in a murder case that the 3 witnesses that might give us a pointer to the TOD we’re all mistaken or lying? None of whom had any reason to lie.

[Trevor Marriott]

So would I. It’s absolutely blatantly obvious that there couldn’t have been gaps all along the fence or the police would have raised the issue if it was the case that the fence couldn’t have concealed 2 people in the next yard. They wouldn’t have given Cadosch a seconds credence. But they very obviously did. We can’t assume idiocy on the part of the police just to make a point Fishy.

But we have no conclusive evidence other than the sketches as to what type of fence it was. I seem to recall someone suggested that it was easy to see over which again poses a question, and by the time it got to the inquest did anyone else raise the issue of the type of fence, it doesnt appear so,again we are left to highlight flaws in the inquest system back then. Because it is wrong to assume that the actual photos we now have of the fence were 130 years old.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

On Richardson:

The exchange with Chandler does not compromise his statement in my view, although I understand the alternative argument.

In the event we accept he was at the door, then I give him the benefit of the doubt in terms of being able to see Annie's body. Richardson said he was sure Annie's body was not there, inferring he could see into that part of the yard. At the inquest James Kent stated: on going through the passage, standing on the top of the back door steps, I saw a woman lying in the yard. Obviously Kent knows there is a body there and so he's looking for it, nevertheless Kent did see Annie's body from the top of the steps.

The problem, and its a monumental problem, lies in Richardson injecting the borrowed knife into his statement/s.

Richardson stated this: I cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife. He misleads the coroner by going home to get the knife that he states cut his boot, only to say it wasn't that knife when challenged. This compromises the validity of his entire statement.

In the end, on the borrowed knife tale alone, he would have been discredited in any court of law and his entire statement disregarded. Taking all of the aspects of his statement into account, this witness cannot be deemed to be credible.

How was he misleading the inquest? The borrowed knife was never in Hanbury Street, he used it at the market. Why would the Coroner have been interested in a knife that was never at the murder scene? It makes no sense unless we suggest that after using his own knife he walked to the market, borrowed a knife and then walked back to Hanbury Street to sit on the step. The fact that he didn’t mention the borrowed knife in the first place is irrelevant because the borrowed knife was irrelevant.

Again, he didn’t say that he didn’t use the original knife. He did. But he obviously couldn’t do a sufficiently thorough job requiring the use of a sharper (and possibly slightly longer) knife at the market. There’s just no mystery here. The knife is an easily explained non-issue.

Its like the suggestion of a discrepancy between Richardson and Chandler (which Trevor noticeably hasn’t responded to) - a non-existent issue.

[FISHY1118]

So would I. It’s absolutely blatantly obvious that there couldn’t have been gaps all along the fence or the police would have raised the issue if it was the case that the fence couldn’t have concealed 2 people in the next yard. They wouldn’t have given Cadosch a seconds credence. But they very obviously did. We can’t assume idiocy on the part of the police just to make a point Fishy.

Well the existence of such evidence shows otherwise Herlock . We cant assume what the police may have or may not have done in regards to any questioning of cadosch in direct relation to the gaps in the fence .

I think you choice your words is a bit harse '' blatantly obvious'' .

Are you really that certain Herlock ? if it were 1 sketch i would say ok you could be right, 2 sketchers hmmmm doubtful , but 3 sketchers, all done on the days right afrer the murder by 3 different peoples interpretation ? Im just a bit perplexed about your insistance of no gaps [but 1 from the press report of course who may or may not have seen it with his own eyes]

One might ask why draw a fence with gaps if there were was none ?



The evidence in case makes it quiet clear in my oipinion there is no certainty one way or the other .

[Herlock Sholmes]

'Yes or No' isn't sufficient here.

Regarding Dr Phillips, I would hold up on that one.

Dr Phillips' evidence hasn't been proven to be unreliable. This seems to have been taken for granted but it's absolutely not the case.

Dr Phillips had rigor mortis to aid his examination. It had progressed to 'commencing of the limbs'. A cold environmental temperature delays the onset of rigor. In addition, we know Annie ate at around 1.45am, there is no evidence of Annie eating after that: potato is easily digested food.

Jeff has produced research that in no way, shape or form negates Dr Phillips' statement. That research was undertaken on bodies with a 5-50 hours PMI, in other words some of those bodies had been dead more than 1 day. We don't know how many bodies formed the research, nor the PMI specific to each one.

Dr Phillips was unequivocal in 'at least two hours'. Now, it's been suggested he didn't quite believe that. Well, let's exclude the 'probably more' part of his statement and what they're claiming Dr Phillips meant is this: 'at least two hours but it could be less than that'. That would be a nonsensical statement. The coroner would have said: "what?! Phillips, what is this impenetrable jibberish?"

In order to go with Dr Phillips' unequivocal 'at least two hours', you merely have to follow the science. You don't need to invent nor manipulate anything he said or observed.

I thought I was clear on Richardson: his injection of the borrowed knife from the market (upon retrieving the knife that Richardson stated at the inquest cut his boot and being challenged on that) means that in any court of law Richardson's entire statement would be disregarded. That should be sufficient for Casebook.Org to deem Richardson to be unreliable.

Conclusion:

The balance of probability, underpinned by his observations and what we actually know, suggests Dr Phillips is reliable; Richardson is absolutely an unreliable witness.

I don’t know why this has to be repeated but it clearly does. No one has ever said that Phillips couldn’t have estimate correctly. But the evidence that his estimation can’t be used to dismiss the witnesses is categorical and insurmountable. It’s simply a proven fact.

You’ve also said this:

In the event we accept he was at the door, then I give him the benefit of the doubt in terms of being able to see Annie's body. Richardson said he was sure Annie's body was not there, inferring he could see into that part of the yard

So if you accept that he couldn’t have missed the body then you are accepting that Phillips was wrong.

. Dr Phillips was unequivocal in 'at least two hours'.

This is factually incorrect. He added a caveat clearly accepting the possibility of a letter TOD. Joshua has produced a quote indicating this and the coroner himself clearly accepted that this was what Phillips was saying.

In my previous post I’ve explained why this ‘injection of the borrowed knife’ is another provable falsehood.

Conclusion: When you eliminate the provable falsehoods and inventions, when you read properly and see that there’s not even a smidgeon of evidence that he lied at any point, when you add (after you appear to accept this) that he couldn’t have missed the body had it been there, when you accept the factually proven point that a Victorian Doctors TOD estimate could not be relied upon and when you add that there were 2 other witness pointing to a later TOD there is only one reasonable, evidence-based outcome - that Annie Chapman was killed some time around 5.20.

Also remembering the scientific evidence, originally posted by John G, showing the unreliability of estimating TOD by digestion, which you have ignored and probably ‘quietly dropped.’

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well the existence of such evidence shows otherwise Herlock . We cant assume what the police may have or may not have done in regards to any questioning of cadosch in direct relation to the gaps in the fence .

I think you choice your words is a bit harse '' blatantly obvious'' .

Are you really that certain Herlock ? if it were 1 sketch i would say ok you could be right, 2 sketchers hmmmm doubtful , but 3 sketchers, all done on the days right afrer the murder by 3 different peoples interpretation ? Im just a bit perplexed about your insistance of no gaps [but 1 from the press report of course who may or may not have seen it with his own eyes]

One might ask why draw a fence with gaps if there were was none ?



The evidence in case makes it quiet clear in my oipinion there is no certainty one way or the other .

Perhaps one did a sketch and the others drew theirs from that. Newspaper reporters used the same method so why not artists? Would papers really have sent droves of artists? We also have the evidence of the other errors in the sketches. I think i listed 8 very obvious ones in one sketch so it’s hardly a cause for accepting it as if it was a ordinance survey map.

The Police had a witness, Cadosch, who claimed to have heard sounds from where the murder occurred. How can we expect that the police would have noticed these gaps? How can we expect that they’d have been so stupid as not to have said “hold on Mr. Cadosch, how could you have not at least seen something through all of those gaps in the fence. It’s never mentioned. But he was asked why he didn’t look over the fence. Why would the coroner ask why he didn’t look over the fence but not ask why he didn’t just see through the gaps? Finally Fishy, we have thd mention of the one gap. No one would have mentioned one gap in particular if there were several all along the fence. The fence just couldn’t have had gaps all along.

[FISHY1118]

Perhaps one did a sketch and the others drew theirs from that. Newspaper reporters used the same method so why not artists? Would papers really have sent droves of artists? We also have the evidence of the other errors in the sketches. I think i listed 8 very obvious ones in one sketch so it’s hardly a cause for accepting it as if it was a ordinance survey map.

The Police had a witness, Cadosch, who claimed to have heard sounds from where the murder occurred. How can we expect that the police would have noticed these gaps? How can we expect that they’d have been so stupid as not to have said “hold on Mr. Cadosch, how could you have not at least seen something through all of those gaps in the fence. It’s never mentioned. But he was asked why he didn’t look over the fence. Why would the coroner ask why he didn’t look over the fence but not ask why he didn’t just see through the gaps? Finally Fishy, we have thd mention of the one gap. No one would have mentioned one gap in particular if there were several all along the fence. The fence just couldn’t have had gaps all along.

I guess we will interpret the evidence differently, there just as easily could have been 3 Different sketchers.

I dont see the gaps in the fence as errors ,so ill put that down as an accurate example, if one had no gaps fair enough, but all three have gaps .




And as my previous post suggest, we just dont know what nor should we even assume what the police may or may not have done in regards to the gaps in the fence . There is evidence to show in this perticular case [i.e the sketchers] that makes it conclusive that witnesess testimony is uncertain in relation to a ''definite'' t.o.d .

[FISHY1118]

Perhaps one did a sketch and the others drew theirs from that. Newspaper reporters used the same method so why not artists? Would papers really have sent droves of artists? We also have the evidence of the other errors in the sketches. I think i listed 8 very obvious ones in one sketch so it’s hardly a cause for accepting it as if it was a ordinance survey map.

The Police had a witness, Cadosch, who claimed to have heard sounds from where the murder occurred. How can we expect that the police would have noticed these gaps? How can we expect that they’d have been so stupid as not to have said “hold on Mr. Cadosch, how could you have not at least seen something through all of those gaps in the fence. It’s never mentioned. But he was asked why he didn’t look over the fence. Why would the coroner ask why he didn’t look over the fence but not ask why he didn’t just see through the gaps? Finally Fishy, we have thd mention of the one gap. No one would have mentioned one gap in particular if there were several all along the fence. The fence just couldn’t have had gaps all along.

So can we then also use the same line of questioning regarding Richardson and Long? [i have a long list that would also start with ''Hold on'' Mr R , Mrs Long???? ] Of course we could, however all 3 were at an inquest hearing not a trial as such where cross examination surely would have revealed a hell of a lot more than what we have to work from thats for sure.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I guess we will interpret the evidence differently, there just as easily could have been 3 Different sketchers.

I dont see the gaps in the fence as errors ,so ill put that down as an accurate example, if one had no gaps fair enough, but all three have gaps .




And as my previous post suggest, we just dont know what nor should we even assume what the police may or may not have done in regards to the gaps in the fence . There is evidence to show in this perticular case [i.e the sketchers] that makes it conclusive that witnesess testimony is uncertain in relation to a ''definite'' t.o.d .

Yes we do know Fishy. It’s impossible that the police would have missed this or failed to have mentioned it. Not one single person mentions that there was a see through fence. It’s a ludicrous suggestion. It’s impossible that the coroner would have even bothered to have asked why Cadosch didn’t look over the fence if Cadosch could have seen through those huge gaps. It also makes absolutely no sense that a reporter should have specifically mentioned a single gap in the fence if there were several of them.

This is proven. The sketches are a waste of paper and can be dismissed as viable evidence. It gets us no further forward if we simply keep claiming that all evidence is equal. It’s not. This isn’t even close Fishy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So can we then also use the same line of questioning regarding Richardson and Long? [i have a long list that would also start with ''Hold on'' Mr R , Mrs Long???? ] Of course we could, however all 3 were at an inquest hearing not a trial as such where cross examination surely would have revealed a hell of a lot more than what we have to work from thats for sure.

Why are you so desperate to discredit witnesses? Ask me the questions that you would have asked Richardson.

[Trevor Marriott]

Why are you so desperate to discredit witnesses? Ask me the questions that you would have asked Richardson.

and are you going to answer them on his behalf

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

Prolly