John Richardson

[FISHY1118]

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

No ones trying to discredit the witnesses herlock cant you see that, there just no point going there if thats your train of thought ,

Surely 1600 post on Richardson , Long , Cadasch , Dr Phillips and the complexity and uncertainty and doubtfulness of witness and medical evidence, has taught you something ?

Ill say it again till doomsday if you like ''its not a contest'' , its about ''all'' the evidence from the inquest testimony that has to be considererd not just parts there of.

No one person or group of persons conclusively proves the others wrong ,it just doesnt work that way and your arguments all along the way are just supporting that theory in reverse! you just cant see it . Trevor , George , Mac , Harry they all get it too.

[FISHY1118]

So no one heard Cadosch’s story and asked why he hadn’t seen anything between those very obvious gaps? So one person specifically mentions there being one gap in the fence even though there are gaps all along the fence which he somehow neglects to mention?

How far are you prepared to go, how much blatant barrel-scraping are you prepared to perform simply in your never ending quest to try and promote Gandalf Phillips and denigrate witnesses. Why the hell must witnesses alway be wrong or always be liars?

You’re now even trying to claim that 3 rubbish quick sketches that have 8 or 9 very clear inaccuracies in each somehow prove anything. Ffs Trevor, just for once, give it up.

There is no descrepencies or inaccuracies in the 3 sketchers regarding the holes in the fence herlock, all 3 show the gaps all along , but you use that no ''8'' to suggest it be so for your creative accounting manoveres , thats how you convince others ''hey look fellas 8 descrepencies'' Trevor ,Mac Harry , and George see through it tho .

[Fleetwood Mac]

Very clearly and very obviously he meant that he’d cut a piece of leather from his boot with his own knife but it wasn’t sharp enough to do a sufficient job so he used a sharper one at the market. Could anything be more obvious?

There you go again: invention.

Initially Richardson stated: cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, after cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market.

Upon being challenged Richardson added: as it was not sharp enough......borrowed another one at the market.

Richardson leads the coroner to believe the knife was sharp enough to cut his boot, i.e. 'after cutting the leather off'. At that point, Richardson is unaware that the coroner is about to tell him to get the knife. Richardson is told to get the knife and he then changes his tune, i.e. 'it was not sharp enough'.

Which is it? Sharp enough to the cut the piece of leather off or not sharp enough?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Can you state that Annie Chapman couldn’t have eaten again?

With regard to adopting "we just don't know" as a cornerstone of a theory, world opinion is divided on its merit.

You think it's acceptable; the rest of the entire world disagrees.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I’ll do no such thing. I spend far too much time trying to explain the bleeding obvious to you. The evidence is there. Accept or refute it. Rather than what your previous tactic was….to ignore it.

I think you should, Sherlock.

We've had research posted and it turned out it wasn't applicable to Dr Phillips' situation.

I for one have no desire to open links and go on a wild goose chase.

So, put some meat on the bones of the point of posting the links: sample size, food intake and relevance to Annie would be a good start. Make it succinct and intelligible rather than simply posting percentages.

[Doctored Whatsit]

With regard to adopting "we just don't know" as a cornerstone of a theory, world opinion is divided on its merit.

You think it's acceptable; the rest of the entire world disagrees.

What in heaven's name does this mean? So if we don't know something, Herlock admits it, but you and everyone else claim to know the unknowable! That makes no sense.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well im not suprized but hey what ever Herlock , the argument you yourself use time and time again could just as easy be used with all witness testimony and evidence surrounding the Chapman murder , its mindblowing you cant see that , but hey again, whatever .

The sketchers are indeend evidence and should be included in the dicussion to clarify and compare witness testimony, pretty hard to tell the 3 artist that did them at the time of the murders that there ''not worth the paper there written on'' by someone 134 year in the future!!! , astonising to say the least .

1. We can see at least 8 very obvious inaccurate sin these sketches.
2. No police officer, who were trying to evaluate the witnesses that they had, mentions or even hints at the fence having very obvious gaps all along.
3. The question was asked about why Cadosch didn’t look over the fence. Why would they do that but omit to ask why he couldn’t see through the considerable gaps?
4. Why would one single aperture be mentioned if there were lots of them?

And you prefer to go with three very, very rough sketches and ignore the above. It’s perfectly correct to say that we should look at everything and assess. The only astonishing thing Fishy is that you can see the 4 points above, none of which are inventions or exaggerations, and yet you still choose to say that the sketches have any value when they clearly dont.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No ones trying to discredit the witnesses herlock cant you see that, there just no point going there if thats your train of thought ,

Surely 1600 post on Richardson , Long , Cadasch , Dr Phillips and the complexity and uncertainty and doubtfulness of witness and medical evidence, has taught you something ?

Ill say it again till doomsday if you like ''its not a contest'' , its about ''all'' the evidence from the inquest testimony that has to be considererd not just parts there of.

No one person or group of persons conclusively proves the others wrong ,it just doesnt work that way and your arguments all along the way are just supporting that theory in reverse! you just cant see it . Trevor , George , Mac , Harry they all get it too.

And Wickerman, Jeff, Abby, Joshua and Doc all see the reality of it too Fishy. And I doubt if George would place any value in those sketches either btw)

It isn’t a contest Fishy but that isn’t the point. The point is that those that I’ve mentioned are staying within the bounds of reason whilst the other ‘side’ aren’t (and although we disagree on much I don’t include George in that) What the other side are claiming Fishy is this type of thing:

That a Victorian Doctor could do what a modern day one can’t do!
That because we don’t know what Annie did between eating her potato and being killed then we can assume that we know what she couldn’t have done!
That John Richardson stood up at the inquest and said something to the effect of “I cut a piece of leather from my boot but I couldn’t cut a piece of leather from my boot!”
That there was some kind of conflict concerning what Richardson said to Chandler when there wasn’t!
That no one noticed at the time that there were huge gaps all along the fence between the 2 yards. And that no one questioned Cadosch about this!
That a sketch with around 8 provable errors is a valid piece of evidence!
That the noise that came from number 29 was made by none existent packing cases or a puma or a ghost or whatever, anything except even accepting the possibility that it might have been connected to a murder that definitely occurred there!
The constant ignoring of the fact (again shown by Jeff using proper experts) that we have to allow margins for error in regard to timings - and on this particular topic the reason why that gets resisted is because it brings Long into play, giving us 3 witnesses against the doctors guess!
That inconvenient witnesses are accused of lying when we have no evidence for it - purely in an attempt to discredit!
That Inspector Chandler, like Phillips, was also infallible unlike those stupid, lying witnesses.
That John Richardson Gould have turned up at the inquest with a knife that had never previously been at 29 Hanbury Street.
That because Richardson had previously tried to fix his boot he wouldn’t have found out that it still hurt on his way to work the next day! (A classic from Trevor)

The list goes on Fishy. No matter how many times I say that we can’t prove that Phillips was definitely wrong or that a Victorian doctor couldn’t get it right some times I still get told that I’m saying that Phillips couldn’t have got it right. I still get accused of just assuming that witnesses were correct even though I’ve explained god knows how many times that I’ve assessed them like everyone else and simply arrived at my own conclusion. On and on it goes.

If anyone is making it a contest Fishy it’s posters who keep making things up (and no, I’m not accusing you of making things up) and stretching credibility beyond breaking point to discredit witnesses.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no descrepencies or inaccuracies in the 3 sketchers regarding the holes in the fence herlock, all 3 show the gaps all along , but you use that no ''8'' to suggest it be so for your creative accounting manoveres , thats how you convince others ''hey look fellas 8 descrepencies'' Trevor ,Mac Harry , and George see through it tho .

Are you blind?

1. The top step extends out level with the passage way inside whereas in the photograph the step drops down immediately.

2 There are 2 deep steps in the sketch whereas in the photograph there is only one. The middle step (the one that Richardson sat on)

3. The cellar door is twice the height as it is the the photograph.

4. The window sill is considerably higher than in the photograph. And I don’t mean ‘a bit higher either.”

5. If the fence in the sketch has so many gaps and is so low that no one could have failed to have noted this.

6. The window in the sketch is almost exactly square whereas in the photographs it’s twice as high as it is wide.

7. I can’t really see any evidence for the two canopies in the photos that appear in the sketches. The photo that includes some of the other houses in the row also show no canopies. I’m not saying that this proves that these canopies could have existed btw.

8. The hole in the ground where the steps go down to the cellar are extend out into the yard. In the sketch it looks around 2 feet but in the photo I’d estimate that it was at least double that.

The two sketches are useless as evidence. In fact they’re worse that useless because some gullible person might take them as accurate and come away with wildly inaccurate conclusions.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There you go again: invention.

Initially Richardson stated: cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, after cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market.

Upon being challenged Richardson added: as it was not sharp enough.......borrowed another one at the market.

Richardson leads the coroner to believe the knife was sharp enough to cut his boot, i.e. 'after cutting the leather off'. At that point, Richardson is unaware that the coroner is about to tell him to get the knife. Richardson is told to get the knife and he then changes his tune, i.e. 'it was not sharp enough'.

Which is it? Sharp enough to the cut the piece of leather off or not sharp enough?

Sharp enough to cut a piece of leather. But not sharp enough to do a sufficient job to cure the issue with the boot. It’s simple stuff.

You’re just repeating your silly claim that John Richardson said, in effect, ‘I cut a piece from my boot but I couldn’t cut a piece from my boot!’ How can you propose such bilge?

He leads the coroner to believe nothing. Why would he have lied when, on mention of how the knife looked blunt, he could have just said ‘well it was good enough to cut off a small piece of leather.’

Try and get your nonsense straight at least.

Richardson is told to get the knife and he then changes his tune, i.e. 'it was not sharp enough'.

The coroner only told Richardson to fetch his knife because after Richardson had said that it wasn’t sharp enough.

Ill ask again….are you reading about another murder here?

[Herlock Sholmes]

With regard to adopting "we just don't know" as a cornerstone of a theory, world opinion is divided on its merit.

You think it's acceptable; the rest of the entire world disagrees.

Substitute ‘world’ for your own head.

You think it’s acceptable that when we have a period for which we have absolutely no record then we can say what did or didn’t happen within that period. I can’t believe I’m having to explain this to an adult.

Are you reasoning with a crystal ball or tea leaves in a cup today?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think you should, Sherlock.

We've had research posted and it turned out it wasn't applicable to Dr Phillips' situation.

This is not true. But then again, it did come from you.

I for one have no desire to open links and go on a wild goose chase.

Because your tired of being proven embarrassingly wrong. I can’t say that I blame you.

So, put some meat on the bones of the point of posting the links: sample size, food intake and relevance to Annie would be a good start. Make it succinct and intelligible rather than simply posting percentages.

No.

The evidence is there, I’m not explaining it to you. I’ll leave to you whether you want to try and manipulate them as you pathetically tried to do with the other evidence.

Any poster that will not accept, without hedging or equivocating, that a Victorian Doctors TOD estimation couldn’t have been as accurate, and certainly not more accurate, than a modern day forensic medical expert can’t be taken seriously.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What in heaven's name does this mean? So if we don't know something, Herlock admits it, but you and everyone else claim to know the unknowable! That makes no sense.

It’s utterly staggering isn’t it Doc? How come the depths been plumbed so badly? How can an adult actually even suggest this nonsense and then try to defend it. I wonder if we could find one other human being who would be willing to agree and say “ when we have a period of time for which we have no record or knowledge then we would be correct in claiming to know what did or didn’t happen during it.”

And that’s exactly what he’s saying,

[FISHY1118]

I wont go on and on Herlock as its pointless excersize , except to say the'' all'' evidence,[ yes that which you chose to ignore cant accept] allows us to conclude an uncertain t.o.d !! thats just a fact . I agreed with you in some parts in regards to Dr Phillips , you havent shown the same courtesy with the witnesses .

Georges post #1324 is what im talking about and you know it, at least have the courage to admit it.

[FISHY1118]

Hi Herlock,

I accept that that the estimates for the interval of time elapsed from ToD until time of examination can be considered unreliable using the techniques employed at the time. However, looking at Llewellan's estimate for Polly, Blackwell and Phillip's estimate for Stride, and Brown and Sequeira's estimate for Eddowes, I question the magnitude of the error involved with Phillip's estimate for Chapman. Modern medical opinion dictates that Phillip's could have been wrong, but by how much? Can we know for sure?

But can we look at the other side of the coin? Modern opinion on the reliability of eye witnesses. Let's look at some statements on the modern theory in that regard gleaned from a Google search on "can eyewitnesses be wrong".

How reliable is an eye witness?
Studies have shown that mistaken eyewitness testimony accounts for about half of all wrongful convictions

List of Cons of Eyewitness Testimony

• Eyewitness testimony may not always be accurate. ...
• Eyewitness testimony rely only on people's memory. ...
• Eyewitness testimony can have parts that are made up by the witness due to nervousness or fear. ...
• Eyewitness testimony can convict the wrong person.

How reliable is your memory?
Human memory is notoriously unreliable, especially when it comes to details. Scientists have found that prompting an eyewitness to remember more can generate details that are outright false but that feel just as correct to the witness as actual memories.

Most false memories aren't malicious or even intentionally hurtful. They're shifts or reconstructions of memory that don't align with the true events. However, some false memories can have significant consequences, including in court or legal settings where false memories may convict someone wrongfully.

There is currently no way to distinguish, in the absence of independent evidence, whether a particular memory is true or false. Even memories which are detailed and vivid and held with 100 percent conviction can be completely false.

Cadosch's original statement to the press was that he heard voices from which he distinguished only the word "no", a rustle of clothing and a scuffle and a noise of something falling against the fence, all as one incident. Then he remembered they occurred at different times, some on his way to the toilet, and the last on his return. At the inquest his recollection was of two trips to the toilet with no rustle or scuffle, only the "No" on one trip, and the noise against the fence on the second trip some 3-4 minutes later. He summarised by saying that he didn't look over the fence because what he heard was nothing out of the ordinary.

Long stated that she saw many people and couples on the street that morning, but picked out one couple of whom she stated she took no notice. Four days after the event she identifies Chapman, a woman she had never seen before, in the morgue, as the woman she had seen on that morning.

Richardson told Chandler and the press that he had checked the lock on the cellar door that morning by the method he had been using for two months. Two days later he remembered that he sat on the step to cut leather from his boot. At the inquest he told the coroner he sat on the step and cut leather from his boot, but after retrieving the knife he said he used, then remembered in wasn't sharp enough and that the leather removal was actually achieved afterwards at his work with a borrowed knife.

Is it reasonable to suggest that in the discussions of the reliability, or otherwise, of Phillip's testimony, the same consideration must be given to that of the witnesses?

Best regards, George

P.S. You do realise my friend, that the repeated misquoting of your username is an attempt to goad you to cry havoc, and let loose the dogs of war?

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 ?



Thank you again to George for this very important post, lets not forget it. My reply stills stands

Let it stand as a reminder to everyone that will question DrPhiliips testimony that all the witnesses should be considered the same way . Thats to this post .

I have accepted both ,some refuse to do the same