John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper which was published on Sunday September 16th, 1888.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I don’t have access to that Trevor.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If the jury had to read all 1796 of these post as to a definitiv t.o.d at 5.30 for Annie'Chapman based on the witnesses and dr Phillips 8/4

Ambiguous and uncertainty of witness testimony not Phillips being right as such.

Again George's post come to mind.

Richardson isn’t ambiguous.

[Trevor Marriott]

I don’t have access to that Trevor.

The relevant part

Mrs. Richardson said: “When I saw the murdered body I was so shocked I did not like to look particularly at her face, but I have no doubt it is the dark woman that used to come round with cotton and crochet work, and I have bought off her many times when she has said that she has been hard up.

She used to come round to these houses, and other neighbours used to buy off her too, and lend her money when she said she had not enough for her lodgings.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

The relevant part

Mrs. Richardson said: “When I saw the murdered body I was so shocked I did not like to look particularly at her face, but I have no doubt it is the dark woman that used to come round with cotton and crochet work, and I have bought off her many times when she has said that she has been hard up.

She used to come round to these houses, and other neighbours used to buy off her too, and lend her money when she said she had not enough for her lodgings.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thanks Trevor. I can’t recall reading that before unless I’d just forgotten it.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac

On John Richardson's statement:

It was getting light, but I could see all over the place.

I believe that on the 8th September 1888, dawn was at 4.51am and sunrise was at 5.25am.

Sherlock Holmes response:

How desperate are you?

Ad hominem.

Appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect, marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.

You need to offer more than this, Sherlock, in order to be taken seriously.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ad hominem.

Appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect, marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.

You need to offer more than this, Sherlock, in order to be taken seriously.

Like you are?

[FISHY1118]

Richardson isn’t ambiguous.

Ambiguous.

1 ''Open to more than one interpretation; not having one obvious meaning''.


2''Not clear or decided''.

Sound pretty much like Richardson , Long and Cadosch to me .

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks Trevor. I can’t recall reading that before unless I’d just forgotten it.

It throws up another question regarding TOD in as much as she was known at that address and the reasons for her being known, would she have risked taking a punter to that address at 5.30am and risk being seen or disturbed and then having a source of income taken away from her? I think the scales are being tipped even more to an earlier time of death

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ambiguous.

1 ''Open to more than one interpretation; not having one obvious meaning''.


2''Not clear or decided''.

Sound pretty much like Richardson , Long and Cadosch to me .

I see no other interpretation for Richardson. Unless we deliberately set out to create one.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It throws up another question regarding TOD in as much as she was known at that address and the reasons for her being known, would she have risked taking a punter to that address at 5.30am and risk being seen or disturbed and then having a source of income taken away from her? I think the scales are being tipped even more to an earlier time of death

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Come off it Trevor. We get more and more desperate. Why are you so quick to dismiss Long’s ID but you’re happy to go with a women who said:

“ I was so shocked I did not like to look particularly at her face”

[FISHY1118]

I see no other interpretation for Richardson. Unless we deliberately set out to create one.

No one need create one, his own testimony does that . To quote Trevor, ''Its Unsafe'' .For those reasons that have already been explored .

[Abby Normal]

Ad hominem.

Appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect, marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.

You need to offer more than this, Sherlock, in order to be taken seriously.

ad hominem??

like constantly referring to someone by an incorrect user name, in every post including this one, even after they have pointed out to you they dont appreciate it? or implying someone is on drugs or comparing someone to a "malnourished weasel"!?!

hypocritical much?

[Herlock Sholmes]

No one need create one, his own testimony does that . To quote Trevor, ''Its Unsafe'' .For those reasons that have already been explored .

Which part is unsafe?

[Fleetwood Mac]

ad hominem??

like constantly referring to someone by an incorrect user name, in every post including this one, even after they have pointed out to you they dont appreciate it? or implying someone is on drugs or comparing someone to a "malnourished weasel"!?!

hypocritical much?

Reading the posts would be useful to you.

I provided a response to the content in those posts.

Sherlock Holmes provided no response to the content, hence argument ad hominem.

Now that you're here perhaps you'd like to provide a response to the content of the post, given that Sherlock Holmes has decided to swerve it.

Richardson claimed to have been there 4.45 to 4.50.

Richardson said it was getting light and he could see all over the yard.

Dawn was 4.51; sunrise was 5.25.

He wouldn't have been able to see all over the yard at the time he claimed to be there.

Dawn: the first appearance of light in the sky.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Reading the posts would be useful to you.

I provided a response to the content in those posts.

Sherlock Holmes provided no response to the content, hence argument ad hominem.

Now that you're here perhaps you'd like to provide a response to the content of the post, given that Sherlock Holmes has decided to swerve it.

Richardson claimed to have been there 4.45 to 4.50.

Richardson said it was getting light and he could see all over the yard.

Dawn was 4.51; sunrise was 5.25.

He wouldn't have been able to see all over the yard at the time he claimed to be there.

Dawn: the first appearance of light in the sky.

I didn’t respond originally because this is a point which no reasonable person could possibly take it seriously. But as ever, you never cease to amaze with your exhibitions of bottom-of-the-barrel scraping.

Richardson said:

“I went to 29, Hanbury-street, between 4,45 a.m. and 4.50 a.m. on Saturday last.” - For a start he’s saying “went to…” and not “arrived at…” which could indicate that he was basing his time from when he left home. But, that aside…

How many times do we have to hammer home that we can’t pin people down to precise times in the LVP.

Dawn was at 4.51. Are you serious trying to say that he couldn’t have arrived at 4.51 just at dawn or even at 4.52 or 4.53? (Perhaps he’d left his mobile phone at home?)

What did he say “it was getting light..” When did it start getting light? At Dawn.

Do we need to go on with this kind of tripe? It’s genuinely startling when we see the lengths that some are prepared to go to. What’s going on here? Do we have a few members of the Dr. Gandalf Phillips Appreciation Society here?