John Richardson

[Fleetwood Mac]

I totally agree and as I have said before some researchers who favour an earlier TOD are using it to prop up that earlier TOD, but no one has thought that Phillips could have meant quite the opposite when refrring to the at leat 2 hours, and that could be interpreted to mean that 2 hours was the minimun TOD of death and that she could have been killed much earlier at a time consistent with the other murders.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Aye, Trevor.

The point that is being swerved and/or distorted for some unfathomable reason, is that Dr Phillips tells us. His own words, not mere speculation or conjecture: his own words.

"At least two hours".

According to any English language dictionary, at least means the minimum possible. This isn't made up, anyone can take a look at The Oxford Dictionary and this is an educated man.

Dr Phillips is telling us in his own words that the least time possible is two hours.

When he goes on to say "probably more", again, in the English language "probably" means that which is most likely.

So, Dr Phillips is telling us that according to his observations, Annie was murdered hour/s prior to 4.30am and 4.30am at the latest.

This shouldn't even be up for discussion. The fact it is being discussed tells us that some people do not understand what the terms/words: "at least" and "probably" mean according to standard English diction. So, really, anyone disputing this is in effect having an argument with the English language and associated dictionaries.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Aye, Trevor.

The point that is being swerved and/or distorted for some unfathomable reason, is that Dr Phillips tells us. His own words, not mere speculation or conjecture: his own words.

"At least two hours".

According to any English language dictionary, at least means the minimum possible. This isn't made up, anyone can take a look at The Oxford Dictionary and this is an educated man.

Dr Phillips is telling us in his own words that the least time possible is two hours.

When he goes on to say "probably more", again, in the English language "probably" means that which is most likely.

So, Dr Phillips is telling us that according to his observations, Annie was murdered hour/s prior to 4.30am and 4.30am at the latest.

This shouldn't even be up for discussion. The fact it is being discussed tells us that some people do not understand what the terms/words: "at least" and "probably" mean according to standard English diction. So, really, anyone disputing this is in effect having an argument with the English language and associated dictionaries.

That’s why 14 people on here can all see that you’re completely wrong. Then again, this is what you get with arguments that are agenda driven.

Phillips shouldn’t be discussed. He’s irrelevant except the the desperate.

[GBinOz]

It’s noticeable George that you dug all the way back to 2012 to find this poll whilst ignoring this one from 2019.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...ess#post725586

Was Richardson a reliable witness? 84% said yes, 10% said no, 5% undecided.

or this one, also from 2019 on Chapmans TOD.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...ath#post718125

Phillips correct 6%, Cadosch and Richardson correct but Long wrong 26%, Long correct but Richardson and Cadosch wrong 0%, Richardson, Cadosc and Long all correct but timings out 66%

I can see why you skipped past these George. Pretty conclusive on modern opinion I’d say.

No mystery Herlock. I was looking here: https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip.../annie-chapman, and your threads aren't there.

[The Macdonald Triad]

There are less credible candidates. And, he's not too far removed from the George Hutchinson situation who is seen as a credible suspect. I wouldn't go as far as claiming George Hutchinson was the Whitechapel Murderer but I understand exactly why researchers have tried to find out more about him: his tale doesn't sit right.

I'm convinced Richardson was lying for the reasons I've outlined in this thread. The 1888 police were less than convinced with him.

So, why is he placing himself on a step with a knife a few feet from a dead body? That could do with some explaining.

It could be worth starting a thread on Richardson as suspect, and let's see what there is against him and whether or not it stands up to scrutiny.

There are already several threads. The answer to your question is he probably thought he was seen. Why else place yourself next to the body making cutting motions? Also that basement would be perfect to cut up a torso..

[Elamarna]

No mystery Herlock. I was looking here: https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip.../annie-chapman, and your threads aren't there.

Thats because they are not in victims, but in witness. you are looking in the wrong place

[Herlock Sholmes]

I totally agree and as I have said before some researchers who favour an earlier TOD are using it to prop up that earlier TOD, but no one has thought that Phillips could have meant quite the opposite when refrring to the at leat 2 hours, and that could be interpreted to mean that 2 hours was the minimun TOD of death and that she could have been killed much earlier at a time consistent with the other murders.

And of course you ignore the fact that he’d already stated that he thought that it was probably longer that 2 hours. So what you and a couple of others are suggesting is that what Phillips was actually say was…

….a lower estimate of 2 hours but I think probably more and because of the conditions I think probably more.

No matter what efforts are being made to spin this one we are back to the old trick. I’m happy that 14 posters have now looked at this and every single one of them agrees with my interpretation. Which happens to be exactly the interpretation that the coroner at the time had.

This appears to be the new trend. Assume that everyone at the time were gibberish idiots who couldn’t speak English. The same as assuming that a man didn’t know that a door might block a view. It wears thin. It’s a sad reflection on the subject and how some people simply decide immediately on a position and then try and defend it at all costs.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And you are using an inaccurate estimation to prop up an earlier TOD and trying to use it to discredit witnesses. So it’s the pot calling the kettle black as usual Trevor.

Im tired of being polite on this point ( why should I be when others certainly aren’t) but anyone who tries to use Phillips to discredit the witness isn’t worth listening to. The only honest thing to do would be to hold their hands up and admit ghat they are categorically wrong to do so.

[Abby Normal]

There are already several threads. The answer to your question is he probably thought he was seen. Why else place yourself next to the body making cutting motions? Also that basement would be perfect to cut up a torso..

hi mac
not bad. like ive always said, theres more of a chance he was the ripper than an innocent witness who missed seeing the body.

[Fleetwood Mac]

There's one here:
https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...son-the-killer

Lots of research in that thread.

I've read it a few times, George, and nothing stands out as particularly insightful in terms of Richardson's candidacy.

I've no idea as to whether or not the door could be locked from the yard, but in the event it could and the murderer had access to a key then that would have been very handy. 'Mere speculation of course, and it doesn't lend any weight to him being the WM, 'just saying it would be handy.

[etenguy]

There is considerable arguement on this thread about what phillip's meant regarding time of death. It is only when one focuses solely on a short phrase out of context that one can argue Phillips ruled out a time of death in line with the witness statements. The coroner alludes to the possible error Phillip's admits to when addressing the jury.

However, whatever Phillip's meant is not very helpful given all the issues with estimating tod.

An earlier time of death is certainly possible, but to be so three separate independent witnesses have to be lying or mistaken and we have to accept the huge coincidence that their independent lies or mistakes all support each others' position and a tod in the region of 5.30am. Not one contradicts the other within the 15 min allowance applied by the coronor. In my view, the overwhelmingly likely t o d is aound 5.30am.

[Fleetwood Mac]

It is only when one focuses solely on a short phrase out of context that one can argue Phillips ruled out a time of death in line with the witness statements.

He said: "at least two hours".

At least in the English language means the minimum possible.

Those are his words.

To argue anything else is to manipulate his words in his statement.

Again, the minimum possible. Not the minimum possible but possibly less (a monumental nonsensical statement). The minimum possible.

It is not "when one focuses solely on a short phrase", it is when we read his words as they were in accordance with the English language.

[etenguy]

He said: "at least two hours". At least in the English language means the minimum possible. Those are his words. To argue anything else is to manipulate his words in his statement.

Hi Fleetwood

We can agree those are the words quoted at the inquest. But they are not the only words. He is also quoted as making a qualifying statement which changes the meaning of those words. To not consider those words and focus only on one small part of his statement leads to a misinterpretation of what was meant.

Again, the minimum possible. Not the minimum possible but possibly less (a monumental nonsensical statement). The minimum possible.

People do that all the time in English - qualify a statement of the normal with the exceptions which changes the original meaning

eg - it will take at least half an hour to walk to the shops, unless we cut across the farmer's field.
- it will take at least four hours for the paint to dry, though it is very hot today

.

[Abby Normal]

There is considerable arguement on this thread about what phillip's meant regarding time of death. It is only when one focuses solely on a short phrase out of context that one can argue Phillips ruled out a time of death in line with the witness statements. The coroner alludes to the possible error Phillip's admits to when addressing the jury.

However, whatever Phillip's meant is not very helpful given all the issues with estimating tod.

An earlier time of death is certainly possible, but to be so three separate independent witnesses have to be lying or mistaken and we have to accept the huge coincidence that their independent lies or mistakes all support each others' position and a tod in the region of 5.30am. Not one contradicts the other within the 15 min allowance applied by the coronor. In my view, the overwhelmingly likely t o d is aound 5.30am.

bingo eten
Ive been saying the same thing all along (with others). nice to have another voice of reason.

[JeffHamm]

Hi etenguy,

...
People do that all the time in English - qualify a statement of the normal with the exceptions which changes the original meaning

eg - it will take at least half an hour to walk to the shops, unless we cut across the farmer's field.
- it will take at least four hours for the paint to dry, though it is very hot today
.

This is a really good example. Nobody would interpret the qualifier to suggest the speaker's intent is to suggest the paint may take more than 4 hours to dry as the notion is that the relationship between the rate of drying and temperature is one where the hotter it gets the faster the paint will dry.

The exact same thing applies to Dr. Phillips's statement. He gives his estimate (2+ hours), and qualifies it by noting the low temperature of the morning. The lower the temperature the faster a body will cool, and therefore his qualifier can in no way be interpreted as anything other than him saying he does not suggest that a later ToD is unreasonable.

His estimate as stated (2+) would be based upon his "measurements" and "calculations" (whether they be objective or subjective measurements/calculations is immaterial for this point), so he states the outcome of his "analysis". He then qualifies that output by acknowledging it is based upon an estimated parameter (rate of cooling) which is influenced by the environmental temperature (as it is, that's physics), and therefore his calculation could result in an overestimation of the PMI.

So yes, he's holding to his calculation in one sense (that's what his "calculations" produced), but he's simply pointing out they are not error proof, and the error could go in either way (i.e. "probably more" is the "it could be more than 2 hours" side of the error window, and his qualifying statement covers the "it could be less than 2 hours").

If he did not believe that less than 2 hours was possible (as an underestimation of the cooling rate would produce) then there would be no need for him to qualify his statement at all.

- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

He is also quoted as making a qualifying statement which changes the meaning of those words.

Presumably I have this right when I say you're suggesting he stated: "a minimum of two hours but possibly less"?

[etenguy]

Presumably I have this right when I say you're suggesting he stated: "a minimum of two hours but possibly less"?

Almost - I am suggesting he stated a minimum of two hours but possibly less in certain circumstances.