John Richardson

[Doctored Whatsit]

A correction: Im my post to Doctored Whatsit, the second sentence reads:

You ask whether the chosen wording "some amount of doubt" does not have to mean that Swanson must have accepted that Phillips was absolutely correct and that the witnesses were wrong.

It should of course read:

You ask whether the chosen wording "some amount of doubt" has to mean that Swanson must have accepted that Phillips was absolutely correct and that the witnesses were wrong.

Sorry about that.

The issue is so very simple. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Echo article is correct. There is nothing in Swanson's account that confirms a single word of it. There is no statement that the police accepted Phillips' viewpoint. There is no statement that Richardson was mistaken. Swanson even says they investigated Richardson's story thoroughly and couldn't find a fault in it! You can write as much as you like, and argue as long as you wish, but Swanson does not confirm any of the Echo article, therefore it must be dubious.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi FM,

Yes, that would be my considered opinion. Others are free to disagree, and that is their prerogative.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

For the reasons stated, I don't think it took Annie too long to find her way to Hanbury Street. Anywhere between 2.30am and 3.30am TOD. My hunch is closer to 2.30am.

'Interesting that Dr Brown tells us Catherine's body was 'quite warm, no rigor mortis' after approx. 40 minutes of time elapsing from murder to examination.

Whereas Annie's body was cold except some warmth under the intestines and rigor was 'commencing of the limbs', i.e. beyond the onset of rigor.

The environmental temperature on the days in question were similar.

It is stretching credibility to suggest that Annie was murdered at 5.30am, i.e. time between murder and examination only 20 minutes more than Catherine's case. The comparative state of their bodies tells us that is highly unlikely. And, this supports what we were saying all along: leaving outliers aside the medical evidence suggests Annie was murdered much earlier than 5.30am, and here we have a real-life comparison, Catherine, to use as a comparison, murdered in similar circumstances.

[FISHY1118]

My apologies to anybody else but for Doctored Whatsit, who feel they may have had something importnt to say/ask - I have not even read your posts, and I will not do so either. My aim is to cover all the bases in my discussion with Whatsit, and then get out of here double quick.

No need for an apology fisherman ,I'm finding you post so far on Chapman t.o. d very informative .

[Fisherman]

The issue is so very simple. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Echo article is correct. There is nothing in Swanson's account that confirms a single word of it. There is no statement that the police accepted Phillips' viewpoint. There is no statement that Richardson was mistaken. Swanson even says they investigated Richardson's story thoroughly and couldn't find a fault in it! You can write as much as you like, and argue as long as you wish, but Swanson does not confirm any of the Echo article, therefore it must be dubious.

Again, this is where I can turn the tables and say "There is no evidence whatsoever that the Echo article is incorrect..." etcetera. And again, it would be getting drawn into kindergarten arguing. You see, nobody is arguing that there is proof either way. What there is, is a set of indications. And NONE of those indications are in the direction of anybody dismissing the verdict of Phillips, whereas we know that the Echo, Swanson and the Home Office ALL dismissed the witnesses in one way or another; the Echo dismissed Richardson, Swanson dismissed Long and the Home Office dismissed the whole group of three witnesses as having presented doubtful evidence.

It is a nice little river of information and it runs in one direction only. And it provides a nice firm ground to stand on, whereas the suggestion that Phillips would have been wrong is a latter day fabrication that has no contemporary ground to stand on at all.

The task before us is always to determine what is the likeliest thing. And to that end, there are those who claim that the so called Phillips caveat would consist of the doctor contradicting himself by first saying that the very least amount of time that Chapman had been dead was two hours (albeit he believed it was even longer than so). And then he would have gone and contradicted himself by allowing for LESS time than two hours...? To me, that qualifies as bonkers, and the reason is that there is another interpretation in which Phillips does NOT contradict himself: What he said was of course that he believed that the probable TOD lay three or four hours away, but since the night was cold, he was willing to allow for a minimum time of two hours only!
That presented Baxter with a conundrum that he was unable to solve - unless he opted for the illogical caveat interpretation. And so he did. He was a coroner, he was supposed to try and make ends meet, and that is how these things work. Swanson tells us how much he agreed with Baxters enthusiasm about Longs evidence, and it makes for useful reading.

So there is a no contradiction, all sound reasoning solution - but it does not jibe with the witnesses. But we know that the Echo, Swanson and the Home Office all criticized the witnesses. Once we know that, it becomes an easy task to do the math.

It is the exact same, as I said before, when it comes to the signs of TOD in Chapmans case. Either she suffered from a set of weird and rare ailments that caused her to differ wildly from the normal outcome - or she displayed the exact signs of TOD that were to be expected, give that she had been dead for three or four hours when Phillips examined her.

Itīs either all the expected parameters or all the totally unexpected ones, and it all hinges on whether we think that the witnesses could all have been wrong. And again, contemporary sources within press, police and the Home Office, people who were actually there and who actually knew about these matters while we donīt, dismissed the witness testimony in favour of Phillipsī verdict, whereas we have no kbnowledge of any source at all that dismissed Phillips verdict in favour of the witnesses. Clearly, THEY accepted that the witnesses were likely wrong. Plus we know that the witnesses testimonies are not even consistent but instead all over the place.

But still, people want the witnesses to be right. Although it goes against all the information we have on hand.

Thatīs not the way to do serious research. Serious research looks for the logical and expected outcome, not for as many rare deviations from it as possible.

In the end, I am therefore not saying that I am right. I am merely saying that I am much more LIKELY to be right than you are.

[Fisherman]

Again, apologies to those who may adress my posts and who are not supplied with any answer on my behalf. My sole excahnge here is with Doctored Whatsit, and I will keep it that way until I take my leave.

[FISHY1118]

Again, this is where I can turn the tables and say "There is no evidence whatsoever that the Echo article is incorrect..." etcetera. And again, it would be getting drawn into kindergarten arguing. You see, nobody is arguing that there is proof either way. What there is, is a set of indications. And NONE of those indications are in the direction of anybody dismissing the verdict of Phillips, whereas we know that the Echo, Swanson and the Home Office ALL dismissed the witnesses in one way or another; the Echo dismissed Richardson, Swanson dismissed Long and the Home Office dismissed the whole group of three witnesses as having presented doubtful evidence.

It is a nice little river of information and it runs in one direction only. And it provides a nice firm ground to stand on, whereas the suggestion that Phillips would have been wrong is a latter day fabrication that has no contemporary ground to stand on at all.

The task before us is always to determine what is the likeliest thing. And to that end, there are those who claim that the so called Phillips caveat would consist of the doctor contradicting himself by first saying that the very least amount of time that Chapman had been dead was two hours (albeit he believed it was even longer than so). And then he would have gone and contradicted himself by allowing for LESS time than two hours...? To me, that qualifies as bonkers, and the reason is that there is another interpretation in which Phillips does NOT contradict himself: What he said was of course that he believed that the probable TOD lay three or four hours away, but since the night was cold, he was willing to allow for a minimum time of two hours only!
That presented Baxter with a conundrum that he was unable to solve - unless he opted for the illogical caveat interpretation. And so he did. He was a coroner, he was supposed to try and make ends meet, and that is how these things work. Swanson tells us how much he agreed with Baxters enthusiasm about Longs evidence, and it makes for useful reading.

So there is a no contradiction, all sound reasoning solution - but it does not jibe with the witnesses. But we know that the Echo, Swanson and the Home Office all criticized the witnesses. Once we know that, it becomes an easy task to do the math.

It is the exact same, as I said before, when it comes to the signs of TOD in Chapmans case. Either she suffered from a set of weird and rare ailments that caused her to differ wildly from the normal outcome - or she displayed the exact signs of TOD that were to be expected, give that she had been dead for three or four hours when Phillips examined her.

Itīs either all the expected parameters or all the totally unexpected ones, and it all hinges on whether we think that the witnesses could all have been wrong. And again, contemporary sources within press, police and the Home Office, people who were actually there and who actually knew about these matters while we donīt, dismissed the witness testimony in favour of Phillipsī verdict, whereas we have no kbnowledge of any source at all that dismissed Phillips verdict in favour of the witnesses. Clearly, THEY accepted that the witnesses were likely wrong. Plus we know that the witnesses testimonies are not even consistent but instead all over the place.

But still, people want the witnesses to be right. Although it goes against all the information we have on hand.

Thatīs not the way to do serious research. Serious research looks for the logical and expected outcome, not for as many rare deviations from it as possible.

In the end, I am therefore not saying that I am right. I am merely saying that I am much more LIKELY to be right than you are.

[Herlock Sholmes]

My apologies to anybody else but for Doctored Whatsit, who feel they may have had something importnt to say/ask - I have not even read your posts, and I will not do so either. .

And we all know why.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The evidence also suggests that their might not have been anyone in the yard , the "no" can't be verified to come from no 29 .

No, the evidence suggests that there was. How come you believe Cadosch when he was honest enough to say that he could be certain about the ‘no,’ and yet you disbelieve him when he was confident that the noise did come from the yard. A tad selective?

[Herlock Sholmes]

There we are, the one and only poster I am engaging with as per now has answered! So letīs see if you bring something new to the table!

Even condescending to the one poster that you are lowering yourself to answering.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi George,

For the reasons stated, I don't think it took Annie too long to find her way to Hanbury Street. Anywhere between 2.30am and 3.30am TOD. My hunch is closer to 2.30am.

A hunch is the best you have.

'Interesting that Dr Brown tells us Catherine's body was 'quite warm, no rigor mortis' after approx. 40 minutes of time elapsing from murder to examination.

Whereas Annie's body was cold except some warmth under the intestines and rigor was 'commencing of the limbs', i.e. beyond the onset of rigor.

And it’s been explained god knows how many times that you cannot compare to the two unless everything was exactly the same (not just similar)

The environmental temperature on the days in question were similar.

It is stretching credibility to suggest that Annie was murdered at 5.30am, i.e. time between murder and examination only 20 minutes more than Catherine's case. The comparative state of their bodies tells us that is highly unlikely.

This is another ‘hunch’ which deliberately ignores what the scientists repeatedly tell us.

And, this supports what we were saying all along: leaving outliers aside the medical evidence suggests Annie was murdered much earlier than 5.30am, and here we have a real-life comparison, Catherine, to use as a comparison, murdered in similar circumstances.

Eddowes isn’t a comparison. You continue to manipulate the facts to make it fit (are you a Lechmere supporter by any chance?) At the same time you ignore all of the experts including Biggs. It’s sad that a layman should assume that he knows better than an expert. And more than a little embarrassing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Again, this is where I can turn the tables and say "There is no evidence whatsoever that the Echo article is incorrect..." etcetera. And again, it would be getting drawn into kindergarten arguing. You see, nobody is arguing that there is proof either way. What there is, is a set of indications. And NONE of those indications are in the direction of anybody dismissing the verdict of Phillips, whereas we know that the Echo, Swanson and the Home Office ALL dismissed the witnesses in one way or another; the Echo dismissed Richardson, Swanson dismissed Long and the Home Office dismissed the whole group of three witnesses as having presented doubtful evidence.

It is a nice little river of information and it runs in one direction only. And it provides a nice firm ground to stand on, whereas the suggestion that Phillips would have been wrong is a latter day fabrication that has no contemporary ground to stand on at all.

The task before us is always to determine what is the likeliest thing. And to that end, there are those who claim that the so called Phillips caveat would consist of the doctor contradicting himself by first saying that the very least amount of time that Chapman had been dead was two hours (albeit he believed it was even longer than so). And then he would have gone and contradicted himself by allowing for LESS time than two hours...? To me, that qualifies as bonkers, and the reason is that there is another interpretation in which Phillips does NOT contradict himself: What he said was of course that he believed that the probable TOD lay three or four hours away, but since the night was cold, he was willing to allow for a minimum time of two hours only!
That presented Baxter with a conundrum that he was unable to solve - unless he opted for the illogical caveat interpretation. And so he did. He was a coroner, he was supposed to try and make ends meet, and that is how these things work. Swanson tells us how much he agreed with Baxters enthusiasm about Longs evidence, and it makes for useful reading.

So there is a no contradiction, all sound reasoning solution - but it does not jibe with the witnesses. But we know that the Echo, Swanson and the Home Office all criticized the witnesses. Once we know that, it becomes an easy task to do the math.

It is the exact same, as I said before, when it comes to the signs of TOD in Chapmans case. Either she suffered from a set of weird and rare ailments that caused her to differ wildly from the normal outcome - or she displayed the exact signs of TOD that were to be expected, give that she had been dead for three or four hours when Phillips examined her.

Itīs either all the expected parameters or all the totally unexpected ones, and it all hinges on whether we think that the witnesses could all have been wrong. And again, contemporary sources within press, police and the Home Office, people who were actually there and who actually knew about these matters while we donīt, dismissed the witness testimony in favour of Phillipsī verdict, whereas we have no kbnowledge of any source at all that dismissed Phillips verdict in favour of the witnesses. Clearly, THEY accepted that the witnesses were likely wrong. Plus we know that the witnesses testimonies are not even consistent but instead all over the place.

But still, people want the witnesses to be right. Although it goes against all the information we have on hand.

Thatīs not the way to do serious research. Serious research looks for the logical and expected outcome, not for as many rare deviations from it as possible.

In the end, I am therefore not saying that I am right. I am merely saying that I am much more LIKELY to be right than you are.

Classic Fisherman

[Herlock Sholmes]

No need for an apology fisherman ,I'm finding you post so far on Chapman t.o. d very informative .

Because he’s telling you what you want to hear.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Again, this is where I can turn the tables and say "There is no evidence whatsoever that the Echo article is incorrect..." etcetera. And again, it would be getting drawn into kindergarten arguing. You see, nobody is arguing that there is proof either way. What there is, is a set of indications. And NONE of those indications are in the direction of anybody dismissing the verdict of Phillips, whereas we know that the Echo, Swanson and the Home Office ALL dismissed the witnesses in one way or another; the Echo dismissed Richardson, Swanson dismissed Long and the Home Office dismissed the whole group of three witnesses as having presented doubtful evidence.

It is a nice little river of information and it runs in one direction only. And it provides a nice firm ground to stand on, whereas the suggestion that Phillips would have been wrong is a latter day fabrication that has no contemporary ground to stand on at all.

The task before us is always to determine what is the likeliest thing. And to that end, there are those who claim that the so called Phillips caveat would consist of the doctor contradicting himself by first saying that the very least amount of time that Chapman had been dead was two hours (albeit he believed it was even longer than so). And then he would have gone and contradicted himself by allowing for LESS time than two hours...? To me, that qualifies as bonkers, and the reason is that there is another interpretation in which Phillips does NOT contradict himself: What he said was of course that he believed that the probable TOD lay three or four hours away, but since the night was cold, he was willing to allow for a minimum time of two hours only!
That presented Baxter with a conundrum that he was unable to solve - unless he opted for the illogical caveat interpretation. And so he did. He was a coroner, he was supposed to try and make ends meet, and that is how these things work. Swanson tells us how much he agreed with Baxters enthusiasm about Longs evidence, and it makes for useful reading.

So there is a no contradiction, all sound reasoning solution - but it does not jibe with the witnesses. But we know that the Echo, Swanson and the Home Office all criticized the witnesses. Once we know that, it becomes an easy task to do the math.

It is the exact same, as I said before, when it comes to the signs of TOD in Chapmans case. Either she suffered from a set of weird and rare ailments that caused her to differ wildly from the normal outcome - or she displayed the exact signs of TOD that were to be expected, give that she had been dead for three or four hours when Phillips examined her.

Itīs either all the expected parameters or all the totally unexpected ones, and it all hinges on whether we think that the witnesses could all have been wrong. And again, contemporary sources within press, police and the Home Office, people who were actually there and who actually knew about these matters while we donīt, dismissed the witness testimony in favour of Phillipsī verdict, whereas we have no kbnowledge of any source at all that dismissed Phillips verdict in favour of the witnesses. Clearly, THEY accepted that the witnesses were likely wrong. Plus we know that the witnesses testimonies are not even consistent but instead all over the place.

But still, people want the witnesses to be right. Although it goes against all the information we have on hand.

Thatīs not the way to do serious research. Serious research looks for the logical and expected outcome, not for as many rare deviations from it as possible.

In the end, I am therefore not saying that I am right. I am merely saying that I am much more LIKELY to be right than you are.

There is plenty of evidence that Swanson's account contradicted the Echo article, which claimed that the police had accepted that Richardson had missed the body when he was at Hanbury Street. He wrote that if Phillips was correct (he wrote "if", and not that he was correct!) then it was difficult to understand how Richardson didn't see the body. He doesn't even suggest or hint that the body was definitely there. Then he carries on to state that every aspect of Richardson's statement was checked, and they failed to find a fault with him. The failure to find a fault is hardly a statement that the body was there and he missed it. The evidence says that the police accepted Richardson's account as stated. He does not say, or even suggest that Richardson might have missed the body.

Swanson wrote an "if Phillips was correct" consideration, and an "if Long was correct" version, indicating that he was looking at both sides of the story. He was demonstrating the difference of opinion, and he did not reach a conclusion.

Did Swanson confirm that the police had accepted Phillips' ToD - no! Did he suggest that they had - no! You introduced Long into the discussion, whereas the Echo quote doesn't mention her, so she is irrelevant. However, even so, Swanson didn't even dismiss the possibility of Long being correct, he merely said that Phillips' estimated ToD resulted in doubt about her version. If Swanson only claims to have doubts about a 5. 30 am murder, he cannot under any circumstances be absolutely confirming the acceptance of a pre 4. 50 am murder.

I don't consider it relevant to the discussion, but you wrote that there was no source that dismissed Phillips' version in favour of the witnesses, but the coroner clearly, after weighing up all of the evidence, seems to have dismissed Phillips' estimate, and he had the advantage of being there at the time to hear all of the evidence.

I have said several times that I don't claim that Long was correct, but Swanson doesn't say that she wasn't. I am looking for evidence that the Echo statement was correct, and I see none, and when I look for evidence that Swanson didn't agree, I see that the relevant part of his report suggests this clearly.

[FISHY1118]

No, the evidence suggests that there was. How come you believe Cadosch when he was honest enough to say that he could be certain about the ‘no,’ and yet you disbelieve him when he was confident that the noise did come from the yard. A tad selective?

Not at all herlock , read the evidence , he cant say for certain what side of the fence the ''No'' came from , there by causing an element ''doubt', yes he thinks it was 29 but cannot be sure .

''While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.''

He heard a noise against the fence between his yard and 29, ''One option'' only here not two , spot the difference ,it simple , my opinion on this is simple, That the noise doesnt mean a dead body , which has already been discussed .

[FISHY1118]

Because he’s telling you what you want to hear.

No his making an arguement that which the evidence supports , But of course you dont like that .

Its all about how each person interprets the evidence, even you