John Richardson

[etenguy]

Hi etenguy,

It has never really been confirmed whether or not that story was apocryphal. After that story, where a suspect was supposedly identified, Lawende was taken to identify Sadler. Why would they do that if they already had a confirmed identification? Lawende stated that Sadler was not the man he sighted, but is reported to have identified Grainger.

Cheers, George

Thanks George - agree about the seaside home story, but you provide another example with Sadler - so clearly there were witnesses that at least some of the police considered may seen the murderer and I think Lawende is probably the one that most (maybe change that to many) think got the best view of the murderer. Though Schwartz is sometimes suggested also. So both statements are wrong to state the police thought no witnesses saw the murderer, and if they forgot about Lawende, they may also have forgot about Long.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The coroner understood exactly what Dr Phillips intended, which is why he said "miscalculated". Your interpretation leaves no room for Dr Phillips miscalculating.

As for the 18 posters:

I haven't looked at your poll but given it is irrelevant I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll accept that you worded the poll in a manner whereby everyone understood the options and the implications.

The conclusion from your poll is simply this: there are another 17 posters on the board who think like you.

What you're proposing is Dr Phillips intended this: the least time possible is two hours but possibly less.

That is a contradiction in terms and nonsensical. In the event another 17 posters agree with you, it simply means they, like you, are unable to grasp a contradiction in terms and a nonsensical statement.

You could have 18 posters on here claiming the moon is hoisted up into the sky every night at 9pm and taken down at 6 in the morning. As with your poll, it would merely be indicative of the way 18 people think as opposed to any reflection on reality.

Being disagreed with by someone like you is a badge of honour.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The term which should be used to describe the witness testimony is that "it is unsafe to conclusivey rely on" if everyone accepts that including you all of this constant bickering can end.

I think this thread has run its course and given all the same repetetive arguments admin should close it down for the sake of everyones sanity

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The only thing that should be accepted Trevor is that the witness make it overwhelmingly likely that Chapman was killed later. This is obvious.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A common sense approach to the poll debate, let's hope that gets put to bed now.

I wasn’t talking about the poll in my exchange of posts with you. I was responding to your fatuous claim that most people agreed with an earlier time of death. I then pointed out that of the 20 or so people who have posted on this thread only 4 or 5 support an earlier TOD. How does 4 or 5 out of 20 constitute most?

[Fleetwood Mac]

He couldn’t have given a 2 hour minimum time accurately. That was an impossibility.

Which is a logical fallacy. As per usual, you're taking a piece of information and misinterpreting it.

Dr Phillips stated: at least two hours.

Depending on his observations, Dr Phillips could have stated: at the most two hours.

In one of these scenarios he will have been correct.

All of the available research is telling you that it is difficult to estimate TOD and the more precise a TOD is, the less likely it is to be accurate.

You consistently fall back on the abstract notion that "it's impossible" and you lose sight of the available evidence:

1) Rigor 'commencing of the limbs'.
2) Annie's last known meal at 1.45am, easily digested food. "Little food in the stomach".
3) Catherine's quite warm body and no rigor mortis, and you're putting forward a time between murder and examination only 20 minutes longer than Annie's case.

Dr Phillips tells you the minimum time possible is 2 hours and probably more.

Dr Phillips gives us an estimate based upon the medical evidence/his observations at his disposal, and it follows his estimate has a solid basis. He could quite conceivably have been inaccurate, but at the same time he could quite conceivably have been accurate.

The notion that he was accurate is supported by Professor Thiblin's views and Catherine's quite warm body with no sign of rigor mortis (murders in similar circumstances and a similar environmental temperature).

So, in the end, it's not a case of "it's impossible" but rather do Dr Phillips' observations and other information we have, e.g. Catherine's body, suggest an earlier or later TOD.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Having read this thread extensively for quite some time now, I am going to abstain from attacking some of the posters who I believe are making a very deplorable impression out here. I will name no names and make no criticism against these posters.

What I will instead do, is to take you back number of years, and describe what happened on Casebook then. Some will remember it, but to other it will be news.

Back then, there was a very popular suspect named George Hutchinson doing the rounds out here. He is well known to most of us as a witness in the Mary Kelly case. And among a number of posters, me included, an idea was formed that one of the signatures on the police report signed by the witness George Hutchinson was incredibly similar to the signature of George William Topping Hutchinson, a plumber who had raised a son by the name of Reg, who was to state in an interview that his father was the witness of Ripper fame.

That idea did not go down well with the ones in favour of George Hutchinson being the Ripper.

Amongst those who fought the idea that the witness had been identified was foremost a guy who has not posted out here for quite some years now. We can call him B. He was very much the leader of the criticism against the idea of an identification of the witness as Topping. He was well read up on the case, quite intelligent and eloquent. He had a lot of things going for him, but accepting possibly being wrong was not one of them.

As the debate went on, I contacted the leading forensic document examiner in Sweden, Frank Leander of the SKL (Sveriges Kriminaltekniska Laboratorium, The Laboratory of Criminal Technique of Sweden) and supplied him with the one of the three witness statement signatures that I thought was a very close match to that of Topping Hutchinson, plus, of course, Topping own signature/s. And Leander was able to confirm what I suspected - the signatures were quite likely by the same hand, as far as he was able to tell.

What Frank Leander made clear was that for him to be able to make a definitive match that could stand up in court, he would have needed ten samples of both mens signatures. Until that happens, all there can be is an indication. This indication can of course be weak or strong, and what Leander said was that he fully anticipated that any forthcoming more signatures would go to confirm his take of a similar originator of the signatures.

Foolishly, I thought that this material should be enough to clear up the matter - obviously, George Hutchinson the witness and George Hutchinson the plumber were one and the same man, just as Reg Hutchinson had said.

That was when something very similar to what is going on on this thread erupted. B questioned everything that Leander had said, and claimed that I had misunderstood him totally. Plus I had gone about things in the totally wrong manner. And there was no lack of ingenuity on B:s behalf when it came to thinking up alternative interpretations of what Leander had said. Some of them were outright preposterous, just as is the case here, but the thing is, I could not prove them wrong. Some times preposterous suggestions are proven true, against all odds.

If we had come no further that time, it would have been a case of a twin matter, compared to the one on this thread. But luckily, I contacted Frank Leander, and he was just as outraged by how B twisted what he had said as I was, and he accordingly agreed to comment further on the matter, dismantling everything B had claimed. And he dubbed B :s posts ”malicious” in the process.

Eventually, we were able to back B into a corner from which there was no escape. No more alternative suggestions for what Leander meant could be made, since Leander himself had quashed them all.

Now, guess what B did at this stage? Accept that he had been wrong all along? Oh no; he said ”No, Leander does not agree with you at all, he has simply grown tired of you pestering him and he is now fobbing you off by feigning an agreement with your claims!”

This, and its latter day ugly offspring, resurfacing again and again, is by and large why I avoid Casebook. When somebody contributes to our joint knowledge by contacting experts and gaining valuable insight and information from them, it should arguably be met by enthusiasm. It should not be met by obfuscation, wriggling and malevolent misinterpretations. I can fully understand why experts who have come into contact with ripperology and its students will not touch it with a ten foot pole afterwards. Which is, for example, why I am not contacting Thiblin again to ask him if what he said was actually what he meant. He had given a clear and valuable piece of information, and he really does not need to be questioned about it any more.

Now that I have written about this and made my picture clear, I anticipate to have it confirmed by a line of posters who chime in and go:

”He cannot defend his rotten ideas, that is why he flies like a coward.”

”Of course Ben was correct, anybody would be worn down by Fisherman and want to get rid off him!”

”Just listen - he is happy about experts that seem to endorse him, but he scuffs at Biggs!”

”He is an expert when it comes to misleading experts!!”

And

”He is trying to use a case that has nothing to do with this one for a comparison, thats what happens when he knows he cannot win the debate!”

Let it be known that I have seen all of this before, and that I have no problems recognizing it. And let it be known that I find it an utter waste of time spending pages on end in a useless effort to make my point, knowing that no argument I make and no expert I quote, regardless of his or her status, will be listened to. And let it be known that this is why I normally avoid posting here nowadays.

Many thanks to those who have battled on in such a great and composed style, piling logical points on each other - to no avail at all. Never believe that you cannot win, because you already did. It is the acceptance of this you are deprived of, not the win itself.

All the best to everybody - and I really, really mean that.

Now you will not see me out here for quite some time, and that’s a promise.

Typical sanctimoniousness and hypocrisy. Time and time again we hear this, you arrive…you talk down to people….you act as if your pronouncements should simply be accepted…..you deride…..then when someone responds strongly it’s on to your high horse a ‘woe is me.’ Of course you won’t question Thiblin again because you know that he won’t give you the answer that you want. Your points have been rebutted time and time and time again. Then when it gets to a point when you are backed into a corner then ‘Norway calls’ or ‘Iceland calls.’ Now it’s a case of off you go and you’re not coming back but you do keep coming back don’t you?

All of the experts tell us that Phillips TOD estimate cannot be relied upon. That it simply cannot be said that the TOD couldn’t have been under 2 hours when it very obviously could. And this really matters to you doesn’t it? And we all know why.

Some of us listen to the experts and not try and manipulate what they say to suit. Where are the experts that refuse to enter a discussion? The only experts that have been disagreed with are the dozens that I’ve quoted (including Biggs) who tell us time and time and time again that even today a doctors estimate can’t be that accurate but you and your little collection of disciples claim that Phillips could lay on a hand and ‘hey presto’ to hours and categorically no more. That suggestion has been emphatically consigned to the dustbin where it belongs.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Conclusion….Amelia Richardson, from her own mouth, admitted that she might have missed hearing someone had they kept quiet. And let’s face it, she didn’t hear her own son arrive.

Mrs Richardson was emphatic in her statement she didn't hear anyone go into the yard:

I could hear anyone going through the passage. I did not hear anyone going through on Saturday morning

From her position she could hear enough to know:

On Saturday morning I called to Thompson at ten minutes to four o'clock. I heard him leave the house. He did not go into the back yard.

It was only when the coroner asked her: they must have walked purposely quietly? that Mrs Richardson entertained the idea. The coroner, who presumably had 5.30am in his mind at this point, asks a leading question to which Mrs Richardson could only possibly reply: "yes".

So, was John Richardson tiptoeing at 4.45am? For what purpose? Let me guess: "we just don't know".

[Herlock Sholmes]

Mrs Richardson was emphatic in her statement she didn't hear anyone go into the yard:

I could hear anyone going through the passage. I did not hear anyone going through on Saturday morning

From her position she could hear enough to know:

On Saturday morning I called to Thompson at ten minutes to four o'clock. I heard him leave the house. He did not go into the back yard.

It was only when the coroner asked her: they must have walked purposely quietly? that Mrs Richardson entertained the idea. The coroner, who presumably had 5.30am in his mind at this point, asks a leading question to which Mrs Richardson could only possibly reply: "yes".

So, was John Richardson tiptoeing at 4.45am? For what purpose? Let me guess: "we just don't know".

But it was a relevant question. He simply asked if someone went through the passage making little or no noise could she not have heard it? She agreed. Why is this an issue?

No one is saying that Richardson tiptoed but she doesn’t mention hearing him arrive at 4.45. So if she can miss hearing her son, who had no particular reason for being especially quiet, how much more possible is it that she wouldn’t have heard two people who most certainly would have had reason for keeping quiet?

Mrs. Richardson proves absolutely nothing. All we can deduce is that she didn’t hear the killer and his victim. But they were certainly there. Mrs Green didn’t hear Nichols being killed, does that mean that she was killed elsewhere, or just that she didn’t hear them.

Yey another non-point manufactured to try and dismiss Richardson. I’m wondering what you’ll try next?

[Herlock Sholmes]

1) Rigor 'commencing of the limbs'.

Which can and does in some cases occur in under an hour. This is a fact.

2) Annie's last known meal at 1.45am, easily digested food. "Little food in the stomach".

That we can’t say that the potato was her last meal is a fact.

That we can’t say ‘easily digested food’ is also a fact as we don’t know what kind of food Phillips found in her stomach.

3) Catherine's quite warm body and no rigor mortis, and you're putting forward a time between murder and examination only 20 minutes longer than Annie's case.

You can’t compare the two. For example…did Eddowes have a wasting disease?

.

You’re clutching at straws on a windy day.

[FISHY1118]

Stop changing the subject Fishy.

You said that most people go for an earlier TOD. I simply pointed out that of the 20 people discussing it on here only 4 go for an earlier TOD. So how does a fifth qualify as ‘most people?’

So an earlier TOD is the minority opinion.

I think its time you just accepted what is being told to you herlock in plain black and white , over 1000s of post i might add

That is when it comes to the Chapman murder and trying to establish a t.o.d based on the whole evidence, that the fact is an earlier time of death is just as likely in this case as later time . The evidence matters, not silly polls as Mac has already and rightly pointed out .

[FISHY1118]

I wasn’t talking about the poll in my exchange of posts with you. I was responding to your fatuous claim that most people agreed with an earlier time of death. I then pointed out that of the 20 or so people who have posted on this thread only 4 or 5 support an earlier TOD. How does 4 or 5 out of 20 constitute most?

Again lets stay on topic shall we , polls are nonsense, as mac has put that to bed already ,

Your just moving away from the t.o.d subject to defect .... herlockism 101

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think its time you just accepted what is being told to you herlock in plain black and white , over 1000s of post i might add

That is when it comes to the Chapman murder and trying to establish a t.o.d based on the whole evidence, that the fact is an earlier time of death is just as likely in this case as later time . The evidence matters, not silly polls as Mac has already and rightly pointed out .

I accept absolutely nothing that I’m told by yourself, Fisherman or Meetwood because of your obvious bias.

The evidence is all that matters. Phillips is dismissed leaving us 3 witnesses. None of them can be shown to have lied. The earlier TOD is not as likely as the later because we have nothing in its favour and 3 witnesses against it.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Being disagreed with by someone like you is a badge of honour.

It's about the information and the ability to reasonably interpret it.

The idea that Dr Phillips intended: the minimum time possible is two hours but possibly less, is simply not reasonable. It is a contradiction in terms and nonsensical. Dr Phillips was an intelligent man with a solid grasp of the English language.

Nor can you accept that there are glaring contradictions in the witness statements including Mrs Richardson who tells you her son did not go through the yard. Your reasoning is to fanatically argue for anything supporting your theory while discarding relevant information which suggests otherwise. In other words, you do not approach the information with an open mind and an intention of reasonably interpreting it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Again lets stay on topic shall we , polls are nonsense, as mac has put that to bed already ,

Your just moving away from the t.o.d subject to defect .... herlockism 101

I’ve already explained to you in very simply, easy to understand English, that I’m NOT talking about the polls. Ok? Did you see that word in block capitals Fishy? I’ll repeat it for you NOT talking about the polls.

You said that most people accepted the earlier TOD. This is factually incorrect as only 4 or 5 posters of the ones that have taken part in this discussion (remember Fish…..NOT the polls.) So that’s 4 or 5 out of 20. That’s not ‘most.’ It’s barely ‘some.’ It’s clear that of those that have taken part in this discussion the large majority favour the later TOD.

I do hope that you’ve understood this as I can’t really see how it could be made easier.

[FISHY1118]

I wouldn’t comment on this point if I were you because you’re simply embarrassing yourself as you clearly don’t understand. Even Trevor, who supports an earlier TOD, admits that the Doctors estimate is useless based on Biggs. There’s not a single medical expert on the planet who ‘favours’ either an earlier or later TOD.

If i were you id stop commenting full stop, unless your prepared to accept what the evidence in the chapman murder allowes for an earlier t.od

You have been shown this time and time again from Fisherman and Mac, george and myself ,give it a rest ,

You yourself have admitted dr phillips could have been right , we all know by georges post that the witnesses could have been wrong and or mistaken due to their ambiguious and uncertain and contradictory testimony ,

But hey lets keep going on forever wasting time .