John Richardson

[etenguy]

Ignore - aleady discussed.

[FISHY1118]

Absolute rubbish.

Why do you keep pointing out that 6 of you go for an earlier TOD as if it’s somehow important and yet you ignore the fact that 15 go for a later TOD! So the reality is that of those who have posted on this thread 70% go for a later TOD. In the poll on whether Richardson was reliable or not 84% felt that he was and only 10% felt that he wasn’t. In a poll on whether Cadosch was reliable or not 93% felt that he was. And in the poll on the caveat 100% interpreted it to mean that Phillips was clearly accepting that he could have been wrong.

And before you begin ranting about ‘pointless polls’ or ‘stupid polls’ let’s remind ourselves that you felt it important enough to stress how many posters favoured an earlier TOD. So I’m simply responding with facts. The majority disagree with the earlier TOD. And they do this because the evidence clearly favours a later TOD. The same evidence that you’ve selectively read. The difference being is that they’ve read it without bias.

Your hero worship of Fisherman is touching but misguided. Thiblin accepted the possibility of a later TOD as did Biggs (Trevor accepts this so why can’t you?) You and FM simply latched on to the part of Thiblin’s statement when he said “if….” You naturally and conveniently ignore the ‘if…’ though. And you also ignore the blatantly dodgy information fed to him by Fisherman.

So the Doctors evidence has to be sidelined. 14 posters tell you this - I should say 15 because Trevor accepts what Dr. Biggs said too (Trevor favours an earlier TOD on criteria excluding the Doctors TOD) So that’s 15-5. I’m unsure about what George thinks because he hasn’t commented recently. I’ve no doubt that he still favours an earlier TOD but I’d be surprised if George dismisses the point that that Doctor’s estimate cannot be relied upon.

Yes you can keep parroting “ambiguous” as much as you want but you still haven’t shown that you actually understand what the word means. Cadosch wasn’t ambiguous about hearing the noise. Richardson wasn’t ambiguous about there not being a mutilated corpse 6 inches from his left boot! Long was ambiguous on her identification.

So what we have Fishy is the vast majority of posters favouring a later TOD. So who backs your ‘opinion.’

Harry - ok.
George - ok
FM - a man who believes that he knows more about Pathology that the worlds express.
Yourself - the only man on the planet who supports the Stephen Knight theory.
Trevor - who accepts that Phillips TOD cannot be relied upon.

……..

So the verdict….

Dr. Phillips TOD was categorically unreliable and has to be dismissed.
Three witness point to a later TOD.
Theres not a single piece of evidence that implies that the witnesses lied.
The only way that doubt can be manipulated into existence over witnesses is by assuming ridiculous levels of stupidity

The evidence heavily favours a later TOD. So let’s hope we hear no more of this embarrassingly biased nonsense.

The verdict is in……the overwhelming majority favour a later TOD

Oh good , Nothing new to see here then herlock [get back to me when you have something ] , just the same old same old youve been posting all along thats ''already been seen to''[ make sure you read that part twice will you ] , but hey you keep rolling on if you like , your cant disprove what ive and other have being sayin regarding t.od based on ALL the evidence . Just more desparate denial.

The only Rubbish talk here is the fact you have to used the word ''Rubbish'' to make a point , so very poor , Trevor was right about you all along .

Again thanks to Fisherman , George , Mac , Trevor, Harry for their insight

[FISHY1118]

Hi Jon,

Generally I'd agree, but some witness testimony is very hard to believe:

Joseph Chandler
[Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - I saw him about a quarter to seven o'clock. He told me he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.
[Coroner] Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.
[Coroner] Did he say that he was sure the woman was not there at that time? - Yes.
By the Jury: The back door opens outwards into the yard, and swung on the left hand to the palings where the body was. If Richardson were on the top of the steps he might not have seen the body. He told me he did not go down the steps.

John Richardson
[Coroner] Did you go into the yard? - No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long.

[Coroner] Did you sit on the top step? - No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard.

After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market.

(recalled) produced the knife - a much-worn dessert knife - with which he had cut his boot. He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market.

Richardson initially indicates to Chandler that he gave the cellar door a perfunctory glance and departed.
At the inquest he introduces the boot cutting story. He stated twice that he actually cut leather from his boot, but no leather shaving were found at the scene and Chandler confirms he made no mention of it to him. He consistently said he did not go into the yard, but the middle step was certainly in the yard. How does one sit on the middle step with one's feet on the flags without going down the steps? When asked to produce the knife he presents a knife that was totally unsuitable for the task and changes the successful shaving of the leather to having been at work afterwards.

''IMO Richardson introduced the boot story to enlarge his role in the matter or to avoid looking foolish for not having noticed the body'', but didn't anticipate the Coroner asking to see the knife. I think Chapman's body was already there, as per Phillip's estimate of TOD, and Richardson missed it.

Cheers, George

Just going back over some very early posts on this subject to try make an important point that is being continually being misunderstood by some.

The bold section, one of many such inquest testimony anomalies, highlights exactly what is meant by the ''evidence'' supports a ''possible outcome'' / scenario .Of course it doesnt mean it is/was the outcome in this case, just that its possible and shouldnt be dismissed entirely.

That some, after 3000 post have yet to grasp this concept is a poor refection and understanding of how witness statements can also be interpreted,it just shows a poor reflection on their behalf, not any one elses IMO

[Trevor Marriott]

Ive never been certain on Stride but it’s hard to dismiss her as a victim.

But it seems you dismiss many of the evidential facts put forward which go to rebutting many of the old accepted theories in these murders.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh good , Nothing new to see here then herlock [get back to me when you have something ] , just the same old same old youve been posting all along thats ''already been seen to''[ make sure you read that part twice will you ] , but hey you keep rolling on if you like , your cant disprove what ive and other have being sayin regarding t.od based on ALL the evidence . Just more desparate denial.

The only Rubbish talk here is the fact you have to used the word ''Rubbish'' to make a point , so very poor , Trevor was right about you all along .

Again thanks to Fisherman , George , Mac , Trevor, Harry for their insight

“ambiguious , uncertain , contradictory….”

[Herlock Sholmes]

But it seems you dismiss many of the evidential facts put forward which go to rebutting many of the old accepted theories in these murders.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I haven’t seen any yet Trevor.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That some, after 3000 post have yet to grasp this concept is a poor refection and understanding of how witness statements can also be interpreted,it just shows a poor reflection on their behalf, not any one elses IMO

I’ll try and make this as uncomplicated as I can.

Just because we know that witnesses CAN be mistaken it doesn’t mean that our three witnesses WERE mistaken.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just going back over some very early posts on this subject to try make an important point that is being continually being misunderstood by some.

The bold section, one of many such inquest testimony anomalies, highlights exactly what is meant by the ''evidence'' supports a ''possible outcome'' / scenario .Of course it doesnt mean it is/was the outcome in this case, just that its possible and shouldnt be dismissed entirely.

That some, after 3000 post have yet to grasp this concept is a poor refection and understanding of how witness statements can also be interpreted,it just shows a poor reflection on their behalf, not any one elses IMO

I’ve just read that. I see no anomaly. Perhaps you could be specific? What are the ‘anomalies?’ And please don’t tell me to read it because I’ve read it three times. You’re the one making the point so please point them out. I’m interested to see how you define an ‘anomaly.’

[Herlock Sholmes]

At one time most of the catholic population believed that the earth was the centre of the universe, and that the stars and planets revolved around the earth, held in place by spheres of glass. When Galileo used a primitive telescope to observe that Jupiter had satellites it was explained to him that that was impossible as a satellite would break the glass sphere. For his reply, Eppur si muove (And yet it moves) he was relegated to the study of the motion of pendulums. Johannes Bruno was not so fortunate. He was burned at the stake for his troubles.

Chat rooms were tough in those days.

Hello George,

I realise that you dispute the witness but this is a separate issue. I wondered if you now accept, based on the mountain of undeniable evidence, that Dr. Phillips minimum 2 hours isn’t and could never be reliable? I’m not saying of course that he couldn’t have been right but the chances of him being wrong are no more or less therefore the Doctors evidence can get us nowhere and that we are left to assess the witnesses on their own merit.

[Trevor Marriott]

I’ll try and make this as uncomplicated as I can.

Just because we know that witnesses CAN be mistaken it doesn’t mean that our three witnesses WERE mistaken.

But it only takes one to cause a serious doubt about the others

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But it only takes one to cause a serious doubt about the others

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Not necessarily. And certainly not if the doubts are imaginary.

[Abby Normal]

But it only takes one to cause a serious doubt about the others

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

no it dosnt. what kind of reasoning is that? lol just because one may be mistaken it dosnt mean the others were. It works the other way round trevor, you as a former detective should know that surly. the three witnesses all corroborate each other and therefore strengthen not only each others testimony but the later TOD.
and theres actually four witness who corroborate each other when you include Davis, who saw the front door was wide open (evidence of the ripper making a hasty exit) and who then immediately saw the body. Which also corroborates Richardson when he said he would have seen the body if it was there. So Davis not only corroborates the later TOD, he corroborates that richardson would have seen the body had it been there.

So the evidence shows we have four independent witnesses who all point to a later TOD of around 5:30, and who all corroborate and strengthen each others testimony.
If taken objectively and with a modicum of reasoning it all points to the later TOD. Its a simple as that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

no it dosnt. what kind of reasoning is that? lol just because one may be mistaken it dosnt mean the others were. It works the other way round trevor, you as a former detective should know that surly. the three witnesses all corroborate each other and therefore strengthen not only each others testimony but the later TOD.
and theres actually four witness who corroborate each other when you include Davis, who saw the front door was wide open (evidence of the ripper making a hasty exit) and who then immediately saw the body. Which also corroborates Richardson when he said he would have seen the body if it was there. So Davis not only corroborates the later TOD, he corroborates that richardson would have seen the body had it been there.

So the evidence shows we have four independent witnesses who all point to a later TOD of around 5:30, and who all corroborate and strengthen each others testimony.
If taken objectively and with a modicum of reasoning it all points to the later TOD. Its a simple as that.

Exactly Abby. So much hard work has to be done to dismiss the witnesses that we have to ask why some feel the need to go to such lengths. What part of Cadosch’s or Richardson’s testimony sounds like a lie? Nothing. If Cadosch was lying why did he admit that he couldn’t be certain about the ‘No’ even though it was his initial impression. He could easily have said “no. I’m 100% certain that it was from number 29.” This must be the only case where a witness is denigrated for being cautious.

[Trevor Marriott]

Exactly Abby. So much hard work has to be done to dismiss the witnesses that we have to ask why some feel the need to go to such lengths. What part of Cadosch’s or Richardson’s testimony sounds like a lie? Nothing. If Cadosch was lying why did he admit that he couldn’t be certain about the ‘No’ even though it was his initial impression. He could easily have said “no. I’m 100% certain that it was from number 29.” This must be the only case where a witness is denigrated for being cautious.

Of course it makes a difference Mrs Long said she saw the couple at 5.30am
Cadosh said he heard the noise at 5.20am so if Mrs Long is to be belived the noise Cadosch heard could not have been the killer and Chapman

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course it makes a difference Mrs Long said she saw the couple at 5.30am
Cadosh said he heard the noise at 5.20am so if Mrs Long is to be belived the noise Cadosch heard could not have been the killer and Chapman

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Is it an insurmountable issue though Trevor? We know that many/most poor people in those days and in such a poor area didn’t own watches or clocks. Many of them relied on Constable’s to ‘knock them up’ to go to work. When we look at what Cadosch said at the inquest we see:

“I got up about a quarter past five in the morning, and went into the yard. It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think.”

So this tells us that he might not have had a clock as he only gave an estimation of the time. Doesn’t sound too certain does he? Then he was estimating the gap of time between him getting up and going into the yard. So how can we rely on exact times? He might actually have got up at 5.20 and gone into the yard at 5.25 or 5.26 or 5.27. Maybe he had relied on being ‘knocked up’ around 5.15? Could a policeman be certain of getting to each house at exactly the same time every day? Hardly.

As well as George providing the quote about how witnesses can be mistaken Jeff also provided research a while ago showing how wrong people can be on times (even in the modern day so how much more in the LVP?) We also know that when 2 people give times that are put in comparison we have to remember that this relies on clocks being synchronised. For example, if one person says x occurred at 2pm and another said 2.15 it might seem like an issue unless it was discovered that one persons clock was slow and the others was fast.

The research Jeff provided shows that the supposed difference in time between Long and Cadosch are well within a reasonable margin for error. This still doesn’t mean that Long couldn’t have been mistaken though. Of course she could have been. But the times really aren’t an issue unless we hold these people to levels of accuracy on times that modern day witnesses can’t always match when everyone carries a mobile phone.