John Richardson

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

But you are the one who keeps stating that the witness testimony should not be dismissed now you say they cant be relied upon due to possible error with the clocks

Well I disagree with you and Jeff on this issue. Mrs Long`s time can be verified by the clock she heard striking that was 5.30am and the couple were static so with that in mind by my calculations if they were Chapman and the killer the earliest they could have made it into the back yard would have been 5.35am.

Cadosch stated he was in the yard at 5.20am you cant tell me that the clocks were that much out of sync with each other

You are simply using the the excuse that the clocks were wrong to prop up the witness testimony to suit, they may have been not in sync but not 15 mins out !!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But you are the one who keeps stating that the witness testimony should not be dismissed now you say they cant be relied upon due to possible error with the clocks

A weak point, even for you.

Well I disagree with you and Jeff on this issue. Mrs Long`s time can be verified by the clock she heard striking that was 5.30am and the couple were static so with that in mind by my calculations if they were Chapman and the killer the earliest they could have made it into the back yard would have been 5.35am.

And clocks are never wrong in Marriott World.

Cadosch stated he was in the yard at 5.20am you cant tell me that the clocks were that much out of sync with each other

Very easily.

You are simply using the the excuse that the clocks were wrong to prop up the witness testimony to suit, they may have been not in sync but not 15 mins out !!!!!!!!!

No it’s called not allowing bias to cloud my judgment as you do all the time.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor you really should think before you make these kind of posts. I’d like to ask you a couple of straight questions first:

1. Do you or do you not accept that the many or most of the poor people of that time and area wouldn’t have owned clocks or watches?
2. Do you accept that people estimating the time can be wrong?
3. Do you accept that not all clocks are synchronised? (I believe that it was George who posted something in another thread about how badly synchronised watches and clocks were in the LVP)

We have Cadosch using ‘about’ and ‘I should think.’ We have Kent arriving ‘about’ 6.10. We have Mrs Hardiman saying that she heard the noise in the passage at ‘about 6.00.’ So according to Kent, her ‘about 6.00’ meant just after 6.10. And yet you are attempting to tie them down to exact times. Can’t you see how implausible this is and only serves to make it look like you’re rigidly attempting to dismiss a witness? Which you are of course.

Now, onto Long. You claim that times had to have been out by 15 minutes which just isn’t the case Trevor. It’s called maths.

Let’s suggest for the sake of discussion that the clock that Chapman heard was just around 5 minutes fast. (I assume that you wouldn’t try claiming that it was impossible for a clock to be out by 5 minutes?) So when she got outside number 29 it was actually 5.25 and not 5.30. Ok. So this could have meant Annie and her killer arrived in the back yard at 5.26.

Now, to remind us - Cadosch said:

“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.”

I’m sure that you’d agree that the wording of this statements shows that he was estimating? You wouldn’t dispute that obvious point would you? I can never take stuff like this for granted with you sadly.

So all that we would need to accept the possibility of, would be that Cadosch’s might have got up 5 minutes later than he’d thought or that he very slightly misjudged the gap of time between him getting up and going into the yard. So instead of him entering his yard at 5.20 let’s suggest that it might have been 5.26. Surely no big deal?

So this would have the two people that Long saw entering in the yard at 5.26 and Albert Cadosch entering his yard at 5.26 to hear the “No.” Two witnesses tying up exactly by just accepting a very reasonable margin for error of 5 or 6 minutes.

Final question then Trevor….

Do you still think that it’s somehow far-fetched or impossible that two dirt poor Whitechapel locals might have both been around 5 or 6 minutes out (nowhere near 15 btw)? You probably will, sadly.

The so-called time discrepancy between Long and Cadosch is a non-issue. Three witness all tie up. No issue at all.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just listened to a podcast on the Hanbury Street murder. Chris Scott, Gareth Williams, Ally Ryder, Jon Menges, John Bennett and Ben Holme.

Phillips correct or witnesses correct?

You guessed it…

Witnesses.

[The Macdonald Triad]

Just listened to a podcast on the Hanbury Street murder. Chris Scott, Gareth Williams, Ally Ryder, Jon Menges, John Bennett and Ben Holme.

Phillips correct or witnesses correct?

You guessed it…

Witnesses.

So you listening to a podcast by other people means you win something? Lol. Derlock you definitely are a cut above the rest when it comes to trolling in a so-called intellectual setting.

[The Macdonald Triad]

But you are the one who keeps stating that the witness testimony should not be dismissed now you say they cant be relied upon due to possible error with the clocks

Well I disagree with you and Jeff on this issue. Mrs Long`s time can be verified by the clock she heard striking that was 5.30am and the couple were static so with that in mind by my calculations if they were Chapman and the killer the earliest they could have made it into the back yard would have been 5.35am.

Cadosch stated he was in the yard at 5.20am you cant tell me that the clocks were that much out of sync with each other

You are simply using the the excuse that the clocks were wrong to prop up the witness testimony to suit, they may have been not in sync but not 15 mins out !!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It's your own fault for riding on his roundabout. Wise up.

[GBinOz]

You are simply using the the excuse that the clocks were wrong to prop up the witness testimony to suit, they may have been not in sync but not 15 mins out !!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

There is a very good dissertation by Chris McKay on the accuracy of Victorian clocks in post #2 here:

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-crime-scenes/8950-a-matter-of-timing-berner-street-witness-time#post120389

Post #6 also addresses the striking/chiming clocks around Hanbury St.

Clock syncs aside, I don't find Long to be believable in picking out a woman she had never seen before from a number of couples while not paying attention. My view of Richardson is not so much that he was lying, but that his memory recreation had convinced him that he could not have missed the body. The Echo account persuades me that the police did sufficient investigation to show he was mistaken. The open door is not an issue to me as the passage was used by any number of people including James Hardiman for his cat's meat vending business. Cadosch is more problematic. I think the fact that he heard the voice while in his doorway with the door closing behind him would have limited his sense of direction. IMO Cadosch has to be weighed against a daylight murder with dozens of potential witnesses via surrounding windows, and a perpetrator persisting with his task with a potential witness only feet away.

Despite interpretations to the contrary, I agree with Christer's view of the police being sceptical of the witness evidence. They were there conducting the interviews with the witnesses concerned and were in the best position to make that judgement.

In both medical and witness evidence I do not indulge in mountains of undeniable, or overwhelming, evidence or opinion in either direction. Like Jeff, I lean from centre towards the early ToD, whereas Jeff leans from centre towards the later ToD. That said, I also lean towards your opinion that an exact ToD, while interesting, isn't all that important.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

It's your own fault for riding on his roundabout. Wise up.

Hi Mac 3,

I'm starting to think that you are right. Perhaps Iceland is the solution after all.

Cheers, George

[The Macdonald Triad]

I got my first demerit. Marching prig (for nobody) now. I'll try to be good and not so "incredulous" at the stuff that keeps this going evidently. This is exactly psychologically why the more "posh" British could never solve it. It could never be an Englishman! Sorry for the never ending paragraphs, on mobile, about to visit Greenland and will ignore all realistic conversation! In my sarcasm lay the answers. Profiling.

[The Macdonald Triad]

Hi Mac 3,

I'm starting to think that you are right. Perhaps Iceland is the solution after all.

Cheers, George

Love your stuff George. Even how you ignore the trolls; it's almost like you have no conscience. That's a compliment by the way.

[The Macdonald Triad]

There were Two. I'm sensing it now more than ever. A Bible thumper and her miscreant son. Maybe I'll pay the money to do a family tree search (or pretend to be a relative on a new profile to do it for free) and fill a bunch of pages. And then demand recognition like it isn't public knowledge anyway. C'mon guys and gals, stop cluttering your brain and infighting. What's going to be my infraction next time? Keeping it simple? It astounds the world, not just me, how you can keep recycling and refurbishing the same debate over and over replete with non sequitur nonsense?

The whole reason I even came back from the dead..was for this thread.

John Richardson was Jack Richardson.

[FISHY1118]

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

Correct , again.

[FISHY1118]

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.

And you can show proof they were not ? NO i didnt think so.

[Fleetwood Mac]

But you are the one who keeps stating that the witness testimony should not be dismissed now you say they cant be relied upon due to possible error with the clocks

It's an interesting phenomenon, Trevor.

I was recently reading a thread on Elizabeth Long. This thread went back to around 2005 and those posting on the thread were a lot of the old posters who know the case and the source documents inside out.

Somebody had taken the time to do the walk from Long's home to Hanbury Street and concluded it would have taken 12 minutes as opposed to half an hour. All credit to the person who took the time to do that walk and post the results: that's good work.

The problem is in the way the information is interpreted: I would say it leaves a bit to be desired. The person who did the walk claimed that it follows Long passed the clock at 5.15am. Three pages later everybody on that thread, bar the odd dissenting voice, accepted it as fact and a case was built around it. Amazing to read, and very instructive, how people wedded to a theory casually cast aside all of the other possibilities and proclaim one of the possibilities to be a fact.

I was reading and thinking, hold up, why aren't you considering that Long left the house later than she claimed or didn't take the same route you did or whatever. I could only conclude that the theory is all important and as a result the possibility that fits the theory becomes perceived wisdom and embedded fact.

The Long/Cadosch timings are a big thing. It's an obstacle. Both claimed to know the time when they were at Hanbury Street, driven by when they had to be in a certain place. It really shouldn't be casually dismissed as 'someone was wrong'.

In the event we strip away all of the disingenuity, obfuscation and outright dishonesty, we have this to consider:

1) Richardson misled the coroner with his knife tale.
2) Long and Cadosh contradicted one another with their timings.
3) In the event Cadosch heard the WM, then it would be highly unusual for a murder and mutilation to take place in those circumstances.
4) Mrs Richardson did not hear her son go through the passage and states that she would have had he gone through after 3am.

Leaving the medical evidence aside, is that really a compelling case? I mean really?

In order to make it all fit you have to undertake mental acrobatics with Richardson's statement, claim Long or Cadosh was mistaken in a manner whereby their statements can be taken to be solid evidence, claim Mrs Richardson was mistaken in a manner whereby her statement can be discounted and believe that the WM took that risk of murder and mutilation while someone was a few yards away in daylight with only a 5'6 fence or whatever separating them.

I maintain that the only reason that these witnesses represent a compelling case for some people is that they are wedded to this theory and they have more than likely accepted possibilities as fact, as happened on the thread from 2005.

Strip it back to its bare bones and there are some serious holes in the collective witness statement picture. In a court of law, it would be ripped to shreds in no time.

[FISHY1118]

It's an interesting phenomenon, Trevor.

I was recently reading a thread on Elizabeth Long. This thread went back to around 2005 and those posting on the thread were a lot of the old posters who know the case and the source documents inside out.

Somebody had taken the time to do the walk from Long's home to Hanbury Street and concluded it would have taken 12 minutes as opposed to half an hour. All credit to the person who took the time to do that walk and post the results: that's good work.

The problem is in the way the information is interpreted: I would say it leaves a bit to be desired. The person who did the walk claimed that it follows Long passed the clock at 5.15am. Three pages later everybody on that thread, bar the odd dissenting voice, accepted it as fact and a case was built around it. Amazing to read, and very instructive, how people wedded to a theory casually cast aside all of the other possibilities and proclaim one of the possibilities to be a fact.

I was reading and thinking, hold up, why aren't you considering that Long left the house later than she claimed or didn't take the same route you did or whatever. I could only conclude that the theory is all important and as a result the possibility that fits the theory becomes perceived wisdom and embedded fact.

The Long/Cadosch timings are a big thing. It's an obstacle. Both claimed to know the time when they were at Hanbury Street, driven by when they had to be in a certain place. It really shouldn't be casually dismissed as 'someone was wrong'.

In the event we strip away all of the disingenuity, obfuscation and outright dishonesty, we have this to consider:

1) Richardson misled the coroner with his knife tale.
2) Long and Cadosh contradicted one another with their timings.
3) In the event Cadosch heard the WM, then it would be highly unusual for a murder and mutilation to take place in those circumstances.
4) Mrs Richardson did not hear her son go through the passage and states that she would have had he gone through after 3am.

Leaving the medical evidence aside, is that really a compelling case? I mean really?

In order to make it all fit you have to undertake mental acrobatics with Richardson's statement, claim Long or Cadosh was mistaken in a manner whereby their statements can be taken to be solid evidence, claim Mrs Richardson was mistaken in a manner whereby her statement can be discounted and believe that the WM took that risk of murder and mutilation while someone was a few yards away in daylight with only a 5'6 fence or whatever separating them.

I maintain that the only reason that these witnesses represent a compelling case for some people is that they are wedded to this theory and they have more than likely accepted possibilities as fact, as happened on the thread from 2005.

Strip it back to its bare bones and there are some serious holes in the collective witness statement picture. In a court of law, it would be ripped to shreds in no time.

Yes of course it would mac , Everyone sees just how silly it is to pin down 5.30am as the only t.o.d based solely on the witnesses . Good post

[FISHY1118]

“ambiguious , uncertain , contradictory….”

Thats what the evidence tells us tho , sad but true.