John Richardson

[FISHY1118]

It would depend upon which clock were being used and how recently it had been reset.

Dr. Phillips: I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour

Mind you, Victorian Doctors would only be guessing, this opinion by Dr Phillips should be taken with a ''grain of salt'' and should be treated as ''unreliable'' and there for should not be used in any way to suggest how long it would take to commit the injuries sustained to Annie Chapman .

But then he was a qualified Doctor

[Herlock Sholmes]

The topic is over for you herlock as far as me explaining things to you for the umpteen time . You say give reasons for , unsafe ,ambiguious , uncertain , contradictory , . they been givin over 1000 times at least .You just cant and wont except them, thats fine, but they are there.

So keep denying them and keep the insults and personal attacks about other posters opinions coming, so that everyone can see how disrespectful you are on a public forum . Well done champ

It’s a bit rich to hear you unfairly accusing me of being insulting and of personal attacks and then you finish your post by calling me ‘chump. ‘Which is a personal attack and an insult combined.

What I’ve done here is to stick to the evidence and not get caught up in an agenda like some but your responses have just been the simple repetition of the same phrases. Then you wait for a poster to make a comment that you like then you pop up to do a bit of cheerleading. You never discuss the detail which is the purpose of this Forum. You avoid this like the plague because you know that it’s in the facts and the details where your agenda fails.

Neither you or I get to decide when the topic is over Fishy. The actual meat of the debate certainly has been concluded though - and the verdict is overwhelmingly in favour of an earlier TOD. A fringe minority favouring an earlier one exists of course but that we always be the same. Despite the attempted manipulation we basically have this:

The worlds Forensic experts telling us to a man, and without a single exception, that even today the estimating of TOD is fraught with the possibilities for error and that this possibility was much magnified in the Victorian era with their poorer knowledge and lack of technology. Of all the opinions in this case, anyone that denies this fact cannot be taken seriously. It’s in all of the books, papers and essays. It’s all over the internet and easy to discover so there is simply no excuse but bias for denying it (as only 3 or 4 people appear to do)

From modern day experts that we can get a direct opinion from we have….

Professor Thiblin:

"I can accordingly not rule out that the skin will feel cold already after some hour in a body that has been outside in September".

Dr. Biggs:

"Even if core body temperature and ambient temperature had been objectively measured at the time, any calculations would still give an estimation that would necessarily spread far wider than the “two hours or more ago” estimate quoted... I would have to say that this particular victim could have died considerably more than 2 hours before discovery, but also could potentially have been killed as recently as 05.30".

So the medical evidence from Dr. Phillips, as we have known all along, is useless to us. It simply cannot be relied up. It tells us that Chapman could have been killed either later or earlier. So Phillips simply has to be dismissed……as I said months ago (but you, FM and Fisherman clearly have some secret knowledge which has yet to reach the Forensic Medicine community.

So then we have to ask ourselves……what re the chances of three witnesses all lying or being mistaken? Was there some kind of conspiracy to frame a later TOD? What we then have from you is a repetition that witnesses can be mistaken. That’s it! That’s the result of your analysis. “Well, witnesses can be wrong.”

So the final summing up should be, and the only fair-minded, agenda-free one, is that the evidence (without being manipulated) points overwhelmingly to a later TOD. And this appears to be the opinion of the overwhelming majority of posters too.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Don't feed the intellectual troll, sir.

To be called a troll by you is like being called a drunk by Oliver Reed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Something just occurred to me. Wasn't blood found inside the hallway on Hanbury? The explanation was the Richardson's were moving packing crates out from the basement across a fresh crime scene (sans corpse) and sat the crates on the exact spot that was saturated in blood and transferred it. Does this seem a trifle odd to anyone who thinks Richardson should be a viable suspect? What were really in those crates that they may have deliberately gotten bloody?

Ask Fishy if the blood was actually from when Sir William Gull and Walter Sickert were lugging Annie’s body from the Royal Carriage parked outside to the yard.

[Herlock Sholmes]

When its all said and done Mac , some posters have used the Evidence both Witness and Medical to try show a later 5.30 t.o.d which is their opininon .

What they can Never show, NO MATTER HOW THER TRY is that very same Witness and Medical Evidence ''Cant''not'' be used to show an earlier 4.00/30 am t.o.d

The witnesses show exactly that. Have you missed that part?

And no one has ever claimed that the TOD estimate couldn’t encompass an earlier TOD. Have you missed that part too?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Youd think after 3147 post on the subject perhaps ''we agree to disagree'' would be enough , it clearly wasnt .

Do you mean the personal attack in post #3147?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dr. Phillips: I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour

Mind you, Victorian Doctors would only be guessing, this opinion by Dr Phillips should be taken with a ''grain of salt'' and should be treated as ''unreliable'' and there for should not be used in any way to suggest how long it would take to commit the injuries sustained to Annie Chapman .

But then he was a qualified Doctor

He was a qualified Doctor in 1888. You do realise that time runs forward and not backwards don’t you? And that medical knowledge advances with time? Do you think that the opinions of ‘qualified’ Doctors who used to blame illnesses on ‘bad humours’ should be accepted? You appear to think that Doctors in the 19th century had better knowledge than they do today.

Sums everything up really.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s a bit rich to hear you unfairly accusing me of being insulting and of personal attacks and then you finish your post by calling me ‘chump. ‘Which is a personal attack and an insult combined.

What I’ve done here is to stick to the evidence and not get caught up in an agenda like some but your responses have just been the simple repetition of the same phrases. Then you wait for a poster to make a comment that you like then you pop up to do a bit of cheerleading. You never discuss the detail which is the purpose of this Forum. You avoid this like the plague because you know that it’s in the facts and the details where your agenda fails.

Neither you or I get to decide when the topic is over Fishy. The actual meat of the debate certainly has been concluded though - and the verdict is overwhelmingly in favour of an earlier TOD. A fringe minority favouring an earlier one exists of course but that we always be the same. Despite the attempted manipulation we basically have this:

The worlds Forensic experts telling us to a man, and without a single exception, that even today the estimating of TOD is fraught with the possibilities for error and that this possibility was much magnified in the Victorian era with their poorer knowledge and lack of technology. Of all the opinions in this case, anyone that denies this fact cannot be taken seriously. It’s in all of the books, papers and essays. It’s all over the internet and easy to discover so there is simply no excuse but bias for denying it (as only 3 or 4 people appear to do)

From modern day experts that we can get a direct opinion from we have….

Professor Thiblin:

"I can accordingly not rule out that the skin will feel cold already after some hour in a body that has been outside in September".

Dr. Biggs:

"Even if core body temperature and ambient temperature had been objectively measured at the time, any calculations would still give an estimation that would necessarily spread far wider than the “two hours or more ago” estimate quoted... I would have to say that this particular victim could have died considerably more than 2 hours before discovery, but also could potentially have been killed as recently as 05.30".

So the medical evidence from Dr. Phillips, as we have known all along, is useless to us. It simply cannot be relied up. It tells us that Chapman could have been killed either later or earlier. So Phillips simply has to be dismissed……as I said months ago (but you, FM and Fisherman clearly have some secret knowledge which has yet to reach the Forensic Medicine community.

So then we have to ask ourselves……what re the chances of three witnesses all lying or being mistaken? Was there some kind of conspiracy to frame a later TOD? What we then have from you is a repetition that witnesses can be mistaken. That’s it! That’s the result of your analysis. “Well, witnesses can be wrong.”

So the final summing up should be, and the only fair-minded, agenda-free one, is that the evidence (without being manipulated) points overwhelmingly to a later TOD. And this appears to be the opinion of the overwhelming majority of posters too.

In the third paragraph I meant “is overwhelmingly in favour of a later TOD” of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I recall when you were trying to say that the sketches showing gaps were accurate and that it went towards proving that Cadosch would have seen Chapman and her killer had she been there. Are you selective even in sketches?

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/witnesses/788839-john-richardson?p=788977#post788977

[Herlock Sholmes]

Whenever a lost cause is being defended and things are going badly you can almost bank on something happening. Bleating and whining. Accusations of insults. It’s always the case. More reliable than the buses and we have them here as usual. So I decided to go back through the posts on here because I prepare reality not someone’s version of it. I’ve made 769 posts on this thread. I looked at them all and the posts of certain other posters…

#462 - The first insult on her and it was by…….Fishy. To which I responded by telling him that there had been no insults. Which there hadn’t been.

#467 - Fishy criticises me for using the phrase ‘too silly for words.’ Shock, horror.

#599 - Macdonald Triad accuses Fishy of trolling.

#600 - Fishy accuses MT of making a ‘silly post’ which is ironic considering Fishy had previously criticised me for saying ‘too silly for words.’

#606 - MT accuses Fishy of posting spam.

Nothing insulting from me Btw.

#757 - I accused Trevor of posting ‘drivel.’ Hardly horrible stuff.

#765 - Trevor calls me a ‘numpty’ which is a personal insult. Didn’t bother me though. Unlike some.

#766 - Trevor said that if I had a brain I’d be dangerous, which is a personal insult. Did I weep? Nope.

#976 - Fishy says to me “ .just dont be an as####ss about it “ God knows what it meant but I don’t think it was a compliment.

Still no insults from me.

# 1128 FM says - “My conclusion is that the poster known as Sherlock Holmes is smoking at least a boatload of weed and probably more.” So I’m accused of being on drugs by a poster who childishly refuses to use my username.

#1129 - FM then fantasises about being a moderator “Were I a mod, I would be stepping in at this point and politely asking you to refrain from posting nonsensical fallacies ad nauseam.”

Zero insults from me (or any mythical bullying)

#1133 - I accused FM or posting self serving waffle. Which isn’t a personal insult.

#1198 - After a few accusations by FM I posted this: “Heres an idea, why don’t you keep your arrogant, self serving, time wasting waffle to yourself?”

#1290 - I responded to FM continual refusal to use my username with this “Are you such a baby that you have stoop so pathetically, childishly low as to keep intentionally getting my name wrong.”

#1374 - Fishy said “Try being constructive for a change instead of an ass.”

#1628 - nice comment from FM “Log off, man, and go to bed. 'Spellbinding idiocy.”

#1634 - bit of sarcasm from me “It’s like trying to teach the LBW rule to a baby.”

#1733 - nice one from FM “No wonder you've called yourself Herlock Sholmes, you're like a pissed Sherlock Holmes.”

#1737 - I respond with a bit of sarcasm “Try harder Clouseau.”

#2023 - nice comment from FM “Your mind is unravelling, Sherlock.”

#2014 - followed by this lovely suggestion from Macdonald Triad “I've been noticing that for the past couple of weeks. I didn't know Herlock has an actual job? So yes, he deserves a weekend break. At Colney Hatch..”

Still haven’t managed to spot any of those nasty personal insults from me that some are weeping over.

#2037 - from FM “Can I remind you that this is a forum to discuss the Whitechapel Murderer, as opposed to a forum discussing a fictional character who can't spell his own name.”

#2312 - from FM “You've called yourself Sherlock Holmes. You're posting insurmountable levels of shite about Jack the Ripper.”

#2378 - FM even accused me of lying about my nationality.

# 2389 - FM again…still at it “It's over now. You're not English.”

#2391 - I respond by calling FM a troll.

#3079 - I’m accused of trolling by MT.

#3147 - called a troll again by MT

…….

So not only do some resort to manipulating evidence to support a lost course they’ll even resort to false accusations to deflect from the topic and to try a demonise certain posters. It’s all a tactic but it’s there to read in black and white. Thankfully the majority of posters don’t stoop this low. Does a bit of sarcasm from me occasionally really make people cry on here? And I said before, if someone like Jeff posts a poem about trolls, you know there’s an issue.

[DJA]

And NINE consecutive posts.

[jmenges]

And NINE consecutive posts.

A few posts left by MacDonald Triad were deleted after he was escorted out of the building.

JM

[jmenges]

And Herlock,

Rather than compile and publish a list of each time you feel you've been personally attacked...use the Report Post button.

Thanks

JM

[Herlock Sholmes]

And NINE consecutive posts.

Is that relevant? Seven of the nine were responses.

[DJA]

They weren't responses.