John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

Spot the difference. ?

It would certainly be much easier to debate this topic if this simple rule of thumb was followed.

So you want an anaemic debate where diplomacy is more importent than truth and where everyone agrees to disagree and any nonsense is simply accepted?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi FM,

If there was market activity in Brick Lane and at Spitalfields Market, only a block and a half away, I would think that there is a likelihood of such activity also in Hanbury St. But according to our resident linguistics expert, because Long didn't specifically say there were other people around, the street must have been nearly deserted. Amelia Richardson must have been referring to a market elsewhere:
Amelia Richardson at the Inquest:
"But it is evident two people went through on Saturday morning?-Yes; but that being market morning there is such a bustle."

Cheers, George

For someone who dislikes my sarcasm you appear not to mind using it. I simply stated a fact. And it’s a fact that we cannot assume that Hanbury Street was choc full of people just because there was a market on. If you can find some evidence that the street was full then I’ll look at it of course but there’s little point in making claims for which there is none.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It would Fishy, but that wouldn't enable the linguistics expert and the repository of all sense to dazzle we lesser mortals with their brilliance.

More of the dreaded sarcasm. I’ll be crying myself to sleep at this rate George.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fishy, this case has always been contentious, and without additional research is likely to remain so. The following may assist you in understanding those who believe their opinions are 100% correct in all aspects, and their chorus of acolytes.

Confirmation Bias
A confirmation bias is cognitive bias that favours information that confirms your previously existing beliefs or biases

Confirmation biases impact how we gather information but also influence how we interpret and recall information. For example, people who support or oppose a particular issue will not only seek information to support it, but they will also interpret news stories in a way that upholds their existing ideas. They will also remember details in a way that reinforces these attitudes.

When it comes to confirmation bias, there are often signs that a person is inadvertently or consciously falling victim to it. Unfortunately, it can also be very subtle and difficult to spot. Some of these signs that might help you identify when you or someone else is experiencing this bias include:

• Only seeking out information that confirms your beliefs and ignoring or discrediting information that doesn't support them.
• Looking for evidence that confirms what you already think is true, rather than considering all of the evidence available.
• Relying on stereotypes or personal biases when assessing information.
• Selectively remembering information that supports your views while forgetting or discounting information that doesn't.
• Having a strong emotional reaction to information (positive or negative) that confirms your beliefs, while remaining relatively unaffected by information that doesn't.

There are a few different types of confirmation bias that can occur. Some of the most common include the following:

• Biased attention: This is when we selectively focus on information that confirms our views while ignoring or discounting data that doesn't.
• Biased interpretation: This is when we consciously interpret information in a way that confirms our beliefs.
• Biased memory: This is when we selectively remember information that supports our views while forgetting or discounting information that doesn't.

Cheers, George

‘Chorus of acolytes.’ Your non-sarcastic halo is slipping George. Do you mean the huge majority of posters on this forum that all favour a later TOD? Or the tiny ‘band of brothers’ who go for an earlier one based on their belief that they know more about forensic medicine that an expert like Dr. Biggs?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks George , but one doesn't need such detailed explanation as you've posted to see whats going on , but thanks anyway ,

You or anyone for that matter can plainly see over the history of this thread what others have posted that shows more than favorable conclusions based on all the evidence provided that could explain an earlier t.od . To coin a phase " its all there in black and white "

My response to Et shows that I'm perfectly willing to accept both sides of this debate.

,However when it becomes personal and in my opinion offensive as to how I and other interpret the evidence, then I'm afraid it just shows a lack of respect to which belongs on other such social media platforms, I would like to think this site is better than that ,

If we are to continue with this thread I would definitely like to raise more points with you ,without the usual repeatative negative responses We've become accustomed too.

Regards. Fishy.

Be careful that you don’t fall from that high horse Fishy. Especially after I posted details of the thread showing where the insults were coming from ‘in black and white’ and that the first one came from you.

I made a long and detailed fact-based post on the evidence. How come no response to that? Generalities and whimpering are preferred.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Alright Fishy,

I don't mind replying to the scrutiny providing it's reasonable.

When posters claim Dr Phillips' medical observations are 'useless' then you know that replying is a pointless exercise, however.

"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".

Dr. Biggs…..expert…..should not be disagreed with.

[etenguy]

To support your point, the GSG was erased at 5.30am. This is what Warren had to say in a report to the Home Office, 6th November:

it was just getting light, the public would be in the streets in a few minutes, in a neighbourhood very much crowded by Jewish vendors and Christian Purchasers from all parts of London

It seems that around half 5 in the morning is when the East End streets came alive, and I think it's fair to say the area around Hanbury Street would have been busy between half 5 and 6 in the morning on a market day. It would have been busy on any given day I think, due to Victorian age sleeping and working habits.

The WM had a means of not getting caught providing he operated when it was dark: he could hear footsteps approaching and disappear into the night when the streets were quiet. In order to believe Annie was murdered around 5.30am, then it follows the WM committed murder and mutilation when Cadosch was a few yards away, in daylight, and then walked into busy streets, in daylight, with blood on his hands. 'Not impossible but we do not see that level of risk taken at any other crime scene, and so the experience of the WM tells me it is unlikely. Another point to go alongside the medical evidence and contradictory/compromised witness statements.

Hi FM

As Fishy predicted, your last sentence warrants challenge, but that is not what I wish to post about today, nor do I want to distract from a good point well made.

There absolutely was concern expressed by Warren about the streets coming alive and the need to remove the GSG as a result at around this time. Hanbury street is set back a little further from the main road and not in the same immediate vicinity as Goulston Street, but the general point about people in Whitechapel starting their days would, I think, still hold. I do not think this contradicts Long or makes her statement more questionable, but the WM would have been coming out into increasingly busy streets after the murder if it happened at around 5.15am-5.30am. He may well have done that, and may well have relished the risk he was taking but I wonder if that points to him living or having a place to clean up close by to Hanbury Street. It is certainly close enough to Goulston Street for it not to be a stretch of the imagination that the WM may have been heading to a place close by to both Hanbury street and Goulston street. Pure speculation, but it is what came to mind as I read your post.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Another point to go alongside the medical evidence and contradictory/compromised witness statements.

"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".

Biggs again. The witness statements weren’t compromised except in your imagination. I’ve shown this beyond all doubt but you avoid the detail in favour of those sweeping generalities.

[FISHY1118]

And you are doing exactly the same thing that you did a couple of days ago and what you’ve done before. You start crying foul simply because I’m challenging points. Why do you never talk about details but just make very general points? Do you think that we should all just say ‘well it could have been x or it could have been y so let’s agree to disagree and move on? What would be the point of a forum?



How is that a fact Fishy? The Doctor goes for the earlier TOD but 3 witnesses point to a later TOD. That’s 3-1.

Threads don’t get ‘canned’ because posters disagree. Are you looking for a discussion forum or a ‘safe space?’

The trouble is you dont Challenge you get personnal with your responses , all the challenging is over and done with, it been answered many times over, you dont agree, fine ,you just need to let other express their point of view without being rude, treat others who dont agree with you a little kinder , no one can say they are more right in their opinion than the next guy when we all share the same evidence and make own own conclusions .

I can debate this topic till the cows come home herlock , im more than happy to ,i like other tho just dont want to be treated like an idiot when we do .

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'd imagine the WM simply walked out the way he came in, which would mean walking out into the streets with blood on his hands.
.

Just a suggestion but you do know that gloves had been invented by 1888 don’t you?

[FISHY1118]

Be careful that you don’t fall from that high horse Fishy. Especially after I posted details of the thread showing where the insults were coming from ‘in black and white’ and that the first one came from you.

I made a long and detailed fact-based post on the evidence. How come no response to that? Generalities and whimpering are preferred.

We,ve all made long detailed based facts herlock, this thread fulll of them on both sides, there has been many post you didnt respond to either when asked , so thats neither here or there .

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

It's the use of phrases like "chorus of acolytes" that contribute to the overall sense of division and do nothing to improve the overall quality of the boards. This attitude is found across many threads and theories, from many posters.

I'd like to think that I can agree or disagree with other posters without it being perceived as some partisan ulterior motive.

Hi Al,

I am the first to advocate the free expression of opinions. There is an element that is opposed to opinions other than their own and are supported by a small number of devotees indulging in hyperbolics and absolutes. I have never counted you among that number.

Cheer, George

[GBinOz]

For someone who dislikes my sarcasm you appear not to mind using it. I simply stated a fact. And it’s a fact that we cannot assume that Hanbury Street was choc full of people just because there was a market on. If you can find some evidence that the street was full then I’ll look at it of course but there’s little point in making claims for which there is none.

Your suggestion was than there were only two people in the street because Long didn't mention anyone else.
It’s simple enough. The conversation was about how many people might have been around at the time of Long’s sighting. Varqm said:
Long was alone and there were no other people in the street
George suggested that there might have been other people in the street:

Where is your evidence? You've conveniently ignored Amelia Richardson's statement. There is a considerable difference between "choc full of people" and only two people.

[GBinOz]

More of the dreaded sarcasm. I’ll be crying myself to sleep at this rate George.

Needs must when the devil drives.

[GBinOz]

‘Chorus of acolytes.’ Your non-sarcastic halo is slipping George. Do you mean the huge majority of posters on this forum that all favour a later TOD? Or the tiny ‘band of brothers’ who go for an earlier one based on their belief that they know more about forensic medicine that an expert like Dr. Biggs?

Wasn't it you than labelled Fishy as a "cheer leader"?