John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

….the reality is that researches will still continue to readily accept both witness and the doctor's statement without question as we see on here by the many quotes continually being made as to what witnesses have stated and some researchers are blinkered because they only see what they want to see.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The above statement can be described in no other way than untrue.

When I (and I’m clearly one of those that your comments are aimed at) look at a witness like Richardson for eg I don’t just take his statement without question. Like many people on here Trevor I’ve been looking into and reading about this case for close to 40 years which means that I’ve read everything, looked at opposing viewpoints, listened to those with various opinions and then drawn my own conclusion as to what I think is the likeliest conclusion. I didn’t, as you imply, simply read Richardson’s statement and assume that it must be true. I formed my own opinion.

And THIS is the problem Trevor. You always give the impression that you believe that you are the only one that can evaluate evidence and that those that disagree with you just couldn’t have evaluated the evidence for themselves and arrived at a different outcome than yourself fairly. You resort to to saying that they ‘assume’ that things are true without performing any assessment or that they won’t accept alternatives because they have some weird attachment to established ideas. Why will you ever concede the possibility that someone else might be right and that you might be wrong? Jeff has tried to get you to concede this point but you clearly just can’t bring yourself to say it can you?

Jeff: “Ok, while you seem reluctant to just say you accept your idea could be wrong.”

No one has readily accepted anything. No one is being blinkered. No one is attached to the old established ideas. But unfortunately one person is obsessed with finding a new theory and he will stretch evidence, logic, reason and simple common sense to do it. The fault isn’t with others Trevor. It’s with you.

[Trevor Marriott]

The above statement can be described in no other way than untrue.

When I (and I’m clearly one of those that your comments are aimed at) look at a witness like Richardson for eg I don’t just take his statement without question. Like many people on here Trevor I’ve been looking into and reading about this case for close to 40 years which means that I’ve read everything, looked at opposing viewpoints, listened to those with various opinions and then drawn my own conclusion as to what I think is the likeliest conclusion. I didn’t, as you imply, simply read Richardson’s statement and assume that it must be true. I formed my own opinion.

And THIS is the problem Trevor. You always give the impression that you believe that you are the only one that can evaluate evidence and that those that disagree with you just couldn’t have evaluated the evidence for themselves and arrived at a different outcome than yourself fairly. You resort to to saying that they ‘assume’ that things are true without performing any assessment or that they won’t accept alternatives because they have some weird attachment to established ideas. Why will you ever concede the possibility that someone else might be right and that you might be wrong? Jeff has tried to get you to concede this point but you clearly just can’t bring yourself to say it can you?

Jeff: “Ok, while you seem reluctant to just say you accept your idea could be wrong.”

No one has readily accepted anything. No one is being blinkered. No one is attached to the old established ideas. But unfortunately one person is obsessed with finding a new theory and he will stretch evidence, logic, reason and simple common sense to do it. The fault isn’t with others Trevor. It’s with you.

I think you need to take a step back and look at your posts and how you view these murders. You seem to want to argue on every aspect of these murders and your arguments are mainly based on the fact that the witnesses cannot be wrong when it is plainly clear they can be and have been proved to be wrong,

There is no obsession on my part it's a simple case of challenging the old accepted theory surrounding the organs, and as you know history is there to be challenged and not readily accepted as fact.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think you need to take a step back and look at your posts and how you view these murders. You seem to want to argue on every aspect of these murders and your arguments are mainly based on the fact that the witnesses cannot be wrong when it is plainly clear they can be and have been proved to be wrong,

There is no obsession on my part it's a simple case of challenging the old accepted theory surrounding the organs, and as you know history is there to be challenged and not readily accepted as fact.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Rubbish Trevor. I’ve never said that witnesses cannot be wrong. You’re just making things up.

And Trevor, if I take a different position to you then it means that you take a different position to me. So is it ok for you to do it but no one else?

As you’ve given me advice, which I’ll ignore, I’ll give you some. Take a step back, take off the ‘Im an ex-copper so I must be right’ goggles, then……try assessing witnesses without the black and white approach….accept that yes they can make mistakes but it doesn’t mean that everything that they say is wrong…..avoid applying different standards and criteria to different points……leave the goalposts where they are…..listen to other people properly, evaluate what they say……avoid being harsher on witnesses just because they don’t back your opinion……don’t assume that because an idea or theory has been around for years it needs to be replaced…..don’t try too hard…..don’t defend at all costs…..admit when you’re wrong or even just the possibility that you could be wrong.

The fact that you’re wrong so regularly should give you a hint Trevor.

[JeffHamm]

I think you need to take a step back and look at your posts and how you view these murders. You seem to want to argue on every aspect of these murders and your arguments are mainly based on the fact that the witnesses cannot be wrong when it is plainly clear they can be and have been proved to be wrong,

There is no obsession on my part it's a simple case of challenging the old accepted theory surrounding the organs, and as you know history is there to be challenged and not readily accepted as fact.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Ah, I've bolded your misunderstanding of my presentations. Of course the witnesses could be wrong, that is entirely possible. It is also entirely possible that they could be correct. It's also possible that they could be pretty close to correct, with the errors limited to the fine details (the exact time, for example). What I, and you, and everyone else, cannot know is which of those descriptions is correct. So what I look for when I examine the evidence are things that help me reduce those - I look for something that tells me, for example, that they could not be correct at all, because only then can I be sure they are wrong, rather than simply could be wrong.

If they are wrong, and therefore could not be even close to accurate, then I am willing to discard their statements. If, however, the collection of statements do result in something that hangs together, then I cannot say they are wrong. That's not the same as saying they still could not be wrong, they might be, but I do not have the evidence to draw that firm conclusion. And because all we have as a window into the events of 1888 are the statements made by various people in various capacities, discarding evidence is, to me, unwise. Questioning it, sure, good idea, but discarding it when it still could be correct makes it more and more unlikely that we can get a clear view of the actual events.

You take a different approach. You say that because there are some discrepancies, that the entire statement should be discarded. You do not allow for minor discrepancies, like how Long and Cadoshe's times don't, as stated, exactly line up. You refuse to consider the possibility that one, the other, or both, have made a minor error in detail with regards to the time. I've had a look at as much information I can find with regards to Long, such as her statement she left home to head to the market at 5:00. Her address, as recorded, however, doesn't seem to correspond with an actual address and people have been trying to work out where she lived. Their exploration of that detail led to a number of possible locations as to her residence. I looked at all of the possible solutions, and no matter which one I looked at, they all tended to indicate that she would have passed #29 far closer to 5:15 than 5:30. It's not proof she made an error in her recollection of what time it was when she saw the couple by any stretch of the imagination, but it means that every attempt I've made so far to rule her out has not resulted in anything that demonstrates she's done anything other than a minor error detail - common to witness statements. Therefore, I'm left with the possibility she may be providing important information. I don't know for sure that she is, she could still be wrong, but I have no basis for concluding she must be wrong and therefore ignored. You are happier to go with "despite the fact she could be right, I'm going to presume she's wrong and so ignore her completely".

I'm not comfortable making such a firm conclusion, so I interpret things using as much of the information as we have that could be right.

Then, after doing that, I will go back and look at that interpretation to see how "robust" it is if I drop different sources of information. With regards to the Chapman murder, whether or not we include Long, the emerging interpretation doesn't really change - so even if she is wrong, it doesn't matter because the interpretation is robust against her. In fact, with regards to the Chapman murder, one can swap in and out various combinations of the eye-witnesses and the gist of the interpretation remains robust. In fact, even if we discard all of them, and are left with only the medical testimony and the witnesses that record her time of leaving the doss house and when she was found dead, that story still could be right - it is highly robust. The story of an earlier ToD is not robust, because if any of those 3 witnesses are correct, that idea falls down. The latter ToD idea does not hinge on making the correct guess for each and every "could be right could be wrong" point. Your theory, however, requires you made every one of those guesses correct - that every one of the witnesses are wrong despite the fact that each and every one of them could be right, and even then, left with the medical testimony that still means 5:25 could be right, you make another guess about that being wrong!

If you guessed incorrectly for any of those witnesses, or where in the medical time window death occurred, your entire theory falls down, at least with regards to the time of the murder. That makes your theory less robust, which, in the end, is why I prefer the one I do. Not because I think it has to be correct, because there is the possibility it isn't, but because as a theory it is more robust against the possibility that I've included some wrong information. It does not hinge on me guessing right every time, and I can even make the wrong choice on occasion and the theory doesn't change in the overall picture.

I'm happy to acknowledge that if you have guessed correctly every step of the way that your theory would then be correct. I just don't believe you've guessed right each and every time you've had to. And yes, you've had to, because you've made your decisions to set things aside because they are "ambiguous", and ambiguous means could be either way - and you've chosen a particular way. I too have had to make such choices, but I re-examine the theory by looking at whether or not it all falls down if I change one or two of those choices. That is why I always point out that the part of Long's testimony that we really need to be extra cautious about is her description of "JtR" - that description is only useful if we make the right choice with her. The events of the murder do not depend upon her, only the validity of her description of the man seen with Annie. But if she's wrong, the events don't change much but that description falls down - hence, I recommend Long's description be viewed with caution, but note that using her or excluding her other information doesn't really impact the sequence of events around the murder.

- Jeff

[Doctored Whatsit]

Jeff has explained everything so very clearly. The "could be right could be wrong" may be applied to the witnesses Davis, Richardson, Long and Cadosch, and on balance, it is so difficult to reach the conclusion that each must be wrong, especially when there isn't another witness suggesting an alternative. Furthermore, there is another equally imperfect witness it seems, as Rumbelow writes, "According to a police statement, a dustman had seen a man with bloodstained clothing walking down the street at about this time." Yes, all very approximate, but one more pointer to the murder taking place at about 5. 30 am.

[Trevor Marriott]

Jeff has explained everything so very clearly. The "could be right could be wrong" may be applied to the witnesses Davis, Richardson, Long and Cadosch, and on balance, it is so difficult to reach the conclusion that each must be wrong, especially when there isn't another witness suggesting an alternative. Furthermore, there is another equally imperfect witness it seems, as Rumbelow writes, "According to a police statement, a dustman had seen a man with bloodstained clothing walking down the street at about this time." Yes, all very approximate, but one more pointer to the murder taking place at about 5. 30 am.

and how was the dustman able to establish that the stain he observed was in fact blood ?

This is a clear example of researchers getting carried with these types of ucorroborated witness statements and using them to prop up a theory.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Ah, I've bolded your misunderstanding of my presentations. Of course the witnesses could be wrong, that is entirely possible. It is also entirely possible that they could be correct. It's also possible that they could be pretty close to correct, with the errors limited to the fine details (the exact time, for example). What I, and you, and everyone else, cannot know is which of those descriptions is correct. So what I look for when I examine the evidence are things that help me reduce those - I look for something that tells me, for example, that they could not be correct at all, because only then can I be sure they are wrong, rather than simply could be wrong.

If they are wrong, and therefore could not be even close to accurate, then I am willing to discard their statements. If, however, the collection of statements do result in something that hangs together, then I cannot say they are wrong. That's not the same as saying they still could not be wrong, they might be, but I do not have the evidence to draw that firm conclusion. And because all we have as a window into the events of 1888 are the statements made by various people in various capacities, discarding evidence is, to me, unwise. Questioning it, sure, good idea, but discarding it when it still could be correct makes it more and more unlikely that we can get a clear view of the actual events.

You take a different approach. You say that because there are some discrepancies, that the entire statement should be discarded. You do not allow for minor discrepancies, like how Long and Cadoshe's times don't, as stated, exactly line up. You refuse to consider the possibility that one, the other, or both, have made a minor error in detail with regards to the time. I've had a look at as much information I can find with regards to Long, such as her statement she left home to head to the market at 5:00. Her address, as recorded, however, doesn't seem to correspond with an actual address and people have been trying to work out where she lived. Their exploration of that detail led to a number of possible locations as to her residence. I looked at all of the possible solutions, and no matter which one I looked at, they all tended to indicate that she would have passed #29 far closer to 5:15 than 5:30. It's not proof she made an error in her recollection of what time it was when she saw the couple by any stretch of the imagination, but it means that every attempt I've made so far to rule her out has not resulted in anything that demonstrates she's done anything other than a minor error detail - common to witness statements. Therefore, I'm left with the possibility she may be providing important information. I don't know for sure that she is, she could still be wrong, but I have no basis for concluding she must be wrong and therefore ignored. You are happier to go with "despite the fact she could be right, I'm going to presume she's wrong and so ignore her completely". - Jeff

I simply say that the statements are unsafe to totally rely on, the main reason is that they contain ambiguities which in a criminal trial would have been explored and clarified but that was not the case in an inquest so it leaves important questions about their testimony unanswered

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

and how was the dustman able to establish that the stain he observed was in fact blood ?

This is a clear example of researchers getting carried with these types of ucorroborated witness statements and using them to prop up a theory.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No one would claim this as strong evidence especially as we don't have the source but it’s one more point to bear in mind. If he thought it was blood then perhaps it looked like blood?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I simply say that the statements are unsafe to totally rely on, the main reason is that they contain ambiguities which in a criminal trial would have been explored and clarified but that was not the case in an inquest so it leaves important questions about their testimony unanswered

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So does that mean that we should dismiss every single piece of witness testimony? Or do we assess and evaluate?

[Trevor Marriott]

No one would claim this as strong evidence especially as we don't have the source but it’s one more point to bear in mind. If he thought it was blood then perhaps it looked like blood?

But there is no evidence to prove it was blood so the context in which it was described is unproven and therefore unsafe to rely on.

You really don't have a clue when it comes to what is evidence and what is not, you just bumble along with post after post on nothing more than self-opinion and conjecture. I have really tried with you to explain things in a clear and concise manner but it seems to fall on deaf ears because you have your head buried in the sand in the belief that all the facts and the evidence left from 1888 are proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that all other explanations and theories must be wrong.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

So does that mean that we should dismiss every single piece of witness testimony? Or do we assess and evaluate?

You assess and evaluate and if you do that you can see the discrepancies which make the statement unsafe - unsafe=not to dismiss outright but treat with caution and not in your case to keep quoting them to prove a point as being safe to totally rely on.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

When one witness gives evidence that cannot be reconciled with the physical and circumstantial evidence given by other witnesses, ones who by their content corroborate each other in the major details, then it cannot be used as a basis for determining the "truth" of the situation. When Mrs Long says she "knew" what time she made her sighting, there is no ambiguity. When Louis Diemshitz says he arrived "precisely at 1am", he is making his statement without ambiguity. To presume that they might have made a mistake on the time, perhaps due to non synchronized timepieces, is acceptable. But that then needs to be compared with other statements given about that time and place to see if that statement can be reconciled with others. In both Longs and Diemshitz's cases, their statements cannot be reconciled with other more credible accounts.

When Mrs Long says she knew she saw someone she identified as Annie around 5:30, because she took note of Black Eagle Brewery clock strike, we then have to look at other evidence which might contradict that, or put her sighting and/or timing under more scrutiny. Albert Cadosches statement is verification that he heard something from the very spot where Annie is found around 6am, 2 times within 15 minutes, all before 5:30am. Unless of course he lied, and one would then have to provide evidence, reasons for that lie and for excluding his remarks.

Since Mr Cadosche is giving evidence from the perspective of the murder site, and since went out back after checking the time just before doing so, and since the physical evidence from the murder scene indicates that the killing must have taken place by 5:30 at the latest for all to be accomplished by her killer, it seems highly unlikely that there was people other than Annie and her killer there at that time. Mrs Longs ID is incorrect. If she did see Annie on the street it would have to be before 5:15.

I mentioned Louis Diemshitz because he is another witness who is adamant about his timing when he got to the club and discovered the body, and that story cannot be reconciled by other witnesses to that street at that time. Or the testimony of the police and what time they arrived there. Or by club witnesses who said they were aware of the dead woman 15-20 minutes before 1am. Louis was wrong, deliberately or not.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But there is no evidence to prove it was blood so the context in which it was described is unproven and therefore unsafe to rely on.

You really don't have a clue when it comes to what is evidence and what is not, you just bumble along with post after post on nothing more than self-opinion and conjecture. I have really tried with you to explain things in a clear and concise manner but it seems to fall on deaf ears because you have your head buried in the sand in the belief that all the facts and the evidence left from 1888 are proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that all other explanations and theories must be wrong.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

How the hell did you ever get a job as a detective.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You assess and evaluate and if you do that you can see the discrepancies which make the statement unsafe - unsafe=not to dismiss outright but treat with caution and not in your case to keep quoting them to prove a point as being safe to totally rely on.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Drivel.

You don’t treat with caution. You try and dismiss the inconvenient. Totally biased.

[Aethelwulf]

How the hell did you ever get a job as a detective.

i would imagine tracking down notorious shoplifters doesn't take a lot of skill