John Richardson

[Doctored Whatsit]

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

Hi Trevor,

Why do you continually ignore the points that are being made, and then grab at straws?

It doesn't matter that the dustman didn't confirm that it was real blood. The points being made were that witnesses "could be right could be wrong", which we accept, but all of the witness evidence available, despite each individual one being potentially wrong, is in keeping with a murder taking place at about 5. 30 am. So you have to dispute not the evidence of one witness, but the evidence of every witness. As far as I am aware, there is no witness suggesting any other time.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Now now personal attacks on someone's character will get you banned and its water off a duck's back to me.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s all black and white with Trevor I’m afraid. And from experience it’s impossible to escape the fact that the witnesses that get denigrated and dismissed are always the ones that don’t support whatever theory he’s proposing at the time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Now now personal attacks on someone's character will get you banned and its water off a duck's back to me.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor I just wish that you would accept that you aren’t always right and that others assessments might be correct even though they differ from yours.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Why do you continually ignore the points that are being made, and then grab at straws?

It doesn't matter that the dustman didn't confirm that it was real blood. The points being made were that witnesses "could be right could be wrong", which we accept, but all of the witness evidence available, despite each individual one being potentially wrong, is in keeping with a murder taking place at about 5. 30 am. So you have to dispute not the evidence of one witness, but the evidence of every witness. As far as I am aware, there is no witness suggesting any other time.

have you forgotten the doctor?

There is no straw grabbing I can assure you of that. I simply highlight the flaws and the discrepancies in the statements.

In this case, you and others are inferring wrongly that the stain seen by the dustman was blood and using it to prop up a later TOD. It cannot be established that it was blood so the statement is unsafe when trying to prop up a later TOD, what part of that do you not understand?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

It’s all black and white with Trevor I’m afraid. And from experience it’s impossible to escape the fact that the witnesses that get denigrated and dismissed are always the ones that don’t support whatever theory he’s proposing at the time.

I think that's a gross exaggeration on your part

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor I just wish that you would accept that you aren’t always right and that others assessments might be correct even though they differ from yours.

I don't know where you have got this impression that I am always right. I have never rammed it down anyone's throat that I am right, I have simply postulated other alternatives with facts and evidence to support those alternatives, Its not my fault that you and others are so immersed in these murders and would appear to have been so for decades which have resulted in your ability to think outside of the old accepted theories being impaired. You see only what you want to see as far as the facts and evidence is concerned and that's a sad trait

and I have no further intention to keep this pointless conversation going on anymore

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

There was no dead woman there when Richardson near 5am, who for some reason keeps getting dragged around, came out to trim his boot. There was one there when Davis went out near 6am. What the hell are people arguing about? Its not rocket science here, you have all you need to know right there. She was killed between Richardsons visit and Davis's visit. Which coincides perfectly with Cadosches statement.

And it doesnt directly conflict with a medical opinion "...but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood."

I was under the impression that the obvious is just that,... until I read some posts here.

[Doctored Whatsit]

have you forgotten the doctor?

There is no straw grabbing I can assure you of that. I simply highlight the flaws and the discrepancies in the statements.

In this case, you and others are inferring wrongly that the stain seen by the dustman was blood and using it to prop up a later TOD. It cannot be established that it was blood so the statement is unsafe when trying to prop up a later TOD, what part of that do you not understand?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, I haven't forgotten the doctor. He took care to advise the coroner that his original estimate may have been incorrect. His ToD, using all modern forensic medicine expertise, does not contradict a 5. 30 am murder.

You really must try reading what people write - we recognise the potential flaws in each individual statement, but I repeat, witnesses "could be right could be wrong", but you want all of them to be wrong, when they all steer us to one conclusion. And I repeat, where are witness statements suggesting some other time?

[JeffHamm]

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.

Hi Michael,

With Long, who I think is one of the interesting puzzles in the case, we have a number of statements that all have to be considered.
1) She says she left home at 5:00 and headed to the market.
2) She says she saw a man and woman outside of #29, and overhears part of a conversation ("Will you?").
3) She identifies Annie Chapman as the woman she saw, and goes so far as to say she is sure it is the same woman.
4) She recalls hearing the Brewer's clock strike the half hour.

All of that would be fine, and we would have no way of questioning it, except for Cadosche's testimony of hearing people talking in the back yard of #29 (Hearing someone say "No"), and later hearing something bump against the fence where Annie's body is subsequently found. Cadoshe's testimony places these events before 5:30, as he appears to leave home at that time (he passes the Spitalfield's clock at 5:32 on his way to work, and it's about a 2 minute walk from his house based upon the distance).

We're dealing with a discrepancy in the order of minutes here, which could be nothing more than the fact that Cadosche and Long are basing their times on different clocks.

But, there are indications that Long may very well have misremembered which set of chimes she heard, and that it was 5:15 at the time of her sighting and not 5:30. First, that is exactly the type of error of detail that witnesses will make, yes she heard the chimes, but later misremembers which ones they were (obviously, she didn't necessarily misidentify them at the time she heard them, just later when she recalls her walk to the market after hearing about the murder, she has to recall those events and that's when details can get blurred).

While she states her address, people have tried to locate that address, and there appears to be something not quite right with it. As such, there are some old threads where people were trying to work out where she lived. In that thread a number of possible locations were suggested, none confirmed but one did look more promising than the rest. I've measured the distance from each of the various possible addresses, and if she left from any of those at around 5:00, she should have passed by Hanbury street very close to 5:15. If we could verify with certainty her address, I would be happier with this, but at the moment, it is still not rock solid as it would be best if her actual residence location could be confirmed properly (as there is always the chance that none of the above proposed addresses is correct).

There is no way to test if her identification of Annie was correct or not. She states it with confidence, but people can be very confident in things they are wrong about. Confidence and accuracy are not the same thing, although I believe there is some evidence of a correlation, it is not particularly strong.

It is possible she was wrong both about the time and the identification. It is possible she was wrong about the time she left for the market. It is possible she left around 5:00 and stopped along the way somewhere, which she never mentions. There are tonnes of ways things could have gone. But based upon what we do know from her statements, combined with the possible addresses people have suggested for her residence, the most straight forward reading is that she left around 5:00, passed Hanbury Street around 5:15, saw Annie and a man, and continued to the market. In her testimony the only error of detail would be the time at Hanbury Street. If, however, that detail is correct, it appears one has to argue she got the 5:00 o'clock leaving time wrong, and she actually left closer to 5:15. One is still having to "correct her time by 15 minutes", but one of those corrections reconciles her testimony with Cadosche, and validates her confidence in her identification of Chapman, while the other doesn't fit with Cadosche and usually results in concluding that despite her confidence it still wasn't Annie.

Yes, both of those are possible, but that means we cannot rule out the possibility that Long did indeed see Chapman alive and well.

As for Deimshutz, his time entirely reconciles with the events. I built a recreation of the events around the Stride case, and working backwards from Dr. Blackwell's arrival on the scene at 1:16, and calculating the passage of time based upon people's movements and distances and using research to convert people's estimates of durations (i.e. I waited 5 minutes - generally means someone actually waited closer to 3 or 4, we over estimate short durations, and starting around an hour, we tend to under estimate them ; i.e. I waited 1 h 15 is more likely to be a true wait of 1 h 35 m - I'm making these example numbers up as I don't have the table with me, but I posted it on some Stride related threads a while ago).

Anyway, by working backwards that way, rather than setting events based upon the time the witnesses give, that results in Deimshutz arriving at the club almost bang on 1 o'clock (might be +- 1 minute type thing). So Diemshutz's testimony is entirely consistent with all the rest. In fact, despite the complications with the Stride case given the large number of witnesses and all the comings and goings, the events tend to line up pretty good. There was only one witness, one of the PCs, who appears to have their times set to a noticeably different clock (around 5 minutes out?), which given the clock sync issue is still pretty reliable.

So I would suggest that Diemshutz testimony does indeed reconcile very easily. Long's appears not to though. Basically, by performing the same type of analysis, it shows how the approach can both show a questioned time statement to be acceptable or not. In D's case it was acceptable, in L's case, not so much.

Again, the analysis doesn't prove Long must have misremembered the time, but it does suggest that a simple time detail error (a pretty trivial and common type of error), easily reconciles her entire statement, justifies her confidence in the ID, and certainly means her statements could be correct. Could still be wrong, but there's no way for us to know for sure.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't know where you have got this impression that I am always right. I have never rammed it down anyone's throat that I am right, I have simply postulated other alternatives with facts and evidence to support those alternatives, Its not my fault that you and others are so immersed in these murders and would appear to have been so for decades which have resulted in your ability to think outside of the old accepted theories being impaired. You see only what you want to see as far as the facts and evidence is concerned and that's a sad trait

and I have no further intention to keep this pointless conversation going on anymore

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You’re unbelievable Trevor. You just don’t see it do you? You say that you don’t have that kind of attitude and then, IN THE SAME POST, you do exactly that! Other people can’t think properly or evaluate….other people are stuck on certain theories and ideas.

Its you. You get an idea and because it’s your idea you assume that it must be right and to defend it you go around cherrypicking witnesses and evidence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Annie Chapman was killed sometime around 5.25/5.30. This is pretty much as near to a fact as you can get in this case despite all the limbo dancing.

This is how John Richardson should have been questioned:

Q: Was there a mutilated corpse in the yard at 4.45?

A: No.

Q: Could you have missed it if it was behind the door?

A: Are you insinuating that I’m a cretin?

Q: Err…no.

A: Well stop asking stupid questions and making things up. SHE WASN'T THERE. END OF.

And that would be the end of it. No need for creative angles or silly talk of no one noticing huge gaps in the fence or accusations that Richardson was such an unmitigated dimwit that he falsely placed himself next to the corpse with a knife in his hand. It’s way past time this was let go.

And all this talk about Long is pointless. There is only a discrepancy if we unrealistically assume that all clocks had to have been accurate and synchronised. If we dismiss that silliness (as we categorically should) then we are left with a situation where all that was required was a discrepancy of around 6 or 7 minutes for both Long and Cadosch (which is eminently plausible) and they match up perfectly leaving us to ask ourselves …..what would be the chances of Long seeing a woman who looked like Chapman in the company of a man a few feet away from the spot where she was discovered dead 30 minutes later? I mean… how hard is this?

Three witnesses versus a Doctor using provably unreliable methods. Absolutely no competition. Chapman killed around 5.25/5.30…..99% certain.

[Trevor Marriott]

Annie Chapman was killed sometime around 5.25/5.30. This is pretty much as near to a fact as you can get in this case despite all the limbo dancing.

This is how John Richardson should have been questioned:

Q: Was there a mutilated corpse in the yard at 4.45?

A: No.

Q: Could you have missed it if it was behind the door?

A: Are you insinuating that I’m a cretin?

Q: Err…no.

A: Well stop asking stupid questions and making things up. SHE WASN'T THERE. END OF.

Again you are making it up because we know how he was questioned and it was nothing like you have quoted

And that would be the end of it. No need for creative angles or silly talk of no one noticing huge gaps in the fence or accusations that Richardson was such an unmitigated dimwit that he falsely placed himself next to the corpse with a knife in his hand. It’s way past time this was let go.

Well let go and stop posting

And all this talk about Long is pointless. There is only a discrepancy if we unrealistically assume that all clocks had to have been accurate and synchronised. If we dismiss that silliness (as we categorically should) then we are left with a situation where all that was required was a discrepancy of around 6 or 7 minutes for both Long and Cadosch (which is eminently plausible) and they match up perfectly leaving us to ask ourselves …..what would be the chances of Long seeing a woman who looked like Chapman in the company of a man a few feet away from the spot where she was discovered dead 30 minutes later? I mean… how hard is this?

It's clearly hard for you to consider that it may not have been Chapman

Three witnesses versus a Doctor using provably unreliable methods. Absolutely no competition. Chapman killed around 5.25/5.30…..99% certain.

So you finally accept that there is a conflict in the witness testimony, As I have stated these conflicts and ambiguities should have been resolved by further questioning at the inquest but that didn't happen so it is wrong to readily accept the testimony as being 100% safe to rely on in the case.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Annie Chapman was killed sometime around 5.25/5.30. This is pretty much as near to a fact as you can get in this case despite all the limbo dancing.

This is how John Richardson should have been questioned:

Q: Was there a mutilated corpse in the yard at 4.45?

A: No.

Q: Could you have missed it if it was behind the door?

A: Are you insinuating that I’m a cretin?

Q: Err…no.

A: Well stop asking stupid questions and making things up. SHE WASN'T THERE. END OF.

Again you are making it up because we know how he was questioned and it was nothing like you have quoted

Further evidence of your inability to read what someone has posted. Note the words “..should have been questioned.”

Plus, we only have an idea of what was said at the inquest. We don’t know anything of what passed between him and the police.

And that would be the end of it. No need for creative angles or silly talk of no one noticing huge gaps in the fence or accusations that Richardson was such an unmitigated dimwit that he falsely placed himself next to the corpse with a knife in his hand. It’s way past time this was let go.

Well let go and stop posting

So I should stop posting but you are ok to continue? Yeah right.

And all this talk about Long is pointless. There is only a discrepancy if we unrealistically assume that all clocks had to have been accurate and synchronised. If we dismiss that silliness (as we categorically should) then we are left with a situation where all that was required was a discrepancy of around 6 or 7 minutes for both Long and Cadosch (which is eminently plausible) and they match up perfectly leaving us to ask ourselves …..what would be the chances of Long seeing a woman who looked like Chapman in the company of a man a few feet away from the spot where she was discovered dead 30 minutes later? I mean… how hard is this?

It's clearly hard for you to consider that it may not have been Chapman

Not at all. I’ve said that it might not have been Chapman dozens of times on here. What I’m arguing against is the assumption that she was wrong coming from people like yourself.

Three witnesses versus a Doctor using provably unreliable methods. Absolutely no competition. Chapman killed around 5.25/5.30…..99% certain.
So you finally accept that there is a conflict in the witness testimony, As I have stated these conflicts and ambiguities should have been resolved by further questioning at the inquest but that didn't happen so it is wrong to readily accept the testimony as being 100% safe to rely on in the case.


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yet more proof that you don’t read and absorb what people actually say. There is NO conflict in the slightest between Richardson, Cadosch and Long….all point to an obviously later ToD. The odd one out is Phillips. And you choose the odd one out.

And I didn’t say 100%. I said 99%. An earlier ToD really isn’t worthy of consideration. It’s childish nonsense. John Richardson alone kills it stone dead. I don’t know why anyone has bothered questioning it. It’s overwhelming enough to be stated as fact.

[JeffHamm]

Yet more proof that you don’t read and absorb what people actually say. There is NO conflict in the slightest between Richardson, Cadosch and Long….all point to an obviously later ToD. The odd one out is Phillips. And you choose the odd one out.

And I didn’t say 100%. I said 99%. An earlier ToD really isn’t worthy of consideration. It’s childish nonsense. John Richardson alone kills it stone dead. I don’t know why anyone has bothered questioning it. It’s overwhelming enough to be stated as fact.

Hi Herlock,

Actually, Dr. Phillips isn't even the odd one out. Estimates of the ToD even today have a margin of error of +-3 hours. Dr. Phillips estimated 4:30, that means the window associated with that estimate spans from 1:30 to 7:30; meaning the estimate places the ToD not "at" 4:30, but between 1:30 and 7:30.

Davies testifies he found the body around 6:00, so based upon that witness testimony we can rule out some of the medical based time window (basically rule out 6:00 to 7:30). Based upon the witness testimony of Donovan we know she was seen alive when she left the doss house around 1:50, so again we use the witness testimony to narrow down the medical time window even more(we remove the part from 1:30 to 1:50).

We use witness testimony to fine tune the rather broad time range that such medical estimates give us. We now, based upon witness testimony, only have to consider her death as occurring between 1:50 and 6:00, rather than 1:30 and 7:30.

Given the witnesses in question point towards a time around 5:25-5:30, and given that falls between 1:50 and 6:00, and given there is no definite evidence that all of those witnesses are wrong, the time that corresponds to all of the testimony, both witnesses and medical, is a window around 5:25-5:30 ish.

In short, if we make the assumption that Long, Richardson, and Cadoshe are all wrong, even though all could be right, there is still no basis to prefer say 4:00 over 5:25, all we can say is that she died somewhere between 1:50 and 6:00, which is still window that is based upon witness testimony. If we throw them out too, and want to argue only based upon Dr. Phillips estimated ToD, then one is left with saying she died somewhere between 1:30 and 7:30 - and there is no justification for choosing any particular point in that time window - just somewhere in there (so even then we have no justification for saying it couldn't be 5:25).

- Jeff