John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

They werent required to perform ''miracles'' ,wrong profession . Im afraid youll have to start a Jesus thread for that . They only had to give their Expert Medical opinion, which they did with exceptional accuracy when all the evidence in the case is asscessed.

Phillips clearly wasn’t ‘exceptionally accurate’ in the Chapman case. Any more that John Richardson was blind or the world’s biggest moron.

[FISHY1118]

Phillips clearly wasn’t ‘exceptionally accurate’ in the Chapman case. Any more that John Richardson was blind or the world’s biggest moron.

Brown and Blackwell according to inquest testimony were . As yet its undetermined with Phillips he may have been just as accurate . Well as for John Richardson we know and as been shown just how poor and unreliable and contradictory and ambiguious his testimony was .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi George,

I presented the cases where the temperatures were similar as those would be of the most interest. However, what I was illustrating carries over to the entire sample, meaning, bodies at the same environmental temperature will result in quite different internal temperature readings after the same time post-death. Therefore, when using an average based calculation to revert those internal temperatures to time, you will get different estimates of the post mortem interval even though we know the PMI is actually the same - that is the margin of error. And yes, the cases I presented are very few, but even in that small sample we can see a wide range already.

The point is, that Eddowes and Annie could very easily have different temperature readings even if those readings were taken at the same time after death. Of course, this assumes internal temperature readings were actually taken, of course. We have to remember that we have no evidence that they were, rather this is yet another assumption we are making because we find it hard to believe they wouldn't have. I agree that it is difficult to imagine that the doctors wouldn't take a reading because we know they are necessary, but in the end, nowhere in the surviving records do we have anything that confirms that was done. Our belief, or inability to believe, isn't evidence it was done.

And yes, as I also pointed out, none of these bodies were disembowelled. I have never found such a study, so the function that would relate temperature to time, and the variability of that prediction, is probably still unknown even today. Therefore, any estimate of ToD, even if based upon internal temperature readings, in such cases is going to be highly unreliable as the person making the estimate has to guess at the parameters of the prediction equation. I think Phillips is pointing that out in his caveate, and he himself is basically saying he doesn't object to the ToD that gets derived from the witness statements.

Furthermore, there are other factors that will influence the cooling rate. Eddowes appears to have been wearing more clothing than Annie, and while both had their abdomens and lower bodies exposed, Eddowes upper body seems to have been more covered and so she may have retained more heat as a result. Basically, the relationship between internal temperature readings and time since death is a very complicated relationship, and using an average based model (which is typical) to make a prediction about a specific case will somewhat accurate, with same range of error. No two cases are exactly the same, and so while it is tempting to think Annie and Kate would follow the same pattern, that temptation must be avoided because it is highly probable they would not.

We would want to consider things like how Annie was ill, and in much poorer health than Eddowes, and as far as we know Annie was outside in the cold for many hours, while Eddowes was inside the jail cell. While unlikely to be a spa, it would be warmer than being the outside. Annie's ill health, combined with being tired from walking the streets all night (presuming she's killed at 5:20 of course), would be more prone to developing mild hypothermia, resulting in a lower starting body temperature to begin with.

Seriously, what the study I showed some data from shows is that two bodies, under similar circumstances (similar environmental temperatures) can show very different internal readings at the same time after death, which is where the error range of the predictions come from. This is why we have to consider the estimated time +- 3 hours, it is that variable. As such, the medical information, in my view, should not be seen as favouring either an earlier or later ToD. It is compatible with either option.

- Jeff

Yes Jeff, two things that can cause more rapid cooling are malnourishment and TB. So for Annie malnourishment is a definite tick, and TB?

“The deceased was far advanced in disease of the lungs.”

So that’s an additional two factors.

[FISHY1118]

I know that you won’t read it Fishy because previous threads have shown that you only read things that support what you believe at the time but….if you took the time to read The Temperature of Death by David Barrat you would see the evidence that he provides of cases where the Doctor involved altered his estimated ToD to fit witness evidence. Probably the clearest case of this kind involved Professor Keith Simpson (and there aren’t many bigger names in the field than him) This is simply a fact Fishy. We have no way of knowing in how many cases this occurred but occur it did.

Which you,ve also done yourself on many occassions over the past herlock.

Yes Herlock ok , that was the case with Barrat ,just show documented inquest testimony evidence that Dr Brown and Blackwell did that , dont just guess that they did to suit your arguement or prove a point.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Which you,ve also done yourself on many occassions over the past herlock.

Can you provide evidence of that Fishy (and here we go again…..you’ll probably now claim to have already proved it….then you’ll refuse to point me in the direction of where you allegedly did it..) I have over 300 books on the case and I’ve read them all (some more than once) so which ones haven’t I read?

Yes Herlock ok , that was the case with Barrat ,just show documented inquest testimony evidence that Dr Brown and Blackwell did that , dont just guess that they did to suit your arguement or prove a point.

Of course a Doctor is going to say “I arrived at my conclusion by taking into account witness evidence.” Get real Fishy. David Barrat simply showed that it’s happened. No one has said that we can prove that it happened in the ripper murders.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well as for John Richardson we know and as been shown just how poor and unreliable and contradictory and ambiguious his testimony was .

No it hasn’t. It’s just something you keep repeating without providing any explanation. It’s noticeable how many of your points are nothing more that ‘others have shown….’

[FISHY1118]

No it hasn’t. It’s just something you keep repeating without providing any explanation. It’s noticeable how many of your points are nothing more that ‘others have shown….’

No its not , thats something you say when you want to change the subject . I started this thread in case you forgot , and have provided my explanations and points of view on many occasions .

[FISHY1118]

Of course a Doctor is going to say “I arrived at my conclusion by taking into account witness evidence.” Get real Fishy. David Barrat simply showed that it’s happened. No one has said that we can prove that it happened in the ripper murders.

Good ,so you have no proof it happened with Brown and Blackwell thank you very much .

[Herlock Sholmes]

The lack of knowledge, common sense, reason and integrity is simply jaw-dropping.

[Trevor Marriott]

The lack of knowledge, common sense, reason and integrity is simply jaw-dropping.

That could be said of you when you keep propping up the later TOD, and to do so you rely on unsafe witness testimony versus a doctor's opinion as to an "estimated TOD"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

That could be said of you when you keep propping up the later TOD, and to do so you rely on unsafe witness testimony versus a doctor's opinion as to an "estimated TOD"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No it couldn’t. You’re simply wrong.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In the time that I’ve been posting on here more effort has been made to try and discredit John Richardson than has been put into trying to find out why the Titanic sunk. Some have theories to support which explains why they have gone to such extraordinary lengths but that doesn’t apply to everyone which makes it far more difficult to understand why this is. Trevor calls him ‘unreliable,’ but, as we know, he applies that to every inconvenient witness in the case. If we followed Trevor we should all pack up and go home because every witness or Police Officer was either wrong or lying (unless they support one of his theories of course then they’re paragons of accuracy….Inspector Reid’s recall of events 8 years previously becomes something beyond doubt….but Robinson and Hutt remembering a couple of days previously can’t be trusted of course….we all know how it works)

The majority of witnesses are imperfect to us 135 years later because we have to rely on newspaper versions of what was actually said. This gives us discrepancies which might not have actually occurred at the time and could have been down to Press error so yes we have to view witnesses with caution but that doesn’t mean that we should simply dismiss them on the grounds of a minor discrepancy, especially not just because it suits an agenda. So could Richardson have been wrong?

We can’t doubt him on the duration of his sight of the yard of course. There was no ‘fleeting glance’ to criticise.

We have no evidence that he had poor eyesight.

We have no evidence that he was an imbecile.

We have no evidence that he was lying to protect someone or for any other reason.

We can’t doubt him on visibility because he said that it was getting light. Light enough to attempt a repair on his boot and see the cellar door. Plus the body was only a foot or so away from his left foot so it would have had to have been pitch black for his sight to have been impaired, which it clearly wasn’t.

We can’t doubt him on being unaware of the possibility of a door blocking his view either. If a door could have blocked his view he would clearly have known this. He later saw the body in situ from next doors yard so he knew it’s exact location and how much floor space it took up. We also have to acknowledge that he wasn’t being accused of anything; he was simply being asked if he could possibly have missed it. This of course means that he had absolutely no reason to lie; he wasn’t covering his own backside in any way. He could have simply admitted that he ‘might’ have missed it and this would have affected him in absolutely no way. So when we read that he was absolutely insistent that he couldn’t have missed a body we should take this as a fact. He was simply and very clearly telling the truth. He just couldn’t have missed this body and been unaware that he’d done so. This point couldn’t be clearer.

So would Richardson have lied about being there? No remotely sensible reason has ever been given for this suggestion and we have to ask why a man would lie and needlessly place himself at the scene of an horrendous knife murder and with a knife in his hand when he wasn’t compelled to? How can this be taken even remotely seriously? Well in reality it can’t. He had every reason to be there and he produced the knife and explained that he’d also attempted a repair the previous day. Then we get Chandler.

Naturally, when the inquest testimony is read it’s conveniently assumed that Chandler was correct and no consideration is given to the possibility that he might have been mistaken. A simple mishearing or misremembering of ‘stood’ instead of ‘sat’ doesn’t fit the agenda does it? Even when it’s understood that the ‘interview’ hardly took place in the best of circumstances. And of course no one wants to consider the unimportance of the boot repair at the time of the ‘interview.’ Richardson had no requirement to mention it and all that Chandler was interested in was whether he could have missed seeing the body. And of course Richardson never got to give his response because he testified before Chandler. And even if Richardson deliberately didn’t mention the repair it’s hardly surprising that initially he might have been wary of mentioning that he had a knife on him so he only mentioned it when pressed later and someone suggested that he might have missed the body. Even then he could have come up with a better and far less potentially incriminating lie. He pushed the door back to the fence….he stood in the yard to check the cellar….he went to the outside loo….he had a smoke and walked into the yard…..he went to check the fences. The fact that he deliberately places himself at the scene with a knife points clearly and very obviously to him telling the truth.

I’ve never really heard anything like the efforts to denigrate Richardson. He’s as good a witness as any in the case and his testimony alone should be more than ample to prove a 5.25/5.39 ToD. Whether we’re concerned about whether the killer would have killed at that time or not. It’s not relevant. The evidence is relevant and the it clearly tells us that Chapman’s body wasn’t in that yard at around 4.10. Add another concerted attempt to denigrate Cadosch and Long and we are stretching reason, logic, evidence and probability way, way beyond breaking point.


The EVIDENCE doesn’t just tell us that Chapman was killed at 5.25/5.30 it absolutely screams it.


Enough with this desperate nonsense.

[Herlock Sholmes]

4.10 is an error of course. It should read 4.45/4.50.

[FISHY1118]

In the time that I’ve been posting on here more effort has been made to try and discredit John Richardson than has been put into trying to find out why the Titanic sunk. Some have theories to support which explains why they have gone to such extraordinary lengths but that doesn’t apply to everyone which makes it far more difficult to understand why this is. Trevor calls him ‘unreliable,’ but, as we know, he applies that to every inconvenient witness in the case. If we followed Trevor we should all pack up and go home because every witness or Police Officer was either wrong or lying (unless they support one of his theories of course then they’re paragons of accuracy….Inspector Reid’s recall of events 8 years previously becomes something beyond doubt….but Robinson and Hutt remembering a couple of days previously can’t be trusted of course….we all know how it works)

The majority of witnesses are imperfect to us 135 years later because we have to rely on newspaper versions of what was actually said. This gives us discrepancies which might not have actually occurred at the time and could have been down to Press error so yes we have to view witnesses with caution but that doesn’t mean that we should simply dismiss them on the grounds of a minor discrepancy, especially not just because it suits an agenda. So could Richardson have been wrong?

We can’t doubt him on the duration of his sight of the yard of course. There was no ‘fleeting glance’ to criticise.

We have no evidence that he had poor eyesight.

We have no evidence that he was an imbecile.

We have no evidence that he was lying to protect someone or for any other reason.

We can’t doubt him on visibility because he said that it was getting light. Light enough to attempt a repair on his boot and see the cellar door. Plus the body was only a foot or so away from his left foot so it would have had to have been pitch black for his sight to have been impaired, which it clearly wasn’t.

We can’t doubt him on being unaware of the possibility of a door blocking his view either. If a door could have blocked his view he would clearly have known this. He later saw the body in situ from next doors yard so he knew it’s exact location and how much floor space it took up. We also have to acknowledge that he wasn’t being accused of anything; he was simply being asked if he could possibly have missed it. This of course means that he had absolutely no reason to lie; he wasn’t covering his own backside in any way. He could have simply admitted that he ‘might’ have missed it and this would have affected him in absolutely no way. So when we read that he was absolutely insistent that he couldn’t have missed a body we should take this as a fact. He was simply and very clearly telling the truth. He just couldn’t have missed this body and been unaware that he’d done so. This point couldn’t be clearer.

So would Richardson have lied about being there? No remotely sensible reason has ever been given for this suggestion and we have to ask why a man would lie and needlessly place himself at the scene of an horrendous knife murder and with a knife in his hand when he wasn’t compelled to? How can this be taken even remotely seriously? Well in reality it can’t. He had every reason to be there and he produced the knife and explained that he’d also attempted a repair the previous day. Then we get Chandler.

Naturally, when the inquest testimony is read it’s conveniently assumed that Chandler was correct and no consideration is given to the possibility that he might have been mistaken. A simple mishearing or misremembering of ‘stood’ instead of ‘sat’ doesn’t fit the agenda does it? Even when it’s understood that the ‘interview’ hardly took place in the best of circumstances. And of course no one wants to consider the unimportance of the boot repair at the time of the ‘interview.’ Richardson had no requirement to mention it and all that Chandler was interested in was whether he could have missed seeing the body. And of course Richardson never got to give his response because he testified before Chandler. And even if Richardson deliberately didn’t mention the repair it’s hardly surprising that initially he might have been wary of mentioning that he had a knife on him so he only mentioned it when pressed later and someone suggested that he might have missed the body. Even then he could have come up with a better and far less potentially incriminating lie. He pushed the door back to the fence….he stood in the yard to check the cellar….he went to the outside loo….he had a smoke and walked into the yard…..he went to check the fences. The fact that he deliberately places himself at the scene with a knife points clearly and very obviously to him telling the truth.

I’ve never really heard anything like the efforts to denigrate Richardson. He’s as good a witness as any in the case and his testimony alone should be more than ample to prove a 5.25/5.39 ToD. Whether we’re concerned about whether the killer would have killed at that time or not. It’s not relevant. The evidence is relevant and the it clearly tells us that Chapman’s body wasn’t in that yard at around 4.10. Add another concerted attempt to denigrate Cadosch and Long and we are stretching reason, logic, evidence and probability way, way beyond breaking point.


The EVIDENCE doesn’t just tell us that Chapman was killed at 5.25/5.30 it absolutely screams it.


Enough with this desperate nonsense.

You mean the Unreliable, Ambiguous, Contradictory, Unsafe, Unsure, Unproven all over the shot Evidence ?

The only desperate act here is the one that on the above Evidence has one believing a later t.od is overwhelmingly in favour of an earlier one .

That fact that over the course of 4000 or so post , the above has been shown to to exist, and that clearly other alternative are equally plausible, its truly amazing that anyone would entertain such a narrow minded point of view.

Desperate nonsense indeed.

[FISHY1118]

That could be said of you when you keep propping up the later TOD, and to do so you rely on unsafe witness testimony versus a doctor's opinion as to an "estimated TOD"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If he could only see his doing the same thing his accusing others of doing .

Who knows one day it might change then ....

Maybe, just maybe we could have a normal debate without the usual belittling criticism that goes along with it .

I could be overwhelmingly wrong tho .

Or later in this case rather than earlier?