John Richardson

[JeffHamm]

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.

Hi Fishy,

Can you show documented inquest testimony that proves Long didn't see Annie? She testifies that she did, she says she is sure of that, so don't you have to show inquest testimony that proves she didn't? Or does this only apply to Dr. Phillips? Given you dismiss Cadosche, you can't use him after all because you think he's wrong, and all he did was hear things, he doesn't specifically say he saw Annie after all.

I know witnesses can be wrong, but I also know that ToD estimations are not as accurate as you seem to think they are. Sure, sometimes they are, but so what? Nobody is claiming they are always off by a certain amount, rather than we can never know if the estimate is bang on or out by as much as 3 hours in either direction (by modern techniques at least). Why should we apply what we know about witness accuracy but not what we know about ToD accuracy when looking at the inquest testimony?

As I've said, when we do apply all of the appropriate margins of error, the most robust theory is a ToD around 5:20-5:25. That isn't to say it must be true, and I want to be clear on that, only that of all the explanations we have that is the best one, and the others are therefore much less good fits to the information. That allows us to conclude that, given what we know, the most probable ToD is 5:20-5:25, even though it is not the only possible time.

So there's nothing stopping you from betting on the less probable theory. But it is not equally likely, the evidence/information we have makes the later ToD the more likely option as it doesn't conflict with anything we know. The removal of the witnesses tends to be based upon arguments about our beliefs, but those beliefs are based upon our own subjective ideas of how likely someone is to do something, such as how some argue it seems more likely that Richardson would lie about fixing his boot than it was for him to actually have fixed his boot. But in the end, we have his testimony, nothing about it can be shown to be false objectively, and we also know the police checked him out without finding anything to raise their suspicions. As such, our personal beliefs about whether or not Richardson may or may not tell such a lie are irrelevant, as we cannot show his testimony is false, and moreover, given the error margins we have to consider, it does not conflict with Dr. Phillips' estimate. Same with Long, and same with Cadosche. Combined, they all tell a story with no actual conflict, once the evidence is properly viewed with appropriate error margins. Moreover, we can even be wrong about any of them, and still end up with a ToD after 5:00. It would require all of them to be wrong, despite their errors serendipitously creating a consistent and coherent story, before we get to the point where a ToD before 5:00 becomes possible to consider. That number of errors, while not impossible, is simply a long shot, making a pre-5:00 ToD far less probable.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

Can you show documented inquest testimony that proves Long didn't see Annie? She testifies that she did, she says she is sure of that, so don't you have to show inquest testimony that proves she didn't? Or does this only apply to Dr. Phillips? Given you dismiss Cadosche, you can't use him after all because you think he's wrong, and all he did was hear things, he doesn't specifically say he saw Annie after all.

I know witnesses can be wrong, but I also know that ToD estimations are not as accurate as you seem to think they are. Sure, sometimes they are, but so what? Nobody is claiming they are always off by a certain amount, rather than we can never know if the estimate is bang on or out by as much as 3 hours in either direction (by modern techniques at least). Why should we apply what we know about witness accuracy but not what we know about ToD accuracy when looking at the inquest testimony?

As I've said, when we do apply all of the appropriate margins of error, the most robust theory is a ToD around 5:20-5:25. That isn't to say it must be true, and I want to be clear on that, only that of all the explanations we have that is the best one, and the others are therefore much less good fits to the information. That allows us to conclude that, given what we know, the most probable ToD is 5:20-5:25, even though it is not the only possible time.

So there's nothing stopping you from betting on the less probable theory. But it is not equally likely, the evidence/information we have makes the later ToD the more likely option as it doesn't conflict with anything we know. The removal of the witnesses tends to be based upon arguments about our beliefs, but those beliefs are based upon our own subjective ideas of how likely someone is to do something, such as how some argue it seems more likely that Richardson would lie about fixing his boot than it was for him to actually have fixed his boot. But in the end, we have his testimony, nothing about it can be shown to be false objectively, and we also know the police checked him out without finding anything to raise their suspicions. As such, our personal beliefs about whether or not Richardson may or may not tell such a lie are irrelevant, as we cannot show his testimony is false, and moreover, given the error margins we have to consider, it does not conflict with Dr. Phillips' estimate. Same with Long, and same with Cadosche. Combined, they all tell a story with no actual conflict, once the evidence is properly viewed with appropriate error margins. Moreover, we can even be wrong about any of them, and still end up with a ToD after 5:00. It would require all of them to be wrong, despite their errors serendipitously creating a consistent and coherent story, before we get to the point where a ToD before 5:00 becomes possible to consider. That number of errors, while not impossible, is simply a long shot, making a pre-5:00 ToD far less probable.

- Jeff

My point all along and will always be Jeff, is the inquest testimony evidence in the Chapman murder in no way favours a later t.o.d than an earlier one .

Now as I've also repeated many times as others have also done due to the very nature of the uncertainty and all facets of witness testimony . This is my opinion .

Many have pleaded their case for both, but either one can't be proven better than the other as far as I see over the course of this tooic.

Forgive me but I'm gettin bored with repeating over and over whats already been shown to be the possibility Of my particular stance for earlier that which has already been shown not just by me but others also and discussed fully over the course of this thread .

I've accepted others favour the 5.30 t.o.d
Thats their choice [ based on the same evidence mind you] .

Its when some posters think that ,that evidence means what they want it to mean above all others ,well I have a problem with that and will point that out in a post when I see it .

For me its not so much discussing the Chapman case anymore as it been done to death, as I said with both sides of arguement over 4200 post theres never going to be a decisive accurate outcome unless more unseen evidence turns up .

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

As ever you avoid detail and specifics. The same old ‘it’s been shown…’ it’s because your clearly unable, for whatever reason, to put a logical argument together so you constantly resort to generalities.

Anyone that says that the evidence points overwhelmingly to an earlier ToD is just not worth listening to. A doctors estimate that was not far from a guess versus three corroborating witnesses. Maybe on Planet Fishy this makes an earlier ToD likely but in the real world it doesn’t. I realise that an earlier ToD is better for the fantasy Knight/Sickert/Gull nonsense though.

On Dr. Phillips, I and others have used the knowledge and experience of the worlds experts in Forensics. These experts explain in very clear, very simple to understand language why a Victorian Doctors ToD estimation cannot be completely relied upon and why the methods that they used where unreliable. Could you explain to those reading this what qualifies you to contradicts those authorities?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

It’s impossible to have a normal debate with you Fishy. There’s no ‘could be overwhelmingly wrong’ about it. You are overwhelmingly wrong when you say that the evidence favours an earlier ToD. Why don’t you send an email to the companies that produce the standard textbooks on Forensic medicine and explain to them why they don’t know what they’re talking about? It would be interesting to here how you convince them of your viewpoint.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Jeff, will no doubt respond to this too….if he hasn’t lost the will to live.

My point all along and will always be Jeff, is the inquest testimony evidence in the Chapman murder in no way favours a later t.o.d than an earlier one .

Totally ignoring Jeff’s patient, reasoned and very, very clear explanation about Phillips unreliability versus three witnesses.

Now as I've also repeated many times as others have also done due to the very nature of the uncertainty and all facets of witness testimony . This is my opinion .

And the only ‘uncertainty’ that you recognise are imaginary ones in regard to the witnesses. You never accept the proven uncertainty and unreliability of the Doctor. This shows that you are simply trying to confirm your own bias.

Many have pleaded their case for both, but either one can't be proven better than the other as far as I see over the course of this tooic.

You can see it. But it suits you to ignore them.

Forgive me but I'm gettin bored with repeating over and over whats already been shown to be the possibility Of my particular stance for earlier that which has already been shown not just by me but others also and discussed fully over the course of this thread .

Not by you at all. You simp,y say that you agree without contributing any actual reasoning.

I've accepted others favour the 5.30 t.o.d
Thats their choice [ based on the same evidence mind you] .

Yes. Those that state that the evidence favours a later ToD can assess evidence in an unbiased manner.

Its when some posters think that ,that evidence means what they want it to mean above all others ,well I have a problem with that and will point that out in a post when I see it .

You want an earlier ToD because you need Sickert and Gull hauling her corpse across the pavement which would be slightly less unlikely in complete darkness. (If anything could be less likely of course)

For me its not so much discussing the Chapman case anymore as it been done to death, as I said with both sides of arguement over 4200 post theres never going to be a decisive accurate outcome unless more unseen evidence turns up .

You’ve completely ignored Jeff’s patient, perfectly well reasoned post because it doesn’t conform to your bias. We should look at things fairly. So….no….it’s not close…..it’s not a 50-50 decision……and it certainly doesn’t favour an earlier ToD. The evidence points overwhelmingly to a later ToD. If you choose to close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and stamp your feet it’s up to you if course. You’re simply wrong.

[Trevor Marriott]

It’s impossible to have a normal debate with you Fishy. There’s no ‘could be overwhelmingly wrong’ about it. You are overwhelmingly wrong when you say that the evidence favours an earlier ToD. Why don’t you send an email to the companies that produce the standard textbooks on Forensic medicine and explain to them why they don’t know what they’re talking about? It would be interesting to here how you convince them of your viewpoint.

But you keep being told that the witness testimony of the three witnesses is unsafe. I have explained the issues with Mrs Long's testimony and her identification of Chapman in the street and more importantly in the mortuary it is simply not reliable. Cadosh hears a bang and a muffled voice which he says came from 29 but it could have come from anywhere at that time of the morning sound carries.

I accept that the doctors estimated TOD is unreliable for the reasons stated but when weighing up the evidence for an earlier TOD against a later TOD. I suggest ghat the balance of probability lies firmly with an earlier TOD.

As to Richardson, the police should have taken him back to 29 for him to show them exactly what he did where he sat and the angle of the door,

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

But you keep being told that the witness testimony of the three witnesses is unsafe. I have explained the issues with Mrs Long's testimony and her identification of Chapman in the street and more importantly in the mortuary it is simply not reliable. Cadosh hears a bang and a muffled voice which he says came from 29 but it could have come from anywhere at that time of the morning sound carries.

I accept that the doctors estimated TOD is unreliable for the reasons stated but when weighing up the evidence for an earlier TOD against a later TOD. I suggest ghat the balance of probability lies firmly with an earlier TOD.

As to Richardson, the police should have taken him back to 29 for him to show them exactly what he did where he sat and the angle of the door,

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well said Trevor. On your last point, there was a newspaper article that stated that, after Richardson's testimony, the police responded to a request by Phillips and determined that the door would have obstructed Richardson's view of the body. My suggestion that they might have employed the re-enactment that you describe was met with howls of derision. But I'm sure you're used to that by now.

Cheers, George

[Michael W Richards]

You’ve completely ignored Jeff’s patient, perfectly well reasoned post because it doesn’t conform to your bias. We should look at things fairly. So….no….it’s not close…..it’s not a 50-50 decision……and it certainly doesn’t favour an earlier ToD. The evidence points overwhelmingly to a later ToD. If you choose to close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and stamp your feet it’s up to you if course. You’re simply wrong.

It seems you have the definitive truths we all sadly cannot comprehend. Not saying I dont agree that an approximate TOD is, based on the witnesses, around 5:30, just saying you lecturing everyone about what you think is "wrong" isnt productive or welcome. Or, in most cases, accurate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But you keep being told that the witness testimony of the three witnesses is unsafe.

And you can say it numerous times more. I don’t agree with you. Point me to a witness in this case that’s perfect (ie that you wouldn’t dismiss?) There is no subtlety with your approach, no looking at the whole picture, it’s just black and white….and minor, trivial discrepancy and it’s ‘out they go.’

I have explained the issues with Mrs Long's testimony and her identification of Chapman in the street and more importantly in the mortuary it is simply not reliable.

I wish that you’d choose a different word. Where you say ‘unreliable’ Id say ‘imperfect.’ No witnesses are perfect.

Tell me why she couldn’t have been right. No waffling….what makes her ID of Long impossible or unlikely?

Cadosh hears a bang and a muffled voice which he says came from 29 but it could have come from anywhere at that time of the morning sound carries.

You appear incapable or unwilling to assess. He admitted to not be certain about the ‘No.’ That’s called honesty. That’s not a man trying to invent a story or he’d have dug his heels in and said that the ‘no’ must have come from the yard. But when it came to the noise he was absolutely certain it came from number 29. Possibly because as he initially thought that the ‘no’ came from number 29 he was already alerted to someone being there. So he had NO DOUBT that the noise came from the yard. There is absolutely nothing to suggest error or lies but you can’t just approach this fairly can you?

I accept that the doctors estimated TOD is unreliable for the reasons stated but when weighing up the evidence for an earlier TOD against a later TOD. I suggest ghat the balance of probability lies firmly with an earlier TOD.

Simply staggering! Unbelievable! Remarkable! Three witnesses ignored for a guess from a Victorian Doctor. As an ex-copper you should be ashamed of that opinion Trevor.

As to Richardson, the police should have taken him back to 29 for him to show them exactly what he did where he sat and the angle of the door,

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Three good witness, no reason to suggest dishonesty, no reason to suggest imbecility, no reason to suggest hallucination, no reason to suggest lying……but let’s bin them because they don’t fit our preconception.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It seems you have the definitive truths we all sadly cannot comprehend. Not saying I dont agree that an approximate TOD is, based on the witnesses, around 5:30, just saying you lecturing everyone about what you think is "wrong" isnt productive or welcome. Or, in most cases, accurate.

What isn’t productive is the blatant ignoring of the world authorities in Forensic Medicine. What qualifies any of us on here to say “ hold on ,I think you’ve got that wrong,” to someone writing in the standard textbook on the subject. We can debate interpretations of any aspect of the case and never agree (as we’ve found) but we shouldn’t dispute something when it disagrees with every single expert. That Dr. Phillips was using unreliable methods is simply a fact. And as Jeff has pointed out 5.20-5.30 is still within accepted range. All that said people still bend over backwards to discredit witnesses.

[GBinOz]

And as Jeff has pointed out 5.20-5.30 is still within accepted range.

Now then Herlock. If you are to be fair, Jeff also acknowledged that the earlier ToD is also within accepted range.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Now then Herlock. If you are to be fair, Jeff also acknowledged that the earlier ToD is also within accepted range.

Perfectly true George, I should have added that.

[Trevor Marriott]

Three good witness, no reason to suggest dishonesty, no reason to suggest imbecility, no reason to suggest hallucination, no reason to suggest lying……but let’s bin them because they don’t fit our preconception.

I am not ashamed of anything I have posted. The posts relate to careful and detailed examination of the original witness statements and as a result, I firmly believe they are unsafe to completely rely on to prove a specific time of death but in view of the unsafe statements in which the testimony of those was never fully tested as to its accuracy and what makes them unsafe I have to side with the Doctor who despite claims made by you and others does not specify a specific time of death but does suggest death could have occurred with a time frame which given all the other factors connected to the series of murders was an early TOD

You need to stop accepting witness statements as being the gospel because we know some sought their 15 minutes of fame and what they say may not be the truth or simply an exaggeration of what they did see.

For far too long now researchers have placed too much importance to the descriptions of persons allegedly seen with Stride Nichols,and also with Catherine Eddowes. To put these descriptions in the right perspective and to judge if they can be relied upon as being accurate we have to look at the current UK law regarding witness identification. The stated case I will refer to is R v. Turnbull 1976; from this case, certain identification guidelines were then adopted. A mnemonic used to remember the various points is ADVOKATE:

Amount of time under observation: How long did the witness have the person/incident in view?

Distance: What was the distance between the witness and the person/incident?

Visibility: What was the visibility at the time? Factors include the time of day/night, street lighting, etc.

Obstruction: Were there any obstructions to the view of the witness?

Known or seen before: Did the witness know, or had the witness ever seen, the person before? If so where and when?

Any reason to remember: Did the witness have any special reason for remembering the person/incident? Was there something specific that made the person/incident memorable?

Time-lapse: How long has elapsed since the witness saw the person/incident?

Error discrepancy: Are there any errors or material discrepancies between descriptions in the first and subsequent accounts of the witness?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am not ashamed of anything I have posted. The posts relate to careful and detailed examination of the original witness statements and as a result, I firmly believe they are unsafe to completely rely on to prove a specific time of death but in view of the unsafe statements in which the testimony of those was never fully tested as to its accuracy and what makes them unsafe I have to side with the Doctor who despite claims made by you and others does not specify a specific time of death but does suggest death could have occurred with a time frame which given all the other factors connected to the series of murders was an early TOD

Thats just waffle Trevor. You’re not the only one that’s examined the evidence in detail btw. What are the chances of the three witnesses in the case all being wrong?

You need to stop accepting witness statements as being the gospel because we know some sought their 15 minutes of fame and what they say may not be the truth or simply an exaggeration of what they did see.

More white noise. You need to stop dismissing witnesses on the basis of utter trivialities. All that you do is that you find a witness that you don’t like for whatever reason, find an insignificant discrepancy, and then yell that he should be dismissed.

For far too long now researchers have placed too much importance to the descriptions of persons allegedly seen with Stride Nichols,and also with Catherine Eddowes. To put these descriptions in the right perspective and to judge if they can be relied upon as being accurate we have to look at the current UK law regarding witness identification. The stated case I will refer to is R v. Turnbull 1976; from this case, certain identification guidelines were then adopted. A mnemonic used to remember the various points is ADVOKATE:

How does this apply to Richardson? Let’s try it..

Amount of time under observation: How long did the witness have the person/incident in view?

Unsure….a couple of minutes maybe. More than ample time.

Distance: What was the distance between the witness and the person/incident?

About a foot…….no problem there.

Visibility: What was the visibility at the time? Factors include the time of day/night, street lighting, etc.

Getting light, body only a foot away. Light wasn’t an issue.

Obstruction: Were there any obstructions to the view of the witness?

No. Richardson was fully aware of the door and knew that it wasn’t blocking a body because he could see all of the yard.

Known or seen before: Did the witness know, or had the witness ever seen, the person before? If so where and when?

Not relevant.

Any reason to remember: Did the witness have any special reason for remembering the person/incident? Was there something specific that made the person/incident memorable?

Not relevant.

Time-lapse: How long has elapsed since the witness saw the person/incident?

Less than 2 hours?

Error discrepancy: Are there any errors or material discrepancies between descriptions in the first and subsequent accounts of the witness?

No, apart from one point in Chandler’s state but we can’t know if Chandler was simply mistaken. Either way it was trivial.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Unless you’re demanding perfection in every witness that you don’t like there’s nothing wrong with Richardson…ditto Cadosch.

Long might have been wrong, anyone can be wrong, but I think it’s very unlikely that she just happened to see a woman that looked just like Chapman, with a man, just outside the right address at just the right time.

Three witnesses beat a Victorian Doctors estimation by any reasonable judgment.

[Michael W Richards]

Unless you’re demanding perfection in every witness that you don’t like there’s nothing wrong with Richardson…ditto Cadosch.

Long might have been wrong, anyone can be wrong, but I think it’s very unlikely that she just happened to see a woman that looked just like Chapman, with a man, just outside the right address at just the right time.

Three witnesses beat a Victorian Doctors estimation by any reasonable judgment.

Interesting that you suggest 3 bystander witnesses outweigh a professional opinion, after suggesting on another thread that 3 corroborative bystander witnesses are outweighed by one non-verified witness account statement.

In any case I agree with the statement that suggests there is nothing objectionable about either Richardson or Cadosches accounts, but with Mrs Long claiming her sighting was at 5:30 it would seem almost certainly that she was indeed wrong. Even though she insisted, (just like other witnesses at other murder sites....), that she was certain of the time. Well, Someone was in that very yard at around 4:45 and saw no-one, then at 5:15am someone adjacent to the yard heard a human say something from that yard, then another sound from that same yard 5-10 minutes later, and when leaving the house at 5:32 Cadosche did not see Mrs Long. Since the body is found approximately between 5:45 and 5:55, and unless someone abruptly left the yard when Cadosche went inside after hearing the second noise and suddenly someone new came into it, the woman found in the yard was probably the woman who cried "no" at around 5:15. The injuries inflicted on her would take a bit of time. And since there is discussion as to what time she was killed, it would seem there are 2 possible answers...if she WAS killed earlier, then she was killed elsewhere and brought there. And if she was the voice that called "no", thats the probable murder time.

The deciding factor might be the arterial spray on the fence that Cadosche heard the voice over, and the later thud from.