John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

1.Why do you STILL ignore the clearly and unanimous documented evidence from all of the world’s authorities on this subject of the reliability of witness testimonies?

So you respond with a question? When I mentioned your usual tactics I forgot this one.


2, Cadosch couldnt say where the 'NO' came from, or that it was that of Annie Chapman, or that it was the start of a murder . The thud he heard hit the fence cant be proven to have been Annie Chapman s body, his evidence tell us very little if the body was already there earlier . Cadoschs evidence in know way conclusively proves an later t.o.d ,it may be suggested as an opinion, not fact . Just as an earlier t.od. based on all the evidence is just as plausable when researched carefully.

You’ve never researched anything carefully. You believe the least believed, most mocked, most thoroughly discredited theory in ripperology so you hardly have grounds for boasting do you?

And perhaps you might explain to us what research you did into the Forensics?

Absolutely ridiculous.

He very clearly initially felt that the ‘no’ came from number 29 but was HONEST enough to admit that there was a slight possibility that it could have come from elsewhere. Being honest indicates…….you guessed it, honesty. So if he was a liar and just trying to push his lie he would have said “the ‘no’ came from number 29…no doubt.” So you are denigrating a witness because he proved himself honest. Brilliant!

After hearing the ‘no’ and believing that it came from number 29 Richardson was now alerted to their being someone in that yard. Expecting that it was nothing more than one of the occupants. So he was already primed. Then the provably honest Cadosch hears the noise and this time he has absolutely no doubt. A disconnected voice is difficult to pin down (especially a short sound) but a specific noise, made against a specific item isn’t. He was standing right next to the fence. Could he have been mistaken about this? Absolutely not. Did Cadosch have any reason to lie about the noise (especially after being honest about the ‘No?’) Absolutely not.

What you and Trevor are doing is saying - well Cadosch was an honest man when he admitted that he could have been mistaken about the ‘No.’ But he became a dishonest person when he heard the noise.

…….

And what else could the noise have been if the body was already there? Be serious for a change. No one could have innocently been in that yard while there was a steaming, mutilated corpse lying there. It wasn’t a blind man or an emu or drone or a ghost. It has to have been connected to the murder. Clearly everyone at the time believed that he’d heard the killer.

There can be absolutely no doubt at all that Cadosch heard the killer. To say otherwise just reeks of bias. Forget trying to get Grandfather Gull into the yard and read and study the evidence.

[Lewis C]

But those who propose a later time of death are using the witness testimony to back up that scenario.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Let's suppose that we could reject witness testimony on the grounds that it's unreliable. Doing so doesn't lead to the conclusion that the earlier TOD is more likely, rather, it leads to the conclusion that we have no idea whether the earlier TOD or later TOD is more likely.

[Lewis C]

2, Cadosch couldnt say where the 'NO' came from, or that it was that of Annie Chapman, or that it was the start of a murder . The thud he heard hit the fence cant be proven to have been Annie Chapman s body, his evidence tell us very little if the body was already there earlier . Cadoschs evidence in know way conclusively proves an later t.o.d ,it may be suggested as an opinion, not fact . Just as an earlier t.od. based on all the evidence is just as plausable when researched carefully.

I don't necessarily think that the thud that Cadosch heard was Chapman's body. I think it could just as easily have been her killer bumping the fence. But if it wasn't one of those 2 things, what's the next most likely possibility? It must be that someone else was in there at that time and never reported seeing the body, even though it's hard to see how they could have missed it.

Another bit of evidence that someone was in the yard after Richardson but before Davis is that Richardson said that he closed the front door when he left, but Davis said that when he got there, the front door was wide open.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let's suppose that we could reject witness testimony on the grounds that it's unreliable. Doing so doesn't lead to the conclusion that the earlier TOD is more likely, rather, it leads to the conclusion that we have no idea whether the earlier TOD or later TOD is more likely.

If we didn’t have a ToD estimation from Phillips no one would be questioning the witnesses Lewis. But because they have an estimation arrived at through unreliable methods, and they’ve watched a few episodes of Quincy, the witnesses are suddenly liars or morons.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't necessarily think that the thud that Cadosch heard was Chapman's body. I think it could just as easily have been her killer bumping the fence. But if it wasn't one of those 2 things, what's the next most likely possibility? It must be that someone else was in there at that time and never reported seeing the body, even though it's hard to see how they could have missed it.

I totally agree. The noise was more likely the killer brushing against the fence or perhaps he moved Annie’s arm out of the way and it fell against the fence. How can Cadosch be anything other than a strong witness that someone was in that yard around 5.25? And they can’t have been there innocently. How much clearer could it be yet there’s still a committed reluctance to accept this.

Another bit of evidence that someone was in the yard after Richardson but before Davis is that Richardson said that he closed the front door when he left, but Davis said that when he got there, the front door was wide open.

One of those little facts that tends to get brushed under the carpet Lewis.

.

I’m not claiming this as a fact Lewis but it’s a question I’ve asked many times and have yet to receive an answer. Can any other case in crime history be named where the three witnesses involved (none connected to each other in any way, none with any ulterior motive) all pointed to exactly the same conclusions but in different ways……..and they were all wrong or lying? What would be the chances of such a convergence of bad luck for those investigating the case?

[Elamarna]

Another bit of evidence that someone was in the yard after Richardson but before Davis is that Richardson said that he closed the front door when he left, but Davis said that when he got there, the front door was wide open.

Yes, the killer and Catherine are one very real possibility for being in the yard after Richardson left.

The killer leaving the front door open when he left, not only open , but swung back against the wall.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, the killer and Catherine are one very real possibility for being in the yard after Richardson left.

The killer leaving the front door open when he left, not only open , but swung back against the wall.

Steve

Although it’s not a cast-iron certainty Steve you’d expect a resident to have closed the door behind them. So it favours a non-resident leaving the premises sometime between just before 5 and just before 6. You would assume that the police would have checked the residents to see if any left for work during that time too.

[GBinOz]

Yes, the killer and Catherine are one very real possibility for being in the yard after Richardson left.

The killer leaving the front door open when he left, not only open , but swung back against the wall.

Steve

Hi Steve,

I have another possibility. Harriet Hardiman was a cats meat vendor and occupied the front ground floor room. James Hardiman was a street vendor of cats meat. It is market day and James turns up to collect a box of cats meat, and props the front door open because he knows he will be leaving with a large heavy box of meat that will require both hands to carry. Why didn't Harriet mention this at the inquest? People tend to not mention the usual or the ordinary. At Buck's Row witnesses in the houses said they didn't hear anything. Obviously there were sounds coming from the street - the footfalls of the beat cop and the two car men for instance. What they were really saying was that they didn't hear anything out of the ordinary.

Of course, Rob Hills postulates that James also killed Annie while he was there.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

“Things that go 'Bump' in the night, Really shouldn't give one a fright. It's the holes in the ears that let in the fear, that and the absence of light.”

I've had this experience, where it sounds like an intruder is lurking just outside, but on investigation there is no one there, and it's just the creak from the movement of objects due to temperature change.

So Mr Cadosch, what did you see that morning? Nothing your Honour.
And what did you hear? Nothing out of the ordinary your Honour.

Cadosch testify he heard the "No", "as I was going through the door". In all probability with the door closing behind him. He was also facing away from the source of the sound, which could have been from any of the occupants of the amphitheatre of residences, arising for work.

Nothing out of the ordinary.

[FISHY1118]

Absolutely ridiculous.

He very clearly initially felt that the ‘no’ came from number 29 but was HONEST enough to admit that there was a slight possibility that it could have come from elsewhere. Being honest indicates…….you guessed it, honesty. So if he was a liar and just trying to push his lie he would have said “the ‘no’ came from number 29…no doubt.” So you are denigrating a witness because he proved himself honest. Brilliant!

After hearing the ‘no’ and believing that it came from number 29 Richardson was now alerted to their being someone in that yard. Expecting that it was nothing more than one of the occupants. So he was already primed. Then the provably honest Cadosch hears the noise and this time he has absolutely no doubt. A disconnected voice is difficult to pin down (especially a short sound) but a specific noise, made against a specific item isn’t. He was standing right next to the fence. Could he have been mistaken about this? Absolutely not. Did Cadosch have any reason to lie about the noise (especially after being honest about the ‘No?’) Absolutely not.

What you and Trevor are doing is saying - well Cadosch was an honest man when he admitted that he could have been mistaken about the ‘No.’ But he became a dishonest person when he heard the noise.

…….

And what else could the noise have been if the body was already there? Be serious for a change. No one could have innocently been in that yard while there was a steaming, mutilated corpse lying there. It wasn’t a blind man or an emu or drone or a ghost. It has to have been connected to the murder. Clearly everyone at the time believed that he’d heard the killer.

There can be absolutely no doubt at all that Cadosch heard the killer. To say otherwise just reeks of bias. Forget trying to get Grandfather Gull into the yard and read and study the evidence.

I think we can dispense with the Cadosch " NO" argument with you herlock ,its been explained to you that many times and your reluctant to accept other possibilities such as George has put forward is mind-boggling to say they least .

The witnesses have been shown to be unreliable ambiguious and unsafe when determining an accurate t.od .

Jump up and down all you like, throw your toys out of the cot , but you can't escape this fact.

Again just for you . Due to the nature of the all the inquest testimony when assessing an an earlier or later t.od, it cannot be determined one way or the other.

Your comment that Cadosch " absolutely no doubt heard the killer"" is just stupid and lacks any factual evidence to back it up ,only your one eyed bias opinion .

You really need to take a good look at yourself with ridiculous comments like that Herlock , seriously.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think we can dispense with the Cadosch " NO" argument with you herlock ,its been explained to you that many times and your reluctant to accept other possibilities such as George has put forward is mind-boggling to say they least .

The witnesses have been shown to be unreliable ambiguious and unsafe when determining an accurate t.od .

Jump up and down all you like, throw your toys out of the cot , but you can't escape this fact.

Again just for you . Due to the nature of the all the inquest testimony when assessing an an earlier or later t.od, it cannot be determined one way or the other.

Your comment that Cadosch " absolutely no doubt heard the killer"" is just stupid and lacks any factual evidence to back it up ,only your one eyed bias opinion .

You really need to take a good look at yourself with ridiculous comments like that Herlock , seriously.

It’s late. I’ll pull this nonsense to pieces in the morning. Awful stuff.

[FISHY1118]

Gee ,I can hardly wait for the response(if at all any is forthcoming, as you seem to ignore George's post ) to #4269 from you herlock.

[Trevor Marriott]

Let's suppose that we could reject witness testimony on the grounds that it's unreliable. Doing so doesn't lead to the conclusion that the earlier TOD is more likely, rather, it leads to the conclusion that we have no idea whether the earlier TOD or later TOD is more likely.

Then you have to rely on the doctor's estimated TOD and I would bet that estimated TOD would not be scrutinised as the one he gives now.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

It’s late. I’ll pull this nonsense to pieces in the morning. Awful stuff.

You can "pull" all you like, you'll still wont change the inquest testimony that can't determine accurate t.o.d

What's ""awful"" is your cadosch statement.Ive never heard such blind thinking.

[FISHY1118]

Absolutely ridiculous.

He very clearly initially felt that the ‘no’ came from number 29 but was HONEST enough to admit that there was a slight possibility that it could have come from elsewhere. Being honest indicates…….you guessed it, honesty. So if he was a liar and just trying to push his lie he would have said “the ‘no’ came from number 29…no doubt.” So you are denigrating a witness because he proved himself honest. Brilliant!

After hearing the ‘no’ and believing that it came from number 29 Richardson was now alerted to their being someone in that yard. Expecting that it was nothing more than one of the occupants. So he was already primed. Then the provably honest Cadosch hears the noise and this time he has absolutely no doubt. A disconnected voice is difficult to pin down (especially a short sound) but a specific noise, made against a specific item isn’t. He was standing right next to the fence. Could he have been mistaken about this? Absolutely not. Did Cadosch have any reason to lie about the noise (especially after being honest about the ‘No?’) Absolutely not.

What you and Trevor are doing is saying - well Cadosch was an honest man when he admitted that he could have been mistaken about the ‘No.’ But he became a dishonest person when he heard the noise.

…….

And what else could the noise have been if the body was already there? Be serious for a change. No one could have innocently been in that yard while there was a steaming, mutilated corpse lying there. It wasn’t a blind man or an emu or drone or a ghost. It has to have been connected to the murder. Clearly everyone at the time believed that he’d heard the killer.

There can be absolutely no doubt at all that Cadosch heard the killer. To say otherwise just reeks of bias. Forget trying to get Grandfather Gull into the yard and read and study the evidence.

Whos calling Cadosch a liar? What's his honesty got to do with his testimony that he was uncertain which side the No came from? By his own admission he was "unsure", for goodness sake its right there in black and white herlock. Your argument concerning the Cadosch "no" would get chucked out so fast in a court of law they be laughing at you on the way out for even tying to pull that nonsense.

"Oh sorry judge but he must be right, his an honest guy" .... gimmi a break .

Your getting honesty confused with witness uncertainty and ambiguity.