John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

You must be kidding right ? how you manage to wriggle out of that one it Houdini like , the Daily Telegraph ''quotes'' the Coroner and the Foreman , the other newspapaers do not . So in your world the daily telegraph just made the conversation up between the coroner and cadoach up just for the hell of it ?

Well done for trying to dismiss inquest testimony to suit you theory


Let me fix this quote for you as you have a habit of getting things mixed up ''it came from number 29 but I don’t know where it came from???''[Wrong ]


[ Correct] I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should ''think ''it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, ''cannot say ''on which side it came from.

Big difference.

The Times is no less a source than The Telegraph. Newspaper reports often contain errors or examples of a reporter mishearing so he could have meant that he didn’t know which are of the yard (number 29) it came from. The fact that the doubt isn’t mentioned elsewhere has to be considered and not dismissed.

Why is he saying “I cannot say what side it came from,” just after he’d actually told them what side he thought that it came from? Why didn’t he say “I think it came from number 29 but I can’t be sure?”

But that aside, it still begs the question that you’ve never given an answer to. Why is it logical, when a person gives two pieces of information and he’s not totally confident of one but it totally confident of the other, is it right to dismiss both? This is exactly what you are doing. And you’re not doing it based on reason you are doing it because you are desperately trying to prop up an earlier ToD and failing miserably.

[FISHY1118]

The Times is no less a source than The Telegraph. Newspaper reports often contain errors or examples of a reporter mishearing so he could have meant that he didn’t know which side of the yard it came from. The fact that the doubt isn’t mentioned elsewhere has to be considered and not dismissed.

But that aside, it still begs the question that you’ve never given an answer to. Why is it logical, when a person gives two pieces of information and he’s not totally confident of one but it totally confident of the other, is it right to dismiss both? This is exactly what you are doing. And you’re not doing it based on reason you are doing it because you are desperately trying to prop up an earlier ToD and failing miserably.

Well great lets all use the line that its ''all possibly due to errors'' on someones behalf to push a agenda or theory.

Except the Daily Telegraph has Cadoschs testmony when addressing the Coroner and the foreman of the jury and the others do not , in fact read the other five again , there all over the shot with their reporting of what cadosch said and did .

Please dont talk about logic Herlock , we will be here till doomsday if thats be the case with you . Btw im not dismissing anything i just interpret it differently as the evidence implies it so . The evidence when considered wholely and without obvious bias allowes for an eariler t.o .d. Its you that has failed to miserably to even acknowledge it .

[GBinOz]

In The Telegraph:

‘Albert Cadosch [Cadoche] deposed: I live at 27, Hanbury-street, and am a carpenter. 27 is next door to 29, Hanbury-street. On Saturday, Sept. 8, I got up about a quarter past five in the morning, and went into the yard. It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from. I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards. While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.’


This doesn’t make sense. He says “I should think it came from the yard of number 29,” then in the same sentence he says “I, however, cannot say on which side it came from.” Basically, according to the wording he said ‘I think it came from number 29 but I can’t say where it came from.’ Is this just an example of the journalist mis-hearing or misunderstanding what was said? Do we believe that he was talking gibberish or could Cadosch have just said ‘it came from number 29 however I don’t know which end of that yard?’

Hi Herlock,

It makes perfect sense when the complete quote is examined:

It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from.

You will recall that in one of the Stride threads you were adamant that the Victorian phrase "I should think" meant the person was guessing or estimating. So in the above quote Cadosch is saying I'm sure it didn't come from our yard, and I'm guessing that it might have come from the No 29 side, but I can't really say which side it came from. He wasn't talking about ends, he was talking about sides.

Of the six reports of the inquest, five were in the narrative form and only The Telegraph reported the actual questions and answers, which is less open to reporter interpretation than the narrative.

And you will note that Casebook always uses The Telegraph's reports of inquests.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well great lets all use the line that its ''all possibly due to errors'' on someones behalf to push a agenda or theory.

Except the Daily Telegraph has Cadoschs testmony when addressing the Coroner and the foreman of the jury and the others do not , in fact read the other five again , there all over the shot with their reporting of what cadosch said and did .

Please dont talk about logic Herlock , we will be here till doomsday if thats be the case with you . Btw im not dismissing anything i just interpret it differently as the evidence implies it so . The evidence when considered wholely and without obvious bias allowes for an eariler t.o .d. Its you that has failed to miserably to even acknowledge it .

The evidence massively favours a later ToD. To say otherwise is just nonsense.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

It makes perfect sense when the complete quote is examined:

It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from.

You will recall that in one of the Stride threads you were adamant that the Victorian phrase "I should think" meant the person was guessing or estimating. So in the above quote Cadosch is saying I'm sure it didn't come from our yard, and I'm guessing that it might have come from the No 29 side, but I can't really say which side it came from. He wasn't talking about ends, he was talking about sides.

Of the six reports of the inquest, five were in the narrative form and only The Telegraph reported the actual questions and answers, which is less open to reporter interpretation than the narrative.

And you will note that Casebook always uses The Telegraph's reports of inquests.

Cheers, George

And Evan’s and Skinner use The Times George.

“It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from.“

That doesn’t make sense. He can’t say where he thinks it came from and yet he’s just told them where he thinks it came from.

Do you prescribe to the opinions of Fishy and Trevor that if a witness gives 2 pieces of information, one of which he’s not 100% certain of…one of which he’s certain of….that we should dismiss the one that he’s certain of on the basis that he wasn’t certain of the other? Please tell me that you don’t think that this makes sense George.

[Lewis C]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But if we're going to dismiss the witness testimony on the grounds that it's not completely reliable, then why wouldn't we also dismiss the doctor's estimated TOD, which is even less reliable?

[Trevor Marriott]

But if we're going to dismiss the witness testimony on the grounds that it's not completely reliable, then why wouldn't we also dismiss the doctor's estimated TOD, which is even less reliable?

I have never suggested dismissing the witness testimony I have stated many times that it is unsafe to totally rely on and the reasons why it is unsafe.

As we are never going to get a TOD to satisfy all parties, my own personal opinion for an early TOD is based on the balance of probability having assessed and evaluated all the evidence for not only this murder but all the others.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But if we're going to dismiss the witness testimony on the grounds that it's not completely reliable, then why wouldn't we also dismiss the doctor's estimated TOD, which is even less reliable?

It called bias Lewis. It’s a position that’s indefensible. I think it’s a sad state of affairs.

[GBinOz]

Do you prescribe to the opinions of Fishy and Trevor that if a witness gives 2 pieces of information, one of which he’s not 100% certain of…one of which he’s certain of….that we should dismiss the one that he’s certain of on the basis that he wasn’t certain of the other? Please tell me that you don’t think that this makes sense George.

The way you have phrased the question isn't what is happening here. Cadosch is saying that he is sure the "no" didn't come from his yard, it might have come from the No 29 side but he couldn't be sure which side it came from. I can accept both his statements, with the qualification that in that enclosed area, with his back turned, echoes could have enabled it to come from anywhere.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The way you have phrased the question isn't what is happening here. Cadosch is saying that he is sure the "no" didn't come from his yard, it might have come from the No 29 side but he couldn't be sure which side it came from. I can accept both his statements, with the qualification that in that enclosed area, with his back turned, echoes could have enabled it to come from anywhere.

I don’t have an issue with Cadosch displaying a measure of caution when pressed George, even though I’d suggest that with something so close at hand his first instinct was more likely to have been correct (when any of us are fairly convinced of something we might still be induced to admit the possibility of error - I can only see this as a strength in his testimony, it’s a sign of honesty; not a sign of someone determined to push a story no matter what). But the fact is that he displayed no such caution about the noise so evidently he had no doubts about this. He would have been standing a very few feet from the fence and, after hearing the ‘no,’ was already alerted to the fact that someone was in the yard of number 29. I see no possibility of him being mistaken or of lying.

[FISHY1118]

The evidence massively favours a later ToD. To say otherwise is just nonsense.

I disagree. The same inquest testimony evidence when studied carefully, could quite possibly and just as likely have led to an earlier TOD.

To dismiss it as such is reckless and senseless imo when one chooses to study the Chapman case in its entirety.

4300 post are testament to that so far.

[JeffHamm]

And Evan’s and Skinner use The Times George.

“It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from.“

That doesn’t make sense. He can’t say where he thinks it came from and yet he’s just told them where he thinks it came from.

Do you prescribe to the opinions of Fishy and Trevor that if a witness gives 2 pieces of information, one of which he’s not 100% certain of…one of which he’s certain of….that we should dismiss the one that he’s certain of on the basis that he wasn’t certain of the other? Please tell me that you don’t think that this makes sense George.

It is unfortunately an ambiguous statement, which hinges on what one assumes Cadosche was referring to in the "which side" from the 2nd part.:

It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from.

If he means he cannot be sure of which side of him (i.e. from the backyard of #29, or the house to the other side of him), then he's re-affirming that his "I should think" phrase is an indication that he's not sure it came from No. 29.

On the other hand, if he means he's not sure of which side of the yard of No. 29 it came from (so not sure if the people talking were up against the fence, or somewhere else in the yard), then he's indicating that his "I should think" is being used in a more confident way with respect to the conversation being in the backyard of #29. With regards to the crime, it is less important where in the backyard of #29 the conversation was being held so long as it was in the backyard of #29.

Without us being able to question him, we cannot assert that he is either sure or unsure that the conversation was from #29 (well we can, but we would be wrong to do so). As such, it would be an error to conclude the voices must have come from #29, and it would also be an error to conclude the voices did not.

Note, however, there is no ambiguity with regards to the noise against the fence.

There are some who make the mistake of arguing that because a witness statement is unclear, and therefore might be wrong, that the witness must therefore be wrong and so their statement dismissed. That is just as much of an error as assuming the witness must be correct.

Often the information is unclear, and we have to examine all of the statements, and the various combinations (what if I include Cadoshe, what if I exclude him? What if I include Long, or exclude her? What if I include/exclude Richardson? What if I include/exclude Dr. Phillips? What about excluding any two of those? What about excluding 3 of them?). (note, when I say exclude here I mean that their testimony is not informative as to the crime ; ie. Long did not see Annie, though she may have seen someone; Cadosche did hear conversation and noises, but they are unrelated to the crime - so the conversation was not from #29, and the noise against the fence was something other than JtR brushing up against it, etc).

When we do that, the only pattern that results in a possible ToD at or before 4:30 am is the one pattern that excludes Richardson, Long, and Cadosche, leaving us only Dr. Phillips.

And the thing is, when we are left only with Dr. Phillips we still cannot conclude that the ToD must have been at or before 4:30 because estimates of ToD are not that accurate, we are left with evidence that allows for the ToD to be between 1:30 am and 7:30 am (but of course, Davies, at witness, statement that he discovered the body close to 6:00 am rules out some of that time window).

If any of the witness statements are accurate, then the ToD cannot have been at or prior to 4:30 am.

And while it is not definitive, it does mean that on the balance of probabilities, a ToD around 5:20-5:25 (or at least after 5:00), is far more likely than a ToD prior at or prior to 4:30, but it is not proven as a certainty.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

I disagree. The same inquest testimony evidence when studied carefully, could quite possibly and just as likely have led to an earlier TOD.

To dismiss it as such is reckless and senseless imo when one chooses to study the Chapman case in its entirety.

4300 post are testament to that so far.

How???

A Doctor using unreliable methods with 19th century knowledge. Yes of course a 19th century Doctor ‘could’ have been right or he ‘could’ have been wrong but this is no help to us. And as Jeff had pointed out a ToD of 5.30 is still within an acceptable range. And even if it wasn’t ‘in range’ how can it be suggested that a Doctor of that era couldn’t have been 50 minutes out on his lower estimate? Phillips just doesn’t help. This isn’t my opinion Fishy. This isn’t an interpretation that might or might not be correct. This is in line of what the authorities tell us in every singly published work without fail. How can they all be wrong?

So who is right? The worlds authorities or a few posters on here who just take the attitude “well he was a competent experienced Doctor so we should assume that he was spot on.” How does that stand up to scrutiny? Medical knowledge advances with time. This was 135 years ago. Doctors still thought ‘bleeding’ patients was a good idea. Doctors at the time even disagreed with each other on issues concerning ToD estimation.

Then three witnesses….totally unconnected….all pointing in three different ways to a later ToD. The chances of them all being wrong are minute.

……

I like a scenario so here’s one:

A woman is found dead in her flat. The Doctor estimates that she died between 10.00 and 12.00 but admitted that there was a level of margin for error required.

At 12.10 a neighbour saw her get out of the lift and walk toward the door of her flat. She didn’t know her but she’d seen her around.

At 12.20 a woman in the house opposite says that she saw a woman standing at the window of the victims flat smoking a cigarette. She saw a photo of the woman and was sure that it was her.

At 12.30 the woman in the flat next door thought that she heard her neighbours bell ring although she wasn’t 100% certain. Five minutes later she heard two voices that she was confident came from the victims flat.

So……do we dismiss the three witnesses (because we know that witnesses can be mistaken) because we don’t accept that the Doctors lower estimate was 30 minutes or so out? Or would we accept that those three witnesses were unlikely to have all been wrong and so the woman in all probability died close to 12.30.

I know which one I’d go for and the Chapman witnesses are far stronger than the three hypothetical ones.

[Lewis C]

I have never suggested dismissing the witness testimony I have stated many times that it is unsafe to totally rely on and the reasons why it is unsafe.

As we are never going to get a TOD to satisfy all parties, my own personal opinion for an early TOD is based on the balance of probability having assessed and evaluated all the evidence for not only this murder but all the others.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I think you're saying that you favor an earlier time of death because it seems to fit JtR's MO better than a later one, that if the later time of death were true, it would be the only time JtR killed someone outside after dawn. I actually think that's one of the better arguments for an early time of death, though IMO, the witness testimony outweighs that consideration.

[JeffHamm]

The way you have phrased the question isn't what is happening here. Cadosch is saying that he is sure the "no" didn't come from his yard, it might have come from the No 29 side but he couldn't be sure which side it came from. I can accept both his statements, with the qualification that in that enclosed area, with his back turned, echoes could have enabled it to come from anywhere.

Hi George,

That is one possible interpretation of what he meant. He could also be meaning that he was not sure of which side of the yard of #29 the voices came from. It all depends upon what we assume his reference point is when he says "which side" - which side of what? Him or the yard he just mentioned?

I don't know, nor am I asserting one or the other reference is the right one, only Cadosche himself knows for sure what he was saying, and without being able to ask him we cannot know his intended meaning.

Therefore, we must consider both interpretations, and see how things change.

Moreover, even if he is indicating that he's not sure which side of him the voices came from, his uncertainty does not preclude them coming from #29, so that means we cannot be confident that the voices were not from there. As such, we cannot dismiss him with confidence, while at the same time, we cannot treat him as definitive either.

This sort of ambiguity is found throughout the entire JtR series of crimes, which is part of the challenge. We have to try and put together ideas from information that never really lets us be all that certain we're making the right guesses. The best we can do is try and look at the various combinations and permutations and see how often we end up at various conclusions. If one conclusion is reached more often than the another, than that conclusion is considered the more likely, while the other being less likely is still not ruled out entirely.

That is my reasoning behind asserting that a post-5:00am ToD is the more likely, as that conclusion comes out in almost all combinations and permutations bar one, and that one still does not prohibit it, so it never goes away entirely.

- Jeff