John Richardson

[Lewis C]

I am not scrambling around I am stating what appears to be the obvious that the victims knew the locations where they could take their clients for sex away from prying eyes and have to ask would Chapman knowing the location and the number of residents took a client to this location at the later time of the morning when she would have realised that at any time she could have been seen.

I`m afraid your later TOD is looking to be highly unlikely

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

My question here is, did outdoor prostitution sometimes occur in Whitechapel and Spitalfields between dawn and dusk? If so, I don't know what would have been a better place for it than Dutfield Yard. It did provide some measure of privacy, more than most outdoor locations. It was also a place that the police didn't patrol, so if they were seen there, they at least wouldn't be seen by someone who would arrest them.

[Herlock Sholmes]

More accusations of invention!

It is natural that the two women would have preferred to visit the yard when it was light.

Amelia Richardson did not go into the yard for at least eight and a half hours, and even then it was only because she learned that a murder had been committed there.

We do not know whether she took the opportunity to relieve herself at the same time.

And completely justified as usual.

You said:

“Amelia Richardson seems to have been unwilling to use the outside lavatory at night.”

You cannot under any circumstances imply unwillingness. So you’ve invented that implication. In those says people had pots which they kept under the bed to urinate in so that they didn’t need to go outside in the cold. The outside loo would only have been used if a person needed to defecate. Therefore, just because she hadn’t needed to get up in the night to defecate, you CANNOT, infer or imply a reluctance to use the outside loo.

Please don’t bother trying to wriggle out of this point. Just accept that you were wrong and move on because I’m tired of having to try and prove what’s obvious.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I do.

Fine. You’re clearly wrong (and biased) but fine.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Now.... which step are you sitting on at five in the morning? And are you sure its five? Seems very specific... not "around five"?
Are you on the "THE step" or at the TOP of the steps? Because the doorway can also count as being "on the step" you know...
And most importantly are you "In the yard" when you are "ON THE STEPS!"
Oh, and if you are on the steps, is that a generalised singular or a literal plural? (Did I get the comma in the right place for informed context and grammatical clarity?)


And where are your feet? (And it would be really useful to know... can you see what's on the floor to your left?)


(Sorry... couldn't resist.)

Have you ever heard such nonsense AP. And all of this in a transparently desperate effort to skew the ToD. If you were to say that John Richardson had two legs someone would try some kind of looney tunes argument to ‘prove’ that he only had one!

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In those says people had pots which they kept under the bed to urinate in so that they didn’t need to go outside in the cold.

That is exactly what I meant, and that contradicts your assertion, made in # 6091:

The yard had a toilet used by the 17 occupants of the house at all hours of the day and night.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That is exactly what I meant, and that contradicts your assertion, made in # 6091:

The yard had a toilet used by the 17 occupants of the house at all hours of the day and night.

No it doesn’t! Jeeeeezus!!!

The toilet was still there to be used at anytime during the night or day. You tried to claim that she and others avoided using the outside toilet full stop.

Is it ever likely that you won’t dispute everything PI?

[JeffHamm]

If Phillips had meant to concede that the qualification he added could mean less than two hours, then he would not have used the words at least.

His qualification was a concession to the eyewitness evidence, but it did not reflect any change of opinion on his part.

A qualifier applies to the entire initial statement/claim, not to a specific word within it. The initial statement is about defining his estimate of the time of death. The qualifier applies to that entire claim, and is basically saying "while this is my opinion, there are reasons why it could be wrong". That's all he's saying - My estimation for the ToD is 2+ hours, but there are reasons why that might be wrong. And the only way that initial claim can be wrong is if the ToD was actually less than 2 hours. That's all he's saying. If you want to bank on his initial claim, go for it, but you're overlooking aspects of the information. If you want to bank on him being wrong because he cautions, go for it, but again, you're overlooking aspects of the information.

If you want to consider both options because while he claimed 2+ hours he did indicate that might be wrong, great, go for it, you're now dealing with all of the information. And you're left with the situation that you cannot argue for or against an early/late ToD based solely upon Dr. Phillips. And if that's the case, then you need to bring in information from elsewhere. If you wish to disregard the witnesses because they might be wrong (as we know witnesses can sometimes be, although we also know they sometimes can be right), then you have nothing more to go on and you should not prefer either early or late. If you believe at least one of the witnesses are probably right (meaning their testimony is indicative of the murder being late), then you would have to argue for a later ToD.

There is no combination of information, however one culls it, that actually ends up supporting an earlier ToD over a later one to any great degree. There are, however, combinations that rule it out (i.e. not that I think Long must be correct, but if she did see Annie, regardless of the time, clearly Annie wasn't already dead, so she must have been killed later. ; you can do the same with any of the witnesses).

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

A qualifier applies to the entire initial statement/claim, not to a specific word within it. The initial statement is about defining his estimate of the time of death. The qualifier applies to that entire claim, and is basically saying "while this is my opinion, there are reasons why it could be wrong". That's all he's saying - My estimation for the ToD is 2+ hours, but there are reasons why that might be wrong. And the only way that initial claim can be wrong is if the ToD was actually less than 2 hours. That's all he's saying. If you want to bank on his initial claim, go for it, but you're overlooking aspects of the information. If you want to bank on him being wrong because he cautions, go for it, but again, you're overlooking aspects of the information.

If you want to consider both options because while he claimed 2+ hours he did indicate that might be wrong, great, go for it, you're now dealing with all of the information. And you're left with the situation that you cannot argue for or against an early/late ToD based solely upon Dr. Phillips. And if that's the case, then you need to bring in information from elsewhere. If you wish to disregard the witnesses because they might be wrong (as we know witnesses can sometimes be, although we also know they sometimes can be right), then you have nothing more to go on and you should not prefer either early or late. If you believe at least one of the witnesses are probably right (meaning their testimony is indicative of the murder being late), then you would have to argue for a later ToD.

There is no combination of information, however one culls it, that actually ends up supporting an earlier ToD over a later one to any great degree. There are, however, combinations that rule it out (i.e. not that I think Long must be correct, but if she did see Annie, regardless of the time, clearly Annie wasn't already dead, so she must have been killed later. ; you can do the same with any of the witnesses).

- Jeff

Now Jeff, for your next trick, can you explain to us how night follows day and how 2+2=4 please

Its such a bizarre situation that so much time and effort has to be expended simply to explain something that should be patently obvious to all. It’s difficult to avoid a conclusion of deliberate misinterpretation. Surely we’ve heard it all by now? Doctors having skills that they couldn’t possibly have had! A caveat that makes no sense either grammatically or medically! One witness telling a pointless, disadvantageous lie! One that had aural hallucinations! One mistaken one who passed a couple of feet from a woman in daylight and is considered by some to be less reliable than a man who saw a woman across a road at night! Clocks all perfectly synchronised! Someone moving around in a yard that containing a disembowelled corpse who wasn’t involved in the murder! An infallible police officer! A serial killer working to a timetable! People claiming to know how prostitutes and serial killers would have thought and acted! The absence of a record that someone ate means that they couldn’t have!

Just another day in paradise Jeff.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

No it doesn’t! Jeeeeezus!!!

The toilet was still there to be used at anytime during the night or day. You tried to claim that she and others avoided using the outside toilet full stop.

Is it ever likely that you won’t dispute everything PI?

You have contradicted yourself but you evidently are determined not to admit it.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

... not that I think Long must be correct, but if she did see Annie, regardless of the time, clearly Annie wasn't already dead, so she must have been killed later ...

Do you think Long did see Chapman?

[JeffHamm]

Do you think Long did see Chapman?

Hi PI,

The answer to your question is contained in the bit of my post you quoted.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

You have contradicted yourself but you evidently are determined not to admit it.

That’s your speciality. What I’ve said is exactly correct. You invented a suggestion that Amelia Richardson deliberately avoided using the outside loo purely to dispute the point that I made about that outside loo being potential in use day and night.

Don’t try deflecting your dodgy deductions by trying to switch focus onto me…..as usual.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi PI,

The answer to your question is contained in the bit of my post you quoted.

- Jeff

You cannot answer yes or no?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Do you think Long did see Chapman?

It’s very possible. It can’t be proved and neither you or anyone else can disprove it. I believe that Cadosche definitely heard the killer so for me the chances of Long seeing Chapman is far more certain. Unless it was just a large coincidence.

So for me it’s a yes.

You’ll say no.

I can’t prove it.

Neither can you.

The evidence favours it though. Unless you ignore or deliberately try and dismiss it. Which you do.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That’s your speciality. What I’ve said is exactly correct. You invented a suggestion that Amelia Richardson deliberately avoided using the outside loo purely to dispute the point that I made about that outside loo being potential in use day and night.

Don’t try deflecting your dodgy deductions by trying to switch focus onto me…..as usual.

The testimony given at the inquest suggests that none of the four residents of number 29 mentioned used the outside lavatory during the night.

The reason you gave for that is exactly the same as the one I had in mind.

I did not invent anything.

The evidence suggests that residents avoided using the outside lavatory at night, just as I said they did.

And as you suggested, that was common practice.